Tray Type and Soilless Media Brand Performance in Tobacco ... · •All tray types are acceptable...
Transcript of Tray Type and Soilless Media Brand Performance in Tobacco ... · •All tray types are acceptable...
Tray Type and Soilless Media Brand Performance in Tobacco Transplant
Production
Matthew Vann, Scott Whitley, Joseph Cheek, Bryant Spivey, & Tyler Whaley
Department of Crop Science North Carolina State University
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Presentation Outline
• Background/Introduction
• Research Purpose
• Experimental Design
• Results
• Conclusions
• Questions
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Introduction
• Overwhelming majority of US tobacco transplants produced in EPS trays.
• Concern with EPS trays exists over: – Tray disposal – NTRM – Disease carryover
• Demand for improvement exists • In 2015, hard plastic float trays were marketed
in the US.
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Introduction
• It was hypothesized that plastic trays might: – Reduce NTRM – Reduce greenhouse disease pressure – Provide long term use
• estimated 15 to 20+ year lifespan – Reduce production impact to the environment – Plastic trays should produce quality transplants
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Purpose
• Limited production information for black plastic trays
• Performance comparison of three tray types and four soilless media brands – All materials are commercially available in North
Carolina
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Experimental Design • RCBD with factorial treatment arrangement
– 3 tray types – 4 soilless media brands
• 6 replications • All trays were placed into the same bed • All trays contained 288 cells
– 100 cells in the center of each tray were designated for data collection after seeding
– External cells were utilized for pre-clipping and 50 day mass sample collection
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Treatments Treatment Number Tray Type Soilless Media Brand
1 Plastic 288 Cell Carolina Gold 2 Plastic 288 Cell Carolina Choice 3 Plastic 288 Cell Premier Pro Mix BF 4 Plastic 288 Cell Sunshine LT5 5 New EPS 288 Cell Carolina Gold 6 New EPS 288 Cell Carolina Choice 7 New EPS 288 Cell Premier Pro Mix BF 8 New EPS 288 Cell Sunshine LT5 9 Old EPS 288 Cell Carolina Gold
10 Old EPS 288 Cell Carolina Choice 11 Old EPS 288 Cell Premier Pro Mix BF 12 Old EPS 288 Cell Sunshine LT5
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Material Sources
Trays • Plastic 288
– Beltwide Incorporated
• New & Old 288 – Burl Williamson
Soilless Media • Carolina Gold
– Beltwide Incorporated
• Carolina Choice – Carolina Greenhouses
• Premier Pro BF – Premier Tech Horticulture
• Sunshine LT5 – Sungro Horticulture
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Data Collection • Tray weight with and without media • Media weight per tray • Fresh bulk density and dry bulk density • % dry cell: 1, 5, 9 days after seeding • % germination: 6-13 days after seeding • % spiral root: 11, 13, 18 days after seeding • Plant mass prior to 1st clipping • 50 days after seeding: % total plants, % usable
plants, stem diameter, stem height, and plant mass
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Additional Data Collection
• Predictive water sample
• Diagnostic water sample
• Media nutrient charge • No issues observed with
water or media content
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Production Practices
• Trays were seeded on March 5th, 2015 • K 326 was the selected cultivar • 20-10-20 added: March 12th and April 3rd, 2015
– 125 mg N/kg water • Trays clipped seven times between April 1st
and April 20th, 2015 • Final assessment on April 24th, 2015
– Transplants were field ready 50 days after seeding
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Results
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Empty and filled tray weight, media dry weight, fresh and dry media bulk density as influenced by tray type and soilless media branda.
Empty Wt. Filled Wt. Media Dry
Wt.b Fresh Bulk
Density Dry Bulk Density
___________grams___________ g/tray ______grams media/cell______
Tray Type Plastic 288 1,390 a 1,928 a 294 b 1.87 c 1.02 b New EPS 288 282 c 855 c 313 b 1.99 b 1.09 b Old EPS 288 292 b 886 b 335 a 2.06 a 1.16 a
Media Brand Carolina Gold -- 1,125 c 239 c 1.64 c 0.83 c Carolina Choice -- 1,343 a 368 a 2.39 a 1.28 a Premier Pro BF -- 1,211 b 317 b 1.92 b 1.10 b Sunshine LT5 -- 1,214 b 331 b 1.95 b 1.15 b a Treatment means grouped within tray type or soilless media brand followed by the same letter are not significantly different. b Media dry weight determined by oven drying samples for 24 hours at 105°, moisture weight excluded from analysis.
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Percent dry cell one, five, and nine days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by the interaction of tray type and soilless media branda.
Treatment Factor 1 DAS 5 DAS 9 DAS Tray Type Soilless Media ____________________% dry cell____________________
Plastic 288 Carolina Gold 0.06 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Carolina Choice 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Premier Pro BF 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Sunshine LT5 0.41 d 0.12 d 0.00 d
New EPS 288 Carolina Gold 17.59 b 11.92 b 9.20 b New EPS 288 Carolina Choice 1.68 cd 1.27 d 1.21 cd New EPS 288 Premier Pro BF 6.54 c 4.98 c 2.66 c New EPS 288 Sunshine LT5 25.35 a 20.14 a 14.01 a Old EPS 288 Carolina Gold 0.29 d 0.06 d 0.12 d Old EPS 288 Carolina Choice 1.28 d 0.52 d 0.35 cd Old EPS 288 Premier Pro BF 0.29 d 0.06 d 0.00 d Old EPS 288 Sunshine LT5 4.69 cd 1.39 d 0.98 cd
a Treatment means followed by the same letter within the specified assessment interval are not significantly different.
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Percent dry cell one, five, and nine days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by the interaction of tray type and soilless media branda.
Treatment Factor 1 DAS 5 DAS 9 DAS Tray Type Soilless Media ____________________% dry cell____________________
Plastic 288 Carolina Gold 0.06 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Carolina Choice 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Premier Pro BF 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Sunshine LT5 0.41 d 0.12 d 0.00 d
New EPS 288 Carolina Gold 17.59 b 11.92 b 9.20 b New EPS 288 Carolina Choice 1.68 cd 1.27 d 1.21 cd New EPS 288 Premier Pro BF 6.54 c 4.98 c 2.66 c New EPS 288 Sunshine LT5 25.35 a 20.14 a 14.01 a Old EPS 288 Carolina Gold 0.29 d 0.06 d 0.12 d Old EPS 288 Carolina Choice 1.28 d 0.52 d 0.35 cd Old EPS 288 Premier Pro BF 0.29 d 0.06 d 0.00 d Old EPS 288 Sunshine LT5 4.69 cd 1.39 d 0.98 cd
a Treatment means followed by the same letter within the specified assessment interval are not significantly different.
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Percent seedling emergence 13 DAS as influenced by the interaction of tray type and soilless media brand
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CG CC PP SS CG CC PP SS CG CC PP SS
% E
mer
genc
e 13
DA
S
Tray & Soilless Media Type
Black Plastic 288 New EPS 288 Old EPS 288
ab a ab a
c
ab ab
c
ab b
a ab
P = <0.0001 LSD = 5.32
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Percent spiral root occurrence eleven, thirteen, and eighteen days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by tray type and soilless media branda.
11 DAS 13 DAS 18 DAS _______________________% spiral root_______________________
Tray Type Plastic 288 3.08 a 3.04 a 1.58 a New EPS 288 3.71 a 2.96 a 1.38 a Old EPS 288 3.17 a 3.04 a 1.79 a
Media Brand Carolina Gold 3.17 a 2.72 ab 1.56 ab Carolina Choice 4.11 a 3.94 a 2.50 a Premier Pro BF 3.44 a 3.44 a 1.67 a Sunshine LT5 2.56 a 1.94 ab 0.61 b a Treatment means grouped within tray type or soilless media brand followed by the same letter are not significantly different.
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Seedling vigor and usability at fifty days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by tray type and soilless media branda.
Mass Prior to Clipping
Mass 50 DAS
Total Plants
Usable Plants
Stem Diameter
Stem Height
g/plant g/plant % % mm cm
Tray Type Plastic 288 0.0155 a 0.2407 a 82 a 69 b 4.64 ab 11.83 a
New EPS 288 0.0133 a 0.2087 b 77 b 67 a 4.73 a 10.12 b
Old EPS 288 0.0155 b 0.1933 c 84 a 76 a 4.52 b 9.66 c
Media Brand Carolina Gold 0.0157 ab 0.2109 a 80 a 71 ab 4.60 ab 10.36 b
Carolina Choice 0.0162 a 0.2136 a 84 a 74 a 4.67 ab 10.59 ab
Premier Pro BF 0.0128 c 0.2175 a 80 a 70 ab 4.77 a 10.93 a
Sunshine LT5 0.0143 bc 0.2145 a 79 a 68 c 4.49 b 10.27 b a Treatment means grouped within tray type or soilless media brand followed by the same letter are not significantly different.
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Conclusions • All tray types are acceptable for tobacco transplant
production – Induced wetting (overtop water application) in new trays
could improve wicking ability • Sunshine LT5 had the highest % dry cell at 18 DAS
– Induced wetting could improve wicking – Sufficient wicking in plastic trays
• Due to sufficient plant growth and usability dry cell appears to have been overcome with time
• Without additional management plastic and new 288 trays were ideal, as well as all media types except Sunshine LT5
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Additional Comments
• 1,500 plastic trays were distributed to 12 producers in 2015
• Generally speaking, producers were favorable to new trays
• Transplant quality was acceptable • Producer feedback indicated that special
management considerations should be made – Lower floating depth and greater mass
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Future Research Needs
• Another location for study – Significant grower
interest • Tray color? • Tray sanitation
– Is sanitation as simple as rinsing with water?
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A
Questions??
Matthew C. Vann [email protected]
Website: tobacco.ces.ncsu.edu
North Carolina Tobacco Information @NCSUtobacco @ncsu_tobacco
2015
_AP
40_V
ann.
AP
2015
- D
ocum
ent n
ot p
eer-
revi
ewed
by
CO
RE
ST
A