|
|
|
|
Performance of SE Type Sweet Corn Cultivars, Middle Tennessee Experiment Station, 2001 Charles A. Mullins, Dennis Onks, Roy Thompson and A. Brent Smith Interpretative Summary Most cultivars performed well in the trial. Yields were high and and appearance was generally excellent for most cultivars. Ear weight was lower than expected for all cultivars. >Encore= and >Elation= produced a poor stand which resulted in a poor yield. >Encore= produced longer ears than other cultivars. Introduction Sweet corn for fresh market usage is grown primarily in home gardens and in small commercial plots for local sales in Tennessee. Acreage produced for local markets has expanded in recent years. Sweet corn is grown commercially in every county in Tennessee, and total acreage of fresh market sweet corn is estimated at over 3000. Most of the cultivars grown for local markets are SE type. White sweet corn appears to be preferred by many Tennessee consumers. Production of bicolor cultivars appears to be expanding in Tennessee. A shipping market exists, but optimum cultural and post harvest practices are very rigid to insure insect free and high quality sweet corn. Economic and marketing conditions do not appear highly favorable for sweet corn during the season when it can be produced in Tennessee. Several excellent sweet corn cultivars are available to commercial growers, and seedsmen are continually introducing new cultivars. Several sweet corn cultivar trials have been conducted by University of Tennessee researchers in recent years. An experiment was conducted at the Middle Tennessee Experiment Station at Spring Hill in 2001 to evaluate performance of 13 SE type sweet corn cultivars. Materials and Methods The site was prepared for planting using conventional tillage in late April. Fertilizer was broadcast at 100 lb/A of Muriate of potash and 450 lb/A of ammonium nitrate on April 11. The fertilizer rates were based on soil tests. Seed of white, bicolor, and yellow cultivars was obtained from commercial seedsmen, and was planted on May 23 at the rate of 70 seed per row using jab planters. Plot size was one row, 20 ft long, and rows were spaced 36 inches apart. Experimental plot design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Herbicides applied on May 5 were atrazine (Aatrex) at 1.0 lb ai/A and alachlor (Lasso) at 2.0 lb ai/A. Either carbaryl (Sevin) at 1 lb ai/A or esfenvalerate (Asana) at 0.05 lb ai/A were applied 7 times between June 7 and July 7 for insect control. Harvest was by hand with harvest dates of June 26, July 2, July 5, July 9, and July 12. Records taken included plants per row, plant diameter, plant height, and ear height. Yield in number and pounds, and soluble solids of kernels were recorded for each plot. Ear length and diameter were measured. Ears were rated for shuck cover, external appearance, internal appearance, and % fill. Ratings of all characteristics except fill were on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being most desirable. Results and Discussion The target plant stand was 23,500 plants per acre. >Encore= produced 15,246 plants and >Elation= produced 18,731 (Table 1). Most of the remaining cultivars exceeded the target plant stand. Plants of >Sunset= were taller than plants of all cultivars except >Silver Queen= and >Honey Select=. >Sunset= was among cultivars with the largest plant diameter. Ears of >Sunset= were set higher above ground than for all cultivars but >Silver Queen=, >Encore=, and >Honey Select=. >Buckeye= had a higher yield than all other cultivar except >Sunset=. Ears of >July Gem= and >Encore= were among the heaviest of the cultivars in the trials, but still less than expected. >Buckeye= was among those cultivars that produced the smallest ears. > Encore= produced longer ears than all cultivars except, while >Bon Appetite= and >Elation= produced some of the shortest ears. (Table 2). Ear diameter was smaller for >Trinity= than for all cultivars. >Accord= was rated lower than the other cultivars for per cent fill. No significant differences were present for internal appearance and external appearance due to cultivar.Table 1. Plant characteristics and yield of SE sweet corn cultivars evaluated at The University of Tennessee Middle Experiment Station at Spring Hill, 2001.
z Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Duncan=s multiple range tests at the 0.05 level of probability.Table 2. Ear characteristics of SE sweet corn cultivars evaluated at The University of Tennessee Middle Tennessee Experiment Station at Spring Hill, 2001.
xRatings on a scale of 1 to 10, 10=most desirable. z Mean within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Duncan=s multiple range tests at the 0.05 level of probability |
|