• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main














Title: Horticultural trials with sweet corn hybrids, spring ...
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076909/00003
 Material Information
Title: Horticultural trials with sweet corn hybrids, spring ...
Series Title: Horticultural trials with sweet corn hybrids, spring ...
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Wolf, Emil A.
Publisher: Everglades Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Belle Glade, Fla.
Publication Date: 1956
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076909
Volume ID: VID00003
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 166141088

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
Full Text
















VARIETY TRIALS WITH SWEET CORN HYBRIDS,
SPRING 1956

by

Howard W. Burdine


Performance of sweet corn hybrids in
observational, replicated and commer-
cial trials during the 1956 spring sea-
son is sumarized and presented in tabu-
lar form




EVERGLADES STATION HIMEO REPORT 57-1

Belle Glade, Florida


August 8, 1956









VARIETY TRIALS WITH SWEET CORN HYBRIDS
SPRING 1956

Howard W. Burdine

1956 sweet corn hybrid trials were conducted on the basis of two planting
dates, February 2 and March 16 and 20. The program as planned and conducted had
three phases.

1, Observational Trials.

This is essentially a screening phase in which the aim is to look at
as large a number of hybrids as possible and practical. From these trials materials
that seem to show promise for the area are selected for replicated trials the follow-
ing year This selection is based largely on type of ear, disease resistance and a
general estimate of adaptability to the area. This season an effort was made to get
an estimate of yield potential by calculating also number of marketable ears per
plant. Data are presented for these trials in Table II and IV.

2* Replicated Trial.

Hybrids showing some promise in the previous years' observational
trials are elevated to the replicated trial for further evaluation of desirable hor-
ticultural characteristics and yield potential by comparison with varieties already
being grown in the area, Data are presented on this stage in Table I and III.

3. Commercial Trial.

Hybrids which through repeated replicated trials show promise of being
as good as or superior to varieties already being grown in the area are planted in
commercial size plantings large enough for machine harvest along side check varie-
ties to get further information on relative yield, packaging data and, when possible,
consumer acceptance. Data from these trials are presented in Table V and VI.

How the Trials were Conducted:

At the Everglades Experiment Station these sweet corn trials are car-
ried out on the farms of grower-cooperators. Planting, thinning and harvesting are
done on observational and replicated trials by Experiment Station personnel. Ferti-
lization, disease and insect control and cultivation are done by the grower-cooper-
ator as part of his regular program for the rest of the field.~/ All trials in the
wiiner and spring of 1956 were conducted on well matured Everglades peat soil at a
high level of fertility. Control of leaf blight (Helminthosporium turcicum Pass.)
wtas perfect on the early trial. On all the late trials there was some leaf blight,
var-ing in degree with variety susceptability, as was to be expected by the ideal
blight conditions which were prevalent during most of the growing season for this
planting. However from a relative standpoint, control was excellent. Earworms were
of no consequence on either set of plantings.

I/ Assistant Horticulturist, Everglades Experiment Station, Belle Glade, Florida.
/ The writer wishes to express appreciation for the excellent cooperation of
growers A. Duda and Sons and Fritz Stein on whose farms these trials were conducted*
Without their excellent cooperation, these trials would not have been possible on
anything like the scale carried out.

42351-3










Spacings

On the early planting, February 2, observational and replicated trial
Table I and II, plants were spaced 12" in 34" rows. In late trials planted Harch 16
and 20, 1956, plants were spaced 9" in 34" rows. On the commercial trials both earl
and late, Table V and VI, thinning was done by the grower-cooperator as part of his
regular procedure in this operation. Plants were spaced about 12" apart.

Plot Size:

In all replicated trial, Tables I and III, each plot as planted con-
sisted of a single 501 segment of row. Forty feet of this 50S segment was harvested.

The observational plot size was as follows:

as Early observational trial, Table II. Beginning with the hybrid
Golden Security (W oodruff) and ending with R-18 (Rogers), 58 hybrids, plot size
consisted of a single 50# segment of row of which 401 was harvested. The bulk of
the rest, indicated in Table II by number of plants harvested, consisted of single
25 segments of rows of which 20' of row was harvested. Spacing was 12" in the-row.

*b. Late observational trial Table IV. All plots consisted of single
251 segments of row from which 20' of row was harvested. Spacing as thinned.was-9"
in the row.

General Comments

In the late plantings, plant mortality between thinning and harvest-
ing was greater, possibly due to greater wireworm and other pest damage. This was
true on both replicated and observational trials. In the late replicated trials
(Table IV) an attempt was made to adjust yield to stand. However, analysis indi-
cated highly significant differences in stand between varieties for numbers of
plants harvested indicating strongly, variety differences in survival under the con-
ditions of this trial, ~While the adjustment of number of marketable ears harvested
per plot to stand changed the rank in terms of yield of several varieties, differ-
ences were not as pronounced as might be expected from a casual perusal of the data.
Another consideration, although differences were not highly significant statisti-
cally here, is that in this case it might be expected that varieties would differ
in a regression of yield on stand due to varying degrees of the double hearing charac
teristic. Consequently, it was decided to analyze yield as harvested.

Result:

The general objective of these trials is to find sweet porn hybrids
either named or experimental, that will equal or exceed hybrids already in use in
yield, quality, disease resistance and general adaptation to this area. By far the
bulk of the sweet corn acreage in south Florida is planted to the variety Golden
Security, with some loana, Carmelcross, Goldrush, with a sprinkling of other va-
rieties. Careful examination of the data reveal the following things from both
replicated and observational trials

Yield:

Many of the hybrids had a high incidence of double hearing required
for high yields, in one trial as compared a low incidence of double hearing for the







-3-


o:.her. For some hybrids the early trials with the corresponding greater number of
lays required for maturity resulted in a higher incidence of double hearing, while in
others the converse was true. In others time of planting made little difference.
As these trials were conducted on grower-cooperator farms, control of fertility
level was not possible. However, it is possible to say that all areas planted to
these plots were at a very high level of fertility and it is believed that major
differences were probably due to differences in temperature, daylength or amount of
light available, etc., and perhaps the amount of leaf blight present on later trials
Moisture was supplied in plentiful amounts by subirrigation with mole drainage. Dif-
ferences due to spacing also may be important.

Ear Type:

Most hybrids had slightly longer and more slender ears in the March
16 and 20 planting while ears were generally shorter and larger in diameter in the
February 2 planting. It is interesting to note that a grower was relatively unim-
pressed with a particular hybrid in the early commercial planting due to ear size,
Table V, while he was enthusiastic over this same hybrid in the late commercial trial
planting, Table VI. Data were not taken on kernel type in the early plantings, so
it is not possible to get these comparisons.

Plant Characteristics:

These data are not considered as important as yield or ear type, but
it is also interesting to note that plant characteristics of the February 2 planting
were somewhat shorter plants a larger number of suckers, greater sucker height than
the March 20 planting.

Conclusions:

Looking at replicated trials only from which the only valid compari-
sons as to yield may be made, it is felt that at the present state of the sweet corn
hybrid trial program it is not possible to say yet that any one of these hybrids ar~
superior in all respects to hybrids presently being grown. Many hybrids showing
high resistance to leaf blight (Helminthosporium turcicum Pass*) usually had some
very damaging characteristics in an undesirable ear type as broad kernels, large eari
and very unattractive ears due to large unfilled tips or lower yields. Some hybrid
have a high incidence of double hearing indicating high yield potentials under the
conditions of these trials, but lack other qualities necessary for successful com-
petition with varieties now in use. It may be too much to expect for the present,
that one hybrid will perform better under all growing conditions in south Florida
than all. other hybrids. To achieve the maximum available in the variation of exist-
ing hybrids, in the way of yield, disease resistance, desirable ear type, it may be
necessary to grow some varieties that will exhibit the desired characteristics under
conditions of lower temperatures, shorter days of January, February, March and
others during the longer days and higher temperatures of March, April and May, The
job ahead, at the present time, as it seems to this writer, may be to further de-
termine these differences and point out to growers and seedsmen hybrids that have '
possibilities of performing to the desired degree under these different conditions.








Table I.


Hybrid:
(Ranked Accord-
ing to Yield


Exp. 112
68-14
Golden Security
Gold Standard
68-13
Fla. 10
68-6
Hybrid #181
Seneca Super Mkt.
R-U1
Tempo
R-8
R-1
1oodruff #6
R-3
EXP. 126
G. Cross Bamtam
loana
Exp. 50


Replicated Corn Variety Trial #1, Planted February 2, 1956, Harvested May 1-3, 1956 4 ,4 -
Replications Harvested plots 4 Single rows 0'1 in length Plants thinned to about
1 plant per ft. of row.
p_ -


O)

CO


Asg.


Plant Characteristics


Ear Characteristics


T ~ T T Y ~ 7 7 T S


91 5


(3) (h)


W-r
to
Ca


43
$24


s
0).
a 43
t- 1-


2.6


0


g.
00
:2; 9


2.3


F44

C0)
to m


6.0


*r
rH
mx
44 0


.10)



0


(11)






.X 4
c la ,


132 )CL13)


S0

SM


(4L)


14

a
0

r::lM


(15)



I
a


0.50


(16)




0
*t


o
E-q M


Yie


Id
)1(18:


16 1236


o a
$-P
1 P4
zP-4


JGrade %


S(19) KD) 1(21


Q

a
ca e


FHW YO7 6.7 2.3 2,8 o6. 2, 3.0 2.5 12 7.7 1.75 0.70 167 218 1.31 1745.6 100 2.0
FHW 905 45 7.2 2.6 2.0 .9 '.0 .0 3.0 16 7.6 1.65 1.22 166 215 1.30 1721.6 100 1:
A&c 90 2 2 7.0 2.8 2.8 6.9 4.5 1.5 2.5 14 7.3 1.63 0.11 163 211 1.29 1689.6 100 3.0
FhT'I 90 8 7 6.6 2.3 3.0 5.7 2.0 30 2.5 12 8.6 1.67 0.95 166 195 .17 1561.5100 2
FHW 91 5 6. 2.7 1.0 2.8 .0 3.0 3.5 16 7.9 1.81 0.10 163 191 1.17 1529.i 100 2.0
FIw 90T 6 7 7.1 2.7 3.0 6.8 2.5 2.5 3.0 11 8.7 1.64 0.93 166 190 1.1 1521. 002,5
M 90 6 6.5 1.8 3.8 6.4 3.5 h.0 3.5 1 8.0 1.65 0.55 167 187 1.12 1497. 100o 2.0
Rob. 90 8 8 6.8 2.2 2.5 6.6 -.0 4.0 3.5 12 7.7 1.63 0.15 168 182 1.08 1h57.h 100 2.o
Rog. 90 7 7 6.5 2.1 3.3 5.4 2.5 3.0 4.0 14 7.7 1.56 0.10 165 180 1.09 1Ul, 100 2.5
Cor. 90 5.5 6 7.2 2.h 3.3 6.6 4.0 3.5 3.0 14 8.0 1.59 0.80 167 172 1.03 1377.3 100 2.
Rog. 90 7 7 6.6 2.0 3.0 6.5 3,5 h.0 h.0 T14 8.2 1.61 0.001 11 68 1.0 135.3 100 2.0
Rog. 9 6.5 6 .3 1.7 1.8 5.9 1.0 3.0 3.0 14 7.7 1.72 0.15 167 164 0.98 1313.2 100 2.5
FHw 90 5 6.7 2.0 2.5 6.2 2.0 2.0 3.5 16 8.0 1.80 0.00 166 158 0.95 1265.2 1002.5
Rog. 90 6 8 6.1 1.6 2.8 5.9 2.5 2.5 3.5 16 7.6 1.78 0.25 166 153 0.92 1225.1 100 2.5
Asg. 90 4 5.5 6.4 1.9 2.5 5.7 4.0 2.5 2.5 15 7.9 1.61 0.45 166 154 0.93 123.2 100 3.0
FHW 89 6 5 6. 1.9 3.5 5.6 .0 2.5 3.0 12 7.8 1.68 0.13 162 150 0.93 1201.1 1003.0
FI 896 6 7.1 2. 3.0 6.7 .0 .5 1 7.6 1. 0.10 1631 11W77.1 102.


Asg.


59 7


6-2


2.2 1.8


l..2 tlh.. 12J5 12. 1If 17.1


1.71


o-,o


Standard Error of a Mean = 100.19 doz, per acre
LSD .05 281.5 doz. of Ears
.01 378.7 i i


* I-Source FtJ F. H. Woodruff & Sons; Cor.- Corneli Seed Co.; ML -Michael-Leonard
Growers Inc.; Rog.- Rogers Bross. Seed Co.; Rob. Robson SeediFarms; A&C Abbott
(3) Seedling Vigor, 1-8 scale, 1-Very poor to 8-Excellent. (4) Seedling Uniformity -
to 8-Evceljent uniformity.


& Sons; Asg. Associated Seed
& Cobb Seed Co.
1-8 scale, 1-Very poor unifocrity


--i I r -- -- -- -- ---1 rc- -- --


W17


~,W1~1889,slloo121~


0 87 11$3 1 100 3 5








(9) Leaf Blight Index, furnished by E. A. Wolf, Helminthosporium tur -icm~a rating tal-en from unsprayed nursery
stock, planted FebruaryJ 14, 1956 (Modified Uistrup scale from 1-slight infection to 5-heavy infection.
(10) Unhusked appearance, based on husk color, relative tightness of husk, flag characteristics, 1-4 scale
1-poor appearance to 4-Excellent appearance,
(1) Husked appearance based on kernel size and color, size of ear, shape, tip fill, 1-4 scale, 1-poor
appearance to 4-Excellent appearance.
(12) No. of rows in the Majority of a O0 Ear sample, 10 Ears from each replication selected at random.
(13) Ear length Average length of randomly selected 40 Ear sample, 10 ears from each replication.
measured from base to tip of ear in inches.
(14) Ear Diameter Average Diameter of the above sample (13) measured midway between base and tip
in inches.
(15) Unfilled Tip Average unfilled tip of 40 ear sample (13) in inches.
(19) Yield per acre Yield per acre in dozens of ears uncorrected for stand.
(21) Preference Based on Recordero opinion at harvest time scale 1-4, 1-Most preferred to
5-least Freferred.






Sweet Corn Observational Trials No. 1
1956 Plots 1 single row 40 and 20' long
thinned to about 1 plant per foot of row,


Planted '2/56
Harvested 4/23/ through 5/1/56


(*) Plant Characteristics Ear Characteristics Yield Grade No Ears


4o
0
0)
CO 0
C'"'


(2)


o 4
4- 0M

a)


43)




E)
co


(4) (5)


C4
0

a +)


(6) (7)


*a.
CD
(-3
M
It1
rxU


m


0 )
rp


(8)
4-p
" t
0
4' Pi
tria)


(9)



a

1a1
t-


(10)


o"fd


%2)
4


go
*D h
l-ll-


(13)

Sa)

CA'


(: )(16) (17) (18) 49)


P4
I.
1^~
1^ ~i
dCWp


[20 (21)
io.


C;
M-1 c
-P (aO
* j3 c;


(22)


.- -. --.-- I----l--- 1 2 1 1- 1
Golden Security FIf 90 5 L 7,0 2.3 3.3 6.8 3.5 3.0 16 7.18 1.66 1.0 40 62 1.55 61 0 4.0 1.5
Ioana F 89 5 5.7 2.1 3.8 5.7 3.5 3.0 h 7.30 1466 hO l7 1.18 7 O to0 2.0
Carmelcross mT T1 7B6 5.1 1.i 2.8 -.9 12- 6.70 1.T I h1 2 O- 0.95 37 3 O 2.5-27 5
Gold Rush Cor. 817 75.1 T 4 2".5 .9 12 7.1 1.75 T1.0 3T9 -1.3 36 2 2-25 25
KVF 55-10 Cor. 89 5 2.0 1.0 2.5 T T 1.73 U 5 4022 0.5 16 57 I T 3T0-
Silverliner cor.T90 g 5 6.3 2.3 2Z5 6.-o30 3.0 ZO 7.7811.79 10 W 3 0.73 0 0 2 2,0 3Y0-
.S F 8- 5 1 9 2.3 6-T3 -30 2.5 -IT r 6.83 1.76 M3" 02 1.o 39 3 o- 30 2.o
# 5 F ____90 i 6 66 2.5 3.0 36.2 25 25 16 7I 36 1.5 15 40 13 W1.08 = 2 1 0- 3T 3 3
Topyield M 91 5 6.9 ;25 2.3 6o9 245 2,5 16 7.99 1-79 O,_?3 0--9-3 37 3 0 3.50T0-
Field Cross ML92 7.5 3.T 7. 2.5 25 9.'-6 1.92 12 I 3 -, .5 -
Goldenalit_ 90 7 7" 25 1T. 8 6. *2.O I2f 7S 167 7.O *14 38" 0-9O 3O 0 h.O 3.-
Tender Chief I 91 58 2.5-T 7 20_ 2 6. 1 192 0 3 d 1 38-2 -93 __ 5 -- 3-.5
Long Chief -0 ML 90- 7- 29-5 -5 0 20- o7- n 0-. -Er .W 3 0 2 .0 -1.
Long jold_ M 0 53.7 2.8 53 1 0 41 1 0 1.7.9 1.7 .. ..0 3.0
eo Cross M ,L3T .T W 17 13 25 I 5 0 oW .iW-
1XPlO0 Ta 90 7 7 5 2.0 =. 2.5 1.76 6.30720. i3 IW T13 Y3 1 r 3-5 4OT
Golden 0 Asg. 0 2 2.T M6 J 350 S 2.5- .O-Ul 7.15 T73 .8 51 3.0 W.
Golden 22 g. 58 9T .9 1.8 2.0 1. 0 ".14 6.93 1.99- 42 TI 10 3.0 I.O
Calumet Asg. 91 2 2.0 T 7 3.0 2.0 12 8 .311.36 1. Ti 64 152 634 1 T O i. 3.0
_Co-dF _7T- 0""
Code77 T 0 *3 5 -2-0 26 2-.5 1 7.2 1.10.60 1 31 0 103-41 0 3.5 T
Cd N 6 TT 1.5 532 25 ,I7 i.U 31 Tl_52 1i-7 0 2 5 T 35
1yo u ;4 0T4j 1 0 3Y T.~ 1.731-3 65 = 5F ._ _


(*) (1) Source FBI-F.H.Woodruff & Sons; Cor.-Corneli Seed Co.; ML-Michael-Leonard & Sons: Asg.- Associated Seed
Gro6ers Inc; NK-Northrup-King; Ro.T-Robson Seed Farms; Haris-Jospeh N. Harris Seed ~C.; Cro.-Crookham Seed
Co.; Ill.-Illinois A.E.S.; Ind.-InS.A.E.S.; Rog.-Rogers Bros' Seed Co.; Vaughn-Vaughn Seed-TS.
(3) Seecd.ng Vigor: 1-8 scale, 1-very weak to 8-exce-ent Vigor, (4) SeedjinU Un-rnmi.~y 1-8 scale, 1-very great
.;'-:mity to 8-excellent uniformity (9) Unhusked appearance. l-A scales poor appearance to 4-excellent


Table II.


Hybrid


h







Sweet Corn Observational Trial No. 1.


I I, r


(i)



0


o o


(2)



04o
4,3
C)


Plant Characteristics


(5)



Io


lp.4


6) (7) (8) (9)


C)
43 03X

o U-4 .44
W =P< A a S
C ) fc ^ ^ ) 3 <
C).0f Or 5Q
TO?< p^
1x1 (OP 0CSXS


Ear Characteristics


(10)


E r Cac eristic


(12)




to
bDA


(13)




4

C1Z


(14) 1(01


Yield
(155) (17)


H,
aS
P
-P 02
P4

b4 0,
4 0(5 0 aS
0;4T'!S !T


1062 NRK 90 5 7 6.3 2.0 2.8 6.3 3.5 14 8.81 1.64 40 40 1.00 40 0 0 4.0 3.0
1063 K 90 6 6 67 2*1 2, 0 6 1 3.0 3-0 12 5.90 1.6W 0 40 10 0 10 5 31
.622 FNK 91 5 7 7.0 2 .3 3 2.05 2.5 16 7.50 178- 15 I T W5 1T29 51 3 oT l 3:5-
38.555 NK 91 2 5 MIT 2.2 1 T 2625 0 0 3 5 79g
368572 NK 90 5F 8 7. 0 1.9 -5 1 3.0 3 12 7.6&0 1.69 0. 0 i2 39 0,93 397 0 7 37 I 5
36.57 N 90 6 U 6.9 201 23 6.7 30 3.5 12 j7.07 1.7 i00 f-2 38 0.90- 3 0 0 3T0 's
3.576 NK 90 6 1T.9 203 6-7 3.0 2 0128.02 18"T.-60- 0.1- -- i5 3W
35.597 6 53' 17 .L 2.5 25 12 6.5 1,61 003 .0 333 0O83 132 0 3-5 3 -- T
38.599 8 F 5.9 2.1 .6 3.0 2o 4 7.0 L1c6r 0.3 2 4 _2_i o o 1T0 3T.5-

36-94 M 91 5 16.3 2.1 2.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 16 8.31 1.85 0 ,A 1 U7 1.10 F4 1 0o !50 Xsoo
_oy_ F91 5 6 6.5 2.3 .0 58 5 o 160 776" 795l2 o o
.u F U 1 6 366 2.3 2.63.3 0 2.5 1 6.4 1:.71 0G0 l 43 1--.05 36 5 2 3. 25

Sugar King 0 6 7 -5 2 2 0 6;H -0i I?.-, t 5?1^5 T/; 7T'-0T, I "-7 -!0,T_9 W 1 "- L-?-" i0"

Exp .#2 -BFj =i ,5MI. 0 3 TVO 3 JT T1TW., 1 4-73 i I 0 3-
90 GExp. 33 6.F33 .0 ~T 7 52 0Li T71T60 3 T 4


Grades
(18 19)


Ears
(21) (22)


cc
as r


59-
--I-.-


rbuwJOI ^IJ


I uJLrUv 7L


W-e 7r ---1 Z 0 I 1


to v O1. v i v LIA O A f L4 9J
~ln~hl-ITI zTA


U.u 14i


(*) (10) Husked appearance: 1-4 scale, 1-poor appearance to 4-excellent appearance. (12) Ear Length: Mean length
of 1O husked ears fr-om butt to tip. (13) Ear Diameter: Mean Diameter of 10 husked ears measured midway from
butt to tip. (21) Blight Rating: Furnished by E. A. Wolf, Helminthosporium turcicum rating taken from unsprayed
nrsenry stock planted Feb. 22, 1956. (odifLied Ulstrup Scale from 1-slight infection to $-heavy infection.)
(22) Preference: based on Recorder's opirion taking into consideration ear characteristics, potential yielding
ability and observed blight resistance, 1-4 scale, 1-best to 4-poorest.


Table II Continued


Hybrid


-7-


.~ -- - -


r





It -


I .JLI &.* ^>1 J 31 U^.l 1-" '


r7nn


1 .t")i f] "


I <11


I l -(I


o-.71 ,"jI/; -nU "J ii3 l <'-h-


2,0







Table II. Continued


Sweet Corn Observational Trial No. 1


S~ m a


Plant Charact ristics


()\ (5)


(6)1(7)


4a


^r*
501
ca P4


(2)





l0)


Ear Characteristics
(9) :oP) (1) (3 2) (33)
W -
43 C 0


0)

A t
CQ <
ff Q


21
(0
A s
0 R 1


0



IP4 0


to
,t4
II
0-I


C)~
1.4
0)-
"p.-


f i~a_


(1-





4
rt
SC
Hi
Ev


(36) (37)


r-4


*hto
,03
sixiE


Grade No. Ears


201 (21)


(22)


69-16 Cro. 91 8 8 6., 2.0 2.3 6.3 2.5 3.0 16 h0 38 0.95 38 0 0 ,.o 2.0
9-17 Cro. 90 5 69.2 l2 9 2.5 63- 2.5" 3.5 16 7.25 1810.0 1i 39 0.95 38 1 0 1' 2.5
79- Cro. 90 6 7 6r62TT 5.5 =2. .0 12 .75 17 1.0 T 35r 0.85 35 3 0 0 2.5 30
79-10 Cro. -93F2 2 6.1 2.6 2= 6.0 = 3. 1.5 12 8.66 1.8o.5 O6 4i0 1I oW I o O 25 3.5
79-14 too 907-7- 6.9 2.9 2.3 6.0 3W5 2.0 12" 7.70 38:1 1.3 5 46 1-.07 -W 0 15 3,0
i 9 In. 90 5 5 7.0 .6 2.3 59 1 T 15 9.20 ,.8T 1.3 1~2 1.05 38 0 2 2.5 r.o
I. 90 6 5 702.5 .5. 1.5 3 12 573179 0 2 0 0.95 0 0 25 2.5
18 Ill. 92 7 7 7.1 39013 5.0 25 23.5 16 85 907195 2 .39 0.93 38 1 0 2.5 -50
18*782I. 90-- 2,.3 2 5 2.5 1.0 18- 5,60 163 8 12 i 098 329 r6 6 3.5 4.
2132 x u.6 Ind. 90 -. 4 6.30 22.4 3.0 6.3 25 2-0- 12 6 .jf6' G ]4 047 r.1 13 1.3'0-5 3 0 2.0 3-.0
- Ro. 90 3 2.3 2.0 65 3.0 3.55 -W 7.7 1.81 .0 3U- i 0.95 5 1 0- 0 2_.- 20
FY 9677 E2 24 8.20.- -"-- 2or
Rog. 905 7 6.1 2.1 2.3 5.9 3.0 3.0 I2 820 001 -, 52 1.2 51 1 0 1. 0 2.0
S-4o1, -90 Y T 73 2T & 3 2 i. 2 23 12 835 1._75 U.8 .2 6 .I1 0 0 25
R1 /Ro 89 6 6 632.112.3 6,0 2,5 1.0 1 7.-3U1;61 1.5 43- 76 1.77 76 o 2.55 2.5
--11Rog. 89 7 8 6.1 1-.7 2.3 -9 2.0 25 8.. 1-.3' 82O, 1 165.07 -Wt O 35- 35-
G 42 Ha9ri 89 i4 4 5.I8 1. 3.0 5-7- 15 13.5 14 7.55 1.6 05- 22 2 I.9 22 oo 0 4.0 4.0
Ep. l Vaugh82 5 5.I.5I3 1W o I 5.23 65 20Y o .7o 2 o2. I.o .
S6 vaug 3 -5 6 .15 I 5 258 4.7 3.O 26O 16 6,i3 1.61 0.5 2W 2 1.00 13 7 2 .5 3.0
tp *3 Vaughn 63 Y5 6 5e5 1 1, .6 7 3.6 1O U18- 6.95 21 0.0 25-13 0.52 12 1 --O T. TX
E #4 VaugI 082 6 6 T 5.l1 1.k 2.3 15* 2.5 2.0 12 7 91 .0 216 210 1.8C0 2.1 0 3- 31
Ep #5 Vau-:h 906 7 6 6 2f 2U8 6 30 2.5 TI 7.5 1.60 0.0 22 3.5 2.0
Rog 9 6 6 .5 23 15 6.2 3.0 2Z5 12 7.73 1. 0.8 22 27 .23 1W 3 0 20 2:5
F-20 Ro. 90 7 57T 63.5 273. 3.0 9 3.0 2.0 12 73 1.57. 20 32 1.60 32 0 .0 2.
R--2 og_ -- W 6.727 1 o 5 2.5 3.T 0 2.0 VJ. 7O 2 O 0.0 34 1.70 31j7 DO 0 3.5 3T-
-2 2Ro.- 85 5 5 6.8 2.1 2.5 5.6 2.0 3.0 12 7.3 0.0 21 2 1.33 26 2- 305 3.5
SOE. oBO 7 5 6'3 '2.4 3.0 6.5 3.0 2.0 12 6.58 1.5I 0.8 22 51 2.32 38 8 3 3: 5
R2og Rog, 85-15 5 6.2 1. 25 58. 3.0 30 0 i 6-IL351.' 60 0.-O 22 3= 6 30 O 3-Y 3-5
-25 Rog. -837 T8 6.2 19 1.8 3.9 25 23"5 1 7.23-7710.5 20 33" 1.65 31 20 3.5 3.5
R 1 33T. !"" J w 1305


Rog* JU uU


5-64)
o .,4
cOIIZ


44
0

d.
(D
M rc


- 8 -


4PZ


---i


(1) [


K-^'>


6,. e.z 2z3


5.1


1.4U


1.0 12 6,26 1.67 1.5


20u -Lou:>


2.0


u.0


Rog.


(38)(9






-9-.


Sweet Corn Observational Trial #1 1956


SPlant Characteristics Ear Characteristics Yield Grade No. Ears
,,,. -


o
4.4
0

(g


a Of
rnbfa


0 !


(6)|



0
*r<


(7)


to <3
a


(8)

0
4:


(9) (10o)


Ja
FO


(323)



M o
*c


(12)


02


"11


0 0
5L*


(1l j

%24
F".4
00

.14 C)
&N^


(15)


(16)

I E
0

E2-4


(17)




ge


:18) (19) J(20)


(21



4-')
'4;
oce


(22)

mi


R-27 Rog. 89 $ 6 6.6 2.3 0.5 3.5 3.03.0 14 7.78 1.88 1.0 21 20 0.95 19 0 1 3.0 3*5
V_213-6 Rog*. 90 6 t 602,/42O- 5 3*- 02o03j4 15 1 13 2 22 10 0 0
R29 90 5 6 5.9 19 2.5 5 30 16 7.78 176 o.5 21 30 l.43 29 0 .52_0
R30 Rog. 763 1.23 2.1 10 2 12 6.78 0. 3 29 35 .0
R-31 Roge 5 6 7 .o 2*. 3. .1 1 2.515 7.8 I8.U 2 36 1 3 3.53.5
R_.32 Rogg. 90-8 6-B T -27* 5 6 --IT_ Md23 372 1T W 20 100 20 .0 3*5 40
R-33 Rog. '91 5 1 6*9 '27.2.0 2M.U *1T 8M1U 1iW 1.'5 20 0.67 20 6 WT
S-34 Rog. 93 6"7 7 27 3.3 K. 25 1.7 1 783 1K7 1. 20 29 l1.5 w29 w0 0 4.0 .0
R-3 Rog. a 6 2.0 233.573-00 2.02 0 20 20 1.00 20 o0 3. 2.
.36 4I.oU 3893 -T -IF 6.U3 2 .o L6 U3 7.70 1.8 1-7 20 .8 2 0 "_ 3.0

5-38 Togr 3 7 3.37"1 3o 3" ir 77T ?8^2 oT -1 or I
W55g7 9U o Sr -2 7' .3 2 1.6 75 7-5 .70 10 1T. 20 iw 2.59 2T -0 3T.0T.
R95 5-9--W ""g I wT9 TT_ -T TT -9 5-IT~9 Sr-33-- TY T.ir" W-U--T
UR35- 11-- or W zT zT T*T bTY ^ TT Tr' Tr TI*-k __T 19 WT7Y ~T .74-.7
5-e -5ob W 25'- 3Z'9 2 W .3T T. 25 UO"27 T5.9U I ---42- 45- 3T074 ~ 0-~ 2 *3T 5.


*KVF9^ .670_7__ -IV b-b 23" 12 7U3 I7- ^ "21" 3Y 13 0
Ep VF5A Ro0 a_ __ 15o 0 ar 2,0TT^ ^ Tj
Exp5E Cor. b 5 0 1 6.1 1.3 2.3.5 163 14 U35 1067,0 2.32 1.3 20 20 9o 2 10 0 3,5 2,0



xp. A Rob5. 91 T 73 261 0.8 3.6" 3. 30 12 7.93 7 o 0. 180 0,2"18 2o OW 3.0 2.0
Tr o gp 0 2S 2. -2-3 W 62_02, 6 78 1. 7O 2 "223 T,5B23 O0 3375"0
S- Additional M ds plante d Februar r 6 1956 ----
79-133 Cro. -95 6 6 6.57 O2.62 1 50 33 0 20" 12 7.71.761.5 399 1 30 339. 30.
7o-1, -7 6,9r~ T 2O33 9EV F.W 375 -T0U 739 31 O3. 0 i31.32 2
Golden Security FH T 7.2 2.3 3.1 316 O5 7 30 6 'I 6 1.10 1.OI 19 25 1-35 9 3.0 .5
Cr1. 8 6.3B 1.6 2.o 0.0 3o 2o 61 8.19 .67 O.3 21 22 1.05 20 o 2 31. 295
__9-__7_ Crc. B 3 T' 3 3' 2 T O. T513. 3 027 .TO5 7 7 03 08 1 *Ti20T 1 11 O OW 3.0 20
Cr.8 !5 6.9 ;08 ;930; 1 7,9 .t ;5 2 4 o15 "Ii 0 ;0


U-,691* Ie ,L 1*1 0 2 1 I l


Table II. Continued


1


UY-J


uro.


0 2 63 2015 83


.* 31S.3


~~YI Z1YII~ I~6 I ZIUIIO 11Z Il~~llYIII~~







Table I .


Hybrid:
Ranked Ac-
cording to
Yield


-68-14U


Swee-T Corn Replicated Trial "2. Planted 3/20/56, Harvested June -tnrougn >, yo. iacn riot
Consists of 1 single 4O' segment of row replicated 4 times, Plants thinned to 9" between plants
in the row. Rows 34" wide.
s


oao
0 (V


FHI 176


P1 -i4* ~hr Fp-t~f ~


(3) (h)


ca
( 0
CO)


(5)


0 CH

ri
W4


(7)

4I-
1E

CP.


6.0 5.0 6.9 12. 1.4


PIv. f.1h+.L,,-W-A-v4 4+-. eo


(10o) (n)


)a
d Q
m Cd
pa
a3&
ga


2.0 2.5 3.0


t0


mp4
^a


0(15)
54
C)
(D


0 r
W.
C .


- i iC


1(16)



0 w
H 0
*r1C


7. 1.70 0.9h


(17)



rt-P
"s
i-I Cl


'V4 ,-t A


(l)
4,
(U)

0
*P
r-


236


LU,5
(19)


0M
rid.

0
zsW
0 M
1.16


(20)


1890.4


- 10 -


(21)


0

C 0
C) W
' is,


99.0


Temppo Cor. 77 5.3 T8 7*9 2.7 01 .O .O ,300 .53 2 14 M 8.2 1.50 1.13 -201- 231 1.17 1874.3 395.0 M7
Hybrid # FM W76 5.o3 3.8 6.61.3 2 5.9 35 3 3 l M 8. 9 035 185 22 1.25 183.3 87.8 1975
65-6 H 77 6.0 5.5 7.7 T27 1.0 6, 2.5 2 .5 2.5 14 B 7 T1.61 0.5 2 227 1.0 818 100.0 2
Exi. 112 Asg. 77 4.3 7.7 3, 1 5.8 37. 2. 25I I1 N 52 W1.B 0.t 200 22- 1.-12 1794.0 1000 2.7
Golden Security S-W 77 5*b 4.5 7.9 3*2 l.O 2.5 40 3.5 3 .0 16 N7.5 1.53 0392 205 221 1O08 177G02 100. 2.0
68-13 F ? 76 7.O 6.5 7.72. 1 .40l .U 20 3.5 135 12 2 B r.2 1.55 021 207 215 104 17222 i.T
Exp. 5A -Ro5. 76 5.7 .0 779 28 2 63 3.5 T4.0 30 1 Mi .6 560~ 81 21 1 T 0 6.7 2.0
Ro1 Rog. 7h 5 5 5M.0 1.7 =.o o.o =O1. 2.5 3.5 14 M 7.7 1.61 0.9 200 21=3 1707 1706.0 99.-5 2.4
R-11 Rog. T 74 8' 6.5 7.3 ,32.I 08 0 .3 2,5 3 Y o 2.5 IF N T8. 1.39 GO.21 209 209 T.O 16741.. 99.5 25
R-3 Rog 7C 36 7 3 T .9 02 6.0 2"5 5 02.5 3.5 16 N 7 1.35 7B 98 211I 207 -G98 16 5. 100 oo 2.5
-Rog. 7- 6.8 6- 5 7.9 2.3 11. 508 3.53.5 4.O I- N -8.5 I1.T .00 211 205 0.97 1642.1 99.5 2.
Fla. 104 FW 76 5 7.0 53 36.9 2.T I2 25 i-0 3.5 30 16 78 1.537 0Z~5 190 2 .07 I1618.0I 957;
Woodruff #6 "FHW i77 5.5 8 7*r 2.1 0.4 3.C 20 4I0 33.5 16 H 8.3 1v 0.31 208 197 095 1578.0 99-.5 2.0
Seneca Sup.Market Rob. 7 7.5 735 BO 213 01 6I. .O0U T3-5 12 I 53 1.56 O I35 19T6 1501 1578.0 97. 20T
Golden U. Bantam M'W -74 7.3Y 53 T.0 T2.3 T.6 I. 6.0 3V07 T .U 125 -M-BB- It *1305 -7W "'0 0g197 Z652^U Iba uD CT.0
Exp. 126 As. 77 503 50o 7.7 2.61 6 3.1 o 20 2. 5 Ij M- 8'.2 I2 1.15 197 189 O-96 1513.9 98.9 3.0
XP*. 50 Asgs. ,77 0 o53 63 ,~Y 0.2 35 .3 0 2.0 3m.0 1- 8 6 1 65 0.39 203 18T 0-92 Wl197.9 9773 '30
loana W IT 7 3. 5 53 7.3 123 IO, 5,3 =0 3"0 35 1.M 82 1:16 0.27 203 172T 0.5 1377.7 10.0- l
Gold Stan7 2dard I 2AN8 7.77 37O 0F 75. 27 M_ = 1W l 872 T1U9 8 i3 37W1O. 2 109 .I 97. 3.5


Standard error of a nean = 790
L.S.D. at .05 level 224.1
TS.D. at .Ol.level 298.4


- doz.
- doz.
- doz.


ears
ears
ears


(1) Source FMT F. H. Woodruff & Sons; Cor. Corneli Seed Co.; Rob. Robson Seed Farms; Rog.- Rogers Bro's. Seed Co.;
FM Ferry Morse Seed Co.; A&C AbbotE- Cobb Seed Co.; Asg,- Associated Seed Growers. 3D-Seedling Vigor- rated
when most vigorous varieties are about 12" in heirut on a-8 scale; ve-r poor seeln vigor to -excellent seed-
ling vigor. (4) Seedling Uniformity rated as to relative uniformity of seedlings within a variety in height and
vigor on a 1-8 scale: -very poor seedling vigor to 8-excellent seedling vigor. (9) Blight rating furnished by
E. A. Wolf, Helminthosporium turcicum indices from unsprayed nursery stock planted Fcbruary 1l. 1956. (Modified
Ul_'?r:- scal27 1-slight infection to 5-heavy infection.)


--


DI MI%+ T ru 23 + w + ^


- ---- ~-. 7 -- -.--r -- --


I'--~~~~


------


-


;13l (1
'~1 11







Table III. Continued Sweet Corn Replicated Trial #2. Planted 3/20/56, Harvested June 2 through 5, 1956 (11)

(10) Unhusked appearance husk color, tightness of husk, flag characteristics, general attractiveness on a 1-4
scale: 1-poor attractiveness to 4-excellent appearance. (11) Husked appearance based on tip fill, type
of kernel, size of ear, amount of "dryback", uniformity of type, dropped rows, general attractiveness on
a 1-4 scale, 1-poor attractiveness, to 4-excellent appearance. (13) Kernel type B = broad kernel, M =
medium kernel, N = narrow kernel, VN = very narrow kernel. (14) Ear length ean length in inches of 40
ear sample, 10 randomly selected ears from each of four replications. ( 157 Mean ear diameter Mean diameter
of some 40 ears in inches measured midway between base and tip. (16) Unfilled tip Mean unfilled tip of the
above 40 ear sample. (22) Preference Recorder's opirion 1-4 scale based on potential yield, appearance,
disease resistance, general desirability.







Sweet Cor Observational Trial #2.
Plot size 1 single 20' row.
Thinned to 9" between plants


Planted 3/16/1956
Harvested May 25 through June 2, 1956


S Plan Chatrstic Ear Characteistics Yield Grade


k2) i&3)WJa))


0-P

9Cd
tr=


4-tt
icc


4
O"4
e m
;S0-
go
T-
rl


uM

0
$4
(D


r95r


klb)


*T~l
6!
COa
(D
t


19)
0}



IN
w -
0)


(201k21)K22) f (23)


Cs


*0


00


to.r
0


Golden Security FHW 76 6 5 .5 2.2 1.8 .ll h.013.5 3,o 16 N 7.7 1.5 0.3 20 38 1.90 38 0 0 1.5
_ N 7 .71.5 .0
loana FH6i 76 577 2.3 129 5.3 4,0 30 ..0 2.5 N .2 1. 50 O 3 35 1.7 3 2.
Camnnecross MEHW 371 5 .9 1.72.05.1 2.5 1"0 2.0 12 7,9 Z17T 1.3 21" 20 0.95 2 0 -3.
Goldrush Cor. 71 7 7.7 1.6 1.4.2 753.5 2.0 1X 2 =B rI 1.7r 1.3 -19 21 171 21 0 3.T
KW5,-10 UCorK. 76 2 I2.1 1I.3T tM W;5J1I2 1 725 1 Z35 2Y0 U
SiTlverliner Cor 75 6 6 7.3 2.7 2. !6 2.0 3.0 10 =12 H 8.t 1.l T10 226 6 Ti00- 26 0 0 3.5
65-13 W 7V 6 r .3 2.23 0.U 6.1 J30 --5 30 03 IM Bax 1.60 O. 22 234 1.05 23 0 0 2.0
# 5 w 7F T 4 70 2l.k To.30 3.o .0 30 L N Be ,5 0, 19 2 1, r4 27 0 i3
Top Yeld ME 75 5 5 71 2. 1.i 6.4 3.5 2.5 2,0 14 1N 6.7 1.W8 1.0 16 2176 1,.5T 27 0 0 3- .
Yieldcross ET 76 7 6 8 3-6.30. 1:36 6.3 3.5 2.0 2-.5- 15 N 9. 1.6 1.3 15 2M5 1.39 25 0 0 3,5
Golden Qua1ity 1C,7- -76W T. t 2T7 ".8 T3. 1"0 245 23 -iM I. ;o -0-. t- b -0 1-00 6- -0 o 305-
ielocrosis i 73 U T .0 2.5 2i 6.0r .0 3.0 2.0 24I B 80 f1i 5 .5o3 2o 3 5 36 1 3.5
XP 104 Asg. 73 7 13 2.520 UiT W.7TO 7T -W9 Ir11 20 1. "2 23I T O
Golden Ag. 7614 4 6.9 0 1;0 i.r B2 .. 9 2 0o .o7
Calet Asg. 76 5 t .8 2. 1.0 6.2 .02.5 2.0 N .5 1.3 0.3 18 25 1.39 25 0 0 3
Uio0 76 4 7 4ll '7, 06!5,^ 2 7 3 12F .5 133. T31TIT'I2 30~ 0 i 3.
m** 3 3 13 30 0
j IK 7 22 .1 .6 1 4-1 0 3. 2. 0 t3i 2r,& 13:13.. 1.3 X, &"W0 27 U IO-0 T

j3262. *1 K 475 131 Z 1 5Z 1- W -20 21 1= 21'
38,572 NK 75 7 7 7.5 -.1 0.6 6.5 *3 7.0 -W .3 5 7Y 72y 1W --- 3.
3 J5Th 'I"i 5 71 .6f II 535- --B1.- 0I- 525 1-14 2 342
Y77 1.55 1.3 20 25 1.25 O 0 3.0
... I I a 72l1 4- : l ^ I 3 2 O 44Z IF 9I 3 7 I*UjI3" 14 ML I2 X =3-- 5 ,3
3-,i 66 W 72 I 2 i-24 142 6-2 .6 3 ?.5 33 -16 M- 7T51 0.0 0.U 19 26 1.37 26 0 200
38 694 N1K 75 5 15.3 7.32 0.'3 5.0 2. 16 O IrN7. 1TOY OM.31 2U 3 1. 2 L 1U


. Table IV.


Hybrid:


0
)
f+d
M0M


(12)


'lOu,.l


kl, (:U)&l.J


d9*-i -


C> 1 0


6 7.5 2.6 o,8 2.6 3.5 1.5 2.0,


14 1


7.y 1.O6


1..tI 21


U'-7 I It$


.I. I







Table IV. Continued


Sweet Corn Observational Trial #2.


P1 Iv~+ r~h~r fl+pri*- rr


[I)( 5)


I FEar Characteristics


1 Era-r Cha ractrist c--- --- ------ -- _


t8)

af

0
14
02


(1) a
u

0
V"
00 c


Is o
5Ca


(15)

+3
0


Yield


(16)
-4
Id
"'.2


(19)

)c3
0
OP4
*Od1
s0


Grad


e


(20) (21)


CO
:: :


(22) (23)


38,7 NK 75 3 2 6.6 2r3 1o0 5o104,r 4 1.0 11 M t.O 1.77 1.5 2Z 17 0.5 17 0 .0o
0,023 NK 76 5 i 7.4 2. 1-6 6.7 .0 15 1.0 12 N 8.7 1. 1.3 16 19 1.19 "19 o0 5 o
Sugar King NK 71 & T 5.7 1.8 0.8 6oU 3.5 2WO 1.5 147 B 8.1 5 22 2 1,09 2 0_ 0 _.0
Exp. Hybrid #2 Rob. 75 F 5 5.71 08 .9 i5 25 15 1 778 !JO1. 0.6 27 35 1iW6 35 -0 0'
Exp.. Hybr 3 76 7 7-9 1.9 1.0 2. 3-5 3.0 30 N 8I.31.5 0.5 2I 26 1.08 25 1 0 2.0
Rp. b 4 b. 7W 6 6 6 ,2.2 0.6 2G 3 .40 2.0 3.0 16 N 76 i.2 0.5 2 27 1.08 2T7 O 3u.0
69-12 c-ro. T& 776 227.2 u 0. 2,3' 7 5 T3'0 2.T5 N 86 1052 I- 1 21TT 1.31 =2 0 TO O 3.0
69-16 Cro. 76 5 6 8.0 i0.87.1 02.03.0 1 N 8. 5 0. 25 39 1.56 36 3 2.5
69-17 Cro. 74 4 2 73 2.1 0.6 7.1 .0 3.0 2*5 16 N 8.41.53 0.0 22 27 1.23 27 0 0 2.5
79 Cro. 76 8 8U1 272 08 675 2.5 2.0 1.0 12 M 9T0 135 0.6 220 1733 27 1 0 ;o
79-10 Cro. 76 2 1 7-9 273 .8 6.22.5 1.5 1.O 14 M I .3 1 .8 1.0 11 11 1.00 I 0 0 4.0
79-1 Cro. 76 6 7 7.7 2.6 1.6 4.9 0.5 20 1.0 i2 B 7.5 1,6 1.5 23 32 1.39 28 O 3.5
1,699 76 7 6 7.6 2 .' 0.1 6g. 2.5 270 O. iH M F8.3 1.63 1.5 23 30 1.30 30F t.
00 Ill. 7 & 7 7,9 72.5 0U.2 778 2.5 30 3T.0 1 N 90 1.66b OO 20 22 1.1 22 0 0 200
16,U I. 7W 7 B6 .32.6 0. 3.8 2.75 3-0 2. 12 B 9.1 1.64 0.0 22 29 132T 29 0 0 3.0
1,62 Ill. 76 5-5 8.10 2.4 0.1 7.4 3.5 2.5 2.5 16 N 7.6l1.57 1.3 23 25 1.09 25 0 0 3.0
2132 x 6162 In. 76 5 5 7F,7 2,5 0 0 00 2.0 2.0 2W.0 18 N 85 152 0.2 "17 24 i 24 0 35
R-7 Rog. 75 7 i4 7.9 2.7 .0 0.0 2.0 3.0 3X9 19 N 82 1.59= 0. 19 26 F 37 26 = 0T 2.0
R-15 og. 76 4 5 7.7 1.9 O.00OO[.0 24 5 3.0- 16i N 8.5 1.5 3 0.0 21 i T.o1 24 o 0 -2.5
R-16 Rog. 75 7 7 7.3 2.2 0.2 7.5 3.0 3.C 2.5 12 M 8.9 1.63 0.5 24 31 1.29 31 0 0 2.5
1-17 Rog. 74 6 6 7.4 18 0.8 0.O. 2. 3.0 2.0 M 8.0 1.5 1.0 21 29 138 29 0 0 2.5
R4 Rog.a 7 767Ro .72 0. 6.0 3 2.q O,5 4 B 8 673 1. 5 = zir 1 o" -3.5
Harris 76 3 2 721.5 1, 5.6 .0 10. 3 17 35 2106 35 O
ai aughn 75 6 3 78 2.3 02 2.51 3. 3. 2,0 1 N 8 5 1.3 23 31 1.35 31 0 0 2.
R-19 Rog. T~ T 7 7.5 2.5 0. 0.00 2.( 3- 2.0 14 M .2 1.60 002, 26T 6W 1.92 I2 3 1 2.5
f-20 Rog. 75 6 8 7 2 o.c 2 3. 0 12M 9 1.43 2 32 1 32 0 2.5
R-21* Rog 71 6 7Q 7n .33... 3. 2.5 12 B 7.9 3.59 .O21 23 T.10 23 o o 3o0
K-22 7Rog. 7 7 7.3 ~2.1 7.2 7AC 3.5 3.q 25 12 M 7 1 0.5 2 3 1.79 13 0 2.5
R-24 Rog. 7. 5 T 6.* 1.4 0 O.C 3 q 3.( 25 12 M 7.7 1.5 0023 26 1.13 2m 2 "0 2.5
25 Rog. 8 8 16.3 1.3 O. 0.* 30 2.0 12 B 7. -1. 1,o 22- 21.09 24 o 0 3.5
_-_- Ro.. 7 7 2.2 0 5 2 2.5 10 12 M 0.9 1.61 2.0 21 33 157 33 0 O


Hybrid:


(1)

4-4
0

3 CO


(13)


I_ _


-


1(12)113)K3(


,.....


I


----- -


- ---







Sweet Corn Observational Trial #2.


Pl n.t Characteristics


(7)
03
1-'

1 j
PL
00


Ear Charact~ri-st~ies


(10


a ca


(]1)


.0
a
a
1c


(12)



*0 S
* 0
o.
h-


(15)
4,


S0
i.5:
ciiI-


(16)

E-4


' -4


Yi Aid


a)


ris
* f (


t Yi-- .
--- -_1-t-


L20)i2lY K-2)T c:3j


*

. v
i 2
IM


R-27 Rog. 4 5 7.92,3 0.2 7.3 303. 0 3.02.5 16 N 9.3 1.580.0 22 27 1.23 27 0 0 3.5-
R-28 Rog. 73 6 7 7,6 2.1 0.4 7.5 .0 2.0 2.0 12 M 8.3 1.5 0.5 20 34 1.70 3 o 0~o 3,0
R-29 .Rog.. 75 6 6 7.0 27. 0. 68 .i5 3.0 3.5 16 N 8.8 1.6o 0.3 2r 24 1.1W 2 0 0 2, 5
R-31 Rog. 74 T" 8 7.9 2.4 0.8 5.5 3.5 .0 3.0 12 M 8.3 1.T7 0.5 22 31 1.i1 31 0 1-5
R-32 Rog.7 77 25 -43935 2.0 2.0 87 59 1.5 2 2 1,22 2 0 0 3.
R-33 Rog. 76 6 6 8.0 2.7 0.T 65 15 3-. 12 83 1.6 1.5 20 36 1.80 3 T 0 4
R-35 Rog. 7-5 T 7.02.3 0. 6.3.5 3.'0 3. 3 N 8. 1.63 0.3- 2 T 1.22 2 0 0 2
R-36 Rog. 76 6 7.1 2.1 0.0.0 4.0 1j.0 3.0 16 N 8.7 1.57 0.5 22 2W 1.27 2 0 0 3.0
R-37 Rog. 7 51 6 7. 2.2 0.6 6.' 3.5 .0 2,-0-1 T 7.8 167 1.0 20 28 1.40 28 0 0 3.
R-38 Rog. 75' 5 7.0 1.8 0 .3 T .0 2.5 3.0 16 VN 7.7 1.50 0,0 27 1.13 27 0 0 3.0
R-39 Rog. 76 7 6 6.6 1.9 0. 2.53.0 U T W 16 N 7.U 1. 0.73 17 24 1.41 234 0. OO 2.5
R-h4. Rog. 76 5 76 2.73 0. 00 1.5' 2.10 I B 8h 163 0.5 22 O oT2 .53
Exp.Sen.SurJ.Nkt. Rob. 757 7 7.8 2.1 0.8 5.2 335 a. 22.5 12 NM 86 l 0.3 21 31 1.8 3-1 o 2.5
Ep. Hybrid 5A Rob. 76 4 6 -.0 2.3 O.6 7.53 3.5 3 15 h N 7.6 1.38 0.s 19 31 1.63 31 O O 3.O
Exp. Hybrid SB Rob. 76 5 5 O2.2 0.2 8~.5. 35 3.0 2.5 1 N i7.6 1.51 0.3 21 28 1.33 26 O 0 2.5
79-13 Cro. 76 3 7.3 2.5 0.6 7.3 3.5 2.0 1.0 1" M 7.5 1.58 0.5 20 28 1.0o 28 o 0 3.5
69-13 Cro. 7h 4 4 7.2 2.2 0 7.013.0 2. 2.0 18 N 7.6 1.72 1.0 21 24 1.Z_ 2_ 0 0 3.5
69-12___ Cro. 76 4 6 7.2 1.9 0.2 6.7 33.0 302.0 16 N 8.2 1i54 0.5 17 31 1.82 31 0 0 3.0
69-14 Cro. 72 75 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.00 16 N 8.01.00.3 21 2 1. 0
79-1 "_Cro. 76 h 6 7.8 2.6 0.2 7.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 12 B 7.7 1.64 1.5 19 22 1.16 22 0 10 4.0
Seneca Chie Rob. 6 6 0.6 7.0 3. 0. 12 7.6 1.hi&. 22 28 1.27 2 8 O 31.

(1) F1IW F. H. :oodruff & Sons; Cor. Corneli Seed Co.; 3L Michael Leonard Co.; Asg. Associated Seed Growers;
NK Northrup King and Co.; Rob. Robson Seed Farms; lrio. Crookham Company; 13.Il Illinois A.E.S.; Ind. Indiana
A.E.S.; Rog. Rogers Bros. 5ed Co.; Vaughn Vaughn Seed Co.; Harris Josep-"Harris Seed Co.
(3) Seedling'-Vgor Rated when most vigorous varieties such as Seneca Supermarket are about 12" in height on a 1-8
scale: 1-very poor seedling vigor to 8-excellent seedling vigor. (4) Seedling uniformity Rated at the same time
as seedling vigor on a 1-8 scale; 1-very poor uniformity of vigor to 8-excellent uniformity of seedling vigor.
(9) Blight rating obtained from E. A. Wolf, Helminthosporium turcicum indices from unsprayed nursery stock planted
February l., 1956 (Modified Ulstrup scale; 1-slight infection to 5-heavy infection.) (10) Unhusked appearance-
hu.l: i' rr, tightness of husk, flag, general attractiveness on a 1-4 scale: 1-poor appearance to 4-excellent appearance.


Hybrid


o C/


- -- --- -- ---,------------ ~--i---^---


(1) (2) (3)|()|()6)


-"-^'"


'


(13)(( 14)


^- 1^-


Table IV. Ccntinued


I (r-a







Table IV. CntLinued Sweet Corn Observational Trial 12. 15 -

(ll) Husked Appearance based on tipfill, type of kernel, shape of ear, size of ear, "dryback," uniformity of rows
and general attractiveness on a 1-h scale: 1-poor attractiveness to h-excellent attractiveness. (13) Kernel
Type B-Broad kernel, M-medium kernel, N-narrow kernel VN-very narrow kernel, (lh) Ear length-Mean length
of UO randomly selected ears from butt to tip. (15) Ear diameter Mean diameter of 1i randomly selected ears,
measured midway between butt and tip of ear, (16) Unfilled tip Mean length of unfilled tip of the above 10
randomly selected ears. (23) Preference Based on recorder's opinion taking into consideration all measured
qualities. 1-h scale: 1-best to i-poorest.










Table Vo Commercial Trials of Sweet Corn Hybrids on Duda's Farm at Belle Glade in Field C-13
Planted 1/26/56, Harvested 4/28/56. 93 days from Planting to Maturity.


Total area
Source* in acres


Florida 104
Golden Security
68-6


Total yield in crates
as Harvested
L doz. 5 doz. 52 doz.
crates crates crates


287
254
271


Yield in
Total crates
as harvested




310
350
333


Yield per acre in
crates as harvested
17 doz. 5 doz, 5~ doz. Total
crates crates crates Crates
per acre

351.7 1.2 27.0 379.9
311.3 78.4 39.2 428.9
332.1 39.2 36.8 W08.1


-36-

Est. Yield
per acre in
doz. of ears
of corn



1737.2
2008.5
1892.85


* FHW = F. H. Woodruff & Sons


Variety


ffHW
FIW
FHW


0.816
0.816
0.816


_______








Table VI. Commercial Trials of Sweet Corn Hybrids Planted on Duda's Farm at Belle Glade
in Field B-14, March 20, 1956


Total Yield in Crates
as Harvested


Total area
Variety Source* in acres

(1)b Fla. 104 FW 190
(2)b Hybrid 81 FM 0.705
(3)b Golden Sec. FHW 1.769
(4)b 68-6 F 1.76
(5)b Golden Sec. FHW 1.76
(64a 68-14 F W 3.52
(7)0 Golden Sec. FHW 352
(8)c Fla. 104 FHW 1.99
99)p Tempo Corneli 0.375


L4- dOZ.
crates

426
0
0
207
6
158
10
479
0


crates

83
175
2316
308
4Q5
850
857
101
75


crates

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17


Yield
in
total
crates

509
175
2216
515
11
1008
867
580
92


Yield per acre
in crates


Total
crates


Sdoz. 5 dozR. 6 doz. per


crates

226.2
0
0
317.6
3.,
44,9
2.8
240.7
0


crates

43.7
248.2
280.9
175.0
230.1
241.5
233.5
50.8
200.0


crates
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
45.3


acre

267.9
2,48.2
280.9
292.6
233,5
286.4
246.3
291.5
245.3


Est, Yield
per acre in
dozens of ears
of corn

1227.4
1241.0
1404,5
104*.2
2165.8
1409.6
1230.1
1337.2
1271.8


* FHW F. H. Woodruff & Sons, Toledo 1, Ohio
FH = Ferry Morse Seed Co., Detroit 31, Michigan
CorneU = Corneli Seed Co., St. Louis 2, Missouri

a. 68-14 Harvested June 4, 1956 76 days from planting to harvest.
b. Fla. 104 (b), Hybrid 81, Golden Security (b), 68-6, 68-14, Harvested June 5, 1956. 77 days from planting to harvest,
c. Golden Security (c), Fla. 104 (c) Tempo Harvested June 6, 1956. 78 days from planting to harvest.
The following yield comparison may be made with Golden Security as the check variety$
1. Plots (1), (4) versus plot (5)
2. Plot (2) versus plot (3)
3. Plot (6), (8) and (9) versus plot ()


225 codes


- 17 -


> dOZe b LdoZ




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