Burley Tobacco Variety Information for 2002

Authors: C. A. Wilkinson, Extension Agronomist, Tobacco, Virginia Tech; D. R. Peek, Extension Specialist, Tobacco, Associate Professor of Agronomy, Virginia Tech; T. D. Reed, Extension Agronomist, Tobacco, Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackstone, VA; and C. S. Johnson, Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackston, VA.

Publication Number 436-417, Posted March 2002



One new variety will be commercially available to tobacco producers in 2002. NC 5 met the chemical and physical standards in the 1999 Regional Variety Evaluation Program. Growers are advised to plant only a limited acreage of any new variety until more information and experience is available from a wider range of soil and climatic conditions.

NC 5 (tested as NC 9806) was developed by North Carolina State University. It is a moderately yielding hybrid with resistance to tobacco mosaic virus, the virus complex (potato virus Y, tobacco etch virus, and tobacco vein mottling virus), wildfire, and root knot nematode. NC 5 has a high level of resistance to black root rot. It has a high level of resistance to race 0 black shank and a low to moderate level of resistance to race 1 black shank. Seed will be available from F. W. Rickard Seed Company.

Information is provided for widely grown and recently released varieties in Tables 1 to 4 of this publication. Average performance of twelve varieties in the 2001 Virginia Official Variety Tests (OVT) is shown in Table 1. These tests were conducted in Washington (B. Miller, Jr. farm, industrial park, and Southwest Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Center) and Lee (H. Scott farm) counties under the joint supervision of Extension agents in the respective counties and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University research and Extension personnel. Testing in various locations throughout the production area makes it possible to evaluate varietal performance under the widely ranging soil and weather conditions existing in Virginia. Such a testing program also provides an opportunity for producers to observe burley tobacco varieties under field conditions in their particular region. Contact the Extension agent in your county to arrange a visit to the on-farm variety test nearest you and to learn of tours of tobacco on-farm tests.

Data in Table 1 are for only one year and the results may not be indicative of what might be obtained in other years. Where available, averages that include 1997 to 2001 data are also presented in Table 2. Do not compare the average yield of varieties unless each variety was grown the same number of years.

Information on agronomic performance and disease resistance levels is given in Table 3. In addition to yield, quality potential, and ease of handling, the history of various disease problems on your farm should weigh into the decision of which variety is best suited to your production system. Varietal resistance alone cannot prevent losses to diseases. Any variety may suffer damage when disease causing organisms are present and when weather conditions favor their development. An effective pest management program will also include crop rotation and other cultural control practices. Combining varietal resistance with crop rotation, early root destruction, and proper use of labeled pesticides is the only way to achieve consistent, cost-effective pest control.

View Table 4

Table 1. Results from Virginia Burley Tobacco Variety Tests, Yield, Value, Price and Grade Index, 2001.1
  State Average Southwest VA AREC Industrial Parl B. H. Miller farm H. Scott farm
Variety Yield lbs/A Price2 $/cwt Yield lbs/A Price $/cwt Yield lbs/A Price $/cwt Yield lbs/A Price $/cwt Yield lbs/A Price $/cwt
KY 907 2581 164 2881 146 2774 170 2040 145 2630 195
NC 2000 3131 170 2946 155 3067 185 1955 144 3380 195
TN 90 2834 177 2764 162 2797 156 2533 193 2940 196
TN 97 3078 176 2937 175 2976 175 2550 159 3320 196
Bu 21 x KY 10 3071 184 3084 188 3198 168 2601 185 2930 196
KY 14 x L 8 2785 190 2638 187 2628 188 2448 189 3090 196
KT 200 3274 173 3057 151 3336 188 2618 156 3430 195
NC BH129 2784 188 2799 177 2654 186 2363 192 2900 196
Clay's 403 3174 173 3117 172 3546 181 2686 144 2860 195
HB04P 2764 178 2639 178 3013 186 2669 151 2640 195
R 711 3145 170 3078 142 3276 180 2788 160 3080 196
R 712 3019 180 2849 163 3197 167 2635 193 3010 196
Location Average 2970 177 2899 166 3039 178 2491 168 3018 196
  Value2 $/A Grade Index3 Value $/A Grade Index Value $/A Grade Index Value $/A Grade Index Value $/A Grade Index
KY 907 4257 52 4219 40 4730 45 2950 37 5128 84
NC 2000 4907 55 4546 36 5687 60 2818 37 6576 86
TN 90 4870 61 4511 48 4346 44 4878 67 5743 84
TN 97 5238 58 5148 55 5247 47 4063 46 6494 84
Bu 21 x KY 10 5412 63 5786 62 5339 48 4800 60 5722 83
KY 14 x L 8 5140 66 4927 64 4946 53 4632 63 6056 84
KT 200 5418 57 4605 44 6273 58 4096 42 6699 84
NC BH129 5020 63 4958 55 4917 50 4537 64 5668 83
Clayıs 403 5304 58 5348 57 6409 56 3879 37 5580 80
HB04P 4878 57 4713 57 5610 54 4038 35 5152 81
R 711 5190 55 4351 36 5897 54 4473 45 6040 84
R 712 5242 62 4650 48 5343 48 5074 68 5900 84
Location Average 5073 59 4814 50 5395 51 4187 50 5897 83
1 Tests were conducted in Washington (Southwest Virginia Ag. Res. and Ext. Ctr., B. H. Miller, Jr. farms, and Industrial Park) and Lee (H. Scott farm), counties in 2001.
2Based on season average prices for Virginia.
3Grade index is a numerical quality rating based on government grade. High ratings are best.

Return to text

Table 2. Virginia Burley Tobacco Official Variety Test Results by Years, Southwest Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Glade Spring, VA.
 Yield,lbs/AValue2, $/AGrade Index3
Variety or Hybrid 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Avg.1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
HB04P -- -- -- -- 2639 2639 -- -- -- -- 4713 -- -- -- -- 57
KY 14 2251 2576 2140 2508 2775 2450 4334 4904 3693 4431 4417 55 74 57 46 48
KY 907 2489 2131 -- 2522 2881 2506 4687 4059 -- 4514 4219 58 76 ‹ 46 40
KY 910 -- -- 2193 1972 2433 2199 -- -- 4070 3690 4348 -- -- 63 55 61
NC 2000 -- -- -- 2637 2946 2792 -- -- -- 4857 4546 -- -- -- 60 36
TN 90 2523 2330 2674 2364 2764 2531 4745 4433 4664 4206 4511 63 73 51 48 48
TN 97 2459 2491 2422 2471 2937 2556 4685 4749 4505 4688 5148 69 75 60 64 55
Bu 21 x KY 10 2614 2613 2570 2702 3084 2717 4895 4950 4221 5277 5786 54 75 42 67 62
KY 14 x L 8 2352 2576 2864 2523 2638 2591 4327 4859 5155 4590 4927 47 74 55 50 64
KT 200 -- -- -- 2614 3057 2836 -- -- -- 4687 4605 -- -- -- 50 44
NC BH129 2461 2399 2567 2629 2799 2571 4637 4557 4728 5052 4958 72 72 61 64 55
NC 4 -- -- -- -- 2854 2854 -- -- -- -- 4959 -- -- -- -- 55
NC 5 -- -- -- -- 2706 2706 -- -- -- -- 4287 -- -- -- -- 48
Clay's 403 2604 2736 2201 2557 3117 2643 4883 5180 3620 4508 5348 50 76 38 42 57
PF 561 2433 2623 2452 2037 2617 2432 4575 4968 4527 3889 4407 56 74 66 62 54
R 630 -- -- -- 2370 2730 2550 -- -- -- 4482 4659 -- -- -- 65 57
R 711 2657 3007 2293 2627 3078 2732 4999 5699 3953 4824 4351 62 76 43 53 36
R 712 -- -- -- 2570 2849 2710 -- -- -- 4942 4650 -- -- -- 66 48
Year Average 2477 2528 2438 2457 2828   4658 4795 4314 4561 4713 58 74 54 57 51
New variety for 2002 is in bold.
1Averages are not directly comparable unless the number of years is equivalent.
2Based on season average prices for Virginia.
3Grade index is a numerical quality rating based on government grade. High ratings are best.

Return to text

Table 3. Agronomic and Disease Information for Varieties Tested at the Southwest Virginia Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Glade Spring, VA.
       Disease Reaction1
Variety Days to Flower Plant height (in.)Leaf No. Leaf Length (in.) Leaf Width (in.) BM BS BRR TMV WF Virus Complex
HB04P 61 55.8 21.0 30.3 13.4 S S H H H 2
KY 14 62 53.0 22.8 31.0 12.3 S S M H H S
KY 907 67 55.1 23.5 28.7 13.6 S L H H H 2
KY 910 62 53.4 19.3 29.9 12.9 S 4 H H H 2
NC 2000 73 49.0 23.2 27.4 11.3 M S S H H S
TN 90 65 50.5 20.9 28.1 11.9 L M H H H 2
TN 97 64 51.7 21.6 28.2 12.0 -- M H H H 2
Bu 21 x KY 10 63 54.7 22.1 29.4 12.4 S S L H H S
KY 14 x L 8 59 49.5 18.9 30.6 13.1 S -- M H H S
KT 200 67 53.8 22.9 28.9 12.5 S L H H H 2
NC BH129 64 57.1 20.7 30.1 13.1 S S H H H S
NC 4 65 54.3 21.5 28.7 12.5 S L H H H 2
NC 5 66 53.8 21.3 30.5 13.6 S 4 H H H 2
Clay's 403 69 52.7 21.9 29.8 13.0 S S M H H S
PF 561 62 52.8 20.3 29.3 12.2 S M H H H S
R 630 64 56.4 21.4 28.6 12.7 S M H H H 2
R 711 67 52.3 20.9 30.2 12.5 S S M H H S
R 712 63 55.3 21.3 30.1 12.7 S S H H H S
New variety for 2002 is in bold.
1 BS = Black Shank; BRR = Black Root Rot; TMV = Tobacco Mosaic Virus; and WF = Wildfire. Resistance levels: H = high; M = moderate; L = low; S = susceptible, and -- = not determined.

2 High resistance to tobacco vein mottling virus and medium resistance to tobacco etch virus.

3 High resistance to race 0 and no resistance to race 1.

4 High resistance to race 0 and medium resistance to race 1.

Return to text

Table 4. Percentage of certain color grade factor of varieties tested at five locations in 2001.
Variety L1 F FR K M V VF
KY 907 0 33 0 52 5 0 10
NC 2000 0 42 0 42 0 1 15
TN 90 6 51 5 35 0 0 3
TN 97 4 35 7 31 8 5 10
Bu 21 x KY 10 2 53 4 18 12 0 11
KY 14 x L 8 0 66 9 6 1 4 14
KT 200 2 32 6 37 10 4 9
NC BH129 7 50 5 11 11 3 13
Clay's 403 6 40 5 37 4 0 8
HB04P 0 31 5 28 20 0 16
R 711 4 25 9 43 12 0 7
R 712 2 43 9 23 11 2 10
1 L = buff; F = tan; FR = tannish red; K = variegated; M = mixed; V = greenish; VF = greenish tan

Return to text

Disclaimer
Commercial products are named in this publication for information purposes only. Virginia Cooperative Extension and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University do not endorse these products and do not intend discrimination against other products which also may be suitable.


View this document in PDF format.

Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension