EFFECT OF LOCATION, SEASON, STAGE OF MATURITY, AND VARIETY ON PROTEIN COI~ITEWT OF CORN EFFECT OF LOCATION, SEASON, STAGE OF MATURITY, AND VARIETY ON PROTEIN CONTENT OF CORN BY Allan James Norden ,,._. A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of NMSTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Creps 1950 Acknowledgement The writer is grateful to Dr. E. C. Rossman, Farm CrOps, for his assistance and guidance throughout the course of this experiment; to Dr. E. J. Benne, Agricultural Chomp istry, for his assistance with the chemical analysis; and to the Michigan Hybrid Seed-Corn Producers Association for financial aid. 33930-31 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OE CONTENTS IntrOdUCtionoooooooooooo0.0000000000000000. ReVieVV Of Literatureoooocoooooooo00.00.6000 materials and Methods...................... Presentation and Discussion of mperimental ReSUltSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Protein Content............................ Yield...................................... Mbisture................................... Weight per Hundred Kernels................. SumIHB-WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Literature CitedOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO r2 AppendiXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOU Page 1 2 5 (13(1) Introduction Eighty to eighty-five per cent of the corn produced in the United States is fed to livestock. Most of the remainder is utilized for industrial purposes. The value of corn, either as feed or for industry, depends on its chemical composition. In recent years there has been an increased interest in the chemical composition of corn grain. .A renewed interest has been created by reports that the protein and oil content of hybrid corn is lower than open-pollinated varieties, and by the results of corn breeding projects at several agricultural experiment stations which have shown that the chemical composition of the grain can be modified appreciably by selection. Information on the effects of environmental, physiolo- gical, and genetic factors on chemical composition is impor- tant to livestock feeders, industrial processors of corn, corn breeders, and others interested in the utilization of the crop. It has been estimated that if the feed corn of the state of Illinois declined only one-half per cent in protein, it would cost the feeders $8,710,000 annually to replace it with soybean protein. (5). The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of location, season, and stage of maturity on the protein content of eight double-cross hybrids in Michigan. -3- REVI my 93 LITERATURE Doty, et al. (2) found that environmental conditions affected the composition of corn grain. Grain from.dif- ferent varieties did not vary significantly in chemical composition. As the corn matured, the percentages of pro- tein, fiber and ash decreased and then remained constant or decreased slightly. They found seasonal variations to be responsible for variations in protein content of the corn grain. Protein content was affected by soil type and location. Fraps (5) found that corn grown in different local- ities showed variations in protein content. The corre- lation of rainfall with protein content was —0.576 .t.072. Protein content increased as rainfall became deficient. The Illinois Experiment Station (11) reported that the protein content of corn was very high and oil content was low in 1936 which was a very dry year. During a good growing season, the protein content decreased and oil content increased. Hayes (6) grew different varieties and selfed strains of corn under favorable and unfavorable environmental con- ditions. The varieties grown under favorable conditions had a higher average percent protein content. The selfed strains had the same percent protein content under both conditions. Hayes concluded that protein content is in- fluenced by cultural conditions, that a negative correlation exists between number of kernels per ear and protein content _3- for F1 crosses and Open-pollinated varieties, and that no marked correlation exists between number of kernels per ear and protein content for inbred strains selfed for many years. Earley and DeTurk (3) found that, with high rates of planting, the percent of protein in corn grain decreased only when soil nitrogen was inadequate for maximum.yield of grain at the higher rates of planting. The first increments of nitrogen added to the soil tended to increase yield more than protein while additional increments tended to increase mainly the protein of the grain as the yield leveled off. The amount of soil nitrogen that is adequate for maximum yield is also adequate for satisfactory protein content (9% to 10 percent). Arbuckle and Thies (1) concluded that kernels from the middle of the ears were higher in protein than those from the butt or tip. When added to the soil, nitrates increased and phosphates decreased the percentage of protein slightly. Zeleny (14) found that nitrogen content decreased as the grain matured. East and anes (4) reported environmental factors affect the protein content of maize so that it may be raised or lowered as much as 40% above or below the total percent produced under average growing conditions. Changes in temperature and moisture during the period of growth did not greatly affect the normal amount of protein devel- oped. Diminished elaboration of starch influenced the percent of protein more than changes in temperature and moisture. -4- Woodworth and Jugenheimer (13) state that there is good evidence for a nongenetic relationship between yield of grain and protein content. This relationship may be positive or negative depending on conditions. Webster, et al. (12) found that variations of as much as 25 percent may be expected in protein and carotene analyses reported for samples of the same variety from various parts of the state of Oklahoma. They concluded that varietal differences due to seasons and locations in the state make it undesirable to use average figures for corn protein and carotene when computing feed mixes. Watson (11) showed that the percent of total nitrogen declined with advancing maturity. Zein and insoluble nitrogen increased as the grain matured while non-protein, globulin, and glutelin nitrogen decreased, and peptide nitrogen remained unchanged. -5- MATERIALS AND METHODS Shelled grain samples from eight double-cross hybrids grown in two seasons, 1948 and 1949, at three locations (Monroe, Ingham, and Saginaw counties) and harvested at three stages of maturity were analyzed for protein content. The hybrids were Pfister P. A. G. 61, Pioneer 349, Pioneer~ 352, DeKalb 404A, Kingscrost K0, Michigan 20D (Oh4OB x'WlO) x (H14.x.0h51A),Michigan 29D (0114013 x no) x (A x 0h51A) and Ohio M15 (0h51 x 0h26) x (A x W25). The first five are commercial hybrids with closed pedigrees. The eight hybrids were included along with other hybrids in the Michigan Hybrid Corn Trials conducted at the three locations in 1948 and 1949. The eight hybrids selected for this study were chosen because they were the only hy- brids common to all Six trials. Six randomized replications were planted in the field. Two replications were sampled for moisture content at the three dates of harvest in 1948, and four replications were sampled in 1949. Samples from two replications at each date of harvest in both seasons were analyzed for protein content. 'Yield determinations were made on all six re- plications at the third and final date of harvest. Dates of planting, dates of harvesting, previous crop, fertilizer, row spacing, and soil type for the six trials are given in Table 1. Samples for moisture determinations were obtained by Table 1. Dates and field conditions pertinent to the experiment. Location Saginaw Ingham Monroe Year Year Year 1948 1949 1948 1949 1948 1949 Date Planted 5/18 5/10 5/26 5/12 5/27 5/31 Date Thinned 6/25 6/28 6/28 6/28 7/1 6/50 First Harvest 9/10 8/50 9/15 9/1 9/16 9/20 Days from plant- ing 115 112 110 112 112 112 Second Harvest 9/27 9/17 9/28 9/19 9/50 10/8 Days from plant- ing 132 180 125 150 126 130 Third Harvest 10/21 10/4 10/19 10/7 10/26 10/25 Days from.plant- ing 156 147 146 148 152 147 Previous Crop Alfalfa Alf. Alfalfa Soy- Alf. Sweet sod Brome beans & Brome clover & sod for rye sod rye 2 yrs. green pasture Green manure 3 yrs. manure Fertilizer none none 200# 200# none ‘ 250# 4-16- 4-16- 0-14- 8/a 8/a 7 & 10 loads Manure/a Spacing 56"x42" 56"x42" 42"x42" 40"x40" 42"x42" 40"x40" Soil Type Brookston Clay Connover Clay Brookston Clay loam loam loam cutting a one-inch section (cob and grain) frem the center of the ears. The samples were weighed in the field and taken to the field laboratory for drying. .Moisture contents were calculated from the dry weights. After drying, the cut sections of ears were shelled and the grain used for protein analysis. Average dry weight per 100 kernels was determined for each of the 288 samples analyzed for jprotein content. Seventy-five grams of shelled corn from each sample were ground to pass a one m. m. meSh sieve on a Wiley mill ( model No. 2). Total nitrogen was determined by the KJeldahl-Gunning-Arnold method as described by the Associ- ation of Official Agricultural Chemists (15). Protein percentage was calculated using the factor 6.25. The average moisture percentage was 5.06%. One protein analysis was made for each sample. Leonard and Clark (8) found that duplicate analyses for protein did not increase the precision of their experiment. A single sample per plot was sufficiently accurate when the error of duplicate analyses was compared with the eXperimental error. ..—8- PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSIQN’Q§.§ZPERIMENTA§ RESULTS Protein Content Mean protein percentages for the eight hybrids harvested at three stages of maturity at three locations in Michigan in 1948 and 1949 are presented in Table 2. The analysis of variance is given in Table 5. The main effects, seasons, hybrids, stages of maturity, and locations, and all but one of the first- order interactions were highly significant when tested with eXperimental error. In this experiment, the protein percentage of corn was dependent on the specific com- bination of season, location, stage of maturity at harvest, and variety. All of the factors were important and their effects were not independent of each other. Other factors not tested in this experiment undoubtedly have an effect on protein percentage. When main effects are tested with first-order inter- actions and first-order interactions tested with second- order interactions,Snedecor (10), the following inter- pretation is made. The seasonal effect on protein con- tent was large enough that it may be expected to occur regardless of hybrid or stage of maturity. seasonal differences were not large enough that they are to be expected at all locations. Differences due to hybrids are likely to occur at all stages of maturity, locations, and seasons. Maturity differences may be typical for all Table 2. Mean protein percentages for eight hybrids harvested at three stages of maturity, and three locations in 1948 and 1949. 7... Hybrid Year wr P.A.G.61 Pion.549 Pion.552 DeK. 404A Kings KC 1948 Nfich.2OD Mich.29D Ohio M15 Average P.A.G.6l Pion.549 Pion.552 DeK. 404A Kings KC 1949 Mich.20D Mich. 29D Ohio M15 Average Grand Average Saginaw Date of Harvest 1 2 \/ 11.18 10.94 11.00 9.78 10.84 9.41 11.00 10.60 11.19 10.66 10.66 10.54 11.19 10.75 10.75 10.22 $2 10.98 10.54 4' 10.78 10.41 10.06 9.97 11.25 10.28 11.28 10.78 11.22 10.19 11.05 10.26 11.10 11.50 11.52 10.90 5 \/ 11.00 10.54 J/ 0 10.44 5 ‘7 -4” um. . :‘mzmam.xz-zah .t" W. L‘x". ‘4' 2 10.64 9.8.]. 10.75 10.58 9.88 10.54 10.00 10.75 11.19 10.90 10.55 10.14 Location Ave. 10.06 9.70 10.60 10.58 10.26 10.54 10.41 L v’ 10.55 &’ 10.65 10.14 10.47 10.87 10.47 10.68 11.26 11.04 V 10.70 v’ 10.52 Date of Harvest 1 Ingham 2 5 4' 11.58 10.97 10.54 11.18 11.58 12.88 10.84 11.44 12.19 10.94 10.00 10.44 11.58 10.07 10.60 10.26 10.94 4% 11.55 10.58 9.88 9.90 10.40 10.52 10.56 10.84 10.47 10.54 8.69 7.81 8.54 8.00 Ave. 10.97 10.55 10.58 11.55 10.41 10.87 11.10 10.78 10.85 8.07 7.99 7 80 O f q C {O C51 7.75 8.54 8.01 7.95 _—& "WP-22.61....» .mu~<~.’.‘ ".- 5-.. 5.- ‘1 . Marta... .6. u .M.‘.um,_ .»=..—~..... D- .=. ‘--”m mm "wk-v ~m-um haw ' my, ”.5!- 5’ 9 7.99 9.41 “‘1...- -; .u..- ...._‘,_.,., _, Monroe Date of Harvest 1 10.58 10.50 9.28 12.04 10.44 10.82 12.44 10.65 2 my.:' ‘ O y, 10.04 10.22 9.12 11.78 10.10 10.10 10.94 10.88 5' 10.8fL10.40 8.84”“ 9.68 8.22 8.75 10.25 10.16 10.47 10.52 9.47 .5 9.56L' 10.19a10.15 9.52 9.00 10.14 10.00 10.54 10.55 9.66 9.86 5 10.47 9.96 9.40 11.10 10.47 11.05 10.56 11.25 9.47 9.00 8.91 9.97 10.28 10.12 10.44 9.97 9.77 10.15 Ave. .0 .” mh-M‘.uM‘ .“m-n-Hur‘- 10.29UL 11.05 10.25 9.27 11.64 10.54 10.65 11.51 10.92 3 9.556; ~9.22" 8.84 8.89 10.12 10.15 10.58 10.45 9.70 9.75%“ _..—-_._ _ All Locations Date of Harvest Grand 1 2 5 Ave. 910.65 10.21 10.65'55 10.89 10.00 9.74 10.21 10.50 9.66 9.58 9.85 11.97 11.25 10.57 11.26 10.85 10.28 10.25 10.44 10.97 10.55 10.46 10.59 11.94 10.65 10.56 10.98 10.77 10.68 10.66 10.70 4 4 10.58 11.12 10.44 10.20 10.58 9.55 9.48 9.5518 8.97 9.01 8.99 8.99 9.51 9.10 8.82 9.08 9.98 9.52 9.44 9.65 9.77 9.21 9.57 9.45 10.08 9.46 9.86 9.80 9.88 10.01 9.81 9.90 9.46 9.47 9.74 9.56 95829.59 9.44 9.47 9.82 10.05 10.15”’ 10.55 9.92 -10- Table 2 (continued). Differences necessary for significance between: Ya any two means fit any 8. any 9"“ oh «3 23 F. F§ m b :4 any Fe any two two two two two two two two hybrid hybrid hybrid hybrid season season X X location location x date x season location x season means date x season means season means location x date means location means x date means location means date x season mean 24 .972 .5695 .56% .52% .544 .2r% .244 .144 .20% 4.4 1.29% .74% .744 ~43% .45% ~25% .522 .19% .28% -11.. Table 3. Analyses of variance for protein and weight per 100 kernels. Degrees .Mean square Mean square for Source of variation of for protein wt/lOO kernels freedom Seasons 1 87.170** 151.96** Hybrids 7 4.631** '5o.50** maturities 2 7.660** 1334.44** Locations 2 31.020** 116.30** Seasons x hybrids 7 0.691** 4.78 Seasons 1 maturities 2 3.625** 3.80 Seasons x locations 2 62.045** 5.86 Hybrids x maturities 14 0.426 7.52** Hybrids x locations 14 l.005** 5.49* Maturities x locations 4 l.752** 60.62** S x H x M 14 0.261 2.28 S X H I L 14 0.449* 3.00 S XIM x L 4 0.458 13.81** H X M ILL 28 0.253 1.36 s I'H X.M x L 28 0.182 1.50 8.53 Error 144 0.243 ** Significance at the one percent level when tested with the experimental error. * Significance at the five percent level when tested with the experimental error. -;12- hybrids but not at all locations and in all seasons. Location differences are likely to be characteristic of all hybrids and all maturities but not for all seasons. The interaction of seasons and hybrids is not likely to occur at all locations and at all stages of maturity. Interactions of hybrids with stages of maturity are not typical for all locations and in all seasons. The interaction seasons x maturities is typical for all locations and all hybrids. The inter- action of seasons x locations is characteristic of all hybrids and stages of maturities. Interactions of hybrids with locations occurs at all stages of maturity .but not in all seasons. The interaction maturities x locations is likely to be characteristic for all hybrids ‘ but not for all seasons. For the entire experiment, the average protein content was 10.58% in 1948 and 9.47% in 1949, a difference of 1.11%; The eight hybrids ranged from 10.46% protein to 9.46%3 There was a spread of 15115 protein among the three locations (10.52% to 9.41%)? Stages of maturity ranged from.10.35% protein for the first harvest to 9.82% for the third harvest, a differ- ence of 0.53%J Protein contents were generally lower in 1949 than in 1948. All hybrids, except one, averaged above 10% in 1948, while all hybrids were below 104 in 1949. The correlation of average protein content in 1948 with 1949 -15- for the eight hybrids was -t.779 which was significant at the 5% level of probability. Although the interaction seasons 1 hybrids was highly significant the hybrids that were high in protein in 1948 were also high in 19493 The interaction was due largely to the fact that the protein content of some hybrids decreased more than others from.1948 to 1949. DeKalb 404A decreased 1.6M4 and Pioneer 352 decreased 0.72%: In 1948 protein decreased .92% (11.12 to 10.20%) from.the first to the third harvest while in 1949 there was a decrease of .19% from the first to the second harvest and no significant change from.the second to the third harvest. The effect of date of harvest on protein content was much smaller in 1949. The grain was more nearly mature at the first two dates of harvest in 1949 (Table 9). Corn is generally considered to be mature when the moisture content has decreased to 58 to 40%. In this experiment there was little change in protein percentage after the corn had reached 40% moisture. The Ingham.county trial had the highest average protein content in 1948 and the lowest in 1949 while the Saginaw county trial ranked highest in 1949 and lowest in 1948. .A.marked nitrogen deficiency, as evidenced by leaf symptams, develOped after pollination in Ingham county trial in 1949. This deficiency of nitrogen was undoubtedly reaponsible for a part of the -14- marked decrease in protein content for 1949. Saginaw county had higher protein contents in 1949 than in 1948 while the reverse was true for the other two locations. remain 404A and Michigan 29D were the highest in protein content over the two year period; Michigan 20D, Pfister P.A..G. 61, Kingscrost K0, and Ohio M15 were intermediate; and Pioneer 552 and Pioneer 349 were lowest. Table 4 presents the average proteinccontents for the eight hybrids at three locations and the aver- ages for the three dates of harvest. Although the inter- action hybrids I locations was highly significant, the correlation coefficients (Table 5) show that the hybrids that were high in protein at one location tended to be high at other locations. ‘The interaction is a result of differences in increase or decrease frmm location to location. For example, Kingscrost K0 averaged 1.48% lower in protein content in Ingham county than at Saginaw county while Pioneer 552 averaged .854 less in the Ingham county trial than in the Saginaw county trial. The inter- action of hybrids with stage of maturity was not signifi- cant, indicating that the hybrids tended to react alike at the three dates of harvest. Correlations of dates of harvest (Table 5) indicate that the hybrids that were high in protein content at the first harvest were also high at the second and third harvests. When one inbred, M 14, in the pedigree of Michigan 20D was vreplaced with Illinois A.to produce Michigan 29D Table 4. -15- and hybrids x date of harvest. Average protein percentages for hybrids x locations Average 1948 and 1949. v—v Location Date of Harvest Grand Hybrid Ave. Sag. Ing. Mon. 1 2 3 .1. I 9V P.A.G.61 10.64 9.52 9.81 10.13 10.00 9.84 9.99 Pion.349 10.10 9.17 9.54 9.93 9.51 9.37 9.60 Pion.352 10.08 9.23 9.08 9.91 9.38 9.10 9.46 DeK.404A 10.74 9.75 10.88 10.98 10.39 10.01 10.46 Kings K0 10.53 9.07 10.24 10.30 9.74 9.80 9.95 Mich.20D 10.47 9.61 10.51 10.55 9.90 10.16 10.20 Mich.29D 10.90 9.55 10.87 10.91 10.33 10.09 10.44 Ohio M15 10.72 9.35 10.31 10.12 10.07 10.20 10.13 ex .9 Average 10.52 9.41 10.15 10.35 9.92 9.82 10.03 Differences necessary for significance between: .54 .121 cany two hybrid x location means .40% .524 guy two hybrid 1 date of harvest means .404 .5273 gny two hybrid means .2375 .5 /o c)any two location means .14% .194 )gny two date of harvest means .144 .194 -15- Table 5. Correlation coefficients for protein content. Characters correlated Degrees Correlation of Coefficient freedom Average protein percentages for eight hybrids at first harvest with average protein percentages at second harvest 7 .848** Average protein percentages for eight hybrids at first harvest with average protein percentages at third harvest 7 .643 Average protein percentages for eight hybrids at second harvest with average _ protein percentages at third harvest 7 .830** Protein percentages at first harvest for eight hybrids at three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein per- centages for second harvest 47 .887** Protein percentages at first harvest for eight hybrids at three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein per- centages for third harvest 47 .815** Protein percentages at second harvest for eight hybrids at three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein percentages for third harvest 47 .900** Average hybrids protein Average hybrids protein Average hybrids protein Average hybrids protein percentages for eight in Saginaw county with average percentages in Ingham county protein percentages for eight in Saginaw county with average percentages in Monroe county protein percentages for eight in Ingham county with average percentages in Monroe county protein percentages for eight in 1948 with average protein percentages in 1949 Average yields for eight hybrids with average harvest protein contents at third .605 .875** .494' .779* ‘0 860** -17- Table 5 (continued). Yields for eight hybrids at three locations in two seasons with protein contents at third harvest Average moisture contents for eight hybrids at first harvest with average protein percentages at first harvest Average moisture contents for eight hybrids at second harvest with average protein percentages at second harvest Average moisture contents for eight hybrids at third harvest with average protein percentages at third harvest moisture contents for eight hybrids at first harvest for three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein percentages Moisture contents for eight hybrids at second harvest for three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein percentages moisture contents for eight hybrids at third harvest for three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein percentages moisture content for eight hybrids harvested at three stages of maturity at three locations in two seasons with corresponding protein percentages Average weights per 100 kernels at first harvest for eight hybrids with average protein percentages at first harvest ' Average weights per 100 kernels at second harvest for eight hybrids with average protein percentages at second harvest 47 47 47 47 143 .147 '0557 -0505 .355** .077 .121 .185 .042 .124 -18- Table 5 (continued). Average weights per 100 kernels at third harvest for eight hybrids with average protein percentages at third harvest 7 _._‘ f F1 ‘ be". W w........ _ * Significant at 5% level of probability. ** Significant at £4 level of probability. .166 -:1S'9— there was a highly significant change in the protein content. Michigan 29D averaged .24% more protein than Michigan 20D in the entire experiment. Unpublished protein analyses for these two inbred lines show that M214 averaged 12.1% protein andIllinois A averaged 12.9%. The protein content of a hybrid can be signifi- cantly changed by substitution of one inbred in the pedigree. All interactions involving hybrids were small compared to those interactions not involving hybrids: This indicates that the response to hybrids was generally more consistent than the response to the ‘other factors. 'The differences among hybrids were largely due to genetic factors and were less affected by environment and stage of maturity. For the entire experiment, the first date of har- vest was significantly higher in protein content than the second and third harvests. Corn at the first har- vest averaged 51.9% moisture (Table 9). The difference in protein content between the second and third har- vests when the grain averaged 40.7% and 31.9% moisture respectively was not significant. The reaponse to date of harvest differed at the three locations. In the Saginaw county trial the differences among the three dates of harvest were significant. In the Mbnroe county trial, there were no significant differences among the three dates of harvest; The first harvest averaged 5—20- significantly more protein than the second and third‘ harvests in Ingham.county but there was no difference between the second and third harvests.. Protein contents averaged 10.5%, 10.2%, and 9.4% for the Saginaw, Mbnroe, and Ingham county trials dur- ing the two year period. The differences were highly significant. ‘Yields of corn in bushels per acre were 90:1, 83.8, and 77.2 reapectively for the three locations. Considering individual locations, there was a trend toward higher protein contents with higher yields. ' has Mean yields for the eight hybrids at the three locations in 1948 and 1949 are given in Table 6 and the analysis of variance in Table 7. Yields of corn were significantly affected by season, location, and hybrids. Hybrids tended to respond alike to location and season as evidenced by the non- significant interactions. The interaction of location ‘with seasons was very large. The average yield in 1948 was 77.8 bushels and 89.6 bushels in 1949. Protein contents averaged 10.58% and 9.47% respectively. From.these data, it may appear that the higher yield in 1949 was accompanied by a lower protein content. However, the inverse relationship of yield and protein was not true at all locations. In the Saginaw and Mbnroe county trials, the higher average -Q 1.. 5.66 6.66 6.55 6.00 6.06 6.55 0.66 6.006 6.55 6.00 6.65 6.05 6666666 6.65 6.65 6.65 0.55 6.65 0.65 0.65 0.60. 6.65 6.05 6.65 6.66 662 0660 6.66 6.66 6.65 5.00 6.66 6.65 6.65 6.606 6.55 6.06 0.06 0.65 606.6062 0.66 6.66 0.65 5.06 6.00 0.65 6.06 6.666 6.65 6.56 0.65 6.66 606.6666 5.66 0.06 6.65 6.00 6.60 6.06 0.66 6.666 6.65 6.66 6.66 6.05 0666666 6.05 6.06 6.66 5.66 6.56 6.06 6.05 0.666 6.05 6.60 0.56 6.66 «606.666 6.00 0.60 6.66 0.60 5.60 5.66 6.66 0.566 0.66 6.006 5.66 5.65 666.6066 5.06 6.66 6.66 6.60 0.60 6.05 5.60 5.666 6.66 5.50 5.65 5.65 066.6066 6.56 6.66 6.66 6.00 6.60 6.05 6.66 6.006 5.66 6.60 6.05 0.65 66.0.6.6 . . cos . msH . wsm . 656 . no: . 66H . 6.6m . 65.6. . 6602 . 66H . 666 0.6.33 66mmw 66666.6606 0606. 6606 .0606 666 6606 66 660666606 66666 66 6666666 66666 606 666665 6662 .6 6666B Table 7. Analysis of variance for yield. 1"- Source of variation Degrees ’Mean square frggdom Seasons 1 10,109.2** Locations 2 3,959.95** [Hybrids 7 974.96** Hybrids x seasons 7 18.81 Hybrids x locations 14 114.11 Locations x seasons 2 16,018.35** Hybrids x locations x seasons 14 264.32* Error 240 134.38 ** Significance at the 1% level when tested against the experimental error. * Significance at the 5% level when tested against the experimental error. ‘23_ yields were accompanied by higher protein percentages. (Table 8). Corn followed alfalfa—bromegrass sods both years at Saginaw county. ‘At Monroe county, corn follow~ ed an alfalfa-bromegrass sod in 1948 and followed wheat in 1949. Where corn follofiégfiéfgafga-bromegrass in the rotation, protein contents tended to be high. Higher yields in 1949 at Ingham.county were associated with lower protein contents. Soybeans and rye were plowed under as green manure cr0ps for corn both years. .A :marked deficiency of nitrogen deve10ped at Ingham county in 1949 and undoubtedly contributed to the lower pro- tein contents. The correlation of average yields with average protein percentages for the eight hybrids was highly significant ( -58604*). High yieldinghybrids were generally lower in gprotein content. Correlation of yields with protein percentages at the third date of harvest for the entire experiment was .147, which was not significant. Considering all hybrids, locations, and seasons, there was no relation- ship between yield and protein content. W moan moisture percentages are presented in Tables 9 and 10 and the analysis of variance in Table II. moisture content was affected by seasons, hybrids, dates of harvest, and locations. All interactions except one were highly significant when tested with the -24.. Table 8. Average yield of corn in bushels per acre and protein percentage at three locations in 1948 and 1949. 1948 1949 Two year average Location Yield Protein. Yield Protein Yield Protein SaginaW' 70.6 10.35 109.5 10.70 90.1 10.52 Ingham. 72.5 10.83 81.9 7.99 77.2 9.41 Mbnroe 90.1 10.58 77.5 9.73 83.8 10.15 Average 77.8 10.58 89.6 9.47 Table 9. Me: at three date6 Hybrid 7 ~ ‘1 "'3¢'~. in moisture percentages for eight hybrids harvested 0d three locations in 1948 and 1949. v.9 .-I in Year Location Saginaw Ingham Date of Harvest Date of Harvest 1 2 5 Ave. 1 2 5 Ave. P.A.G.6l 54.9 41.0 51.0 42.50 51.9 41.0 54.9 42.58 Pion.349 55.1 41.5 31.8 42.72 55.5 44.5 58.8 46.15 Pion.352 59.2 42.0 55.0 45.40 54.7 45.4 57.6 45.22 DeK. 4041 51.4 45.4 36.4 45.75 60.1 45.1 56.4 47.22 Kings K0 1948 55.9 40.6 52.5 42.25 64.1 47.6 54.2 48.60 1066.208 55.5 42.6 55.0 45.70 56.8 42.8 55.8 45.12 much.290 54.1 42.1 55.5 3.82 55.6 41.8 59.0 45.45 Ohio M15 52.0 40.5 51.1 41.20 50.9 46.8 52.5 45.57 Average 54.25 41.67 55.49 45.14 56.18 44.06 36.14 45.46 P.A.G.61 54.4 40.9 52.9 42.68 50.6 41.0 50.5 40.62 Pion.349 54.9 42.7 54.4 44.00 54.4 42.9 54.1 43.76 Pion.352 58.5 44.5 54.. 45.78 51.9 40.1 54.0 41.99 DeK. 404A 56.9 42.4 55.6 44.95 55.5 41.6 52.7 45.25 Kings KO 1949 56.5 41.2 52.9 45.54 52.4 42.4 32.8 42.51 Mich.20D 55.5 42.5 50.5 42.70 55.6 42.2 52.1 49.62 Mich.29D 55.9 41.5 55.0 44.02 55.7 40.9 52.2 42.25 Ohio M15 55.2 59.0 29.8 40.62 52.9 59.7 50.4 40.98 Average 55.66 41.75 55.20 45.54 55.10 41.5" 52.51 42.25 Grand Average 55.19 41.72 33.30 43.40 54.12 42.24 33.59 anroe Date of Harvest 54.4 47.1 50.46 45.3 44.1 45.4 43.5 45.8 43.6 45.0 42.1 44.33 46.37 All Locations Date of Harvest Grand. 2 3 Ave. 1 2 3 Ave. 39.4 32.4 40.75 52.42 40.45 32.77 41.88 41.2 34.2 42.82 54.52 42.23 34.93 43.89 42.7 34.6 43.42 55.60 42.68 35.75 44.68 41.7 33.0 41.73 54.00 43.38 35.30 44.23 37.8 32.2 39.20 55.20 41.97 32.87 43.34 40.5 34.7 40.95 52.65 41.95 35.17 43.26 41.8 36.2 44.10 54.68 41.87 36.82 44.46 39.0 30.8 38.93 49.97 42.07 31.47 41.17 40.49 33.51 41.49 53.63 42.08 34.38 43.36 34.9 26.7 35.62 50.05 38.91 29.96 39.64 38.6 25.6 36.10 51.12 41.39 31.35 41.29 39.5 27.7 37.52 51.86 41.31 32.12 41.76 35.4 26.7 35.19 51.96 39.79 31.64 41.13 36.8 26.4 36.30 51.57 40.11 30.68 40.78 38.3 26.4 36.05 50.82 40.92 29.62 40.46 36.7 26.5 36.04 51.48 39.62 31.22 40.77 35.9 26.3 34.75 49.38 38.16 28.81 38.78 36.99 26.51 35.95 51.03 40.03 30.67 40.58 38.16 28.85 37.79 51.90 40.71 31.91 41.51 Table 10. Average moisture percentages for hybrids X locations and hybrids x date of harvest. Average 1948 and 1949. Location Date of Harvest Grand Hybrid . Ave. Sag. Ing. Mon. 1 2 3 P.A.G.61 42.56 41.27 37.33 50.84 39.42 30.89 40.39 Pion.349 43.57 44.56 38.34 52.25 41.67 32.54 42.16 Pion.352 45.65 43.07 39.48 53.11 41.77 33.33 42.73 DeK.404A 44.54 44.57 37.37 52.64 40.99 32.86 42.16 Kings KO 43.11 44.54 37.27 52.78 40.73 31.41 41.64 Mich.20D 43.03 43.46 37.68 51.43 41.27 31.47 41.39 .Mich.29D 43.96 43.32 38.73 52.55 40.37 33.08 42.00 Ohio M15 40.82 41.77 36.14 49.58 39.46 29.69 39.58 Average 43.40 43.32 37.79 51.90 40.71 31.91 41. 51 -27.. Table 11. Analysis of variance for moisture. Source of variation Degrees of Mean square freedom Seasons 1 745.00** Hybrids 7 58. 70** Maturity 2 l4,448.50** Location 2 l,488.60** Seasons x hybrids 7 2.50 Seasons x maturity 2 22.90** Seasons x locations 2 286.90** Hybrids x maturity 14 5.25** Hybrids x locations 14 13.08** maturity x locations 4 99,80** Seasons x hybrids x maturity 14 6.96** Seasons x hybrids x locations 14 8.96** Seasons 1 maturity 1 locations 4 12.22** Hybrids x:maturity x locations 28 8.48** S x H x M,x L 28 25.12** Error 288 0.918 ** Significance at the l% level when tested against the eXperimental error. * Significance at the 5% level when tested against the experimental error. -28- experimental error, indicating that the moisture content of corn was affected by these four factors in a com, p licated manner. A Specific combination of season, hybrid, date of harvest and location determined the moisture content. Correlation coefficierts (Table 5) indicate no significant relationéhip between moisture content and protein percentages. Although the protein percentages ‘at the first harvest averaged higher than protein contents at the second and third harvests, there was no significant correlation with moisture content. Early maturing hybrids tended to have higher protein percentages at the second and third harvests but the correlations were not significant . Kernel Weight Tables 12 and 13 present the mean weights per one hundred kernels for the experiment. The analysis of variance is given in Table 3. Kernel weights were significantly affected by season, hybrid, maturities, and locations. In general, kernel weights and yields per acre were higher in 1949 when the average protein was less. However, a comp parison of individual locations in both years (Tables 2 and 12) shows no relationship between kernel weights and protein contents. Correlation coefficients (Table 5) ShOW'nO relationship between kernel size and protein content for the eight hybrids at the three dates of harvest. -29- Table 12. Mean weights in grams per 100 kernels for eight hybrids harvested at three dates at three locations in 1948 and 1949. A- w w— m - .y_~.-" --:'_~w—. W“W—.~~.§ 'n .— fixr ‘ZW‘AV’LC'H'v-w-Or ’12-... ~wu-w- *— Eyb51d 'Year Location *7 __ 7 I 7 7” ‘— SaginaW' Ingham. .Monroe All Locations lDate gr Hargest Ave. lDate 3f Hargest Ave Date of Harvest Date of Harvest Grand ‘ l 2 5 Ave. 1 2 5 Ave. P.AJG.61. 21.10 28.82 28.25 26.05 22.57 28.28 50.52 27.15 .225;;r;;:22-2E;96 27.1 22.14 28.92 25.24 26.765 Pion.349 18.56 25.16 24.50 22.60 19.55 25.40 27.00 25.98 21.42 27 62 27.52 25.45 19.78 26 06 26.20 24.01 Pion.552 16.89 26.62 25.76 25.09 18.42 26.55 28.54 24.45 21.28 27.76 28.22 25.75 18.86 26.91 27.50 24.42 DeK. 404A 18.18 27.56 27.90 24.55 19.54 25.46 26.59 25.86 25.76 27.98 29.00 26.91 20.49 27.00 27.85 25.11 Kings KO 1948 21.24 28.21 27.82 25.75 18.70 25.24 27.56 25.77 24.48 26.62 29.65 26.92 21.47 26.69 28.27 25.48 Mich.2OD 19.16 27.04 25.84 24.01 20.50 25.56 28.51 24.79 27.59 29.07 50.82 29.16 22.41 27.22 28.52 25.99 Mich.29D 19.42 28.87 28.64 25.64 18.04 28.45 28.96 25.14 21.47 29.44 28.60 26.50 19.64 28.91 28.74 25.76 Ohio M15 18.87 22.84 25.82 21.84 19.70 25.08 26.54 25.11 21.52 24.58 25.46 25.72 19.96 25.44 25.27 22.89 Average 19.15 26.89 26.54 24.19 19.65 25.98 27.98 24.55 25.01 27.81 28.50 26.44 20.59 26.89 27.67 25.05 P.A.G.61 21.67 29.79 51.52 27.60 21.59 27.89 29.07 26.12 27.54 26.86 28.54 27.51 25.47 28.18 29.58 27.08 Pion.549 21.46 27.78 29.26 26.17 19.97 27.14 29.10 25.40 25.95 28.02 28.Q2 27.45 22.45 27.64 28.89 26.55 Pion.552 18.21 27.79 27.95 24.65 21.95 28.54 27.76 26.08 25.62 26.58 27.56 26.52 21.92 27.64 27.69 25.75 DQK. 404A ' 20.02 26.84 29.50 25.58 19.26 27.55 27.52 24.78 25.10 26.56 27.88 26.45 21.46 26.91 28.25 25.54 Kings K0 1949 20.26 28.90 29.78 26.52 21.44 27.06 28.94 25.81 25.04 28.72 50.46 28.07 22.24 28.25 29.72 26.75 Nfich.20D 19.91 29.26 51.00 26.75 21.54 27.90 51.50 26.91 27.27 50.62 50.59 29.42 22.91 29.26 30.90 27.69 Mich.29D 20.80 29.68 55.06 27.85 19.90 28.94 29.24 26.02 26.52 51.70 51.94 30.05 22.40 50.10 51.42 27.98 Ohio M15 20.26 26.64 25.82 24.24 20.04 25.80 2w098 25.28 25.09 25.80 26.11 25.00 21.80 24.74 25.97 24.17 Average 20.52 28.54 29.69 26.12 20.68 27.55 28.61 25.55 25.99 27.85 28.85 27.56 22.55 27.84 29.05 26.41 Grand Average 19.75 27.61 28.11 25.15 20.15 26.66 28.29 25.04 24‘50 27.82 28.68 27.00 21.46 27.57 28.56 25.75 Table 15. Average weights in grams per 100 kernels for hybrids x locations and hybrids X dates of harvest. Average 1948 and 1949. Location Date of Harvest Grand Hybrid Ave. Sag. Ing. .Mon. 1 2 5 P.A.G.6l 26.82 26.62 27.52 22.80 28.55 29.41 26.92 Pion.549 .24.59 24.69 26.44 21.12 26.85 27.55 25.17 P10n.552 25.87 25.25 26.14 20.59 27.27 27.60 25.09 DeK.404A 24.97 24.52 26.68 20.98 26.96 28.05 25.52 Kings K0 26.04 24.79 27.49 21.86 27.46 29.00 26.11 15.65.2012 25.57 25.85 29.29 22.66 28.24 29.61 26.84 IMich.29D 26.75 25.58' 28.28 21.02 29.51 50.08 26.87 Ohio M15 25.04 25.19 24.56 20.88 24.09 25.62 25.55 Average 25.15 25.04 27.00 21.46 27.57 28.56 25.75 Shelled grain samples of eight corn hybrids har- vested at three dates at three locations in 1948 and 1949 were analyzed for protein content. From.the data obtained in this study, it is apparent that the protein content of corn grain is the result of a complex interaction of seasons, hybrids, stages of maturity, and locations. All of these factors significantly affected the protein percentage which was determined by a specific combination of season, hybrid, stage of maturity, and location. There are undoubtedly other factors which affect protein contents. Protein percentage of corn is affected by environmental, genetic, and physiological factors in such a way that it is imp possible to predict the effects of any one factor with- out information on all the other variables. Considering the experiment as a whole, the average protein content was 10.58% in 1948 and 9.47% in 1949; a difference of l.lh%. Seasonal effects varied greatly depending on location. The Saginaw county trial had higher protein contents in 1949 than in 1948 while the reverse situation existed at the Mbnroe and Ingham county trials. Average protein percentages were 10.52%, 10.15%, and 9.41% for the Saginaw, Mbnroe, and Ingham.county trials, respectively, for the two year period. In 1949, there was 2.7% more protein in the corn at Saginaw county -32.. than in Ingham county. Different previous cropping histories and soil types may account for part of the location and seasonal differences. The eight hybrids ranged from 10.46% to 9.46% protein.. Michigan 29D and DeKalb 404A were highest in p protein percentage; Michigan 20D, Ohio M15, Kingscrost K0, and Pfister P.A.G. 61 were intermediate; and Pioneer 349 anvaioneer 352 were lowest; Differences among hybrids were largely due to genetic factors and were less affected by environment and stage of maturity. Substitution of one inbred line (M14) in the pedigree of Michigan 20D with inbred Illinois A to produce Michigan 29D accounted for a significant difference of .24% in protein content during the entire experiment. The average protein contents were 10.35%, 9.92%, and 9.82% when the average moisture contents were 51.9%, 40.7%, and 31.9%, respectively, for the three dates of harvest. The differences in protein percentage between the first and second or third harvests were highly significant, but the difference between the second and third harvests was not significant. It appears that there is relatively little change in protein percentage after corn has dried to 40% moisture. Immature corn was higher in protein content than mature corn when protein was calculated on an equivalent moisture basis. Protein percentages ranged from 7.44% to 12.88% during the two year period of the experiment. .331 High yielding hybrids were generally lower in protein content than the lower yielding hybrids. The correlation of average yields and average protein per- centages for the eight hybrids was 65860, which was highly significant. The correlation of yield with protein percentage for the entire experiment was not significant. Con- sidering all hybrids, locations, and seasons, there was no relationship between yield and protein content. Within each date of harvest, there was no significant correlation between moisture content at harvest and protein percentage. There was a slight tendency for early maturing hybrids to have higher protein per- centages but the relationship was not significant. There was no correlation between kernel weight and protein content. 5. 4. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. .3, 2.- LITERATURE CITED Arbuckle, H. B. and Thies, 0. J. Variation in protein. Jour. Eliska Mitchell Sci. Soc. 41:65-69. 1925. Orig- inal not seen; abstracted in Chem. Abs. 20;62. 1926. Doty, W. M., Bergdoll, M. S., and Miles, S. R. The Chemical composition of commercial hybrids and open- pollinated varieties of dent corn and its relation to soil, season, and degree of maturity. Cereal Chem. 20:115-120. 1945. Earley, E. B. and DeTurk, E. E. Corn protein and soil fertility; What's New in the Production, Storage, and Utilization of Hybrid Seed Corn. Amer. Seed Trade Association, Chicago, Ill. pp. 84-95. 1948. East, E. M. and anes, D. F. Genetic studies on the protein content of maize. Genetics 5:545-610. 1920. Fraps, C. S. Variations of vitamin A and chemical com- position of corn. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 422. 1951. Hayes, H. K. Production of high-protein maize by andelian methods. Genetics 7:257-257. 1922. I11. Agr. Exp. Sta. High-low chemical strains well established in white corn. Slst Annual Report, 1957-1958:47-48. 1942. Leonard, W. H. and Clark, A. Protein content of corn as influenced by laboratory analysis and field re- plication. Colorado Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. #19. 1956. Osborne and Mendel, L. B. Amino acids in nutrition and growth. JOur. Biol. Chem. 17:525-550. 1914. Snedecor, G. W. Statistical methods, 4th ed. Collegiate Press, Inc. Ames, Iowa. 1946. watson, S. A. An agronomic and biochemibal comparison of four strains of corn which differ widely in total grain nitrogen. Abstract of Dr. thesis. Uh. of I11. .Webster, J. E., Brooks, J. S. and Cross, 0. B. The protein and crude carotenoid content of hybrid and open-pollinated corn; a summary. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. No. 56. 1949. Woodworth, C. M. and Jhgenheimer, R. W. Breeding and genetics of high protein corn. What's New in the Pro- duction, Storage and Utilization of Hybrid Seed Corn. Amer. Seed Trade Association, Chicago, Ill. pp. 75-85. Dec 0 19480 435— 14. Zeleny, L. Distribution of nitrogen in the seed of Zea m s at different stages of maturity. Cereal Chem. 12:5 42. 1955. 15. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Methods of Analysis. George Banta Pub. Co., Menosha, Wis. 6 ed. 1945. APPENDIX -36.. 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 662 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 6666 66H66 66H66 66H66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 666 66 66 66 66 66 66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 .6662 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 666 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 .666: .66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 6666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 666666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 6666666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 666 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 6666666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 .6.6.6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 pmmbnwm Mo pawn pmm>66m ho mpwa p66>66m no 6969 monsoz .56swnH awnammm 66hpmm 6666 666:6 as 66666 66686 66 66p66>66£ mpwhpbn pgmam How mmwwpmmonmm awoponm .620666666666 039 .6666 6:6 @666 26 meowpwooa .¢H 66969 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 662 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 6666 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6. 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 .6662 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 666 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 .6662 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.66 66666 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 6666 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 666666 66.6 66.6 66.6% 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6. 66.66 66.66 66.66 6666666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.66 666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.6 6666666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 .6.<.m 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666666.626 .60 666666 6666666666 no 6663 9696,6666 no 06.3 096682 66.6an6” awnawwm 66.66.6666 6666 .Auodqapnoov g 69an Table 15. Yields in bushels of shelled corn at 15.5% moisture for eight hybrids at three locations in 1948 and 1949. Six replications. 1948 Location Hybrid Replication 1 2 3 4 5 6 P.A.G.61 70.5 72.2 78.6 73.8 74.6 62.5 Pion.349 66.7 83.3 73.1 93.2 69.8 74.1 Pion.352 78.0 81.5 74.4 69.2 86.5 70.7 SaginaW' DeKa1b404A 60.9 51.6 82.6 65.5 65.2 54.2 Kings K0 69.2 61.5 75.2 77.3 77.8 61.4 Mich. 20D 65.7 67.5 66.8 63.6 68.1 65.7 Mich. 29D 77.1 69.7 84.5 86.6 70.7 60.9 Ohio M15 61.3 70.2 67.2 67.3 61.8 61.0 P.A.G.61 92.5 72.0 69.8 97.8 68.3 77.4 Pion.349 100.4 71.6 67.0 67.9 71.0 76.2 Pion.352 87.9 76.6 74.5 95.5 80.2 87.3 Ingham. DeKalb404A 78.8 58.6 63.7 41.7 41.8 57.6 Kings K0 87.0 58.3 65.3 71.2 65.0 65.7 Mich. 20D 95.6 70.7 61.2 61.8 63.2 85.6 Mich. 29D 83.4 72.6 63.2 61.5 61.7 71.8 Ohio M15 88.3 75.9 59.9 69.1 65.1 82.0 P.A.G.61 80.4 92.4 82.2 91.7 102.9 110.8 Pion.349 108.1 97.0 94.1 89.0 98.9 98.9 Pion.352 94.0 117.9 90.7 102.6 99.6 97.0 iMbnroe DeKa1b404A 95.6 85.7 88.6 101.4 86.4 90.4 Kings K0 79.6 93.5 75.2 89.8 64.7 86.3 Mach. 20D 95.1 95.1 89.3 78.4 91.8 75.8 Mich. 29D 77.6 93.1 85.7 104.1 90.4 86.8 Ohio Mfl5 76.0 73.1 86.5 72.6 89.0 80.4 r: .9‘ Table 15 (continued). 1949 Location.Hybrid Replication 1 2 3 4 5 6 P.A.G.6l 95.9 116.2 109.6 111.5 108.6 112.9 Pion.349 104.8 99.8 132.0 106.7 109.9 129.2 Pion.352 107.8 114.2 129.8 105.9 131.6 112.8 SaginaW' DeKalb404A 99.8 108.8 110.6 124.6 123.7 116.5 Kings K0 95.5 105.8 116.2 120.9 117.6 111.5 Mich. 20D 114.1 114.6 115.6 112.2 113.2 109.3 Mich. 29D 104.0 105.9 106.3 109.5 101.3 112.2 Ohio M15 84.2 81.3 101.0 95.1 89.1 95.1 P.A.G.6l 81.8 93.3 85.5 86.4 95.2 90.6 Pion.349 91.3 86.9 99.2 95.2 100.0 95.7 Pion.352 84.4 77.9 105.0 66. 105.9 48.1 Ingham. DeKa1b404A 92.8 73.6 103.0 91.9 81.6 34.3 Kings KO 106.9 84.2 89.5 75.3 90.0 57.5 Mich. 20D 78.8 70.6 88.6 97.6 105.8 43.6 Mich. 29D 93.0 86.7 71.0 60.2 87.2 40.4 Ohio M15 74.3 87.2 90.9 74.7 61.4 49.4 POAOGOGI 86.5 79.2 9407 83.6 65.6 67.0 Pion.349 78.4 78.4 98.6 72.5 70.5 78.4 Pion.352 77.6 86.3 112.6 85.8 81.9 70.0 :MOnroe DeKa1b404A 74.8 70.4 80.2 46.2 77.2 67.0 Kings K0 88.3 57.6 99.0 75.6 86.3 75.1 Mich. 20D 78.0 61.0 96.6 70.2 84.4 .71.2 Mich. 29D 62.8 72.1 97.9 70.2 78.9 78.0 Ohio M15 74.7 77.7 78.2 59.1 68.4 73.8 -40- 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 4.04 0.04 040 0400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 000 .0040 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 000 .0040 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 00 00040 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.40 4404040000 000000 0.00 0.40 4.44 0.44 0.00 0.40 000 .0040 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 040 .0040 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 40.0.0.0 4.00 0.40 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 4.00 040 0400 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.04 0.00 4.00 000 .0040 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 4.00 000 .004: 4.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.40 00 00040 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.00 0404040000 000004 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 000 .0040 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.00 040 .0040 0.40 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.40 40.0.0.0 0.40 0.00 0.44 .0.04 0.00 0.00 040 0400 0.40 4.00 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 000 .0040” 0.00 4.00 4.04 0.04 0.00 0.40 000 .0040” 0.40 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.40 4.00 00 00040 4.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 4404040000 0004000 0.00 0.40 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 000 .0040 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.44 4.00 0.00 040 .0040 0.00 0.40 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 40.0.0.0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0044004440m 0044004440m 0044004400m 044903 .004 04400 000000 40040 “30>th Ho 09.8 0404 . .0404 04 000440044404 450% 0:0 @404 04 00OH40044404 035 .0404 000 @404 04 mnoprooH 00404 40 00400 00404 40 umpmobhan 0044900 pame no“ Anoo 000 :4mnwv mmwwpqmonmm 04240402 .®H magma -41- 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.44 0400400 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 000.0040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 000.0040 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.44 0.04 4.04 00 00040 0.40 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.04 4.04 4.04 0.04 0404 000 .000 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 000.0040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.44 040.0040 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.40 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.04 40.0.0.0 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0400400 0.40 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 000.0040” 0.00 0.40 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.04 4.44 0.44 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 000.0040 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.44 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.40 00 00040 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0404 .000 .004 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.04 4.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 000.0040 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 4.04 0.44 0.04 0.04 4.00 0.00 0.40 4.00 040.0040 0.00 4.40 4.00 0.00 4.04 0.04 0.44 0.04 0.40 4.04 0.40 4.00 40.0.0.0 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 4.00 0400400 0.40 0.40 0.40 4.00 4.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 000.0040 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 000.0040 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00_00040 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0404 .000 .000 0.00 0.40 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.00 0000 0.00 0.00 000.0040 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.04 0.44 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.40 040.0040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 40.0.0.0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0040004400m 0040004400m 00400044mmm 00400 000000 00040 040000 .004 Pm®>HQm Ho deQ 0404 .00000400000 04 04000 -42- mm.¢m m¢.¢m mo.am oa.om om.mm m¢.ma mo.nm ou.nm ao.oH was oo.om mm.¢m mo.Hm um.om an.mm mm.oa om.mm ma.Hm mo.ma ofiao mm.om om.on mH.mm Hm.bm «b.bm om.oa mp.mm hm.om ¢m.om mam mm.om $0.5m mp.om Hp.on ma.mm pm.ma nm.mm Db.on mm}ma .nofis wo.mm ¢m.om mo.mm ma.mm m¢.du om.ma m§.mm Ho.«m ¢o.ma now Ho.mm om.mm om.mm pw.an om.mm oa.am mm.mm ma.mm bn.ma .nofiz $5.0m ma.om ¢m.¢w oa.mm on.mm mm.¢a no.mm an.mm ¢o.am om om.mm «H.5m ma.¢m mm.mm ma.mm om.mm oo.bm HH.mm nm.om mmaam o¢.mm mo.bm mp.nm mo.¢m ¢H.mm mm.om mm.mm vb.mm nb.ma dwo¢ mm.mm om.mm Hm.nm mm.mm mb.mm mo.ma mm.bm an.om Ho.ba pran HH.mm do.om mb.mm ¢¢.mm o¢.om NH.oH mm.wm .nb.mm om.ma «an mm.mm bn.mm Hm.oa no.mm ¢m.om H§.ba 5H.mm mm.>m mm.ma noonofim mm.bm ma.mm na.am uo.mm um.mm mm.om o¢.nm po.wm mm.ma own on.bm mo.om om.am mo.mm mm.om nm.ma ma.mm mm.mm ¢>.>H uomnofim bo.mm om.an o¢.mm am.om o¢.>m ¢o.am nm.mm bn.mm om.Hm Ho wm.om Ho.mm mo.nm omuom Ha.mm oawwm no.5m pm.mm mm.om .e.gwm. n m a n m H n m a pmmpnam no ovum pmmphwm no opwm pmm>nwm no 0969 monaofi EwanH swnumwm vehnhm mwma. .maOHpQOfiHmoH 038 .m¢ma cum mwma ma mcoapwooa mmhgp pd mmpwc oohnp pm cmfimobnmn mvwapzn pgmwm you mamahmx OOH Hog madam aw mpzmwm? .bH mapwe pm.om pm.mm wa.nm o>.¢m mn.mm m¢.ma om.¢m no.>m mm.om was mm.mm mm.mm «0.5m hm.sm mm.¢m mo.am mn.bm mm.om mm.om owgo o¢nmm panda dmuwm oo.mm pm.mm Ho.ma mn.mm oo.on bu.om mam o¢ «a m¢ an aw mm 5w.am Ho.mm mb.om ¢b.nn mm.am «w.om .nofiz oo.am on.mm Hm.bm mm.ma «H.5m mH.om mm.Hn om.mm ¢m.am mom ab.om mp.mm mm.bm mm.on mo.mm om.mm ma.on no.9m mm.ba .nofiz Hm.mm om.bm ¢m.¢m ma.mm mm.mm mm.am no.om be.om mo.om om H>.Hn no.mm n5.mm Ho.mm na.mm mm.am nm.om ¢H.bm w¢.om mmqam om.bm mo.om uo.mm no.0m m>.§m oa.am nm.mm mm.mm mm.om ¢¢o¢ mb.bw mo.om ¢n.¢m Ho.om mn.bm on.ba $0.09 mo.mm mm.ma panama pm.om mo.¢m mm.mm no.0m ab.mm mo.am mm.bm 50.nm mo.mH man ofl.mm oa.om no.0m 5m.mm mm.mm mb.mm Ho.mm Hm.on b¢.ba noonofim Hm.mm o¢.mm mm.om m¢.om po.bm mo.am ¢m.bm om.bm pm.om own nH.mm $0.5m mo.mm «b.5m om.5m om.ba mm.on K bo.bm mm.mm nomqoam ¢m.§m om.mm mo.mm oo.mm mo.om mv.Hm mm.an om.bm om.nm Ho an.om Hm.mm Ho.om wm.am ca.mm on.Hm oa.am mo.mn mb.aa .a.<.m m m H n m H m m a pmmwam Ho opwn pmmbhwm ho opwm pmm>nwm Ho mpmm oonnoz adamQH awnwmwm cahnhm awoa .Acmsnfiuqoov 5H magma ,.<.OOM USE ONLY, Se 29 ’53 0CT173352§3 WQVWLMWW, II III. III ulHlllllllil