Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; 326
Title: Tests of cigar-wrapper tobacco varieties resistant to blackshank
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026401/00001
 Material Information
Title: Tests of cigar-wrapper tobacco varieties resistant to blackshank
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Alternate Title: Tests of cigar wrapper tobacco varieties resistant to blackshank
Physical Description: 18 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Gratz, L. O ( Levi Otto ), b. 1894
Kincaid, Randall R ( Randall Rich ), 1903-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1938
 Subjects
Subject: Tobacco -- Disease and pest resistance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Phytophthora nicotianae   ( lcsh )
Cigars   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by L. O. Gratz and Randall R. Kincaid.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026401
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000924554
oclc - 18214115
notis - AEN5181

Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






October, 1938


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
WILMON NEWELL, Director



TESTS OF CIGAR-WRAPPER

TOBACCO VARIETIES

RESISTANT TO BLACKSHANK

By

L. O. GRATZ and RANDALL R. KINCAID


Fig. 1.-A blackshank-resistant variety of tobacco developed at the North Florida Experi-
ment Station, and the susceptible Connecticut Round Tip variety.

Bulletins will be sent free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 326









EXECUTIVE STAFF

John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of
the University
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Director
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Asst. Dir., Research
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager
K. H. Graham, Business Manager
Rachel McQuarrie, Accountant


MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE
AGRONOMY
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist**
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Associate*
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Associate
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
John P. Camp, M.S., Assistant
Roy E. Blaser, M.S., Assistant
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Animal Husbandman**
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman
L. M. Thurston, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Asso. in An. Nutrition
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husbandman
O. W. Anderson, M.S., Asst. Poultry Husb.
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husbandman
R. M. Crown, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husbandman
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Assistant Dairy
Husbandman
L. L. Rusoff, M.S., Asst. in An. Nutrition
CHEMISTRY AND SOILS
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Chemist**
R. M. Barnette, Ph.D., Chemist
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate
R. B. French, Ph.D., Associate
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant
J. Russell Henderson, M.S.A., Assistant
L. W. Gaddum, Ph.D., Biochemist
L. H. Rogers, M.A., Spectroscopic Analyst
Richard A. Carrigan, B.S., Asst. Chemist

ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist**
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Assistant
ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Specialist**
Ruth Overstreet, R.N., Assistant
ENTOMOLOGY
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist**
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist**
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Spec., Fumigation Res.
R. D. Dickey, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist
J. Carlton Cain, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
Victor F. Nettles, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist*
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. K. Voorhees, M.S., Assistant
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist
Lillian E. Arnold. M.S.. Assistant Botanist


BOARD OF CONTROL

R. P. Terry, Chairman, Miami
Thomas W. Bryant, Lakeland
W. M. Palmer, Ocala
H. P. Adair, Jacksonville
Chas. P. Helfenstein, Live Oak
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee

BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
J. D. Warner, M.S., Agronomist
Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
John H. Jefferies, Superintendent
Michael Peech, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. W. Lawless, B. S., Asst. Horticulturist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Biochemist in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Associate Entomologist
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist
Jos. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Horticul.
Frederick Boyd, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
R. W. Kidder, B.S., Asst. Animal Husbandman
W. T. Foresee, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Engineer*
SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
W. CENTRAL FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
W. F. Ward, M.S., Asst. An. Husbandman
in Charge*

FIELD STATIONS

Leesburg
M. N. Walker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist in
Charge
K. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
C. C. Goff, M.S., Assistant Entomologist
Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. N. Lobdell, M.S., Entomologist
Cocoa
A. S. Rhoads, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Monticello
Sam O. Hill, B.S., Asst. Entomologist*
Bradenton
David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
Sanford
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge,
Celery Investigations
W. B. Shippy, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Lakeland
E. S. Ellison, Meteorologist*
B. H. Moore, A.B., Asst. Meteorologist*
In cooperation with U.S.D.A.
** Head of Department.








TESTS OF CIGAR-WRAPPER TOBACCO VARIETIES

RESISTANT TO BLACKSHANK

By L. O. GRATZ and RANDALL R. KINCAID

CONTENTS
PAGE PAGE
INTRODUCTION ..... .. ... ..... ................... 3 Other plant characteristics ........... 7
METHODS ...... ....................................... 4 Number of pounds harvested ......... 9
RESULTS ........................................... ...... ... 5 Grades and relative values .............. 9
Blackshank and root-knot ...................... 5 Cigar data ................................. ........ 14
Date of blooming and priming .............. 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .... ........ 17

INTRODUCTION

The blackshank situation in the cigar-wrapper industry in
Florida from 1920 to 1930 was clearly defined by Tisdale (1),
2, 3), and a brief review will suffice here. Blackshank, caused by
Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan (P. parasitica var.
nicotianae Tucker), was first observed near Fowlstown, Georgia,
about 1915. It spread throughout the district and was identified
by Tisdale in 1922. For about 10 years after that it was the
most serious disease in the Southern cigar-wrapper area. It
was found that under the conditions in which shade-grown
cigar-wrapper tobacco is produced, blackshank could be con-
trolled only by planting resistant varieties. Tisdale's success
in developing varieties satisfactory for both resistance and
quality was outstanding.
Several varieties produced by breeding and selection showed
much promise from the standpoint of yield, quality and resist-
ance to this disease. These were designated R, 301, 94 and
Rg. R was a suspected cross between the susceptible Connecti-
cut Round Tip variety and a partially resistant strain of the
Big Cuba variety. Variety 301 was a cross between Big Cuba
and the highly resistant Little Cuba variety. Variety 94 was
a cross between 301 and R, two selections of which are sub-
sequently designated as 94-2 and 94-4. The Rg variety was

1. TISDALE, W. B. Tobacco diseases in Gadsden County in 1922 with sug-
gestions for their prevention and control. Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station Bul. 166: 73-118. 1922.
2. TISDALE, W. B., and J. G. KELLEY. A phytophthora disease of tobacco.
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bul. 179: 157-219. 1926.
3. TISDALE, W. B. Development of strains of cigar-wrapper tobacco
resistant to blackshank (Phytophthora nicotianae Breda de Haan).
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bul. 226: 1-45. 1931.
Acknowledgment.-The authors wish to acknowledge the services of
Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent, under whose immediate direction all
of the work of growing and curing, sweating and grading, as well as the
manufacture of the cigars, was carried on.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


the progeny of a single surviving plant in a row of Connecticut
Round Tip grown in 1929. Repeated attempts to obtain black-
shank resistance in Connecticut Round Tip by selection have
been unsuccessful. Furthermore, the Rg variety resembled
certain hybrid varieties more closely than Connecticut Round
Tip. Therefore, it is believed that the original resistant Rg
plant resulted from a hybrid seed accidentally introduced into
the seedbed of the Connecticut Round Tip variety.
Because of the urgent demand for blackshank-resistant vari-
eties for commercial production, several of those produced by
Tisdale were released to growers before their comparative value
for wrappers had been determined. By 1932 these varieties
were grown on a considerable acreage but during recent years
Rg has been planted most extensively by growers in the South-
ern wrapper-producing area. Because of complications arising
from the use of several varieties in a comparatively small area
the need arose for tests of some of the most promising, to de-
termine their resistance, quality and other characteristics under
comparable conditions, so that the least desirable ones might
be eliminated from commercial production. Results of these
tests are reported in this bulletin.
Seed of blackshank-resistant varieties are produced at the
North Florida Experiment Station for growers of cigar-wrapper
tobacco. Also a program of breeding and selection is being
continued at this station in the hope of developing disease-
resistant varieties that may prove still more desirable in yield
and quality. Since those now being grown commercially are
reasonably satisfactory to growers, packers and cigar manu-
facturers, tests of new varieties will be continued until their
superiority is thoroughly demonstrated before any are released
to growers.
METHODS
Five varieties, 301, 94-2, 94-4, R and Rg, were planted, each
in three 1/15 acre plots totaling 1/5 acre of each variety. Thus
the entire experiment covered one acre, and provided a sufficient
volume of tobacco for the observations desired. The soil was
heavily infested with the blackshank fungus and root-knot nema-
todes (Heterodera marioni Goodey). Observations were made in
the field on blackshank and root-knot infection, and also on the
general growth habit of the plants and other plant character-
istics. Local growers and packers were invited to study the
different varieties and to give their opinions of them.






Cigar-Wrapper Tobacco Resistant to Blackshank


Second, third and fourth primings only were harvested for
further observations, because of lack of barn space. These
primings were cured, sweated and graded in the usual com-
mercial manner. Corresponding primings from the three repli-
cations were combined to give sufficient volume for commercial
grading. Samples of certain grades were used in tests on cigars.
Throughout the season every precaution was taken to give all
varieties comparable treatment.
This procedure was followed for four years, 1933 to 1936,
inclusive, except that the R variety was discontinued after the
second year because it offered no promise with respect to yield
and quality.
RESULTS
BLACKSHANK AND ROOT-KNOT
Blackshank infection as indicated by the number of plants
wilted and dead was determined at intervals of about 10 days
throughout the growing season. Rows of Connecticut Round
Tip planted near the resistant varieties and under identical
conditions served as checks. Results of the final inspections,
made each year during the harvest season in June, are given
in Table 1.
TABLE 1.-PERCENTAGES OF TOBACCO PLANTS WILTED AND DEAD BECAUSE
OF BLACKSHANK FROM 1933 TO 1936, INCLUSIVE.

Year Variety
SRT 301 94-2 | 94-4 | R I Rg
1933 ............... .. 25 0 1 0 0 0
1934 ...................... 64 2 2 0 2 2
1935 .............. 67 3 5 7 2
1936 ....................... ... 95 15 25 37 6

Average .... 62.75 5.0 8.25 11.0 2.5


At the end of each priming season except the first a sample
of about 500 plants of each variety was pulled and the roots
were examined for blackshank and root-knot. The plants of
each variety were classified according to the severity of black-
shank and root-knot infection, and percentage values were as-
signed to each classification. The classifications for blackshank
were as follows: None (0%), trace (10%), slight (20%),






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


medium (40%), severe (70%), and dead (100%); those for
root-knot were: None (0%), trace (10%), slight (20%),
medium (60%), and severe (100%). The calculated average
severity of infection was used as an index for comparing the
different varieties in each year. This calculated index for the
four different varieties, given in Table 2, should not be con-
fused with the actual percentage of plants wilted and dead,
given in Table 1.
TABLE 2.-CALCULATED AVERAGE SEVERITY OF BLACKSHANK AND OF ROOT-
KNOT ON THE ROOTS OF TOBACCO VARIETIES IN 1934, 1935 AND 1936.

Year Blackshank Root-Knot
301 |94-2 94-4 Rg I 301 .1 94-2 1 94-4 Rg
1934 ........................ 8 17 6 5 24 33 38 44
1935 .......................... 14 18 15 5 28 33 23 24
1936 .................. .... 38 53 54 22 45 47 43 66

Average ....... 20 29 25 11 32 38 34 45


Results given in both Tables 1 and 2 show that these four
resistant varieties suffered a much smaller amount of black-
shank infection than the checks of the Connecticut Round Tip
variety; Rg being most resistant, followed by 301. In com-
parison with the resistant varieties Connecticut Round Tip
check rows were heavily infected by the end of each priming
season and no severity index is given for this variety.
Average losses from blackshank varied widely during the
four years of the test, being largest in 1936. The percentage
of plants severely infected, as indicated by wilting, remained
fairly small for Rg. The low percentages of blackshank dur-
ing the first three years of the experiment cannot be explained,
but it is to be observed that both the susceptible Connecticut
Round Tip and the four resistant varieties followed the same
general trend during the four years of the trial.
Average severity of root-knot infection was rather high in
all varieties, indicating that all are about equally susceptible.

DATE OF BLOOMING AND PRIMING
The stage of buttoning or blooming is one of the characters
commonly considered by growers in judging the ripeness of a
crop for the first priming. To check the applicability of this






Cigar-Wrapper Tobacco Resistant to Blackshank


method to the varieties under test, comparative observations
were made in 1933. The number of plants in bloom on three
different dates was used in calculating the date on which ap-
proximately 10% of the plants were in bloom. This date,
together with the percentage of plants in bloom on June 14,
and dates of harvesting of the second, third and fourth prim-
ings are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3.-DATES OF BLOOMING AND OF PRIMING OF DIFFERENT VARIETIES
IN 1933.
Plants in
Variety bloom Date of Date of priming middles
June 14 blooming*I Second I Third Fourth
% June June June June
301 ......................... 8 15 15 22 30
94-2 ..................... 4 16 15 22 30
94-4 ... ................... 12 13 14 20 29
R .............................' 21 12 16 26 1**
Rg ..0.......... ...... 0 17 14 20 29
Conn. R. T. ............ 10 14 -
*10% of plants.
**July.

It is interesting to note that the Rg variety, which was latest
in blooming, was judged by other methods as one of the earliest
in ripeness for priming, and that the reverse was true for R.
It is evident that there is a difference of several days among
the five resistant varieties in the stage of blooming at the date
of the second priming, and that the judging of ripeness by the
stage of buttoning must be adapted to each variety.

OTHER PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Although all five resistant varieties were judged satisfactory
from the standpoint of growth characteristics, certain observa-
tions should be mentioned.
The color of the leaves in the field varied considerably. R was
the darkest green, followed in order by 301, 94-2, 94-4 and Rg.
This order was approximately the same as that for date of
priming from latest to earliest.
The angle at which the leaves are joined to the stalk was
widest for 301, the leaves hanging approximately at right angles
to the stalk. The angle decreased for other varieties in the
following order: 94-2, Rg, 94-4, and R. This angle is of prac-






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


tical importance because leaves which hang lowest are most
subject first, to damage during cultivation, and second, to turn-
ing in the wind, which makes it necessary to turn them back
before the lower surfaces are scalded by strong sunlight. Also,
among the four resistant varieties, 94-2 was most damaged
by storms of wind and rain, the stalks becoming crooked and
the leaves turned and twisted; Rg was next in order followed
by 94-4 and 301.
The angle which the lateral veins made with the midrib
(called the stem by the trade) of the leaf differed slightly. In
301 it was approximately 90 or a right angle near the base
of the leaf. Rg was almost the same, and 94-2, 94-4 and R
had slightly acute angles. Acute angles are considered desirable
by cigar manufacturers, but the differences among the five
resistant varieties in this respect were not considerable.
Measurements of leaves of the second, third and fourth prim-
ings were made in 1933. Of three width measurements of the
leaf, the first was taken half way between the middle and the
tip, the second at the middle, and third half way between the
middle and the base. These are designated as the measurements
of the tip, middle and base, respectively. Approximately 100
leaves of each priming were selected at random and measured
immediately after harvesting. The same leaves were measured
again after curing and sweating, only the length and middle
width being taken. Average measurements for the three prim-
ings, representing 300 leaves of each variety, are given in
Table 4.
TABLE 4.-AVERAGE MEASUREMENTS IN INCHES OF GREEN AND CURED
LEAVES FROM DIFFERENT VARIETIES IN 1933.

Green leaves | Cured leaves
Variety Primings |
Variety Primings Length Width Length Middle
I I Tip IMiddle Base I width
301 ............. 2, 3, 4 22.2 9.5 13.0 10.7 19.1 10.1
94-2 ............ 2, 3, 4 22.7 10.1 12.9 9.9 20.2 10.5
94-4 ............... 2,3,4 21.6 9.6 12.3 9.2 19.4 10.4
R ................. 2, 3, 4 21.7 9.8 13.0 10.6 19.1 10.8
Rg ................. 2, 3, 4 22.5 10.5 13.4 10.6 20.2 11.2

These measurements show that the leaves of the five resist-
ant varieties were very similar in size and shape. The shape






Cigar-Wrapper Tobacco Resistant to Blackshank


of the leaf probably affected to a certain extent the yield of
cigar wrappers per leaf, as reported later in this bulletin.

NUMBER OF POUNDS HARVESTED
Yields of the varieties tested were determined for only the
second, third and fourth primings. Yields of these three prim-
ings, calculated on a basis of one acre, are given in Table 5.
Although total yields of all primings were not determined
it is believed that the partial yields given are a fairly reliable
indication. R was lowest in yield for both years in which it
was included in the test. Among the other four varieties 94-4
was lowest for three years out of four. Rg, 301 and 94-2
averaged nearly the same for the four years of the test.

TABLE 5.-NUMBER OF POUNDS OF GRADED TOBACCO HARVESTED PER ACRE
FROM THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PRIMINGS OF THE DIFFERENT
VARIETIES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO.

Year 301 94-2 94-4 R Rg

1933 .............. 629 603 549 429 640
1934 ............... 630 671 669 593 620
1935 ............. 645 613 588 ...... 643
1936 .............. 562 499 392 ..... 590

Average .... 617 597 550 ...... 623


GRADES AND RELATIVE VALUES
After curing and sweating the experimental lots were graded
in the usual commercial manner. Samples of the different
grades were submitted each year except one to several packers,
who placed an estimated valuation on the tobacco represented.
The average of these estimates for each grade was used in
calculating the value of the crop for that year. The 1933 scale
of values was used also in 1934.
Since there was some variation in the number of pounds
harvested, all data obtained when the tobacco was graded were
calculated on a basis of 100 pounds from the three primings
of each variety. These data are presented in Tables 6 to 10,
inclusive.









0


TABLE 6.-GRADES AND VALUES PER 100 POUNDS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PRIMINGS PRODUCED BY FIVE
RESISTANT VARIETIES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO IN 1933.


Grades


Prime light ......................
Fleshy light ...... .......
Medium light .................
Off color .........................
Stained .....................
Heavy medium ..............
No. 2 off color ................
White vein ......................
No. 2 light .....................
Broke light ......................
Broke medium ...............
Broke white vein ............
Filler ............ ......


Assigned
value per
pound

$1.90
1.50
1.00
1.20
.70
.60

.90
1.00
.60
.40
.40
.10


Totals ..-................... ......... .............


301
pounds I value

0.5 $ .95
1.7 2.55
14.8 14.80
7.3 8.76
1.3 .91
21.3 12.78
0 0
22.0 19.80
2.2 2.20
1.5 .90
14.6 5.84
6.5 2.60
6.3 .63


100.0 72.72


Increase over 301-Cash value ..................................

Percent .............. ..................


94-2
pounds I value

2.0 $ 3.80
6.2 9.30
11.5 11.50
3.8 4.56
4.9 3.43
9.6 5.76
0 0
30.5 27.45
4.8 4.80
1.3 .78
10.8 4.32
8.4 3.36
6.2 .62


100.0 79.68


6.96

9.57
-I


94-4
pounds value

1.2 $ 2.28
3.5 5.25
16.0 16.00
3.8 4.56
1.0 .70
16.0 9.60
0 0
30.9 27.81
2.6 2.60
1.9 1.14
10.8 4.32
7.0 2.80
5.3 .53


100.0 77.59


4.87

6.70
1


pounds I value

0.1 $ .19
1.2 1.80
10.2 10.20
5.9 7.08
3.7 2.59
23.4 14.04
0 0
30.1 27.09
1.0 1.00
1.0 .60
10.4 4.16
5.4 2.16
7.6 .76


100.0 71.67


-1.05
-1.44
]


Rg
pounds value

2.7 $ 5.13
4.9 7.35
15.2 15.20
3.0 3.60 3.
1.1 .77
17.9 10.74
0 0
25.9 23.31
3.9 3.90
1.9 1.14
10.8 4.32
7.2 2.88
5.5 .55


100.0 78.89


6.17

8.48
1


I









TABLE 7.-GRADES AND VALUES PER 100 POUNDS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PRIMINGS PRODUCED BY FIVE


Assigned
Grades value per
pound

Prime light ...................... $1.90
Fleshy light .................... 1.50
Medium light ............... 1.00
Off color ........................ 1.20
Stained ............................. .70
Heavy medium .............. .60
No. 2 off color ................ .60
White vein ..................... .90
No. 2 light ................... .. 1.00
Broke light ................... .60
Broke medium .............. .40
Broke white vein ........... .40
Filler ....................... ....I.. .10


Totals .............. ....... ................


Increase over 301-Cash value ..........

Percent ...........-


RESISTANT VARIETY


301
pounds I value


0.8
0.6
2.9
18.6
0.2
8.7
20.6
2.8
12.7
14.4
7.3
0.9
9.5


100.0


$ 1.52
.90
2.90
22.32
.14
5.22
12.36
2.52
12.70
8.64
2.92
.36
.95


73.45


ES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO IN 1934.

94-2 94-4 I R I Rg
pounds value pounds value pounds I value pounds value

1.0 $ 1.90 1.5 $ 2.85 0.1 $ .19 1.8 $ 3.42
1.7 2.55 2.4 3.60 0.3 .45 1.5 2.25
5.7 5.70 7.9 7.90 3.1 3.10 6.1 6.10
13.2 15.84 21.5 25.80 7.2 8.64 17.0 20.40
4.6 3.22 1.1 .77 0.7 .49 1.6 1.12 o
8.5 5.10 13.5 8.10 8.2 4.92 9.5 5.70 Q
6.7 4.02 9.0 5.40 15.6 9.36 11.9 7.14 P
4.6 4.14 6.2 5.58 6.0 5.40 4.3 3.87
22.2 22.20 16.5 16.50 9.4 9.40 20.3 20.30
12.8 7.68 7.4 4.44 10.1 6.06 9.8 5.88
8.8 3.52 7.4 2.96 14.7 5.88 8.3 3.32 .
1.3 .52 1.8 .72 2.6 1.04 1.5 .60
8.8 .88 3.8 .38 22.0 2.20 6.4 .64 a


100.0 77.27 100.0 85.00 100.0 57.13 100.0 80.74 Q


3.82 11.55 16.32 7.29

5.20 15.72 -22.22 9.92
Z-%.


~~












TABLE 8.-GRADES AND VALUES PER 100 POUNDS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PRIMINGS PRODUCED BY FOUR
RESISTANT VARIETIES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO IN 1935.


Grades


Prime light ........................
Fleshy light .....................
Medium light ......................
Off color .............................
Stained ..............................
Heavy medium ...............
No. 2 off color ....................
W hite vein ........................
No. 2 light .......................


Assigned
value per
pound

$1.40
1.30
.90
1.10
.70
.70
.70
.90
.90


pounds


value

$ .42
1.30
3.78
11.33
4.34
10.22
24.92
0
5.40


Broke light ......................... .60 8.2 4.92
Broke medium ................ .50 6.6 3.30
Broke white vein .....-........ .40 0 0
Filler .................................. .10 7.0 .70


Totals ............... ... .................... 100.0 70.63


Increase over 301-Cash value ...................... ..........

Percent ...... ........ .... ...........


value


value


.98
2.47
6.30
15.40
7.70
12.95


pounds

0.6
1.3
5.4
9.6
18.6
12.7
13.8
0.2
10.3
5.6
13.3
0
8.6


100.0


pounds

0.7
1.9
7.0
14.0
11.0
1.8.5
20.0
0
7.2
4.5
8.0
0
7.2


100.0


$ .84
1.69
4.86
10.56
13.02
8.89
9.66
.18
9.27
3.36
6.65
0
.86


69.84


-.79

1.12
I1


pounds

1.1
2.3
6.0
18.8
5.4
16.6
21.4
0.1
9.5
5.2
9.3
0
4.3


100.0


Rg
I value

$ 1.54
2.99
5.40
20.68
3.78
11.62
14.98
.09
8.55
3.12
4.65
0
.43


77.83


7.20

10.19
1


14.00
0.
6.48
2.70
4.00
0
.72


73.70


3.07

4.35
I


-


.


$









TABLE 9.-GRADES AND VALUES PER 100 POUNDS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PRIMINGS PRODUCED BY FOUR
RESISTANT VARIETIES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO IN 1936. 0
Assigned 94-2
Grades value per 301 94-2 94-4 R
pound pounds value pounds value pounds Ivalue pounds I value

Prime light ...................... $1.50 0.3 $ .45 0.4 $ .60 0.5 $ .75 0.5 $ .75
Fleshy light .................. 1.25 0.2 .25 0.6 .75 0.4 .50 0.4 .50 s
Medium light .................... 1.10 2.1 2.31 3.4 3.74 3.9 4.29 2.4 2.64
Off color ............................. 1.10 16.5 18.15 17.5 19.25 17.0 18.70 22.0 24.20
Stained .............................. .55 3.9 2.15 15.3 8.42 15.1 8.31 7.3 4.02
Heavy medium ............... .65 6.3 4.10 5.7 3.71 9.6 6.24 6.6 4.29 0r
No. 2 off color ............... .70 33.5 23.45 13.3 9.31 18.6 13.02 14.9 10.43
White vein ........... ........... .90 1.0 .90 0.2 .18 0.2 .18 2.4 2.16 g
No. 2 light ........................ 1.00 11.9 11.90 16.3 18.30 10.8 10.80 17.3 17.30
Broke light ........................ .65 13.1 8.52 13.6 8.84 10.6 6.89 14.6 9.49
Broke medium ............... .50 5.1 2.55 7.2 3.60 5.2 2.60 5.5 2.75
Broke white vein ............ .40 0.2 .08 0.1 .04 0 0.5 .20 '
Filler .................................... .10 5.9 .59 6.4 .64 8.1 .81 5.6 .56


Totals ................................................. 100.0 75.40 100.0 75.38 100.0 73.09 100.0 79.29


Increase over 301- In cash ......... ................................. .. -.02 -2.31 3.89

Percent .................................................... -.03 -3.06 5.16






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE 10.-SUMMARY OF THE RELATIVE VALUES PER 100 POUNDS OF
GRADED TOBACCO HARVESTED FROM THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH
PRIMINGS OF FIVE VARIETIES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO GROWN IN 1933
TO 1936, INCLUSIVE.

Year 301 94-2 94-4 R Rg

1933 .................... $72.72 $79.68 $77.59 $71.67 $78.89
1934 .................. 73.45 77.27 85.00 57.13 80.74
1935 ................. 70.63 69.84 73.70 ........ 77.83
1936 .................... 75.40 75.38 73.09 ........ 79.29

Average ...... 73.05 75.54 77.35 64.40 79.19

Increase over 301-
Cash value .................. 2.49 4.30 -8.65 6.14
Percent ..................... 3.41 5.89 -11.84 8.41


Estimated values obtained indicate that varieties Rg, 94-4
and 94-2 proved somewhat superior and R inferior to 301.
Obviously, it is not known whether this order might have been
changed somewhat if data for all primings had been available.

CIGAR DATA
Representative samples of sweated leaves, about 3/4 pound
each, from the 1935 and 1936 crops were submitted to two cigar
factories for wrapping trials on their machine-made commer-
cial cigars. In each factory one machine with its operators
was assigned to this work. The same filler and binder were
furnished by the factory for use in all cigars and the data
obtained therefore pertained only to the wrappers. The wrap-
per leaves were stemmed and handled in the usual commercial
manner in the presence of a Station worker who carefully
observed every operation and obtained weights at various points.
All of these data, consisting of the grades and lengths of wrap-
per leaves, average number of cigars made per wrapper leaf,
total number per pound, and number of sound cigars per pound,
are given in Tables 11 and 12.
Samples of Rg leaves, measuring 14, 15, 16 and 17 inches,
from the 1937 crop were tested in a corresponding manner by
one of the factories. These data, given in Table 13, while not










TABLE 11.-TOTAL NUMBER OF CIGAR WRAPPERS PRODUCED, BOTH PER LEAF AND PER POUND, BY FOUR DIFFERENT
OF WRAPPER TOBACCO.


Length Year
of leaf pro-
(inches) duced

18 ............... 1935

19 ................ 1935

20 .......... .... 1936

21 ................ 1936

All lengths ....... 1935

All lengths ....... 1936

All lengths ....... 1936


A average ....- ................... .......... .


Increase over 301-Cigars ......

Percent ........


Factory 301 94-2
IPer leaf Per poundlPer leaf I Per pound] Per leaf

A 4.61 736 4.52 693 4.99

B 4.83 664 4.60 625 5.23

A 5.77 632 4.65 625 4.76

B 6.54 651 5.23 635 5.21

A 5.28 555 5.44 572 4.84

A 5.40 576 5.16 548 4.52

B 5.65 568 5.68 575 4.94


................ 5.44 626 5.04 610 4.93


Per pound Per leaf

678 4.57

619 4.88

553 5.69

602 6.26

538 4.86

526 5.51

540 6.50


579 5.47


.... ....... -.40 -16 -.51 -47 .03

.-....... ......... -7.35 -2.56 -9.38 -7.51 .55


T VARIETIES


Rg
i Per pound a

713

679

659

666

554

584

654


644 o


18

2.88
------- ?


Grade


off color

off color

off color

off color

unsorted

unsorted

unsorted











TABLE 12.-TOTAL NUMBER AND THE PERCENTAGES OF SOUND WRAPPERS, AFTER THE MANUFACTURE OF CIGARS, PER POUND
OF LEAF PRODUCED BY FOUR DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF WRAPPER TOBACCO.


All

All
All


94-4
Total Percent

652 96.25

586 94.66

533 96.39
590 98.00

523 97.16
511 97.28

530 98.25


561 96.86


Length Year I
of leaf pro- Grade Factory 301 94-2
(inches) duced I| Total | Percent [ Total Percent

18 ................ 1935 off color A 697 94.77 681 98.36
19 ................ 1935 off color B 640 96.34 603 96.52

20 ................ 1936 off color A 609 96.35 598 95.70

21 ................ 1936 off color B 636 97.77 617 97.27

lengths ........ 1935 unsorted A 534 96.09 548 95.80

lengths ........ 1936 unsorted A 564 97.88 533 97.31
lengths ........ 1936 unsorted B 558 98.28 557 96.95


Average ...................... ........ .................... 605 96.78 591 96.84


Increase over 301- Sound cigars ........................................ -14 .06

Percent .................. ......... .............. -2.31


Rg
STotal Percent

697 97.79

655 96.42

629 95.41

651 97.76
540 97.38

560 95.94
635 97.02


624 97.16


19 .38
3.14


-44

-7.27






Cigar-Wrapper Tobacco Resistant to Blackshank


strictly comparable to those given in Tables 11 and 12, are in-
cluded to indicate the yields of wrappers from the shorter
lengths of Rg leaves.

TABLE 13.-TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF SOUND WRAPPERS
YIELDED BY THE SHORTER LENGTHS OF LEAF OF RG TOBACCO PRO-
DUCED IN 1937.

Length Grade Number of wrappers I Sound wrappers per Ib.
(inches) Per leaf I Per lb. I Total Percent
14 unsorted 2.50 649 622 95.84
15 unsorted 3.29 780 763 97.82
16 unsorted 3.61 706 697 98.72
17 unsorted 4.14 1 741 1 730 98.52


Average yields of cigars per wrapper leaf and per pound of
leaves varied considerably among the four varieties tested. Rg
produced the highest average yields of cigars, followed in order
by 301, 94-2 and 94-4. When the cigars were graded for sound-
ness of wrappers, all four varieties yielded almost exactly the
same percentage of sound wrappers, averaging about 97 per-
cent. Yields of cigars per wrapper leaf were affected perhaps
slightly by the differences in leaf shape, but probably much
more by the toughness of the leaves which permitted them to
be stretched to obtain the maximum number of wrappers.
These factory tests were considered to be of primary import-
ance because they represent the use for which cigar-wrapper
leaves are grown.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Tests of cigar-wrapper varieties resistant to blackshank were
conducted during the years 1933 to 1936, inclusive. Observa-
tions were made on plant characteristics, grades of cured and
sweated leaves, and yields and soundness of wrappers in tests
on machine-made cigars.
Five resistant varieties were included in these tests, as fol-
lows: 301, 94-2, 94-4, R and Rg. The R variety was discarded
after two years' tests because of poor yield and quality. Tests
of the other four varieties were continued through the four-
year period, and some of the more important conclusions are
given.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


All varieties tested showed a high degree of resistance to
blackshank in comparison with check rows of a susceptible
variety. All were about equally susceptible to root-knot.
Rg was latest in date of blooming but earliest in ripeness for
priming. All five varieties produced leaves very similar in size
and shape. Other field observations revealed differences in color
and habit of growth, but these are not of primary importance.
Comparative yields were not closely determined, only the sec-
ond, third and fourth primings being harvested for these tests.
Grades of cured and sweated leaves and estimated average
values for three primings only indicate that Rg, 94-4 and 94-2
were somewhat superior and R inferior to 301.
Yields of wrappers per pound of leaves were largest for Rg,
followed in order by 301, 94-2, and 94-4.
Rg was somewhat superior in certain important factors to
the other varieties tested, followed closely by 301.
In general the data presented substantiate the opinions of the
packers of cigar-wrapper tobacco and the manufacturers of
cigars.
Data on the ultimate test of cigars by the smoker are not
available, but manufacturers' sales indicate that cigars wrapped
with leaves of blackshank-resistant varieties, particularly Rg
and 301, are acceptable to the trade.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs