Results of Insect Control Evaluations on Corn, Sorghum and Cotagrilifecdn.tamu.edu/coastalbend/files/2011/09/book2002_9.pdf · 19,000/acre. Treatments were arranged in a randomized

- 2002 -

Results of Insect Control Evaluations onCorn, Sorghum and Cotton

in Texas Coastal Bend Counties&

Coastal Bend Extension District CropHybrid/Variety Comparisons

Texas Cooperative Extension, Dr. Chester P. Fehlis, Associate Vice Chancellor and Director, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas

Extension programs serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin. The information givenherein is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and

no endorsement by the Cooperative Extension Service is implied.The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating

12-13-02

FOREWORD

This report contains a summary of applied research/demonstration projects conductedby Texas Cooperative Extension dealing with the management of arthropod pests in theCoastal Bend Counties of Texas in 2002. It includes work with corn, sorghum, andcotton. Experiments were conducted with commercial agricultural producers incooperation with county Extension agents, county row crop committees, agriculturalconsultants, and agribusiness companies. Thirteen of the experiments were conductedat the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Corpus Christi. The objectives of thesestudies were to find more cost effective ways to manage pests and to identify areas thatrequire more study.

Coastal Bend farm cooperators are acknowledged for providing land, equipment, labor,time, ideas, and other assistance in support of these projects. The results obtained willbe of benefit to all agricultural producers.

Trade names of commercial products used in this report are included only for betterunderstanding and clarity. Reference to commercial products or trade names is madewith the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by theTexas A&M University System is implied. Readers should realize that results from oneexperiment may not represent conclusive evidence that the same response wouldoccur where conditions vary.

This report contains calculations of added return over treatment costs based onnumerical differences in yield. It must be kept in mind that the returns attributed totreatment are not absolute, i.e. the yield differences may have been the result of othervariables not associated with the treatment. The reader should always consider thestatistical analysis and data from multiple tests over space and time in makingjudgements concerning the economic returns.

Reports are also available at the following web sitehttp://agfacts.tamu.edu/~rparker/rpmaster.htm. If you have comments or questionsabout the reports contained herein, contact:

Roy D. ParkerProfessor and Extension EntomologistTexas A&M University Agricultural Research & Extension Center10345 AgnesCorpus Christi, Texas 78406-1412(361) 265-9203 telephone(361) 265-9434 [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORN

Insecticides for Control of Chinch Bug and Mexican Corn Rootwormon Corn Grown Under Conventional and Reduced Tillage Systems(Lavaca County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Chinch Bug and MexicanCorn Rootworm on Corn (Lavaca County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Evaluation of Aztec Rates on Corn for Controlof Mexican Corn Rootworm (Goliad County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Evaluation of Insecticides on Corn for Control ofMexican Corn Rootworm (Goliad County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Chinch Bug and Mexican Corn Rootworm on Corn in Goliad and Wharton Counties (Goliad and Wharton Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Evaluation of a Pioneer Transgenic B.t. Corn Hybridfor Effect on Mexican Corn Rootworm (Goliad County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Effectiveness of Dow AgroSciences Transgenic B.t. Corn on Mexican Corn Rootworm (Goliad County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

SORGHUM

Effects of Row Spacing, Plant Population, and Cultivation onSorghum Performance (San Patricio County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Production of Irrigated Sorghum Grown on Two Row Spacings and At Three Plant Populations (San Patricio County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Production of Two Sorghum Hybrids Grown on 20-inch and 40-inchRow Spacings at Three Seeding Rates (Wharton County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Comparison of Midge Damage Rates on Resistant and Susceptible SorghumHybrids With and Without Insecticide Treatments (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Insecticide Seed Treatments and At-planting Applied Granular Insecticide on Sorghum (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Seed and Soil Applied Insecticide Evaluation on Pioneer 84G62 and

Dekalb DK52 Sorghum Hybrids (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Comparison of Gaucho, Cruiser, and Sorghum Guard InsecticideSeed Treatments on Sorghum (San Patricio County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

COTTON

Comparison of Cruiser and Temik on Fibermax 832 Cotton (Nueces County) . . . . . . 47

Use of Cruiser, Gaucho and Temik on Cotton (San Patricio County) . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Effect of At-planting Systemic Insecticides on Early Season ArthropodPests and Cotton Yield (Colorado County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Impact of Terrachlor Super X on Cotton (Colorado County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Use of At-planting Systemic Insecticides on DPL33B Variety Cotton (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Comparison of Systemic Seed Applied Insecticides and GranularTemik on Phytogen 355 Variety Cotton (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Impact on Cotton of Systemic Insecticides Applied At-Planting on Thrips,Aphids, Mites, and Fleahoppers (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Evaluation of Insecticides on Cotton Aphids (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Timing of Insecticide Treatments for Cotton Fleahopper (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . 77

Effect of Fleahoppers on FM 832 and FM 958 Cotton Varieties (Nueces County) . . 80

Evaluation of Insecticides Against Tobacco Budworm in Cotton (Wharton County) . 83

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Tobacco Budworm onNon-Transgenic and Transgenic B.t. Cotton Cultivars (Nueces County) . . . . . . . . . . 85

Evaluation of Syngenta GMO 102 Cotton With and WithoutFoliar Insecticide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Boll Weevil Numbers in Pheromone Traps in Nueces and San Patricio CountiesComparing Years Before and During the Eradication Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

APPENDIX

A Summary of At-Planting Systemic Insecticide Use on Cotton on the Texas Gulf Coast:1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

2002 South Texas Standard Corn Hybrid Performance Tests, LowerGulf Coast Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

2002 South Texas Standard Corn Hybrid Performance Tests, UpperGulf Coast Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

2002 South Texas Standard Grain Sorghum Performance Tests, LowerGulf Coast Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

2002 South Texas Standard Grain Sorghum Performance Tests, UpperGulf Coast Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Tests, LowerGulf Coast Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Tests, UpperGulf Coast Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

1

INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF CHINCH BUG AND MEXICAN CORNROOTWORM ON CORN GROWN UNDER CONVENTIONAL AND REDUCED

TILLAGE SYSTEMS

Lawrence Hinze Farm, Lavaca County, 2002

Roy D. Parker and Shannon DeForestExtension Entomologist and County Extension Agent, respectively

Corpus Christi and Hallettsville, Texas

SUMMARY: Prescribe treated corn plant stand was reduced in conventional tilled plotscompared with all other treatments except the Counter treatment in the reduced tillagetreatment. Chinch bug numbers were generally lower in insecticide treatmentscompared with untreated corn, and about twice as many chinch bugs were found inconventional tilled plots. Damage by Mexican corn rootworm was very low. Nodifferences were found in aflatoxin levels, although numerically slightly lower levelswere observed under reduced tillage. Lack of timely rainfall resulted in low yields. Prescribe treated corn produced significantly less yield in both tillage systems. Thereduced tilled corn treatments averaged 17.4 bu/acre more than conventionally tilledcorn. Possibly the major reason for improved yields under reduced tillage wasprotection of plants from blowing sand.

OBJECTIVE: The field experiment was conducted to evaluate seed and granularapplied insecticides on corn and to compare corn production in conventional andreduced tillage systems.

MATERIALS/METHODS: B&H 8879 hybrid corn was planted on the Lawrence Hinzefarm on County Road 357B in Lavaca County on Mar 5, 2002 with a 4-row IH87blackland planter equipped with Noble granular boxes. The seeding rate was19,000/acre. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3replications of each treatment in 4-row wide by approximately 800 ft long plots. Rowswere spaced on 38-inch centers. Corn had been grown on the site for at least 5 years. The sandy loam soil (75% sand, 10% silt, and 15% clay) contained 0.85% organicmatter with a 4.8 pH. Soil moisture at planting was excellent, and soil temperature was68°F at the 4-inch depth. Fertilizer was 340 lb/acre of 110-30-10 + 10S + 2 qt of 15%zinc applied preplant 6 inches to the side of rows. Herbicide consisted of Bicep IIMagnum (0.8 pt/acre) in a 10-inch band at-planting. Granular Counter was applied in-furrow.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of plants on 13.75 ft row oneach of the center 2 rows/plot on Apr 4, (2) counting chinch bugs by digging around 10plants in the center 2 rows of plots on Apr 5, (3) digging 6 plants from the center 2 rowsin each plot on May 10 for root damage rating using the Iowa State University 6

2

category system [1= no visible damage up to 6 = 3 or more nodes of roots eaten within1.5 inches of the stalk], and the new 0-3 category system [0 = no feeding damage, 1 =1 node of roots eaten within 2 inches of the stalk, 2 = 2 nodes so eaten, and 3 = 3 ormore nodes so eaten], (4) harvesting entire plots with a commercial machine on Jul 29,and (5) using a Vicam aflatoxin testing kit [Aflatest-P] to measure aflatoxin from a cornsample in each plot [samples were frozen until tested]. Grain weights were adjusted toa standard at 15% moisture.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: The Prescribe treated plots may have been adversly affectedby being of a different seed lot or at least different from that used in the remainingtreatments. Rainfall following planting was limited, and as a result yields were reduced. Prescribe treated corn plant stand was reduced in conventional tilled plots comparedwith all other treatments except the Counter treatment in reduced tillage (Table 1). Chinch bug numbers were generally lower in insecticide treatments compared with the untreated corn, and about twice as many were found in conventional tilled plots. Nodifferences were found in aflatoxin levels, although numerically slightly lower levelswere observed under reduced tillage. Damage from Mexican corn rootworms was verylow (Table 2). Lack of timely rainfall resulted in low yields. Prescribe treated cornproduced significantly less yield in both tillage systems. The reduced tilled corntreatments averaged 17.4 bu/acre more than conventionally tilled corn. Possibly themajor reason for improved yields under reduced tillage was protection of plants fromblowing sand and better water holding capacity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We appreciate the support of Gustafson, BASF Company, and Bayer CropScience in conducting this study. Thanks are expressed to Mr. & MrsLawrence Hinze for their interest, time, land, and equipment.

3

Table 1. Comparison of insecticides for control of chinch bug and aflatoxin level in corn grown under conventional and reduced tillage systems, Lawrence Hinze Farm,Lavaca County, TX, 2002.

Treatment &formulationa

Plants(1000's/acre)

Chinch bugs per 10plants Aflatoxin (ppb)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Conventional tillage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Prescribe 600F 14.7 b 2.0 bcd 447 a

Clothianidin 600F 17.2 a 2.0 bcd 507 a

Counter 20CR 17.7 a 5.3 abc 443 a

Untreated 17.8 a 8.3 a 477 a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Reduced tillage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Prescribe 600F 17.0 a 0.3 d 383 a

Clothianidin 600F 17.0 a 1.3 cd 597 a

Counter 20CR 16.3 ab 1.0 cd 403 a

Untreated 17.7 a 6.7 ab 287 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 1.86 4.88 NS

P > F .0470 .0237 .1833Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Treatment rates: Prescribe 600F (1.36 mg AI/seed), clothianidin 600F (1.25 mg

AI/seed), and Counter 20CR (6.0 oz/1000 row ft).

4

Table 2. Comparison of insecticides for control of Mexican corn rootworm on corngrown under conventional and reduced tillage systems, Lawrence Hinze Farm, LavacaCounty, TX, 2002.


Root damage ratingYield

(bu/acre)Oldb Newc

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Conventional tillage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Prescribe 600F 1.33 a .007 b 21.2 d

Clothianidin 600F 1.22 a .006 b 28.4 c

Counter 20CR 1.17 a .003 b 30.8 c

Untreated 1.61 a .015 a 29.7 c

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Limited tillage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Prescribe 600F 1.28 a .003 b 38.2 b

Clothianidin 600F 1.28 a .006 b 49.3 a

Counter 20CR 1.39 a .009 ab 45.4 a

Untreated 1.67 a .015 a 46.6 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS .0079 4.66


AI/seed), and Counter 20CR (6.0 oz/1000 row ft).b Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage

up to 6 = 3 or more nodes of roots eaten to within 1.5 inches of the stalk.c New method - Iowa State University 0 - 3 rating scale: 0 = no feeding damage, 1 = 1

node of roots eaten within 2 inches of the stalk, 2 = 2 nodes of roots eaten, and 3 =3 or more nodes of roots eaten.

5

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF CHINCH BUG ANDMEXICAN CORN ROOTWORM ON CORN

Lawrence Hinze Farm, Lavaca County, 2002

Roy D. Parker and Shannon DeForestExtension Entomologist and County Extension Agent, respectively

Corpus Christi and Hallettsville, Texas

SUMMARY: Chinch bugs were reduced significantly by clothianidin and numerically by Prescribe seed treatments compared to numbers in untreated corn. Aztec had noeffect on chinch bug numbers. Significantly greater aflatoxin level was observed inuntreated corn. All insecticides tested reduced Mexican corn rootworm damage, andyields were statistically improved with insecticide use.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was established to evaluate new insecticide seedtreatments (Prescribe and clothianidin) and granular Aztec on soil insects, especiallyMexican corn rootworm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: B&H 8879 hybrid corn was planted on the Lawrence Hinze“Home Place” east of Texas Highway 95 on FM 1891 on Mar 5, 2002 with a 4-row IH87blackland planter equipped with Noble granular boxes. The seeding rate was19,000/acre. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3replications of each treatment in 4-row wide by approximately 1,146 ft long plots. Rowswere spaced on 38-inch centers. Corn had been grown on the site for at least 5 years. The sandy clay loam soil (55% sand, 14% silt and 31% clay) contained 1.5% organicmatter with a 7.6 pH. Soil moisture at planting was excellent, and soil temperature was68°F at the 4-inch depth. Fertilizer was 340 lb/acre of 110-30-10 + 10S + 2 qt of 15%zinc applied preplant 6 inches to the side of rows. Herbicide consisted of Bicep IIMagnum (0.8 pt/acre) in a 10-inch band at-planting. Granular Aztec was applied in-furrow.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of plants on 13.75 ft row oneach of the center 2 rows/plot on Apr 4, (2) counting chinch bugs by digging around 20plants in the center 2 rows of plots on Apr 4, (3) assigning a chinch bug plant damagerating [1 = no damage up to 5 = severe stunting and plant death] on Apr 4, (4) digging 6plants from the center 2 rows in each plot on May 10 for root damage rating using theIowa State University 6 category system [1= no visible damage up to 6 = 3 or morenodes of roots eaten within 1.5 inches of the stalk] and the new 0-3 category system [0= no feeding damage, 1 = 1 node of roots eaten within 2 inches of the stalk, 2 = 2nodes so eaten, and 3 = 3 or more nodes so eaten], (5) harvesting entire plots with acommercial machine on Jul 29, and (6) using a Vicam aflatoxin testing kit [AflaTest-P]

6

to measure aflatoxin from a corn sample in each plot [samples were frozen until tested]. Grain weights were adjusted to a standard at 15% moisture.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: No differences were observed in plant stands, but insecticidetreatments did affect chinch bugs (Table 1). Chinch bugs were reduced significantly byclothianidin and numerically by Prescribe seed treatments compared to numbers inuntreated corn. Aztec had no effect on chinch bug numbers. No differences wereobserved in damage ratings. In fact, on a numerical basis, Prescribe treated corn hada higher damage rating. It may have been due to the different seed lot used in the testfor that treatment. Significantly greater aflatoxin level was observed in untreated corn(Table 2). Both root damage rating systems produced similar results. All insecticideshad statistically lower root damage than did the untreated corn. Untreated cornsustained heavy damage with more than 1.5 nodes of roots destroyed. Insecticidetreated corn averaged less than one root chewed within 1.5 inches of the stalk. Rootdamage ratings were also reflected in yield data. Untreated corn yields were 19.7bu/acre less than the average of insecticide treated corn. Although not shownstatistically, the 5.25 bu/acre advantage of clothianidin over Aztec and Prescribe mayhave been due to superior chinch bug control.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We appreciate the support of Gustafson and BayerCropScience in conducting this study. Thanks are expressed to Mr. & Mrs LawrenceHinze for their interest, time, land and equipment.

Table 1. Effect of insecticide seed and granular treatments upon corn plant standsand chinch bug damage, Lawrence Hinze Farm, Lavaca County, TX, 2002.

Treatment &formulation Rate

Plants(1000's/acre)

Chinch bug

No./20 plants Damage ratinga

Prescribe 600F 1.36 mg AI/seed 16.2 a 4.7 bc 2.92 a

Clothianidin 600F 1.25 mg AI/seed 17.5 a 0.3 c 1.75 a

Aztec 2.1G 6.7 oz/1000 ft 17.0 a 24.3 a 2.33 a

Untreated 17.2 a 17.3 ab 2.17 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 14.4 NS

P > F .3443 .0208 .0701Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Chinch bug damage rating based on: 1 = no damage up to 5 = severe stunting and

plant death.

7

Table 2. Effect on corn of insecticide seed and granular treatments upon aflatoxinlevels, Mexican corn rootworm damage, and yield, Lawrence Hinze Farm, LavacaCounty, TX, 2002.


Aflatoxin(ppb)

Root damage ratingYield

(bu/acre)Olda Newb

Prescribe 600F 1.36 mg AI/seed 277 b 3.03 b 0.63 b 51.7 a

Clothianidin 600F 1.25 mg AI/seed 290 b 3.24 b 0.51 b 56.9 a

Aztec 2.1G 6.7 oz/1000 ft 337 b 2.33 b 0.13 b 51.6 a

Untreated 668 a 4.59 a 1.67 a 33.7 b

LSD (P = 0.05) 200.8 1.02 0.702 10.4

P > F .0091 .0089 .0083 .0067Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage

up to 6 = 3 or more nodes of roots eaten to within 1.5 inches of the stalk.b New method - Iowa State University 0 - 3 rating scale: 0 = no feeding damage, 1 = 1


8

EVALUATION OF AZTEC RATES ON CORN FORCONTROL OF MEXICAN CORN ROOTWORM

Hernandez Farms, Goliad County, 2002

Roy D. Parker and Brian D. YantaExtension Entomologist and County Extension Agent, respectively

Corpus Christi and Goliad, Texas

SUMMARY: Treatment differences were not found in plant stand or visual plantdamage ratings. Root damage ratings were all lower in Aztec treated corn, but nodifferences due to Aztec rates were detected. Untreated corn sustained an averageloss of 1.5 nodes of roots. Aztec treated corn had an average of less than 1 root eatento within 1.5 inches of the stalk.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare rates of Aztec for effectiveness onMexican corn rootworm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Pioneer 31B13 hybrid corn was planted on the “Pettus Farm”near FM 2043 northwest of Goliad on Mar 6, 2002 with an 8-row John DeereMaxEmerge 2 vacumeter planter delivering 20,500 seed/acre. Treatments werearranged in a randomized complete block design in 4-row wide by 300 ft long plots withrows on 38-inch centers and 3 replications. Corn had been grown on the site for morethan 5 continuous years. The clay loam soil (59% sand, 18% silt, and 23% clay)contained 1.6% organic matter and a 6.9 pH. Soil temperature at planting was 68°F atthe 4-inch depth. Fertilizer applied was 84-28-12. Granular Aztec were banded overthe open seed furrow.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of plants on 13.75 ft row in eachof the center 2 rows in each plot on Apr 4, (2) assigning a plant damage rating [1 = nodamage up to 5 = irregular plant growth, yellowing and unthrifty plants] to each plot onApr 4, and (3) digging 6 plants from the center 2 rows in each plot for rootworm damageanalysis on May 6. Plant roots were rated with two systems: old method - Iowa StateUniversity 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage up to 6 = 3 or more nodesof roots eaten to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, and new method - Iowa State University0 - 3 rating scale: 0 = no feeding damage, 1 = 1 node of roots eaten within 2 inches ofthe stalk, 2 = 2 nodes of roots eaten, and 3 = 3 or more nodes of roots eaten.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Differences were not found in plant stand or in a visual plantdamage rating (Table 1). There appeared to be a numerical trend for increasingdamage as Aztec rates decreased; untreated corn had the highest numerical plantdamage rating. Root damage ratings were all significantly lower in Aztec treated corn

9

compared to the untreated corn. There were no differences or trends in the Aztec ratesevaluated. Yields were not obtained since corn was lost to drought conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to the Hernandez family for providingland, equipment, and labor for conducting the study. Bayer Corporation isacknowledged for their support.

Table 1. Comparison of Aztec rates on corn for control of Mexican corn rootworm,Hernandez Farms, Goliad County, TX, 2002.

Treatment &formulation

Rate(oz/1000 ft)

Plants(1000's/acre)

Plant da.ratinga

Root damage rating

Oldb Newc

Aztec 2.1G 6.70 19.0 a 2.25 a 2.69 b 0.23 b

Aztec 2.1G 5.02 18.0 a 2.33 a 2.81 b 0.15 b

Aztec 2.1G 3.25 18.0 a 2.42 a 2.58 b 0.20 b

Untreated 18.3 a 2.75 a 4.50 a 1.53 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS 0.38 0.37

P > F .7793 .8647 .0001 .0003Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Damage ratings on Apr 4 ranged from 1 = no damage up to 5 = irregular plant

growth, yellowing and unthrifty plants.b Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage



10

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES ON CORN FOR CONTROL OFMEXICAN CORN ROOTWORM

Jim Pettus Farm, Goliad County, 2002



SUMMARY: Prescribe, clothianidin, and Force provided effective control of Mexicancorn rootworm. Insecticide treated corn roots averaged nearly 1 root eaten to within1.5 inches of the stalk, whereas the corn roots in the untreated plots sustained over 2.5of the nodes destroyed.

OBJECTIVE: The test objective was to compare the effectiveness of Prescribe,clothianidin and Force in controlling Mexican corn rootworm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Dekalb DK697 hybrid corn was planted on the Jim PettusFarm on Newton Powell Road northwest of Goliad on Mar 16, 2002 with a researchtype John Deere 7100 2-row cone planter equipped with granular insecticide boxes. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications in2-row wide by 30-ft long plots with rows on 38-inch centers. Corn had been grown atthe site for more than 5 years. The clay loam soil (23% sand, 42% silt, and 35% clay)contained 1.7% organic matter and 8.0 pH. Soil moisture at the surface was limited,requiring removal of dry soil to reach moisture. Soil temperature at the 4-inch depthwas 61°F. Fertilizer applied was 84-18-7+1S. Granular insecticide (Force) wasbanded over the open seed furrow.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of plants on 10 row ft in bothrows of each plot on Apr 4, and (2) digging 5 plants from each plot on May 6 forrootworm damage analysis.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Plant stand and root damage ratings are provided in Table1. Force treated corn had a significantly higher plant stand than untreated corn;whereas, none of the other insecticide treatments were statistically better than theuntreated corn. However, plant stands of all insecticide treatments were numericallyhigher than the untreated corn. Root damage ratings (Iowa State 1 - 6 method) for theinsecticides averaged 2.95 or almost an average of 1 root eaten to within 1.5 inches ofthe stalk. The untreated corn had a root damage rating of 5.59 or over 2.5 completenodes of roots eaten to within 1.5 inches of the stalk. Data from the new rootwormdamage scale were similar. As indicated by the untreated plots, there were very highnumbers of Mexican corn rootworms at the site. Had it been possible to obtain yield

11

data, insecticide treatments should have made more than 30 bu/acre more thanuntreated corn.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Appreciation is expressed to Jim Pettus for providing land forconduct of this experiment and to Fred Pena for assistance in laying out the test areaand his advice on where to locate the study. Gustafson and Syngenta companies areacknowledged for their help. A special thanks is given to Hopkins Agricultural Servicesfor assistance in planting and maintaining the experiment. They also erected anelectric fence around the entire study area to deter wild hogs.

Table 1. Evaluation of insecticides on corn for control of Mexican corn rootworm, JimPettus Farm, Goliad County, TX, 2002.


Plants(1000's/acre)

Root damage rating

Oldb Newc

Prescribe 600F 16.3 ab 2.72 b .337 b

Clothianidin 600F 15.8 b 3.03 b .414 b

Force 3G 19.4 a 3.10 b .605 b

Untreated 14.1 b 5.59 a 2.600 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 3.32 .613 .4604


AI/seed), and Force 3G (5.0 oz/1000 row ft).b Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage



12

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROLOF CHINCH BUG AND MEXICAN CORN ROOTWORM

ON CORN IN GOLIAD AND WHARTON COUNTIES

Ralph Ramsey, Jr. and David Foehner Farms, 2002Goliad and Wharton Counties, respectively

Roy D. Parker, Daniel D. Fromme, Brian D. Yanta, and Richard L. JahnExtension Entomologist, Extension Agent - Pest Management,

County Extension Agent, and County Extension Agent, respectivelyCorpus Christi, Wharton, and Goliad, Texas

SUMMARY: Plant stands were significantly better in insecticide treated corn at theGoliad County site and they were numerically better at the Wharton County sitecompared with untreated corn. With only two exceptions, early season visual plantdamage ratings were higher (more damage) in untreated corn. Chinch bug numberswere reduced most consistently with Prescribe, clothianidin, and Cruiser; whereas,Counter and Aztec were somewhat inconsistent. Force provided no chinch bug control. All insecticides, except for the Prescribe and Cruiser treatments at the Goliad Countylocation, had significantly lower Mexican corn rootworm root damage ratings than diduntreated corn.

OBJECTIVE: The tests were established to determine the impact of selectedinsecticides on chinch bugs and Mexican corn rootworm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Two experiments replicated 4 times in randomized completeblock designs were planted Feb 20 and 22, respectively, on the David Foehner Farm(County Road 111) in Wharton County and the Ralph Ramsey, Jr., Farm (near theintersection of Riverdale and Irby Roads) in Goliad County. A northern corn hybrid(N58D1) was planted in 2-row wide by 30-ft long plots with rows spaced on 38-inchcenters. Seed was planted at 48 kernels per row with a John Deere 7100 modelMaxEmerge planter modified with research cone planters. Two ft wide alleys were cutbetween each replication following plant emergence. In the Goliad County experiment,the clay soil (23% sand, 28% silt, and 49% clay) contained 1.5% organic mater and hada 7.6 pH. In the Wharton County experiment, the Norwood silty clay loam soil (8%sand, 64% silt, and 28% clay) contained 1.3% organic matter and also had a 7.6 pH. Corn had been planted on the land at each location for at least the 5 previous years. Soil moisture conditions at-planting at both locations were good with soil temperaturesat the 4-inch depth ranging from 62-64°F. On the day of planting, the herbicide Bicep IIMagnum at 2.1 qt/acre was broadcast with a CO2 backpback sprayer in a total sprayvolume of 11.4 gpa, at 30 psi and a speed of 2.5 mph. Nozzles were XR TeeJet8001VS. Plots were hand weeded during the testing period. Treatments consisted oftreated seed and soil applied granular insecticides. Granular materials were banded

13

over the open seed furrow (6-inch bander). The entire test was destroyed following thedate samples were obtained for rootworm damage analysis.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of plants on 13.75 ft row on bothrows of plots on Mar 22 [Wharton County site], and Mar 24 [Goliad County site], (2)assigning a damage rating [1 = no damage up to 5 = stunting, uneven growth andyellowing] to each plot on Mar 22 [Wharton] and Mar 24 [Goliad], (3) counting thenumber of chinch bugs by digging around 10 plants per plot on Apr 5 and 15 [Wharton]and Mar 24 and Apr 10 [Goliad], and (4) digging 5 plants/plot for Mexican cornrootworm damage ratings on May 9 and 10, at the Wharton and Goliad Countylocations, respectively.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Plant stands in untreated corn were lower than in insecticidetreatments at both test locations, but they were only statistically lower in the untreatedcorn at the Goliad County test site (Table 1). Except for Cruiser treated corn, plantdamage ratings were significantly greater in untreated compared with insecticidetreated corn at the Wharton site. At Goliad, insecticide treated corn, except for Counterand Force treatments, had lower damage ratings. Chinch bug counts on 2 dates atboth test locations showed fewer numbers in the clothianidin, Cruiser, and Prescribetreatments. Counter and Aztec were about equally effective against chinch bugs. Force had little effect on chinch bug numbers. All insecticides were equally effective inreducing Mexican corn rootworm damage to the root system, but at the WhartonCounty location, Prescribe and Cruiser treated corn were statistically no different fromthe untreated corn (Table 1).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Syngenta, Bayer, and GustafsonCompanies for support of this work. A special acknowledgment is given to DavidFoehner and Ralph Ramsey, Jr. for allowing us to use land for conduct of theexperiments. We thank Hopkins Agricultural Services for use of their 2-row planter. Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller, Demonstration Assistants, are thanked for their help.

14

Table 1. Comparison of insecticides for control of chinch bug and Mexican corn rootwormon corn, Goliad and Wharton counties, TX, 2002.


Plants(1000's/

acre)Plant da.ratinga

Chinch bugs/10 plants

Root damage rating

Date 1 Date 2 Oldb Newc

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Test 1, Goliad County - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Prescribe 600F 1.34 mg AI/seed 20.0 a 1.6 c 0.0 b 8.8 b 3.50 b 0.69 b

Clothianidin 600F 1.25 mg AI/seed 20.1 a 1.5 c 0.0 b 4.3 b 3.17 b 0.63 b

Cruiser 5FS 10.3 oz/cwt seed 20.4 a 1.5 c 0.3 b 5.3 b 3.55 b 0.76 b

Counter 20CR 6.0 oz/1000 ft 18.0 a 2.9 ab 1.5 b 10.8 b 2.79 b 0.43 b

Aztec 2.1G 6.7 oz/1000 ft 18.1 a 2.1 bc 0.8 b 16.0 ab 2.63 b 0.33 b

Force 3G 5.0 oz/1000 ft 19.0 a 3.1 a 11.8 a 27.8 a 3.11 b 0.48 b

Untreated 13.4 b 3.5 a 13.8 a 27.0 a 5.50 a 2.50 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 3.30 0.89 6.78 12.40 1.152 .6587

P > F .0099 .0003 .0006 .0023 .0012 .0001

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Test 2, Wharton County - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Prescribe 600F 1.34 mg AI/seed 18.9 a 2.2 b 0.3 b 2.8 c 1.15 ab

Clothianidin 600F 1.25 mg AI/seed 20.6 a 1.9 b 0.5 b 0.0 c 0.93 b

Cruiser 5FS 10.3 oz/cwt seed 19.1 a 2.8 ab 0.3 b 0.5 c 1.16 ab

Counter 20CR 6.0 oz/1000 ft 20.0 a 2.3 b 5.3 a 8.0 ab 0.91 b

Aztec 2.1G 6.7 oz/1000 ft 19.6 a 2.3 b 3.0 ab 3.8 bc 0.47 b

Force 3G 5.0 oz/1000 ft 21.1 a 1.9 b 6.0 a 12.5 a 0.62 b

Untreated 17.1 a 3.3 a 2.8 ab 3.5 bc 1.71 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS .593 3.64 4.405 0.659

P > F .2712 .0016 .0128 .0001 .0212Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant damage rating range from 1 = no damage to 5 = stunting, uneven growth and

yellowing.b Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage up

to 6 = 3 or more nodes of roots eaten to within 1.5 inches of the stalk.c New method - Iowa State University 0 - 3 rating scale: 0 = no feeding damage, 1 = 1

node of roots eaten within 2 inches of the stalk, 2 = 2 nodes of roots eaten, and 3 = 3 ormore nodes of roots eaten.

15

EVALUATION OF A PIONEER TRANSGENIC B.t. CORNHYBRID FOR EFFECT ON MEXICAN CORN ROOTWORM

Jim Pettus Farm, Goliad County, 2002



SUMMARY: A Pioneer transgenic hybrid expressing Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteinsfrom B.t. strain PS149B1 demonstrated a high degree of effectiveness against Mexicancorn rootworm larvae when compared to the negative isoline or the negative isolinetreated at planting with a full rate of Force. The transgenic B.t. hybrid had significantlyless plant lodging and rootworm damage compared with the non-transgenic treatments.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Pioneertransgenic hybrid in reducing damage caused by the Mexican corn rootworm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: A transgenic B.t. corn hybrid, negative isoline, and thenegative isoline treated at-planting with Force 3G (5.0 oz/1000 row ft) were planted onthe Jim Pettus Farm on Newton Powell Road northwest of Goliad on Mar 16, 2002 witha 2-row John Deere 7100 planter equipped with research cone planters. Treatmentswere arranged in a randomized complete block design in 3-row wide by 30-ft long plotswith rows spaced on 38-inch centers and 4 replications. Equal numbers of seed (40)were planted in each plot row. Corn had been grown at the site for more than 5 years. The clay loam soil (23% sand, 42% silt, and 35% clay) contained 1.7% organic matterat 8.0 pH. Soil moisture at the surface was limited, requiring removal of dry soil toreach moisture. Soil temperature at the 4-inch depth was 61°F. Fertilizer applied was84-18-7+1S. Granular Force was banded over the open seed furrow. Liberty herbicidewas applied to transgenic B.t. corn plots on Apr 16 resulting in less than 1% loss ofstand.

Treatments were measured by (1) counting the number of plants on 10 row ft from thecenter row of each plot on Apr 4, (2) counting the total number of plants and lodgedplants in the center row of each plot on May 6, and (3) digging 5 plants from the centerrow of each plot on May 6 for rootworm damage analysis. Root damage ratings werethen assigned using both the Iowa State University 1 - 6 and 0 - 3 rating systems.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Statistical differences were not found in plant stands,although numerically, the transgenic B.t. hybrid averaged 1,800 more plants/acre thanthe other two treatments (Table 1). The transgenic B.t. hybrid also demonstrated avery high degree of effectiveness against Mexican corn rootworm larvae whencompared to the negative isoline or the negative isoline treated with Force 3G at-

16

planting. The transgenic B.t. hybrid had significantly fewer lodged plants and lessrootworm damage compared with the other treatments. Additionally, the B.t. hybrid plotplants were much taller and did not wilt to the degree of the other treatments. Rootworm damage in the untreated negative isoline was severe with about 2.5 nodes ofroots eaten to within 1.5 or 2.0 inches of the stalk (Table 1). Although Force treatedplots had much less damage (average of slightly over 1 root eaten to within 1.5 inchesof the stalk), plants were much shorter and wilted earlier each day compared to thetransgenic B.t. hybrid.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Pioneer Hi-Bred International,Hopkins Agricultural Services, Jim Pettus, and Fred Pena for their support inconducting the study.

Table 1. Comparison of transgenic B.t. and non-transgenic Pioneer corn hybrids foreffect on Mexican corn rootworm, Jim Pettus Farm, Goliad County, TX, 2002.

HybridPlants

(1000's/acre)% lodged

plants

Root damage rating

Olda Newb

Transgenic event 17.3 a 1.8 c 2.05 c 0.08 c

Negative isoline 15.4 a 46.1 a 5.34 a 2.63 a

Negative isoline + Forcec 15.6 a 17.6 b 3.06 b 0.48 b

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 9.11 0.515 .364

P > F .5244 .0001 .0001 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage



c Force 3G (5.0 oz/1000 row ft).

17

EFFECTIVENESS OF DOW AGROSCIENCES TRANSGENIC B.t. CORN ON MEXICAN CORN ROOTWORM

Ralph Ramsey, Jr. Farm, Goliad County, 2002



SUMMARY: The Dow AgroSciences transgenic B.t. corn inbred line evaluated wasvery effective in reducing root feeding damage by Mexican corn rootworm. Only 3 of 50corn plant root systems evaluated had more than presence of feeding scars. Thenegative isoline corn roots had more than 1.5 nodes eaten to within 1.5 inches of thestalk, and although Force provided protection from rootworms, it was not as effective asthe transgenic B.t. event.

OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to determine effectiveness of a transgenic B.t.corn inbred line on Mexican corn rootworm compared to the negative isoline with andwithout Force soil insecticide treatment.

MATERIALS/METHODS: The field experiment was planted on the Ralph Ramsey, Jr.Farm near the intersection of Riverdale and Irby Roads (northwest of Goliad) on March22, 2002. Planting equipment was a 2-row John Deere 7100 planter equipped withresearch cone planters. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete blockdesign in 3-row wide by 20-ft long plots with rows spaced on 38-inch centers and 5replications. Exactly 31 seeds were planted in each row of the 3-row plots. Corn hadbeen grown at the test site for many years and Mexican corn rootworm infestation theprevious season had been heavy. The clay soil (23% sand, 28% silt, and 40% clay)contained 1.5% organic matter at 7.9 pH. Soil moisture at planting was excellent, butlittle rainfall occurred later. Soil temperature at the 4-inch depth was 66°F. GranularForce was banded over the open seed furrow. Herbicide was Bicep II Magnum (2.0qt/acre) broadcast across all plots on the planting date. On Apr 16, Liberty herbicidewas applied to transgenic B.t. plots to remove nonexpressing transgenic plants. Plantskilled by Liberty herbicide amounted to 53.3%.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of plants in 8 row ft of each 3-row plot on Apr 24, and (2) digging 10 plants from the center row of each plot on May16 for rootworm damage rating [see Table 1 footnotes for damage rating scales].

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: The negative isoline + Force treatment had a significantlygreater plant stand than the other treatments (Table 1). Reasons for the reduced plantstand in the other 2 treatments are not known but could have occurred due to chinchbugs; they were not counted. Damaged roots by both rating scales revealed little more

18

than the presence of Mexican corn rootworm feeding scars in the transgenic B.t.treatment. The negative isoline sustained an average loss of 1.75 nodes of roots(Table 1). Force provided fairly good protection, but root damage ratings by the 1-6scale (old method) were significantly higher than found in the transgenic B.t. corn. Thetransgenic B.t. corn and negative isoline + Force treated corn were not statisticallydifferent as scored by the 0-3 (new) scale. However, the numerical difference was 10fold greater in the Force compared with the transgenic B.t. corn.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Rudy Alaniz, Matt Matocha, and MikeHiller, Demonstration Assistants, for their help. Hopkins Agricultural Services areacknowledged for use of the 2-row cone planter. Special thanks are extended to RalphRamsey, Jr. for providing land for this experiment. Dow AgroSciences are thanked fortheir support of the experiment.

Table 1. Evaluation of Dow AgroSciences transgenic B.t. corn on Mexican cornrootworm, Ralph Ramsey, Jr. Farm, Goliad, TX, 2002.

Corn typePlants

(1000's/acre)

Root damage rating

Olda Newb

Transgenic event 15.1 b 1.7 c 0.023 b

Negative isoline 16.2 b 4.7 a 1.73 a

Negative isoline + Forcec 19.1 a 2.7 b 0.22 b

LSD (P = 0.05) 2.807 .490 .539

P > F .0271 .0001 .0002Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Old method - Iowa State University 1 - 6 rating scale: 1 = no visible feeding damage



c Force 3G (5.0 oz/1000 row ft).

19

EFFECTS OF ROW SPACING, PLANT POPULATION, AND CULTIVATION ONSORGHUM PERFORMANCE

Robert Barlow Farm, San Patricio County, 2002

Jeffrey R. Stapper, Roy D. Parker, and Lawrence L. FalconerCounty Extension Agent, Extension Entomologist, and Extension Economist-

Management, respectivelySinton and Corpus Christi, Texas

SUMMARY: Target plant populations were not reached due to dry soil at planting depththat persisted for a long period, but relatively good separation between plant standtreatments was maintained. Corn leaf aphid and greenbug damage was more severeat lower plant stands which is consistent with previous greenbug work in Kansas. Noyield effects were found due to cultivation. Grain moisture at harvest was consistentlygreater as plant populations decreased due to more sucker produced grain. Bushelweights were generally higher in the 19-inch row treatment. Grain yields wereconsistently higher from 19-inch rows and at the lower plant populations than for theother row spacings. Net dollar value of sorghum over seed and harvest/hauling costswas generally better for lower plant populations and in plots that were not cultivatedduring the growing season, as well as for sorghum grown in 19-inch rows. In two out of3 years of this study, the 19-inch row spacing has produced the higher dollar returnover seed and harvesting costs.

OBJECTIVE: The field experiment was established to determine the effect of rowspacing, seeding rate and cultivation on aphid populations, yield of sorghum and dollarreturn.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Pioneer 8313 hybrid sorghum seed, 85% germination and14,500 seed/lb, was planted Feb 22, 2002, on the Robert Barlow Farm southeast ofSinton, Texas, next to FM 1074, 0.75 north of FM 1944. Row spacings were 19-inch,30-inch and 38-inch, and target plant populations were 48, 68 and 88 thousand/acre. The 18 treatments(row spacings, plant populations and cultivation treatments) werearranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 replication in 15-row (19-inchplanting), 12-row (30-inch planting), and 8-row (38-inch plantings) by approximately2,614 ft plots. The field was then divided across the middle and cultivation or no-cultivation treatments were assigned at random to each of the other variables.

All treatments were planted flat (no beds). The 19- and 38-inch row spacing treatmentswere planted using a John Deere MaxEmerge Plus vacumeter model 1730 planter andthe 30-inch row spacing treatments were planted with a Kinsey planter. The Victoriaclay soil (8.0 pH ) was 68°F at the planting depth, deep moisture was excellent butsurface moisture at planting depth was very limited. Cotton had been planted on the

20

test site the previous season. Fertilizer applied was 64-0-0. Frontier herbicide (6 lbAI/gal) was applied at 19 oz/acre. Assigned plots were cultivated once on April 19when plants were approximately 20 inches tall. A special narrow row cultivator wasused on 19-inch rows.

Treatment effects were determined by (1) counting plants on 10-row ft at 6 locations [3each on each end of the field] on Apr 9, (2) assigning a damage rating for corn leafaphid and greenbug [1 = not damage up to 5 = leaves dying, stunting and yellowing] onMay 25, and (3) harvesting .51, .537, and .51 acres per plot for 19-, 30- and 38-inchrow spacings respectively from all but outside rows in each treatment with a commercialcombine on Jun 26. Grain weights were adjusted to 14% moisture. Net grain valueover seed, cultivation, and harvest costs were calculated. Since no differences werefound in cultivation treatments, data were combined to calculate yield and dollar returnsfor each row spacing and plant population treatment. Seed cost was calculated usingthe target seeding rates of 56.5, 80.0 and 103.5 thousand seed per acre (14,500seed/lb). Concept treated seed cost used was $1.08/lb, harvest and hauling cost wasfigured at $0.65/cwt and sorghum value was based on $4.80/cwt.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Target field plant populations were not achieved andaveraged 16,000 plants/acre below desired levels (Table 1). In spite of not achievingthe target plant stands, good separation was maintained between plant stand levelsexcept for the 38-inch row spacing. In 38-inch treatments, there was only a 10 and 12thousand plant/acre difference maintained between the lower, middle and higher plantpopulations. No differences were observed in plant heights; therefore, measurementswere not made.

Corn leaf aphids (CLA) and greenbugs (GB) were the only insects present in sufficientnumbers to consider for evaluation. Damage ratings were assigned to each of theseinsect species (Table 1). Statistical differences were found in CLA ratings withgenerally less damage in higher plant stands. Although not significant, GB damageratings were also lower as plant stands increased. Work in Kansas demonstrated moreGB damage in lower plant stands.

We thought that cultivation of 19-inch rows in the test in 2001 could have adverselyaffected yield and other production factors. Therefore, cultivation and no cultivationtreatments for each of the row spacing/plant stand treatments were carried out in thecurrent study (Table 2). Cultivation did not affect yields. There was only a 21 lb/acreaverage difference in yield between cultivation and no cultivation treatments.

Grain moisture at harvest consistently increased as plant populations decreased (Table3). Later production from plant suckers in lower populations may have accounted forthese results. The highest bushel weights occurred in 19-inch row treatments in themiddle and high plant population treatments. Grain yields were consistently higher on

21

19-inch rows and at the lower plant populations. Net dollar value of the sorghum overseed and harvest/hauling cost was more favorable for lower plant populations and,expect for one case, was more favorable on 19-inch rows.

In two out of 3 years, sorghum production on the Barlow Farm has been greater on 19-inch rows at the lower plant populations. However, we believe the best optimum finalstands for most years in lower Coastal Bend counties should be about 50,000plants/acre.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We acknowledge the Sorghum PROFIT Initiative Projectfunded by the Texas Legislature and the Texas Grain Sorghum Producers Associationfor their support. Appreciation is expressed to Robert Barlow for his time, land,equipment, and patience in conducting this study. Darwin Anderson, Planters Coop atOdem is thanked for his assistance. Special thanks are extended to Marvin and DannyBeyer for supplying the 30-inch row planter, and to Carlos Benevides, Pioneer Hi-BredInternational for assistance in weighing the 54 plots.

22

Table 1. Row spacing and plant population effects on corn leaf aphid and greenbugnumbers in sorghum, Robert Barlow Farm, San Patricio County, TX, 2002.

Row spacing

Plants (1000's/acre) Damage ratingsb

targeta actual CLA GB

19-inch 48 38 g 2.5 cd 2.3 a

68 56 cd 1.7 ef 2.0 a

88 76 a 1.3 f 1.3 a

30-inch 48 34 g 3.8 a 2.3 a

68 47 ef 3.0 bc 1.7 a

88 66 b 1.8 def 2.3 a

38-inch 48 40 fg 3.3 ab 2.1 a

68 50 de 2.2 de 1.6 a

88 62 bc 1.3 f 1.5 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 8.8 0.71 0.79

P > F .0001 .0001 .0965Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Target seeding rates were 56.5, 80.0, and 103.5 thousand seed per acre with target

plant stand objectives of 48, 68 and 88 thousand plants per acre at 85% seedgermination.

b Damage ratings on May 25 ranged from 1 = no damage up to 5 = leaves dying,stunting and yellowing. CLA = corn leaf aphid and GB = greenbug.

23

Table 2. Row spacing, plant population and cultivation practice effects on sorghumproduction, Robert Barlow Farm, San Patricio County, TX, 2002.

Rowspacing

Plants (1000's/acre) Cultivated Not cultivated

targeta actualYield

(lb/acre)Net $

valueb, cYield

(lb/acre)Net $

valueb, c

19-inch 48 38 4814 a 189.57 4589 a 186.23

68 56 4627 ab 180.06 4716 a 189.76

88 76 4627 ab 178.31 4630 a 184.43

30-inch 48 34 4552 bc 178.70 4588 a 186.19

68 47 4528 bc 175.95 4600 a 184.94

88 66 4391 bcd 168.52 4327 a 171.86

38-inch 48 40 4614 ab 181.27 4417 a 179.10

68 50 4340 cd 168.66 4430 a 177.88

88 62 4255 d 162.87 4270 a 169.49

LSD (P = 0.05) 250.0 333.8

P > F .0089 .1397Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Target seeding rates were 56.5, 80.0, and 103.5 thousand seed per acre with target


b Net $ value over seed, cultivation and harvest costc Seed was Concep treated ($1.08/lb) at a seed count of 14,500/lb and total acre cost

was based on seeding rates provided in footnote “a”. Harvesting and hauling costswere figured at $0.65/cwt. Sorghum value was based on $4.80/cwt. Cultivationcost was $6.00/acre.

24

Table 3. Row spacing and plant population effects on sorghum grain moisture andbushel weight at harvest, yield, and dollar return, Robert Barlow Farm, San PatricioCounty, TX, 2002.

Rowspacing

Plants (1000's/acre)% grainmoisture Bu Wt

Yield(lb/acre)

Net $ valueover seed &harvest costbtargeta actual

19-inch 48 38 17.6 b 59.0 bc 4702 a 190.93

68 56 17.0 cd 59.5 ab 4672 a 187.93

88 76 16.8 d 59.8 a 4629 a 184.39

30-inch 48 34 18.3 a 58.3 d 4570 a 185.44

68 47 17.5 bc 59.2 b 4564 ab 183.44

88 66 17.0 d 59.0 bc 4359 bc 173.19

38-inch 48 40 18.2 a 58.5 cd 4516 ab 183.21

68 50 17.2 bcd 59.0 bc 4385 bc 176.02

88 62 16.9 d 59.1 bc 4263 c 169.20

LSD (P = 0.05) 0.48 0.60 243.6

P > F .0001 .0024 .0167Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Target seeding rates were 56.5, 80.0, and 103.5 thousand seed per acre with target


c Seed was Concep treated ($1.08/lb) at a seed count of 14,500/lb and total acre costwas based on seeding rates provided in footnote “a”. Harvesting and hauling costswere figured at $0.65/cwt. Sorghum value was based on $4.80/cwt.

25

PRODUCTION OF IRRIGATED SORGHUM GROWN ON TWO ROW SPACINGS ANDAT THREE PLANT POPULATIONS

Clarence Chopelas Farm, San Patricio County, 2002

Jeffrey R. Stapper, Roy D. Parker, and Lawrence L. FalconerCounty Extension Agent, Extension Entomologist, and Extension Economist-

Management, respectivelySinton and Corpus Christi, Texas

SUMMARY: Narrow row (19-inch) sorghum produced greater yields than sorghumplanted on conventional row spacing (38-inch). Dollar returns for the 19-inch rowspacing averaged $38.53/acre more than did the 38-inch row spacing. The averageyield increase of 19-inch row spacing above 38-inch row spacing during the past 3 yeartesting period at this location averaged 822 lb/acre.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to compare sorghum production from 19-and 38-inch row spacings each at 3 plant population levels.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Pioneer 83G66 hybrid sorghum seed (16,500/lb) was plantedon Feb 20, 2002 on the Clarence Chopelas Farm in western San Patricio County onland with a center pivot irrigation system. Two row spacings (19- and 38-inch) andthree target plant population (65, 85, and 105 thousand plants/acre) treatments werearranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications. Plots were 24rows wide in the 19-inch and 12 rows wide in the 38-inch row plots. To achieve targetpopulations, an 85% seed germination rate was used. The test was planted flat (nobeds) with a 12-row model 1720 MaxEmerge plus vacumeter air planter; the 19-inchspacing was achieved by planting between the 38-inch rows. Soil at the site was aVictoria clay, 8.0 pH, and conditions for seed germination were favorable. Cotton hadbeen grown on the site the previous season. Fertilizer applied was 500 lb/acre of 19-5-1 - 1S - 1 Zn in January 2002. Herbicide was Atrazine 90F (1.4 lb/acre). Only the 38-inch rows were cultivated. Rainfall was measured at the field site and consisted of nosignificant rain until May 17 at which time 3.1 inches was recorded. The only other rainoccurred just prior to harvest on June 20 and 21, with 1.25 inches recorded. Irrigationduring the growing season totaled 7.75 inches, and it was applied as needed accordingto soil moisture monitor readings.

Treatment effects were determined by (1) counting plants on 10 row ft at 6 locations ineach plot on Apr 17, and (2) harvesting each plot with a commercial combine on Jun 24(9 and 18 rows of the 38-inch and 19-inch row spacing treatments, respectively). Grainweights were adjusted to 14% moisture. Net grain value over seed cost was calculatedusing $1.08/lb for seed and $4.80/cwt grain value. Harvesting/hauling costs werecalculated at $0.65/cwt.

26

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Plant population targets were achieved within reasonablelimits for both row spacings (Table 1). All 19-inch row plantings and the 38-inch row,low plant population planting produced significantly more sorghum than the tworemaining 38-inch row plantings. The average yield increase on the 19-inch rows overthe 38-inch rows was 640 lb/acre. Dollar returns for the 19-inch rows averaged$32.58/acre more than 38-inch rows. This is the fourth consecutive year that narrowrow production exceeded conventional row plantings at this location (15-inch rowcompared with 30-inch in 1999).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank Clarence Chopelas for use of land, equipment andhis time in conducting this experiment. We also thank the Sorghum PROFIT InitiativeProject funded by the Texas Legislature and Texas Grain Sorghum ProducersAssociation for their support.

27

Table 1. Comparison of row spacing and plant population effects on sorghum yieldand dollar return, Clarence Chopelas Farm, San Patricio County, TX, 2002.

Row spacingPlants (1000's/acre) Yield

(lb/acre)Net $ value over seed

& harvest costbtargeta actual

19-inch 65 71 d 6333 a 257.81

85 82 c 6213 a 251.29

105 110 a 6159 a 247.52

38-inch 65 71 d 5558 a 225.64

85 87 c 5627 b 226.97

105 100 b 5599 b 224.28

LSD (P = 0.05) 5.57 391

P > F .0001 .0026Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Target seeding rates were 76.5, 100.0, and 123.5 thousand seed per acre with

target plant stand objectives of 65, 85, and 105 thousand plants per acre (85%germination).

b Seed was Concep treated ($1.08/lb) at a seed count of 16,500/lb and total acre costwas based on seeding rates provided in footnote “a”. Harvesting, and hauling costswere figured at $0.65/cwt. Cost to cultivation of 38-inch rows was figured at$6.00/acre. Sorghum value was based on $4.80/cwt.

28

PRODUCTION OF TWO SORGHUM HYBRIDS GROWN ON 20-INCH AND 40-INCH ROW SPACINGS AT THREE SEEDING RATES

Richard Raun Farm, Wharton County, 2002

Richard L. Jahn, W. James Grichar, Jr., Roy D. Parker, and Lawrence L. FalconerCounty Extension Agent, Research Scientist, Extension Entomologist,

and Extension Economist-Management, respectivelyWharton, Yoakum, and Corpus Christi, Texas

SUMMARY: Asgrow A571 hybrid provided substantially higher net dollar value returnsover seed and harvest cost in 20-inch row spacing plantings. Although net dollarreturns were also better for DK54 hybrid sorghum grown in 20-inch row spacingplantings, it was substantially below returns from A571. In each case the middleseeding rate produced the greatest return.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted on two sorghum hybrids to determineeffect of row spacing and plant population on production.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Asgrow A571 (approximately 12,000 seed/lb) and DekalbDK54 (approximately 14,500 seed/lb) hybrid sorghum seed was planted Mar 27, 2002on the Richard Raun Farm in west Wharton County about 8 miles north of Louise on20- and 40-inch row spacings for 3 target seed rates of 45, 75, and 110 thousand/acre. The hybrid, row spacing, and seeding rate treatments were arranged in a randomizedcomplete block design with 4 replications. Plots were 6 rows wide (20-inch planting)and 4 rows (40-inch planting) wide by 50 ft long. The test was planted flat (no beds)with a Monosem vacuum air planter with seed boxes spaced on 20-inch centers. The40-inch treatments were achieved by raising alternate seed hoppers. The soil was anEdna sandy loam with a pH of 6.5. The land was fallow the previous season. Fertilizerwas placed in 2 applications with a total of 138-30-45+8S. Herbicide applied wasLariat 4EC (2.4 qt/acre); subsequent weed pressure was extremely high. Plots werenot cultivated.

Treatments were evaluated by (1) counting the number of plants on 10 row ft in eachplot on May 1, and (2) harvesting portions of plots with a 5-foot header combine on Jul23. Grain weights were adjusted to the 14% moisture standard. Net grain value overseed and harvest cost was calculated using $2.12/lb for seed and $4.80/cwt grainvalue.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Separation in plant populations for evaluation was achieved,although the actual plant populations tended to be higher than desired (Tables 1 and2). Seed cost increased substantially as seeding rates were increased. Sorghumyields were significantly greater for Asgrow A571 from the 20-inch row spacing

29

compared with yields from the 40-inch spacing (Table 1). Net value over seed andharvesting/hauling costs averaged $120.64/acre in the 20-inch planting and$81.62/acre in the 40-inch planting.

Sorghum yield of Dekalb DK54 in 20-inch and 40-inch spacings was significantlydifferent (Table 2). This is the second year in which DK54 did not show as muchresponse to the narrow row as did the A571 hybrid. This indicates that hybrids mightrespond differently to narrow row planting or some hybrids may be better suited to 20-inch planting. Net value over seed and harvesting/hauling costs averaged$115.50/acre in the 20-inch planting and $111.47/acre in the 40-inch planting.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to the Sorghum PROFIT InitiativeProject funded by the Texas Legislature and Texas Grain Sorghum ProducersAssociation for their support. Appreciation is expressed to Richard Raun for land,equipment, and labor. Brad Minton, Syngenta Company, is thanked for providingharvesting equipment.

Table 1. Grain production of Asgrow A571 hybrid sorghum grown on two rowspacings at three plant populations, Richard Raun Farm, Wharton County, TX, 2002.

Rowspacing

1000's/acre Yield

(lb/acre)Seed cost($/acre)

Net $ value over seed& harvest costsaSeeding rate Plants

20-inch 45 67.8 2778 b 7.95 107.33

75 88.7 3459 a 13.25 130.30

110 104.3 3463 a 19.43 124.28

40-inch 45 48.4 1738 c 7.95 64.17

75 70.0 2599 b 13.25 94.61

110 83.7 2542 b 19.43 86.07

LSD (P = 0.05) 306

P > F .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Seed was Concep and Gaucho treated ($2.12/lb) at a seed count of 12,000/lb.

Harvest and hauling costs were figured at $0.65/cwt. Sorghum value was basedon $4.80/cwt.

30

Table 2. Grain production of DK54 hybrid sorghum grown on two row spacings atthree plant populations, Richard Raun Farm, Wharton County, TX, 2002.

Rowspacing

1000's/acre Yield

(lb/acre)Seed cost($/acre)

Net $ value over seed& harvest costsaSeeding rate Plants

20-inch 45 78.3 2963 a 6.58 116.38

75 75.6 3363 a 10.96 128.81

110 109.6 2829 a 16.08 101.32

40-inch 45 48.4 2916 a 6.58 114.44

75 66.7 3051 a 10.96 115.66

110 85.0 2901 a 16.08 104.31

LSD (P = 0.05) NS

P > F .9398Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Seed was Concep and Gaucho treated ($2.12/lb) at a seed count of 14,000/lb.

Harvest and hauling costs were figured at $0.65/cwt. Sorghum value was basedon $4.80/cwt.

31

COMPARISON OF MIDGE DAMAGE RATES ON RESISTANT AND SUSCEPTIBLE SORGHUM HYBRIDS WITH AND

WITHOUT INSECTICIDE TREATMENTS

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, 2002

Roy D. ParkerExtension EntomologistCorpus Christi, Texas

SUMMARY: Significant reduction in midge damage was observed on the resistanthybrid regardless of insecticide treatment. Asana treatments significantly reduceddamage in the susceptible hybrid, but in this case, provided no additional benefit for themidge resistant hybrid. If sorghum must be planted so that it will be in bloom during themidge damage window, protection can be obtained with a midge resistant hybrid or byinsecticide treatment of the susceptible hybrid, but the midge resistant hybrid willprovide a greater level of protection.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment compared damage ratings on a sorghum midge resistantand susceptible hybrid treated 0, 2 or 3 times with Asana.

MATERIALS/METHODS: A8PR1013 x Tx2882 (midge resistant) and Pioneer 82G63(midge susceptible) sorghum hybrids with expected similar days to 50% flowering wereplanted on Apr 9, 2002 at the Meaney Annex of the Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation at Corpus Christi. A research plot cone planter set on 38-inch centers wasused to plant the 4-row wide by 40-ft long plots. Treatments were arranged in arandomized complete block design with 4 replications. Cotton had been planted on thesite the previous season. Atrazine 4L (1.0 qt/acre) was broadcast on Apr 10. Fertilizerapplied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11.

Asana XL 0.66EC (2.91 oz/acre) was applied to the center two rows of each plot with aself-propelled Lee Company Spider Trac Sprayer equipped with two, 4X hollow conenozzles/row in a total volume of 7.0 gpa at 40 psi and at a speed of 3.5 mph. Appropriate plots were treated Jun 14, 17, and 20.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting adult sorghum midge numbers on bloomingheads on 6/13, 6/17 and 6/20 and (2) estimating % midge damaged seeds in plots onJul 12. Yield data could not be obtained due to substantial stand problems in plots as aresult of severe drought conditions at and following planting.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Approximately 25% of the sorghum heads were blooming byJun 13 and adult sorghum midge numbered more than 60/head (Table 1). Posttreatment counts were made 3-days after Asana application. Heavy migration into plots

32

by 3 days post treatment probably account for the continued high numbers of sorghummidge, but as shown in Table 1, a relatively high degree of protection was obtained inthe susceptible hybrid (96% midge damage in the untreated susceptible hybridcompared with an average of 34% midge damaged grain on the insecticide treatedsusceptible hybrid). The midge resistant hybrid sustained significantly less midgedamage compared with the susceptible hybrid. Additionally, insecticide treatment didnot further reduce midge damage in the resistant hybrid.

On farms where sorghum is planted later than surrounding fields (3-4 weeks later), asorghum hybrid with midge resistance would be of benefit. Unfortunately, currentmidge resistant hybrids do not compete well with standard hybrids when sorghummidge numbers are low. However, as demonstrated in this experiment, a midgeresistant hybrid has increased benefit when midge numbers are high even wheninsecticide is applied. Commercial midge resistant sorghum hybrids do not exist, butcompanies could produce such hybrids in limited amounts for customer use where lateplanting occurs and sorghum midge attack is expected. It is my understanding thatsorghum seed could be held for several years and used as needed thus reducingcompany expense of having to produce midge resistant hybrid seed every year.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The Sorghum PROFIT initiative project funded by the TexasLegislature and promoted by the Texas Grain Sorghum Producers Association areacknowledged for their assistance. Dr. Gary Peterson, Research Scientist, TexasAgricultural Experiment Station, is thanked for providing the sorghum midge resistanthybrid seed. Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller, Demonstration Assistants, are thanked fortheir help in conducting the experiment.

33

Table 1. Evaluation of midge resistant and susceptible sorghum hybrids with andwithout insecticide, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Hybrid typeaInsecticidetreatmentsb

No. midge/head % midgedamagePretreat Avg post treatc

Midge resistant 0 66.3 a 56.7 a 13.8 c

2 60.0 a 50.8 a 10.2 c

3 62.5 a 49.2 a 14.6 c

Midge susceptible 0 67.5 a 58.8 a 96.0 a

2 62.5 a 53.3 a 35.4 b

3 67.5 a 54.2 a 32.5 b

LSD (P=0.05) 19.61 7.82 10.1

P > F .9423 .1551 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA(P = 0.05).a The experimental sorghum midge resistant hybrid was A8PR1013 x Tx2882, and

the midge susceptible hybrid was Pioneer 82G63.b Asana XL0.66EC (2.91 oz/acre) was applied the number of times indicated at 3-day

intervals.c Counts were high in all treatments since estimates were made 3 days after each

treatment.

34

INSECTICIDE SEED TREATMENTS AND AT-PLANTING APPLIEDGRANULAR INSECTICIDE ON SORGHUM



SUMMARY: Insect numbers and damage were low in this experiment. However, onApr 27 corn leaf aphids in plant whorls were significantly higher in Sorghum Guardplots compared to Gaucho, Cruiser, and LO263 treated sorghum. By May 19, moregreenbugs were observed in untreated and Sorghum Guard treated sorghum. Leafdamage ratings were not different for greenbug, but corn leaf aphid damage ratingswere significantly greater in Sorghum Guard treated plots. Differences were notobserved in lodged plants or grain yields. Drought conditions prevailed throughout thetesting period.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was designed to compare effectiveness of seed appliedand at-planting soil applied insecticides in reducing insect pests and improving yield.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Pioneer 84G62 hybrid sorghum was planted on Mar 4, 2002at 84,255 seed/acre at the Meaney Annex of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Stationat Corpus Christi. A 4-row research plot cone planter set on 38-inch centers was usedto plant the 4-row wide by 40-ft long plots. Treatments were arranged in a randomizedcomplete block design with 4 replications. Granular Counter was applied with electricdriven Gandy boxes. Cotton had been planted on the site the previous season. Theclay loam soil (43% sand, 21% silt and 36% clay) at 7.8 pH contained 0.9% organicmatter. Atrazine 4L (1.0 qt/acre) was broadcast on Mar 6. Fertilizer applied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11.

Treatments were assessed by (1) estimating corn leaf aphids/plant whorl on Apr 27, (2)counting greenbugs and yellow sugarcane aphids on 10 leaves per plot on Apr 27, (3)counting greenbugs on 20 leaves/plot, determining % infested leaves, and assigning adamage rating [1= no damage up to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and tissue death] onMay 19, and (4) estimating damage by corn leaf aphid [1 = no damage up to 5 = severeyellowing of leaves on May 19]. On the Jul 5 harvest date treatments were measuredby (1) counting the number of plants on 13.75 ft row in each plot, (2) estimating %lodged plants, (3) harvesting 13.75 ft row by hand in each plot, and (4) measuring grainmoisture content. Heads were thrashed on a research machine and grain weights wereconverted to the 14% moisture standard.

35

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Insect numbers and damage were low in this experimentalthough there were some statistically significant differences (Tables 1-3). Nodifferences were found in plant stands, greenbug or yellow sugarcane aphid numberson Apr 27 (Table 1), but significantly more corn leaf aphids were found in SorghumGuard plots compared to other treatments except for the Counter treatment. By theMay 19 inspection date, greenbug numbers, although light, were significantly higher onSorghum Guard and untreated sorghum compared with Gaucho, Cruiser, LO263(experimental) and Counter treated sorghum (Table 2). The percentage of greenbuginfested leaves was significantly lower in LO263 and Counter treated sorghumcompared to untreated sorghum. No differences were observed in the greenbugdamage rating on May 19. Corn leaf aphid damage rating was significantly higher inthe Sorghum Guard treatment on that date. At harvest no differences were found inlodging or grain yields (Table 3). Harvest grain moisture, for unknown reasons, waslower in the Sorghum Guard treatment.

Pest insect numbers and persistence of infestations were not great enough to affectyields. Even so, we did observe positive effects of the systemic insecticides ongreenbugs and corn leaf aphids.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Gustafson Company is acknowledged for support of the fieldstudy. The Sorghum PROFIT initiative along with Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, are thanked for their assistance.

Table 1. Comparison of insecticide seed treatments and at-planting applied granularinsecticide on sorghum plant stand and aphids, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(oz)a

Applicationmethoda

Plants(1000's/acre) CLAb GBb YSAb

Gaucho 480FS 8.0 ST 41.5 a 7.8 b 0 0

Cruiser 5FS 5.1 ST 32.0 a 10.0 b 0 0

LO263 5FL 5.1 ST 42.0 a 5.3 b 0 0

Sorghum Guard 5.3 ST 42.0 a 49.3 a 0 0

Counter 20CR 3.0 IFG 52.8 a 27.8 ab 0 0

Untreated 53.3 a 15.5 b 0 0

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 29.4 NS NS

P > F .3671 .0478 - -Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.

36

a Rates are in oz/cwt for seed treatments (ST) and oz/1000 row ft for in-furrowgranular applied Counter (IFG).

b CLA (corn leaf aphid) per whorl, GB (greenbug) and YSA (yellow sugarcane aphid)per 10 leaves on 4/27.

Table 2. Comparison of insecticide seed treatments and at-planting applied granularinsecticide on greenbug and corn leaf aphid, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(oz)a

Applicationmethoda

Greenbug (5/19)

Corn leaf aphidplant ratingc

No./20leaves

% infestedleaves

Damageratingb

Gaucho 480FS 8.0 ST 36.5 c 44 bc 1.5 a 2.3 b

Cruiser 5FS 5.1 ST 77.0 c 44 bc 2.3 a 2.3 b

L0263 5FL 5.1 ST 16.0 c 34 c 1.3 a 1.8 a

Sorghum Guard 5.3 ST 772.5 a 84 a 3.5 a 4.3 a

Counter 20CR 3.0 IFG 68.0 c 27 c 3.0 a 2.8 b

Untreated 339.0 b 74 ab 2.5 a 2.8 b

LSD (P = 0.05) 251.9 6.35 NS 1.32

P > F .0001 .0088 .1034 .0188Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Rates are in oz/cwt for seed treatments (ST) and oz/1000 row ft for in-furrow

granular applied Counter (IFG).b Damage ratings: 1 = no damage to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and tissue death.c Damage ratings: 1 = no damage to 5 = severe yellowing of leaves.

37

Table 3. Comparison of insecticide seed treatments and at-planting applied granularinsecticide on condition of plants at harvest and yield, Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation, Nueces County, TX 2002.

Treatment & formulationRate(oz)a

Applicationmethoda

% lodgedplants

% harvestmoisture

Yield(lb/acre)

Gaucho 480FS 8.0 ST 0.0 a 14.0 a 2821 a

Cruiser 5FS 5.1 ST 0.0 a 13.9 a 3261 a

L0263 5FL 5.1 ST 0.0 a 13.7 ab 2623 a

Sorghum Guard 5.3 ST 0.0 a 12.6 c 2349 a

Counter 20CR 3.0 IFG 0.3 a 12.9 bc 2973 a

Untreated 0.8 a 13.4 abc 2732 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 0.88 NS

P > F .4509 .0261 .6426Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Rates are expressed as oz/cwt for seed treatments (ST) and oz/1000 row ft for in-

furrow applied granules (IFG).

38

SEED AND SOIL APPLIED INSECTICIDE EVALUATIONON PIONEER 84G62 AND DEKALB DK52 SORGHUM HYBRIDS



SUMMARY: Insect numbers were low throughout the season on both hybrids. Countswere not made until the end of April simply because there were none detected; therewere no differences in corn leaf aphid counts and no corn leaf aphids or yellowsugarcane aphids were present at that time. In late May greenbug and corn leaf aphidnumbers increased, but infestations varied greatly within the same treatment resultingin few statistical differences. Generally fewer greenbugs and greenbug damage, orcorn leaf aphid damage were observed in plots receiving seed treatments. Nodifferences were found in plant stand, lodged plants or yield in either hybrid.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to compare systemic seed and granularinsecticides on two sorghum hybrids.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Pioneer 84G62 and Dekalb DK52 hybrid sorghum wasplanted on Mar 7, 2002 in 4-row wide by 40-ft long plots at 84,255 seed/acre at theMeaney Annex of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Corpus Christi. A 4-rowresearch plot cone planter set on 38-inch centers was used to plant the experiment. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Granular Counter was applied with electric driven Gandy boxes. Cotton had beenplanted on the site the previous season. The sandy clay loam soil (50% sand, 17% silt,and 33% clay) at 7.9 pH contained 1.0% organic matter. Atrazine 4L (1.0 qt/acre) wasbroadcast on Mar 8. Fertilizer applied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11.

Treatments were assessed by (1) estimating corn leaf aphids/plant whorl on Apr 27, (2)counting greenbugs and yellow sugarcane aphids on 20 leaves per plot on Apr 27, (3)counting greenbugs on 20 leaves/plot on May 20, (4) assigning a damage rating onMay 20 for greenbug [1 = no damage up to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and tissuedeath] and for corn leaf aphid [1 = no damage up to 5 = severe yellowing of leaves],and (4) counting the number of plants on 13.75 ft row, estimating % lodged plants, andharvesting 13.75 ft row by hand in each plot on Jul 5. Heads were thrashed on aresearch machine and grain weights were adjusted to 14% moisture.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Insect numbers remained low throughout the season anddrought conditions limited grain production. Several inspections were made in plotswithout recording data due to lack of insects. Recorded counts were made on Apr 27

39

for corn leaf aphids, but greenbugs and yellow sugarcane aphids were not found(Tables 1 and 2). By May 20, numerically more greenbugs were observed in untreatedand Counter treated sorghum, but statistical differences could not be measured due towide variation in numbers within a single treatment (Tables 3 and 4). However,differences were measured in the greenbug damage rating. Untreated and Countertreated sorghum had a significantly greater damage rating compared with all othertreatments. Corn leaf aphid damage ratings in Pioneer 84G62 were significantlygreater in untreated and Counter treated sorghum compared with other treatments. Additionally, Cruiser treated sorghum had a lower damage rating compared with thelower rate of A9765. Corn leaf aphid damage rating was not different in Dekalb DK52. No differences were found in either hybrid for plant population, lodging or yield (Tables5 and 6).

Sufficient pest insect numbers were not great enough at the test site to obtain a goodassessment of evaluated insecticides.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Syngenta Company is acknowledged for support of the fieldstudy. The Sorghum PROFIT initiative along with Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, are thanked for their help.

Table 1. Systemic insecticide applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow granule toPioneer 84G62 hybrid sorghum with subsequent aphid counts, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(grams)a

Applicationmethoda

April 27

CLAb GBb YSAb

Untreated 13.0 a 0 0

Gaucho 480FS 250 ST 10.0 a 0 0

Cruiser 5FS 200 ST 6.8 a 0 0

A9765 50 ST 5.5 a 0 0

A9765 100 ST 7.5 a 0 0

Counter 20G 175 IFG 1.5 a 0 0

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS

P > F .9113 - -Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Rates are in grams active ingredient/kg seed for seed treatments (ST) and grams

active ingredient/acre for in-furrow granular applied Counter (IFG).b CLA (corn leaf aphid) per whorl, and GB (greenbug) and YSA (yellow sugarcane

aphid) per 20 lower leaves.

40

Table 2. Systemic insecticide applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow granule toDekalb DK52 hybrid sorghum with subsequent aphid counts, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(grams)a

Applicationmethoda

April 27

CLAb GBb YSAb

Untreated 7.5 a 0 0

Gaucho 480FS 250 ST 16.5 a 0 0

Cruiser 5FS 200 ST 20.3 a 0 0

A9765 50 ST 25.3 a 0 0

A9765 100 ST 7.0 a 0 0

Counter 20G 175 IFG 26.5 a 0 0


P > F .4799 - -Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Rates are in grams active ingredient/kg seed for seed treatments (ST) and grams

active ingredient/acre for in-furrow granular applied Counter (IFG).b CLA (corn leaf aphid) per whorl, GB (greenbug) and YSA (yellow sugarcane aphid)

per 20 lower leaves.

41

Table 3. Systemic insecticide applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow granule toPioneer 84G62 hybrid sorghum with subsequent greenbug and corn leaf aphid counts,Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(grams)a

Applicationmethoda

Greenbug (5/20)

Corn leaf aphidplant damage ratec

No./20leaves

Damageratingb

Untreated 836.3 a 3.0 a 3.5 a

Gaucho 480FS 250 ST 0.0 a 1.0 b 1.3 bc

Cruiser 5FS 200 ST 1.5 a 1.0 b 1.0 c

A9765 50 ST 4.8 a 1.0 b 2.0 b

A9765 100 ST 82.5 a 1.3 b 1.5 bc

Counter 20G 175 IFG 1231.3 a 3.3 a 3.3 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 1.62 0.93

P > F .1481 .0169 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Rates are in grams active ingredient/kg seed for seed treatments (ST) and grams

active ingredient/acre for in-furrow granular applied Counter (IFG).b Damage ratings: 1 = no damage to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and tissue death.c Damage ratings: 1 = no damage to 5 = severe yellowing of leaves on 5/20.

42

Table 4. Systemic insecticide applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow granule toDekalb DK52 hybrid sorghum with subsequent greenbug and corn leaf aphid counts,Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(grams)a

Applicationmethoda

Greenbug (5/20)

Corn leaf aphidplant damage ratec

No./20leaves

Damageratingb

Untreated 687.5 a 3.8 a 3.8 a

Gaucho 480FS 250 ST 39.3 a 1.0 b 1.8 a

Cruiser 5FS 200 ST 143.0 a 1.3 b 2.0 a

A9765 50 ST 27.0 a 1.8 b 3.0 a

A9765 100 ST 169.5 a 1.3 b 2.5 a

Counter 20G 175 IFG 541.8 a 3.0 a 3.8 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 1.19 NS


active ingredient/acre for in-furrow granular applied Counter (IFG).b Damage ratings: 1 = no damage to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and tissue death.c Damage ratings: 1 = no damage to 5 = severe yellowing of leaves on 5/20.

43

Table 5. Systemic insecticide applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow granule toPioneer 84G62 hybrid sorghum with subsequent plant stand, lodging and grain yield,Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(grams)a

Applicationmethoda

Plants(1000's/acre)

% lodgedplants

Yield(lb/acre)


Gaucho 480FS 250 ST 74.5 a 14.5 a 1718 a

Cruiser 5FS 200 ST 67.5 a 10.5 a 1632 a

A9765 50 ST 80.3 a 7.5 a 1458 a

A9765 100 ST 81.3 a 9.8 a 1701 a

Counter 20G 175 IFG 67.0 a 11.3 a 1401 a



active ingredient/acre for in-furrow granular applied Counter (IFG).

44

Table 6. Systemic insecticide applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow granule toDekalb DK52 hybrid sorghum with subsequent plant stand, lodging and grain yield,Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(grams) a

Applicationmethoda

Plants(1000's/acre)

% lodgedplants

Yield(lb/acre)


Gaucho 480FS 250 ST 79.3 a 5.0 a 1987 a

Cruiser 5FS 200 ST 76.5 a 4.3 a 2313 a

A9765 50 ST 70.3 a 3.3 a 2275 a

A9765 100 ST 92.5 a 5.0 a 1888 a

Counter 20G 175 IFG 60.5 a 7.3 a 1633 a



active ingredient/acre for in-furrow granular applied Counter (IFG).

45

COMPARISON OF GAUCHO, CRUISER, AND SORGHUMGUARD INSECTICIDE SEED TREATMENTS ON SORGHUM

Darby and Howard Salge Farm, San Patricio County, 2002

Roy D. Parker and Jeffrey R. StapperExtension Entomologist and County Extension Agent, respectively

Corpus Christi and Sinton, Texas

SUMMARY: Greenbug and corn leaf aphid damage was significantly lower in theGaucho and Cruiser treatments compared with the Sorghum Guard treatment anduntreated sorghum. Adequate plant stands were not obtained in the field study due tovery dry conditions; therefore, the experiment was terminated following the aphiddamage rating obtained on Apr 27.

OBJECTIVE: The field study was established to compare effectiveness of Gaucho,Cruiser, and Sorghum Guard insecticide seed treatments on sorghum insect pests.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Pioneer 84G62 hybrid sorghum (Concep III treated) wasplanted on March 18, 2002 at 70,000 seed/acre on the Salge Farm approximately 1mile west of Mathis between FM 1068 and Highway 359 with a 12-row John DeereMaxEmerge II 7300 model vacumeter planter. Plots were 6 rows wide by 2,980 ft longon a row spacing of 30-inches. Treatments were arranged in a randomized completeblock design with 3 replications. Soil moisture at planting was so limited that seed was“dry planted”. The soil temperature at-planting was 66°F. The clay soil (25% sand,32% silt, and 43% clay) contained 1.3% organic matter with a 7.8 pH. Sorghum hadbeen planted on the site the previous season. Fertilizer applied was 50-10-0.

Treatment effects were measured by assessing a damage rating for greenbug (1= nodamage up to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and tissue death) and for corn leaf aphid (1= no damage up to 5 = severe yellowing of leaves).

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: About one month after planting approximately 0.3 inches ofrainfall resulted in adequate stand, but no additional rainfall was received for a longperiod. Many of these plants died. On May 27 an assessment of damage by greenbugand corn leaf aphid was made (Table 1). Significantly less damage by both aphidspecies occurred in Gaucho and Cruiser treated sorghum compared with the SorghumGuard and untreated sorghum. Additional data was not obtained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The assistance, labor, and equipment provided by Darby andHoward Salge were appreciated.

46

Table 1. Comparison on sorghum of insecticide seed treatments on greenbug andcorn leaf aphid damage ratings, Darby and Howard Salge Farm, San Patricio County,TX, 2002.


Rate(oz/cwt seed)

Plant damage ratings

Greenbuga Corn leaf aphidb

Gaucho 480FS 8.0 1.17 b 1.17 c

Cruiser 5FS 5.1 1.00 b 1.17 c

Sorghum Guard 5.3 2.17 a 2.50 b

Untreated 2.33 a 3.50 a

LSD (P=0.05) .552 .927

P > F .0020 .0021Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Damage ratings range from 1 = no damage to 5 = severe leaf discoloration and

tissue death.b Damage ratings range from 1 = no damage to 5 = severe yellowing of leaves.

47

COMPARISON OF CRUISER AND TEMIK ON FIBERMAX 832 COTTON

Jon Prince Farm and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, 2002

Roy D. Parker, Harvey L. Buehring, and Michael W. PotterExtension Entomologist, County Extension Agent, and Demonstration Assistant,

respectivelyCorpus Christi and Robstown, Texas

SUMMARY: Granular in-furrow applied Temik, Cruiser seed treatment, and untreatedcotton were compared on FM 832 variety cotton. FiberMax 832 seed from the samesource was planted at 2 locations. Arthropod numbers were relatively low and fewstatistical differences were observed in thrips, aphid, or mite numbers. More miteswere generally observed in Cruiser treated cotton at both locations. Statisticaldifferences were not observed in production factors at either location. It may benoteworthy that, numerically, more lint was produced in Temik and Cruiser treatedcotton by both hand and machine harvest on the Prince Farm. The numerical increaseat the Prince Farm location equaled our long term finding of 50-60 lb/acre lint increasewith at-planting insecticide treatments.

OBJECTIVE: The experiments were conducted to compare the response of FiberMax832 variety cotton to Temik and Cruiser systemic insecticides.

MATERIALS/METHODS: FiberMax 832 variety cotton seed from the same source wasplanted on the Jon Prince Farm Mar 28 and at the Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation Meany Annex on Mar 21.

Test 1, Jon Prince Farm. The Experiment was planted with a 12-row Kinse model3600 planter, but only the outside 4 rows on each side of the planter were used for thefield study. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3replications of each treatment. Temik 15G (4 oz/1000 row ft) and Cruiser 5FS (7.6oz/cwt seed), and untreated cotton were planted in 4-row wide by 1,089 ft long plots. Rows were spaced on 30-inch centers. Corn had been grown on the site during theprevious season. The clay loam soil (21% sand, 40% silt, and 39% clay) contained1.2% organic matter with an 8.1 pH. Soil moisture at the surface on the planting datewas limited, and soil temperature was 77°F. Fertilizer applied was 250 lb/acre of 24-8-0-2S-2 Zn. Herbicide consisted of Prowl 3.3 EC (2.0 qt/acre).

Test 2, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The experiment was planted with aresearch cone planter set on 38-inch centers, and each plot was 4 rows wide by 40-ftlong. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4replications. Treatments consisted of Temik 15G (4.0 oz/1000 row ft) applied throughGandy electric driven boxes into the seed furrow, Cruiser 5FS (7.6 oz/cwt seed), anduntreated cotton. Cotton had been planted on the site during the past 2 seasons (lackof rotation and drought severely limited crop production potential). The clay loam soil

48

(43% sand, 21% silt, and 36% clay) at 7.8 pH contained 0.9% organic matter. Herbicide consisted of Treflan 4 lb/gal (1.0 qt/acre) applied Jan 7 and incorporated 2times. Cotton-Pro 4 lb/gal (1.5 pints/acre) and Dual Magnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25pints/acre) were applied Mar 26. Fertilizer applied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11.

Data Collection. Five plants were obtained from the center rows in each plot at the 4-leaf stage (27 DAP on Apr 24) and 5-leaf stage (32 DAP on Apr 29) at the Prince Farmand at the 4-leaf stage (28 DAP on Apr 18) and 6-leaf stage (36 DAP on Apr 26) at theExperiment Station. These plants were placed in 70% ethyl alcohol for futureexamination for thrips, aphids, and mites. Plants were washed, liquid was filtered, andarthropods were counted under a microscope. Cotton was harvested on the PrinceFarm by hand (Aug 12) and machine stripper (Aug 17). Hand harvest consisted of 3locations in the center rows of plots (17.4 ft/site). Numbers of plants, green bolls andharvested bolls were counted. Seed cotton was processed on a 10-saw Eaglelaboratory gin. Entire plots were harvested on the Prince Farm with a commercialstripper and weighed on an electronic scale. Seed cotton samples were obtained andginned as above for lint percentage to calculate lint yield. Cotton was hand picked atthe Experiment Station site on August 3 from 13.75 ft row in each plot. Seed cottonwas processed as described above. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Arthropod infestations at both locations were relatively light,with none exceeding established treatment thresholds (Tables 1 - 2). On the PrinceFarm, there was a strong trend for fewer thrips on both inspection dates (27 and 32DAP) in Cruiser and Temik treated cotton. Aphid numbers were variable and greaternumbers of mites with significantly more in the Cruiser treatment (32 DAP) wereobserved on the Prince Farm. At the Experiment Station site (Table 2), significantlyfewer thrips were observed in the Cruiser treatment 28 DAP, but by 36 DAP thedifferences were not apparent. Overall, more mites were observed in Cruiser treatedcotton at both locations, but only one time (Prince Farm 32 DAP) were thesedifferences statistically significant.

Statistical differences were not found in cotton production factors measured at eitherlocation (Tables 3 -4). It is interesting to note that, with one exception, yields werenumerically greater in Cruiser and Temik treated cotton (41 lb/acre average). Giventhe low infestation levels and lack of statistical difference, we must conclude that noclear cut case could be made for or against the use of the planting time insecticides.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Jon Prince for his interest, time, landand labor in conducting the experiment. We also appreciate the help of Rudy Alanizand Mike Hiller, Demonstration Assistants in conducting these studies.

49

Table 1. Systemic insecticide effects on early season arthropods on cotton, JonPrince Farm, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Insecticide(rate)

Plants(1000's/acre)

Number/5 plants on indicated days after plantinga

Thrips Aphids Mites

27 32 27 32 27 32

Temik 15G(4.0 oz/1000 ft)

44.8 a 0.3 a 1.7 a 0.7 a 5.0 a 0.7 a 0.7 b

Cruiser 5FS(7.6 oz/cwt seed)

49.2 a 0.0 a 4.3 a 0.0 a 12.0 a 5.7 a 10.3 a

Untreated 41.4 a 9.0 a 13.7 a 7.0 a 11.7 a 3.0 a 1.0 b

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS 6.54

P > F .1188 .1605 .0880 .1835 .4086 .2380 .0243Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant growth stage 4/24 = 4-leaf and 4/29 = 5-leaf or 27 and 32 days after planting,

respectively.

Table 2. Systemic insecticide effects on early season arthropods on cotton, TexasAgricultural Experiment Station, Meaney Annex, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Insecticide(rate)

Plants(1000's/acre)


Thrips Aphids Mites

28 36 28 36 28 36


34 a 15.5 a 21.5 a 1.5 a 9.3 a 53 a 5 a


38 a 5.0 b 15.3 a 5.0 a 2.0 a 80 a 278 a

Untreated 39 a 18.8 a 20.8 a 10.5 a 16.3 a 110 a 188 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 8.22 NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .7101 .0151 .2787 .0656 .3889 .2157 .0602Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant growth stage 4/18 = 4-leaf and 4/26 = 6-leaf or 28 and 36 days after planting,

respectively.

50

Table 3. Production from Temik and Cruiser treated cotton, Jon Prince Farm, NuecesCounty, TX, 2002.

Insecticide (rate)

1000's/acreBolls/lint lb

Yield (lb lint/acre)

Green bolls Harvested bolls Hand pick Stripper


7.8 a 261 a 226 a 1154 a 958 a

Cruiser 5FS(7.6 oz/cwtseed)

4.2 a 252 a 224 a 1126 a 924 a

Untreated 5.6 a 237 a 224 a 1058 a 913 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .0776 .1230 .7880 .1697 .5834Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.

Table 4. Production from Temik and Cruiser treated cotton, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Meaney Annex, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Insecticide (rate)


Yield (lblint/acre)Green bolls Harvested bolls


1.8 a 475 a 268 a 475 a


1.3 a 516 a 262 a 516 a

Untreated 2.8 a 482 a 264 a 482 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS

P > F .4366 .5005 .8533 .5005Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.

51

USE OF CRUISER, GAUCHO AND TEMIK ON COTTON

John Barrett Farm, San Patricio County, 2002

Roy D. Parker and Jeffrey R. StapperExtension Entomologist and County Extension Agent, respectively

Corpus Christi and Sinton, Texas

SUMMARY: Cruiser and Gaucho were applied to cotton seed prior to planting andTemik was placed into the seed furrow at planting. Temik treated cotton containedsignificantly fewer thrips compared to the other treatments 41 days after planting(DAP). There was also a numerical trend for fewer aphids and mites in Temik treatedcotton 31 DAP. Visual plant damage ratings were improved by all insecticides 41 DAP,but by 57 DAP, only Temik treated cotton had a statistically lower plant damage rating. The cotton sustained heavy hail damage and essentially had to regrow. None of theproduction factors were statistically significant, although lower insect infestationappeared to be reflected by increased lint production in Cruiser and Temik treatedcotton.

OBJECTIVE: The field experiment was established to evaluate effects of Cruiser,Gaucho, and Temik systemic insecticides on early season insect levels and lintproduction.

MATERIALS/METHODS: DPL 33B variety cotton at 13.6 lb seed/acre was planted onMarch 18, 2002 on the John Barrett Farm on the east side of Interstate Highway 37 atCounty Road 19, north of Edroy, Texas. The experiment was planted with a JohnDeere 7300 8-row planter. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete blockdesign with 3 replications of each treatment (Temik in-furrow and the seed treatmentsCruiser, Gaucho, and untreated cotton) in 4-row wide by approximately 1000 ft longplots. Rows were spaced on 38-inch centers. Sorghum had been grown on the siteduring the previous season. The Victoria clay soil (39% sand, 16% silt and 45% clay)contained 1% organic matter with an 8.2 pH. Soil moisture at planting was good, andsoil temperature was 66°F at the 4-inch depth. Fertilizer applied was 300 lb/acre of 24-8-0. Herbicide consisted of Trilin 4EC (1.5 pt/acre).

Treatment were assessed by taking 5 plants from the 2 center rows in each plot on Apr18 (31 DAP) and again on Apr 28 (41 DAP) to determine the number of thrips, aphids,and mites. Plants were placed in ethyl alcohol, washed, filtered, and insects werecounted on filter paper under a microscope. Thrips nymph and adult counts were keptseparate, but only total thrips numbers are reported. A visual damage rating (1 = nodamage up to 5 = severe stunting and leaf curling) was assigned to all plots on Apr 28(41 DAP) and again on May 14 (57 DAP). Cotton was harvested by hand from 3locations in the center rows of plot (13.75 ft row/location) on Aug 19. The number ofplants in the harvest area, green bolls, and harvested bolls were also counted. Seedcotton was processed on a 10-saw Eagle laboratory gin.

52

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Fewer numbers of Thrips were found in Temik treated cotton(numerically) 31 DAP and (statistically) 41 DAP (Table 1). All insecticide treated cottonhad a lower damage rating than untreated cotton 41 DAP, but by 57 DAP only Temiktreated cotton had statistically a lower plant damage rating. No differences wereobserved in plant stands. Although few statistical differences occurred in aphid andmite numbers 31 and 41 DAP, there was a general trend for fewer of both arthropods inTemik treated plots (Table 2). The number of thrips, aphids, and mites observed duringthe study is considered low for the stage of plant growth examined. After a severe hailstorm, cotton plants essentially had to initiate new fruit. Despite not showing statisticaldifferences in production factors (Table 3), arthropod infestation seemed to benumerically reflected by increased lint production in Cruiser and Temik treated cotton.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank John Barrett for providing support, land andequipment for conduct of this field study. Thanks are also extended to Gustafson fortreating the seed and supporting this work. Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller, DemonstrationAssistants are acknowledged for their assistance.

53

Table 1. Plant stand, thrips numbers, and damage ratings on cotton treated withseed and soil applied systemic insecticides, John Barrett Farm, San Patricio County,TX, 2002.

Treatment(rate)

Plants(1000's/acre)

Thrips/5 plants Plant damage ratinga

31 DAPb 41 DAP 41 DAP 57 DAP

Temik 15G(4.0 oz/1000 row ft)

28.8 a 2.7 a 6.0 b 1.33b 1.00 b

Gaucho 600FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed)

25.6 a 12.7 a 36.3 a 2.00 b 2.33 a


25.7 a 10.7 a 37.7 a 2.33 b 3.00 a

Untreated 25.4 a 15.00 a 36.0 a 3.67 a 2.33 a

LSD (P=0.05) NS NS 14.89 1.104 1.201

P > F .7285 .0983 .0052 .0109 .0326Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Damage ratings range from: 1 = no damage up to 5 = severe stunting and leaf

curling.b DAP = days after planting. Cotton was in the 4 leaf stage 31 DAP, 5-6 leaf stage 41

DAP and 1/3-grown square 57 DAP.

54

Table 2. Aphid and mite number on cotton treated with seed and soil appliedsystemic insecticides, John Barrett Farm, San Patricio County, TX, 2002.

Treatment(rate)

Number per 5 plants

31 DAP 41 DAP

Aphids Mites Aphids Mites


5.0 a 2 c 7 a 9 a


15.0 a 306 a 136 a 115 a


5.3 a 47 bc 18 a 125 a

Untreated 18.3 a 168 b 224 a 37 a

LSD (P=0.05) NS 126.8 NS NS


Table 3. Boll and lint production on cotton treated with seed and soil appliedsystemic insecticides, John Barrett Farm, San Patricio County, TX, 2002.

Treatment(rate)

Bolls (1000's/acre)

Bolls/lint lbYield

(lb/acre)Green Harvested


41 a 270 a 281 a 962 a


51 a 241 a 275 a 876 a


49 a 260 a 273 a 955 a

Untreated 45 a 246 a 277 a 891 a

LSD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS


55

EFFECT OF AT-PLANTING SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES ON EARLY SEASONARTHROPOD PESTS AND COTTON YIELD

Arthur Mahalitc and Sons Farm, Colorado County, 2002

Roy D. Parker, Dan D. Fromme, and Benard MitchellExtension Entomologist, Extension Agent-IPM,

and County Extension Agent, respectivelyCorpus Christi, Wharton, and Columbus, Texas

SUMMARY: Temik, Cruiser, and Gaucho were compared on cotton for effect on earlyseason arthropod pests. Insecticides were effective in reducing thrips numbers 21 and31 days after planting (DAP). Significantly greater numbers of thrips were observed inuntreated cotton, but their numbers were just at or below the economic treatmentthreshold. There were no differences in aphid and mite numbers, and these arthropodsoccurred in very low numbers. Likewise statistical differences were not found in plantstand, green bolls remaining on plants at harvest, harvested bolls, or lint production.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was established on cotton to compare Temik, Cruiser,and Gaucho for effect on arthropods and cotton production.

MATERIALS/METHODS: DPL 20B variety cotton at 11.0 lb seed/acre (3.5 seed/row ft)was planted on Mar 27, 2002 on the Mahalitc Farm south of Eagle Lake. The cottonseed was planted with an 8-row John Deere model 7300 vacumeter planter. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications ofeach treatment (granular Temik applied into the seed furrow, the seed treatmentsCruiser and Gaucho, and untreated cotton) in 8-row wide by 1361 ft long plots. Rowswere spaced on 36-inch centers. Cotton had been grown on the site during theprevious season. The silty clay soil (3% sand, 54% silt, and 43% clay) contained 1.2%organic matter with an 8.0 pH. Soil moisture at planting was good, and the soiltemperature was 62°F at the 4-inch depth. Fertilizer applied was 2000 lb/acre of Hou-Actinite (6-3-0+2% iron). Herbicide was Dual II Magnum 7.64 lb AI (0.66 pints/acre) +Caparol 4L (1.0 pints/acre) in an 18-inch band at planting. Terrachlor Super X wasapplied at 1.0 quart/acre.

Treatment effects were measured by (1) taking 5 plants from the 2 center rows in eachplot on Apr 17 [21 DAP] and on Apr 27 [31 DAP] to determine the number of thrips,aphids, and mites [plants were placed in ethyl alcohol, washed, filtered, and insectswere counted on filter paper under a microscope], (2) harvesting by hand 14.5 ft rowfrom each of 3 locations in the center rows of each plot on Aug 6, (3) counting thenumber of plants, green bolls, and open bolls in the harvest area, and (4) ginning seedcotton on a 10-saw Eagle laboratory machine to determine lint yield.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Thrips numbers were significantly greater on both inspectiondates (21 and 31 DAP) in untreated cotton compared with the insecticide treatments

56

(Table 1). Very small nymphs accounted for 78% of these thrips which probablyaccounts for the lack of yield impact (Table 2). Thrips and aphid numbers were just ator below the economic threshold (1 per true leaf). Aphid and mite numbers were verylow on both inspection dates. No differences were detected in plant stands orproduction numbers (Table 2). Numerically, there were more green bolls remaining onplants at harvest in all the insecticide treatments, although the total of harvested +green bolls were almost the same in all treatments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We appreciate the Mahalitc family for their continued support,labor, and equipment in conducting these type field studies. Syngenta, Gustafson and Bayer CropScience are acknowledged for their support. A special thanks is given JimBosch, Technical Service Agronomist, Delta and Pine Land Company, for his help withharvest.

Table 1. Thrips, aphid, and mite numbers in cotton treated with at-planting systemicinsecticides, Arthur Mahalitc and Sons Farm, Colorado County, TX, 2002.

Insecticide(rate)

Number/5 plants

Thrips Aphids Mites

21 DAPa 31 DAP 21 DAP 31 DAP 21 DAP 31 DAP


0.00 b 1.00 b 0.00 a 1.33 a 0.00 a 0.0 a


0.00 b 1.00 b 0.00 a 1.33 a 0.00 a 8.3 a


0.33 b 1.67 b 0.67 a 0.33 a 0.00 a 0.0 a

Untreated 12.00 a 21.67 a 1.67 a 1.00 a 0.67 a 6.0 a

LSD (P=0.05) 4.04 6.48 NS NS NS NS

P > F .0008 .0005 .3814 .7448 .0701 .2178Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a DAP = days after planting; 21 DAP = 2 true leaf stage and 31 DAP = 4 - 5 true leaf

stage

57

Table 2. Plant stand, boll production and yield of cotton treated with at-plantingsystemic insecticides, Arthur Mahalitc and Sons Farm, Colorado County, TX, 2002.

Insecticide(rate)

Damage ratinga 1000's per acre Yieldlb

lint/acre4/17 4/27 PlantsGreenbollsb

Harvestedbolls


1.83 a 1.67 a 32.3 a 33.4 a 229 a 945 a


1.67 a 1.67 a 28.8 a 34.4 a 237 a 979 a

Gaucho 600FS(6.4 oz/cwtseed)

1.42 a 1.67 a 31.2 a 30.1 a 229 a 949 a

Untreated 2.00 a 2.33 a 29.1 a 25.9 a 236 a 988 a

LSD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .0814 .1788 .5033 .3731 .8730 .7769Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Damaging ratings: 1 = no damage up to 5 = severe stunting and leaf curling on 2

leaf and 4 - 5 leaf cotton on Apr 17 and 27, respectively.b Number of green bolls on plants on the harvest date.

58

IMPACT OF TERRACHLOR SUPER X ON COTTON

Arthur Mahalitc and Sons Farm, Colorado County, 2002

Roy D. Parker, Dan D. Fromme, and Benard MitchellExtension Entomologist, Extension Agent-IPM,

and County Extension Agent, respectivelyCorpus Christi, Wharton, and Columbus, Texas

SUMMARY: Terrachlor Super X (1.0 qt/acre) applied into the seed furrow at-plantinghad no statistical effect on plant stand or plant vigor rating; however, there was anumerical reduction in plant stand in untreated cotton. There was also no statisticaleffect on seed cotton, percentage lint (turn-out), or lint production.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to determine economic impact of usingTerrachlor on cotton.

MATERIALS/METHODS: DPL 20B variety cotton at 11.0 lb seed/acre (3.5 seed/row ft)was planted on Mar 27, 2002 on the Mahalitc Farm south of Eagle Lake. The cottonseed was planted with an 8-row John Deere model 7300 vacumeter planter. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications ofeach treatment (Terrachlor Super X was applied at 1.0 quart/acre) in 8-row wide by1361 ft long plots. Rows were spaced on 36-inch centers. Cotton had been grown onthe site during the previous season. The silty clay soil (3% sand, 54% silt, and 43%clay) contained 1.2% organic matter with an 8.0 pH. Soil moisture at planting wasgood, and the soil temperature was 62°F at the 4-inch depth. Fertilizer applied was2000 lb/acre of Hou-Actinite (6-3-0+2% iron). Herbicide was Dual II Magnum 7.64 lb AI(0.66 pints/acre) + Caparol 4L (1.0 pints/acre) in an 18-inch band at planting. Temik15G was applied at 3.2 lb/acre. Rainfall of more than 5 inches fell within 1 week ofplanting.

Treatment effects were measured by (1) counting plants on 14.5 ft row in each of thefirst 4 rows in each plot on Apr 12, 17, 23, and May 2 [16, 21, 27, and 36 days afterplanting, respectively], (2) making visual plant vigor ratings [1 = excellent uniformgrowth up to 5 = unthrifty, uneven growth and dead plants] on the same dates plantstand counts were made, and (3) harvesting entire plots with a spindle picker on Aug 6and weighing seed cotton on electronic scales. Seed cotton samples were obtainedand ginned on a 10-saw Eagle laboratory machine to determine percentage lint.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Terrachlor had no statistical effect on plant stands or plantvigor ratings (Table 1). However, there was a numerical trend on each inspection datefor lower plant stand counts in the untreated cotton. It appeared to us that there wassome protection of plant stand with Terrachlor, even if it could not be shownstatistically. Likewise, statistical differences were not found in plant stand, green bollsremaining on plants at harvest, harvested bolls, or lint production (Table 2). Terrachlor

59

treated cotton had higher yields than the untreated cotton, but only in one replicationwas it relatively high (76, 20, and 14 lb/acre in the 3 replications).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank the Mahalitc family for continued support, labor,interest, and equipment in conducting these type field studies and their willingness toshow area farmers the plots. We especially acknowledge Jim Bosch, TechnicalService Agronomist, Delta and Pine Land Company, for his help with harvest.

Table 1. Plant stand and plant vigor rating in cotton treated with Terrachlor Super X,Arthur Mahalitc and Sons Farm, Colorado County, TX, 2002.

Treatment

Plants (1000's/acre)a Plant vigor ratinga, b

4/12 4/17 4/23 5/2 4/12 4/17 4/23 5/2

Terrachlor(1.0 qt/acre)

36.8 a 37.0 a 39.2 a 38.7 a 2.0 a 1.7 a 1.2 a 1.3 a

Untreated 34.6 a 34.6 a 33.7 a 35.3 a 2.0 a 1.8 a 1.2 a 1.3 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .5067 .2060 .3259 .5085 1.000 .4226 1.000 1.000Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant stand counts and vigor ratings were made 16, 21, 27, and 36 days after

planting or Apr 12, 17, and 23, respectively.b Vigor ratings were: 1 = excellent uniform growth up to 5 = unthrifty, uneven growth

and dead plants.

Table 2. Production in cotton treated with Terrachlor Super X, Arthur Mahalitc andSons Farm, Colorado County, TX, 2002.

TreatmentSeed cotton

lb/acreTurn-out

%Yield lblint/acre

Terrachlor(1.0 qt/acre)

2104 a 43.22 a 909 a

Untreated 2042 a 42.75 a 873 a


P > F .2556 .1713 .2044Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.

60

USE OF AT-PLANTING SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDESON DPL 33B VARIETY COTTON



SUMMARY: No differences were observed in pest arthropods or production of DPL33B cotton treated with various at-planting systemic insecticides. Low numbers of pestarthropods contributed to lack of statistical separation in these data.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was designed to evaluate the effect of systemicinsecticides on thrips, aphids, and mites in DPL 33B (transgenic B.t.) variety cotton.

MATERIALS/METHODS: DPL 33B (transgenic B.t.) variety cotton was planted on Mar21 with a research cone planter in 4-row wide by 40-ft long plots with rows on 38-inchcenters. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4replications. Treatments consisted of Cruiser 5FS (7.6 oz/cwt seed), Gaucho 600FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed), Temik 15G (4.0 oz/1000 row ft), Admire 2F (6.4 oz/acre), andclothianidin 600FS (6.4 oz/cwt seed). The Temik was applied into the seed furrowusing electric driven Gandy boxes. Admire 2F (6.4 oz/acre) was applied into the seedfurrow with CO2 pressurized equipment in a total volume of 7 gpa. Cotton had beenplanted on the site during the past two seasons. The clay loam soil (43% sand, 21%silt, and 36% clay) at pH 7.8 contained 0.9% organic matter. Herbicide consisted ofTreflan 4 lb/gal (1.0 qt/acre) applied Jan 7 and incorporated 2 times. Cotton-Pro 4lb/gal (1.5 pints/acre) and Dual Magnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25 pints/acre) were applied Mar26. Fertilizer applied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11. All test cotton was treated May 14 withBidrin 8E (8.0 oz/acre) and with Malathion ULV (12.0 oz/acre) by the Texas Boll WeevilEradication Foundation on May 7, Jun 27, and Jul 20.

Five plants were obtained from rows in each plot at the 2 and 4 true leaf stages on Apr18 and 27, respectively. Plants were placed in 70% ethyl alcohol for future examinationfor thrips, aphids and mites. These plants were washed, the liquid was filtered, andarthropods were counted under a microscope. Two rows in each plot were harvestedon Aug 8 with a 2-row John Deere 9900 model spindle picker. Seed cotton wasweighed, and a sample was obtained for ginning on a 10-saw Eagle laboratorymachine. Lint samples were sent to the International Textile Center, Lubbock, Texas,for fiber analysis.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Differences were not found in thrips, aphid, or mite numberson cotton plants 28 or 37 days after planting (DAP) (Table 1). Except for thrips in theTemik and untreated cotton 28 DAP, none of the arthropod counts exceeded theeconomic threshold level. On that date, thrips counts in these treatments were

61

2.16/plant, only slightly exceeding the economic threshold. Although yield dataappeared to be excellent (Table 2), low plant stands in rows adjacent to the twoharvested in each plot allowed greater production due to lack of significant plantcompetition for water. Differences were not observed in fiber characteristics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The assistance provided by Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, is acknowledged. Thanks are extended to the Texas Foodand Fiber Commission for payment of fiber analysis costs.

Table 1. Impact of systemic insecticides applied to DPL33B cotton on thrips, aphids,and mites, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Meaney Annex, Nueces County, TX,2002.

Insecticide(rate)

Number per 5 plants on indicated days after plantinga

Thrips Aphids Mites

28 37 28 37 28 37


10.8 a 15.0 a 46.0 a 12.5 a 22.5 a 2.5 a

Gaucho 600 FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed)

6.5 a 10.0 a 8.0 a 8.5 a 28.5 a 19.3 a


5.5 a 12.5 a 6.3 a 5.5 a 24.8 a 17.8 a

Clothianidin 600FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed)

6.3 a 17.3 a 3.0 a 20.0 a 41.0 a 13.5 a

Admire 2F(6.4 oz/acre)

9.8 a 17.0 a 10.3 a 14.8 a 8.3 a 0.0 a


LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .5774 .5590 .0880 .4538 .4129 .0525Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant growth stage at 28 days after planting was 2-leaf and 37 days after planting it

was 4-leaf (Apr 18 and 27, respectively).

62

Table 2. Production of DPL 33B variety cotton treated with systemic insecticides,Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Meaney Annex, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Treatment(rate)

Lint(lb/acre)

Fiber characteristics

Mic Lgth Ur St Elong


681 a 5.1 a 1.08 a 83.7 a 30.0 a 5.2 a


636 a 5.1 a 1.09 a 84.4 a 29.8 a 5.0 a


814 a 4.9 a 1.08 a 83.3 a 30.0 a 5.2 a

Clothianidin 600FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed)

636 a 4.8 a 1.10 a 83.3 a 30.6 a 5.3 a

Admire 2F(6.4 oz/acre)

688 a 4.9 a 1.07 a 83.3 a 29.7 a 5.2 a

Untreated 748 a 4.9 a 1.09 a 83.7 a 30.6 a 5.3 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .2888 .2265 .8257 .3311 .9168 .6073Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.

63

COMPARISON OF SYSTEMIC SEED APPLIED INSECTICIDES ANDGRANULAR TEMIK ON PHYTOGEN 355 VARIETY COTTON



SUMMARY: Cruiser and Gaucho treated seed were compared with 3 rates of Temik oncotton for effect on early season arthropods. The Cruiser and Gaucho treated cottoncontained significantly fewer thrips 27 days after planting (DAP) compared withuntreated cotton; by 36 DAP differences in thrips numbers were not found. Allinsecticide treated cotton had fewer aphids 27 DAP. Thrips and aphid numbers werenot at economically damaging levels in any treatment. Significantly more mites werefound in the Cruiser and Gaucho treated cotton compared to Temik and untreatedcotton 27 DAP. Again numbers were not considered high. No differences wereobserved in cotton production.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to compare systemic insecticides foreffect on early season arthropods and cotton production.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Phytogen 355 variety cotton was planted on Mar 21 with aresearch cone planter in 4-row wide by 40-ft long plots with rows on 38-inch centers. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Treatments consisted of Cruiser 5FS (7.6 oz/cwt seed), Gaucho 600FS (6.4 oz/cwtseed), and Temik 15G (3.5, 4.0 and 5.8 oz/1000 row ft). The Temik was applied intothe seed furrow using electric driven Gandy boxes. Cotton had been planted on thesite during the past two seasons. Lack of rotation and drought conditions severelylimited crop potential. The clay loam soil (43% sand, 21% silt, and 36% clay) at pH 7.8contained 0.9% organic matter. Herbicide consisted of Treflan 4 lb/gal (1.0 qt/acre)applied Jan 7 and incorporated 2 times. Cotton-Pro 4 lb/gal (1.5 pints/acre) and DualMagnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25 pints/acre) were applied Mar 26. Fertilizer applied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11. All test cotton was treated May 14 with Bidrin 8E (8.0 oz/acre) andwith Malathion ULV (12.0 oz/acre) by the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation onMay 7, Jun 27, and Jul 20.

Ten plants were obtained from rows in each plot at the 2 and 4.5 true leaf stages onApr 17 and 26, respectively. Plants were placed in 70% ethyl alcohol for futureexamination for thrips, aphids and mites. These plants were washed, the liquid wasfiltered, and arthropods were counted under a microscope. Cotton was hand pickedfrom 13.75 ft row in each plot on Aug 2. Numbers of plants, green bolls and harvestedbolls were counted. Seed cotton was processed on a 10-saw Eagle laboratory gin.

64

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Thrips, aphid, and mite numbers were counted on 10plants/plot 27 and 36 DAP (Table 1). Cruiser and Gaucho treated cotton containedsignificantly fewer thrips 27 DAP compared with untreated cotton, but by 36 DAPdifferences in thrips numbers were not found. It should be noted that numerically,untreated cotton had higher thrips numbers on both dates. All insecticide treatedcotton had fewer aphids 27 DAP, but statistical differences were not observed in aphidnumbers 36 DAP. Significantly more mites were found in the Cruiser and Gauchotreated cotton compared to Temik and untreated cotton 27 DAP, but by 36 DAPdifferences were not present. Arthropod numbers were not at economically damaginglevels.

Uneven plant emergence and plant stands, coupled with severe drought which reducedthese stands following emergence, affected cotton production. Statistical differenceswere not found in production data (Table 2). Yield data was particularly suspect due topoor growing conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. fortheir support. The assistance provided by Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller, DemonstrationAssistants, was greatly appreciated.

65

Table 1. Thrips, aphid, and mite numbers in cotton treated at-planting with systemicinsecticides, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Meaney Annex, Nueces County,TX, 2002.

Insecticide(rate)


Thrips Aphids Mites

27 36 27 36 27 36


2.8 d 8.8 a 2.3 d 1.5 a 89.0 b 37.5 a


3.8 cd 9.8 a 4.3 cd 54.8 a 253.8 a 24.8 a


13.3 a 12.0 a 12.3 b 10.3 a 47.0 b 25.5 a


8.8 abc 11.0 a 9.0 bc 13.0 a 31.3 b 33.5 a


7.5 bcd 14.0 a 2.0 d 4.0 a 43.8 b 27.0 a

Untreated 12.0 ab 17.0 a 20.5 a 20.3 a 84.5 b 24.3 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 5.01 NS 6.47 NS 113.4 NS

P > F .0021 .2359 .0001 .1640 .0078 .5351Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant growth stage 27 days after planting was 2-leaf (Apr 17) and 36 days after

planting it was 4-leaf (Apr 26).

66

Table 2. Plant stand, boll production and yield of cotton treated at-planting withsystemic insecticides, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Meaney Annex, NuecesCounty, TX, 2002.

Insecticide(rate)

1000's per acre Bolls/lint lb

Yield (lblint/acre)Plants Green bollsa Harvested bolls


46.0 a 0.5 a 144 a 333 a 436 a


48.5 a 2.8 a 163 a 319 a 511 a


41.8 a 2.3 a 143 a 318 a 449 a


47.0 a 0.0 a 176 a 317 a 561 a


28.5 a 0.0 a 168 a 311 a 538 a

Untreated 50.5 a 2.3 a 171 a 323 a 532 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

P > F .0577 .4244 .3594 .3121 .3037Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Number of green bolls on plants on the harvest date.

67

IMPACT ON COTTON OF SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES APPLIEDAT-PLANTING ON THRIPS, APHIDS, MITES, AND FLEAHOPPERS



SUMMARY: Cruiser and Gaucho seed treatments and two rates of Temik were appliedat-planting; one set of plots were treated with Orthene 90SP on May 14 and 24. Unexplained changes in insect numbers occurred after the first Orthene treatment. Severe drought conditions in the experimental plot may have contributed to lack ofuseful information.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine if at-planting systemicinsecticides affected fleahopper numbers.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Phytogen 355 variety cotton was planted on Mar 21 with aresearch cone planter in 4-row wide by 40-ft long plots with rows on 38-inch centers. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Treatments consisted of Cruiser 5FS (7.6 oz/cwt seed), Gaucho 600FS (6.4 oz/cwtseed), Temik 15G (4.0 and 5.8 oz/1000 row ft), and Orthene 90SP (4.0 oz/acre) appliedon May 14 and 24. The Orthene was applied to designated plots with a self-propelledLee Company Spider Trac. The CO2 pressurized sprayer was equipped with 4X hollowcone nozzles (2/row) at 40psi and delivered 7.0 gpa while traveling at 3.5 mph. Temikwas applied into the seed furrow using electric driven Gandy boxes. Cotton had beenplanted on the site during the past two seasons. Lack of rotation and droughtconditions severely limited crop potential. The clay loam soil (43% sand, 21% silt, and36% clay) at pH 7.8 contained 0.9% organic matter. Herbicide consisted of Treflan 4lb/gal (1.0 qt/acre) applied Jan 7 and incorporated 2 times. Cotton-Pro 4 lb/gal (1.5pints/acre) and Dual Magnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25 pints/acre) were applied Mar 26. Fertilizer applied was 95-32-0 on Jan 11. Malathion ULV (12.0 oz/acre) was applied bythe Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation on May 7, Jun 27, and Jul 20.

Ten plants were obtained from rows in each plot at the 2 and 4.5 true leaf stage on Apr17 and 26, respectively. These plants were placed in 70% ethyl alcohol for futureexamination for thrips, aphids, and mites. These plants were washed, the liquid wasfiltered, and arthropods were counted under a microscope. Fleahopper counts weremade 3 and 8 days following Orthene treatment (May 14) on 20 plant terminals in eachplot. Although we planned to make counts after the 2nd Orthene treatment (May 24), wedecided growing conditions precluded obtaining useful data. Cotton was hand pickedfrom 13.75 ft row in each plot on Aug 1. Numbers of plants, green bolls and harvestedbolls were counted. Seed cotton was processed on a 10-saw Eagle laboratory gin.

68

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: The experiment was conducted under servere droughtconditions and data obtained was of questionable value. No differences or trends wereobserved in thrips, aphid, or mite numbers in samples obtained 27 DAP (Table 1). Although significantly greater numbers of thrips occurred in one of the untreatedtreatments 36 days after planting, the other untreated cotton plots (later Orthene wasapplied to this cotton) contained low numbers of thrips. The lack of significantdifferences in this set of untreated plots (Orthene was applied later) cannot beexplained.

Fleahopper counts were made 3 and 8 DAT-1 following application of Orthene. Fleahopper numbers were unexpectedly reduced in all treatments even in those nottreated with Orthene (Table 2). Although Orthene was applied again on May 24, noadditional insect counts were made. Lint yields were not different. The experimentseems to have little relevance for the reasons explained above. We plan to conductthe study again.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Fortheir support. The assistance provided by Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller, DemonstrationAssistants, was greatly appreciated.

69

Table 1. Thrips, aphids, and mites on cotton 27 and 36 days after planting treated at-planting with systemic insecticides, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, MeaneyAnnex, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Treatment(rate)


Thrips Aphids Mites

27 36 27 36 27 36


4.0 a 12.3 b 2.0 a 11.5 a 51.0 a 70.5 a


5.5 a 15.5 a 3.3 a 11.8 a 67.8 a 59.8 a


5.5 a 10.3 b 4.0 a 14.5 a 57.0 a 41.0 a


7.3 a 9.8 b 2.5 a 3.0 a 39.0 a 47.5 a

Untreatedb 11.0 a 10.0 b 4.0 a 14.0 a 73.0 a 68.8 a


LSD (P = 0.05) NS 12.30 NS NS NS NS

P > F .0910 .0142 .4722 .2453 .5912 .5422Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Plant growth stage at 27 days after planting was 2-leaf and 36 days after planting

was 4-5 leaf (Apr 17 and 26, respectively).b Orthene 90SP (4.0 oz/acre) was applied to these plots on later dates (May 14 and

24).

70

Table 2. Total number of fleahoppers (nymphs and adults) in cotton treated withsystemic insecticides applied to seed or as in-furrow granules or Orthene foliar spray,Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Meaney Annex, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Treatment(rate)

Plants(1000's/acre)

Total fleahoppers/100 plant terminalsYield (lblint/acre) Pret rt. 3 DAT-1 8 DAT-1


43.0 a 30.0 c 7.5 a 11.3 a 474 a

Gaucho 600 FS(6.4 oz/cwtseed)

50.3 a 33.8 bc 8.8 a 11.3 a 514 a


40.5 a 36.3 bc 10.0 a 8.8 a 432 a


44.5 a 35.0 bc 10.0 a 10.0 a 481 a

Untreateda 48.0 a 52.5 a 6.3 a 7.5 a 465 a

Untreated 42.3 a 40.0 b 10.0 a 12.5 a 462 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 9.98 NS NS NS

P > F .5517 .0041 .9796 .9137 .6966Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Orthene 90SP (4.0 oz/acre) was applied to these plots on May 14 and 24.

71

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES ON COTTON APHIDS



SUMMARY: Aphid infested leaves were tagged for later examination before sixinsecticides were applied. Subsequent counts on tagged leaves were made 3, 6, 9, 12,15, and 20 days after treatment (DAT). Additional counts were made on expandedterminal leaves beginning 6 DAT. Aphid numbers were generally reduced significantlyby all insecticides (except Bidrin) on each inspection date. The plant damage ratingsgenerally aligned with the aphid count data. Intruder and Centric (2.0 oz/acre) were themost consistent in reducing aphids and lowering the damage rating. Cotton lintproduction followed somewhat the same numerical ranking as season aphid counts anddamage ratings (insect data ranked from low to high). Intruder and Centric (2.0oz/acre) treated cotton produced significantly more lint than the untreated cotton.

OBJECTIVE: Furadan has been the preferred choice by many South Texas cottonproducers due to effectiveness and low cost. A special approval (Section 18 label) foruse of Furadan on cotton is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyeach year. Since alternatives for Furadan are needed, this study was initiated toevaluate selected insecticides for effectiveness in controlling aphids in cotton.

MATERIALS/METHODS: DPL 458 BG/RR variety cotton with a target population of 50thousand plants/acre was planted on Apr 26, 2002 with a 4-row Monosem air planter onirrigated Victoria clay soil next to the Texas A&M University Agricultural Research andExtension Center at Corpus Christi. Plots were 4 rows (38-inch centers) wide by 40-ftlong and treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4replications. Sorghum had been planted on the site the previous season. Fertilizerapplied on Jan 17 totaled 150-60-20-4 Zn. Trilin 4 lb/gal (48 oz/acre) was applied Jan18 for weed control.

The entire plot was oversprayed 2 times with a pyrethroid insecticide to increase cottonaphid numbers. Aphids on 6 infested leaves were counted and tagged on individualplants in the center 2 rows in each plot (3/row) on Jun 24. Immediately thereafter, foliarinsecticide treatments were applied to the center 2 rows of each plot with a self-propelled Lee Company Spider Trac, equipped with a CO2 pressurized sprayer, 2nozzles/row (4X hollow cone), 40 psi, traveling at 3.5 mph, and calibrated to deliver 7gpa. Silwet was included in each spray mixture at 8.0 oz/100 gallons of spray mixture.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting the number of aphids on tagged leavesbeginning with pretreatment counts on Jun 24 and thereafter on 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 20DAT, (2) counting the number of aphids on expanded terminal leaves on the sameplants with tagged leaves beginning 6 DAT, (3) rating plots for damage [1 = excellent

72

fruit load, good plant growth up to 5 = low fruit load, irregular plant growth] at 10, 18and 26 DAT, and (5) harvesting the center 2 rows in each plot on Aug 19 with a 2-rowJohn Deere 9900 model spindle picker. Seed cotton was weighed and a sample wasobtained for ginning. The seed cotton samples were processed on a 10-saw Eaglelaboratory gin to determine percentage lint in order to calculate lint weights. Data wereanalyzed by ANOVA and means were separated according to LSD (P = 0.05) usingAgriculture Research Manager, revision 6.1.6 (4th edition) dated August 31, 2000 fromGylling Data Management, Inc.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Tagged leaves averaged 193 aphids/leaf before treatment(Table 1). Insecticides, except for Bidrin 9 and 12 DAT, significantly reduced aphidnumbers on the tagged leaves. Likewise, terminal leaf data were similar until 12 DAT(Table 2). Beginning at 12 DAT only F1785, Intruder and Centric treated cottonconsistently kept terminal leaf aphid numbers statistically lower than the number inuntreated cotton. Combined tagged and terminal leaf data (Table 3) indicated that forall insecticide treatments except Bidrin, aphid numbers were significantly lower on allinspection dates compared with the untreated cotton. Plant damage ratings generallyaligned with the aphid count data (Table 4). However, only Intruder and Centric (2oz/acre) consistently had damage ratings significantly lower than untreated cotton. Theseason average damage ratings showed that all insecticide treatments, except Bidrin,had significantly lower damage rating values than the untreated cotton. Lint production(Table 4) followed almost the same numerical ranking as season aphid counts anddamage ratings arranged from low to high. It was anticipated before harvest that theLSD value would be large (189.2 lb/acre) due to variables at the cotton test site notassociated with treatments. In spite of that problem, significant differences did occur inlint yields. Intruder and Centric (high rate) treated cotton produced significantly morelint than the untreated cotton. Numerical increases in lint yield should not bediscounted in light of the other data and the acknowledged field variation. Likewise,the lower yield in Furadan treated cotton did not seem to fit with overall data obtained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Special thanks are extended to Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, for help in conducting the study. The following companiesare acknowledged for supplying monetary grant and/or product: FMC Corporation,Bayer CropScience, Aventis CropScience (now Bayer CropScience), Syngenta CropProtection, and AMVAC Company.

73

Table 1. Average number of aphids on infested cotton leaves that were tagged beforeinsecticide treatment, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Insecticide &formulation

Rate(oz/acre)

Cotton aphids/tagged leaf on days after treatmenta

0 3 6 9 12 15 20Post trt.

avg.

F 1785 50DF 2.82 198 a 11.17 bc 1.9 c 14.6 b 23.8 b 3.9 c 1.4 c 9.5 c

Trimax 4F 1.00 204 a 8.40 bc 1.8 c 9.4 b 74.4 b 60.3 b 20.8 bc 29.2 c

Furadan 4F 8.00 164 a 0.04 c 1.5 c 15.6 b 79.6 b 65.4 b 19.3 bc 30.2 c

Intruder 70WP 0.60 210 a 3.29 bc 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.5 b 1.3 c 0.2 c 0.9 c

Centric 40WG 1.25 167 a 4.95 bc 1.6 c 8.8 b 42.2 b 42.2 b 14.9 bc 19.1 c

Centric 40WG 2.00 189 a 5.17 bc 0.1 c 5.8 b 25.1 b 32.6 bc 15.1 bc 14.0 c

Bidrin 8E 4.00 185 a 26.00 b 145.4 b 108.5 a 239.2 a 57.3 b 26.0 b 100.4 b

Untreated 228 a 151.40 a 252.1 a 163.9 a 273.5 a 121.9 a 71.3 a 172.3 a

LSD (P=0.05) NS 23.36 49.83 58.61 110.7 34.53 23.29 37.78

P > F .9661 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Leaves with aphids were tagged before treatment.

74

Table 2. Average number of aphids on terminal cotton leaves that were tagged oneday before insecticide treatment, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, NuecesCounty, TX, 2002.


Rate(oz/acre)

Cotton aphids/terminal leaf on days after treatment

6 9 12 15 20Post trt.

avg.

F 1785 50DF 2.82 32.0 b 55.5 b 67.2 cd 5.1 cd 1.9 bc 32.3 bc

Trimax 4F 1.00 12.3 b 29.1 b 124.9 bc 31.7 ab 9.3 b 41.4 b

Furadan 4F 8.00 23.8 b 26.9 b 84.0 bcd 18.9 a-d 6.8 bc 32.1 bc

Intruder 70WP 0.60 2.5 b 2.3 b 3.0 d 2.3 d 1.0 c 2.2 c

Centric 40WG 1.25 13.1 b 15.7 b 41.8 cd 11.7 bcd 3.3 bc 17.1 bc

Centric 40WG 2.00 4.8 b 13.6 b 33.0 cd 14.1 bcd 3.4 bc 13.8 bc

Bidrin 8E 4.00 214.0 a 144.2 a 267.3 a 27.8 abc 17.8 a 134.2 a

Untreated 221.3 a 154.0 a 172.9 ab 40.1 a 20.00 a 121.7 a

LSD (P=0.05) 45.05 56.33 101.8 22.98 8.28 38.42


75

Table 3. Average number of aphids on tagged and terminal cotton leaves followinginsecticide treatment, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(oz/acre)

Cotton aphids/leaf on all leaves on days after treatment

6 9 12 15 20Post trt.

avg.

F 1785 50DF 2.82 16.9 c 35.0 b 45.5 b 4.5 cd 1.6 cd 19.8 b

Trimax 4F 1.00 7.0 c 19.3 b 99.7 b 46.0 b 15.1 bc 34.8 b

Furadan 4F 8.00 12.7 c 21.3 b 81.8 b 42.1 b 13.1 bcd 31.1 b

Intruder 70WP 0.60 1.2 c 1.2 b 1.7 b 1.8 d 0.6 d 1.5 b

Centric 40WG 1.25 7.3 c 12.3 b 42.0 b 27.0 bc 9.1 bcd 18.2 b

Centric 40WG 2.00 2.5 c 9.7 b 29.0 b 23.3 bcd 9.3 bcd 13.9 b

Bidrin 8E 4.00 179.7 b 126.3 a 253.2 a 42.6 b 21.9 b 115.8 a


LSD (P=0.05) 43.27 56.17 101.53 22.87 14.15 35.71


76

Table 4. Plant damage ratings and lint production of cotton treated with insecticidefor aphids, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Rate(oz/acre)

Plant damage ratingsa

Yield (lblint/acre)10 DAT 18 DAT 26 DAT AVG

F 1785 50DF 2.82 3.0 bc 2.0 cd 3.3 abc 2.8 bc 757 ab

Trimax 4F 1.00 3.3 b 3.3 ab 3.3 abc 3.3 b 742 abc

Furadan 4F 8.00 2.8 bc 2.5 bc 3.6 ab 3.0 bc 686 bc

Intruder 70WP 0.60 1.3 d 1.0 d 2.0 c 1.4 e 911 a

Centric 40WG 1.25 2.3 bcd 2.0 cd 2.4 bc 2.2 cd 820 ab

Centric 40WG 2.00 2.0 cd 1.8 cd 2.0 c 1.9 de 896 a

Bidrin 8E 4.00 5.0 a 4.0 a 4.5 a 4.5 a 557 c

Untreated 5.0 a 4.3 a 3.8 ab 4.4 a 696 bc

LSD (P=0.05) 1.11 1.15 1.58 0.74 189.2

P > F .0001 .0001 .0325 .0001 .0154Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Damage ratings range from 1 = excellent fruit load, good plant growth up to 5 = low

fruit load, irregular plant growth. DAT = days after treatment.

77

TIMING OF INSECTICIDE TREATMENTS FOR COTTON FLEAHOPPER



SUMMARY: Fleahoppers did not reach the economic threshold of 15/100 plantterminals until the matchhead plant growth stage. Centric 40WG (2.0 oz/acre) wasthen applied to selected plots for fleahopper control at 7-day intervals 0, 1, 2 or 3 timesand on all possible combinations of the 3 dates. Each treatment kept fleahoppernumbers below 15/100 plants for a week or longer following treatment. Statisticaldifferences were not observed in lint production; however, there was a trend fortreatments which averaged < 16 fleahoppers/100 plant terminals to produce morecotton (72 lb lint/acre) compared with those treatments where fleahopper numbersaveraged > 16/100 plant terminals during the testing period. Additional test of thisnature and other data analysis techniques will be needed to obtain definite informationon fleahopper timing needs.

OBJECTIVE: Fleahopper treatment timing is an issue about which there is muchdisagreement among cotton producers, crop consultants and cotton entomologist. Itranges from treatments automatically applied, treatment of fleahopper numbers below5/100 plants, to treatments applied well into the bloom period. This treatment timingstudy was designed to determine the effects of applying Centric insecticide to cottononce fleahopper numbers reached 15/100 plant terminals in a sequence of 3 dates toinclude all possible combinations of 1, 2 or 3 treatments.

MATERIALS/METHODS: DPL 458 BG/RR variety cotton with a target population of 50thousand plants/acre was planted on Apr 26, 2002 with 4-row Monosem air planter onirrigated Victoria clay soil next to the Texas A&M University Agricultural Research andExtension Center at Corpus Christi. Plots were 4 rows (38-inch centers) wide by 40-ftlong and treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4replications. Sorghum had been planted on the site the previous season. Fertilizerapplied on Jan 17 totaled 150-60-20-4 Zn. Trilin 4 lb/gal (48 oz/acre) was applied Jan18 for weed control.

Centric 40WG (2.0 oz/acre) was applied to the center 2 rows of each plot with a self-propelled Lee Company spider Trac, equipped with a CO2 pressurized sprayer, 2nozzles/row (4X hollow cone), 40 psi, traveling at 3.5 mph, and calibrated to deliver 7gpa. Treatments to plots were made on 1 or more of 3 dates (Jun 5, 12 and 19).

Treatments were assessed by counting the number of fleahopper nymphs and adultson 20 plant terminals in each plot beginning with pretreatment counts on Jun 3 followedby similar counts 3 DAT-1 (Jun 8), 7 DAT-1 (Jun 12), 3 DAT-2 (Jun 15), 6 DAT-2 (Jun18), 3 DAT-3 (Jun 22), and 5 DAT-3 (Jun 24).

78

The center 2 rows in each plot were harvested on Aug 26 with a 2-row John Deere9900 model spindle picker. Seed cotton was weighed and a sample was obtained forginning. The seed cotton samples were processed on a 10-saw Eagle laboratory gin todetermine percentage lint in order to calculate lint weights. Data were analyzed byANOVA and means were separated according to LSD (P=0.05) using AgricultureResearch Manager, revision 6.1.6 (4th edition) dated Aug 31, 2000 from Gylling DataManagement, Inc.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Cotton plants reached the pinhead square fruiting stageabout 2 weeks prior to fleahopper numbers exceeding the economic threshold of15/100 plant terminals. By the time of the first treatment date, matchhead squarefruiting stage had been reached. Pretreatment fleahopper counts (Table 1) made 2days before the first treatment, averaged 15.8/100 plant terminals and only reached17.5/100 plant terminals at 3 days after treatment-1 (3 DAT-1). However, by 7 DAT-1untreated cotton averaged 30.0 fleahoppers/100 plant terminals. Fleahopper countswere made on 2 dates following each of the 3 scheduled treatment dates. Thetreatments maintained fleahopper numbers below 15/100 plant terminals for a week orlonger following treatment. The crop was near first bloom by 3 DAT-2 and fleahoppernumbers had attained 58.8/100 plant terminals in the untreated cotton and almost thatlevel in plots that were treated on the first, but not the second date. By 5 DAT-3, oneweek of bloom had been completed. Significantly more fleahoppers were observed incotton that had not been treated (post-treatment average of 6 inspections). Lowestnumbers numerically, were observed in plots treated on the middle date.

We knew before harvest that it would be difficult to separate yields statistically due tovariables in cotton growth not associated with treatment. In fact, statistical differenceswere not observed in lint production. Numerically, however, there seemed to be certaintrends in the yield data. For example, treatments where fleahopper numbers averaged< 16/100 terminals had an average yield of 931 lb lint/acre and where fleahoppernumbers were > 16/100 terminals had lint yields averaging 859 lb/acre (a 72 lb lint/acreincrease). Additional testing, hopefully with earlier fleahopper infestation at an earlierfruiting stage may allow for better understanding of fleahopper insecticide treatmentneeds. The general observation is that fleahopper numbers exceeding 15/100 plantterminals within a week either side of the 1/3-grown square stage cause economicdamage. Additional work is needed to better define fleahopper treatment timingrequirements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Special thanks are extended to Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, for help in conducting the study. The Syngenta CropProtection Company is thanked for providing Centric 40WG for use in this fieldexperiment.

79

Table 1. Total number of fleahoppers (nymphs and adults) in cotton treated on all possiblecombinations of 3 datesa beginning at the matchhead square stage, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Datestreated

Total fleahoppers/100 plant terminals

Yield (lblint/acre)Pretrt 3 DAT-1 7 DAT-1 3 DAT-2 6 DAT-2 3 DAT-3 5 DAT-3

SeasonAvg

Dates 1, 2 & 3 17.5 a 2.5 b 8.8 c 10.0 c 8.8 c 0.0 d 12.5 c 7.0 d 943 a

Dates 1 & 2 17.5 a 1.3 b 6.3 c 12.5 c 7.5 c 7.5 cd 43.8 b 13.3 d 892 a

Dates 1 & 3 16.3 a 1.3 b 16.3 bc 57.5 a 42.5 b 3.8 cd 25.0 bc 24.4 bc 925 a

Date 1 17.5 a 1.3 b 11.3 c 38.8 b 36.3 b 16.3 b 80.0 a 30.6 b 908 a

Dates 2 & 3 10.0 a 15.0 a 42.5 a 6.3 c 7.5 c 1.3 cd 13.8 c 14.3 d 948 a

Date 2 18.8 a 15.0 a 30.0 ab 15.0 c 6.3 c 8.8 bc 18.8 c 15.6 cd 942 a

Date 3 12.5 a 13.8 a 31.3 ab 50.0 ab 45.0 b 2.5 cd 15.0 c 26.4 b 739 a

Untreated 16.3 a 17.5 a 30.0 ab 58.8 a 77.5 a 45.0 a 93.8 a 53.8 a 865 a

LSD(P=0.05)

NS 8.84 15.28 17.68 14.46 8.38 20.13 9.33 NS

P > F .8168 .006 .0004 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .2085Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Centric 40WG (2.0 oz/acre) was applied to assigned plots on variable dates.

80

EFFECT OF FLEAHOPPERS ON FM 832 AND FM 958 COTTON VARIETIES



SUMMARY: Fleahopper numbers were low until plant growth approached 1/3-grownsquare stage. Although fleahopper numbers were reduced by the insecticidetreatments, no differences were observed in production factors. A numerical trendseemed to exist for FM 832 to require fewer bolls to produce a lb of lint and higheryields in that variety compared to FM 958. FM 832 had significantly higher fiberelongation measurements.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to determine if FM 832 (okra leaf) andFM 958 (conventional leaf) cotton varieties respond differently to cotton fleahoppers.

MATERIALS/METHODS: FiberMax 832 and 958 varieties of cotton were planted Mar21, 2002 at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (Meaney Annex) near CorpusChristi with a 4-row John Deere research cone planter. Final stands in evaluation rowsaveraged 39,525 plants/acre. Experimental plots were 4-rows wide (38-inch centers)by 40-ft long arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Cotton had been planted on the site during the past 2 seasons (lack of rotation anddrought severely limited crop production potential). Herbicide consisted of Treflan 4lb/gal (1.0 quart/acre) applied Jan 7 and incorporated 2 times. Cotton-Pro 4 lb/gal (1.5pints/acre) + Dual Magnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25 pints/acre) was applied Mar 26. Fertilizerconsisted of 95-32-0 applied on Jun 11. Orthene 90SP at 4 oz/acre was applied onMay 14 and again on May 24 to the selected 4-row plots with a self-propelled LeeCompany Spider Trac. The CO2 pressurized sprayer was equipped with 4X hollowcone nozzles (2/row) delivering 7 gpa at 40 psi traveling at 3.5 mph.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting fleahoppers on 20 plant terminals/plot onMay 17 [3 DAT-1], May 22 [8 DAT-1], and May 27 [3 DAT-2], and (2) harvesting byhand 13.75 ft row/plot on Jul 27. Seed cotton was processed on a 10-saw EagleLaboratory gin. Lint samples were sent to the International Textile Center, Texas TechUniversity for fiber analysis.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Plant growth was severely limited by drought conditionswhich was made worse by cotton being planted on the site in each of the past 2seasons. Fleahoppers were present in very low numbers until what appeared to beheavy migration during the week of May 12. By that time plants had already attained1/3 grown squares; therefore, it was probably too late to expect production effects,although relatively high numbers of fleahoppers were present in plots (Table 1). Pretreatment fleahopper counts on May 14 averaged 38.1 per 100 plant terminals. By

81

3 DAT-1 fleahopper counts averaged 5.1 and 23.8 per 100 plant terminals in Orthenetreated and the untreated cotton, respectively. By 8 DAT-1 (first bloom) statisticaldifferences in Orthene treated and untreated cotton were not present, and by 3 DAT-2numbers were below economic injury levels in all plots.

No differences were found in production factors related to fleahopper control or cottonvariety evaluated (Table 2). It did appear, however, that a distinct numerical trendexisted for fewer bolls required to produce a lb of lint and higher lint yield from the FM832 variety. Except for fiber elongation, significant differences were not found in cottonfiber characteristics (Table 3). FM 832 had significantly higher fiber elongationreadings. The objectives set forth in the experiment were not achieved; future fieldstudies are planned.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The assistance provided by Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, was greatly appreciated.

Table 1. Effect of Orthene on fleahoppers on okra leaf (FM 832) and conventionalleaf (FM 958) cotton varieties, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County,TX, 2002.

VarietyOrthenetreateda

Total number fleahoppers/100 terminals

Pretrt. 3 DAT-1b 8 DAT-1 3 DAT-2

FM 832 yes 42.5 a 6.3 b 21.3 a 5.0 a

FM 958 yes 37.5 a 3.8 b 18.8 a 0.0 a

FM 832 no 40.0 a 32.5 a 22.5 a 3.8 a

FM 958 no 32.5 a 15.0 b 22.5 a 5.0 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 15.60 NS NS

P > F .3618 .0095 .9331 .5924Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Orthene 90SP applied at 4.0 oz/acre on May 14 and 24.b DAT = days after treatment

82

Table 2. Cotton production from okra leaf (FM 832) and conventional leaf (FM 958)cotton varieties with and without Orthene treatment for fleahoppers, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.



Yield (lblint/acre) green bollsb harvested bolls

FM 832 yes 3.3 a 88.3 a 275 a 322 a

FM 958 yes 1.3 a 93.8 a 301 a 312 a

FM 832 no 2.3 a 115.5 a 271 a 426 a

FM 958 no 2.5 a 98.5 a 296 a 305 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS

P > F .8691 .1943 .1284 .0550Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Orthene 90SP applied at 4.0 oz/acre on May 14 and 24.b Bolls remaining on plants on the harvest date.

Table 3. Fiber characteristics in okra leaf (FM 832) and conventional leaf (FM 958)cotton varieties with and without Orthene treatment for fleahoppers, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.


Fiber characteristics

Mic Lgth Ur St Elong

FM 832 yes 4.1 a 1.02 a 82.2 a 29.1 a 3.8 a

FM 958 yes 4.3 a 0.99 a 81.3 a 26.1 a 3.3 b

FM 832 no 4.2 a 1.04 a 83.2 a 29.6 a 4.0 a

FM 958 no 4.3 a 1.00 a 81.2 a 25.3 a 3.3 b

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS 0.49

P > F .6460 .2661 .1205 .0667 .0156Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Orthene 90SP applied at 4.0 oz/acre on May 14 and 24.

83

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES AGAINSTTOBACCO BUDWORM IN COTTON

Dick Ramsey Farm, Wharton County, 2002

Roy D. Parker, Eric P. Castner, and Dan D. FrommeExtension Entomologist Field Development Rep - DuPont,

and Extension Agent - IPM, respectivelyCorpus Christi, Weatherford, and Wharton, Texas

SUMMARY: Data in this experiment were limited by lack of continued egg hatch andrapid crop cut-out, but some information was obtained. Caterpillar collections made inuntreated cotton on two dates averaged 92.5% tobacco budworm. Pyrethroids werenot effective in reducing tobacco budworm larvae 3 days after treatment (DAT). Significantly fewer damaged bolls were found in Steward, Steward + Asana, Tracer,Denim, and Karate Z by 3 DAT compared with the other treatments. Statisticaldifferences were not found in square damage 3 DAT, or in larval numbers anddamaged bolls by 9 DAT.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness ofinsecticides on bollworm and tobacco budworm.

MATERIALS/METHODS: FiberMax 832 variety cotton planted on the Dick RamseyFarm south of El Campo, TX on May 3, 2002 came to a final plant stand of about50,000 plants/acre. Plots were 4-rows (38-inch centers) wide by 40-ft long with 1 blankrow between each plot. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete blockdesign with 4 replications. Insecticides were applied on Aug 8 to the 4-row plots with atractor mounted side boom sprayer. The CO2 pressurized sprayer was equipped with8X hollow cone nozzles (2/row) delivering 10 gpa at 61 psi traveling at 4 mph.

Pretreatment counts were made on Aug 7. Counts at that time were 60 larvae/100terminals, 2% damaged squares, and 6 larvae/100 squares. Few eggs or small larvaewere present. Treatments were later assessed on Aug 11 (3 DAT) by examining 20squares and bolls/plot for damage and presence of larvae, counting the number oflarvae in 20 terminals/plot, and collecting larvae from untreated plots for speciesdetermination. Final counts were made on Aug 17 (9 DAT) by examination of 20bolls/plot for larvae and damage. Larvae were again collected for speciesdetermination. Larvae across both dates averaged 92.5% tobacco budworm.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Rapid crop cut-out, natural larval mortality, and lack ofcontinued egg lay or hatch limited the duration and infestation levels in the experiment. Karate Z, Leverage and XR225 treatments did not significantly reduce larval numbers 3DAT compared with the untreated counts (Table 1). Numerically, the most effectivetreatments on larvae 3 DAT were Steward, Tracer and Denim. These results were notsurprising given the high levels of tobacco budworms and ineffectiveness of pyrethroids

84

on the tobacco budworm in this geographic area. Statistical differences were notobserved in square damage 3 DAT, although Steward, Tracer and Denim noticeablyhad lower square damage; it was also reflected in boll damage counts. It appeared thatthe low rate of Steward in the Steward + Asana treatment resulted in higher numbers oflarvae and damage (again based on trends instead of statistical differences). By 9 DATstatistical differences were not observed in larvae or boll damage although the samegeneral trends as discussed above appeared to exist (Table 1).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Dow, Syngenta, Bayer and DuPontCompanies for supplying insecticide and assisting with conduct of this study. Weacknowledge Dick Ramsey for providing the test site.

Table 1. Tobacco budworm numbers and damage in cotton treated with selectedinsecticides, Dick Ramsey Farm, Wharton County, TX, 2002.


Rate(lb AI/acre)

3 DAT 9 DAT

Larvae/100 plants

% dasquares

% dabolls

Larvae/100 bolls

% dabolls

Steward 1.25SCa .104 6.3 c 2.5 a 2.5 b 0.0 a 8.8 a

Steward 1.25SCa .09 17.5 bc 10.0 a 3.8 b 1.3 a 5.0 a

+ Asana XL .66SC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 5.0 c 1.3 a 1.3 b 1.3 a 2.5 a

Denim .16EC .01 7.5 c 5.0 a 2.5 b 3.8 a 10.0 a

Karate Z 2.08SC .03 26.3 ab 10.0 a 3.8 b 1.3 a 8.8 a

Leverage 2.75E .08 18.8 bc 10.0 a 6.3 ab 6.6 a 12.5 a

XR225 1.25CS .0143 31.3 ab 7.5 a 12.5 a 3.8 a 15.0 a

Untreated 33.8 a 17.5 a 12.5 a 5.0 a 18.8 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 14.32 NS 8.06 NS NS

P > F .0011 .0832 .0381 .5232 .1271Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Crop oil was added to the mixture at a rate of 8.96 oz/acre.

85

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF TOBACCO BUDWORM ON NON-TRANSGENIC AND

TRANSGENIC B.t. COTTON CULTIVARS



SUMMARY: Insecticides were evaluated for effects on insect pests on non-transgenic(FM 832) and transgenic B.t. (FM 832B) cotton cultivars. Results showed that thetransgenic B.t. cotton sustained the least caterpillar damage. In FM 832 cotton (non-transgenic) Steward, Tracer and, as expressed in some data, Denim treatments weregenerally superior in providing caterpillar control compared with the pyrethroids. Insome measurements, Karate Z results were not significantly different from these 3treatments. The least cotton leafperforator damage occurred in the FM 832B cottoncultivar and in the Steward, Steward + Asana, Tracer, and Denim treated FM 832 (non-transgenic) cotton cultivar.

OBJECTIVE: The experiment was conducted to compare effects of selectedinsecticides on caterpillar pests on non-transgenic (FM 832) and transgenic B.t (FM832B) cotton varieties.

MATERIALS/METHODS: FiberMax 832 and 832B cotton varieties were planted inalternating 8 row plots (38-inch centers) May 21, 2002 at the Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station near Corpus Christi with a 4-row John Deere Blackland typeplanter.Final stand averaged about 50,000 plants/acre. Plots we subdivided for insecticidetreatment in order that each foliar treatment was applied to 4 rows of FM 832 (non-transgenic) and 4 rows of FM 832B (transgenic B.t.) cotton. The experimentaltreatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Plots were 40-ft long. Dual magnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25 pints/acre) + Cotton-Pro 4 lb/gal(1.5 pints/acre) was broadcast for weed control on May 22. Insecticides were appliedon Jul 24 and Aug 13 to the 8-row plots with a self-propelled Lee Company SpiderTrac. The CO2 pressurized sprayer was equipped with 4X hollow cone nozzles (2/row)delivering 7 gpa at 40 psi and traveling at 3.5 mph.

Pretreatment counts were made on Jul 23 by examining 20 plant terminals and 20 1/3-grown or larger squares/plot for heliothine eggs, larvae in terminals, damaged terminalsand damaged squares. Treatments were later assessed by (1) examining on Jul 27 [3DAT-1], Jul 30 [6 DAT-1], and again on Aug 16 [3 DAT-2], 20 squares/plot for presenceof heliothine larvae and damage, (2) counting beet armyworms found in 20 squares/ploton Aug 16 [3 DAT-2], (3) counting the number of cotton leafperforators/10 leaves on

86

Aug 16 [3 DAT-2], and (4) estimating percentage cotton leafperforator damage toleaves on Aug 23 [10 DAT-2].

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Examination of heliothine larvae from the test site on 2 datesrevealed 100% tobacco budworm. A moderately high infestation of tobacco budwormwas present in pretreatment counts (Table 1), but there were signs that the infestationmight not maintain high numbers. At 3 DAT-1, infestation levels had generally declinedeven in untreated cotton (Table 2). Larval numbers (tobacco budworm) in the Steward,Steward + Asana, Tracer, and Karate Z treated FM 832 were not statistically differentfrom numbers in FM 832B plots. The number of larvae in untreated FM 832 wasactually lower than some insecticide treatments (probably a reflection of a generallydeclining population). Steward + Asana, Tracer, and Karate damaged square counts inFM 832 were significantly lower in FM 832 treated with Steward, Denim, Leverage,XR125, and the untreated cotton. By 6 DAT-1 FM 832 treated with Steward + Asanaand Tracer contained significantly fewer larvae compared with the untreated FM 832,and damaged square counts generally reflected the same results. The Steward treatedcotton also had reduced damage.

Larval numbers were not significantly different in FM 832B treatments nor were thesenumbers different from FM 832 treated with Steward, Tracer, and Denim 3 DAT-2. Damaged square counts generally reflected the same results. Significantly highernumbers of beet armyworms were observed in FM 832 cotton treated with Karate,Leverage, and XR125 (all pyrethroids).

Cotton leafperforator infestations 3 DAT-2 and 10 DAT-2 were significantly greater inuntreated FM 832 cotton compared with all other treatments in the experiment. Leverage treated FM 832 cotton 10 DAT-2 had significantly higher cotton leafperforatordamage than any other insecticide and variety combination treatment, except for untreated FM 832.

General conclusions follow: (1) FM 832B cotton contained the fewest caterpillars andsustained the lowest damage to squares; (2) Steward, Tracer, and Denim treatedFM832 cotton [in some measurements] did not often vary statistically in numbers oflarvae or damage from FM 832B; (3) the pyrethroids, except in some cases with KarateZ, had increased levels of larvae and damage compared with other treatments; and (4)Steward, Steward + Asana, Tracer, and Denim treated FM 832 cotton and FM 832Bcotton sustained the lowest level of cotton leafperforators.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to DuPont, Dow, Syngenta and BayerCompanies for their interest and support of this work. Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller,Demonstration Assistants, are acknowledged for their help in conducting this study.

87

Table 1. Tobacco budworm eggs, larvae and terminal damage pretreatment countsin non-transgenic (FM 832) and transgenic B.t. (FM 832B) cotton cultivars, TexasAgricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX 2002.


Rate (lbAI/acre)

Number/100 (pretreatment)

EggsLarvae interminal

Damagedterminals

Damagedsquares

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FM 832 (non-transgenic) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

Steward 1.25SCb .104 10.0 a 13.8 ab 57.5 b 12.5 a

Steward 1.25SCb .09 8.8 a 7.5 bc 67.5 ab 11.3 a

+ Asana XL 0.66 EC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 6.3 a 11.3 ab 70.0 ab 11.3 a

Denim .16EC .01 7.5 a 15.0 ab 68.8 ab 11.3 a

Karate Z 2.08CS .03 10.0 a 13.8 ab 75.0 ab 17.5 a

Leverage 2.75 EC .08 8.8 a 16.3 a 80.0 a 11.3 a

XR 225 1.25CS .0143 10.00 a 15.0 ab 76.3 a 12.5 a

Untreated 8.8 a 12.5 ab 73.8 ab 12.5 a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FM 832B (transgenic B.t.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Steward 1.25SCb .104 8.8 a 0.0 c 3.8 c 0.0 b

Steward 1.25SCb .09 6.3 a 1.3 c 2.5 c 0.0 b

+ Asana XL 0.66 EC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 7.5 a 1.3 c 5.0 c 0.0 b

Denim .16EC .01 7.5 a 0.0 c 1.3 c 0.0 b

Karate Z 2.08CS .03 10.0 a 0.0 c 1.3 c 0.0 b

Leverage 2.75 EC .08 10.0 a 1.3 c 3.8 c 0.0 b

XR 225 1.25CS .0143 7.5 a 0.0 c 2.5 c 1.3 b

Untreated 10.0 a 0.0 c 5.0 c 0.0 b

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 7.57 17.61 7.24

P > F .9999 .0001 .0001 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Treatments were applied on Jul 24 and Aug 13.b Crop oil was added to the mixture at a rate of 8.96 oz/acre.

88

Table 2. Tobacco budworm larval numbers and damaged squares 3 and 6 daysafter treatment - 1 in non-transgenic (FM 832) and transgenic B.t. (FM 832B) cottoncultivars, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX 2002.


Rate (lbAI/acre)

Number/100 squares

3 DAT-1 6 DAT-1

Larvae Damage Larvae Damage

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FM 832 (non-transgenic) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Steward 1.25SCb .104 2.5 bcd 10.0 a 2.5 bcd 1.3 b

Steward 1.25SCb .09 0.0 d 0.0 b 1.3 cd 0.0 b

+ Asana XL 0.66 EC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 1.3 cd 1.3 b 0.0 d 0.0 b

Denim .16EC .01 6.3 b 11.3 a 2.5 bcd 3.8 ab

Karate Z 2.08CS .03 2.5 bcd 3.8 b 3.8 bc 3.8 ab

Leverage 2.75 EC .08 6.3 b 13.8 a 3.8 bc 7.5 a

XR 225 1.25CS .0143 11.3 a 13.8 a 7.5 a 7.5 a

Untreated 5.0 bc 3.8 a 5.0 ab 7.5 a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FM 832B (transgenic B.t.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Steward 1.25SCb .104 0.0 d 0.0 b 1.3 cd 0.0 b

Steward 1.25SCb .09 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 d 0.0 b

+ Asana XL 0.66 EC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 d 0.0 b

Denim .16EC .01 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 d 1.3 b

Karate Z 2.08CS .03 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 d 0.0 b

Leverage 2.75 EC .08 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 d 0.0 b

XR 225 1.25CS .0143 0.0 d 0.0 b 1.3 cd 0.0 b

Untreated 0.0 d 0.0 b 1.3 cd 0.0 b

LSD (P = 0.05) 4.31 6.24 3.26 4.67

P > F .0001 .0001 .0004 .0008Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Treatments were applied on Jul 24 and Aug 13.b Crop oil was added to the mixture at a rate of 8.96 oz/acre.

89

Table 3. Tobacco budworm, cotton leafperforator, and beet armyworm 3 and 10days after treatment - 2 in non-transgenic (FM 832) and transgenic B.t. (FM 832B)cotton cultivars, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX 2002.


Rate (lbAI/acre)

Number/100squares 3 DAT-2

BAWc 3DAT-2

CLPd/10leaves

10 DAT-2

% CLPd leaf da. 10

DAT-2Larvae Da sq.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FM 832 (non-transgenic) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Steward 1.25SCb .104 2.5 de 5.0 cd 0.0 c 0.0 b 2.8 cd

Steward 1.25SCb .09 5.0 cd 2.5 cd 0.0 c 0.0 b 2.5 cd

+ Asana XL 0.66 EC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 1.3 de 5.0 cd 0.0 c 0.3 b 2.5 cd

Denim .16EC .01 2.5 de 7.5 c 0.0 c 0.0 b 3.0 cd

Karate Z 2.08CS .03 10.0 ab 16.3 b 4.0 a 0.3 b 5.8 cd

Leverage 2.75 EC .08 11.3 ab 26.3 a 3.0 a 1.3 b 10.8 b

XR 225 1.25CS .0143 7.5 bc 17.5 b 2.3 ab 0.3 b 4.0 cd

Untreated 12.5 a 17.5 b 0.3 bc 11.0 a 32.0 a

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FM 832B (transgenic B.t.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Steward 1.25SCb .104 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 d

Steward 1.25SCb .09 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 d

+ Asana XL 0.66 EC .036

Tracer 4SC .067 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 d

Denim .16EC .01 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 d

Karate Z 2.08CS .03 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.3 bc 0.0 b 0.0 d

Leverage 2.75 EC .08 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 d

XR 225 1.25CS .0143 0.0 e 0.0 b 1.3 c 0.0 b 0.0 d

Untreated 0.0 e 0.0 b 0.3 bc 0.0 b 0.0 d

LSD (P = 0.05) 4.79 6.40 2.15 2.88 4.94

P > F .0001 .0001 .0037 .0001 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Treatments were applied on Jul 24 and Aug 13.b Crop oil was added to the mixture at a rate of 8.96 oz/acre.c BAW = beet armywormd CLP = cotton leafperforator

90

EVALUATION OF SYNGENTA GMO 102 COTTON WITH AND WITHOUT FOLIAR INSECTICIDE



OBJECTIVE: The field study was conducted to compare Syngenta genetically modifiedcotton (GMO 102) with a Coker cultivar (Non-GMO). Each of these cultivars grown withand without Denim foliar treatment were evaluated for effects on Lepidopteran pests.

MATERIALS/METHODS: GMO 102 and Non-GMO Coker cotton cultivars were plantedin 4-row wide (38-inch centers) by 40-ft long plots on May 21, 2002 at the TexasAgricultural Experiment Station near Corpus Christi with a 4-row John Deere Blacklandtype planter equipped with cone seed distributers. Experimental treatments werearranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. The experimentwas surrounded by 12-row buffers and 40-ft end plots of Non-GMO cotton to meetUSDA/EPA compliance requirements. Dual magnum 7.62 lb/gal (1.25 pints/acre) +Cotton Pro 4 lb/gal (1.5 pints/acre) was broadcast for weed control on May 22. Verydry conditions prevailed at the test site limited plant growth until almost bloom. Fusilade Dx (12 oz/acre) with a non-ionic surfactant (Apsa-80 0.5 pints/25 gallons ofspray mixture) was applied for pigweeds on Jun 19 with a spray coupe delivering 25gpa through XR 8003 flat fan nozzles at 4 psi traveling at 4.5 mph.

The entire experiment was treated Jul 22 with Centric 40WG (2.5 oz/acre) forfleahopper + Pix (6.0 oz/acre) + Staple (1.2 oz/acre) with a Spray Coupe delivering 15gpa through XR 8003 flat fan nozzles at 40 psi traveling at 4.5 pmh. Denim .16EC(0.01 lb AI/acre) was applied to appropriate plots on Jul 23 and Aug 7 with a self-propelled Spider Trac sprayer delivering 7 gpa thorugh 4X hollow cone nozzles at 40psi traveling at 3.5 mph.

Treatments were assessed by (1) counting on Jun 10 the number of plants on 10-row ftin each of the 2 center rows of each plot; (2) examining 1 day before the first Denimtreatment and 3 DAT-1, 20 plant terminals in the center rows of each plot for heliothineeggs, caterpillars, and caterpillar feeding damage; (3) collecting heliothine caterpillarsfor species determination on Jul 22, 3 DAT-1, and 3-DAT-2; (4) counting heliothinelarvae on either terminals and squares, squares alone, or on bolls 3 DAT-2, 8 DAT-2,and 15 DAT-2, respectively; (5) examining 20 squares or bolls/plot for caterpillardamage 3 DAT-1 and 3, 8, and 15 DAT-2; (6) estimating percentage leaf damage bycotton leafperforator 12 DAT-1 and 15 DAT-2; (7) counting numbers of cottonleafperforator larvae on 10 leaves/plot 3 DAT-2 and 8 DAT-2; (8) estimating percentageleaf damage by saltmarsh caterpillar in each plot 12 DAT-1; and (9) counting numbersof beet armyworm larvae on 10 leaves/plot 8 DAT-2.

91

Lint yield could not be measured. The cotton had to be destroyed before open bollstage due to the regions cotton destruction date of Sep 1.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Larvae collected 1 day before Denim treatment were 81%tobacco budworm; by 3 DAT-1 the percentage had increased to 88%; and by 3 DAT-2all larvae collected were tobacco budworm. Therefore, “tobacco budworm” was used inthe caption of data tables where appropriate. There were no differences in Heliothineegg numbers on cotton cultivars with or without foliar Denim treatment (Table 1). Eggnumbers in cotton 1 day preceding the first Denim treatment and 3 DAT (days aftertreatment) were low. Additional counts were not made as cotton became unattractivefor egg laying (cutout caused by drought conditions). Significantly more terminaldamage was observed in Non-GMO cotton 1 day before and 3 DAT-1. Additionalterminal damage ratings were not made due to plant cutout.

Larval numbers were consistently lower in GMO cotton compared with the Non-GMOuntreated cotton (Table 2). The Denim treatment reduced larval numbers in Non-GMOcotton to levels which were not significantly different from those in GMO cotton. By 8DAT-2 larval numbers had declined to low levels in all treatments except in untreatedNon-GMO plots; larval numbers were low in all plots by 15 DAT-2. During the testingperiod, damaged square and boll counts were significantly reduced in the GMO cottoncompared to untreated Non-GMO cotton (Table 3). Some of the square and bolldamage in GMO cotton may have been by fall armyworm. However, in the GMOtreatment that did not receive Denim foliar overspray, damaged fruit counts on 4inspection dates averaged 4.1%, whereas this damage was reduced to 2.2% byaddition of the Denim foliar treatments. As a general observation, surface feeding onsquares seemed to be greater than observed in past BollGard variety tests.

Cotton leafperforator larval numbers and leaf feeding damage were reduceddramatically in GMO and Non-GMO Denim treated plots (Table 4). Generally Denimtreated cotton had less leaf damage and fewer larvae than the GMO cotton that was nottreated with Denim; however, damage was well within an acceptable range in theuntreated GMO cotton. Cotton leafperforator damage to leaves appeared to besomewhat greater compared with levels in FM832B planted on the same date and inthe same field.

Saltmarsh caterpillar leaf feeding damage was significantly reduced in GMO cotton andNon-GMO cotton treated with Denim (Table 5). Denim appeared to be of equaleffectiveness to GMO cotton; however, numbers may not have been high enough toobtain an accurate assessment. Similar results were obtained on the beet armyworm. Beet armyworm leaf damage was only detected in untreated Non-GMO cotton.

Although yield data could not be obtained due to required stalk destruction date for theregion, the GMO plots had an outstanding boll load. Denim plots also had a good bollload, but it was not equal to the GMO cotton.

92

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. fortheir support. The assistance of Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller, DemonstrationAssistants, was greatly appreciated.

Table 1. Tobacco budworm egg and terminal damage in transgenic and non-transgenic Syngenta cotton cultivars with and without Denim treatment, TexasAgricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Cultivar Denima

Eggs/100 plants % terminal damage

Pretrt. 3 DAT-1 Pretrt. 3 DAT-1

GMO 102 no 6.3 a 1.3 a 10.0 b 10.0 b

GMO 102 yes 7.5 a 0.0 a 10.0 b 11.3 b

Non-GMO no 10.0 a 2.5 a 75.0 a 71.3 a

Non-GMO yes 12.5 a 0.0 a 80.0 a 61.3 a

LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS 17.17 21.67

P > F .5310 .5896 .0001 .0002Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Denim .16EC (0.01 lb AI/acre) was applied on Jul 25 and Aug 7

93

Table 2. Tobacco budworms in transgenic and non-transgenic Syngenta cottoncultivars with and without Denim treatment, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Cultivar Denima

Larvae/100

Pretrt.b 3 DAT-1c 3 DAT-2d 8 DAT-2d 15 DAT-2e

GMO 102 no 0.0 c 1.3 b 2.5 b 2.5 a 0.0 a

GMO 102 yes 1.3 bc 1.3 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 1.3 a

Non-GMO no 10.0 ab 27.5 a 20.0 a 6.3 a 2.5 a

Non-GMO yes 17.5 a 5.0 b 7.5 b 1.3 a 1.3 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 9.45 13.33 12.07 NS NS

P > F .0075 .0042 .0195 .0628 .7733Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Denim .16EC (0.01 lb AI/acre) was applied on Jul 25 and Aug 7b Number/100 terminalsc Number/100 terminals and squaresd Number/100 squarese Number/100 bolls

Table 3. Tobacco budworm damaged squares in transgenic and non-transgenicSyngenta cotton cultivars with and without Denim treatment, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Cultivar Denima

% damaged squares or bolls

3 DAT-1 12 DAT-1 3 DAT-2 8 DAT-2 15 DAT-2b AVG

GMO 102 no 2.5 b - 5.0 c 2.5 b 6.3 b 4.1

GMO 102 yes 1.3 b - 2.5 c 1.3 b 3.8 b 2.2

Non-GMO no 43.8 a - 33.8 a 16.3 a 18.8 a 28.2

Non-GMO yes 16.3 b - 15.0 b 11.3 a 1.3 b 11.0

LSD (P = 0.05) 22.86 8.46 8.24 10.50

P > F .0076 .0001 .0073 .0190Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Denim .16EC (0.01 lb AI/acre) was applied on Jul 25 and Aug 7.b 15 DAT-2 damage counts were on bolls.

Table 4. Cotton leafperforator larvae and damage to leaves in transgenic and non-transgenic Syngenta cotton cultivars with and without Denim treatment, TexasAgricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

94

Cultivar Denima

Cotton leafperforator

% leaf da.(12 DAT-1)

#/100 leaves(3 DAT-2)

#/100 leaves(8 DAT-2)

% leaf da.(15 DAT-2)

GMO 102 no 0.5 b 7.5 b 30.0 b 2.8 b

GMO 102 yes 0.8 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b

Non-GMO no 5.0 a 160.0 a 442.5 a 43.8 a

Non-GMO yes 1.8 b 5.0 b 2.5 b 0.5 b

LSD (P = 0.05) 2.443 63.77 199.2 3.66

P > F .0086 .0007 .0017 .0001Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Denim .16EC (0.01 lb AI/acre) was applied on Jul 25 and Aug 7.

Table 5. Saltmarsh caterpillars and beet armyworm leaf damage, and plant stand intransgenic and non-transgenic Syngenta cotton cultivars with and without Denimtreatment, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Nueces County, TX, 2002.

Cultivar DenimaPlants

(1000's/acre)Saltmarsh caterpillarb

(% leaf da.)Beet armywormc

(no./100 leaves)

GMO 102 no 41.6 a 0.3 b 0.0 b

GMO 102 yes 46.4 a 0.0 b 0.0 b

Non-GMO no 45.0 a 7.0 a 15.0 a

Non-GMO yes 45.7 a 1.8 b 0.0 b

LSD (P = 0.05) NS 4.397 10.32

P > F .6556 .0189 .0211Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Denim .16EC (0.01 lb AI/acre) was applied on Jul 25 and Aug 7.b Estimates were made 12 DAT-1.c Counts were made 8 DAT-2.

95

BOLL WEEVIL NUMBERS IN PHEROMONE TRAPS IN NUECES AND SANPATRICIO COUNTIES COMPARING YEARS BEFORE AND DURING THE

ERADICATION PROGRAM


SUMMARY: There has been a steady yearly decline in boll weevil numbers captured inpheromone traps since initiation of eradication in the South Texas/WintergardenEradication zone. The average pheromone trap catch per month has declined from117.9/trap (6 year average 1977-1982) to .035/trap (2002). Boll weevil eradication is aprocess of slow attrition as long as continued pressure is applied to the population.

OBJECTIVE: Pheromone traps were operated to evaluate the impact of boll weevileradication on relative population levels.

MATERIALS/METHODS: A total of 18 traps were operated at 3 locations since 1998. Traps are deployed as follows: Welder Wildlife Foundation north of Sinton (10 traps),south of Orange Grove and east of Alfred (5 traps) and west of Clarkwood (3 traps). Traps were inspected weekly and pheromone + insecticide strip were changed everyother week. The data used before eradication was collected by Segers et al. during a6-year period (1977-1982).

RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Early season boll weevil numbers were actually higher in1998, the first full season of boll weevil eradication (BWE), compared with the pre-eradication trap captures (Table 1). A series of warm winters is believed to havecontributed to increased boll weevil activity just before and in the early years of BWE. The BWE program was operated as a “fall” treatment program in the SouthTexas/Wintergarden zone in 1996 and 1997. During the mid-season of 1999 bollweevils increased to greater numbers than 1998 for the last 5 months of the year. Favorable weather conditions, rainfall that resulted in poor stalk destruction andrelatively high thresholds for treatments all contributed to this increase. In 2000 a moreaggressive treatment program was initiated; since that time boll weevil numbers havesteadily declined based on the month by month comparison. Since program initiation,the average trap catch/month for the year has steadily declined. The average declineper month in 2002 compared with the pre-eradication 6-year average has been99.99%.

Eradication is more difficult and costly compared with areas to the north due to our sub-tropical climate which allows boll weevil reproduction anytime cotton is present duringthe year.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Thanks are extended to Rudy Alaniz and Mike Hiller forinspecting traps on certain dates during the year.

96

Table 1. Boll weevils per pheromone trap per month, Texas Cooperative Extensionoperated traps, 1998-2002.

Month1977-82

(6 yr avg)a 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Jan 5.3 0.22 0.22 9.93 0.00 .05

Feb 5.5 0.27 0.00 1.60 0.00 .00

Mar 7.7 3.00 0.33 1.72 0.11 .10

Apr 7.4 30.94 0.00 1.27 0.11 .05

May 2.8 22.00 0.00 0.83 0.17 .05

Jun 4.9 5.10 0.06 0.67 0.00 .00

Jul 188.9 49.50 2.06 11.33 0.35 .00

Aug 645.7 48.40 45.00 14.04 0.94 .17

Sep 309.7 2.28 40.90 1.39 0.11 .00

Oct 165.4 1.39 5.72 0.72 0.06 .00

Nov 55.3 0.28 28.30 0.50 0.11 .00

Dec 15.7 0.22 13.67 0.03 0.00 .00

Average 117.9 13.60 11.40 3.67 0.16 .035a Traps operated by Segers et al.

97

A SUMMARY OF AT-PLANTING SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDE USE ON COTTON ONTHE TEXAS GULF COAST: 1998-2002

Texas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend Extension District

Roy D. Parker and Dan D. FrommeExtension Entomologist and Extension Agent - IPM

Corpus Christi and Wharton, Texas

SUMMARY: Granular Temik, and the seed treatments Cruiser and Gaucho werecompared on cotton for effect on early season arthropod pests (thrips and aphids). Eight experiments were conducted on the Lower Gulf Coast and 10 on the Upper GulfCoast between 1998 - 2002. All three insecticides had significantly better plantdamage ratings compared with untreated cotton; thrips numbers were numerically lowerin the Lower Gulf Coast experiments in all insecticide treated cotton, but in the UpperGulf Coast experiments, significantly fewer thrips were observed in insecticide treatedcotton. These counts were generally made on 2-5 true leaf cotton. Temik appears toreduce thrips more than Cruiser, but Cruiser appears to be more effective on aphids. Although a statistical difference in lint yield between untreated and insecticide treatedcotton was not found on the Lower Gulf Coast, the average 49 lb/acre increase in yieldfor the insecticides is near that observed in a previous 7-year study with Temikinvolving 22 comparisons. Cruiser and Temik treated cotton produced significantlymore lint and Gaucho plots produced numerically more lint compared with untreatedcotton in the Upper Gulf Coast comparisons. The average lint increase for all 3insecticides was 54 lb/acre in that geographic region.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effect of at-planting systemic insecticides on insects andyield.

MATERIALS/METHODS: Detailed information on materials and methods can be foundin individual reports of experiments conducted from 1998-2002. A short summary ofdata collection procedures follow: Thrips and aphid counts were generally made twotimes during the 2 - 5 true leaf stage. Five or 10 plants per plot were cut and placed inalcohol and later washed; thrips and aphid were collected on filter paper and countedunder a microscope. Lint yield was obtained by hand and/or machine harvest.

RESULTS: Detailed discussion can be found in the reports of individual experimentsconducted from 1998 - 2002.

98

Table 1. The effect of systemic insecticides applied at-planting to cotton, summary of 8experiments, Lower Gulf Coast, TX, 1998-2002.

Treatment(rate)

Plant da.ratinga

No. Per 10 plantsb

Lintlb/acre

$ return overuntreatedcThrips Aphids

Cruiser 5FS(7.6 oz/cwt seed) 1.53 b 6.3 a 6 a 807 a 8.38

Gaucho 600FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed) 1.86 b 6.7 a 17 a 802 a 7.29

Temik 15G(4.0 oz/1000 row ft) 1.62 b 4.9 a 35 a 812 a 8.35

Untreated 2.97 a 10.5 a 26 a 758 a

LSD (P = 0.05) 0.501 NS NS NS


Table 2. The effect of systemic insecticides applied at-planting to cotton, summary of10 experiments, Upper Gulf Coast, TX, 2000-2002.

Treatment(rate)

Plant da.a

ratingThrips/5plants

Lintlb/acre

Dif. fromUTC (lb)

$ return overuntreatedc

Cruiser 5FS(7.6 oz/cwt seed) 1.33 b 15.5 b 1224 a 81 26.76

Gaucho 600FS(6.4 oz/cwt seed) 1.59 b 17.7 b 1173 bc 30 2.13

Temik 15G(4.0 oz/1000 row ft) 1.42 b 7.6 b 1195 ab 52 7.61

Untreated 2.65 a 43.3 a 1143 c

LSD (P = 0.05) .4924 15.42 38.81

P > F .0001 .0004 .0016Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by ANOVA.a Ratings range from: 1 = no damage up to 5 = severe stunting and leaf curling.b Average leaf stage 2.25c Cotton value based on $0.50/lb for lint & 0.05/lb for seed; costs include Cruiser

($9.75/acre), Gaucho ($0.69/lb seed x 13 lb/acre), and Temik ($3.23/lb x 3.5lb/acre). Application cost for Temik calculated at $0.25/acre. Harvesting/hauling/ginning cost for extra lint above untreated cotton was set at$0.21/lb lint.

99

2002 SOUTH TEXAS STANDARD CORN HYBRID DEMONSTRATIONLOWER GULF COAST

CONDUCTED BYTEXAS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

COASTAL BEND DISTRICT 11

PARTICIPATING SEED COMPANIES AND HYBRIDS ENTERED IN 2002:

Adler Seed: 5250AgriPro Seed Co: AP 9843Asgrow Seed Co: RX 897RRBH Genetics: BH 8761Croplan Genetics: 1167RRDeKalb Genetics Corp: DK 668Garst Seed Co: 8288Golden Acres Genetics: 8460NC+ Hybrid Co: NC+ 7101Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l: 32A59Triumph Seed Co, Inc: 1866UAP DynaGro: DG 5516RR

LOCATION COOPERATORS

COUNTY TOWN AGENT PRODUCER

DeWitt Cuero Anthony Netardus Fred & Chad Hahn

Jim Wells Alice Rogelio Mercado GB&III

Refugio Refugio Mike Mauldin Walter Franke

San Patricio Sinton Jeff Stapper Eric SchneiderWebb & Bickham

2002 South Texas Standard Corn Hybrid Performance Test, Lower Gulf Coast CountiesTexas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

HybridDeWittHahn

Jim Wells Gwosdz III*

Refugio Franke*

San Patricio Schneider (I)*

San Patricio Webb-Bickham* Average

DK 668 58 30 41 122 31 56

1866 54 30 39 109 27 52

DG-5516RR 45 -- 40 115 27 51

RX 897RR 40 29 41 116 27 51

32A59 49 30 38 -- 28 51

AP 9843 47 28 38 105 29 49

5250 53 20 40 106 27 49

1167RR 45 -- 32 109 30 49

8460 37 26 37 -- 22 46

NC+ 7101 21 21 40 -- 28 44

BH 8761 24 -- -- 98 26 43

8288 36 22 36 88 24 41

Average 42 27 38 108 27 49(1) All data adjusted to 15% moisture. All locations were machine harvested strip tests.(2) -- Denotes lost data or an unplanted hybrid. To avoid unfair weighting by location, the mean location average has been used in summarizing regional yieldsof individual hybrids. Locations with an asterisk (*) denote accuracy testing was used. (3) Standardized corn plots were lost due to freeze damage and drought in Bee, DeWitt, Goliad, Karnes, Nueces, Refugio and Wilson Counties. (4) Data compiled by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with County Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 9, 11 and 12. Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412, (361) 265-9203. (5) It generally requires 10 bu/ac change in yield for one hybrid to be statistically different from another.(6) Late arrivals of seed/miscommunications affected the presence of some entries in these tests.

Note: 2002 was a devastating drought year, with very little dryland corn being harvested south of Refugio County. This partial information is provided todemonstrate the differences in the irrigated Schneider location (I) and dryland performance in this growing region. Sites with less than 25 bu/ac average locationyields were omitted.

101

2002 SOUTH TEXAS STANDARD CORN HYBRID DEMONSTRATIONUPPER GULF COAST




Adler Seed: 4500AgroBiotech: HT 7722AgriPro Seed Co: AP 9843Asgrow Seed Co: RX897RRBH Genetics: BH 8870Croplan Genetics: 818RRBtDeKalb Genetics Corp: DKC 69-70Garst Seed Co: 8288Golden Acres Genetics: 8412NC+ Hybrid Co: NC+ 7101Pioneer Int’l: 31G20Triumph Seed Co, Inc: 1866UAP DynaGro: DG-5516RR



Brazoria Angleton Wayne Thompson Texas Department ofCorrections- DarringtonUnit

Colorado Columbus Benard Mitchell Fritz Leopold

Fort Bend Rosenberg Glenn Avriett Texas Department ofCorrections- Jester Unit

Jackson Edna Marvin Lesikar Gabrysch Farms

Victoria Victoria Joe Janak Jerry Hroch

Wharton Wharton Rick Jahn Larry Kalina

2002 South Texas Standard Corn Hybrid Performance Tests, Upper Gulf Coast CountiesTexas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

HybridBrazoria*

TDCColoradoLeopold

Fort BendTDC

Jackson*Gabrysch

Wharton(R)Kalina

Victoria*Hroch Average

DG- 5516RR 59 90 91 86 136 48 85

BH 8870 58 92 88 88 140 44 85

HT 7722 -- -- 112 77 130 -- 84

DKC 69-70 57 86 93 -- 130 44 83

RX897RR 56 87 83 86 121 53 81

31G20 57 85 84 82 126 49 80

818RRBt 54 95 -- -- 114 42 80

8412 -- -- 83 -- 131 34 80

1866 56 91 86 77 120 41 78

4500 56 72 86 83 106 52 76

AP 9843 58 84 71 71 129 40 75

NC+ 7101 57 75 65 85 106 47 72

8288 56 84 85 59 113 32 71

Average 57 85 86 88 123 44 79(1) All data adjusted to 15% moisture. All locations were machine harvested strip tests.(2) - - denotes lost data or unplanted hybrid. To avoid unfair weighting by location, the mean location average has been used in summarizing regional yields ofindividual hybrids. Locations with an asterisk (*) denote that accuracy testing was used. (R) indicates replicated plots.(3) Corn plots were not established in Austin, Calhoun, Fayette, Lavaca, Matagorda and Washington Counties. (4) Data compiled by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with County Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 9, 10 and 11,Texas A&M Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(5) It generally requires 10 bu/ac change in yield for one hybrids to be statistically different from another.(6) Late arrivals of seed/mis-communications affected the presence of some entries in this test.

103

2002 SOUTH TEXAS STANDARD GRAIN SORGHUM HYBRID DEMONSTRATIONLOWER GULF COAST




Asgrow Seed Co: A 571BH Genetics: BH 5661Croplan Genetics: 514DeKalb Genetics Corp: DKS 36-00Garst Seed Co: 5382George Warner Seed Co: W 818-EGolden Acres Genetics: 3694NC+ Hybrid Co: NC+ 7R83Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l: 82G62Sorghum Partners, Inc: K73-J6Triumph Seed Co, Inc: TR 465UAP DynaGro: DG-732B



DeWitt Cuero Anthony Netardus Scott Straube Farm

Jim Wells Alice Rogelio Mercado GB&IIINock Farms

Nueces Robstown Harvey Buehring McNair FarmsOrdner FarmsTAMU-CC

Refugio Refugio Mike Mauldin Lenhart BrothersTommy Zabel Farm

San Patricio Sinton Jeff Stapper TAES-HuntSchneider Farm

2002 South Texas Standard Grain Sorghum Performance Tests, Lower Gulf Coast Counties,Texas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

DeWitt* Jim Wells* Jim Wells* Nueces* Nueces Nueces* Refugio Refugio San Pat San Pat*AverageHybrids Straube Gwosdz Nock McNair TAMU-CC(R) Ordner Lenhart Zabel Hunt(R) Schneider

A 571 4557 3853 3554 4304 3022 3918 5630 3012 4952 6730 4353NC+7R83

4898 3303 3394 4222 2841 4157 5765 3325 4681 6225 4281

84G62 4929 3998 -- 3727 2084 3640 6146 2654 4443 6541 4139DKS 36-00

4249 3356 -- -- 2994 2964 5709 3396 4030 6169 4015

3694 4506 2731 3096 4591 2513 3737 5461 2567 4202 6322 4073BH 5661 4570 2770 3616 4126 2620 4229 5574 2354 4220 5688 3977K73-J6 4249 3213 3281 4341 2736 -- 5047 2575 4143 6513 39735382 5208 2781 -- 3537 2171 3772 5784 2054 3935 6175 3865TR 465 3855 3092 2567 4000 2479 3576 5181 2940 3920 6071 3828DG-732B 4270 2900 3395 3878 2420 -- 4496 3301 3815 5532 3764514 4161 2484 2784 3623 2171 3470 5433 1837 3776 6179 3592W 818-E 3722 2828 3394 4222 2841 2850 5052 326 2652 5607 3349

Average 4424 3109 3231 4052 2574 3631 5440 2528 4064 6146 3934

(1) All data adjusted to 14% moisture. All locations were machine (M) or hand harvested (H) strip tests except TAM-CC and San Patricio (Hunt), which werereplicated in a randomized complete block design.(2) -- denotes lost data or unplanted hybrid. To avoid unfair weighting by location, the mean location average has been used in summarizing regional yields ofindividual hybrids. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotes accuracy testing was also used.(3) No standard plots were planted in Brooks, Fayette, Goliad, Gonzales, Kleberg, Lavaca, and Live Oak Counties, due to low row crop acreages or use of localtest seed arrangements. Plots failed in Bee, Karnes and Wilson due to drought or flooding.(4) Data compiled by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with County Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 10, 11, and 12,Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX, 78406-1412, Ph-361/265-9203.(5) It generally requires 350-500 lbs/ac change in yield for one hybrid to be statistically different from another.(6) Late arrivals of seed/mis-communications affected presence of some entries in this test.

105

2002 SOUTH TEXAS STANDARD GRAIN SORGHUM HYBRID DEMONSTRATIONUPPER GULF COAST




Asgrow Seed Co: A 571B-H Genetics: BH 5700Croplan Genetics: 514, TR 540DeKalb Genetics Corp: DKS 54-00Garst Seed Co: 5382George Warner Seed Co: W 917-EGolden Acres Genetics: 3694NC+ Hybrid Co: NC+ 8R18Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l: 84G62Sorghum Partners Inc: K73-J6Triumph Seed Co: TR 82-GUAP DynaGro: DG-762B



Brazoria Angleton Wayne Thompson Texas Department ofCorrections- DarringtonUnit

Fort Bend Rosenberg R. Glenn Avriett Texas Department ofCorrections- Jester Unit

Jackson Edna Marvin Lesikar Jeremy Rozsypal

Matagorda Bay City Brent Batchelor Brent & Lisa Batchelder

Victoria Victoria Joe Janak, Jr. Keith Bednorz

Wharton Wharton Rich Jahn Elvin Berndt Farm

2002 South Texas Standard Grain Sorghum Performance Tests, Upper Gulf Coast CountiesTexas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

Hybrid Brazoria Fort Bend Jackson* Matagorda* Victoria* Wharton(R) Average TDC TDC Rozsypal Batchelder Bednorz Berndt

A 571 7239 4020 5256 6819 3811 5705 547584G62 6689 2544 4603 6818 4078 6421 5192DKS 54-00 6509 2207 5208 5949 4421 6509 5134NC+8R18 5075 5191 3851 6958 3596 5907 5096W 917-E 6584 3292 4845 6357 3805 5440 50545382 6425 2676 4312 6424 4111 5819 4961514 4742 3763 4433 -- 4058 -- 4805TR 540 5609 2632 -- 5205 -- 5159 4523DG-762B 5564 -- 4651 6392 3926 5104 47893694 -- 2767 4942 -- 3719 4925 4762BH 5700 5317 3254 4603 6032 3810 5351 4728K73-J6 5970 2337 4651 5400 3780 5056 4532TR 82-G 6301 2516 4406 6295 3523 5731 4795

Average 5977 3100 4647 6241 3886 5594 4911

(1) All data adjusted to 14% moisture. All locations were machine harvested strip tests.(2) - - denotes lost data or unplanted hybrid. To avoid unfair weighting by location, the mean location average has been used in summ arizingregional yields of individual hybrids. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotes that accuracy testing was used. (R) Indicates replicated plots.(3) No standard plots were established in Calhoun, Galveston, Colorado, Fayette or Washington Counties. (4) Data was com piled by Steve Livingston, Agronom y Specialist, in cooperation with County Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Ex tension Districts9, 10 and 11, Texas A&M University Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(5) It generally requires 350-500 lbs/ac change in yield for one hybrid to be statistically different from another. (6) Late arrivals of seed/mis-comm unications may have affected the presence of some entries at individual test locations.

107

LOWER GULF COAST2002 STANDARD ENTRY COTTON VARIETY DEMONSTRATIONS



PARTICIPATING SEED COMPANIES AND VARIETIES ENTERED IN 2002:

Bayer Crop Science: FM 819, FM832, FM 832B, FM 958, FM 966, FM 989, FM989BG/RR

Delta & Pine Land: DP 20B, DeltaPEARL, DP 436RR, DP 491, DP 555BG/RR,PM1199RR

Syngenta: NX2387C, X2429C Phytogen Seed Co: PSC 355

Stoneville Seed Co: BXN 49B, ST 4793R, ST4892BR Texas Originator Cotton Seed: Texas 24R, Texas 28R, Texas 30R, Texas 245,

Texas 295


County Town Agent Producer

Kleberg Kingsville John Ford Jeff Yaklin Farm

Nueces Robstown Harvey Buehring Kocurek Farms; MorrisFarms Prince Farms; TAMUMeaney Annex

Refugio Refugio Mike Mauldin Jimmy RathkampWayne Schubert Farms

San Patricio Sinton Jeff Stapper Hoskinson FarmMengers FarmRoot Farm

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Test, Lower Gulf Coast Counties, Lint Yields (lb/ac)Texas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

Kleberg* Nueces* Nueces* Nueces* Nueces(R) Refugio* Refugio San Pat* San Pat(R) San Pat*

Variety Yaklin Kocurek Morris Prince TAM-CC Rathkamp Schubert Hoskinson Menger(I) Root Ave

DP 555BG/RR 1133 852 881 1040 744 1300 402 881 1319 428 898PSC 355 -- 933 837 850 625 1055 791 814 1560 383 883DP 491 1162 890 824 1009 676 1283 352 - - - 866FM 832B 919 921 - 952 559 1207 470 853 1418 396 846BXN 49B -- 652 913 790 572 1077 565 764 1495 388 820FM 958 988 813 820 974 557 1111 334 769 1423 367 816FM 832 1015 798 - 862 506 1137 583 688 1376 404 815ST 4892BR -- 671 868 825 461 968 515 797 1446 462 799X 2429C 988 763 876 736 661 996 431 746 1483 266 795FM 966 812 779 820 705 584 1169 455 830 1414 330 790FM 989 -- 943 - 843 642 978 227 685 1391 351 781DeltaPEARL 911 627 764 922 464 1171 357 707 1383 472 778FM 989 BG/RR 1014 661 690 821 528 980 456 791 1442 371 775245 -- 701 642 804 461 1169 573 697 1377 348 775FM 819 -- 582 - 884 560 - -- 740 1270 462 771ST 4793R -- 584 976 848 410 903 405 675 1482 351 761PM 1199RR 972 659 829 947 584 828 420 815 1119 415 759DP 436RR 907 719 766 927 521 846 487 809 1190 329 750NX 2387C 994 841 630 766 310 813 661 731 1192 398 73430R 890 576 769 707 506 866 472 732 1254 428 720DP 20B 984 471 713 802 449 826 520 719 1297 409 71928R -- 713 582 725 529 890 438 777 1078 399 71124R -- 629 514 753 537 857 375 -- -- -- 711295 -- 583 651 705 494 929 303 627 1173 314 676Average 980 723 768 841 539 973 461 757 1345 367 781(1) Spaces indicated by -- reflect loss of data or the variety was not included at that location. Location averages were used as artificial data to avoid weightingby location.(2) Data compiled by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 11 and 12, Texas A&MUniversity Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(3) All locations were hand harvested except the Mengers, Morris and Prince, which were machine harvested. Locations with an asterisks (*) denotes accuracytesting was used. Locations with (R) denotes replication of plots. Location with (I) indicates that the Mengers test was irrigated.(4) Standardized cotton variety performance tests were not conducted in DeWitt, Goliad, Karnes or Aransas Counties. Bee and Jim Wells County sites wereplanted, but failed due to soil and weather conditions.

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance, Lower Gulf Coast Counties, Test Turnout (%)Texas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

Variety Kleberg*Yaklin

Nueces*Kocurek

Nueces*Morris

Nueces*Prince

Nueces (R)TAM-CC

Refugio*Rathkamp

RefugioSchubert

San Pat*Hoskinson

San Pat(R)Manger (I)

San Pat*Root

Ave

PSC 355 -- 42.6 40.9 40.9 42.5 45.7 41.5 43.1 41.3 43.5 42.3DP 555BG/RR 45.0 45.8 40.1 44.5 46.1 50.0 44.3 46.1 44.2 47.5 46.0DP 491 44.1 43.5 42.9 42.5 44.5 47.8 42.2 -- -- -- 43.2

FM 832B 40.0 41.0 -- 40.7 42.9 45.5 39.7 41.8 41.1 43.5 41.7

BXN 49B -- 40.7 41.6 40.8 43.5 44.5 36.7 43.1 41.3 41.8 41.5

ST 4892BR -- 43.5 43.6 42.6 44.3 45.9 42.2 44.9 42.7 43.2 43.4

FM 958 41.0 42.7 40.6 41.7 43.7 45.3 40.8 42.1 42.4 42.4 42.3

X 2429C 40.8 43.1 40.2 41.2 43.7 43.6 40.4 42.4 40.8 41.0 41.8

FM 832 39.0 41.7 -- 40.0 42.2 43.9 39.9 41.3 40.0 42.1 41.1

ST 4793R -- 43.1 42.9 42.1 38.9 45.2 43.1 44.8 42.1 43.6 42.6

FM 989 -- 41.1 -- 39.8 42.1 43.7 41.0 42.2 41.0 42.6 41.5

FM 989 BG/RR 40.3 40.6 40.9 40.2 42.2 43.8 40.4 40.9 40.9 41.3 41.1

FM 966 40.0 41.7 40.6 40.5 43.3 44.8 40.6 42.1 40.7 41.7 41.6

PM 1199RR 41.9 42.1 42.3 41.2 43.6 46.1 41.2 44.0 41.6 45.1 42.9

FM 819 -- 42.9 -- 42.5 44.4 -- -- 44.1 42.8 43.6 42.8

DP 436RR 38.5 38.6 38.2 37.2 40.3 41.2 39.3 39.9 37.9 39.6 39.1

DeltaPEARL 42.4 43.7 42.1 42.2 41.5 47.0 41.0 44.4 42.4 44.6 43.1

NX 2387C 41.3 42.3 41.8 42.0 42.4 45.0 43.4 41.9 42.3 41.6 42.4

245 -- 40.3 40.0 39.4 45.5 43.1 39.1 40.6 39.5 41.9 41.0

30R 37.6 37.7 39.2 39.0 40.1 42.4 40.2 40.6 38.3 41.6 39.7

DP 20B 38.4 36.9 39.3 38.5 38.9 41.8 40.9 39.2 38.7 38.3 39.1

28R -- 43.0 42.6 41.8 43.5 46.5 42.6 44.0 40.4 43.8 39.3

24R -- 41.1 41.6 40.7 43.6 44.8 41.6 -- -- -- 41.8

295 -- 40.6 39.1 38.8 40.8 42.4 40.2 40.0 38.5 39.6 40.1

Average 40.7 41.7 41.3 40.9 42.3 44.8 41.0 42.4 40.9 41.1 41.7(1) Spaces indicated by -- reflect loss of data or the variety was not included at that location. Location averages were used as artificial data to avoid weighting by location.(2) Data complied by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 11 and 12, Texas A&M University AgriculturalResearch and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(3) All locations were hand harvested except the Mengers, Morris and Prince, which were machine harvested. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotes accuracy testing was used. Locations with (R) denotes replication of plots. Location with (I) indicates that the Mengers test was irrigated.(4) Standardized cotton variety performance tests were not conducted in DeWitt, Goliad, Karnes or Aransas Counties. Bee and Jim Wells County sites were planted, but failed due tosoil and weather conditions.

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Test, Lower Gulf Coast Counties, Micronaire ValuesTexas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11


Nueces*Kocurek

Nueces*Morris

Nueces*Prince

Nueces (R)TAM-CC

Refugio*Rathkamp

RefugioSchubert

San Pat*Hoskinson


San Pat*Root

Ave

PSC 355 -- 5.3 4.5 5.2 5.3 5.6 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.6 5.0

DP 555BG/RR 4.7 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.7 5.3 4.5 4.4 5.0 4.4 4.8

DP 491 4.9 4.8 4.3 4.8 4.7 5.1 4.4 -- -- -- 4.7

FM 832B 4.2 4.6 -- 5.1 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.5

BXN 49B -- 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.7

ST 4892BR -- 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.1 5.9 4.7 5.2 5.0 4.6 5.1

FM 958 4.3 4.7 3.9 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.9 4.1 4.5

X 2429C 5.1 5.1 4.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0

FM 832 4.2 4.7 -- 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 3.9 4.5

ST 4793R – 5.0 4.1 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.9 5.0

FM 989 -- 4.8 -- 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.3 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.7

FM 989 BG/RR 4.6 4.6 4.3 5.2 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.2 4.5 3.4 4.5

FM 966 4.2 4.5 4.9 4.7 4.5 5.1 4.5 4.4 4.5 3.8 4.5

PM 1199RR 5.1 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.3

FM 819 -- 4.7 -- 4.9 4.6 -- -- 4.6 4.5 4.0 4.6

DP 436RR 5.0 5.0 4.7 5.2 4.7 5.3 5.2 4.6 4.9 4.0 4.9

DeltaPEARL 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.2 5.3 5.3 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.9

NX 2387C 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.5 4.9 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.3

245 -- 4.7 3.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.4

30R 4.5 4.6 3.9 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6

DP 20B 4.7 4.3 4.4 5.0 4.5 5.3 4.9 4.2 4.8 3.6 4.6

28R -- 5.3 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.5 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4

24R -- 4.7 4.6 5.0 4.6 5.0 4.8 -- -- -- 4.7

295 -- 3.9 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.1 4.8 4.2 4.5 3.6 4.5

Average 4.6 4.7 4.4 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.7(1) Spaces indicated by -- reflect loss of data or the variety was not included at the location. Location averages were used as artificial data to avoid weighting by location.(2) Data complied by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 11 and 12, Texas A&M UniversityAgricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(3) All locations were hand harvested except the Mengers, Morris and Prince, which were machine harvested. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotes accuracy testing wasused. Locations with (R) denotes replication of plots. Location with (I) indicates that the Mengers test was irrigated.(4) Standardized cotton variety performance tests were not conducted in DeWitt, Goliad, Karnes or Aransas Counties. Bee and Jim Wells County sites were planted, butfailed due to soil and weather conditions.

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Test, Lower Gulf Coast Counties, Fiber Strength (g/tex)Texas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11


Nueces*Kocurek

Nueces*Morris

Nueces* Prince

Nueces (R)TAM-CC

Refugio* Rathkamp

RefugioSchubert

San Pat*Hoskinson


San Pat*Root

Ave

PSC 355 – 29.0 25.8 29.6 30.6 29.2 29.7 31.8 29.0 28.0 29.2DP 555BG/RR 29.3 27.5 24.9 27.4 27.3 27.4 26.5 25.6 26.0 26.0 26.8DP 491 30.9 30.2 27.1 31.3 29.9 31.2 28.2 -- -- -- 29.8

FM 832B 34.6 30.5 -- 31.8 30.5 31.8 31.5 30.9 31.4 29.2 31.4

BXN 49B -- 25.9 26.1 28.2 27.4 29.5 28.0 28.2 28.5 27.4 27.7

ST 4892BR -- 29.4 26.7 28.5 27.0 27.0 29.6 28.6 27.9 27.2 28.0

FM 958 33.6 29.6 26.4 31.1 30.0 31.7 31.7 28.2 29.8 28.3 30.0

X 2429C 32.1 29.7 28.4 29.0 31.5 29.5 30.6 31.0 29.8 -- 30.2

FM 832 35.0 33.0 -- 32.5 31.3 35.3 32.3 32.6 32.5 31.6 33.0

ST 4793R -- 27.5 28.7 27.9 28.4 29.1 27.4 30.0 28.7 26.4 28.2

FM 989 -- 32.5 -- 31.8 31.4 32.6 29.2 32.9 32.2 30.4 31.7

FM 989 BG/RR 31.6 28.6 28.7 29.6 29.0 30.6 29.4 28.4 29.0 26.4 29.1

FM 966 36.2 31.9 32.5 33.3 31.2 33.0 34.3 30.6 33.8 29.6 32.6

PM 1199RR 31.6 30.8 28.4 30.6 28.7 31.4 29.7 29.6 29.4 29.2 30.0

FM 819 -- 31.5 -- 33.3 31.0 -- -- 32.8 31.3 29.4 32.0

DP 436RR 28.4 28.2 24.8 27.3 26.6 26.4 25.9 28.9 28.0 25.7 27.0

DeltaPEARL 31.3 28.1 28.4 29.0 29.5 28.8 29.0 27.9 29.0 29.0 29.0

NX 2387C 28.0 27.6 24.9 27.7 25.7 27.9 27.1 26.0 27.2 25.8 26.8

245 -- 33.0 30.0 31.9 30.6 32.6 32.2 31.4 31.7 29.4 31.4

30R 29.7 28.8 26.6 29.1 28.9 27.6 26.7 28.4 29.5 27.8 28.3

DP 20B 28.4 27.5 25.9 28.1 27.1 28.0 27.3 27.9 26.6 26.3 27.3

28R -- 28.7 25.3 27.0 27.7 27.4 26.3 27.2 27.8 26.0 27.0

24R -- 30. 27.8 27.7 29.1 29.8 27.9 -- -- -- 28.7

295 -- 26.7 29.9 29.0 28.8 29.8 28.0 28.4 29.8 25.2 28.4

Average 31.5 29.4 27.4 29.7 29.1 29.9 29.1 29.4 29.5 26.6 29.2(1) Spaces indicated by – reflect loss of data or the variety was not included at that location. Location averages were used as artificial data to avoid weighting by location.(2) Data complied by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 11 and 12, Texas A&M UniversityAgricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(3) All locations were hand harvested except the Mengers, Morris and Prince, which were machine harvested. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotes accuracy testing wasused. Locations with (R) denotes replication of plots. Location with (I) indicates that the Mengers test was irrigated.(4) Standardized cotton variety performance tests were not conducted in DeWitt, Goliad, Karnes or Aransas Counties. Bee and Jim Wells County sites were planted, butfailed due to soil and weather conditions.

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Test, Lower Gulf Coast Counties, Staple LengthsTexas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11


Nueces*Kocurek

Nueces*Morris

Nueces*Prince

Nueces (R)TAM-CC

Refugio*Rathkamp

RefugioSchubert

San Pat*Hoskinson


San Pat*Root

Ave

PSC 355 -- 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.00 1.05 1.09 1.03 1.07 0.98 1.05DP 555BG/RR 1.05 1.08 1.02 1.06 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.08 0.98 1.05DP 491 1.11 1.12 1.09 1.13 1.04 1.10 1.14 -- -- -- 1.09

FM 832B 1.13 1.11 -- 1.13 1.04 1.12 1.19 1.08 1.17 1.03 1.11

BXN 49B -- 1.01 1.06 1.07 1.02 1.10 1.13 1.06 1.10 1.02 1.06

ST 4892BR -- 1.02 1.01 1.02 0.97 1.04 1.06 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.03

FM 958 1.09 1.10 1.06 1.13 1.04 1.12 1.14 1.05 1.12 1.02 1.09

X 2429C 1.07 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.02 1.03 1.10 1.00 1.10 0.98 1.05

FM 832 1.14 1.14 -- 1.12 1.06 1.13 1.18 1.09 1.16 1.06 1.11

ST 4793R -- 0.98 1.02 1.03 0.97 1.03 1.08 1.00 1.07 0.96 1.02

FM 989 -- 1.10 -- 1.08 1.00 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.14 1.01 1.07

FM 989 BG/RR 1.08 1.03 1.07 1.07 1.01 1.03 1.13 1.03 1.09 0.98 1.05

FM 966 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.01 1.10 1.14 1.05 1.15 1.02 1.08

PM 1199RR 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.00 1.09 1.10 1.03 1.09 1.03 1.06

FM 819 -- 1.11 -- 1.11 1.01 -- -- 1.07 1.14 1.04 1.08

DP 436RR 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.08 1.01 1.05 1.11 1.05 1.13 1.01 1.06

DeltaPEARL 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.04 1.06 1.12 1.05 1.11 1.07 1.08

NX 2387C 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.94 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.03 0.94 1.00

245 -- 1.04 1.10 1.13 1.03 1.11 1.16 1.08 1.16 1.04 1.09

30R 1.07 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.08 1.14 1.02 1.08

DP 20B 1.09 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.03 1.06 1.12 1.06 1.13 1.06 1.08

28R -- 1.08 1.04 1.05 1.00 1.08 1.09 1.05 1.10 1.02 1.06

24R -- 1.06 1.06 1.05 0.98 1.07 1.06 -- -- -- 1.05

295 -- 1.10 1.12 1.09 1.05 1.10 1.11 1.06 1.13 1.04 1.09

Average 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.01 1.08 1.11 1.05 1.11 1.01 1.06(1) Spaces indicated by -- reflect loss of data or the variety was not included at that location. Location averages were used as artificial data to avoid weighting by location.(2) Data complied by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 11 and 12, Texas A&M UniversityAgricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(3) All locations were hand harvested except the Mengers, Morris and Prince, which were machine harvested. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotes accuracy testing wasused. Locations with (R) denotes replication of plots. Location with (I) indicates that the Mengers test was irrigated.(4) Standardized cotton variety performance tests were not conducted in DeWitt, Goliad, Karnes or Aransas Counties. Bee and Jim Wells County sites were planted, butfailed due to soil and weather conditions.

113

UPPER GULF COAST2002 STANDARD ENTRY COTTON VARIETY DEMONSTRATIONS



PARTICIPATING SEED COMPANIES AND VARIETIES ENTERED IN 2002:

Bayer Crop Science: FM 819, FM832, FM 832B, FM 958, FM 966, FM 989, FM 989BG/RR

Delta & Pine Land: DeltaPEARL, DP 436RR, DP 451 BG/RR, DP 491,DP 555BG/RR, SG215 BG/RR

Syngenta: NX2387C, X2429C

Phytogen Seed Co: PSC 355

Stoneville Seed Co: BXN 49B, ST 4691B, ST 4793R, ST 4892BR,


County Town Agent Producer

Victoria Victoria Joe Janak Marshall Lange

Wharton Wharton Rick Jahn Hlavinka FarmsWCYF-Wharton CountyYouth Fair

Matagorda Bay City Brent Batchelor Batchelder Farms

Jackson Edna Marvin Lesiker Jon & David Sappington

Fort Bend Rosenberg Glen Avriett Allen Stasney

2002 South Texas Standard Cotton Performance Test Lint Yields (lb/ac), Upper Gulf Coast CountiesTexas Cooperative Extension, Coastal Bend District 11

Variety Victoria Wharton Wharton Matagorda Jackson Fort Bend AverageLange WCYF* Hlavinka* Batchelder Sappington Stasney

DP 555 BG/RR 1478 1188 1267 -- 1266 1164 1223SG 215 BG/RR 1172 1139 1124 -- 1065 1237 1129DP 491 733 1334 1314 1243 1178 921 1120ST 4892 BR 1062 1261 1155 -- 1059 1149 1120BXN 49B 1159 1237 1193 1185 1015 902 1115ST 4691 B 1209 1212 1123 -- 1049 -- 1085FM 832 B 1344 1239 891 -- 1167 750 1071FM 989 BG/RR 1101 1103 -- -- 1070 967 1067DeltaPEARL 817 1068 1292 1125 1183 858 1057FM 958 952 1188 1188 1060 1056 867 1052 FM 966 756 1231 1264 1141 1020 836 1041PS 355 846 1109 1175 1134 1109 781 1026DP 451 BG/RR 1062 1132 1113 1117 878 853 1026ST 4793 R 769 1029 1180 -- 941 978 989FM 832 870 1162 1018 1085 911 596 940DP 436 RR 737 1032 -- -- 812 868 935 FM 819 1071 879 1015 -- 807 631 905 FM 989 469 1188 772 1026 1070 612 856 Average 978 1147 1124 1036 1036 881 1042(1) Spaces indicated by -- reflect loss of data or the variety was not included at that location. Location averages were used as artificial data to avoid weightingby location.(2) Data compiled by Steve Livingston, Agronomy Specialist, in cooperation with Extension Agents in Coastal Bend Extension Districts 9 and 11, Texas A&MUniversity Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 10345 Agnes, Corpus Christi, TX 78406-1412. 361-265-9203.(3) Tests were not established in Calhoun County. Plots were lost in Brazoria County due to prolonged wet weather. Locations with an asterisk (*) denotesaccuracy testing was used.

Results of Insect Control Evaluations on Corn, Sorghum and Cotagrilifecdn.tamu.edu/coastalbend/files/2011/09/book2002_9.pdf · 19,000/acre. Treatments were arranged in a randomized

Documents