TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments	Table. 5 Performance of Maturity Group IV-S Entries at Four Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests (see excel spreadsheet)
Introduction to Variety Tests	Table. 6 Performance of Maturity Group IV-S Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Double Crop Tests (see excel spreadsheet)
Methods and Definitions	Table. 7 Performance of Maturity Group IV Roundup Ready Entries at Four Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests (see excel spreadsheet)
Production Information	Table. 8 Performance of Maturity Group IV Roundup Ready Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Double Crop Tests (see excel spreadsheet)
Monthly Precipitation	Table. 9 Performance of Maturity Group V Entries at Four Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests (see excel spreadsheet)
Suppliers of Soybean Varieties	Table. 10 Performance of Maturity Group V Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Double Crop Tests
Table. 1 Performance of Maturity Group III Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests	Table. 11 Performance of Maturity Group V Roundup Ready Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests
Table. 2 Performance of Maturity Group III Roundup Ready Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests	Table. 12 Performance of Maturity Group V Roundup Ready Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Double Crop Tests
Table. 3 Performance of Maturity Group IV Entries at Four Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests (see excel spreadsheet)	Table. 13 Performance of Maturity Group VI Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Full Season Tests
Table. 4 Performance of Maturity Group IV Entries at Three Virginia Locations, Double Crop Tests

Acknowledgements

The cooperation and support offered by commercial seed companies, state crop improvement associations, and several experiment stations in supplying seed and information on varieties is gratefully acknowledged.

Special thanks is given to the following cooperators for supplying land and technical assistance while conducting these tests:

C. L. Barrack, Eastern Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Warsaw,
D. Dixon, Northern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Orange,
W. B. Wilkinson, III, Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackstone,
G. R. Buss, Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, VPI & SU, Blacksburg,
J. T. Custis and D. V. Midkiff, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter,
R. A. Ashburn, Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Suffolk

A special note of appreciation is also extended to the Unit Extension Faculty who do an excellent job of disseminating the information.

The authors would also like to express appreciation to Patsy Lewis, Patty Turner, Morris Glover, and Teresa Vaughan for their technical and secretarial assistance. We are also very appreciative to Donna Thomas and the support staff at the USDA Analytical Chemistry Support Unit at Peoria, Illinois for their assistance in determining percent protein and oil. Their assistance in the collection of data and preparation of this report is gratefully acknowledged.

Financial assistance from the Virginia Soybean Board to help fund a portion of these tests is gratefully acknowledged.

Return to Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION TO VARIETY TESTS

Variety evaluations were conducted under full season conditions at Suffolk, Warsaw, Orange, Blackstone, and Painter. Double-crop tests were no-till planted at Suffolk, Warsaw, and Painter. Due to the number of entries, it was necessary to separate the varieties by maturity groups in all locations.

1997 was a very difficult year for Virginia Soybean Producers and we experienced similar circumstances. As shown in Production Information, rainfall was below average during most of the growing season and moisture stress reduced yields. The season began with unseasonable cold weather, resulting in slow and eratic germination. The soybean stands for full-season tests (non-Roundup Ready) at Suffolk were poor and resulted in high variability (CV’s). As a result data for the maturity group V varieties are not presented. After warming up to normal conditions in mid-June, Rainfall was below normal at all locations. Hurricane Danny brought needed relieve to some of the locations with approximately 5 to 6 inches of rain; however, much of this rain ran off and was not necessarily effective. Regardless, this rainfall plus some small, but timely rains in August resulted in relative high full season yields at Orange and Suffolk. The double crop plantings at most locations were delayed due to hot, dry, soil conditions. Virtually no rain fell during the critical periods of crop development in any double-crop test, resulting in low yields. Rainfall did increase substantially during the harvest, therefore many plots were not harvested until late November and December

Tables 1 through 13 contain the results of the 1997 tests and also include two-year mean yields at each location. The highest yielding varieties are listed first in each table. It is not statistically correct to compare varieties from different maturity groups. However, it is recommended that producers select two to three of the highest yielding varieties from each maturity group adapted to his region in order to spread out harvesting time and yield risks associated with timing of summer rainfall patterns. Because of year to year variability in variety performance it is suggested that data for varieties with less than three locations or years testing be considered preliminary. The average performance of a variety over multiple environments is more reliable than its performance in one test. Many of the new varieties, which do not have two-year averages, are excellent and will probably earn a share of the Virginia soybean acreage. Other traits are also shown in the tables (maturity, lodging, height, quality, protein, and oil) because each producer emphasizes certain of these traits or a combination of them when selecting varieties for his farm. After examining these results, the producer may want to plant limited quantities of several new better performing varieties to observe how they perform on his farm and under his management conditions.

Within maturity groups at each location, an LSD (least significant difference) was calculated. The LSD is a statistical test calculated at the 10% probability level to aid the reader in comparing the yield differences among varieties within a particular maturity group. When two entries are compared and the difference between them is greater than the calculated LSD value, the varieties are considered to be significantly different. The "NS" designation indicates that there were no significant differences for yield among the varieties within that maturity group. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a relative measure of variation and is an indicator of the degree of precision associated with the test. For soybean variety evaluation tests, CV values less than 15% indicates that the precision of the test was good in distinguishing differences between varieties.

Return to Table of Contents

METHODS AND DEFINITIONS

All locations had the above seeding rates, except for Orange and Warsaw Full Season Tests, which were sown at 160,000 seeds per acre.

Maturity Group 4S is a designation for varieties which are late maturing (or southern) in maturity group 4.

Yields were taken and adjusted to 13% moisture. A bushel weight of 60 pounds was used to determine bushel-per-acre (BU/AC) yield.

Maturity (MAT in DAYS) was taken at the date when 95% of the pods turned brown (R8).

Lodging (LOD) notes are recorded on a scale of 1 to 5 according to the following criteria:

1.0 - almost all plants erect
2.0 - either all plants leaning slightly, or a few plants down
3.0 - either all plants leaning moderately (45° angle), or 25 to 50% down
4.0 - either all plants leaning considerably, or 50 to 80% down
5.0 - all plants down

Plant Height (HT) is determined as the average length of plants in a plot from the ground to the uppermost node of the plant at maturity.

Seed Quality (SQ) is rated from 1 to 5 according to the following scale:
1.0 = very good; 2.0 = good; 3.0 = fair; 4.0 = poor; 5.0 = very poor.

Protein (PROT) and Oil percentage of harvested seed were calculated using a Pacific-Scientific NIR grain analyzer and were reported on a dry weight basis. The calculations were made by the USDA Analytical Chemistry Support Unit in Peoria, Illinois. In maturity groups IV and V, average protein and oil contents were determined from seed harvested at Painter, Suffolk, and Warsaw; for maturity group VI, protein and oil were determined from seed harvested at Painter and Suffolk.

Return to Table of Contents

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

*FS = Full-Season, DC = Double-crop
RR = Roundup Ready, NRR = Non Roundup Ready

Return to Table of Contents

MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES) AND AVERAGE RAINFALL DURING MAY THROUGH OCTOBER AT VARIETY TEST LOCATIONS.

The average rainfall was considerably higher than average at all locations this year.

Return to Table of Contents

SUPPLIERS OF SOYBEAN VARIETIES TESTED IN 1996

Return to Table of Contents

Disclaimer: Trade and brand names are used only for the purpose of information and the sponsors do not guarantee nor warrant the standards of the product, nor do they imply approval of the product to the exclusion of others which may also be suitable.

Virginia Cooperative Extension programs and employment are open to all, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, veteran status, national origin, disability, or political affiliation. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State University, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. C. Clark Jones, Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; Lorenza W. Lyons, Administrator, 1890 Extension Programs, Virginia State, Petersburg.