Table 24. 2021 MG-5E Yield, Agronomic, and Quality Data across REC Locations (1yr, 2yr, 3yr)

Table 24-a. Mean† yield, agronomic traits, and quality of 18 Maturity Group V (5.0 – 5.9) soybean varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at nine REC locations in Tennessee during 2021. Analysis included variety performance over a 1 yr (2021), 2 yr (2020-2021), and 3 yr (2019-2021) period.

VarietyHerbicide Pkg†Avg. Yield§
(bu/ac)
Moisture at Harvest
(%)
Plant Height
(in.)
Lodging‖
(1-5)
1 yr2 yr3 yr1 yr2 yr3 yr1 yr2 yr3 yr1 yr2 yr3 yr
AR R13-13997Conv.69A13.9CD35FG1.7C-E
Asgrow AG54XF0XF, STS68AB14.6AB39B1.5D-F
Local Seed Co. LS5009XS*R2X, STS67AB63A14.6AB14.5A39BC41A1.8CD1.8A
Progeny P5016RXS*R2X, STS66A-C63A60A14.7AB14.6A13.9A38CD40A41A1.5C-F1.4BC1.5B
AR R15-1587Conv.66A-C13.9CD32H1.6C-F
Local Seed Co. LS5119XFXF66A-C14.3A-C36E-G1.5EF
Dyna-Gro S52XT91R2X64B-D14.6AB35G1.6C-F
MO S16-9478CConv.64B-D13.6D35G2.1A
Asgrow AG52XF0XF, STS63B-D14.4A-C37C-E1.6C-F
MO S16-14801CConv.63CD14.0B-D36FG2.3A
AgriGold G5288RXR2X, STS62CD14.5A-C38B-D1.5EF
USG 7562XFXF62DE14.2A-D29I1.4F
Progeny P5121E3E362DE14.6AB32H1.8BC
Progeny P5003XFXF61DE14.4A-C35FG2.1AB
AgriGold G5000RXR2X, STS61DE14.3A-C36D-G1.6C-F
Progeny P5252RXR2X60DE57B54B14.8A14.5A13.7A37D-F38B39B1.6C-F1.6B1.8A
AR UA54i19GTRR60DE56B14.5A-C14.2A40B40A1.6C-F1.3C
Credenz CZ 5282XFXF58E14.2A-D42A1.4EF
Average64605714.314.513.83640401.71.51.6

† Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not significantly different at the 5% level of probability. Values highlighted in light orange are above average for a given trait, MS letters highlighted in dark orange are in the “A group”, indicating
no statistical difference from the top-performing variety, for a given trait.
* Asterisks after a name indicate the number of preceding consecutive years in the top-performing “A” group.
‡ For a full description of abbreviated biotech traits, see table 31.
§ All yields are adjusted to 13% moisture.
‖ Lodging was evaluated on a a scale of 1 (no lodging) to 5 (complete lodging).

Table 24-b. Mean† yield, agronomic traits, and quality of 18 Maturity Group V (5.0 – 5.9) soybean varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at nine REC locations in Tennessee during 2021. Analysis included variety performance over a 1 yr (2021), 2 yr (2020-2021), and 3 yr (2019-2021) period.

VarietyHerbicide Pkg†Avg. Yield§
(bu/ac)
Maturity
(DAP)
Protein¶
(%)
Oil¶
(%)
1 yr2 yr3 yr1 yr2 yr3 yr1 yr2 yr3 yr1 yr2 yr3 yr
AR R13-13997Conv.69A147B-D35.4B-D23.5C-E
Asgrow AG54XF0XF, STS68AB150A33.8F24.0B
Local Seed Co. LS5009XS*R2X, STS67AB63A147B146A36.5A38.9A22.4I22.0D
Progeny P5016RXS*R2X, STS66A-C63A60A145E-G145B141A34.9DE37.3B37.6B23.3D-F22.8A22.7A
AR R15-1587Conv.66A-C146D-G35.6B22.9GH
Local Seed Co. LS5119XFXF66A-C144HI32.2H24.6A
Dyna-Gro S52XT91R2X64B-D143I34.9DE23.9B
MO S16-9478CConv.64B-D146B-F35.0B-E23.7BC
Asgrow AG52XF0XF, STS63B-D147BC34.9C-E23.5CD
MO S16-14801CConv.63CD146C-F35.5B-D23.0F-H
AgriGold G5288RXR2X, STS62CD145E-G33.1G24.5A
USG 7562XFXF62DE146B-E35.6BC22.5I
Progeny P5121E3E362DE144G-I35.4B-D22.7HI
Progeny P5003XFXF61DE143I32.6GH24.7A
AgriGold G5000RXR2X, STS61DE145E-G35.1B-E23.2D-G
Progeny P5252RXR2X60DE57B54B144G-I144B141A34.7E37.7B38.7A23.2E-G22.5B22.5B
AR UA54i19GTRR60DE56B145F-H145AB34.5E37.2B22.8HI22.3C
Credenz CZ 5282XFXF58E147B-D33.2FG24.7A
Average64605714614514134.637.838.123.522.422.6

† Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not significantly different at the 5% level of probability. Values highlighted in light orange are above average for a given trait, MS letters highlighted in dark orange are in the “A group”, indicating no statistical difference from the top-performing variety, for a given trait.
* Asterisks after a name indicate the number of preceding consecutive years in the top-performing “A” group.
‡ For a full description of abbreviated biotech traits, see table 31.
§ All yields are adjusted to 13% moisture.
¶ Protein and oil on a dry weight basis and were evaluated at the Knoxville location

Table 24-c. Mean† yield, agronomic traits, and quality of 18 Maturity Group V (5.0 – 5.9) soybean varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials at nine REC locations in Tennessee during 2021. Sudden death syndrome (SDS) and frogeye disease ratings were taken in mid-September. Seed quality and purple stain ratings were taken post-harvest.

VarietyHerbicide Pkg†Avg. Yield§
(bu/ac)
SDS†† DI
(%)
SDS†† DS
(1-9)
1 yr
SDS†† DX
(DI x DS/9)
1 yr
Frogeye‡‡
(1-9)
1 yr
Seed Quality§§
(1-5)
1 yr
Purple Stain¶¶
(1-5)
1 yr
AR R13-13997Conv.69A8.3A-C2.7A-D4.6A-C1.1E1.0C1.0C
Asgrow AG54XF0XF, STS68AB2.5B-D2.3B-E1.3B-D3.2AB1.3BC1.5B
Local Seed Co. LS5009XS*R2X, STS67AB11.7A-C2.1A-D8.1A-C3.7A1.2C1.3B
Progeny P5016RXS*R2X, STS66A-C3.3CD1.5C-E1.4CD1.8C-E1.3BC1.5B
AR R15-1587Conv.66A-C7.9B-D1.7B-E3.1B-D1.2DE1.0C1.0C
Local Seed Co. LS5119XFXF66A-C14.6A-C2.9A-D9.8A-C1.0E1.3BC1.5B
Dyna-Gro S52XT91R2X64B-D7.9AB2.5A-C3.4AB1.3C-E1.3BC1.3B
MO S16-9478CConv.64B-D5.0B-D1.7B-E2.1B-D1.0E1.0C1.0C
Asgrow AG52XF0XF, STS63B-D4.6B-D1.7B-E1.7B-D4.2A1.3BC1.5B
MO S16-14801CConv.63CD4.2B-D1.4DE1.8CD1.0E1.0C1.5B
AgriGold G5288RXR2X, STS62CD11.3A4.1A6.3A1.2DE1.3BC1.5B
USG 7562XFXF62DE10.8A-C2.6A-D7.8A-C3.6A1.2C1.0C
Progeny P5121E3E362DE18.3A-C2.7A-D12.5A-C2.3BC3.0A2.0A
Progeny P5003XFXF61DE13.8B-D1.8B-E9.4B-D2.2B-D1.3BC1.5B
AgriGold G5000RXR2X, STS61DE1.3D0.8E0.5D2.0C-E1.7B1.8A
Progeny P5252RXR2X60DE23.8A3.8A17.2A1.0E1.0C1.0C
AR UA54i19GTRR60DE5.8A-C3.0AB3.0A-C1.2DE1.0C1.0C
Credenz CZ 5282XFXF58E14.6A4.3A8.8A1.1E1.0C1.0C
Average649.42.45.71.91.31.3

† Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not significantly different at the 5% level of probability. Values highlighted in light orange are above average for a given trait, MS letters highlighted in dark orange are in the “A group”, indicating no statistical difference from the top-performing variety, for a given trait.
* Asterisks after a name indicate the number of preceding consecutive years in the top-performing “A” group.
‡ For a full description of abbreviated biotech traits, see table 31.
§ All yields are adjusted to 13% moisture.
†† SDS was evaluated as disease incidence (percentage), disease severity (1 to 9, with 1 indicating no disease), and disease index (DI x DS/9). All locations were evaluated but only Knoxville, Springfield irrigated, Milan irrigated, Milan non-irrigated and Jackson exhibited significant disease and are included in the analysis. Data were log transformed to meet assumptions of normality. Untransformed means are reported; therefore, mean separation values are given but not LSD values.
‡‡ Frogeye was evaluated using a 1 to 9 scale, with 1 indicating no disease. All locations were evaluated but only Knoxville, Springfield irrigated, Springfield non-irrigated, Spring Hill, and Jackson exhibited significant disease and are included in the analysis.
§§ Seed quality was evaluated visually post-harvest using a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 indicating no shriveled or damaged seed. Trials were evaluated at the Knoxville location only.
¶¶ Purple stain was evaluated visually post-harvest using a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 indicating no purple stain. Trials were evaluated at the Knoxville location only.

Virginia Sykes
Scroll to Top