|  |
Peanut Variety Performance in Florida 2002-20051
B. L. Tillman, D. W. Gorbet, H. C. Wood, M. W. Gomillion, J. McKinney2Variety choice is a critical management decision for peanut production. There are several good peanut varieties to choose from today. We strongly recommend planting more than one variety on your farm, especially if you plant more than 100 acres of peanuts. Planting more than one variety can help to spread risk of losses from diseases and weather. For example, if you have fields with a history of white mold, there are varieties that have good resistance to that disease compared to some others. We recommend using the University of Georgia Disease Risk Index, or the University of Florida Plant Protection Pointers to evaluate variety resistance to diseases. Your county agent can help you find these resources. For convenience, we have included a summary table from the University of Georgia Disease Risk Index in this article (Table 5 ).
When you try a new variety for the first time, we recommend planting a relatively small "test" plot (20-50 acres) to make sure you see the differences first-hand. There are significant differences among varieties, so it is important to consider disease resistance, maturity, seed supply, and anticipated planting dates as well as the primary consideration of pod yields and grade.
The potentially devastating effects of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) in the southeast makes variety choice very important. Compared to previous years, TSWV was more prevalent and severe in the 2005 growing season. All of the factors that create favorable conditions for TSWV are not known, but we do know that variety resistance is one of the most effective control measures. Among the tests grown in Florida, TSWV is most severe in Marianna, so variety performance in that location will give a good indication of the TSWV resistance of a given variety. Results often are very different between Marianna, Gainesville, and Jay, depending on TSWV and other disease pressure. The varieties that are most resistant to TSWV are AP-3, C-99R, Hull, Carver, ANorden, Andru II, Georgia Green, Virugard, Georgia 01R, Georgia 02C, Georgia 03L, VC-2 and Gregory, based on Florida data, and the University of Georgia TSWV Risk Index.
This report provides data from University of Florida trials conducted at Gainesville (Citra), Marianna, and Jay research centers from 2002-2005. Tests in Marianna and Gainesville were grown mostly with irrigation and the tests at Jay are not irrigated. All tests are managed for optimum production, including the use of pesticides to control various pests. In furrow insecticides (Temik or Thimet) were used in Gainesville and Jay, but not in Marianna.
2005 Results
Pod yields, TSMK (total sound mature kernels) percentage, maturity and TSWV ratings for tests at three locations in Florida in 2005 are reported in Table 1 . Each entry was harvested (dug) at their apparent optimum maturity stage (i.e., E = 125-130 days after planting [DAP]; M = 133-139 DAP; L = 145-155 DAP). TSWV ratings were on a 1-10 scale, where 1 = no disease and 10 = all plants with severe damage or dying.Only two early/medium early varieties are available for production, Andru II and Virugard. In our tests, Andru II has had the highest pod yield of those two. Averaged over all three locations, the medium maturing varieties Georgia 03L, AT3085A, AP-3, and AT3081B had higher pod yield than Georgia Green in 2005. All of these but AT3081B had less TSWV than Georgia Green as well. Among the late maturing varieties, Georgia 01R and C-99R had excellent pod yields and good grade in 2005. Both of these have very good resistance to TSWV and leafspot.
Four-year results
The performance of runner market-type varieties in Florida over the past four years (2002-2005) is shown in Table 2 . Among the medium maturity cultivars tested over the past 4 years, AP-3 has demonstrated excellent pod yields, good TSMK percentage, and the best resistance to TSWV. In 2 years of testing, Georgia 03L has had very good pod yields, TSMK and good TSWV resistance. Both of these cultivars appear to have higher yield and better resistance to TSWV than Georgia Green. Yield, TSWV resistance and TSMK were similar among the late maturing cultivars Georgia 01R and C-99R.The performance of Virginia market-type varieties in Florida over the past four years (2002-2005) is shown in Table 3 . All of these varieties are more susceptible to TSWV and if they contract the disease, yield losses could be substantial. Pod yield of VAC92R, VC2, NCV-11, and Gregory were similar and more than the pod yield of NC-12C.
Location Results
The pod yield of peanut cultivars grown in three locations in Florida is shown in Table 4 . In general, the highest yielding entries in one location also did well in the other locations. Yields are generally lower in Jay, Florida because the peanuts are not irrigated. Pod yields in Gainesville are generally higher because tomato spotted wilt virus is very mild. In Marianna, yields can be severely limited by tomato spotted wilt virus so usually the most resistant varieties have the highest yield. TSWV pressure was much greater in Marianna in 2005 compared to 2004.What varieties have the best resistance to TSWV and other diseases?
Disease resistance is a very important factor in choosing a variety. The reaction of several peanut varieties to some diseases that are present in Florida is presented in Table 5 . In order to optimize the benefit of these varieties, it is important to chose based on their disease resistance. From this table, it is relatively easy to find a variety with the right disease package for your situation. If white mold is a problem in some of your fields, AP-3, C-99R, or Georgia-01R would be good choices. Similarly, if you are interested in a late maturing variety, C-99R, Georgia 01R , and Tifrunner have good leafspot resistance and could allow a reduction in the frequency of fungicide sprays needed for leafspot compared to susceptible varieties.Summary
Variety choice is a critical management decision for peanut production. There are many choices among varieties suitable for production in the Southeastern US with good to excellent resistance to TSWV. Several of these varieties also have resistance to other diseases. Growing these varieties can reduce your risk and production cost. The varieties C-99R, DP-1, Hull, and Georgia 01R all have considerable resistance to leafspot allowing you to reduce fungicide sprays and therefore production costs. Some of the cultivars have good resistance to soil-borne diseases such as white mold (S. rolfsii) (C-99R, DP-1, Hull, & AP-3) and CBR (Georgia 01R, Georgia 02C, and Carver). Further information on these traits is available from the University of Florida Plant Protection Pointers web page (http://plantpath.ifas.ufl.edu/takextpub/ExtPubs/ppp1205.pdf) and the University of Georgia Disease Index (University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, 2005 Peanut Update, CSS-05-0118, pp. 41-57 or on the web at: http://www.ugapeanuts.com/ ).In choosing a variety, it is our advice to evaluate your production and marketing situation and make arrangements for seed of the varieties that best fit your needs. Seed supplies for some of the new cultivars (AP-3, Carver, and Georgia-03L) will be very limited in 2006.
Tables
Table 1. Performance of peanut varieties in three locations in Florida in 2005. Varieties are sorted by market type, maturity and then yield in descending order.
Name
Market
Type*
Maturity**
Pod Yield (lbs./A)
TSWV (1-10)†
TSMK (%)
MR‡
JY‡
GV‡
AVG.
MR
GV
AVG.
MR
GV
AVG.
Andru II††
R
ME
2239
1765
3285
2430
5.2
2.7
3.9
66.1
75.5
70.8 Virugard R
E
2052
1236
3094
2127
5.8
2.7
4.3
74.8
68.5
71.6
Georgia-03L R
M
3198
2943
5637
3926
5.5
2.0
3.8
74.0
75.1
74.5 AT3085A††
R
M
3298
2510
4020
3276
3.3
2.7
3.0
75.7
70.1
72.9 AP-3 R
M
3417
2639
3475
3177
2.8
3.7
3.3
72.2
71.1
71.6 AT3081B R
M
2807
2388
3501
2899
5.5
3.3
4.4
71.8
67.6
69.7 ANorden††
R
M
2336
2410
2865
2537
5.8
4.3
5.1
73.0
65.7
69.3 Georgia Green R
M
1736
2100
3333
2390
7.0
2.3
4.7
74.0
73.8
73.9 Carver R
M
1997
1471
3491
2320
4.8
4.0
4.4
72.1
70.6
71.4 AT201††
R
M
1420
2175
3278
2291
8.3
2.7
5.5
73.7
71.2
72.4 Florunner R
M
894
1342
2981
1739
7.8
6.0
6.9
71.0
72.3
71.6 SunOleic 97R††
R
M
1055
1126
2626
1603
8.2
5.0
6.6
68.7
68.9
68.8
C-99R R
L
4046
3875
4401
4107
2.3
3.3
2.8
74.9
75.7
75.3 Georgia-01R††
R
L
3636
3162
5105
3968
3.8
2.7
3.3
75.2
78.6
76.9 Hull††
R
L
3359
2433
3611
3134
5.0
3.3
4.2
73.4
73.8
73.6 Georgia-02C††
R
L
2581
3078
3607
3089
5.0
3.0
4.0
76.4
75.6
76.0
VC2††
V
E
2285
1868
3859
2671
4.8
4.0
4.4
70.9
73.0
72.0 NCV11 V
E
2114
1717
3985
2605
5.8
4.3
5.1
69.7
67.6
68.7 VAC92R V
E
2249
1707
3775
2577
5.3
4.3
4.8
70.1
68.4
69.2 Gregory V
ME
2055
1568
3688
2437
5.0
3.7
4.3
67.4
72.2
69.8 NC12C V
E
1739
1497
3252
2163
6.0
5.3
5.7
71.7
71.5
71.6
C.V
12
16
16
16
18.7
29.4
23.1
1.9
2.8
2.4 LSD
427
520
808
351
1.3
1.4
0.9
2.3
3.5
2.1
*Market Type: R=runner, V=virginia; **Maturity: E = early, M = medium, L = late; †Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus ratings (1-10, 1 = no disease); ††High oleic oil chemistry; ‡Locations: MR=Marianna, JY=Jay, GV=Gainesville (Planting Dates: MR=5/11, JY=5/14, GV=4/15)
Table 2. Performance of runner market-type peanut varieties in two or three Florida locations over the past four years (2002-2005). Entries are sorted by maturity and the four year average yield (in descending order).
Name
Maturity*
YIELD
lbs./acre
TSMK
%
TSWV***
1-10
2005
2-YR†
3-YR††
4-YR†††
2005
2-YR
3-YR
4-YR
2005
2-YR
3-YR
4-YR
Andru II**
ME
2430
3124
3264
3358
70.8
71.5
71.7
72.9
3.9
3.0
2.8
2.9
Virugard
E
2127
2734
2849
2935
71.6
74.3
75.5
75.9
4.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
AP-3
M
3177
3950
4094
4162
71.6
72.5
73.0
73.9
3.3
2.4
2.1
2.2
Carver
M
2320
3272
3519
3595
71.4
73.6
73.6
74.2
4.4
3.2
3.0
3.1
Georgia Green
M
2390
3263
3407
3450
73.9
75.4
76.5
77.0
4.7
3.7
3.4
3.4
ANorden**
M
2537
3165
3350
3428
69.3
71.6
72.5
73.0
5.1
3.9
3.5
3.4
AT201**
M
2291
2973
3070
3103
72.4
75.0
75.7
76.3
5.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
Florunner
M
1739
2357
2461
2569
71.6
72.9
74.1
72.9
6.9
5.4
5.1
4.8
SunOleic 97R**
M
1603
2260
2340
2450
68.8
71.0
73.0
73.9
6.6
5.6
5.5
5.2
Georgia-03L
M
3926
4255
74.5
74.8
3.8
3.1
AT3085A**
M
3276
72.9
3.0
AT3081B
M
2899
69.7
4.4
Georgia-01R
L
3968
4426
4600
4631
76.9
78.2
78.7
79.6
3.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
C-99R
L
4107
4478
4458
4349
75.3
76.1
76.5
77.2
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
DP-1
L
3320
3875
3983
3953
73.6
74.7
74.7
75.3
2.7
2.0
1.9
2.0
Hull**
L
3134
3678
3780
3579
73.6
74.7
74.9
75.6
4.2
3.1
2.9
2.8
Southern Runner
L
2706
3280
3452
3436
72.9
74.4
75.1
75.2
5.0
3.6
3.3
3.2
Georgia-02C**
L
3089
3660
3647
76.0
77.4
77.4
4.0
2.9
2.6
C.V.
16
13
13
13
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.9
23.1
22.3
22.4
20.7
LSD
351
276
239
209
2.1
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.3
*Maturity: E = early, M = medium, L = late; **High oleic oil chemistry. †2 YR= average of 2004 and 2005, ††3 YR= average of 2003, 2004 and 2005; †††4 YR= average of 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. ***Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus ratings (1-10, 1 = no disease)
Table 3. Performance of Virginia market-type peanut varieties in two or three Florida locations over the past four years (2002-2005). Entries are sorted by maturity and the four year average yield (in descending order).
Name
Maturity*
YIELD
(lbs./acre)
TSMK (%)
TSWV (1-10)***
2005
2-YR†
3-YR††
4-YR†††
2005
2-YR
3-YR
4-YR
2005
2-YR
3-YR
4-YR
NCV11
E
2605
3193
3397
3497
68.7
70.8
71.5
72.1
5.1
4.4
4.1
4.0
VAC92R
E
2577
3406
3517
3520
69.2
72.0
72.7
73.1
4.8
3.8
3.6
3.7
NC12C
E
2163
2811
2899
3016
71.6
73.6
74.2
75.0
5.7
4.4
4.2
4.0
Gregory
ME
2437
3189
3399
3465
69.8
70.7
71.5
72.4
4.3
3.7
3.6
3.5
VC2**
E
2671
3317
3418
3508
72.0
72.4
73.1
73.8
4.4
3.8
3.4
3.5
C.V.
16
13
13
13
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.9
23.1
22.3
22.4
20.7
LSD
351
276
239
209
2.1
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.3
*Maturity: E = early, M = medium, L = late; **High oleic oil chemistry. †2 YR= average of 2004 and 2005, ††3 YR= average of 2003, 2004 and 2005; †††4 YR= average of 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. ***Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus ratings (1-10, 1 = no disease)
Table 4. Pod yield of peanut varieties in three Florida locations. Entries are sorted by market type, maturity and the average yield in Marianna in descending order.
Name
Maturity*
Market-type***
------------------------------------------ Pod Yield (lbs./acre) ---------------------------------------------------
Marianna (MR)
Jay (JY)
Gainesville (GV)
2002
2003
2004
2005
MR Average
2004
2005
JY Average
2002
2003
2004
2005
GV Average
Andru II**
ME
R
2396
2869
4569
2239
3018
1529
1765
1647
5070
4501
5356
3285
4553
Virugard
E
R
1839
2103
3863
2052
2464
1462
1236
1349
4719
4284
4695
3094
4198
AP-3
M
R
3884
3957
5953
3417
4303
2455
2639
2547
4985
5094
5760
3475
4829
Carver
M
R
2178
3201
4863
1997
3060
2097
1471
1784
5627
5317
5711
3491
5037
ANorden**
M
R
2360
2890
4392
2336
2994
1923
2410
2167
5118
4919
5066
2865
4492
Georgia Green
M
R
1561
2525
4904
1736
2682
1888
2100
1994
5687
5154
5614
3333
4947
AT201
M
R
1307
2104
4411
1420
2311
1584
2175
1880
5167
4614
4969
3278
4507
SunOleic 97R**
M
R
1380
1400
3246
1055
1770
1374
1126
1250
4404
3760
4130
2626
3730
Florunner
M
R
1016
1650
2807
894
1592
1387
1342
1365
4985
3896
4727
2981
4147
Georgia-03L
M
R
5576
3198
4387
2936
2943
2940
5243
5637
5440
AT3085A**
M
R
3298
3298
2510
2510
4020
4020
AT3081B
M
R
2807
2807
2388
2388
3501
3501
Georgia-01R
L
R
3255
4400
5766
3636
4264
3275
3162
3219
6256
5841
5615
5105
5704
C99-R
L
R
2456
3620
5679
4046
3950
3507
3875
3691
5373
5178
5356
4401
5077
DP-1
L
R
2831
3294
5766
3378
3817
2681
2882
2782
4828
5325
4840
3701
4674
Hull**
L
R
2420
3645
5130
3359
3639
2262
2433
2347
3134
4525
5276
3611
4136
Southern Runner
L
R
1610
2893
4711
2223
2859
2381
2753
2567
5130
5046
4469
3143
4447
Georgia-02C**
L
R
2983
5105
2581
3556
2520
3078
2799
4234
5066
3607
4302
VAC92R
E
V
2159
2982
4904
2249
3073
1558
1707
1633
4913
4712
6244
3775
4911
VC2**
E
V
2522
2962
4459
2285
3057
1930
1868
1899
5215
4477
5502
3859
4763
Gregory
ME
V
2262
3084
4214
2055
2904
1959
1568
1764
5203
4974
5647
3688
4878
NCV11
E
V
2218
2888
3769
2114
2747
1817
1717
1767
5578
5128
5760
3985
5113
NC12C
E
V
2070
2431
3721
1739
2490
1752
1497
1625
4901
3896
4904
3252
4238
*E = early, M = medium, L = late; **High oleic oil chemistry; *** R=runner, V=virginia market type
Table 5. Disease resistance of major peanut varieties in the southeastern U.S. Fewer points = better resistance.
Variety 1
Spotted Wilt Points
Leaf Spot Points
White mold points
SunOleic 97R 2
50
30
30
Flavorunner 458 2
50
not rated
not rated
NC-V 11
35
30
25
NC12C
35
not rated
not rated
AT-201 2
35
30
20
Georgia Green
30
20
20
Virugard
30
25
20
Gregory
30
30
20
VC2
30
not rated
not rated
Anorden 2
25
25
25
Andru II 2
25
30
20
C-99R 4
20
15
15
Hull 2
20
10
15
Carver 3
20
30
20
GA03L
15
15
10
GA02C 2,3
15
20
10
GA01R 3
10
10
15
DP1 4
10
5
10
AP3 4
10
25
10
Tifrunner
10
15
25
Adapted from the 2006 University of Georgia Disease Risk Index.
1-Adequate research data is not available for all varieties with regards to all diseases. Additional varieties will be included as data to support the assignment of an index value are available.
2-High oleic variety.
3-Varieties Carver, GA-02C, and GA-01R have increased resistance to Cylindrocladium black rot (CBR) than do other varieties commonly planted in Georgia.
4-Varieties AP3, DP1, and C-99R are less resistant to CBR and are not recommended for fields where this disease is a problem.
Footnotes
1. This document is SS-AGR-13, one of a series of the Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Originally published as Marianna NFREC Research Report 06-1. Publication date January 2006. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.2. B. L. Tillman, assistant professor, Agronomy Department, North Florida Research and Education Center--Marianna, FL; D. W. Gorbet, professor, Agronomy Department, North Florida Research and Education Center--Marianna, FL; H. C. Wood, OPS technical, Agronomy Department; M. W. Gomillion, biological scientist, North Florida Research and Education Center--Marianna, FL; J. McKinney, biological scientist; Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information. UF/IFAS does not guarantee or warranty the products named, and references to them in this publication does not signify our approval to the exclusion of other products of suitable composition.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.