Posted December 2003

Please note: This information is also available for downloading as follows:

• Performance Tables (Excel spreadsheet)
• Introduction and Methods (Word file)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction to Variety Tests

Methods and Definitions

Production Information

Monthly Precipitation

Suppliers of Soybean Varieties TABLES OF DATA:

TABLE 1a-d. Yield Summaries and Average Relative Yield Full Season Entries

TABLE 2a-d. Yield Summaries and Average Relative Yield Double Crop Entries

TABLE 3a-d. Performance of Full Season Maturity Group III Entries

TABLE 4a-e. Performance of Full Season Maturity Group III Entries

TABLE 5a-e. Performance of Full Season Early Maturity Group IV Entries

TABLE 6a-e. Performance of Double Crop Early Maturity Group IV Entries

TABLE 7a-e. Performance of Full Season Late Maturity Group IV Entries

TABLE 8a-e. Performance of Double Crop Late Maturity Group IV Entries

TABLE 9a-e. Performance of Full Season Maturity Group V Entries

TABLE 10a-d. Performance of Double crop Maturity Group V Entries

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere thanks are given to the many cooperators and contributors who have made the Soybean Variety Evaluation Tests possible.

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

Bobby Ashburn, Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Suffolk
Lin Barrack, Eastern Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Warsaw
Glenn Buss, Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Tommy Custis, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter,
Ted Haberland, Producer, Madison County
Thom Hoffman, Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Danny Powers, Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackstone
Dave Starner, Northern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Orange
Billy Wilkinson, Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackstone

A special note of appreciation is also extended to the County Extension Agents who does an excellent job of disseminating the information.

The authors would also like to express appreciation to Patsy Lewis and Patty Turner for their technical assistance. 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 Contents

INTRODUCTION TO VARIETY TESTS

The purpose of this publication is to provide performance data of the many soybean varieties offered for sale in Virginia. These data should be of benefit to producers and agribusinesses in making selections of varieties for their use. It is realized that not all varieties that are offered for sale in Virginia are included in these tests. There is no implication that varieties not included are inferior in any way, but only that they were not tested. The private varieties that have been evaluated in these tests were submitted for testing by commercial seed companies.

Variety evaluations were conducted under full-season and double cop conditions at Blackstone, Orange, Painter, Suffolk, and/or Warsaw. All double-crop tests were no-till planted following small grains. Due to the number of entries, it was necessary to separate the varieties by maturity in all locations.

The unusually wet weather of last fall continued into the spring of 2003. Planting was delayed in much of Virginia, but we were able to plant most of these tests in a timely manner. Only the Suffolk full-season location had problems with standing water; these plots were not included in our analysis. The remainder of the season received adequate rainfall, resulting in high yields in all locations. The Orange location experienced some defoliation from grasshoppers, but control measures were implemented to prevent significant losses. On Sept. 18, Hurricane Isabel struck with vengeance. Lodging was quite high for the maturity group V in the full-season tests and all maturity groups in the double-crop tests. For some varieties, the effect of lodging can be seen in the yield. A frost occurred in early October at the Orange and Warsaw locations. This frost lowered double-crop yields for the late MG 4 varieties at Orange and the MG 5 varieties at Warsaw.

INTERPRETING THE RESULTS
Tables 1 and 2 are yield summaries over all locations. Past analysis of test data indicated that variety selection should be made from multiple years and sites. More locations result in more reliable information; information from less than 3 sites are not reliable. Average yields over locations should not be used to select the highest yielding variety unless all varieties are tested in all locations because data will be skewed to those varieties that are tested in the highest yielding locations. Therefore, relative yield is a better method of comparing varieties over locations. Relative yield is calculated by dividing the yield of a variety by the average yield of all varieties within the same maturity group at that location. A variety with a relative yield of 105 was 5% above the average of all varieties at that location. Relative yield is not an actual yield, but a value that is relative to all other yield values at that location. Varieties are ranked by relative yield in descending order.

Tables 3 through 10 contain detailed yield and other information from each location. The highest average 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. Multiple-year data can be obtained from the authors. 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, seed quality, purple stain, and seed size) 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. The R-squared value is another indication of the usefulness of the data. The higher the value, the more likely there are significant differences.

Return to Contents

METHODS AND DEFINITIONS

The variety test was evaluated in a randomized complete block design and replicated three times. All tests were maintained weed free with herbicides and hand weeding. Row widths, number of rows planted and harvested, and length of row harvested are shown on the production information page. Harvest was conduction as near to the date of first harvest maturity as work schedules and weather would permit. Fertilizer was applied according to Virginia Tech soil test recommendations.

Seeding Rates (seeds/acre):

Maturity Group	Full Season	Double-Crop
III	180,000	240,000
IV	180,000	240,000
V	180,000	240,000

Maturity was taken at the date when 95% of the pods turned brown (R8). Detailed maturity date information was not taken at the Orange full-season and Painter full-season and double-crop locations due to greater travel distance from the TAREC or cooperating center.

Lodging 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 (45o 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 is determined as the average length of plants in a plot from the ground to the uppermost node of the plant at maturity.

Purple Seed Stain (PSS) is the percentage of seed from a 100-seed sample that are affected with that disease.

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.
Seed quality ratings are a good representation of Phomopsis seed decay.

Seed Size (SS) is obtained from the weight of a 100-seed sample and is transformed to number of seed per pound.

Yields were collected with a small-plot combine equipped with scales and moisture tester. Yields were adjusted to 13% moisture. A bushel weight of 60 pounds (at 13% moisture) was used to determine bushel-per-acre (BU/AC) yield.

Return to Contents

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

Location	Planting Date	Tillage System	Herbicides	Date Applied	Insecticides	Soil Type	Row Width	Number of Rows		Length of Row Harvested
								Planted	Harvested
Blackstone-FS	6/3	Conv.	Touchdown Gramoxone Dual Mag., Authority Blazer Fusion	5/2 5/16 6/3 7/17 7/24	None	Dothan-Norfolk	15"	5	3	17'
Orange-FS	5/07	Conv.	Dual II Magnum, Canopy XL, Roundup Ultramax	5/7	Asana	Davidson C	15"	5	3	17¹
Painter-FS	5/20	Conv.	Dual Mag, Lorox DF	5/20	None	Bojac SL	15"	5	3	17'
Suffolk-FS	5/13	No-Till	Dual Mag, Canopy XL, Roundup Ultramax	5/15	None	Enola FSL Rains FSL	15"	5	3	17'
Warsaw-FS	6/10	Conv.	Python, Dual Mag. Reflex, Fusilade	5/20 7/15	Warrior	Kempsville L	30"	4	2	12'
Blackstone-DC	6/24	No-Till	Touchdown Dual II Magnum, Authority Blazer Fusion	6/2 6/25 7/17 7/24	None	Spotsylvania Cecil Bourne	15"	5	3	17¹
Orange-DC	7/8	No-Till	Dual II Magnum, Canopy XL, Roundup Ultramax	7/9	None	Dyke SiC	15"	5	3	17¹
Painter-DC	7/10	No-Till	Dual II Magnum, Command, Sencor Roundup Ultramax Sencor DF	7/12	None	Bojac SL	15"	5	3	17'
Suffolk-DC	6/24	No-Till	Dual II Magnum, Roundup Ultra Blazer	6/22 8/8	Karate	Lynchburg FSL	15"	5	3	17'
Warsaw-DC	7/7	No-Till	Roundup Ultra Dual Mag.	7/7	None	Kempsville L	24"	4	2	12¹
*FS = Full-Season, DC = Double-crop

Return to Contents

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

Location		May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Total
Blackstone	2003 54-yr Avg.	13.73 3.96	6.31 4.02	6.53 4.72	2.54 3.96	10.95 3.60	2.65 3.30	42.71 23.56
Orange	2003 62-yr. Avg.	6.51 3.85	7.28 3.81	4.51 4.52	4.05 3.92	10.64 3.76	3.36 3.41	36.35 23.27
Painter	2003 63-yr Avg.	4.55 3.38	2.94 3.37	5.34 4.51	6.81 4.13	5.12 3.53	4.59 3.36	29.35 22.28
Suffolk	2003 71-yr. Avg.	7.04 3.97	4.10 4.21	5.01 5.79	3.05 5.74	10.20 4.17	4.40 3.41	33.80 27.29
Warsaw	2003 39-yr Avg.	8.19 4.41	5.72 3.81	5.60 4.24	7.08 4.22	10.27 4.28	3.04 3.20	39.90 24.16

Return to Contents

SUPPLIERS OF SOYBEAN VARIETIES TESTED IN 2002

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 that 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. Judith Jones, Acting Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg; Lorenza W. Lyons, Administrator, 1890 Extension Programs, Virginia State, Petersburg