REPORTS TO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR THE …

1996 - 97

REPORTS TO

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION

FOR THE

OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE COMMISSION

Submitted to the

Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission

By the Agricultural Research Foundation

Strand Agriculture Hall, Suite 100Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331-2219

OPV 108

CONTENTS

BEANS

Green Bean Breeding 1

J.R. Baggett, Department of HorticultureB. Yorgey, Department of Food Science and Technology

Genetic Transformation of Beans 23Mok, Department of Horticulture

M. Mok, Department of Horticulture

Vegetation Management in Snap Beans 26R. William, Department of Horticulture

Peachey, Department of Horticulture

CORN

Nitrogen Management in Sweet Corn 34A. Long-Term Vegetable Crop Rotation Study 35

D. Hemphill, North Willamette Research and Extension CenterR. Dick, Department of Crop and Soil Science

B. Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Testing in Sweet Corn 39Hemphill, North Willamette Research and Extension Center

J. Hart, Department of Crop and Soil ScienceMarx Department of Crop and Soil Science

Survey of Corn Fields in the Willamette Valley for Stalk Rot 47M. Powelson, Department of Botany and Plant PathologyR. Ludy, Department of Botany and Plant PathologyV. Heifer, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology

Supersweet and Sweet Corn Variety Evaluations 56C. Shock, Malheur Experiment StationE. Feibert, Malheur Experiment StationG. Willison, Malheur Experiment StationM. Saunders, Malheur Experiment Station

Sweet Corn Variety Evaluation 61J.R. Stang, Department of HorticultureB. Yorgey, Department of Food Science and Technology

Vegetation Management in Sweet Corn 80R. William, Department of HorticultureE. Peachey, Department of Horticulture

BROCCOLI & CAULIFLOWER

Broccoli Breeding 88J.R. Baggett, Department of Horticulture

Evaluation of Regional Pheromone Trapping for Assessing Risk of LepidopteranPest Outbreaks. in Willamette Valley Broccoli and Cauliflower Plantings 93

McGrath, Marion County Extension Service

Pesticide Evaluation and Education - Magnitude of Residue Field Trials;Clethodim/Broccoli, Ethofurnesate and Desmedipham/Beets 107

R. McReynolds, North Willamette Research and Extension Center

Goal Impregnated Fertilizer and Pyridate for Postemergence Weed Controlin Transplanted and Direct Seeded Crucifers 109

R. William, Department of HorticulturePeachey, Department of Horticulture

VEGETABLE RESEARCH

Cabbage Maggot Control 116G. Fisher, Department of EntomologyR. Horton, Department of Entomology

Development and Evaluation of Minimum-Tillage Vegetable ProductionSystems for Western Oregon 118

J. Luna, Department of Horticulture

Automated Yield Monitoring in Vegetable Crops 127T. Righetti, Department of Horticulture

REPORTING LATER

Mold Pressure PredictionD. McGrath, Marion County Extension

Report to the Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission1996-1997

1. Title. Green Bean Breeding

2. Project Leaders: J. R. Baggett, HorticultureBrian Yorgey, Food Science and Technology

Cooperator: D. Mok

3. Project Status: Terminating June 30, 1997

4. Project Funding: $38,400 breeding$9,325 processing

Breeding funds were used for a major portion of the support of a vegetable breedingtechnician, student labor, supplies, and research farm expenses. Processing funds were usedfor processing samples of experimental beans, laboratory analysis, and panel evaluations.

5. Objectives: Breed bush green beans for the western Oregon processing industry with:

Improved potential for high yields at favorable sieve sizes and dependabilityImproved straightness, texture, and other quality factorsDevelop easy picking and small pod strains of Blue Lake typeResistance to white mold and root rot

6. Report of Progress:

Bean breeding lines and commercial varieties were tested in replicated.yield trials plantedMay 7, May 29, June 14, June 26, and July 2. The May 7 and June 14 plantings initiallyincluded 20 OSU lines and two commercial varieties (Minuette and BBL 76-110), but twoOSU lines were discarded before any data were obtained. The July 2 trial included a total of20 lines. On May 29 and June 26, 10 OSU lines and Minuette were included in double-rowplots. In all cases, 5-foot sections were picked on each harvest date in each of fourreplications. In most cases, three harvests, on alternate days, were made to obtain a range ofmaturity. Replications were combined for grading.

Samples were canned and frozen at Food Science and Technology for evaluation by industryrepresentatives about February. Processed quality data will be published in a separate report.

Data obtained from the replicated trials are summarized in Tables 1-9 and Figures 1-9. Thesummary table below shows the $ value for seven standard bush Blue Lake varieties andlines.

2

*Average of 2-3 harvests from five trials.**The harvest selected as best for comparison and used for analysis of variance in

Tables 1-4.

When overall averages, selected harvests (closest to 55-60% 1-4), or the highest harvest areused, Oregon 54 leads in $/A, except in selected harvests where OSU 5651 was equal. In allthree comparisons, OSU 5651 (Oregon 54 x OSU 5256) is not significantly different fromOregon 54. The goal in this cross is high yield, perhaps smaller pods, and lessindeterminate habit than Oregon 54. Further evaluation of 5651, possibly including acreagetrials, will be necessary to determine if this line is usefully different from Oregon 54. Yieldand pod characteristics are impressive.

OSU 5635 (Oregon 54 x OSU 5163), which exceeded Oregon 91G and usually exceededOSU 5163, but not significantly, has good-looking pods and should be further tested.

OSU 5630 (Oregon 91G x Oregon 54) was very close in maturity and yield to Oregon 91G.This line, which was initially increased in 1996, has exceptional pod color and is usuallynoted to be smoother than Oregon 91G. This line, along with 5635 and 5651, should becontinued.

Also included in the group of standard lines that were in all trials, OSU 5416 approachedOregon 54 in pod appearance, generally was not as indeterminate, and yielded somewhat lessthis year. OSU 5163 was revived from the shelf because of its long-term yield record. Itsyield and plant characteristics were impressive in 1996, and pod appearance was good if it istreated as a slightly smaller sieve variety than Oregon 910. Pod color was considered asgood as Oregon 91G, but pods were not always as smooth. Should seed be increased foradditional commercial trials of this line?

VarietySeason Average $/A Based on

Trial Averages* Selected Harvests** Highest Harvest

Oregon 910 1440 1431 1541

Oregon 54 1651 1711 1809

OSU 5163 1484 1508 1563

OSU 5416 1627 1630 1729

OSU 5630 1427 1475 1554

OSU 5635 1485 1615 1615

OSU 5651 1644 1717 1785

LSD @ 5% 164 NS 184

3

Standard lines tested for the first time, from the same general group of crosses as 5630,5635, and 5651 were 5620 (Oregon 91(3 x Oregon 54), 5669 (5256 x Oregon 54), 5681(5416 x Oregon 54), and 5698 (5256 x 5416). These lines usually had higher $IA valuesthan Oregon 91G (Table 5) with some variation in pod color and smoothness. Fieldevaluations indicated 5620 and 5669 should be tested again; decisions on 5681 and 5698should be made after evaluation of processed pods.

Small sieve beans. Although OSU 5446 has been given up as a processing variety, we againused it for comparison because of its yield and quality attributes. The principal objective in1996 was the evaluation of small sieve lines OSU 5600 and 5613, using 5446, Minuette, and76-110 as standards. All but 76-110 were included in all five trials. OSU 5613 had thehighest season average $/A and highest trial $/A of 2-4 sieve pods in four of the five trials.OSU 5600 was equal or higher than 5446 in three of the five trials and had a higher seasonalaverage than 5446 (Table 7). Although 5600 and 5613 can return good $/A for small sievebeans and still retain excellent pod appearance, a panel evaluation of seediness, etc., in allharvest samples will be necessary to determine the true potential for these returns.

Unfortunately, pod color of the higher yielding 5613 is not as good as that of 5600, whichhas exceptional color. Some trial notes indicated that the color of 5613 is comparable tostandard lines such as Oregon 54. Increases of OSU 5600 seed was started in Idaho in 1996to obtain supplies for field trials. Should 5613 be increased?

Minuette was lower than OSU 5613 in $/A in all trials and exceeded 5446 in one trial. Thisvariety tends to be inconsistent, suffering badly from weather conditions in some trials,producing many polliwogs. Of the small sieve varieties, 76-110 was the lowest in $/A intrials 1 and 5. In trial 3 it was never harvested because it seemed to continue producingvegetation with no identifiable time to harvest a crop.

Easy picking beans. Interest in the easy picking lines has reached a low ebb, with most ofthe OSU material having been shelved. OSU 5520, an early immature-green seed (IG) linehas been continued because of its earliness, IG seed, and fleshy pods. OSU 5566 and 5575were also included in the trials in 1996 and saved for further consideration. Neither have theextreme foliage, habit, and picking ease of EZ Pik or OSU 5558 and 5563, but yield welland may have less end crook. OSU 5575 often yields well and has concentrated bearing. Itis not expected that more easy pick crosses will be made.

Development and evaluation of new material. Diverse lines of all pod sizes were evaluatedin field plots. Most of the lines on hand have reached the F6 generation so that the best linescould be massed instead of continued by single plant selection. F2 populations grown forselection included mostly crosses of OSU lines with Maxima. In 1996, the crossing programstressed crosses between OSU lines of all types x Minuette to initiate an attempt to exploitthe compact growth habit and related mold resistance found in Minuette. Additional Maximacrosses (Maxima x 5163 and Maxima x 5778, a very prolific small sieve line) were alsomade and 5778 was crossed with OSU standard and small sieve lines. F2 seed was producedfor selection plots in 1997.

Summary:

Twenty OSU bean lines were evaluated in replicated, hand-picked yield trials over the periodMay 7 to July 2. Minuette was included as a control in the trials. New standard lines ofgreatest interest were OSU 5630, which has exceptionally good color and yields about thesame as Oregon 91G; OSU 5635, which exceeded Oregon 91G in yield and appears to havesmoother and straighter pods; and 5651, with yield and pod quality equal to Oregon 54.Oregon 54 yields expressed as $/acre were clearly higher than those of Oregon 910. Smallsieve lines of greatest interest were OSU 5600, which has excellent color and pod type with$/acre value of 2-4 sieve pods exceeding Minuette in three of the five trials, and OSU 5613,which was higher yielding than 5600 and Minuette in all trials but has slightly lighter color.Many new crosses were made with Minuette for the purpose of improving growth habit andmold resistance.

Signatures:

Project Leader:

Project Leader:

Department Head:

4

Department Head:

Redacted for Privacy




Table 1. Yields of standard green bean varieties, May 7 planting, Corvallis, 1996.'

'Mean of 4 replications; subplots of 5' were harvested from 20' plots on each harvest date; rows 36" apart; days = days from planting;% = percent 1-4 sieve grades; adj. T/A = tons per acre adjusted to 50% 1-4 sieve (except 5651, which was adjusted to 65% 1-4sieve). Analysis of variance calculated using the harvest marked with *. LSD for comparing * means (both unadjusted and adjusted)was 1.1 T/A at 5% significance.

Av.Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Av.

Adj.% Adj. % Adj. % Adj.Line Stand Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A T/A

91G 135 72 66 5.5 6.4 73 54 5.9 6.2* 76 51 6.6 6.6 6.4

Oregon 54 140 73 67 5.9 7.0 76 61 6.7 7.4 78 60 8.0 8.8* 7.7

5163 140 72 77 5.5 7.0 73 64 5.6 6.4 76 58 6.3 6.8* 6.7

5416 138 73 62 6.0 6.7 76 52 6.7 6.8* 78 48 7.3 7.2 6.9

5520 138 73 40 5.2 47* 76 31 6.3 5.1 4.9

5566 140 73 55 5.3 5.5* 76 49 6.5 6.4 6.0

5575 136 70 80 3.7 4.8 72 40 5.7 5.1* 5.0

5620 140 76 59 6.5 7.1* 78 47 8.4 8.2 7.7

5630 127 72 72 5.6 6.9 73 67 5.7 6.6 76 61 7.1 79* 7.1

5635 134 73 70 5.0 6.0 76 62 5.9 6.6 77 62 6.5 7.3* 6.6

5651 140 76 73 6.9 7.3 78 69 7.0 7.2* 80 66 8.1 8.2 7.6

5669 140 73 64 6.1 6.9 76 58 6.6 7.2* 78 48 7.8 7.7 7.3

5681 136 73 69 5,.5 6.6 76 53 8.2 8.5* 7.6

5698 140 73 58 6.1 6.6* 76 38 8.1 7.1 6.9

Table 2. Yields of standard green bean varieties, June 14 planting, Corvallis, 1996.'

zMean of 4 replications; subplots of 5' were harvested from 20' plots on each harvest date; rows 36" apart; days = days from planting;% = percent 1-4 sieve grades; adj. T/A = tons per acre adjusted to 50% 1-4 sieve (except 5651, which was adjusted to 65% 1-4sieve). Analysis of variance calculated using the harvest marked with *. LSD for comparing * means (unadjusted) was 2.4 T/A at 5%significance; for comparing adjusted * means LSD was 2.6 T/A at 5% significance.

Av.Harvest 1

-Harvest 2 Harvest 3

.

Av.Adj.% Adj. % Adj. % Adj.

Line Stand Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A T/A

91G 150 63 69 9.6 11.4 66 58 10.9 11.8* 68 49 12.4 12.3 11.8

Oregon 54 150 63 76 8.1 10.2 66 70 11.4 13.7 68 60 11.7 12.8* 12.3

5163 150 61 65 8.3 9.5 62 60 8.2 9.0* 63 64 8.7 10.0 9.5

5416 150 61 69 8.9 10.6 62 66 10.8 12.6* 63 53 11.9 12.3 11.8

5520 150 61 62 5.9 6.7* 6.7

5566 150 63 65 8.8 10.1* 10.1

5575 149 61 53 6.6 6.8* 6.8

5620 150 67 55 11.5 12.1*.

12.1

5630 150 62 58 8.2 8.8* 63 52 10.3 10.5 67 47 10.8 10.5 9.9

5635 150 63 77 7.9 10.0 66 64 10.2 11.6 68 58 11.0 11.8* 11.1

5651 150 63 87 6.6 7.7 66 70 9.2 9.6 68 66 11.3 11.4* 9.6

5669 150 62 62 9.4 10.5 63 59 10.2 11.1* 10.8

5698 150 62 63 7.4 8.4* 8.4

Table 3. Yields of standard green bean varieties, July 2 planting, Corvallis, 1996.'

zMean of 4 replications; subplots of 5' were harvested from 20' plots on each harvest date; rows 36"apart; days = days from planting; % = percent 1-4 sieve grades; adj. T/A = tons per acreadjusted to 50% 1-4 sieve (except 5651, which was adjusted to 65% 1-4 sieve). Analysis ofvariance calculated using the harvest marked with * Unadjusted means were not significantlydifferent at 5% significance; LSD for comparing adjusted * means was 1.8 T/A at 5% significance.

Av.Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Av.

Adj.% Adj. % Adj.Line Stand Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A T/A

91G 150 66 72 9.5 11.6 69 52 10.1 10.3* 11.0

Oregon 54 149 69 68 10.4 12.3 71 59 11.5 12.5* 12.4

5163 150 66 61 10.8 12.0* 69 50 11.3 11.3 11.7

5416 150 69 66 11.8 13.7 71 54 11.6 12.1* 12.9

5520 149 66 49 8.3 8.2* 8.2

5566 150 66 74 10.2 12.7 69 57 11.4 12.2* 12.5

5575 150 66 47 10.9 10.6* 10.6

5630 150 66 71 8.6 10.4 69 56 10.4 11.0* 10.7

5635 148 69 61 10.1 11.2* 71 54 10.1 10.5 10.9

5651 150 69 67 10.9 11.1* 71 58 11.1 10.5 10.8

5669 149 69 61 11.7 13.0* 71 53 12.3 12.7 12.9

5681 150 66 68 8.7 10.3 69 49 10.4 10.3* 10.3

5698 150 69 54 9.6 10.0* 71 46 11.3 10.8 10.4

Table 4. Yields of selected OSU green bean lines on two planting dates, Corvallis, 1996.'

Means of 4 replicates; subplots of 5' were harvested from double 20' plots on each harvest date; rows 36" apart; days = days from planting; % =percent 1-4 sieve grades; adj. T/A = tons/acre adjusted to 50% 1-4 (except 5651, which was adjusted to 65% 1-4).

YAnalysis of variance calculated using the harvest marked *; LSD was calculated at 0.05 significance to compare values marked *.

Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3Av. % Adj. % Adj. % Adj. Av. Adj. LSDY LSD'

Line Stand Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A Days 1-4 T/A T/A T/A T/A Adj. T/A

910 150 66 82 6.1 8.0 68 59 7.1 77* 70 38 9.1 8.0 7.9 1.9 2.0

Oregon 54 150 66 85 7.6 10.2 68 63 7.8 8.8* 70 48 9.9 9.7 9.6

5163 150 66 87 7.0 9.6 68 67 9.0 10.5* 70 50 9.3 9.3 9.8

5416 150 66 84 6.2 8.4 68 61 8.2 9.1* 70 41 10.0 9.1 8.9

5630 150 66 76 6.4 8.0 68 53 8.1 8.7* 70 31 7.1 5.7 7.4

5635 150 66 86 6.7 9.1 68 67 7.9 9.2 70 52 10.0 10.2* 9.5

5651 150 66 96 6.9 8.6 68 82 8.3 9.4 70 67 8.7 8.9* 9.0

910. 149 65 93 5.8 8.3 69 46 9.0 8.7* 71 38 9.8 8.6 8.5 1.5 1.6

Oregon 54 148 69 56 10.1 10.7* 71 48 9.3 9.2 10.0

5163 150 65 85 6.9 9.2 69 53 8.8 9.1* 71 46 9.9 9.5 9.3

5416 149 69 58 9.8 10.5* 71 44 12.0 11.2 10.9

5630 147 63 90 7.2 10.0 69 54 9.1 95* 71 47 9.8 9.5 9.7

5635 150 69 55 9.2 9.6* 71 49 8.4 8.4 9.0

5651 148 69 62 8.8 8.6* 71 57 9.5 8.9 8.8

9

Table 5. Dollar return/acre for standard OSU lines, 1996.'

Trial LineHarvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Avg.

5/AYSelected

5/AxDays % $ Days % $ Days % $

1 91G 72 66 938 73 54 957 76 51 1024 973 957May 7 Ore. 54 73 67 982 76 61 1174 78 60 1382 1179 1174

5163 72 77 1065 73 64 973 76 58 1079 1039 10795416 73 62 1007 76 52 1105 78 48 1223 1112 11055520 73 40 763 76 31 837 800 7635566 73 55 855 76 49 1061 958 8555575 70 80 689 72 40 840 765 8405620 76 59 1153 78 47 1319 1236 11535630 72 72 1051 73 67 1020 76 61 1271 1114 12715635 73 70 901 76 62 993 77 62 1139 1011 11395651 76 73 1300 78 69 1309 80 66 1505 1371 13095669 73 64 1069 76 58 1173 78 48 1267 1170 11735681 - 73 69 977 76 53 1247 1112 12475698 73 58 1054 76 38 1216 1135 1054

2 91G 66 82 1191 68 59 1244 70 38 1423 1286 1244May 29 Ore. 54 66 85 1546 68 63 1418 70 48 1652 1539 1418

5163 66 87 1458 68 67 1645 70 50 1540 1548 16455416 66 84 1264 68 61 1464 70 41 1516 1415 14645630 66 76 1242 68 53 1387 70 31 999 1209 13875635 66 86 1355 68 67 1436 70 52 1666 1486 16665651 66 96 1488 68 82 1699 70 67 1665 1617 1665

3 91G 63 69 1678 66 58 1861 68 49 2036 1859 1861June 14 Ore. 54 63 76 1417 66 70 2075 68 60 2029 1841 2029

5163 61 65 1430 62 60 1390 63 64 1548 1456 13905416 63 69 1558 66 66 1937 68 53 i001 1832 19375520 61 62 1011 1011 10115566 63 65 1506 1506 15065575 61 53 1026 1026 10265620 67 55 1933 1933 19335630 62 58 1370 63 52 1646 67 47 1737 1584 13705635 63 77 1402 66 64 1773 68 58 1920 1698 19205651 63 87 1257 66 70 1708 68 66 2078 1682 20785669 62 62 1548 63 59 1724 1636 17245698 62 63 1252 1252 1252

4 91G 65 93 1212 69 46 1426 71 38 1441 1360 1426June 26 Ore. 54 69 56 1923 71 48 1544 1733 1923

5163 65 85 1377 69 53 1486 71 46 1602 1488 14865416 69 58 1685 71 44 1734 1709 16855630 63 90 1476 69 54 1553 71 47 1580 1536 15535635 69 55 1558 71 49 1374 1466 15585651 69 62 1553 71 57 1666 1610 1553

10

Table 5. Dollar return/acre for standard OSU lines, 1996 (cont.).'

'Based on a value of $242 for 2-4 sieve pods; $108 for 5 and 6 sieve pods. Yield of 2-sieve pods wasobtained by taking three-fourths of the combined graded 1-2 sieve pods.

YAverage $/acre is a rough estimate because of non-uniform number of trials and maturities included.

'Selected best values for comparison. Usually the same value used for analysis of variance in Tables1, 2, 3, and 4.

Trial LineHarvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Avg.

VAYSelected

VA"Days % $ Days % $ Days % $

5 91G 66 72 1780 69 52 1667 1724 1667July 2 Ore. 54 69 68 1913 71 59 2012 1962 2012

5163 66 61 1939 69 50 1840 1890 19395416 69 66 2171 71 54 1958 2065 19585520 66 49 1364 1364 13645566 66 74 1964 69 57 2006 1985 20065575 66 47 1756 1756 17565630 66 71 1584 69 56 1796 1690 17965635 69 61 1791 71 54 1736 1763 17915651 69 67 1978 71 58 1906 1942 19785669 69 61 2048 71 53 2155 2101 20485681 66 68 1616 69 49 1724 1670 17245698 69 54 1633 71 46 1845 1739 1633

11

Table 6. Performance of small sieve green bean varieties, Corvallis, 1996.

Percent Sieve SizezTons/Acre Sieve Size

GradedTrial Variety Days 2Y 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Total' S/Acrew

1 5446 69 41 52 7 0 1.01 1.27 0.18 0 2.46 594May 7 71 14 62 21 3 0.60 2.72 0.91 0.15 4.37 1038

73 8 41 44 7 0.41 2.21 2.39 0.40 5.41 1256

5600 73 23 62 14 2 0.52 1.41 0.33 0.04 2.29 55076 21 49 27 2 0.65 1.49 0.83 0.07 3.05 72778 26 46 25 3 0.65 1.16 0.62 0.07 2.50 596

5613 72 27 58 14 0 0.63 1.34 0.33 0 2.30 55773 20 65 11 3 0.65 2.10 0.36 0.11 3.23 76676 19 55 24 2 0.79 2.25 0.98 0.07 4.09 979

5747 73 16 53 28 3 0.52 1.70 0.91 0.11 3.24 76876 12 36 39 12 0.57 1.67 1.78 0.54 4.56 103078 11 32 35 21 0.52 1.56 1.70 1.05 4.83 1028

Minuette 73 10 41 41 8 0.30 1.27 1.27 0.25 3.09 71476 8 35 35 22 0.30 1.34 1.34 0.83 3.82 812

76-110 73 23 66 11 0 0.54 1.56 0.25 0 2.36 57076 19 47 29 6 0.57 1.41 0.87 0.18 3.04 710

V

78 17 43 31 9 0.57 1.49 1.05 0.33 3.43 787I I

2 5446 64 19 67 11 4 0.71 2.50 0.40 0.15 3.75 889May 29 66 14 67 15 4 0.60 2.94 0.65 .0.18 4.34 1033

68 5 42 36 16 0.24 2.21 1.92 - 0.83 5.21 1149

5600 64 38 56 6 0 1.47 2.18 0.22 0 3.86 93466 27 65 8 0 1.14 2.79 0.36 0 4.30 104068 13 66 20 1 0.71 3.63 1.09 0.04 5.46 1315

5613 64 50 45 5 0 2.04 1.81 0.22 0 4.07 98566 35 61 41 0 1.22 2.14 0.15 0 3.51 84968 12 82 6 0 0.73 5.08 0.40 0 6.21 1502

Minuette 64 17 70 11 2 0.65 2.65 0.40 0.07 3.77 90366 8 63 26 3 0.33 2.61 1.09 0.15 4.17 98968 4 38 45 13 0.19 1.99 2.36 0.69 5.23 1173

.

12

Table 6. Performance of small sieve green bean varieties, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.).

'Percent calculated as % of total of 2-5 sieve beans.Y2 sieve values calculated as 75% of the combined 1 + 2 sieve weights from grader.'Total weight of graded beans, including sieve sizes 2-5.w$/acre based on $242/ton for 2-4 sieve; $108/ton for 5 sieve.

_

Percent Sieve Size'Tons/Acre Sieve Size

GradedTrial Variety Days r 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Total' S/Acrew

3 5446 61 17 47 27 9 0.98 2.72 1.52 0.51 5.73 1318June 14 62 16 50 26 8 1.11 3.37 1.74 0.54 6.77 1565

5600 62 31 63 6 0 1.06 2.18 0.22 0 3.45 83666 27 60 12 0 1.50 3.34 0.69 0 5.52 133668 18 57 23 2 1.28 3.95 1.60 0.11 6.93 1663

5613 63 42 51 6 0 1.74 2.10 0.25 0 4.10 99167 19 69 10 2 1.17 4.28 0.62 0.11 6.17 1479

5747 61 21 36 25 18 1.20 2.07 1.41 1.02 5.69 124166 16 30 21 24 1.17 2.25 1.60 1.78 6.79 1405

Minuette 61 23 58 20 0 1.09 2.76 0.94 0 4.79 115862 19 60 20 1 1.03 3.26 1.09 0.07 5.46 1311

,

4 5446 62 26 57 16 1 0.98 2.10 0.58 0.04 3.70 890June 26 64 16 49 30 5 0.87 2.61 1.63 0.25 5.37 1264

5600 65 21 70 8 1 0.95 3.08 0.36 0.04 4.43 106869 13 67 17 2 0.84 4.28 1.09 0.15 6.35 151870 10 63 25 2 0.57 3.73 1.52 0.15 5.97 1426

5613 65 43 56 1 0 1.79 2.36 0.04 0 4.19 101369 17 66 17 0 0.92 3.70 0.98 0 5.60 1355

Minuette 63 18 68 14 0 0.63 2.28 0.47 0 3.38 818

,

65 10 65 23 3 0.38 2.54 0.91 0.11 3.93 937

5 5446 65 11 48 36

.5 0.79 3.52 2.65 0.36 7.31 1721

July 2 67 8 40 39 13 0.60 3.08 3.01 0.98 7.67 1724

5600 69 31 60 4 0 1.93 3.73 0.22 0 5.88 145871 29 62 8 0 1.79 3.81 0.51 0 6.11 1478

5613 69 21 79 0 0 1.50 5.73 0 0 7.22 174871 18 72 9 0 1.33 5.29 0.69 0 7.31 1770

5747 66 17 48 30 5 1.09 3.01 1.89 0.29 6.27 147970 9 34 38 18 0.63 2.47 2.79 1.34 7.22 1568

Minuette 69 13 63 23 2 0.76 3.77 1.38 0.11 6.02 144271 6 61 30 3 0.44 4.13 2.07 0.18 6.82 1625

76-110 69 21 65 14 1 0.87 2.72 0.58 0.04 4.21 101371 14 67 16 3 0.73 3.44 0.80 0.15 5.12 1220

.

13

Table 7. Statistical comparison of yields and dollar return of small sieve green beanlines, Corvallis, 1996.'

'Based on one selected harvest for each variety in each trial, which was th6 last harvest(highest $/A) unless sieve size distribution or notes indicated the variety was overmature.Yields are field yields of 2, 3, and 4 sieve beans.

VarietyTrial

1

Trial2

Trial3

Trial4

Trial5 AV

T/A 5446 4.5 4.6 5.7 5.4 7.2 5.5

5600 3.3 5.9 5.7 6.4 6.5 5.6

5613 4.3 6.6 6.4 7.0 8.0 6.5

5747 4.3 4.9 6.1 5.1

Minuette 3.2 4.3 5.9 4.1 6.9 4.9

76-110 3.2 5.3 4.3

LSD 0 5% NS NS NS NS NS

$/A 5446 1093 1118 1381 1311 1740 1129

5600 807 1425 1389 1558 1574 1351

5613 1044 1600 1550 1693 1938 1565

(5747 1032 1196 1478 1235

Minuette 781 1052 1419 981 1667 1180

76-110 765 1281 1023

LSD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS

14

Table 8. Fusarium root rot infection, Corvallis, 1996.

LineScore'

Rep 1 Rep 2 Avg.

91GY 3.5 3 3.25

Oregon 54 4 4 4.0

5163 4 4 4.0

5416 3 3 3.0

5446 4 3.5 3.75

5520 3 3 3.0

5566 3 2.5 2.75

5575.

2.5 2 2.25

5600 3 3 3.0

5613 3.5 2.5 3.0

5630 3 3 3.0

5635 3.5 2.5 3.0

5651 4 3 3.5

5669 2.5 2.5 2.5

5681 3.5 3.5 3.5

5698 3 3 ' 3.0

5747 3 2.5 2.75

5766 2.5 2 2.25

5778 2 2.5 2.25

B7126-33-1-2 3 3 3.0

B7126-33-2-1 3 2 2.5

B7126-54-2-1 2.5 3 2.75

B7237-13 3 2 2.5

B7239-5-1 4 3 3.5

B7239-11-1 2_

3 2.5

B7239-11-2 3 2 2.5

15

Table 8. Fusarium root rot infection, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.).

'Scores: 1-5 scale, 1 = no or very slight surface infection, 5 = roots mostly dead, plantsseverely stunted.

Each value is an average of 2 plots.

LineScore'

Rep 1 Rep 2 Avg. 1B7240-2 3 2 2.5

DM3NYI 2 2 2.0

DM4NY6 3 3 3.0.

DM6NY1 2.5 2.5 2.5

Minuette 3.5 3 3.25

76-110 4 3 3.5

WIS 46 RR 1.5 2 1.75

WIS 83 RR 2.5 1.5 2.0

RR 4270 1 1 1.0

RR 6950 0.5 0.5 0.5

1 6

Table 9. White mold infection, Corvallis, 1996?

Line Re Re Re Re A

91G 9 5 6 10 7.5

Oregon 54 8 5 6 9 7.05163 7 7 7 5 6.5

5416 7 7 5 3 5.5

5446 6 3 8 4 5.25

5520 7 6 6 7 6.5

5566 7 6 4 5 5.5

5575 6 4 4 6 5

5600 4 6 5 3 4.5

5613 7 7 4 3 5.255630 6 9 6 8 7.25

5635 7 8 9 7 7.75

5651 9 7 7 9 8.0

5669 9 5 4 10 7.05681 9 7 6 7 7.25

5698 7 4 4 5 5.05747 5 2 2 4 3.25

5766 6 6 4 5 5.255778 7 9 6 8 7.5B7030-24 7 7 5 5 6.0B7126-1-1-1 4 2 4 4-. 3.5

B7126-33-1-2 5 3 4 5 4.25

B7126-33-2-1 4 5 4 4 4.25

B7126-54-2-1 6 6 5 5 5.5

B7237-11-3 4 5 4 2 3.75

B7238-15 4 8 4 4 5.0

B7238-22 6 4 5 3 4.5

B7239-4 5 2 5 3 3.75B7239-5-2 4 6 4 5 4.75

B7239-5-4 4 3 4 5 4.0B7239-11-1 3 3 2 1 2.25

B7239-11-2 4 4 3 4 3.75

B7239-11-3 5 4 2 2 3.25

DM3NY1 6 5 6 6 5.75

17

Table 9. White mold infection, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.):

'White mold scores: 1-10 scale, 1 = low incidence, slight symptoms, 10 = high incidence,severe symptoms.

Line Re. 1 R. 2 R-' 3 Re. 4 Ay:.

DM4NY6 5 5 5 5 5.0

DM6NY1 6 6 7 5 6.0

169787 5 3 5 5 4.5

180753 4 3 4 3 3.5

204717 4 4 4 5 4.25

225846 2 2 2 3 2.25

226865 2 2 3 2 2.25

824775 2 2 2 3 2.25

M0162 2 4 4 1 2.75

3525 8 7 8 5 7.0

L192 2 1 2 2 1.75

Black Valentine 6 7 8 7 - 7.0

Black Turtle 7 5 4 7 5.75

Gabriella 6 5 6 4 5.25

Aurora 7 8 6 8 7.25

Exrico 5 5 2 3 3.75

2235 7 6 5 5 5.75

Tendercrou 5 6 3 5 4.75

76-110 4 5 6 7 5.5

Minuette 5 6 4 3 4.5

Red Kidney 4 4 3 3.75

1500

1000

500

2000

0

0

18

Figure 1. STANDARD BEAN $/A 1996MAY 7 PLANTING

91G 54 5163 5416 5630 5635 5651

VARIETY

Figure 2. STANDARD BEAN $/A 1996MAY 29 PLANTING

91G 54 5163 5416 5630 5635 5651

VARIETY

3000

2000

1000

0

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1923

1685

1426 1486 1553 1558 1553

19

Figure 3. STANDARD BEAN $/A 1996JUNE 14 PLANTING

91G 54 5163 5416 5630 5635 5651

VARIETY

Figure 4. STANDARD BEAN $/A 1996JUNE 26 PLANTING

91G 54 5163 5416 5630 5635 5651

VARIETY

2500

2000

500

2000

1600

LI!1200

e) 800

400

91G 54 5163 5416 5630 5635 5651

VARIETY

Figure 6. STANDARD BEANS $LACRE 1996SEASON AVERAGE-SELECTED HARVESTS

91G 54 5163 5416 5630 5635 5651

VARIETY

20

Figure 5. STANDARD BEAN $/A 1996JULY 2 PLANTING

Figure 7.

2000

1600

DC 1200069. 800

400

2000

0

0

21

SMALL SIEVE BEAN $/ACREMAY 7 AND MAY 29 PLANTINGS

5446 5600 5613 M1NU.

MAY 7

VARIETY

Figure 8. SMALL SIEVE BEANS $/A 1996JUNE 14 AND JUNE 26 PLANTINGS

5446 5600 5613 MINU.

MAY 29

5446 5600 5613 MINU.

JUNE 14VARIETY

5446 5600 5613 MINU.

JUNE 26

2 2

Figure 9. SMALL SIEVE BEANS VA 1996JULY 2 AND SEASON AVERAGE

3000

2000 19381740

15741667

15651351

1129 1180

1000

05446 5600 5613 NHNLL 5446 5600 5613 MM.

JULY 2 SEASON AV.VARIETY

2 3

RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTEDTO

OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE COMMISSIONVIA

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATIONDecember 1996

ITILE: Genetic Transformation of Beans

PROJECT LEADERS: David Mok and Machteld Mok, Horticulture, OSU

PROJECT STATUS: Fourth of five years

PROJECT FUNDING FOR THIS PERIOD: $36,400

Funds were used to support a research technician, a student lab aid, to purchasechemicals and other disposable items. -

OBJECTIVES:

To devise regeneration systems in beans adaptable to transformation usingAgrobacterium infection.

To design and optimize conditions to deliver DNAs using particle bombardment.

PROGRESS:

Background:

Specific traits in plants can be modified by inserting either foreign gehes or -altered nativegenes. The process of delivering genes is called transformation. In plants, two generalapproaches are employed to obtain transformation, although specific conditions of eitherapproach vary greatly between species. The first approach utilizes the bacterium, Agrobacterium,which infects plants and inserts a piece of its own DNA (T-DNA) into the host chromosomes.If a foreign gene is spliced into the T-DNA, the foreign gene can be incorporated into the plant.This approach works well in conjunction with regeneration of plants from tissue culture whichinvolves selection of transformed cells and subsequently deriving plants from single cells toavoid chimeras. The second approach employs a "gene gun" which delivers DNA coatedtungsten or gold particles directly to the growth points of the plant. Seeds are then obtained fromtreated plants to select for transformed progeny in subsequent generations. Methods tosuccessfully transform beans (as well as many other large-seeded legumes) have yet to bedevised.

An important consideration is which genes should be targeted for change. In recentyears,many genes controlling a number of traits have been isolated from plants as well as otherorganisms. Regardless of the source of origin, these genes can be modified and transferred into

24

plants. For bean production in the Willamette Valley, perhaps one of the most obvious ojectivesis resistance to white mold (Sclerotinia) since this pathogen is difficult to control using chemicalsand no native resistance has been found in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). It has been shownthat the production of oxalic acid by the fugus Sclerotinia is the primary cause of pathogenicity.If the oxalic acid can be degraded rapidly by the plant, the symptom of infection can beinhibited. This approach has been tested by inserting and over-expressing a gene encodingoxalate oxidase (which converts oxalic acid to carbon dioxide and peroxide) into rape seeds andthe test plant Arabidopsis. In both cases, resistance to mold was achieved. Similar solutionshould be applicable to beans if transformation techniques can be devised. Our research iscentered on establishing such techniques.

Progress:

In the past years, we have utilized both Agrobactetium infection and the gene gun tosuccessfully deliver DNAs with a reporter gene (GUS gene) to a variety of bean tissues includinghypocotyls, callus and meristem of germinating seeds. Transformed cells are evidenced by theformation of a blue color when treated with appropriate reagents, the result of the expressionof the foreign reporter gene, GUS. The next step is to select meristems (growth points)containing the transformed cells and allow them to grow into whole plants and collect seeds fromthose plants, with the objective of recovering seeds that are transformed. This is necessary toavoid chimera especially in sexually propagated crops. The major problem we encountered isthat transformed cells were not carried through the sexual cycle, i.e. seeds produced fromtreated meristems were not transformed. One of the causes is likely the low percentage oftransformed cells in the original meristem (approximately 2% of the cells treated). We also usedselective medium containing lcanamycin and Bialaphos (a herbicide) to inhibit the growth of non-transformed cells (and to increase the proportion of transformed cells). This modified procedureresulted in recovering transformed cells in all tissues treated. However, shoots derived fromtreated meristems again did not give rise to transformed seeds. As reproductive tissues (anthersand ovules in flowers) are derived from layers 2 and 3 cells of the meristem, a much deeperpenetration of the treatment beyond layer one cells may be required. Therefore, efforts weredirected at using much younger tissues (such as immature embryos under 1 cm in length) as wellas direct inoculation of large number of germinating seedlings after wounding and collection ofseeds from treated plants. When immature embryos were used, we were able to triple thefrequency of transformation (6-10%), although the survival percentage of the individual embryoswas lower after treatment (these small embryos are more easily damaged by the manipulations).Selected seed lots were subjected to the GUS assay, however, no transformed seeds have beenrecovered thus far.

In order to enhance the transformation of layer 2 and layer 3 cells, two new approachesare being employed. First is the use of gold particles instead of tungsten (which has highertoxicity but costs less) in bombardment experiments. (As the cost of gold particles issubstantially higher we only used them sparingly.) The second is the use of vacuum infiltrationin Agrobacterium infection. It is expected that such modifications should further increase thepercentage of transformed cells and hopefully leads to transformed seeds.

SIGNATURES:

Project Leaders:

( ."srid W. S. Date Machteld C. Mok DateProfessor Professor

25

Charles Boyer, Ilezai Date

Redacted for PrivacyRedacted for Privacy


26

Research Report to theAgriculture Research Foundation

and theOregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Title: Vegetation Management in Snap Beans

Project Leaders: Ray William and Ed Peachey, Horticulture DepartmentProject Status: YearlyProject funding: $4,740

Objectives

Determine most efficient use rates of Cobra with Dual to minimize crop injury andmaximize weed control.Assess tolerance of snap beans to herbicides such as Cobra, Dual, Frontier and commonlyused tank mixes.Evaluate current and potential herbicide options for full season weed control andcompatibility with cultivation.Develop a long-term research site with a uniform distribution of white mold sclerotia in thesoil.

Report of Progress

1. Cobra and Dual efficiency (Table 1)

Snap beans (OR 91G) were planted on May 11, 1996, near Albany on a silty clay loamsoil with pH 6.5, CEC of 24.6 and 6.2% OM. Herbicides were applied on May 13 to wet soil in10 by 25 foot plots with 3 replication. Approximately 4 inches of rain fell in the first four weeksafter planting. Emerged weeds were counted 4 WAP from 1 m sq area in each plot. Emergenceand the number of seedlings that had 1 full trifoliate expanded were counted from 6 linear ft ofrow per plot. Snap bean biomass was harvested from 10 ft of row in each plot.

Crop injury and emergence at 4 WAP were highly variable within treatments (Table 1).Trends in crop injury were evident with the highest rate of Dual and Cobra. Injury increasedwithin each set of Dual rates as the Cobra rate increased. Counting plants that had reached fullexpansion of the first trifoliate 4 WAP indicated Cobra also was slowing development. Snap beanbiomass measured at harvest decreased steadily from 4.0 to 2.7 kgs/m2 as the Dual and Cobrarates increased. Considering the weeds present, weed density at this site, and the inclementweather conditions during the initial four weeks of growth, the best overall treatment was Dualplus Cobra at 1.0 and 0.125 lbs ai/ac, respectively. Though weed control was not exceptional withthis treatment, it minimized both crop injury and crop yield loss due to weed competition.

2 7

2. Snap bean tolerance to herbicides (Table 2).

Snap beans were planted at the Vegetable Research Farm near Corvallis on June 7 and at asite near Lebanon on May 30, 1996, in 12 by 30 ft plots, with three replications. A singlebetween-row cultivation was used to reduce weed competition. Snap beans were harvested from6.6 ft of row at both sites .and biomass weighed and plants counted. Snap bean pod yieldwasdetermined only at Corvallis, and pods collected from the replications of each treatment werecombined and graded.

Frontier PPI injured snap beans more than when applied PES and more than Dual. It isunclear why Eptam plus Cobra yielded nearly 1 ton/ac less than the highest yield of 11.1 tons/ac inthe Dual + Eptam + Treflan treatment at Corvallis. Of particular concern were the two Cobra plusEptam treatments at Lebanon that gave exceptional weed control but also had the lowest biomassyields. Snap bean biomass may have been slightly reduced by Cobra plus Dual PES.

3.1. Weed control in snap beans (Tables 3 & 4).

This research was conducted at a farm near Lebanon, OR and at the Vegetable ResearchFarm near Corvallis. The weed emergence potential (as defined by the untreated check) atLebanon was relatively low with black nightshade and lambsquarters the primary species. AtCorvallis, weed emergence potential was very high with hairy nightshade, pigweed, andsmartweed as primary weeds. At harvest, snap bean plantswere pulled from 6.6 ft of row. Weedsin the cleared area were evaluated in: 1) a 10 inch band immediately over the row; and 2) the areabetween the rows according to the following size classes:

weeds 4 leaves, stem dia < 5.6 mmweeds with stem dia. 5.6 mmweeds with seeds, or berries 5.6 mmin the case of nightshade, mature berries with viable seeds.

Each weed class size was multiplied by the number of each species surviving in each zone,whether between or inrows, and is the value presented in the tables. A value of '0' indicatesthere were no weeds present at harvest. Only nightshade data are presented in this report.

Dual + Cobra completely controlled nightshade at both sites for the full season. Eptam +Cobra did not control nightshade at the Lebanon site possibly because of a slightly lower Eptamrate and the presence of black nightshade. Eptam does not control black nightshade as well ashairy nightshade. Frontier controlled nightshade better than Dual at both sites, whether appliedPPI or PES. Command also completely controlled nightshade until harvest.

The difference between in-row and between-row measurements indicates to some degreethe compatibility of a particular herbicide with other strategies such as cultivation, which may ormay not complement the herbicide. For instance, Dual PPI was very poor at reducing nightshadegrowth in-rows, whereas Dual applied PES was more effective in-row but was not efficientbetween rows. This would indicate that a timely cultivation might be effective with DualPES but

2 8

would be very ineffective with Dual PPI. Low values within rows compared to high valuesbetween rows indicate treatments that would be complemented by cultivation.

3.2. Herbicide and cultivation effects on snap bean yield (Table 5)

The objective of this research was to determine the compatibility of current and potentialherbicide programs to maximize snap bean growth, with and without cultivation. At the Corvallissite, potential weed competition was very high; at Lebanon weed competition potential wasmoderate. Each treatment was split into two parts. One half was cultivated at 4 WAP and theother half remained uncultivated. At Lebanon, snap beans were planted on 24 inch rows and asingle cultivation was completed with a hand push cultivator that removed all weeds except thosewithin a 10 inch band over the row. At Corvallis, snap beans were planted on 30 inch rows andcultivation was done with a single unit on a tractor with sweeps set to remove all weeds exceptthose within a 10 inch band in the row. At harvest, snap bean plants were pulled from 6.6 ft ofrow, and total plant biomass weighed.

Cultivation increased the yield of all but one treatment at Corvallis, and caused the largestbiomass increase in the Dual PES, Eptam, Cobra (0.125), and Basagran treatments. Cultivationcaused only a moderate increase in snap bean biomass for Dual (PPI) and Cobra (0.19)treatments. Most of the increases due to cultivation can be explained by improved weed control(See Tables 3 and 4). However, the substantial decrease in snap bean biomass in the Eptam +Cobra treatment is unexplained. All weeds were controlled in this treatment except smartweed,but a single cultivation nearly eliminated smartweed from these plots. Dual (PPI) did notadequately control weeds, and removing weeds in the row middles did little to improve yield.

At the Lebanon site, the impact of cultivation was much less because weed density overallwas lower. Even well timed Basagran plus one cultivation yielded very well. The yield of thegrower applied treatment of Eptam plus Cobra was very low and cultivation did not increase snapbean biomass yield. The greatest improvements in yield from cultivation were in Cobra treatmentsthat did not control lambsquarter (data not presented).

4. Development for white mold site.

Snap beans were planted in early July at the Vegetable Research Farm. Plots wereirrigated nightly after first bloom and severe white mold developed throughout the field. Sclerotiawere collected from the soil surface with a vacuum. The plot was planted with four cover crops infour replications in late September. This field will be for an experiment in 1997 that will evaluatethe effect of direct seeding and cover crop green manures on survivability of white mold sclerotia.Small bags of sclerotia are currently buried at 2 and 4 inches in each of the plots.

Summary

Early season snap bean growth significantly decreased as Dual and Cobra rates increased.Snap beans were less tolerant of Frontier than Dual, particularly when applied PPI. Cobra PESplus Eptam PPI reduced biomass yield in both trials. The highest snap bean yield was with Dual +

pts or oz lbs

Dual 1 pt 1.00Cobra 8 oz 0.125


29

Eptam + Treflan PPI at both the Lebanon and Corvallis sites. Dual + Cobra completely controllednightshade at both sites. Eptam + Cobra did not control nightshade at the Lebanon site, possiblybecause black nightshade was predominant. Of the treatments with acceptable biomass yield,cultivation improved yield of Dual PES, Eptam PPI, and Dual + Cobra the most at Corvallis, themost weedy site.

Table 1. Snap bean response to several rates of Dual and Cobra, Albany OR, 1996.

% no/3 ft Vac 10 ft of row gr. %

7 12 19.5 38 109 70

10 10 18.5 36 111 73

Dual 1.5 pt 1.500 0 12 18.5 33 122 70Cobra 4 oz 0.063

Dual 1.5 pts 1.500 7 10 17.5 32 112 90Cobra 8 oz 0.125

7 12 14.1 35 84 90

17 8 13.1 29 91 77

0 12 16.5 37 ' 119 0

ns 3 4.3 ns us 16

Herbicide Rate Crop Trifoliate Biomass No. plants Avg. plant Weed controlinjury stage harvested harvested wt. estimate

(3 WAP) (3 WAP)


Dual 2 pts 2.000Cobra 12 oz 0.188

Check

FPLSD (0.10)

Table 2. Herbicide impacts on snap bean yield at Corvallis and Lebanon.

Herbicide Timing Rate

30

Corvallis

Rating based on growth stage of weeds (rating of 3 -a 1 seed producing plant/ 6.6 ft of row).2 Grower applied treatment.

LebanonPlant Pod yield $ Value Total weed Plant biomass Total weed

biomasc rating at rating atharvest' harvest

1. Frontier PPI 1.25 21.0 10.7 $1761 4 18.8 0.3

2. Frontier PES 1.25 20.2 10.2 $1701 2 20.0 0

3. Dual PPI 2.00 16.6 9.6 $1569 10 21.1 2.0

4. Dual PES 2.00 19.7 8.9 $1480 13 21.1 1.3

5. Dual PPI 2.00 21.9 11.3 $1854 1 22.1 0.0Eptam PPI 3.5Treflan PPI 1.0

6. Eptam PPI 3.50 21.9 9.1 $1534 14 16.0 1.0

7. Cobra PES 0.125 19.1 10.2 $1869 3 20.0 0

8. Cobra PES 0.1875 16.6 10.1 $1713 6 20.3 0.7

9. Dual PES 2.00 20.8 10.5 $1740 4 18.5 4.5Cobra PES 0.125

10. Dual PES 1.0 19.7 10.7 $1894 0 19.0 0.0Cobra PES 0.1875

11. Eptam2 PPI 2.8 14.8 2.3Cobra PES 0.188

12. Eptam PPI 3.5 15.9 10.1 $1736 1 18.0 0Cobra PES 0.188

13. Basagran EPOST 1.0 16.1 8.6 $1512 26 20.3 6.6

14. Command PES 0.5 20.0 8.6 $1567 8 20.7 1.9

15. No herbicide,two cultivations

- 15.4 7.9 $1421 20.8 7.4

FPLSD(0.05) 4.7 2.7 16 1.5 4.8

lbs t/ac t/ac $/ac 0= no weeds t/ac 0= no weedsai/ac

31

Table 3. Nightshade (predominately hairy nightshade) survival and growth in response toherbicides and location within the row, Corvallis, 1996.

Herbicide Timing Rate Nightshade control rating

In-row Middles Difference(mid less in-row)

Total

1. Frontier PPI 1.25 0 2 2 22. Frontier PES 1.25 2 1 -2 3

3. Dual PPI 2.00 5 3 -2 94. Dual PES 2.00 2 6 -5 85. Dual PPI 2.00 0 0 0 0

Eptam PPI 3.50Treflan PPI 0.50

6. Eptam PPI 3.50 6 1 5 77. Cobra PES 0.13 0 0 0 08. Cobra PES 0.19 0 0 0 09. Dual PES 2.00 0 0 0 0

Cobra PES 0.13

10. Dual PES 1.00 0 0 0 0Cobra PES 0.19

11. Eptam PPI 3.50 0 0 0 0Cobra PRE 0.19

12. Basagran EPOST 4 0 -4 413. Command PES 0.50 0 0 0 014. One cultivation

(no herbicide)- 19 0 -19 19

15. Check(no herbicide)

15 19 4 : 34

FPLSD (0.10) 5 3 5 9

Grower applied treatment.

32

Table 4. Nightshade (primarily black nightshade) response to herbicide and location within therow, Lebanon, 1996.

Herbicide Timing Rate Nightshade control rating

Inrows Middles Difference(mid less in-row)

Total

lbs ai/ac1. Frontier PPI 1.25 0.3 0.9 0.6 1.3

2. Frontier PES 1.25 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.53. Dual PPI 2.00 2.0 0.7 -1.3 2.74. Dual PES 2.00 1.3 5.2 3.9 6.55. Dual PPI 2.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Eptam PPI 3.50-Treflan PPI 0.50

6. Eptam PPI 3.50 1.0 0.2 -0.8 1.2

7. Cobra PES 0.125 0.0 0.0 0.-0 0.08. Cobra PES 0.1875 0.7 0.0 -0.7 0.7

9. Dual PES 2.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cobra PES 0.13

10. Dual PES 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cobra PES 0.19

11. Eptami PPI 2.8 0.7 1.7 1.0 2.3Cobra PES 0.188

12. Command PES 0.50 1.3 4.0 2.7 5.413. Basagran EPOST 1.00 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.414. One cultivation 5.0 0.7 -4.3 5.7

15. Check, noherbicide

- 2.0 3.8 1.8 5.8

FPLSD(0.10) 1.6 2.7 ns 3

Table 5. Impact of cultivation on snap bean biomass productionand weed control, Corvallis, OR,

1996.

Signatures

Project Leadersii

Department Head

33

Herbicide Tuning Rate Corvallis Lebanon

un- cultivatedcultivated

% inc un.- cultivatedcultivated

% inc

/ac t/ac-1. Frontier PPI 1.25 18.5 21.0 14 16.2 18.8 14

2. Frontier PES 1.25 19.3 20.2 5 18.2 20.0 9

3. Dual PPI 2.00 15.3 16.6 9 18.9 21.1 10

4. Dual PES 2.00 16.1 19.7 22 21.2 21.1 -1

5. Dual PPI 2.00 19.8 21.9 11 19.4 22.1 12

Eptam PPI 3.5

Treflan PPI 0.5

6. Eptam PPI 3.50 13.2 19.8 50 17.5 16.0 -10

7. Cobra PES 0.13 13.3 19.1 44 15.7 20.0 21

8. Cobra PES 0.19 15.3 16.6 8 16.2 20.3 20

9. Dual PES 2.0 18.1 20.8 15 20.8 18.5 -12

Cobra PES 0.125

10. Dual PES 1.0 19.3 19.7 2 17.8 19.0 6

Cobra PES 0.19

11. Eptam PPI 3.5 18.8 15.9 -15 12.9 14.8 12

Cobra PRE 0.125

12. Basagran EPOST 2.00 9.3 16.1 73 15.9 20.7 23

13. Command PES 0.25 15.4 20.0 29 17.8 . 19.0 6

14. No herbicide 5.5 15.3 177 13.7 16.9 19

FPLSD (0.05) 6.1 2.6




3 4

REPORT TO THE OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE COMMISSION, 1996-1997

TITLE: Nitrogen Management in Sweet Corn

PROJECT LEADERS: Delbert D. Hemphill, North Willamette R&E Center; Ernie Marx, John Hart, andRichard Dick, Dept. of Crop and Soil Science

COOPERATORS: John Selker, Dept. of Bioresources Engineering; Neil Christensen and PeterBottomley, Dept. of Crop and Soil Science

PROJECT STATUS: Continuing, projected completion in 1997

PROJECT FUNDING by OPVC: $17,000

For reporting purposes, this project has been divided into two parts, both attached:

Long-Term Vegetable Crop Rotation Study, Hemphill and DickPre-Sidedress Soil Nitrate Testing in Sweet Corn, Marx, Hart, and Hemphill

35

TITLE: Long-Term Vegetable Crop Rotation Study

PROJECT LEADERS: Delbert D. Hemphill, North Willamette R&E CenterRichard Dick, Dept. of Crop & Soil Science

COOPERATORS: John Selker, Dept. of Bioresources Engineering;Peter Bottomley, Dept. of Microbiology

PROJECT STATUS: Continuing

FUNDING: $3,000 in 1995-96 from OPVC. Additional funding from OSU and ODA. Funds spent forfertilizers; soil and tissue analysis; sample collection; labor for plot establishment, maintenance andharvest; travel, Corvallis to Aurora.

OBJECTIVES FOR 1996:

To evaluate effects of several winter cover crop systems, including fall-seeded and overseededtriticale, fall-seeded triticale plus winter pea, and overseeded red clover on yield and quality of sweetcorn at three rates of N. The cover crops follow broccoli fertilized with three rates of N.To evaluate the effect of these cover crops and the N applied to sweet corn on the amount of

nitrate leached below the root zone.To evaluate the effect of these cropping systems on the potential for herbicide degredation in the

soil profile.

PROGRESS REPORT:

Nitrogen Rate and Cover Crop on Broccoli Yield

'Jubilee' sweet corn was seeded on 30 May in rows 30 inches apart. During winter the plotshad been fallow, or in the cover crops listed under Objectives. The cover crops had been interseededin to standing broccoli in July 1995 or were broadcast-seeded and scratched into the soil in earlyOctober, 1995. Plot size was 600 sq. ft. Nitrogen rates were 0, 50, and 200 lb/acre, with half theN applied just after seeding and the remainder applied six weeks after seeding. At this time theappropriate plots were overseeded to triticale or red clover in preparation for the 1997 experiments.Harvest was on 5 September. Yield tended to decline following a triticale cover crop, regardless ofN rate (Table 1). Overseeded clover cover crop tended to increase yield but the effect was notstatistically significant. Yield with drilled triticale or drilled triticale plus winter pea was essentiallyequal due to poor growth and survival of the peas. Initial pea stand was adequate but the stand waslost during the winter. Yield increase normally with increasing rate of N. The highest-yieldingtreatment combination was the high rate of applied N following fallow, with 11.0 tons/acre (Figure 1).However, at the suboptimal N rate of 50 lb applied N/acre, yield following overseeded clover was 9.4tons/acre compared to 8.2 tons/acre following fallow (Fig. 1.) The same trend was observed with noapplied fertilizer N, indicating the ability of the legume cover crop to contribute significant N to thefollowing vegetable crop. This is consistent with previous results from these plots.

Winter Cover Crop on Mineralization of 2,4-0.

We have limited information on the impact of modified soil management strategies on theefficiency and rate of microbial breakdown of pesticides. Rates of 2,4-0 herbicide were applied tosurface and subsurface layers of soil taken from the rotation plots and mineralization rates werestudied. The time required for breakdown increased as soil depth increased. Lowest mineralizationrates occurred with soils collected in February to June. When soil was taken about one month afterplowing the cover crop, mineralization was much faster for cover-cropped than for fallowed plots. Thiseffect of cover cropping increased with depth in the soil profile (Fig. 2). This cover crop effect wasbarely detectable in samples taken in July, September, or December.

SUMMARY

Consistent with past results, winter cover crops reduced leaching of nitrate from the root zone.Leguminous cover crops made N available to the following vegetable crop but a cover crop consistingonly of a winter grain tended to depress yield of the following crop. Cover-cropped soils producedmore rapid mineralization of 2,4-D.

Table 1. Main effects of preceding cover crop and rate of applied N on yield of sweet corn, NWREC, 1996

SIGNATURES

Project Leaders

Department Head

36

Treatment Yield(T/A)

No. ears/plot

Mean earwt. (o)

Ear length(inches)

Tipfill

Cover crop (avg. over N rates)Fallow 7.5 54 199 8.1 2.2Overseeded triticale 6.1 45 186 7.4 2.2Overseeded clover 8.0 56 218 8.1 2.3Fall-seeded triticale 6.7 49 197 7.9 2.2Fall-seeded triticale + pea 6.9 49 205 8.3 2.2

LSD (0.05) 1.0 6 NS NS NSN rate, /b/acre (avg. over covers)

0 2.4 27 129 6.7 1.550 7.8 58 209 8.3 2.3

200 10.9 66 265 8.9 2.9LSD (0.05) 0.8 5 23 0.6 0.3



37

Hemphill et al., Crop Rotation Study, Figure 1.

Interaction of Cover Crop and N Rateon Sweet Corn Yield, 1996

50 200N Rate, lb/A

III Fallow f Overseeded Triticale CloverFall-seeded Triticale Triticale + Pea

Hemphill et:al., Crop Rotation Study, Figure 2.

Effect of cover-cropping on rate of breakdown of 2,4-D at three depths insoil.

100

50

25

75

50

25

75

0

38

(a) 0 to 20-cm

cover crop -

f

(b) 20 to 40-cm

cover crop

(c) 40 to 80-cm

cover crop

fallow -

0 5 10

Time (d)

39

REPORT TO THE OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE COMMISSION, 1996-97

TITLE: Pre-sidedress Soil Nitrate Testing in Sweet Corn

PROJECT LEADERS: Delbert D. Hemphill, North Willamette R&E CenterJohn Hart and Ernie Marx, Dept. of Crop & Soil Science

PROJECT STATUS: Continuing

FUNDING: $14,000 in 1996-97. Funds spent for plant and soil analysis, samplecollection, travel to grower fields, plot maintenance and harvest.

OBJECTIVES FOR 1996:

To evaluate the use of pre-sidedress testing of soil nitrate content (PSNT),leaf chlorophyll content, and leaf tissue N, to predict the level ofadditional N needed to grow the crop to good yield and quality.

PROGRESS REPORT:

NWREC plots

'Jubilee' sweet corn was planted to 15 x 30-foot plots on 30-inch rowspacing on May 26. At planting, N (as urea) was applied at rates of 0, 40,80, and 120 lb/acre to establish four levels of soil mineral N. Beforeapplying mid-season sidedressed N, a PSNT sample was collected from thesurface foot of soil and analyzed for nitrate- and ammonium-N (Table 1). Atthe same time, 10 leaves from each plot were collected for analysis of leaf Ncontent and chlorophyll meter (SPAD) readings were taken on 10 additionalintact leaves/plot. Additional N applications of 0, 40, and 80 lb/acre werethen superimposed on each of the initial treatments, resulting in total Nrates of 0 to 200 lb/acre. Three weeks after the second N application anotherset of SPAD readings were made. Corn was harvested from 40 row feet on August29. Following harvest, soil was sampled for determination of-residual nitrateand ammonium.

Highest yields of 10.7 tons/acre were obtained with a total Napplication of 120 lb/acre (80 at planting, 40 mid-season; Table 2). Threeother treatments gave yields not significantly different than the maximum.These were 120 lb N (40 at planting and 80 mid-season), 160 lb total N, and200 lb total N/acre. These results are consistent with those of 1995. Meanear weight was highest at 160 lb N/acre but several rates and combinations ofat-planting and mid-season applications gave essentially equal ear sizes.When all 120 lb N were applied at planting, yield was significantly lower thanwhen the same rate of N was split. Tipf ill and ear length also increased withincreasing rates of N. In these plots, the PSNT value was 26.4 ppm when 120lb N/A was applied at planting. This rate of N at planting was not quiteadequate to give maximum yields. However, when the same total rate of N wasapplied, but split into two applications, maximum yield was obtained. This isin agreement with past research indicating that splitting N applications mayresult in more efficient utilization of N by the corn plant.

SPAD readings and leaf N correlated with amount of N applied to the

40

soil. However, these tests indicate only that the plant has sufficient N atthe time of the test. These tests say nothing about whether the soil willprovide sufficient N to maintain the plant through harvest. They may be ofmore use when the total N rate is divided into several applications such aswith feeding liquid N through the irrigation system. However, the late SPADreadings (Tables 3, 4), taken three weeks after PSNT, correlated strongly witheventual yield. A SPAD reading of less than 45 at this point may indicatethat additional N is needed.

Residual soil nitrate concentrations were lower than we usuallyexperience in corn plantings (Table 3). Nevertheless, nitrate levels didincrease with increasing rate of mid-season sidedressed N. About 68 lb/acreresidual nitrate plus ammonium were present on plots fertilized at 200 lbN/acre. This rate clearly exceeded that needed for maximum yield.

On-farm plots

Twelve growers participated in the on-farm Pre-sidedress Soil NitrateTest (PSNT) trials. Plots were approximately one acre, or large enough tofill a truck at harvest. Growers limited pre-plant and at-planting Napplications to a total of 50 lb N/acre. Prior to mid-season N applications,a PSNT sample was collected and analyzed for nitrate-N. Two top/sidedress Nrates were then applied; 100 and 150 lb Njacre. The goal of the project was

to determine a PSNT soil test value above which a mid-season N application of100 lb N/acre is sufficient for optimum yield. At three sites, treatmentswere replicated four times. Plots were harvested into separate trucks bygrowers. Yield information (weight and grade) was determined by the processorreceiving the corn. Following harvest, soil and corn stalk samples from eachN rate were analyzed for nitrate-N. N responsive sites were those where yieldfrom the 100 lb N/acre topdress was less than 98% of yield from the 150 lbN.acre topdress.

PSNT values ranged from 8 to 31 ppm NO3-N (Table 5). The distributionof values in 1996 was similar to 1995 (Fig. 1). Figure 2 shows that siteswith PSNT values of 15 ppm or greater did not benefit from the higher N rate,with two exceptions. This indicates if PSNT values are 15 ppm or greater, amid-season N application of 100 lb N/acre is sufficient for optimum yield.Because data is from a single year, a more conservative PSNT critical value of18 ppm may be appropriate. The distribution of PSNT values indicates morethan half of the sweet corn fields sampled during 1995-96 could benefit fromthis approach to N management.

The two N responsive sites with high PSNT values were on coarse texturedsoils in the Stayton and Coburg areas. They were also the only two siteswhere the low N plots were placed at the edge of the field. Whether theunexpected yield response was due to soil type, plot layout, or somethingelse, is unknown.

The corn stalk nitrate test is designed to identify N deficiency orexcess in the crop just harvested. This information would be used to adjust N

management in future years. NWREC data. in 1995 suggested a stalk nitratecritical value of 2750 ppm NO3-N. This critical value was accurate for 8 of12 sites (Fig. 3) in 1996. The two sites that were outliers for PSNT datawere also outliers for corn stalk nitrate data.

41

Residual soil nitrate was higher on the high N plots than on the low Nplots for 10 of 12 sites (Table 5). .Figure 4 shows the relationship betweenresidual soil nitrate and yield for the low N plots. Maximum yield wasattained with the low N rate for all sites with residual soil nitrate above 50lb NO3-N/acre with two exceptions (same two outliers as for PSNT and stalknitrate test). The data agrees with previous estimates that residual soilnitrate above 50-75 lb NO3-N/acre indicates possible opportunity for improvedN management.

The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measurement of variability indata. On the replicated sites, the CV was extremely low (1.5t or less). Thelow CV's indicate that three replications are sufficient for future field-scale sweet corn research.

There were no statistically significant differences in corn grade(percent no value, grade, cobs per ton) on the replicated sites.

Summary

Split N applications are more efficient than applying all N before or atplanting for sweet corn. Maximum yield was obtained at N rates as low as120 lb Wacre with split applications at NWREC.

The PSNT appears promising as an N management tool for sweet corn.Tentatively, PSNT values above 18 ppm NO3-N indicate a mid-season Napplication of 100 lb N/acre is sufficient for optimum yield. Confidencein the PSNT is greater on silty clay barns (Woodburn, Willamette, etc.)than on coarse textured and gravelly soils, such as those found in theStayton and Coburg areas.

The corn stalk nitrate at harvest test remains promising as an indicator ofN management. Data from more years and sites are needed to establish acritical value.

Residual soil nitrate can be reduced while maintaining optimum yield byusing N management tools such as the PSNT. In most cases, reducingresidual soil nitrate to 50 lb NO3-N/acre in the surface foot is areasonable goal.

Field-scale replicated trials resulted in good data that, was believable toparticipating growers. For future trials, three replications aresufficient.

Table 1. Effect of N at planting on soil nitrate And ammonium levels andleaf chlorophyll (SPAD) readings and N content at time of PSNT, NWREC, 1996N at planting Soil nitrate-N Soil ammonium-N SPAD Leaf N(lb/acre) (ppm) (ppm) (t)

2**, significant at 1% level.

o 7.1 2.4 36.8 2.940 14.3 4.7 39.9 3.280 23.1 8.2 41.0 3.5

120 26.4 7.4 42.2 3.5Significancez ** ** ** **

4 2

Table 2. Effect of N at planting and mid-season sidedressed N on yield andquality barameters of sweet corn. NWREC, 1996

91ased on 5-point scale with 5 = perfect fill, 1= 2 inches unfilled kernels.

Table 3. Effect of N at planting and mid-season N on leaf chlorophyll (SPAD)readings three weeks after second N application and residual soil nitrate andammonium content. NWREC. 1996

N at planting(1b/acre)

Mid-season N(lb/acre)

Yield No. ears(tons/A) per plot

Ear wt.

(g)

Ear length(inches)

Tipfillz

6 o 2.7 55 102 7.1 1.5o 40 7.0 81 181 7.7 2.1o 80 8.7 83 218 8.1 2.5

40 0 6.3 78 169 8.2 2.240 40 8.1 86 196 8.2 2.240 80 10.1 90 236 8.3 2.580 o 8.5 87 203 7.9 1.980 40 10.7 94 238 8.1 2.380 80 9.1 86 225 8.3 2.4

120 o 9.0 87 217 8.3 2.7120 40 10.2 89 240 8.4 2.6120 80 9.4 90 218 8.4 2.7

LSD (0.05) 1.6 10 28 0.6

N at planting(lb/acre)

Mid-season N(lb/acre)

Late SPAD Soil nitrate(ppm)

Soil ammonium(ppm)

o o 31.3 1.8 4.9o 40 40.5 1.6 4.20 80 46.2 5.0 5.1

40 0 41.3 1.4 4.340 40 45.6 2.7 4.240 80 48.2 5.4 4.780 0 46.6 2.5 5.780 40 47.6 5.0 5.680 80 46.2 4.0 5.2

120 o 46.4 3.3 7.1120 40 49.0 2.6 7.2120 80 50.3 10.3 6.7

LSD (0.05) 3.9 3.1 0.7

Table 4. Correlation coefficients (Pearson's pairwise) for SPAD readings,leaf N concentration, and sweet corn yield. NWREC, 1996Variable by Variable Correlation coefficient ProbabilityPSNT-SPAD Leaf N 0.7649 0.0007PSNT-SPAD Yield 0.4592 0.0006PSNT-SPAD Tipfill 0.1534 0.2777PSNT-SPAD Ear wt. 0.3980 0.0035Late-SPAD Yield Q.8818 0.0000Late-SPAD Tipfill 0.6477 0.0000Late-SPAD Ear wt. 0.8863 0.0000

* Low N = 100 lb N/a topdress High N = 150 lb N/a topdressa - fresh market grower, yield is in cases/acre

Table 5. On-farm PSNT trial data.

Site PSNT

(ppm NO3-N)

Yield (ton/a)

Low N* High N*Relative Yield

(%)

Residual Soil NO3-N (lb 1103-N/a)

Low N* High N*

Corn stalk 1103-N 4qmoLow N* High N*

Grover

Dickman

Coleman

Kenagy

Green

Freeman

Volker

Jager

Hendricks

Schlechter

Horning

Keudell

8

11

12

15

18

21

21

22

24

26

26

31

9.4 10.1

9.7 10.1

12.5 12.5

10.2 10.4

9.7 10.6

9.7 9.8

8.7 8.9

10.7 10.9

9.6 8.7

393a 385a12.4 12.1

8.3 9.0

93.5

95.7

100.0

98.5

91.3

99.5

98.0

98.7

110.6

102.2

102.4

92.2

12

16

91

43

110

75

17

96

142

92

64

no data

20

26

113

37

296

123

21

149

242

107

46

2219

5358

8131

9219

3584

9385

9586

8364

6975

6286

2467

9492

5761

6124

7318

8860

2918

9089

10575

11288

7950

5461

3630

7013

115

110

90

85

44

replicated sites

o non-replicated sites_

.

o oo

o

0

-

- 0

_

00

i ,

0-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 >45

PSNT values (ppm NO3-N)

Fig. 1. Distribution of PSNT values on cooperating farms in 1995 and 1996.Percentages are for both years combined.

0 10 20 30

PSNT value (ppm NO3-N)

Fig. 2. PSNT values and relative yield. Horizontal line at 98% relative yieldseparates responsive and non-responsive sites. Vertical line at 15 ppm NO3-N

represents possible critical value.

115

110

115

90

850

Corn Stalk Nitrate at Harvest (ppm NO3-N)

Fig. 3. Corn stalk nitrate at harvest and relative yield for 1996 sweet corn project. Thevertical line at 2750 ppm NO3-N indicates the expected critical value based on previousresearch. The horizontal line at 98% relative yield separates responsive from non-responsive sites.

110

105

100U)

76 95

90

85

45,

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Residual Soil Nitrate (lb NO3-N/acre)

Fig. 4. Residual soil nitrate and relative yield for 1996 sweet corn project. Thevertical line at 50 lb NO3-N/acre indicates the expected critical value based on previousresearch. The horizontal line at 98% relative yield separates responsive from non-responsive sites.

oo o

o

replicated siteso non-replicated sites

.

oo

o

oo

-

o

o

0replicated sitesnon-replicated sites

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Signatures

Delbert D. Hemphill, North Willamette ik&E Center

10,

4ui Jtrt, Dept. of Crop & Soil Science

Ernie garx, Dept. of brop I& Soil Science

CIL= IGD /AV). LIGULUAL

Sheldon Ladd, Dept. of Crop & Soil Science

46






47

REPORT TO THE OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE COMMISSION

TITLE: Survey of corn fields in the Willamette Valley for stalk rot

PROJECT LEADERS: Mary L. Powelson, Robin Ludy and Virginia Heifer

Botany and Plant Pathology

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331-2902

COOPERATORS: Bill Mansour and Dan McGrath

PROJECT FUNDING: $12,000

OBJECTIVES: 1) Determine the distribution and severity of stalk rot of sweet corn in the

Willamette Valley; 2) Determine which Fusarium species are most commonly dgkidiated With italk

rot; and 3) Conduct a crop history survey.

INTRODUCTION

For the last few years, several sweet corn fields in the Willamette Valley have been identified with a

significant stalk rot problem. The symptoms of stalk rot begin late in the season during silking;

corn leaves begin to fire, or turn brown, at the base of theplant, and may continue to discolor up to

the ear. The pith may be discolored and/or appear shredded. Tin severe cases, either ears fail to

develop fully, reducing yield, or sporadic kernels appear dimpled, reducing kernel quality. In 1995,

Fusarium spp. were isolated from symptomatic plants.

Fusarium species are known to be involved in stalk rots of corn in the United States. Most disease

surveys and research have been done on field corn. In field corn, F. moniliforrne causes Fusarium

stalk and ear rot, and F. eraminearum (Gibberella zeae) is the causal agent of Gibberella stalk rot.

The predominant fungal species varies across the country and sometimes from year to year in the

4 8

same location. F. moniliforme tends to predominate in warm, dry regions and F. graminearum is

more commonly predominant in cool, moist regions. F. graminearum is reported to be a more

aggressive pathogen in field corn and causes greater losses than F. moniliforrne. It is assumed that

the disease organisms respond similarly in sweet corn. A study done at Pennsylvania State

University indicated that stalk rot in sweet corn seed fields has been increasing in the past 20 years,

with F. monilifonne and F. oxysporum most commonly associated with symptomatic plants.

A survey was conducted in the Willamette Valley in the summer of 1996 to determine the extent of

the stalk rot problem in sweet corn plantings, and to determine Fusarium species commonly

recovered from diseased plants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two fields between Woodburn and Walterville, near Springfield, were visited by our

laboratory group during silldng in August and September of 1996. Corn plants from 18 of these

fields were sampled for disease and pathogen analysis. In addition, 10 fields were sampled by

extension and processor representatives and submitted to us for analysis. Plants from four of the

sampled fields were symptomless; plants from the other 24 fields showed varying degrees of

symptoms from slight to severe.

Sampled plants were evaluated for the number of leaves showing firing and for the condition of the

roots, interior pith, and ears. Roots were washed in tap water and in distilled water with Tergitol

added to aid in the removal of soil particles. Roots were evaluated for size of the rootball, amount

of fibrous roots and percentage of healthy roots. Stems were sliced longitudinally and the interior

tissue was evaluated for pithiness and the extent of discoloration, brown to black or red. Ears,

when present, were observed for dimpling and fungal growth.

Three to five plants were selected from each field sample for plating on agar media to determine

fungal infection. Roots were cut into 1 mm segments at the demarcation between healthy and

necrotic tissue. Stems were surface sterilized in 10% bleach for 5 min and rinsed in distilled water

4 9

for 1 min. Root segments and 1-2 mm long pieces of the crown and the 3rd node were placed on

one plate each of Nash-Snyder, modified Komada's and potato dextrose agar (PDA) media. Nash-

Snyder and modified Komada's are selective for Fusarium, whereas PDA is a general medium for

the isolation of fungi. Plates were placed under fluorescent lights at room temperature to induce

sporulation.

After 5 to 7 days, fungal colonies of different morphology were transferred onto carnation leaf agar

(CLA) and PDA for identification. Cultures of Fusarium were identified to species based on the

presence and morphology of macroconidia, microconidia, and chlamydospores on CLA, and on the

color and growth characteristics on PDA.

Four fields representing different locations in the Willamette Valley were selected for nematode

analysis. The corn plants selected had fired leaves and roots with black lesions. Root and soil

samples were tested by the OSU Nematode Lab for presence and abundance of root lesion

nematodes.

Crop history survey forms were sent in mid-November to field representatives or growers of the

most severely affected -fields.

. RESULTS

Plants in the 42 fields visited ranged from healthy to very symptomatic. Twenty-nine percent of the

-fields had plants with leaves that were brown beyond the first leaf or suckers. The most severely

affected fields were located around Stayton, Dayton, Coburg and Walterville (Fig 1).

A total of 109 plants were sampled from 28 fields. Evaluations of corn roots indicated that two-

thirds of the plants had a root mass that was 25% or more rotted. Commonly, lower roots

appeared black with many fibrous healthy roots originating from the stalk above the diseased roots.

Leaf firing ranged from 1 to 8 leaves up the stem but rarely extended beyond the ear. A slight

correlation (r=0.58, P=0.0001) existed between the number of leaves that were fired and the

51

percent of root mass that was diseased. The interior of the crown tissue varied from no

discoloration or slightly brown to red or black; severe discoloration was found in25% of the

sampled plants. Interior pith tissue was usually healthy and appeared shredded in only 7% of the

plants. A *few plants-hictlongituding red or brown streAs-in the Pith. Most Plant samples did not

have ears mature enough to evaluate; samples from four fields, however, hadears that were

shriveled or dimpled.

Fusarium colonies grew from all roots plated, and a total of 503 isolates were identified (Fig 2).

The most commonly occurring species isolated prom roots were F. oxysporum (66%) and F. solani

(23%), followed by F. culmorum (3%), and F. equiseti (3%). F. moniliforme was rarely isolated

from roots (less than 1%). All other species accounted 'for a total of 4% of root isolations.

F. avsporum also predominated in the plant above ground, occurring in 30% of crowns and 25%

of nodes sampled (Fig 3). Other species isolatedfrom crowns were F. equiseti (5%), F.

subglutinans (4%), F. culmorum (4%), F. avenaceum (2%), F. moniliforme (2%), and F.

prollferatum (IV). P. szibilutinanswas isolated from of the nodes, lOilowedby-PI

proliferatum (4%), F. avenaceum (3%), and F. moniliforme (2%). Fungiwere not isolated from

54 % and 60% of the crowns and nodes sampled, respectively. The fusaria species found in stems

and nodes were distributed throughout the valley and not clustered in any one location (Fig. 4).

Nematodes were not detectable in three of the four sampled fields. The fourth field had 6.5

Pratylenchus per gam of root tissue, which is not considered high enough to cause significant

damage.

CONCLUSION

Examination of plants revealed symptoms indicative of several potential problems: rotted roots,

rotted stalks, fired leaves and spider Mite damage to leaves. There was only a slight correlation

between rotted roots and rotted stalks on sampled plants; a number of plants showed root rot but

not stalk rot symptoms and relatively few plants showed stalk rot without root rot. Similarly,

F. subglutinans

F. solani

F. proliferatum

F. oxysporum

F. moniliforme

F. equiseti

F. culmorum

F. avenaceum

F. anthophillum

F. subglutinans

F. proliferatum

F. oxysporum

F. moniliforme

F. equiseti mawsF. culmorum

F. avenaceum

52

Fig 3. Percentage of sweet corn plants from which fusarium species were isolated.

II 3rd nodefif Crown I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent of colonies

Fig 2. Percent recovery of colonies of fusarium species isolated from roots of sweet corn.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percent of total plants

53

F. oxysporum

moniliforme, subglutinans,proliferatum

E culmorum

Fig 4. Distribution of fusarium species isolated from the crowns and nodes of sweet cornplants sampled.

54

spider mite damage, which appeared as mottling on the was sometimes but not always

associated With stalk rot.

Culturing forpathogen analysis showed that species of Fusarium occurred with different frequency

in the roots and the aboveground portions of the Plants. F. oxysporum was the predoniinant

organism in both roots and aboveground parts, but the percentage of this specieswas much higher

in roots. Although F. oxyspomm 'has oitenbeedisOlated fromcorn stalks inareas throughout the

US, its role in stalk rot is not fully understood. F. solaniwas the second most frequent organism in

roots, -but was found rarely-in crowns and not at all in nodes. Research on -field corn has shown

that F. oxysporum and possibly F. solani can be pathogens of root rots. However, root rots are

common and generally not considered to cause severe losses. Although root rot itself may not be a

significant problem, it has been reported to predispose plants to stalk rot.

F. moniliforme has commonly been reported as a stalk rot pathogen. Because of the complex

nature of the Fusarium genus, Sinrilar species have been grouped together at various times. In the

past F. subglutinans and praferatum were often grouped with the species moniliforme. We found

these three species In 15°0 of nodes and '9% of crowns, but in -less than IVO of roots. 'Studies -have

shown that F. moniliforme is not soil-borne, but that stalk infections may be the result of infected

seed or of direct stalk penetration* spores from corn debris. this coniistent v;ith our recovery

of this species primarily from stems and only rarely from roots.

Fusarium culmorum was recovered at low levels from roots and crowns. F. culmorum is the

predominant cause of corn stalk rot in Europe, and inthe U.S. is 'known to be a pathogen of cereals

and grasses. F. avenaceum, which was rarely recovered from roots, crowns, and nodes, is also a

pathogen of cereals. F. equiseti, recovered at low levels irom roots, crowns, and nodes, has not

been reported as a pathogen on corn..

Pathogen analysis revealed that Fusarium species were isolated with approximately the same

-frequency from the healthy and diseased Plants, appearing to 'indicate a lack of a causal disease

agent. However, this is consistent with other surveys in the U.S. in which Fusarium species appear

55

to be opportunistic fungi that invade plant tissue but do not cause disease until the plant begins to

senesce or comes under stress. Fusaria have commonly been found In low numbers in

assymptomatic corn stalks early in the season, increasing in number and spreading systemically as

the season progresses. Several plant stresses have been observed to predispose corn to stalk rot.

These include early season water deficit, leaf injury from insect or mite feeding, root injury, and hail

damage.

Our survey indicates a number of sweet corn fields in the Willamette Valley that are not at optimum

health. As stalk rot is most likely a symptom of stresses occurring in the Ma, reported strategies

for the control include planting resistant varieties, providing balanced fertilization with equal

amounts of nitrogen and potasSium, avoiding high plant populations, and avoiding drought stress.

5 6

SUPERSWEET AND SWEET CORN VARIETY EVALUATIONS

Clint Shock, Erik Feibert, Greg Willison and Monty SaundersMalheur Experiment Station

Oregon State UniversityOntario, Oregon, 1996

Objectives

Sweet corn and supersweet corn varieties were evaluated for agronomic andprocessing performance.

Procedures

Two trials were conducted on a Greenleaf silt loam following sugar beets. In the fall of1995, one hundred pounds of phosphate per acre and 20 lb N per acre were ploweddown. The field was then groundhogged twice and worked into 30-inch beds.

Alachlor (Partner) at 3 lb al/ac was broadcast and incorporated with a bed harrow onApril 24, 1996. Eighteen supersweet corn (Sh2) and 14 sweet corn (Sul) varieties wereplanted in separate trials. The seed had standard fungicide seed treatments applied bythe suppliers. The supersweet varieties were planted on April 26 and the sweetvarieties on May 12 to avoid cross pollination between the two corn types. Seed wasplanted at 2-inch depth using an Amalco cone seeder on a John Deere 77 FlexiPlanter. Each trial had a randomized complete block design with five replicates.

A soil sample taken from the top foot on May 31, 1996 showed a pH of 7.2, 2.1 percentorganic matter, 24 meq per 100 g of soil cation exchange capacity, 27 ppm nitrate-N, 6ppm ammonium-N, 34 ppm phosphorus, 565 ppm potassium, 2529 ppm calcium, 432ppm magnesium, 354 ppm sodium, 1.9 ppm zinc, 29 ppm iron, 13.4 ppm manganese,1.8 ppm copper, 26 ppm sulfate-S and 0.7 ppm boron.

The field was cultivated on June 3 and again on June 12 immediately after sidedressingwith Urea at 140 lb N/ac. The crop was furrow irrigated as needed using alternatefurrows starting on June 12.

Supersweet corn plots were thinned to 24,000 plants/ac (1 plant every 8.71 inches) onJune 10 following the emergence counts on May 8, May 10, and May 20. Starting onJuly 5, the silk stage was evaluated for 20 plants in one of the middle two rows of eachplot in the first replicate. Varieties were considered to be at the mid-silk stage when 40to 60 percent of the plants were silking. About 16 days after the mid-silk stage, earsamples from the border rows were taken and analyzed for moisture content todetermine the stage of maturity. The target ear moisture for harvest was 78 percentfor the supersweet corn varieties and 71 percent for the sweet corn varieties.

5 7

At harvest all ears in the central 15 feet of the middle two rows in each plot were picked andweighed. A 10 ear subsample was weighed, shucked, weighed, and evaluated for length,maximum diameter, diameter 6 inches from the base, and kernel row number. Ear taper wascalculated by the difference between the maximum diameter and the diameter at 6 inches fromthe base. Ear taper is a descriptive measure of ear shape; the higher the ear taper, the lesscylindrical the shape of the ear. A composite subsample consisting of 5 ears from eachreplicate of each variety (20 ears total) was taken to the American Fine Foods processing laband evaluated for moisture and processing recovery. The processing recovery was calculatedas the percentage of the weight of the unhusked ears that was recovered as cut corn.Processing recovery data for each variety was based on a composite sample and was notreplicated. Degree days were measured and calculated by a biophenometer at the MalheurExperiment station.

Results and Discussion

Emergence for the supersweet corn started on May 6. Varieties Punchline, Sheba, and Bandithad among the highest stand on the first stand count (May 8, Table 1). Final stand counts onMay 20 ranged from 58 to 89 percent. Sheba, GSS 6274 Fl, and Punch line had among thehighest stand on May 20. Yields of unhusked ears ranged from 6 to 11 t/ac (Table 2). Marvel,Mecca, Uprise, and Sheba had among the highest yield. Maverick, Contender, and Trigger hadears with among the least taper (most cylindrical ears). Recovery of cut corn ranged from 35 to54 percent among varieties. Marvel, Contender, and GSS 6274 had among the highest cutcorn yield.

Emergence for the sweet corn varieties started on June 10 and ranged from 61 to 90 percent(Table 3). Varieties Chase and Rogers 1861 lodged heavily (stalks bent at base, and lying flaton ground) and Tracer lodged moderately (stalks bent at base and lying at a 450 angle), basedon visual observations. Yields of unhusked ears ranged from 7 to 9 t/ac. Rogers 1861, HMX5371, HMX 5372, GH 1887 Fl, and Sequel had among the highest yields. Excalibur, HMX5372, and Tracer had ears with among the least taper (most cylindrical ears). Recovery of cutcorn ranged from 41 to 58 percent. Sequel and XPH 3125 had among the highest cut cornyields.

Corn yields in the 1996 variety trials averaged lower than in the 1995 variety trials. Total yieldsfor the supersweet corn were 11.3 t/ac in 1995 vs. 8.8 t/ac in 1996 and for the sweet corn totalyields were 10.1 t/ac in 1995 vs. 8.3 t/ac in 1996. Higher average corn yields in 1995 comparedto 1996 could be associated with hotter weather in 1996. There were 54 degree days in thesub-optimal range (86° to 104° F) from June through August in 1996 and only 27 in 1995.Lower yields at the Malheur Experiment Station in 1996 were consistent with lower yields ofcorn grown in the Treasure Valley for canning by American Fine Foods.

58

Table 1. Supersweet corn stand counts. Corn was planted on April 26, 1996 andemergence started on May 6. Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon StateUniversity, Ontario, Oregon, 1996.

'Sources: 1= Rogers/Sandoz, 2= Ferry-Morse, 3= Crookham, 4= Asgrow,5= Harris-Moran

Stand countVariety Seed source' May 8 May 10 May 20

Sheba 4 56.2 75.3 89.0

GSS 6274 F1 1 48.7 72.8 88.3

Punchline 4 79.3 53.0 88.2

Uprise 5 46.5 68.7 87.8

GSS 9298 F1 1 39.8 72.7 87.7

Mecca 4 38.2 70.8 86.7

Endeavor 4 46.2 67.8 86.7

Bandit 5 51.7 75.5 85.0

Shaker 4 24.5 58.7 83.2

Victor 2 17.8 52.2 82.5

710 Crisp N' Sweet 3 20.0 54.8 81.7

Trigger 3 37.8 59.2 79.7

Marvel 3 24.2 50.2 78.2

Contender 3 25.2 52.0 77.8

HMX 5375S 5 12.8 39.5 75.5

FMX 412 2 16.8 53.0 68.8

Missouri 3 2.7 11.8 60.0

Maverick 4 34.0 64.2 58.3

LSD (0.05) 11.9 15.2 14.6

Table 2. Plant development, yield, and ear characteristics of supersweet corn varieties in 1996. Malheur Experiment Station,Oregon State University, Ontario, Oregon.

Variety Degree CutSeed Days to Days to days to Harvest Ear Ear Max. ear corn

source' mid-silk2 harvest2 harvests Yields date weight length diameter Taper's Rows Moisture Recovery' yield

t/ac lb inches # % ----- t/acMarvel 3 63 95 1,550 11.0 August 9 0.61 8.1 2.2 0.63 17.2 78.1 54 5.9Mecca 4 70 98 1,633 10.9 August 12 0.59 8.0 2.0 0.50 17.6 76.2 37 4.0Uprise 5 61 93 1,508 10.5 August 7 0.65 7.5 2.1 0.50 17.3 77.2 42 4.4Sheba 4 59 92 1,492 10.4 August 6 0.69 8.5 2.0 0.37 14.4 77.8 42 4.4Shaker 4 68 95 1,550 10.0 August 9 0.64 8.3 1.9 0.34 17.5 76.1 35 3.5

GSS 6274 Fl 1 70 98 1,633 10.0 August 12 0.59 7.8 2.1 0.38 18.8 77.6 45 4.5Contender 3 61 92 1,492 9.9 August 6 0.74 7.8 2.1 0.23 16.0 78.2 49 4.9

HMX 5375S 5 70 99 1,660 9.8 August 13 0.69 7.9 2.0 0.38 18.1 77.6 39 3.8FMX 412 2 67 98 1,633 9.7 August 12 0.71 7.7 2.1 0.38 19.7 77.7 42 4.1

GSS 9298 Fl 1 61 92 1,492 9.4 August 6 0.68 7.1 2.0 0.32 18.4 78.5 41 3.9Victor 2 71 99 1,660 8.3 August 13 0.50 8.0 2.1 0.60 18.0 na na na

710 Crisp N' Sweet 3 67 95 1,550 8.3 August 9 0.49 7.7 2.0 0.68 16.6 78.2 44 3.7

Missouri 3 67 95 1,550 8.2 August 9 0.49 8.7 2.1 0.41 16.6 78.8 42 3.4Trigger 3 72 99 1,660 6.7 August 13 0.61 7.5 2.0 0.30 18.1 78.5 40 2.7

Punchline 4 68 95 1,550 6.6 August 9 0.62 7.0 2.0 0.35 16.8 77.2 40 2.6

Bandit 5 70 98 1,633 6.6 August 12 0.65 6.6 2.0 0.37 17.5 77.5 42 2.8

Endeavor 4 66 95 1,55,0 6.4 August 9 0.54 7.0 2.0 1.01 16.7 77.9 41 2.6

Maverick 4 70 99 1,60 5.9 August 13 0.62 7.2 1.9 0.28 17.8 76.6 39 2.3

Average 67 96 1,581 8.8 0.62 7.7 2.0 0.45 17.4 77.6 42 3.7LSD (0.05) 1.1 0.05 0.4 0.1 0.12 0.7

'Seed sources: 1= Rogers/Sandoz, 2= Ferry-Morse, 3= Crookham, 4= Asgrow, 5= Harris-Moran

'from emergence. sdegree days (50 - 86°F) from emergence. 41= low, 5= high. 6 yield of unhusked ears.6 max. diameter minus diameter 6" from the base. % of unhusked ear weight recovered as cut corn.

Table 3. Plant development, yield, and ear characteristics of sweet corn varieties in 1996. Malheur Experiment Station,Oregon State University, Ontario, Oregon.

'Sources: 1= Rogers/Sandoz, 2= Ferry-Morse, 3= Crookham, 4= Asgrow, 5= Harris-Moran

2from emergence. 3Degree days (50 - 86 °F) from emergence 4 yield of unhusked ears.6 max. diameter minus diameter 6" from the base. 8 % of unhusked ear weight recovered as cut corn.

VarietySeed Days to Days to

Degreedays to Stand Ear Ear Max. ear Cut corn

source' mid-silk2 han/est2 harvest3 June 17 Yield' Harvest date weight length diameter Taper's Rows Moisture Recovery8 yield

% t/ac lb inches - --- % --- t/ac

1,861 1 50 77 1,530 72.9 9.3 August 26 0.68 8.8 2.0 0.31 17.8 72.0 41 3.8HMX 5371 4 56 85 1,658 81.2 9.2 September 3 0.66 7.9 2.1 0.26 18.9 71.1 47 4.3

HMX 5372 4 56 81 1,615 78.0 9.2 August 30 0.71 8.6 2.1 0.19 17.8 72.6 50 4.6

GH 1887 Fl 1 50 80 1,593 79.2 9.1 August 29 0.74 8.3 2.0 0.32 19.2 70.6 50 4.6

Sequel 3 56 86 1,669 86.0 9.0 September 4 0.81 8.1 2.1 0.27 16.9 70.1 53 4.8

Excalibur 5 56 86 1,658 88.7 8.8 September 3 0.68 8.1 2.0 0.14 22.4 72.0 47 4.1

Chase 3 50 77 1,530 81.9 8.6 August 26 0.7 9.0 2.0 0.25 18.3 71.2 47 4.0

XPH 3125 3 56 81 1,615 79.7 8.2 August 30 0.75 8.5 2.1 0.31 16.7 71.8 58 4.8

Splendor 2 56 86 1,669 69.7 8.1 September 4 0.81 8.6 2.2 0.26 22.6 68.7 50 4.1

Regal ' 2 56 86 1,669 62.0 7.7 September 4 0.74 8.4 2.1 0.38 21.5 67.5 48 3.7

StylePak 5 56 86 1,669 90.9 7.5 September 4 0.7 8.1 1.9 0.32 20.5 69.3 43 3.2

GH 9056 Fl 1 56 85 1,658 60.7 7.3 September 3 0.65 8.1 2.0 0.45 21.0 71.3 46 3.4

Tracer 3 58 86 1,669 88.4 7.1 September 4 0.64 9.0 2.1 0.22 17.7 72.4 49 3.5

HMX 5373 4 56 81 1,615 75.5 7.0 August 30 0.66 8.3 2.1 0.34 17.4 75.1 43 3.0

Average 55 83 1,630 78.2 8.3 0.7 8.4 2.1 0.3 19.2 71.1 48 4.0

LSD (0.05) 9.9 1.6 0.06 0.3 0.1 0.07 0.9

61


Title: Sweet Corn Variety Evaluation

Project Leaders: J. R. Stang, HorticultureBrian Yorgey, Food Science and Technology

Project Status: Terminating June 30, 1997

Project Funding: $5,000 field trials$4.875 processing$9,875

Funds were used for research farm expenses and labor for harvesting, processing, andevaluation of corn samples.

Objectives:

To determine the production and processing potential of new introductions of sweet corn.

Report of Progress:

Replicated plot trials of standard sugary (su) and SE (sugary enhanced) corn varietieswere planted on June 3, and supersweet (sh) varieties were planted in a separate fieldon June 10. In each case, there were four single-row replications, each 30 feet longin rows three feet apart. Replications were arranged in randomized blocks. The plotsreceived 450 lbs/A of 12-29-10 fertilizer banded at planting, and a sidedress of 100lbs N as urea on 22 July. In the June 3 planting, the SE varieties were separatedfrom the su varieties by a block of SE rows to minimize the effect of the su on SEvarieties. Yellow and white varieties were grown together. Additional varieties ofeach type of corn were planted in non-replicated plots for observation and yieldestimates.

In each planting, plots were overseeded and thinned to stand about 9" apart, for apopulation of 19,000 per acre. Harvests were made at about 73% moisture for su andSE varieties and about 78% for supersweet varieties, as determined by vacuum ovenmethod. Factors observed are shown in the tables. Except for descriptiveobservations (Tables 3 and 6), and for the observation plots, all data were obtainedseparately for each replication.

Varieties which appeared to have promise for processing were canned and frozen atthe Food Science and Technology pilot plant. Objective data and panel evaluations ofprocessed corn samples will be reported at a later date.

Varieties which were noted to have sufficient merit to justify further trial are listedbelow. All these varieties were processed.

SE Varieties:

GH 1887 - refined, attractive ears, good cylindrical shape, good yield (7.7 T/A),tender, sweet, but variable, some ears are curved

GH 2684 - very good cylindrical shape, refined ears, fair yield (7.3 T/A), tender,sweet

Empire - refined ears, nice shape, very good yield (9.6 T/A), good flavor, tender

GH 2757 - attractive, uniform, refined ears, good yield (8.6 T/A), tender

Sugary (su) Varieties:

DMC 2038 - fairly uniform, attractive but poor tip fill, good yield(7.8 T/A), tough

HIvIX 5371 - uniform, refined, cylindrical ears, fair yield (6.7 T/A), tender, deepkernels

Sequel - attractive large ears with even kernels, uniform, good yield (8.0 T/A),deep kernels, tender

Jubilee - very uniform, nice looking ears, deep kernels, fair yield (7.1 T/A),good flavor

XPH 3125 - yielded very well (8.4 T/A), but poor ear uniformity was a problem.

Supersweet (sh2) Varieties:

Crisp 'n Sweet 710A - uniform, fair yield (6.5 T/A), attractive; neat ears, but fairlytough and kernels somewhat coarse

Victor - large ears, very good yield (9.4 T/A), deep kernels, but tough, andears are oval

Supersweet Jubilee - very uniform, refined, attractive ears, fair yield (7.2 T/A), verygood flavor

Krispy King - fat ears, very uniform, very good tip fill, good yield (7.9 T/A), goodflavor but tough

Bandit - good yield (8.7 T/A), deep kernels, uniform, but somewhat coarsekernels

FMX 416 - yielded very well (9.6-T/A) but had coarse kernels and misshapen ears

6 2

7. Summary:

Twenty-two SE and sugary (su)replicated or observation plots.considered to be of interest andcanned and frozen for objective

8. Signatures:

Project Leader:

Project Leader:

Department Head:

Department Head:

63

varieties and 29 supersweet varieties of corn were tested inFour SE, four sweet, and five supersweet varieties werecandidates for further testing. Fourteen varieties wereevaluations and industry panel evaluations.




Table 1. Yield and ear measurements, sugary enhancer (se) and sweet (sui) corn replicated trial, Corvallis, 1996."

Planted June 3 in rows 36" apart, thinned to 9" between plants. All values shown are means of 4 replications arranged inrandomized complete blocks. All data except cull no.

and T/A were obtained from typical husked good ears. For ear length, ear diameter, and tenderness, the value shown is the average of 10 individual ear measurements.

YSources: 1 = Rogers, 2 = Asgrow, 3 = Harris-Moran.'Endosperm type: su = sweet, se = sugary enhancer."'Varieties marked with * had no data on % moisture at harvest. Numbers shown are estimates based on sampling percents and assuming a 1% drop every two days.Tenderness determined by a spring-operated puncture gauge; lower numbers indicate more tender pericarp.

Variety Source" Type'SilkDate

Days toHarvest

%

1120" StandGood Ears Culls Lbs/

Ear

EarLength

(in.)

EarDiam.(in.)

KernelDepth(mm)

PericarpToughness'1000/A T/A No/Plant 1000/A T/A

OH 1861 1 su 7/31 88 73.5* 26 19.4 6.8 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.70 8.5 1.96 12.3 130

Chase 2 se 8/3 88 739* 26 20.1 6.7 1.1 1.6 0.4 0.67 8.8 1.93 10.4 112

DMC 2004 3 su 8/2 88 72.5* 28 23.1 6.7 1.2 3.8 0.7 0.59 8.3 1.81 11.1 139

XPH 3125 2 su 8/6 91 72.1* 27 27.6 8.4 1.4 3.6 0.7 0.62 8.1 1.93 10.6 145

OH 1887 1 se 8/6 93 69.8 29 26.1 7.7 1.3 5.1 0.9 0.60 8.2 1.94 11.5 110

Fantasia 2 se 8/7 93 72.9* 27 28.9 7.9 1.5 6.0 0.9 0.55 7.9 1.86 10.4 93

OH 2684 1 se 8/8 94 72.0 28 22.9 7.3 1.1 2.0 0.4 0.64 8.8 1.92 11.9 92

Jubilee , 1 su 8/8 95 72.8* 27 24.7 7.1 1.3 1.6 0.4 0.58 8.1 1.93 12.8 92

HMX 5371 3 su 8/8 96 75.0 27 21.2 6.7 1.1 2.4 0.4 0.64 8.4 1.91 12.1 76

DMC 2038 3 su 8/9 98 74.2 27 21.6 7.8 1.1 4.5 0.9 0.72 8.9 2.04 12.3 130

Sequel 2 su 8/8 98 74.5 27 20.1 8.0 1.0 1.6 0.4 0.80 8.6 2.10 12.5 89

Empire 1 se 8/11 99 73.6 28 29.4 9.6 1.4 3.3 0.5 0.66 8.5 1.94 12.1 78

OH 2757 1 se 8/10 100 73.3* 27 26.1 8.6 1.3 4.4 0.8 0.66 8.2 2.01 13.3 97

LSD at 5% 4.2 1.3 0.2 1.9 0.4 0.03 0.2 0.06 0.8 12

Table 2. Yield and ear measurements, sugary enhancer (se) and sweet (Rh) corn observation trial, Corvallis, 1996.2

Planted June 3 in rows 36" apart, thinned to 9" between plants. Yield estimates are from a single 20 plot. All data except cull no. and T/A were obtained from typical huskedgood ears. For ear length, ear diameter, and tenderness, the value shown is the average of 10 individual ear measurements.

rSources: 1 = Rogers, 2 = Harris-Moran, 3 = Croolcham, 4 = Galilee.Endosperm type: su = sweet, se = sugary enhancer.

"Tenderness determined by a spring-operated puncture gauge; lower numbers indicate more tender pericarp.

Variety Source'. TypeSilkDate

Days toHarvest Stand

Good Ears Culls Lbs/Ear

EarLength

(in.)

EarDiam.(in.)

'-

KernelDepth(mm)

PericarpToughness"1000/A T/A No/Plant 1000/A T/A

Silver King 1 se 8/11 99 26 28.3 7.9 1.5 2.2 0.4 0.56 7.7 1.9 11.5 97HMX 5373 recip. 2 su 8/10 99 23 29.0 8.1 1..7 3.6 0.7 0.56 7.6 1.9 10.5 87Splendor 3 su 8/10 99 27 18.2 8.2 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.91 8.8 2.1 12.5 133Eliminator 3 su 8/9 99 29 24.0 9.7 1.1 0 0 0.82 9.0 2.1 10 205Swis 13 4 se 8/11 100 28 31.2 7.7 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.50 7.4 1.8 12 98OH 7080 1 se 8/13 102 27 25.4 9.9 1.3 4.4 0.8 0.78 9.0 2.1 13 93Swis 271 4 se 8/15 105 27 31.2 9.3 1.6 3.6 1.0 0.60 7.8 1.9 11

HMX 5374 recip. 2 su 8/16 105 32 21.1 7.0 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.67 7.7 2.1 13 71.

Table 3. Descriptive observations, sugary enhancer (se) and sweet (sui) corn variety trial, Corvallis, 1996.1

,

Variety Source

KernelRefine-

ment

RowStraight-

nessTipFill

Cylind.Shape

EarUnif.

Mat.Unif.

KernelUnif. Flavor

OverallScore

Row# Notes

GH 1861 1 I 3 2 5 3.5 4 4 2.5 3 2.5 18 Most ears very curved, light color, good flavor but notsweet, early

.

Chase 2 3 3 2.5 4 2.5 4 4 3 3 14-16 Good color, many curved ears, slightly sweet, longears, shallow kernels, early

DMC 2004 3 3 2 4 2 2.5 4 2.5 2 2.5 18 Very pointed ears, good color, tough

XPH 3125 2 3.5 2 3.5-5 4 1.5 2.5 2 4 2 16 Highly variable, uneven kernels, curved ears, palecolor, tough, good yield, shallow kernels

OH 1887 1 4 2 3 3 3.5 3.5 2.5 4 3.5 18-20 Most ears are neat and uniform but significant numberare below standard and rough

Fantasia 2 3.5 3 5 4.5 2 2.5 3.5 5 2.5 18 White, quite variable but some very nice ears, verygood flavor, small ears, shallow kernels, tender

GH 2864 1 4.5 3 3 4.5 3 3 4 4.5 4 16 Good looking ears, good flavor, tender

Jubilee 1 4 3.5 4 4 3 2.5 4 4.5 4 16 May have been picked too early--yield is down andthere are many immature ears

HMX 5371 3 4.5 2.5 3 4 3 4.5 3 3.5 3.5 16-20 Very tender, low yield

DMC 2038 3 4.5 3 2.5 3.5 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 16-20 Very nice looking large ears, worst fault is poor tipfill, tough, some ears with slight curve

Sequel 2 3 4 4 4 4 4.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 16-20 Attractive large ears, even kernels, most have slightcurve, tender

Empire 1 4 3.5 3 4 3 2 2.5 4 3.5 16 Very good yield, generally refined ears, tender

GH 2757 1 3.5 4 3.5 4 3_ 4 3.5 3.5 4 18 Good yield, very deep kernels, tender

Table 3. Descriptive observations, sugary enhancer (se) and sweet (sui) corn variety trial, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.).'

Planted June 3. Scores 1-5 scale, 5 = best. Overall score, related to general characteristics of harvested ears, is based on processing potential and does not necessarily reflect homegarden potential.

YSources: 1 = Rogers, 2 = Asgrow, 3 = Harris-Moran, 4 = Crookham, 5 = Galilee.

Variety Source

KernelRefine-

ment

RowStraight-

nessTipFill

Cylind.Shape

EarUnif.

Mat.Unif.

KernelUnif. Flavor

OverallScore

Row# Notes

Silver King 1 4.5 4 4.5 4 3.5 4.5 4 4.5 4 18-20 White, some off-type ears with serious gaps in butt end,otherwise very uniform, small ears, good flavor, tender

HMX 5373Recip.

3 4 3 4 4 3.5 4.5 3 4 3.5 18-20 White, small, refined ears, shallow kernels, tender

Splendor 4 3 1.5 3.5 3 2 4 2 3.5 2.5 20-22 Very uneven rows, some ears have slight bulge inmiddle, some curved, large ears

Eliminator 4 2.5 4 2.5 3.5 2.5 4 3.5 3 3 18-20 Very tough, somewhat coarse looldng earsSwis 13 5 4 4 3.5 3.5 2.5 4 4 3 2.5 16-18 Very hard to pick, ears are very small, many curved,

poor yieldOH 7080 1 4 3 1-4 2.5 2.5 3 4 3.5 3 18-22 Some curved ears, most with very poor tip fill, pale

color, tender, very good yield, deep kernelsSwis 271 5 4.5 3.5 1-4 2.5 3 4 4 3.5 3 18-20 Variable, best are very nice small ears but many are

curved with poor tip fill, some oval, good yieldHMX 5374Recip.

3 5 4 1 2-4 4 3.5 4 3 2.5 16-18 Variable shape, poor tip fill, poor yield, very nice smalldeep kernels

Planted May 17 in rows 36" apart, th'nned to 9" between plants. All values shown are means of 4 replications arranged in randomized comple e blocks. All data exceptcull no. and T/A were obtained from typical husked good ears. For ear length, ear diameter, and tenderness, the value used for each replication was the average of 10individual ear measurements. All varieties are yellow.

YSources: 1 = Rogers, 2 = Asgrow, 3 = Crookham, 4 = Ferry-Morse, 5 = Harris-Moran.

Warieties marked with * had no data on % moisture at harvest. Numbers shown are estimates based on sampling percents and assuming a 1% drop every 2 days.

"Tenderness determined by a spring-operated puncture gauge; lower numbers indicate more tender pericarp.

Lbs/Ear

EarLength

(in.)

EarDiam.(in.)

KernelDepth(mm)

PericarpToughness"

0.73 7.8 2.03 12.3 148

0.58 8.9 1.76 10.4 114

0.66 8.4 1.96 11.9 111

0.62 8.4 1.95 11.0 135

0.60 8.0 1.93 11.8 129

0.59 8.4 1.89 12.4 101

0.72 9.0 1.98 11.6 141

0.85 8.4 2.14 12.3 143

0.76 8.5 2.08 13.3 150

0.71 7.8 2.03 13.1 149

0.81 8.1 2.25 12.3 132

0.06 0.2 0.09 0.7 12

Table 4. Yield and ear

Variety

measurements,

SourceSilkDate

supersweet

Days toHarvest

(sh2) corn

I-120'

replicated

Stand

trial, Corvallis, 1996.'

Good Ears Culls1000/A T/A No/Plant 1000/A T/A

'Crispy King 1 8/12 91 78.9 27 22.1 8.0 1.1 0.7 0.1Shaker 2 8/13 92 78.0 27 19.6 5.7 1.0 2.9 0.6Marvel 3 8/12 92 77.5* 26 23.1 7.5 1.2 2.7 0.4710A 3 8/12 93 78.9 27 21.4 6.6 1.1 2.5 0.5GSS 9299 1 8/12 93 77.7* 26 20.9 6.2 1.1 2.5 0.4Supersweet Jubilee 1 8/15 95 77.7 25 24.7 7.2 1.4 0.7 0.2Missouri 3 8/13 95 77.5* 25 19.4 6.9 1.1 2.4 0.5Victor 4 8/14 98 77.3 28 22.3 9.4 1.1 1.8 0.4Trigger 3 8/16 98 77.9 28 20.0 7.5 1.0 1.1 0.2Bandit 5 8/15 98 78.0 27 24.9 8.7 1.3 1.8 0.4FMX 416 4 8/15 99 77.5* 28 24.0 9.6 1.2 4.0 0.7

LSD at 5% 2.7 1.0 0.2 1.8 0.3

Table 5. Yield and ear measurements, supersweet (sh2) corn observation trial, Corvallis, 1996.'

Silk Days to Good Ears Culls Lbs/Ear

LengthEar

Diam.KernelDepth Pericarp

Variety Source' Date Harvest Stand 1000/A T/A No/Plant 1000/A T/A Ear (in.) (in.) (mm) Toughness"

Sheba 1 8/5 85 30 24.7 6.8 1.1 5.1 0.7 0.56 8.3 1.8 11.5 123

Endeavor 1 8/11 92 29 21.1 6.2 1.0 0 0 0.59 7.7 1.9 9.0 154

ACX 95CN220 2 8/12 93 31 21.1 5.8 0.9 2.9 0.6 0.56 8.3 1.9 10.5 100

HMX 5376S 3 8/14 95 26 29.8 9.3 1.6 1.5 0.2 0.63 8.4 1.9 11.5 160

ACX 95CN208 2 8/14 95 26 26.9 7.6 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.57 8.1 1.9 10.5 96

GS 94 4 8/14 95 20 22.5 5.4 1.5 2.9 2.6 0.48 7.2 1.8 11.0 133

ACX 95CN200 2 8/14 95 27 26.9 9.0 1.4 1.5 0.2 0.68 8.7 2.0 12.0 138

XPH 3129 1 8/14 95 25 16.0 6.7 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.84 9.0 2.1 13.0 155

XPH 3083 1 8/16 99 23 18.2 4.8 1.1 0 0 0.53 7.7 1.9 11.5 85

HMX 53755 3 8/15 99 23 26.9 7.7 1.6 0 0 0.58 7.8 1.9 13.0 90

XPH 3079 1 8/15 99 22 16.7 5.1 1.0 1.5 0.3 0.62 8.1 1.9 12.0 93

Ultra 2 8/15 99 30 30.5 9.6 1.4 0 0 0.64 8.0 2.0 12.5 94

FMX 435 5 8/15 99 31 24.7 9.2 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.75 8.9 2.1 12.5 113

HMX 53775 3 8/15 99 28 18.9 5.7 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.61 8.4 1.9 10.0 118

Shis 28 4 8/15 99 27 . 14.5 4.7 0.7 3.6 0.9 0.65 8.1 1.9 11.5 136

Maverick 1 8/17 100 25 17.4 4.7 1.0 2.9 0.6 0.55 8.3 1.9 12.0 110

Mecca 1 8/18 100 22 16.0 5.4 1.0 5.8 1.0 0.69 9.1 2.0 13.0 63

Table 5. Yield and ear measurements, supersweet (sh2) corn observation trial, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.).'

'Planted June 10 in rows 36" apart, thinned to 9" between plants. Y'eld estimates are from a single 20' plo . All data except cull no. and T/A were obtainedfrom typical husked good ears. For ear length, ear diameter, and tenderness, the value shown is the average of 10 individual ear measurements. All varietiesare yellow except Crystal, which is white, and XPH 3129, which is bi-colored.

YSources: 1 = Asgrow, 2 = Abbott and Cobb, 3 = Harris-Moran, 4 = Galilee, 5 = Ferry-Morse.

'Comparative scale determined by a spring-operated puncture gauge; lower numbers indicate more tender pericarp.

Silk Days to Good Ears Culls Lbs/Ear

LengthEar

Diam.KernelDepth Pericarp

Variety Source). Date Harvest Stand 1000/A T/A No/Plant 1000/A T/A Ear (in.) (in.) (mm) Toughness'

Crystal 1 1 8/17 100 27 15.2 4.9 0.8 2.2 0.4 0.65 8.0 2.0 12.0 65

HMX 5378S 3 8/18 100 24 17.4 5.9 0.9 1.5 0.1 0.75 8.8 2.0 12.5 105

Shis 111 4 8/18 100 29 24.7 6.9 1.2 3.6 0.7 0.57 7.4 1.9 12.0 83

ACX 95CN207 2 8/19 100 29 20.3 7.9 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.78 8.9 2.0 10.5 113

Table 6. Descriptive observations, supersweet (sh2) corn trial, Corvallis, 1996.z

Variety Source,

KernelRefine-

ment

RowStraight-

nessTipFill

Cylind.Shape

EarUnit'.

Mat.Unif.

KernelUnif. Flavor

OverallScore

Row# Notes

'Crispy King 1 2.5 3 4.5 3 3 3 2 4 3.5 16-20 Picks with shank which is hard to remove, short fat ears,tough, sweet, deep kernels

Shaker 2 4.5 3.5 3 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 2.5 18 Poor yield, shallow kernels, ears have slight curve

Marvel 3 1.5 2.5 4.5 3 2.5 3.5 3 3.5 2.5 18-20 Some lodging in field, ears have constricted area, coarsekernels

710A 3 2.5 4 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 16-18 Uniform, good ears except kernels somewhat coarse

GSS 9299 1 4.5 2.5 2.5 4 3 3.5 2.5 4.5 3 18 Ears short, some very short (6"), 3 spades (out of 25),some curved

SupersweetJubilee

1 4.5 4 4 4.5 3.5 4 3.5 4.5 4.5 18 Many good second ears, very nice looking, tender, sweet,deep kernels

Missouri 3 1.5 3 2-4 3.5 2 3 2 4 2 Variable, many curved ears, too coarse, pale color, longears

Victor 4 3 3.5 5 2.5 3.5 4 4 4 3.5 18 Good yield, large ears, somewhat coarse, oval ears, tough,deep kernels

Trigger 3 4 2.5 3.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 3 3.5 16-20 Less than 1 good ear per plant, pale color, pointed kernels,tough

Bandit 5 2.5 3.5 4 3 3.5 3 4 3 3.5 16 Good yield, somewhat coarse kernels, short ears, deepkernels, tough

FMX 416 4 1.5 2 4.5 2.5 3 4 4 3.5 2.5 16-20 Some curved ears, very coarse kernels, many misshapen,fat ears, good yield

Sheba 2 2 2 2-5 2 1.5 2 2 3.5 2 14 Very early, highly variable, tapered ears, some curved,sweet, possibly good home garden

Endeavor 2 2.5 3 4 3.5 3 3 3 2.5 2.5 16-18 Coarse looking, pale color, small ears, shallow kernels

Table 6. Descriptive observations, supersweet (sh2) corn trial, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.).'

Variety Source'

KernelRefine-

ment

RowStraight-

nessTipFill

Cylind.Shape

EarUnit*.

Mat.Unif.

KernelUnif. Flavor

OverallScore

RowIt Notes

ACX 95CN220 6 3.5 1.5 3.5 4.5 3 3 2 3.5 2.5 16-18 Small kernels but ears look rough and unrefined becauseof jumbled rows and uneven kernels

HMX 5376S 5 4 3 3-4 4 2.5 3 3.5 3.5 3.0 16-20 Good yield, many good second ears, some green tips,some curved ears, tough

ACX 95CN208 6 4 2.5 4 3 3.5 3 1.5 3 2.5 18 Uneven kernels make ears look very rough, tenderGS94 7 4 4 3 3 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 16 Poor yield, very small ears, tough, pale colorACX 95CN200 6 2.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4 4 3 2.5 2.5 20 Ears are curved, some severely, good size and yield,

poor flavor, toughXPH 3129 2 3.5 3 5 2.5 4 4 3.5 2 2.5 20 Bi-color, big ears but some blind plants, no second

ears, oval, poor flavor, toughXPH 3083 2

.

4 3 4.5 4 2 4 3.5 4 2.5 16 Very poor yield, small ears, only 14 good quality earsfrom 23 plants, weak plants, very tight husk cover

HMX 5375S 5 3.5 3.5 2-5 3.5 2.5 3 3 4 3 16-18 Variable, some curved ears, deep kernels, tenderXPH 3079 2 3.5 3 4 2 3 4 3.5 4 3 18 Ears too tapered, some oval, pale color, poor yieldUltra 6 3.5 3 4 4 4 4 3 4.5 4 18-20 Good yield, uniform, very good flavor, tenderFMX 435 4 4 3.5 4 3 2 4 3.5 4.5 3 20-22 Variable, oval, several ears are almost spades, long

ears, good yieldHMX 5377S 5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4 4.5 4 2.5 3 16-18 Less than 1 good ear per plant, shallow kernels, off-

flavor

Shis 28 7 3 3 3 2.5 '1,5 4 3.5 4 2.5 18-20 Variable, several curved ears, 1 spade, poor yieldMaverick 2 4 4 3.5 4 4 3 4 4 3 16 Very poor yield but neat, uniform, attractive earsMecca 2 3 3.5 2.5 4 3 3.5 3 4 3 16-18 Several curved ears, some severely, deep kernels, very

tender,

Table 6. Descriptive observations, supersweet (sh) corn trial, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.).'

rPlanted June 10. Scores 1-5 scale, 5 = best. Overall score related to general characteristics of harvested ears, is based on processing potential and does not necessarily reflect homegarden potential.

YSources: 1 = Rogers, 2 = Asgrow, 3 = Crookham, 4 = Ferry-Morse, 5 = Harris-Moran, 6 = Abbott and Cobb, 7 = Galilee.

Variety Source

KernelRefine-ment

RowStraight-

nessTipFill

Cylind.Shape

EarUnif.

Mat.Unif.

KernelUnif. Flavor

OverallScore

Row# Notes

Crystal 2 4 1-4 2-5 4 2 4 2 4.5 2.5 14-22 Quite variable, best ears are very refined and attractive,worst have badly jumbled rows, very tender

HMX 5378S 5 3 3.5 2 3 2.5 3.5 3 3.5 2.5 18-20 Very tough shanks are hard to remove, some ears verycurved

Shis 111 7 4.5 2 3 1-3 2.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 20-24 Very small ears, mostly very tapered, tender

ACX 95CN207 6 4 3 3 2.5 3 2 2.5 3 3 20 Large ears, shallow kernels, too tapered, uneven kernels

7 4

Table 7. Seedling vigor scores, sugary enhancer (se) and sweet (su,) corn trial,Corvallis, 1996.'

'Planted June 3, scored June 13. Scores 1-5 scale, 5 = most vigorous.

VarietyScores

Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 AV

GH 1861 2 3 2 2 2.25

Chase 2 3 3 2 2.50

DMC 2004 4 4 4 3 3.75

XPH 3125 2 2 3 2 2.25

GH 1887 3 3 4 3 3.25

Fantasia 3 3 3 2 2.75

GH 2684 3 3 3 3 3.00

Jubilee 3 3 3 2 2.75

HMX 5371 4 3 3 3 3.25

DMC 2038 3 3 2 2 2.50

Sequel 3 3 3 3 3.00

Empire 3 3 3 2 2.75

GH 2757 2 2 3 3 2.50

7 5

Table 8. Seedling vigor scores, supersweet (sh) corn trial, Corvallis, 1996.'

VarietyScores


Krispy King 2 3 4 3 3.0

Shaker 2 3 2 3 2.5

Marvel 1 2 2 2 1.75

710A 4 2 3 3 3.0

GSS 9299 4 3 3 2 3.0

SupersweetJubilee

1 2 1 1 1.25

Ivfissouri 1 1 1 1 1.0

3 2.75

HMX 5375S 3

XPH 3079 1

Ultra 3

FMX 435 1

HMX 5377S 1

7 6

Table 8. Seedling vigor scores, supersweet (sh) corn trial, Corvallis, 1996 (cont.):

Planted June 10, scored June 18. Scores 1-5 scale, 5 = most vigorous.

.

VarietyScores


Shis 28 2

Maverick 3

Mecca 2

Crystal 2

RMX 5378S 1

_

Shis 111 2

ACX 95CN207 4I

GH 1861Chase

DMC 2004XPH 3125

GH 1887FantasiaGH 2684

JubileeHMX 5371DMC 2038

SequelEmpire

GH 2757LSD at 5%

GH 1861Chase

DMC 2004XPH 3125

GH 1887FantasiaGH 2684

JubileeHMX 5371DMC 2038

SequelEmpire

GH 2757LSD at 5%

77

Figure 1. SUGARY & SE CORN YIELDREPLICATED 1996

TOUGHNESS READING

0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10

TONS/ACRE

Figure 2- SUGARY & SE CORN TOUGHNESSREPLICATED 1996

25 50 75 100 125 150

Figure 3.

Krispy KingShakerMarvel

710AGSS 9299

SS JubileeMissouri

VictorTriggerBandit

FMX 416LSD at 5%

Figure 4.

Krispy KingShakerMarvel

710AGSS 9299

SS JubileeMissouri

VictorTriggerBandit

FMX 416LSD at 5%

78

SUPERSWEET CORN YIELDREPLICATED 1996

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TONS/ACRE

SUPERSWEET CORN TOUGHNESSREPLICATED 1996

25 50 75 100 125 150

TOUGHNESS READING

Silver King

HMX 5373 R

Splendor

Eliminator

Swis 13

GH 7080

Swis 271

HMX 5374 R

ShebaEndeavor

ACX 95CN220HMX 5376S

ACX 95CN208GS 94

ACX 95CN200XPH 3129XPH 3083

HMX 5375SXPH 3079

UltraFMX 435

HMX 5377SShis 28

MaverickMecca

CrystalHMX 5378S

Shis 111ACX 95CN207

79

Figure 5. SUGARY & SE CORN YIELDOBSERVATION PLOTS 1996

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TONS/ACRE

Figure 6. SUPERSWEET CORN YIELDOBSERVATION PLOTS 1996

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TONS/ACRE

80

Research Report to theAgriculture Research Foundation

and theOregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Title: Vegetation Management in Sweet Corn

Project Leaders: Ray William and Ed Peachey, Horticulture DepartmentProject Status: YearlyProject funding: $12,850 (1 year)

Objectives

Evaluate Surpass (acetochlor), Frontier (dimethenamid), Tough (pyridate), and Accent(nicosulfuron), for weed control and crop tolerance, and develop appropriate weed controlprograms to minimize impact of atrazine tolerant weeds and proso millet.

Determine tolerance of sweet corn to propane flaming with emphasis on earlypostemergence applications.

Determine impact of cover crop residues on weed emergence, herbicide efficacy, and sweetcorn growth in both minimum tillage and conventional tillage systems.

Evaluate a novel four-row planter design for planting in conventional tillage and no-tillenvironments in several different cover crop residues.

Progress

1.1. Sweet corn tolerance to herbicides (Table 1)

Tolerance of Super Sweet Jubilee and Golden Jubilee sweet corn to 'herbicides wasevaluated at the Vegetable Research Farm at Corvallis. Dyfonate was preplant incorporated at thissite and sweet corn planted on June 3. Corn seedlings were thinned to nearly equal stands afterthe initial emergence evaluation, and weed competition minimized with cultivation and handhoeing thereafter.

Frontier injury was greatest when applied PPI, a trend that has been evident the last threeyears but with some exceptions. Surpass was less likely to injure sweet corn than Frontier. Injurywas seldom noted with Dual II. Accent injury was much greater than in previous years' research.No cob injury was observed in 1995 with the same set of treatments whether the herbicide wasdirected or broadcast. Tough injury was usually visible just after application but did notsignificantly reduce yield. Tough plus Accent plus atrazine significantly injured sweet corn early inthe season and caused a few multiple ears to form, but did not reduce yield.

81

1,2. Wildroso mMampMNA__.-olitfIlsweetcorn Table 2

A site was selected near Stayton with a very uniform population of WPM. Insecticideswere not used in this trial. Sweet corn was planted on May 30 and growers and fieldrepresentatives participated in evaluation.

Surpass controlled WPM better than Frontier, and Frontier controlled WPM better thanDual. Treatments with good preemergence WPM control included Eradicane PPI plusSurpass/Frontier. At harvest, Eradicane PPI plus Surpass controlled WPM as well as Accent.Accent alone suppressed WPM, but control was not complete at harvest unless in combinationwith another herbicide.

1.3. Atrazine tolerant pigweed control in sweet corn (Table 3)

Sweet corn was planted June 9 on a well drained sandy loam soil with relatively loworganic matter content and low cation exchange capacity. Pigweed was moderately tolerant ofatrazitie at this site. Insecticides were not applied.

Frontier plus atrazine completely controlled pigweed throughout the season even thougha moderate level of atrazine tolerance was noted. Dual plus atrazine controlled 95 percent of thepigweed. Frontier alone controlled pigweed better than Dual whether PPI, PES or as a splitapplication. Surpass however, was the most effective of the chloroacetimides Dual and Frontier.

The most effective pigweed treatment at harvest was Surpass (PES) + Accent (POST).Peak (prosulfuron) or Battalion (halosulfuron) applied postemergence after Dual significantlyimproved pigweed control. Accent controlled pigweed very well. Applying Tough with Accent didnot improve pigweed control at this site compared to Accent alone, but may broaden the spectrumto weeds such as lambsquarter. Battalion and Peak will probably need to applied as directedtreatments to minimize injury. Battalion can also be applied preemergence with little risk of injury.Tough must be applied before corn exceeds 10 inches.

2.1. Tolerance of sweet corn to propane flaming (Tables 4 & 5)

Golden Jubilee sweet corn was planted at the Vegetable Research Farm in 45 by 10 ftplots with four replications. Atrazine was applied to half of each plot to minimize the effect ofweed competition on the yield of propane flamed sweet corn.

Propane was applied at 10 and 20 PSI at three stages: 1) > 50 % cotyledon leavesshowing; 2) cotyledon plus one true led; and 3) at two true leaves. Corn growth at 4 weeks afterplanting was not affected when propane was applied with approximately 50 percent of the cornseedlings visible and no more than the cotyledon leaf exposed. Injury increased substantially at thethird flaming. Propane applied just as the corn was emerging did not significantly reduce sweetcorn yield. Sweet corn yield was reduced by the higher rates of propane. Pigweed and purslanecontrol averaged nearly 60 and 95 percent, respectively if the soil was flamed just as the corn wasemerging (Trs. 1 and 2).

8 2

3.1. Cover cro and tilla e im acts on weeds and sweet corn owth Table 6

Cover crops were planted in the fall of 1995, and killed in April of 1996. Treatments

included flailed or unflailed cover crops, winter fallow with no cover crop, and one treatment

plowed and rototilled.

Corn yield in this experiment was moderate to poor on average, and very low on one side

of the field that was under water during the flood in February. Corn emergence was similar across

treatments, but generally improved if the cover crop residue was flailed before planting. Corn

growth was much more vigorous if the soil was plowed, and sweet corn in the plowed treatment

yielded higher than all other treatments except the unflailed Micah barley. Average ear weight was

also highest in the plowed treatment. Flailing the cover crop residue had little impact on sweet

corn yield, with one exception. Flailing theMicah barley treatment significantly reduced yield.

The upright and short stature of this spring barley and partial winter-kill removed many leaves and

may have allowed more soil warming, therefore improving corn growth. Flailing this cereal

residue increased soil coverage and decreased corn growth. Treatments with common vetch

tended to form a mat on the soil surface.

Triticale plus crimson clover and the Micah barley residue controlled weeds best. Cover

crops with a legume did not suppress weeds as well as cereal cover crops alone. Dual or Frontierapplied over cover crop residues completely controlled most weeds and was a significant

improvement compared to the same herbicides applied over conventionally tilled soil.

4.1. Cross-slot planter performance

A four-row cross-slot planter was tested for direct seeding of snap beans, corn, and

squash into undisturbed soil and cover crop residues. This planter performed well when planting

into untilled soil but tended to 'plow' in the tilled soil because of uneven down-pressure amongthe four openers. The best success has been with squash and snap beans. Sweet corn growth and

yield was much better in 1995 than this year in the same treatments. Fertilizer rates were nearly

the same in the two years but in 1995 nearly all of the nitrogen and phosphorus were applied at

planting. Uneven seed depth placement is a concern with these openers and may contribute to the

difficulty of growing sweet corn in untilled soil.

Summary

Frontier PPI reduced sweet corn yield. Injury from Accent was more common this year

than last, and reduced yields whether directed or broadcast. The broadcast application of Accent

did minimize damage to the corn ears. Stress initiated by a very hot period just after application in

this trial may have exacerbated injury to the corn. Careful attention to irrigation may be essential if

Accent is applied later in the season.

Surpass PES plus EradicanePPFAccent POST controlled wild proso millet very well but

cost approximately $40 and $50/acre, respectively. Accent must be used in conjunction with other

strategies or herbicides to obtain full season proso millet control. Frontier controls manybroadleaves better than Dual; an exception is very poor lambsquarter control. Tough, Battalion

and Peak are postemergence herbicides that will improve triazine tolerant broadleaf control withDual or Frontier if registered.

Propane flaming sweet corn just as it was emerging may have reduced yield but the resultswere inconsistent. Flaming at the two leaf stage significantly reduced sweet corn yield.

The yield of sweet corn planted into undisturbed cover crop residue was comparable toyield of corn planted into plowed and rototilled soil, but only in one of four cover croptreatments. Flailing the residue did not improve corn yield and even decreased it in the barley only

cover crop treatment.

Table 1. Jubilee sweet corn tolerance to selected herbicide treatments, Vegetable Research Farm.

11 Values in the same column followed by the same letter are not statistically different from the untreated check using number of ears as the covariant.

Herbicide Timing Rate n Number Grossof ears yield

Ear quality Tip fill Maturity

lbs ai/ac -t/ac- (10=normal) (10=--filled) (10=mature)

1. Dimethenamid PPI 1.2 3 17 6.8 1 10 7 10

2. Dimethenamid PES 1.2 3 18 7.8 a 10 8 10

3. Dimethenamid PPI 0.8 3 18 8.0 a 10 10 10

Dimethenaznid PES 0.4

4. Metolachlor II PPI 2.0 2 18 8.1 a 10 10 10

5. Metolachlor II PES 2.0 2 18 7.7 a 10 5 10

6. Metolachlor II PPI 2.0 3 21 8.9a 10 9 9

Metolachlor II PES 2.0

7. Metolachlor H PPI 2.0 3 19 8.5 a 10 8 10

Dimethenamid PES 1.2

8. Acetochlor PPI 2.0 4 17 7.2 a 1.0 10 10

9. Acetochlor PES 2.0 3 20 8.3 a 10 7.-

9


Pyridate EPOST 0.47


Nicosulfuron (directed) POSTD 0.031

12. Metolachlor II PES 2.0 2 16 6.0 4 7 6

Nicosulfuron (broadcast) POSTB 0.031

13. Metolachlor 11 PES 2.0 3 16 7.0 a 10 8 10

Prosulfuron (broadcast) POST 0.0179

14. Metolachlor 11 PES 2.0 2 19 8.1a 10 9 9

Prosulfuron (directed) POSTD 0.0179

15. Atrazine PES 1.0 2 19 8.2 10 7 10

16. Untreated check 18 7.9a 10 10 10

FPLSD (0.05) NS NS 0.6 NS NS

8 4

Table 2. Proso millet control in sweet corn. Selected treatments from the trial at Stayton.

Frontier + atrazine = Guardsman2 Dual II + atrazine = Bleep II3 Number in ( ) is number of plots of this treatment (from total of 4) that suppressed millet growth comparable to the growers treatment at harvest4 Accent not applied at this point in time.5 FOE 5043 + Sencor = Axiom

Herbicide Timing Rate Proso milletemergence(3 WAP)

Millet seed culm Grower evaluationweight of growth and weed control

(harvest) (5 WAP)

lb/A no./11 ft2 5 = excellent;1= unacceptable

1. Frontier PPI 1.2 15 1.1

2. Frontier PES 1.2 11 1.2

3. Frontier' PES 1.2 6 - 2.6Atrazine 1.3

4. Dual II PPI 2.00 20 1.1

5. Dual II PES 2.00 49 1.0

6. Dual II PPI 2.00 1 2.7Dual II PES 2.00

7. Dual H2 PES 2.0 41 1.0Atrazine PES 1.1

8. Dual II PPI 2 2 30(3) 3 4.1Frontier PES 1.2

9. Surpass PPI 2 2 3.6

10. Surpass PES 2 1 69 (2) 3.6

11. Surpass PES 2.0 NA4 0 (3) 4.9Accent EPOST 0.031

12. Surpass PES 2.0 0 8 (4) 4.5Eradicane PPI

13. Frontier PES 1.2 1 58 (2) 3.8Eradicane PPI 4.2

14. Dual II PES 2.0 5 55 (3) 3.5Eradicane PPI 4.2

15. FOE 50435 PES 16 oz 11 - 3.1Sencor

16. FOE 5043 PES 18 oz 9 2.5Sencor

17. Prowl PES 1.5 8 3.0Atrazine PES 0.5

18. Check 21 0.9FPLSD (0.05) 33

Frontier + atrazine = Guardsman2 alal + atrazine = Bicep3 FOE 5043 + Sencor = Axiom4 FOE 5043 +metribuzin applied at 13 or 15 oz of product/ac.

85

Table 3. Preplant incorporated and premergence pigweed control 4 WAP. Selected treatmentsfrom the site at Monroe.

Herbicide Timing Rate Pigweed

4 WAP Harvest

lbs ai/ac % control

1. Frontier PPI 0.94 80 73

2. Frontier PES 0.94 100 99

3. Frontier' PES 0.94 98 100Atrazine 1.06

4. Dual II PPI 1.46 60 43

5. Dual 11 PES 1.46 71 61

6. Dual 2 PES 1.46 91 95Atrazine PES 1.18

7. Surpass PPI 1.25 93 85

8. Surpass PES 1.25 95 92

9. Surpass PES 1.25 86 75Atrazine PES 1.18

10. FOE 50433 PES 13 oz/acre4 79 53Metribuzin

11. FOE 5043 PES 15 oz acre 80 65Metribuzin

12. Atrazine PES 1.18 53 51

13. Check 0 0

FPLSD (0.05) 19 26

86

Table 4 Early season corn growth and weed control with propane flaming.

Table 5. Effect of propane flaming on sweet corn yield.

50% of seedlings visible at this application.2 Values followed by the same letter do not differ with Duncan's Multiple Range Test (0.05).

Corn stage Propane rate No. ofobs.

Yield No. ears Average earwt

-psi- -tons/ac- no./5m

1. Just emerging 10 2.3 4 10.62 abc 26 344 abc

2. Just emerging 20 4.6 2 10.9 abc -26 363 ab

3.1-2 leaf 10 2.3 4 9.8 bc 25 330c

4. 1-2 leaf 20 4.6 4 11.4 ab 29 339 bc

5. 2-3 leaf 10 2.3 3 9.3 c 24 329c

6. 2-3 leaf 20 4.6 3 9.9 bc 26 321 c

7. No flaming 7 11.8 a 27 372a

Anova (treatment) 0.01 0.25 0.003

Corn stage Propane rate Growthreduction(4 WAP)

Pigweedcontrol

(4 WAP)

Purslanecontrol

(4 WAP)

-psi- gPa1. Just emergingl 10 2.3 0 63 90

2. Just emerging 20 4.6 0 55 100

3.1-2 leaf 10 2.3 25 48 83

4. 1-2 leaf 20 4.6 20 55 100

5. 2-3 leaf 10 2.3 35 55 100

6. 2-3 leaf 20 4.6 40 75 90

LSD (0.05) 22 ns ns

Simtures

Project Leaders/

Department Head

87

Table 6. Sweet corn yield response to cover crop residue and tillage.

Cover croptreatment

Emergence No earsharvested

Avg. ear wt Ear yield

no./3 ft no./16.6 ft

1. Micah barley flailed 10.3 16.3 407.5 7.7

unflailed 9.0 19.3 401.3 9.0

2. Micah barley &common vetch

flailed 12.0 15.0 419.0 7.4

iinflailed 10.8 14.8 411.0 7.2

3. Ffesk barley &common vetch

flailed 12.5 15.8 429.8 6.3

unflailed 9.5 13.0 407.5 6.2

4. Triticale &cr. clover

flailed 11.3 15.8 423.0 7.7

unflailed 9.3 16.3 415.0 7.9

5. Fallow flailed 11.0 16.5 407.5 7.9

unflailed 11.0 16.5 392.3 7.6

6. Fallow plus tillage tilled 9.8 17.1 450.7 9.0

FPLSD(0.05) us us ns ns



88


1. Title: Broccoli Breeding

2. Project Leader: J. R. Baggett, Horticulture

3. Project Status: Terminating June 30, 1997

4. Project Funding: $5,000

Funds were used for research farm expenses, student labor for pollination in the greenhouseand field plot work, and provided partial support of one vegetable breeding technician.

5. Objectives:

Develop broccoli varieties for processing in western Oregon stressing:

Elongate habit with exserted heads, easily accessible for harvest

Large, openly branched and segmented heads with heavy, clean stems for easytrimming and separation into spears or chunks

Small, firm, uniform florets with short pedicels and good color which are retainedafter freezing

Early to mid-season maturity, concentrated high yield potential

Club root and downy mildew resistance

6. Report of Progress:

A. Emphasis in 1996 was on evaluation of F6 families from crosses made in 1991between OSU material and the commercial hybrids 'Arcadia', 'Emerald City', and'Marathon'. Many of these new lines are very promising for head and plant type andappear to be retaining good size as they are inbred, as summarized in Table 1. Of 60families planted, 30 were saved and propagated for self-pollination in the greenhouse.Because of the use of commercial hybrids as parents, the chance exists for newincompatibility factors which could facilitate developing usable F1 hybrids.

Evaluation of our newer inbred lines continued, both by direct observation and byevaluation of experimental hybrids made by crossing them with several of the OSU240-5 sublines. Because the future direction and scope of the program was notknown at the time, all 17 of these lines were retained (15 of these were released tobroccoli breeders in 1994, along with nine OSU 240-5 sublines, to facilitate

89

development of commercially usable F1 hybrids with the high exertion, segmentedcharacter considered of promise for processing;the released inbred lines were sent tobreeders at Harris-Moran, Ferry-Morse, Asgrow, Rogers, Bejo, Salcata, Takii,Shamrock, Peto, Royal Sluis, and Daehnfeldt seed companies).

B. Commercial variety observations are reported in Table 2. In that table, varieties withan overall score of 3.5 or over are considered to be worth including in future trials,but while these scores reflect some outstanding attributes, they do not fully reflectprocessing potential. Varieties receiving scores of 3.5 or better in 1996 were HMX1134, Barbados, Hi-Caliber, Pinnacle, and Shogun.

Summary:

Selection continued on a new cycle of inbred lines derived from crosses of OSU lines with'Arcadia', 'Emerald City', and 'Marathon'. Evaluations resulted in the retention of 30 ofthese lines. Seventeen earlier inbreds were evaluated by direct observation and by producingand observing experimental crosses between these lines and OSU 240-5 sublines. All ofthese inbreds were saved. Of the commercial varieties evaluated, HMX 1134, Barbados, Hi-Caliber, Pinnacle, and Shogun were considered to be worth further testing.

Signatures:

Project Leader:,f

Department Head:



Table 1. Performance of OSU broccoli breeding lines, Corvallis, 1996.'

Breeding LineMat.Date Score" Florets

Size(in.)

Exser-tionx

HeadStemColor Notes

91-203-2-1-1-1 10/8 3.5 fine, even 8 G G Deep-branched, not highly segmented

91-203-2-1-2-1 10/1 3.0 fine 10 G G Deep-branched, segments loose and uneven

91-203-2-1-2-2 10/8 3.0 fine 10 G F Good size and weight, slightly soft

91-203-2-1-2-3 10/7 3.5 fine 10 G G Segments somewhat uneven

91-203-2-1-3-2 10/8 3.5 v. fine, even 10 F-G G Not highly segmented

91-203-2-1-4-1 10/1 3.5 fine 8 G G Dome, segments not well separated

91-203-2-1-4-3 10/6 3.5 fine, even 8-10 VG VG Good size and weight, deep-branched

91-203-2-1-5-1 10/1 2.5 fine, even 6-7 G G

91-203-2-1-6-2 10/8 4.0 fine, even 8-10 VG VG Tall, deep-branched, segmented dome



91-203-2-1-6-5 10/8 4.0 fine, even 8-10 VG VG Tall, deep-branched, segmented *dome

91-203-2-2-2-2 10/7 3.0 fine, even 8 G G Tight segments, some rosettes

91-203-2-2-2-4 10/9 2.5 med., even 6 G G Slightly segmented, compact dome

91-203-2-3-1-1 10/8 4.0 fine, even 6 G VG Segmented dome, fairly good stem weight

91-203-2-3-1-2 10/5 3.5 fine 5-6 F-G G Segmented, good processing type

91-203-2-3-1-3 10/9 4.0 fine, even 7 VG VG Segmented dome

91-203-2-3-1-5 10/7 4.0 fine, even 7 VG VG Segmented dome

91-203-2-3-2-1 10/9 4.0 fine, even 8 G G Good weight, slightly rough

Table 1. Performance of OSU broccoli breeding lines, Corvallis, 1996 (cont):

zDirect-seeded July 11 in 3' rows, thinned to about 15" between plants.

YGeneral score 1-5 scale, 5 = best and would indicate a good fit with the current concept of a good processing head: highlysegmented, segments firm with small florets with short pedicels, good color, and good head exsertion.

'Exsertion refers to protrusion of heads above foliage for easy cutting.

Breeding LineMat.Date Score Florets

Size(in.)

Exser-lion'

HeadStemColor Notes



91-203-4-1-2-1 10/12 3.0 fine 8 G Tight segments

91-203-4-1-3-1 10/7 3.0 med., even 9 F G Well segmented, firm

91-203-5-1-1-1 10/9 2.5 med. 9 F F

91-203-5-2-1-2 10/9 2.5 med. coarse 8 F F Good weight

91-213-1-1-3-2 10/10 2.5 med. 5-6 VG G Very good exserted dome form, rosettes

91-219-2-2-3-1 10/10 3.0 med., even 7 G G Firm segments

91419-2-2-2-1 10/14 3.0 med. 8 VG G One of the largest but has sunken centers andsoft rot

91-232-4-1-2-1 10/10 3.0 med., even 9 F G

91-232-4-1-6-2 10/11 2.5 med. coarse 9 F F Big and firm but coarse

Table 2. Commercial broccoli variety observations, Corvallis, 1996.'

!Direct-seeded Ju y 11 in 3 rows, thinned to about 15" between plants.

YSources: 1 = Peto, 2 = Salcata, 3 = Ferry-Morse, 4 = Harris-Moran, 5 = Asgrow.

xGeneral scores, 1-5 scale, 5 = best.

wExsertion refers to protrusion of heads above foliage for easy cutting.

Variety SourceMat.Date Scorex

Head Diam.(in.) Florets

Head StemColor

Bxser-floe Notes

Pacicman 1 9/26 3.0 9 coarse G P Large compact head with long pedicels, non-branching plant

Arcadia 2 10/5 3.0 7 fine F F Tall plant, very compact heads with yellow rosettes

Regal 3 9/27 3.0 8 uniform F P Large compact heads, very uniform

Pirate 1 10/18 3.0 9 uneven P F Very late, compact plant, heavy heads, some sunken centers

HMX 1134 4 10/1 3.5 10 med. fine, firm F F Tall plant, big heavy heads with tight segments and rosettes

Patriot 2 10/10 3.0 7 fine P P_

Heavy, very compact heads, light color, some sunken centers

Gem 5 9/24 2.0 5-6 fine VG G Rough, uneven, sunken centers

Barbados 3 10/8 3.5 8-9 fine, firm F-G G Heavy head, good yield, mostly non-branching plant

Hi-Caliber 3 10/1 3.5 8 medium, even F G Tall plant, compact, tightly segmented head with long pedicels

Pinnacle ' 4 10/8 3.5 9 medium, even F-G 0 Heavy head with large, tight, firm segments, yellow rosettes

Emerald City 2 9/30 2.0 10 coarse VP F Coarse, heavy heads with rosettes, dead florets, and soft rot

Samurai 2 10/15 3.0 10 fine P F Tall plant, big segmented dome head with rosettes

Shogun 2 10/10 3.5 10 fine F 0 Medium heavy, tightly segmented heads, rosettes

Excelsior 4 10/10 3.0 10 fine F F Tight, compact dome, heavy stem, yellow rosettes 1

9 3

Evaluation of regional pheromone trappingfor assessing risk of lepidopteran pest outbreaks in

Willamette Valley broccoli and cauliflower plantings.

Report to theOregon Processed Vegetable Commission

prepared on 12/16/96

Contact Person

Dan McGrath, OSU Extension3180 Center St. NE, Salem, OR 97301

Mobile Phone (503) 931-8307Office Phone ( 503) 588-5301

FAX (503) 585-4940Internet: [email protected]

Project Leader: Dan McGrath, OSU Extension

Cooperators:

Background

Lepidopteran pests of broccoli and cauliflower including the alfalfa looper(Autographa californicus) and the cabbage looper (Trichoplusia ni) arehighly regulated in the Willamette Valley by weather and by their naturalenemies. For this reason, they are considered "secondary" or "occasional"pests. In most years, looper worm counts are low relative to other pestsinfesting broccoli and cauliflower. Looper worms and other worms areremoved from the crops with a pre harvest "clean up spray".

During the 1995 growing season, the natural regulation of the loopercomplex broke down. Looper worm counts in the fields were very high inthe later plantings. The normal clean up sprays did not reduce worm countsbelow the processor action threshold. It was too close to harvest to apply asecond insecticide spray. Thousands of dollars of harvest broccoli had tobe dumped. Would this have happened if the industry had had an earlywarning? If we could detect unusually heavy looper moth egg layingevents, could provide an early warning of heavy looper worm infestation inadvance of the pre harvest spray intervals?

In 1996, the Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission sponsored an OSUExtension program designed to test pheromone technologies for themonitoring of key pests of broccoli and cauliflower. The idea was to detectkey insect population trends on a regional basis and provide advancedwarning of unusually intense egg laying events. Plantings that wereentering susceptible stages (3 to 4 weeks from harvest) could then be

94

Dr. Marcos Kogan,OSU Integrated Plant Protection Center

Dr. Glenn Fisher, OSU Dept. of EntomologyDuane Smith, AGRIPAC - Eugene, OregonJim Gill, NORPAC - Stayton, Oregon

9 5

scouted more carefully. Where worm counts were found to be high, apreemptive insecticide spray could be applied several weeks prior toharvest. As a result, the crop would arrive a few days before harvest with alow enough worm count that the pre harvest cleanup sprays could do theirjob.

The objectives of the program were:

To evaluated our ability to detect elevated populations of lepidopteran pestson a regional basis that may effect commercial broccoli and cauliflowerplantings.

To establish better communication networks among pest managementprofessionals monitoring pest populations in broccoli and cauliflower.

Report of Accomplishments

I) Establishing the monitoring sites

Working with processor and ag chemical field representatives, we identified7 cooperating broccoli and cauliflower growers and established pestmonitoring sites in the following areas: Dever-Coner, Aumsville, Mt.Angel, Aurora, Donald, Gervais, and Keizer. We also established amonitoring site in a broccoli planting at the OSU Vegetable ResearchStation in Corvallis, Oregon. At each site we established and maintainedpheromone traps. From early May to mid October, we visited the sites on aweekly basis. At each visit, we used systematic scouting procedures todetermine the level of worm infestation in the broccoli or cauliflowerplantings. We checked and refreshed the pheromone traps. This allowedus to compare pheromone trap based moth counts with actual levels ofworm infestation in the field. Worm counts were based on field-specificscouting.

96

Comparison of trapping systems

Our primary monitoring target during the 1996 growing season was thelooper complex. At selected sites, we also evaluated pheromone basedmonitoring systems for diamondback moth, Bertha army worm, black cutworm, variegated cut worm, and aphids.

We evaluated three types of pheromone trap for the looper complex: Texasstyle Heliothus trap TT) made of wire mesh, the standard paper wing trap(WT), a black light trap, and a funnel bucket trap.

Establishing the communication network

During the growing season, we established a FAX network. The purposeof the network was to broadcast regional pest and disease trends to agprofessionals serving the processed vegetable industry. The networkincluded 57 FAX machines representing most of the processor and agchemical field departments in the Willamette Valley.

Once every two weeks, OSU Extension sponsored an early morningtelephone conference call. During the teleconferences, selected processorand ag chemical field representatives from the various production regionsaround the Valley discussed the pheromone trap counts from the looperproject and other disease and insect pest population trends'observed by theparticipants. The discussion and the trap counts were summarized and thenbroadcast to the larger community of ag professionals serving theprocessed vegetable industry in the Willamette Valley.

Results

fl Resolving the alfalfa/cabbae looper complex

When we scouted the broccoli and cauliflower fields associated with thepheromone trapping sites, we found both cabbage and alfalfa looper worms.The immature stages of these insects are similar and were very difficult totell apart.

During the 1996 growing season, alfalfa looper moth counts were high.We were able to detect discrete egg laying events of the alfalfa looper (Seefigure one). The Texas style trap (TT) was much more sensitive than thestandard wing trap (WT). The black light and bucket style pheromonetraps were less sensitive than the wing type trap. They were abandonedbefore the season ended.

Figure One. Detection of discrete egg laying events of the alfalfa looperwith Texas style (TT) and wing type (WT) pheromone trapping systems.

Alfalfa Looper Population Trends Corvallis, Oregon1996

97

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

20

1.0

0.0

-4- alfalfa looper - TT-E- alfalfa looper - WT

Nrs ,g g P. t N N N

CA CI 0 0N N N

Julian Days

Nv., el ./TNI NI NI

>,

1.4

1.2

1.0

2 0.4

0.2

0.0

98

Cabbage looper moth counts were relatively low during the 1996 growingseason. The relatively light egg laying flights of the cabbage looper weredifficult to detect using the standard wing-type pheromone trap (See figuretwo).. The Texas style pheromone trap (TT) was successful in detectingdiscrete cabbage looper moth flights.

Figure Two. Failure of standard wing type pheromone traps (WT) todetect egg laying flights of the cabbage looper.

Cabbage Looper Population TrendsCorvallis, Oregon 1996

cabbage looper - TT

--Ecabbage looper - WT

N V' 0 tO N 03 .0' 0 0 IV 03N N in In CI f, 03 03 001 OS

Julian Days

0OlN

COC')N c13

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

2.5

2.0

1.0

0.5

99

Cabbage looper moth flights were difficult to detect against the backgroundof the dramatic alfalfa looper moth flights. When we plot the alfalfalooper moth counts based on the less sensitive wing type pheromone trapagainst the cabbage looper moth counts based on the more sensitive Texasstyle pheromone trap (See figure three), it appears that the cabbage andalfalfa looper moth flights can occur on the same rhythm. The populationsmay be responding to similar environmental cues (See figure three).

Figure Three. Synchronicity between alfalfa looper and cabbage loopermoth egg laying flights.

Alfalfa and Cabbage Looper Population TrendsDever Conner Area 1996

0.0

CV 01 C7 e744 0 0 .r .3 0. 43 .13, 3 ea .3 r.

43 a r. atsa co Cs Cs 0 0 0CM CM

Julian DaysCl CM 04

CMCMCM

soCM V.

CM

At several monitoring sites, alfalfa looper moth counts based onpheromone trapping correlated poorly with worm counts based on fieldscouting. Alfalfa looper moth counts were a poor predictor of high worminfestation (See figure four ).

At several monitoring sites, the cabbage looper moth counts based onpheromone trapping correlated well with worm counts based on fieldscouting, (See figure five).

0

7 0

6 0

_c464

20

20

to

Figure four. Poor correlation between alfalfa looper moth counts andworm counts based on field scouting.

Alfalfa Looper Population TrendsDever Conner 1996

alfalfa looper - WT

--e% infestation fanri. .

ooSI A s: 3'. 3

2 2 "*. 2 2 2' 2 2 A 11'. fi A 7. 7. 7. 7. .

Julian Days

40

400

350

300

220

200

1S0

100

10

100

00

alfalfa looper - Ti-41--% infestation larvi

Julian Days

Alfalfa Looper TrendsGervais, Oregon 1996

1--sorr 'Ns asxr, aa:IZZRAM31 asa.zgA. lifIAAAEEZ§

Alfalfa Looper TrendsAumsville, Oregon 1996

Julian Days

" 'bgb2f-'2

40to

5.0

-0CO 40

co>.'

Ci To'17;

30

IZEvs

20.0

to

00222XXCV

Figure Five. Correlation between cabbage looper moth countsand worm counts based on field scouting.

Julian Days

iJulian Days

t,/2 2 g A F. F. fi E EARAEAA

1--.--

alfalfa looper - WTacabbage looper - TTa% worm infestation

101

--.-cabbage !copes- TT-e-% infestation larvi

F. 7. fl E E A

Alfalfa and Cabbage Looper TrendsKeizer, Oregon 1996

030

160

Cabbage Looper TrendsMt Angel, Oregon 1996

160 [-4--cabbage looper 1-11--% infestation larvi

140I

03 =0 .3 120

C. '1' I43 c 100

I40

1VCI

60

20

00

11 x X5utia%

($2 20:" " 00Cabbage Looper TrendsAumsville, Oregon 1996

102

2) Other lepidopteran pests of broccoli and cauliflower.

We were able to successfully monitor diamondback moth (Figure six), theBertha army worm (Figure seven) and the black cutworm (Figure 8)populations with standard wing type pheromone traps. The diamond backmoth populations were very low during the early part of the growing season.The first egg laying flights were detected on July 10th. Number climbedsteadily from there. Bertha army worm moths had two discrete egg layingevents that occurred around June 5th and again around August 29th Wemonitored for black cut worm during the early spring only, during theestablishment period for early plantings of sweet corn. We detected twodiscrete egg laying events of the black cutworm around May 19th and againaround June 8th.

Figuresix. Initiation of diamondback moth egg laying season detectedwith pheromone based monitoring systems.

Diamondback Moth Population TrendsCorvallis, Oregon 1996

Julian Days

0.1

0.0

Bertha Armyworm Population TrendsCorvallis, Oregon 1996

Bertha army worm - WT

103

Figure seven. Bertha army worm egg laying events detectedwith pheromone based monitoring systems

Julian Days

Figure Eight. Black cutworm egg laying events detectedwith pheromone based monitoring systems.

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

a 3.0

2.5

1.-1)

2.0

4-81.5

1.0

. 0.5

0.0CO tra

04

Black Cutworm Population TrendsAlbany, Oregon 1996

e4 CD CO 004 0 VI C.,

040 0

Julian Days<0 1.0

.0. 00. 0.

0.6

0.5

CO 0

104

3) Improving the communication network

At the beginning of the season, we were concerned that our pest monitoringefforts not result in false alarms. In every case, the message we broadcastwas "Do not make spray recommendations based on regional populationtrends. Instead, when we detect egg laying events on a regional basis,intensify your site specific field scouting. Base pesticide applicationrecommendations on site specific scouting efforts."

The telephone conference calls and the FAX network broadcasts were wellreceived by the ag professional community (See figure). Communicationacross regional and company boundaries was enhanced.

Figure Nine . An.example of a broadcast FAX providing information to agprofessionals concerning regional disease and pest population trends.

YE GNET r X .ve.emerre ve4 tau

eieseere.: )5:: Se=seme.nSZ:me= Pax Pras=anae erer.M. Veve=Dle Canememea. VIEGNc: Is a: RIM. =R.! dtd11.13011 ARt=d1=11

?me...,:emet wearer; venn.?toczeti :mew: el me 7MialiC v. c7 yea awe 7:anieem +ea SA::.ameweeseces 37ewsourt rake :a zed et =wee ?our Irate :arm Rd ...MINA ..44.44-7,4 hat :At=

MR:4=.11. Esemeeee: /!:..Ce7

Please eireaiate this F newelerter =now rner field .11:ff.

Alfalfa Ldoner Pnnulation Trends- Monitoring sites tinve been, dstahlished in broccolipLontin= near Corrallis. Dever Conner. Scayton. Kaiser. Mt. Angel. and Donald. Wehave had a major flight of alfalfa Wooers in Mid May. We may be entering into asecond flight period at this time.

AMR um*" Cameo Aloa DARdor ZarprdSn04 as.4 SM

tocs Rr. an t.= = :.=at 1= W'R

par! One a/ -run)

tr-ener

rm.

a

\( ,Z.1 \/ I \

raw..

S0

rerrrr.aorrr rermar--rrerrrrr-. rre rrrru. :r.r.rrrrro raorr-ror r tIrr

May age 'I

Conclusion

Our findings are based on a single growing season. They need to beverified with further testing. We believe that the proper pheromonetrapping systems will allow us to detect cabbage looper flights. We believethat cabbage looper moth flights will correlate with worm counts a providea useful advanced warming of looper worm infestations. This will have tobe confirmed next year.

Our monitoring efforts need to be expanded to detect other vegetable pests.For example, if we could detect regional cutworm egg laying events, wecould provide an early warning to growers that have vulnerable earlyplantings of sweet corn. The message might include "We are having acutworm egg laying event. If you have plantings of sweet corn justemerging from the ground, keep checking the fields. Don't let down yourguard."

The concept of a regional pest and disease monitoring system and aregional communication network for ag professionals has merit. Thecommunication network needs to be expanded to include an Internetmailing group. And, the disease and pest information needs to be madeavailable on a phone recording system that is accessible to those people whodo not have a FAX machine or a computer.

Ag professionals in the Willamette Valley need advanced training in theidentification of the immature stages of selected insect pests and theestablishment and maintenance of pest monitoring systems. Agprofessionals need to become more involved in the establishment andmaintenance of the pest and disease monitoring network.

105

Dates versus Julian Days for--1996 growing season.

106

Tplu196b

Dania! McGrath 11/15/96

Date J Day Date J Day Date J Day Date J Day .Date J Day1-May 122 2-Jun 154 4-Jul. 186 5-Aug 218 6-Sep 2502-May 123 3-Jun 155. 5-Jul 187 6-Aug 219 7-Sep 2513-May 124 4-Jun 156 6-Jul 188 7-Aug 220 8-Sep 2524-May 125 5-Jun 157 7-Jul 189. 8-Aug 221 9-Sep 2535-May. 126 6-Jun 158: 8-Jul: 190: 9-Aug 222 : 10-Sep 2546-May 127. . 7-Jun; 1591 9-Jul, 191; . 10-Aug- 223 - 11-Sep 2557-May 128: 8-Jun; 160; 10-Jul: 192: : 11-Aug. 224 : 12-Sep 2568-May 129. 9-Jun: 161 11-Jul 193: 12-Aug 225 : 13-Sep. 2579-May 130 - 10-Jun 162. 12-Jul. 194 13-Aug 226 ; 14-Sep 258

10-May 131 11-Jun 163: 13-Jul 195; 14-Aug 227 15-Sep 25911-May 132 12-Jun 164. 14-Jul 196: ; 15-Aug 228 16-Sep 26012-May 133 13-Jun 165: 15-Jul 197: 16-Aug 229 F 17-Sep 26113-May 134; 14-Jun: 166; 16-Jul; 198: 17-Aug 230 : 18-Sep 26214-May 135; 15-Jun; 167; 17-Jul. 1991 : 18-Aug 231 19-Sep: 26315-May 136, : 16-Jun: 1681 18-Jul 200! 19-Aug 232. : 20-Sep. 26416-May 137: 17-Jun: 169: 19-Julf 201 1 20-Aug 233. i 21-Sep 265.17-May. 138' : 18-Jun; 1701 20-Jul 202; ! 21-Aug 234 122-Sep: 266.18-May 139 19-Jun: 171: 21-Jul: 2031 ! 22-Aug 235 123-Sep: 267,19-May 140! 20-Jun: 172! 22-Jul: 2041 1 23-Aug. 236. i 24-Sep: 268.20-May 141: . 21-Jun 1731 23-Jul: 205; 1 24-Aug. 237 j25-Sep 269:21-May 142: i 22-Jun, 174i 24-Jul 206; I25-Aug 238 126-Sep 270'22-May. 1431 ! 23-Jun 1751 25-Ju1! 207; i 26-Aug. 239 i 27-Sep, 27123-May 144: : 24-Jun! 176j 26-Ju1 , 2081 ; 27-Aug 240 I 28-Sep , 27224-May 145; 25-Jun! 177 27-Jul! 209: ! 28-Aug 241 : 29-Sep: 273;25-May 146. 26-Jun! 1781 - 28-Jul! 2101 ; 29-Aug 242 j30-Sep: 274126-May 147: , 27-Jun! 179! 29-Jul: 211; ; 30-Aug, 243 i 1-Oct l 275;27-May 148! 28-Jun 180! 30-Jul. 212: 31-Aug 244 : 2-Oct 276:28-May 149! i 29-Jun1 1811 31-Jul: 213-', : 1-Sep 245 1 3-Oct: 27729-May 150' 30-Jun 182; 1-Aug: 214' , 2-Sep' 246 ! 4-Oct: 278:30-May 151 1-Jul! 1831 2-Aug: 215, : 3-Sep 247 ; 5-Oct 279;31-May 152 2-Jul 184, 3-Aug: 216 : 4-Sep 248. 6-Oct' 280.

1-Jun 153 : 3-Jul: 185; 4-Aug 217, 5-Sep 249 7-Oct 281

8-Oct 282:

107

REPORT TO THE OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE CO1VIMISSION,1996-1997

TITLE: Pesticide Evaluation and Education - Magnitude of Residue Field Trials;Clethodim/Broccoli, Ethofumesate and Desmedipham/Beets

PROJECT LEADER: Robert B. McReynolds, District Extension Agent,IR-4 Field Research Center Coordinator

COOPERATORS: Rick Melnicoe, Director, Western Region 1R-4Jeffrey Jenkins, Extension Specialist, Agricultural Chemistry

PROJECT STATUS: Field Studies Completed.

FUNDING:

The $7,000 in 1996-1997 from the OPVC was pooled with resources from IR-4 and otherOregon commodity commissions to support a research assistant and technician trained to

conduct field residue trials.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of these trials was to collect samples of broccoli and beets from plotstreated with the test substances as well as crop from untreated plots for use in residueanalyses. Once analyzed, the results from these trials and similar trials conducted in otherstates will be summarized in petitions to EPA requesting national residue.tolerances for(Prism) clethodim in broccoli and for ethofiimesate (Nortron) and desmedipharn (Betanex)in beets. Collecting data on the effectiveness of these herbicides was not an objective ofthis project.

PROGRESS REPORT:

Three field trials were established at the North Willamette Research and Extension Centeron April 30. Many plants in the broccoli plot were stunted and plant growth in generalwas very irregular. Therefore, a second plot was established July 30. The test substanceswere applied to the plots with CO2 backpack sprayers at rates and times specified in the1R-4 protocols. The application parameters contained in the protocols were based uponefficacy data and reflected proposed labeling.

Mature beets and broccoli were collected from treated and untreated plots at the pre-harvest intervals specified in the protocols and frozen immediately. Beet samples were

108

sent to the ER-4 Lab at Geneva, New York and the broccoli was sent to the USDA-ARSLab at Wapato, Washington. Residue analyses have not yet been completed.

SUMMARY:

The project was successful in that the commodities were harvested at the specified pre-harvest intervals following application of the test substances. This is critical because thetrials would have to be repeated if this condition had not been met. The benefit to thevegetable industry from OPVC support for this and other residue trials which they havefunded will not be realized immediately. However, hopefully it will ultimately result in theregistration of newer more effective products for pest control strategies.

SIGNATURES:

Project Leader:

Departmental Head:



109

Research Report to theOregon Processed Vegetable Commission

and theAgricultural Research Foundation

Title: Goal Impregnated Fertilizer and Pyridate for Postemergence Weed Control InTransplanted and Direct Seeded Crucifers

Project Leaders:Ray William and Ed PeacheyHorticulture Dept.

Carol Mallory-SmithCrop and Soil Science Department

Project status: continuing

Project Funding: $3200.

ObjectivesEvaluate potential of using fertilizer impregnated with Goal for weed control in seededbroccoli and cauliflower.Improve weed control efficiency of Goal on transplanted cauliflower.

Progress

1. Goal Impregnated Fertilizer and Pyridate for Postemergence Weed Control in Broccoli andCauliflower.

Trifluralin was incorporated into the soil on the entire plot to suppress weeds until thepostemergence fertilizer was applied. Broccoli was planted with a vacuum seeder on June 13 andcauliflower on July 22, 1996. Goal herbicide was uniformly impregnated on fertilizer (15-15-15)by hand mixing. The impregnated fertlizer was spread over emerging broccoli plants at cotyledon,2, and 4 leaf stages of growth. The fertilzer spreader was calibrated to deliver 330 lbs of fertilizerper acre and 0.25 or 0.50 lbs ai Goal/acre.

Pyridate was applied postemergence without crop oil concentrate over 2 and 6 leafbroccoli. Weed emergence and crop injury were estimated at 4 WAP. The broccoli andcauliflower were not harvested because of a serious club root infection in the plot.

Broccoli. Nightshade was the primary weed that emerged and weed control was poorasnightshade is moderately tolerant to Goal (Table 1). Weed control diminished rapidlyas theherbicide was applied later in the season. The herbicide treated fertilizer must be applied beforeweeds emerge so that it can distribute from the prills and establish a soil barrier before weeds

110

weeds emerge so that it can distribute from the prills and establish a soil barrier before weedsbreak the surface. Crop injury from the Goal impregnated fertlizer was very low in the broccolitrial.

Pyridate effectively controlled weeds but moderately injured the broccoli when applied atthe 2-true leaf stage (Table 1). Pyridate is primarily a broadleaf contact herbicide and applicationtiming is very critical for proper weed control as demonstrated by the poor weed control achievedwhen applied to 6 leaf broccoli. Treflan did not adequately suppress weeds until pyridate wasapplied to 6 leaf broccoli, and pyridate only slightly reduced weed growth.

Cauliflower. The initial Goal-plus-fertilizer treatment was applied just as the cauliflowerwas emerging. Applying fertilizer at this stage significantly increased injury to cauliflower both inbiomass accumulation and the number of surviving plants (Table 2). However, even at the oneleaf stage, injury to the cauliflower was much greater than in the broccoli treatment. One factorthat may explain this difference was that some of the fertilizer had a high concentration of fines,and this dust may have adhered to the plants more than in the broccoli trial. Weed control wasexceptional in some of the treatments. Yield was not taken in this trial because club root also .

infected this planting.

2. Timing of Goal Application for Weed Control in Cauliflower

Goal was applied pre-transplant surface to soil near Mollala, either in the afternoon orevening, before or after rototilling, and at three rates on July 24, 1996. Afternoon soil surfacetemperatures were near 127 F on dry soil. The four treatments based on rototilling timing andafternoon vs evening application established a moisture gradient at the soil surface.

Emerged weeds were counted on September 6, six weeks after Goal application. Weedcontrol was estimated again on Oct. 11, eleven weeks after treatment by comparing weed densityand growth to untreated check strips within the field.

Ideal conditions were available to test the hypothesis that soil moisture present atapplication determines efficacy of Goal herbicide. The soil had been last worked one week priorto application. A brief period of rain was followed by very hot and dry conditions and producedmoist soil beneath a very dry soil surface. The rototilled soil dried very quickly during theafternoon. Herbicides were applied immediately behind the rototiller and the final treatment wasapplied within 10 minutes after rototilling.

The most notable effect on weed control at 6 weeks after treatment was caused byherbicide rate (Table 4). The highest rate (0.5 lbs al/ac) of Goal completely controlled pigweedacross all soil management treatments, but a few nightshade and lambsquarter escaped. Weedcontrol estimates for nightshade were highly variable and did not conform to trends forlambsquarter and pigweed.

At the low rate of Goal (0.15 lbs al/ac) however, Goal application to soil that wasrototilled just before the Goal was applied significantly reduced pigweed emergence compared toGoal that was applied to dry soil (Table 5). The trend was not consistent for lambsquarter and

111

total weed emergence. Goal applied at 0.15 lbs ai/ac in the afternoon to recently rototilled soil hadthe lowest total weed emergence overall at six weeks after application.

A second visual estimation at 11 weeks after treatment again indicated that herbicide rateeffects were much more important than application timing for all species evaluated (Table 6). Atthe lower rate, pigweed and lambsquarter were controlled best by Goal applied in the evening(Table 7, Figure 1).

The soil surface was very hot and dry when Goal was applied at mid-afternoon. Thepotential of Goal to adsorb to soil particles would be very high under these conditions. Although,Goal losses to volatilization are usually considered to be very low, the soil temperature recordedat herbicide application of 127 F would certainly test this assumption. Overall weed emergenceindicates that applying Goal to recently tilled soil improves weed control, but the effect is notconsistent between species when applied in the afternoon or evening. Though the best practicecan not be easily discerned from this data set because of variable responses within weed species,the least efficient use of Goal is very clear. Reduced efficacy of Goal can be expected if applied tovery dry and hot soil at midday.

Summary

Weed control with goal impregnated fertilizer ranged from excellent to poor dependingprimarily on application timing. When applied at the full cotyledon stage, crop injury was low andweed control acceptable at the higher rate of Goal.

Pyridate may be more suitable for postemergence control than impregnated fertilizerbecause of better weed control potential, although injury could be a concern when applied tocrucifers with less than two leaves.

Applying Goal to dry and hot soil significantly reduces its weed control potential.Rototiffing just before application or applying Goal in the evening improves control.

112

Table 1. Impregnated Goal fertilizer and pyridate for weed control in broccoli, Veg Res farm,1996.

Table 2. Survival and growth of cauliflower with goal impregnated fertilizer

Herbicide Rate Timing Weed control(4 WAP)

IniotY(4 WAP)

1. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.25 CotY 23 0

2. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.5 Coty 73 0

3. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.25 2 leaf 0 0


5. Goal impregnated fertlizer 015 4 leaf 0 7


7. Pyridate 0.47 2 leaf 83 7




11. Check: no herbicide 0.47 0 0

FPLSD (0.05) 32 9

Herbicide Rate Timing Surviving plants Growth reduction

no/plot row %1. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.25 Emerging 33 68

2. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.5 Emerging 6 92

3. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.25 Full cotyledon 29 40

4. Goal impregnated fertlizer 0.5 Full cotyledon 31 33

5. Check .. 37 2

FPLSD (0.05) 22 8

11 3

Table 3. Fertilizer and pyridate application data on broccoli and cauliflower.

Impregnated Impregnated Impregnated Pyridate Pyridatefertilizer 1 fertilizer 2 fertilizer 3 #1 #2

BroccoliApplication date 6124/96 7/3/96 7/12/96 7/4196 7/12/96Application timing Cotyledon 2 full leaves 6 leaves 2 full leaves 6 leaves

(crop stage)

CauliflowerApplication date 7/30/96 812/96

Application timing Just emerging Full cotyledon(crop stage)

Fertilizer mixture 0.25 rate: 9.72 ml Goal/2.50 kg 15-15-15 fertilizer0.50 rate: 19.44 ml Goal/2.50 kg 15-15-15 fertilizer

Table 4. Weed emergence in response to goal herbicide application timing and rate 6 weeks afterplanting.

Timing Herbiciderate

Pigweed Nightshade Lambsquarter Total

-lbs ai/ac- ft inter-rowno/24 of area

1. Afternoon, unfilled 0.15 8 8 5 21



4. Evening, unfilled 0.15 4 11 2 17



7. Afternoon, tilled 0.15 0 1 4 5



10. Evening, tilled 0.15 0 12 2 14

11. Evening, tilled 0.25 0 3 0 3

12. Evening, tilled 0.50 0 1 0 1

FPLSD (0.05) 3 as 2 10

114

Table 5. Weed emergence in response to low rates of Goal at four application timings, 6 weeksafter planting.

Timing Herbicide rate Pigweed Nightshade Lambsquarter Total

-lbs ai/ac- no/24 ft of inter-row area

Table 6. Weed control at 11 weeks after planting in cauliflower.

Timing Herbicide rate Pigweed Nightshade Lambsquarter Total

-lbs al/ac-1. Afternoon, unfilled 0.15 50 47 3 30




5. Evening, untilled 0.25 100 87 po 87

6. Evening, untilled 0.50 100 100 67 92




10. Evening, tilled 0.15 90 77 50 60

11. Evening, tilled 0.25 98 90 93 80

12. Evening, tilled 0.50 100 100 100 95

FPLSD (0.05) 32 30 36 26




10. Evening, tilled 0.15 0 12 2 14

FPLSD (0.05) 3 as 2 10

9080

706050

4030

2010

Pigweed

Lambsquarter

Sioratures

T-

Department Head

115

Table 7. Weed emergence in response to low rates of Goal at four application timings, 11 weeksafter planting..

Timing and tillage Herbicide rate Pigweed Nightshade Lambsquarter Total

-lbs ai/ac-1. Afternoon, untilled 0.15 50 47 3 30

4. Evening, untilled 0.15 80 25 43 33


10. Evening, tilled 0.15 90 77 50 60

FPLSD (0.05) 32 30 36 26

Afternoon Afternoon Evening Evening

unfilled rototilled untilled rototilled

Herbicide timing and tillage prior to application

Figure 1. Effect of herbicide application timing and tillage (immediately prior to application)on weed control in cauliflower, 11 weeks after application.



116

Progress Report to the Agricultural Research FoundationOregon Vegetable Commission

Title: Cabbage Maggot Control

PrincipalInvestigators: Glenn Fisher and Rene' Horton

Department of EntomologyOregon State University

Funding: 1996-1977: $5,114

Objective: Determine product efficacy for control of cabbage maggot and to

develop a degree day model for predictive purposes.

Progress:

Cabbage maggot control remains a challenge largely because of an incomplete

understanding of its life history and natural controls in the Willamette Valley.

Registered insecticides are largely ineffective in commercial settings, even though

in small scale replicated field trials, chlorpyrofos often still performs effectively compared

to other materials.New insecticides with likelihood of market development in crucifers were

evaluated this past year. Lorsban gave best reduction of maggot injury, although a greater

degree of control is desired. Other materials offer some suppression and will be further

evaluated next season in different use patterns.Temperature monitoring units for degree day development of cabbage maggot

have been purchased and will be placed in the field January 1 to determine cabbagemaggot development with thermal accumulations.

Related broccoli research is reported here as well.

Spinosad for Lepidopterous pests in Broccoli

DowElanco's new product spinosad is so unusual that a new classification was

mad for it: naturalyte. This product is grower friendly, non-volatile and kills on contact oringestion according to DowElanco. Spinosad attacks the nervous system of lepidopterousinsects and seems to have little or no effect on beneficials.

Four different concentrations of Spinosad (20g, 40g, 61g, 80g al/acre) werecompared to Lorsban (454g al/acre) and an untreated check. Two applications were made

on the 19th and 30th of August. Data was collected on the 27th of August and the 31.4 of

September. Twenty plants per treatment were inspected for lepidopterous larvae at seven

days after first treatment and then at the conclusion of the experiment.At seven days with a single spray Spiriosad had controlled 88% of the

lepidopterous larvae in the 20g and 98% in the 40, 61, 80g treatments. Lorsban had 98%

117

control. At the end of the trial, Spinosad bad at least 95% control and Lorsban had 90%.The complex of lepidopterous pests controlled in this experimental plot were typical ofthose occurring on broccoli in any given year. Sprays were delayed relative to commercialapplications to evaluate rates against populations skewed to small and medium size larvae.Even mature larvae were controlled well by Spinosad.

Cabbage Maggot Control

The Hobo temperature sensing units will be placed on the 1st of January andtemperatures will be taken at intervals through out the day every day through flyemergence, egg laying, and development. Temperature data will be used to determinedegree day requirements for fly development.

Lorsban, Mocap, Fipronil, Suscon and Neemex were evaluated for cabbagemaggot control in broccoli. Gem variety broccoli was belt planted in rows with 30 in.centers on the June 4-5th, 1996. Four replications of the eight treatments were made.Granular forms of insecticides were applied on the 5th of June and spray forms wereapplied on the 12th of June. Cabbage maggot damage was determined by counting thenumber of strikes (tunnels) caused by the maggot in the roots.

Lorsban provided good control in this research trial (95%). The other productstested did not afford satisfactory control in the context of this experiment (0-68%). Asignificance level of 0.06 shows the influence of Lorbans' effectiveness in this experiment.Mocap showed a significant reduction in stand count for this experiment. Suscon, the lowrate of Mocap, Neemex and the untreated check had the largest amount of flea beetledamage. It is suggested that fipronil & "neem" + soil penetrants be further evaluated.

Cooperators

Dan McGrathOregon State UniversityCooperative Extension ServiceSalem, OR

Peter KenagyKenagy Family FarmsAlbany, OR

Mark DickmanDickman FarmsSilverton, OR

118

Title: Development and Evaluation ofMinimum-Tillage Vegetable Production Systemsfor Western Oregon

Project Leader: Dr. John LunaDepartment of HorticultureOregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR 97331

Keith GroverGrover FarmsSalem, OR

Carl HendricksHendricks FarmsRio, OR

Dale LuchtCrestview FarmsMolalla, OR

Bill ChambersStahlbush Island FarmsCorvallis, OR

Project Status One year funded project terminating FY June 30, 1997.Continued funding to be requested in 1997.

Project Funding $5,613, One year funding.

ABSTRACT

Six on-farm trials were conducted in the Willamette Valley in 1996 toevaluate the potential for rotary strip-tillage in vegetable productions systems. Intwo sweet corn trials (Grover Farm and Hendricks Farm), yield of sweet corn wasreduced approximately 0.5 tons/acre in the strip-tillage treatments, compared to thestandard tillage practices used by the growers. In these farms, the number of tillageoperations was reduced by 4-5 passes with the strip-tillage system. In two othertrials involving sweet corn, (Dickman Farms and Crestview Farms), corn yield wasreduced by approx. 2 and 2.5 tons/acre in the strip-till treatments compared to thestandard tillage treatments. In a transplanted broccoli trial (Crestview Farm), thestrip-tillage and standard tillage treatments performed comparably. In the sixth trial,involving winter squash (Stahlbush Island Farms), the November flood of 1996carried the squash off the research plots before they could be harvested.

PROJECT GOAL

To develop minimum tillage systems for sweet corn and broccoli productionwhich produce high quality, high yielding vegetable crops, while reducing tillageand weed control costs and improving soil conservation and soil quality.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the operational feasibility of a strip-tillage, high-residuecultivation minimum tillage system with a "standard practice" tillage andweed control system.

Evaluate effects of these two crop production systems on vegetable cropquality and yield, weed population abundance, pest abundance, and soilmoisture.

PROCEDURES

Six on-farm trials were established in the Willamette Valley in 1996, fourinvolving sweet corn, one broccoli and one squash. Each farm represented a uniqueopportunity to examine the potential of the strip-till system and to explore specificconstraints limiting the feasibility of this system. All trials (except the Luchtbroccoli trial) involved two treatments, rotary strip tillage and "standard" tillage.Standard tillage represented the particular set of tillage practices used by each growerto prepare a seedbed. This suite of tillage practices varies among the farmers, butalso varies within a farm, depending on the specific soil conditions encountered atthe time of tillage (soil type, moisture, residue), and the vegetable crops to beplanted. Two types of strip-tillage equipment were used in these trials. A modified4-row Northwest Tillers® strip-tiller was used on the Grover, Hendricks, andDickman farms. This machine tilled a 6-inch wide strip, approx. 5-inches deep on30" centers. Modifications included replacing two of the three L-tines with an 600angled tine and a straight tine. This modification was intended to minimize thepotential soil compaction occurring at the bottom of the tillage channel by the L-tines. A second type of strip-tiller, an Italian-made "Multivator" was used on theLucht and Chambers farms. This machine was a lighter-duty tiller, with smallertines, tilling an 8-inch wide strip approx. 3-4 inches deep. This machine was used totill strips on 36-inch centers, the row spacing used by these growers.

Yield estimation. Because of excessive variability encountered in previousyears' work in small plots, yield were estimated in these trial using the growers'harvesting equipment. For sweet corn, a corn picker was used to pick in-husk corninto a dump truck traveling next to the picker. When the truck was full, the truckwas driven to the processing plant were the corn weight was determined. Grade andmaturity of the corn was determined by staff at the processing plants. Rather thanattempt to harvest entire treatment plots, the area required to fill a truck wasdetermined and per acre yield calculated. For the broccoli trial at Crestview Farm,the broccoli was hand-harvested by the farm crew into totes that were weighed at the

119

120

processing plant. The November flood of 1996 carried away the squash in the trial atthe Chambers' farm near Corvallis, therefore this project will not be discussed inthis report.

Soil Compaction Measurements. A hand-held penetrometer was used onthree of the trials to examine soil compaction directly under the crop row. Readingswere taken at 5-10 locations in each of the fields during mid-August.Measurements were taken at 3 - inch increments to a depth of 27 inches.

Farming Practices. The following descriptions of the on-farm trials gives ageneral sequence and dates of major events, with more specific fertilization and pestcontrol details contained in Table 2.

Sweet Corn Trials

Grover Farm. A cover crop of Celia triticale and common vetch was drilled in twoadjacent fields near Keizer, OR in early October, 1995. One of these fields waspreviously cropped (1995) in onions, the other in sweet corn The cover crop waskilled with an application of glyphosate (1 qt/A) on March 1, 1996. A randomizedblock experiment with four replications was established, with two replications ineach field. Two treatments, strip tillage and standard tillage, were randomlyallocated. Treatment plots were 45 x 1,320 ft. Tillage in the standard tillage plotsbegan on March 20, and included subsoiling, chisel plowing, disking, andharrowing. The fields were rotovated to incorporate fertilizer and herbicide (Dual)on April 10 and sweet corn (Rogers 1861) was planted. The strip till treatments werestrip tilled on April 10 and planted immediately. A period of protracted cold, wetweather followed after planting and corn emergence in both tillage treatments wasinadequate for an economic stand of corn. The standard tillage treatment wasrotovated and the strip-till treatment tilled a second time on April 28. Corn wasreplanted on April 29.

Dickman Farm. Cover crops planted for this trial in the fall of 1995 were drownedduring the excessively rainy fall and winter of 1995-96. This trial was established in afield near Mt. Angel, OR, that contained wheat stubble from a 1995 wheat crop. Anon-replicated paired comparison was used, with a 45 x 1,200 foot block on the edgeof the field used for the strip-till plot. The remaining portion of the field wasprepared using the standard tillage practices. Standard tillage began in mid-April,with a moldboard plowing followed by subsequent disking and harrowingoperations. The strip-tillage block was sprayed with glyphosate (1 qt/A) on May 30,flailed on June 3, and strip-tilled on June 4. Both treatments were planted on June 5with Crookham Crisp N Sweet 710 and a targeted plant population of 27,000 plantsper acre.

Hendricks Farm. A cover crop mixture of Cayuse oats, common vetch, andAustrian field pea were planted in early October, 1995 in a field near Stayton. Thiscover crop was sprayed with glyphosate in mid-May. Cover crop biomass wassampled on June 7 by clipping and removing the cover crop residue in six 0.25 rrequadrats randomly selected in the field. Little legume residue was found, and the

121

oat residue was estimated to be 5,640 lbs/acre, with a carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratioof 55:1. Total nitrogen contained in the above-ground biomass was estimated to be46 lbs/A. Both tillage blocks were flailed in mid-May. Tillage in the standardtreatment blocks began on June 12, and included disk-ripping, 4-5 passes with anoffset disk, and one pass with a rotovator. The strip till block (45 x 1800 ft) was tilledon June 13, when both tillage blocks were planted.

Crestview Farm. This trial was conducted near Mollala, OR. A cover crop mixtureof Steptoe barley and Austrian field peas was planted in early October, 1995. Thiscover crop was grazed by sheep during the spring of 1996, which removed most ofthe above-ground biomass. Glyphosate was applied in late May, prior to tillage.Standard tillage consisted of a single pass with a rotovator. The Multivatormachine was used for the strip-till plots, but due to dry, hard soil, 3 passes werenecessary to prepare a seedbed. Sweet corn (Rogers 2684) was planted June 20.

Broccoli Trials

Two trials were established in the fall of 1995, one at the OSU HorticultureFarm, near Corvallis and one on-farm trial at Crestview Farms near Mollala. At theOSU farm, a Steptoe Barley and common vetch cover crop was planted in lateOctober, 1995. This plot was completely submerged by floodwaters for approx. onemonth following the February flood of 1996, killing the cover crops. Without acover crop residue, this experiment was discontinued.

Crestview Farm. An experiment was established in the fall of 1995 in field nearMollala. The experimental design involved three tillage treatments in arandomized block design with three replications. Individual treatment plots wereapprox. 1 acre in size. Tillage treatments included (1) standard, (2) strip-till (ST), and(3) strip-till on ridges (STR). The ridges, or beds, were formed on Nov. 3 using aBuffalo high residue cultivator equipped with ridging wings. Beds were formed on36 -inch centers. A cover crop mixture of Steptoe barley and common vetch wasseeded in the plots on Nov. 6. The cover crop was drilled in the standard and strip-till treatments, but was broadcast applied in the ridge treatments. Due to the lateplanting and excessively wet fall and winter of 1995-96, cover crop growth waserratic. During late March, 1996, glyphosate was band-applied over the ridges and inthe strip-till plots on 36' centers. These plots were flailed on April 28. In thestandard tillage plots, glyphosate was applied on April 6, followed by a series oftillage operations (chisel plow, two diskings, one rotovation). The Mulivator striptill machine was used in the strip till and strip-till with ridges plots on April 29.Two passes of the strip tiller were required to prepare an acceptable seedbed.Broccoli (c.v. - Pacman) was transplanted in all plots on April 30. On May 30, aBuffalo high residue cultivator was used to cultivate the strip-till and strip-till withridges plots.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Grover Farm. The standard tillage treatment produced approx. 0.5 tons of in-huskcorn yield more than the strip-till (statistically significant a = .05) (Table 1).Although the intention in this experiment was to band apply herbicide over thecorn rows in the strip-till plots, this was performed rather late, and was not veryeffective in controlling weeds. The regular cultivator was also used in the strip-tillplots instead of the intended Buffalo high residue cultivator, which reduced theeffectiveness of the between-row cultivation in the untilled soil. There wasconsiderable pigweed present in the strip-till plots at harvest, which may havereduced yield. Although an economic analysis of this project has not yet beencompleted, a rough estimate of tillage costs at $1045 per pass per acre suggests thatthe reduction in tillage costs would offset the yield reduction in corn (valued atapprox. $80/ton). There was little or no cover crop residue remaining in the fieldbecause of the relatively early March kill date of the cover crop. If the cover crophad been allowed to grow longer, a greater quantity of cover crop residue may haveassisted in weed control in the between-row strips. The early April planted datepreduded this, however. Soil penetrometer data (Fig. 1) show that the soil wasmore compacted under the strip-tillage plots than in the standard tillage plots.

Dickman Farm. Corn emergence in the strip-till plots was slower than the standardtillage block, and the stand was reduced by approx. 15%. Plants grew slower andwere smaller than in the standard tillage treatments, tasseling was later, and yieldwas dramatically reduced by approx. 2 ton/A (Table 1). At harvest, 10 corn stalksapprox. 6- in. long were collected from each tillage block and analyzed for nitratecontent. Standard tillage stalks contained an average of 7,567 ppm nitrate, whereasthe strip-till plots contained an average of 4,444 ppm nitrate. Two possible reasonsfor the reduced corn growth and yield has been suggested, including: (1) cold, wetsoil conditions following planting, (2) nitrogen immobilization followingincorporation of the high-fiber wheat straw at planting. The standard tillage plotshad been worked for at least a month prior to planting, allowing the soil to warm.The strip-till plots were tilled, then planted immediately. The soil in these plotswas cool and moist, compared to the standard tillage plots. With a few days, theweather became cool and rainy, which probably prevented the soil within the tilledstrips from reaching an optimum temperature for germination and seedlinggrowth. There is also a well-documented phenomenon of soil nitrogenimmobilization following the incorporation of a high carbon-to-nitrogen ratio cropresidue such as wheat straw. There is little soil nitrate available following wheatharvest and a season of intense rainfall would have leached away any available N inthe soil. Coupled with the immobilization by soil microorganisms consuming anyavailable soil nitrate to break down the wheat residue, the germinating corn seedscould have easily have been N starved. The corn was side-dressed with N approx. 4weeks later, but by this time the strip-till corn plots were far behind the standardtillage treatments. Soil penetrometer readings under the corn rows indicated thatthe soil was less compacted under the strip till rows than under the standard tillagerows ( Fig. 1)

122

123

Hendricks_,Farm. A severe outbreak of cutworm infested this field within a fewweeks after the corn emerged, dramatically reducing the stand. This stand reductionwas reflected in the reduced corn yields in this field, although stand counts revealedno apparent differences between the two treatments. Corn yield in the strip-till plotswas reduced by approx. 0.5 tons per acre compared to the standard tillage block (Table1), but as in the situation at Grover Farm, the economic savings in tillage costswould have easily off-set the slight yield decrease. Like the wheat residue at theDickman Farm trial, this cover crop also had a high C:N ratio (55:1) and could easilyhave tied up soil nitrogen during early stages of corn growth. Stalk nitrate analysisat harvest, however, revealed slightly higher nitrate levels in the strip-till plots(5,960 ppm) than in the standard tillage plots (5,430 ppm).

Crestview Farm, Corn. Dry, compacted soil conditions at planting time made striptillage very difficult, with several passes of the tiller required for seedbedpreparation. The Multivator strip-tiller was dearly too lightly built to function wellin this situation. Irrigation was delayed in this planting for some time, and corn inthe strip-till plots were yellow and stunting during the early stages of growth.Digging corn roots when the corn was approx. 24 inches tall revealed that the rootswere contained within the narrow tilled trench. Yields were reduced approx. 2.6tons per acre in the strip-tilled plots compared to the standard tillage (Table 1). Anumber of factors were hypothesized as contributing to this yield reduction,including inadequate tillage equipment, compacted soil from sheep grazing,inadequate soil moisture during early corn growth, and possibly N immobilizationfrom cover crop roots. Soil compaction was also greater under the strip-tillage plotsthan under the standard tillage plots (Fig. 1)

Crestview Farm, Broccoli. Broccoli growth in the strip tilled and the strip-tilledwith ridges was comparable or better than broccoli growth in the standard tillageblocks. However, adverse weather during the head initiation period causedpremature flowering and failure of the heads to mature, resulting in below-normalyields in all tillage treatments (Table 1) This was a common problem in these earlyplanted broccoli fields in this area of the valley in 1996. Broccoli yields werecomparable in all three tillage treatments.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

A meeting of all the growers and cooperators involved in this project washeld in Salem, OR, on December 18, 1996 to discuss the outcomes of this year'sproject and to discuss directions for future research. There was a consensus that thisproject needs to be continued, but with some possible equipment modifications andan increased focus of research in exploring the possible causes of yield decline in thestrip-tillage systems. We have developed several hypotheses to examine, including,soil temperature at planting and during early growth, soil moisture depletion in theundisturbed cover crop areas, soil compaction, N immobilization by the cover crop,weed competition, and possible glyphosate microbiological interactions. The owner

124

and manufacturing director of Northwest Tillers, of Yakima, WA, attended thismeeting to discuss cooperation in the 1997 project. We are considering a 6-rowmachine (we now have a 4- row machine that does not match the planter spacingsof several of the cooperating growers) equipped with residue clearing coulters infront of the tillers to reduce the amount of residue incorporated. Soil firmingbaskets following the tillers could also assist in soil firming to reduce loss of soilmoisture. Other considerations in the 1997 trials include managing cover crops inthe spring to optimize C:N ratios and biomass accumulation. Another question tobe examined includes whether there is a need to strip-till the field 1-3 weeks prior toplanting to allow time for initial residue decomposition to occur and to allow soilwarming prior to planting.

If yield reducing factors can be understood and a predictable, manageablesystem of strip-fill vegetable production developed, there is a potential todramatically reduce tillage costs and enhance soil quality through conservation ofsoil organic matter and biological diversity.

Table 1. Summary of crop yields in strip-till vegetable production systems in Western Oregon, 1996.

Year Location Cover Crop VegetableCrop

Tillagetreatment

Crop Yield(tons/A)

Comments

1996 Grover Farm,Salem, OR

Celia triticale+ commonvetch

,

Sweet Corn

.

Cony, till

Strip-till

10.47

9. 95

More weedsin strip-till

, .

1996 Hendricks'Farm

Cayuse oat+ commonvetch

Sweet Corn Cony. Till

Strip-till

7.72

7.20

Extensivecutwormdamage inboth tillage

- treatments

1996 Dickman Farm,Mt. Angel, OR

Wheatstubble

Sweet Corn Cony. till

Strip-Till

9. 54

7.58

Poor standestablish-ment andslower growthin strip-till

1996 Crestview Steptoe Sweet Corn Full-width 7.70 Cover cropFarms,Moltalla OR.

barley +commonvetch

Rotovation

Strip-till5.09

-

sheep grazed

Hard soil atplanting

1996 CrestviewFarms,Moltalla, OR

Steptoebarley +commonvetch

Broccoli

_

Cony. till

Strip-till

Strip-tillridges

1.78

1.62

1.77

Early plantingof broccoi andcold weatherreducedyields

- Farmlna Practices

* Grower had to replant because of poor stand establishment in both tillage treatments. First tillage operations occurred on 3/20/96 for conventional tillage an4/10/96 for strip-till. The initial planting date was 4110196, fertilization and weed control included: 62-122-62 NPK/A and 1 1/2 pt/A of Dual, both incorporated.

,.

::

Grower 'and crop .

,.,

.(*,op

Alitsseragnt, . , ,

.. . '

T11140.. . . ....

,

IWO ......,

. Balv,

::: . ,..

' reOrit . ''' , . ..

Paplaut SidedtOsi:. .', ....abs.. : . . ;.6100 ; ; ON NMro

' , , 4'1 '',/.-7..;,;..4,c .,.,, , .. -.4i, i...',, . ,Jt ' ,

ndlikki.e0+sttif.Mark Dickman

Sweet corn

Keith GroverSweet corn

Carl HendricksSweet corn

Dale LuchtSweet corn

Dale LuchtBroccoli

Wheat stubble5/30/96: glyphosate 1qt/A6/3/96: flailed

Celia triticale +Common vetch3/1/96: glyphosate 1qt/A

9/95: Oats + Austrianpeas + Commonvetch,5/21/96: glyphosate6/8/96: flailed

9/95: Steptoe barley +Austrian peas3/96: grazed sheep,glyphosate applied forgrow back

11/7/95: Steptoebarley + Commonvetch3/25/95: glyphosate4/28/96: flailedregrowth

Cony: 4/6,moldboardplow, 2 passesdisc harrow,rototilled

S-T: 6/4/96NW tiller

Corm4/28/96*: sub-soiled, chiselplow, disc,heavy harrow,rototilledS-T: 4/28/96*NW tiller

Cony: 6/13/96disc ripped, 4-5disc passes,rotovatedS-T: 6/13/96NW tiller

Cony: 6/96rototilledS-T: 6/96 2+passes withMultivator

Cony: 4/29/96chisel, 2 discpasses,rotovatorS-T: 4/29/96 2passes withmultivator

615/96:CrookhamCNS '710,27,000plants/A

4/29/96*:Rogers#1861 on8" spacing

6/13/96:JubileeSuperSweet on8" spacing

6/20/96:Rogers42684 on8" spacing

4/30/96:'Packmantransplants

30"

30"

30"

36"

36"

.6/3/96:42-0-54

6/5196:38-100-36

4/29/96:31-61-31

6/13/96:96-170-

112

1.5 tonslime/A

6/20/96:29-99-0

4/30/96:16-16-8

7/11/96:129

6117/96:138

8/3/96:92

88.5

5/30/96:45

Cony: 6/3/96 Lasso 6 pt/Arincorporated

S-T: no weed control

Cony: 5/21 broadcast 1.25 qt/ALaddox, 1 qt/A crop oil, 0.75 pt/ADual, 6/17 cultivated, 6/29: 2 pt/ABasagran, 2 pt/A atrazine

S-T: 5/24 drip sprayed, same asabove, 6/17 cultivated, 6/29: 2 pt/ABasagran, 2 pt/A atrazine

6/13/96: broadcast Eradicane

7/11/96: Accent 0.67 WA, Atrex 2pt/A drop nozzle applied

Laddok S-12 2.33pt/A

6/20/96: Dyfonate 15G 51b banded

4/30/96: Goal 0.25 pint/A5/30/96: Cultivated

5/4/96: Lorsban 50W 0.5 lb/A5/25/96: Sevin 1 pt/A

126

Figure 1. Strip-till and standard tillage cornpenetrometer data taken on August 19, 1996.

Dickman Farm

350F5 300 -12- 2500° 200 -cI s 150 -:;;5co 100 -a)cr 50-

0

250Cl)a_ 200 -

8 150 -cV, 100 -cou) 50 -a)

00

300rn 250 -a-'200 -

150 -

Cl)100 -

a) 50 -cc

00

6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27Soil depth (inches)

Grover Farm

oStandard. Strip-till

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 _-

Soil depth (inches)

Crestview Farm

6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27Soil depth (inches)

127

Research Report to the Agriculture Research Foundation for 1996

Title: Automated Yield Monitoring in Vegetable Crops

Project Leader: Timothy L. RighettiDepartment of HorticultureOregon State University

Status: Continuing; 1 year remaining, to be completed in 1997

Funding History: Funding for 1996-1997 $ 15,700

Funds were spent on a real time differential correctionsubscription, installation of a weighing system on a dump trailer, aportable digital scale laboratory weighing system, mappingsoftware, and student labor

Objectives:

Convert a working but still cumbersome prototype yield monitoring system on abean harvester to a commercially viable unit.

Automate analysis procedures so trained interns can process raw data and producemaps in approximately two hours.

Implement a communication and analysis system where information can betransferred to and from OSU via modems on the Internet.

Develop a prototype yield monitoring system for a corn harvester.

Develop a prototype yield monitoring system that can beuse on any harvestingsystem where harvested crops are placed on a trailer that moves through a field.

Progress:

Overview

We have concentrated on developing a commercially workable system. It is moreimportant to learn to deal with the difficulties encountered while using availablecommercial products and services than to develop a process that is successful only at aresearch laboratory level. It is far more difficult to make compatible management systemsthan it is to produce yield maps. We have spent as much or more time trying to figure outhow to utilize yield maps as we have on their development. An end product must be made

228

from off-the-shelf, commercially available, hardware and software components that areeasily integrated.

We believe yield mapping should be combined with a computer management program. Weare much more interested in developing a farm management package than simplyproviding a yield monitor. Cooperatives, chemical companies, and progressive growersshould all start with a computerized mapping and record keeping program and access to aGPS unit. Yield monitoring then becomes the next step. Our program is unique in that weare linking load cells to a fully functional GPS unit that has built in computer capabilities.The same GPS unit used in the mapping activity has a wide range of other uses and isdirectly compatible with several software packages. Since users will purchase GPS units,we want to have the option of utilizing mapping software that comes with the unit.Purchasing additional software may not be necessary. Costs of a fully functional GPS unitand its included software are about the same as the GPS units and mapping software soldfor combine systems. However, the built in GPS unit on combine systems can only beused for yield monitoring. Our system is both powerful and transferable. It should workequally well on either a home made trailer or a $300,000 harvester.

We are also avoiding duplication of research and development work being conductedelsewhere. Weigh-Tronix, the manufacturer of the load cells that we use, is also workingwith other university and private sector finns. The major producers of agriculturalequipment (John Deere, International Harvester, etc.) are developing systems that willcome as options on their harvest equipment. A portion of research funds is being spentevaluating other systems. We want to implement this technology as quickly as possible. Ifcompeting research programs have a better product, we will use theirs rather than reinventthe wheel. Our work should supplement other efforts rather than directly compete withthem.

We have the most experience with John Deere's products, work with theiy representativeson several Willamette Valley projects and understand both the strengths and weaknessesof their products when applied to our industry. John Deere has a history of developingproprietary systems that are unable to exchange data with others. Their next generation ofsoftware (produced with AGRIS) is supposed to have an open and exchangeablearchitecture, but it is not yet available. Cenex also has their own proprietary system (AgMap) and does not appear to be moving as rapidly toward open architecture as JohnDeere. We are also aware of a wide range of additional commercial third party softwarepackages that are becoming available. Even with all this parallel development, their is notan inexpensive and user friendly, load cell based, system that is available for WillametteValley vegetable growers. Almost all systems are designed for small grain productionrather than vegetables. A single weight based system that can be used on a wide varietyof vegetable crops does not exist.

Our approach is to work closely with agribusiness firms and insure that our yieldmonitoring programs are compatible with whatever software platform is being used. Todate systems by PenMetrics, Corvallis MicroTechnology (CMT), John Deere and Ag Map

129

are the major software packages being used in the Willamette Valley. We are workingclosely with PenMetrics, CMT, and a John Deere partner (AGRIS) to make our load cellbased yield monitoring compatible with these three systems.

OSU does not want to get into the software maintenance and support business.Therefore, we are in the process of making agreements with current software vendors toadd an option that will allow users to directly import and manipulate downloaded filesfrom a CMT GPS unit into their software. Eventually growers should be able to purchaseoff-the-shelf GPS units, load cells, and software packages.

Specific Accomplishments

It was difficult to get all three components (load cells, differential corrections, and GPSunit) simultaneously working on a commercially operating bean harvester. This lead tonumerous frustrations for both harvester operators and research technicians. To increaseproductivity we built a laboratory mockup system that can be used for development work.Rather than making maps we spent most ofour time developing a system thatcontinuously accepts data without error under a wide range of conditions.

We have solved the major problems listed below:

Differential correction is required because the military scrambles the initial GPS signal.The commercial firm (DO) we contracted with to provide a real-time differentialcorrections has not been satisfactory. We are now using satellite broadcast correctionsrather than local fin radio stations.

It was extremely difficult to have technicians set up and reprogram the load cell units inthe field. We are now having Weigh-Tronix alter the OSU chip (currently available as anoption) to automatically set all settings when the machine is turned on.

The GPS unit must have a specific set of options activated in order to functionproperly. We are working with the company to have the OSU settings automatically setas the default on machines that are going to be used in the OSU program.

Software companies are now working to directly read the downloaded files into theirprograms

We are comfortable enough with our system to include the yield monitoring exercise inOSU GPS shortcourse workshops. The next offering of the training will be in lateFebruary.

Future Products

130

We anticipate that users should be able to purchase the following components by the 1998season. Selected users can have load cells installed and evaluate preliminary products inthe 1997 season:

Load cells from Weigh-Tronix with monitor and OSU chip ($1200 includesinstallation by local agriculture equipment repair shops).

GPS unit (includes mapping capable software) from Corvallis 1VficroTechnology($3600).Mapping and management software with an OSU file conversion module from several

vendors ($600-$2000). The $600 cost assumes that the user will use the software thatcomes with the GPS unit. Higher costs are involved if other packages are utilized.

Summary:

We have concentrated on making the yield monitoring system commercially viable. At theend of this year we anticipate commercialization. Growers should be able to purchase aCMT GPS unit that is directly compatible with the Weigh-Tronix load cells. Both areactivated by simply turning them on after a cable from the load cell monitor is connectedto the GPS serial port. Load cells can be installed by local agricultural machinery repairshops. Commercially available software will have special modules to download an utilizethe information on the GPS unit.

Signatures:

Timothy L. Righati, ProfessolDept. of Hort.

Chutes noym, nr..;:tu, .utsp.uvi Hort.



Supplemental Report to the Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission1996-1997

Processing and Quality Evaluation of Experimental Green Beans

Title Green Bean Breeding and Evaluation

Project Leaders Brian Yorgey, Food Science and TechnologyDan Farkas, Food Science and Technologywith J. R. Baggett, Horticulture

Project Dates July 1, 1996- June 30, 1997

Project Funding $ 9325

Processing funds were used for labor and supplies for processing ofexperimental beans, laboratory and data analysis, and industry evaluation.

Objectives

The basic objective of the processing component of this research is tosupport the green bean breeding program being carried out by Dr. Jim Baggett inthe Horticulture Department. The specific objectives are:

To provide Dr. Baggett and the Oregon vegetable processing industrywith frozen and canned samples of experimental green bean lines forcomparison to varieties currently grown in Oregon,

To organize and conduct the industry cutting for evaluation ofexperimental beans, including data analysis, and

To analyze processed selections and varieties for objective qualitycharacteristics.

Report of Progress

During the 1996 season, experimental green bean selections along withstandard varieties were canned and frozen in the Food Science Pilot Plant from allfive bean trials planted at the OSU Horticulture Vegetable Farm. Twelveexperimental standard sieve size beans and one slenderette type were processedalong with Oregon 91G and Oregon 54 as standards. Again in 1996, we spent asignificant amount of time evaluating small sieve beans. Seven OSU experimentalsmall sieve beans and two commercial small sieve varieties were harvested andprocessed.

Industry Evaluation

The industry evaluation was held in Feb of 1997. Frozen and cannedsamples were rated for color, straightness, smoothness, seediness, andoverall quality. The rating scale ranged from 1 (totally unacceptable) to 9(superior). Results were analyzed for advanced selections of standard sieveand small sieve beans for both frozen and canned processes. The FriedmanAnalysis of Rank method was used to determine whether statistically significantdifferences existed within each group and the Wilcoxin Signed Rank methodwas used to identify specific significant differences. Both of these statisticaltests yield values for the probability that there is no difference in the sets ofdata being compared. A Np" value of 1 means that it is a statistical certainty thatthere is no difference. A "pm value below .05 denotes a statistically significantdifference at the 95% confidence limit.

Green Bean Varieties and Selections Processed in 1994

TYPE VARIETY ORSELECTION

SOURCE

Standard Sieve Oregon 91GOregon 545416 OSU5163 OSU5630 OSU5635 OSU5520 OSU5566 OSU5575 OSU5669 OSU5598 OSU

Slenderette 5651 OSUSmall Sieve 5446 OSU

Minuette Harris Moran5600 OSU5613 OSU76-110 Rogers5713 OSU5732 OSU5737 OSU5747 OSUB7489-39-1-1-1 OSUB7489-39-3-2-1 OSUB7491-1-1-1-1 OSU

Results

Standard Sieve Beans: OR 91G, OR 54, OSU 5416, OSU 5163, OSU 5630,OSU 5635

Color: The Friedman analysis shows that there were significantdifferences in color scores among the standard sieve beans for both frozenand canned samples. For frozen samples, the color of 91G and 54 were ratedsignificantly better than any other beans. There was no significant differencedetected among the other four frozen beans. 91G was rated the better than allthe other canned samples except 54.

Straightness: The Friedman analysis shows significance for frozenand canned samples. 54, 91G, 5630, and 5416 were rated significantlystraighter than 5163 or 5635 for the frozen samples. 5635 was rated thestraightest canned sample though it was not significantly better than 5416.

Smoothness: The Friedman analysis shows significance for frozensamples but not for canned. Again, 5630 and 5163 were rated lower than theother four frozen samples.

Seediness: Again, the Friedman analysis shows significance forfrozen samples but not for canned. Frozen 91G, 5630, and 5416 were scoredsignificantly higher than 54, 5163 or 5635.

Overall Quality: The Friedman test show significance for bothfrozen and canned samples. Frozen 91G and 5630 were significantly betterthan the other four beans. Canned, 5630 was rated lower than all the otherbeans.

Small Sieve Beans: OSU 5446, Minuette, OSU 5600, OSU 5613

Color: Significant differences were detected among frozen samples.5446 had significantly better color than all the other beans. 5613 was betterthan 5600 and Minuette.

Straightness: The Friedman analysis shows significant differencesamong frozen and canned samples. Frozen 5613 and Minuette werestraighter than 5600 or 5446. Canned 5446 was scored significantly lowerthan the other beans.

Smoothness: The Friedman analysis shows significant differencesamong the frozen samples. 5613 was rated better than all other frozensamples.

Seediness: Significant differences were detected for both frozen orcanned samples. 5600 was rated lower than the other beans in the frozensamples. Canned Minuette and 5613 were rated higher than 5446 and 5600.

Overall Quality: The Friedman analysis shows significance for frozensamples but not for canned. 5446 and 5613 were rated highest though notsignificantly higher than Minuette.

1996 Standard Sieve Green Beans - Frozen

5

1

2

910 54 54141 5163 5630 5635

6

5

4

3

2

1

910 54 5416 5163 5630 5635

1

910 54 5416 $163 5636 5835

EdflibalLAfiffineiffABffallProbability ef no diffefence Norma samples, p ..0001

Mean Rank

Wilcoxin Seined Rank Analysis: p, ptobability of no Wigan°,

Ed5SIMMADAY.ffiff_dEffilkProbablilly of no difference among samples, p re .0001

Mean Rank

Wilcoxin Siened Rank Analysis: p, probability of no difference

EfiSSIMULAiffilIffiff_gBiffiliProbstbibty of NO difference among samples, p .0001

Mean Ronk

Friedman Analysis of RankProbability of NO difference

91054

5416

steam;

Mean Rank

sample% p = .0001

4.443.403.46

5163 3.085630 3.9654335 2.67

Wncoxin Sinned Rank Analysis:910 5630

p, probability5416

of no difference54 51 83 5835

910 - .387 .183 .006 .010 .0012 5830 .387 - .564 .172 .010 .013

5416 .183 .564 .503 .117 .10354 .008 .172 .503 .440 .198

1 5163 .010 .010 .117 .440 .412910 54 5 416 5163 5630 5035 5635 .001 .013 .103 .196 .412

EfifWinffiLAnatiffiffigilinkProbability of NO difference among easeptee, p o .00016

Mean Rank

910 5.0054 9.855

5416 3.445183 2.585830 3.964

5635 2.14

Wilcox's' Signed Rank Analysis: a ProbebfftY of no ffifferfeloe910 5830 54 5418 5163 5835

910 - .094 .002 .003 .0001 .00012 5630 .094 .749 .314 .006 .004

54 .002 .749 - .387 .016 .0085418 .003 .314 .387 .025 .008

1 5183 .0001 .006 .016 .025 .185910 54 5416 5163 5630 5635 5835 .0001 .004 .008 .008 .185 -

91054

541651 6356305835

4.544.263.242.803.352.82

91054

5630541656355163

- .405 .064 .005 .010 .008.405 .028 .008 .002 .003.064 .026 .488 .271 .238.005 .008 .488 .747 .978.010 .002 .271 .747 .731.006 .003 .238 .978 .731 -

910 54 5830 5416 5635 5163

91054

5416516356305635

3.981.283.502.814.072.58

54563091G

541851835635

- .653 .979 .201 .011 .008.653 - .605 .184 .003 .008.979 .605 - .235 .009 .005.201 .184 .235 .054 .062.011 .003 .009 .054 .629.008 .008 .005 .062 .629

54 5630 9143 5416 5163 5835

91054

54185183S$305635

3.943.833.483.094.042.63

5635Wilco min Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of RO difference

5630 910 54 5418 5163563091054

541651635835

.893 .605 .198 .040 .011.893 .831 .251 .055 .003.605 .831 .444 .104 .020.196 .251 .444 .235 .037.040 .055 .104 .235 .287.011 .003 .020 .037 .287

1996 Standard Sieve Green Beans - Canned

910 54 5416 5183 5630 5035

6

5

4

3

2

910 54 6418 5163 5830 5835

4

3

2

MO 54 $416 $183 58311 5835

4

3

2

1

910 54 5416 5163 56311 5635

6

5

2

1

610 54 5416 6183 5630 5635

Wilcox& Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of no difference910 54 5183 5418 5830 5635

91054

5035516354185630

.EdWIMMArnikik.21.14911Probability of no aflame, among samples, p c .002

Mean Rank

910 4.4454 4.08

5416 3.1751 63 3.505630 2.975635 2.83

Edlidnaithffilk.fillathiekProbability of no difference among samples, p = .001

Mean Rank

910 3.4754 3.47

5416 3.565183 3.035830 2.815835 4.86

Wilcoxin Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of RO diffFNICO5635 5418 910 54 51 63 5630

Friedman Analysis of RankProbability of NO difference among samples, p c .120

Mean Rank

Friedman A111112144 of RankProbability of NO difference among samples, p .060

Mean Rank

910 3.9754 4.05

5416 2.665183 3.425630 3.245635 3.86

Wilcoxin Sinned Rank Analysts: p, probability of 140 difference

54 910 5635 5163 5630 541654 - .728 .413 .394 .283 .022910 .728 .429 .509 .467 .017

5635 .413 .429 .903 .647 .12451 63 .394 .509 .903 .782 .0705830 .263 .487 .647 .782 .2565418 .022 .017 .124 .070 .256 -

Friecknan Analysis of RankProbability of NO difference among sample% p .015

Mean Rank

910 4.1854 4.11

5416 3.085163 3.115630 2.665835 3.90

Wilcoxin Sinned Rank Analysis: p. probability of 110 difference

910 54 5635 5183 5418 5830

910 - .429 .007 .005 .022 .00554 .429 - .083 .046 .020 .017

5163 .007 .083 - .414 .188 .0595416 .005 .046 .414 .380 .2575830 .022 .020 .166 .380 1.0005835 .005 .017 .059 .257 1.000

5635 - .090 .004 .002 .002 .0025416 .090 - .147 .179 .054 .151910 .004 .147 .783 .541 .40254 .002 .179 .783 - .386 .322

51 63 .002 .054 .541 .366 - .5075630 .002 .151 .402 .322 .507

910 3.6454 3.75

5416 3.3951 63 2.815630 3.175835 4.25

Wilcoxin Maned Rank Analysts: p. probability of no differenceSMOOTHNESS 5835 54 910 5416 5630 5183

5635 .530 .498 .320 .279 .03454 .530 .803 .584 .218 .210

910 .498 .003 - .820 .364 .1975418 .320 .564 .820 .640 .2005830 .279 .218 .384 .640 .3055163 .034 .210 .197 .200 .305

- .983 .688 .128 .1038 .0478.983 .751 .114 .124 .005.688 .751 .233 .229 .098.128 .114 .233 - .711 .509.1038 .124 .229 .711 - .542.0478 .005 .098 .509 .542

$

14

3

2

1

0

0

00

0uA

R LAlT

L Y

1996 Small Sieve Green Beans - Frozen

4

3

2

1

6441 MInuotte 6800 5613

4

3

2

1

6446 Minor/tie 6000 6613

4

3

12

1

1446 Minustt 6600 6113

4

3

2

1

6446 itimmtte 5600 5413

4

1

6446 Minima* liii 1113

Wficoxia Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of no *throne*

ELISKIN/MAifilkirkittanikProbability of no differsnee among samples, p ..021

Mean Rat

Wiiiloiliri Sinned Rank Analysis: p, promminty of no ammo.

Madman Analysis of RankProbability of NO different* among sampioo, p .016

Mean Rat

EdiNknialeililiblitil-CiallikProbability of NO differenes among samples, p ..040

Mean Rank

Wikoxin Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of no itinerate*

ProbabilityFriedman Analesis of Rank

p ..027of NO Morena*

5446Minuend,

amongMean Rank

samples,

2.852.37

5600 1.985613 2.83

WNcoxin Sinned Rank p probability of no *Menne*5446 5613 Minuend) 5600

5446 - .804 .108 .0255613 .894 .340 .007

Minuend. .108 .340 .4055800 .025 .007 .405

5446 5619 5600 Minuette5446 .035 .000 .0005813 .035 - .003 .0075600 .000 .003 .101

Minusits .000 .007 .101

Wilit0A1 Sallied Rank Anal : p probability of no different,'Minuend. 50005613 5446

5613 .025 .015 .0135446 .025 .881 .398

Minuend. .015 .861 .9085000 .013 .398 .308

Probability of no diffmontio amongMean Rat

samplos, p .0001

5446 3.44Minuotte 1.655800 2.065619 2.85

5813 Minuet% 5600 54485813 .082 .052 .019

Minuend) .082 .977 .3515600 .052 .977 .7885446 .019 .351 .788

5448 Minuene 5813 58005446 .600 .469 .005

Minuene .500 .709 .0435613 .469 .709 - .0895600 .005 .043 .089

5446 2.77Minuetto 2.735600 1.965613 2.54

5446 2.13Minuet* 2.40

5800 2.385813 3.10

5446 2.44Minuette 2.355800 2.195813 3.08

0

0

A

00

0uA

R LA

TY

1996 Small Sieve Green Beans - Canned

4

3

2

1

5446 Minwite 5606

4

3

2

1

5446 Mining* 5600 5613

4

1

5446 Minden* 51160 $613

4

2

54411 lnu.tt. 5600

4

1

6446 MInuotto 5600 6613

Wilcoxin Maned Rank Analysis: p probability of no Oilmen**

Probability of no ailerons' among earaplim, p .236Mean Rank

frkikliliii.Anliklilli-21-BalikProbability of no difference among samples, p ..002

Mean Rank

Wileoxin Skimmed Rank Analysis: p probability of no diffT110*

thilidifilikAnliklikatiblekProbability of NO differeneo among samples, p .105

Moan Rare

Wilcoxin Maned Rank Analysis: p, probability of no difforeneft

friarknan Analysis of RankProbability of NO differentia among eampimi, p .044

Mean Rank

Wileoxin Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of no differonoe

ErillikliliRAliiklilli-lialifikProbability of NO different,* among oomph*, p .161

Mean Rd*

IffBoomda Sinned Rank Analysis: p, probability of no different*

5448 5800 5613 Minuotte5446 .048 .149 .1075600 .048 .739 .4965613 .149 .739 - .381

Minions .107 .496 .381

Wean* 5600 5813 5448Minuette .185 .103 .005

5800 .185 .381 .0285613 .109 .381 .1865446 .005 .028 .188

Minuette 5613 5600 5446Minutiae - .341 .270 .110

5813 .341 1.000 .5415800 .270 1.000 .6695446 .110 .541 .889

ilinuette 5613 5446 5800Minuette .203 .016 .040

5613 .203 .143 .1325448 .016 .143 .7835600 .040 .132 .783

5446 2.55Minded* 2.325600 2.415613 2.41

Minuette 5613 5600 5446Minuette .539 .233 .022

5613 .539 .903 .2065600 .233 .903 .2175448 .022 .206 .217

5446 2.13Minden. 3.035800 2.135813 2.72

5446 3.47Minuette 3.47

5600 3.565613 3,03

5448 2.03Ilnuette 2.94

5600 2.415613 2.89

5446 2.15Minuetto 3.00

5600 2.385813 2.47

1996 Green Beans - Seed and Fiber

5563 1 8/7/95 1 5/30/96 I 69 I 12.99 - 1 0.030

CultivarHarvest

DatePlanting

Date % 1-4% Seeds

5 sv 6 sv% Fiber

5 sv 6 sv91G 7114195 4/26/95 65 6.66 - 0.010 -

8/21/95 6/22/95 65 3.99 5.13 0.015 0.0108/23/95 6/22/95 50 5.85 8.10 0.015 0.0258/25/95 6/22/95 39 3.74 8.45 0.012 0.0157/19/96 5/7/96 54 5.94 - 0.017 -8/5/96 5/29/96 63 4.78 - 0.018 -8/7/96 5/29/96 48 7.52 - 0.016 -8/16/96 6/14/96 69 4.67 - 0.018 -

54 7/28/958/7/95

5/16/955/30/95

5435

9.3910.63 11.46

0.0300.021 0.028

8/24/95 6/22/95 69 5.84 0.0208/26/95 6/22/95 49 7.44 7.64 0.023 0.0198/28/95 6/22/95 30 9.59 0.0168/28/95 6/22/95 30 10.54 0.024

5416 8/5/968/7/968/16/968/19/96

5/29/965/29/966/14/966/14/96

61416966

6.91 -8.24 -4.83 -5.86 -

0.016 -0.020 -

0.028 -0.018 -

5163 7/19/968/5/968/7/968/15/96

5/7/965/29/965/29/966/14/96

64675060

6.70 -7.749.63 -6.60 -

0.013 -0.018 -0.009 -

0.021 -

5630 7/19/968/5/968/15/96

5/7/965/29/966/14/96

675358

7.03 -

7.80 -

6.91 -

0.015 -

0.019 -

0.021 -

5635 8/28/957/23/968/5/968/7/96

6/22/955/7/965/29/965/29/96

37626752

8.42 9.1610.44 -

6.59 -

7.98 -

0.016 0.0160.039 -

0.015 -

0.026 -

5651 7/24/968/5/968/7/968/19/96

5/7/965/29/965/29/966/14/96

69826770

11.07 -

6.06 -

7.315.35 -

0.043 -

0.020 -

0.017 -

0.017 -

CultivarHarvest

DatePlanting

Date % 1-4 3 sv% Seeds

4 sv 5 sv 3 sv% Fiber

4 sv 5 sv5446 8/21/95 5/16/95 100 - 7.45 9.26 - 0.015 0.020

8/3/96 5/29/96 96 7.43 - - 0.012 - -8/5/96 5/29/96 84 7.89 - - 0.018 - -

8/14/96 6/14/96 92 4.68 - - 0.009 - -8/27/96 6/26/96 99 3.73 - - 0.013 - -8/29/96 6/26/96 95 5.77 - - 0.016 - -

Minuette 8/4/95 5/30/95 97 - 6.51 - 0.025 -7/22/96 5/7/96 79 7.11 - - 0.022 - -8/1/96 5/29/96 98 5.44 - - 0.023 - -

8/3/96 5/29/96 97 5.22 - - 0.010 - -

8/5/96 5/29/96 87 7.74 - - 0.020 - -8/15/96 6/14/96 99 2.50 - - 0.020 - -8/28/96 6/26/96 100 3.55 - - 0.027 - -8/30/96 6/26/96 97 5.33 - - 0.030 - -9/11/96 7/2/96 97 5.31 - - 0.032 - -

5600 7/22/968/1/968/3/968/5/96

8/15/968/19/968/28/968/30/969/3/969/9/96

5/7/965/29/965/29/965/29/966/14/966/14/966/26/966/26/966/26/967/2/96

9810010099100100

-

9998100

10.01 - -

7.11 - -

8.90 - -

8.64 - -

6.54 - -

9.38 - -

5.89 - -

7.99 - -

13.43 - -7.58 - -

0.045 - -0.036 - -0.027 - -0.028 - -0.035 - -0.059 - -0.059 - -

0.042 - -0.080 - -0.045 - -

5613 8/1/968/3/968/5/969/3/96

9/11/96

5/29/965/29/965/29/966/26/967/2/96

100100100100100

6.38 - -

8.05 - -

8.85 - -

8.60 - -

10.33 - -

0.044 - -0.051 - -0.036 - -0.490 - -0.042 - -

1996 Green Beans - Comments, Frozen

91 G interlocular cavitationearly + late harvests are less straight. seeds, seem largeMay plantings are yellower than June and July.good sweet flavorstill great colorgood green colorlong harvest days

54 variable seediness/interlocular cavitationcolor nicely uniform across harvest datesholding time on bean looks shorttoo short

541 6 interlocular cavitationpale color,early harvest very straight, nice, small seeds, lots of pod damagenot very many small sievessaw a little characterlight color in 5 sv

51 63 interlocular cavitationearly ones are light color, late ones are good on straightnessSeptember harvest looks good, straight when others were bent.too many short onessaw some seediness in the later plantingstender & small..smooth early

5630 interlocular cavitationvery bright color. Problems with smoothness & straightness.3/5 of the samples looked pretty good over alllacks good sweet flavor. good range of SV

5635 interlocular cavitationlighter than 5630. very bumpy. large seeds, thin walls, bumpiest plus most bent of all.


5520 color light, smooth & straightpale color but nice thick walls + small seeds, smooth but tend to curvegood color and shape.smooth, straight, light color.light colorgood color, good smoothnesslight colornot to straight, kind of smoothno small sv beans, nice and straightlighter colortoo light in colorlightnice long beans, light colorpoor variable colorpalepoor colorcolor light (5), straight (7), smooth (6), seed (7).seedy looking, light colorlighter color, fairly straightstraight, rough, big seeds, light colorlightnice texture, color poor

5566 good color, smooth & straightdark color but large seeds, curved.dark color, not very straight.fairly straight and smooth, good color.rough podbig seed, lumpybetter color, not straighta little bumpytoo many short and stubby beans, seed big.good color, maturity-shows promise?too lightseedyshort, medium color, seedsgoodnice colorcolor okcolor (7), straight (7), smooth (6), seed (7).not smooth lookinggood color & straightnesssmooth straight, big seedsseedygood color, not very smooth

1996 Green Beans - Comments Frozen

5575 good color, avg. smoothness, good straightnessthick walls, smooth but tend to pollywog, color dull.fair texture moderate shape.straight smooth fairly good colornot straightcolor ok, not very straighta little uneven in diametertoo many mis-shaped, small beansvery smooth, some bulb ends.light colorbottlenecksmedium color, shortpoor light colorlighter colorpoor colorcolor light in large sieve sizes (6), straight (7), smooth (7), seed (7).puffy looking, seedygood looking overallsmooth, light color, big beanspoor colornot very straight

5669 good color, less seedy than others, good straightness & smoothnesspollywogs, variable seed size, but smooth, color ok.Good color & texturegood colorsmall seed not very smoothcolor OK?not straight enoughstrong bean flavor, good colorbetter colorlow 1-4 sv, good colorgood colornice dark green colorgood color

color (8), straight (7), smooth (7), seed (7).tastes very poorfair lookingnice colorgood color, big seedsgoodnice cut beans


5698 variable color, straight, avg. smoothness, less seedynice + straight at small sieve size, smooth, bright color.straight good colorlight colorstraightgood seedto light, odd shapesgood smoothness, acceptable straightnessvariable color too much, nice and straightsome lighter colorlight colorlight, good length, low 1-4 svvariable colorgood color, smoothpoor colorcolor (7), straight (7), smooth(7), seed (7).good taste, straight, somewhat seedynice color, straightgood color & straightnesssmooth, not too straightuneven colornot very smooth

5651 large seeds, bumpy.each good bean flavor, short and stubbygoodcolor too deeprough bean

1996 Green Beans - Comments Frozen

5446 goes to 4 sv too fast, too lumpy for seed size, lack good flavorfat lookinga little shortshort 1-3 sv., good dark green colorbumpy

Minuette color variable, some polywogshides big seeds well, light in colorlighter color for N.W.lighttoo light & too shortshort variable color

5600 seed size large for pod sizetoo many 4 svs, 4 svs lumpynoted some flat pods

5613 nice shapehides seed well, not many 4sv (good), flavor more like 91Gnice lookinggood lengthnice bean, good quality

76-110 good color but variable with maturity, straight, avg. smoothnesssmall sieve good but get bumpy as they get bigger.good color & shape, & nice texture.straightgood color, good smoothness & straightnessstraight but color a little offlarger sieve sizes show color variationlumpy on the bigger sieve size, good colornice 1-4 sv, some lighter color in the larger svgoodlighter than usual, good uniform sizepoor colorlarger beans, poor colorcolor (7), straight (7), smooth(6), seed (7), overall qual. (7).deep greenseed development, lighter colorsmooth, big seeds, rough bigger beansseedy cut beans, poor texture


5713 excellent color (vry dk. green), dk green seed, suture too lightpod shape tends to be bulbus at distal end, long style-not typical.dark + smooth but curved. Good length.bad colorbad color, fair shape, okay texturevery dark color, straightlong but not straightdark colorsmooth, straight, long, & dark, but the yellow of the suture is quite prominentwhite strip down the bean, good dark color, may be a little to dark.too dark, interesting pods/suture lingmidrib too light in colordo not like strip down the backtoo dark, striped lookok smoothstraight (9), smooth(9), seed (9), overall qual. (9), color may be too dark.nice dark green colorreally dark green, almost too muchno-poor overall colornice dark color

5732 medium smooth, good color but variable.bumpydark color, good shapestraight, bumpygood straightnessgood color, kind of seedyfairly straight, but a little bumpyno flavor, good color, straightgood but slightly lighter in colorgood color, little shortvariable colorsome lighter colorstraight (7), smooth(6), seed (6), overall qual. (6).too bumpyseed developmentrough, dark spots on the beanuneven color


5737 good color, short pod, medium smoothness.seeds too large, white, bumpy pods, too short but color good.looks fairly seedy, good colorbumpygood straightness, but big seed.color ok, not good pod developmenta little bumpy, and crookedtoo many big sieve, not uniform good flavorsome seedinessslightly lighter in colorgood color, shortnot as smoothpoor shapestraight (7), smooth(6), seed (6), overall qual. (6).seedy lookingseed developmentdark + light mixpoor quality

5747 good color, avg. straightnes & smoothnesstoo fat, slightly bumpy.good apperance, nice shape.pod slightly bumpybig seed, lumpygood color, straightsome seediness in larger svnice - very similar to 91G's at similar sieve sizetoo many 4 svvery good, smoothcolor okcolor (8), straight (7), smoothness (7), seed (7) overall qual (7).keep trialingexcellent shape, lighter colorsmall, smooth, but discoloration ( not disease but color)fairly nice appearance

B7489-39-1 -1-1

B7489-39-3-2-1

B7491-1-1-1-1

1996 Green Beans - Comments, Frozenlong tapered, good color, smoothness & straightness.color dark but dull, bumpy, look short + fat.nice color, good texturevery straightgood color, straighness, good seedcolor ok, not as good on lengthsmooth and straight, pretty good looking beannice and straight, good dark colornice - dark colorgood color, smoothnicershort, nostraight (7), smooth(8), seed (8), overall qual. (7).straightshorter length, broad shapeshort, dark colornot very smooth

light suture, medium straightness, fairly smooth.fatter and bumpier than 7491, tends to curve but color good.has a little curve, decent color & texture.light uneven colorstraight, good seedsimilar but not as good as 7491-1-1-1-1fairly smooth, straight and long, pretty good looking beangood flavors, lumpy, nice & long, good sieve rangegood - seed development larger.smooth, good lengthpaleuneven colorstraight(8), smooth(9), seed(9), overall(9)long straight smooth.lighter color, shorter lengthlighter colorpoor quality

nice straight & smooth, good len., good color.really nice color + shape-long + slender, smooth, straight.long in length, dark color.smooth & straightgood seedgood straight beans, color goodsmooth, fairly straight, and long, pretty good looking bean.good dark color, long, good sv size range, flavor so so.very straight, smooth pod, good length.nice- straight, good colorvery good lengthdarker greenlook ok, good looking beanstraight (8), smooth(9), seed (9), overall qual. (9)good length & straightnesslong, good colornice, fairly straight, smooth bean

1996 Green Beans - Comments, Canned

54 poor taste compared to 91G

5416 sl. more beany flavortaste (6)large seeds in larger sieve

5163 too bumpylate season more straight

5630 variable on seedinesstaste (5)

5635 poor flavortaste (3)

5520 significantly less seedygood seed sizegood smoothness & straightpoor colortoo much seed developmentgood small seedscolor allrightgood seed size and smoothnessgood character on the cutsgood for seedinessmaybe a little short, good seed sizeOutside appearence not real appealing, some shrivel

5566 smoothnot very straightnice beans, little curvycolor oknot good shapeok, large seeds, cavitationroughnice and smooth and fairly straightpoor flavorgood length and seed developmentsmoothseed a little largesize variences, some not so straight, good smoothness


5575 not seedynice looking bean, good seed sizecolor OKbad seed sizegoodgood size, good colorsmooth but not particularly straightgood colorsmooth & straightsmooth, good appearancegood color, good straightnessa little pale

5669 better colornot very straightgood colornot very straightpods seem short, roughsmallgood colornothing about is impresses me, but the flavor is okcolor goodrough shapehigh seediness, good texturedarker

5698 smooth & straightgood straightnessgood colorgoodavg. beanlighter color, big beangood appearance in generallarge seed developmentcolor bada little bumpynot as smooth, good colorNO

5651 taste terriblesome large seed development

76-110


5446 too many short beansgood dark NW colortoo short

Minuette flavor differenceseedygood taste

5600 bumpylarge seed development in the 4 sv

5613 bumpyreally notice the seediness in the 4 sv.best of all the minis

poor appearancegood smoothnessoknot good shapestraight & smallrough big seedsa little crookednice shape, smoothpoor overallbumpy podsgood color and good smoothness

5713 good colortoo darkcolor too dark, prominent ribnice, except for that suturelight green stripe down seam - poor, too dark colorgood color, longgood lengthtoo dark color and not very straight

5732 bumpyuneven colortoo roughkind of bumpynice small seeds, but bumpyseedy and crookedrough pod, not smoothpale color, fairly seedy

B7489-39-1-1-1

B7491-1-1-1-1


5737 poor colorshorttoo roughkind of bumpytoo bumpybumpy & straightnot smooth

poor color, not real smooth

5747 very bumpynice straight beansoknot very smoothnice looking 2-3 sievesmall bean, big seeds, roughsomewhat bumpy and not straight, not terrible thoughaveragegood colorsmoothnessnot very straight, good color

nice, straightokI like all these "B" beanslight green stripe down side=poorgood colorshortgreat color, great smoothness

B7489-39-3-2-1 oklooks goodgood color, straightness and smoothnessnice, straightlong, straight, good colorvaries in color, good smoothness

looks goodnice and long toonice straight bean, good appearancelong , straight, good colorvaries in color, good straightness

Documents

REPORTS TO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR THE …