The information contained in this publication is due to the efforts of many people.  Cooperators are indicated with each graph and without their extra efforts the tests would have not been possible.  County agricultural agents are an integral part of the on-farm tobacco testing program at the University of Kentucky.  County Extension Agents are responsible for locating cooperators, establishing the test plot, and collecting field data and yield data.  Agents in many cases also may suggest projects of importance in their specific county.  The following county extension agents deserve considerable credit for their work and supervision of the test plots;  Adair County – David Herbst, Anderson County - Tommy Yankey, Bath County - Gary Hamilton,  Boyle County - Jerry Little, Bracken County – Dave Appleman, Carter County – Myron Evans, Clinton County – Phil Smith, Elliot County – Ben Meredith, Fayette County – Nick Carter, Franklin County – Keenan Bishop, Grant County – Chris Ammerman, Hardin County – Rod Grusy, Harrison County - Gary Carter, Henry County – Steve Moore, Jackson County - Jeff Henderson, Kenton County – Patrick Hale, Laurel County – Glen Williams, Lawrence County – John Sparks, Lincoln County – Dan Grigson, Madison County – John Wilson, Marion County – Ed Lanham, Menifee County – David Cooper, Mercer County – Tony Shirley, Rockcastle County - Tom Mills, Rowan County – Bob Marsh, Shelby County – Brittany Edelson, Spencer County – Bryce Roberts, Taylor County - Pat Hardesty, Trimble County - Mike Pyles, and Wayne County - Mike Radford.  This is by no means a complete list of those agents involved in the tobacco research efforts.  Many others were involved in various projects not represented here.  Special thanks are due John Wright, Jacob Heil, Andrew Whittle and Rob Eckman, summer interns and Jack Zeleznick, technician, for their help with test plot establishment, chemical and fertilizer application, data collection, and data entry.

The following companies provided support in the form of materials and grants to support the research contained in this report;  Bayer CropScience, Clay’s Seed, Inc; FMC Corporation; F.W. Rickard Seed; Hydro Agri North America; Newton Seed; Philip Morris, USA; SQM North America; Syngenta Crop Protection; Valent, USA; and Workman Tobacco Seed. 



            Test plots are arranged in a randomized complete block design and each treatment is replicated at least four times.  The general plot size is four rows wide by at least 25 feet long unless the experiment requires extra area.  The two center rows are used for collection of data with outside rows used as border rows.  Four sticks are harvested out of each plot in the experiment for yield determination.  The four sticks are tagged with the same individual number representing that plot and combined as a single crop.  The tobacco is stripped into three or four grades to determine treatment effects on the plant at different stalk positions.  Results are analyzed for statistical difference and mean separation was by least significant difference (LSD).  A confidence level of 0.05 was used and the LSD value is included on most of the graphs of means.  LSD values are listed on the right side of each yield graph where applicable and are color coded to match stalk positions or other measurements.  To determine statistical differences mean differences must be greater than the LSD value to be considered significant at a 95% confidence that the difference is due to treatment effects.



            Measurable differences between treatments do not necessarily mean statistical differences.  A statistical difference is one that would have a high probability of occurring under normal farming conditions.  In other words, a farmer could count on similar results under the same conditions.

            The use of a variety or chemical in a test does not imply endorsement.  The use of chemicals on an experimental basis, combinations of chemicals and cultural practices used in experimental tests are not a recommendation of those procedures.  Labels should be checked and an appropriate specialist consulted before recommendations are made.   Chemicals used for certain tests are for evaluation of application timing and do not imply that other chemicals labeled for the same problem with similar efficacy would not produce similar results.  A variety, chemical or cultural practice should never be condemned or praised based only on one test.

            Chemicals used on an experimental basis are in the test phase and may never be labeled for use in tobacco.  These tests look for effectiveness and best rates.  A successful chemical trial does not assure labeling of that chemical.  There are many factors that are considered before a particular chemical is labeled for use.