Table A-3. Mean† yield and agronomic traits of 7 Maturity Group III (3.0 – 3.9) soybean varieties evaluated in small plot replicated trials with irrigation at the Highland Rim AgResearch and Education Center in Springfield, Tennessee during 2021. All MG-3 varieties evaluated this year were new; therefore, 2 yr and 3 yr analysis are not presented.
| Variety | Herbicide Pkg† | Avg. Yield§ (bu/ac) 1 yr | Moisture at Harvest (%) 1 yr | Plant Height (in.) 1 yr | Lodging‖ (1-5) 1 yr | Maturity (DAP) 1 yr | SDS†† DI (%) 1 yr | 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 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armor A39-F73 | XF | 72 | A | 13.2 | A | 34 | A | 1.0 | 134 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 1.3 | C | ||
| Local Seed Co. LS3908XFS | XF, STS | 69 | A | 13.1 | A | 33 | A | 1.0 | 133 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 1.0 | C | ||
| USG 7392XFS | XF, STS | 67 | A | 13.9 | A | 35 | A | 1.0 | 133 | A | 1.7 | A | 1.7 | A | 0.9 | A | 1.0 | C | ||
| Asgrow AG36XF1 | XF | 67 | A | 14.5 | A | 30 | A | 1.0 | 135 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 2.7 | AB | ||
| Asgrow AG38XF1 | XF | 62 | A | 13.3 | A | 31 | A | 1.0 | 133 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 1.7 | BC | ||
| Asgrow AG37XF1 | XF | 61 | A | 13.6 | A | 33 | A | 1.0 | 135 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 1.3 | C | ||
| NK Seed NK39-A1XF | XF | 60 | A | 12.8 | A | 30 | A | 1.0 | 131 | B | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 0.0 | A | 3.0 | A | ||
| Average | 65 | 13.5 | 32 | 1.0 | 133 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.0 | |||||||||
| Standard Error | 5 | 0.6 | 1 | – | 1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | |||||||||
| L.S.D..05 | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | – | 2 | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |||||||||
| C.V. | 10 | 8 | 7 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
† 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).
¶ Protein and oil were measured post-harvest using NIRS and are reported on a dry weight basis.
†† SDS was evaluated as disease incidence (percentage), disease severity (1 to 9, with 1 indicating no disease), and disease index (DI x DS/9). Evaluated in mid-September.
‡‡ Frogeye was evaluated using a 1 to 9 scale, with 1 indicating no disease. Evaluated in mid-September.
Virginia Sykes vsykes@utk.edu
- Table 1. 2021 Total entry numbers - December 26, 2021
- Table A-35. Mean yields and agronomic data from Memphis, TN, MG-5 - December 23, 2021
- Table A-34. Mean yields and agronomic data from Jackson, TN, MG-5 - December 22, 2021