Gupton, C. L.

Neas, M. O.

University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station

English

University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Bulletins AgResearch 2-1974 Burley 64 Tobacco Variety University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station C. L. Gupton M. O. Neas Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin  Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station; Gupton, C. L.; and Neas, M. O., "Burley 64 Tobacco Variety" (1974). Bulletins. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin/385 The publications in this collection represent the historical publishing record of the UT Agricultural Experiment Station and do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge or recommendations. Current information about UT Ag Research can be found at the UT Ag Research website. This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the AgResearch at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact trace@utk.edu. Bulletin 530February 19743cI' ., '=; ~' ~ j J n.c AGRICULTURE RARYAUG 201974Burley 64TobaccoVarietybyC. L. GuptonM. O. NeasThe University of TennesseeAgricultural Experiment StationJohn A. Ewing, DeanKnoxvilleCONTENTSPageIntroduction 3Origin and Development 3Description 4Agronomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4Quality Characteristics 6Results from Regional Tests 7Resistance to Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9Effects of Topping Date 10Suggestion to Growers 11Acknowledgements 132Burley 64 Tobacco VarietyC. L. Gupton and M. O. Neas2INTRODUCTIONThere is a need for a wider choice of burley tobacco varietieswith multiple disease resistance, adequate yield, good handlingcharacteristics, and acceptability to the trade. All present varietiesare deficient in one or more of these desirable attributes. Only onevariety, Burley 49, has been available for use where both race 1 ofthe black shank organism3 and black root rot4 are problems. Somegrowers find the yield of this variety inadequate.Burley 64, tested as Greeneville 64A, was released in 1973 by theTennessee Agricultural Experiment Station and the AgriculturalResearch Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The new va-riety has resistance to all major diseases of burley tobacco and issuperior to Burley 49 in yield and quality.ORIGIN AND DEVElOPMENTBurley 64 originated from the cross 62-231-25H X 62-486-25H. Itwas in the F 9 generation at the time of release. The 62-486-25Hparent contributed resistance to black root rot, derived from Nico-tiana debneyi; resistance to tobacco mosaic\ derived from N.glutinosa; and resistance to wildfireG, derived from N. longiflora;in addition to N. tabacum-type resistance to Fusarium wilF andblack shank. A high leaf number from the mutation HLN Burley21 and resistance to all diseases listed above except black root rotwere contributed by 62-231-25H. Burley 64 was evaluated in thestate yield and quality trials from 1968 through 1972 and in the1972 Regional Burley Variety Test.1 Cooperative investigations of the Southern Region, Agricultural ResearchService, U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Plant andSoil Science, Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Knoxville, Tennessee3790l.2 Research Geneticist and Agricultural Research Technician, respectively,Southern Region, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agricul-ture, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743.3 Phytophthora parasitic a Dast .•Caused by Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk. & Br.) Ferr.o Caused by tobacco mosaic virus.·Caused by Pseudomonas tabaci (Wolf and Foster) Stevens."Caused by Fusarium oxysporum, (Schlecht.) F. Sp. nicotianae (J. Johnson)Snyd. & Hans.3DESCRIPTICNBurley 64 is a high-leaf-number, late-flowering variety. However,if it is topped early, the upper leaves fill out well, resulting in acylindrical plant that matures uniformly (Figure 1). Short inter-nodes and very upright leaves provide a plant that is much easierto handle than any older variety, other than Burley 49. The yield ofBudey 64 is adequate, and its acceptability to cigarette manufac-turers is good. This variety has consistently cured well under thevariable conditions during the curing seasons of the last 5 years.Agronomic CharacteristicsBurley 64 generally yielded more than the check variety, Burley49, in trials at several locations over 4 years (Table 1). On theaverage of all tests, Burley 64 yielded 262 pounds per acre morethan Burley 49. The number of leaves after topping, plant height,internode, and width of leaf were almost identical for Burley 64and Burley 49 (Table 2). However, Burley 64 leaves averagedabO'.lt 1 inch longer, and t"!1eplants required abOtlt 9 days longerto flower than the check variety.With the shortage of labor for barning tobacco and the poundagelimitation on production, the handling characteristics of varietiesFigUl'e 1. Burley 64 on the right compared with a drooping type breedingline on the left which is difficult to handle without leaf b,·eakage.4~~,_~=~~c __,~ __ ,~ __", __ . ,,"_"'_~,,~'~_'_~'~~"~ __~_'~'~""""'-_~_'~~,,~_~_"_""_'Table 1. Yield (Ib.l acre) of Burley 64 and Burley 49, based on four replications of single-row plots 156 feet long at each loca-tion each yearlocation-Grower I County--Ruther- Kinche- Street Moser PES* Turner HRES*ford loe Washing- Price TES* Jeffer- Fisher Bettis Cumber- Trous- Robert- MTES*Year Variety Sullivan Hawkins ton Hawkins Gree~e son loudon loudon land dale son Maury-- ,------ -----'----1969 Burley 64 2,908 3,190 2,928 2872 2,892 3,176 2,2402,709 2,685Bu~ley 49 2,633 3,005 2,493 2,802 2.442 2,567 1,826 2,280 2,732LSD" .•,,-, 215 NS 310 NS 325 299 289 NS NS1970 Burley 64 2,854 2,455 3,230 2,440 2,309 2,0942,795Burley 49 2,578 2,091 3,096 2,371 2,021 1,973 2,722LSD".,,,, 185 274 NS NS NS NS NS011971 Burley 64 2,997 2,201 3.442 2,222 2,542 2,196 2,974Burley 49 2,647 2,156 2,993 2,116 2,174 1,817 2,761LSD".".-, 273 NS NS NS 368 214 NS1972 Burley 64 2,390 2,834 2,548 2,908 2,252 2,9732.444Burley 49 2,015 2,825 2,375 2,403 1,968 2,686 2,270LSD".,,-, 245 NS NS 277 219 NS NSAverage of 30 tests:Burley 64 2,690Burley 49 2,428LSD".",-, 70':'TES, PES, HRES, and MTES refer to the Tobacco Experiment Station, Plateau Experiment Station, Highland Rim Ex-periment Station, and Middle Tennessee Experiment Station, respectively.Table 2. Agronomic characteristics ofBurley 64 and Burley 49 at two loca-tions-average of 4 yearsCharacter Variety TES*----------HRES** AverageLeaf no. Burley 64 22.622.1 22.3Burley49 22.2 22.022.1LSDo.o5 NSPlant height (inches) Burley 64 47.9 48.948.3Burley 49 49.4 47.6 48.5LSDo.o"NSInternode (inches) Burley 64 2.2 2.22.2Burley 49 2.2 2.2 2.2LSDo.o; NSLength of largest leaf Burley 64 26.7 25.226.1(inches) Burley 49 25.9 24.225.2LSDo.o. 0.4Width of largest leaf Burley 64 12.4 12.012.2(inches) Burley 49 12.2 12.012.1LSDo.o"NSDays to flower Burley 64 84.3 80.082.1Burley 49 76.3 70.873.4LSDo.o51.0---------_ .._--------------_ .._-_ ...._--------* Tobacco Experiment Station, Greeneville, Tennessee.** Highland Rim Experiment Station, Springfield, Tennessee.are more important considerations than formerly. The closely.spaced, upright leaves and short plant makes Burley 64 easier thanmost varieties to barn and cure. The late-flowering characteristicof this variety will be discussed in a later section.Quality CharacteristicsThe grade index8, crop index9, and acre value of Burley 64 weresignificantly higher than those of the check (Table 3). There was"Grade index is based on average market values of various U. S. governmentgrades during the years 1934-1935 and 1937-1940. The market preference forcertain grades is probably different presently; however, tobacco with a highgrade index has a good visual appearance.9 Crop index is the product of grade index and yield.10Market value ($/cwt) is computed as the average market price for the!given U. S. government grades in the given year.6no difference between varieties in market value10 and percent us-able to cigarette manufacturers. The percent of tobacco fittingmanufacturer's cigarette grades is a measure of the overall demandfor the type of tobacco produced by a given variety. According tothe manufacturers, Burley 49 produces a very desirable leaf. Thesedata indicate that Burley 64 should be equally as acceptable to thebuyers.The chemical and physical characteristics of Burley 64 are withinthe acceptable range for burley tobacco (Table 4). Cigarettes madewith Burley 64 have been smoked by test panels and found to benormal for burley.Results from Regional TestsThe results of comparing Burley 64 with two check varieties,Burley 21 and Ky 10, in the 1972 Regional Burley Variety Testappear in Table 5. Yield of Burley 64 was significantly less, but itaveraged one leaf per plant more than the check varieties. TheTable 3. Comparison of Burley 64 with Burley 49 for some quality character-istics-average of 30 tests,----- --_ ..._-----_.----------- ,------Grade Crop Market Acre % Usableindex index value ($1cwtl value by mfg.------- - --_. __ ._-~_. __ ._-Burley 64 0.586 1,551 75.52 $2,023 57.5Burley 49 0.552 1,322 75.28 $1,827 58.4LSD•.• 5 0.008 41 NS $0,029 NS7Table 4. Chemical and physical characteristics of Burley 64 and Burley 47cured leaf-average 1969-1971Data courtesy of American Tobacco Company% Ratio Sol·Specific Agtron Nico- % TVB/ nico- % ublevolume no. TVB* tine nicotine tine/TVB Ash ash-_ .._---Burley 64 1.58 58 0.848 3.47 0.483 0.43 22.34 74.0Burley 49 1.53 55 0.858 3.24 0.518 0.39 22.11 78.4Data courtesy of Liggett and Myers, Inc.% 0' %70% Nicotine Total N. Nitrate N. cx:·aminoN. WSA** phBurley 64 3.16 4.23 0.99 0.507 262 6.02Burley 49 325 4.37 0.99 0.520 2.66 6.04Data courtesy of American Tobacco Company% Total % Total % % RatioN. Alkaloids Nicotine nornicotine SAAITA***Burley 64 5.10 3.73 3.38 0.32 0.09Burley 49 5.27 3.55 3.12 0.40 0.12-------"Total volatile bases.*" Water-soluble acids.""'''''Secondary amine alkaloids/total alkaloids.Table 5. Comparison of Burley 64 with two check varieties in the 1972 RegionalBurley Variety Test-average of tests at Lexington, Ky.; Glade Spring,Va.; and Greeneville, Tenn.-Plant length of Width of Internode % UsableYield Days to height Number 5th leaf 5th leaf length in cigar-Variety (Ib,facre) flower (inches) leaves (inches) (inches) (inches) ette mfg.'---_._ .. ---Burley 21 2,797 69 55.7 22.1 21.9 10.1 2.52 61.2Ky 10 3,003 73 50.2 21.5 23.9 10.6 2.33 65.5Burley 64 2,596 76 48.5 23.3 21.9 10.2 2.08 68.1LSD"."" 151 1.3 2.1 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.30CV 6.8 2.3 5.0 6.8 4.8 5.5 5.9'"Average of Lexington and Greeneville.average size of the leaves near the top of the plant was the samefor Burley 21 and Burley 64, but was larger for Ky 10 than for theother two varieties. The shorter plant height of Burley 64 would beadvantageous for barning and curing. The percent of Burley 64tobacco usable for cigarettes was equal to or better than those ofthe check varieties.Resistance to DiseasesDiseases constitute the most limiting factor in the choice ofvarieties to grow in Tennessee. Black root rot is found throughoutthe production area, and black shank is also widespread. In addi-tion, the presence of race 1 of the black shank organism narrowsthe choice of varieties. Before Burley 64 was released, only oneavailable variety was safe to use where both black shank and blackroot rot occurred.Burley 64 has resistance to all of the major diseases of burleytobacco (Table 6). It survived 100'/; in a race 1-infested blackshank nursery in 1972. The new variety has a medium level of re-sistance to Fusarium wilt, as compared to a low level for Burley49 (Table 6). It possesses the dominant factors for resistance totobacco mosaic, wildfire, and black root rot.9Table 6. Resistance of Burley 64 and Burley 49 to major diseases of burleytobaccoDisease Burley 64 Burley 49Black shank 93.3% 97.2%survival, race 0Black shank 92.2% 93.8%survival, race 1Fusarium wilt 83.2% 51.6%symptomless plantsTobacco mosaic Resistant ResistantWildfire Resistant ResistantBlack root rot Resistant ResistantEFFECTS OF TOPPING DATEThere are possible advantages and disadvantages of the late-flowering characteristic of Burley 64. Therefore, the stage at whichthe plants are topped is critical for this variety. Experiments wereconducted during 1971 and 1972 to determine the effects on yieldand quality of topping at different stages of plant growth.Yields of Burley 64 were not very different when topped on thefirst two dates, but were decreased significantly when topping wasdelayed until 50% of the plants were in bloom (Table 7). The bot-tom leaves of plants topped at mid-bloom deteriorated before har-vest (Figure 2). This was probably caused by translocation ofmobile constituents to the upper leaves before topping. Grade indexand market value were not different for any treatments, but cropindex and acre value were reduced for the last topping date. Asexpected, percent total alkaloids were progressively lower with suc-cessive topping dates, but none were outside the normal range forburley tobacco. The cigarette manufacturers graded more tobaccousable from the first than from the other topping dates.10Table 7. Response of Burley 64 to topping at various stages of growth; 1971-1972Treatment*Character 2 3 4Yield 2,387ab** 2,283ab 2,225 b 2,454aGrade indilx a.688a 0.690a 0.631a 0.656aCrop index 1,635a 1,576ab 1,408 b 1,618aS/cwt 80.54a 80.62a 80.47a 80.50aAcre value 1,922ab 1,840ab 1,791 b 1,978a% Total alkaloi ds 4.39a 4.22ab 3.35 b 3.54 b1971 % total N. 3.71 b 4.00a 3.52 b 3.66 b1972 % usable 82.6 60.3 63.3 60.0"Treatment 1 was topped to 25 leaves about 2 weeks before mid-bloom.Treatment 2 was topped to 25 leaves about 1 week before mid-bloom.Treatment 3 was topped to 25 leaves at mid-bloom.Treatment 4 was topped to 8-12 inch top leaves, without counting, about 1w<lekbefore mid-bloom.** Means in the same line followed by the same letter are not significantlydifferent at the 0.05 level of probability.11Figul'e 2. Burley64 topped toolate. ote thedeterioration ofthe bottom leaves.SUGGESTION TO GROWERSBased upon our results, it is recommended that Burley 64 betopped to 22 or 23 leaves at the time that the uppermost leaf can beleft 8 to 12 inches long, regardless of whether the plants have begunto flower. The recommended time of topping is usually aroundAugust 1. If the variety is topped then, the tobacco matures atabout the same time as earlier-flowering varieties. Later toppingresults in reduced yields, and small, immature leaves at the top ofthe plant. Thus, it is important that this variety be topped as sug-gested herein. In addition to producing higher yield and quality,12topping before flowering provides the advantage of having nosuckers to be pulled before applying chemical sucker-control ma-terials.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors express deep appreciation for the contribution ofmany individuals and companies who participated in the develop-ment of Burle~' 64.We thank J. Hugh Felts, Superintendent, for supervising theproduction of all experimental tobacco at the Tobacco ExperimentStation. Our appreciation is extended to Dr. R. C. Sievert, whoprovided the inoculum to screen for resistance to wildfire, tobaccomosaic, and Fusarium wilt.We are grateful for the contribution of the farmers, H. P.Rutherford, Ernest Kincheloe, J. D. Street, Howard Price, HughMoser, Gordon Fisher, Clarence Bettis, and Lawrence Turner;experiment station superintendents, John Odom, Lawson Safley,and Dr. J. \V. High, Jr., who grew the advanced-line tests; andHerman Morgan, Jr., who supervised the tests at the Middle Ten-nessee Experiment Station.Appreciation is expressed to Dr. P. D. Legg, University of Ken-tucky and Leo Link, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-versity for permission to use data from the Regional Variety Test.The evaluation of the chemical and physical properties of thecured leaf by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, American TobaccoCompany, Liggett and Myers Incorporated, Brown and WilliamsonTobacco Corporation, Phillip Morris, Inc., and Lori1lard is grate-fully acknowledged.13THE UNIVERSITY 0 ••' TENNESSEEAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONKNOXVILLE, TENNESSEEAgricultural CommitteeBoard of TrusteesEdward J, Boling, President of the UniversityClyde M. York, Chairman Ben Douglass, Vice ChairmanWayne Fisher, Harry W. Laughlin, Don O. Shadow, Guilford Thornton,Commissioner of AgriculturevVebster Pendergrass, Vice President for AgricultureSTATION OFHCERSAdminist"ationEdward J. Boling, PresidentWebster Pendergrass, Vice President for AgricultureE. J. Chapman, Assistant Vice PresidentJ. A. Ewing, DeanD. M. Gossett, Assistant DeanT. J. Whatley, Assistant DeanO. Clinton Shelby, Director of Business AffairsS. E. Bennett, Agricultural BiologyS. F. Sweet, Agricultural Communi-cationJ. A. Martin, Agricultural Economicsand Rural SociologyD. H. Luttrell, Agricultural Engi-neeringS. L. Hansard, Animal ScienceChild Development and FamilyRelationshipsGrayce E. Goertz, Food Science andFood Systems AdministrationJ. T. Miles, Food Technology and ScienceJ. W. Barrett, ForestryMary R. Gram, NutritionD. B. vVilliams, Ornamental Horticultureand Landfcape DesignL. F. Seatz, Plant and Soil ScienceAnna J. Treece, Textiles and ClothingIJniyersity of Tenness.'" Ago·i.·uituralResearch IJnitsMain Station, Knoxville, J. N. Odom, Superintendent of FarmsUniversity of Tennessee--Atomic Energy Commission Comparative Animal Re-search Laboratory, Oak Ridge, H. E. \Valburg, Laboratory DirectorThe University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, Harold .J. Smith, Dean, Schoolof Agriculture13,·",,,,h StationsDairy Experiment Station, Lewisburg, J. R. Owen, SuperintendentHighland Rim Experiment Station, Springfield, L. M. Safley, SuperintendentMiddle Tennessee Experiment Station, Spring Hill, .J. W. High, .Jr., Superin-tendentPlateau Experiment Station, Crossville, R. D. Freeland, SuperintendentTobacco Experiment Station, Greeneville, J. H. Felts, SuperintendentWest Tennessee Experiment Station, Jackson, H. W. Luck, SuperintendentFielrl StationsAmes Plantation, Grand Junction, James 1\1. Bryan, SuperintendentForestry Field Stations at Tullahoma, Wartburg, and Oak Ridge, Richard M.Evans, SuperintendentMilan Field Station, Milan, T. C. McCutchen, Superintendent(2.5M-5-74 )16

Burley 64 Tobacco Variety

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=utk_agbulletin

Burley 64 Tobacco Variety

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Trace