texas a&m university systems agricultural …...has been similar to jefferson but its ratoon...
TRANSCRIPT
Texas A&M University Systems
Agricultural Research and Extension Center
Beaumont, Texas
2004 Progress Reports
Submitted to
The Texas Rice Research Foundation
Presented here are the reports submitted to the Texas Rice Research Foundation in 2004
by the faculty and staff of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Beaumont and
College Station. This document contains a Table of Contents that is linked to the cover
page of each individual report for easy navigation. Simply click on the report title,
author(s), or page number to go to the selected report. At the end of this document you
will find an index of keywords. Each page number shown in the index is linked to that
page for easy navigation within the document. Again, simply click on the page number
and you will be shown that page.
ii
Table Of Contents
Title Author(s) Page
Development of Rice Cultivars
for the Southern US
Anna McClung and
Rodante Tabien
1
Utilization of Winter Nursery Facilities for
Development of Improved Cultivars
Anna McClung and
Rodante Tabien
8
Direct Manipulation of Yield Determinants
and Herbicide Tolerance in Rice
William D. Park 24
Physiological Bases for Texas Rice Ratoon
Crop Management
Lee Tarpley 29
Evaluating Public and Private Rice Varieties
for Production in Texas
Fred Turner and
Mike Jund
39
Water Management and Weed Science
Garry N. McCauley and
James M. Chandler
99
2004 Entomology Report of TRRF Funded
Projects
M.O. Way
111
Management of Bacterial Panicle Blight
caused by Burkholderia glumae
Joseph P. Krausz 140
Communications, Press and Public Outreach
for the Texas Rice Industry
Jay Cockrell 145
2004 Texas Rice Crop Jim Stansel
150
Final Report – Western Area Research Support Jack Vawter
200
1
Development of Rice Cultivars for the Southern US
TRRF Report on 2004 Research
Funding: March 1, 2004 – Feb. 28, 2005
Amount: $46,906
Final Report
Jan. 5, 2005
Anna McClung
USDA-ARS
Rodante Tabien
Texas A&M University
Beaumont, TX
2
Objective: Development of conventional and specialty rice varieties which meet the
current and future needs of the Texas rice industry using traditional and marker
assisted breeding approaches along with facilities located in Beaumont, Puerto Rico,
and in the Western Area (administered by Jack Vawter).
Results of Beaumont Breeding Trials
The breeding program led by Dr. McClung started planting experimental plots on March
22 with yield trials that were going to be rationed and finished on June 15 with some
materials that were just being increased. During this time we used 24 planting dates to 50
research blocks totaling 21 acres. Some 300 advanced breeding lines were tested in yield
trials at Beaumont while a subset of these were also tested at Eagle Lake and Ganado in
cooperation with Western Area operations. Over 24,000 breeding lines were evaluated in
nurseries in Beaumont and Puerto Rico. An overview of the studies is listed below
followed by a description of results for the experiments that were conducted.
2004 Beaumont
Acres
Breeding Nursery 7.9
Yield Trials 6.9
Uniform Rice Regional Nursery
State Preliminary
Commercial Variety
Observations
Other
Seed Purification 6.5
New Releases/Experimentals
Sabine
TX9092
TX1104
TX3163
TX1153
TX2029
TX2181
Specialty
Cadet
Jacinto
Sierra
Jasmine
Neches
Newrex
Dixiebelle
Carolina Gold
Arborio
Black Aromatic/IAC 600
Conventional Long Grains
Jefferson
Rosemont
Total 21.3
3
Uniform Regional Rice Nursery (URRN) – As proposed in 2004, Dr. Tabien provided
oversight and direction for implementing the URRN trial. The 200 rice breeding lines
developed by TX, AR, LA, and MS were tested cooperatively in each state in this trial.
Data from these experiments support all state breeding programs and serve to provide
regional documentation necessary for release of new cultivars for the south.
The 2004 URRN trial was excellent with average yields being high (8056 lb/ac
main crop, 2453 lb/ac ratoon, and 60/72 milling quality). To demonstrate the potential of
the material evaluated in this trial, the highest yielding cultivar was a medium grain from
LSU (Entry 31) which averaged 10125 lb/ac main crop, the highest milling cultivars were
two long grains from LSU (Entries 11 and 71) with 69% whole milling yield, and the
highest ratoon crop yield was TX 9092 producing 4273 lb/ac.
The Texas entries in the URRN trial were also evaluated in replicated trials at
Eagle Lake and Ganado. Figure 1. shows the crop value of the top performing lines when
averaged over these three locations. Crop value is determined using main crop yield,
milling yield, a loan rate of $6.77, and an LDP of $0.50. The results indicate that Wells
is the most profitable released commercial cultivar, being slightly more advantageous
than Cybonnet, Cocodrie, Cheniere, and Banks in this year. However the experimental
hybrid XP 723 was significantly ranked above these. The best performing Texas
experimental lines in this trial were TX 2181, TX 1104, and TX9092 which were similar
to Cocodrie in performance. TX 2181 is a long grain developed from Kaybonnet/Zhong
You Zao 3 and has conventional long grain cooking quality, good resistance to blast, and
improved resistance to sheath blight disease. TX 1104 has characteristics similar to TX
2181 but was developed from a cross of Texmont/ Teqing. TX 9092 (will be released as
Presidio) was developed from a cross of Jefferson/ Maybelle and it is similar to Jefferson
but has improved yield and milling quality. Figure 2. shows the ranking of these same
lines when the crop value includes the ratoon crop yield. This chart ranks TX 9092,
Cybonnet, and TX 1104 as the best performers when ratoon is included.
In addition to agronomic results, ARS performs evaluations for reaction to blast
and sheath blight disease, cooking quality assays, as well as evaluates these materials
using molecular markers verify the presence of major genes which control blast
resistance and cooking quality traits. This summarized information is distributed to the
breeders throughout the south to help in their variety selection process.
Statewide Preliminary Yield Trials - 40 Texas breeding lines, checks, private
experimental lines and hybrids were tested in replicated trials at Beaumont and Eagle
Lake. The private materials came from Busch Agricultural Resources and RiceTec, Inc.
The average performance of all of the lines in this trial was 8108 lb/ac main crop, 2598
lb/ac ratoon, and 59/71 on milling quality. Figure 3 shows the ranking for Crop Value
using main crop yields for the top performers. The hybrids XP 716, Clearfield XL8, XP
710, and XP 712 were ranked at the top because of their high yield. XP 716 was
particularly interesting because of its high yield and high milling quality (64% vs. 58%
for Cocodrie). Wells was the best performing check, having higher crop value than the
two separate entries of Cocodrie. The four best performing Texas experimentals were
entries 25, 9, 27, and 11, all of which came from unreleased URRN lines crossed with
Cocodrie, Madison, or Jefferson. These were all similar in crop value as compared to the
Cocodrie. Figure 4 shows that several of these Texas lines had higher ratoon crop yield
4
than the hybrids or check cultivars though. The best performing lines in this trial will be
advanced to the Uniform Regional Trial (URRN) next year.
Observation Yield Plots – Over 100 lines were tested in unreplicated yield plots at
Beaumont. These lines represent early generation (F5 – F6) selections from the breeding
nursery that have looked promising and now have enough seed to evaluate for yield,
milling quality and resistance to diseases. Based upon agronomic results, 67% of the lines
were evaluated for milling yield. The best yielding check in this trial was Wells (9723
lb/ac, 65/74 milling). Three of the Texas breeding lines were similar to Wells in yield
potential. The top 25% of the lines in this trial will be advanced to replicated trials in
2005.
Breeding Nurseries – Some 13000 genetic lines were evaluated in the Beaumont nursery
this year and approximately 4500 in each of the Puerto Rico nurseries. The following
chart shows the percent distribution of types of breeding projects planted in each of the
nurseries. Materials for genetic studies are initially used for basic research but promising
materials in these studies can be spun off into cultivar development projects. Early, Mid-,
and Advanced Generation materials indicate the level of selfing and selection the material
has undergone. Advanced materials are evaluated in the replicated yield trials described
above. Pure seed selections are made in the most promising materials that may eventually
lead to headrow purification blocks.
Percent distribution of effort in various types of breeding projects planted in nurseries.
Breeding Nurseries 04 Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 05 Spring
Puerto Rico Beaumont Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Genetic Studies 20 30 10 59
Early Generation Breeding 12 43 0 27
Mid-Generation Breeding 60 24 72 8
Advanced Breeding 5 3 18 4
Seed Purification 3 0 0 2
Seed Purification – Purification seed blocks were grown by the varietal improvement
program for providing seed to foundation seed programs. In 2004, 19 headrow blocks
were planted. This included 7 experimental Texas lines, two previously released
conventional long grains, and 10 specialty rices. All but Newrex of the latter category are
being grown commercially on limited acreage.
This year ARS registered Sabine rice (TX 1123) as a new release. This cultivar is very
similar to Dixiebelle and has its same cooking quality, but has higher yield potential. It
was developed for the parboiling and canning industries and is currently under-going
plant-scale processing trials with industry partners. The following table shows the relative
yield performance of Sabine versus Dixiebelle and other checks. Foundation seed was
produced by TRIA in 2004 and will be available for 2005 planting.
5
In addition, Presidio (TX 9092) will be released as a new long grain cultivar. Presidio
was developed from a cross of Jefferson/Maybelle. It is a long grain variety that is very
early in maturity like Jefferson. It heads on average 2 days earlier than Cocodrie and is a
semidwarf cultivar that averages 37 inches in height like Cocodrie. Its main crop yield
has been similar to Jefferson but its ratoon crop potential has been superior to most other
varieties. In the 2004 Uniform Rice Regional nursery conducted at Beaumont, it
produced 8545 lb/ac main crop and 4273 lb/ac on ratoon, for a total of 12818 lb/ac (dry).
This is in comparison to 9861 lb/ac (total, dry) for its parent Jefferson and 11764 lb/ac
(total, dry) for Cocodrie. In addition to superior ratoon crop potential, Presidio also has
superior milling quality averaging 62/70 which is the same as Cypress, as compared to
58/70 for Jefferson, and 59/69 for Cocodrie. Presidio inherited broad spectrum blast
resistance (rating of 3) and moderate resistance to sheath blight disease (rating of 4) from
Jefferson which would likely preclude the use of fungicides in most circumstances.
In addition, PVP applications were submitted to USDA for the cultivars Hidalgo and Cala
which were released last year.
Technology Transfer Activities
The following is a list of other research and outreach activities that were performed by
Dr. McClung during 2004 to familiarize producers, researchers and representatives of the
industry with the research objectives and progress in the breeding program.
• Presentation at extension winter meeting at Beaumont - Jan. 2004.
• Invited presentation at the Annual Texas Seed Trade meeting on developing value
added varieties. Dallas, Feb. 2004.
• Participation in annual breeders meeting - March 2004.
• Prepared documentation on Sabine and Presidio Rice Texas Dept. Agric.
• Presentations to TRIA on the status of potential new releases from southern US rice
breeding programs - July 2004.
• Reviewed research progress as part of the Scientific Advisory Board for the TIGR
Rice Annotation Grant. May 2004.
• Oral and poster presentations at field days conducted in Beaumont and Eagle Lake –
June and July 2004
• Drafted an article for publishing in the Beaumont Enterprise as part of the Ag Task
Force whose focus is to increase public awareness of the benefits of agriculture in
AR TX All Data
Jefferson 7428 7520 7302
Cocodrie 8226 8254 8145
Dixiebelle 5914 7159 6736
Sabine 7762 7733 7733
Sabine Advantage Over DXBL (lb/ac) 1849 574 997
Sabine Advantage Over DXBL (%) 31% 8% 15%
6
southeast Texas : Gipson, Naomi, and Anna McClung. 2004. Rice – A Culinary
Delight. The Beaumont Enterprise. June 10, 2004.
• Invited reviewer for USDA Integrated Organic Program grants. June 2004
• Presented poster display at Winnie Rice Festival - Oct. 2004.
• Meetings with rice researchers: Iraq, Colombia, Uruguay, Brazil, Campbell Soup,
Riviana, RiceTec, etc.
• Provided update on variety performance in the Rice Production Guidelines for
distribution to growers, Nov. 2004.
• Summarized and distributed of 2003 Texas yield trial data (URRN) to cooperating
state breeders Dec. 2004.
• Made presentation on cultivar performance to county agents at annual extension
meeting, Dec. 2004
• Hosted 20 some students from East Chambers High School and described rice
production, plant breeding, and cereal quality assay techniques. Nov. 2004.
• Invited presentation at the Texas Plant Protection Conference, College Station, TX.
Dec. 2004.
• Invited presentation at the annual meeting of the US and Japan Natural Resources
Panel. Dec. 2004.
• Served as co-author on presentations listed below that were made at the Feb 2004
Rice Technical Working Group Meeting in New Orleans.
Development of Improved Methods for Sheath Blight Evaluation
Shank, A.R., McClung, A.M. and Fjellstrom, R.G.
Effect of Rice to Water Ratios on Cooked Rice Flavor and Texture Attributes.
Bett-Garber, K.L., Champagne, E.T., Ingram, D.A., and McClung, A.M.
Development of genetic markers for semi-dwarf plant height and
photoperiod insensitivity for marker aided selection in US rice
Fjellstrom, R., McClung, A.M., Gibbons, J., and Deren, C.
Single nucleotide polymorphism markers at the rice Alk locus controlling alkali
spreading value
Fjellstrom, R., Chen, M.-H., Bergman, C.J., and McClung, A.M.
Genetic Diversity Among West African Rice Varieties for Grain Quality Traits Using
Chemical and DNA Marker Analyses
Traore K., Fjellstrom, R.G., and McClung A.M.
Progress in Developing DNA Markers for Milling Yield
Kepiro, J.L., McClung, A.M., and Fjellstrom, R.G.
The Application of New Markers for Predicting Blast Resistance and Cooking Quality in
Rice
McClung, A.M., Shank, A.R., Kanter, D., Jodari, F., Beighley, D., Chen, M., and
Fjellstrom, R.G.
7
Are agronomic traits impacted by the presence of Pi- genes when blast disease is absent?
McClung, A.M., Shank, A.R., Bormans, C., Park, W.D., and Fjellstrom, R.G.
8
Utilization of Winter Nursery Facilities for Development of Improved Cultivars
TRRF Report on 2004 Research
Funding: March 1, 2004 – Feb. 28, 2005
Amount: $37,580
Final Report
Jan. 5, 2005
Anna McClung
USDA-ARS
Rodante Tabien
Texas A&M University
Beaumont, TX
9
Objective: Utilize the winter breeding nursery facilities to their fullest extent to
enhance cultivar development projects that are led by Drs. McClung and Tabien.
Results of Use of Puerto Rico Nursery
Approximately 4500 breeding nursery rows were planted in each of the winter nurseries.
Each year a Fall nursery is planted around October and a Spring nursery is planted
around Dec. in Puerto Rico. The Fall planted nursery is harvested around Feb. of the
following year and the Spring planted nursery is harvested in late April. The Fall planted
nursery allows for seed to be returned to Beaumont in time for planting in summer yield
trials where as the Spring planted nursery returns in time for late planting in Beaumont.
The following chart shows the percent distribution of types of breeding projects planted
in each of the nurseries. Materials for genetic studies are initially used for basic research
but promising materials in these studies can be spun off into cultivar development
projects. Early, Mid-, and Advanced Generation materials indicate the level of selfing
and selection that the material has undergone. Advanced materials are evaluated in
replicated yield trials whereas pure seed selections are made in just the most promising
materials that may eventually lead to headrow purification blocks.
Winter breeding nurseries are used by all of the rice breeding programs in the US because
they allow breeding selections to be more rapidly advanced through selfing causing them
to become stable and true breeding. This genetic stability is important before expending
resources on replicated yield trials. Thus the winter nursery allows for generation of more
materials for use in advanced yield trials than would be possible if we were limited to just
the summer nursery.
Percent distribution of effort in various types of breeding projects planted in nurseries.
Breeding Nurseries 04 Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 05 Spring
Puerto Rico Beaumont Puerto Rico Puerto Rico
Genetic Studies 20 30 10 59
Early Generation Breeding 12 43 0 27
Mid-Generation Breeding 60 24 72 8
Advanced Breeding 5 3 18 4
Seed Purification 3 0 0 2
24
TRRF 2004
Progress Report
William D. Park
Title: Direct Manipulation of Yield Determinants and Herbicide Tolerance in Rice
o Budget $34,500
Objectives as stated in the proposal:
1. Further characterization of our current plants with the alfalfa GS1 gene and also
plants containing a slightly different GS1 gene from soybean that are currently being
regenerated. This work will be done in collaboration with Mike Chandler and with
Ted Wilson and the staff at Beaumont.
• test effects on growth and yield
• testing for herbicide tolerance
2. Directly test a candidate gene for herbicide tolerance that we have isolated from TX4
3. Production of transgenic Cypress and Cocodrie with enhanced expression of a
different gene that has also been reported to increase yield in some varieties of rice.
Actual Results Obtained:
Characterization of Cypress and Cocodrie over-expressing GS1
We had found previously that over-expressing the cytoplasmic form of glutamine
synthetase 1 (GS1) from alfalfa caused Cypress and Cocodrie to regenerate more quickly
and also gave plantlets with thicker stems and more tillers which appeared to have a early
season growth advantage.
At the time of the TRRF Board Review last year, our first plants with the alfalfa GS1
gene were just getting ready to set seed and we were very optimistic based on their
vigorous growth. Quite surprisingly, however, these plants produced no seed what-so-
ever. This was seen with more than 20 independent transgenic lines and for both Cypress
and Cocodrie containing this gene. It should be noted that these plants were deliberately
grown under low nitrogen conditions in the greenhouse to maximize the effect of over-
expressing the GS1 gene. However control plants with exactly the same construct,
except lacking the alfalfa GS1 gene, gave good relatively good seed set – routinely
producing hundreds of seeds. Normal non-transgenic Cypress and Cocodrie also gave
relatively good seed set under these conditions.
While these results clearly show that GS1 is important, at this point we thought that the
simplistic approach of constitutive over-expression using the 35S promoter was simply
not going to work. One can easily expect that GS1 would need to be carefully turned on
25
and off in the appropriate time in the appropriate tissue – rather than being over-
expressed all the time in essentially all tissues.
As part of this project, we had also proposed to send some of the plants over-expressing
GS1 to Ted Wilson at Beaumont to see how they performed under more “real world”
conditions. This was particularly important since our work in College Station had been
done with low levels of nitrogen fertilizer to maximize the effect of the alfalfa GS1 gene.
In striking contrast to the total lack of seed set obtained using low levels of nitrogen in
College Station, some of the Cypress and Cocodrie plants that over-expressed alfalfa GS1
gave very good seed set when grown with commercial levels of nitrogen at Beaumont.
Several individual plants produced more than 2000 seed, and some produce more than
3000.
Similar, though less dramatic, results were also seen with a second GS1 construct which
contains the nodule form of glutamine synthetase from soybean. Under low nitrogen
greenhouse conditions in College Station, we got only a few seed. However, large
numbers of seed were produced when the plants were grown with commercial levels of
nitrogen at Beaumont.
The simplest interpretation of the data is that constitutively over-expressing GS1 using
the 35S promoter had dramatically changed Cypress and Cocodrie’s response to nitrogen
fertilization – reducing seed set at low levels of N, but perhaps even increasing plant
productivity with commercial levels of N.
It is important to realize that these experiments were all done with plants directly
regenerated from callus – which are likely to be physiologically different from plants
grown from seed. Also, while a number of independent transformation events were
tested at both College Station and Beaumont, exactly the same plants were not tested
under the two different sets of conditions. However, since we have large numbers of
seed, both of these issues can now be directly addressed.
We had proposed to directly test whether over-expression of GS1 confers tolerance to
Liberty – as expected based on the tolerance seen previously in alfalfa tissue culture
when this gene was over-expressed. However, this has not yet been done since, until
recently, we thought the plants were essentially sterile. This, too, can now be directly
tested using the seed that were produced in Beaumont.
Directly testing a candidate gene for herbicide tolerance from TX4
This objective was based on DNA sequence differences we found in one of the
cytoplasmic GS1 genes from TX4. This sequence difference was particularly interesting
since it is in the region where a natural mutation has been claimed to give herbicide
tolerance in maize.
26
To test this idea, we prepared a cDNA library from TX4 and Cypress and isolated the
corresponding GS1 structural gene. The rice glutamine synthetase genes were then
inserted into E. coli that lacked the corresponding enzyme. Bacteria containing the
Cypress and TX4 forms of GS1 were then tested for their ability to grow on different
concentrations of herbicide.
It was a good idea and worth testing. However, we saw no indication that the mutant
form of GS1 that we isolated from TX4 confers significant tolerance to Liberty.
Production of transgenic Cypress and Cocodrie with enhanced expression of a different
gene that has also been reported to increase yield in some varieties of rice
There is good reason to expect that manipulation of GOGAT will further enhance the
effect of over-expressing GS1. However, Texas varieties are expected to naturally have
high levels of this enzyme but limiting amounts of GS1. Thus, this objective was put on
hold until the effects of over-expressing GS1 alone are better understood.
Additional work beyond original objectives:
In addition to the stated objectives, we also directed a considerable amount of effort
toward a regulatory issue with the potential to both shut down export markets for Texas
rice and to prevent the deployment of most herbicide resistance genes. This is described
in the appendix to this progress report.
27
Park TRRF 2004
Appendix
Preventing the Rice Industry from being seriously damaged by inappropriate
enforcement of the Federal Noxious Weed Act:
We recently become aware of the devastating impact that inappropriate enforcement of
the Federal Noxious Weed Act could have on the US rice industry. While this objective
was not included as part of our research plan, Mike Chandler and I felt that we needed to
take immediate action.
Oryza rufipogon is officially listed in the Federal Noxious Weed Act. We recently
discovered that if Oryza rufipogon is found in a commercial field, APHIS can be required
to take action. Rice from counties containing Oryza rufipogon can be quarantined and
APHIS would be blocked from issuing the photosanitary permits required for rice
exports.
The presence of O. rufipogon could also block deployment of most herbicide resistant
rice varieties. This is because companies that hold patents on herbicides and herbicide
resistance genes are concerned about outcrossing with noxious weeds and possible legal
liability for their role in creating a transgenic “superweed”. The seriousness of this
concern was confirmed in discussions with an industrial representative who routinely
deals with regulatory issues on an international basis.
The reason that this is important is that some of the black-hulled red rice in commercial
fields in Texas are very closely related to samples classified as “Oryza rufipogon” by the
US National Small Grains Collection (NSGC) and to the well known Asian accession
“Oryza rufipogon” 105496 that has been used by several US breeding programs.
We have since discovered that black-hulled red rice that is similar to “O. rufipogon”
105496 is very widely distributed – and is present in almost every rice producing county
in Texas.
O. rufipogon 105496 is currently regulated under the Federal Noxious Weed Act. If this
same regulation were extended to the similar black hulled red rice in commercial fields, it
would have very serious and wide-spread consequences.
To determine whether the black hulled red rice in Texas fields is actually Oryza
rufipogon, we compared them to authentic samples of rufipogon from a natural
infestation in Florida and to a wide range of samples freshly collected from the wild in
Asia by Dr. Alison Snow of Ohio State University. These samples were all perennial
types with rhizomes and thus fit the strict definition of Oryza rufipogon used by most
experts in the field. For example, O. rufipogon is defined this way in the rice taxonomy
portion of the IRRI web site. However, it is not the definition used by the Federal
Noxious Weeds Act, which defines O. rufipogon as an annual species.
28
As an additional test, we also used a type of DNA marker based on retrotransposons.
These markers have been used previously on large Asian collections of red rice and thus
allowed us to also tie our results directly to publications from other recognized experts in
rice taxonomy.
This project is still underway, but the results obtained thus far clearly show that none of
the red rice in US commercial fields fits under the strict definition of Oryza rufipogon.
Thus none of it should regulated under the Federal Noxious Weed Act. This has been
shown by two different statistical methods: genetic distance - multidimensional scaling
and a Bayesian model based clustering method.
Rather than being classified as “O. rufipogon”, the black hulled red rice in US
commercial fields should be classified as O. nivara – a completely unregulated species.
Our study calls into question the “O. rufipogon” in the US Small Grains collection. Most
of the “O. rufipogon” in the US collection can not be validly distinguished from O.
nivara. In fact, some of the “O. rufipogon” in the collection are indistinguishable from
O. sativa ssp. indica and are very closely related to Asian commercial cultivars.
This is not an indication of any lack of diligence on the part of the US Small Grains
Collection, but rather is likely a reflection of the severe selection pressure for outcrossing
that occurs when a largely vegetative reproducing species is maintained in a seed
collection.
Most importantly for the US rice industry, these results clearly indicate that the “O.
rufipogon” in the US Small Grains Collection (and “O. rufipogon” 10546) can not be
validly used as “standards” in enforcement of the Federal Noxious Weed Act. In fact, the
definition of O. rufipogon as an annual species that is currently used in the Federal
Noxious Weed Act is both scientifically invalid and legally indefensible.
29
TRRF Report on 2004 Research
Physiological Bases for Texas Rice Ratoon Crop Management
Lee Tarpley
Funding provided: $35,000
30
Objective 1. Determine if an increase in ratoon yield that is often associated with low
cutting height of the main crop is a result of: a) a decrease in shading due to removal of
upper vegetative material and wind-rowed straw, b) a relative increase in photosynthetic
capacity of the developing ratoon crop, c) a progressive removal of inhibition that is
caused by the presence of upper growth on the main crop stems, and/or d) a more optimal
proportion of tillers near the base of the plant with good supporting resources and a
longer developmental period.
Progress and Results 1.
A low cutting height of the main crop, especially with a tool providing a sharp cut and
pulverizing action such as a flail mower, stimulates ratoon crop yield. If we can establish
the mechanisms for this benefit, then we might be able to find alternative, less expensive
ways to achieve the same benefit. Furthermore, we need to be prepared to rationally
coordinate other ratoon yield enhancement treatments and management schemes with the
beneficial flail mowing treatments if we are to achieve 6000 pounds per acre ratoon
yields.
During the past season, we were able to narrow the list of possible mechanisms by which
flail mowing benefits ratoon crop yield. What follows is a series of small arguments.
i. Flail mowing of the main crop was conducted in two different ways in a
research-plot study in 2004. For some plots, the grain was harvested by combine
as usual. A flail mower quickly followed, with a 2” cutting height. In other
plots, the grain was not harvested and the whole plant, including the grain, was
cut down to 2” with the flail mower. Ratoon stand was much poorer for those
plots in which the grain was not harvested first, therefore a low cutting height
obtained with a flail mower does not guarantee the good ratoon stand that is
needed for good ratoon yield. Instead, several possible factors can explain this
difference in stand. The additional straw is physically or chemically inhibiting
the ratoon crop growth, or the extra material that has to be mowed is preventing
an efficient chop by the flail mower, and either the presence of the relatively
large pieces of the straw or the duller cut of the stalk are somehow inhibiting the
ratoon crop growth. Very vigorous genotypes, such as XL-7, were more able to
grow out of the stand inhibition resulting from cutting the entire plant. This
weakly suggests that the inhibition is not due to a duller cut of the stalk because
a physical injury of the plant would usually result in a proportional decrease in
the potential yield rather than a setback to the vigor.
ii. In another research-plot study conducted in 2004, the entire plants, including
grain, were flail mowed, but three different cutting were used – 2, 4 and 6
inches. The plots cut at 6” had much better ratoon stand, and the stand of the 4”-
cut plots was somewhat better than the 2”-cut ones. These results suggest that a
chemical inhibition due to the presence of the extra straw was probably not a
factor because the differences in the mass of vegetation cut were much less than
the differences in resulting stand. What was probably happening in this study
was that the 6” height was tall enough to be above the mat of straw. Supporting
the conclusion that the inhibition is not chemical are the results obtained by
producers indicating that a low cutting height with the flail mower stimulates
31
ratoon crop yield. A low cutting height means more straw and thus potentially
more chemical inhibition, but the opposite results are being obtained, thus
chemical inhibition seems unlikely whether through direct release of some
chemical from the straw or indirectly through increased substrate for microbial
action leading to low oxygen conditions in the flood water.
iii. The above two studies also allow us to suggest that yet another possible
explanation of the advantages of flail mowing is not likely to be a major factor.
The possible explanation was the removal of an inhibitory signal sent down the
stem from the panicle (this inhibitory signal can prevent new tiller
development), the more stem that was removed then the more inhibitory signal
that was removed. This scenario seems unlikely for the above studies because 1)
when the 2” cutting height was used for cutting both the whole plants and the
harvest residue, then the results were quite different although the amount of
inhibitory signal that was removed was the same, 2) when the cutting height
was varied but the whole plant was cut, then the stand was better with the
somewhat taller cutting height (6”), but the amount of inhibitory signal removed
would have been somewhat less, so these results are contrary to the hypothesis
that removal of an inhibitory signal is a major advantage to flail mowing.
iv. From these preliminary results, the primary advantages of flail mowing for
ratoon yield appear to lie in the system, namely a clean low cut with a good
chop so that mainly basal tillers are formed (basal tillers typically form a larger
panicle but take longer to develop). The good chop helps prevent straw matting
and wind-rowing which can either physically inhibit the developing tillers or
can shade them excessively. The clean cut minimizes any harm to the tillers,
and also provides a uniform cut to the field. Uniformity indirectly benefits yield
in several ways – by allowing relatively good uniformity in grain at harvest, this
means less greens or over-mature grain, and better timing of agrochemical
treatments and other management practices because of the better uniformity of
plant development.
v. Some tentative conclusions can be drawn concerning the use of flail mowing
following harvest of the main crop as a tool for enhancing ratoon crop yield: 1)
if a 6” cutting height performs as well as a 2” or 4” height, then the 6” height
would be preferred because it is more tolerant against possible inhibition due to
straw matting; 2) because neither chemical nor physiological (inhibition signal)
inhibition appear to be a major factor corrected by flail mowing, then
agrochemical treatments or management schemes that encourage vigorous
growth of the developing ratoon tillers would be complementary to the benefits
from flail mowing; and 3) the advantage of the low cutting height is probably
physiological, but the advantage of using the flail mower to achieve the low
cutting height is probably in its ability to minimize the matting. The results from
the 2004 flail mowing studies did not allow us to determine if the matting
primarily caused shading or a physical inhibition of tiller growth.
Economic Analysis 1. The economic advantages of a low cutting height have been
estimated previously by McCauley and Turner and Jund. The economic advantages of
using a flail mower to achieve the low cutting height rather than cutting low with the
32
combine will come from several factors: 1) increased efficiency of main crop harvest
because the higher cutting height means less trash, 2) a disadvantage due to an extra pass,
in this case with the flail mower, 3) an advantage due to the better chop/pulverization
achieved by the flail mower. This appears to be the main advantage because it decreases
straw matting and allows better ratoon stand. I’m going to estimate this at a minimum of
1000 lbs/A, 4) some possibility of decreased chemical or water use due to increased
uniformity of the ratoon crop, but I’m assuming that this is not applicable with the current
practices being used; 5) an improved milling quality due to increased uniformity of grain
maturation due to increased uniformity of the ratoon stand (part of the increased
uniformity is due to the low cutting height and not the flail mowing per se), and 6) there
will be an advantage due to the amenability of the flail mowed fields to use of
management schemes, including fertility, and PGR treatments to push the ratoon crop for
good vegetative growth. The only factor I’ve put a number on at this point is increased
yield. At $7/cwt and 10 cwt/A increase and $10/A decrease for extra pass and 80,000
acres (40% on average of Texas acres ratooned, and 200,000 acres of rice), then a rough
estimate of economic advantage to Texas rice producers is $4.8 million.
Next Steps in Research 1. Document the ratoon crop yield advantage of flail mowing of
main crop at 6” cutting height vs. 6” cutting height achieved by combine. Do this for
popular cultivars. Assess the effects of PGRs and management schemes to promote early
vegetative growth of the ratoon crop.
Objective 2. Evaluate a gibberellin treatment applied to the ratoon crop soon after stand
has been re-established for ability to encourage rapid growth of the young ratoon tillers
with possible benefit of rapid canopy closure and increased yield. (This objective was
modified to focus on the identification of plant growth regulators and management
schemes to enhance ratoon tiller numbers, and thus stand.)
Progress and Results 2. Most of the acreage in Texas is planted in varieties with good
ratoon potential, thus the limitations in consistent ratoon stand are likely to be due to an
interaction of environment and physiology. The bases for early, vigorous and uniform
ratoon stand establishment were addressed because there are indicators that large yield
improvements can be made at this stage.
Are there agrochemical or management schemes that can potentially increase the number
of ratoon tillers? We know from our research in the previous years that the gibberellic
acid treatment can stimulate the vigor of ratoon tillers once they have initiated (see
objective 3), but it doesn’t do any good to stimulate the vigor of the ratoon tillers unless
they are there in the first place.
Yes, there are agrochemical or management schemes that can increase the number of
ratoon tillers. In 2004 and previous years, we’ve identified a number of treatments that
can stimulate ratoon tiller number. This is the area for which we probably made the most
exciting progress during this last year. Our ability to find a number of ways to increase
tiller number is indicative that we are gaining an increased understanding of the
33
limitations to tiller establishment, which is important to ratoon stand establishment and
yield.
There are several points of evidence for this claim:
i.As mentioned under Objective 3, gibberellic acid treatment significantly increased
ratoon tiller number (doubled) in one research plot study. Gibberellic acid is the
plant growth hormone, and is usually used as a PGR for increasing plant
growth, not for starting new growth. There are situations, however, where it can
force a tiller bud to break out of a certain kind of dormancy.
ii.Benzyladenine nearly doubled the number of ratoon tillers in a replicated
research-plot study. Benzyladenine is present in several PGRs, and is known as
the plant branching hormone
iii.TIBA, (triiodobenzoic acid), another commercially available PGR, significantly
stimulated the number of basal ratoon tillers relative to those higher up the stem.
The basal ratoon tillers are usually preferred because they make larger panicles
as long as they have time to mature.
iv.An increase in the amount of sunlight available to the base of the ratoon plants
significantly increased the number of ratoon tillers in one research-plot study.
The increase was achieved by placing white plastic under the rows to reflect
light back off of the soil. Other colors of plastic did not increase the number of
ratoon tillers.
v.In the study above, a specific red color of plastic inhibited the number of ratoon
tillers. This strongly suggests the involvement of something called the
phytochrome system, which is a hormonal kind of response in plants that is
triggered by changes in the sunshine due to shading by green leaves. The red
plastic mimicked the effect of this kind of shading based on how the plant
responds physiologically. The inhibition of tillering due to shading from green
leaves has been observed in other kinds of grasses.
vi.In a greenhouse study of two years, we decreased the amount of UV light that the
rice plants received. The number of tillers was decreased when the UV was
decreased below normal. Low UV light triggers another kind of hormonal
response in plants that happens naturally when plants are shaded by green
leaves. When we want the ratoon tillers to initiate and develop early before
harvest of the main crop, then we are sometimes asking them to grow in the
shade of the main crop growth. Plants like to grow new branches in the light not
in the shade, and have developed mechanisms to inhibit this kind of
development. We want the tillers to develop because we know we will give
them their sunshine fairly soon, but we have to fight against these natural plant
mechanisms. The use of PGRs to stimulate new tiller development is one
obvious way of fighting back. These PGRs that we know can stimulate ratoon
tiller production act against these mechanisms (like the shading effects
involving phytochrome and low UV light). Because shading is not the only
factor that can inhibit tillering, but is likely to trigger a similar chain of events in
the plant leading to the tiller inhibition as the other factors, when we can
identify these environmental inhibitory factors then we are also identifying
specifc mechanisms of inhibition that we know something about because of
34
these common chains of events among inhibitory mechanisms. This gives us
good clues about what PGRs to use and when to further improve upon the set of
identified PGRs or management schemes to improve the consistency and
earliness of ratoon tiller stand, which is a primary limiting factor to achieving
ratoon yields in the 6000 pounds per acre range.
vii.Two more PGRs that are not normally used for this purpose significantly
increased ratoon tiller numbers (from 30 tillers per row-foot of the non-treated
to 40-42 tillers per row-foot) in a research-plot study this year. Both of the
PGRs, if proven to be efficacious, are likely to be economically beneficial
because of their low chemical cost and potential to be tank-mixed with other
chemicals already being applied at the appropriate developmental stage.
Economic Analysis 2. We should be able to achieve ratoon yields of at least half that of
the main crop. This last year, the average ratoon yield was about 39% of the average
main crop yield (Jim Stansel. 2004 – Texas Rice Crop Statistics), then we are at about
80% of the minimum ratoon to main crop yield that we should be able to achieve.
Although a number of factors in ratoon cropping can be improved, we know that a
prominent factor for improvement is the ratoon stand. Assuming the adoption of other
practices that might help improve ratoon stand, we might still need to address the
physiological limitations to stand, such as those identified by manipulating the light
environment as mentioned in the studies above, and likely to be important as suggested
by the ability of the PGR treatments to improve stand. If we can improve ratoon tiller
count an average of 25% (to account for the 80% of the minimum ratoon to main crop
yield ratio), then we would expect a yield increase of about 600 pounds per acre.
Assuming that the PGRs are fairly inexpensive (they are commercially available) and can
be applied with other treatments (the timing for this should usually work), then the rough
estimate of the economic advantage of these PGRs to improve ratoon stand is [(7/cwt X 6
CWT/A) - $15/A application)] X 80,000 acres (40% on average of Texas acres ratooned,
and 200,000 acres of rice), then a rough estimate of economic advantage to Texas rice
producers is $2.1 million.
Next Steps in Research 2. Need to repeat some of these studies. Start optimizing rates,
timing, and tank-mixing potentials of the potential PGRs. Testing compatibility with
gibberellic acid and other treatments that primarily act to promote vigorous growth. In the
case of the management schemes, make sure we understand the physiology being
influenced. Obviously, the use of the plastics and UV- levels are research tools not
production management tools, but because these environmental factors cause a chain of
physiological events that encourage or discourage ratoon tiller initiation, then there does
exist PGR (plant hormones) options that can alter the chain of events to our benefit. The
Plant Physiology project seems to be closing in on a set of tools for improving ratoon
stand, but we need to keep working on making this set more robust.
Objective 3. Facilitate the transfer of a specific PGR treatment (Gibberellin at several
days post-flowering) to the producers through a) additional large-field testing, and b) a
second season of testing this PGR treatment on the most common varieties in use in
Texas.
35
Progress and Results 3. Can a gibberellic acid treatment be applied before main crop
harvest to stimulate early growth of ratoon tillers so that they will be “up-and-running”
by main crop harvest? This ensures that the ratoon crop will be as early as practically
feasible for the particular field. This is important for two reasons: 1) any delay in
maturation of the ratoon crop can cause a lot of greens at harvest (the grain simply
doesn’t mature if the weather gets too cold), and 2) getting an early ratoon stand can
increase the potential yield. This is because the sooner the ratoon crop fills the spaces
between the plants, then the sooner the crop can maximize the capture of the sunlight
falling on the field. Maximum capture of the sunlight means more photosynthesis by the
field, which means more carbohydrates and reduced nitrogen are available to fill the
panicles.
Yes, a gibberellic acid treatment can be applied before main crop harvest to stimulate
early growth of ratoon tillers, resulting in increased ratoon yield without loss in main
crop yield or either crop’s grain quality, and with net economic benefit to the producer.
There are several points of evidence for this claim:
i. Several years of study have indicated that ratoon yield can be increased
significantly by about 500 pounds per acre when a gibberellic acid treatment is
applied to the main crop at a rate of 3 to 5 grams of active ingredient (a.i.) per
acre starting several days after peak flowering. Cocodrie ratoon yields have
been increased to this extent in approximately half of the studies conducted,
with significant yield increases seen at Beaumont and Eagle Lake. In the studies
for which no significant yield increase was observed, there was often a natural
explanation. For example, in one study fungal diseases of the ratoon crop
overwhelmed our ability to detect yield differences.
ii. Significant increases in yield, again of approximately 500 pounds per acre, have
been seen in other genotypes. The testing of the response of the genotypes has
been more limited with respect to number of studies. In particular all of the
research plots at the main site (Beaumont) for this study in 2004 were destroyed
by a funnel cloud that occurred soon before harvest of the main crop (see
figure). Indications are that the same gibberellic acid treatment regime will
result in significant ratoon yield increases for those cultivars and hybrids with a
more vigorous growth habit and otherwise healthy for ratooning. The yield
increases have been seen for XL-7 and XL-8, in addition to Cocodrie.
Example of extensive lodging in Physiology plots due to
funnel cloud in late July 2004
iii. The gibberellic acid treatment significantly
increased the length of ratoon tillers when
measured shortly before harvest of the main
crop. Measurements were made on four tillers
36
per plant on plants obtained from similar positions within the plots. This
indicates that the gibberellic acid treatment accelerated growth of the ratoon
tillers.
iv. In another study, significantly more stems of the gibberellic acid-treated plots
had ratoon panicles compared to non-treated plots when measured one month
after main crop harvest.
v. In one study, the gibberellic acid treatment significantly increased the number
of ratoon tillers (49 per row-foot vs. 26 for the non-treated). Although this
increase in tiller number was not a likely explanation for an increased ratoon
yield in the study (because 26 tillers per row-foot might have been adequate),
the study nonetheless indicates the ability of an appropriately timed gibberellic
acid treatment to increase ratoon tiller development.
vi. The large-field testing has been difficult to summarize neatly. There have been a
number of studies conducted in different parts of the Texas Ricebelt and on
different cultivars and in different seasons, but I have no solid data from these
large-field tests to say that the treatment works. The most difficult part is getting
a good measure of yield for the various treatments. There are several producers
who believe that it is beneficial.
Economic Analysis 3. A combination of factors allow us to suggest that the treatment
can be of economic benefit. One is the low cost of the treatment of about $1-2 per grams
a.i. with 3 to 5 grams applied per acre. The gibberellic acid treatment is appropriate for
tank-mixing with stinkbug treatments. At $7/cwt and 5 cwt/acre, then the net profit is at
least $25/acre. Given that no adverse effects are known, and that the treatment cost is
low, the treatment is economically justified. At the above values, if 80,000 acres (40% on
average of Texas acres ratooned, and 200,000 acres of rice) are ratooned, then the net
benefit to Texas rice producers can be $2 million per year.
Next Steps in Research 3. This treatment is not of enough economic benefit to be
applied by itself, but it has promise to be tank-mixed and applied with stink-bug
treatments that are often applied during grain filling. The Plant Physiology project needs
to be teaming up with the Entomology project to test these tank-mixes. In addition, the
research to date has focused on optimizing the gibberellic acid treatment at the several-
days post-flowering period. We need to optimize the rates for when the compound is
applied during grain filling, and perform this for the common cultivars used in Texas rice
production.
Additional objectives addressed:
Objective 4. Analyze rice response to seasonal high nighttime temperatures to determine
how to maximize grain set and fill.
Progress and Results 4.
In the Texas ricebelt during a typical growing season there is always a possibility that
temperatures will be high enough to hurt yield. This is especially true if the temperatures
are high during sensitive periods of plant development. The sensitive periods are when
the various parts of the flower are starting to form, that period during flowering and right
37
after this when the self-pollination occurs and grains start to form by seed set, and to a
lesser extent during grain filling when the quality of the grain can be hurt. Based on
literature from Asian rice research, the main effects are probably due to high night
temperatures. This is because the sensitive reproductive events usually occur at night.
The mechanisms by which heat stress causes losses in grain yield and quality in cultivars
and environmental conditions common to Texas were examined in initial studies.
Understanding the mechanism is necessary for efficient development of new genotypes,
management schemes, or agrochemical treatments to address the situation.
How to avoid losses in main crop yield due to periods of high temperature? To
understand the effects of high nighttime temperatures, we needed to be able to measure
rice plant response under a realistic range of nighttime temperatures, while not also
changing other environmental factors at the same time (otherwise any results we obtained
might be due to the change in the other variable and not the temperature). The Plant
Physiology project designed and constructed a novel way of heating the plants with near-
continuous adjustment to precisely maintained temperatures at whatever regime for the
day/night pattern that we wanted. All of this was done without enclosing the plants in any
sort of chamber, thus avoiding any change in humidity or light. The apparatus has been
used in several small studies this season. We are in the process of accumulating
replicated datasets and are keeping the apparatus in continuous use.
Economic Analysis 4. Temperatures in the Texas ricebelt do not get high enough to
decrease yield every year, but sometimes do. Assuming this happens once in five years,
and that the average yield loss is 10% (different areas will be influenced differently and
development varies within fields and even on the individual plants). Assuming all this,
then, an average annual loss across the Texas rice belt would be about $1.8 million.
These agrochemical treatments are commercially available, and would only be applied to
limited acreage in certain years, so the overall average annual application costs would be
fairly small.
Next Steps in Research 4. The Plant Physiology project needs to continue these
studies, so that we can understand the mechanisms involved. This knowledge will
influence the direction we take to develop applications to minimize yield and quality
losses. We’ve just gotten the system up-and-running this past season.
Objective 5. Focus on evaluation of potential plant growth regulators to minimize
inhibition of seed set and related rice plant responses to stress
Progress and Results 5. A common way by which an environmental stress can lead to a
decline in yield or quality is through disruption of the plant’s ability to deliver food (also
called the photosynthate or sugars or reserves) to the developing grain. This is also
commonly seen when stresses cause poor development of other plant parts, for example
tillers. The most likely weak link in the system for delivering photosynthate to the
developing grain or other plant parts was examined for its role in yield response to stress.
Simultaneously, potential plant growth regulators with ability to alter the activity of the
putative weak link were evaluated. If we are correct that this is the weak link, then an
38
agrochemical treatment specifically addressing it would be useful until the breeding for
cultivars with less susceptibility could catch up.
An environmental stress or, for that matter, any kind of stress affects rice yield or quality
through a certain chain of events. For example, heat stress is possibly altering the activity
of a particular biochemical function that needs to stay in a certain optimal range to allow
the delivery of the photosynthate (food) to a developing plant part. If this activity is
altered just at the wrong time, for example by high nighttime temperatures for four or five
nights in a row right during peak flowering, then there is a good chance that the
photosynthate that is needed to supply the setting seeds will not be adequately provided
and the final yield will be poor because of low grain number.. The situation might not be
so different for insect damage or disease in which the leaves might be destroyed (thus
destroying the ability to photosynthesize) or the vessels carrying the photosynthate
(sugars) from the leaves to other parts of the plant is blocked or otherwise disrupted.
There is always a chain of events, but, especially in the case of environmental stresses,
which are relatively invisible compared to insects and diseases, the challenge is to know
what the chain is. We need to know this so that we can home in on an improvement
strategy, hopefully first by developing some sort of agrochemical treatment or
management scheme until a targeted varietal improvement program can be carried out.
This is why the Plant Physiology project has typically tried to examine potential
agrochemical treatments from the onset of a study, so that not only can we use them as
research tools to manipulate the plant response to a stress (which helps us tear into the
mechanism quickly), but we can also move them, or a cousin compound, along toward
application as quickly as possible if they act in a beneficial way for crop yield or quality.
There is a biochemical function that looks like it might be a weak link in rice
plant response to a number of environmental stresses. This is because it has a central role
in delivery of photosynthate to growing plant parts. During this last season, we initiated
several studies examining the role of this particular biochemical function and the effects
of certain chemical compounds that can influence its activity. Two of the three
compounds, if efficacious, would be likely to be economically feasible to use in
commercial production. The other compound would not be economical, but can give us
clues about what a cousin compound with commercial potential might look like.
Economic Analysis 5. The argument here is essentially that of Economic Analysis 4. For
Objective 5, the Plant Physiology project is trying to build a set of PGRs that can help
prevent yield or quality loss due to certain environmental stresses, including high night-
time temperature stress. The other stresses that we are concerned with include the heat
stress during grain filling as it affects grain quality, and ratoon tiller initiation, but I’m
going to hold the estimate at $1.8 million per year for the Texas rice producers until we
are able to demonstrate results for these other stresses.
We thank the Texas Rice Research Foundation for their support.
39
40
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................1-5
RESEARCH PRESENTATION ............................................................................................................................. 6-15
I. OBJECTIVE ONE
Measure Each Entry’s Main and Ratoon Crop Yield and Milling Response With and Without
Fungicide Under Intense and Moderate N Management on Clay and Silt Loam Soil.
A. Methods ...............................................................................................................7-8
B. Results ............................................................................................................... 8-10
1. Fungicide Effects on Rice Yield................................................................... 8
2. N Fertilizer Effects on Rice Yield ................................................................ 8
3. Variety Yield Comparison (Cocodrie vs New Varieties) .............................. 9
4. Herbicide Resistant Variety Yield Comparison ............................................ 9
5. Main Crop Variety Milling and Whole Grain/A Comparisons ...................... 9
6. Ratoon Crop and Total Crop Production .................................................... 10
7. One Important Discovery........................................................................... 10
II. OBJECTIVE TWO Measure the Contribution of Each Management Practice to Ratoon Crop Yield Using Cocodrie
as the Test Variety.
A. Methods ................................................................................................................ 10
B. Results .................................................................................................................. 11
III. OBJECTIVE THREE Identify Varieties with Best Yield and Milling When Planted Beyond the Optimum Planting
Date.
A. Methods ................................................................................................................ 11
B. Results .................................................................................................................. 12
1. Delayed Planting Effects on Yield at Beaumont ......................................... 12
2. Delayed Planting Effects on Yield at Eagle Lake ....................................... 12
3. Delayed Planting Effects on Milling of Each Variety ................................. 12
41
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
IV. OBJECTIVE FOUR Calculate an Economic Ranking from Each Entry’s Average Main, Ratoon, and Total Crop Net
Income/A, thus Providing a Better Variety Evaluator than Separate Yield and Milling Values.
A. METHODS ...............................................................................................................12
B. RESULTS .................................................................................................................13
1. Comparison of Economic Rankings at Beaumont....................................... 13
2. Comparison of Economic Rankings at Eagle Lake ..................................... 14
3. Other Conclusions from Economic Data .................................................... 14
V. OBJECTIVE FIVE Provide Rice Variety Plots and Contribute Some Variety Characteristics and Growth Stage Data
for the New Website-based “Rice Development Advisory”.
A. METHODS ...............................................................................................................15
B. RESULTS .................................................................................................................15
TABLES
Table 1. Delayed Planting Effect on Yield at Beaumont...............................................................16
Table 2. Delayed Planting Effect on Yield at Eagle Lake .............................................................17
Table 3. Milling Yields as Influenced by Variety Location and Planting Date..............................18
Table 4. 2004 Economic Analysis of Varieties at Beaumont ........................................................19
Table 5. 2004 Economic Analysis of Varieties at Eagle Lake.......................................................20
Table 6. Summary of Economic Analysis and Economic Ranking for MC, RC, and TC at Beaumont
and Eagle Lake...............................................................................................................21
Table 7. Variety Characteristics Summary ..................................................................................22
42
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
FIGURES
Fig.1. MC, RC, TC Yields at Eagle Lake for 4 Treatments On Each Variety ............................23
Fig.2. MC, RC, TC Yields at Beaumont for 4 Treatments on Each Variety...............................24
Fig.3. MC Milling Yield and Lbs Whole Grain/A When Planted Mar 27 at Beaumont in 200425
Fig.4. MC Milling Yield and Lbs Whole Grain/A When Planted Apr 1 at Eagle Lake in 200426
Fig.5. Cocodrie, MC and RC Yield for 4 Treatments at Beaumont. ..........................................27
Fig.6. Contribution of RC Input Toward Cocodrie RC Yield at Beaumont ...............................28
Fig.7. Cocodrie, MC and RC Yield for 4 Treatments at Eagle Lake..........................................29
Fig.8. Contribution of RC Input Toward Cocodrie RC Yield at Eagle Lake..............................30
Fig.9. Growth Stage Intervals for Varieties Grown at Beaumont ..............................................31
Fig.10. Growth Stage Intervals for Varieties Grown at Eagle Lake.............................................32
APPENDIX
Appendix Table A. Comprehensive Data for Varieties at Eagle Lake 2004
Appendix Table B. Comprehensive Data for Varieties at Beaumont 2004
Appendix Table C. Rice Support Price for Each Variety
Appendix Table D. Recommended Cultural Practices Formulated by Rice Producers with History of
High Yield
Letter from TRRF Board Making Recommendations for the 2004 Proposed Variety Evaluation
43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary objective was to identify the best conventional, hybrid, and herbicide resistant rice varieties
for main and ratoon yield in Texas. Nine varieties were evaluated and ranked according to their main
and ratoon crop production economics on clay soil at Beaumont and silt loam soil at Eagle Lake.
Delayed planting effects on variety yield were measured. The contributions of seven crop management
practices to ratoon crop yields were recorded. TRRF Board recommended treatments were included.
Multiple fungicide applications were used under intense and moderate N fertilizer management.
Cocodrie, Cheniere, Cybonnet, Banks, CL161, CLXL8, Jefferson, TX9092 and XP723 were included.
Results for each of the five specific research objectives follow:
I. OBJECTIVE ONE: Measure each entry’s main and ratoon crop yield and milling response with
and without fungicide under intense and moderate N management on clay and silt loam soils.
Figures 1 and 2 on pages 23 and 24 show main crop (MC), ratoon crop (RC), and total crop (TC)
yield response to fungicide and nitrogen at Beaumont and Eagle Lake.
A. FUNGICIDE EFFECTS
Dr. Joe Krausz observed less sheath blight on MC plots than expected considering almost
three weeks of rainy weather during mid-season. His observations confirmed the yield
data showing multiple fungicide applications (Tilt @ 6 oz and Quadris @ 8 oz on MC
and RC) helped RC yields more than MC for conventional varieties. In general, the
fungicide mixture applied to MC and RC did not always increase MC yield of
conventional varieties or have significant effect on hybrids, but increased RC and total
crop yields of non-hybrid varieties by 250 to 1000 lbs/A. See Section I. B. (Objective
One Results, page 8) for more details.
B. NITROGEN FERTILIZER EFFECTS ON RICE YIELDS
1. Hybrids
180 lbs N/A increased MC yields more than the 150 lbs N/A when applied in two
applications (preflood and booting) on XP723 grown on clay soil, but not on silt
loam soil.
2. Non-Hybrids
Pre-drain N on main crop and split N application on RC did not increase RC
yield. Possibly, the higher N rates on non-hybrid varieties (185 lbs N/A on MC
for silt loam and 215 for clay) plus 135 lbs N/A on RC may have masked the
effect of N practices designed to increase RC yield. Previous research shows that
as N rate increases, multiple N applications to “fine-tune” N fertilizer efficiency
become less effective.
44
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.)
C. VARIETY EFFECTS
1. Cocodrie vs. New Varieties (Figs. 1 and 2, pages 23 and 24)
a. Cheniere’s RC was lower than Cocodrie’s at Eagle Lake. Cheniere’s MC
and RC were lower than Cocodrie’s at Beaumont.
b.
c. Bank’s MC exceeded Cocodrie’s MC. However, Cocodrie’s RC was
higher at both locations.
d.
e. Cybonnet matched or exceeded Cocodrie’s MC, but not Cocodrie’s RC at
each location.
f.
g. XP723 exceeded Cocodrie’s MC and RC yields by 1000 to 2000 lbs/A and
total crop yields up to 3000 lb/A regardless of location.
D. HERBICIDE-RESISTANT VARIETY YIELD COMPARISON
CLXL8 tended to exceed CL161's MC and RC yields by 1000 lbs/A under 2004
conditions at both locations.
1. Main Crop Milling and Whole Grain /A Comparison
a. Average milling and pounds whole grain/A are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
b. Varieties producing more MC whole grain/A than Cocodrie at Beaumont
were CL161 (250 lbs/A), Cybonnet, Banks, CLXL8 (500 to 800 lbs/A),
and XP723 ( 1500 lbs/A). At Eagle Lake, varieties yielding more whole
grain/A than Cocodrie were CL161 ( 250 lbs/A), Cybonnet ( 500 lbs/A)
and XP723 ( 1500 lbs/A).
c. CL161's MC whole grain/A exceeded CLXL8 at Eagle Lake, but not at
Beaumont.
E. RATOON CROP CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL YIELD
Cocodrie exceeded all entries except CLXL8 and XP723 in RC and TC grain production.
XP723 produced up to 2000 lbs/A more total grain/A and up to 1500 lbs/A more whole
grain than Cocodrie. See Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4.
F. MOST SIGNIFICANT FINDING
The new hybrid XP723 exhibited milling on par with Cocodrie and exceeded Cocodrie in
MC and RC yields.
45
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.)
II. OBJECTIVE TWO: Measure the contribution of each management practice to ratoon crop
yield using Cocodrie as the test variety.
A. The MC plus RC yields of the 4 basic treatments are shown in Figures 5 and 7. The
second yield bar from the bottom is the yield for maximum RC input. Figure 8 shows
that at Eagle Lake, the estimated contribution of management inputs toward RC yield for
Cocodrie in 2004 were:
1. Quadris plus Tilt on MC and RC 1831 lbs/A
2. Quadris plus Tilt on MC only 1407 lbs/A
3. Quadris plus Tilt on RC 425 lbs/A
4. Karate application to RC for stem borer 306 lbs/A
5. Multiple MC N applications (split PI, pre-drain and split on RC) had no effect on
RC yield. Three N applications on MC and one N application on RC yielded 4307
lbs of ratoon rice/A. While the five N applications on MC plus two N
applications on RC produced a RC of 4144 lbs/A.
6. The MC cutting height data are not shown because of inconsistencies in the data.
B. The management inputs contributing to RC yield were similar at Beaumont, (Fig. 6), but
of lower magnitude. Maximum inputs produced a RC yield of 4227 lbs/A (Fig. 5). The
estimated contribution of RC inputs toward RC yield of Cocodrie at Beaumont were:
1. Lower MC cutting height contribution 392 lbs/A
2. Quadris plus Tilt on MC and RC 361 lbs/A
3. Quadris plus Tilt on MC only 199 lbs/A
4. Quadris plut Tilt on RC only 152 lbs/A
5. Karate on RC 109 lbs/A
6. N management inputs (split PI nitrogen, pre-drain N, and split RC nitrogen) did
not contribute toward RC yield possibly because high N rates (225 lbs/A) masked
the effects of inputs like split N applications, that can increase N efficiency when
N rate is not excessive.
46
xecutive Summary (Cont.)
III. OBJECTIVE THREE: Identify varieties with best yield and milling when planted beyond
the optimum planting date.
A. At Beaumont, the 2004 rice yield loss due to delaying the planting from March 27 until
May 10 resulted in a 177 lbs/A/ week delay in planting. This year the yield loss was
lower than the 250 lbs/A/week average over the past 4 years. Actual yields for May 10,
2004 planting were: XP723 (8200 lbs/A), CLXL8 (7200 lbs/A), Banks, Cybonnet and
Cocodrie ( 6300 lbs/A) followed by TX9092, Cheniere, CL161 and Jefferson ( 5500
lbs/A). See Table 1.
B. At Eagle Lake, the 7-week delay in planting (April 1 to May 24) caused an average yield
loss of 186 lbs/A/week compared to the 4-year average 275 lbs/A/week. Delayed
planting yields of each entry were: XP723 ( 9000 lbs/A), CLXL8 ( 7800 lbs/A), TX9092
and Cocodrie ( 7000 lbs/A), Banks, Cybonnet and Cheniere ( 6300 lbs/A) followed by
Jefferson and CL161 ( 5500 lbs/A).
C. Milling yields as affected by delayed planting are shown in Table 3. Delayed planting
usually decreases milling yields as at Beaumont this year. The opposite effect was
recorded at Eagle Lake this year.
IV. OBJECTIVE FOUR: Calculate an economic ranking from each entry’s average main,
ratoon, and total crop net income/A; thus, providing a better variety evaluator than separate yield
and milling values.
Table 6 shows MC, RC, and TC ranking and net income/A for each variety at Beaumont and
Eagle Lake.
A. At Beaumont, the varieties listed in order of decreasing TC net income/A with net
income/A in parentheses were XP723 ($335/A), CLXL8 ($261/A), Cybonnet ($150/A),
Cocodrie ($118/A), CL161 ($85/A), Banks ($64/A), TX9092 ($42), Jefferson ($-1/A),
and Cheniere ($-36/A).
B. At Eagle Lake, the TC net income ranking was XP723 ($455/A), Cybonnet ($226/A),
CLXL8 ($222/A), CL161 ($157/A), Banks ($124/A), Cheniere ($85/A), Cocodrie
($81/A), TX9092 ($46A), and Jefferson $(43/A).
C. See Research Presentation Objective Four for more details including MC and RC ranking
and net income for each variety (Page 13).
D. The average MC, RC, and TC of all varieties at the bottom of Table 6 show that the RC
contributed 90 to 100% of the average TC net income/A.
47
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT.)
V. OBJECTIVE FIVE: Provide rice variety plots and contribute some variety characteristics
and growth stage data for the new website-based “Rice Development Advisory”.
Table 7 and Figures 9 and 10 show typical variety specific data that this research contributes
directly to rice producers and to the new “Rice Development Advisory” website.
Varieties in field plots at Beaumont and Eagle Lake coupled with growth stage or climate data
collected by Jack Vawter, Mike Jund, and Dr. Yubin Yang and his team, contribute to a database
for the ‘Rice Development Advisory’ useful in predicting critical rice growth stages for Texas
rice producers.
This ENDS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Details of the Report follow in order of research objectives 1
through 5.
THE RESEARCHERS THANK TRRF FOR FUNDING THIS RESEARCH
DESIGNED TO HELP TEXAS RICE FARMERS.
48
RESEARCH PRESENTATION
The primary research objective was to evaluate public and private US rice varieties for main and ratoon
crop production in Texas while developing variety specific management practices. This primary
objective was separated into five specific objectives listed below. The TRRF Board made the following
recommendations regarding the proposed research (See TRRF Board letter on last page of Appendix.)
1. Omit medium grain varieties and medium grain hybrids
2. Omit Cypress, Wells and Francis varieties
3. Include a “with” and “without” fungicide treatment
4. Tailor a single fertilizer management program for each entry. (A meeting of high yielding
ratoon crop producers was held to help formulate best management practices. See next to
last page of Appendix for producers recommended practices for Cocodrie).
Since the variety evaluation tests included new varieties not grown by the high-yield producers, each
entry was evaluated under moderate and intense N management rather than evaluated under a single
fertilizer management program recommended by TRRF Board. The intense management inputs evolved
out of the meeting with rice producers having a history of high RC yields.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE ONE
Measure each entry’s main and ratoon crop yield and milling response with and without fungicide under
intense and moderate N management on clay and silt loam soils.
OBJECTIVE TWO
Measure the contribution of each management practice to ratoon crop yield using Cocodrie as the test
variety.
OBJECTIVE THREE
Identify varieties with best yield and milling when planted beyond the optimum planting date.
OBJECTIVE FOUR
Calculate an economic ranking from each entry’s average main, ratoon and total crop net income/A, thus
providing a better variety evaluator than separate yield and milling values.
OBJECTIVE FIVE
Provide rice variety plots and contribute some variety characteristics and growth stage data for the new
‘Rice Development Advisory’ website.
49
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
The methods and results for each objective follow:
I. OBJECTIVE ONE: Measure each entry’s main and ratoon crop yield and milling response
with and without fungicide under intense and moderate N management on clay and silt loam
soils.
A. METHODS
1. The following nine entries were included and represent four rice variety groups:
TRUE SEMIDWARF (LESS THAN 100 CM OR 38 INCHES TALL)
Cheniere second year from Louisiana
Cocodrie standard from Louisiana
Cybonnet new from Arkansas
Jefferson early maturing standard from Texas
TX9092 potential release from Texas
TALLER THAN SEMIDWARF
new from Arkansas
HYBRID
new RiceTec hybrid with excellent yield and milling improved to
compete with best conventional varieties
HERBICIDE RESISTANT
for red rice control from Horizon Ag
for red rice control from RiceTec
2. FUNGICIDE TREATED AND UNTREATED
A mixture of Quadris (8 oz/A) and Tilt (6 oz/A) was applied at main crop booting
and again on ratoon crop 45 days after flooding to help assure disease was not
limiting yield of the intense management treatment.
3. Levels of N Management for Variety, Hybrids and Soil
a. EAGLE LAKE (SILT LOAM)
Non-Hybrids = 185 lbs N/A on main crop plus 135 on ratoon in 7 or 4
applications
� 7 applications = 45 PP, 35 PF, 30 PI, 45 PI+14 days, 30 pre-drain,
plus 90 pre-ratoon flood and 45 lbs/A, 25 days later
� 4 applications = 45 PP, 80 PF, 60 PI plus 135 ratoon preflood
Hybrids = 150 or 180 lbs N/A on MC plus 135 on ratoon applied in 3
applications
� 3 applications = 90 or 120 preflood, 60 booting plus 135 ratoon
preflood
50
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
b. BEAUMONT (CLAY SOIL)
Non-hybrids = 215 lbs N/A on main plus 135 lbs/A on ratoon in 7 or 4
applications
� 7 applications = 45 PP, 60 PF, 45 PI, 45 PI+14 days, 30 pre-drain,
plus 90 pre-ratoon flood and 45 lbs/A, 25 days later
� 4 applications = 45 PP, 90 PF, 80 PI plus 135 pre-ratoon flood
Hybrids = 150 or 180 lbs N/A plus 135 on ratoon applied in 3
applications
� 3 applications = 90 or 120 preflood, 60 booting plus 135 ratoon
preflood
4. The test was drill-planted March 27 at Beaumont using 8 rows spaced 8" apart
and 20' long. The Eagle Lake site was drill-planted April 1 using 10 rows spaced
7 �" apart and 16' long.
5. Seeding rates were adjusted for seed/lb and germination of each entry to obtain
targeted plant populations of 15 to 20 seedlings/ft2 for conventional varieties and
9 to 12 for hybrids.
B. RESULTS
Figures 1 and 2 (pages 23 and 24) show main crop (MC), ratoon crop (RC), and total
crop (TC) yield response to MC and RC fungicide plus N management at Eagle Lake and
Beaumont.
1. FUNGICIDE EFFECTS ON RICE YIELDS:
Although Tilt fungicide applications to RC are not labeled, we applied a mixture
of Tilt (6 oz/A) and Quadris (8 oz/A) to both MC and RC to maximize yield
potential of each of the 9 entries at the two locations. The extremely rainy
weather during mid-season suggested that sheath blight disease would be a
problem, yet Dr. Joe Krausz observed the MC test plots and attributed the lack of
plant disease to temperatures below 85°F suppressing the disease organisms. In
general, Figures 1 and 2 showed the Tilt and Quadris mixture on MC and RC
tended to benefit RC yield more than MC yields. Especially for Cybonnet,
Cocodrie, Cheniere, and CL161 at Eagle Lake and Banks, Cybonnet, CL161,
Jefferson, Cheniere, and TX9092 at Beaumont. This mixture of fungicides on
MC and RC did not always increase MC yield of conventional varieties or have
significant effect on hybrids (XP723 and CLXL8) MC yields. However, the
fungicide mixture usually increased RC and total crop yields of conventional
varieties 250 to �1000 lbs/A, but not hybrid rice yields.
2. N FERTILIZER EFFECTS ON RICE YIELDS:
a. Hybrids
The 180 lbs N/A produced approximately 500 lbs/A higher MC yields of
XP723 than 150 lbs N/A when applied in two applications (preflood and
booting) at Beaumont. The higher N rates did not produce higher MC
yields at Eagle Lake.
51
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
b. Non-Hybrids � No clear yield advantage of multiple N applications on
conventional varieties was evident, possibly because the high MC
nitrogen rates (185 lbs N/A at Eagle Lake and 215 lbs N/A at
Beaumont) masked the effect of multiple N applications designed
to improve N efficiency and increase yield. This observation
would not be possible had we not used a moderate as well as an
intense N management treatment.
� Three N applications on MC tended to maximize MC and RC
yields of Cocodrie, Jefferson, Cheniere and TX9092 at Beaumont
and Eagle Lake.
� Five N applications on MC tended to maximize MC and TC yields,
but not RC yields of Banks, Cybonnet and CL161.
� Seven N applications (5 on MC + 2 on RC) did not consistently
produce higher RC yields than four N applications (3 on MC + 1
on RC). Had we tested only a single N management for each
entry, we could not draw conclusions regarding multiple
applications of N.
3. VARIETY YIELD COMPARISON (COCODRIE VS. NEW VARIETIES):
a. Cheniere’s MC (8000 lbs/A) was on par with Cocodrie’s, but RC yields
were lower than Cocodrie’s at Eagle Lake. At Beaumont, Cocodrie was
superior in both MC and RC. See Figures 1 and 2, pages 23 and 24.
b. Banks’ MC yield exceeded Cocodrie’s. However, Cocodrie’s RC was
higher at both locations.
c. Cybonnet’s MC yields were similar to Cocodrie while Cocodrie’s RC
yields were superior at both locations.
d. XP723's MC yields exceeded Cocodrie’s by more than 1000 lbs/A at
Beaumont and 2000 lbs/A at Eagle Lake. XP723 also produced
significantly higher RC yields than Cocodrie.
4. HERBICIDE RESISTANT VARIETY YIELD COMPARISON:
The herbicide resistant hybrid CLXL8 tended to yield up to 1000 lbs/A more than
CL161 in both MC and RC yields under 2004 conditions. CL161 had a slight
milling advantage at Beaumont and large advantage at Eagle Lake.
5. MAIN CROP VARIETY MILLING AND WHOLE GRAIN/A COMPARISONS:
Average milling yields for each entry and pounds whole grain/A (i.e., the product
of % milled rice times grain yield/A) are given in Figures 3 and 4.
52
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
a. Varieties producing more MC whole grain/A than Cocodrie at Beaumont
were: CL161 ( 250 lbs/A), Cybonnet, Banks, CLXL8 ( 800 lbs/A) and
XP723 ( 1500 lbs/A).
b. Varieties producing more MC whole grain/A than Cocodrie at Eagle Lake
were: CL161 ( 150 lbs/A), Cybonnet ( 500 lbs/A), and XP723 ( 1500
lbs/A).
c. CL161's MC whole grain/A exceeded CLXL8, at Eagle Lake, but not at
Beaumont.
6. RATOON CROP AND TOTAL CROP PRODUCTION
Cocodrie’s ratoon crop yield helped to produce more total crop yield and whole
grain/A than all entries except CLXL8 and XP723. XP723 produced up to 2000
lbs/A more total grain/A and up to 1500 lbs/A more whole grain than Cocodrie in
2004.
7. One of the most important discoveries from this year’s variety comparison is a
hybrid with high yield and milling. The XP723 RiceTec hybrid produced whole
grain milling yields on par with Cocodrie (i.e., 58% at Eagle Lake and 67% at
Beaumont) and out yielded Cocodrie by 1500 lbs/A. It is difficult to see how the
best conventional varieties can compete with hybrids like XP723, if hybrids
continue to produce significantly more whole grain/A and have a similar or lower
rice production cost.
II. OBJECTIVE TWO: Measure the contribution of each management practice to ratoon
crop yield using Cocodrie as the test variety.
A. METHODS:
Since there were too many varieties to test the contribution of each ratoon crop
management practice on all varieties, Cocodrie was chosen as the “test” variety at
Beaumont and Eagle Lake. The four basic treatments consisted of 4 or 7 N applications
with and without fungicide (Tilt - 6 oz and Quadris - 8 oz) applied to MC and RC. Yields
of the four treatments are shown in Figures 7 (Eagle Lake) and 5 (Beaumont). The
second yield bar from the bottom of Figures 5 and 7 shows Cocodrie’s MC and RC yields
for maximum RC inputs (i.e., seven N applications: preplant, preflood, PI, PI+14 days,
pre-drain, pre-ratoon flood and again 25 days later, fungicide mixture application at MC
booting and 25 days after RC flood, plus lowering MC cutting height to 10-12 inches.)
To determine the yield contribution of each RC practice or input, we measured changes
in RC yield as we omitted one of the RC practices.
53
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
B. RESULTS
Figures 6 (Beaumont) and 8 (Eagle Lake) show the positive or negative effects of
omitting one practice from the maximum RC input practices. Figure 8 shows that for
2004 conditions at Eagle Lake, the Quadris/Tilt mixture applied on MC and RC
contributed 1831 lbs/A toward the 4227 lbs/A RC yield. Fungicide mixture only on MC
contributed 1407 lbs/A to RC. A single application of the fungicide mixture to the RC
contributed 425 lbs/A to the RC yield. Even though Tilt fungicide is not labeled for RC,
these data suggest it should be. A Karate insecticide application to RC contributed 306
lbs/A towards the 4227 RC yield.
Multiple N applications (split PI application, pre-drain application and split RC N) tended
to reduce the RC yield, as well as increase application cost. This RC yield decrease was
supported by the fact that the RC yield for minimum N application [4822 lbs/A (See Fig.
7)] with fungicide exceeded the RC yield with maximum N applications (4227 lbs/A).
These data indicate that fungicide and insecticide contributed significantly to RC yield of
Cocodrie at Eagle Lake, but multiple N applications did not contribute; possibly because
of the high soil N supply in the Eagle Lake soil. However, similar results were observed
at Beaumont (Fig. 5 and 6) where the clay soil is low in N and multiple N applications
did not contribute to RC yield (See Fig. 6). The RC practices contributing most to RC
yield (4114 lbs/A) were cutting main crop stubble to 10-12 inches (392 lbs/A), fungicide
on MC and RC (361 lbs/A), fungicides just on MC (199 lbs/A), fungicide on RC only
(152 lbs/A) and Karate insecticide on RC (109 lbs/A).
III. OBJECTIVE THREE: Identify varieties with best yield and milling when planted
beyond the optimum planting date.
A. METHODS
Varieties were planted first on Mar 27 and April 1 at Beaumont and Eagle Lake,
respectively, as described in Objective One. The delayed planting occurred May 10 at
Beaumont and May 24 at Eagle Lake. Under delayed planting conditions, the varieties
received inputs listed below which were common to a treatment in the early planted
experiment to assure planting date was the only variable. Yields of each planting date at
a location were compared to measure the effect of delayed planting on MC yield of each
variety. The delayed planting treatments were:
1. 215 lbs N/A (at Beaumont) or 185 lbs N/A (at Eagle Lake) applied in three
applications on conventional varieties with hybrids receiving 180 lbs N/A in two
applications.
2. No fungicide applied.
3. Other recommended production practices assure planting date was the yield
limiting factor on main crop. Ratoon crop was eliminated by delayed planting.
54
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
B. RESULTS
1. DELAYED PLANTING EFFECTS ON YIELD AT BEAUMONT (TABLE 1)
For the past 4 years, the average yield loss for 6-week delay in planting was �250
lbs/A/week delay. This year the average yield loss across all varieties was �177
lbs/A/week delay. The variety showing the least yield loss was Cheniere, but the
hybrid variety XP723 produced highest yields (8200 lbs/A) under delayed
planting conditions. The delayed planting yields arranged in order of decreasing
yield were XP723 (�8200 lbs/A), CLXL8 (7200 lbs/A), Banks, Cybonnet,
Cocodrie (�6300 lbs/A), followed by TX9092, Cheniere, CL161 and Jefferson
yielding about �5500 lbs/A under delayed planting conditions at Beaumont.
2. DELAYED PLANTING EFFECTS ON YIELDS AT EAGLE LAKE (TABLE 2)
Although the delayed planting yields were slightly higher at Eagle Lake relative
to Beaumont, the average yield loss per week delay over the 7-week delay in
planting at Eagle Lake was �186 lbs/A/week delay similar to the �177 lbs/A/week
delay at Beaumont, but less than the 4-year average of 275 lbs yield loss/A/week
at Eagle Lake. TX9092 only lost about 50 lbs/A /week, but XP723 produced by
far highest yields under delayed planting conditions. The following yields were
recorded for delayed planting at Eagle Lake: XP723 (�9000 lbs/A), CLXL8
(�7800 lbs/A), TX9092 and Cocodrie (�7000 lbs/A), Banks, Cybonnet and
Cheniere (�6300 lbs/A) followed by Jefferson and CL161 (�5500 lbs/A). The
hybrid varieties continue to show higher yield potential under delayed planting
conditions.
3. DELAYED PLANTING EFFECTS ON MILLING OF EACH VARIETY
Table 3 shows milling yields as influenced by variety, location and planting date
during 2004. Typically, delayed planting lowers milling as occurred at Beaumont
in 2004. However, delayed planting tended to increase milling at Eagle Lake,
possibly because early planting milling yields at Eagle Lake were lower than
normal. Variety had a stronger effect on milling than location and planting date.
IV. OBJECTIVE FOUR: Calculate an economic ranking from each entry’s average main,
ratoon, and total crop net income/A, thus, providing a better variety evaluator than separate yield
and milling values.
A. METHODS
Tables 4 and 5 show main crop (MC) and ratoon crop (RC) yields and milling for each
variety subjected to treatments 1, 2, 3 and 4 (i.e., treatments 1 and 2 received moderate N
inputs and treatments 3 and 4 received intense N inputs while treatments 1 and 3 received
no fungicide, but 2 and 4 received multiple fungicides described in Figures 1 and 2. Rice
price/cwt, used to calculate net income/A for each variety, ranged from $7.17 to $8.56, is
shown in Appendix Table C. James “Tinker” Hewitt of American Rice Growers Co-op
Anahuac
55
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
Division calculated prices based on milled rice samples we measured from harvest plots.
Tables 4 and 5 show each variety’s MC, RC, and TC net income/A at Beaumont and
Eagle Lake. The average values for each crop are summarized in Table 6 where the
varieties are ranked in order of decreasing net income/A for TC yields. The numbers in (
) are the economic rank within the MC, RC, or TC columns.
Direct expenses were taken from Tables 24 and 25 found on pages 52 and 53 of the 2004
Rice Production Guidelines. Adjustments were made for each treatment’s fertilizer,
fungicide, and application cost based on 2004 cost for each of these inputs. Fixed cost,
which vary with land cost and farm, were not included in determining net income/A.
B. RESULTS
Entries are listed in order of decreasing average total crop net income/A for Beaumont
(Table 4) and Eagle Lake (Table 5). Cocodrie data are shaded to facilitate a comparison
of Cocodrie’s economic data with other entries. Table 6 summarizes the average net
income data for MC, RC, and TC for both locations and lists the varieties in order of
decreasing TC net income/A. The number in ( ) in each column indicates the entry’s
economic rank. A variety’s economic rank is a more comprehensive indication of a
variety’s potential than a comparison of separate yield and milling data. An economic
rank is derived from yield, milling, rice price, and direct expenses or production cost.
1. COMPARISON OF MC, RC AND TC ECONOMIC RANKINGS AT BEAUMONT:
Table 6 shows Cocodrie had a MC economic ranking of (6). The five varieties
with better MC economic rank than Cocodrie were CL161 (5), Cybonnet (4),
Banks (3), CLXL8 (2) and XP723 (1).
Cocodrie’s RC economic rank at Beaumont was (4) with TX9092 (3), CLXL8 (2),
and XP723 (1) showing better RC economic rank because of their higher RC net
income/A than Cocodrie.
Cocodrie’s TC economic rank was (4) which was exceeded by Cybonnet (3),
CLXL8 (2), and XP723 (1).
The Beaumont data in Table 6 suggest the two varieties from Arkansas (Cybonnet
and Banks), as well as CLXL8 and XP723, have potential to produce more MC
income than Cocodrie. Banks’ ratoon potential is less than Cocodrie’s. Cocodrie
had less TC potential than Cybonnet, CLXL8, and XP723.
Cheniere’s MC, RC, and TC economic rankings of (8), (7), and (9), respectively
were below Cocodrie’s (6), (4), and (4), respectively, indicating that under 2004
conditions, Cocodrie was economically better than Cheniere.
In comparing the herbicide resistant varieties, CLXL8's economic ranking was
always better than CL161's rankings.
56
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
2. COMPARISON OF MC, RC AND TC ECONOMIC RANKINGS AT EAGLE LAKE:
Table 6 shows all varieties but Jefferson and TX9092 had equal or better MC, RC,
and TC economic rankings than Cocodrie.
a. In comparing herbicide resistant varieties, CL161 and CLXL8 had similar
economic rankings at Eagle Lake while CLXL8 tended to perform better
at Beaumont.
b. Cheniere and Cocodrie had similar economic rankings suggesting
Cheniere will perform as well as Cocodrie at Eagle Lake.
3. OTHER CONCLUSIONS FROM ECONOMIC DATA IN TABLES 4 AND 5
The economic data for treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4 shown in Tables 4 and 5, illustrate
that maximum inputs can sometimes produce the highest MC, RC, and TC gross
income/A, but lower inputs can produce the most net income/A. As management
level increased from moderate to intense inputs, direct expenses and gross
income/A increased for most varieties while net income/A decreased. Maximum
net income/A was achieved from the least inputs. In this study for conventional
varieties the treatments and inputs were:
TREATMENTS AND INPUTS FOR CONVENTIONAL VARIETIES:
Treatment 1 3 N applications on MC plus 1 N application to RC
Treatment 2 Same as Treatment 1 plus fungicide on MC and RC
Treatment 3 5 N applications on MC plus 2 N applications on RC
Treatment 4 Same as Treatment 3 plus fungicide on MC and RC
Detailed N application timings are given on pages 7 and 8. Had the N rates for
conventional varieties been lower than 185 lbs/A for MC plus 135 lbs/A for RC
at Eagle Lake or lower than 215 lbs/A for MC plus 135 lbs N/A for RC at
Beaumont, timing of N may have resulted in economic increases in rice yield.
Hybrid treatments and inputs were:
TREATMENTS AND INPUTS FOR HYBRIDS
Treatment 1 150 lbs MC N in 2 applications without fungicide
Treatment 2 150 lbs MC N in 2 applications plus fungicide
Treatment 3 180 lbs MC N in 2 applications without fungicide
Treatment 4 180 lbs MC N in 2 applications plus fungicide
57
RESEARCH PRESENTATION (CONT.)
V. OBJECTIVE FIVE: Provide rice variety plots and contribute some variety characteristics
and growth stage data for the new website-based “Rice Development Advisory”.
A. METHODS
Seed per pound, emergence, tillering, and critical growth stages were recorded for all
varieties grown in the early and delayed planting studies at Beaumont and Eagle Lake.
These data along with other climatic data collected by others, contributed to Dr. Yubin
Yang and his team’s database for the Rice Development Advisory used to predict critical
rice growth stages of each variety.
B. RESULTS
Table 7 and Figures 9 and 10 show data describing the new and standard varieties. The
figures show the effect of planting date on critical growth stage development intervals for
each variety.
58
TABLES
Table 1. Delayed planting effect on main crop yield of 6 conventional varieties 2 hybrids and 2
herbicide resistant varieties at Beaumont in 2004. Number in ( ) next to yields are each entries
yield ranking for the specific planting dates.
Main Crop Yields (lbs/A)
Entry Name Mar 27 May 10 Yield change (lbs/A)
XP723 9131 (1) 8156 (1) -975
CLXL8 8294 (2) 7153 (2) -1139
Banks 8062 (3) 6316 (4) -1746
Cybonnet 7293 (4) 6322 (3) -971
Jefferson 7065 (5) 5384 (9) -1681
Cocodrie 6956 (6) 6169 (5) -787
CL161 6897 (7) 5422 (8) -1475
TX9092 6110 (8) 5681 (6) -429
Cheniere 5967 (9) 5618 (7) -349
Avg = 7308 6247 1061
59
Table 2. Delayed planting effect on main crop yield at Eagle Lake in 2004 for 6 conventional
varieties, 2 hybrids and 2 herbicide resistant. Numbers in ( ) next to yields are each entries yield
ranking for the specific planting dates.
Main Crop Yields (lbs/A)
Entry Name Apr 1 May 24 Yield change (lbs/A)
XP723 10936 (1) 9161 (1) -1775
CLXL8 8736 (2) 7806 (2) -930
Banks 8360 (3) 6462 (5) -1898
Cybonnet 7769 (4) 6263 (6) -1506
Cocodrie 7702 (5) 6921 (4) -781
CL161 7693 (6) 5456 (9) -2237
Cheniere 7594 (7) 6203 (7) -1391
TX9092 7205 (8) 7281 (3) -353
Jefferson 7033 (9) 5751 (8) -1282
Avg = 8114 6812 1303
60
Table 3. Milling yields as influenced by variety, location, early planting (Objective One) and
delayed planting (Objective Two) during 2004.
Rice milling yields expressed as % whole grain / % total milled
Beaumont Eagle Lake
Variety Mar 27 May 10 Difference
a April 1 May 24 Difference
a
Banks 63/71 60/67 -3 53/69 56/68 +3
Cheniere 67/73 62/70 -5 58/71 59/71 +1
CL161 68/73 62/68 -6 61/70 63/70 +2
CLXL8 66/73 59/69 -7 48/68 55/70 +7
Cocodrie 65/72 61/69 -4 59/67 60/70 +1
Cybonnet 70/74 63/69 -7 64/71 64/71 0
Jefferson 65/72 64/70 -1 61/70 63/71 +2
TX9092 67/72 61/67 -6 60/70 62/70 +2
XP723 68/73 61/70 -7 59/70 59/70 0 a Difference in % whole grain milling due to delayed planting.
43
MC
Net Incom
e
RC
Net Incom
e
Tota
l Net Incom
e
Tre
atm
ent
MC
MC
MC
MC
Gro
ssM
C D
irect
@ 2
004 P
rice
RC
RC
RC
RC
Gro
ssR
C D
irect
@ 2
004 P
rice
@ 2
004 P
rice
Variety
Num
ber
Yie
ld%
Whole
% T
ota
lIn
com
e ($/A
)E
xpense
s ($
) $
/AY
ield
% W
hole
% T
ota
lIn
com
e ($/A
)E
xpense
s ($
) $
/AR
C +
MC
($/A
)
XP
723
18397
68
73
712.0
7611.1
4100.9
34809
61
69
407.8
0144.6
4263.1
6364.0
9
28230
68
73
697.9
0649.4
548.4
55009
60
69
424.7
6175.6
6249.1
0297.5
6
39131
67
73
774.3
1625.1
2149.1
94953
60
69
420.0
1144.6
4274.3
2423.5
14
8985
69
73
766.4
2663.4
3102.9
94811
61
69
410.3
8175.6
6233.6
2336.6
1
8686
68
73
737.6
7637.2
9100.3
94896
61
69
415.7
4160.1
5255.0
5355.4
4
CLXL8
18159
65
73
678.8
3611.1
467.6
94546
58
69
378.2
3144.6
4233.5
9301.2
8
28034
65
72
664.4
1649.4
514.9
64740
60
70
392.0
0175.6
6216.3
4231.3
03
8294
64
73
685.9
1625.1
260.7
94304
57
69
355.9
4144.6
4210.2
5271.0
4
48405
66
73
703.5
0663.4
340.0
74525
59
70
378.7
4175.6
6201.9
8242.0
5
8223
65
73
683.1
6637.2
945.8
84529
59
70
376.2
3160.1
5215.5
4261.4
2
Cybonnet
17293
70
74
638.8
7578.2
546.5
72784
58
66
243.8
8144.6
499.2
4145.8
12
7465
70
74
652.4
4616.5
621.8
33648
59
67
318.8
4175.6
6143.1
8165.0
1
37801
69
74
675.5
7638.5
68.0
53026
56
65
262.0
5145.6
9116.3
6124.4
14
7951
70
74
694.9
2676.8
7-1
0.9
14062
58
66
355.0
2176.7
6178.2
6167.3
5
7628
70
74
665.4
5627.5
616.3
83380
58
66
294.9
5160.6
9134.2
6150.6
4
Cocodrie
16956
65
72
575.2
6578.2
5-1
7.0
44092
63
69
338.4
1144.6
4193.7
7176.7
3
2
7310
65
72
604.5
4616.5
6-2
6.0
74307
62
69
356.1
9175.6
6180.5
3154.4
6
3
6970
64
72
572.2
4638.5
6-9
5.2
83765
63
69
309.1
1145.6
9163.4
268.1
3
4
7354
65
73
611.8
5676.8
7-9
3.9
84114
62
69
342.2
8176.7
6165.5
271.5
5
7148
65
72
590.9
7627.5
6-5
8.0
94070
63
69
336.5
0160.6
9175.8
1117.7
2
CL 1
61
16897
68
73
591.7
6578.2
5-0
.54
2646
57
65
227.0
3144.6
482.3
981.8
5
27167
68
73
614.9
3616.5
6-1
5.6
83423
58
66
293.6
9175.6
6118.0
3102.3
53
7420
67
72
629.2
2638.5
6-3
8.3
03031
56
64
257.0
3145.6
9111.3
473.0
3
47575
68
72
649.9
4676.8
7-5
5.9
03661
55
64
314.1
1176.7
6137.3
581.4
6
7265
68
73
621.4
6627.5
6-2
7.6
03190
57
65
272.9
7160.6
9112.2
884.6
7
Banks
18062
63
71
661.0
8578.2
568.7
81917
53
65
157.1
9144.6
412.5
581.3
42
8273
64
71
675.0
8616.5
644.4
72548
56
67
207.9
2175.6
632.2
676.7
2
38485
62
71
683.8
9638.5
616.3
72124
54
65
171.1
9145.6
925.5
041.8
84
8595
62
71
692.7
6676.8
7-1
3.0
73065
57
67
247.0
4176.7
670.2
857.2
1
8354
63
71
678.2
0627.5
629.1
42414
55
66
195.8
4160.6
935.1
564.2
9
TX9092
16110
67
72
512.0
2578.2
5-8
0.2
83799
62
69
318.3
6144.6
4173.7
293.4
32
6023
68
72
507.1
4616.5
6-1
23.4
74240
64
70
357.0
1175.6
6181.3
557.8
7
36159
67
71
512.4
3638.5
6-1
55.0
93870
62
69
321.9
8145.6
9176.2
921.2
04
6076
67
72
509.1
7676.8
7-1
96.6
64391
63
69
367.9
7176.7
6191.2
1-5
.46
6092
67
72
510.1
9627.5
6-1
38.8
84075
63
69
341.3
3160.6
9180.6
441.7
6
Jeffe
rson
17065
65
72
584.2
8578.2
5-8
.02
2135
57
69
176.5
6144.6
431.9
223.9
0
27222
66
73
604.4
8616.5
6-2
6.1
33134
57
69
262.3
2175.6
686.6
660.5
33
6935
64
72
569.3
6638.5
6-9
8.1
62328
57
68
191.1
3145.6
945.4
4-5
2.7
2
47146
64
73
590.9
7676.8
7-1
14.8
63075
56
69
254.3
0176.7
677.5
4-3
7.3
1
7092
65
73
587.2
7627.5
6-6
1.7
92668
57
69
221.0
8160.6
960.3
9-1
.40
Chenie
re1
5967
67
73
508.9
9578.2
5-8
3.3
12507
57
65
213.8
5144.6
469.2
1-1
4.1
1
26134
68
73
526.3
0616.5
6-1
04.3
13361
57
67
288.3
7175.6
6112.7
18.4
03
6120
67
73
522.0
4638.5
6-1
45.4
82523
58
66
215.2
1145.6
969.5
2-7
5.9
64
6226
67
73
531.0
8676.8
7-1
74.7
53386
57
66
288.8
3176.7
6112.0
7-6
2.6
9
6112
67
73
522.1
0627.5
6-1
26.9
72944
57
66
251.5
6160.6
990.8
8-3
6.0
9
Ranked In
Ord
er O
f Tota
l Net In
com
e
Tab
le 4
. 2
004 E
co
no
mic
An
aly
sis
fo
r V
arie
ty S
creen
ing
at B
eau
mo
nt
19
62
M
C N
et Incom
e
RC
Net Incom
e
Tota
l Net Incom
e
Tre
atm
ent
MC
MC
MC
MC
Gro
ssM
C D
irect
@ 2
004 P
rice
RC
RC
RC
RC
Gro
ssR
C D
irect
@ 2
004 P
rice
@ 2
004 P
rice
Variety
Num
ber
Yie
ld%
Whole
% T
ota
lIn
com
e ($/A
)E
xpense
s ($
) $
/AY
ield
% W
hole
% T
ota
lIn
com
e ($/A
)E
xpense
s ($
) $
/AR
C +
MC
($/A
)
XP
723
110706
59
70
839.3
5611.1
4228.2
14899
65
73
384.0
8144.6
4239.4
9467.7
02
10963
59
71
866.0
8649.4
5216.6
34785
66
73
378.0
2175.6
6202.3
6418.9
8
310936
59
70
857.3
8625.1
2232.2
64896
67
74
383.8
5144.6
4238.1
6470.4
24
10896
59
70
854.2
5663.4
3190.8
25260
65
73
412.3
8175.6
6235.6
2426.4
4
10875
59
70
854.2
6637.2
9216.9
84960
66
73
389.5
8160.1
5228.9
1445.8
9
Cybonnet
17769
64
71
641.7
2578.2
563.4
73698
65
71
305.4
5144.5
9160.8
6224.3
32
7927
65
71
659.5
3616.5
642.9
74668
66
72
388.3
8175.6
6212.7
2255.6
8
38010
66
71
670.4
4638.5
631.8
83757
64
70
314.4
6145.6
9168.7
7200.6
54
8090
65
71
673.0
9676.8
7-3
.78
4853
65
71
403.7
7176.7
6227.0
1223.2
3
7949
65
71
661.1
9627.5
633.6
34244
65
71
353.0
2160.6
8192.3
4225.9
7
CLXL8
19341
49
68
673.4
9611.1
462.3
54920
63
73
354.7
3144.6
4210.1
4272.4
9
29400
47
68
668.3
4649.4
518.8
95079
64
73
361.1
2175.6
6185.4
6204.3
53
8736
48
68
624.6
2625.1
2-0
.50
4774
60
72
341.3
4144.6
4195.6
5195.1
64
9271
49
68
668.4
4663.4
35.0
15385
61
72
388.2
6175.6
6211.5
0216.5
1
9187
48
68
658.7
2637.2
921.4
45040
62
73
361.3
6160.1
5200.6
9222.1
2
CL 1
61
17693
61
70
619.2
9578.2
541.0
43558
64
71
286.4
2144.5
9141.8
3182.8
7
27638
60
70
611.0
4616.5
6-5
.52
4103
63
71
328.2
4175.6
6152.5
8147.0
63
7640
63
71
626.4
8638.5
6-1
2.0
83473
62
71
284.7
9145.6
9139.1
0127.0
2
48030
63
71
658.4
6676.8
7-1
8.4
14473
63
71
366.7
9176.7
6190.0
3171.6
2
7750
62
71
628.8
2627.5
61.2
63902
63
71
316.5
6160.6
8155.8
8157.1
4
Banks
18360
53
69
624.4
9578.2
546.2
43545
62
71
264.8
1144.5
9120.2
2166.4
62
8579
54
69
646.0
0616.5
629.4
43552
63
69
267.4
7175.6
691.8
1121.2
43
8558
55
69
648.7
0638.5
610.1
43515
61
71
266.4
4145.6
9120.7
5130.8
8
48738
55
69
662.3
4676.8
7-1
4.5
33542
61
71
268.4
8176.7
691.7
277.1
9
8559
54
69
645.3
8627.5
617.8
23539
62
71
266.8
0160.6
8106.1
2123.9
5
Chenie
re1
7594
58
71
602.9
6578.2
524.7
12714
59
70
215.4
9144.5
970.9
095.6
22
7998
58
71
635.0
4616.5
618.4
83552
61
71
282.0
3175.6
6106.3
7124.8
5
37702
59
72
620.0
1638.5
6-1
8.5
52433
61
72
195.8
6145.6
950.1
731.6
24
7761
59
72
624.7
6676.8
7-5
2.1
13947
62
72
317.7
3176.7
6140.9
788.8
6
7764
59
72
620.6
9627.5
6-6
.87
3162
61
71
252.7
8160.6
892.1
085.2
4
Cocodrie
17702
59
69
599.9
9578.2
521.7
43168
66
72
246.7
9144.5
9102.2
0123.9
3
2
7873
60
69
618.0
3616.5
61.4
73491
66
72
271.9
5175.6
696.2
997.7
6
3
7901
59
69
615.4
9638.5
6-2
3.0
72874
64
71
223.8
8145.6
978.1
955.1
2
4
8033
60
69
630.5
9676.8
7-4
6.2
83462
66
72
269.6
9176.7
692.9
346.6
5
7877
60
69
616.0
2627.5
6-1
1.5
43249
66
72
253.0
8160.6
892.4
080.8
7
TX9092
17205
60
70
569.2
0578.2
5-9
.05
3549
64
72
280.3
7144.5
9135.7
8126.7
3
27512
60
70
593.4
5616.5
6-2
3.1
13530
66
72
278.8
7175.6
6103.2
180.1
03
7364
61
70
585.4
4638.5
6-5
3.1
22807
65
72
223.1
6145.6
977.4
724.3
4
47345
61
70
580.2
6676.8
7-9
6.6
22866
66
72
226.4
1176.7
649.6
5-4
6.9
6
7357
61
70
582.0
8627.5
6-4
5.4
83188
65
72
252.2
0160.6
891.5
346.0
5
Jeffe
rson
17033
61
70
559.1
2578.2
5-1
9.1
33599
64
71
286.1
2144.5
9141.5
3122.4
02
7231
61
70
574.8
6616.5
6-4
1.7
04588
65
72
364.7
5175.6
6189.0
9147.3
93
6749
58
70
525.7
5638.5
6-1
12.8
12877
65
71
224.1
2145.6
978.4
3-3
4.3
8
46658
59
70
521.9
9676.8
7-1
54.8
83421
66
72
268.2
1176.7
691.4
5-6
3.4
4
6918
60
70
545.4
3627.5
6-8
2.1
33621
65
72
285.8
0160.6
8125.1
242.9
9
Ranked In
Ord
er O
f Tota
l Net In
com
e
Tab
le 5
. 2
004 E
co
no
mic
An
aly
sis
fo
r V
arie
ty S
creen
ing
at E
ag
le L
ake
20
63
Tab
le 6
.
Su
mm
ary
of
econ
om
ic p
erfo
rma
nce
base
d o
n m
ain
, ra
too
n a
nd
to
tal
yie
ld a
s w
ell
as
mil
lin
g a
nd
gra
de
wh
en p
lan
ted
Ap
ril
1,
20
04
on
sil
t lo
am
soil
at
Eagle
Lak
e an
d M
arc
h 2
7, 2004 o
n c
lay a
t B
eau
mon
t. V
ari
etie
s are
lis
ted
in
ord
er o
f d
ecre
asi
ng t
ota
l cr
op
net
in
com
e/A
at
each
loca
tion
. P
are
nth
eses
in
th
e m
ain
, ra
toon
an
d t
ota
l cr
op
colu
mn
s in
dic
ate
th
e vari
ety’s
rel
ati
ve
econ
om
ic r
an
k f
or
tha
t cr
op
. T
ab
les
4 a
nd
5 s
ho
w t
he
ma
in c
rop
an
d r
ato
on
cro
p y
ield
, m
illi
ng a
nd
exp
ense
s u
sed
to
calc
ula
te n
et i
nco
me/
A.
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le C
sh
ow
s vari
ety
pri
ce/c
wt
for
main
cro
p.
NE
T M
AIN
, R
AT
OO
N A
ND
TO
TA
L C
RO
P V
AL
UE
$/A
AN
D E
CO
NO
MIC
RA
NK
(
)a
Net
in
com
e $
/A o
n c
lay
at
Bea
um
on
t
Net
in
com
e $
/A o
n s
ilt
loam
so
il a
t E
agle
Lak
e
Vari
ety
Mai
n C
rop
+
Rat
oo
n
Cro
p
=
To
tal
Vari
ety
Mai
n C
rop
+
Rat
oo
n
Cro
p
=
To
tal
XP
72
3
$ 1
00
(1
)
$ 2
55
(1
)
$ 3
55
(1
)
X
P7
23
$
21
7 (
1)
$
22
8 (
1)
$
44
5 (
1)
CL
XL
8
46
(2
)
2
15
(2
)
2
61
(2
)
C
yb
on
net
34
(2
)
19
2 (
3)
2
26
(2
) C
yb
on
net
16
(4
)
1
34
(5
)
1
50
(3
)
C
LX
L8
21
(3
)
20
1 (
2)
2
22
(3
) C
oco
dri
e -
58
(6
)
1
75
(4
)
1
18
(4
)
C
L1
61
1
(5
)
15
6 (
4)
1
57
(4
) C
L1
61
-
27
(5
)
11
2 (
6)
85
(5
)
B
ank
s
18
(4
)
10
6 (
6)
1
24
(5
)
Ban
ks
2
9 (
3)
3
5 (
9)
64
(6
)
C
hen
iere
-7 (
6)
9
2 (
9)
8
5 (
6)
TX
90
92
-1
38
(9
)
18
0 (
3)
4
2 (
7)
Co
cod
rie
-
11
(7
)
9
2 (
8)
8
1 (
7)
Jeff
erso
n
-6
1 (
7)
6
0 (
8)
-1
(8
)
T
X9
09
2
-45
(8
)
9
1 (
7)
4
6 (
8)
Ch
enie
re
-12
7 (
8)
91
(7
)
-36
(9
)
Je
ffer
son
-8
2 (
9)
12
5 (
5)
4
3 (
9)
Av
g =
-2
4
+
1
39
=
1
15
A
vg
=
16
+
14
2
=
15
8
a
Nu
mb
ers
in (
)
in
dic
ate
eco
no
mic
ran
kin
g f
or
mai
n o
r ra
too
n c
rop
s.
A v
arie
ty’s
eco
no
mic
ran
k r
efle
cts
var
iety
av
erag
e y
ield
, m
illi
ng
, p
rice
and
dir
ect
exp
ense
s fo
r m
ain
, ra
too
n o
r to
tal
cro
p i
n 2
00
4.
(1)
= h
igh
est
net
in
com
e/A
.
64
TA
BL
E 7
.
VA
RIE
TY
CH
AR
AC
TE
RIS
TIC
S S
UM
MA
RY
V
AR
IET
Y C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
Day
s fr
om
em
erg
ence
fo
r ea
rly
pla
nti
ng
s
Var
iety
Nam
e
an
d G
rou
p
seed
per
po
un
d1
max
.
pro
du
ctiv
e
till
ers
per
pla
nt2
P
D
HD
M
atu
rity
Mat
ure
Pla
nt
Hei
gh
t
(in
ches
)
Var
iety
Str
eng
ths
Var
iety
Weak
nes
ses
TR
UE
SE
MID
WA
RF(
LE
SS
TH
AN
39
IN
CH
ES
TA
LL
OR
1 C
M T
AL
L)
Cy
bo
nn
et
19
,40
0
18�4
6
3
89
1
20
-12
1
35
-39
h
igh
MC
3y
ield
,
exce
llen
t m
illi
ng
no
t p
rov
en o
n
farm
ers
fiel
d
Ch
enie
re
20
,40
0
15�9
6
8
89
-92
1
20
-12
4
34
-37
M
C s
imil
ar o
r le
ss
th
an C
oco
dri
e R
C3y
ield
Co
cod
rie
18
,00
0
18�8
6
2
84
-89
1
20
-12
1
35
-38
MC
co
nsi
sten
cy,
del
ayed
pla
nti
ng
MC
yie
ld
RC
var
iab
ilit
y
Jeff
erso
n
16
,80
0
16�5
6
0
81
-83
1
15
-11
6
33
-39
earl
iness
, S
B3
tole
ran
ce,
lo
dg
ing
resi
stan
ce
chal
kin
ess,
inco
nsi
sten
t m
illi
ng
TX
90
92
1
8,6
00
1
3�3
6
2
85
-87
1
16
-11
7
33
-39
R
C y
ield
ti
ller
ing
cap
acit
y
MC
yie
ld
TA
LL
ER
TH
AN
SE
MID
WA
RF
S
Ban
ks
19
,30
0
14�6
6
3
88
-91
1
20
-12
1
43
-47
h
igh
MC
yie
ld
RC
co
nsi
sten
cy
and
yie
ld
HY
BR
IDS
XP
72
3
17
,60
0
22�8
6
6
85
-90
1
16
-11
8
43
-44
hig
h M
C a
nd
RC
yie
lds,
mil
lin
g o
n p
ar
wit
h c
on
ven
tio
nal
var
ieti
es
low
pla
nti
ng
rate
,
seed
co
st
HE
RB
ICID
E R
ES
IST
AN
T
CL
16
1
20
,10
0
20�1
0
67
9
0-9
2
12
0-1
21
3
7-4
1
imp
rov
ed y
ield
ov
er
CL
12
1 a
nd
14
1, r
ed
rice
co
ntr
ol,
her
bic
ide
resi
stan
ce
RC
, se
ed a
nd
her
bic
ide
cost
CLXL8
21
,30
0
33�5
6
0
88
-91
1
16
-12
0
43
-45
re
d r
ice
con
tro
l,
her
bic
ide
resi
stan
ce
seed
an
d
her
bic
ide
cost
1C
an v
ary
as
mu
ch a
s 1
0%
du
e to
cli
mat
e cu
ltura
l p
ract
ices
an
d s
eed c
lean
ing
. 2P
roduct
ive
till
ers
per
pla
nt
spac
ed 1
0 i
nch
es a
par
t nea
r plo
ts a
t B
eaum
ont
under
2004 c
ondit
ions.
3M
ain C
rop =
MC
; R
atoon C
rop =
RC
; S
B =
shea
th b
light.
65
FIGURES
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
APPENDIX
43
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sP
lant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
pla
nt
Pre
floo
dP
I o
r G
RP
I +
14
Da
ys P
red
rain
Lbs
/ac
Lbs
/ac
Lbs
/ac
toto
Ht.
%%
%%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
e12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
Ba
nks
11
45
80
60
00
No
8701
3728
1242
991
123
109
54.6
69.0
62.1
070
.70
Ba
nks
12
45
80
60
00
No
7790
3291
1108
193
121
105
54.8
68.7
61.8
070
.70
Ba
nks
13
45
80
60
00
No
8847
3487
1233
493
123
114
51.9
68.4
Ba
nks
14
45
80
60
00
No
8103
3676
1178
092
122
102
52.5
68.8
8360
3545
1190
692
122
107
5369
6271
Ba
nks
21
45
80
60
00
Ye
s81
3036
9611
826
9312
210
853
.268
.868
.80
62.9
0
Ba
nks
22
45
80
60
00
Ye
s91
3528
0011
934
9112
111
055
.368
.968
.90
62.6
0
Ba
nks
23
45
80
60
00
Ye
s79
0937
5511
663
9312
410
351
.068
.5
Ba
nks
24
45
80
60
00
Ye
s91
4139
6013
101
9212
111
155
.669
.1
8579
3552
1213
192
122
108
5469
6963
Ba
nks
31
45
35
30
45
30
No
8070
2725
1079
591
119
104
56.0
69.2
61.1
071
.00
Ba
nks
32
45
35
30
45
30
No
8915
3752
1266
790
119
108
56.8
69.4
61.5
070
.50
Ba
nks
33
45
35
30
45
30
No
8970
3004
1197
490
120
110
53.7
68.9
Ba
nks
34
45
35
30
45
30
No
8275
4579
1285
491
119
109
53.4
68.5
8558
3515
1207
391
119
108
5569
6171
Ba
nks
41
45
35
30
45
30
Ye
s86
7735
0212
179
8912
010
956
.768
.959
.20
70.3
0
Ba
nks
42
45
35
30
45
30
Ye
s87
1439
9512
708
9111
910
456
.769
.563
.70
71.7
0
Ba
nks
43
45
35
30
45
30
Ye
s82
6333
7611
639
9112
010
854
.268
.8
Ba
nks
44
45
35
30
45
30
Ye
s92
9832
9412
593
9111
911
252
.468
.2
8738
3542
1228
091
119
108
5569
6171
Av
g.
Ac
ros
s A
ll T
rea
tme
nts
85
59
35
39
12
09
79
11
21
10
85
46
96
36
9
*Ra
too
n in
pu
ts f
or
tre
atm
en
ts 1
- 4
co
nv
en
tion
al v
arie
ties
are
as
follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
13
50
No
Ye
s
13
50
Ye
sY
es
90
45
No
Ye
s
90
45
Ye
sY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ive
d 1
35
lbs
Pre
-flo
od
N/A
with
or
with
ou
t fu
ng
icid
e
Da
ys t
o f
loo
d =
42
MC
stu
bb
le h
eig
ht
= 1
0 t
o 1
2 in
che
s
78
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Pre
drai
nL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cto
toH
t.%
%%
%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
Chn
r1
145
8060
00
No
7908
3576
1148
593
129
8355
.570
.658
.60
69.7
0
Chn
r1
245
8060
00
No
7741
2666
1040
692
123
8359
.972
.060
.20
70.5
0
Chn
r1
345
8060
00
No
7353
2693
1004
692
127
8954
.870
.3
Chn
r1
445
8060
00
No
7373
1920
9293
9312
384
59.9
71.8
7594
2714
1030
893
126
8558
7159
70
Chn
r2
145
8060
00
Yes
7814
3081
1089
592
124
8858
.071
.862
.10
72.0
0
Chn
r2
245
8060
00
Yes
8027
3750
1177
690
125
8959
.171
.660
.40
70.9
0
Chn
r2
345
8060
00
Yes
7913
3595
1150
893
125
8655
.871
.2
Chn
r2
445
8060
00
Yes
8240
3782
1202
293
125
8557
.271
.2
7998
3552
1155
092
125
8758
7161
71
Chn
r3
145
3530
4530
No
7618
750
8369
9112
184
60.4
72.2
62.2
072
.80
Chn
r3
245
3530
4530
No
8352
3315
1166
791
123
8857
.771
.260
.30
70.6
0
Chn
r3
345
3530
4530
No
7402
2825
1022
792
125
8558
.571
.3
Chn
r3
445
3530
4530
No
7438
2841
1027
991
122
8461
.472
.7
7702
2433
1013
591
123
8559
7261
72
Chn
r4
145
3530
4530
Yes
7634
4366
1200
091
125
8455
.870
.263
.40
72.2
0
Chn
r4
245
3530
4530
Yes
7780
3709
1148
991
122
8461
.972
.661
.00
71.7
0
Chn
r4
345
3530
4530
Yes
7685
3614
1129
990
122
8662
.372
.5
Chn
r4
445
3530
4530
Yes
7943
4100
1204
292
125
8656
.071
.0
7761
3947
1170
891
123
8559
7262
72
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7764
3161
10925
92
124
85
58
71
61
71
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
79
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Pre
drai
nL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cto
toH
t.%
%%
%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
Ccd
r1
145
8060
00
No
7913
3168
1108
090
122
8959
.768
.666
.771
.7
Ccd
r1
245
8060
00
No
7855
3491
1134
690
123
8860
.469
.765
.20
71.5
0
Ccd
r1
345
8060
00
No
7097
2874
9971
9112
589
56.6
68.9
Ccd
r1
445
8060
00
No
7943
3462
1140
590
122
8758
.068
.6
7702
3249
1095
090
123
8859
6966
72
Ccd
r2
145
8060
00
Yes
7700
5099
1279
990
122
9359
.668
.965
.671
.9
Ccd
r2
245
8060
00
Yes
7940
4309
1224
991
124
8858
.768
.866
.20
72.1
0
Ccd
r2
345
8060
00
Yes
7754
4682
1243
590
122
9258
.868
.8
Ccd
r2
445
8060
00
Yes
8097
5199
1329
790
122
8861
.369
.0
7873
4822
1269
590
123
9060
6966
72
Ccd
r3
145
3530
4530
No
8083
1995
1007
888
119
8658
.569
.163
.771
.2
Ccd
r3
245
3530
4530
No
7940
2738
1067
888
120
9060
.669
.764
.20
70.8
0
Ccd
r3
345
3530
4530
No
7449
2858
1030
788
121
8359
.669
.2
Ccd
r3
445
3530
4530
No
8132
1992
1012
488
119
8858
.768
.9
7901
2396
1029
788
120
8659
6964
71
Ccd
r4
145
3530
4530
Yes
7625
4555
1218
188
122
8359
.969
.766
.572
.3
Ccd
r4
245
3530
4530
Yes
8112
3801
1191
388
119
9259
.969
.266
.30
72.6
0
Ccd
r4
345
3530
4530
Yes
8731
4771
1350
288
119
9259
.569
.3
Ccd
r4
445
3530
4530
Yes
7665
3778
1144
488
120
8560
.569
.6
8033
4227
1226
088
120
8860
6966
72
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7877
3673
11550
89
121
88
59
69
66
72
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
80
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Pre
drai
nL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cto
toH
t.%
%%
%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
CL1
611
145
8060
00
No
8125
3618
1174
491
127
9362
.670
.665
.60
71.9
0
CL1
611
245
8060
00
No
7541
3405
1094
694
125
9360
.670
.061
.80
70.0
0
CL1
611
345
8060
00
No
7490
3618
1110
894
129
9058
.869
.7
CL1
611
445
8060
00
No
7616
3592
1120
794
125
8962
.470
.7
7693
3558
1125
193
126
9161
7064
71
CL1
612
145
8060
00
Yes
7106
3947
1105
493
127
9159
.869
.563
.10
71.1
0
CL1
612
245
8060
00
Yes
8237
4206
1244
393
125
9962
.870
.462
.70
70.4
0
CL1
612
345
8060
00
Yes
7152
4302
1145
493
127
9856
.869
.5
CL1
612
445
8060
00
Yes
8057
3958
1201
594
124
9462
.070
.7
7638
4103
1174
193
126
9560
7063
71
CL1
613
145
3530
4530
No
7151
3158
1030
891
125
8762
.370
.463
.10
71.0
0
CL1
613
245
3530
4530
No
8015
3568
1158
390
127
9263
.970
.861
.60
70.1
0
CL1
613
345
3530
4530
No
7719
3675
1139
491
125
9261
.070
.2
CL1
613
445
3530
4530
No
7675
3493
1116
891
123
9463
.770
.8
7640
3473
1111
391
125
9163
7162
71
CL1
614
145
3530
4530
Yes
8194
4806
1300
090
125
9061
.970
.663
.00
70.8
0
CL1
614
245
3530
4530
Yes
8118
4330
1244
891
123
9563
.871
.262
.10
70.7
0
CL1
614
345
3530
4530
Yes
7543
4406
1194
891
124
9563
.771
.1
CL1
614
445
3530
4530
Yes
8264
4353
1261
791
124
9361
.969
.9
8030
4473
1250
391
124
9363
7163
71
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7750
3902
11652
92
125
93
62
70
63
71
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
81
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Lat
e Se
ason
Lbs
/ac
Lbs
/ac
Lbs
/ac
toto
Ht.
%%
%%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
CLX
L81
10
900
060
No
9477
4687
1416
489
122
107
48.4
68.5
61.6
072
.80
CLX
L81
20
900
060
No
1017
653
6515
541
9111
810
549
.268
.363
.60
72.7
0
CLX
L81
30
900
060
No
9192
5131
1432
389
121
107
48.6
68.3
CLX
L81
40
900
060
No
8521
4498
1301
991
119
107
49.2
68.2
9341
4920
1426
290
120
106
4968
6373
CLX
L82
10
900
060
Yes
9266
4936
1420
291
120
108
47.4
67.5
63.8
073
.00
CLX
L82
20
900
060
Yes
9702
5409
1511
189
120
107
46.7
67.8
64.7
073
.50
CLX
L82
30
900
060
Yes
9511
5270
1478
291
120
109
46.1
67.4
CLX
L82
40
900
060
Yes
9119
4700
1381
989
121
105
48.4
67.4
9400
5079
1447
890
120
107
4768
6473
CLX
L83
10
120
00
60N
o90
4644
7113
516
9112
010
949
.268
.360
.20
71.8
0
CLX
L83
20
120
00
60N
o87
3744
8313
219
9112
111
348
.268
.360
.50
72.3
0
CLX
L83
30
120
00
60N
o94
0948
8614
294
9112
110
949
.168
.1
CLX
L83
40
120
00
60N
o77
5452
5813
011
9312
211
046
.267
.6
8736
4774
1351
092
121
110
4868
6072
CLX
L84
10
120
00
60Y
es92
4651
4414
389
9112
211
248
.667
.860
.50
72.1
0
CLX
L84
20
120
00
60Y
es94
0955
1314
922
9111
910
949
.368
.961
.20
72.1
0
CLX
L84
30
120
00
60Y
es92
1554
5614
671
9112
111
450
.468
.5
CLX
L84
40
120
00
60Y
es92
1354
2914
642
9112
110
746
.268
.0
9271
5385
1465
691
121
110
4968
6172
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts9187
5040
14227
91
120
108
48
68
62
73
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
82
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Pre
drai
nL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cto
toH
t.%
%%
%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
Cbn
t1
145
8060
00
No
7408
3777
1118
591
124
9164
.171
.064
.70
71.1
0
Cbn
t1
245
8060
00
No
7533
3690
1122
389
121
9163
.770
.564
.60
71.0
0
Cbn
t1
345
8060
00
No
8254
3471
1172
590
122
9065
.471
.6
Cbn
t1
445
8060
00
No
7883
3853
1173
691
123
8763
.871
.1
7769
3698
1146
790
122
9064
7165
71
Cbn
t2
145
8060
00
Yes
8034
4714
1274
990
122
9266
.271
.565
.20
71.7
0
Cbn
t2
245
8060
00
Yes
7789
4472
1226
191
123
9164
.971
.165
.80
71.8
0
Cbn
t2
345
8060
00
Yes
7678
4963
1264
191
123
9063
.270
.8
Cbn
t2
445
8060
00
Yes
8205
4524
1272
990
121
8665
.571
.5
7927
4668
1259
591
122
9065
7166
72
Cbn
t3
145
3530
4530
No
8571
3743
1231
488
119
8964
.971
.263
.90
69.6
0
Cbn
t3
245
3530
4530
No
7750
3414
1116
488
120
9167
.472
.164
.50
71.2
0
Cbn
t3
345
3530
4530
No
7921
4099
1202
188
120
8465
.271
.2
Cbn
t3
445
3530
4530
No
7799
3772
1157
188
119
9164
.970
.9
8010
3757
1176
788
119
8966
7164
70
Cbn
t4
145
3530
4530
Yes
8252
4748
1299
988
120
9366
.772
.064
.80
71.7
0
Cbn
t4
245
3530
4530
Yes
8256
4990
1324
788
119
8765
.371
.264
.50
71.2
0
Cbn
t4
345
3530
4530
Yes
7875
4851
1272
688
119
8965
.171
.2
Cbn
t4
445
3530
4530
Yes
7977
4822
1279
888
120
8964
.370
.8
8090
4853
1294
388
119
8965
7165
71
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7949
4244
12193
89
121
89
65
71
65
71
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
83
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Pre
drai
nL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cto
toH
t.%
%%
%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
Jeff
11
4580
600
0N
o72
0436
5810
862
8411
885
61.9
70.2
63.0
071
.10
Jeff
12
4580
600
0N
o68
9234
2310
315
8411
784
61.0
70.2
64.1
071
.70
Jeff
13
4580
600
0N
o74
3134
4710
879
8411
782
61.4
70.4
Jeff
14
4580
600
0N
o66
0538
6710
472
8311
685
61.3
70.2
7033
3599
1063
284
117
8461
7064
71
Jeff
21
4580
600
0Y
es69
7341
8511
159
8311
883
61.7
70.3
65.2
072
.00
Jeff
22
4580
600
0Y
es76
5548
7612
531
8511
784
60.7
70.0
65.7
071
.70
Jeff
23
4580
600
0Y
es71
0644
9511
601
8311
784
60.2
70.4
Jeff
24
4580
600
0Y
es71
9047
9611
986
8411
782
62.0
70.4
7231
4588
1181
984
117
8361
7065
72
Jeff
31
4535
3045
30N
o67
8029
0596
8582
116
8557
.769
.864
.80
70.6
0
Jeff
32
4535
3045
30N
o69
4224
7694
1881
116
8258
.370
.364
.60
71.5
0
Jeff
33
4535
3045
30N
o67
3333
5810
091
8211
581
58.5
69.9
Jeff
34
4535
3045
30N
o65
4227
7193
1380
116
8856
.769
.5
6749
2877
9627
8111
684
5870
6571
Jeff
41
4535
3045
30Y
es70
5039
8411
035
8211
683
59.7
70.4
66.5
072
.30
Jeff
42
4535
3045
30Y
es63
0726
1189
1881
116
8559
.769
.864
.60
71.8
0
Jeff
43
4535
3045
30Y
es67
8441
0310
887
8111
687
56.5
70.1
Jeff
44
4535
3045
30Y
es64
8929
8794
7683
116
8060
.070
.1
6658
3421
1007
982
116
8459
7066
72
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts6918
3621
10539
83
116
84
60
70
65
72
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
84
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Pre
drai
nL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cL
bs/a
cto
toH
t.%
%%
%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
TX
9092
11
4580
600
0N
o72
3733
7910
616
8811
984
59.9
69.8
63.7
071
.60
TX
9092
12
4580
600
0N
o72
7140
8311
354
8711
785
58.8
69.7
64.1
071
.50
TX
9092
13
4580
600
0N
o71
3829
9610
133
8711
884
60.1
70.1
TX
9092
14
4580
600
0N
o71
7537
3610
912
8711
884
59.4
69.5
7205
3549
1075
487
118
8460
7064
72
TX
9092
21
4580
600
0Y
es71
6139
2511
087
8711
788
59.8
69.6
65.4
072
.30
TX
9092
22
4580
600
0Y
es77
5133
0811
059
8811
784
60.4
70.1
66.7
072
.40
TX
9092
23
4580
600
0Y
es74
6036
3711
098
8711
785
60.4
70.0
TX
9092
24
4580
600
0Y
es76
7432
5010
924
8811
787
60.9
70.2
7512
3530
1104
288
117
8660
7066
72
TX
9092
31
4535
3045
30N
o74
8829
8510
472
8311
685
61.5
70.2
64.7
071
.60
TX
9092
32
4535
3045
30N
o74
0229
4510
347
8311
783
60.5
69.7
66.2
072
.30
TX
9092
33
4535
3045
30N
o73
5128
9710
248
8311
683
61.2
70.5
TX
9092
34
4535
3045
30N
o72
1424
0296
1585
116
8561
.570
.1
7364
2807
1017
184
116
8461
7065
72
TX
9092
41
4535
3045
30Y
es73
9133
0910
700
8311
686
60.3
70.1
65.7
072
.00
TX
9092
42
4535
3045
30Y
es73
6424
4098
0483
117
7961
.370
.065
.70
71.9
0
TX
9092
43
4535
3045
30Y
es75
0635
4411
050
8311
684
61.5
70.1
TX
9092
44
4535
3045
30Y
es71
1721
7292
8983
116
8460
.569
.8
7345
2866
1021
183
116
8361
7066
72
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7356
3188
10544
85
117
84
61
70
65
72
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
85
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le A
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t E
ag
le L
ake 2
004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
. *
Rat
oon
Tot
alM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldD
ays
Day
sPl
ant
M.C
.M
.C.
R.C
.R
.C.
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or
GR
PI
+ 1
4 D
ays
Lat
e Se
ason
Lbs
/ac
Lbs
/ac
Lbs
/ac
toto
Ht.
%%
%%
Var
iety
Trt
Rep
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
N (
lbs/
A)
Fun
gici
de12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.H
ead
Mat
(cm
)W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
al
XP
723
11
090
00
60N
o10
656
4870
1552
688
119
104
57.9
70.2
66.9
073
.60
XP
723
12
090
00
60N
o10
830
5277
1610
789
117
110
59.1
69.8
62.9
071
.90
XP
723
13
090
00
60N
o11
050
4292
1534
288
117
104
59.6
70.6
XP
723
14
090
00
60N
o10
287
5156
1544
410
011
810
759
.470
.0
1070
648
9915
605
9111
810
659
7065
73
XP
723
21
090
00
60Y
es10
788
4877
1566
589
117
104
59.2
70.4
65.6
072
.60
XP
723
22
090
00
60Y
es11
035
4054
1508
988
117
112
59.3
71.0
66.9
073
.30
XP
723
23
090
00
60Y
es10
959
5510
1646
989
117
109
59.9
70.5
XP
723
24
090
00
60Y
es11
070
4698
1576
888
119
107
58.8
70.6
1096
347
8515
748
8911
710
859
7166
73
XP
723
31
012
00
060
No
1114
246
8215
824
9011
910
758
.569
.966
.90
73.6
0
XP
723
32
012
00
060
No
1137
053
3416
704
9011
911
158
.569
.767
.20
73.8
0
XP
723
33
012
00
060
No
1091
643
4315
259
9011
911
359
.470
.1
XP
723
34
012
00
060
No
1031
652
2615
542
9011
910
759
.770
.0
1093
648
9615
832
9011
910
959
7067
74
XP
723
41
012
00
060
Yes
1121
553
0816
523
9012
010
759
.469
.963
.40
72.5
0
XP
723
42
012
00
060
Yes
1081
456
0416
418
9011
911
459
.570
.166
.80
73.6
0
XP
723
43
012
00
060
Yes
1051
450
5515
570
8912
110
957
.970
.0
XP
723
44
012
00
060
Yes
1104
250
7416
116
8911
910
257
.870
.1
1089
652
6016
157
9012
010
859
7065
73
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts10875
4960
15835
90
118
108
59
70
66
73
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
RC
Pre
-fld
+2
5 d
a.R
CR
C
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
135
0N
oY
es
135
0Y
esY
es
9045
No
Yes
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Day
s to
flo
od =
42
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght
= 1
0 to
12
inch
es
86
Ap
pend
ix T
ab
le B
: C
om
prehensiv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sD
ays
Pla
nt
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysLa
te S
easo
nF
ungi
cide
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
Lbs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toto
Ht.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
alE
mer
gF
lood
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
XP
723
11
090
00
60
No
8516
4935
13451
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
111
XP
723
12
090
00
60
No
8322
4791
13112
69
74
62
70
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
13
090
00
60
No
8490
4768
13258
67
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
109
XP
723
14
090
00
60
No
8262
4743
13005
67
73
12
34
66
85
116
110
Avg
.8397
4809
13206
68
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
21
090
00
60
Yes
8713
5183
13896
69
73
60
68
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
22
090
00
60
Yes
7966
5123
13089
68
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
23
090
00
60
Yes
8023
4820
12843
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
109
XP
723
24
090
00
60
Yes
8219
4910
13129
66
73
12
34
66
85
116
107
Avg
.8230
5009
13239
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
109
XP
723
31
0120
00
60
No
9325
4646
13972
68
73
59
69
12
34
66
85
116
116
XP
723
32
0120
00
60
No
9015
4786
13802
67
73
61
70
12
34
66
85
116
114
XP
723
33
0120
00
60
No
9282
5077
14360
68
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
114
XP
723
34
0120
00
60
No
8901
5301
14202
68
74
12
34
66
85
116
112
Avg
.9131
4953
14084
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
114
XP
723
41
0120
00
60
Yes
9171
4767
13938
68
73
59
69
12
34
66
85
116
116
XP
723
42
0120
00
60
Yes
8903
5011
13914
69
73
60
68
12
34
66
85
116
112
XP
723
43
0120
00
60
Yes
9127
4715
13842
69
73
62
70
12
34
66
85
116
113
XP
723
44
0120
00
60
Yes
8741
4752
13492
70
74
12
34
66
85
116
108
Avg
.8985
4811
13796
69
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
112
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts8686
4896
13581
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
111
*Rato
on in
puts
for treatm
ents
1 - 4
conventio
nal v
arietie
s a
re a
s follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
1135
0N
oY
es
2135
0Y
es
Yes
390
45
No
Yes
490
45
Yes
Yes
Hybrids receiv
ed 1
35 lb
s P
re-f
lood N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithout f
ungic
ide
Targ
ete
d p
lants
/ ft
2 =
10 D
ays to
flo
od =
34
Actu
al p
lants
/ ft
2 =
13 M
C c
utting h
eig
ht =
10 to
12 in
ches
87
Appendix
Table
B: C
om
pre
hensiv
e d
ata
for varieties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sD
ays
Pla
nt
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysP
redr
ain
Fun
gici
deLb
s/ac
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
%%
%%
toto
toto
toH
t.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
alE
mer
gF
lood
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
Che
nier
e1
145
9080
00
No
5608
2262
7871
6773
5866
1234
6888
120
95
Che
nier
e1
245
9080
00
No
5836
2620
8456
6773
5765
1234
6888
120
94
Che
nier
e1
345
9080
00
No
6074
2460
8534
6672
5666
1234
6888
120
96C
heni
ere
14
4590
800
0N
o63
4926
8590
3467
7312
3468
8812
095
Avg
.5967
2507
8474
67
73
57
65
12
34
68
88
120
95
Che
nier
e2
145
9080
00
Yes
5794
3321
9115
6773
5867
1234
6888
120
96C
heni
ere
22
4590
800
0Y
es58
1334
6292
7569
7459
6812
3468
8812
096
Che
nier
e2
345
9080
00
Yes
6324
3367
9691
6974
5566
1234
6888
120
97
Che
nier
e2
445
9080
00
Yes
6606
3297
9903
6873
1234
6888
120
97
Avg
.6134
3361
9496
68
73
57
67
12
34
68
88
120
96
Che
nier
e3
145
6035
4530
No
6140
2285
8426
6673
5866
1234
6890
120
95
Che
nier
e3
245
6035
4530
No
6235
2682
8917
6672
5866
1234
6890
120
97
Che
nier
e3
345
6035
4530
No
6037
2484
8521
6773
5666
1234
6890
120
96C
heni
ere
34
4560
3545
30N
o60
6626
4387
0966
7212
3468
9012
094
Avg
.6120
2523
8643
67
73
58
66
12
34
68
90
120
96
Che
nier
e4
145
6035
4530
Yes
6369
3626
9995
6773
5766
1234
6890
120
95C
heni
ere
42
4560
3545
30Y
es62
2632
6394
8967
7358
6612
3468
9012
096
Che
nier
e4
345
6035
4530
Yes
5962
3221
9183
6873
5666
1234
6890
120
92
Che
nier
e4
445
6035
4530
Yes
6348
3433
9780
6773
1234
6890
120
93
Avg
.6226
3386
9612
67
73
57
66
12
34
68
90
120
94
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts6112
2944
9056
67
73
57
66
12
34
68
89
120
95
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts fo
r tre
atm
ents
1 -
4 co
nven
tiona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es
490
45Y
esY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r with
out f
ungi
cide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ ft
2 =
18
D
ays
to F
lood
= 3
4
Act
ual p
lant
s / f
t2 =
19
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
88
Ap
pend
ix T
ab
le B
: C
om
prehensiv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lant
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysP
redr
ain
Fun
gici
deLb
s/ac
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
%%
%%
toto
toto
Ht.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
alE
mer
gP
DH
ead
Mat
(cm
)
CL
161
11
4590
800
0N
o69
7824
2394
0169
7356
6511
6789
121
109
CL
161
12
4590
800
0N
o67
7523
3691
1067
7258
6611
6789
121
104
CL
161
13
4590
800
0N
o70
8830
2110
109
6973
5665
1167
8912
110
6
CL
161
14
4590
800
0N
o67
4828
0295
5168
7311
6789
121
105
Avg
.6897
2646
9543
68
73
57
65
11
67
89
121
106
CL
161
21
4590
800
0Y
es71
3334
9710
630
6872
5866
1167
8912
110
4
CL
161
22
4590
800
0Y
es73
4635
1810
864
6873
5866
1167
8912
110
4
CL
161
23
4590
800
0Y
es71
6533
2510
490
7073
5867
1167
8912
110
6C
L 16
12
445
9080
00
Yes
7025
3351
1037
767
7211
6789
121
106
Avg
.7167
3423
10590
68
73
58
66
11
67
89
121
105
CL
161
31
4560
3545
30N
o70
1528
7198
8666
7254
6211
6791
121
105
CL
161
32
4560
3545
30N
o72
4129
7910
220
6872
5764
1167
9112
110
1
CL
161
33
4560
3545
30N
o77
8931
9710
986
6772
5765
1167
9112
110
2C
L 16
13
445
6035
4530
No
7637
3077
1071
468
7311
6791
121
103
Avg
.7420
3031
10451
67
72
56
64
11
67
91
121
103
CL
161
41
4560
3545
30Y
es73
1337
4211
055
6873
5463
1167
9112
110
2
CL
161
42
4560
3545
30Y
es73
3335
9710
930
6772
5464
1167
9112
110
0C
L 16
14
345
6035
4530
Yes
7781
3653
1143
368
7256
6511
6791
121
102
CL
161
44
4560
3545
30Y
es78
7336
5111
523
6973
1167
9112
110
1
Avg
.7575
3661
11236
68
72
55
64
11
67
91
121
101
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7265
3190
10455
68
73
56
65
11
67
90
121
104
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts fo
r tre
atm
ents
1 -
4 co
nven
tiona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es
490
45Y
esY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r with
out f
ungi
cide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ ft
2 =
18
D
ays
to fl
ood
= 3
4
Act
ual p
lant
s / f
t2 =
20
MC
cut
ting
heig
ht =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
89
Ap
pend
ix T
ab
le B
: C
om
prehensiv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lant
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysLa
te S
easo
nF
ungi
cide
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
Lbs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toH
t.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
alE
mer
gP
DH
ead
Mat
(cm
)
CLX
L 8
11
090
00
60
No
8437
4548
12986
63
72
57
70
12
60
88
116
116
CLX
L 8
12
090
00
60
No
8035
4703
12738
65
72
59
70
12
60
88
116
116
CLX
L 8
13
090
00
60
No
8221
4199
12420
65
73
57
68
12
60
88
116
109
CLX
L 8
14
090
00
60
No
7941
4734
12675
66
73
12
60
88
116
116
Avg
.8159
4546
12705
65
73
58
69
12
60
88
116
114
CLX
L 8
21
090
00
60
Yes
8358
4985
13343
66
73
59
70
12
60
88
116
115
CLX
L 8
22
090
00
60
Yes
7941
5016
12956
64
72
61
70
12
60
88
116
112
CLX
L 8
23
090
00
60
Yes
7874
4555
12429
66
72
59
70
12
60
88
116
113
CLX
L 8
24
090
00
60
Yes
7964
4404
12368
65
72
12
60
88
116
117
Avg
.8034
4740
12774
65
72
60
70
12
60
88
116
114
CLX
L 8
31
0120
00
60
No
8491
4157
12649
62
72
57
69
12
60
88
116
117
CLX
L 8
32
0120
00
60
No
8185
4526
12711
64
73
58
70
12
60
88
116
113
CLX
L 8
33
0120
00
60
No
8295
4150
12445
64
72
57
70
12
60
88
116
117
CLX
L 8
34
0120
00
60
No
8204
4382
12586
66
73
12
60
88
116
115
Avg
.8294
4304
12598
64
73
57
69
12
60
88
116
116
CLX
L 8
41
0120
00
60
Yes
8580
4412
12991
66
73
58
69
12
60
88
116
119
CLX
L 8
42
0120
00
60
Yes
8348
4593
12941
66
73
60
70
12
60
88
116
108
CLX
L 8
43
0120
00
60
Yes
8259
4331
12591
65
72
59
70
12
60
88
116
114
CLX
L 8
44
0120
00
60
Yes
8433
4764
13197
66
73
12
60
88
116
112
Avg
.8405
4525
12930
66
73
59
70
12
60
88
116
113
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
e8223
4529
12752
65
72
58
70
12
60
88
116
114
*Rato
on in
puts
for treatm
ents
1 - 4
conventio
nal v
arietie
s a
re a
s follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
1135
0N
oY
es
2135
0Y
es
Yes
390
45
No
Yes
490
45
Yes
Yes
Hybrids receiv
ed 1
35 lb
s P
re-f
lood N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithout f
ungic
ide
Targ
ete
d p
lants
/ ft
2 =
10 D
ays to
flo
od =
34
Actu
al p
lants
/ ft
2 =
11 M
C c
utting h
eig
ht =
10 to
12 in
ches
90
Appendix
Table
B: C
om
prehensiv
e d
ata
for v
arie
ties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
MC
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lant
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysP
redr
ain
Fun
gici
deT
otal
N R
ate
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
Lbs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toH
t.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)lb
s/A
12%
M.
12%
M.
12%
M.
Who
leT
otal
Who
leT
otal
Em
erg
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
Coc
odrie
11
4590
800
0N
o21
572
0641
6811
374
6672
6370
1262
8312
096
Coc
odrie
12
4590
800
0N
o21
573
1640
4911
365
6674
6269
1262
8312
010
0
Coc
odrie
13
4590
800
0N
o21
567
4340
8210
825
6472
6269
1262
8312
099
Coc
odrie
14
4590
800
0N
o21
565
5840
6710
625
6472
1262
8312
094
Avg
.6956
4092
11047
65
72
63
69
12
62
83
120
97
Coc
odrie
21
4590
800
0Y
es21
573
3140
8511
416
6572
6169
1262
8312
010
1C
ocod
rie2
245
9080
00
Yes
215
7415
4613
1202
965
7263
7012
6283
120
103
Coc
odrie
23
4590
800
0Y
es21
571
4643
0011
447
6472
6169
1262
8312
097
Coc
odrie
24
4590
800
0Y
es21
573
4842
2711
575
6673
1262
8312
098
Avg
.7310
4307
11617
65
72
62
69
12
62
83
120
100
Coc
odrie
31
4560
3545
30N
o21
569
8238
5210
834
6472
6269
1262
8512
097
Coc
odrie
32
4560
3545
30N
o21
570
0438
7410
878
6472
6370
1262
8512
099
Coc
odrie
33
4560
3545
30N
o21
570
0635
3710
542
6572
6269
1262
8512
094
Coc
odrie
34
4560
3545
30N
o21
568
8837
9710
685
6372
1262
8512
093
Avg
.6970
3765
10735
64
72
63
69
12
62
85
120
96
Coc
odrie
41
4560
3545
30Y
es21
574
1544
4211
857
6572
6169
1262
8512
097
Coc
odrie
42
4560
3545
30Y
es21
574
7142
7011
741
6572
6269
1262
8512
097
Coc
odrie
43
4560
3545
30Y
es21
571
4138
9411
035
6572
6269
1262
8512
092
Coc
odrie
44
4560
3545
30Y
es21
573
8838
5211
240
6573
1262
8512
095
Avg
.7354
4114
11468
65
73
62
69
12
62
85
120
95
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7147
4069
11217
65
72
62
69
12
62
84
120
97
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts fo
r tre
atm
ents
1 -
4 co
nven
tiona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es
490
45Y
esY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r with
out f
ungi
cide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ ft
2 =
18
D
ays
to fl
ood
= 34
Act
ual p
lant
s / f
t2 =
17
MC
cut
ting
heig
ht =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
91
Ap
pend
ix T
ab
le B
: C
om
prehensiv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lant
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysP
redr
ain
Fun
gici
deLb
s/ac
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
%%
%%
toto
toto
Ht.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
alE
mer
gP
DH
ead
Mat
(cm
)
Cyb
onne
t1
145
9080
00
No
7299
2733
1003
370
7458
6612
6388
120
103
Cyb
onne
t1
245
9080
00
No
7339
2168
9507
7074
6167
1263
8812
099
Cyb
onne
t1
345
9080
00
No
7263
3177
1044
070
7457
6612
6388
120
101
Cyb
onne
t1
445
9080
00
No
7273
3057
1033
070
7312
6388
120
101
Avg
.7293
2784
10077
70
74
58
66
12
63
88
120
101
Cyb
onne
t2
145
9080
00
Yes
7603
3752
1135
570
7459
6712
6388
120
100
Cyb
onne
t2
245
9080
00
Yes
7190
3246
1043
670
7458
6612
6388
120
101
Cyb
onne
t2
345
9080
00
Yes
7578
3862
1144
070
7561
6812
6388
120
98C
ybon
net
24
4590
800
0Y
es74
8737
3311
220
7074
1263
8812
099
Avg
.7465
3648
11113
70
74
59
67
12
63
88
120
99
Cyb
onne
t3
145
6035
4530
No
7740
2966
1070
569
7455
6412
6390
120
97
Cyb
onne
t3
245
6035
4530
No
7687
2896
1058
369
7456
6612
6390
120
99C
ybon
net
33
4560
3545
30N
o80
5532
6111
317
5866
1263
9012
096
Cyb
onne
t3
445
6035
4530
No
7722
2980
1070
170
7412
6390
120
97
Avg
.7801
3026
10827
69
74
56
65
12
63
90
120
97
Cyb
onne
t4
145
6035
4530
Yes
7918
3785
1170
270
7458
6612
6390
120
97
Cyb
onne
t4
245
6035
4530
Yes
7669
3875
1154
470
7457
6512
6390
120
98
Cyb
onne
t4
345
6035
4530
Yes
8080
4239
1231
870
7458
6612
6390
120
99C
ybon
net
44
4560
3545
30Y
es81
3943
5112
490
7074
1263
9012
098
Avg
.7951
4062
12014
70
74
58
66
12
63
90
120
98
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7628
3380
11008
70
74
58
66
12
63
89
120
99
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts fo
r tre
atm
ents
1 -
4 co
nven
tiona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es4
9045
Yes
Yes
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r with
out f
ungi
cide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ ft
2 =
20
D
ays
to fl
ood
= 3
4
Act
ual p
lant
s / f
t2 =
22
MC
stu
bble
hei
ght =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
92
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le B
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eau
mo
nt 2004 c
on
tin
ued M
.C.
*Rat
oon
Tot
al
M
illin
gM
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lan
t
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
pla
nt
Pre
flood
PI o
r GR
PI +
14
day
sP
red
rain
Fu
ng
icid
eL
bs/
acL
bs/
acL
bs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toH
t.
Var
iety
Nu
mb
erR
epN
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)1
2%
M.
12
% M
.1
2%
M.
Wh
ole
Tot
alW
hol
eT
otal
Em
erg
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
Jeff
erso
n1
145
9080
00
No
6973
1817
8791
6672
5768
1260
8211
510
3
Jeff
erso
n1
245
9080
00
No
7338
1731
9069
6672
5769
1260
8211
510
3
Jeff
erso
n1
345
9080
00
No
7007
2515
9522
6572
5870
1260
8211
510
3
Jeff
erso
n1
445
9080
00
No
6942
2475
9417
6471
1260
8211
510
2
Avg
.7065
2135
9200
65
72
57
69
12
60
82
115
103
Jeff
erso
n2
145
9080
00
Yes
7390
3292
1068
267
7356
6912
6082
115
97
Jeff
erso
n2
245
9080
00
Yes
7227
2944
1017
165
7356
6812
6082
115
102
Jeff
erso
n2
345
9080
00
Yes
7279
3250
1052
967
7258
7012
6082
115
99Je
ffer
son
24
4590
800
0Y
es69
9330
5010
043
6673
1260
8211
599
Avg
.7222
3134
10356
66
73
57
69
12
60
82
115
99
Jeff
erso
n3
145
6035
4530
No
7070
2203
9273
6672
5566
1260
8011
510
0
Jeff
erso
n3
245
6035
4530
No
6994
2307
9301
6572
5669
1260
8011
599
Jeff
erso
n3
345
6035
4530
No
7028
2288
9316
6472
5869
1260
8011
597
Jeff
erso
n3
445
6035
4530
No
6650
2512
9162
6272
1260
8011
598
Avg
.6935
2328
9263
64
72
57
68
12
60
80
115
99
Jeff
erso
n4
145
6035
4530
Yes
7301
3071
1037
266
7256
6812
6080
115
99Je
ffer
son
42
4560
3545
30Y
es71
7831
3610
314
6473
5670
1260
8011
597
Jeff
erso
n4
345
6035
4530
Yes
7426
3152
1057
863
7355
6912
6080
115
99
Jeff
erso
n4
445
6035
4530
Yes
6679
2940
9619
6373
1260
8011
595
Avg
.7146
3075
10221
64
73
56
69
12
60
80
115
98
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts7092
2668
9760
65
72
56
69
12
60
81
115
100
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt
.R
C P
re-fl
d +
25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es
490
45Y
esY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ f
t2 =
20
D
ays
to f
lood
= 3
4
Act
ual p
lant
s /
ft2 =
19
M
C s
tubb
le h
eigh
t =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
93
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le B
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eau
mo
nt 2004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lan
t
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
pla
nt
Pre
flood
PI o
r GR
PI +
14
day
sP
red
rain
Fu
ng
icid
eL
bs/
acL
bs/
acL
bs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toH
t.
Var
iety
Nu
mb
erR
epN
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)1
2%
M.
12
% M
.1
2%
M.
Wh
ole
Tot
alW
hol
eT
otal
Em
erg
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
TX
909
21
145
9080
00
No
6065
3604
9669
6771
6068
1262
8611
610
2
TX
909
21
245
9080
00
No
6117
4001
1011
866
7262
6912
6286
116
101
TX
909
21
345
9080
00
No
6106
3781
9888
6671
6370
1262
8611
610
1T
X 9
092
14
4590
800
0N
o61
5138
1199
6268
7212
6286
116
100
Avg
.6110
3799
9909
67
72
62
69
12
62
86
116
101
TX
909
22
145
9080
00
Yes
6129
4461
1059
067
720
012
6286
116
102
TX
909
22
245
9080
00
Yes
6056
4304
1036
067
7163
6912
6286
116
101
TX
909
22
345
9080
00
Yes
6001
4451
1045
168
7164
7012
6286
116
102
TX
909
22
445
9080
00
Yes
5904
3745
9649
6872
1262
8611
610
1
Avg
.6023
4240
10263
68
72
42
46
12
62
86
116
102
TX
909
23
145
6035
4530
No
6210
3945
1015
567
7162
6912
6288
116
100
TX
909
23
245
6035
4530
No
6236
3782
1001
868
7262
7012
6288
116
101
TX
909
23
345
6035
4530
No
6105
3968
1007
367
7162
6912
6288
116
99
TX
909
23
445
6035
4530
No
6086
3784
9871
6671
1262
8811
699
Avg
.6159
3870
10029
67
71
62
69
12
62
88
116
100
TX
909
24
145
6035
4530
Yes
6191
4450
1064
167
7162
6912
6288
116
101
TX
909
24
245
6035
4530
Yes
5986
4273
1025
967
7162
6912
6288
116
99
TX
909
24
345
6035
4530
Yes
6254
4316
1057
068
7265
7012
6288
116
96
TX
909
24
445
6035
4530
Yes
5874
4527
1040
167
7212
6288
116
99
Avg
.6076
4391
10468
67
72
63
69
12
62
88
116
99
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts6092
4075
10167
67
72
57
63
12
62
87
116
100
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt
.R
C P
re-fl
d +
25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es
490
45Y
esY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ f
t2 =
18
D
ays
to f
lood
= 3
4
Act
ual p
lant
s /
ft2 =
16
M
C s
tubb
le h
eigh
t =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
94
Ap
pen
dix
Tab
le B
: C
om
preh
en
siv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eau
mo
nt 2004 c
on
tin
ued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sP
lan
t
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
pla
nt
Pre
flood
PI o
r GR
PI +
14
day
sP
red
rain
Fu
ng
icid
eL
bs/
acL
bs/
acL
bs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toH
t.
Var
iety
Nu
mb
erR
epN
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)N
(lb
s/A
)1
2%
M.
12
% M
.1
2%
M.
Wh
ole
Tot
alW
hol
eT
otal
Em
erg
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
TX
909
21
145
9080
00
No
6065
3604
9669
6771
6068
1262
8611
610
2
TX
909
21
245
9080
00
No
6117
4001
1011
866
7262
6912
6286
116
101
TX
909
21
345
9080
00
No
6106
3781
9888
6671
6370
1262
8611
610
1T
X 9
092
14
4590
800
0N
o61
5138
1199
6268
7212
6286
116
100
Avg
.6110
3799
9909
67
72
62
69
12
62
86
116
101
TX
909
22
145
9080
00
Yes
6129
4461
1059
067
720
012
6286
116
102
TX
909
22
245
9080
00
Yes
6056
4304
1036
067
7163
6912
6286
116
101
TX
909
22
345
9080
00
Yes
6001
4451
1045
168
7164
7012
6286
116
102
TX
909
22
445
9080
00
Yes
5904
3745
9649
6872
1262
8611
610
1
Avg
.6023
4240
10263
68
72
42
46
12
62
86
116
102
TX
909
23
145
6035
4530
No
6210
3945
1015
567
7162
6912
6288
116
100
TX
909
23
245
6035
4530
No
6236
3782
1001
868
7262
7012
6288
116
101
TX
909
23
345
6035
4530
No
6105
3968
1007
367
7162
6912
6288
116
99
TX
909
23
445
6035
4530
No
6086
3784
9871
6671
1262
8811
699
Avg
.6159
3870
10029
67
71
62
69
12
62
88
116
100
TX
909
24
145
6035
4530
Yes
6191
4450
1064
167
7162
6912
6288
116
101
TX
909
24
245
6035
4530
Yes
5986
4273
1025
967
7162
6912
6288
116
99
TX
909
24
345
6035
4530
Yes
6254
4316
1057
068
7265
7012
6288
116
96
TX
909
24
445
6035
4530
Yes
5874
4527
1040
167
7212
6288
116
99
Avg
.6076
4391
10468
67
72
63
69
12
62
88
116
99
Avg
. A
cro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts6092
4075
10167
67
72
57
63
12
62
87
116
100
*Rat
oon
inpu
ts f
or t
reat
men
ts 1
- 4
con
vent
iona
l var
ietie
s ar
e as
fol
low
s
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt
.R
C P
re-fl
d +
25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/
A)
N (l
bs/
A)
Fu
ng
icid
eIn
sect
icid
e
113
50
No
Yes
213
50
Yes
Yes
390
45N
oY
es
490
45Y
esY
es
Hyb
rids
rece
ived
135
lbs
Pre
-flo
od N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithou
t fu
ngic
ide
Tar
gete
d pl
ants
/ f
t2 =
18
D
ays
to f
lood
= 3
4
Act
ual p
lant
s /
ft2 =
16
M
C s
tubb
le h
eigh
t =
10
to 1
2 in
ches
95
Ap
pend
ix T
ab
le B
: C
om
prehensiv
e d
ata
fo
r v
arie
ties a
t B
eaum
ont 2004 c
ontinued
M.C
.*R
atoo
nT
otal
Mill
ing
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
M.C
.M
.C.
Yie
ldY
ield
Yie
ldM
.C.
M.C
.R
.C.
R.C
.D
ays
Day
sD
ays
Day
sD
ays
Pla
nt
Tre
atm
ent
Pre
plan
tP
reflo
odP
I or G
RP
I + 1
4 da
ysLa
te S
easo
nF
ungi
cide
Lbs/
acLb
s/ac
Lbs/
ac%
%%
%to
toto
toto
Ht.
Var
iety
Num
ber
Rep
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
N (l
bs/A
)12
% M
.12
% M
.12
% M
.W
hole
Tot
alW
hole
Tot
alE
mer
gF
lood
PD
Hea
dM
at(c
m)
XP
723
11
090
00
60
No
8516
4935
13451
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
111
XP
723
12
090
00
60
No
8322
4791
13112
69
74
62
70
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
13
090
00
60
No
8490
4768
13258
67
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
109
XP
723
14
090
00
60
No
8262
4743
13005
67
73
12
34
66
85
116
110
Avg
.8397
4809
13206
68
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
21
090
00
60
Yes
8713
5183
13896
69
73
60
68
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
22
090
00
60
Yes
7966
5123
13089
68
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
110
XP
723
23
090
00
60
Yes
8023
4820
12843
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
109
XP
723
24
090
00
60
Yes
8219
4910
13129
66
73
12
34
66
85
116
107
Avg
.8230
5009
13239
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
109
XP
723
31
0120
00
60
No
9325
4646
13972
68
73
59
69
12
34
66
85
116
116
XP
723
32
0120
00
60
No
9015
4786
13802
67
73
61
70
12
34
66
85
116
114
XP
723
33
0120
00
60
No
9282
5077
14360
68
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
114
XP
723
34
0120
00
60
No
8901
5301
14202
68
74
12
34
66
85
116
112
Avg
.9131
4953
14084
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
114
XP
723
41
0120
00
60
Yes
9171
4767
13938
68
73
59
69
12
34
66
85
116
116
XP
723
42
0120
00
60
Yes
8903
5011
13914
69
73
60
68
12
34
66
85
116
112
XP
723
43
0120
00
60
Yes
9127
4715
13842
69
73
62
70
12
34
66
85
116
113
XP
723
44
0120
00
60
Yes
8741
4752
13492
70
74
12
34
66
85
116
108
Avg
.8985
4811
13796
69
73
61
69
12
34
66
85
116
112
Avg
. Acro
ss A
ll T
reatm
en
ts8686
4896
13581
68
73
60
69
12
34
66
85
116
111
*Rato
on in
puts
for treatm
ents
1 - 4
conventio
nal v
arietie
s a
re a
s follo
ws
RC
Pre
-fld
Trt.
RC
Pre
-fld
+25
da.
RC
RC
No.
N (l
bs/A
)N
(lbs
/A)
Fun
gici
deIn
sect
icid
e
1135
0N
oY
es
2135
0Y
es
Yes
390
45
No
Yes
490
45
Yes
Yes
Hybrids receiv
ed 1
35 lb
s P
re-f
lood N
/A w
ith o
r w
ithout f
ungic
ide
Targ
ete
d p
lants
/ ft
2 =
10 D
ays to
flo
od =
34
Actu
al p
lants
/ ft
2 =
13 M
C c
utting h
eig
ht =
10 to
12 in
ches
96
AP
PE
ND
IX T
AB
LE
C.
RIC
E S
UP
PO
RT
PR
ICE
S I
N D
OL
LA
RS/C
WT
FO
R E
AC
H V
AR
IET
Y B
AS
ED
ON
GR
AD
E,
DA
MA
GE
, A
ND
MIL
LIN
G S
AM
PL
ES
CA
LC
UL
AT
ED
BY
AT
INK
ER
@ H
EW
ITT
OF
AM
ER
ICA
N R
ICE
GR
OW
ER
S C
O-O
P A
SS
OC
IAT
ION
- A
NA
HU
AC
DIV
ISIO
N (
NO
VE
MB
ER
1,
20
04
PR
ICE
S).
Lo
cati
on
an
d P
lan
tin
g D
ate
Vi
B
eau
mo
nt
E
agle
Lak
e
Ap
ril
1
M
arch
19
XP
72
3
8
.49
7.8
6
C
yb
on
net
8.7
3
8
.32
Ban
ks
8
.12
7.5
4
C
hen
iere
8.5
4
7
.96
Jeff
erso
n
8
.28
7.8
8
C
oco
dri
e
8.2
7
7
.82
TX
90
92
8.3
8
7
.91
CL
XL
8
8
.31
7.1
7
C
L1
61
8.5
6
8
.11
97
AP
PE
ND
IX T
AB
LE
D.
RE
CO
MM
EN
DE
D C
UL
TU
RA
L P
RA
CT
ICE
S F
OR
MU
LA
TE
D B
Y R
ICE
PR
OD
UC
ER
S W
ITH
HIS
TO
RY
OF
HIG
H Y
IEL
DIN
G R
AT
OO
N C
RO
P.
(M
AR
CH
, 2
00
4).
F
ER
TIL
IZE
R P
RO
GR
AM
MA
IN C
RO
P
R
AT
OO
N C
RO
P
S
TA
GE
OF
RIC
E
N
RA
TE
S
TA
GE
OF
RIC
E
N
RA
TE
V
AR
IET
Y =
CO
CO
DR
IE
ST
AN
D =
15 T
O 2
0 S
EE
DL
ING
S/F
T2
PR
EP
LA
NT
TO
3-L
EA
F
45
-60
-30
P
RE
FL
OO
D
35
TO
60
-0-0
HIG
HE
R N
RA
TE
ON
CL
AY
SO
IL
PR
EF
LO
OD
9
0-0
-0
GR
EE
NR
ING
OR
PI
30
TO
35
-0-0
2
5 D
AY
S A
FT
ER
FL
OO
D
45
-0-0
P
I +
14
DA
YS
45
-0-0
P
RE
DR
AIN
30
-0-0
MC
TO
TA
L N
185 T
O 2
15
-0-0
SIL
T L
OA
M A
ND
CL
AY
S
R
C T
OT
AL
N
135-0
-0
AD
D=
L C
UL
TU
RA
L P
RA
CT
ICE
S -
IN
SE
CT
ICID
ES
AN
D H
ER
BIC
IDE
S A
S N
EE
DE
D:
MA
IN C
RO
P
R
AT
OO
N C
RO
P
DR
AIN
MA
IN C
RO
P 1
0 T
O 1
4
DA
YS
BE
FO
RE
HA
RV
ES
T
HA
RV
ES
T C
RO
P A
ND
SP
RE
AD
ST
RA
W L
EA
VIN
G 1
0"
TO
12
" S
TU
BB
LE
ES
TA
BL
ISH
FL
OO
D S
OO
N A
FT
ER
MC
HA
RV
ES
T
FU
NG
ICID
E
TIL
T (
6 O
Z/A
) P
LU
S Q
UA
DR
IS (
8 O
Z/A
) A
T B
OO
TIN
G
FU
NG
ICID
E
TIL
T (
6 O
Z/A
) P
LU
S Q
UA
DR
IS (
8 O
Z/A
) 2
5 D
AY
S
AF
TE
R F
LO
OD
ES
TA
BL
ISH
ME
NT
B
RO
AD
LE
AF
HE
RB
ICID
E +
GIB
B
AP
PL
Y T
O R
AT
OO
N T
ILL
ER
S I
N B
RO
AD
LE
AF
WE
ED
S
INS
EC
TIC
IDE
KA
RA
TE
FO
R S
TE
M B
OR
ER
IF
NE
ED
ED
IN
SE
CT
ICID
E
KA
RA
TE
FO
R S
TE
M B
OR
ER
IF
NE
ED
ED
98
99
Texas Rice Research Foundation
2004 Research Report
Title
Water Management and Weed Science
Research in Rice
Project Leaders
Garry N. McCauley
and
James M. Chandler
Duration
Year One of Four Years
100
I Executive Summary
Objective 1: Due to land area restrictions this study had to be planted in the same plot area as
2003. The decision was made late and therefore the land preparation was late. Normally the 2003
plot areas would not have worked until after the 2004 plots are planted. The reduced rotation
appeared to reduce the MC yield but not the RC where the best treatments were near 4000 lb/ac
dry rice. MC drain timing greatly influences MC yield and milling. Pre drain N application had
little impact on MC parameters. The RC yield, milling and maturity was influenced by MC drain
timing, between crop dry period, RC flood timing.
Objective 2: The results for Eagle Lake and Beaumont were very similar to 2003. Weed
pressures were slightly higher as were control cost. Beaumont had the heaviest weed pressure and
a good spectrum of broadleaf weeds and grasses. Eliminating the early postemergence herbicide
treatments reduced yield by about 60% while no weed control reduced yield by almost 95%.
Broadleaf signalgrass was the dominate weed at Eagle Lake a lighter weed density. Eliminating
the early postemergence herbicide treatments only reduced yield by about 9% while no weed
control only reduced yield by almost 34%. The dominate weed at Ganado was barnyardgrass and
control was difficult. Only 6 of 30 treatments provided adequate control. Eliminating the early
postemergence herbicide treatments reduced yield by about 50% while no weed control reduced
yield by almost 90%.
Objective 3: Studies were conducted at three locations looking at a number of herbicide
treatments on Aligatorweed. The new Dow AgroSciences product DE638 has received a full label
with a trade name of GRASP. With good soil moisture, a single application of GRASP applied
one week before flood will provide 95% season long control. If soil moisture is less than
optimum then tankmixing 0.5 pt/ac of Grandstand with GRASP will provide similar control.
Grandstand also appears to enhance the activity of Regiment.
Objective 4: Working with County Extension Agents and Consultants no fields could be located
with paspalum. Fields with paspalum in the last rotation and off season had none this year.
Attempts to locate fields with perennial barnyardgrass in Jefferson County were also unsuccessful.
The producer had eliminated the problem at the only confirmed infestations with increased
cultivation during the summer prior to planting.
Objective 5: Studies has been initiated at Eagle Lake and Beaumont. The first and second
applications have been made. Several ratings have been made. No data is available at this time.
Objective 6: Studies has been initiated at Eagle Lake and Beaumont. The first and second
applications have been made. Several ratings have been made. No data is available at this time.
Objective 7: In the 2005 Rice Production Guidelines, the weed management, cutting height, and
some water management sections have been revised. The herbicide-weed species table has been
updated. In 2004, 34 cooperator studies were conducted with commercial industry at the three
locations with a total of 1,140 plots. Grant funds from these studies were used to pay part time
workers, purchase a new 9 row reduced tillage plot drill for Eagle Lake, and two electric carts to
reduce the on station miles of the large trucks. The drill will be used to plant all studies at Eagle
Lake and Ganado that have a ratoon component.
101
II Objective 1: Evaluate the impact of ratoon crop water and nitrogen
management on main and ratoon crop yield and milling.
Production costs continue to increase and rough rice prices remain constant or decline. For the
Texas rice industry to survive and rebound from acreage decline over the recent years, it must take
advantage its strengths. The long growing season is a major strength and should be exploited in
ratoon crop (RC) production. RC rice has a lower per unit cost as the only inputs are water and
fertilizer. Research is desperately needed to better define guidelines on when to pursue a RC and
develop on integrate management system to increase and stabilize RC yields. These studies look
at the impact of RC water and N management on RC production. RC N is defined as all N applied
after main crop (MC) heading.
The study was conducted at Eagle Lake. The plot areas were located on a Nada fsl. The research
area is normally rotated with 1 yr rice and 2 yr fallow. Limited plot space and high research
demand required that this study be located in the same area as last year. Cocodrie rice was drill
seeded in 36 plots that were 30 feet wide. The rice was drilled on 7.5 inch centers at 80 lb/ac on
21 March. The plots consisted of 10 rows. The center 8 eight rows were harvested for MC yield
and the center 4 rows were harvested for RC yields. The strips of rice were mechanically divided
into 6-16 ft subplots. Subplots were separated by 4 ft alleys. Each of the 36 bays was surrounded
by levees for individual irrigation and draining. These areas received standard and uniform
management except for the MC drain time, RC reflood time, and RC N management. Applications
of P and K were made based on soil test. The MC received 197 lb/ac N in four applications (25%
preplant incorporated, 35% prior to flood establishment, 20% at PD and 20% at boot). Standard
field plot techniques were used and a 4 inch cm flood was established when the rice reached the
five leaf stage and was maintained until the prescribed MC drain times.
A split plot design with three replications was utilized. Drain and reflood times were main plots
and RC nitrogen rate and timing as subplots. Drain times were 15, 20, and 25 d after 5% MC
heading. RC was flooded either 1 d after harvest, 10 d after harvest, or flushed and flooded 10 d
after harvest. RC N treatments were 70 or 100 lb/ac applied in one application just prior to RC
flood or split. The RC N was applied in a single preflood application, split pre MC drain and
preflood, or preflood and 20 days postflood. RC N applied pre-MC drain was applied 10 d after
5% heading in the MC which was 5 d before the first scheduled drain. N rates for this application
was one third of the total RC nitrogen, but never less than 35 lb/ac. The balance was applied just
prior to RC flood establishment. This results in six RC N management treatments. MC and RC
yield and milling were monitored using standard techniques.
Main Crop Results - The MC drain timing and pre drain N are the only components that could
affect the MC. Draining at 15 days caused the main crop to mature (reach 20% grain moisture)
earlier by as much as 10 days. This may be a false reaction as the rice may just senesce due to
forced dry down. The pre drain N delayed maturity. This is opposite from the earlier work with
Lemont. Remember the delay was only a day or two and this is only one year’s data. Every
attempt is made to harvest at 18 to 20% moisture but weather is usually the final deciding factor.
The 20 and 25 day drain treatments were harvested at below optimum conditions. This was only
partly due to the weather. The plots appeared less mature than they actually were. The latest drain
plots were harvested at just over 15%. The pre drain N appeared to hasten maturity slightly but
again this is only one year’s data. The highest MC yield was obtained when the rice was drained
at 25 days after 5% heading. The MC yield is at least 1000 lb/ac less than other studies at Eagle
Lake. This probably reflects the impact of rice following rice. The trend shows that draining any
102
earlier than 25 days after 5% MC heading reduced yield. A pre drain N application reduced yields
slightly (less than 200 lb/ac but significant). The accelerated maturity and/or harvest moisture of
the 15 day drain treatment reduced MC whole milled grain. This may also be the result of the
lower yield and shedding of the lower grains on the panicle.
Ratoon Crop Results - Drain timing and pre drain N – The affects of drain timing carry forward
in the ratoon crop. Early MC draining hastened MC maturity but it delayed the RC. Draining at
15 days after 5% heading in the MC caused the MC to mature by about 10 days but delayed the
RC maturity by 11 days. Thus, the total crop duration was essentially unchanged. Pre drain N did
not affect RC maturity. The highest RC yield was obtained when the MC was drained at 25 days
after 5% heading in the MC. Earlier drains reduced the RC yield by as much as 750 lb/ac. The
application of pre drain N to the MC reduced the RC yield. This is contrary to earlier research
with Lemont.
Between crop dry period – Earlier research with Lemont had shown that the duration of the dry
period between the MC drain and RC flood would affect many parameters of the MC. The timing
of the dry period can also be important. The 20E dry period started at 10 days earlier (15 days
after 5% MC heading), which reduced the yield by about 750 lb/ac in the RC. In the earlier
research with Lemont the optimum dry period was 15 to 20 days for RC yield. The optimum dry
period is not as well defined by this single year’s data. The clear message from this year is do not
interrupt the dry period with a flush. A flush can reduce the RC yield by as much as 1200 lb/ac.
The dry period can also affect the milling yield. The optimum dry period for RC milling would
appear to be 20 to 25 days. The optimum dry period for Lemont milling was 10 to 15 days. A
flush reduced the RC whole milled grain by about 2.5%.
Water management – The water management treatments were:
� D15Hvst – drain 15 days after 5% MC heading and flood immediately after harvest.
� D15Hvst+10 – drain 15 days after 5% MC heading and flood 10 days after harvest.
� D15FlshHvst+10 – drain 15 days after 5% MC heading and flush immediately after harvest
then flood 10 days after harvest.
� D20Hvst – drain 20 days after 5% MC heading and flood immediately after harvest.
� D20Hvst+10 – drain 20 days after 5% MC heading and flood 10 days after harvest.
� D20FlshHvst+10 – drain 20 days after 5% MC heading and flush immediately after harvest
then flood 10 days after harvest.
� D25Hvst – drain 25 days after 5% MC heading and flood immediately after harvest.
� D25Hvst+10 – drain 25 days after 5% MC heading and flood 10 days after harvest.
� D25FlshHvst+10 – drain 25 days after 5% MC heading and flush immediately after harvest
then flood 10 days after harvest.
It seems strange that the longer the flood is held on the MC the earlier the RC matures. The RC
matured the earliest when the MC was drain 15 days after the initiation of heading and the RC was
flooded immediately after harvest. All other water management treatments delayed maturity by as
much as 11 days. Even though the MC matured earlier when the flood was drain 15 days after the
initiation of heading and the RC would have been flooded and fertilized earlier, this treatment
delayed RC maturity. Flushing the RC and delaying flooding reduced the RC yield by at least 700
103
lb/ac. The yield patterns are confusing at this point and do not agree well with prior research with
Lemont. It will be better to look at multiple years before defining the absolute best management.
Draining 25 days after initiation of MC heading and flooding immediately after harvest was among
the top treatments as in prior studies. The obvious things not to do are drain at 15 days after
initiation of MC heading and flushing at harvest. Water management can also influence RC whole
milled grain. Flushing at harvest reduces RC whole milled grain by at least 2%. Draining the MC
early also reduced the RC whole milled grain by at least 2%. For RC, the most consistent
message from the research to date are do not drain at 15 days after initiation of MC heading
and do not flush the RC crop. The maximum TC yield was obtained when the MC was drained
at 25 days after initiation of MC heading and the RC was flooded immediately after MC harvest.
Flushing reduced the TC yield by up to 1500 lb/ac. Delaying the RC flood by 10 days was
better than flushing.
� Nitrogen management – The effect of N management treatments were:
� 70 – 70 lb/ac of N applied Urea in a single application preflood.
� 35_35_0 – 70 lb/ac of total N with 35 lb/ac applied 10 days after initiation of MC heading
as ammonium sulfate and 35 lb/ac of N applied Urea applied preflood.
� 0_35_35 - 70 lb/ac of total N with 35 lb/ac of N applied Urea applied preflood and 35 lb/ac
applied as ammonium sulfate at 20 days after RC flood establishment.
� 100 – 100 lb/ac of N applied Urea in a single application preflood.
� 35_65_0 – 100 lb/ac of total N with 35 lb/ac applied 10 days after initiation of MC heading
as ammonium sulfate and 65 lb/ac of N applied Urea applied preflood.
� 0_65_35 - 100 lb/ac of total N with 65 lb/ac of N applied Urea applied preflood and 35
lb/ac applied as ammonium sulfate at 20 days after RC flood establishment.
The highest yields were obtained with single applications and the higher N rates. Splitting the 70
lbs resulted in the lowest yields. Whole milled increased with the higher N rate. There was no
distinct advantage to splitting the 100 lbs. TC yield pattern was similar to the RC yield pattern.
The highest yields were obtained with single applications and higher rate exhibited a slight yield
advantage. All splits yielded lower to the single 100 lb/ac treatment. Spitting the 70 lbs with a pre
drain application was the least efficient N treatment.
104
III Objective 2: Evaluate the efficacy and economics of weed management
systems using current commercial herbicides in early and late season
treatments alone and in all combinations.
Economics of Effective Weed Control in Texas
G.N. McCauley, J.H. O’Barr, and J.M. Chandler.
Effective weed control and the associated cost is a primary issue with Texas rice producers.
Weeds reduce rice yields and grain quality. The objective of this research was to determine the
effective weed control and the associated cost using selected commercially available herbicide
programs. Studies were conducted near Beaumont, Eagle Lake, and Ganado, Texas. The
Beaumont site is located in Jefferson County on a League c, the Eagle Lake site is located in
Colorado County on a Nada fsl, and the Ganado site is located in Jackson County on an Edna fsl.
Cocodrie rice was planted on 9 April at Eagle Lake, 10 April at Ganado, and 15 April at
Beaumont. At Eagle Lake and Ganado, rice was drill seeded to moisture (approximately 2 cm
deep) then culti-packed prior to the preemergence application. At Beaumont, the rice was drill
seeded to a depth of approximately 1 cm, then culti-packed prior to the preemergence application.
The plots were then flushed to facilitate soil seed contact and germination. Rice was flush
irrigated as necessary from this time until flood establishment at 6-leaf or 1-tiller. Fertility
management was uniform across all plots and followed normal recommendations. Icon seed
treatment was used for water weevil control. No other insect or disease controls were required.
Five commercial early season herbicides treatments and six commercial pre-flood herbicides
treatments were selected for evaluation. Untreated checks were included to evaluate weeds species
present and relative pressure. Applications were made preemergence, early postemergence, or late
postemergence (pre-flood) based on the herbicide labels. The study was a split plot design with
four replications. The late postemergence treatments were the main plots and the preemergence
and early postemergence treatments were the subplots. Applications were made with a carbon
dioxide back pack sprayer in a carrier volume of 187 l/ha. All combinations of the early and late
treatments were evaluated for crop injury and weed control at each location. Ratings were taken at
7 d intervals starting 7 d after the application until flood establishment. Then ratings were taken at
14 d intervals until 5% heading in the rice. Average herbicide and application costs were
determined by surveying eight dealers.
Rice was harvested when the rice was between 18 to 20 % grain moisture and grain yield was
calculated on 12 % grain moisture basis. Effective weed control was evaluated by; 1) no
significant yield reduction based on LSD (0.05) or 2) herbicide programs providing greater than 90
% weed control for most of the rating period.
At Eagle Lake, the only rice injury occurred with Command applied preemergence. Injury ranged
from 8 to 14 % and was not detectable at 14 d. The dominate weed at Eagle Lake was broadleaf
signalgrass with moderate pressure from annual sedge. Rice yield was not reduced using 21 of the
30 herbicide treatment programs. There was close agreement between the two evaluations
systems. The only single applications not resulting yield reductions were Bolero + Propanil early
postemergence and Clincher applied late postemergence. Nineteen herbicide programs resulted in
at least 90 % weed control for at least three of the rating periods. These 19 were included in the 21
programs not reducing yield. The cost of the 21 programs ranged from about $31 to $93 per ac as
yields ranged from 6950 to 7850 lb/ac.
105
At Ganado, the only rice injury occurred with Command applied preemergence. Injury ranged
from 8 to 14 % and was not detectable at 14 d. Broadleaf signalgrass control was evaluated. Yield
was not significantly reduced by 23 of the 30 herbicide programs. This was in close agreement
with the 90 % control method. No late post emergence application alone provided effective weed
control. Single applications of Command preemergence and early postemergence applications of
Command, Bolero + Propanil and Bolero+Propanil+Facet all provided effective weed control. The
cost of the 23 programs ranged from about $31 to $93 per ac as yields ranged from 6850 to 7660
lb/ac.
At Beaumont, 10 to 12 % rice injury was obtained with early postemergence applications of
Bolero+Propanil and Bolero+Propanil+Facet. This injury was detectable during the first two
ratings. The weed spectrum was more complex with barnyardgrass, hemp sesbania, and annual
sedge. Rice yield was not significantly reduced using 19 of the herbicide programs. No single
application at late postemergence provided effective control. Single early postemergence
applications of Bolero+Propanil and Bolero+Propanil+Facet resulted in no significant yield
reduction. There was reasonable agreement between the two evaluation systems. The cost of
effective control ranged from about $28 to $93 per ac as yields ranged from 6700 to 7500 lb/ac.
IV Objective 3: Evaluate the influence of growth stage and soil moisture on
alligatorweed control with DE638 and Regiment applied alone and in
combination with several commercial herbicides.
Alligatorweed [Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.]
Control in Rice with DE-638.
J.H. O’Barr, G.N. McCauley, J.M. Chandler and V.B. Langston,
ABSTRACT
DE-638 (penoxsulam) was evaluated near Eagle Lake and Rock Island, TX for alligatorweed
[Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.] control in rice. Applications were made at two
timings; early post emergence (EPOST) at the rice three leaf stage with alligatorweed 3-5 inches
tall, and late postemergence (LPOST) when rice was at the five leaf stage and alligator weed 6-8
inches tall. DE-638 was applied at 0.027 lbs active ingredient (ai)/acre (A) alone and in
combinations with 2 lbs ai/A Stam and 0.5 pints/A Grandstand EPOST and with 4 lbs ai/A Stam
and 0.67 pints/A Grandstand LPOST. A tankmix of Stam/Grandstand without DE-638 was also
evaluated at each timing. DE-638 alone provided greater than 80% alligatorweed control.
Addition of Grandstand to DE-638 improved alligatorweed control to better than 93%. A tankmix
of DE-638 with Stam provided less than 50% control. A tankmix of Stam/Grandstand without
DE-638 provided about 20% control. Moisture was critical for good weed control and efficacy
increased when soil was moist prior to herbicide application.
106
Regiment Effect on Rice Growth and Yield
J.D. Scasta, J.H. O'Barr, G.N. McCauley, G.L. Steele and J.M. Chandler.
ABSTRACT
Field research was conducted in 2003 to evaluate the effects of Regiment (bispyribac-sodium)
on rice growth and yield. Experiments were conducted at the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station Research and Extension Centers near Beaumont and Eagle Lake, TX. Each
experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block and treatments were replicated
four times. Treatments of Regiment were applied early postemergence (EPOST), preflood
(PREFL) and postflood (POSFL) alone; EPOST followed by (fb) PREFL or POSFL; and
PREFL fb POSFL. Regiment rates were 0.020, 0.025, and 0.030 lb ai/A for all EPOST,
PREFL, and POSFL applications, respectively. An EPOST combination of Stam, Bolero and
Facet was applied for comparison. A weedy check was included at Beaumont; however, a
blanket application of Command was applied in Eagle Lake to provide season long weed
control throughout the study. Rice was visually evaluated for stunting, and plant samples
were measured biweekly for root and shoot length and dry weight. Yield was determined by
mechanically harvesting the center 4 rows of each 6-row plot.
All Regiment combinations, except for the POSFL treatment, injured rice 10 to 15% at 14
days after treatment (DAT) of PREFL at Beaumont. By 34 DAT rice had recovered from
injury, with the exception of Regiment POSFL (10%). At 5 DAT in Eagle Lake, only
treatments that included a PREFL application caused injury (26-30%). By 42 DAT rice injury
had diminished to 5% or less. Root length decreased proportionally with increasing total
amount of Regiment applied in Beaumont at 14 DAT preflood. By 42 DAT root stunting had
diminished and did not differ between treatments. Root weight at Beaumont, 14 DAT, was
significantly reduced by EPOST and EPOST fb PREFL applications. Root weight with the
EPOST treatment remained significantly lower at 42 DAT but root weight with the EPOST fb
PREFL treatment had recovered. At 14 DAT in Eagle Lake only the single PREFL
application significantly reduced root weight. At 42 DAT, there were no significant
differences among root weights, regardless of rate or timing of applications.
Shoot length at Beaumont 14 DAT did not differ from the control, with the exception of
Regiment EPOST fb PREFL. There were no differences in shoot length at 42 DAT.
Regiment applied EPOST and EPOST fb PREFL reduced shoot weight at 14 DAT, but shoot
weight had recovered by 42 DAT. There were no differences in shoot weight detected in
Eagle Lake, at either evaluation date. Rice yield at Beaumont did not significantly differ
among Regiment treatments, and all herbicide treatments yielded higher than the weedy
check. Rice yields with Regiment at Eagle Lake were not different from the weed-free check.
The only yield reduction with Regiment treatments occurred with Regiment PREFL (6499
lb/A) compared to Regiment EPOST (7320 lb/A).
In conclusion, Regiment application, especially at the PREFL timing injured rice up to 30%.
Root injury, expressed as root length and weight, increased with Regiment rate. Regiment
treatments had little effect on shoot length and weight. Rice injury had diminished by harvest,
and, in general, rice injury did not translate into yield reductions.
107
V Objective 4: Assess control of perennial grasses (perennial
barnyardgrass and Paspalum species) with commercial and
experimental herbicides.
Working with County Extension Agents and Consultants no fields could be located with
paspalum. Fields with paspalum in the last rotation and off season had none this year.
Attempts to locate fields with perennial barnyardgrass in Jefferson County were also
unsuccessful. The producer had eliminated the problem at the only confirmed infestations
with increased cultivation during the summer prior to planting.
VI Objective 5: Evaluate fall and spring vegetation management prior to
planting in a reduced tillage system.
Studies has been initiated at Eagle Lake and Beaumont. The first and second applications
have been made. Several ratings have been made. No data is available at this time.
VII Objective 6: Determine the impact of tillage intensity in rice
production systems on the level of weed management inputs required
to optimize control.
Studies has been initiated at Eagle Lake and Beaumont. The first and second applications
have been made. Several ratings have been made. No data is available at this time.
VIII Objective 7: Evaluate and correct the weed science information
presented in the Texas Rice Production Guidelines. Establish
cooperative research with commercial industry to accomplish this
task.
In the 2005 Rice Production Guidelines, the weed management, cutting height, and some
water management sections have been revised. The herbicide-weed species table has been
updated. In 2004, 34 cooperator studies were conducted with commercial industry at the three
locations with a total of 1,140 plots. Grant funds from these studies were used to pay part
time workers, purchase a new 9 row reduced tillage plot drill for Eagle Lake, and two electric
carts to reduce the on station miles of the large trucks. The drill will be used to plant all
studies at Eagle Lake and Ganado that have a ratoon component.
108
Rice Response to Clomazone as Influenced by Soil Type
and Planting Date
J.H. O’Barr, G.N. McCauley, and J.M. Chandler.
ABSTRACT
Preemergence weed control in rice is an important component of a successful weed control
program in rice (Oryza sativa). Grasses such as barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.)
Beauv.] and broadleaf signalgrass [Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash] are two of the most
predominate species in Texas rice production systems. Clomazone, a carotenoid biosynthesis
inhibitor, is a low cost and effective preemergence herbicide that effectively controls these
species. However, clomazone has the potential to cause significant rice injury under various
edaphic and environmental conditions.
The objectives of this research were to better understand rice response to clomazone as
influenced by soil type, clomazone rate, and planting date. Field studies were conducted in
2002-2003 in a silty clay loam soil near Beaumont, and fine sandy loam soils near Eagle Lake
and Ganado, Texas. Four rates of clomazone were applied at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 lbs active
ingredient/A at three planting dates March, April, and May 15 at each location. Season long
visual injury ratings and yield were collected. The type and duration of injury differed with
each of the planting dates. Bleaching duration was greatest with March plantings with
bleaching visible for 40 DAT. The intensity and duration of injury was least with the April
plantings. May plantings resulted with high injury with stand reductions up to 20% at Eagle
Lake. This injury was short lived in the surviving rice. Rice injury increased with clomazone
rate as expected. Injury was greater on fine sandy loam soils. No significant differences in
yields were noted at each planting date, however delaying planting to May caused a
significant reduction in yield. Our data suggests that injury can be minimized for a fine sandy
loam soil in Texas by planting in mid March at a rate of 0.3 to 0.4 lbs ai/A clomazone. For
silty clay loam soils, planting in April, and applying 0.5 lbs ai/A clomazone would provide the
least injury.
Imazethapyr Photodegradation in Rice Paddy Water
L. A. Avila, J. H. Massey, S. A. Senseman, K. L. Armbrust, S. R. Lancaster,
G. N. McCauley, and J. M. Chandler.
ABSTRACT
With the introduction of imidazolinone tolerant rice varieties, imazethapyr has become a
potential herbicide for red rice control in cultivated rice. Little is known about the behavior of
this herbicide in the aquatic rice environment, particularly the effects of water quality. Since
changes in turbidity, nutrients and other water quality parameters may affect the persistence of
chemicals in an aquatic environment, data about imazethapyr dissipation in a rice field
warrants further study. A laboratory experiment was conducted in 2004 to evaluate the
photodegradation of imazethapyr in three rice paddy waters. Paddy water samples were
collected from three locations, including Beaumont, TX (BM), Clarksdale, MS (CD) and
Eagle Lake, TX (EL). Deionized water (DW) buffered at pH 7.0 was also included in the
study as a control. All water samples were fortified with imazethapyr at 15 �g/ml and
109
subjected to irradiation with UV lamps (100 W) for 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours at
25ºC in a growth chamber. The experiment was conducted as a randomized block design with
four replications. To calculate half-life, for each water source the logarithm of the remaining
herbicide concentration was plotted against time in hours. The slope of the line k (rate
constant) was calculated using least square regression. Rate constants were compared
between water samples using the Fisher’s Protected LSD test at p�0.05. The results showed
that the half-life of imazethapyr was different among water samples. The order of
imazethapyr photodegradation was DW = EL > BM = CD. Differences in degradation rates
correlate well with the relative light attenuation of the water samples and to water pH. Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) Activity in Red Rice Ecotypes (Oryza spp.) and Imidazolinone
Tolerant/Resistant Rice Cultivars (Oryza sativa) in
Response To Imazethapyr Treatments
L.A. Avila, D.J. Lee, S.A. Senseman, G.N. McCauley,
J.M. Chandler, and J.T. Cothren.
ABSTRACT
Imazethapyr has been effective in controlling red rice in imidazolinone tolerant rice. However,
some red rice ecotypes have demonstrated some tolerance to imazethapyr including the
blackhull TX 4. An experiment was conducted to determine if three red rice ecotypes
including LA 5, MS 5 and TX 4 have acetolactate synthase resistant to imazethapyr. Three
red rice ecotypes (LA5, MS5 and TX4) were compared with a tolerant (‘CL-121’), a resistant
(‘CL-161’) and a conventional (‘Cypress’) rice variety. Based on enzymatic activity, the
mean I50 values were 1.5, 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 20.8 and 590.6 μM of imazethapyr, respectively, for
LA 5, MS 5, TX 4, Cypress, CL-121 and CL-161. Based on these values, CL-161 was the
most resistant of the plants tested and was 32 times more resistant than CL-121 and
approximately 447 times more resistant than the average of the red rice ecotypes and
‘Cypress’. The results indicated that CL-161 resistance is probably due to an altered ALS
enzyme. The red rice ecotypes did not differ from the Cypress cultivar and showed high
susceptibility to imazethapyr when compared with the tolerant CL-121 and the resistant CL-
161. This demonstrates that resistance to ALS-inhibiting herbicides has not yet developed in
these red rice ecotypes as far as enzyme activity is concerned. Other mechanisms may be
causing resistance such as increased herbicide metabolism or differential absorption and
translocation.
The Effect of Flooding Time on Red Rice Control With Newpath�
Applied at Different Rice Stages
L. A. Avila, G. N. McCauley, S. A. Senseman,
J. M. Chandler and J. H. O’Barr.
ABSTRACT
Newpath™ (active ingredient imazethapyr) is a new tool to control red rice in commercial rice
production. It can provide good control of red rice, but evaluation of flooding time on red rice
control is needed to more effectively use this herbicide. Field studies were conductd at the
110
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Beaumont in 2002 to evaluate the effects of flooding
time on red rice control with Newpath™ applied at different rice stages. The experiment was
conducted as a factorial in randomized block design with four replications, with the flooding
time as a main factor and Newpath™ application stage as a secondary factor. Newpath™ was
applied in preemergence (PRE) at 4 oz/A followed by 4 oz/A in postemergence (POST) at two
rice stages. The rice stages were 2 to 4 leaf and 5 to 6 leaf. The flooding times were 1, 7, 14
and 21 days after herbicide treatment DAT. One untreated check was added for each
combination of flooding time and application stage. The imidazolinone tolerant rice variety
planted was ‘CL-161’. Data collected included initial rice plant stand, visual rice plant injury,
and visual red rice control at 14, 21 and 28 days after treatment (DAT) as well as rice grain
yield at the end of the season. The results showed that Newpath™ at 4 oz/A (PRE) followed
by 4 oz/A (POST) did not significantly injure the ‘CL-161’ rice variety. There was no
interaction between Newpath™ application timing and flooding time for rice grain yield.
Rice grain yield was reduced when flooding was delayed 21 DAT. The application of
Newpath™ increased rice grain yield regardless of application timing. There was no
interaction between application timing and flooding time with respect to red rice control
evaluated at 14 and 21 DAT. Red rice control was reduced when flooding was delayed until
21 DAT. Red rice control was also reduced when Newpath™ was applied at the 5- to 6-leaf
stage compared with the 3- to 4-leaf stage. A significant interaction between Newpath™
application timing and time of flooding was apparent for red rice control evaluated 28 DAT.
When Newpath™ was applied at the 3- to 4-leaf stage, flooding could be delayed until 14
DAT without adversely affecting red rice control. However, the best control was achieved
when the rice flood was done within 7 DAT when the herbicide was applied at the 5- to 6-leaf
stage.
111
112
2004 ENTOMOLOGY REPORT OF
TRRF FUNDED PROJECTS
1. Evaluation of pyrethroids and oils for rice stink bug control......................................................... 1
2. New pest management research for stem borers .......................................................................... 6
3. Oviposition of the Mexican rice borer on sugarcane and rice....................................................... 8
4. Mexican rice borer pheromone trapping in 2004........................................................................ 10
5. Stem borer HPR study............................................................................................................... 11
6. Stem borer insecticide screening study ...................................................................................... 15
7. Economic analysis of rice water weevil control ......................................................................... 17
8. Evaluation of experimental seed treatments for rice water weevil control .................................. 22
9. Aerial application of Dimilin 2L and Karate Z for rice water weevil control.............................. 25
10. Timing of Mustang Max for control of rice water weevil......................................................... 30
113
Evaluation of Pyrethroids and Oils for Rice Stink Bug Control.
Beaumont, TX. 2004
P.Is.: M.O. Way, L. Espino, M.S. Nunez and B. Wolff
Location: Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center
1509 Aggie Drive
Beaumont, TX 77713
409.752.2741 (phone)
409.752.5560 (fax)
[email protected] (email)
Introduction
The purpose of these studies was to evaluate pyrethroids with and without selected oils for
contact and residual activity against the rice stink bug (RSB), Oebalus pugnax.
Materials and Methods
The experiments were conducted at the Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and
Extension Center at Beaumont in 2004.
Experiment 1: Contact Activity of Pyrethroids
The experiment was conducted in the greenhouse. Adult RSB were collected from a colony
maintained in the greenhouse. The colony originated from untreated rice grown at the Beaumont
Center. Initial colony adults were collected by sweep net during the summer of 2004. Adults were
transferred to the greenhouse and placed on caged, headed, Cocodrie rice growing in pots in water-
filled basins. Thus, the insects used for this experiment probably were 1st generation individuals.
Each experimental unit consisted of a cylindrical metal cage 12 inches long by 3 inches in diameter.
The cage mesh was 1/8 inch which allowed spray treatments to penetrate the cage and contact the
RSBs but prevented escape of the test insects. On Nov 12, seven adult RSB were taken from the
colony and placed in each of 16 cylindrical metal mesh cages (four treatments with four replications).
The ends of the cage were covered with a fine mesh cloth and secured with rubber bands.
Immediately after placing RSB in cages, the four treatments were applied to the cages which were
placed on a concrete slab in the greenhouse. Each of four replications of each treatment was sprayed
separately using a one-person spray rig equipped with three nozzles (tip size 800067, 50 mesh screens)
with a spray swath of 4 feet. The spray rig was pressurized with CO2 at 20-30 psi. Final spray volume
was 28.8 gpa. Untreated experimental units were sprayed with water using the same materials and
methods. After treatments dried (about 30 minutes), RSBs from each experimental unit were
transferred to four caged rice panicles taken from untreated ratoon fields at the Beaumont Center. The
method of caging the RSBs on panicles follows. Each set of four panicles was inserted into a sand-
filled plastic cup (4 � inches tall by 3 � inches in diameter) whose bottom was punctured to produce
holes. A transparent, plastic, ventilated cylindrical cage (18 inches tall by 3 inches in diameter) was
placed over the panicles and inserted into the moist sand. After placing RSBs on the caged panicles,
the tops of the cages were covered with a fine mesh screen. The plastic cups with cages were placed
in a randomized complete block in a water-filled basin to keep the sand in cups moist. At 24, 48 and
60 hours after treatment applications, RSB mortality was recorded for each cage
114
Experiment 2: Residual Activity of Pyrethroids
The experiment was conducted in the field and the greenhouse. In the field, the experiment
consisted of four treatments and four replications arranged in a randomized complete block
design. Plots were 18 ft by seven rows (7 inches between rows) of Cocodrie ratoon rice in the
milk stage. On Oct 15, treatments were applied to plots using the same materials and methods as
in Experiment 1. At 24 hours after treatment, four panicles were removed from approximately
the middle of each plot. Care was taken to select panicles from the entire length of the plot,
excluding the ends. Severed panicles immediately were transported to the greenhouse where
each set of panicles was caged with 10 untreated, adult RSB as described in Experiment 1.
These RSBs were collected by sweep net from untreated rice growing at the Beaumont Center.
Sand-filled cups with cages were arranged in a water-filled basin in a randomized complete
block. Twenty-four hours after exposing RSBs to test panicles, RSB mortality was recorded.
Experiment 3: Residual Activity of Mustang Max Tank-Mixed with Selected Oils
The experiment consisted of five treatments and four replications. The same materials and
methods were employed as in Experiment 2 except treatments were applied Aug 27. Panicles
were collected 24 and 72 hours after treatments were applied. RSB mortality was observed and
recorded 24 hours after exposure to panicles.
Experiment 4: Residual Activity of Karate Z Tank-Mixed with Selected Oils
The same materials and methods were employed as in Experiment 3 except treatments were
applied Oct 1. Panicles were collected 24 hours after treatments were applied. RSB mortality
was observed and recorded 24 and 48 hours after exposure to panicles.
Percent mortality data from all experiments were transformed using arcsine transformation
then data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.
115
Results
Experiment 1: Contact Activity of Pyrethroids
Karate Z, Prolex and Mustang Max treatments exhibited statistically similar contact activity
(1 day after treatment applications) of RSB - 83, 85 and 75% control at 24, 48 and 60 hours
exposure to panicles, respectively (Table 1). The reduced activity from 24 to 60 hours exposure
probably is due to some apparently dead RSB recovering. However, some of these live RSB
barely were alive and probably were not feeding. No mortality was observed in the untreated.
Experiment 2: Residual Activity of Pyrethroids
None of the treatments (Prolex, Karate Z and Mustang Max) provided residual activity 1 day
after treatment applications (Table 2). This corroborates field observations by clientele that
currently registered pyrethroids do not provide adequate RSB residual activity.
Experiment 3: Residual Activity of Mustang Max Tank-Mixed with Selected Oils
The addition of the selected oils to Mustang Max did not extend the residual activity of this
pyrethroid (Table 3).
Experiment 4: Residual Activity of Karate Z Tank-Mixed with Selected Oils
The addition of the selected oils to Karate Z did not extend the residual activity of this
pyrethroid (Table 4).
Based on these field-greenhouse experiments, Karate Z, Mustang Max and Prolex at the rates
tested gave about 80% control of RSB when sprayed directly on the adults. However, residual
activity, regardless of the addition of selected oils, was not longer than 24 hours. These
experiments did not measure repellency which may occur in the field since test insects were
forced onto treated panicles. In a more natural setting, RSB may detect the presence of a
particular insecticide and opt to leave. This, in effect, would extend the residual activity of the
insecticide. These results corroborate commercial field observations in which multiple
applications of pyrethroids and/or methyl parathion are required to control repeated influxes of
RSB.
116
Table 1. Contact activity of selected pyrethroids for rice stink bug (RSB) control.
% RSB mortality hours after treatmenta
Treatment
Rate
[lb (AI)/acre] 24 48 60
Karate Z 0.03 89a 97a 86a
Prolex (GF-317) 0.015 82a 75a 61a
Mustang Max 0.0225 79a 82a 79a
Untreated — 0b 0b 0b
a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level
(ANOVA, LSD).
Table 2. Residual activity of selected pyrethroids 1 day after treatment for rice stink bug (RSB)
control (24 hour exposure to treated panicles).
Treatment
Rate
[lb (AI)/acre]
% RSB mortalitya
Karate Z 0.03 8
Prolex (GF-317) 0.015 3
Mustang Max 0.0225 3
Untreated — 0
NS
a Means are not significantly (NS) different at the 5% level (ANOVA, LSD).
117
Table 3. Residual activity of Mustang Max tank-mixed with selected oils for rice stink bug (RSB)
control (1 and 3 days after treatment, 24 and 48 hours exposure to treated panicles).
1 DATa 3 DAT
Treatment
Rate
[lb (AI)/acre] 24 24 48
Untreated — 0 0 0c
Mustang Max 0.025 5 15 18a
Mustang Max +
HM9207-A
0.025 +
2 qt/100 gal spray
8
5
5bc
Mustang Max +
HM8703
0.025 +
3 qt/100 gal spray
6
0
0c
Mustang Max +
HM9601
0.025 +
4 qt/100 gal spray
3
8
8ab
NS NS
a DAT = days after treatment. Means in a column with the same or no letter are not significantly
(NS) different at the 5% level (ANOVA, LSD).
Table 4. Residual activity of Karate Z tank-mixed with selected oils for rice stink bug (RSB)
control (1 day after treatment, 24 and 48 hours exposure to treated panicles).
% RSB mortality hours after treatmenta
Treatment
Rate
[lb (AI)/acre] 24 48
Untreated — 5 3
Karate Z 0.03 0 3
Karate Z +
HM9207-A
0.03 +
2 qt/100 gal spray
0
3
Karate Z +
HM8703
0.03 +
4 qt/100 gal spray
3
10
Karate Z +
HM9601
0.03 +
8 qt/100 gal spray
3
0
NS NS
Means are not significantly (NS) different at the 5% level (ANOVA, LSD).
118
OVIPOSITION OF THE MEXICAN RICE BORER ON SUGARCANE AND RICE
F.P.F. Reay-Jones1, L.T. Wilson
2, A.T. Showler
3, M.O. Way
2, and T.E. Reagan
1
1Department of Entomology, LSU Agcenter,
2Texas A&M Research and Extension Center at Beaumont
3USDA ARS Kika de la Garza Subropical Agricultural Research Center, Weslaco
The Mexican rice borer (MRB), Eoreuma loftini (Dyar), is the major insect pest of
sugarcane in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and is responsible for increasing yield loss
on rice in eastern Texas. The insect is likely to infest Louisiana, where sugarcane and rice are
grown in the vicinity of each other and are available as hosts during similar windows of time.
Studying the bionomics and population dynamics of insect pests on different host plants present
in the natural habitat is necessary to understand the biology and the ecology of the pest and
develop more permanent pest management strategies. The management of insect pests with a
broad range of host plants must therefore encompass the major host crops in the area.
Greenhouse oviposition experiments on both sugarcane and rice were initiated in 2003 and
completed in 2004. Sugarcane varieties LCP 85-384 and HoCP 85-845 were used under drought
and non-drought stressed conditions at the 5 and 11 internode stage. Rice varieties Cocodrie and
XL8 were used at the 3-4 leaf tillering stage, 6-7 leaf tillering stage, boot stage, and heading
stage. Seven experiments were conducted with 4 treatments per experiment. The oviposition
tests started with the release of 30 male and 30 female moths in each cage. The experiment
ended 6 days after initial moth release. Number of leaves, number of dry leaves, dry weight,
water potential (sugarcane only), number of tillers (rice only), number of eggs, number of egg
masses and location on plant were recorded. Levels of free amino acid were also determined in
sugarcane and rice leaves in selected experiments using high performance liquid
chromatography.
A preliminary analysis of the data is presented in Table 1. On sugarcane, the majority of
the variation in oviposition (93%), based on the number of eggs per plant, can be explained by
dry leaves, lysine, arginine and glycine, in respective order of importance. MRB is known to
oviposit in cryptic sites on dried sugarcane leaves located on the lower part of the plant, i.e.
between soil surface level and 80 cm height. In our study, 100% (22,146) of the eggs on
sugarcane were laid on dry leaves or dry tips of leaves. Enhanced MRB injury under stress
conditions may partially be explained by increased oviposition on stressed sugarcane plants via
increased dry leaves. On rice plants where free amino acid data was collected, 99.9% of the
variation in oviposition is explained by valine and threonine levels. Oviposition on rice did not
occur exclusively on dry leaves, with a significant portion of egg masses laid on green leaves or
inserted behind leaf sheaths. The physical properties of the rice plant may therefore not be as
important as its chemical quality, with the opposite observed on sugarcane.
119
Table 1. Oviposition preference estimates of the Mexican rice borer from greenhouse
experiments, Weslaco, TX 2003-2004.
Species Variety Stage Stress (sugarcane only) Oviposition
preference
estimates1
Sugarcane LCP 85-384 5 internodes Non drought stressed 0.533
Drought stressed 1.000
11 internodes Non drought stressed 0.851
Drought stressed 0.803
HoCP 85-845 5 internodes Non drought stressed 0.324
Drought stressed 0.682
11 internodes Non drought stressed 0.338
Drought stressed 0.805
Rice Cocodrie Tillering 3-4 leaves 0
Tillering 6-7 leaves 0.121
Boot 0.250
Heading 0.487
XL8 Tillering 3-4 leaves 0
Tillering 6-7 leaves 0.607
Boot 0.362
Heading 0.561 1Standardized oviposition preference estimates ranging from 1 (most attractive treatment) to 0
(least attractive treatment) based on number of eggs laid per plant adjusted for across experiment
variability.
______________________________________________________________________________
Appreciation is expressed to Dr. José Amador (TAES Center Director, Weslaco) for cooperation
and participating in this research.
120
MEXICAN RICE BORER PHEROMONE TRAPPING IN 2004
P.I. M.O. Way
Two Mexican rice borer (MRB) pheromone traps were placed in each of Calhoun,
Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty,
Matagorda, Orange, Wharton and Waller Counties. Traps were monitored weekly from
approximately April through November 2004. Trap collections have not been inspected; the
collection bags are frozen and will be inspected at a later date. However, in the fall of 2004,
MRB adults were found for the first time in Chambers and Liberty Counties. MRB larvae also
were found in rice culms near the pheromone traps in Liberty County. Thus, in 2004 the MRB
was detected for the first time east of Houston. This pest continues to expand its range east
towards Louisiana.
121
Stem Borer
HPR Study
Ganado, TX
2004
IV 14
P
13
P
15
XP
16
XP
8
Co
7
Co
1
Ch
2
Ch
6
XL
5
XL
11
J
12
J
10
Cy
9
Cy
3
161
4
161
III 5
XL
6
XL
14
P
13
P
9
Cy
10
Cy
4
161
3
161
15
XP
16
XP
12
J
11
J
1
Ch
2
Ch
8
Co
7
Co
II 4
161
3
161
7
Co
8
Co
12
J
11
J
15X
P
16
XP
2
Ch
1
Ch
5
XL
6
XL
14
P
13
P
9
Cy
10
Cy
I 1
Ch
2
Ch
4
161
3
161
5
XL
6
XL
8
Co
7
Co
9
Cy
10
Cy
12
J
11
J
13
P
14
P
16
XP
15
XP
Road
Trt. # Treatment Ta
1 Ch = Cheniere T
2 Ch = Cheniere U
3 161 = CL161 T
4 161 = CL161 U
5 XL = CLXL8 T
6 XL = CLXL8 U
7 Co = Cocodrie T
8 Co = Cocodrie U
9 Cy = Cypress T
10 Cy = Cypress U
11 J = Jefferson T
12 J = Jefferson U
13 P = Priscilla T
14 P = Priscilla U
15 XP = XP723 T
16 XP = XP723 U
a T = treated 2 times with Karate Z.
122
Stem Borer
HPR Study
Ganado, TX
2004
Plot size = 9 rows (7.5 inches between rows) x 16 ft
Soil type = Edna
Apr 21 Drill-planted (35 lb/acre for hybrids, 80 lb/acre for other varieties)
Jun 5 Flood
Jun 29 Treated all “T” plots with Karate Z at 0.03 lb (AI)/acre; rice = 0.5 inch panicle
Jul 20 Treated all “T” plots with Karate Z at 0.03 lb (AI)/acre; rice = boot/heading
Aug 17 Counted no. whiteheads in middle 4 rows of each plot; counted no. of panicles in
1 ft of row in each plot
Aug 26 Harvested plots
Fertility program:
250 lb 19-19-19 = 47.5 lb N/acre early post (May 21)
urea = 80 lb N/acre preflood (Jun 3)
ammonium sulfate = 60 lb N/acre at panicle differentiation (Jun 21)
Total N = 187.5 lb/acre for all varieties
Herbicide program:
Command 3ME @ 0.35 lb (AI)/acre preemergence (Apr 23)
Stam M4 @ 2 lb (AI)/acre [early post emergence (May 21)]
Bolero 8E @ 2 pt/acre [early post emergence (May 21)]
Facet 75DF @ 0.35 lb (AI)/acre [early post emergence (May 21)]
Permit @ 0.066 lb (AI)/acre [early post emergence (May 21)]
Crop Oil Concentrate
123
Table 1. Whitehead counts and yield for the stem borer host plant resistance study at Ganado, TX.
2004
Whitehead Yieldc
Variety Treatmenta counts
b (lb/acre)
CL161 T 1 7083
U 16 5674
CLXL8 T 0 9240
U 5 8855
Cheniere T 1 7547
U 12 6813
Cocodrie T 1 8187
U 30 6708
Cypress T 0 7234
U 19 6214
Jefferson T 2 7367
U 19 5387
Priscilla T 3 7219
U 58 4864
XP723 T 0 10318
U 5 9569
a Treatment: T = Treated for stem borer with two applications of Karate Z at 0.03 lb AI/acre.
b Number of whiteheads in middle 4 rows of each plot, 16 ft. long.
c Yield (lb/acre) adjusted to 12% moisture.
124
Table 2. Split-plot analysis for the stem borer host plant resistance study at Ganado, TX. 2004
Whitehead Yield
counts lb/acre)
Main plot (variety) effects:
CL161 8bc 6379e
CLXL8 2a 9047b
Cheniere 6b 7180c
Cocodrie 15d 7448c
Cypress 9bc 6724d
Jefferson 10cd 6377e
Priscilla 30e 6041e
XP723 3a 9943a
Sub-plot (treated or untreated) effects:
Treated 1a 8024a
Untreated 21b 6760b
Interactions:
Main plot x sub-plot sig
(P = < .0001)
sig
(P = < .0001)
125
Stem Borer Insecticide Screening Study on Rice
Ganado, TX
2004
IV 10 1 5 2 7 3 8 6 4 9
III 9 8 3 1 4 6 2 7 5 10
II 9 7 2 5 1 3 4 8 6 10
I 10 3 4 6 8 1 7 5 2 9
Road
Rate
Trt. # Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] Timing
1 Mustang Max 0.0225 2" Pa
2 Mustang Max 0.0225 LBb
3 Mustang Max 0.0225 + 0.0225 (1) + (2)
4 Karate Z 0.03 2" P
5 Karate Z 0.03 LB
6 Karate Z 0.03 + 0.03 (4) + (5)
7 Icon 6.2FS 0.0375 STc
8 Untreated — —
9 Tracer 0.062 2"P
10 Tracer 0.062 + 0.062 2"P + LB
a P = panicle.
b LB = late boot.
c ST = seed treatment.
126
Stem Borer Insecticide Screening Study on Rice. Ganado, TX. 2004
Rate 0a no. whiteheads per 4 0
a yield
Trt. # Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] Timing middle rows per plot (lb/acre)
1 Mustang Max 0.0225 1 !2" Pb 23.3de 6252abc
2 Mustang Max 0.0225 LB/Hc 19.0e 6119bcd
3 Mustang Max 0.0225 + 0.0225 (1 + 2) 4.3f 6722ab
4 Karate Z 0.03 1 ! 2" P 33.5c 6266abc
5 Karate Z 0.03 LB/H 19.0e 5878cd
6 Karate Z 0.03 + 0.03 (4 + 5) 4.0f 6947a
7 Icon 6.2FS 0.0375 STd 34.0c 5655cd
8 Untreated — — 68.3a 5404d
9 Tracer 0.062 1 ! 2" P 49.3b — e
10 Tracer 0.062 + 0.062 (9 + LB/H) 29.8cd — e
a Means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level
(ANOVA, LSD). b P = panicle.
c LB/H = late boot/early heading.
d ST = seed treatment.
e No yield data for Tracer treatments: Tracer treatments applied to border plots which were not
managed optimally due to lateness of request for inclusion of treatments.
127
Tab
le 1
. P
lan
tin
g d
ate
(M
ar 1
2)
and
ric
e w
ate
r w
eev
il (
RW
W).
B
eau
mo
nt,
TX
. 2
00
4
R
ate
0d n
o. ri
ce
pla
nts
/ 0
d n
o. R
WW
/ 5
co
res
0
d y
ield
(lb
/acr
e)
Tre
atm
ent
[lb
(A
I)/a
cre]
T
imin
g
1 f
t ro
w
21
daf
3
1 d
af
M
e R
f M
+R
Un
trea
ted
-
- 1
3.7
1
0.0
a 6
6.3
a
46
99
d
25
03
7
20
1c
Ico
n 6
.2F
S
0.0
37
5
sta
14
.3
1
.5b
1
4.5
bc
5
60
8a
25
91
8
19
8a
Kar
ate
Z
0.0
3
bfb
1
4.0
1
.3b
8
.5c
5
42
8ab
2
62
6
8
05
4ab
Mu
stan
g M
AX
0
.02
25
b
f 1
4.8
2
.0b
2
4.3
b
5
16
5c
26
08
7
77
4b
Mu
stan
g M
AX
0
.02
25
3
daf
c 1
5.2
1
.5b
1
7.8
bc
5
19
9c
24
88
7
68
6b
Dim
ilin
2L
0
.18
75
3
daf
1
5.0
1
.0b
1
3.3
bc
5
32
9b
c 2
58
4
7
91
3ab
a s
t =
see
d t
reatm
ent.
b b
f =
im
med
iate
ly b
efo
re f
loo
d.
c daf
= d
ays
afte
r fl
oo
d.
d M
ean
s in
a c
olu
mn
fo
llo
wed
by
th
e sa
me
or
no
let
ter
are
no
t si
gn
ific
antl
y d
iffe
ren
t at
the
5%
lev
el A
NO
VA
, L
SD
. e M
= m
ain
cro
p.
f R
= r
ato
on
cro
p.
Tab
le 2
. P
lan
tin
g d
ate
(M
ar 3
1)
and
ric
e w
ate
r w
eev
il (
RW
W).
B
eau
mo
nt,
TX
. 2
00
4
R
ate
0d n
o. ri
ce
pla
nts
/ 0
d n
o. R
WW
/ 5
co
res
0
d y
ield
(lb
/acr
e)
Tre
atm
ent
[lb
(A
I)/a
cre]
T
imin
g
1 f
t ro
w
21
daf
3
1 d
af
M
e R
f M
+R
Un
trea
ted
-
- 1
1.3
2
9.5
a 7
4.8
a
62
32
c 3
23
2
9
46
5c
Ico
n 6
.2F
S
0.0
37
5
sta
1
1.3
1
.5b
cd
7
.0d
70
11
a 3
64
3
10
65
4a
Kar
ate
Z
0.0
3
bfb
1
1.4
0
.3d
1
6.5
c
6
70
3ab
3
36
8
1
00
70
abc
Mu
stan
g M
AX
0
.02
25
b
f 1
1.9
5
.5b
c 4
2.3
b
6
52
4b
c 3
50
8
1
00
32
abc
Mu
stan
g M
AX
0
.02
25
3
daf
c 1
1.6
1
.0cd
3
6.0
b
6
45
3b
c 3
45
8
99
11
bc
Dim
ilin
2L
0
.18
75
3
daf
1
2.0
5
.3b
3
4.5
b
6
74
8ab
3
64
3
1
03
90
ab
a s
t =
see
d t
reatm
ent.
b b
f =
im
med
iate
ly b
efo
re f
loo
d.
c daf
= d
ays
afte
r fl
oo
d.
d M
ean
s in
a c
olu
mn
fo
llo
wed
by
th
e sa
me
or
no
let
ter
are
no
t si
gn
ific
antl
y d
iffe
ren
t at
the
5%
lev
el A
NO
VA
, L
SD
. e M
= m
ain
cro
p.
f R =
rato
on
cro
p.
128
Tab
le 3
. P
lan
tin
g d
ate
(A
pr
16
) an
d r
ice w
ate
r w
eev
il (
RW
W).
B
eau
mo
nt,
TX
. 2
00
4
R
ate
0d n
o. ri
ce
pla
nts
/ 0
d n
o. R
WW
/ 5
co
res
0
d y
ield
(lb
/acr
e)
Tre
atm
ent
[lb
(A
I)/a
cre]
T
imin
g
1 f
t ro
w
21
daf
3
1 d
af
M
e R
f M
+R
Un
trea
ted
-
- 6
.9
41
.3a
37
.3a
7
36
3c
24
22
9
78
5b
Ico
n 6
.2F
S
0.0
37
5
sta
6
.1
5.3
cd
23
.5ab
c
7
77
3ab
2
81
6
10
58
9a
Kar
ate
Z
0.0
3
bfb
6
.8
2.0
d
7.0
d
8
07
7a
25
26
1
06
03
a
Mu
stan
g M
AX
0
.02
25
b
f 6
.3
10
.5b
c 2
5.3
ab
7
63
5b
c 2
34
2
9
97
7b
Mu
stan
g M
AX
0
.02
25
3
daf
c 6
.3
14
.0b
2
0.8
bc
8
05
7a
25
40
1
05
98
a
Dim
ilin
2L
0
.18
75
3
daf
6
.3
14
.0b
1
2.8
cd
8
11
4a
24
96
1
06
10
a
a s
t =
see
d t
reatm
ent.
b b
f =
im
med
iate
ly b
efo
re f
loo
d.
c daf
= d
ays
afte
r fl
oo
d.
d M
ean
s in
a c
olu
mn
fo
llo
wed
by
th
e sa
me
or
no
let
ter
are
no
t si
gn
ific
antl
y d
iffe
ren
t at
the
5%
lev
el A
NO
VA
, L
SD
. e M
= m
ain
cro
p.
f R =
rato
on
cro
p.
129
Table 4. Planting date (Apr 29) and rice water weevil (RWW). Beaumont, TX. 2004
Rate 0d no. rice plants/ 0
d no. RWW / 5 cores 0
d yield
Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] Timing 1 ft row 21 daf 31 daf (lb/acre)e
Untreated - - 7.3 54.0a 16.0 7704c
Icon 6.2FS 0.0375 sta 7.1 4.0b 14.5 8571b
Karate Z 0.03 bfb 7.1 1.3b 9.8 8439b
Mustang
MAX
0.0225 bf 7.1 4.0b 6.8 8769ab
Mustang
MAX
0.0225 3dafc 7.1 4.0b 10.0 9294a
Dimilin 2L 0.1875 3daf 7.5 5.0b 15.0 8852ab
a st = seed treatment.
b bf = immediately before flood.
c daf = days after flood.
d Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different at the 5% level
ANOVA, LSD. e Main crop was harvested after 15 Aug; thus, ratoon crop was not produced.
Table 5. Planting date (May 21) and rice water weevil (RWW). Beaumont, TX. 2004
Rate 0d no. rice plants/ 0
d no. RWW / 5 cores 0
d yield
Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] Timing 1 ft row 21 daf 31 daf (lb/acre)e
Untreated - - 5.9 5.8 21.0a 6255
Icon 6.2FS 0.0375 sta 5.2 13.3 3.5cd 6069
Karate Z 0.03 bfb 5.9 13.5 5.3bcd 6478
Mustang
MAX
0.0225 bf 6.0 5.3 11.0b 6502
Mustang
MAX
0.0225 3dafc 4.9 14.3 11.3b 6010
Dimilin 2L 0.1875 3daf 6.6 17.3 2.8d 6403
a st = seed treatment.
b bf = immediately before flood.
c daf = days after flood.
d Means in these columns followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different at the 5% level
ANOVA, LSD. e Main crop was harvested after 15 Aug; thus, ratoon crop was not produced.
130
0 treated yielda 0 untreated yield Difference
Planting date (lb/acre) (lb/acre) (lb/acre)
Mar 12 7925 7201 724
Mar 31 10211 9465 746
Apr 16 10475 9785 690
Apr 29 8785 7704 1081
May 21 6292 6255 37
Average yields of all insecticide treatments.
Yield (lb/acre) difference (treated-untreated)
Treatment Mar 12 Mar 31 Apr 16 Apr 29 May 21 0
Icon 6.2FS 997 1189 804 867 -186 734
Karate Z 853 605 818 735 223 647
Mustang MAX (bf) 573 567 192 1065 247 529
Mustang MAX (af) 485 446 813 1590 -245 618
Dimilin 2L 712 925 825 1148 148 752
0 724 746 690 1081 37 0 =656
131
Cost of control Net returnf ($/acre)
Treatment ($/acre) Mar 12 Mar 31 Apr 16 Apr 29 May 21 0
Icon 6.2FS 16.20a 50.20 62.99 37.35 41.54 -28.59 32.70
Karate Z (bf) 5.55b 51.26 34.74 48.93 43.40 9.30 37.53
Mustang MAX (bf) 6.40c 31.76 31.36 6.39 64.52 10.05 28.80
Mustang MAX (af) 13.55d 18.75 16.15 40.60 92.34 -29.87 27.59
Dimilin 2L 27.82e 19.60 33.79 27.13 48.64 -17.96 22.24
0 34.31 35.81 32.08 58.09 -11.41 29.77
$18/cwt @ 90 lb/acre seeding rate.
$385/gal with no aerial charge (tank-mix with preflood herbicides).
$227.45/gal with no aerial charge (tank-mix with preflood herbicides).
includes aerial charge of $7.15/acre.
includes product ($220.55/gal)and aerial charge of $7.15/acre.
based on $6.66/cwt price of rice; does not include added hauling and drying costs.
132
Evaluation of Experimental Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control.
Beaumont, TX. 2004
P.I.: M.O. Way
Technicians: R. G. Wallace and M.S. Nunez
Graduate students: Luis Espino and Becky Wolff
Assistants: Michael Weiss, Anthony Brown, Jennifer Lee, Chase Gibbs and Ryan McCormick
TAES/TCE, Texas A&M University
Agricultural Research and Extension Center
1509 Aggie Drive
Beaumont, TX 77713
[409.752.2741 phone] [409.752.5560 fax] or [[email protected]]
Introduction
The objective of this experiment was to evaluate selected experimental rice seed treatments for
rice water weevil (RWW) control.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted at the Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and
Extension Center in Beaumont in 2004. The experiment consisted of seven treatments and four
replications arranged in a randomized complete block design. Plot size was 18 ft x seven rows (7
inches between rows). Each plot was surrounded by a metal barrier to prevent interplot movement of
fertilizer and pesticides. On 12 Apr, plots were drill-planted into League soil. All seed treatments
were provided by Syngenta. The variety was Cocodrie. Immediately following planting, urea was
hand-broadcast to plots at 56.7 lb N/acre. Immediately following urea application, plots were flushed
(temporary flood and drained 48 hours later). On 25 Apr, rice emerged. On 28 Apr, general stand
establishment in all plots was recorded. From emergence of rice to application of the permanent
flood, plots were flushed as needed. On 4 May, the number of plants in 3 ft of row in each row of
each plot was recorded. On 10 May, plots were sprayed with Arrosolo 3-3E at 2 qt/acre, Basagran at
1.5 pt/acre and Latron AG-98 at 1 pt/100 gal of spray using a two-person spray rig (21 ft spray swath;
13, 80015 nozzles with 50 mesh screens) pressurized with CO2 (20 psi). Facet 75DF was not added
to this tank mix because of phytotoxicity problems observed on earlier planted rice. On 18 May, rice
in plots was inspected for aphids and thrips. On 19 May (24 days after rice emergence), urea was
hand-broadcast to plots at 56.7 lb N/acre. Immediately following urea application, plots were
permanently flooded. On 26 May, 10 plants in each plot were measured for height and no. of tillers,
leaves and adult RWW scars. On 2 Jun and 2 Jul, urea was hand-broadcast to plots at 56.7 and 40 lb
N/acre, respectively. Thus, total amount of N applied to plots during main crop production was 210
lb/acre. On 9 and 18 Jun (21 and 31 days after application of the permanent flood, respectively), five,
4 inch diameter x 4 inch deep soil cores (each core contained at least one rice plant) were removed.
Rice roots in cores were washed into a 40 mesh screen bucket and RWW immatures removed and
counted. On 9 Aug (106 days after rice emergence), plots were harvested with a small plot combine.
Yields were adjusted to 12% moisture. RWW count data were transformed using 5.0+x . All data
were analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.
133
Results
Rice plant stands and characteristics were not significantly different among the treatments (Table 1).
Also, 7 days after flood, number of adult RWW feeding scars were not significantly different among
treatments which indicates none of the seed treatments affected adult RWW mortality or activities. In
addition, inspection of plots on 18 May revealed no significant aphid or thrips populations; thus, no
information was obtained regarding efficacy of seed treatments relative to these insects. Populations of
RWW in untreated plots were well above economic injury levels on both sampling dates (Table 2). RWW
control was rate responsive for A14006 treatments on both sampling dates. However, the lowest rate of
A14006 performed statistically as well as the Cruiser 5FS, Karate Z and Icon 6.2FS seed treatments. Highest
yield was achieved by the Cruiser 5FS seed treatment (963 lb/acre more than the untreated). Of the A14006
seed treatments, the mid-rate produced 683 lb/acre more than the untreated.
134
Table 1. Mean plant stand and plant characteristics for the evaluation of experimental seed treatments for rice
water weevil (RWW) control. Beaumont, TX. 2004
Rate Plants/ft. Plant ht. Culms/ Leaves/ Feeding
Treatment g (AI)/100 kg seed of rowa (cm)
b plant
b plant
b scars
c
Untreated - 15.1 38.3 4.5 11.9 52
Cruiser 5FS 80 15.7 38.0 4.6 11.1 42
Karate Z 80 16.2 37.7 5.0 12.7 47
A14006 100 14.5 36.7 5.0 12.1 52
A14006 50 15.1 37.4 4.0 12.2 44
A14006 25 15.6 37.7 4.6 12.2 52
Icon 6.2FS 42 15.3 35.1 4.6 12.2 62
NS NS NS NS NS
a Plants/ft. of row determined by counting number of plants in a 3 ft. section of all seven rows in each plot.
b Plant characteristics determined from mean of 10 plants from each plot.
c Total number of adult RWW feeding scars on 10 plants.
All means are not significantly (NS) different at the 5% level (ANOVA, LSD).
Table 2. Mean no. immature rice water weevil (RWW) and yield for the evaluation of experimental seed
treatments for rice water weevil control. Beaumont, TX. 2004
Rate No. immature RWW / 5 coresa Yield
b
Treatment g (AI)/100 kg seed Jun 9 Jun 18 (lb/acre)
Untreated -- 42.5a 38.5a 7733b
Cruiser 5FS 80 9.0bc 12.5bc 8696a
Karate Z 80 12.5b 7.5cd 8234ab
A14006 100 5.0c 2.3d 8244ab
A14006 50 8.0bc 8.5bc 8416a
A14006 25 12.0b 11.5bc 8149ab
Icon 6.2FS 42 6.8bc 15.5b 8346a
a Means in these columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level
(ANOVA, LSD). b Yield is adjusted to 12% moisture; means in this column followed by the same letter are not significantly
different at the 12% level (ANOVA, LSD).
135
Evaluation of Aerial Application of Dimilin 2L and Karate Z for
Rice Water Weevil Control.
Beaumont, TX. 2004.
P.I.: M.O. Way
Technicians: M.S. Nunez and R.G. Wallace
TAES/TCE, Texas A&M University
Agricultural Research and Extension Center
1509 Aggie Drive
Beaumont, TX 77713
[409.752.2741 phone] [409.752.5560 fax] or [[email protected]]
Introduction
The objective of this experiment was to evaluate aerial applications of Dimilin 2L at 0.125 lb (AI)/acre
compared to Karate Z at 0.03 lb (AI)/acre for control of rice water weevil (RWW).
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted in 2004 on two commercial rice fields (Bill Dishman, Jr. and Bobby Beavers)
located in Jefferson County. The experiment was designed as a randomized complete block with three
treatments (Dimilin 2L at 0.125 lb (AI)/acre, Karate Z at 0.03 lb (AI)/acre and untreated) and three replications
(two in Dishman’s field and one in Beavers’ field). The varieties were XP712 (medium grain hybrid) for
Dishman and Cocodrie for Beavers. Planting dates were March 22 for Dishman and March 24 for Beavers.
Both fields were planted dry and flushed as needed before application of the permanent flood which was applied
about May 4 on Dishman’s field and May 13 on Beavers’ field. Three days after application of the permanent
flood, M&M Air applied Dimilin 2L and Karate Z treatments to selected plots on Dishman’s field. Final spray
volume was 5 gpa. Wind was calm and conditions clear at time of application. See Fig. 1 for schematic of plot
plan for Dishman’s field.
Results
The Karate Z treatment performed better than the Dimilin 2L treatment in both fields for both the first and
second RWW samples (Tables 1 and 2). However, the Dimilin 2L treatment gave higher yields than the Karate
Z treatment (Table 3). Populations of RWW were much lower in Beavers’ than Dishman’s field, yet Dimilin
2L and Karate Z treatments still produced higher yields than the untreated. Across both fields, the average yield
advantage for the Dimilin 2L and Karate Z treatments was 988 lb/acre compared to the untreated.
The high yield response to the Dimilin 2L treatment was unexpected given the relatively low degree of
RWW control. Dimilin 2L control RWW by reducing the viability of eggs developing within the female.
Dimilin 2L also controls RWW by killing eggs laid by the female and early instar larvae. Perhaps larvae that
survive exposure to Dimilin 2L are less active and vigorous than untreated larvae. Also, perhaps Dimilin 2L
has a direct positive effect on rice plant growth. Another possibility is simply experimental error due to small
sample sizes.
136
Table 1. Control of rice water weevil (RWW) with aerial applications of Dimilin 2L and Karate Z
Rate No. immature RWW / 20 cores (1st samples)
Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] I II III 0a
Dimilin 2L 0.125 203 81 4 96.0ab
Karate Z 0.03 15 14 0 9.7b
Untreated - 203 198 17 139.3a a Means in this column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
Table 2. Control of rice water weevil (RWW) with aerial applications of Dimilin 2L and Karate Z
Rate No. immature RWW / 20 cores (2nd
samples)
Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] I II III 0a
Dimilin 2L 0.125 235 155 6 132.0a
Karate Z 0.03 55 47 0 34.0b
Untreated - 194 158 18 123.3a a Means in this column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
Table 3. Yield response to controlling rice water weevil (RWW) with aerial applications of Dimilin 2L and
Karate Z
Rate 0 yield (lb/acre) @ 12% moisture
Treatment [lb (AI)/acre] I II III 0a
Dimilin 2L 0.125 7038 6960 6801 6933a
Karate Z 0.03 7708 6137 6630 6825ab
Untreated - 5920 5811 5942 5891b a Means in this column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 8% level.
137
Timing of Mustang Max for control of Rice Water Weevil
Beaumont, TX
2004 � North
II III IV
1 10 7 4
5 8 2 3
3 6 1 7
4 7 5 8
2 1 3 10
6 9 6 5
7 3 10 9
8 5 4 2
10 4 9 1
9 2 8 6
Plot size = 7 rows, 7 in. row spacing, 18 ft. long, 4 replications with metal barriers
Variety = Cocodrie (seed source Garret Farms grown in 2003)
Trt. no.
Description
Rate
[lb (AI)/acre]
Timing
1 Untreated - -
2 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 PRE a
3 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 E b
4 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 7 DAE c
5 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 14 DAE
6 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 BF d
7 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 3 DAF e
8 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 5 DAF
9 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 7 DAF
10 Mustang Max (F0570) 0.0225 10 DAF
a PRE = preemergence
b E = at emergence
c DAE = days after emergence
d BF = immediately before flood
e DAF = days after flood
138
Timing of Mustang Max for control of Rice Water Weevil Beaumont, TX
2004
Chronological Data
26 Mar Drill-planted Cocodrie @ 90 lb/acre and applied urea @ 42.5 lb N/acre (25% of 170)
27 Mar Applied Treatment 2 (did not incorporate), erected barriers and flushed
09 Apr Emergence and applied Treatment 3 @ 40 gpa (on to moist soil)
16 Apr Applied Arrosolo 3-3E @ 2.0 qt/A, Basagran @ 1.5 pt/A, Facet 75DF @ 0.5 lb/A and
Latron AG-98 @ 1.0 pt/100 gal spray for early season weed control
Treatment 4 (on to moist soil)
20 Apr Flushed and drained
23 Apr Treatment 5 (on to moist soil)
30 Apr Treatment 6 (on to dry soil), urea @ 59.5 lb N/acre (35% of 170), and permanent
flood
03 May Treatment 7
05 May Treatment 8
07 May Treatment 9
10 May Treatment 10
12 May Applied Londax
17 May Urea @ 68.0 lb N/acre (40% of 170)
21 May First RWW cores
02 Jun Second RWW cores
22 Jul Drained
18 Aug Harvested
139
Timing of Mustang Max. Beaumont, TX. 2004
Rate 0a no. immature RWW
b / 5 cores 0
a yield
Trt. # Description [lb (AI)/acre] Timing 21 May 2 Jun (lb/acre)
1 Untreated — — 41.5a 106.8a 6243c
2 Mustang Max 0.0225 PREc 11.5bc 60.5cde 6777c
3 Mustang Max 0.0225 Ed 8.0bcd 74.5abc 6540c
4 Mustang Max 0.0225 7DAEe 13.8b 90.0ab 6404c
5 Mustang Max 0.0225 14DAE 4.5def 92.8ab 6979bc
6 Mustang Max 0.0225 BFf 0.5f 60.5bcd 6865c
7 Mustang Max 0.0225 3DAFg 1.0ef 68.0de 7718ab
8 Mustang Max 0.0225 5DAF 2.3ef 31.3ef 7723ab
9 Mustang Max 0.0225 7DAF 4.8cde 17.0fg 7792a
10 Mustang Max 0.0225 10DAF 8.5bcd 12.3g 7785a a Means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level
(ANOVA, LSD). b RWW = rice water weevil.
c PRE = preemergence.
d E = at emergence
e DAE = days after emergence.
f BF = immediately before flood.
g DAF = days after flood.
140
TRRF Report on 2004 Research
Management of Bacterial Panicle Blight caused by Burkholderia glumae
December 2004
Joseph P. Krausz
Professor, Department of Plant Pathology,
Texas A&M University,
2132 TAMU,
College Station, TX 77843-2132.
(Tel. 979-845-8001),(Fax 979-945-6483)
141
Managing Bacterial Panicle Blight
Caused by Burkholderia glumae
Objective 1
Rice Cultivar Screening: Evaluate rice cultivars quantitatively for incidence of bacterial panicle
blight in the Uniform regional Rice Nursery (URRN) trial at the Texas A&M research plots at
Beaumont. Provide more reliable quantitative data on varietal reaction to panicle blight.
Methods
At grain maturity on July 29, 2004, each plot in the URRN variety trials at Beaumont were
individually evaluated for the presence and severity of panicle blight. A composite panicle blight
rating (0-9; 0 = no panicle blight; 9 = 90%+ panicles blighted) for each variety was obtained
based on the incidence and severity of the disease.
Results
Symptoms of panicle blight were virtually absent in the 2004 URRN test and were very light to
non-existent across much of the Texas rice belt. Incidence and severity of panicle blight has been
correlated with above normal temperatures, especially high evening temperatures. The 2004 rice
crop, especially prior to pollination for much of the first crop, experienced unusually moderate
temperatures. Heat stress was not an issue. An evaluation of the entries in the URRN test was
made, but the incidence of panicle blight was too low to make any meaningful variety
comparisons.
Objective 2
Panicle Blight Screening of Seedlings: Determine if rice cultivar reaction to panicle blight can be
determined at the seedling stage by inoculation with the bacterium, evaluation of symptom
expression, and correlation of the response with field response to the disease.
Methods
A standardized bacterial suspension (1010
cfu/ml) of the panicle blight bacterium was prepared
and used to inoculate the foliage of 30-day-old rice seedlings by two commonly used inoculation
techniques; 1) Dip scissors into bacterial suspension and clip the rice leaves, and 2) Dip a cork
with pins embedded into the bacterial suspension and subsequently press the pin tips into the
leaf to be inoculated. The plants were incubated in a greenhouse and disease symptoms were
evaluated 14 days after inoculation. With the leaf clip method, the length of the progression of
leaf blight down from the clipped edge of each leaf was measured. With the pin-prick method,
perpendicular diameters of the blighted areas for each leaf, was recorded.
142
Results
The leaf-clip method proved to be the preferable method. The successful generation of symptoms
with each cut was high, while the incidence of successful infection with the pin-prick method was
too erratic to be of much use. Using the leaf-clip method of inoculation, significant differences in
disease development was recorded among the rice varieties tested. The varieties were chosen
based on panicle blight ratings in the 2003 URRN trial at Beamont to include a cultivar
apparently resistant to panicle blight (RU0103190), two cultivars with intermediate reactions
(Jefferson and Saber), and a cultivar considered susceptible (Cocodrie). The seedling inoculation
test recorded significant differences in variety response to inoculation, but these reactions did
not correlate well with the panicle blight ratings based on field observation of panicles at
maturity in 2003.
Comparison of Seedling Inoculation with Burkholderia glumae
vs. Field Observation of Panicle Blight
Cultivar Seedling Rate1 Field Rating
2
BF4-274 13.4 a 0.75 Resistant
Saber 9.5 ab 2.25 Intermediate
Cocodrie 5.9 b 3.00 Susceptible
Jefferson 3.3 b 1.25 Intermediate
1 Average length of leaf lesion from cut leaf surface of 8 plants
2 Panicle blight rating 0 - 5 (0 = no PB; 5 = 80 -100% blighted panicles.
Objective 3
Inducing Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) and Testing Other Foliar Protectants: On rice inoculated
with the bacterial panicle blight pathogen, evaluate commercial and non-commercial products presently
reported as inducers of SAR on other crops.
Methods
Cocodrie treated with Icon seed treatment was planted on March 30, 2004, at the TAMU Research and
Extension Center at Beaumont. Plot size was 7 rows, with 7-inch row spacing, 18-feet long. Arrosolo,
Basagran, and Facet were applied nine days after emergence. The plots were inoculated with a
suspension of Burkholderia glumae at late boot (June 22, 2004) by spraying 45 ml of bacterial suspension
(8 x 109 cfu/ml) over the three interior rows of each plot. The products to be tested were applied as foliar
sprays with a Solo® backpack sprayer with boom attachment and three 8002 nozzle tips delivering 15
gallons per acre at 20 PSI. The plots were evaluated for panicle blight on 07/29/2004 and harvested with a
small plot combine on 08/17/2004.
In a separate test at the Texas A&M Rice Research Center at Eagle Lake, Cocodrie
was treated with foliar applications of Messenger® and salicylic acid 5 weeks after planting to evaluate
possible effects on the rice in the absence of panicle blight. The rice was planted on 04/20/ 2004, and the
products were applied as mentioned above.
The rice was evaluated for diseases on 08/03/2004 and harvested on 08/12/2004.
143
Results
Panicle Blight Suppression Test
Treatment Prod./A Timing Pan. Blt.1,2
Yield (lb/A)2
Salicylic acid 40 g PI 1.0 ab 6597 a
+ Hasten 0.1% v/v
Salicylic acid 40 g PI & LB 0.2 ab 6418 a
+ Hasten 0.1 % v/v
Salicylic acid 40 g LB 0.5 ab 6714 a
+ Hasten 0.1 % v/v
Salicylic acid 40 g LB 3.3 b 6580 a
Messenger STS 2.5 oz PI 2.0 ab 6799 a
Messenger STS 2.5 oz PI 1.0 ab 6581 a
+ Hasten 0.1 % v/v`
Messenger STS 2.5 oz PI & LB 0.5 ab 6766 a
Messenger STS 4.0 oz PI 2.0 ab 6708 a
Messenger STS 2.5 oz LB 1.3 ab 6574 a
Actigard 0.75 oz LB 2.0 ab 6799 a
Top Cop 2 qts LB 1.5 ab 6658 a
Starner 20WP 450 g LB 0.3 ab 6503 a
Untreated ----- ----- 1.0 ab 6624 a
Untreated and ----- ----- 0.0 ab 6956 a
Uninoculated
1
Panicle blight recorded as number of blighted panicle per plot.
2 Figures followed by a similar letter are not considered statistically
different according to Duncan’s multiple range test (p = 0.05).
144
Effect of Messenger and Salicylic Acid on Sheath Blight
Sheath Blight
Treatment Rate/A Timing1 (0-9)
2 Yield (lb/A)
2
Salicylic acid 32 g 37 DAP 0.2 a 7052 a
+ Hasten 0.1 % v/v
Messenger STS 2.0 oz 37 DAP 1.9 a 6975 a
Untreated ----- ----- 4.3 b
6913 a
1
Products applied 37 days after planting (DAP)
2 Figures in a column followed by a similar letter are not considered significantly different according to Duncan
Multiple range test (p = 0.10)
Objective 4
Weather-based panicle blight forecast system: Validate a weather-based disease forecast model for
predicting bacterial panicle blight incidence on rice.
Methods
Weather data including temperature, relative humidity, and rainfall was collected from the Texas A&M
Rice research centers at Beaumont and Eagle Lake. Panicle blight incidence and severity was recorded
on the panicle blight susceptible variety Cocodrie at both locations and on the entire list of entries in the
URRN trial at Beaumont. A panicle blight predictive model developed in Korea was obtained after
considerable difficulty in locating and communicating with the author. The panicle blight forecast model
developed in Korea is being validated for Texas conditions using the collected weather data and the
panicle blight observations at the Texas locations.
Results
Unfortunately, the unusually mild temperatures in the Texas rice belt during the critical months of June
and July, 2004, was very unfavorable for the development of panicle blight. Panicle blight incidence has
been correlated with prevailing high temperatures. Very low levels of panicle blight were observed. The
levels of infection were too low to evaluate rice cultivars or foliar treatments effectively. However, the
relatively low temperatures in June and July will serve as important parameters in the predictive model
to signal a “low panicle blight” rating. In back-testing, the weather parameters during June and July
2004 were applied to the Korean predictive model which correctly indicated a very low incidence of
panicle blight. This is an encouraging sign.
145
Report Submitted to the Texas Rice Research Foundation
For 2004
Communications, Press and Public Outreach for the Texas Rice Industry
by
Jay Cockrell
Agricultural Communications Specialist
Texas A&M University System Agricultural Research and Extension Center
1509 Aggie Drive, Beaumont, Texas 77713
Duration: March 04 – March 05
Funds Awarded: $11,535.00
146
Communications, Press and Public Outreach at the Beaumont Center
Executive Summery:
Newsletter –2004 was another good year for Texas Rice, and it continues to be a valuable
communication tool for the rice industry, the Beaumont Center and Texas A&M University. The mailing list
gets bigger every year, with email recipients topping 1200. We have kept the number of hard copies mailed out
at 400 to keep printing and postage costs down.
According to the year-end report of activity for the Center website, Texas Rice took 7 of the top 10
downloads, with the March and April issues being the most popular. The web trends also show that issues from
2003 continue to be downloaded, especially the Winter 03 where we highlighted the importance of the rice
industry to the environment.
We kept a very tight schedule this year, with each issue going out no later than the first week of each
month, and the Winter issue went out well ahead of the Christmas break. I’ve kept in close contact with industry
representatives, making sure that the information presented was timely and accurate. Besides our own scientists,
I also worked with researchers from other states including Arkansas, Louisiana, Illinois, California and Florida.
Outreach – We brought around 200 people through the Center in 2004, from girl scouts to senior citizen
groups. The kids went home with their own rice growing ‘kits’, and the seniors got rice recipe brochures and
copies of Texas Rice. Besides the local groups, I also gave tours for visiting scientists and farmers from China,
Mexico, Brazil and Peru.
We continue to participate in area career days and science fairs for junior high and high school students.
This is a great opportunity to let kids know that there is more to agriculture than just farming, and all the things
Texas A&M has to offer in these fields. It also gives me a chance to increase awareness of the work done at the
Beaumont Center. Many of our best student workers learned of the job opportunity through outreach efforts at
their schools
Press – In addition to the field day press, year round newspaper and television coverage has steadily
increased. I have established excellent relationships with newspaper reporters, editors, television producers and
anchors. In between special events, I do my best to keep agriculture high in their mind, either forwarding stories
from AgNMore or making suggestions for good story ideas or interviews.
I continue to serve on the Jefferson County Ag Committee, chaired by Kelby Boldt, and we have made
great progress in the past year. We have a regular Thursday column in the Beaumont Enterprise so the different
ag related organizations can receive consistent placement of their stories. We also secured a regular segment on
the local CBS affiliate News at Noon program, which runs the first Tuesday of every month.
Beside numerous press releases on AgNMore, my ‘Rice and the Environment’ story was published in
the fall issue of Lifescapes, the quarterly magazine for the Texas A&M Agriculture Program.
Justification:
In our 2004 season of Texas Rice, we continued to provide timely and informative stories that
highlighted the rice industry, farmer issues and Texas A&M University.
147
We got the season off to a strong start in March with a cover story that highlighted the rice check-off program,
emphasizing the tremendous role our farmers play in supporting research. In the ‘Farming Rice’ section, I wrote
an article based on a presentation by LSU weed specialist Dr. Ron Strahan. The article contained excellent color
photos to help farmers identify weed species, and gave recommendations for chemicals to control them.
For the April issue, we ran a story on insect newcomers that Dr. Mo Way identified in rice fields in 2003. With
many close-up photos, it was intended to serve as an ID guide for growers. In a correspondence to one of our
researchers, Owen Taylor, editor of RiceFax, said the article was “the best thing he had ever seen coming from
a University system”. While it’s clear this is an exaggeration, the compliment was quite encouraging.
The June cover story promoted the Eagle Lake Field day, and Dr. Turner did an excellent article on nitrogen
loss in rice soils for the ‘Farming Rice’ section
148
The July issue honored Bill Dishman Sr. for an endowment the Dishman family established for research at the
Beaumont/Eagle Lake Center. We also highlighted the research Mo Way and Gene Regan conducted done on
the Mexican rice borer.
For the August issue, I went international, and tapped into research conducted on endophytes in rice by Chinese
and Australian scientists. We also profiled Louis Broussard at Beaumont Rice Mill, one of the oldest mills in
Texas.
Based on suggestions from our on-line survey, we ran a story on Rice Tec and hybrid rice production in the
September issue. The article included a brief history of hybrid rice research, techniques used in producing
hybrid seed and a performance overview of hybrid rice
149
Objectives
Specific objectives for this proposal were as follows:
1. Continue to publish and improve Texas Rice, the newsletter for the Texas rice industry; and
2. Refine and expand educational materials for presentations and projects dealing with rice production,
targeting school children and the general public.
3. Continue to foster close relationships with representatives of the media to insure that agricultural issues
get coverage.
Materials And Methods
All the writing, typesetting, editing and printing for Texas Rice is done in-house. Using Adobe
Photoshop and Adobe Pagemaker software, the newsletter is typeset on one of two Macintosh desktop
computers. Interviews for original articles, such as the Grower Profile and Researcher in the News, are done on
location. Scientists are involved, as much as their time allows, in writing special features.
The design, layout, and printing of brochures and handouts are also done at the Beaumont Center. Poster
size materials are printed on the HP Design Jet 755CM which has the capability of printing a document 36”
wide and up to 100 feet long.
Time Line
Texas Rice was published 9 times in 2004, March through October with a winter issue in December.
Area high school career days were held in the spring, and recruitment seminars were in late May, just before
school let out for the summer. Community presentations and station tours were a year-round endeavor.
150
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTeeeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassss AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgggggggricultuuuuuuuuuuurrrraaaall EEEExxpppppeeeeerrrrriiiiiimmmmmeeeennnnnnnttttttTexas Agricultural Experiment
SSSSSSSSSSSSStttttttttttttaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttttiionnnnnnnnnnnStation BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnntttttttttttt ,,,,,,,, TTTTTTTTTTTTeeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxaasssssssssssBeaumont, Texas
FFFFFuuuuuuuunnnnnnnddddddddddeeeeedddddd bbbbbbyyyyyFunded by
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssss RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeTexas Rice RRRRRRRRRRRReeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh FFFooooooooouuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnddddddddddaaaaaaaattttiiiiioooooonnnnnnnnn Research Foundation
Compiled by Dr. Jim Stansel and Regina Tate - Texas A&M University Systems
Survey data from dryers, sales offices, agribusiness, USDA/CFSA and County Extension Agents as appropriate
2004 - TEXAS RICE CROP
B04-1a
151
1509 Aggie Drive
Beaumont, TX 77713-9185
Phone 409/752-2741 Fax 409/752-5560
Dear Reader:
We extend our thanks and gratitude to the numerous respondents who submit their best estimates used in
this report. The utility of this data is only as good as the respondent’s willingness to provide good and timely
information. They have been willing to take their valuable time every week throughout the season to provide
the best information possible to farmers and other in the Texas rice industry.
This effort was funded by the rice producer’s voluntary check-off funds administered by the Texas Rice
Research Foundation and by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Beaumont. This report will be
available on the web at http://beaumont.tamu.edu.
Sincerely,
Jim Stansel
Project Coordinator
Regina Tate
Project Statistician
152
Table of Contents Page
2004 Crop Season Summary............................................................................................................ 1
Texas Rice Areas Map .................................................................................................................... 3
Texas Rice Acreage, Yield & Quality Collaborators........................................................................ 4
Texas Rice Acreage by Variety & County ....................................................................................... 5
Percent Variety Acres by Zone........................................................................................................ 6
11-Year Texas Rice Planted Acres Comparison............................................................................... 7
Texas Rice Trends – Variety Effects on Yield ................................................................................. 8
Texas Rice Trends – Technology Effects on Yield .......................................................................... 9
11-Year Texas Rice Acreage, Yields & Production Comparison...................................................... 10
Texas Field Yields by Variety (Main Crop) ..................................................................................... 11
Texas Field Yields by Zone & Varieties by Zone
East Zone Totals........................................................................................................................ 12
Cheniere, CL121, CL161........................................................................................................... 13
Cocodrie, Jefferson, XL8........................................................................................................... 14
County Yield & Quality
Brazoria & Chambers .......................................................................................................... 15
Jefferson & Liberty.............................................................................................................. 16
Northwest Zone Totals............................................................................................................... 17
Cheniere, CL161, Cocodrie ....................................................................................................... 18
Cypress, Wells, XL8.................................................................................................................. 19
County Yield & Quality
Colorado & Fort Bend ......................................................................................................... 20
Harris & Lavaca .................................................................................................................. 21
Waller & Wharton ............................................................................................................... 22
Southwest Zone Totals ............................................................................................................... 23
Cheniere, CL161, Cocodrie ....................................................................................................... 24
Cypress, Dixiebelle, Jefferson ................................................................................................... 25
Milagro, Risotto, XL8 ............................................................................................................... 26
County Yield & Quality
Jackson & Matagorda .......................................................................................................... 27
Victoria ............................................................................................................................... 28
Main Crop Yields – 4-Year Comparison.......................................................................................... 29
Texas Field Yields – Ratoon Crop................................................................................................... 30
Texas Rice Crop Weekly Statistics Collaborators ............................................................................ 35
Texas Crop Rice Development Statistics ......................................................................................... 36
Percent Planted Chart ................................................................................................................ 37
Percent Seedling Emergence...................................................................................................... 38
Percent Sustained Flood ............................................................................................................ 39
Percent Panicle Differentiation .................................................................................................. 40
Percent Headed.......................................................................................................................... 41
Percent Harvested (Main Crop) ................................................................................................. 42
Percent Harvested (Ratoon Crop) .............................................................................................. 43
Texas Rice - Conservation Tillage, Precision Leveled & Irrigation Water Source............................ 44
Historic Texas Year End Rice Stocks Collaborators ........................................................................ 45
Historic Texas Rice Stocks.............................................................................................................. 46
153
2004 Crop Season Summary
Jim Stansel
The 2004 rice crop season was characterized by variable weather patterns across the rice belt. March
was warmer than normal with average rainfall after a wet winter. Then cold weather hit in mid April with
temperatures falling into the mid 40’s. Heavy rains and cloud cover in May, June and July, particularly along
the coastal areas of the rice belt, significantly impacted the rice crop. Mid August temperatures were among the
coolest on record with temperatures falling to 60 degrees. Near record high temperatures were recorded for the
last half of October.
Planting dates were highly variable across the state. Planting was very late in the eastern rice belt, but
closer to normal in the western areas. There were some late plantings due to the increase in acreage, especially
in the east. Planted acres increased 39% in the east while the western areas increased about 17%. The state
acreage increase was 22%. The 216,810 acres was the highest acreage since 1999.
Main crop harvest was 11 days later than normal across the rice belt. Main crop yields averaged 6,231
lbs/ac (38.6 bbls/ac), slightly above 2003, but well below 2002. Yields were reported on 51,290 acres.
Cocodrie was the most popular variety (59% of the total reported acreage) followed by CL161 (11%) and
Cheniere (10%). The Rice Tech hybrids are becoming more popular being grown on about 4% of the acres.
Ratoon crop yields averaged 2,402 lbs/ac (15bbls/ac dry) on 10,173 reported acres from 84 fields across
the rice belt. This was higher than the 2002 and 2003 crops. Only 35% of the acres were ratoon cropped the
lowest percentage since 1999. The rice belt average since 2000 is 40%.
CLXL8 had the highest ratoon crop of yield (2,862 lbs/ac, 18 bbls/ac dry) on 648 reported acres from 5
fields. Cocodrie was a close second with yield of 2,691 lbs/ac (17 bbls/ac dry) from 4,159 acres reported from
30 fields. Jefferson, Dixiebelle, Cypress, XL8 and CL161 all yielded about 2,300 lbs/ac (14 bbls/ac dry).
Cheniere yielded 1,983 lbs/ac (12 bbls/ac dry). Keep in mind these estimates are based on a low sample of
10,173 acres from 84 reported fields. However, they do give good perspective of general ratoon crop
performance.
Total production for Texas is estimated to be a little over 14 million hundred weights below 2003 and
about the same as 2000-2002 production. Texas rice production in 2004 was about the same as 1993, but was
produced on 80,000 less acres. Yields increased 21% since 1993 (1,165 lbs/ac, 7 bbls/ac dry) and 2004 was not
the highest yielding year. This provides an insight into the impact of technology and crop management on the
productivity of the Texas rice growers.
Conservation tillage of some type was reported on 30% of the 2004 acres. That compares to 32% in
2003 and 52% in 2002. Summer and fall weather patterns which facilitate land preparations greatly impacts the
number of conservation tillage acres.
More detailed information is available in the 2004 Texas Rice Crop Statistics – B04-1a published by the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Beaumont. This information is available in hard copy or CD.
East Zone: Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange Counties
Planting in late March and early April was hit by the mid April cold weather which occurred when about
40% of the crop that was planted. Further planting was delayed until late April to mid May, some of which was
due to acreage increases. Overall planting was 9 days later than normal. Additional cool wet weather in June
further delayed the crop and heading was 18 days later than normal. The wet cloudy weather in late June (12
inches of rainfall) occurred when about 20% of the crop was heading. Abnormally cool weather in late July and
August impacted about 50% of the crop still in the field. Late rice yields appeared to be better than early
planted rice, due to the June and July weather. Normally, earlier planted rice yields are best. The east zone
main crop yields were about average (5,634 lbs/ac, 35 bbls/ac dry on 71 reported fields) and slightly higher
154
(about 324 lbs/ac or 2 bbls/ac dry) than 2003. XL8 and Cheniere was the highest main crop yielding varieties in
the east zone, yielding 6,643 and 6,340 lbs/ac (41 and 39 bbls/ac dry) on 8 and 6 fields reported respectively.
Cocodrie produced 5,993 lbs/ac (37 bbls/ac dry) on 14 fields reported. Cheniere had the highest milling yields
(No. 2.0, 64/72) and XL8 had the lowest (No. 2.3, 58/70). CL161 yielded 5,217 lbs/ac (32bbls/ac dry) and had
milling yields of No. 1, 61/69 on 4,947 acres from 39 fields. CL161 was the second most popular variety in the
east zone (21% of the acres) behind Cocodrie (57% of the acres).
Northwest Zone: Colorado, Fort Bend, Harris, Lavaca, Waller, Wharton Counties
Plantings in the northwest area were 2 days earlier than average, but were 6 to 8 days later than 2002
and 2003. The mid April cold weather hit when 79% of the crop had been planted. May and June had higher
than normal rainfall, but escaped most of the very heavy rains further south. However, 23% of the crop was
heading during the rains and high cloud cover which reduced yields more than other areas. Cooler than normal
temperatures in late June and July slowed crop development, but probably increased later planted yields.
Harvest was 8 days behind normal. Main crop yields averaged 6,460 lbs/ac (40 bbls/ac on 19,510 acres from
196 reported fields). Yields were lower than 2003 (6,798 lbs/ac, 42 bbls/ac dry), 2002 (7,073 lbs/ac, 44 bbls/ac
dry) and 2001 (7,020 lbs/ac, 43 bbls/ac dry).
Cocodrie was the predominant variety in the area and was grown on 61% of the acres. Cheniere was
planted on 13% of the acres followed by CL161 (8%) and Cypress (7%). Cheniere and Cocodrie yields were
similar (about 6,600 lbs/ac, 41bbls/ac dry). XL8 averaged 6,400 lbs/ac (40 bbls/ac dry) and CL161 averaged
6,300 lbs/ac (39 bbls/ac dry). Cheniere had the highest milling yields (No. 1.3, 63/72) with Cocodrie a No. 2,
61/72. CL161 was a No.1.3, 62/70 and XL8 was a No. 1.1, 58/72.
Southwest Zone: Jackson, Matagorda, Victoria, Southern Wharton Counties
Plantings in the southwest area were 4 days later than normal. The cool wet weather took its toll as
heading was 9 days later than normal and harvest was 8 days behind normal. The bad weather caught 34% of
the crop at or near heading, the most critical stage.
Main crop yields in the region averaged 6,244 lbs/ac (38 bbls/ac dry) on 16,653 reported acres. 2004
yields were 389 lbs/ac (2.4 bbls/ac dry) above 2003, but 653 lbs/ac (4 bbls/ac dry) lower than 2002. The most
popular variety in the southwest region continues to be Cocodrie (58% of the acres) followed by Cypress (17%
of the acres). Jefferson and Cheniere each were planted on 6 and 9% of the acres respectively. Dixiebelle was
planted on 5% of the areas acres.
Dixiebelle had the highest main crop yield in the area averaging 6,609 lbs/ac (41 bbls/ac dry) on 2,499
reported acres from 24 fields. Milling averaged a No. 2, 60/70. Cheniere had the next highest yield of 6,498
lbs/ac (40 bbls/ac dry) on 2,400 reported acres from 28 fields. Cheniere had a No. 1.4, 61/71 milling. Cocodrie
was third highest yield with 6,289 lbs/ac (39 bbls/ac dry). Jefferson, CL161 and Cypress all yielded about the
same (5,800 lbs/ac, 36 bbls/ac). Cypress had the highest milling of all varieties with a No. 1.6, 62/71. XL8 was
reported on only 2 fields, but yielded about the same as Cocodrie. Its quality was No. 2, 58/70 but only 2 fields
were reported.
155
156
2004
Texas Rice Acreage, Yield and Quality
List of Collaborators
Respondents Variety
Acreage
County
Acreage
Field
Yield/Quality
American Rice Growers Anahuac - James Hewitt
American Rice Growers Dayton - Aaron Holbrook
American Rice Growers Garwood - Vivian Spanihel
American Rice Growers Richmond
Area Rice Marketing - Tom Kallina
Beaumont Rice Mills - Johnny Setliff
Brookshire Drying Co. - Pam Wostarek
Brushy Creek Farm & Land - David Basinger
BU Growers - Joe Crane
Chocolate Bayou Water Company - Jimmy Greak
County Farm Service Agency - L.G. Raun
Doguet Rice Mill - Mike Doguet
East Bernard Rice Marketing - Jay Davis
Farmers Canal & Trull Service Co. - Dan Tucker
Garrett Farms - Jacko Garrett, Traci Harvey
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority - Dave Dodd
Gulf Coast Water Authority - David Sauer
Hall’s Bayou Ranch - David LeCompte
Hegar Farms - Glenn A. Hegar
LCRA - Garwood, Gulf Coast, Lakeside
Lower Neches Valley Authority - Robert Harris
Martin Farm - Don Martin
Pierce Ranch - Laurance Armour Jr.
Rice Belt Warehouse Bay City - John Dippel
Rice Belt Warehouse Blessing - Andy Jasek, Sunny Pierce
Rice Belt Warehouse Edna - Ralph Novasod
Rice Belt Warehouse El Campo - Jimmy Pavlik
Rice Belt Warehouse Ganado - Rodney Tegeler
Sabine River Authority - Gulf Coast Div. - Paul Jeanis
Winco AgriProducts – Davis Waddell
Woods Interests - J.D. ADes@ Woods
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
157
20
04
Tex
as
Ric
e A
crea
ge
by
Va
riet
y a
nd
Cou
nty
20
03
2
00
4
Lo
ng
Gra
in
Med
.
Co
un
ty
Acre
ag
e
Acre
ag
e
Co
co
dri
e
Cy
pre
ss
Jeff
ers
on
C
L 1
61
F
ran
cis
C
hen
iere
C
L X
L8
S
ab
er
Dix
ie
Bell
e
Well
s
XP
71
0
XL
8
Ben
gal
Oth
er*
Ch
an
ge i
n A
cre
age
fro
m 2
00
3
Ea
st Z
on
e:
B
razo
ria
10
,646
1
5,7
48
1
1,8
62
3
94
7
87
7
87
3
94
1
00
0
0
0
3
00
0
0
0
1
,12
4
47
.9%
C
ham
bers
1
0,9
37
1
6,0
24
8
,44
2
0
20
0
1,4
27
7
14
2
,85
5
71
4
0
0
0
0
1,6
72
0
0
4
6.5
%
G
alv
est
on
7
81
8
47
8
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
.5%
H
ard
in
73
8
76
2
38
2
0
0
76
3
8
15
2
38
0
0
0
0
7
6
0
0
3.3
%
J
eff
ers
on
1
5,1
87
1
9,9
54
9
,47
6
0
20
0
8,9
79
0
2
00
0
2
00
0
0
0
4
00
3
99
1
00
3
1.4
%
L
ibert
y
7,7
88
1
0,4
75
5
,42
0
0
0
2,3
63
2
38
9
51
6
27
0
0
0
0
8
76
0
0
3
4.5
%
O
ran
ge
0
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
20
0.0
%
Ea
st T
ota
l 4
6,0
77
6
3,9
00
3
6,4
29
3
94
1
,18
7
13
,632
1
,38
4
4,2
58
1
,37
9
20
0
0
30
0
0
3,0
24
4
89
1
,22
4
38
.7%
No
rth
west
Zo
ne:
A
ust
in
1,6
84
2
,31
3
1,5
06
0
3
20
5
2
0
43
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
.4%
C
olo
rad
o
28
,572
3
3,2
73
2
0,8
07
7
52
1
,20
0
3,0
17
5
11
6
,66
2
11
6
0
0
0
0
20
8
0
0
16
.5%
H
arr
is
1,6
64
1
,52
2
79
0
0
0
0
2
77
4
72
0
0
0
0
6
94
0
0
-8
.5%
L
av
aca
1
,58
2
2,1
89
1
,67
3
35
7
0
0
0
15
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
.4%
W
all
er
7
,30
0
7,8
68
4
,60
8
0
0
0
0
1,9
27
4
64
0
0
0
4
5
37
1
0
45
3
7.8
%
W
hart
on
4
6,4
54
5
3,4
13
3
2,8
68
5
,91
9
2,8
35
5
,21
0
63
9
3,6
48
0
0
8
00
4
91
8
46
1
57
0
0
1
5.0
%
No
rth
west
To
tal
87
,256
1
00
,57
8
61
,541
7
,02
8
4,3
55
8
,27
9
1,1
50
1
3,1
08
1
,05
2
0
80
0
49
1
89
1
1,4
30
0
4
53
1
5.3
%
So
uth
west
Zo
ne:
C
alh
oun
1
,89
7
2,4
88
2
,18
8
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
31
.2%
F
t. B
en
d
6,5
25
7
,93
3
6,8
75
0
0
0
0
9
41
0
0
0
0
0
1
17
0
0
2
1.6
%
J
ack
son
1
3,5
10
1
4,7
34
7
,07
3
3,3
32
3
31
1
,70
0
36
1
,49
6
48
0
5
00
3
6
0
18
2
0
0
9.1
%
M
ata
go
rda
18
,884
2
3,6
72
1
1,9
39
5
,41
6
2,4
44
3
00
0
1
,71
2
0
0
18
61
0
0
0
0
0
2
5.4
%
V
icto
ria
1,2
47
1
,35
6
1,2
56
0
0
0
0
1
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
.7%
So
uth
west
To
tal
42
,063
5
0,1
83
2
9,3
31
8
,74
8
2,7
75
2
,00
0
36
4
,34
9
48
0
2
46
1
36
0
3
99
0
0
1
9.3
%
No
rth
ea
st Z
on
e:
B
ow
ie
1,3
32
1
,51
0
65
4
0
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
6
92
0
7
7
0
0
13
.3%
H
op
kin
s 7
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
00
.0%
R
ed
Riv
er
58
7
63
9
63
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.9
%
No
rth
ea
st T
ota
l 2
,63
2
2,1
49
1
,29
3
0
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
6
92
0
7
7
0
0
-18
.4%
20
03
To
tal
Acreag
e
17
8,0
28
12
7,5
71
1
7,8
90
6
,58
6
17
,476
1
,30
2
0
0
92
3
53
6
93
8
0
1,1
49
5
66
3
,09
1
20
03
Perc
en
tag
e
10
0.0
%
7
1.7
%
10
.0%
3
.7%
9
.8%
0
.7%
0
.0%
0
.0%
0
.5%
0
.3%
0
.5%
0
.0%
0
.6%
0
.3%
1
.7%
20
04
To
tal
Acreag
e
2
16
,81
0
12
8,5
94
1
6,1
70
8
,31
7
23
,998
2
,57
0
21
,715
2
,47
9
20
0
3,2
61
1
,51
9
89
1
4,9
30
4
89
1
,67
7
21
.8%
20
04
Perc
en
tag
e
1
00
.0%
5
9.3
1%
7
.5%
3
.8%
1
1.1
%
1.2
%
10
.0%
1
.1%
0
.1%
1
.5%
0
.6%
0
.4%
2
.3%
0
.2%
0
.8%
158
TE
XA
S
2004 –
Perc
ent
Va
rie
ty A
cre
s b
y Z
on
e
ZO
NE
2
00
4
LO
NG
GR
AIN
M
ED
A
CR
EA
GE
C
OC
OD
RIE
C
YP
RE
SS
J
EF
FE
RS
ON
C
L 1
61
F
RA
NC
IS
CH
EN
IER
E
CL
XL
8
XL
8
BE
NG
AL
O
TH
ER
*
EA
ST
TO
TA
L
63
,90
0
57
%
1%
2
%
21
%
2%
7
%
2%
5
%
1%
3
%
NO
RT
HW
ES
T T
OT
AL
1
00
,57
8
61
%
7%
4
%
8%
1
%
13
%
1%
1
%
0%
3
%
SO
UT
HW
ES
T T
OT
AL
5
0,1
83
5
8%
1
7%
6
%
4%
0
%
9%
0
%
1%
0
%
5%
NO
RT
HE
AS
T T
OT
AL
2
,14
9
60
%
0%
0
%
4%
0
%
0%
0
%
4%
0
%
32
%
20
03
TO
TA
L
AC
RE
AG
E
1
27
,57
1
17
,89
0
6,5
86
1
7,4
76
1
,30
2
0
0
1,1
49
5
66
6
,05
4
20
03
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
71
.70
%
10
.00
%
3.7
0%
9
.80
%
0.7
0%
0
.00
%
0.0
0%
0
.60
%
0.3
0%
3
.50
%
20
04
TO
TA
L
AC
RE
AG
E
21
6,8
10
1
28
,59
4
16
,17
0
8,3
17
2
3,9
98
2
,57
0
21
,71
5
2,4
79
4
,93
0
48
9
6,6
57
20
04
PE
RC
EN
TA
GE
1
00
%
59
.31
%
7.4
6%
3
.84
%
11
.07
%
1.1
9%
1
0.0
2%
1
.14
%
2.2
7%
0
.23
%
3.0
7%
159
11
-Yea
r T
exa
s R
ice
Pla
nte
d A
cres
Co
mp
ari
son
R
ICE
PL
AN
TE
D A
CR
ES
*
CO
UN
TY
1
99
4
19
95
1
99
6
19
97
1
99
8
19
99
2
00
0
20
01
2
00
2
20
03
2
00
4
AU
ST
IN
3,1
72
2
,36
6
2,4
79
2
,87
8
2,6
73
2
,70
2
2,4
35
2
,60
1
1,6
94
1
,68
4
2,3
13
BO
WIE
1
,45
9
1,6
00
1
,60
0
1,1
36
1
,32
9
1,5
38
1
,03
0
1,4
35
1
,28
7
1,3
32
1
,51
0
BR
AZ
OR
IA
32
,70
1
29
,97
5
16
,81
8
21
,88
8
18
,71
8
19
,24
1
17
,16
3
15
,27
9
14
,96
9
10
,39
5
15
,74
8
CA
LH
OU
N
5,6
82
4
,87
5
4,7
60
2
,50
2
3,8
51
3
,16
4
1,5
68
1
,46
8
1,4
98
1
,89
7
2,4
88
CH
AM
BE
RS
2
9,9
32
2
8,2
17
2
0,9
06
2
0,4
11
2
1,6
72
1
7,1
97
1
1,4
32
1
3,4
38
1
2,6
92
1
0,9
37
1
6,0
24
CO
LO
RA
DO
4
1,7
83
3
7,5
51
3
6,2
00
3
6,0
91
3
5,6
98
3
3,5
22
3
1,1
36
3
2,1
10
3
0,7
26
2
8,5
72
3
3,2
73
FO
RT
BE
ND
1
1,4
99
1
1,2
07
9
,41
8
10
,68
0
10
,17
9
9,0
06
8
,89
4
8,6
52
8
,61
5
6,0
71
7
,93
3
GA
LV
ES
TO
N
3,7
80
2
,99
3
2,1
44
2
,11
0
1,9
93
1
,59
0
1,3
60
7
68
1
,16
6
78
1
84
7
HA
RD
IN
75
2
46
3
71
4
90
0
1,1
85
1
,05
2
1,0
93
8
01
6
33
7
38
7
62
HA
RR
IS
9,3
63
8
,09
5
6,6
54
6
,48
4
6,1
87
4
,87
5
2,9
57
1
,97
5
2,0
83
1
,66
4
1,5
22
HO
PK
INS
6
00
7
50
7
00
1
,56
3
1,5
63
1
,14
1
1,5
62
1
,47
3
1,0
34
7
13
0
JAC
KS
ON
3
0,9
20
2
7,5
61
2
5,2
35
2
0,5
21
2
0,1
28
1
8,3
55
1
6,2
08
1
4,9
53
1
3,2
14
1
3,0
57
1
4,7
34
JEF
FE
RS
ON
3
3,8
49
3
2,3
24
2
6,1
02
2
4,9
47
2
4,4
22
2
2,6
55
1
8,5
19
1
8,5
75
1
8,3
89
1
5,0
37
1
9,9
54
LA
VA
CA
4
,04
0
3,5
72
3
,70
3
2,6
82
2
,45
2
2,0
06
2
,52
3
1,7
46
1
,69
0
1,5
82
2
,18
9
LIB
ER
TY
2
3,8
54
1
9,3
86
1
1,0
71
1
4,0
74
1
8,7
06
1
4,3
28
8
,74
0
12
,70
5
9,0
73
7
,94
9
10
,47
5
MA
TA
GO
RD
A
35
,40
9
30
,24
6
26
,69
2
26
,81
4
30
,51
8
28
,59
8
23
,03
6
24
,95
8
24
,51
6
18
,87
8
23
,67
2
OR
AN
GE
1
,52
0
1,3
01
7
32
7
50
2
,24
8
36
2
53
1
35
4
41
4
0
90
RE
D R
IVE
R
1,0
00
1
,05
0
47
9
51
9
41
1
,10
0
70
9
96
5
1,0
17
5
87
6
39
VIC
TO
RIA
4
,19
0
3,8
24
2
,77
5
2,9
41
3
,30
2
2,4
01
1
,93
7
1,9
77
1
,74
8
1,2
47
1
,35
6
WA
LL
ER
7
,34
3
6,7
85
5
,67
7
6,7
41
6
,69
4
6,1
42
6
,20
6
6,9
51
6
,91
7
7,1
68
7
,86
8
WH
AR
TO
N
63
,43
3
61
,11
8
58
,93
0
50
,73
7
57
,53
0
55
,25
3
52
,20
5
50
,52
0
49
,13
9
41
,66
4
53
,41
3
To
tal
34
6,2
80
3
15
,25
9
26
3,3
57
2
57
,79
9
27
1,9
89
2
46
,22
7
21
1,2
41
2
13
,70
3
20
2,5
14
1
71
,95
2
21
6,8
10
*U
SD
A -
FS
A C
erti
fied
pla
nte
d a
cres
Tex
as
Ric
e T
ren
ds
- V
ari
ety
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Eff
ect
on
Yie
lds
0
1,0
00
2,0
00
3,0
00
4,0
00
5,0
00
6,0
00
7,0
00
8,0
00 19
30
1933
1936
1939
1942
1945
1948
1951
1954
1957
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
Ye
ar
Yields (Lbs. per acre)
Texas Patna - 1942
Bluebonnet - 1944
TP 49 - 1948
Bluebonnet 50 & Century Patna 231 - 1951
Belle Patna - 1961
Bluebelle - 1965
Labelle - 1972
Lemont - 1983
Gulfmont - 1986
Jeffeson - 1996
Cypress - 1994
Cocodrie - 1998
CL161 & Cheniere - 2003
XL8 - 2004
2004
Tex
as
Fie
ld Y
ield
s b
y V
ari
ety
(Ma
in
Cro
p)
Tex
as
Ric
e T
red
s -
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Eff
ect
on
Yie
lds
5,0
00
6,0
00
7,0
00
y Lab Est. 1958
Zinc Def. ControlRice Research Check-off
Ordram Propanil & Ag Chem Rsch
Rice Production Newsletter
Sheath Blight Tolerant Variety
ink Bug
ce Production
Facet Herbicide anagement
imilinCinch Bug Control
& Conservation tillageommand
Hybridsrs US Cultivars
ont Est. 1909
ed - 1941
n
0
1,0
00
2,0
00
3,0
00
4,0
00 19
0519
0819
1119
1419
1719
2019
2319
2619
2919
3219
3519
3819
4119
4419
4719
5019
5319
5619
5919
6219
6519
6819
7119
7419
7719
8019
8319
8619
8919
9219
9519
9820
01
Ye
ar
Yield (Lbs. per acre)
Clearfield Technology, C
Blackbird MBlast Resistant Sheth Blight Tolerant Variety
Karate, Icon D
Methane Emissions Quantified & Reduced Tillage for RiChlorophyll Meter for PD Nitrogen
DNA Markers for TX Varieties & GA Seed Trt
Tresholds for Rice St
Combine HarvestTAES relocated
Early Maturing Variety
Rice QualitVery Early Maturing Variety,
Ratoon Cropping & Propanil
Blast Resistant Variety
Multiple N Applications
Fungicide for Blast ControlDD-50 Program & Rice Production Guidlines
Econo Rice & Smei-Dwarfs
Water Conservation Research
TAES Beaum
USDA Research Est. 1914
TRIA form
DNA Marke
162
11
-Yea
r T
exa
s R
ice
Acr
eag
e, Y
ield
s &
Pro
du
ctio
n C
om
pa
riso
n
Cro
p Y
ear
Pla
nte
d
Acr
es*
Yie
ld (
lb/A
)
Main
Cro
p**
Yie
ld (
lb/A
)
Ra
too
n
Cro
p**
Main
Cro
p
Ra
too
ned
**
Yie
ld
(lb
/A)
Tota
l**
P
rod
uct
ion
**
*
1993
296,1
93
5,0
54
1,1
68
34%
5,4
51
14,3
83,0
37
1994
345,6
80
5,9
44
984
43%
6,1
95
22,0
89,6
62
1995
315,1
08
5,4
74
1,2
69
32%
5,3
40
16,8
26,8
75
1996
263,4
07
5,9
42
1,4
02
46%
6,5
87
17,3
50,8
30
1997
256,9
44
5,2
82
916
42%
5,6
08
14,4
08,9
71
1998
271,9
89
5,4
72
1,2
00
54%
5,8
42
15,8
91,0
08
1999
246,2
27
5,8
18
1,3
62
26%
6,1
72
15,1
96,1
50
2000
209,6
79
6,2
52
1,3
75
37%
6,7
61
14,1
76,9
44
2001
213,7
04
6,2
76
1,2
69
49%
6,8
98
14,7
41,2
50
2002
205,7
48
6,6
85
1,0
15
37%
7,0
61
14,5
26,9
40
2003
178,0
27
6,0
65
866
38%
6,3
94
11,3
83,9
05
Avg.
93-0
3
254,7
91
5,8
42
1,1
66
40%
6,2
10
15,5
43,2
34
2004
216,8
10
6,2
31
1,1
05
35%
6,6
16
14,3
44,1
50**
*U
SD
A-F
SA
cer
tifi
ed p
lante
d a
cres
**T
AM
US
-Bea
um
ont
Cro
p s
urv
ey d
ata
***U
.S. R
ice
Pro
duce
rs A
ssoci
atio
n –
chec
k-o
ff c
oll
ecti
ons
163
20
04
Tex
as
Fie
ld Y
ield
s b
y V
ari
ety
(Ma
in C
ro
p)
Dec.
14
, 2
00
4
20
04
2
00
3
Nu
mb
er
Rep
ort
ed
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
Mil
lin
g
Mil
lin
g
Nu
mb
er
Rep
ort
ed
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
Mil
lin
g
Mil
lin
g
of
Fie
lds
Acre
ag
e lb
s/
bb
ls/
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
of
Fie
lds
Acre
ag
e lb
s/
bb
ls/
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
Va
riety
R
ep
ort
ed
A
cre
A
cre
%
H
%T
G
rad
e R
ep
ort
ed
A
cre
A
cre
%
H
%T
G
rad
e
Co
cod
rie
24
5
27
,39
8
6,3
95
3
9
60
.9
70
.8
2.1
1
87
1
9,0
63
6
,22
0
38
6
0.6
7
0.8
2
.1
Cy
pre
ss
33
3
,15
5
5,8
45
3
6
61
.8
70
.6
1.8
6
4
7,2
57
5
,92
6
37
6
1.2
6
9.5
1
.7
CL
16
1
62
7
,47
0
5,5
73
3
4
60
.8
68
.9
1.8
3
2
4,0
10
5
,55
5
34
6
0.5
6
8.4
1
.6
Dix
ieb
elle
2
5
2,4
99
6
,60
9
41
6
0.4
7
0.3
2
N
/A
N/A
N
/A
N/A
N
/A
N/A
N
/A
Jef
fers
on
1
3
12
89
5
,82
4
36
6
0.7
7
0
2
13
1
,57
4
6,2
70
3
9
56
.8
69
2
.2
XL
8
18
1
,94
7
6,5
17
4
0
58
.3
71
.1
1.7
1
1
48
3
5,6
04
3
5
56
.7
68
1
.6
Wel
ls
5
46
5
6,1
74
3
8
59
.5
72
2
2
1
41
7
,35
8
45
6
2.5
7
3
2
Ch
enie
re
76
6
,03
5
6,5
58
4
0
62
.1
71
.6
1.4
1
5
92
5
,70
3
35
6
7
73
1
To
tal:
4
77
5
0,2
58
30
7
32
,38
7
Wei
gh
ted
Av
era
ge:
6
,23
1
38
6
0.9
7
0.6
1
.9
6,0
65
3
7
60
.5
70
.1
1.9
C
om
pil
ed b
y D
r. J
im S
tan
sel
and
Reg
ina T
ate,
TA
ES
-Bea
um
on
t.
D
ata
are
co
mp
iled
fro
m T
exas
ric
e b
elt
gro
wer
rep
ort
s, r
ice
dry
ers
and
mar
keti
ng
off
ices
.
A
ll y
ield
s ar
e a
dju
sted
to
12
per
cen
t m
ois
ture
an
d w
eig
hte
d f
or
field
siz
e an
d r
epo
rted
acr
es.
164
Texas Rice Yield & Quality Summary
EAST ZONE Brazoria ~ Chambers ~ Galveston ~ Jefferson ~ Liberty ~ Orange
MAIN
CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.2 69.6
2.
0
Weighted Yield 5,634 35 East Average Harvest Dates
7-
Aug
11-
Aug
Number of Fields 71 Number of Fields 66
Total Acres
Reported 8,006
Average Harvest
Moisture 19.4
Highest Yield 7,577 47 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0
1.
0
Lowest Yield 3,822 24 Lowest Quality 55.0 65.0
3.
0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
EAST 2004
Variety Number Reported Yield Yield Milling Milling Grade
of Fields Acreage lbs./ bbls/ Yield Yield
Reported Acre Acre %H %T
Cheniere 6 496 6,340 39 63.8 71.6 2
CL121 3 406 5,130 32 62.7 70.3 2
CL161 36 4,541 5,249 32 61.3 68.9 1.9
Cocodrie 14 1,226 6,050 37 61.3 70 2.3
Jefferson 3 234 5,528 34 61.5 69.5 2
Wells 1 161 6,692 41 N/A N/A N/A
XL8 8 942 6,643 41 58.4 70.4 2.3
Total: 70 8,006
Weighted
Average: 5,634 35 61.2 69.6 2
165
East Zone – Variety Statistics Brazoria ~ Chambers ~ Galveston ~ Jefferson ~ Liberty ~ Orange
CHENIERE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 63.8 71.6 2.0
Weighted Yield 6,340 39 East Average Harvest Dates 4-Aug 6-Aug
Number of Fields 6 Variety: Number of Fields 5
Total Acres
Reported 496
Chenier
e
Average Harvest
Moisture 19.3
Highest Yield 7,577 47 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 3,889 24 Lowest Quality 62.0 71.0 2.0
CL121
MAIN
CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 62.7 70.3 2.0
Weighted Yield 5,130 32 East Average Harvest Dates
8-
Aug
11-
Aug
Number of Fields 3 Variety: Number of Fields 3
Total Acres Reported 406 CL121
Average Harvest
Moisture 19.9
Highest Yield 5,852 36 Highest Quality 65.0 71.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 3,822 24 Lowest Quality 59.0 70.0 2.0
CL161
MAIN
CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.3 68.9
1.
9
Weighted Yield 5,249 32 East Average Harvest Dates
10-
Aug
15-
Aug
Number of Fields 36 Variety: Number of Fields 35
Total Acres
Reported 4,541 CL161
Average Harvest
Moisture 19.7
Highest Yield 7,303 45 Highest Quality 64.0 70.0
1.
0
Lowest Yield 3,931 24 Lowest Quality 55.0 65.0
3.
0
166
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
COCODRIE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.3 70.0 2.3
Weighted Yield 6,050 37 East Average Harvest Dates 6-Aug 8-Aug
Number of Fields 14 Variety: Number of Fields 13
Total Acres
Reported 1,226
Cocodri
e
Average Harvest
Moisture 18.7
Highest Yield 7,086 44 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 4,176 26 Lowest Quality 57.0 67.0 3.0
JEFFERSON
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.5 69.5 2.0
Weighted Yield 5,528 34 East Average Harvest Dates 27-Jul 29-Jul
Number of Fields 3 Variety: Number of Fields 2
Total Acres Reported 234 Jefferson Average Harvest Moisture 19.7
Highest Yield 5,917 37 Highest Quality 62.0 70.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 5,064 31 Lowest Quality 61.0 69.0 2.0
XL8
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 58.4 70.4 2.3
Weighted Yield 6,643 41 East Average Harvest Dates 31-Jul 5-Aug
Number of Fields 8 Variety: Number of Fields 8
Total Acres Reported 942 XL8 Average Harvest Moisture 20.0
Highest Yield 7,358 45 Highest Quality 61.0 71.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 5,403 33 Lowest Quality 55.0 69.0 3.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
COCODRIE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.3 70.0 2.3
Weighted Yield 6,050 37 East Average Harvest Dates 6-Aug 8-Aug
Number of Fields 14 Variety: Nu er of Fields mb 13
Total Acres Reported 1,226 Cocodrie Average Harvest Moisture 18.7
Highest Yield 44 7,086 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 4,176 26 Lowest Quality 57.0 67.0 3.0
JEFFERSON
IN CRO MA P
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ Zone: ac Quality Average 61.5 69.5 2.0
Weighted Yield East 5,528 34 Average Harvest Dates 2 27-Jul 9-Jul
Numbe Variety: r of Fields 3 Number of Fields 2
Total A Jefferson cres Reported 234 Average Harvest Moisture 19.7
Highest Yield 5,917 37 Highest Quality 62.0 70.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 5,064 31 Lowest Quality 61.0 69.0 2.0
XL8
AIN CROP M
umma Qu ata ary Yield Data S ry ality D Summ
lbs/ac bbls/ac : Zone Quality erag Av e .4 .4 2.358 70
Weighted Yield 6,643 41 East Averag rvest Dates ul g e Ha 31-J 5-Au
Number of Fields 8 Variety: Number of Fields 8
Total rted 942 Acres Repo XL8 Averag rvest Moisture 0.0 e Ha 2
Highe 7,358 45 st Yield Highes alityt Qu .0 .0 2.061 71
Lowest Yield 5,403 33 Lowest lity Qua .0 0 3.055 69.
– 12% moisture
t
Yields
Quality – in percen
168
East Zone – County Statistics Brazoria ~ Chambers ~ Galveston ~ Jefferson ~ Liberty ~ Orange
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average N/A N/A
N/
A
Weighted Yield 6,831 42
Brazori
a Average Harvest Dates
7-
Aug
11-
Aug
Number of Fields 5 Number of Fields 0
Total Acres
Reported 480
Average Harvest
Moisture 15.9
Highest Yield 7,577 47 Highest Quality 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lowest Yield 5,917 37 Lowest Quality 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 61.1 69.6
2.
2
Weighted Yield 5,189 32
Chamber
s Average Harvest Dates
8-
Aug
13-
Aug
Number of Fields 18 Number of Fields 18
Total Acres
Reported 2,174
Average Harvest
Moisture 19.7
Highest Yield 6,967 43 Highest Quality 64.0 72.0
2.
0
Lowest Yield 3,822 24 Lowest Quality 56.0 66.0
3.
0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
169
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 61.3 69.4 1.9
Weighted Yield 5,495 34 Jefferson Average Harvest Dates 9-Aug 12-Aug
Number of Fields 37 Number of Fields 37
Total Acres Reported 4,059 Average Harvest Moisture 19.6
Highest Yield 6,989 43 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,889 24 Lowest Quality 55.0 65.0 3.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 61.0 70.5 2.2
Weighted Yield 6,375 39 Liberty Average Harvest Dates 31-Jul 5-Aug
Number of Fields 11 Number of Fields 11
Total Acres Reported 1,293 Average Harvest Moisture 20.0
Highest Yield 7,406 46 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 5,185 32 Lowest Quality 57.0 68.0 3.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
170
Texas Rice Yield & Quality Summary
NORTHWEST ZONE Colorado ~ Fort Bend ~ Harris ~ Lavaca ~ Waller ~ Wharton
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.1 71.5
1.
8
Weighted Yield 6,459 40
Northwes
t Average Harvest Dates
16-
Aug
17-
Aug
Number of Fields 197 Number of Fields 124
Total Acres
Reported 19,567
Average Harvest
Moisture 16.0
Highest Yield 8,821 54 Highest Quality 69.0 73.0
1.
0
Lowest Yield 2,533 16 Lowest Quality 54.0 68.0
4.
0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
NORTHWEST 2004
Variety Number Reported Yield Yield Milling Milling Grade
of Fields Acreage lbs./ bbls/ Yield Yield
Reported Acre Acre %H %T
Cheniere 42 3,138 6,638 41 62.8 72.5 1.3
CL161 13 1,640 6,265 39 62.5 70.5 1.3
Cocodrie 108 11,434 6,567 41 60.9 71.6 2
Cypress 21 2,012 5,850 36 61.5 70.4 1.9
Milagro 1 57 6,138 38 54 70 2
Wells 4 304 5,900 36 59.5 72 2
XL8 8 982 6,401 40 58.3 72 1.1
Total: 197 19,567
Weighted Average: 6,459 40 61.1 71.5 1.8
171
Northwest Zone – Variety Statistics Colorado ~ Fort Bend ~ Harris ~ Lavaca ~ Waller ~ Wharton
CHENIERE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 62.8 72.5 1.3
Weighted Yield 6,638 41 Northwest Average Harvest Dates 14-Aug 18-Aug
Number of Fields 42 Variety: Number of Fields 19
Total Acres Reported 3,138 Cheniere Average Harvest Moisture 14.3
Highest Yield 8,668 54 Highest Quality 65.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 4,386 27 Lowest Quality 60.0 71.0 2.0
CL161
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 62.5 70.5 1.3
Weighted Yield 6,265 39 Northwest Average Harvest Dates 5-Aug 9-Aug
Number of Fields
13 Variety: Number of Fields 8
Total Acres Reported 1,640 CL161 Average Harvest Moisture 19.1
Highest Yield 7,681 47 Highest Quality 64.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 4,461 28 Lowest Quality 61.0 68.0 2.0
COCODRIE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 60.9 71.6 2.0
Weighted Yield 6,567 41 Northwest Average Harvest Dates 16-Aug 15-Aug
Number of Fields
108 Variety: Number of Fields 72
Total Acres Reported 11,434 Cocodrie Average Harvest Moisture 16.1
Highest Yield 8,821 54 Highest Quality 69.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 2,533 16 Lowest Quality 56.0 68.0 4.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
172
CYPRESS
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.5 70.4 1.9
Weighted Yield 5,850 36 Northwest Average Harvest Dates 22-Aug 20-Aug
Number of Fields 21 Number of Fields 14
Total Acres Reported 2,012 Average Harvest Moisture 16.4
Highest Yield 7,486 46 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,982 25 Lowest Quality 55.0 68.0 3.0
WELLS
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 59.5 72.0 2.0
Weighted Yield 5,900 36 Northwest Average Harvest Dates 8-Aug 8-Aug
Number of Fields
4 Variety: Number of Fields 2
Total Acres Reported 304 Wells Average Harvest Moisture 18.5
Highest Yield 7,274 45 Highest Quality 60.0 72.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 4,809 30 Lowest Quality 59.0 72.0 2.0
XL8
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 58.3 72.0 1.1
Weighted Yield 6,401 40 Northwest Average Harvest Dates 11-Aug 15-Aug
Number of Fields
8 Variety: Number of Fields 8
Total Acres Reported 982 XL8 Average Harvest Moisture 17.8
Highest Yield 7,660 47 Highest Quality 62.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 4,879 30 Lowest Quality 55.0 70.0 2.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
173
Northwest Zone – County Statistics Colorado ~ Fort Bend ~ Harris ~ Lavaca ~ Waller ~ Wharton
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 61.7 71.0 1.9
Weighted Yield 6,681 41 Colorado Average Harvest Dates 14-Aug 30-Oct
Number of Fields 28 Number of Fields 28
Total Acres Reported 3,876 Average Harvest Moisture 18.3
Highest Yield 7,573 47 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 5,170 32 Lowest Quality 54.0 69.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 60.3 72.6 1.6
Weighted Yield 6,893 43 Fort Bend Average Harvest Dates 15-Aug 15-Aug
Number of Fields
12 Number of Fields 12
Total Acres Reported 893 Average Harvest Moisture 17.2
Highest Yield 7,362 45 Highest Quality 64.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 5,993 37 Lowest Quality 57.0 72.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
174
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 60.3 72.7 1.0
Weighted Yield 6,265 39 Harris Average Harvest Dates 15-Aug 17-Aug
Number of Fields 3 Number of Fields 3
Total Acres Reported 555 Average Harvest Moisture 20.2
Highest Yield 6,420 40 Highest Quality 62.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 6,129 38 Lowest Quality 58.0 72.0 1.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 60.0 71.0 1.8
Weighted Yield 6,087 38 Lavaca Average Harvest Dates 11-Aug 14-Aug
Number of Fields
6 Number of Fields 6
Total Acres Reported 1,213 Average Harvest Moisture 18.2
Highest Yield 6,703 41 Highest Quality 62.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 5,768 36 Lowest Quality 56.0 70.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
175
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 61.1 72.7 1.7
Weighted Yield 7,265 45 Waller Average Harvest Dates 13-Aug 13-Aug
Number of Fields 36 Number of Fields 36
Total Acres Reported 2,449 Average Harvest Moisture 17.1
Highest Yield 8,668 54 Highest Quality 65.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 5,793 36 Lowest Quality 57.0 72.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 61.1 70.4 1.8
Weighted Yield 6,346 39 Wharton Average Harvest Dates 16-Aug 17-Aug
Number of Fields
142 Number of Fields 65
Total Acres Reported 14,390 Average Harvest Moisture 15.7
Highest Yield 8,821 54 Highest Quality 69.0 73.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 2,533 16 Lowest Quality 55.0 67.0 4.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
176
Texas Rice Yield & Quality Summary
SOUTHWEST ZONE Jackson ~ Matagorda ~ Victoria ~ (south) Wharton
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 60.4 70.1 2.0
Weighted Yield 6,244 39 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 7-Aug 17-Aug
Number of Fields 218 Number of Fields 153
Total Acres Reported 23,717 Average Harvest Moisture 18.4
Highest Yield 8,498 52 Highest Quality 66.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,218 20 Lowest Quality 45.0 60.0 6.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
SOUTHWEST 2004
Variety Number Reported Yield Yield Milling Milling Grade
of Fields Acreage lbs./ bbls/ Yield Yield
Reported Acre Acre %H %T
Cheniere 28 2,400 6,498 40 61 70.6 1.4
CL161 13 1,289 5,832 36 58.5 67.7 2.2
Cocodrie 123 14,738 6,289 39 60.8 70.2 2.1
Cypress 12 1,143 5,837 36 62.3 70.9 1.6
Dixiebelle 24 2,499 6,609 41 60.4 70.3 2
Jefferson 10 1,055 5,889 36 60.5 70.1 2
Milagro 4 360 5,306 33 55.3 69.7 2.7
Risotto 2 210 3,973 25 51 68 2
XL8 2 23 6,310 39 58 70 2
Total: 218 23,717
Weighted
Average: 6,244 39 60.4 70.1 2
177
Southwest Zone – Variety Statistics Jackson ~ Matagorda ~ Victoria ~ (south) Wharton
CHENIERE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 61.0 70.6 1.4
Weighted Yield 6,498 40 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 14-Aug 15-Aug
Number of Fields 28 Variety: Number of Fields 18
Total Acres Reported 2,401 Cheniere Average Harvest Moisture 17.9
Highest Yield 7,826 48 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,768 23 Lowest Quality 57.0 67.0 2.0
CL161
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 58.5 67.7 2.2
Weighted Yield 5,832 36 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 22-Apr 17-Aug
Number of Fields 13 Variety: Number of Fields 12
Total Acres Reported 1,289 CL161 Average Harvest Moisture 19.1
Highest Yield 7,261 45 Highest Quality 61.0 70.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,563 22 Lowest Quality 45.0 60.0 6.0
COCODRIE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 60.8 70.2 2.1
Weighted Yield 6,289 39 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 15-Aug 17-Aug
Number of Fields 123 Variety: Number of Fields 73
Total Acres Reported 14,738 Cocodrie Average Harvest Moisture 18.3
Highest Yield 8,498 52 Highest Quality 65.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,480 21 Lowest Quality 53.0 65.0 5.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
178
CYPRESS
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 62.3 70.9 1.6
Weighted Yield 5,837 36 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 11-Aug 17-Aug
Number of Fields 12 Variety: Number of Fields 10
Total Acres Reported 1,143 Cypress Average Harvest Moisture 18.1
Highest Yield 6,848 42 Highest Quality 66.0 71.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 5,107 32 Lowest Quality 57.0 70.0 2.0
DIXIEBELLE
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 60.4 70.3 2.0
Weighted Yield 6,609 41 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 11-Aug 14-Aug
Number of Fields 24 Variety: Number of Fields 24
Total Acres Reported 2,499 Dixiebelle Average Harvest Moisture 18.0
Highest Yield 7,692 47 Highest Quality 65.0 71.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 4,935 30 Lowest Quality 57.0 69.0 2.0
JEFFERSON
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 60.5 70.1 2.0
Weighted Yield 5,889 36 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 1-Aug 4-Aug
Number of Fields 10 Variety: Number of Fields 10
Total Acres Reported 1,055 Jefferson Average Harvest Moisture 19.3
Highest Yield 7,589 47 Highest Quality 63.0 71.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 3,218 20 Lowest Quality 58.0 69.0 2.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
179
MILAGRO
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 55.3 69.7 2.7
Weighted Yield 5,306 33 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 1-Oct 7-Oct
Number of Fields 4 Variety: Number of Fields 3
Total Acres Reported 360 Milagro Average Harvest Moisture 21.1
Highest Yield 7,471 46 Highest Quality 63.0 71.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 4,165 26 Lowest Quality 51.0 69.0 4.0
RISOTTO
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 51.0 68.0 2.0
Weighted Yield 3,973 25 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 11-Aug 12-Aug
Number of Fields 2 Variety: Number of Fields 2
Total Acres Reported 210 Risotto Average Harvest Moisture 24.2
Highest Yield 4,220 26 Highest Quality 52.0 68.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 3,479 21 Lowest Quality 50.0 68.0 2.0
XL8
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Zone: Quality Average 58.0 70.0 2.0
Weighted Yield 6,310 39 Southwest Average Harvest Dates 30-Aug 29-Jul
Number of Fields 2 Variety: Number of Fields 1
Total Acres Reported 23 XL8 Average Harvest Moisture 17.2
Highest Yield 7,427 46 Highest Quality 58.0 70.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 6,259 39 Lowest Quality 58.0 70.0 2.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
180
Southwest Zone – County Statistics Jackson ~ Matagorda ~ Victoria ~ (south) Wharton
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 60.7 70.2 1.8
Weighted Yield 6,299 39 Jackson Average Harvest Dates 27-Jul 17-Aug
Number of Fields 84 Number of Fields 61
Total Acres Reported 9,825 Average Harvest Moisture 17.9
Highest Yield 8,147 50 Highest Quality 66.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,563 22 Lowest Quality 54.0 64.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 59.9 69.9 2.2
Weighted Yield 5,956 37 Matagorda Average Harvest Dates 15-Aug 17-Aug
Number of Fields 96 Number of Fields 60
Total Acres Reported 9,070 Average Harvest Moisture 18.6
Highest Yield 8,057 50 Highest Quality 64.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 3,218 20 Lowest Quality 45.0 60.0 6.0
Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
181
MAIN CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac County: Quality Average 60.7 71.3 1.7
Weighted Yield 7,375 46 Victoria Average Harvest Dates 9-Aug 13-Aug
Number of Fields 3 Number of Fields 3
Total Acres Reported 665 Average Harvest Moisture 16.7
Highest Yield 7,915 49 Highest Quality 61.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 6,266 39 Lowest Quality 60.0 71.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
182
MC Yields Comparison
(12% Moisture)
Area Year lbs/ac bbls/ac
East Zone 2004 5634 34.8
2003 5328 32.9
2002 6142 37.9
2001 5690 35.1
Average 5699 35.2
Southwest Zone 2004 6244 38.5
2003 5855 36.1
2002 6897 42.6
2001 6310 39.0
Average 6327 39.1
Northwest Zone 2004 6460 39.9
2003 6728 41.5
2002 7073 43.7
2001 7020 43.3
Average 6820 42.1
Texas 2004 6231 38.5
2003 6065 37.4
2002 6885 42.5
2001 6276 38.7
Average 6364 39.3
183
Texas Rice Yield & Quality Summary
SECOND CROP
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac
All
Varieties Quality Average 58.7 68.7 2.1
Weighted Yield 2,402 15 Average Harvest Dates 29-Oct
1-
Nov
Number of Fields 84 Number of Fields 42
Total Acres Reported 10,173 Average Harvest Moisture 18.9
Highest Yield 4,250 26 Highest Quality 63.0 72.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 815 5 Lowest Quality 53.0 66.0 5.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
SECOND
CROP 2004
Variety Number Reported Yield Yield Milling Milling Grade
of Fields Acreage lbs./ bbls/ Yield Yield
Reported Acre Acre %H %T
Cheniere 12 960 1,983 12 57.3 67.6 3
CL121 1 285 815 5 N/A N/A N/A
CL161 11 1,428 2,196 14 60.7 69.3 2
CLXL8 5 648 2,862 18 59.8 72 2
Cocodrie 30 4,159 2,691 17 60.3 69.1 2
Cypress 4 351 2,335 14 N/A N/A N/A
Dixiebelle 9 1,260 2,337 14 57.5 67.5 2
Jefferson 5 455 2,356 15 55.6 68.6 2.2
Wells 2 163 1,678 10 N/A N/A N/A
XL8 4 381 2,298 14 N/A N/A N/A
Total: 84 10,173
Weighted
Average: 2,402 15 58.7 68.7 2.1
184
Second Crop – Variety Statistics
CHENIERE
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average 57.3 67.6 3.0
Weighted Yield 1,983 12 Cheniere Average Harvest Dates 1-Nov 2-Nov
Number of Fields 12 Number of Fields 7
Total Acres Reported 960 Average Harvest Moisture 19.1
Highest Yield 2,858 18 Highest Quality 59.0 69.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 986 6 Lowest Quality 54.0 67.0 5.0
CL121
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average N/A N/A N/A
Weighted Yield 815 5 CL121 Average Harvest Dates 13-Oct 29-Oct
Number of Fields 1 Number of Fields 0
Total Acres Reported 285 Average Harvest Moisture 23.9
Highest Yield 815 5 Highest Quality 0.0 0.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 815 5 Lowest Quality 0.0 0.0 2.0
CL161
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average 60.7 69.3 2.0
Weighted Yield 2,196 14 CL 161 Average Harvest Dates 24-Oct 28-Oct
Number of Fields
11 Number of Fields 3
Total Acres Reported 1,428 Average Harvest Moisture 18.4
Highest Yield 2,745 17 Highest Quality 63.0 71.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 1,310 8 Lowest Quality 58.0 68.0 2.0 Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
185
CLXL8
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average 59.8 71.0 2.0
Weighted Yield 2,862 18 CLXL8 Average Harvest Dates 30-Oct 1-Nov
Number of Fields 5 Number of Fields 4
Total Acres Reported 648 Average Harvest Moisture 20.4
Highest Yield 3,929 24 Highest Quality 63.0 72.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 934 6 Lowest Quality 57.0 70.0 2.0
COCODRIE
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average 60.3 69.1 2.0
Weighted Yield 2,691 17 Cocodrie Average Harvest Dates 29-Oct 2-Nov
Number of Fields 30 Number of Fields 15
Total Acres Reported 4,159 Average Harvest Moisture 18.5
Highest Yield 4,250 26 Highest Quality 63.0 71.0 1.0
Lowest Yield 1,077 7 Lowest Quality 55.0 67.0 3.0
CYPRESS
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average N/A N/A N/A
Weighted Yield 2,335 14 Cypress Average Harvest Dates N/A N/A N/A
Number of Fields 4 Number of Fields 0
Total Acres Reported 351 Average Harvest Moisture 19.0
Highest Yield 3,258 20 Highest Quality N/A N/A N/A
Lowest Yield 952 6 Lowest Quality N/A N/A N/A Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
186
JEFFERSON
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average 55.6 68.6 2.2
Weighted Yield 2,356 15 Jefferson Average Harvest Dates 27-Oct 29-Oct
Number of Fields 5 Number of Fields 5
Total Acres Reported 455 Average Harvest Moisture 19.9
Highest Yield 3,570 22 Highest Quality 58.0 69.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 1,285 8 Lowest Quality 53.0 68.0 3.0
DIXIEBELLE
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average 57.5 67.5 2.0
Weighted Yield 2,337 14 Dixiebelle Average Harvest Dates 6-Nov 5-Nov
Number of Fields
9 Number of Fields 8
Total Acres Reported 1,260 Average Harvest Moisture 19.1
Highest Yield 4,190 26 Highest Quality 61.0 69.0 2.0
Lowest Yield 958 6 Lowest Quality 55.0 66.0 2.0
WELLS
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average N/A N/A N/A
Weighted Yield 1,678 10 Wells Average Harvest Dates N/A N/A N/A
Number of Fields 2 Number of Fields 0
Total Acres Reported 163 Average Harvest Moisture 16.9
Highest Yield 1,739 11 Highest Quality N/A N/A N/A
Lowest Yield 1,612 10 Lowest Quality N/A N/A N/A Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
187
XL8
SECOND CROP
Yield Data Summary Quality Data Summary
lbs/ac bbls/ac Variety: Quality Average N/A N/A N/A
Weighted Yield 2,298 14 XL 8 Average Harvest Dates 19-Oct 25-Oct
Number of Fields
4 Number of Fields 0
Total Acres Reported 381 Average Harvest Moisture 19.3
Highest Yield 2,831 17 Highest Quality N/A N/A N/A
Lowest Yield 850 5 Lowest Quality N/A N/A N/A Yields – 12% moisture
Quality – in percent
188
2004
Texas Rice Crop Weekly Development Statistics
List of Collaborators
December 1, 2004
Respondents Crop
Development
American Rice Growers Anahuac - James Hewitt x
American Rice Growers Dayton - Aaron Holbrook x
American Rice Growers Garwood - Vivian Spanihel x
American Rice Growers Richmond x
Area Rice Marketing - Tom Kallina x
Brushy Creek Farm & Land - David Basinger x
Brookshire Drying Co. - Pam Wostarek x
BU Growers - Joe Crane x
Doguet Rice Mill - Mike Doguet x
East Bernard Rice Marketing - Jay Davis x
Garrett Farms - Jacko Garrett, Traci Harvey x
Hall’s Bayou Ranch - David LeCompte x
Martin Farms - Don Martin x
Rice Belt Warehouse Bay City - John Dippel x
Rice Belt Warehouse Blessing - Andy Jasek, Sunny Pierce x
Rice Belt Warehouse Edna - Ralph Novasod x
Rice Belt Warehouse El Campo - Jimmy Pavlik x
Rice Belt Warehouse Ganado - Rodney Tegeler x
Woods Interests - J.D. ADes@ Woods x
189
Texas Crop Rice Development Statistics
(Date at 50% by development stages)
50% Percent Planted
YEAR
East
Zone
N. Westt
Zone
S. West
Zone
STATE
AVERAGE
2004 23-Apr 1-Apr 4-Apr 6-Apr
2003 20-Apr 26-Mar 6-Apr 6-Apr
2002 1-Apr 28-Mar 1-Apr 1-Apr
2001 20-Apr 8-Apr 2-Apr 9-Apr
2000 11-Apr 10-Apr 24-Mar 27-Mar
1999 12-Apr 8-Apr 29-Mar 7-Apr
OVERALL
AVERAGE 14-Apr 3-Apr 31-Mar 4-Apr
50% Percent Headed
YEAR
East
Zone
N. West
Zone
S. West
Zone
STATE
AVERAGE
2004 27-Jul 9-Jul 10-Jul 11-Jul
2003 17-Jul 29-Jun 9-Jul 1-Jul
2002 27-Jun 24-Jun 24-Jun 25-Jun
2001 8-Jul 1-Jul 27-Jun 3-Jul
2000 30-Jun 1-Jul 1-Jul 1-Jul
1999 8-Jul 27-Jun 27-Jun 5-Jul
OVERALL
AVERAGE 9-Jul 30-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul
50% Percent Main Crop Harvested
YEAR
East
Zone
N. West
Zone
S. West
Zone
STATE
AVERAGE
2004 20-Aug 15-Aug 17-Aug 23-Aug
2003 25-Aug 10-Aug 10-Aug 23-Aug
2002 14-Aug 3-Aug 2-Aug 4-Aug
2001 21-Aug 9-Aug 8-Aug 11-Aug
2000 12-Aug 4-Aug 4-Aug 6-Aug
1999 14-Aug 4-Aug 2-Aug 10-Aug
OVERALL
AVERAGE 17-Aug 7-Aug 7-Aug 12-Aug
43
De
ce
mb
er
15
, 2
00
4
20
04
Te
xa
s R
ice
Cro
p W
ee
kly
De
ve
lop
me
nt S
tatis
tics
Variable
Est
imate
d:
Perc
ent P
lante
d
2004
% Z
ON
E
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Mar 5
Mar 12
Mar 19
Mar 26
Apr 2
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 1
4M
ay 2
1M
ay 2
8Jun 4
Jun 1
1Jun 1
8
East Z
one
B
razoria
15,7
48
24.6
%5%
20%
40%
80%
80%
84%
88%
90%
90%
95%
95%
95%
100%
100%
Cham
bers
16,0
24
25.1
%1%
5%
10%
15%
20%
35%
75%
75%
75%
75%
88%
88%
100%
100%
Galv
esto
n847
1.3
%0%
20%
40%
50%
80%
90%
88%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Hard
in762
1.2
%0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
30%
60%
60%
75%
75%
100%
100%
Jeffe
rson
19,9
54
31.2
%2%
5%
15%
40%
40%
52%
65%
65%
85%
88%
92%
98%
100%
100%
Lib
erty
10,4
75
16.4
%0%
5%
10%
20%
20%
10%
30%
30%
73%
73%
75%
75%
100%
100%
Ora
nge*
90
0.1
%0%
0%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
.E
ast T
ota
l63,9
00
29.8
%0%
0%
2%
9%
19%
40%
42%
49%
67%
68%
82%
84%
89%
91%
100%
100%
2003
0%
0%
5%
12%
14%
17%
19%
53%
68%
86%
94%
96%
96%
97%
100%
100%
2002
0%
0%
5%
43%
57%
69%
74%
77%
85%
95%
96%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
0%
0%
0%
2%
8%
25%
45%
78%
91%
93%
97%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Northw
est Z
one
Austin
2,3
13
2.3
%15%
60%
78%
95%
95%
95%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Colo
rado
33,2
73
33.1
%7%
48%
66%
88%
90%
90%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Harr
is1,5
22
1.5
%0%
1%
17%
32%
33%
35%
70%
85%
88%
88%
88%
88%
100%
100%
Lavaca
2,1
89
2.2
%5%
50%
65%
87%
87%
90%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Walle
r 7,8
68
7.8
%7%
16%
32%
32%
60%
60%
87%
100%
99%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
Wharton
53,4
13
53.1
%6%
39%
55%
74%
76%
76%
90%
95%
97%
97%
99%
99%
100%
100%
Northw
est T
ota
l100,5
78
46.9
%0%
0%
7%
40%
57%
75%
79%
80%
91%
97%
98%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
2003
0%
0%
14%
51%
65%
79%
81%
90%
91%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
100%
2002
0%
0%
18%
47%
69%
90%
92%
93%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
0%
1%
5%
24%
38%
63%
90%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
South
west Z
one
Calh
oun
2,4
88
5.0
%8%
8%
33%
60%
70%
85%
85%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ft. B
end
7,9
33
15.8
%0%
29%
35%
57%
57%
73%
92%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Jackson
14,7
34
29.4
%4%
37%
54%
76%
80%
80%
87%
93%
93%
94%
98%
98%
100%
100%
Mata
gord
a23,6
72
47.2
%8%
20%
45%
73%
73%
81%
87%
95%
95%
95%
96%
97%
100%
100%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%0%
50%
65%
100%
100%
85%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
South
west T
ota
l50,1
83
23.4
%0%
0%
5%
27%
46%
71%
73%
80%
88%
95%
95%
96%
98%
98%
100%
100%
2003
0%
2%
12%
27%
35%
59%
69%
92%
97%
97%
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2002
0%
3%
20%
41%
65%
88%
94%
96%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
1%
2%
15%
36%
60%
74%
83%
97%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ric
e B
elt T
ota
l214,6
61
99.0
%0%
0%
5%
28%
43%
64%
67%
70%
83%
88%
93%
93%
96%
96%
100%
100%
2003
0%
1%
11%
35%
44%
58%
62%
80%
86%
95%
97%
98%
98%
99%
100%
100%
2002
0%
1%
15%
44%
64%
84%
87%
89%
95%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
0%
1%
6%
21%
35%
55%
76%
92%
97%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Northeast Z
one
Bow
ie1,5
10
70.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18%
18%
86%
86%
95%
95%
100%
100%
Hopkin
s0
0.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Red R
iver
639
29.7
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
45%
45%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Northeast T
ota
l2,1
49
1.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
26%
26%
90%
90%
96%
96%
100%
100%
Sta
te T
ota
l216,8
10
100.0
%0%
0%
5%
27%
43%
63%
66%
70%
83%
87%
93%
93%
96%
96%
100%
100%
Com
pile
d b
y T
exas A
&M
Univ
. Syste
m A
gricultu
ral R
esearc
h a
nd E
xte
nsio
n C
ente
r at B
eaum
ont
Surv
ey d
ata
from
dry
ers
, sale
s o
ffices, a
gribusin
esses, U
SD
A/C
FS
A a
nd c
ounty
exte
nsio
n a
gents
as a
ppro
priate
19
0
191
Decem
ber 1
5, 2004
2004 T
exa
s R
ice C
rop W
eekl
y D
eve
lopm
ent S
tatis
tics
V
ariable
Estim
ate
d:
Perc
en
t S
eed
lin
g E
merg
en
ce
2004
% Z
ON
E
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Mar 5
Mar 12
Mar 19
Mar 26
Apr 2
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 1
4M
ay 2
1M
ay 2
8Jun 4
Jun 1
1Jun 1
8
East Z
one
Bra
zoria
15,7
48
24.6
%0%
0%
30%
64%
64%
84%
88%
90%
90%
95%
95%
95%
95%
100%
Cham
bers
16,0
24
25.1
%0%
0%
0%
5%
4%
35%
50%
50%
75%
75%
88%
88%
98%
100%
Galv
esto
n847
1.3
%0%
0%
25%
64%
64%
90%
90%
90%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Hard
in762
1.2
%0%
0%
0%
5%
4%
10%
30%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
100%
100%
Jeffe
rson
19,9
54
31.2
%0%
2%
15%
30%
32%
52%
68%
72%
85%
88%
90%
90%
100%
100%
Lib
erty
10,4
75
16.4
%0%
0%
0%
5%
4%
10%
30%
70%
73%
73%
73%
73%
100%
100%
Ora
nge*
90
0.1
%0%
0%
30%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
East T
ota
l63,9
00
29.8
%0%
0%
0%
1%
12%
28%
28%
49%
62%
71%
81%
84%
88%
88%
98%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
39%
45%
65%
81%
86%
89%
95%
97%
100%
2002
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
58%
71%
73%
79%
89%
90%
95%
98%
99%
99%
100%
2001
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
7%
22%
45%
62%
74%
84%
91%
96%
98%
99%
100%
Northw
est Z
one
Austin
2,3
13
2.3
%0%
0%
28%
79%
90%
95%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Colo
rado
33,2
73
33.1
%0%
12%
21%
69%
70%
90%
95%
96%
99%
99%
98%
99%
99%
100%
Harr
is1,5
22
1.5
%0%
3%
5%
15%
28%
35%
45%
55%
75%
80%
80%
87%
99%
100%
Lavaca
2,1
89
2.2
%0%
3%
22%
65%
85%
90%
90%
95%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Walle
r 7,8
68
7.8
%0%
2%
7%
40%
60%
60%
63%
63%
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Wharton
53,4
13
53.1
%0%
10%
16%
57%
68%
76%
90%
91%
97%
96%
97%
97%
98%
100%
Northw
est T
ota
l100,5
78
46.9
%0%
0%
0%
10%
17%
60%
68%
80%
89%
90%
96%
97%
97%
98%
99%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
8%
21%
42%
48%
79%
89%
91%
98%
99%
99%
99%
99%
100%
2002
0%
0%
0%
2%
32%
62%
76%
89%
90%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
100%
100%
2001
0%
0%
1%
1%
6%
25%
69%
83%
91%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
South
west Z
one
Calh
oun
2,4
88
5.0
%0%
0%
18%
52%
65%
85%
85%
85%
95%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ft. B
end
7,9
33
15.8
%0%
0%
2%
33%
48%
73%
92%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Jackson
14,7
34
29.4
%0%
4%
12%
49%
56%
80%
87%
90%
93%
93%
93%
96%
100%
100%
Mata
gord
a23,6
72
47.2
%0%
5%
15%
53%
69%
81%
85%
85%
93%
93%
93%
96%
100%
100%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%0%
4%
15%
75%
80%
85%
85%
90%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
South
west T
ota
l50,1
83
23.4
%0%
0%
0%
4%
12%
49%
62%
80%
87%
88%
94%
95%
95%
97%
100%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
19%
20%
28%
27%
67%
78%
88%
94%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
2002
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
49%
81%
89%
89%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
0%
0%
1%
4%
19%
40%
56%
74%
79%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ric
e B
elt T
ota
l214,6
61
99.0
%0%
0%
0%
6%
15%
48%
55%
70%
80%
84%
91%
93%
94%
95%
99%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
9%
16%
28%
31%
66%
75%
84%
92%
95%
97%
98%
99%
100%
2002
0%
0%
0%
1%
25%
57%
76%
84%
87%
96%
97%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
2001
0%
0%
1%
2%
8%
23%
52%
70%
80%
90%
95%
97%
99%
99%
100%
100%
Northeast Z
one
Bow
ie1,5
10
70.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18%
18%
37%
55%
85%
85%
95%
100%
Hopkin
s0
0.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Red R
iver
639
29.7
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
45%
45%
90%
90%
90%
100%
100%
100%
Northeast T
ota
l2,1
49
1.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
26%
26%
53%
65%
86%
89%
96%
100%
Sta
te T
ota
l216,8
10
100.0
%0%
0%
0%
5%
14%
47%
54%
70%
80%
83%
91%
92%
94%
95%
99%
100%
Com
pile
d b
y T
exas A
&M
Univ
. Syste
m A
gricultu
ral R
esearc
h a
nd E
xte
nsio
n C
ente
r at B
eaum
ont
Surv
ey d
ata
from
dry
ers
, sale
s o
ffices, a
gribusin
esses, U
SD
A/C
FS
A a
nd c
ounty
exte
nsio
n a
gents
as a
ppro
priate
192
De
ce
mb
er 1
5,
20
04
2004 T
exa
s R
ice C
rop W
eekl
y D
eve
lopm
ent S
tatis
tics
Variable
Estim
ate
d:
Perc
en
t S
usta
ined
Flo
od
2004
% Z
ON
E
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Mar 26
Apr 2
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 1
4M
ay 2
1M
ay 2
8Jun 4
Jun 1
1Jun 1
8Jun 2
5Jul 2
Jul 9
East Z
one
Bra
zoria
15,7
48
24.6
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
60%
60%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
85%
85%
100%
Cham
bers
16,0
24
25.1
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
40%
45%
50%
50%
83%
83%
90%
95%
100%
Galv
esto
n847
1.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
30%
50%
50%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Hard
in762
1.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
90%
90%
95%
95%
100%
Jeffe
rson
19,9
54
31.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
70%
70%
78%
78%
100%
Lib
erty
10,4
75
16.4
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
50%
50%
50%
88%
88%
93%
98%
100%
Ora
nge*
90
0.1
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
East T
ota
l63,9
00
29.8
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
39%
56%
60%
63%
79%
79%
86%
88%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
19%
36%
43%
53%
72%
83%
83%
83%
83%
2002
1%
13%
30%
34%
66%
81%
88%
91%
95%
98%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
1%
10%
19%
35%
42%
61%
74%
88%
93%
97%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Northw
est Z
one
Austin
2,3
13
2.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
25%
75%
88%
90%
90%
90%
95%
95%
100%
Colo
rado
33,2
73
33.1
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
33%
53%
63%
70%
73%
74%
93%
93%
100%
Harr
is1,5
22
1.5
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
15%
15%
20%
58%
58%
95%
100%
100%
Lavaca
2,1
89
2.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
53%
73%
80%
83%
87%
90%
100%
100%
100%
Walle
r 7,8
68
7.8
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Wharton
53,4
13
53.1
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
34%
64%
65%
67%
77%
78%
93%
93%
100%
Northw
est T
ota
l100,5
78
46.9
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
35%
63%
67%
71%
78%
79%
94%
94%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21%
24%
61%
69%
83%
96%
99%
99%
99%
99%
2002
2%
15%
38%
59%
79%
96%
97%
99%
99%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
1%
16%
39%
59%
75%
90%
94%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
South
west Z
one
Calh
oun
2,4
88
5.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ft. B
end
7,9
33
15.8
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
85%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Jackson
14,7
34
29.4
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
34%
57%
63%
72%
80%
83%
95%
95%
100%
Mata
gord
a23,6
72
47.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
27%
51%
54%
63%
80%
81%
95%
95%
100%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
90%
90%
100%
South
west T
ota
l50,1
83
23.4
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
38%
56%
66%
73%
84%
85%
96%
96%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
19%
51%
58%
75%
93%
95%
95%
95%
95%
2002
2%
18%
30%
44%
69%
86%
92%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
6%
14%
34%
51%
62%
83%
89%
95%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Ric
e B
elt T
ota
l214,6
61
99.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
37%
59%
65%
69%
79%
80%
92%
93%
100%
2003
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
21%
52%
60%
73%
89%
93%
93%
93%
93%
2002
1%
15%
34%
48%
73%
89%
93%
97%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2001
2%
14%
32%
50%
62%
80%
87%
95%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Northeast Z
one
Bow
ie1,5
10
70.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
60%
60%
100%
100%
100%
Hopkin
s0
0.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Red R
iver
639
29.7
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Northeast T
ota
l2,1
49
1.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
72%
72%
100%
100%
100%
Sta
te T
ota
l216,8
10
100.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
36%
59%
64%
69%
79%
80%
92%
93%
100%
Com
pile
d b
y T
exas A
&M
Univ
. Syste
m A
gricultu
ral R
esearc
h a
nd E
xte
nsio
n C
ente
r at B
eaum
ont
Surv
ey d
ata
from
dry
ers
, sale
s o
ffices, a
gribusin
esses, U
SD
A/C
FS
A a
nd c
ounty
exte
nsio
n a
gents
as a
ppro
priate
193
Decem
ber 1
5, 2004
2
00
4 T
exa
s R
ice
Cro
p W
ee
kly
De
ve
lop
me
nt S
tatistics
V
ariable
Estim
ate
d:
Percen
t P
D
20
04
% Z
ON
E
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Ma
y 2
1M
ay 2
8Ju
n 4
Ju
n 1
1Ju
n 1
8Ju
n 2
5Ju
l 2
Ju
l 9
Ju
l 1
6Ju
l 2
3Ju
l 3
0A
ug
6A
ug
13
Ea
st
Zo
ne
Bra
zo
ria
15
,74
82
4.6
%5
%5
%5
%5
%5
%8
5%
85
%8
5%
85
%8
5%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ch
am
be
rs1
6,0
24
25
.1%
0%
0%
0%
30
%3
0%
78
%7
8%
78
%7
8%
78
%9
0%
98
%9
8%
Ga
lve
sto
n8
47
1.3
%0
%0
%0
%5
%6
5%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ha
rdin
76
21
.2%
0%
0%
0%
50
%5
0%
80
%8
0%
80
%8
0%
80
%9
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Je
ffe
rso
n1
9,9
54
31
.2%
2%
15
%2
0%
25
%2
5%
35
%4
0%
60
%7
5%
75
%9
5%
98
%9
8%
Lib
ert
y1
0,4
75
16
.4%
0%
0%
0%
45
%4
5%
80
%8
0%
80
%8
0%
80
%9
0%
98
%9
8%
Ora
ng
e*
90
0.1
%0
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ea
st
To
tal
63
,90
02
9.8
%2
%6
%8
%2
5%
26
%6
7%
69
%7
5%
79
%7
9%
94
%9
9%
99
%
20
03
0%
0%
23
%3
8%
56
%6
1%
77
%7
7%
85
%9
6%
99
%9
9%
99
%
20
02
7%
36
%4
8%
63
%7
8%
92
%9
5%
95
%9
8%
99
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%
20
01
3%
12
%2
7%
41
%6
0%
71
%8
2%
92
%9
7%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
No
rth
we
st
Zo
ne
Au
stin
2,3
13
2.3
%0
%5
%5
8%
58
%5
8%
68
%6
8%
88
%8
8%
93
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Co
lora
do
33
,27
33
3.1
%0
%3
%3
6%
55
%5
8%
79
%8
2%
95
%9
6%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ha
rris
1,5
22
1.5
%0
%0
%0
%2
0%
20
%5
5%
55
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%9
8%
98
%
La
va
ca
2,1
89
2.2
%6
%2
5%
57
%6
5%
72
%8
5%
85
%8
8%
88
%8
8%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Wa
ller
7,8
68
7.8
%0
%0
%3
0%
75
%7
5%
95
%9
5%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Wh
art
on
53
,41
35
3.1
%5
%1
0%
41
%6
1%
63
%7
2%
74
%8
3%
86
%9
1%
96
%9
7%
10
0%
No
rth
we
st
To
tal
10
0,5
78
46
.9%
3%
7%
39
%6
0%
62
%7
6%
78
%8
9%
91
%9
4%
98
%9
8%
10
0%
20
03
0%
0%
19
%4
9%
76
%8
8%
90
%9
0%
99
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
20
02
21
%5
2%
79
%9
1%
92
%9
7%
99
%9
9%
99
%9
9%
99
%9
9%
10
0%
20
01
6%
24
%4
2%
64
%9
5%
97
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
So
uth
we
st
Zo
ne
Ca
lho
un
2,4
88
5.0
%0
%0
%2
0%
33
%3
3%
80
%8
0%
80
%9
0%
90
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ft.
Be
nd
7,9
33
15
.8%
0%
0%
48
%6
7%
67
%9
0%
90
%9
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ja
ckso
n1
4,7
34
29
.4%
13
%1
5%
42
%5
6%
62
%7
5%
77
%8
3%
88
%9
1%
97
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ma
tag
ord
a2
3,6
72
47
.2%
0%
4%
21
%5
4%
59
%7
0%
73
%7
8%
92
%9
5%
95
%1
00
%1
00
%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%3
0%
35
%4
5%
55
%6
0%
60
%8
5%
85
%8
5%
85
%9
5%
10
0%
10
0%
So
uth
we
st
To
tal
50
,18
32
3.4
%4
%7
%3
2%
56
%6
0%
75
%7
8%
82
%9
2%
94
%9
7%
10
0%
10
0%
20
03
0%
0%
22
%5
0%
68
%7
7%
84
%8
4%
98
%9
8%
98
%9
9%
99
%
20
02
16
%4
1%
65
%8
4%
86
%9
7%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
20
01
7%
26
%4
9%
73
%8
7%
91
%9
7%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ric
e B
elt T
ota
l2
14
,66
19
9.0
%3
%7
%2
8%
48
%5
1%
73
%7
5%
83
%8
8%
90
%9
6%
99
%1
00
%
20
03
0%
0%
21
%4
7%
69
%7
8%
85
%8
4%
98
%9
8%
98
%9
9%
99
%
20
02
16
%4
4%
67
%8
1%
87
%9
6%
98
%9
8%
99
%9
9%
99
%9
9%
10
0%
20
01
6%
21
%4
0%
60
%8
3%
88
%9
4%
98
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
No
rth
ea
st
Zo
ne
Bo
wie
1,5
10
70
.3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10
%1
0%
15
%8
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ho
pkin
s0
0.0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%
Re
d R
ive
r6
39
29
.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25
%2
5%
30
%8
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
No
rth
ea
st
To
tal
2,1
49
1.0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%1
4%
14
%1
9%
80
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Sta
te T
ota
l2
16
,81
01
00
.0%
3%
7%
28
%4
8%
50
%7
2%
75
%8
3%
88
%9
0%
97
%9
9%
10
0%
Co
mp
iled
by T
exa
s A
&M
Un
iv.
Syste
m A
gricu
ltu
ral R
ese
arc
h a
nd
Exte
nsio
n C
en
ter
at
Be
au
mo
nt
Su
rve
y d
ata
fro
m d
rye
rs,
sa
les o
ffic
es,
ag
rib
usin
esse
s,
US
DA
/CF
SA
an
d c
ou
nty
exte
nsio
n a
ge
nts
as a
pp
rop
ria
te
194
Decem
ber 1
5, 2004
2004 T
exas R
ice C
rop W
eekly
Develo
pm
ent S
tatistics
Variable
Estim
ate
d:
Percen
t H
ead
ed
20
04
% Z
ON
E
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Ma
y 2
8Ju
n 4
Jun
11
Jun
18
Jun
25
Jul 2
Jul 9
Jul 1
6Ju
l 23
Jul 3
0A
ug
6A
ug
13
Au
g 2
0A
ug
27
Se
p 3
Ea
st
Zo
ne
Bra
zoria
15
,74
82
4.6
%0
%0
%0
%0
%5
0%
50
%5
0%
50
%5
0%
95
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ch
am
be
rs1
6,0
24
25
.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25
%2
0%
45
%4
5%
45
%4
5%
80
%9
3%
97
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ga
lve
sto
n8
47
1.3
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%4
0%
40
%8
5%
90
%9
0%
90
%9
5%
10
0%
10
0%
Ha
rdin
76
21
.2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30
%3
0%
30
%4
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Jeff
ers
on
19
,95
43
1.2
%0
%0
%0
%0
%5
%1
5%
30
%4
0%
40
%7
5%
80
%9
5%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Lib
ert
y1
0,4
75
16
.4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30
%3
0%
30
%4
0%
80
%9
3%
95
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ora
nge
*9
00
.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ea
st T
ota
l6
3,9
00
29
.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20
%2
2%
39
%4
2%
43
%6
6%
85
%9
5%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
5%
10
%3
7%
37
%4
9%
82
%9
2%
94
%9
6%
98
%9
9%
10
0%
20
02
0%
2%
16
%2
4%
52
%5
9%
67
%7
7%
80
%9
2%
97
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
01
0%
2%
4%
12
%2
1%
40
%5
8%
73
%8
4%
91
%9
5%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
No
rth
we
st
Zo
ne
Au
stin
2,3
13
2.3
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%1
5%
15
%5
8%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Co
lora
do
33
,27
33
3.1
%0
%0
%4
%9
%2
3%
24
%4
9%
53
%6
6%
96
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ha
rris
1,5
22
1.5
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%2
5%
58
%5
8%
68
%8
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
La
vaca
2,1
89
2.2
%0
%0
%1
9%
28
%3
5%
48
%7
0%
70
%8
2%
95
%9
5%
95
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%W
alle
r 7
,86
87
.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10
%2
4%
89
%9
5%
95
%9
5%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Wh
art
on
53
,41
35
3.1
%0
%0
%6
%1
1%
18
%2
2%
48
%6
1%
68
%8
8%
97
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
No
rth
we
st T
ota
l1
00
,57
84
6.9
%0
%0
%5
%9
%1
9%
23
%5
1%
60
%6
9%
91
%9
8%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
18
%3
8%
61
%6
1%
90
%9
2%
98
%9
9%
99
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
02
0%
4%
28
%4
3%
70
%7
9%
90
%9
7%
97
%9
9%
99
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
01
0%
4%
7%
27
%4
3%
56
%7
3%
91
%9
7%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
So
uth
we
st
Zo
ne
Ca
lho
un
2,4
88
5.0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%2
0%
25
%5
0%
70
%7
0%
83
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%F
t. B
en
d7
,93
31
5.8
%0
%0
%0
%0
%1
8%
38
%6
8%
98
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Jack
son
14
,73
42
9.4
%0
%0
%4
%1
7%
29
%3
8%
52
%6
2%
72
%8
7%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ma
tago
rda
23
,67
24
7.2
%0
%0
%4
%9
%2
5%
29
%3
8%
60
%6
1%
81
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%0
%0
%4
5%
55
%5
5%
75
%7
5%
75
%7
5%
85
%1
00
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
So
uth
we
st T
ota
l5
0,1
83
23
.4%
0%
0%
4%
11
%2
6%
34
%4
8%
67
%7
1%
86
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
18
%2
8%
50
%5
0%
86
%9
1%
96
%9
9%
99
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
20
02
1%
5%
29
%3
8%
65
%7
5%
89
%9
6%
96
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
01
0%
6%
12
%2
8%
50
%5
8%
72
%8
9%
97
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ric
e B
elt
To
tal
21
4,6
61
99
.0%
0%
0%
3%
7%
21
%2
5%
47
%5
6%
62
%8
3%
95
%9
8%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
14
%2
8%
52
%5
2%
78
%8
9%
96
%9
8%
98
%9
9%
10
0%
10
0%
20
02
0%
4%
25
%3
6%
64
%7
2%
83
%9
1%
92
%9
7%
98
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
01
0%
4%
7%
23
%3
8%
52
%6
9%
85
%9
3%
97
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
No
rth
ea
st
Zo
ne
Bo
wie
1,5
10
70
.3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ho
pki
ns
00
.0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Re
d R
ive
r6
39
29
.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
60
%7
5%
85
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
No
rth
ea
st T
ota
l2
,14
91
.0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
35
%9
3%
96
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Sta
te T
ota
l2
16
,81
01
00
.0%
0%
0%
3%
7%
21
%2
5%
46
%5
6%
61
%8
2%
95
%9
8%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Co
mp
iled
by
Te
xas
A&
M U
niv
. S
yste
m A
gric
ultu
ral R
ese
arc
h a
nd
Ext
en
sio
n C
en
ter
at
Be
au
mo
nt
Su
rve
y d
ata
fro
m d
rye
rs,
sale
s o
ffic
es,
agr
ibu
sin
ess
es,
US
DA
/CF
SA
an
d c
ou
nty
ext
en
sio
n a
gen
ts a
s a
pp
rop
riate
195
Decem
ber 1
5, 2004
2004 T
exas R
ice C
rop W
eekly
Develo
pm
ent S
tatistics
V
ariable
Estim
ate
d:
Percen
t M
ain
Harvest
2
00
4%
ZO
NE
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Ju
l 9
Ju
l 1
6Ju
l 2
3Ju
l 3
0A
ug 6
Au
g 1
3A
ug 2
0A
ug 2
7S
ep
3S
ep
10
Se
p 1
7S
ep
24
Oct
1O
ct
8
Ea
st
Zo
ne
Bra
zo
ria
15
,74
82
4.6
%0
%0
%0
%5
%1
5%
35
%5
5%
85
%9
0%
98
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ch
am
be
rs1
6,0
24
25
.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
34
%4
0%
45
%5
3%
95
%9
7%
97
%9
7%
99
%G
alv
esto
n8
47
1.3
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%1
0%
28
%5
0%
80
%9
8%
98
%9
8%
10
0%
10
0%
Ha
rdin
76
21
.2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10
%3
8%
45
%5
0%
50
%9
5%
98
%9
8%
98
%1
00
%Je
ffe
rso
n1
9,9
54
31
.2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15
%3
0%
54
%6
5%
75
%9
8%
98
%9
8%
10
0%
10
0%
Lib
ert
y1
0,4
75
16
.4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
34
%4
1%
45
%5
3%
95
%9
7%
97
%9
7%
99
%O
ran
ge
*9
00
.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
Ea
st
To
tal
63
,90
02
9.8
%0
%0
%0
%1
%1
1%
33
%4
8%
61
%6
9%
97
%9
8%
98
%9
9%
10
0%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
10
%2
7%
59
%6
5%
71
%8
3%
93
%9
7%
98
%
20
02
0%
0%
1%
14
%3
9%
53
%6
8%
77
%8
7%
93
%9
5%
99
%9
9%
10
0%
20
01
0%
0%
1%
9%
16
%3
3%
55
%6
2%
65
%8
6%
95
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
No
rth
we
st
Zo
ne
Au
stin
2,3
13
2.3
%0
%0
%0
%7
%2
5%
35
%4
5%
60
%9
5%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Co
lora
do
33
,27
33
3.1
%0
%0
%0
%5
%2
3%
55
%6
5%
78
%8
7%
95
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%H
arr
is1
,52
21
.5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
30
%4
8%
53
%6
8%
95
%9
5%
95
%9
5%
99
%
La
va
ca
2,1
89
2.2
%0
%0
%0
%0
%3
3%
48
%7
0%
88
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Wa
ller
7,8
68
7.8
%0
%0
%0
%0
%1
2%
33
%4
5%
55
%9
0%
98
%9
8%
98
%9
8%
10
0%
Wh
art
on
53
,41
35
3.1
%0
%0
%0
%2
%4
%4
2%
68
%7
8%
87
%9
3%
99
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%
No
rth
we
st
To
tal
10
0,5
78
46
.9%
0%
0%
0%
3%
12
%4
5%
64
%7
6%
87
%9
4%
99
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
16
%3
1%
70
%8
3%
93
%9
6%
97
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%2
00
20
%0
%6
%4
4%
76
%8
8%
91
%9
4%
97
%9
9%
99
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
01
0%
1%
7%
19
%4
7%
73
%9
0%
94
%9
5%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
So
uth
we
st
Zo
ne
Ca
lho
un
2,4
88
5.0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%3
2%
50
%5
7%
65
%9
4%
94
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ft.
Be
nd
7,9
33
15
.8%
0%
0%
0%
5%
5%
51
%5
1%
51
%9
5%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ja
ckso
n1
4,7
34
29
.4%
0%
0%
0%
3%
16
%4
0%
62
%7
7%
94
%9
5%
98
%9
8%
99
%1
00
%M
ata
go
rda
23
,67
24
7.2
%0
%0
%0
%3
%1
4%
45
%6
0%
75
%9
1%
92
%9
5%
95
%9
9%
10
0%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%0
%0
%0
%0
%2
8%
35
%4
8%
65
%9
7%
97
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
So
uth
we
st
To
tal
50
,18
32
3.4
%0
%0
%0
%3
%1
4%
44
%5
9%
71
%9
3%
94
%9
7%
97
%9
9%
10
0%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
12
%1
8%
36
%5
1%
80
%8
8%
90
%9
8%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
02
0%
8%
11
%4
1%
69
%8
6%
91
%9
4%
97
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
20
01
0%
2%
6%
15
%4
9%
68
%8
9%
94
%9
4%
98
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%1
00
%
Ric
e B
elt T
ota
l2
14
,66
19
9.0
%0
%0
%0
%2
%1
2%
41
%5
8%
70
%8
3%
95
%9
8%
98
%9
9%
10
0%
20
03
0%
0%
0%
11
%2
1%
46
%6
0%
81
%8
6%
88
%9
5%
98
%9
9%
99
%
20
02
0%
2%
6%
35
%6
3%
78
%8
5%
89
%9
4%
97
%9
8%
10
0%
10
0%
10
0%
20
01
0%
1%
5%
15
%3
9%
60
%8
0%
85
%8
6%
95
%9
8%
98
%9
8%
10
0%
No
rth
ea
st
Zo
ne
Bo
wie
1,5
10
70
.3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
18
%1
8%
35
%6
5%
85
%
Ho
pkin
s0
0.0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%R
ed
Riv
er
63
92
9.7
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%2
0%
75
%8
5%
95
%9
5%
No
rth
ea
st
To
tal
2,1
49
1.0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%0
%1
9%
35
%5
0%
74
%8
8%
Sta
te T
ota
l2
16
,81
01
00
.0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
12
%4
1%
58
%7
0%
82
%9
4%
98
%9
8%
99
%1
00
%
Co
mp
iled
by T
exa
s A
&M
Un
iv.
Syste
m A
gricu
ltu
ral R
ese
arc
h a
nd
Exte
nsio
n C
en
ter
at
Be
au
mo
nt
Su
rve
y d
ata
fro
m d
rye
rs,
sa
les o
ffic
es,
agrib
usin
esse
s,
US
DA
/CF
SA
an
d c
ou
nty
exte
nsio
n a
ge
nts
as a
pp
rop
ria
te
196
Decem
ber 1
5, 2004
2004 T
exas R
ice C
rop W
eekly
Develo
pm
ent S
tatistics
V
ariable
Estim
ate
d:
Percen
t R
ato
on
Harvested
2004
% Z
ON
E
CO
UN
TY
AC
RE
AG
EA
CR
EA
GE
Oct 1
Oct 8
Oct 15
Oct 22
Oct 29
Nov 5
Nov 1
2N
ov 1
9N
ov 2
6D
ec 3
Dec 1
0
East Z
one
Bra
zoria
15,7
48
24.6
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10%
30%
55%
85%
98%
100%
Cham
bers
16,0
24
25.1
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10%
27%
53%
83%
98%
100%
Galv
esto
n847
1.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Hard
in762
1.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10%
30%
55%
85%
95%
100%
Jeffers
on
19,9
54
31.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
12%
60%
75%
90%
100%
100%
Lib
erty
10,4
75
16.4
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10%
28%
53%
83%
98%
100%
Ora
nge*
90
0.1
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
East T
ota
l63,9
00
29.8
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
10%
38%
60%
85%
97%
99%
2003
0%
0%
2%
2%
20%
21%
37%
51%
59%
89%
99%
Northw
est Z
one
Austin
2,3
13
2.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Colo
rado
33,2
73
33.1
%0%
0%
0%
3%
9%
30%
50%
65%
84%
94%
100%
Harris
1,5
22
1.5
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
25%
50%
78%
85%
100%
Lavaca
2,1
89
2.2
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
55%
68%
83%
94%
100%
Walle
r 7,8
68
7.8
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
13%
35%
57%
80%
92%
100%
Wharton
53,4
13
53.1
%0%
0%
0%
4%
8%
30%
49%
67%
83%
93%
100%
Northw
est T
ota
l100,5
78
46.9
%0%
0%
0%
3%
8%
28%
47%
64%
81%
91%
98%
2003
0%
0%
0%
8%
47%
58%
85%
92%
99%
99%
100%
South
west Z
one
Calh
oun
2,4
88
5.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Ft. B
end
7,9
33
15.8
%0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
15%
40%
65%
83%
92%
100%
Jackson
14,7
34
29.4
%0%
0%
0%
7%
14%
32%
33%
68%
85%
95%
100%
Mata
gord
a23,6
72
47.2
%0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
41%
65%
80%
85%
94%
100%
Vic
toria
1,3
56
2.7
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
South
west T
ota
l50,1
83
23.4
%0%
0%
0%
7%
10%
31%
47%
68%
78%
87%
92%
2003
0%
0%
0%
12%
28%
44%
78%
84%
91%
95%
99%
Ric
e B
elt
Tota
l214,6
61
99.0
%0%
0%
0%
3%
7%
23%
44%
64%
81%
92%
97%
2003
0%
0%
0%
7%
35%
45%
70%
78%
86%
94%
99%
Northeast Z
one
Bow
ie1,5
10
70.3
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Hopkin
s0
0.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Red R
iver
639
29.7
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Northeast T
ota
l2,1
49
1.0
%0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Sta
te T
ota
l216,8
10
100.0
%0%
0%
0%
3%
7%
23%
44%
63%
81%
91%
96%
Com
pile
d b
y T
exas A
&M
Univ
. S
yste
m A
gric
ultu
ral R
esearc
h a
nd E
xte
nsio
n C
ente
r at B
eaum
ont
Surv
ey d
ata
fro
m d
ryers
, sale
s o
ffic
es, agrib
usin
esses, U
SD
A/C
FS
A a
nd c
ounty
exte
nsio
n a
gents
as a
ppro
pria
te
197
TEXAS RICE
Percent Conservation Tillage
Year Percentage
2004 30%
2003 32%
2002 52%
Percent Precision Leveled
Year Percentage
2004 23%
2003 24%
2002 11%
Irrigation Water Source
(Percent Acres)
Year
Total
Acres
Surface
Ground
Re-lift
2004 216,810 58% 41% 1%
2003 178,028 54% 45% 1%
2002 205,748 62% 37% 1%
198
2004
Historic Texas Year End Rice Stocks
List of Collaborators
December 1, 2004
Respondents Carryover Stocks
American Rice Growers Anahuac - James Hewitt x
American Rice Growers Dayton - Aaron Holbrook x
American Rice Growers Garwood - Vivian Spanihel x
American Rice Growers Richmond x
Area Rice Marketing - Tom Kallina x
Brushy Creek Farm & Land - David Basinger x
Brookshire Drying Co. - Pam Wostarek x
BU Growers - Joe Crane x
Doguet Rice Mill - Mike Doguet x
East Bernard Rice Marketing - Jay Davis x
Garrett Farms - Jacko Garrett, Traci Harvey x
Hall’s Bayou Ranch - David LeCompte x
Martin Farms - Don Martin x
Rice Belt Warehouse Bay City - John Dippel x
Rice Belt Warehouse Blessing - Andy Jasek, Sunny Pierce x
Rice Belt Warehouse Edna - Ralph Novasod x
Rice Belt Warehouse El Campo - Jimmy Pavlik x
Rice Belt Warehouse Ganado - Rodney Tegeler x
Woods Interests - J.D. ADes@ Woods x
199
Historic Texas Rice Stocks
(Total)
August 2, 2004
Rough Rice (cwt)
Milled Rice (cwt)
Crop Year
Long Grain
Medium Grain
Long Grain
Medium Grain
2003
as of July 29,
2004
107,047 10,000 2,350 0
2002
as of Aug 11,
2003
90,058 0 0 0
2001
as of Jul 18,
2002
1,357,151
0
23,836
2,995
2000
as of Jul 15,
2001
948,769
26,278
95,459
0
200
Final Report –December 09, 2004
Western Area Research Support
Project Number: S6592 - Western Area
Project Leader: Jack Vawter
201
December 09, 2004
To: T.R.R.F. Board of Directors
From: Jack Vawter
Subject: Final Report for the Western Area Research Support Project - Year 2004
Your funding assistance allowed the continuation of two positions at Eagle Lake. Your
continued support as always, is greatly appreciated.
I submit as a report to you a brief summary of work conducted in the Western Area and “raw”
data summaries on the studies that were harvested and processed by Western Area staff so that
you may see in part the amount of data TRRF in partnership with TAES, TRIA, and USDA
provided in 2004 for research scientists dedicated to impacting the future of Texas rice
growers. All “Summary” data are simple averages across replications and/or locations. This
preliminary data is presented to the TRRF Board without statistical procedures and should not
be published nor made available to others without Texas A & M or USDA approval.
The stated objective of the Western Area Research Support project was and is “to provide a
stable pool of resources for research over a variety of conditions which may alter results
somewhat from year to year”. As you know, this project develops data for a number of
research scientists affiliated with the Texas A & M University System and the USDA. Data is
developed and electronically transmitted to the appropriate scientist who has the responsibility
for statistical workup and all data interpretation.
Western Area Research Support Staff
Eddie Pavliska - Farm Foreman - 23 years
Billy Sanders - Technician I - 20 years
Henry Schmidt Jr. - Technician I - 10 years
James Raabe - Technician I - 6 years
Bennie Schmidt - Technician I - 6 years
Coleen Meitzen - Secretary - 5 years
Jack Vawter - Farm Research Services Manager - 28 years
202
Objective:
The stated objective of the Western Area Research Support project was and is “to provide a
stable pool of resources for research over a variety of conditions which may alter results
somewhat from year to year”.
Summary:
Twenty-six experiments with 2589 main crop plots and 1384 ratoon crop plots were conducted
in the Western Area in 2004. This research was conducted at two locations (Eagle Lake and
Ganado).
Several studies in producer’s fields and at the Beaumont Center were also provided assistance.
2004 Western Area Planting
Project 2004 Main Crop Plots 2004 Ratoon Crop Plots
Soils and Plant Nutrition
Turner
548 496
Pathology
Krausz
125 0
Varietal Improvements
McClung
540 360
Water Management
McCauley
1088 312
Entomology
Way
176 104
Plant Physiology
Tarpley
112 112
Total Plots 2004 2589 1384
Main Crop Plots Ratoon Crop Plots
Total Plots 2003 2496 1244
Total Plots 2002 2880 1336
Total Plots 2001 3122 1240
Total Plots 2000 3216 1368
Total Plots 1999 2554 1130
Total Plots 1998 2478 1246
Total Plots 1997 2496 580
203
Six studies for the Soils and Plant Nutrition project were conducted at Eagle Lake. Five of
these were taken to ratoon.
One main crop only study for the Pathology project was conducted at Eagle Lake.
Three studies were conducted for the Varietal Improvement project. Two of these were at
Eagle Lake with one taken to ratoon. One study was at Ganado and was taken to ratoon.
Eleven studies were conducted with the Water Management project. Seven of these studies
were at Eagle Lake, two of which were taken to ratoon. Four studies were at Ganado with one
taken to ratooon. The Water Management project is housed on the Eagle Lake site and retain
and report data on their studies.
Three studies were conducted for the Entomology project. One main crop only study was at
Eagle Lake. Two studies were at Ganado, with one taken to ratoon. Additionally, a sugarcane
host plant resistance trial to test for stem borer resistance was continued and expanded at
Ganado.
Two studies were conducted for the Plant Physiology project. Both of these were at Eagle
Lake and were taken to ratoon.
Data from all studies other than the Water Management project studies conducted in the
Western Area are attached to this report.
Samples from approximately 1700 plots from Western Area studies were milled to determine
quality.
204
Donated supplies from many sources in the rice industry aided in containing the cost of
conducting research in the Western Area. A listing of the donations received in 2004 follows.
Donations Which Reduced Western Area Operating Costs in 2004
Source Item
Agrevo Liberty
BASF Basagran, Facet
Bayer Icon
Dow Agri Science Clincher, Remedy
Dow Agri Science Glyphomax, Grandstand R
Dow Agri Science Justice, Glypro
Dow Agri Science Stam M-4, Stam 80 EDF
Dupont Harmony Extra, Londax
FMC Command 3ME, Fury
Garrett Farms Seed Rice
Helena - El Campo Kinetic
L.C.R.A. Relift Pump and Water
Monsanto Permit, Roundup
RiceCo Arrosolo, Duet, Propanil
Syngenta Cyclone, Karate
T.R.I.A. Seed Rice
Valent Regiment, Bolero
* Carryover chemicals donated and listed in previous years were also utilized.
205
2004 W
este
rn A
rea
Stu
die
s
M
C
RC
MC
R
C
Pro
ject
Pro
ject
Ex
p.#
#
Stu
dy
Nam
e L
oc.
P
.I.
Plo
ts
Plo
ts
To
tals
T
ota
ls
20
04
-01
A
dv
ance
d V
arie
ty T
rials
E
.L.
McC
lun
g
18
0
18
0
20
04
-02
A
dv
ance
d V
arie
ty T
rials
G
an.
McC
lun
g
18
0
18
0
20
04
-03
P
reli
min
ary
Var
iety
Tri
als
E.L
. M
cClu
ng
1
80
0
5
40
3
60
20
04
-04
V
arie
ty S
creen
ing
E
.L.
Tu
rner
1
44
1
44
20
04
-05
V
arie
ty S
creen
ing
Del
ayed
Pla
nti
ng
E
.L.
Tu
rner
5
2
0
20
04
-06
R
ato
on
BM
P
E.L
. T
urn
er
32
3
2
20
04
-07
F
luid
Fer
tili
zer
E.L
. T
urn
er
12
0
12
0
20
04
-08
R
iceT
ec
Hy
bri
d V
arie
ty D
efin
itio
n S
tud
y
E.L
. T
urn
er
11
6
11
6
20
04
-09
R
iceT
ec
Hy
bri
d V
arie
ty N
Vali
dat
ion
Stu
dy
E
.L.
Tu
rner
8
4
84
5
48
4
96
20
04
-10
S
hea
th B
lig
ht
Fu
ng
icid
es
E.L
. K
rau
sz
12
5
0
12
5
0
20
04
-11
S
tem
Bo
rer
Dat
e o
f S
eed
ing
/Var
iety
D1
E
.L.
Way
1
2
12
20
04
-11
S
tem
Bo
rer
Dat
e o
f S
eed
ing
/Var
iety
D2
E
.L.
Way
1
2
12
20
04
-11
S
tem
Bo
rer
Dat
e o
f S
eed
ing
/Var
iety
D3
E
.L.
Way
1
2
0
20
04
-12
S
tem
Bo
rer
Inse
cti
cid
e T
rial
s G
an.
Way
6
0
0
20
04
-13
H
PR
Ste
m B
ore
r T
rial
Gan
. W
ay
80
8
0
17
6
10
4
20
04
-14
T
RR
F W
eed
Stu
dy
E
.L.
McC
aule
y
12
0
0
20
04
-15
A
eria
l C
om
man
d
E.L
. M
cCau
ley
3
2
0
20
04
-16
R
iceT
ec
Var
iety
E
.L.
McC
aule
y
48
4
8
20
04
-17
D
OW
DE
63
8
E.L
. M
cCau
ley
2
40
0
20
04
-18
B
eyo
nd
To
lera
nce
E.L
. M
cCau
ley
4
0
0
20
04
-19
R
egim
ent
/ F
ace
t E
.L.
McC
aule
y
24
0
20
04
-20
R
ato
on
Flo
od
Mg
mt.
E
.L.
McC
aule
y
21
6
21
6
20
04
-21
T
RR
F W
eed
Stu
dy
G
an.
McC
aule
y
12
0
0
20
04
-22
A
eria
l C
om
man
d
Gan
. M
cCau
ley
3
2
0
20
04
-23
R
iceT
ec
Var
iety
G
an.
McC
aule
y
48
4
8
20
04
-24
R
iceT
ec
Her
bic
ide T
ole
ran
ce
Gan
. M
cCau
ley
1
92
0
1
08
8
31
2
20
04
-25
P
GR
Var
ieti
es -
Ccd
r, C
hn
r, C
L 1
61
, C
LX
L8
E
.L.
Tar
ple
y
64
6
4
20
04
-26
R
iceT
ec
PG
R -
XL
-7 H
yb
rid
& J
effe
rso
n
E.L
. T
arp
ley
4
8
48
1
12
1
12
T
ota
ls
25
89
1
38
4
206
Exp. Name:2004-01 Advanced Variety Trials Planted: 3/31 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. McClung Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 10
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: 6.25x 16 RC: 2.5 x16
Variety: 60 Seed Rate: 90# S.E.: 4/08
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP 250 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF 80 5/18 Flush
Fert: Am. Sulf PD Adv 1, Adv 2 80 6/7,6/14 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf 5-7 d pre-drain 30N 7/21 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 5/21
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/26; 7/26
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75 ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3ME .30ai 4/1 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+permit+coc
2+2+.35 +.066ai 4/29
Herb: londax .10 6/1
Herb:
Fung:
Insect KarateZ .04ai 7/05;13,
Insect: 7/20
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 100N 8/04 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/04
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/22
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 9/02
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:1st harvest8/02; 2
nd 8/04; RC havst 10/25; 11/04; 11/08
207
20
04
Adv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
Ea
gle
La
ke
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
SA
DV
2
00
4
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Lb
s/A
c L
bs/
Ac
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
PE
DIG
RE
E
12
% M
H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t.
Bu
1
2%
M
12
% M
1
3
TX
90
92
6
96
8
84
1
15
9
1
0
62
.1
71
.9
17
.6
45
.5
45
25
1
14
93
2
6
JEF
F/C
CD
R
73
32
8
9
12
0
93
0
6
3.7
7
0.8
2
0.7
4
8.7
3
94
3
11
276
3
12
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
14
5
82
1
14
9
1
0
63
.5
71
.2
18
.1
43
.2
44
88
1
16
33
4
19
JE
FF
ER
SO
N
66
16
8
0
11
3
92
0
5
8.7
7
1.8
1
7.6
4
4.2
4
03
1
10
647
5
29
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
8
06
8
86
1
13
8
2
0
63
.2
72
.3
17
.7
48
.0
41
34
1
22
02
6
32
JE
FF
/(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
L2
01
/3/S
KB
T)R
U9
40
40
77
8
18
8
85
1
17
1
06
0
5
8.0
7
0.1
1
8.7
4
5.9
3
56
9
11
756
7
43
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
21
6
86
1
16
1
00
0
6
1.2
7
1.8
1
8.0
4
6.6
4
99
3
12
209
8
46
C
CD
R/T
X8
13
8(P
CO
S/L
MN
T//
GF
MT
) 7
37
5
88
1
15
9
9
0
63
.5
71
.5
18
.2
48
.4
57
89
1
31
63
9
69
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
72
14
8
3
11
4
90
0
5
5.7
7
1.1
1
8.5
4
4.0
4
42
7
11
641
10
7
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
66
70
8
3
11
5
93
0
5
9.1
7
0.9
1
7.4
4
6.2
4
51
5
11
185
11
7
5
(GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
10
/CC
DR
6
89
5
79
1
12
1
01
0
5
9.4
7
2.4
1
6.7
4
6.1
4
66
7
11
563
12
7
8
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
75
7
84
1
18
9
2
0
58
.6
70
.0
19
.6
47
.5
52
12
1
29
69
13
8
6
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
75
56
8
3
11
4
92
0
6
4.4
7
1.2
1
8.4
4
4.9
4
39
8
11
953
14
8
9
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
78
44
8
3
11
4
91
0
6
3.8
7
1.6
1
8.4
4
4.3
4
43
3
12
277
15
1
8
CO
CO
DR
IE
79
56
8
4
11
6
91
0
6
0.9
7
1.3
1
8.3
4
7.4
4
26
7
12
222
16
9
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
73
31
8
5
11
5
87
0
6
1.9
7
2.6
1
8.2
4
6.5
4
76
6
12
098
17
9
5
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
62
3
82
1
16
1
03
0
5
3.5
7
0.5
1
8.1
4
6.3
4
94
6
12
569
18
9
8
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
77
44
8
4
11
5
10
2
0
55
.8
69
.5
17
.8
45
.2
41
48
1
18
92
19
1
01
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
7
91
2
85
1
16
9
4
0
67
.7
73
.3
18
.0
48
.7
42
89
1
22
01
20
1
18
H
IDA
LG
O
76
25
8
0
11
3
98
0
6
4.0
7
1.2
1
7.5
4
1.8
3
04
2
10
667
21
1
04
(G
FM
T*
2/T
QN
G)T
X4
11
0/C
CD
R
73
29
8
4
11
5
96
0
6
2.4
7
1.9
1
7.9
4
7.0
4
23
1
11
559
22
1
07
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
31
3
85
1
16
9
7
0
58
.3
70
.0
18
.2
47
.0
43
49
1
16
61
23
1
13
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
10
3
85
1
15
9
5
0
60
.2
71
.2
17
.8
47
.1
41
70
1
12
73
24
5
8
CH
EN
IER
E
76
73
8
8
12
0
90
0
6
0.4
7
1.7
2
0.4
4
8.3
4
13
9
11
812
25
1
23
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
85
6
85
1
16
9
8
0
54
.9
69
.5
18
.0
45
.2
44
13
1
12
69
26
1
29
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
44
9
83
1
12
8
9
0
58
.8
70
.2
16
.7
43
.8
41
14
1
15
63
27
1
32
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
38
9
86
1
17
1
01
0
5
5.1
7
0.8
1
8.5
4
4.8
3
67
7
11
066
28
1
35
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
86
6
86
1
16
9
1
0
62
.6
70
.3
18
.3
44
.9
40
87
1
19
53
29
1
44
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
7
57
0
83
1
14
8
9
0
67
.3
73
.2
18
.0
44
.7
37
07
1
12
77
30
1
47
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
55
9
86
1
17
1
02
0
5
8.8
7
0.7
1
8.7
4
6.1
4
53
6
12
095
31
8
0
WE
LL
S
84
24
8
8
11
7
10
8
0
58
.0
71
.8
18
.6
48
.7
30
15
1
14
39
32
1
63
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
8
23
9
86
1
12
8
0
0
64
.2
72
.6
16
.7
47
.7
40
15
1
22
54
33
1
75
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
8
47
8
85
1
16
9
5
0
58
.5
69
.4
18
.0
47
.0
39
86
1
24
64
34
1
78
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
84
72
8
3
11
5
90
0
5
9.5
7
1.0
1
8.3
4
5.7
4
55
4
13
026
35
1
81
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
8
35
7
84
1
15
8
8
0
65
.3
70
.8
19
.0
44
.1
43
22
1
26
78
36
1
84
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
85
27
8
5
11
4
93
0
5
7.1
6
9.0
1
7.2
4
5.6
3
29
3
11
819
37
1
87
C
CD
R/(
GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
53
8
50
1
85
1
19
9
2
0
61
.5
71
.9
19
.8
47
.9
54
59
1
39
59
38
1
59
D
IXIE
BE
LL
E
67
65
8
6
11
3
88
0
6
2.4
7
0.8
1
7.8
4
4.4
5
29
7
12
062
39
9
S
AB
INE
8
47
4
84
1
16
9
5
0
63
.6
71
.1
18
.5
48
.6
47
60
1
32
34
40
.
XP
72
3
11
042
8
2
11
4
11
0
0
60
.3
71
.7
16
.9
42
.2
64
14
1
74
56
41
1
10
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
70
2
82
1
16
9
8
0
62
.2
70
.4
19
.2
43
.2
45
08
1
22
11
208
20
04
Adv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
Ea
gle
La
ke
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
SA
DV
2
00
4
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Lb
s/A
c L
bs/
Ac
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
PE
DIG
RE
E
12
% M
H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t.
Bu
1
2%
M
12
% M
42
1
26
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
8
20
9
85
1
16
9
0
0
63
.4
69
.6
19
.7
44
.3
44
74
1
26
82
43
1
38
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
8
41
6
85
1
14
9
8
0
48
.6
67
.8
17
.1
45
.3
33
15
1
17
31
44
1
41
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
8
16
3
85
1
15
9
8
0
57
.0
69
.3
17
.8
45
.5
36
35
1
17
99
45
1
50
((
VS
TA
/LB
NT
//R
SM
T)/
LB
LE
)TX
70
35
/PS
CL
8
01
7
85
1
13
1
05
0
5
9.6
7
1.0
1
6.7
4
4.1
4
89
0
12
907
46
1
69
P
SC
L/M
DS
N
76
14
8
6
11
6
92
0
6
1.6
7
1.2
1
8.0
4
8.1
5
55
4
13
168
47
4
9
(PC
OS
/RU
87
03
19
6//
GF
MT
)RU
95
03
15
0/(
RX
MT
/IR
48
//R
SM
T)
78
77
8
5
11
5
91
0
6
5.4
7
0.6
1
8.8
4
5.5
4
34
6
12
222
48
5
6
SA
BE
R
77
33
8
5
11
4
10
2
0
63
.7
69
.3
18
.4
46
.8
41
11
1
18
45
49
1
16
(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
RS
MT
)TX
40
86
/(R
XM
T/I
R4
8//
RS
MT
) 7
72
8
88
1
17
9
1
0
66
.1
71
.5
20
.0
45
.4
39
46
1
16
74
50
1
90
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
44
/JE
FF
7
49
3
82
1
15
9
3
0
61
.8
70
.0
18
.6
45
.5
44
59
1
19
52
51
2
0
CY
BO
NN
ET
8
18
3
85
1
17
9
1
0
66
.9
72
.2
19
.3
46
.7
38
74
1
20
58
52
5
2
Tex
mo
nt/
TeQ
ing
(B
F7
-42
) 8
13
0
88
1
13
8
4
0
63
.8
71
.7
17
.7
47
.2
41
94
1
23
25
53
6
6
Lem
on
t/W
an
gd
ao
(B
F3
-56
6)
77
12
8
6
11
6
89
0
6
2.6
7
1.5
1
8.2
4
8.9
4
89
6
12
607
54
7
9
BA
NK
S
89
50
8
9
11
6
11
3
0
54
.2
69
.0
18
.0
48
.3
30
66
1
20
16
55
2
3
Lem
on
t/Q
ixio
uzh
an (
BF
4-2
74
) 8
11
2
89
1
18
9
0
0
53
.4
70
.4
19
.8
47
.7
39
24
1
20
36
56
2
6
(CP
RS
/PE
LD
E)/
JEF
F
86
78
8
9
11
8
95
0
6
5.3
7
0.1
1
9.5
4
7.8
3
82
0
12
499
57
6
3
Kay
bo
nn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F5
-1-1
) 8
15
8
89
1
15
8
2
0
64
.3
71
.0
18
.5
47
.6
43
28
1
24
86
58
1
53
L
emo
nt/
Qix
iou
zh
an (
BF
5-1
43
-1)
77
34
9
0
11
9
86
0
5
3.6
7
0.3
1
9.8
4
8.0
4
31
4
12
048
59
1
66
K
ayb
onn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F7
-40
) 8
43
4
89
1
14
8
7
0
64
.1
71
.2
18
.3
46
.7
42
13
1
26
47
60
1
72
(M
AR
S/C
M1
01
)/(L
BN
T_
WX
/RU
87
03
19
0)
81
85
9
1
11
9
94
0
6
4.7
6
8.7
2
0.1
4
8.3
3
86
4
12
049
209
Exp. Name: 2004-02 Advanced Variety Trials Planted: 4/21 Depth: 1/2"
Staff: Dr. McClung Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 9
Location: Ganado Soil: Edna Plot Size: MC:5.6x16 RC: 2.5x16
Variety: 60 Varieties Seed Rate: 100# S.E.: 5/2
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP 250 5/21 Flush rain 4/25
Fert: Urea PF 80N 6/3 Flush 5/23
Fert: Am Sulf PD 80N 6/21 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf 5-7 d pre drain 30N 8/10 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 6/05
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 8/19
Herb: Command 3ME 0.35 4/23 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+Per+Coc
2+2+ .35+.066 5/21 I.D. Date
Herb:
Herb:
Herb:
Fung:
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04 ai 7/09
Insect: 7/15;7/26
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 70N 8/30 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/31
RC Fertilizer Total Drain 11/03;11/08
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/26; 8/30 RCHvst 11/08;11/19
210
2
00
4 A
dv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
G
an
ad
o
R
ato
on
T
ota
l
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
SA
DV
2
00
4
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Lb
s/A
c L
bs/
Ac
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
PE
DIG
RE
E
12
% M
H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t.
Bu
1
2%
M
12
% M
1
3
TX
90
92
7
07
0
78
1
13
9
6
0
61
.8
69
.5
16
.9
43
.4
30
78
1
01
48
2
6
JEF
F/C
CD
R
70
07
8
2
12
1
95
0
6
4.0
6
9.6
2
1.8
4
6.6
2
71
3
97
20
3
12
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
21
9
75
1
14
9
3
0
61
.2
68
.2
17
.8
39
.5
24
67
9
68
6
4
19
JE
FF
ER
SO
N
76
88
7
3
11
2
87
0
5
1.9
6
8.8
1
6.5
4
0.7
2
93
0
10
618
5
29
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
7
14
8
78
1
13
8
5
0
56
.8
69
.4
17
.0
44
.0
30
15
1
01
63
6
32
JE
FF
/(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
L2
01
/3/S
KB
T)R
U9
40
40
77
7
69
7
77
1
17
1
06
0
5
4.8
6
8.4
1
9.4
4
3.5
3
78
1
11
478
7
43
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
89
9
78
1
15
1
04
0
6
1.2
6
9.0
1
7.9
4
2.7
3
21
3
10
112
8
46
C
CD
R/T
X8
13
8(P
CO
S/L
MN
T//
GF
MT
) 6
69
7
80
1
16
9
9
0
60
.0
69
.2
18
.7
44
.2
29
23
9
62
0
9
69
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
75
87
7
8
11
4
98
0
5
4.1
6
8.4
1
7.9
4
1.8
3
02
6
10
613
10
7
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
71
86
7
8
11
4
96
0
5
8.1
6
8.1
1
7.6
4
0.8
3
37
8
10
564
11
7
5
(GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
10
/CC
DR
6
25
7
74
1
11
9
8
0
54
.6
69
.1
15
.7
40
.8
35
27
9
78
3
12
7
8
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
83
8
77
1
19
9
3
0
56
.0
67
.7
20
.8
45
.2
39
63
1
18
01
13
8
6
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
75
44
7
4
11
4
94
0
6
2.6
6
8.2
1
7.3
4
0.1
2
83
9
10
383
14
8
9
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
80
18
7
6
11
5
99
0
6
3.0
6
8.6
1
7.9
4
2.0
3
71
7
11
736
15
1
8
CO
CO
DR
IE
81
24
7
7
11
7
94
0
5
9.6
6
9.9
1
9.3
4
3.4
2
15
8
10
283
16
9
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
75
99
7
7
11
4
94
0
6
0.4
6
9.6
1
7.7
4
0.8
3
78
4
11
383
17
9
5
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
64
2
77
1
17
1
07
7
5
8.3
6
8.9
1
9.4
4
4.3
3
42
7
11
069
18
9
8
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
72
68
7
8
11
9
99
4
7
57
.4
67
.6
20
.7
40
.2
19
10
9
17
8
19
1
01
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
7
49
4
78
1
17
9
8
0
65
.5
71
.0
19
.1
45
.1
32
17
1
07
11
20
1
18
H
IDA
LG
O
79
40
7
6
11
7
99
2
0
60
.9
68
.2
19
.7
39
.0
18
23
9
76
2
21
1
04
(G
FM
T*
2/T
QN
G)T
X4
11
0/C
CD
R
71
74
7
6
11
5
10
2
0
60
.0
68
.8
18
.3
43
.8
28
97
1
00
71
22
1
07
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
34
7
78
1
17
1
04
0
5
9.2
6
8.0
1
9.5
4
4.4
3
92
2
11
268
23
1
13
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
25
3
80
1
15
1
04
0
6
1.7
6
9.1
1
8.4
4
5.3
2
58
2
98
34
24
5
8
CH
EN
IER
E
76
29
8
0
11
9
91
0
6
0.2
7
0.6
2
0.7
4
5.0
1
88
8
95
17
25
1
23
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
60
1
78
1
17
1
00
0
5
8.1
6
8.1
1
9.5
4
2.0
2
58
1
91
82
26
1
29
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
69
5
75
1
12
9
2
0
61
.7
68
.9
16
.3
41
.2
32
72
1
09
67
27
1
32
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
23
9
80
1
20
1
08
0
5
9.3
6
8.7
2
0.9
4
3.0
2
60
5
98
45
28
1
35
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
53
3
78
1
17
9
6
0
62
.9
68
.2
19
.5
42
.5
29
47
1
04
80
29
1
44
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
8
59
7
77
1
15
9
5
3
66
.3
70
.6
17
.9
43
.1
17
24
1
03
21
30
1
47
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
42
5
79
1
19
1
11
0
5
8.8
6
8.7
2
0.9
4
3.3
2
82
1
10
246
31
8
0
WE
LL
S
89
22
8
1
11
9
11
0
0
58
.4
70
.6
18
.9
48
.2
20
13
1
09
35
32
1
63
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
7
10
5
77
1
10
8
6
0
56
.9
70
.7
15
.3
45
.3
32
05
1
03
10
33
1
75
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
93
3
80
1
17
1
03
0
5
8.2
6
6.7
1
9.3
4
3.4
2
80
1
97
34
34
1
78
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
71
60
7
8
11
5
95
0
5
9.3
6
8.4
1
8.2
4
4.9
2
85
3
10
014
35
1
81
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
24
1
78
1
15
9
7
0
62
.5
68
.6
18
.0
41
.6
26
22
9
86
3
36
1
84
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
67
24
8
1
11
5
93
0
5
9.0
6
7.9
1
8.0
4
1.6
3
02
9
97
53
37
1
87
C
CD
R/(
GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
53
6
65
0
80
1
19
9
4
0
59
.8
69
.8
20
.7
46
.3
28
68
9
51
8
38
1
59
D
IXIE
BE
LL
E
65
47
8
0
11
2
91
0
5
9.7
6
9.0
1
6.3
3
8.0
2
92
0
94
67
39
9
S
AB
INE
7
00
0
81
1
19
9
8
0
61
.1
68
.7
20
.3
46
.1
26
20
9
62
0
211
20
04
Adv
ance
d W
este
rn A
rea
Dat
a
Ga
na
do
Rat
oo
n
To
tal
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
SA
DV
2
00
4
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Lb
s/A
c L
bs/
Ac
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
PE
DIG
RE
E
12
% M
H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t.
Bu
1
2%
M
12
% M
40
.
XP
72
3
10
499
7
8
11
5
11
4
0
60
.2
70
.2
17
.9
38
.9
28
56
1
33
55
41
1
10
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
03
3
76
1
15
9
8
0
60
.6
68
.2
18
.0
40
.3
26
27
9
66
0
42
1
26
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
21
6
78
1
17
9
9
0
61
.4
67
.9
19
.1
40
.6
29
56
1
01
72
43
1
38
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
01
8
80
1
17
1
08
0
5
6.3
6
7.3
1
9.3
4
2.4
2
15
2
91
71
44
1
41
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
88
7
80
1
18
1
03
0
5
4.1
6
7.1
1
9.8
4
3.0
3
06
7
99
54
45
1
50
((
VS
TA
/LB
NT
//R
SM
T)/
LB
LE
)TX
70
35
/PS
CL
6
45
7
79
1
15
1
05
0
6
2.1
7
0.5
1
8.0
4
2.2
3
74
6
10
203
46
1
69
P
SC
L/M
DS
N
61
52
8
3
11
7
97
0
5
8.7
6
8.5
1
9.4
4
3.9
2
72
8
88
80
47
4
9
(PC
OS
/RU
87
03
19
6//
GF
MT
)RU
95
03
15
0/(
RX
MT
/IR
48
//R
SM
T)
63
69
8
0
11
3
95
0
6
3.0
6
8.0
1
7.1
4
3.6
3
23
7
96
06
48
5
6
SA
BE
R
61
88
8
3
11
4
98
0
6
1.8
6
7.8
1
7.7
4
4.2
2
44
7
86
36
49
1
16
(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
RS
MT
)TX
40
86
/(R
XM
T/I
R4
8//
RS
MT
) 6
23
2
83
1
17
9
5
0
64
.9
69
.6
19
.1
43
.6
33
64
9
59
6
50
1
90
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
44
/JE
FF
7
54
7
78
1
14
9
5
0
60
.4
69
.0
17
.4
43
.7
27
32
1
02
79
51
2
0
CY
BO
NN
ET
7
73
8
80
1
18
9
8
0
64
.7
70
.1
20
.0
45
.7
19
92
9
73
0
52
5
2
Tex
mo
nt/
TeQ
ing
(B
F7
-42
) 6
94
0
82
1
13
8
8
0
63
.6
70
.0
17
.1
44
.4
22
44
9
18
4
53
6
6
Lem
on
t/W
an
gd
ao
(B
F3
-56
6)
78
58
8
2
12
0
91
0
5
8.9
6
9.9
1
9.2
4
6.9
1
23
5
90
93
54
7
9
BA
NK
S
79
80
8
3
11
9
12
0
0
55
.4
67
.5
20
.7
45
.8
19
28
9
90
8
55
2
3
Lem
on
t/Q
ixio
uzh
an (
BF
4-2
74
) 7
64
2
85
1
21
9
3
0
51
.2
67
.9
20
.1
48
.3
17
67
9
40
9
56
2
6
(CP
RS
/PE
LD
E)/
JEF
F
74
83
8
4
12
2
10
3
0
61
.5
67
.4
20
.8
46
.3
22
96
9
77
9
57
6
3
Kay
bo
nn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F5
-1-1
) 6
79
0
85
1
15
8
8
0
64
.2
69
.6
18
.2
42
.4
29
33
9
72
2
58
1
53
L
emo
nt/
Qix
iou
zh
an (
BF
5-1
43
-1)
73
88
8
6
12
1
94
0
5
5.4
6
9.4
2
0.1
4
7.8
2
32
9
97
17
59
1
66
K
ayb
onn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F7
-40
) 6
74
9
86
1
17
9
1
0
64
.3
69
.9
19
.2
43
.3
21
05
8
85
3
60
1
72
(M
AR
S/C
M1
01
)/(L
BN
T_
WX
/RU
87
03
19
0)
74
42
8
4
12
0
10
3
0
65
.3
68
.4
21
.0
45
.6
17
14
9
15
6
212
20
04
Adv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
Eag
le L
ake -
Gan
ad
o -
Av
era
ges
Rat
oo
n
To
tal
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
SA
DV
2
00
4
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Lb
s/A
c L
bs/
Ac
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
PE
DIG
RE
E
12
% M
H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t.
Bu
1
2%
M
12
% M
1
3
TX
90
92
7
01
9
81
1
14
9
4
0
62
.0
70
.7
17
.3
44
.4
38
01
1
08
21
2
6
JEF
F/C
CD
R
71
70
8
6
12
1
94
0
6
3.9
7
0.2
2
1.2
4
7.7
3
32
8
10
498
3
12
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
18
2
78
1
14
9
2
0
62
.3
69
.7
17
.9
41
.4
34
78
1
06
59
4
19
JE
FF
ER
SO
N
71
52
7
7
11
3
90
0
5
5.3
7
0.3
1
7.1
4
2.5
3
48
0
10
633
5
29
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
7
60
8
82
1
13
8
3
0
60
.0
70
.9
17
.4
46
.0
35
75
1
11
83
6
32
JE
FF
/(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
L2
01
/3/S
KB
T)R
U9
40
40
77
7
94
3
81
1
17
1
06
0
5
6.4
6
9.3
1
9.0
4
4.7
3
67
5
11
617
7
43
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
05
7
82
1
15
1
02
0
6
1.2
7
0.4
1
8.0
4
4.7
4
10
3
11
160
8
46
C
CD
R/T
X8
13
8(P
CO
S/L
MN
T//
GF
MT
) 7
03
6
84
1
16
9
9
0
61
.7
70
.3
18
.5
46
.3
43
56
1
13
91
9
69
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
74
00
8
1
11
4
94
0
5
4.9
6
9.7
1
8.2
4
2.9
3
72
7
11
127
10
7
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
69
28
8
1
11
4
95
0
5
8.6
6
9.5
1
7.5
4
3.5
3
94
6
10
875
11
7
5
(GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
10
/CC
DR
6
57
6
77
1
11
9
9
0
57
.0
70
.7
16
.2
43
.5
40
97
1
06
73
12
7
8
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
79
8
80
1
19
9
2
0
57
.3
68
.8
20
.2
46
.3
45
88
1
23
85
13
8
6
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
75
50
7
9
11
4
93
0
6
3.5
6
9.7
1
7.9
4
2.5
3
61
8
11
168
14
8
9
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
79
31
7
9
11
4
95
0
6
3.4
7
0.1
1
8.2
4
3.1
4
07
5
12
006
15
1
8
CO
CO
DR
IE
80
40
8
1
11
7
93
0
6
0.2
7
0.6
1
8.8
4
5.4
3
21
2
11
253
16
9
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
74
65
8
1
11
4
90
0
6
1.1
7
1.1
1
7.9
4
3.6
4
27
5
11
740
17
9
5
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
63
2
80
1
16
1
05
3
5
5.9
6
9.7
1
8.7
4
5.3
4
18
7
11
819
18
9
8
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
75
06
8
1
11
7
10
1
23
5
6.6
6
8.6
1
9.3
4
2.7
3
02
9
10
535
19
1
01
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
7
70
3
81
1
16
9
6
0
66
.6
72
.2
18
.6
46
.9
37
53
1
14
56
20
1
18
H
IDA
LG
O
77
82
7
8
11
5
98
1
0
62
.5
69
.7
18
.6
40
.4
24
33
1
02
15
21
1
04
(G
FM
T*
2/T
QN
G)T
X4
11
0/C
CD
R
72
51
8
0
11
5
99
0
6
1.2
7
0.4
1
8.1
4
5.4
3
56
4
10
815
22
1
07
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
33
0
82
1
17
1
00
0
5
8.7
6
9.0
1
8.9
4
5.7
4
13
5
11
465
23
1
13
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
17
8
82
1
15
9
9
0
60
.9
70
.2
18
.1
46
.2
33
76
1
05
53
24
5
8
CH
EN
IER
E
76
51
8
4
11
9
91
0
6
0.3
7
1.2
2
0.6
4
6.7
3
01
4
10
664
25
1
23
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
72
8
81
1
16
9
9
0
56
.5
68
.8
18
.8
43
.6
34
97
1
02
25
26
1
29
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
57
2
79
1
12
9
0
0
60
.3
69
.6
16
.5
42
.5
36
93
1
12
65
27
1
32
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
31
4
83
1
18
1
04
0
5
7.2
6
9.8
1
9.7
4
3.9
3
14
1
10
455
28
1
35
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
70
0
82
1
17
9
4
0
62
.7
69
.3
18
.9
43
.7
35
17
1
12
16
29
1
44
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
8
08
3
80
1
14
9
2
2
66
.8
71
.9
18
.0
43
.9
27
16
1
07
99
30
1
47
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
49
2
83
1
18
1
07
0
5
8.8
6
9.7
1
9.8
4
4.7
3
67
9
11
171
31
8
0
WE
LL
S
86
73
8
4
11
8
10
9
0
58
.2
71
.2
18
.8
48
.5
25
14
1
11
87
32
1
63
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
7
67
2
82
1
11
8
3
0
60
.5
71
.6
16
.0
46
.5
36
10
1
12
82
33
1
75
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
70
6
83
1
16
9
9
0
58
.3
68
.1
18
.7
45
.2
33
94
1
10
99
34
1
78
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
78
16
8
0
11
5
93
0
5
9.4
6
9.7
1
8.3
4
5.3
3
70
4
11
520
35
1
81
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
79
9
81
1
15
9
2
0
63
.9
69
.7
18
.5
42
.9
34
72
1
12
71
36
1
84
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
76
25
8
3
11
5
93
0
5
8.1
6
8.4
1
7.6
4
3.6
3
16
1
10
786
37
1
87
C
CD
R/(
GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
53
7
57
5
83
1
19
9
3
0
60
.6
70
.9
20
.2
47
.1
41
63
1
17
38
38
1
59
D
IXIE
BE
LL
E
66
56
8
3
11
3
89
0
6
1.0
6
9.9
1
7.1
4
1.2
4
10
9
10
765
39
9
S
AB
INE
7
73
7
83
1
17
9
6
0
62
.3
69
.9
19
.4
47
.3
36
90
1
14
27
213
2
00
4 A
dv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
E
agle
Lak
e -
Gan
ad
o -
Av
era
ges
R
ato
on
T
ota
l
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s
Yie
ld
Yie
ld
SA
DV
2
00
4
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Lb
s/A
c L
bs/
Ac
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
PE
DIG
RE
E
12
% M
H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t.
Bu
1
2%
M
12
% M
40
.
XP
72
3
10
771
8
0
11
4
11
2
0
60
.3
70
.9
17
.4
40
.6
46
35
1
54
06
41
1
10
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
36
8
79
1
15
9
8
0
61
.4
69
.3
18
.6
41
.7
35
67
1
09
35
42
1
26
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
71
3
82
1
17
9
5
0
62
.4
68
.8
19
.4
42
.5
37
15
1
14
27
43
1
38
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
71
7
83
1
15
1
03
0
5
2.5
6
7.6
1
8.2
4
3.9
2
73
4
10
451
44
1
41
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
52
5
83
1
17
1
01
0
5
5.6
6
8.2
1
8.8
4
4.3
3
35
1
10
876
45
1
50
((
VS
TA
/LB
NT
//R
SM
T)/
LB
LE
)TX
70
35
/PS
CL
7
23
7
82
1
14
1
05
0
6
0.8
7
0.7
1
7.3
4
3.2
4
31
8
11
555
46
1
69
P
SC
L/M
DS
N
68
83
8
4
11
6
95
0
6
0.2
6
9.8
1
8.7
4
6.0
4
14
1
11
024
47
4
9
(PC
OS
/RU
87
03
19
6//
GF
MT
)RU
95
03
15
0/(
RX
MT
/IR
48
//R
SM
T)
71
23
8
3
11
4
93
0
6
4.2
6
9.3
1
8.0
4
4.6
3
79
1
10
914
48
5
6
SA
BE
R
69
61
8
4
11
4
10
0
0
62
.8
68
.6
18
.1
45
.5
32
79
1
02
40
49
1
16
(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
RS
MT
)TX
40
86
/(R
XM
T/I
R4
8//
RS
MT
) 6
98
0
86
1
17
9
3
0
65
.5
70
.6
19
.6
44
.5
36
55
1
06
35
50
1
90
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
44
/JE
FF
7
52
0
80
1
14
9
4
0
61
.1
69
.5
18
.0
44
.6
35
95
1
11
15
51
2
0
CY
BO
NN
ET
7
96
1
83
1
17
9
4
0
65
.8
71
.1
19
.6
46
.2
29
33
1
08
94
52
5
2
Tex
mo
nt/
TeQ
ing
(B
F7
-42
) 7
53
5
85
1
13
8
6
0
63
.7
70
.8
17
.4
45
.8
32
19
1
07
54
53
6
6
Lem
on
t/W
an
gd
ao
(B
F3
-56
6)
77
85
8
4
11
8
90
0
6
0.7
7
0.7
1
8.7
4
7.9
3
06
5
10
850
54
7
9
BA
NK
S
84
65
8
6
11
7
11
6
0
54
.8
68
.2
19
.3
47
.0
24
97
1
09
62
55
2
3
Lem
on
t/Q
ixio
uzh
an (
BF
4-2
74
) 7
87
7
87
1
20
9
1
0
52
.3
69
.1
20
.0
48
.0
28
46
1
07
23
56
2
6
(CP
RS
/PE
LD
E)/
JEF
F
80
81
8
7
12
0
99
0
6
3.4
6
8.8
2
0.2
4
7.1
3
05
8
11
139
57
6
3
Kay
bo
nn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F5
-1-1
) 7
47
4
87
1
15
8
5
0
64
.3
70
.3
18
.4
45
.0
36
30
1
11
04
58
1
53
L
emo
nt/
Qix
iou
zh
an (
BF
5-1
43
-1)
75
61
8
8
12
0
90
0
5
4.5
6
9.8
1
9.9
4
7.9
3
32
2
10
882
59
1
66
K
ayb
onn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F7
-40
) 7
59
1
88
1
15
8
9
0
64
.2
70
.6
18
.8
45
.0
31
59
1
07
50
60
1
72
(M
AR
S/C
M1
01
)/(L
BN
T_
WX
/RU
87
03
19
0)
78
14
8
8
11
9
99
0
6
5.0
6
8.5
2
0.5
4
7.0
2
78
9
10
60
2
214
20
04
Adv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
Sit
e Y
ield
Co
mp
aris
on
s
M
C Y
ield
s
Rat
oo
n Y
ield
s
To
tal
Yie
lds
SA
DV
2
00
4
@
12
% M
ois
ture
M
C
@ 1
2%
Mo
istu
re
RC
@
12
%
To
tal
SA
DV
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
E
L
GA
N
AV
G
EL
G
AN
A
VG
E
L
GA
N
AV
G
EN
TR
Y
1
3
TX
90
92
6
96
8
70
70
7
01
9
45
25
3
07
8
38
01
1
14
93
1
01
48
1
08
21
1
2
6
JEF
F/C
CD
R
73
32
7
00
7
71
70
3
94
3
27
13
3
32
8
11
276
9
72
0
10
498
2
3
12
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
14
5
72
19
7
18
2
44
88
2
46
7
34
78
1
16
33
9
68
6
10
659
3
4
19
JE
FF
ER
SO
N
66
16
7
68
8
71
52
4
03
1
29
30
3
48
0
10
647
1
06
18
1
06
33
4
5
29
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
8
06
8
71
48
7
60
8
41
34
3
01
5
35
75
1
22
02
1
01
63
1
11
83
5
6
32
JE
FF
/(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
L2
01
/3/S
KB
T)R
U9
40
40
77
8
18
8
76
97
7
94
3
35
69
3
78
1
36
75
1
17
56
1
14
78
1
16
17
6
7
43
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
21
6
68
99
7
05
7
49
93
3
21
3
41
03
1
22
09
1
01
12
1
11
60
7
8
46
C
CD
R/T
X8
13
8(P
CO
S/L
MN
T//
GF
MT
) 7
37
5
66
97
7
03
6
57
89
2
92
3
43
56
1
31
63
9
62
0
11
391
8
9
69
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
72
14
7
58
7
74
00
4
42
7
30
26
3
72
7
11
641
1
06
13
1
11
27
9
10
7
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
66
70
7
18
6
69
28
4
51
5
33
78
3
94
6
11
185
1
05
64
1
08
75
1
0
11
7
5
(GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
10
/CC
DR
6
89
5
62
57
6
57
6
46
67
3
52
7
40
97
1
15
63
9
78
3
10
673
1
1
12
7
8
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
75
7
78
38
7
79
8
52
12
3
96
3
45
88
1
29
69
1
18
01
1
23
85
1
2
13
8
6
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
75
56
7
54
4
75
50
4
39
8
28
39
3
61
8
11
953
1
03
83
1
11
68
1
3
14
8
9
(CP
RS
/PA
ND
A)/
JEF
F*
2
78
44
8
01
8
79
31
4
43
3
37
17
4
07
5
12
277
1
17
36
1
20
06
1
4
15
1
8
CO
CO
DR
IE
79
56
8
12
4
80
40
4
26
7
21
58
3
21
2
12
222
1
02
83
1
12
53
1
5
16
9
2
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
73
31
7
59
9
74
65
4
76
6
37
84
4
27
5
12
098
1
13
83
1
17
40
1
6
17
9
5
PS
CL
/JE
FF
7
62
3
76
42
7
63
2
49
46
3
42
7
41
87
1
25
69
1
10
69
1
18
19
1
7
18
9
8
((N
WB
T/R
U8
30
31
81
)/R
SM
T)T
X7
12
9/J
EF
F
77
44
7
26
8
75
06
4
14
8
19
10
3
02
9
11
892
9
17
8
10
535
1
8
19
1
01
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
7
91
2
74
94
7
70
3
42
89
3
21
7
37
53
1
22
01
1
07
11
1
14
56
1
9
20
1
18
H
IDA
LG
O
76
25
7
94
0
77
82
3
04
2
18
23
2
43
3
10
667
9
76
2
10
215
2
0
21
1
04
(G
FM
T*
2/T
QN
G)T
X4
11
0/C
CD
R
73
29
7
17
4
72
51
4
23
1
28
97
3
56
4
11
559
1
00
71
1
08
15
2
1
22
1
07
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
31
3
73
47
7
33
0
43
49
3
92
2
41
35
1
16
61
1
12
68
1
14
65
2
2
23
1
13
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
10
3
72
53
7
17
8
41
70
2
58
2
33
76
1
12
73
9
83
4
10
553
2
3
24
5
8
CH
EN
IER
E
76
73
7
62
9
76
51
4
13
9
18
88
3
01
4
11
812
9
51
7
10
664
2
4
25
1
23
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
6
85
6
66
01
6
72
8
44
13
2
58
1
34
97
1
12
69
9
18
2
10
225
2
5
26
1
29
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
44
9
76
95
7
57
2
41
14
3
27
2
36
93
1
15
63
1
09
67
1
12
65
2
6
27
1
32
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
38
9
72
39
7
31
4
36
77
2
60
5
31
41
1
10
66
9
84
5
10
455
2
7
28
1
35
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
86
6
75
33
7
70
0
40
87
2
94
7
35
17
1
19
53
1
04
80
1
12
16
2
8
29
1
44
(C
PR
S/P
EL
DE
)/JE
FF
7
57
0
85
97
8
08
3
37
07
1
72
4
27
16
1
12
77
1
03
21
1
07
99
2
9
30
1
47
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
7
55
9
74
25
7
49
2
45
36
2
82
1
36
79
1
20
95
1
02
46
1
11
71
3
0
31
8
0
WE
LL
S
84
24
8
92
2
86
73
3
01
5
20
13
2
51
4
11
439
1
09
35
1
11
87
3
1
32
1
63
(R
U8
30
311
6/L
MN
T)R
U9
10
30
49
/KB
NT
8
23
9
71
05
7
67
2
40
15
3
20
5
36
10
1
22
54
1
03
10
1
12
82
3
2
33
1
75
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
8
47
8
69
33
7
70
6
39
86
2
80
1
33
94
1
24
64
9
73
4
11
099
3
3
34
1
78
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
84
72
7
16
0
78
16
4
55
4
28
53
3
70
4
13
026
1
00
14
1
15
20
3
4
35
1
81
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
8
35
7
72
41
7
79
9
43
22
2
62
2
34
72
1
26
78
9
86
3
11
271
3
5
36
1
84
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
85
27
6
72
4
76
25
3
29
3
30
29
3
16
1
11
819
9
75
3
10
786
3
6
37
1
87
C
CD
R/(
GF
MT
*2
/TQ
NG
)TX
41
53
8
50
1
66
50
7
57
5
54
59
2
86
8
41
63
1
39
59
9
51
8
11
738
3
7
38
1
59
D
IXIE
BE
LL
E
67
65
6
54
7
66
56
5
29
7
29
20
4
10
9
12
062
9
46
7
10
765
3
8
39
9
S
AB
INE
8
47
4
70
00
7
73
7
47
60
2
62
0
36
90
1
32
34
9
62
0
11
427
3
9
215
20
04
Adv
an
ced
Wes
tern
Are
a D
ata
Sit
e Y
ield
Co
mp
aris
on
s
M
C Y
ield
s
Rat
oo
n Y
ield
s
To
tal
Yie
lds
SA
DV
2
00
4
@
12
% M
ois
ture
M
C
@ 1
2%
Mo
istu
re
RC
@ 1
2%
Mo
istu
re
To
tal
SA
DV
EN
TR
Y
EN
TR
Y
E
L
GA
N
AV
G
EL
G
AN
A
VG
E
L
GA
N
AV
G
EN
TR
Y
40
.
XP
72
3
11
042
1
04
99
1
07
71
6
41
4
28
56
4
63
5
17
456
1
33
55
1
54
06
4
0
41
1
10
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
7
70
2
70
33
7
36
8
45
08
2
62
7
35
67
1
22
11
9
66
0
10
935
4
1
42
1
26
(C
PR
S/P
AN
DA
)/JE
FF
*2
8
20
9
72
16
7
71
3
44
74
2
95
6
37
15
1
26
82
1
01
72
1
14
27
4
2
43
1
38
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
8
41
6
70
18
7
71
7
33
15
2
15
2
27
34
1
17
31
9
17
1
10
451
4
3
44
1
41
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
29
/JE
FF
8
16
3
68
87
7
52
5
36
35
3
06
7
33
51
1
17
99
9
95
4
10
876
4
4
45
1
50
((
VS
TA
/LB
NT
//R
SM
T)/
LB
LE
)TX
70
35
/PS
CL
8
01
7
64
57
7
23
7
48
90
3
74
6
43
18
1
29
07
1
02
03
1
15
55
4
5
46
1
69
P
SC
L/M
DS
N
76
14
6
15
2
68
83
5
55
4
27
28
4
14
1
13
168
8
88
0
11
024
4
6
47
4
9
(PC
OS
/RU
87
03
19
6//
GF
MT
)RU
95
03
15
0/(
RX
MT
/IR
48
//R
SM
T)
78
77
6
36
9
71
23
4
34
6
32
37
3
79
1
12
222
9
60
6
10
914
4
7
48
5
6
SA
BE
R
77
33
6
18
8
69
61
4
11
1
24
47
3
27
9
11
845
8
63
6
10
240
4
8
49
1
16
(V
ST
A/L
BN
T//
RS
MT
)TX
40
86
/(R
XM
T/I
R4
8//
RS
MT
) 7
72
8
62
32
6
98
0
39
46
3
36
4
36
55
1
16
74
9
59
6
10
635
4
9
50
1
90
((
NW
BT
/RU
83
03
18
1)/
RS
MT
)TX
71
44
/JE
FF
7
49
3
75
47
7
52
0
44
59
2
73
2
35
95
1
19
52
1
02
79
1
11
15
5
0
51
2
0
CY
BO
NN
ET
8
18
3
77
38
7
96
1
38
74
1
99
2
29
33
1
20
58
9
73
0
10
894
5
1
52
5
2
Tex
mo
nt/
TeQ
ing
(B
F7
-42
) 8
13
0
69
40
7
53
5
41
94
2
24
4
32
19
1
23
25
9
18
4
10
754
5
2
53
6
6
Lem
on
t/W
an
gd
ao
(B
F3
-56
6)
77
12
7
85
8
77
85
4
89
6
12
35
3
06
5
12
607
9
09
3
10
850
5
3
54
7
9
BA
NK
S
89
50
7
98
0
84
65
3
06
6
19
28
2
49
7
12
016
9
90
8
10
962
5
4
55
2
3
Lem
on
t/Q
ixio
uzh
an (
BF
4-2
74
) 8
11
2
76
42
7
87
7
39
24
1
76
7
28
46
1
20
36
9
40
9
10
723
5
5
56
2
6
(CP
RS
/PE
LD
E)/
JEF
F
86
78
7
48
3
80
81
3
82
0
22
96
3
05
8
12
499
9
77
9
11
139
5
6
57
6
3
Kay
bo
nn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F5
-1-1
) 8
15
8
67
90
7
47
4
43
28
2
93
3
36
30
1
24
86
9
72
2
11
104
5
7
58
1
53
L
emo
nt/
Qix
iou
zh
an (
BF
5-1
43
-1)
77
34
7
38
8
75
61
4
31
4
23
29
3
32
2
12
048
9
71
7
10
882
5
8
59
1
66
K
ayb
onn
et/
Zh
on
gy
ou
zao3
(B
F7
-40
) 8
43
4
67
49
7
59
1
42
13
2
10
5
31
59
1
26
47
8
85
3
10
750
5
9
60
1
72
(M
AR
S/C
M1
01
)/(L
BN
T_
WX
/RU
87
03
19
0)
81
85
7
44
2
78
14
3
86
4
17
14
2
78
9
12
049
9
15
6
10
602
6
0
216
Exp. Name:2004 -03 Preliminary Variety Trials Planted: 4/20 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. McClung Row Spacing: 7.5 # Rows : 6
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size:3.75x16 RC:
Variety: 40 Seed Rate: 90# S.E.: 4/28
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP 250 5.19 Flush rain 4/25
Fert: Urea PF 80n 5/26 Flush 5/21
Fert: Am Sulf 80N 6/21 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 5/27
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 8/06
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3ME .30ai 4/22 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Fac+Per+Coc
2+ .35+.066 5/26
Herb: Londax 0.1 6/10
Herb:
Fung:
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04 7/5;13,20
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: 1st Hvst 8/11; 8/12; 8/16-18
217
2
00
4-0
3 S
TA
TE
WID
E P
RE
LIM
INA
RY
E
agle
Lak
e
Yie
ld
Day
s D
ays
Jack
's
L
bs/
Ac
to
to
Ht
%
%
%
Hv
st.
Lb
s/B
u
Jack
's
EN
TR
Y
VA
RIE
TY
1
2%
M
Hea
d
Mat
(c
m)
Lo
dg
e W
ho
le
To
tal
Mo
ist.
B
u
EN
TR
Y
1
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
6
68
5
72
1
04
8
8
0
59
.6
69
.8
18
.9
46
.7
1
2
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
7
52
8
74
1
10
8
7
0
61
.9
69
.8
22
.5
45
.4
2
3
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
6
60
9
75
1
07
8
3
0
58
.2
68
.3
20
.9
47
.5
3
4
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
7
72
1
74
1
09
8
4
0
56
.4
67
.7
21
.8
47
.1
4
5
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
7
23
5
71
1
05
8
4
0
64
.3
70
.6
19
.5
48
.0
5
6
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
7
15
0
76
1
07
8
6
0
53
.7
68
.5
20
.4
47
.2
6
7
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
7
58
6
76
1
10
8
8
0
57
.6
68
.4
22
.5
46
.9
7
8
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
6
70
0
74
1
09
8
7
0
58
.0
68
.6
21
.5
46
.6
8
9
TX
71
29
/CC
DR
7
86
7
77
1
11
8
9
0
57
.3
68
.0
22
.8
48
.0
9
10
C
OC
OD
RIE
8
07
5
74
1
09
8
6
0
57
.8
67
.8
21
.7
48
.2
10
11
T
X7
14
4/M
DS
N
78
83
7
8
11
0
91
0
5
8.2
6
7.7
2
2.4
4
7.3
1
1
12
T
X7
06
3/C
CD
R
77
16
7
7
11
3
96
0
5
5.3
6
6.9
2
4.3
4
7.1
1
2
13
JE
FF
/TX
71
47
6
31
9
75
1
07
9
0
0
63
.4
68
.4
20
.4
47
.6
13
14
JE
FF
/TX
71
47
6
80
8
75
1
06
8
7
0
60
.1
68
.5
20
.1
47
.1
14
15
JE
FF
/97
SP
29
7
66
6
76
1
08
8
8
0
60
.5
67
.7
21
.1
48
.6
15
16
J
EF
FE
RS
ON
7
52
5
71
1
04
8
3
0
61
.6
70
.4
18
.8
46
.3
16
17
A
B8
64
9
81
76
7
6
11
2
95
0
5
2.9
6
8.8
2
3.5
4
7.0
1
7
18
A
B8
19
8
71
74
7
6
11
2
99
0
4
7.2
6
7.1
2
3.6
4
6.8
1
8
19
C
L_
XL
8
98
80
7
7
10
7
11
1
0
54
.2
69
.5
17
.2
42
.2
19
20
X
P7
10
9
32
8
79
1
11
1
11
0
5
0.8
6
7.5
1
9.5
4
3.0
2
0
21
T
X7
18
1/C
CD
R
67
36
8
0
10
7
88
0
5
5.6
6
7.7
1
7.6
4
7.2
2
1
22
T
X7
12
9/C
CD
R
71
80
7
2
10
4
90
0
6
2.0
7
1.1
1
8.1
4
6.4
2
2
23
T
X7
12
9/C
CD
R
72
31
7
7
10
4
84
0
5
8.8
7
0.2
1
6.1
4
5.1
2
3
24
C
OC
OD
RIE
7
59
9
75
1
05
8
6
0
59
.4
70
.0
16
.3
47
.1
24
25
T
X7
14
4/J
EF
F
74
73
7
7
10
7
87
0
5
9.3
6
8.4
2
0.3
4
7.1
2
5
26
T
X7
12
9/C
CD
R
69
88
7
5
10
4
86
0
5
9.7
6
9.8
1
5.9
4
5.7
2
6
27
T
X7
14
4/J
EF
F
74
88
7
4
10
4
91
0
6
2.0
6
9.4
1
8.4
4
7.8
2
7
28
T
X7
14
4/J
EF
F
72
57
7
7
10
7
80
0
6
0.7
7
0.9
2
0.1
4
8.5
2
8
29
T
X7
14
4/M
DS
N
68
18
7
8
10
6
78
0
5
9.6
6
8.8
1
6.9
4
6.6
2
9
30
T
X7
14
4/M
DS
N
73
27
8
0
10
6
80
0
6
3.3
7
0.2
1
7.1
4
7.6
3
0
31
T
X7
14
4/M
DS
N
67
17
8
0
10
6
83
0
6
4.5
6
9.4
1
7.3
4
8.0
3
1
32
T
X7
14
4/M
DS
N
72
87
8
1
10
7
89
0
6
1.8
6
8.5
1
7.4
4
6.7
3
2
33
W
EL
LS
7
76
6
77
1
07
9
8
0
56
.1
70
.6
17
.7
47
.6
33
34
T
X7
06
3/C
CD
R
72
48
7
5
10
5
89
0
6
5.4
7
1.1
1
6.5
4
8.7
3
4
35
T
X7
06
3/C
CD
R
74
92
7
7
10
7
96
0
5
8.3
6
9.3
1
7.6
4
6.9
3
5
36
P
SC
L/J
EF
F
71
11
7
5
10
5
88
0
5
7.6
6
8.0
1
9.1
4
7.9
3
6
37
X
P7
12
8
97
7
77
1
08
1
12
0
5
9.3
6
9.0
1
8.2
4
6.4
3
7
38
X
P7
16
9
58
3
80
1
11
1
19
1
6
61
.0
67
.9
19
.0
44
.1
38
39
A
B8
68
4
76
82
7
9
11
0
88
0
6
2.5
6
7.8
1
9.3
4
9.1
3
9
40
T
X7
14
4/M
DS
N
72
10
7
9
10
5
86
0
5
9.5
6
9.4
1
6.3
4
7.7
4
0
218
Exp. Name: 2004 -04 Variety Screening Planted: 4/1 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. Turner Row Spacing:7.5" # Rows: 9
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: MC:5.625x16' RC: 2.5x16'
Variety : 9 varieties Seed Rate: varies S.E.:4/9
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 16-20-0 P & K EP plan 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF plan 5/18 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PI plan 6/2 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PI +14 plan 6/15 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf Boot Hybrids plan60N 6/28 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf 5-7 d pr e drain plan 7/20 Flood 5/21
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/29; 8/02
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3 ME .30ai 4/2 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Clincher+Facet+Permit+Coc
1+.28+ .35+.066 5/18
Herb: Londax .10 6/4
Herb:
Fung: Quadris + Tilt 8 + 6/plan
.0625 +.047ai 6/23
Insect: Karate Z .04 ai 7/13;20
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF all plan 8/09 Flush
Fert: Urea RPF + 25 d plan 9/2 Flush
Fert: Flood 8/09
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/22
Fung: Quadris + Tilt 8+6/plan .0625 .047 9/02 R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z All .04 9/2
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:hvst block 1- 8/6; block 2 - 8/9; RCHvst 10/27; 10/28; 11/04
219
20
03
- 0
4 V
arie
tal
Scr
een
ing
and
Man
ag
em
ent
Eag
le L
ake
Var
iety
X P
lan
t P
op
ula
tio
n
M.C
. R
ato
on
T
ota
l M
.C.
M.C
. M
.C.
RC
&
Y
ield
Y
ield
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s P
lan
t
M.C
. M
.C.
M.C
. M
.C.
R.C
. R
.C.
MC
N
L
bs/
ac
Lb
s/ac
L
bs/
ac
to
to
Ht.
%
%
%
H
vst
%
%
Trt
. V
arie
ty
Fu
ng
R
ate
12
% M
. 1
2%
M.
12
% M
. H
ead
M
at
(cm
) L
od
ge
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
t L
bs/
Bu
W
ho
le
To
tal
1
Jeff
N
o
Std
7
03
3
35
99
1
06
32
8
4
11
7
84
0
6
1.4
7
0.2
1
8.1
4
5.3
6
0.5
6
8.3
2
Jeff
Y
es
PB
MP
6
65
8
34
21
1
00
79
8
2
11
6
84
0
5
9.0
7
0.1
1
7.6
4
5.5
6
2.5
6
9.0
3
Jeff
Y
es
Std
7
23
1
45
88
1
18
19
8
4
11
7
83
0
6
1.1
7
0.3
1
8.3
4
5.5
6
2.4
6
8.8
4
Jeff
N
o
PB
MP
6
74
9
28
77
9
62
7
81
1
16
8
4
0
57
.8
69
.9
17
.5
45
.2
61
.7
68
.0
5
Ccd
r N
o
Std
7
70
2
32
49
1
09
50
9
0
12
3
88
0
5
8.7
6
9.0
2
1.6
4
8.5
6
2.9
6
8.5
6
Ccd
r Y
es
PB
MP
8
03
3
42
27
1
22
60
8
8
12
0
88
0
6
0.0
6
9.4
2
0.0
4
8.6
6
3.4
6
9.4
7
Ccd
r Y
es
Std
7
87
3
48
22
1
26
95
9
0
12
3
90
0
5
9.6
6
8.9
2
1.5
4
8.1
6
2.8
6
9.0
8
Ccd
r N
o
PB
MP
7
90
1
23
96
1
02
97
8
8
12
0
86
0
5
9.3
6
9.2
1
9.8
4
8.1
6
0.9
6
7.9
9
Cb
nt
No
S
td
77
69
3
69
8
11
467
9
0
12
2
90
0
6
4.2
7
1.0
2
1.5
4
8.7
6
1.6
6
8.0
10
C
bn
t Y
es
PB
MP
8
09
0
48
53
1
29
43
8
8
11
9
89
0
6
5.4
7
1.3
1
9.6
4
8.4
6
1.6
6
8.4
11
C
bn
t Y
es
Std
7
92
7
46
68
1
25
95
9
1
12
2
90
0
6
5.0
7
1.2
2
1.3
4
8.9
6
2.4
6
8.7
12
C
bn
t N
o
PB
MP
8
01
0
37
57
1
17
67
8
8
11
9
89
0
6
5.6
7
1.3
1
9.6
4
8.2
6
1.2
6
7.3
13
T
X9
09
2
No
S
td
72
05
3
54
9
10
754
8
7
11
8
84
0
5
9.5
6
9.8
1
8.7
4
5.9
6
0.8
6
8.5
14
T
X9
09
2
Yes
P
BM
P
73
45
2
86
6
10
211
8
3
11
6
83
0
6
0.9
7
0.0
1
7.7
4
4.7
6
2.6
6
8.9
15
T
X9
09
2
Yes
S
td
75
12
3
53
0
11
042
8
8
11
7
86
0
6
0.4
7
0.0
1
8.1
4
6.1
6
2.9
6
9.3
16
T
X9
09
2
No
P
BM
P
73
64
2
80
7
10
171
8
4
11
6
84
0
6
1.2
7
0.1
1
7.6
4
5.3
6
2.4
6
8.8
17
X
P7
23
N
o
Std
1
07
06
4
89
9
15
605
9
1
11
8
10
6
0
59
.0
70
.1
18
.6
40
.8
61
.8
69
.7
18
X
P7
23
Y
es
PB
MP
1
08
96
5
26
0
16
157
9
0
12
0
10
8
0
58
.7
70
.0
19
.8
40
.7
62
.0
70
.0
19
X
P7
23
Y
es
Std
1
09
63
4
78
5
15
748
8
9
11
7
10
8
0
59
.3
70
.6
18
.4
40
.7
63
.2
69
.9
20
X
P7
23
N
o
PB
MP
1
09
36
4
89
6
15
832
9
0
11
9
10
9
0
59
.0
69
.9
19
.4
40
.6
64
.0
70
.6
21
C
LX
L8
N
o
Std
9
34
1
49
20
1
42
62
9
0
12
0
10
6
0
48
.8
68
.3
20
.0
41
.9
59
.5
69
.7
22
C
LX
L8
Y
es
PB
MP
9
27
1
53
85
1
46
56
9
1
12
1
11
0
0
48
.6
68
.3
20
.4
42
.4
57
.8
69
.0
23
C
LX
L8
Y
es
Std
9
40
0
50
79
1
44
78
9
0
12
0
10
7
0
47
.1
67
.5
20
.1
42
.2
61
.2
70
.2
24
C
LX
L8
N
o
PB
MP
8
73
6
47
74
1
35
10
9
2
12
1
11
0
0
48
.2
68
.1
20
.7
42
.4
57
.3
68
.9
25
C
hn
r N
o
Std
7
59
4
27
14
1
03
08
9
3
12
6
85
0
5
7.5
7
1.1
2
1.5
4
8.3
5
6.3
6
7.0
26
C
hn
r Y
es
PB
MP
7
76
1
39
47
1
17
08
9
1
12
3
85
0
5
9.0
7
1.6
2
0.1
4
8.7
5
9.1
6
8.9
27
C
hn
r Y
es
Std
7
99
8
35
52
1
15
50
9
2
12
5
87
0
5
7.5
7
1.5
2
0.9
4
8.6
5
8.2
6
8.4
28
C
hn
r N
o
PB
MP
7
70
2
24
33
1
01
35
9
1
12
3
85
0
5
9.5
7
1.9
1
9.9
4
8.4
5
8.2
6
8.6
29
C
L1
61
N
o
Std
7
69
3
35
58
1
12
51
9
3
12
6
91
0
6
1.1
7
0.3
2
2.1
4
8.6
6
0.6
6
7.9
30
C
L1
61
Y
es
PB
MP
8
03
0
44
73
1
25
03
9
1
12
4
93
0
6
2.8
7
0.7
2
0.5
4
8.9
5
9.5
6
7.6
31
C
L1
61
Y
es
Std
7
63
8
41
03
1
17
41
9
3
12
6
95
0
6
0.4
7
0.0
2
1.6
4
8.6
5
9.8
6
7.7
32
C
L1
61
N
o
PB
MP
7
64
0
34
73
1
11
13
9
1
12
5
91
0
6
2.7
7
0.6
2
1.0
4
8.6
5
9.3
6
7.5
33
B
ank
s N
o
Std
8
36
0
35
45
1
19
06
9
2
12
2
10
7
0
53
.5
68
.7
19
.6
48
.1
58
.9
67
.7
34
B
ank
s Y
es
PB
MP
8
73
8
35
42
1
22
80
9
1
11
9
10
8
0
55
.0
68
.8
17
.7
47
.8
58
.4
67
.9
35
B
ank
s Y
es
Std
8
57
9
35
52
1
21
31
9
2
12
2
10
8
0
53
.8
68
.8
19
.3
47
.9
59
.7
68
.2
36
B
ank
s N
o
PB
MP
8
55
8
35
15
1
20
73
9
1
11
9
10
8
0
55
.0
69
.0
17
.6
48
.1
58
.2
67
.7
220
Exp. Name: 2004 -05 Variety Screening Delayed Planted: 5/24 Depth: 1/2"
Staff: Dr. Turner Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows : 6
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: MC: 3.75'x16' RC:
Variety: 13 varieties Seed Rate: varies S.E.: 6/1
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 16-20-0 PP plan300# 5/24 Flush 5/27
Fert: 0-0-60 PP plan 5/24 Flush 6/15
Fert: 0-46-0 PP plan 5/24 Flush
Fert: Urea PF Plan 80,120 6/22 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PI-PD plan 60N 7/15 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf HD hybrids 60N 8/05 Flood 6/22
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 9/3;9/6
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3ME 0.30 ai 5/25 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Bol_Fac+Per+Coc
2+2+ .35+.066 6/14
Herb:
Herb:
Fung:
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/13;20
8/6;8/27
RATOON CROP
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: hvst 9/7; 9/14; 9/20
221
20
03
- 0
5 V
arie
tal
Man
agem
ent
and
Scr
een
ing
- D
ela
yed
Pla
nti
ng
Eag
le L
ake
Var
iety
X P
lan
t P
op
ula
tio
n
M
.C.
M.C
. M
.C.
M.C
.
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s P
lan
t
M.C
. M
.C.
M.C
. M
.C.
N
Lb
s/ac
to
to
H
t.
%
%
%
Hv
st
Lb
./
Trt
. V
arie
ty
Rate
1
2%
M.
Hea
d
Mat
(c
m)
Lo
dg
e W
ho
le
To
tal
Mo
ist
Bu
.
1
Jeff
H
5
75
1
64
9
4
81
0
6
3.0
7
0.7
1
6.9
4
4.2
2
Ccd
r H
6
92
1
66
1
04
9
6
0
59
.9
70
.3
19
.2
44
.4
3
Cb
nt
H
62
63
6
7
10
4
92
0
6
3.5
7
1.0
1
9.4
4
5.0
4
TX
90
92
H
7
28
1
66
9
8
90
0
6
1.9
6
9.9
1
9.7
4
5.1
5
XP
72
3
H
91
61
6
8
10
5
11
9
0
59
.0
70
.2
20
.0
40
.4
6
CL
XL
8
H
78
06
6
8
10
4
11
4
0
55
.1
70
.1
19
.5
39
.8
7
Ch
nr
H
62
03
7
4
11
4
94
0
5
9.3
7
0.8
2
4.6
4
4.2
8
CL
16
1
H
54
56
7
2
11
5
98
0
6
3.2
7
0.1
2
5.4
4
4.4
9
Bn
ks
H
64
62
7
1
11
9
10
5
0
55
.8
68
.4
27
.7
45
.3
10
B
ng
l H
7
51
3
71
1
10
9
2
0
65
.3
70
.9
18
.8
44
.6
11
M
drk
H
7
93
0
69
1
15
8
9
0
65
.9
71
.4
21
.9
49
.8
12
X
P7
16
H
8
22
5
72
1
11
1
14
0
6
4.0
6
9.9
1
9.6
4
2.7
13
X
P7
12
H
7
82
0
69
1
09
1
13
0
6
0.6
6
9.8
1
8.2
4
2.7
222
Exp. Name: 2004-06 Ratoon BMP Planted: 4/01 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. Turner Row Spacing: 7.5' # Rows: 9
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: MC:5.625'x16' RC: 2.5x16
Variety: Ccdr Seed Rate: 80 S.E.: 4/8
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 16-20-0 EP 300 4/16 Flush
Fert: 0-0-60 EP 30K 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF plan 5/18 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PI plan 6/2 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PI +14 plan 6/18 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf 5-7 d pre-drain plan 7/20 Flood 5/21
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/29
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3 ME .30ai 4/2 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Clincher+Facet+Permit+Coc
1+.28+ .35+.066 5/18
Herb: Londax .10 6/04
Herb:
Fung: Quadris + Tilt 8+6
.0625 +.047 6/23
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/13;20
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF plan 8/09 Flush
Fert: Urea RPF +25d plan 9/3 Flush
Fert: Flood 8/9
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/19
Fung: Quadris + Tilt 8+6/ plan
.0625 +.047 9/02 R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z / plan .04 9/02
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/6 RCHvst 10/28
223
2
00
4 -
06
Rato
on
Pro
du
cers
' Bes
t M
anag
emen
t P
ract
ices
Eag
le
Lak
e
M
.C.
Rato
on
T
ota
l M
.C.
M.C
. M
.C.
Y
ield
Y
ield
Y
ield
D
ays
Day
s P
lan
t
M.C
. M
.C.
M.C
. M
.C.
R.C
. R
.C.
L
bs/
ac
Lb
s/ac
L
bs/
ac
to
to
Ht.
%
%
%
H
vst
%
%
Trt
. 1
2%
M.
12
% M
. 1
2%
M.
Hea
d
Mat
(c
m)
Lo
dg
e W
ho
le
To
tal
Mo
ist
Lb
s/B
u
Wh
ole
T
ota
l
1
82
03
4
25
3
12
45
6
90
1
23
8
8
0
62
.1
70
.4
21
.43
4
8.7
3
62
.3
69
.1
2
88
78
4
66
2
13
54
0
89
1
21
9
1
0
61
.7
69
.9
20
.23
4
8.7
5
61
.0
68
.4
7
87
13
4
64
4
13
35
7
90
1
23
9
0
0
62
.8
70
.0
21
.03
4
9.3
0
61
.5
68
.3
3
85
71
4
80
5
13
37
6
90
1
21
8
7
0
61
.3
70
.1
20
.20
4
8.7
3
63
.1
69
.4
4
84
74
4
90
4
13
37
8
89
1
21
8
9
0
62
.3
70
.4
19
.85
4
8.5
8
61
.0
68
.9
5
86
19
3
96
7
12
58
7
89
1
20
8
9
0
61
.7
70
.3
19
.68
4
8.4
5
60
.8
68
.3
6
87
34
3
92
1
12
65
5
90
1
21
8
9
0
62
.1
70
.3
20
.00
4
8.1
3
62
.7
69
.5
8
83
54
3
63
8
11
99
1
89
1
21
8
8
0
62
.7
70
.6
19
.70
4
8.7
8
61
.9
68
.6
224
Exp. Name: 2004-07 Fluid fertilizer/W.Mgt Planted: 4/01 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. Turner Row Spacing: 8" # Rows: 8
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Midland Plot Size: MC: 5.33x16 RC: 2.5x16
Variety: Ccdr Seed Rate: S.E.: 4/10
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: PP Turner, Jund, Hagler per plan 4/1 Flush 5/20(S)5/27
Fert: PF Turner, Hagler 2+3 plan 5/19 Flush
Fert: PF Turner, Hagler DI plan 6/02 Flush
Fert: PD AM Sulf. All plan 6/10 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 5/20,5/20;6/2
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 8/2;7/29;7/29
Herb: Cyclone .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3 ME .30ai 4/2 I.D. Date
Herb: Permit+Coc .066ai 4/22
Herb: Prop+Clincher+Facet+Coc 1+.28+.35 5/18
Herb: Londax #2, #3, #1 .10 6/1;10,18
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/13;20
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 100N 8/9;5,8/5 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/9;8/5;8/5
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/19x3
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Drain #3 6/4 Refld 6/08; Hvst 2&3 8/05, #1 8/09;RC Hvst 10/21
225
20
04
- 0
7 F
luid
Fer
tili
zer
and
Wat
er M
anag
em
ent
Stu
dy
@
Eag
le L
ake
M
C
Pla
nt
MC
R
C
RC
T
ota
l
Y
ield
H
eig
hts
H
arv
est
Yie
ld
Harv
est
Yie
ld
Trt
L
bs/
Ac
12
%
CM
M
ois
ture
L
bs/
Ac
12
%
Mo
istu
re
@ 1
2%
1
66
07
8
4
16
.2
34
63
1
6.2
1
00
70
2
73
68
8
9
17
.1
35
33
1
6.8
1
09
01
3
76
76
9
0
17
.2
37
50
1
7.1
1
14
26
4
64
11
8
8
20
.1
33
56
1
7.4
9
76
7
5
77
54
9
0
18
.4
35
67
1
7.3
1
13
21
6
71
08
8
7
16
.2
39
10
1
7.1
1
10
18
7
76
96
8
8
16
.5
38
93
1
7.0
1
15
89
8
82
48
9
2
17
.4
41
21
1
6.7
1
23
69
9
81
98
9
1
16
.7
35
59
1
6.6
1
17
58
10
4
87
3
83
1
5.9
3
94
5
15
.8
88
18
11
6
96
9
89
1
8.0
3
98
6
15
.3
10
95
5
12
7
04
6
93
1
8.3
4
12
6
15
.3
11
17
3
13
7
49
8
93
1
8.5
4
27
3
15
.8
11
77
1
14
7
30
1
98
2
1.8
4
25
7
17
.7
11
55
8
15
8
38
4
95
2
0.0
4
57
0
16
.5
12
95
4
16
7
49
3
91
1
8.0
4
63
9
16
.4
12
13
1
17
7
78
0
93
1
8.3
4
80
0
15
.9
12
58
0
18
8
42
6
96
1
9.0
4
54
6
15
.8
12
97
2
19
8
43
9
91
1
8.7
4
07
2
15
.7
12
51
0
20
5
54
5
86
1
7.5
4
15
1
15
.1
96
96
21
6
39
9
87
1
7.0
3
93
5
15
.0
10
33
4
22
7
03
8
90
1
7.5
4
40
5
15
.5
11
44
3
23
7
49
5
92
1
7.7
4
47
9
15
.5
11
97
3
24
7
24
1
94
2
0.4
4
42
9
15
.8
11
67
0
25
8
19
5
93
1
8.9
3
82
1
15
.4
12
01
6
26
6
98
7
88
1
7.2
4
36
9
15
.7
11
35
6
27
7
62
5
90
1
7.2
4
14
1
15
.4
11
76
6
28
7
75
3
90
1
8.1
4
68
2
15
.9
12
43
5
29
8
36
4
93
1
7.7
3
95
7
15
.7
12
32
0
30
5
08
4
85
1
6.6
3
74
1
15
.1
88
25
226
Exp. Name: 2004-08 RT Definition Planted: 3/31 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. Turner Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 10
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: MC: 6.25'x16' RC: 2.5x16'
Variety: Bngl, XP716, XP723 Seed Rate: varies S.E.: 4/08
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: P & K EP 50+50 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea EP plan 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF plan 5/20 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PDBngl plan 6/10 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf hybrids Boot-5%hd plan 7/02 Flush
Fert: Flood 5/21
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/29
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3ME .30ai 4/02 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+Per+Coc
2+2+ai .35+.066 4/29
Herb: Londax .10 6/04
Herb:
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/5;13;20
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 100N 8/05 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/06
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/19
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/04; 8/05 RC Hvst 10/21; 11/03
227
17
-No
v-0
4
20
04
- 0
8 R
iceT
ec
Hy
bri
d V
arie
ty N
Def
init
ion
Stu
dy
@ E
ag
le L
ake
M
C
Pla
nt
MC
M
C
MC
R
C
RC
R
C
RC
T
ota
l
Y
ield
H
eig
hts
%
%
H
arv
est
Yie
ld
%
%
Har
ves
t Y
ield
Trt
Lb
s/A
c
12
%
CM
W
ho
le
To
tal
Mo
istu
re
Lb
s/A
c
12
%
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
ture
@
12
%
1
78
21
1
02
R
T
RT
1
4.6
3
92
0
60
.1
70
.9
16
.4
11
74
1
2
90
75
1
06
R
T
RT
1
4.5
4
65
7
60
.1
70
.3
16
.8
13
73
2
3
98
43
1
06
R
T
RT
1
5.6
4
95
9
61
.2
71
.0
16
.3
14
80
1
4
94
65
1
11
R
T
RT
1
5.7
4
72
6
61
.6
71
.0
16
.2
14
19
1
5
97
56
1
10
R
T
RT
1
5.2
4
92
4
60
.0
70
.7
17
.4
14
68
0
6
10
36
7
11
2
RT
R
T
16
.3
52
22
6
0.9
7
0.6
1
6.9
1
55
89
7
10
50
2
11
4
RT
R
T
16
.2
52
69
6
1.2
7
0.8
1
6.9
1
57
71
8
10
12
2
11
3
RT
R
T
16
.8
50
95
6
1.3
7
0.8
1
6.6
1
52
18
9
10
73
3
11
6
RT
R
T
16
.9
53
76
6
1.5
7
0.8
1
7.1
1
61
10
10
1
01
93
1
20
R
T
RT
1
7.3
5
37
9
61
.8
71
.0
17
.2
15
57
2
11
1
04
49
1
14
R
T
RT
1
7.4
5
36
5
60
.6
70
.5
17
.2
15
81
4
12
1
05
85
1
14
R
T
RT
1
6.6
5
28
1
61
.4
70
.5
17
.3
15
86
6
13
1
04
81
1
16
R
T
RT
1
7.2
5
27
3
61
.0
70
.7
16
.9
15
75
4
14
7
07
3
10
6
RT
R
T
16
.3
38
91
6
7.1
7
0.8
1
6.3
1
09
64
15
8
73
5
11
3
RT
R
T
17
.0
51
23
6
5.9
7
0.4
1
6.1
1
38
57
16
8
14
1
11
1
RT
R
T
16
.8
51
35
6
5.6
7
0.0
1
5.2
1
32
76
17
8
71
1
11
3
RT
R
T
17
.1
51
13
6
5.4
7
0.0
1
5.1
1
38
23
18
9
28
5
11
3
RT
R
T
17
.8
50
58
6
6.7
7
0.7
1
6.0
1
43
43
19
9
09
3
11
8
RT
R
T
18
.0
49
14
6
6.7
7
0.4
1
5.7
1
40
07
20
9
86
1
12
1
RT
R
T
17
.5
48
47
6
5.9
7
0.2
1
5.4
1
47
08
21
9
37
2
11
8
RT
R
T
18
.4
55
22
6
7.3
7
0.6
1
6.4
1
48
93
22
1
07
01
1
23
R
T
RT
1
8.9
5
24
7
66
.3
70
.3
15
.7
15
94
8
23
9
81
6
12
5
RT
R
T
17
.9
51
66
6
6.3
7
0.3
1
5.2
1
49
82
24
9
78
6
11
9
RT
R
T
18
.1
54
14
6
6.4
7
0.4
1
6.1
1
52
00
25
1
01
45
1
26
R
T
RT
1
8.7
5
13
3
66
.6
70
.3
15
.9
15
27
9
26
1
04
55
1
24
R
T
RT
1
8.3
5
06
2
66
.9
70
.5
15
.5
15
51
7
27
8
69
5
10
3
RT
R
T
20
.1
52
91
6
6.2
7
1.5
1
9.2
1
39
85
28
8
37
2
92
R
T
RT
1
7.6
4
76
0
66
.9
71
.7
18
.9
13
13
1
29
6
78
8
88
R
T
RT
1
7.6
3
60
4
64
.6
71
.0
18
.5
10
39
2
228
Exp. Name: 2004-09 RT Validation Planted: 3/31 Depth: 1"
Staff: Dr. Turner Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 10
Location:Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: MC: 6.25'x16' RC: 2.5x16'
Variety: CLXL8, Ccdr, XP710, XP712 Seed Rate: varies S.E.: 4/08
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: P&K EP 50P+50k 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea EP plan 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF plan 5/20 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf. Pd Ccdr plan 6/10 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf Hybrids Boot-5%hd plan 7/02 Flush
Fert: Flood 5/21
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/29
Herb: Gramoxone Max .72ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3ME .30ai 4/01 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+Per+Coc
2+2+.35 +.066ai 4.29
Herb: Londax .10 6/01
Herb:
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/5;13;20
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 100N 8/05 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/06
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/13
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: MC Hvst 8/04/05 RC Hvst 10/19
229
17
-No
v-0
4
20
04
- 0
8 R
iceT
ec
Hy
bri
d V
arie
ty N
Def
init
ion
Stu
dy
@ E
ag
le L
ake
M
C
Pla
nt
MC
M
C
MC
R
C
RC
R
C
RC
T
ota
l
Y
ield
H
eig
hts
%
%
H
arv
est
Yie
ld
%
%
Har
ves
t Y
ield
Trt
Lb
s/A
c
12
%
CM
W
ho
le
To
tal
Mo
istu
re
Lb
s/A
c
12
%
Wh
ole
T
ota
l M
ois
ture
@
12
%
1
78
21
1
02
R
T
RT
1
4.6
3
92
0
60
.1
70
.9
16
.4
11
74
1
2
90
75
1
06
R
T
RT
1
4.5
4
65
7
60
.1
70
.3
16
.8
13
73
2
3
98
43
1
06
R
T
RT
1
5.6
4
95
9
61
.2
71
.0
16
.3
14
80
1
4
94
65
1
11
R
T
RT
1
5.7
4
72
6
61
.6
71
.0
16
.2
14
19
1
5
97
56
1
10
R
T
RT
1
5.2
4
92
4
60
.0
70
.7
17
.4
14
68
0
6
10
36
7
11
2
RT
R
T
16
.3
52
22
6
0.9
7
0.6
1
6.9
1
55
89
7
10
50
2
11
4
RT
R
T
16
.2
52
69
6
1.2
7
0.8
1
6.9
1
57
71
8
10
12
2
11
3
RT
R
T
16
.8
50
95
6
1.3
7
0.8
1
6.6
1
52
18
9
10
73
3
11
6
RT
R
T
16
.9
53
76
6
1.5
7
0.8
1
7.1
1
61
10
10
1
01
93
1
20
R
T
RT
1
7.3
5
37
9
61
.8
71
.0
17
.2
15
57
2
11
1
04
49
1
14
R
T
RT
1
7.4
5
36
5
60
.6
70
.5
17
.2
15
81
4
12
1
05
85
1
14
R
T
RT
1
6.6
5
28
1
61
.4
70
.5
17
.3
15
86
6
13
1
04
81
1
16
R
T
RT
1
7.2
5
27
3
61
.0
70
.7
16
.9
15
75
4
14
7
07
3
10
6
RT
R
T
16
.3
38
91
6
7.1
7
0.8
1
6.3
1
09
64
15
8
73
5
11
3
RT
R
T
17
.0
51
23
6
5.9
7
0.4
1
6.1
1
38
57
16
8
14
1
11
1
RT
R
T
16
.8
51
35
6
5.6
7
0.0
1
5.2
1
32
76
17
8
71
1
11
3
RT
R
T
17
.1
51
13
6
5.4
7
0.0
1
5.1
1
38
23
18
9
28
5
11
3
RT
R
T
17
.8
50
58
6
6.7
7
0.7
1
6.0
1
43
43
19
9
09
3
11
8
RT
R
T
18
.0
49
14
6
6.7
7
0.4
1
5.7
1
40
07
20
9
86
1
12
1
RT
R
T
17
.5
48
47
6
5.9
7
0.2
1
5.4
1
47
08
21
9
37
2
11
8
RT
R
T
18
.4
55
22
6
7.3
7
0.6
1
6.4
1
48
93
230
Exp. Name: 2004-10 Sheathblight Fungicides Planted: 4/20 Depth: 1
Staff: Dr. Krausz Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 6
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Nada Plot Size: MC: 3.75'x16' RC:
Variety: Ccdr, Frns Seed Rate:80 S.E.: 4/28
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:7/12-13
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP 250 5/19 Flush 5/20
Fert: Urea PF 80N 5/26 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PD 60N 6-21 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 5/27
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 8/06
Herb: Gramoxone Max .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3me .30ai 4/22 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Fac+Per+Coc
2+ .35+.066 5/26 Pd10 7/06
Herb: Londax 0.1 6/10 SB 7/09
Herb:
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/13;20
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/11
231
20
04
-10
Sh
eath
Bli
gh
t F
un
gic
ides
Y
ield
@
%
Har
ves
t
%
%
TR
T
12
%
Lo
dg
ing
M
ois
ture
L
bs/
Bu
W
ho
le
To
tal
1
62
82
0
2
1.9
4
5.0
5
4.4
6
5.4
2
61
61
0
2
1.2
4
5.6
5
5.3
6
5.9
3
66
08
0
2
1.6
4
5.8
5
5.5
6
5.9
4
62
83
0
2
1.7
4
5.6
5
4.4
6
5.3
5
69
39
0
2
1.6
4
5.9
5
5.0
6
5.5
6
61
17
0
2
1.7
4
9.4
6
3.5
6
9.6
7
59
87
0
2
1.2
4
9.6
6
3.8
6
9.7
8
60
32
0
2
2.0
4
9.8
6
3.5
6
9.7
9
60
55
0
2
1.6
4
9.6
6
3.6
6
9.6
10
5
97
4
0
21
.4
49
.4
64
.4
70
.0
11
5
91
0
0
21
.6
49
.3
63
.6
69
.5
12
5
73
7
0
21
.4
49
.3
62
.9
69
.2
13
5
75
2
0
21
.6
49
.1
62
.6
69
.2
14
5
90
5
0
21
.3
49
.5
63
.6
69
.6
15
6
09
2
0
21
.2
49
.5
63
.9
69
.7
16
5
76
4
0
21
.2
49
.3
64
.2
69
.9
17
6
04
8
0
21
.3
49
.6
64
.3
69
.9
18
5
70
1
0
20
.9
48
.7
62
.6
69
.3
19
6
97
5
0
21
.6
49
.2
62
.7
69
.5
20
7
05
2
0
21
.7
49
.3
63
.2
69
.6
21
6
91
3
0
21
.7
49
.0
62
.8
69
.5
232
Exp. Name: 2004-11 Stemborer Date of Seeding/Var. Planted: 3/26,4/19;5/24 Depth:1"
Staff: Dr. Way Row Spacing: 7.5 # Rows: 10
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Midland Plot Size: MC:
6.25'x16' RC: 2.5x16'
Variety: Ccdr; CLXL8 Seed Rate:80,35 S.E.4/04;4/26;6/02
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 D1, D2, D3 200 3/26 5/5,5/24 Flush D2 - 5/03
Fert: Urea PF D1, D2 Am Sulf D3 80N 5/5;26;7/2 Flush D2 - 5/20
Fert: Am. Sulf V1 PD 60N 6/2 18;7/16 Flush D3 -5/26
Fert: Am Sulf V2 B-Hd 60N 6/2 7/6;8/5 Flush D3-6/15
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 5/3;5/27;7/2
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/19;8/4;9/3
Herb: Command D1, D2, D3 .30ai 3/20 4/22,5/25 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Clincher #1 D1 .25ai 4/22 I.D. Date
Herb: Permit + Coc D1 .066 4/22
Herb: Prop+Fac+Per+Coc + KarateZ
2+.35+.066 0.146 5/26
Herb: Londax .10 6/3;6/10
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+Per+Coc
2+2+ .35+.066 6/14
Insect:
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 100N 7/29;8/09 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 7/30;8/9
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/19;10/26
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: D1 Hvst 7/29; D2 8/09; D3 9/07 RC Hvst 10/21; 10/27
233
2
00
4-1
1
S
tem
Bo
rer
Dat
e o
f S
eed
ing
@ E
agle
Lak
e
MC
R
C
To
tal
Yie
ld @
Y
ield
@
Yie
ld @
PL
OT
T
RT
1
2%
1
2%
1
2%
R
ep
10
1
22
1
03
71
4
13
9
14
510
1
10
2
12
1
03
76
4
49
7
14
872
1
10
3
32
7
98
7
No
Rat
oo
n
79
87
1
10
4
31
5
03
7
No
Rat
oo
n
50
37
2
10
5
11
8
60
3
22
75
1
08
78
2
10
6
22
9
72
6
30
59
1
27
84
2
10
7
11
9
40
3
30
60
1
24
62
3
10
8
21
7
37
8
35
34
1
09
12
3
10
9
32
5
98
0
No
Rat
oo
n
59
80
3
20
1
21
7
97
2
10
85
9
05
7
1
20
2
11
9
57
9
26
23
1
22
02
1
20
3
31
3
61
9
No
Rat
oo
n
36
19
1
20
4
32
6
34
2
No
Rat
oo
n
63
42
2
20
5
12
1
02
49
4
31
1
14
559
2
20
6
21
7
10
8
30
75
1
01
83
2
20
7
12
1
01
14
4
75
6
14
869
3
20
8
22
1
00
51
4
85
6
14
907
3
20
9
31
4
30
1
No
Rat
oo
n
43
01
3
30
1
21
6
78
2
18
00
8
58
2
1
30
2
12
8
78
5
33
36
1
21
22
1
30
3
31
4
76
7
No
Rat
oo
n
47
67
1
30
4
31
4
77
2
No
Rat
oo
n
47
72
2
30
5
12
9
69
4
38
19
1
35
13
2
30
6
21
7
55
8
32
82
1
08
41
2
30
7
11
8
44
7
22
19
1
06
66
3
30
8
22
8
14
9
34
72
1
16
20
3
30
9
31
4
44
4
No
Rat
oo
n
44
44
3
40
1
22
8
27
1
29
54
1
12
25
1
40
2
11
7
69
3
19
11
9
60
4
1
40
3
32
6
98
5
No
Rat
oo
n
69
85
1
40
4
32
6
08
2
No
Rat
oo
n
60
82
2
40
5
11
8
41
5
26
54
1
10
69
2
40
6
22
9
20
0
45
95
1
37
95
2
40
7
12
8
99
7
39
23
1
29
21
3
40
8
21
6
76
6
29
18
9
68
4
3
40
9
32
5
78
9
No
Rat
oo
n
57
89
3
4
ro
w h
arv
est
U
ntr
eate
d
F
irst
dig
it =
pla
nti
ng
dat
e
S
eco
nd
dig
it =
var
iety
234
Exp. Name: 2004-12 Stemborer Insecticide Trials Planted: 4/21 Depth: 1/2"
Staff: Dr. Way Row Spacing:7.5" # Rows: 6
Location: Ganado Soil: Edna Plot Size: MC:3.75'x16' RC:
Variety: Ccdr Seed Rate: 80 S.E.: 5/02
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd. F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP 250 5/21 Flush rain 4./25
Fert: Urea PF 80N 6/03 Flush 5/23
Fert: Am Sulf PD 60N 6/21 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 6/05
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 8/19
Herb: Command3ME .35ai 4/23 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+Per+Coc
2+2+ .35+.066 5/21 I.D. Date
Herb:
Herb:
Herb:
Insect:
Insect:
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/25
235
20
04
-12
Ste
m B
ore
r In
secti
cid
es @
Gan
ado
Rat
e
Yie
ld -
Lb
s/A
c
TR
T
Des
crip
tio
n
Lb a
i/ac
re
Tim
ing
@
12
%
Mo
ist.
1
Must
angM
ax
0.0
225
2"
P
62
52
2
Must
angM
ax
0.0
225
LB
6
11
9
3
Must
angM
ax
0.0
225 +
0.0
225
(1)
+ (
2)
67
22
4
Kar
ate
Z
0.0
3
2"
P
62
66
5
Kar
ate
Z
0.0
3
LB
5
87
8
6
Kar
ate
Z
0.0
3 +
0.0
3
(4)
+ (
5)
69
47
7
Ico
n 6
.2F
S
0.0
375
ST
5
65
5
8
Untr
eate
d
---
---
54
04
9
Lef
t S
ide
---
---
54
57
10
R
ight
Sid
e --
- --
- 5
66
0
236
Exp. Name: 2004-13 HPR Stemborer Trials Planted: 4/21 Depth: 1/2"
Staff: Dr. Way Row Spacing:7.5 # Rows: 9
Location: Ganado Soil: Edna Plot Size: MC: 5.6'x16' RC: 2.5x16
Variety:: 8 Varieties Seed Rate: 80.35 S.E.: 5/02
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP 250 5/21 Flush rain 4/25
Fert: Urea PF 80N 6/03 Flush 5/23
Fert: Am Sulf PD 60N 6/21 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 6/05
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 8/19
Herb: Command 3ME .35ai 4/23 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Prop+Bol+Fac+Per+COC
2+2+ .35+.066 5/21 I.D. Date
Herb:
Herb:
Herb:
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 70N 8/30 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/31
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 11/08
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/26; RCHvst 11/19
237
20
04
-13
HP
R S
tem
Bo
rer
@ G
anad
o
M
C
Rato
on
T
ota
l
Y
ield
@
Yie
ld @
Y
ield
@
TR
T
Var
T
/ U
1
2%
1
2%
1
2%
L
od
gin
g %
1
Chen
iere
T
7
54
7
15
79
9
12
6
0
2
Chen
iere
U
6
81
3
18
88
8
70
1
0
3
CL
161
T
70
83
2
01
8
91
01
0
4
CL
161
U
56
74
2
09
9
77
73
0
5
CL
XL
8
T
92
40
1
87
4
11
11
4
0
6
CL
XL
8
U
88
54
2
03
8
10
89
2
0
7
Co
codri
e T
8
18
7
26
64
1
08
51
0
8
Coco
dri
e U
6
70
8
24
66
9
17
4
0
9
Cypre
ss
T
72
34
2
00
2
92
36
0
10
Cypre
ss
U
62
14
2
51
6
87
30
0
11
Jeff
erso
n
T
73
66
3
11
4
10
48
0
0
12
Jeff
erso
n
U
53
87
2
64
9
80
36
0
13
P
risc
illa
T
7
21
9
30
77
1
02
96
0
14
P
risc
illa
U
4
86
3
30
70
7
93
3
0
15
X
P7
23
T
1
03
18
2
13
1
12
44
8
0
16
XP
723
U
95
69
2
16
5
11
73
4
0
238
Exp. Name: 2004-25 PGR Varieties Planted: 4/01 Depth: 1'
Staff: Dr. Tarpley Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 10
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Edna Plot Size: MC: 6.25'x16' RC: 2.5x16'
Variety: Ccdr, Chnr, CL161, CLXL8 Seed Rate:varies S.E.: 4/08
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP plan 200 4/16 Flush
Fert: P & K EP plan 50+50 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF plan 60N;90N 5/18 Flush
Fert: AM. Sulf PD plan 50N 6/14 Flush
Fert: AM Sulf Boot CLxL8 60N 6/28 Flush
Fert: Flood 5/20
MC Fertilizer Total: Drain 7/27
Herb: Cyclone .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3ME .30ai 4/01 I.D. Date
Herb: Prop+Fac+Per+Coc 2+.35 +.066ai 4/29
Herb: Londax .10 6.01
Herb:
Fung: Quadris + Tilt 8+8 oz .0625
+ .0625ai 6/24
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/5;13,20
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 80N 8/05 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 8/05
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/21
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Hvst 8/05 RC Hvst 10/25: 10/28
239
2004-25
2004 PGR Variety Study @ Eagle Lake
MC MC MC RC RC RC Total
Yield % % Yield % % Yield
Plot Trt Lbs/Ac 12% Whole Total Lbs/Ac 12% Whole Total Lbs/Ac 12%
101 1 8897 60.2 71.5 2765 63.4 70.0 11662
102 1 9564 59.4 70.8 3072 65.0 71.2 12636
103 1 9182 59.3 71.5 2647 63.1 69.9 11829
104 1 9083 60.1 71.2 3269 60.9 69.3 12352
105 2 9257 62.2 73.3 3073 59.1 68.7 12329
106 2 9118 44.7 70.8 3624 61.1 69.7 12742
107 2 9082 62.9 73.3 3734 60.3 69.2 12816
108 2 9127 64.2 72.9 4211 56.4 67.8 13339
109 3 8835 63.9 71.7 3396 62.8 69.6 12231
110 3 8871 63.3 70.7 3489 65.4 70.9 12360
111 3 8748 65.2 72.2 2987 62.9 69.6 11735
112 3 8715 60.3 70.7 3281 59.7 68.6 11996
113 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
114 4 10141 55.1 71.5 4681 53.9 69.2 14822
115 4 9940 53.6 70.9 4987 53.6 69.3 14928
116 4 9958 54.6 70.9 4616 56.7 69.7 14573
117 4 9400 51.6 70.2 4549 55.8 69.7 13949
201 1 9158 58.9 70.4 2689 61.7 69.2 11847
202 1 9330 58.8 70.4 3257 63.1 70.1 12587
203 1 9152 58.8 70.9 3254 61.4 69.5 12405
204 1 8926 61.2 71.5 3077 62.6 70.3 12003
205 2 8545 46.1 71.9 3121 59.1 68.8 11666
206 2 8733 61.8 73.2 2887 62.7 70.5 11621
207 2 8499 62.6 73.4 3385 59.7 69.4 11884
208 2 8744 63.7 73.6 3604 60.4 69.5 12348
209 3 8556 64.8 72.3 3450 60.8 69.0 12006
210 3 8540 64.5 71.5 3162 60.8 68.4 11701
211 3 8565 61.8 71.4 3018 61.0 68.7 11583
212 3 8697 66.2 72.1 3209 62.3 69.8 11906
213 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
214 4 9861 55.9 71.1 4622 55.0 69.4 14483
215 4 9647 55.2 71.1 4784 56.4 69.3 14431
216 4 9537 54.6 70.8 4791 56.5 70.0 14328
217 4 9873 54.3 71.2 4465 58.1 70.4 14338
301 1 8657 60.5 70.9 2345 63.3 70.1 11002
302 1 8514 57.5 70.1 3183 62.6 69.4 11697
303 1 9214 59.5 70.9 3040 61.7 68.9 12254
304 1 8882 60.9 71.7 3084 63.8 70.6 11966
305 2 9053 61.5 72.7 3488 57.6 68.6 12542
306 2 8922 60.4 72.2 3856 56.8 68.6 12778
307 2 9161 60.0 72.6 3505 57.1 68.3 12666
308 2 8883 45.6 71.2 3783 59.0 68.7 12665
309 3 8676 63.4 71.6 3247 60.6 68.6 11923
310 3 8520 58.7 70.3 3451 61.3 69.0 11971
311 3 8555 65.1 72.0 2827 61.9 69.8 11382
312 3 8676 64.8 71.3 3235 64.6 70.7 11911
313 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
314 4 10414 54.4 71.8 5033 54.8 69.4 15447
315 4 9926 53.9 71.1 4592 57.0 70.1 14517
240
2004-25
2004 PGR Variety Study @ Eagle Lake
MC MC MC RC RC RC Total
Yield % % Yield % % Yield
Plot Trt Lbs/Ac 12% Whole Total Lbs/Ac 12% Whole Total Lbs/Ac 12%
316 4 9870 55.0 71.4 4809 60.0 71.1 14678
317 4 9711 54.8 71.3 4307 57.9 70.7 14018
401 1 7969 58.0 70.1 2482 62.3 70.0 10452
402 1 8788 59.3 70.7 2725 61.9 70.2 11514
403 1 8940 60.2 71.1 2838 63.9 70.7 11778
404 1 8443 56.7 69.6 2199 64.6 71.2 10642
405 2 8655 61.8 72.9 3196 53.2 67.5 11851
406 2 8941 60.9 72.9 2984 56.7 68.6 11925
407 2 8421 43.4 71.0 3247 57.4 68.8 11668
408 2 9006 61.6 72.7 2998 58.4 69.0 12004
409 3 8372 60.8 71.2 3413 61.7 69.1 11785
410 3 8530 63.8 71.5 2661 61.7 69.0 11191
411 3 8464 65.2 71.8 3086 63.7 69.9 11549
412 3 8525 64.5 71.5 2560 63.2 70.1 11085
413 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
414 4 9673 53.7 71.5 4476 53.2 69.3 14148
415 4 9749 54.1 71.5 4232 56.6 70.4 13981
416 4 9955 53.1 71.2 4587 57.7 70.7 14542
417 4 9674 54.3 71.5 4151 59.1 71.1 13825
241
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Jeff McHvst 7/28; XL7 McHvst 7/30; RC JEff Hvst 10/15; RC XL7 Hvst 10/19
Exp. Name: 2043-26 RT PGR/ Jeff & XL7 Planted: 4/0 1 Depth: 1'
Staff Dr. Tarpley Row Spacing: 7.5" # Rows: 10
Location: Eagle Lake Soil: Enda Plot Size: MC:6.25'x16' RC: 2.5x16'
Variety: Jeff, XL7 Seed Rate: varies S.E.:4/08
G.R.: P.D.: 15% Hd.: F.Hd.:
CULTURAL INPUTS WATER MANAGEMENT
Material Applied Rate Date Irrig. Date
MAIN CROP
Fert: 19-19-19 EP plan 200 4/16 Flush
Fert: P & K EP plan 50+50 4/16 Flush
Fert: Urea PF plan 60N,90N 5/18 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf PO - Jeff 60N 6/07 Flush
Fert: Am Sulf Boot-Hd XL-7 60N 6/18 Flush
Fert: Flood 5/20
MC Fertilizer Total Drain 7/21
Herb: Cyclone .75ai 3/30 M.C. TREATMENTS
Herb: Command 3Me .30ai 4/02 I.D. Date
Herb: Permit + Coc .066ai 4/22
Herb: Prop+Clincher+Facet+Coc 1+.28+.3
5 5/18
Herb: Londax .10 6/01
Fung: Quadris + Tilt 8+8 6/18
Fung:
Insect: Karate Z .04ai 7/5;13;20
Insect:
RATOON CROP
Fert: Urea RPF 80N 7/30 Flush
Fert: Flush
Fert: Flood 7/30
RC Fertilizer Total: Drain 10/11
Fung: R.C. TREATMENTS
Fung:
Insect:
Insect:
242
2004-26
2004 XL7&Jeff @ Eagle
Lake
16' plot
MC MC MC RC RC RC Total
Yield MC % % Yield % % Yield
Plot Trt
Lbs/Ac
12% Lodging % Whole Total
Lbs/Ac
12% Whole Total
Lbs/Ac
12%
101 Jeff 1 7810 0 63.2 70.0 4003 61.2 68.4 11813
102 Jeff 1 7972 0 63.0 69.6 3956 60.0 68.1 11928
103 Jeff 1 8041 0 63.0 69.8 4033 62.0 69.7 12074
104 Jeff 1 7436 0 61.4 69.7 4480 60.6 68.5 11915
105 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
106 XL7 1 9580 0 50.7 70.5 5588 55.4 69.4 15168
107 XL7 1 9583 0 49.1 69.3 5409 53.3 66.6 14992
108 XL7 1 9509 0 49.3 69.1 5662 52.2 68.7 15171
109 XL7 1 9444 0 47.1 69.3 5290 54.8 69.6 14733
110 XL7 1 9186 0 47.7 69.5 5745 54.0 69.1 14931
111 XL7 1 8836 0 46.4 69.0 5515 54.0 69.3 14351
112 XL7 1 9112 0 49.6 71.0 5942 53.1 69.4 15054
201 Jeff 1 7408 0 62.1 69.5 3269 59.4 68.4 10678
202 Jeff 1 7553 0 61.8 69.8 4232 64.6 70.9 11784
203 Jeff 1 7301 0 61.1 69.5 3647 64.1 70.9 10948
204 Jeff 1 7396 0 63.4 70.4 4608 63.8 70.3 12004
205 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
206 XL7 1 8204 0 49.7 69.9 5687 57.7 70.8 13891
207 XL7 1 8377 0 48.5 69.5 5073 53.5 69.8 13450
208 XL7 1 9208 0 47.4 69.1 5967 52.1 70.1 15176
209 XL7 1 9669 0 49.6 69.5 5553 54.2 69.7 15222
210 XL7 1 9047 0 44.5 68.1 5870 56.4 71.0 14917
211 XL7 1 9585 0 51.2 70.6 5561 50.6 69.1 15147
212 XL7 1 9380 0 49.1 69.0 5339 51.4 69.5 14719
301 Jeff 1 7101 0 62.6 69.9 3727 57.1 67.8 10828
302 Jeff 1 6737 0 59.7 69.4 3649 58.9 67.9 10387
303 Jeff 1 6988 0 62.1 70.0 4136 60.0 68.5 11125
304 Jeff 1 7313 0 62.0 70.3 4232 64.4 70.5 11544
305 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
306 XL7 1 9150 0 46.7 68.8 5645 52.6 69.8 14795
307 XL7 1 9467 0 46.7 69.5 5386 55.8 70.3 14853
308 XL7 1 8932 0 45.1 68.1 4785 51.5 68.9 13717
309 XL7 1 9206 0 45.8 68.4 4893 51.0 68.8 14099
310 XL7 1 8445 0 44.1 67.7 5622 53.3 68.6 14067
311 XL7 1 10212 0 47.2 68.6 4982 53.5 69.1 15194
312 XL7 1 8970 0 48.0 69.1 4956 51.1 68.7 13925
401 Jeff 1 6690 0 62.8 70.2 3104 62.3 70.3 9793
402 Jeff 1 6976 0 62.5 70.0 4268 61.8 69.6 11244
403 Jeff 1 6853 0 61.2 69.4 3118 59.7 69.5 9971
404 Jeff 1 7271 0 62.0 70.0 4075 64.2 71.0 11346
405 Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer
406 XL7 1 9052 0 43.3 68.1 5078 51.9 70.7 14130
407 XL7 1 9480 0 47.6 69.4 5470 52.3 69.4 14951
408 XL7 1 9644 0 48.4 69.1 5199 51.0 69.0 14843
409 XL7 1 9343 0 48.3 69.3 5218 53.2 69.3 14561
410 XL7 1 9071 0 43.4 68.0 5347 51.5 69.1 14419
411 XL7 1 9490 0 47.8 69.5 4484 50.2 68.9 13974
412 XL7 1 9274 0 48.1 69.8 4489 53.2 69.4 13762
243
Acetolactate Synthase, 109
AgNMore, 146
Alligatorweed, 105
Armbrust, K.L., 108
Arrosolo, 132, 138, 142, 204
Avila, L. A., 108, 109
Bacterial Panicle Blight, ii, 140, 141
Banks, 3, 43, 44, 46, 49 - 52, 54, 55, 58 - 60,
63, 64, 96, 219
Basagran, 132, 138, 142, 204
Beaumont Rice Mill, 148, 156
bispyribac-sodium, 106
Bleaching, 108
Boldt, Kelby, 146
Bolero, 104, 105, 106, 122, 204
Brachiaria platyphylla, 108
breeding nursery rows, 9
Broadleaf signalgrass, 100, 105
broadleaf weeds, 97, 100
Broussard, Louis, 148
Burkholderia glumae, 140
Busch Agricultural Resources, 3
career days, 146, 149
Chandler, James M., ii, 24, 27, 99, 104, 105, 106, 108,
109
Cheniere, 3, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
63, 64, 96, 121, 123, 124, 152, 153, 154, 157, 163,
164, 165, 170, 171, 176, 177, 183, 184, 237
CL121, 64, 152, 164, 165, 183, 184
CL161, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
63, 64, 96, 121, 123, 124, 152, 153, 154, 163, 164,
165, 170, 171, 176, 177, 183, 184, 219, 221, 237, 238
Clincher, 104, 204, 218, 222, 224, 232, 241
Clomazone, 108
CLXL8, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
63, 64, 96, 121, 123, 124, 153, 183, 185, 205, 219,
221, 228, 232, 237, 238
Cockrell, Jay, ii, 145
Cocodrie, 3, 5, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 40,
42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 96, 101, 104, 113, 114, 118, 119,
121, 123, 124, 132, 135, 137, 138, 142, 144, 152, 153,
154, 157, 163, 164, 166, 170, 171, 176, 177, 183, 185,
237
Command, 104, 105, 106, 122, 204, 205, 206, 209, 216,
218, 220, 222, 224, 226, 228, 230, 232, 236, 238, 241
Communication, ii, 145, 146
Conservation tillage, 153
cutting height, 30, 31, 32, 45, 52, 100, 107
Cybonnet, 3, 12, 21, 43, 44, 46, 49-52, 54, 55,
58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 96
Cypress, 5, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 48, 109, 121, 123,
124, 152, 153, 154, 157, 163, 170, 176, 178, 183, 185,
237
Delayed planting, 43, 46, 58, 59
Dishman, Bill, Sr., 148
Dixiebelle, 4, 152, 153, 154, 163, 176, 178, 183, 186
Dow AgroSciences, 100
drain timing, 100, 101, 102
dry period, 100, 102
Eagle Lake Field day, 147
Echinochloa crus-galli, 108
educational materials, 149
Facet, 105, 106, 122, 132, 138, 142, 204, 205, 218, 222,
224, 241
Federal Noxious Weed Act, 27, 28
Foliar Protectants, 142
Fungicide, 40, 50, 53, 97
glutamine synthetase, 24, 25, 26
Grandstand, 100, 105, 204
GRASP, 100
Herbicide resistant, 64
Herbicide Tolerance, ii, 24, 205
Historic Texas Rice Stocks, 152, 199
hybrid rice production, 148
hybrid rice research, 148
Icon, 104, 125-131, 133, 134, 142, 204, 235
Imazethapyr, 108, 109
Imidazolinone, 109
Irrigation Water Source, 152, 197
Jefferson, 3, 5, 20, 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60,
63, 64, 96, 100, 104, 107, 120, 121, 123, 124, 135,
142, 146, 152, 153, 154, 157, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168,
169, 176, 178, 183, 186, 205, 237
Jund, Mike, ii, 39, 47
Karate, 45, 53, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123,
125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136,
204, 206, 209, 216, 218, 220, 222, 224, 226, 228, 230,
232, 235, 238, 241
Krausz, Joseph, ii, 43, 50, 140, 202, 205, 230
Lancaster, S.R., 108
leaf-clip method, 142
Liberty, 11, 12, 18-21, 25, 26, 120, 152, 153,
157, 164, 165, 168, 169, 204
Lifescapes, 146
List of Collaborators, 156, 188, 198
marker assisted breeding, 2
Massey, J. H., 108
MC Yields Comparison, 182
McCauley, Garry, ii, 99
Index
244
McClung, Anna, ii, 1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 21
Messenger, 142, 143, 144
Mexican rice borer, 112, 118, 119, 120, 148
N application, 43, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 100, 102
Newpath, 109
Newsletter, 146
nitrogen rate, 51, 101
O. rufipogon, 27, 28
O. sativa, 28
O’Barr, J.H., 104, 105, 108
Outreach, ii, 145, 146
Panicle Blight, ii, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144
panicle blight forecast system, 141, 143, 144
panicle blight ratings, 142
Panicle Blight Screening of Seedlings, 141
Panicle Blight Suppression Test, 143
Park, W.D., ii, 24
Paspalum, 107
Percent Conservation Tillage, 197
Percent Precision Leveled, 197
postemergence herbicide, 100
Press, ii, 145, 146
Propanil, 104, 105, 204
Puerto Rico Nursery, 9
Quadris, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 218, 222, 238, 241
Reagan, Gene, 148
red rice, 27, 28, 49, 64, 108, 109
Red Rice Ecotypes, 109
reduced tillage, 100, 107
Regiment, 100, 105, 106, 204, 205
Rice Cultivar Screening, 141
Rice Development Advisory, 41, 47, 48, 57
RiceFax, 147
RiceTec, 3, 6, 12, 21, 49, 52, 148, 153, 205, 227, 229
Root weight, 106
Saber, 19, 142, 157
salicylic acid, 142
science fairs, 146
Screening of Seedlings, 141
Senseman, S. A., 108, 109
Shoot length, 106
Snow, Alison, 27
Solo, 142
Spring nursery, 9
Stam, 105, 106, 122, 204
Stansel, Jim, ii, 34, 150, 151, 153, 163
Steele, G.L., 106
Strahan, Ron, 147
Suppression Test, 143
Symptoms of panicle blight, 141
Systemic Acquired Resistance, 142
Tabien, Rodante, ii, 1, 8
Taylor, Owen, 147
Texas Crop Rice Development Statistics, 152, 189
Texas Field Yields by Variety, 152, 160, 163
Texas Rice, 145, 146, 149
Texas Rice Acreage, 152, 156, 157, 162
Texas rice belt, 37, 141, 144, 163
Texas Rice Crop Statistics, 34, 153
Texas Rice Yield & Quality Summary, 164, 170, 176,
183
Tilt, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 218, 222, 238, 241
Turner, Fred, ii, 39
TX9092, 3, 21, 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60,
63, 64, 96, 207, 210, 212, 214, 219, 221
Uniform regional Rice Nursery, 3, 6, 12, 21, 141, 142,
144
Vawter, Jack, ii, 47, 201
visiting scientists, 146
Way, M.O., 111, 147, 148
Weed Control, 104
weed density, 100
weed management, 100, 104, 107
Weed pressures, 100
Wells, 3, 4, 48, 152, 157, 163, 164, 170, 172, 183, 186
XL8, 3, 12, 21, 118, 119, 152, 153, 154, 157, 158, 163,
164, 166, 170, 172, 176, 179, 183, 187, 217
XP723, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 63,
64, 96, 121, 123, 124, 207, 211, 213, 215, 219, 221,
226, 237
Yang, Yubin, 47, 57
Yield Determinants, ii, 24