Replicated Transgenic Cotton Variety Demonstration
Cooperator: Mark Moore – 2001
Steve Young, Steve Davis, Randy Boman,
Mark Kelley, Alan Helm, and Mark Stelter
County Extension Agent-Agriculture-Crosby County,
Extension Agent-IPM, Crosby/Floyd Counties,
Extension Agronomist-Cotton, and Extension Assistants-Cotton
Crosby County
Summary: Significant differences were observed for all yield and economic parameters measured at this location. Results indicated that lint yields ranged from 497 lb/acre for PM 2280BG/RR to 616 lb/acre for Deltapine 458B/RR. Lint loan values/lb ranged from $0.4687 to $0.5543. Lint values/acre ranged from $236.85 to $341.51, and seed values/acre ranged from $35.45 to $45.61. The range of total value/acre (lint value plus seed value) was from $277.65 to $387.12/acre and net value/acre (total value minus seed and technology fee costs) ranged from $233.61 to $305.19. Significant differences were observed for most HVI lint quality parameters measured, with exceptions of leaf and color. These data indicate that substantial differences can be obtained in terms of net value/acre due to variety selection. It should be noted that no inclement weather was encountered in this trial prior to harvest. High intensity rainfall and/or high wind events were not experienced to potentially cause pre-harvest losses with the open boll picker-type varieties (AgriPro 1500RR, Deltapine 458B/RR, Stoneville 4793R, and Stoneville 4892BR). Producers should take note that the harvest period optimum encountered in 2001 is not considered “normal” for the Texas High Plains. Additional multi-site and multi-year applied research is needed to evaluate varieties across a series of environments.
Objective: The objective of this project was to compare yields, gin turnout, and fiber quality of popular transgenic varieties on a large-scale basis; and to determine the economics of transgenic varieties in producer-cooperator fields.
Materials and
Methods: A randomized complete block with 3 replications was used. Seeding rate was 15 lb seed/acre in a 40-inch row spacing. Plot size was four 40-inch rows by 1250 ft in length. Varieties were planted May 18-19, 2001. No preplant incorporated herbicides were applied. Roundup UltraMax was applied over-the-top on June 27 at 26 oz/acre. Varieties were cultivated on September 5. The trial was furrow irrigated in August and approximately 3 acre-inches were applied.
Rainfall amounts during the growing season included:
April: 0.03″ August: 1.23
May: 3.18″ September: 0.41″
June: 1.78″ October: 0.04″
July: 0.42″
Total moisture available to the crop was 10.09 acre-inches. No insecticides were applied other than active boll weevil eradication, and no fertilizer was applied. Harvest-aid program included Finish 6 at applied at 21 oz/acre and Ginstar at 5 oz/acre applied in a tank mix at 60 percent open bolls. Plots were harvested on October 25 using a commercial John Deere 7445 with field cleaner. Harvested material was dumped into a weigh wagon equipped with integral digital scales to determine individual plot weights. Plot yields were adjusted to lb/acre. Grab samples were taken by plot and ginned at the Texas A&M Center at Lubbock to determine gin turnouts. Lint samples were submitted to the International Textile Center (ITC) at Texas Tech University for HVI analysis, and USDA Loan values were determined for each variety by plot. Seed value was based on $85/ton. Ginning costs were based on $1.50 per cwt. of bur cotton and do not include bagging, ties and checkoff. Systems costs were determined by variety per acre using manufacturer’s suggested retail prices for seed, and appropriate technology fees for Bollgard and/or Roundup Ready based on the 15 lb/acre seeding rate.
Varieties planted at this site included:
1. AgriPro 1500RR
2. Paymaster 2266RR
3. Stoneville 4793R
4. Paymaster 2156RR
5. Paymaster, 2326BG/RR
7. Stoneville 4892BR
8. Paymaster 2280BG/RR
9. Deltapine 458B/RR
10. Paymaster 2379RR
11. Stoneville 2454R
Results and
Discussion: Significant differences were observed for all yield and economic parameters measured at this location (Table 1). Results indicated that lint yields ranged from 497 lb/acre for PM 2280BG/RR to 616 lb/acre for Deltapine 458B/RR. Lint loan values/lb ranged from $0.4687 to $0.5543. Lint values/acre ranged from $236.85 to $341.51, and seed values/acre ranged from $35.45 to $45.61. The range of total value/acre (lint value plus seed value) was from $277.65 to $387.12 and net value/acre (total value minus seed and technology fee costs) ranged from $233.61 to $305.19. Significant differences were observed for most HVI lint quality parameters measured, with exceptions of leaf and color (Table 2). These data indicate that substantial differences can be obtained in terms of net value/acre due to variety selection. It should be noted that no inclement weather was encountered in this trial prior to harvest. High intensity rainfall and/or high wind events were not experienced to potentially cause pre-harvest losses with the open boll picker-type varieties (AgriPro 1500RR, Deltapine 458B/RR, Stoneville 4793R, and Stoneville 4892BR). Producers should take note that the harvest period optimum encountered in 2001 is not considered “normal” for the Texas High Plains. Additional multi-site and multi-year applied research is needed to evaluate varieties across a series of environments.
Acknowledgments: The authors express appreciation to Mark Moore for providing land and resources for the project. The Plains Cotton Growers/Plains Cotton Improvement Program and Cotton Incorporated provided funding for this work. Companies providing support included: AFD, Levelland Delinting-All-Tex, Aventis Crop Science-FiberMax, Delta and Pine Land- Paymaster, Griffin, Monsanto, Stoneville Texas, and Syngenta. Student workers Bryan Hawkins, Clay Ashley, Jason Jarrell, and Corey Lowrance are also recognized. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. John Gannaway, cotton breeder with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
Disclaimer Clause: Trade names of commercial products used in this report are included only for better understanding and clarity. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Texas A&M University System is implied. Readers should realize that results from one experiment do not represent conclusive evidence that the same response would occur where conditions vary.
Table 1
