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.

† 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.

† 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.

† 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.