Wheat, Barley, and Oat Performance Tests in Tennessee

Wheat, Barley, and Oat Performance Tests in Tennessee 2004 Fred L. Allen, Coordinator, Agronomic Crop Variety Testing & Demonstrations Richard D. Johnson, Research Associate, Agronomic Crop Variety Testing & Demonstrations Robert C. Williams, Jr. Extension Area Specialist, Grain Crops Chism Craig, Extension Specialist, Cotton & Small Grains Agronomic Crop Variety Testing and Demonstrations Department of Plant Sciences University of Tennessee Knoxville Telephone: (865)974-8821 FAX: (865)974-8850 email: allenf@utk.edu Variety test results are posted on UT s website at: http://taes.tennessee.edu/researchprograms/variety_trials/ 1

Acknowledgments This research was funded by the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station and the Tennessee Cooperative Extension Service with partial funding from participating companies. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals in conducting these experiments: Dept. of Plant Sciences Dr. Dennis West, Professor and Grains Breeder Experiment Stations: Knoxville Experiment Station, Knoxville Dr. John Hodges, Superintendent Mr. Bobby McKee, Sr. Farm Crew Leader Mr. Craig Miller, Research Assistant Highland Rim Experiment Station, Springfield Dr. Barry Sims, Superintendent Mr. William Pitt, Research Associate Middle Tennessee Experiment Station, Spring Hill Dr. Dennis Onks, Superintendent Mr. Roy Thompson, Research Associate Milan Experiment Station, Milan Dr. Blake Brown, Superintendent Mr. Jason Williams, Research Associate Mr. James McClure, Research Associate West Tennessee Experiment Station, Jackson Dr. Robert Hayes, Superintendent Mr. Gordon Percell, Research Associate Ames Plantation, Grand Junction Dr. Rick Carlisle, Superintendent Mr. Marshall Smith, Research Associate 2

County Standard Wheat Test Coordinator: Mr. Robert C. Williams, Jr., Extension Area Specialist, Grain Crops Dyer County Mr. Tim Campbell, Extension Director George and Jerry Pate Hollingsworth Farm Gibson County Mr. Philip Shelby, Extension Director Charles and Andy King Farm Henry County Mr. Ken Goddard, Extension Director Edwin Ables Farm Lake County Mr. Greg Allen, Extension Director John Dickey Farm Lauderdale Mr. Jerry Parker, Extension Director Peyton and Mathis Farm Obion County Mr. Tim Smith, Extension Director William and Bill Thompson Farm Weakley County Mr. Jeff Lannom, Extension Director David and John Waterfield Farm Madison County (West Tennessee Experiment Station) Dr. Chism Craig, Extension Specialist, Cotton & Small Grains, Dept. of Plant Sciences Moore County Mr. Larry Moorehead, Extension Director Jerry Ray Farm Fulton, KY Mr. Ben Mullins Johnson Linder Farm 3

Table of Contents General Information 6 Interpretation of data.. 6 List of Tables Wheat Results Table 1. Location information from experiment stations where the wheat variety tests were conducted in 2004..... 7 Table 2. Mean yields of 78 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004.. 8 Table 3. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 78 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004.. 10 Table 4. Yields of 18 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated in ten County Standard Tests in Tennessee during 2004... 12 Table 5. Yields, moistures, and test weights of 14 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated in both the County Standard Tests (n=10) and Experiment Station Tests (n=6) in Tennessee during 2004..... 13 Table 6. Mean yields of 31 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=12) in Tennessee for two years 2003 2004.. 14 Table 7. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 31 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=12) in Tennessee for two years 2003 2004... 15 Table 8. Mean yields of 22 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=18) in Tennessee for three years 2002 2004... 16 Table 9. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 22 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=18) in Tennessee for three years 2002 2004... 17 Wheat Management Study Table 10. Management regimes used for low, medium and high levels of input for 12 winter wheat varieties tested at Jackson, TN during the 2003-2004 growing season...... 18 Table 11. Yield of 12 wheat varieties grown under three management regimes, Jackson, TN, 2004... 18 Table 12. Comparison of management regimes for wheat yield, test weight, and harvest moisture averaged across 12 varieties, Jackson, TN, 2004... 18 Barley Results Table 13. Location information from experiment stations where the barley variety tests were conducted in 2004.. 19 Table 14. Mean yields of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004.. 20 Table 15. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004.... 20 Table 16. Mean yields of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at five locations (n=10) in Tennessee for two years, 2003 2004. 21 Table 17. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at five locations (n=10) in Tennessee for two years 2003-2004.... 21 4

Table 18. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of three six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at four locations (n=12) in Tennessee for three years, 2002 2004 22 Oat Results Table 19. Mean yields, agronomic characteristics and winter hardiness ratings of 21 oat breeding lines evaluated at Jackson, Tennessee in 2004... 24 Table 20. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 21 oat breeding lines evaluated at Knoxville, Tennessee in 2004.... 25 5

General Information Experiment Station Tests: The 2004 variety performance tests were conducted on 78 soft, red winter wheat varieties in each of the physiographic regions of the state. Tests were conducted at the Ames Plantation (Grand Junction) and at the Highland Rim (Springfield), Knox (Knoxville), Middle TN (Spring Hill), Milan (Milan), and West TN (Jackson) Agricultural Experiment Stations. All varieties were seeded at rates from 25-32 seed per square foot (Table 1). Plots were seeded with drills using 7 7.5 inch row spacings. The plot size was six, seven or ten rows, 25 to 30 feet in length depending on location equipment. Plots were replicated three times at each location. Seed of all varieties were treated with a fungicide. County Standard Tests: The Standard Wheat Test was conducted on 18 soft, red winter wheat varieties in 9 counties in West Tennessee (Dyer, Gibson, Henry, Lake, Lauderdale, Moore, Obion, Weakley, and Madison) and one county in western Kentucky (Fulton). Each variety was evaluated in a large strip-plot at each location, thus each county test was considered as one replication of the test in calculating the overall average yield and in conducting the statistical analysis to determine significant differences. At each location, plots were planted, sprayed, fertilized, and harvested with the equipment used by the cooperating producer in his farming operation. The width and length of strip-plots were different in each county; however, within a location in a county, the strips were trimmed on the ends so that the lengths were the same for each variety, or if the lengths were different then the harvested length was measured for each variety and appropriate harvested area adjustments were made to determine the yield per acre. Growing Season: The growing season began with favorable moisture and temperature conditions during the fall planting season. The winter temperatures were relatively mild with very little freezing damage to the plants. The spring season was wet and unseasonably warm during most of March, April and May. Rains during June made harvest difficult. The warm humid conditions contributed to disease pressure (e.g. take-all and glume blotch); however yield losses due to diseases in the tests were not high. Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV) was present in the tests at all locations, but the most severe symptoms were present in the Knoxville location test. Ratings were taken on BYDV at the Knoxville location, but none of the other test locations had enough visible symptoms to rate differences among varieties. Interpretation of Data The tables on the following pages have been prepared with the entries listed in order of performance, the highest-yielding entry being listed first. All yields presented have been adjusted to 13.5% moisture. At the bottom of the tables, LSD values stand for Least Significant Difference. The mean yields of any two varieties being compared must differ by at least the LSD amount shown to be considered different in yielding ability at the 5% level of probability of significance. For example, given that the LSD for a test is 8.0 bu/a and the mean yield of Variety A was 50 bu/a and the mean yield of Variety B was 55 bu/a, then the two varieties are not statistically different in yield because the difference of 5 bu/a is less than the minimum of 8 bu/a required for them to be significant. Similarly, if the average yield of Variety C was 63 bu/a then it is significantly higher yielding than both Variety B (63-55 = 8 bu/a = 6

LSD of 8) and Variety A (63-50 = 13 bu/a > LSD of 8). Also, the coefficient of variation (C.V.) values are shown at the bottom of each table. This value is a measure of the error variability found within each experiment. It is the percentage that the square root of error mean square is of the overall test mean yield at that location. For example, a C.V. of 10% indicates that the size of the error variation is about 10% of the size of the test mean. Similarly, a C.V. of 30% indicates that the size of the error variation is nearly one-third as large as the test mean. A goal in conducting each yield test is to keep the C.V. as low as possible, preferably below 20%. -------------------------------------------- Wheat --------------------------------------------- Results Yield and Agronomic Traits: During 2004, 78 wheat varieties were evaluated in six experiment station tests, and 18 varieties were evaluated in eight county standard tests. Fourteen of the varieties were common to both the experiment station and the county tests. Twelve companies and seven universities entered varieties into the tests this year. Thirty-one of the 78 varieties have been evaluated for two years (2003-2004) and 22 of the 78 have been evaluated for three years (2002-2004). The average yield of the 71 non-insecticide treated varieties in the experiment station tests was 69 bu/a (range from 52 to 85 bu/a, Table 2). The average yield of the seven insecticide treated varieties in the experiment station tests was 75 bu/a with individual varieties ranging from 65 to 86 bu/a. The varieties ranged in maturity from 220 to 225 days after planting (DAP) with most of the varieties clustering around 222. The test weight scores ranged from the lowto mid-fifties with the range being 51.6 to 57.8 lbs/bu (Table 3). The average yield of the 15 non-insecticide treated varieties in the county tests was 56.1 bu/a with individual varieties ranging from 51.0 to 69.1 bu/a. The average yield of the three insecticide treated varieties in the county tests was 62.9 bu/a with individual varieties ranging from 61.2 to 65.1 bu/a. The test weight values ranged from 52.8 to 56.4 lbs/bu (Table 4). As evidenced by the two years of data presented in Table 6, excellent choices are available of wheat varieties developed by companies as well as universities. Table 1. Location information from experiment stations where the wheat variety tests were conducted in 2004. Planting Harvest Seeding Experiment Station Location Date Date Rate Soil Type Ames Plantation Grand Junction 10/30/2003 6/9/2004 25/ft 2 Lexington Silt Loam Highland Rim Springfield 10/21/2003 6/21/2004 28/ft 2 Dickson Silt Loam Knoxville Knoxville 10/17/2003 6/11/2004 28/ft 2 Sequoia Silty Clay Loam Milan Milan 10/7/2003 6/23/2004 32/ft 2 Grenada Silt Loam Middle Tennessee Spring Hill 11/4/2003 6/9/2004 26/ft 2 Maury Silt Loam West Tennessee Jackson 10/24/2003 6/10/2004 28/ft 2 Lexington Silt Loam 7

Table 2. Mean yields of 78 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004. Avg. Yield ± Std Err. Spring Brand Variety (n=6) Knoxville Springfield Hill Jackson Milan Ames ---------------------------------------bu/a--------------------------------------- Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 900 85 ± 2 68 84 91 97 68 100 Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 922 82 ± 2 74 87 80 91 61 102 Pioneer 25R78 79 ± 2 78 81 63 89 63 101 Delta King DK XTJ 253 78 ± 2 69 86 64 83 63 100 FFR 8302 77 ± 2 61 91 63 81 66 99 Pioneer 26R15 76 ± 2 60 84 66 78 67 98 Delta King DK 9410 75 ± 2 54 80 65 86 68 97 VA Roane 75 ± 2 70 77 72 76 62 91 Armor AXR 5888 74 ± 2 60 80 71 80 64 93 Pioneer 26R12 74 ± 2 57 87 55 86 62 100 Delta Grow 4200 74 ± 2 53 83 73 79 65 93 Renwood 3706 (VA98W-706) 74 ± 2 66 78 86 74 58 83 Progeny 160 74 ± 2 52 80 71 85 64 92 Delta King DK XTJ 251 74 ± 2 52 77 64 81 71 97 Delta King DK 7900 73 ± 2 60 80 68 83 62 87 Armor 3035 73 ± 2 53 78 68 81 66 94 Renwood 3260 73 ± 2 65 77 78 79 58 81 Progeny 133 73 ± 2 54 82 67 81 65 87 Progeny 166 72 ± 2 53 79 69 79 62 92 AR Pat 72 ± 2 68 77 69 73 60 86 Delta Grow 4888 72 ± 2 53 78 66 82 62 93 Pioneer 25R49 72 ± 2 63 74 62 76 66 87 NK Brand Coker 9312 (B961416) 72 ± 2 55 80 68 73 57 96 FFR 556 71 ± 2 66 78 53 77 57 96 Delta King DK XTJ 261 71 ± 2 74 71 64 71 52 96 NK Brand Coker 9152 71 ± 2 54 92 73 75 65 67 Progeny 110 71 ± 2 42 77 78 76 72 80 VA McCormick 70 ± 2 63 79 55 76 54 93 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9412 70 ± 2 50 75 58 82 66 89 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9410 70 ± 2 45 78 72 83 57 85 AgriPro Savage 70 ± 2 61 74 68 81 55 80 NK Brand B970051 70 ± 2 48 68 66 78 56 102 Delta Grow 4500 70 ± 2 56 79 60 81 55 87 Agripro Beretta 70 ± 2 61 64 64 79 57 93 Pioneer 25R37 70 ± 2 62 74 60 73 62 87 TN Exp TN 401 70 ± 2 55 83 71 69 63 77 Delta King DK XTJ 243 70 ± 2 52 74 66 73 61 92 Delta King DK XTJ 241 69 ± 2 43 87 69 80 58 80 NK Brand Coker 9663 69 ± 2 56 83 62 80 54 80 MD MV 5-46 69 ± 2 59 80 65 74 56 80 AR Sabbe 69 ± 2 49 79 61 71 61 91 AgriPro Cooper (M98-2023) 68 ± 2 66 72 57 70 59 86 Pioneer 26R58 68 ± 2 50 79 69 71 55 85 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 68 ± 2 46 89 57 77 54 85 MO Truman 68 ± 2 54 74 73 63 54 88 AgriPro Benton (M98-1661) 68 ± 2 63 68 63 70 54 88 Progeny 145 68 ± 2 49 79 68 75 53 82 AgriPro L96*9266-1 68 ± 2 43 80 63 70 64 87 OH Bravo 67 ± 2 58 77 62 74 57 77 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9212 67 ± 2 55 78 67 71 54 79 Progeny 156 67 ± 2 43 77 64 67 61 88 (continued) 8

Table 2. Mean yields of 78 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004. (continued) Avg. Yield ± Std Err. Spring Brand Variety (n=6) Knoxville Springfield Hill Jackson Milan Ames ---------------------------------------bu/a--------------------------------------- VA Jackson 67 ± 2 67 75 53 72 55 79 Delta King DK 1551w 67 ± 2 50 67 58 75 61 88 MD MD 71-5 66 ± 2 53 75 62 71 51 86 Armor AXR 5110 66 ± 2 66 66 59 69 55 81 FFR 521 66 ± 2 51 69 56 72 65 81 FFR 510 65 ± 2 48 84 78 76 43 63 AR Exp. AR 839 65 ± 2 64 70 53 70 56 78 VA Exp. 97W-024 65 ± 2 64 79 80 71 44 54 VA Sisson 65 ± 2 51 57 65 72 53 93 Delta King DK XTJ 239 64 ± 2 61 73 50 74 54 73 FFR 8309 64 ± 2 51 64 54 72 55 89 MD MD 11-52 64 ± 2 50 73 60 63 52 83 Armor AXR 5109 62 ± 2 47 78 57 69 59 66 AR Exp. AR 910-9-1 62 ± 2 49 69 58 66 66 65 Delta King DK XTJ 247 61 ± 2 43 89 45 68 63 62 GA Exp. 93-1233 E17 61 ± 2 45 70 57 68 49 78 Delta King DK 7777 61 ± 2 53 75 59 68 54 58 OH Hopewell 60 ± 2 41 63 41 68 67 80 OH Daisy 55 ± 2 44 58 44 62 58 64 NK Brand Coker 9375 (B960457) 52 ± 2 46 68 39 58 52 50 Average (bu/a) 69 56 77 64 75 59 85 Varieties* -- Seed Treated with Gaucho Systemic Insecticide USG 3350 86 ± 2 75 78 92 95 69 103 USG 3430 82 ± 2 62 81 91 91 69 98 USG 3209 79 ± 2 77 67 64 88 69 112 USG Exp. 370 76 ± 2 80 80 75 79 54 84 USG 3592 72 ± 2 75 76 60 84 62 76 USG 3709 68 ± 2 54 70 61 78 54 92 USG Exp. 320 65 ± 2 57 72 56 69 59 79 Average (bu/a) 75 69 75 71 83 62 92 L.S.D..05 (bu/a) 4 10 11 13 9 10 10 C.V. (%) 9.3 10.4 9.1 12.1 7.4 10.4 7.2 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments * Tested in the same trial with untreated varieties 9

Table 3. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 78 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004. Avg. Yield Test BYD ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Virus Brand Variety (n=6) (n=6) (n=3) (n=1) (n=5) (n=6) (n=1) (n=1) bu/a % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score Score Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 900 85 ± 2 14.2 53.4 174 222 39 1.5 1.9 Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 922 82 ± 2 14.8 54.6 174 222 40 1.5 1.3 Pioneer 25R78 79 ± 2 13.7 54.2 175 221 33 1.0 1.8 Delta King DK XTJ 253 78 ± 2 14.0 54.0 173 221 36 1.5 1.8 FFR 8302 77 ± 2 14.8 55.0 176 224 35 1.5 2.4 Pioneer 26R15 76 ± 2 13.8 52.6 174 223 35 1.7 1.7 Delta King DK 9410 75 ± 2 14.7 54.5 175 222 40 1.7 1.8 VA Roane 75 ± 2 14.7 56.8 176 223 33 1.3 1.6 Armor AXR 5888 74 ± 2 14.4 54.1 173 222 39 1.5 1.7 Pioneer 26R12 74 ± 2 13.9 55.4 175 223 35 1.5 2.2 Delta Grow 4200 74 ± 2 14.7 54.0 174 221 38 1.5 1.8 Renwood 3706 (VA98W-706) 74 ± 2 14.0 54.3 172 221 33 1.2 2.2 Progeny 160 74 ± 2 14.0 52.8 175 222 39 1.7 1.9 Delta King DK XTJ 251 74 ± 2 13.8 52.5 174 222 35 1.7 2.7 Delta King DK 7900 73 ± 2 14.1 53.7 174 222 39 1.5 1.8 Armor 3035 73 ± 2 14.7 53.9 175 223 39 1.5 1.8 Renwood 3260 73 ± 2 14.7 55.3 172 222 35 1.7 2.2 Progeny 133 73 ± 2 14.5 53.7 175 222 39 1.8 2.3 Progeny 166 72 ± 2 14.6 53.9 174 223 38 1.8 2.0 AR Pat 72 ± 2 14.0 53.2 178 225 38 1.5 1.4 Delta Grow 4888 72 ± 2 14.4 54.3 174 223 39 1.5 1.8 Pioneer 25R49 72 ± 2 13.7 53.4 176 222 34 1.2 1.5 NK Brand Coker 9312 (B961416) 72 ± 2 14.3 54.5 172 220 33 1.3 3.4 FFR 556 71 ± 2 13.7 52.6 175 222 34 1.3 2.2 Delta King DK XTJ 261 71 ± 2 13.9 54.2 173 223 35 1.5 1.3 NK Brand Coker 9152 71 ± 2 13.7 53.8 173 222 40 1.8 2.3 Progeny 110 71 ± 2 14.1 54.1 173 221 38 1.7 2.7 VA McCormick 70 ± 2 14.8 55.5 174 223 34 1.7 2.6 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9412 70 ± 2 14.1 54.2 173 222 35 1.5 2.8 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9410 70 ± 2 14.0 53.8 173 222 38 1.5 2.3 AgriPro Savage 70 ± 2 14.8 56.0 174 221 36 1.3 1.4 NK Brand B970051 70 ± 2 13.3 51.3 177 222 32 1.5 2.8 Delta Grow 4500 70 ± 2 14.8 54.0 173 222 39 1.5 2.1 Agripro Beretta 70 ± 2 13.7 52.4 175 222 34 1.5 1.6 Pioneer 25R37 70 ± 2 14.2 54.5 175 223 34 1.3 1.8 TN Exp TN 401 70 ± 2 14.7 57.1 175 223 37 1.7 1.5 Delta King DK XTJ 243 70 ± 2 13.9 52.7 175 224 36 1.8 2.2 Delta King DK XTJ 241 69 ± 2 14.0 53.8 174 222 38 1.5 2.8 NK Brand Coker 9663 69 ± 2 14.9 55.4 174 224 39 2.0 1.6 MD MV 5-46 69 ± 2 14.2 55.3 173 221 34 1.5 2.5 AR Sabbe 69 ± 2 14.2 52.8 176 224 37 1.0 2.4 AgriPro Cooper (M98-2023) 68 ± 2 14.3 52.9 175 221 34 1.2 2.1 Pioneer 26R58 68 ± 2 13.3 51.7 173 222 33 1.3 2.8 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 68 ± 2 15.3 56.6 174 224 33 1.3 2.4 MO Truman 68 ± 2 14.9 53.5 180 225 38 1.7 1.8 AgriPro Benton (M98-1661) 68 ± 2 13.9 52.5 175 221 34 1.2 1.4 Progeny 145 68 ± 2 14.3 53.9 173 222 38 1.8 2.3 AgriPro L96*9266-1 68 ± 2 15.1 53.4 172 222 35 1.5 1.9 OH Bravo 67 ± 2 14.0 54.7 175 222 38 1.8 1.7 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9212 67 ± 2 13.8 53.7 174 223 38 1.5 2.3 Progeny 156 67 ± 2 14.3 52.8 175 222 37 1.7 2.5 (continued) 10

Table 3. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 78 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004. (continued) Avg. Yield Test BYD ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Virus Brand Variety (n=6) (n=6) (n=2) (n=1) (n=5) (n=6) (n=1) (n=1) bu/a % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score Score VA Jackson 67 ± 2 13.9 53.8 174 221 37 1.8 1.7 Delta King DK 1551w 67 ± 2 13.5 52.9 174 223 34 1.0 2.4 MD MD 71-5 66 ± 2 13.4 53.5 172 220 31 1.0 2.3 Armor AXR 5110 66 ± 2 13.6 53.3 174 224 36 1.2 1.6 FFR 521 66 ± 2 13.6 52.0 171 222 34 1.5 2.8 FFR 510 65 ± 2 14.0 54.5 171 220 36 1.5 3.7 AR Exp. AR 839 65 ± 2 13.5 53.2 174 223 37 1.7 1.8 VA Exp. 97W-024 65 ± 2 14.1 53.1 175 224 36 1.7 1.7 VA Sisson 65 ± 2 14.2 52.9 172 222 32 1.7 3.0 Delta King DK XTJ 239 64 ± 2 13.6 53.2 173 223 36 1.3 1.6 FFR 8309 64 ± 2 14.0 53.0 176 224 36 1.8 2.2 MD MD 11-52 64 ± 2 13.5 52.9 172 220 30 1.3 2.3 Armor AXR 5109 62 ± 2 14.8 54.4 176 223 38 1.7 2.7 AR Exp. AR 910-9-1 62 ± 2 13.7 54.0 171 222 37 1.5 2.4 Delta King DK XTJ 247 61 ± 2 14.2 54.4 175 224 38 2.0 2.8 GA Exp. 93-1233 E17 61 ± 2 15.1 54.6 172 221 37 1.7 2.5 Delta King DK 7777 61 ± 2 14.7 54.4 174 224 38 1.5 1.6 OH Hopewell 60 ± 2 13.9 52.7 179 224 36 1.5 3.1 OH Daisy 55 ± 2 13.8 52.6 176 221 35 1.2 2.4 NK Brand Coker 9375 (B960457) 52 ± 2 13.6 51.5 175 223 36 1.5 2.3 Varieties* -- Seed Treated with Gaucho Systemic Insecticide USG 3350 86 ± 2 14.5 54.0 174 222 39 1.7 1.6 USG 3430 82 ± 2 14.2 53.5 173 221 39 1.7 1.8 USG 3209 79 ± 2 14.0 54.2 172 222 33 2.0 1.9 USG Exp. 370 76 ± 2 14.3 54.6 172 220 33 1.3 1.9 USG 3592 72 ± 2 14.4 54.7 174 222 38 1.8 2.0 USG 3709 68 ± 2 13.4 52.1 175 222 38 1.5 2.5 USG Exp. 320 65 ± 2 14.4 54.5 172 222 35 1.5 2.2 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Official test weight of No. 2 wheat = 58 lbs/bu; average of Knoxville and Ames Plantation. * Tested in the same trial with untreated varieties Heading & Maturity (DAP) = Days after planting Lodging = 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants erect; 2.5 = ~50% of plants leaning at angle 45 ; 5 = 95+% of plants leaning at an angle 45. BYD = Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus - 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants infected; 2.5 = ~50% of plants infected; 5 = 95+% of plants infected; BYD notes taken at the Knoxville location. 11

Table 4. Yields of 18 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated in 10 County Standard Tests in Tennessee and Kentucky during 2004. Avg. Test KY WTES MS Brand/Variety Yield Moisture Weight Dyer Fulton Gibson Henry Lake Lauderdale Moore Obion Weakley Madison bu/a % lbs/bu --------------------------------------------------bu/a---------------------------------------------------------------- A FFR 8302 61.9 13.4 55.9 43.3 70.0 60.1 59.5 72.1 50.2 64.2 68.2 70.8 60.8 AB Croplan 554W 59.3 12.7 52.8 45.3 51.3 62.6 54.8 67.4 65.6 69.9 62.9 76.0 37.6 ABC *Pioneer 25R78 58.3 13.0 55.0 39.7 42.6 60.5 56.6 69.3 63.3 72.0 63.0 64.7 50.9 ABC *'FFR 556 57.8 13.1 53.4 41.3 49.4 67.9 54.8 70.5 62.7 54.1 66.2 70.3 40.6 BCD Vigoro "Tribute" 57.3 13.6 56.1 43.0 48.6 53.5 61.9 61.9 52.9 63.4 69.2 68.9 49.9 BCD Pioneer 25R37 57.1 13.4 54.4 38.9 49.8 53.9 61.3 59.7 58.6 67.3 59.1 67.8 54.3 BCD Croplan 514W 57.0 13.5 54.8 44.1 52.1 50.6 62.0 65.2 58.7 63.8 62.2 62.4 48.4 BCD FFR 510 56.3 13.2 55.0 44.2 40.7 51.5 58.5 66.3 54.7 72.9 60.8 68.6 45.2 BCD Pioneer 25R23 55.9 13.1 54.9 40.7 40.3 62.0 55.3 62.7 60.2 64.3 60.1 67.9 46.1 BCD FFR 8309 55.9 13.1 54.2 34.4 49.7 61.4 55.6 55.6 53.9 71.0 64.4 61.4 51.8 CDE Pioneer 25R49 54.7 13.3 52.9 31.9 41.3 62.3 57.5 56.8 58.9 66.7 64.5 65.6 41.9 CDE Vigoro 9212 54.0 13.5 53.7 37.9 43.8 55.7 54.5 58.1 59.5 57.0 58.3 63.6 51.5 DE Pioneer 2552 53.4 13.4 55.9 38.3 40.7 56.7 55.1 65.0 53.5 58.2 65.5 64.2 36.8 E AgriPro"Savage" 51.3 12.9 56.4 31.8 50.3 49.3 55.6 58.5 57.4 60.0 51.6 57.5 41.2 E Delta King 1551W 51.0 12.4 53.8 35.3 40.5 61.8 52.0 55.0 55.2 63.7 56.5 56.6 33.7 Average 56.1 13.1 54.6 39.3 47.4 58.0 57.0 63.0 57.7 64.6 62.2 65.8 46.0 Varieties* -- Seed Treated with Gaucho Systemic Insecticide A USG 3350 65.1 13.7 54.9 37.8 65.7 69.6 60.1 74.1 69.2 74.4 65.2 74.0 61.3 A *USG 3430 62.5 13.4 55.5 39.0 52.4 61.4 59.6 75.7 64.3 72.7 70.1 73.4 56.9 AB *USG 3209 61.2 13.4 53.8 38.4 47.2 65.6 67.3 77.5 58.3 75.9 70.2 76.7 34.8 Average 62.9 13.5 54.7 38.4 55.1 65.5 62.3 75.8 63.9 74.3 68.5 74.7 51.0 Yields have been adjusted to 13.5% moisture. Each variety was evaluated in a large strip-plot at each location, thus each county test was considered as one replication of the test in calculating the average yield and in conducting the statistical analysis to determine significant differences (MS). Official test weight of No. 2 wheat = 58 lbs/bu. * Tested in the same trial with untreated varieties MS = Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not statistically different in yield at the 5% level of probability. Varieties denoted with an asterisk (*) were in the top performing group for two years. WTES = West Tennessee Experiment Station Data provided by Robert C. Williams, Ext. Area Specialist, Grain Crops, and extension agents in counties shown above. 12

Table 5. Yields, moistures, and test weights of 14 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated in both the County Standard Tests (n=10) and Experiment Station Tests (n=6) in Tennessee during 2004. County Standard Tests Experiment Station Tests Avg. Avg. Brand Variety Yield Moisture Test Weight Yield Moisture Test Weight bu/a % lbs/bu bu/a % lbs/bu FFR 8302 62 13.4 55.9 77 14.8 55.0 Pioneer 25R78 58 13.0 55.0 79 13.7 54.2 FFR 556 58 13.1 53.4 71 13.7 52.6 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 57 13.6 56.1 68 15.3 56.6 Pioneer 25R37 57 13.4 54.4 70 14.2 54.5 FFR 510 56 13.2 55.0 65 14.0 54.5 FFR 8309 56 13.1 54.2 64 14.0 53.0 Pioneer 25R49 55 13.3 52.9 72 13.7 53.4 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9212 54 13.5 53.7 67 13.8 53.7 AgriPro Savage 51 12.9 56.4 70 14.8 56.0 Delta King DK 1551w 51 12.4 53.8 67 13.5 52.9 Average 56 13.2 54.6 70 14.1 54.2 Varieties* -- Seed Treated with Gaucho Systemic Insecticide USG 3350 65 13.7 54.9 86 14.5 54.0 USG 3430 63 13.4 55.5 82 14.2 53.5 USG 3209 61 13.4 53.8 79 14.0 54.2 Average 63 13.5 54.7 82 14.2 53.9 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. Official test weight of No. 2 wheat = 58 lbs/bu. * Tested in the same trial with untreated varieties 13

Table 6. Mean yields of 31 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=12) in Tennessee for two years 2003-2004. Avg. Yield ± Std Err. Spring Brand Variety (n=12) Knoxville Springfield Hill Jackson Milan Ames -----------------------------------------bu/a-------------------------------------- Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 900 73 ± 1 60 75 61 82 69 89 Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 922 70 ± 1 61 74 52 79 67 86 Pioneer 25R78 69 ± 1 67 70 46 80 64 85 NK Brand Coker 9152 68 ± 1 59 78 61 73 66 69 AR Pat 67 ± 1 67 72 54 73 59 77 Pioneer 25R37 66 ± 1 66 69 55 72 62 73 Progeny 166 65 ± 1 54 71 51 71 64 82 Delta King DK 9410 65 ± 1 55 66 46 76 68 82 Delta King DK 7900 65 ± 1 54 70 49 76 64 78 VA McCormick 65 ± 1 65 73 47 69 57 81 VA Roane 65 ± 1 67 65 56 67 57 79 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 65 ± 1 58 77 50 69 59 75 Renwood 3706 (VA98W-706) 64 ± 1 63 63 59 65 57 75 NK Brand Coker 9663 63 ± 1 57 70 53 72 55 72 Pioneer 26R58 63 ± 1 54 70 53 71 60 73 Progeny 145 63 ± 1 49 69 50 69 61 78 FFR 556 63 ± 1 63 67 40 66 58 82 AgriPro Savage 63 ± 1 60 67 51 71 57 69 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9212 62 ± 1 55 70 55 67 59 67 FFR 510 62 ± 1 53 76 59 70 51 64 OH Bravo 62 ± 1 56 68 55 66 59 67 AgriPro Benton (M98-1661) 61 ± 1 60 64 51 65 57 70 AR Sabbe 60 ± 1 48 67 47 62 59 75 VA Jackson 60 ± 1 58 69 41 63 58 69 Progeny 156 60 ± 1 45 63 49 65 60 76 VA Sisson 59 ± 1 50 59 52 62 56 75 FFR 521 58 ± 1 50 61 50 61 59 68 Delta King DK 1551w 58 ± 1 51 61 35 68 61 73 Delta King DK 7777 58 ± 1 55 65 47 64 58 61 NK Brand Coker 9375 (B960457) 55 ± 1 51 64 42 59 54 58 OH Daisy 52 ± 1 46 52 38 61 59 57 Average (bu/a) 63 57 68 50 69 60 74 L.S.D..05 (bu/a) 4 8 10 11 8 9 9 C.V. (%) 9.1 9.4 9.2 12.9 7.2 9.3 7.7 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments 14

Table 7. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 31 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=12) in Tennessee for two years 2003-2004. Avg. Yield Test BYD ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Virus Brand Variety (n=12) (n=12) (n=8) (n=3) (n=10) (n=12) (n=3) (n=1) bu/a % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score Score Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 900 73 ± 1 13.4 53.9 178 216 39 1.6 1.9 Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 922 70 ± 1 13.7 53.9 177 216 40 1.7 1.3 Pioneer 25R78 69 ± 1 13.1 54.5 177 214 33 1.1 1.8 NK Brand Coker 9152 68 ± 1 13.1 54.1 175 215 39 3.1 2.3 AR Pat 67 ± 1 13.3 55.1 180 220 38 1.4 1.4 Pioneer 25R37 66 ± 1 13.6 55.4 178 218 34 1.7 1.8 Progeny 166 65 ± 1 13.6 54.1 178 217 39 1.7 2.0 Delta King DK 9410 65 ± 1 13.7 54.3 178 217 39 1.6 1.8 Delta King DK 7900 65 ± 1 13.2 53.3 178 216 39 1.7 1.8 VA McCormick 65 ± 1 13.9 56.5 178 218 33 1.8 2.6 VA Roane 65 ± 1 13.8 56.8 179 217 33 1.3 1.6 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 65 ± 1 14.3 57.7 177 219 33 1.5 2.4 Renwood 3706 (VA98W-706) 64 ± 1 13.3 54.8 175 215 33 1.7 2.2 NK Brand Coker 9663 63 ± 1 13.9 56.0 177 220 40 2.7 1.6 Pioneer 26R58 63 ± 1 12.8 52.5 177 216 33 1.5 2.8 Progeny 145 63 ± 1 13.4 54.0 176 216 38 1.6 2.3 FFR 556 63 ± 1 13.0 53.1 178 216 33 2.8 2.2 AgriPro Savage 63 ± 1 13.9 55.8 176 214 35 1.6 1.4 Royster Clark (Vigoro) V9212 62 ± 1 13.2 53.7 176 217 38 1.7 2.3 FFR 510 62 ± 1 13.2 54.4 173 214 36 1.7 3.7 OH Bravo 62 ± 1 13.4 54.8 178 217 38 2.0 1.7 AgriPro Benton (M98-1661) 61 ± 1 13.2 53.0 179 216 34 1.5 1.4 AR Sabbe 60 ± 1 13.1 52.8 179 218 37 1.9 2.4 VA Jackson 60 ± 1 13.1 53.8 178 214 36 3.0 1.7 Progeny 156 60 ± 1 13.3 53.0 178 217 38 1.7 2.5 VA Sisson 59 ± 1 13.4 53.7 175 216 32 2.1 3.0 FFR 521 58 ± 1 13.0 52.0 174 216 33 1.7 2.8 Delta King DK 1551w 58 ± 1 12.9 52.8 178 216 34 1.4 2.4 Delta King DK 7777 58 ± 1 13.8 54.9 178 218 38 1.4 1.6 NK Brand Coker 9375 (B960457) 55 ± 1 12.9 52.5 177 216 37 1.6 2.3 OH Daisy 52 ± 1 13.0 52.4 179 214 35 1.6 2.4 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Official test weight of No. 2 wheat = 58 lbs/bu. Heading & Maturity (DAP) = Days after planting Lodging = 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants erect; 2.5 = ~50% of plants leaning at angle 45 ; 5 = 95+% of plants leaning at an angle 45. BYD = Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus - 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants infected; 2.5 = ~50% of plants infected; 5 = 95+% of plants infected. BYD notes taken at the Knoxville location in 2004. 15

Table 8. Mean yields of 22 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=18) in Tennessee for three years 2002-2004. Avg. Yield ± Std Err. Spring Brand Variety (n=18) Knoxville Springfield Hill Jackson Milan Ames ----------------------------------------bu/a----------------------------------------------- Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 900 68 ± 1 54 69 55 79 72 81 Pioneer 25R78 67 ± 1 61 66 46 81 67 80 AR Pat 63 ± 1 58 67 49 73 63 69 AgriPro Savage 63 ± 1 61 67 49 72 64 67 Delta King DK 7900 63 ± 1 52 66 48 74 66 72 Pioneer 25R37 63 ± 1 58 64 51 71 65 67 VA McCormick 62 ± 1 60 67 47 68 58 73 NK Brand Coker 9663 62 ± 1 53 67 52 72 58 71 NK Brand Coker 9152 62 ± 1 48 70 56 71 61 64 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 62 ± 1 59 68 47 69 58 69 VA Roane 62 ± 1 62 63 50 68 58 69 FFR 556 62 ± 1 58 62 42 69 62 77 OH Bravo 60 ± 1 56 62 53 65 63 62 FFR 510 59 ± 1 52 70 54 65 51 60 Delta King DK 7777 58 ± 1 51 65 45 65 60 62 Progeny 156 58 ± 1 45 57 48 66 60 69 AR Sabbe 57 ± 1 44 60 46 63 59 71 VA Sisson 57 ± 1 49 55 51 63 56 69 VA Jackson 57 ± 1 53 62 43 60 56 65 Delta King DK 1551w 55 ± 1 46 55 39 66 60 65 FFR 521 55 ± 1 46 54 49 62 56 63 Delta King DK 9410. 49 62 45. 68. Average (bu/a) 61 53 63 48 69 61 69 L.S.D..05 (bu/a) 3 9 9 9 7 9 8 C.V. (%) 9.4 11.3 9.5 11.9 7.2 9.4 7.9 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments (.) Indicates that the variety was not tested in that location over the three year period. 16

Table 9. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 22 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations (n=18) in Tennessee for three years 2002-2004. Avg. Yield Test BYD ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Virus Septoria Rust Brand Variety (n=18) (n=18) (n=14) (n=5) (n=15) (n=18) (n=4) (n=2) (n=1) (n=1) bu/a % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score Score Score Score Cache River Valley Seed Dixie 900 68 ± 1 13.5 54.9 178 217 38 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.3 Pioneer 25R78 67 ± 1 13.2 55.7 177 216 32 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 AR Pat 63 ± 1 13.4 55.8 181 220 36 1.3 1.2 1.7 2.0 AgriPro Savage 63 ± 1 13.8 56.2 176 215 33 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 Delta King DK 7900 63 ± 1 13.4 54.4 178 217 38 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.8 Pioneer 25R37 63 ± 1 13.6 56.4 179 218 33 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.3 VA McCormick 62 ± 1 14.1 57.1 178 219 31 1.6 2.7 1.5 1.0 NK Brand Coker 9663 62 ± 1 14.0 56.4 178 220 38 2.4 1.3 1.8 1.0 NK Brand Coker 9152 62 ± 1 13.2 54.8 177 217 37 2.6 3.1 2.3 1.2 Royster Clark (Vigoro) Tribute 62 ± 1 14.3 58.3 177 219 32 1.4 2.4 1.5 1.5 VA Roane 62 ± 1 13.9 57.2 180 218 32 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 FFR 556 62 ± 1 13.1 54.3 179 217 32 2.4 2.3 2.0 3.2 OH Bravo 60 ± 1 13.5 55.9 177 218 37 1.8 2.4 1.2 2.0 FFR 510 59 ± 1 13.4 54.7 174 215 34 1.5 3.4 2.2 2.5 Delta King DK 7777 58 ± 1 13.9 55.8 179 219 37 1.3 1.5 1.5 3.3 Progeny 156 58 ± 1 13.3 54.0 178 217 36 1.5 2.7 1.5 1.8 AR Sabbe 57 ± 1 13.2 53.7 179 219 35 1.7 2.5 1.7 3.3 VA Sisson 57 ± 1 13.4 54.8 176 217 31 1.9 3.3 2.0 2.0 VA Jackson 57 ± 1 13.3 54.7 179 216 35 2.5 1.6 1.2 4.8 Delta King DK 1551w 55 ± 1 12.9 53.5 179 217 32 1.3 2.1 1.5 3.8 FFR 521 55 ± 1 13.0 53.1 175 217 32 1.5 3.1 1.5 2.7 Delta King DK 9410. 13.0 55.0 179 215 37 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.3 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Official test weight of No. 2 wheat = 58 lbs/bu. (.) Indicates that the variety was not tested in all locations over the three year period. Heading & Maturity (DAP) = Days after planting Lodging = 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants erect; 2.5 = ~50% of plants leaning at angle 45 ; 5 = 95+% of plants leaning at an angle 45. BYD (Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus), Septoria, Rust, Stripe Rust, Take All - 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants infected; 2.5 = ~50% of plants infected; 5 = 95+% of plants infected. BYD notes taken atknoxville 2004 and Jackson 2002. Septoria and Rust notes taken at Jackson 2002. 17

------------------------- Wheat Management Study ------------------------- Table 10. Management regimes used for low, medium and high levels of input for 12 winter wheat varieties tested at Jackson, TN during the 2003-2004 growing season. Management Regime Planting Date Harvest Date Soil Type Tillage Seeding Rate Seed Treatment Herbicide Insecticide Fungicide Fertility/Timing Low 11/5/2004 6/11/2004 Medium 11/5/2004 6/11/2004 High 11/5/2004 6/11/2004 Grenada Silt Loam No-Till 1.2 Million None None None None Grenada Silt Loam No-Till 1.2 Million None Grenada Silt Loam No-Till 1.6 Million Gaucho 0.5 oz Harmony Extra 3/4/04 0.5 oz Harmony Extra + 3 oz Clarity 3/4/04 followed by 2 pt. Hoelon 3/17/04 None None 60 lbs. N applied 3/3/2004 6 oz Headline at 90 lbs. N applied F 10.3 3/3/2004 14 oz Quilt at F 10.3 30 lbs. N applied Preplant; 45 lbs. N applied 2/18/2004;45 lbs. N applied 3/3/2004 Table 11. Yield of 12 wheat varieties grown under three management regimes, Jackson, TN, 2004. Variety Average Yield Low Medium High Test Weight Harvest Moisture bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre bu/acre lbs./bu % P25R37 70.6 64.0 80.7 67.2 56.6 15.1 P25R49 69.6 60.2 68.8 79.8 55.4 14.1 USG 3209 68.9 53.4 74.1 79.1 55.3 13.7 P25R78 68.6 59.5 75.8 70.5 57.2 14.3 P25R23 66.6 58.5 71.7 69.5 57.3 13.9 CL 554 65.1 60.5 65.6 69.3 55.3 14.3 P2552 64.8 52.0 67.3 75.0 57.3 14.8 FFR 556 63.8 61.3 56.3 73.8 54.9 14.2 DK 1551 62.1 54.0 65.4 66.9 55.3 13.4 Savage 59.7 46.7 78.5 53.8 57.3 14.9 Tribute 58.4 52.2 67.4 55.5 57.6 16.2 FFR 510 54.8 40.8 64.9 58.6 55.5 14.8 Mean 64.4 55.3 69.7 68.3 56.3 14.5 LSD (0.05) 9.8 - - - 1.1 0.8 CV (%) 15.9 - - - 2.0 5.5 Pr>F Variety 0.0400 - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 Rep 0.9009 - - - 0.1320 <0.0001 Management <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 0.0432 Variety X Management 0.2135 - - - 0.1694 0.9490 Table 12. Comparison of management regimes for wheat yield, test weight and harvest moisture averaged across 12 varieties, Jackson, TN, 2004. Management Regime Yield Test Weight bu/acre lbs./bu % Low 54.9 55.2 14.7 Medium 69.7 56.5 14.5 High 68.3 57.0 14.2 Mean 64.4 56.2 14.5 LSD (0.05) 4.9 0.5 0.4 Harvest Moisture 18

-------------------------------------------- Barley --------------------------------------------- Results Five released varieties of barley were tested during 2004 at six experiment stations representing the different physiographic regions of Tennessee. Three released varieties (Callao, Nomini, and Price) have been evaluated for three years. All of the varieties evaluated in these tests were developed in the Barley Breeding Program at Virginia Tech. One of the varieties, Doyce (formerly tested as VA00H-137), is a hull-less type. The average yield of the five entries across the five locations was 82 bu/a, with a range from 70 to 104 bu/a. The highest yields were obtained at Knoxville where the location mean of the five entries was 116 bu/a and the highest variety yield was 131 bu/a (Thoroughbred). The maturity of the barley entries ranged from 215 to 218 DAP. The barley varieties adapted to Tennessee generally mature about a week to ten days earlier than adapted wheat varieties. The test weights of the barley entries ranged from 42.1 to 52.1 lbs/bu, with most of the entries being 44 lbs/bu. Doyce has a higher test weight of 52.1 due to the hull-less nature of its grain. The official test weight for barley is 48 lbs/bu compared to 58 lbs/bu for wheat. Table 13. Location information from experiment stations where the barley variety tests were conducted in 2004. Planting Harvest Seeding Experiment Station Location Date Date Rate Soil Type Ames Plantation Grand Junction 10/30/2003 6/9/2004 25/ft 2 Lexington Silt Loam Highland Rim Springfield 10/21/2003 6/7/2004 28/ft 2 Dickson Silt Loam Knoxville Knoxville 10/17/2003 6/2/2004 28/ft 2 Sequoia Silty Clay Loam Milan Milan 10/7/2003 6/17/2004 32/ft 2 Grenada Silt Loam Middle Tennessee Spring Hill 11/4/2003 6/9/2004 26/ft 2 Maury Silt Loam West Tennessee Jackson 10/24/2003 6/8/2004 28/ft 2 Lexington Silt Loam 19

Table 14. Mean yields of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004. Avg. Yield ± Std Err. Spring Brand Variety (n=6) Knoxville Springfield Hill Jackson Milan Ames ----------------------------------------------bu/a------------------------------------------------- VA Thoroughbred (VA97B-388) 104 ± 3 131 113 130 99 68 83 VA Price 87 ± 3 126 106 82 68 60 80 VA Nomini 78 ± 3 118 98 91 62. 49 VA Callao 72 ± 3 116 79 76 50 45 68 VA Doyce* (VA00H-137) 70 ± 3 88 84 68 62 50 69 Average (bu/a) 82 116 96 89 68 55 70 L.S.D..05 (bu/a) 8 13 17 36 10 23 15 C.V. (%) 13.6 6.2 10.1 22.1 8.4 19.5 11.6 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments (.) All plots of Nomini at Milan were selectively eaten by deer; the average yield is an adjusted least squares estimate. * Hulless Table 15. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2004. Avg. Yield Test ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Brand Variety (n=6) (n=6) (n=5) (n=1) (n=5) (n=6) (n=4) bu/a % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score VA Thoroughbred (VA97B-388) 104 ± 3 11.8 44.1 177 216 33 1.6 VA Price 87 ± 3 11.8 44.5 175 215 31 2.3 VA Nomini 78 ± 3 11.3 42.1 173 218 37 1.8 VA Callao 72 ± 3 11.6 44.0 174 216 29 3.5 VA Doyce* (VA00H-137) 70 ± 3 13.6 51.8 174 216 32 1.8 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Official test weight of No. 1 barley = 48 lbs/bu. * Hulless Heading & Maturity (DAP) = Days after planting Lodging = 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants erect; 2.5 = ~50% of plants leaning at angle 45 ; 5 = 95+% of plants leaning at an angle 45. 20

Table 16. Mean yields of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at five locations (n=10) in Tennessee for two years 2003-2004. Avg. Yield ± Std Err. Brand Variety (n=10) Knoxville Springfield Jackson Milan Ames -------------------------------------------bu/a--------------------------------- VA Thoroughbred (VA97B-388) 92 ± 2 103 95 98 62 100 VA Price 83 ± 2 94 91 67 59 103 VA Nomini 73 ± 2 104 81 64 44 72 VA Callao 70 ± 2 86 76 56 42 89 VA Doyce* (VA00H-137) 65 ± 2 72 64 48 45 97 Average (bu/a) 76 92 81 67 50 92 L.S.D..05 (bu/a) 5 10 12 12 11 18 C.V. (%) 11.9 7.9 10.7 12.5 15.9 14.1 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments * Hulless Table 17. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of five six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at five locations (n=10) in Tennessee for two years 2003-2004. Avg. Yield Test ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Brand Variety (n=10) (n=10) (n=10) (n=3) (n=8) (n=10) (n=6) bu/a % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score VA Thoroughbred (VA97B-388) 92 ± 2 11.5 44.3 173 213 33 1.9 VA Price 83 ± 2 11.5 44.0 172 212 32 2.4 VA Nomini 73 ± 2 11.1 42.2 169 216 38 2.1 VA Callao 70 ± 2 11.4 44.1 171 215 30 3.8 VA Doyce* (VA00H-137) 65 ± 2 13.3 51.4 173 216 32 2.4 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Official test weight of No. 1 barley = 48 lbs/bu. * Hulless Heading & Maturity (DAP) = Days after planting Lodging = 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants erect; 2.5 = ~50% of plants leaning at angle 45 ; 5 = 95+% of plants leaning at an angle 45. 21

Table 18. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of three six-rowed barley varieties evaluated at four locations (n=12) in Tennessee for three years 2002-2004. Avg. Yield Test ± Std Err. Moisture Weight Heading Maturity Height Lodging Brand Variety (n=12) Knoxville Springfield Milan Ames (n=12) (n=12) (n=5) (n=9) (n=12) (n=5) ----------------------------------------bu/a----------------------------------- % lbs/bu DAP DAP in. Score VA Price 83 ± 2 85 94 65 87 11.6 43.8 172 212 31 2.5 VA Callao 74 ± 2 80 82 56 81 11.5 43.8 172 214 29 4.1 VA Nomini 73 ± 2 91 82 52 65 11.6 42.8 171 216 37 2.2 Average (bu/a) 77 85 86 58 78 L.S.D..05 (bu/a) 6 9 14 11 15 C.V. (%) 11.9 7.8 12.4 13.8 14.1 All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Official test weight of No. 1 barley = 48 lbs/bu. Heading & Maturity (DAP) = Days after planting Lodging = 1 to 5 scale; where 1 = 95% of plants erect; 2.5 = ~50% of plants leaning at angle 45 ; 5 = 95+% of plants leaning at an angle 45. 22

-------------------------------------------- Oats --------------------------------------------- Results Yield tests were conducted at the West Tennessee (Jackson) and the Knoxville Experiment Stations during 2003-2004 on 21 winter oat varieties/breeding lines. The test at the West TN station was seeded in the fall (Oct. 23, 2003) and the test at Knoxville was seeded in the spring (March 11, 2004). Other experimental details are given in the footnotes of Tables 19 and 20. The growing season for the fall planting was a little more than double that of the spring planting, 234 versus 111 days, respectively. The mean yield of the 21 oat entries following seeding in the fall was approximately three times greater than when the same entries were seeded in the spring (122.5 versus 40.2 bu/a, respectively; Tables 19 and 20). The varieties ranged in yield from 82.2 to 158.4 bu/a for fall seeding (Table 19) and from 30.7 to 56.2 for spring seeding (Table 20). Test weights were also lower for the spring versus fall seeding (24.9 vs. 31.2 lbs/bu, respectively; Tables 19 and 20). Even with a considerable amount of cold damage to some varieties (see Table 19), their yields were more than double for fall seeding versus spring seeding, for this one year of testing. 23

Table 19. Mean yields, agronomic characteristics and winter hardiness ratings of 21 oat breeding lines fall-seeded and evaluated at Jackson, Tennessee in 2004. Line Yield (14% Moisture) Moisture at Harvest Test Weight Winter Kill 1-30-04 Winter Kill 3-2-04 bu/acre % lb/bu 0-10 0-10 FL 9708-P37 158.4 10.3 34.6 4.0 2.8 AR-258-7 151.8 9.4 34.6 3.0 2.0 AR-213-12 141.8 8.7 29.9 2.7 1.7 LA989SBSB-58-B 140.8 16.3 30.6 4.3 2.8 LA989SBS-49-B-S1 139.9 13.3 32.3 3.5 2.3 LA966BSB32-1-1-B 132.5 13.3 32.5 4.8 2.5 ACS LA604 132.0 12.7 32.2 2.5 1.5 AR-258-4 131.0 11.1 34.2 4.3 2.8 LA98002SBS-26-B-S1 127.5 11.0 30.9 5.5 5.5 HORIZON 314 126.8 15.4 28.7 5.8 3.5 AR-336-12 121.4 23.8 30.7 4.5 4.0 LA976GBS-22-B-S2 119.9 17.8 29.8 4.3 3.3 PLOT SPIKE LA9339 119.5 16.8 29.8 6.0 6.3 LA966BSB187-1-1-B 118.2 21.9 30.2 4.5 4.5 AR-336-1 112.8 14.2 31.2 4.5 4.3 HORIZON 474 110.5 10.9 32.2 4.3 3.0 LA9533D63-1-C-S3 107.7 18.4 28.0 6.8 6.3 98003SBSB-124-S 106.5 17.9 30.9 5.5 4.3 98002SBS-64-B-S2 101.2 18.0 29.8 6.3 5.8 LA9810SBS-58 89.0 16.2 31.3 5.5 4.3 LA-495 82.2 13.7 30.8 4.0 2.8 Mean 122.5 14.8 31.2 4.6 3.6 LSD (0.05) 39.4 NS 1.9 1.8 2.0 CV (%) 22.8 46.1 4.2 27.5 39.9 P value 0.0439 0.1849 <0.0001 0.0005 <0.0001 Planted 10/23/03 No-Till following soybeans 80-0-0 applied at planting High soil test P & K Gramoxone @ 32 oz burndown Harvested 6/14/04 No fungicide or insecticide applied 0.5 oz Harmony applied for weed control 7" Row Spacing 4 replications 24

Table 20. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 21 oat breeding lines spring-seeded and evaluated at Knoxville, Tennessee in 2004. Line Yield (14% Moisture) Moisture at Harvest Test Weight Maturity Plant Height Lodging bu/acre % lb/bu Days inches 1-5 LA989SBSB-58-B 56.2 17.3 24.8 110 30 1.7 AR-258-7 53.1 15.4 27.5 107 24 1.0 Plot Spike LA9339 50.8 18.8 25.8 110 30 2.3 AR-336-12 47.6 17.5 25.5 108 31 1.2 AR-258-4 46.1 13.7 27.0 106 26 1.2 LA98002SBS-26-B-S1 46.0 16.1 26.9 111 30 1.7 LA-495 42.7 18.1 23.9 109 28 1.3 LA98002SBS-64-B-S2 42.6 20.0 22.7 111 31 2.3 AR-336-1 41.7 16.7 26.4 108 29 1.0 Horizon 474 41.0 13.7 29.0 105 28 1.7 LA976GBS-22-B-S2 39.4 17.7 25.5 109 31 1.5 FL 9708-P37 39.0 17.3 24.7 110 26 1.3 LA98003SBSB-124-S 37.2 19.7 23.8 111 30 2.0 ACS LA604 35.0 17.9 25.3 110 29 1.3 LA989SBS-49-B-S1 34.6 20.2 24.5 111 27 1.0 LA966BSB-187-1-1-B 32.9 20.1 21.7 111 29 2.2 AR-213-12 32.8 16.3 25.2 106 23 1.2 LA9533D63-1-C-S3 32.7 20.3 23.5 111 28 1.5 Horizon 314 31.4 26.8 21.1 109 31 2.0 LA9810SBS-58 30.8 19.7 23.8 111 28 1.7 LA966BSB32-1-1-B 30.7 17.7 24.0 110 29 2.0 Mean 40.2 18.1 24.9 109 29 1.6 LSD (0.05) NS 4.0 1.6 NS 2.5 NS CV (%) 25.4 13.4 3.9 1.5 5.3 32.0 P value 0.0824 0.0001 <0.0001 0.9296 0.0121 0.9542 Planted 3/11/04 following a winter wheat cover crop 10-10-10 applied at 10/15/03, 32-0-0 applied 4/5/04 Medium soil test P, High soil test K Gramoxone @ 32 oz burndown Harvested 6/29/04 No fungicide or insecticide applied 7" Row Spacing 3 replications 25