.

AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, PROTEIN, AND CAROTENOID

COMPOSITION bF SOME GR!IN SORGHUM VARIETIES,
STRAINS, AND BYBRIDS---WITH E:MPHASIS ON
YELLOW ENDOSPERM TYPES

By
WEI-NING
- FU
,,

Bachelor of Science
National Honan University
Kaifeng, Honan, China
\
1949

Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of

the Oklahoma State University
in paI"tial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
May, 1960
 OKLAHOMA
STATE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY .

SEP 1 1960

AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, PROTEIN, AND CAROTENOID

COMPOSITION OF SOME GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES,
STRAINS, AND HYBRIDS---WITH EMPHASIS ON
YELLOW ENDOSPERM TYPES

Thesis Approved:

the Graduate School

11
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation

to Professor Frank F .. Davies and Dr. Dale EG Weibel for their
valuable assistance, guidance and advice in this study,
especially for their assistance and correction in writing
t his thesis .. Also the author is indebted to Dr. Lester W.
Reed of the Agronomy Department and to Dr. Robert D. Morrison
of the Statistics Department for their assistance in prepar-
ing this thesiso Special appreciation is due to Dr. James
Eo Webster of the Biochemistry Department for the determina-
tions of carotene, xanthophyll and total carotenoid pigmentso
Grateful ~cknowledgment is expressed to the Agronomy
\

Department and the Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma

State University for facilities, without which this investiga-
tion could not have been completed ..
A special note of thanks goes Miss Lucia Chien, Mrs ..
Eileen Meyerdirk, and Mro So C.. Yin for their help in typing
and preparing the manuscripto
The author, finally, would like to pay tribute to the
encouragement of his wife, Yen-yung, their daughter, Men-chen,
who gave inspiration from a far distant land, without whose
I
patience and understanding this work could not have been un-
dertaken ..

iii
 TABLE OF.CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION l
REVIEW OF LITER.ATTJRE
I
0 0 0 G O G O G O ~ a ~ • 0 • 0 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS o G I# e 8' 0 0 G • 12
'

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

I • G O 0 G G G G 18
Agronomic Characteristics •• ., ., •• ., • • • • 19
Grain Yield • • • • ., • • • • o • • • • ., • 19
Days to Bloom. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29
Plant Height • " ., • ., • • • • • • • • • • 34
Head Length • ., •• ., • • • • • • • • • • • 36
Bushel Weight • • • • • • ., • • • • • " • • ~l
Weight of 1,000 Seed • • • • • • • • • • • 48
Tiller Percentage • .. • o • ,. .. " • • • • .. 56
Lodging Percentage • • • • • o • • • " • • 60
Threshing Percentage • • • .. • • • • .. .. .. 63
The Relationship Between Grain Yield
and Other Agron0mic Characteristics • • 67
Chemical Characteristics ... 68
Protein Content,. •• o .. " o • • • • • • • 68
The Relationship Between Protein and
Grain Yield of Grai:n. Serghum ·.. .. .. .. • .. 74
Carotenes, Xanthophylls, and Total
Carotenoid Content in Sorghum Grain .. • 79
Stn'™ARY o .. " 0 .. 88
'
BIBLIOGRAPHY 0 $ 0 G O Q Q Q .. 91

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
Io The Pedigrees of the Hybrids Tested
" • • • .. 12
II .. The Pedigrees of Twelve Yellow Endosperm
Selections • . " .. • .. • • .. • • • .. 0 0 .. 13
III .. The 37 Entries and the Origin of Each Hybrid
and Variety ......... " • " ..... " ... " • 13
IV .. Summary of Different Agronomic Characteristics
of Some Grain Sorghum Varieties and Hybrids
at Perkins, Oklahoma, 1959 •• " • " " • • 20
v. Summary of Different Agronomic Characteristics
of Some Grain Sorghum Varieties and Hybrids
at Mangum, Oklahoma, 1959 .. " ....... ., • 21
VI" Analysis of Variance for Grain Yield (pounds
Per Plot) at Perkins, 1959 .. " • " •• " " 23
VII. Analysis of Variance for Grain Yield (Pounds
Per Plot) at Mangum, 1959 ... " • • .. • • • 24
VIIIo Comparison of Grain Yield of Varieties VSo
Hybrids and Yellow vs .. Non-yellow Endo-
sperm Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins
" • • ..
and Mangum, 1959 • Q
• " 0 0 0 0 0 26
IX o Grain Yield of Eight Hybrids Compared with
Their Parents, 1959 " . .. . • • " 0 0 0 . . 27
Analysis of Variance for Days to Bloom at
Perkins, l959 .. . " " 0 .0 0 0 G GI G 0 . 0 30
XIo Analysis of Variance for Days to Bloom at
Mangum, 1959 ., • " "
. . " "
G 0 0 0 0 <> . 30
XIIo Comparison of Days t6 Bloom of Varieties vs.
Hybrids and Yellow vs .. Non-yellow Endosperm
Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and Mangum,
1959 O O <> Cl O O O " 0 0 GI O O O G 9 0 c> 0 31
XIII .. Days to Bloom of Eight Hybrids Compared with
Their Parents, 1959" ........ " .... " " " 32
V
 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
XIV .. Analysis of Variance for Plant Heignt at
Perkins, 1959 . . . . . ,. ....... • • . .. 35
xv. Analysis of Variance for Plant Height at
Mangum, 1959 ••• • • • • • • • • • • • 36
XVI. Comparison of Plant Height or Varieties vs.
Hybrids and Yellow vs. Non-yellow Endosperm
Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and Mangum,
1959 • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 37
,,

XVII .. Plant Height of Eight Hybrids Compared with

Their Parents, 1959. • • • • • • • • • • • 38
XVIII .. Comparisofi of Head Length of Varieties vs.
Hybrids and Yellow vs. Non-yellow Endosperm
Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and Mangum,
1959 .............. Q • • • .. • • • 40
XIX .. Head Length or Eight Hybrids Compared with
Their Parents, 1959 .. .. • . • • • . • • ..
Q 42
xx., Analysis of Variance for Bushel Weight at
Perkins, 1959 .. • .. . .. • .. • . • " • . .. • 46
XXI. Analysis of Variance for Bushel Weight at
Mangum, 1959 .. . . .. • • • . • .. • • • . .. 46
XXII.. Comparison of Bushel Weight of Varieties vs ..
Hybrids and Yellow vs .. Non-yellow Endosperm
Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and Mangum,
1959 • ~ $ a •• ~ ~ • • • o e • ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 47
XXIII .. Bushel Weight of Eight Hybrids Compared with
Their Parents, 1959. • .. • • .. .. .. .. .. .. • 49
XXIV .. Analysis of Variance for Weight of 1,000 Seed
at Perkins, 1959 . . . . . . ., • .. • • • .. • 52
XXV .. Analysis of Variance for We~ght of 1,000 Seed
at Mangum, 1959 •• ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • .. .. 52
XXVIo Comparison of Weight of 1,000 Seed of Varieties
vs .. Hy"bt"ids and Yellow vs .. Non-yellow Endo-
sperm Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and
Mangum, 1959 .. • .. .. .. • • .. .. o .. • .. • .. 53
XXVII .. Weight of 1,000 Seed of Eight Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents, 1959 .............. ..

vi
 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
XXVII. Comparison of Tiller Percentage of Vqrieties
VSo Hybrids and Yellow VSo Non-yellow
Endosperm Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins
and Mangum, 1959 • • • .. • • .. .. • • • • • 57
XXIX, Tiller Percentage of Eigpt Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents, 1959 • • • • • • • • • 58
XXX. Comparison of Lodging Percentage of Varieties
vs. Hybrids and Yellow vs. Non-yellow
Endosperm Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins,
1959 ........ 0 ... 0 • .. • .. • • • • 61
XXXI. Lodging Percentage of Eight Hybrids Compared
· with Their Parents, 1959. • • • .. • • • • • 62
XXXII. Comparison of Threshing Percentage of Varieties
-vs~ Hybrids and Yellow vs. Non-yellow
Endosperm Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins
and Mangum, 19 59 • .. • • • • • • • • • • • 64
XXXIII. Threshing Percentage of Eight Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents, 1959 • .. • • • • • • • 65
XXXIV. Summary of Protein Content of Some Grain Sorghum
Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and Mangum,
1959 .. 0 .. 0 0 • • • .. • • • • .. • • • .. • 70
XXXV<> Analysis of Variance for Protein Content at
P·e rkins, 1959 • .. .. .. .. • • • .. .. .. " • . .. 71
XXXVICJ Analysis of Variance for Protein Content at
Mangum, 19 59 CJ • CJ .. .. CJ • .. • .. ., • .. . . 72
XX:XVII .. Comparison of Protein Content of Varieties vs ..
Hybrids and Yellow vs .. Non-yellow Endosperm
Varieties and Hybrids at Perkins and Mangum,
1959 • ~ Q ~ e a Q ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ e ~ ~ a a G 73
XXXVIII .. Protein Content of Eight Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents, 1959 . . . . . . . . ...... 75
XXXIX" Ca.r otene, Xanthophyll and Total Carotenoid in
Sorghum Grain at Mangum, 1959" ......... <> 80
XXXX. Comparison of Carotene, Xanthopbyll and Total
Carotenoids of Varieties vs .. Hybrids and
Yellow vs .. Non-yellow Endosperm Varieties
and Hybrids at Mangum, 1959. .. .. .. • • .. • 83

vii
 LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
Carotene Content of Eight Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents at Mangum, 1959 ••• 84
Xanthophyll Content of Eight Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents at Mangum, 1959 ••• 85
Total Carotenoids of Eight Hybrids Compared
with Their Parents at Mangum, 1959 ••• 87

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES
l.
F ii-gure
Page
lQ The Head Shape of Four Hvbrids (C:enter) with
i Their Female (Left) and Male_ (Right) Parents •
0
44
2G 'The Head Shape of Four Hybrids (Center) with
Their E'emale (Left) and Male (Right) Parents .. >+,
The Regression Line ot Protein Percentage on
Grain Yield or Sorghum at Perkins, 195'9 • 77
The Regression Line .of Protein Percentage on
Grain Yield of Sorghum at Mangum, 195'9. G • • 78

ix
 INTRODUCTION

Sorghum in the United States is an emigrant crop which

became established about 100 years agoo At present, produc-
tion ,i~ centered in the Great Plains from Texas to South
Dakota, however, it has spread into the corn belt and tbe
southeasto Grain s orghum production -in Oklahoma in 1959 was
the largest on recordo The cr op of 18o8 million bushels aver-
aged 27_ bushels per acre compared to the national average of
37o2 bushels per acreo Since Oklahoma grain sorghum yields
are below the national average, increasing yield is as impor-
tant as improving grain quality o
Sorghum hybrids were iong recognized as a possibility
for increasing yields, and recently the establishment of cyto-
plasmic male sterility made commercial use of hybrid vigor in
~orghum economically feasibleo Hybrids were first recommended
I
for production in Oklahoma in 19590
An important use of sorghum grain in the United States
i s as feed for poultry and livestock o Since consumers demand
a yellow egg yolk and a yellow shank on broilers, and since
yellow corn is preferred to white for feeding, the addition
of carotenoid pigments to sorghum grain has become an impor-
tant breeding objectiveo A yellow endosperm variety of sorghum
was found in Nigeria, Africa (29)1/ by Dr o Oo Jo Web stero

1/Figures in parentheses refer to bibliography o

1
 2
i
I

qrosses with American varieties were made in Africa, and seed

I
I
~rom F1 plants was distributed to breeders in 1952~ Yellow
I

~ndosperm selections from this material were available in the

qreeding program for evaluation as varieties in 1959 .. One
particular selection from a cross of Redlan X Kaura (the yel-
low endosperm parent) which was designated as Y-8, was found
~nearly tests to be an excellent pollinator when used on Red-
lan sterile" Crossing the yellow endosperm male with the non-
yellow endosperm female produced a dilute yellow endosperm,
v.1'hich should be superior to the . straight non-yellow endosperm
I
~rain a
I The main objectives of this study were: (1) to evaluate
~ellow endosperm selections originating from Oklahoma's breed-
ing program as varieties, and (2) to evaluate sorghum hybrids
~roduced with one yellow endosperm parent .. The evaluations
were to include yield and other agronomic characteristics, and
isuch quality factors as protein·and carotenoid content"
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Interest in the commercial production of hybrid sorghum

seed increased greatly after Stephens (38) discovered a genetic
male sterile plant in Texas Blackhull Kafiro The techniques
for its application were nearly established when a cytoplasmic
male sterile was discoveredG This method opened the way for
commercial production of hybrid sorghum on a wide scaleG Hy-
brid seeds produced by using cyto~lasmic male sterility came
into farm use for the first time in 19570 By 1959 from 50 to
90 percent of the grain sorghum ac!eage was sown with hybridso
As early as 1937, Karper and Quinby (18) reported a large
' ~
grain yield increase due to hybrid vigoro Quinby, et alo (29)
in Texas, concluded from the performance test of grain sorghums
in 1957 that the hybrids produced 38 percent more grain than
' '

the average of their parentso Data from the Oklahoma grain

sorghum performance test at five locations in 1958 (9) showed
that the hybrids produced an average of 21 percent more grain
than the average of the varieties included in the same test
as checkso Similar test~ in Kansas in 1957 and 1958 at six
locations (7) showed a 23 percent increase in grain yields of
hybrids over varieties o Khan (20) studied crosses of Redlan
X Plainsman and Combine Kafir-60 X Combine 7078 at Perkins,
Oklahoma in 1959 and found that the grain yield per plant of

3
 4

the hybrids was 1208 and 50o2 ,percent, respectively, more

than the average of the parentso
The days fr.om planting to blooming vary considerably in
. ~ifferent varieties a Quinby, et al .. (29) using performance
test data from 1957 pointed out that the hybrids were 2.4
days earlier than the average of their parents .. Davies (9)
reported that the hybrids averaged about three days earlier
to bloom than the varieties ..
As early as 1931, John Bo Sieglinger of the U. s. Depart-
ment of Agriculture at Woodward, Oklahoma, released the first
variety of combine height grain sorghum for commercial pro-
duction in Kansas arid Oklahoma .. Since that time numerous
dwarf type s have been developed o At present, most of the dis-
tributed grain sorghum varieties and hybrids are combine t ype so
Conner and Karper (8) in 1927 used three height types includ-
ing Extra Dwarf, Dwarf and Standard to measure heterosis of
plant height in hybridsa The first generation of the crosses
between the different varieties ~bowed an average increase of
66 percent in t he height of plant over the tall parento The
corresponding second generation __gave an increase of 40 percent
over the tall parents o Crosses between strains of the same
vari e ty showed no hybrid vigor a Bartel (3) using forage s or-
ghum par ents found that all of the hybrids showed increases
in plant height over t he means of the parents, ranging from
6 02 t q 113 o8 percento Data from grain s orghum performance
test~ in 1958 in Oklahoma (9) and in Kansas (7) indi c ated t hat
t he hybri ds were 4o7 inches taller in Oklahoma and 5ol inches
 5

taller in Kansas than the varieties used for comparisong Based

on the average of eight hybrids a~d their parents in the Texas
performance test in 1957, Quinby, et alg (29) found that the
Qybrids were 2g4 inches taller than the average of the parents~
Head length may be related to grain yieid, since large
heads usually produce more graino Khan (20) reported that the
F1 hybrid heads averaged 9o56 and 9068 inches long for Redlan
(8095) X Plainsman (8Q95) and Combine Kafir-60 (9Q21) X Combine
7078 (8050), respectivelyo Head length probably is one of the
factors which influenced the grain yield of the hybridQ
Quinby, et alQ (29) concluded that the bushel weight of
hybrids grown under irrigation in Texas in 1957 was 1Q4 pounds
per bushel higher than the average of the parentso Walter (40)
reported that the test weight of hybrids was lower than that
of the standard varieties Q Martin (25) pointed out that the
number of heads per acre was either negatively or non-signifi-
cantly c orrelated with weight per bushel and average size of
headso
Weight of 1,000 seed is an indi cation of the size of the
individual seed and t he amount of carbohydrates stored in
t he seedso Le Clerc (21) .indicated that a grain with low
weight of 1,000 seed will be higher in fiber than one with
a high seed weighto Bartel (3) found that in kernel weight
the hybrids were intermediate between the parents, or were
as heavy as or heavier than the larger kernel parentsQ He
indicated that since the kernel consists largely of endosperm,
the maximum effect of hybrid vigor on the kernel would be
 6

efPressed in the F1 generationo The same result was obtained

i
bf Khan (20)o
I
I Varietal differences in tillering have been noted by
many agronomistsa Ball and R9thgeh (1), Sieglinger (34),
Sielinger and Martin (35), Karper, et ala (19) and Quinby,
et ala (31) have presented data on the relative tillering of
a number of varietiesa Sieglinger and Martin (35) found that
tbe six year average (1930-37) number of' stalks per plant in
79 varieties was la28 where plants were spaced 7 inches apart
I
I

atd 2o39 where plants were spaced 36 inches apart in the rowa
S~me varieties produced no tillers in certain seasonsa They
I
also found that differences in tillering appears to account
for many of the yield relationships and adaptations that have
been observed in sorghum varietiesa
I
In sorghum, most of' the hybrids have shown a tendency to-
ward severe lodging particularly in dry seasons (6)@ Davies
(9) in Oklahoma and Clapp (7) in Kansas in 1958 found that
lodging of' hybrids and varieties was not differenta In some
lbeations, the lodging of the hybrids was less than that of
varietieso Bartel (3) found more lodging occurred in hybrids
than in varieties@ In Oklahoma and in other states, charcoal
rot has been responsible for much lodging in the grain sor-
ghums (41) e

Threshing percentage, the ratio of head weight to grain

I
I
weight, shows the degree of seed set ..
I
Davies (9), reporting
I
I
dfta based on six locations from the Oklahoma grain sorghum
performance test in 1958, indicated that the average threshing
I
i
 7

~ercentage of hybrid~ wa! higher than the average of varie-

1

"tiieso The average threshing percentage wa! 71.,9 percent in

~arieties and 74,5 percent in hybrids, The same conclusion
I

was drawn by Clapp (7) from data from the Kansas grain sor-
'

&hum performance test in 1957 in which the thre~hing percent-

ige of hybrids and varietie~ was 76o3 and 7306 percent, re-
speetivelyo
Most of the sorghum grain in thi3 country is used as
feed for livestocko Therefore, the feeding value of sorghum
Jrain couldplay a major role in sorghum production., An

Jmportant factor.influencing the feeding value of gorghum

lrain is the protein content., Many protein determinations of
~orghum grain h1'1ve been made by various researcher~., Heller
tnd Green (14) reported the analy:sis of 20 Oklahoma sorghum
varietiesa The protein content ranged from 9G7 to 1408 per-
cento Protein content in sorghum grain, as.in other crops,
is influenced to some degree by such factors, as soil fertili-
ty, climatic conditions, irrigation, etco
I
A complete chemical
I

*nalysis of 28 varieties of grain fS;orghum grown at Perkins

I .

and Woodward, Oklahoma, was reported by Heller and Sieglinger

(13) · in"'l944o They indicated that there was some variation
i
jmong varietieso They alz:o found th~t drouth decreased the
yield but increased the protein percentageo Lowe (24) eom-
!ared sev:en. , gyprid~ with five varieties of grain ~orgh11rn for
lwo yea,rs in Xansaso He found the protein content of the
tarieties grown on fallow was 26 percent greater than the
tarietie~ grown under irrigationo However, the protein content
 8
;
of hybrids after fallow was 43 percent greater than that of
!
tlie hybrids produced with irrigationm Walter (40) in Kansas
!
:
reported protein contents of lla65 and 10079 for varieties
!

and hybrids following a summer fallow, while they were 11078

and 10094 for varieties and hybrids with irrigationo Nelson
(27) found that the protein ·content of the sorghum grain
from three varieties increased with each increment of nitro-
gen fertilizer applied with irrigationo He also found that
plant spacing did not affect the protein content of the graino
Compared with their parents, the protein eontent of
hybrids is usually lowera Lowe (?4) in Kansas found the aver=
a!e protein content of varieties with irrigation was 16 per-
cent greater than the hybridso The yield of the hybrids after
r,11ow was 2404 bushels of grain per acre, which was a 48 per-
,

eent increase. over the var·ietie5la This indicated that the

hybrids had higher yield and lower protein content than the
varietieso The same conclusion was drawn by Garner (11)
steglinger (34) and Bartel (3)o
i

I Both sorghum and corn are used largely ~s feed for live-
stock and poultryo Heller and Green (14) in Oklahoma found
',

grain sorghum. could be a substitute for corn in every way un-

less
,
the fat content is too lowo Karper and Quinby (17) indi-
ca.ted that sorghum grain can be substituted for corn in almost
i
I
atl places where corn is used as liY~st~k feedsa Hubbard,
I

et ala (16) from an average of five varieties of sorghum gr~in

i

found the protein content was about 2 percent higher than corn$
!
 9

In addition to protein, carotenoid pigments are impor-

~ant to the feeding value of sorghum grainso Carotenoid
pigments are made up partly of ca.rotene and partly of
!

xanthophyll pigments .. Both of the ingredients impart yel-

low color to milk and to the skin and eggs of poultry@ More-
over, carotene is the precursor of Vitamin .A,. Ronning, et
al" . (33) from an experiment of carotene requirements of
dairy cattle through 20 years (1937-57) at Oklahoma, pointed
out that ~uccessful reproduction could be expected from dairy
cattle when they receive 75 to 85 mcg., of carotene per pound
1ive weight daily.,
Previous tests 3howed that ~orghum grain was deficient
in feeding value compared to yellow corn because of a defi-
e,iency of carotene., Heller and Green (14) concluded that
yellow milo contained more vitamin A than the white-coated
varietieso Smith (36) and Karper and Quinby (17) also re-
ported that many o( the grain sorghums were inferior to yel-
low corn as a source of vitamin A0 Gross and Heller (12)
determined the carotene of 38 varieties.of grain sorghums
grown at Pe:rkin~ and at Woodward, Oklahoma"' The data showed
no great variation among varieties<> The average amount of
carotene was less than one-half of the percentage found in
Oklahoma-grown yellow corno The same conclusion was drawn
bf Heller a.nd Sieglinger (13)<> Gross and Heller (12) suggest-
eel that when grain sorghum was usied as the base ration, al-
f'alfa meal or some other vi ta.min A supplement would be requir-
 10

In 1952, yellow endosperm sorghum was introduced into

~his country from Nigeriao Since that date breeders have
und~rtaken the development of yellow endosperm varietieso
~lessin_, et ala (5) in 1958 analyzed seeds of yellow milo,
I

white kafir and yellow endosperm strains which were selected

from crosses of adapted varietie.s withKaurao They were pro-
duced at the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station during
t~e 1956 and 1957 crop years along with yellow corno The
data indicated that grain of common sorghum varieties con-
~ained about lo 5 parts per million of total carotenoids ,, while
y:ellow corn ran as high as 20 to 30 part~ per miLl..ions Ger- .·
t!ain environmental conditions affect the amount of carotenoid
pigmentso Bagging the heads of sorghum seems to conserve the
a~ounto Analysis of grain from bagged and open heads of yel-
;
l~w endosperm selections showed lo2 and 0 .. 6 parts per million
of carotene and 6·o 5 and 30 9 parts per million of :xanthophyll,
respect'ivelyo The average carotene content of non-yellow
endosperm varieties was Oo23 parts per million, while that of'
the yellow endosperm selections was· Oo63 parts per million ..
I
The xanthophyll content of non-yellow types was L,2 parts per
million, while that of the yellow types was 3o4 parts per
million ..· . Blessin, et ala (5) al.so found that the majo:r carote- ·
noid pigments present were identified as lutein, zeaxanthin,
i
and beta-carotene" Carotenoids found in yellow corn but not
i .
d~tected in the grain sorghum were crypto:xanthin, hydroxy-
!
'
a+pha-carotene, and alpha-carotene ..
'
 11

From the standpoint of feeding valu,, one of the impor-

ant problems in sorghum breeding is to raise the carotenoid
content of sorghum from the present level up to that of yellow
eorno

\
 MATEIUALS AND METHODS

i The experimental material consisted of 37 entrie~ @f

i
wbi~h 13 were hybrids and 24 were varietieso
1
The hybrid3 eon-
i

s:isted of 7 experimental cro1:lses produced in the greenhouse

!

aft Stillwater during the winter of 1958-59, 3 experimental

~rosse~ produce-d at Woodward, and 3 ~ommonly grown hybrids to
I • ---

srrve as cheekso The hybrids and their parents are listed in

Tfble Io
I

TABLE I
THE PEDIGREES OF THE HYBRIDS TESTED

Hybrid Female Male

Oklahoma 5901 Wheatland Y-8

Oklahoma
I
5902 Westland Y-8
Oklahoma 5903 Martin Y-8
Oklahoma 5901+ Combine Kafir-60 Y-8
Oklahoma 5905 Redlan Y-8
Oklahoma 5906 Dwarf Early Redlan Y-8
Oklahoma 5907 Redlan-Kaura 5-1-2 Y-8
Woodward 5601 Wheatland Cody X Dwarf white
I
I Feterita
Woedward 5602 Wheatland Custer
W~odward 5805 Wheatland Cyto#l-Kaura
RS 610 Combine Kafir-60 Combine 7078 -
T~xa~ 660 Combine Kafir-60 Ca pr eek
D~Kalb E56a Commer~ial - - - - closed pedigree
I

The varieties consisted of 12 yellow endo~perm selection~

from the Oklahoma breeding program, most of the parent~ of the

12
 13
I
'
hybrids and four additional promising non-yellow endosperm
s~lectionso The 12 yellow endosperm strains and their parent-
1

a~es are listed in Table IIo

TABLE II
THE PEDIGREES OF TWELVE YELLOW ENDOSPERM SELECTIONS

Variety Female Male

y - 1 Combine Kafir-60 Kaur a

y - 2 White Martin Kaur a
Y:- 3 *
4 * (white)
Te:xioca -63 Kaur a
y·_ Te:xioca -63 Kaur a
Y - 4 * (yellow) Texioea -63 Kaur a
y - 5 Texioea -63 Kaur a
Y. - 6 * Texio~a -63 Kaur a
1·- 7 Redlan Kaur a
y - 8 Redlan Kaur a
y - 9 Redlan Kaur a
Y,- 10 Redlan Kaur a
Y!- 11 Cyto #12 Kaur a

* Waxy endosperm, white or yellow pericap

All 37 entries are shown in Table III along with the
origin of each hybrid and varietyo

TABLE III
THE 37 ENTRIES AND THE ORIGIN OF EACH HYBRID AND VARIETY

Entries Variety Of Hybrid Origin

O~lahoma 5901 Hybrid Oklahoma

Olclahoma 5902 Hybrid Oklahoma
Oltlahoma 5903 Hybrid Oklahoma
Oklahoma 590fi. Hybrid Oklahoma
Oklahoma 5905 Hybrid Oklahoma
Oklahoma 5906 Hybrid Oklahoma
Oklahoma 5907 Hybrid Oklahoma
Wlieatland Variety Kansas
 14

TABLE III (Cont 1 d)

I
Wjestland Variety Kansas
Martin Variety Texas
Ciombine Kafir-60 Variety Texas
R:edlan Variety Oklahoma
D:warf Early Redlan Variety Oklahoma
Y: - l Variety Oklahoma
y: - 2 Variety Oklahoma
I

Y: - 3 Variety Oklahoma
Y! - 4 (white) Variety Oklahoma
Y, - 4 (yellow) Variety Oklahoma
y - 5 Variety Oklahoma
y; - 6 Variety Oklahoma
y: - 7 Variety Oklahoma
YI - 8 Variety
Variety
Oklahoma
Okla.homa
y - 9
Y - 10 Variety Oklahoma
Y - 11 Variety Oklahoma
Wpodward 5601 Hybrid. Oklahoma
Wpodward 5602 Hybrid Oklahoma
Woodward 580 5 Hybrid Oklahoma
RS 610 Hybrid Texas
Texas 660 Hybrid Texas
D~Kalb E56a Hybrid DeKalb Seed Co.,
T~n Redlan Variety Oklahoma
Dwarf Early Red Kafir 4-1-4 Variety Oklahoma
Dwarf Early Red Kafir 8-2 Variety Oklahoma
811-Redlan Variety Oklahoma
Combine 7078 Variety Texas
Cap:rock Variety Texas

The experiment was conducted at four locations in Okla-

hbma, namely,Perkins, Mangum, Woodward, and Goodwello At each
location, the 37 entries were planted in a randomized complete
I
I
block design, using four replicationso
I
The planting dates were
I

Jihne 10 for Perkins and Goodwell, and June 18 and 19 for Wood-
wtrd and Mangum, respeetivelyo Single rows ~O inches apart
a!d approximately 40 feet long served as plotso The seed were
tteated with Arasan, and the usual ©ultural practices for each
I
area were followedo
I
 15

Chinch bugs caused some damage to susceptible varieties

ib the test at Perkinso Dield:rin was used as a control mea-
s:ureo Also, there was poor emergence of the hybrids whose
planting seed was produced in the Stillwater greenhouseo
Consequently, a second test was sown June 300 Better stands
were obtained but webworm damage was severe and only the
first planting was harvestedo
The Mangum experiment was not established from the first
planting and was replanted on June 190 This was an excellent
'1

test with the exception of insect (midge) damage to Y - 10,

I

a: late maturing yellow endosperm selectiono

!

At Woodward the experiment was established and carried

through, but the results were obtained too late to be includ-
e~ in this studyo The Goodwell test was sown on preirrigated
land, but extremely dry, windy weather immediately after plant-
ing dried out the soil and resulted in stands too erratic for
reliable dataa The experiment was not harvestedo
The data included in this study were obtained from Per-
k;ins and Mangumo
The observed characteristics presented in this study are
divided into two groups: (1) yield and other agronomic charac-
teristicsj including days to bloom, plant height, head length,
bushel weight, weight of 1,000 seed, tiller percentage, lodg-
ing percentage, and threshing percentage, and (2) chemical
I

characteristics including protein, and carotenoid pigment con-

t~nto These characteristics were studied at both locations,
except for carotenoid pigments, which were determined only on
 16

the Mangum materialo The characteristics are described in

more detail belowo
G4ain yield --- The weight of threshed grain in pounds
per aereo All the heads were harvested from 26 feet (1/500th
acre) of each single row ploto Where plants were missing or
skips in the,row occured within the 26 feet of row, additio~al
material was harvested from a similar area in the border., The
heads were put in sacks and allowed to air dry before thresh-

Days .:t,Q bloom --- The average number of days from plant-
ip.g to bloomingG>
i .
· Plant height --- The height in inches from the soil sur-
face to the top of the headso Five plants were chosen at
random and measured at harvest in eaeh ploto
Head length --- The length in inches of the main heads
from the basal node to the topo This measurements came from
the same plants selected for plant height.,
Bushel weight --- The weight of grain in pounds per bush-
el as determined by standard apparatus.,

Weight J2f 1 3 000 seed --- Ten times the weight in grams
of 100 kernels selected at random from the bushel weight

Tiller percentage --- The average percentage of tillering

i
a;s determined by the ratio of tillers to total plants per ploto
i

Lodging percentage --- The average percentage of lodging

as determined by the ratio of lodged plants to total plants
per plo'tio
 17

Threshing percentage --- The average percentage of thresh-

ing as determined by the ratio of threshed grain weight to
i
h:ead weight per plot., The head weight was determined as the
weight of the harvested material before threshing.,
Protein percentage --- The total nitrogen as determined
by the Improved Kjeldahl method (15 Po 12) multiplied by 6.,250
Carotenoid pigments --- The carotene, xanthophyll, and
total carotenoid pigments as determined by a combination of
m~thods (4, 5, 15 Po 816-817, 41)<> These tests were made only
!
on the material from Mangumo
I
The samples for analysis were
••,.

drawn
I
from a composite of equal amounts of grain from the four
replications and ground through 60 mesh screeno In addition
to the 37 entries, four possible combinations of the yellow
I
aµd non-yellow endosperm hybrids were used to study dosage
!
effeeto They were non-yellow times non-yellow, non-yellow
times yellow, yellow times non-yellow, and yellow times yellowo
This hybrid grain was either produced in the greenhouse or in
the field and the grain was proteeted by bagging the head
after pollinationo Yellow corn wa~ used for comparison in
all the determinationso
 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For convenience of discussion, the entries have been

~lassified into four groups: (1) eight hybrids seven of which
were made up with yellow endosperm pollinators and one of
which was made up with both yellow endosperm seed parent and
pollinator; (2) twelve yellow endosperm strains which includ-
ed Y - 1 to Y - 11; (3) five non-yellow endosperm hybrids
which included two Woodward hybrids-- 5601 and 5602, RS 610,
Texas 660 and one commercial hybrid-- DeKalb E56a; and (4)
twelve non-yellow endosperm varieties which included fertile
counterparts of the six varieties used as the female parents
in the yellow endosperm hybrids, Tan Redlan, Dwarf Early Red
Kafir 4-1-4, Dwarf Early Red Kafir 8-2, 811-Redlan, Combine
7078 'and Caprocko
The climatic conditions during the growing season were
more favorable at Mangum than at Perkinso At Mangum, the
crop stood well and developed normally; while at Perkins
there was severe lodging due to strong wind accompanied with
heavy rain in early Septembero Excessive rainfall continued
t9rough September and October at Perkinso Some of the seed
I

on!
the heads germinated and severe weathering of grain occurr-
i
ed!o Consequently, there was some loss of grain in the field,
and some quality characters may have been influencedo Damage
was more serious at Perkins than at Mangum from diseases and

18
 19

iil.sects such as charcoal rot, chineh bug, midge and sorghum

i
webwormo These appeared in the field during different growth
I
'
p:eriods of the cropo For this reason, the experimental re-
sults from Mangum were considered more reliable than those
from Perkinso
All of the observed characteristics reported will be dis-
cussed in the following order: grain yield, days to bloom,
plant height, head length, bushel weight, weight of 1,000
seed, tillering per©entage, lodging percentage, threshing per-
centage, protein content, and earotenoid pigments eontento
'
F;ollowing the discussion of these observations, some relation-
~hips or correlations among the characteristics are presented
and diSCU$S0do
The results have been grouped in two wayso The first
gives a comparison of hybrids with varieties, while the sec-
ond gives a comparison of yellow endosperm types with non-
yellow endosperm types for both hybrids and varietieso

Agronomic Characteristics

The summaries of the data on agronomic characteristics

are presented in Tables IV and V for Perkins and Mangum, re-
spectively.,

Grain yield~

Grain yields in pounds per acre are given in Tables IV

aµd V, column 1, for Perkins and Mangum, respec~ivelyo The
!

entries in the table are listed according to the magnitude

I

.. ~t .-' ... ,,. ·.'

 TABIB IV
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENT AGRONOMIC CHJI.RJ.CTERISTICS OF SOME GRAIN SORGHUM VJIRIET.IES J!.ND HYBRIDS ftT PERKINS, OKIJI.BOW, 1959
--· ---··- ----------
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rank Variety or Hybrid Gr Bin Multiple* DPys to Ple>nt Heed Bushel· Weight/ Tillering Lodgi.ng Threshing
In Yield RPnge Bloom Height Length Weight 1,000
Yield Test Seed
lbs/Pere dPy · inch inch lbs/bu. gri,m j 1 %

1 Woodward 5601 4190 60 63.6 12. 7 58.l 34.2 5.7 35.4 77.4
2 Oklahoma 5903 3940 58 z1., . 13.6 58.8 29.9 19.3 33.2 78~2
Oklahoma 5901 3815 59 7.5 13.6 57.6 29.9 41.1 ll.O 79.6
-~ Oklahoma 5g04 3450 60 50.6 13.8 57.l 29.9 37.8 lt-0.o 78.2 '~
5
6
RS 610
Woodward .5602
3415·
3400
'1 58
56
~.8
42.3
10.2
11.7
56.0
58.0
30.1
28.6
6.8
5.1
33.4
.8.8
78.4
79.5
Oklahoma 5905 3390 60 i1.o 13.8 57.5 27.6 .32.3 24.9 77.2
-~ DeKalb E56a 331+0 57 9.6 12.1+ 57.3 28.5 10.7 34.2 76.~
10
11
9 Oklahoma 5906
Wheatland
Oklahoma 5907
3300
3300
3200
59
61
57
48.1+
38.3
z1.9
11+.~
10.
15.3
57.l
58.0
55.8
28.5
33.0
29.6
26.3
ll.9
18.9
13.2
2.0
8.4
r· 0.7
76.6
l.2 Oklahoma 5902 3175 57 8.5 13.9 57.1 27.8 31.8 28.0 75.6
Texas 660 311+0 61 46.9 11.2 57.0 30.7 11+.1 18.6 76.5
i~
15
Redlan
Y-11
311+0
291+0
62
61
48.7 9.7
13,.0
58.0
51+. 5
28.5
32.3
4.1
l+.6
21.6
37.5
80.2
69.7
16 Ten-Redlen 2925 61 ~-1+ l.0.3 8.1
.9 58.5 25.7 . 1.0 78.3
Combine Kafir-60· 2900 61 46.1+ . 9.6 56.9 29.1+ 7.5 26.5 77.6
i~
19
Martin
Y-9
2825
2765
61
59
1+5. 5 n.1+
12.l
59-~
55.
29.1+
33.3
6.1
12.3
ll-5
4.6
80.l
76.7
20 Cpprock' 271+0 61 a6
3.3 11.2 57.7 28.3 5.0 5.0· 76.8
21 Westland 2725 61 ~9.6 9.8 56.4 28.2 9.9 17.5 78.9
22 Dwarf Early Red Kefir l+-1-1+ 2665 59 0.3 11.5 59.7 26.1 7.9 3.5 78.9
Dwarf Earli Redl~n 2600 59 40.0 11.2 . 55.0 27.6 6.4 . 16.5
~~ Woodward 5 05 ·2z65 52 ~8.8 . 11.5 56.9 39.0 7~8 7-5
77.9
73.7.
25 Y-8 2 75 58 7.5 l~S 53.8 26.8 23.7 l.0.0 75.9
26 8ll-Redlan 2465 62 39.6 .8 56.6 30.0 3-i 75.5
27 Y-7 2440 58 39.7. ll.5 53.9 30.9 10. 1~-5
.4 73.9
28 Y-1 2290 60 · ~5-5 9.2 56.7 3a.1 12.3 1.9 · 72.3
29 Y-5 2150 60 0.2 9.8 56.4 3 .8 6.2 2.8 73.2
30 Dwarf E~rly Red-Kefir 8-2 2025 57 1+0.3 10.6 57.0 32~0 8.6 7.8 73.3
31 Y-1+ (white) 1990 59 42.6 12.8 53.9 30.2 12.7 6.3 72.6
32 Y-6 1865 60 41.8 10.2 51+.2 28.1 9.2 2.2 69.3
Combine 7078 1790
i~
35
Y-3
Y-2
1790
· l. 71+0
63
58
61
37.8
39.4
· ~9.4
9.4
10.7
9.6
51+.4
53.0
51+~ 7
30.1 _ roz.9
35.6
21.9
1 .3
21.2
o.6
2.9
5.3.
'74.1
73.0
67.2
36 Y-1+ (yellow) 1690 59 l. 7 12.1 51+. 7 31.3 12.8 . 3.1 70.3
37 Y-10 1400 65 45.8 10.4 51+. 7 32.0 2.2 6.5 61.9

Average 2755.5 59.6 44.8 ll.6 56.4 30.1 15.8

Variety 2401.5 60.4 42.4 10.9 56.0 29.9 13.6 ~-8 ~-5
.9 .5
Hybrid 31+09.2 58.1. 49.1 12.'9 57.3 30.3 19.8 22.8 77.3

5% -
--
L.S.D. 471 1.61 1.8 . l..27 2.19
1% 625 2.11+ 2.4 1.68 2.91
c;v. 12.2 1.93 2.9 1.13 5.21

* Any two means not underscored by the same line are significantly different Pt 5 percent level.
Any two .means underscored by the.same l.ine ere not significantly different Pt 5 percent level~
I\)
0
 T/.BIE V
SUl!:-!ARY. OF DIFFEREt!T AGRO!iOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF sm!E CRf,.Ill SORGH:I:-r Vt.RIFTIFS AND HYBRIDS n .J.!ANGU:-1,
. OKLAHOH/1,
. ;1.959
----- ·- -- -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io
Rank VPriety ,.or Hybrid Grl'in Multiple* D»ys to Pl•mt F.ePd Bushel Weight/ Tillering ·Lodging** Threshing
In Yield RPnge Bloom' Height Leng.th Weight 1,000
Yield Test Seed
.lbs/l-cre . dPy inch inch lbs/bu gr,Sl!J % % . :c
1 WoodWAl"d 5601 6800 55 50.4 12.4 59.2 32.4 29.0 79.9
2 Texas 660 5075 57 . 41.5 11.1 59.3 28.1 19.~ 77.3
60 .
~
5
6
Oklahom" 5905
RS 616
OklahomP. 5901
Woodward 5602
5000
487.5
4840
4825
55
56
56
· 45.7
40.8
42.8
12.7
. 9. 7
12.0
10.9
59.0
58.6
59.0
59.8
26.0
28.2
27.8
28.5
32.
31.9
. 36.1
27.8
i7-5
2.6
79.0
81.8
·~
~9-3
Okleihoma 5906 4750 57 3.2 13~0 58.6 24.9 32.7
§ Westl,md 4600 57 ~5.6 9.4 .. ·59.3 28.9 57.1
~9-7
9.7
9 OklahomP 5904 4550 57 5.6 12~9 58.2 26.6 52.7 77.6
10
11
TP.n Redlan
Redl"n
'4365
4325
61.
63
34.9
40.5
10.3 60.6
59.9 2
2i.e
.7
30.a
25.5
80.6
8l.6
12 . OklehomP. 5903 4315 56 .45.3 i~:§ 60.0 26. 5 · 35.8
24.9.
80.4
OklAhomP. 5907 4100 43.5 14~0 58.2 23.1
i~
15
W)leAtlPnd
Okll'homa 5902
4075
4065
54'
59
55
~2.0
3.1
9.3
12.5
59.3
58.9
33.9
26.5
28.4 .·
21.9
.
. is,;
1.i
77.
1'6
17
18
DeKel·b E561'
.Ceprock ·
WoodwPrd 5805
3975
3940
3890 I
56
59
·51
43.2
37.9
33.8
11.9 ·
10.5
10.9
59.2
.59.0
.58.1
28.4
29~1
31,6
~ZJ
17.2
81.l
79,6
80.4
19 Com~ine Kefir-60 3740 I 60 38.8 . 9.8 ,a. 9 27.9 . · 21.4 ' zg.5
20 Combine 7078' 3665 :1 59 32.6 8.7 57,6 30.7 ', . 28.:6
21
22
Martin
Y-9
3600
~tgg I 58
57
~9.4
3.4
10.7
11.l+
60.0
~-2
27~3
. 33{
· 22.0
18.5
· 79:l
79,3
. 811-Redlan 63 37r0 8.7 •7 32 • 77.'S
~~
. 17.9
Dwarf Early Red Kefir 8-2 3300 55 35.8 9.8 59.2 26.l · 2i.6 · 80,7
25 .Y-7 3290 J 1 57 38.i 10.9 57.3 . 31~6. · 2 .• 3 80.2
26
27
Y-2
Y-11
3275
3240 I 59
59
~4 '.
3.0
9.1
13.2
57.6
58.5
25.4'
32.0.
29.z
21~ 77-i
70, .
28 l)wprf EP.rly Redlan 3165 I 60
9;,
36.7 . 10.7 57.8 26.5 52,7 83.2
29
30
Y-i
Y- .
3075
3050 I 58
34.5
40.8
9.6
12.5
57.8
56.4
30.7
26.6
26.2
20.1
. 79,6
· 8.o.a
Y-4 (white) 2990 55 39.3 11. 7 57.3 27,9 29.3
~~
~~.
Y-1
Dwarf Early Red Kafir 4-1-4
'i.,.J+ (yellow)
Y-5 .. .
2940
2900
2725 11
59
58
5?
31.2
35.8
~8. 7
6.4
8.2
l0,3
11~9
9,0
58.1
60.8
28.1
24.5
58.5 ' 28.3
3~.2.
2 4 ,'
17:6 .-
t:i
' · f-3
1.0 ·
35 25li 59 58.6 31.5 24,5
36 Y-6 242 57. 38.8 10.0 57~1 26.2 28.8 ?1.6
37 Y-10 740 62. 39.2 10.2 55.5 28.3 29.4 45,7

Average 3780.8 57,5 39.3 .10.9 58.6 28.5 28.4 '78,3

Vari.ety 3284.6 58.§ ~7-3 . 10.2 · 58,4 28.• 8 27.8 .77.7
Hybrid 4696. 9 55. 2.9 12.• 0 58,9 27.8 29,7 79,5

L,S.D. 5%
c.v.
1%
686
912.
13.0
1.8
2.4
2,3
2.1
2,8
3~8
·-
-- 0,65
o.86.
0~ 7.9.
2.00
· 2.66
5.04
-
--
~
---
* Any two means not ::nderscored by the..s ..1,e line are significantly different Pt 5· percent. l.evel.
An:y two means underscored by the sa1:1e line .,,re not si.gnii'ic,,ntly different "t 5 percent level,
I\)
"*i'lo ·1odgine occurred in this test.
f-'
 22

the grain yieldo

The ana.lys$s of variance of' grain yield are listed in
VI (Perkins) and VII (Mangum). To test the signifi-
c1anee of differences for grain yield among the entries, both
the least significant difference method (37) and the new
m~ltiple range test (22) were used., The former has been a
i
pppular method and is more commonly used than the latter ..
I
Bµt in an experiment with a large number of entries, the lat-
i

ter is more appropriately used .. The least significant dif'-

rfrenees are indicated at the bottom of Table IV and V.
Tfe grain yield of the yellow endosperm entries and non-
y¢llow endosperm entries showed highly significant differ-
e~ces in both varieties and hybrids for both locations. The
nrn-yellow endosperm entries produced m~re grain than the
y~llow endosperm entrieso The new multiple range test fo~
'

the grain yield is shown in column 2 of Table IV and V ..

;
!

Among the 37 entries, Woodward 5601 was the leadi'ng one

i* I
grain yield, and Y-10 was the lowest at both locations ..
Atcording to previous observations Y-10 should have performed
b~tter, perhaps equal to Y-8 in grain yield among the yellow
e~dosperm strainso Y-10, however, was rather late in maturi-
tyI
1

and was more subject to attack by the sorgh~ midge .. The

. :,,
m~dge population built up during the season .. At Mangum Y-10
wfs almost completely destroyed by this in.sect while o.ther
virieties which bloomed only a few,days earlier escaped notice-
aole damageo Among the yellow eftdosperm varieties, Y-9 pro-
d~ced the highest yield, and Y-10 the lowest yield, while Y-8
I
 TABLE VI
-~---- -- -~---~

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GRAIN YIELD (POUNDS PER PLOT} AT PERKINS, 1959

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

Freedom

Total +47 324004

Replication 3 7o90
Entry 36 267,,37 70427**
Variety vs., hybrid l 137901 1370010**
Among Variety 23 99,.07 40307**
Yellow vso non-yellow 1 28,.82 280820**
Among l~llow 11 38012 30466**
Among non~Yellow 11 32012 20920**
Among Hybrid 12 31030 2.,608*-~ -
Yellow vs., non-yellow 1 Oo82 0.,820*
Amo:ng yellow 6 8052 1 .. 418~*
Among non-yellow 5 21.,96 4 .. 392>i!:*
Error 108 48077 o.,452

* .Significant .difference at 5 percent level"

**Signifieantdtfference at 1 percent level ..

I\)
w
 TABLE VII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GRAIN YIELD (POUNDS PER PLOT) AT MANGUM, 1959

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

Freedom

Total 147 716032

Replication 3 7 .. 85
Ent;-y 36 60l+o82 160801**
Variety vso·hybrid 1 269,,30 2690300**
.Among variety 23 226019 9.,834**
. Yellow vs o non-yellow 1 85 .. 50 850 500**
Among yellow 11 92 .. 82 80438**
Among non-yellow 11 '- 1t7 . 87 1toJ52**
Among hybrid 12 109a33 9 .. 111**
Yellow vso non-yellow 1 7,,86 7.. 860**
Among yellow 6 13 .. 03 20172**
Among non-yellow 5 88 .. 1+4 17 .. 688**
E:rror 108 103 .. 65 0 .. 960

**Stg_n:ifj ~ant difference at 1 percent level,,

~
 25

~a.nged almost halfway between the two at both l9cations., A-

mong the non-yellow varieties, Wheatland produced the highest

yield at Perkins and We3tland at Mangum" Due to the chinch
I

bug, Combine 7078 gave a low yield at Perkins, but yielded

well at Mangumo Among the yellow endosperm hybrids, Oklahoma.
5903 and 5901 were promising at Perkins, and Oklahoma 5905
and 5901 at Mangumo Among the non-yellow hybrids, Woodward
5601 was the highest yielder at both locations, however, it
i~ too tall for combine harvest"
A comparison of the average yield of the 24 varieties

and strains with the average yield of 13 hybrids, revealed

that the hybrids yielded 1,000 pounds per acre or more (over
l+Q percent) than the varietie~o See Table VIII'°
Since both parents of eight of the hybrid! were included
in the te~t, comparisons could be made between the hybrids
and their parents@ Six of the hybrids had a common yellow
endosperm pollen parento Two of the hybrids did not involve
yellow endosperm1 but they are commonly grown and are well
adapted hyb:ridso The yields of the hybrids t:md their p?rents
are given in Table IX for both Perkins and MangumQ Compared
to an average of the standard hybrids (RS 610 and Texas 660),
Oklahoma 5903 and 5901 produced significantly more grain at
Perkins'° At Mangum, the two highest yielding yellow endosperm
hyprids, Oklahoma 5905 and 5901 did not yield significantly
i

different from the checks., The lowe~t yielding hyhrid 7 Okla-

ho1na 5902, produced significantly les$ grain than the checks ..
!

The commercial hybrid, DeKalb E56a, yielded 3340 and 3975

 TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF GRAIN YIELD ·OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW ENDO-
SPERM VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM. 1959
Unit: Pound~_ner acre
Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum Average
Hybrid

Yellow(l2)* Aver§ge
2.126 2812
2469
Range 1400-2~40 740-3490
Average 2674 3755
Varieties Non-yellow 3215
(24) * (12) Range 1790-3300 2900-4600
Average 2402 3284
2842
Ran,ge .J.400-3300 740-4600
.Averag~ 3354 4438
Yellow (8) 3896
Range 2565-3940. 3890-5000
._··. ·, I Average 3551 5110
Hybrids· ·Non-yellow 4331
(l,J) (5) Range 3_140-4190 3975+.6800
Atrerage 3429 4697
4053
Range 2565-4190 3890...i6800
!\)
Hybrid increase above the average of varieties 1027 1413 1220 °'
li-3% 43% li-3%

* The arable: number in the parathesis show the number of varieties or hybrid~o
 TABLE IX
GRAIN YIELD OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTSj 1959

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

variety Pounds/acre F1 Peunds/acre Variety Pounds/acre

PERKINS
Wheatland 3300 Oklahoma 5901 3815 Y-8 ~7?
Wheatland 2725 Oklahoma 5902 3175 Y-8 2475
Martin 2825 Okiahoma 5903 394o Y~8 2475
Combine Kafir-60 2900 Oklahoma 5904 3450 Y-8 2475
Redlan 3140 Oklahoma 5905 3390 Y-8 2475
Dwarf Early Redlan 2600 Oklahoma 5906 3300 Y-8 2475
Combine Kafir-60 2900 RS 610 3415 Combine 7078 1790
Combine Kafir-60 2900 Texas 660 3140 Caprock 2740

Average 2911 31+5"3 2423

Hybrid increase above 29 .. 5%

average of parent~

LoSoDc -- 471 a,nd 625 pounds per acre at 5 percent and l percent level, respectivelyG

I\)
"'-J
 TABLE IX (Continued)

Female Parent Hybritl Male Parent

Variety Pounds7acre F1 Pounds/acre Variety Pounds/acre

MANGUM

Wheatland 4075 Oklahoma 5901 1+840 Y-8 3050

Westland 4600 Oklahoma 5902 l+065 Y-8 3050
Martin 3600 Oklahoma 5903 4315 Y-8 3050
Combine Kafir-60 3740 Oklahoma 5904 4550 Y-8 3050
fi.edlan 4325 Oklahoma 5905 5000 Y-8 3050
Dwarf Early Redlan 3165 Oklahoma 5906 1+750 Y-8 3050
Combine Kafir-60 3740 RS 610 1+875 Combine 7078 3665
Combine Kafir-60 3'740 Texas 660 5075 Caprock 3940

Average 38'73 4684 323b

Hybrid increase abov~

average of parents 3lo7'/o

LoSoDo -- 686 and 912 pounds per acre at 5 pere.ent and l percent level, re spec ti vely o

I\)
OJ
 29

p:ounds per acre at Perkins and Mangum, re spec ti vely., It rang-

ed between RS 610 and Texas 660 at Perkins and lower than both
at Mangum ..
The average yj_elds from the two locations showed rather
small differences between the yellow endosperm hybrids and the
~tandards"'
When all eight hybrids in Table IX are compared with their
parental lines, the hybrids produced about 30 percent more
grain than the average of both parents~

J)an to Bloom%

The data for days to bloom are given in column 3 of Tables

IV and V for Perkins and Mangum, respectivelyQ The days to
bloom at Perkins were about 2 days later than at MangumQ This
was not expected since the pla.nting dates were June 10 a.t Per-
kins and June 19 at Mangum"
The analyses of variance of days to bloom are given in
Tables X and XI for Perkins and Mangum, respectively" Among
the 37 entries, Y-10, Redlan, and 811-Redlan were relatively
late t0 bloom., They :required about 63 days at Perkins, and
about 61 days at Mangum., Woodward 5805 bloomed in les$ than
52 day~:1 and was the earliest entry at both locations" Com-
pared to the varieties, the hybrids bloomed 3 days earlier at
both locations (Table XII)" The eight hybrids, compared with
their parents, bloomed 1 day earlier at Perkins and 2.,4 days
earlier at Mangum (Table XIII)o In general, it appeared that
the hybrids: were earlier in blooming than the average of
 30

TABLE X

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DAYS TO BLOOM AT PERKINS, 1959

I
S!cmrce of Variation Degrees af Sum of Squares Mean Square
Freedom

Total 147 1043

Replication 3 162
Entry 36 737 20 .. 47**
Error 108 144 1 .. 33
:
'
**Significant difference at
I
1 percent level ..
I!

TABLE XI.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR DAYS TO BLOOM AT MANGUM, 1959

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

I Freedom
I

Total 147 1103

R,plications 3 10
!

Eri.try 36 910 25028**

i
EFror 108 183 1 .. 69
i
i
'

*tSignifieant difference at 1 percent level.,

I
 TABLE XII
croMPARISC5N-OF DAYS TO BLOOM OF VARIETIES VS o HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW ENDOSPERM
VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND }fANGUM~ 1959
Unit: dav
Variety o~~ Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum Average
Hvbrid

58 .. o-64 .. 8 54 .. 0-62.,0
Average 60,,9 59.,2
Varieties Non-yellqw 60 .. l
(2'+)* (12) Range 57,,5-63 .. 3 55,,0-63.,0
.Average 60 .. 4 58a5
59 .. 5
Range 57o5-64.,8 54 .. 0-63.,0
.Average 57 .. 9 55 .. 6
Yellow (8) _56<>8
Range 52 .. 3-60.,5 5L,3-59 .. 8
.Average 58 .. 4 55 .. 7
Hybrid~ Non-yellow 57ol
(13) (5) Range 55.,8-61 .. 0 55o3-56,.5
.Average 58"1 5508
57 .. 0
Range 520 3-6lo"O 5'lo 3-59 .. 8
Hybrid decrease below the average
of varieties 2 .. 3 2o7 2 .. 5

* The arabic number in the parathesis shows. the number of varieties or hybrids .. vJ
1-1
 TABLE XIII
DAYS TO BLOOM OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female -P..a.r1aD.t Hybrid M:ale Parent-

Variety .Dav·$
., F1 Days Variety Days

PERKINS

Wheatland 61 Oklahoma-5901 59 Y-8 58

Westland 61 Oklahoma 5902 57 Y-8 '58
Martin 61 Oklahoma 5903 58 Y-8 58
Combine Kafir-60 61 Oklahoma 5904 60 Y-8 58
Redlan 62 Oklahoma 5905 60 Y-8 58
Dwarf Early Redlan 59 Oklahoma 5906 59 Y-8 58
Combine Kafir-60 61 RS 610 58 Combine 7078 63
Combine Kafir-60 61 Texas 660 61 Caprock 61

Average 60o9 59.,0 59GO

Hybrid increase above L,0 day

average of parents

LaSoDc -- lo61 and 2ol4 days at 5 perdent and 1 percent level, respectivelyQ
(JJ
I\)
 TABLE XIII (Continued)

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety ·· Days Fl Days Variety - -----Uays

MANGUM

Wheatland 59 Okl~homa 5901 56 Y-8 58

Westland 57 Oklahoma 5902 55 Y-8 58
Martin 58 Oklahoma 5903 56 Y-8 58
Combine Kafir-60 60 Oklahoma 5904 57 Y-8 58
Redlan 63 Oklahoma 5905 · 60 Y-8 58
Dwarf Early Redlan 60 Oklahoma 5906 57 Y-8 58
Combine Kafir-60 6D RS 610 55 Combine 7078 59
Combine Kafir-60 60 Texas 660 57 Caprock 59

.Average 5906 56 .. 6 58ca3

Hybrid increase above

average of p~rents 2o4 days

LoSoDo -- 1o82 and 2o42 day$ at 5 percent and 1 percent level, respectively"

(..,,.1
v,.l
 34
i
p~rentso The same conclusion was reported by Quinby, et alQ
(29) and Davies (9)o

Among the varieties, the days to bloom ranged from 58

to 65 days at Perkins and from 54 to 63 days at Mangum (Table
XII)o Dwarf Early Red Kafir 8-2 and Y-3 were early; Redlan
and Y-10 were late at both locations; and Y-8 ranged in be-
tweeno Combine 7078 bloomed 5 days earlier at Mangum than
at Perkinso The chinch bug infestation during the seedling
stage at Perkins delayed its blooming dateo

Plant height:
The plant height data are presented in column 4 of Tables
IV and V for Perkins and Mangum, respectivelyo The average
height of the plants at Perkins was about 5 inches taller than
at Mangum" Seasonal conditions and geographic location are
probably responsible for the difference" Woodward· 5601 was the
tallest entry at both locations, measuring 64 inches at Perkins
and 50 ·inches at Mangumo The shortest entry was Y-1, being
only 35 inches in height a.t Perkins and 31 inches at Mangum.,
'.
Y-9 and Y-11 approached being to0 tall for combine harve~tingQ
The hybrids produced with Y-8 a~ the pollen parent were taller
than desiredo Woodward 5602 wa~ enly 42 inche~ in height at
Perkins and 39 inches at Mangum~
The analys.es of variance for plant height are given in
T~bles XIV and XV for Perkins and Mangum, respectively@ High-
ly significant differences are indicated for entrie$Q
 35

TABLE XIV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PtANT HEIGHT AT PERKINS) 1959

Source of VPriation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

Freedom

Total 147 5003,, 78

Replication 3 12 .. 11
Entry 36 4807 .. 38 133.538**
Error 108 184029 1 .. 706

**Significant difference at 1 percent levelQ

TABLE XV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PLANT HEIGHT AT MANGUM, 1959

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

1,
Freedom

Total 147 2923042

RepliiC;ation 3 21o87
E~try 36 2666003 740056**
i

E::r:ror 108 2350 52 20181

** ,Significant
1

difference at 1 percent level,.

 I
I
36
I

I
A comparison of the average height of all varietie5 with
I
the average height of all hybrids (Table XVI) showed that the
',

hybrids were 607 inche~ (Perkins) ~pd 506 inches (Mangum)

!

taller than the varieties .. Table XVII presents data on the

eight hybrids studied as a group, and again the hybrids averaged
4, inches (Perkins) and 5 inches (Mangum) taller than the par-
ent varietieso
These data are in agreement with observations of' Davie!
(9) in Oklahoma and Clapp (7) in Kansas who found the hybrids
w~re 4o7 and 5o1 inches taller than check varieties ..
I

~ length~

The data for head length may be found in column 5 of

Table IV and Vo These data indicated that the average head
l+ngth at Perkins (1106 inches) was about one inch longer than
at Mangum (10o9 inches)o Among the 37 entries, head length
ranged from 808 to 15o4 inches in length at Perkins and from
8"2 to 14o0 inches at Mangum (Table X~III)., The hybrid,
Oklahoma 5907, bad the longest heads, end the variety, Y-1,
!

had the shortest heads at both locations" All the hybrids

produced with Y-8 as a pollen parent as w~ll a~ Y-8 itself
bad long head~" The average head length of all varietie~
w~s 10o9 and of all hybrids was 12"9 inches at Perkins, while
I

s:1milar data for Mangum were 10.,2 and 12.,0 inches"

1
This rep-
:r~sented a d:J.,fference of about 2 inches between varieties and
I
i
hybrids which is in agreement with results obtained by Khan
!

(20) 0

I
!
 TABLE XVI
COMPARISON OF PLANT HEIGHT OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW ENDOSPERM
VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959
UnLt i Inches
variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum .Average
Hybri_d
Average l+J:l 18 .. 2
Yellow (12)* 40o7
Range 35Q6-52Q4 3102-43 .. 4
Average 41 .. 7 36.,4
Varieties Non-yellow 39 .. 1
(24)* (12) Range 37 .. 8-48 .. 7 32 .. 0-40 .. 5
Average 42 .. 4 37.,3
39 .. 9
Range 35 .. 6-52 .. 4 31Q2-43 .. 4
Average-~------------~1+8 .. ,---- · ---~2 .. 9 -----------
Yellow (8) - 45 .. 7
Range 38 .. 9-51 .. 9 33 .. 8-45 .. 7
Average 49,.9 43 .. 0
Hybrids Non-yellow 46 .. 5
{13) (5) Range 42.,3-63.,7 39.,3-43.,2
Average 49 .. 1 42 .. 9
46 .. o
Range 38 .. 9-63 .. 7 33 .. 8-ll5 .. 7
Hybrid increase above the average
of varieties 6.,7 5.,6 6 .. 2
* The arabic number in the paratbesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids., w
---J
 TABLE XVII
PLANT HEIGHT OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH TEEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Pa_rent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety Inches Fl Inches Variety Inches

PERKINS

Wheatland 38 .. 3 Oklahoma 5901 47 .. 5 Y~8 47.,5

Westland 3906 Oklahoma 5902 48 .. 5 Y-8 47 .. 5
Martin 45o5 Oklahoma 5903 51 .. 5 Y-8 47 .. 5
Combine Kafi:r,ipO 46 .. 4 Oklahoma 5904 50o6 Y-8 47o5
Redlan · 48 .. 7 Oklahoma 5905 51 .. 0 Y-8 47 .. 5
Dwarf Ear11 Redlan 40o0 Oklafloma 5906 48 .. 4 Y-8 47 .. 5
Combine Kafir-60 46o4 RS 610 46 .. 8 Cembine 7078 37 .. 8
Combine Kafir-60 46 .. 4 Texas 660 46o9 Caprock G-3 .. 3

Average 43o9 48.,9 45 .. 8

Hybrid increase above 4 .. o inches

average of parents·

LoSoDo -- 1 .. 83 and 2o43 inches at 5 percent and 1 percent level, respectively ..

w
CX)
 TABLE XVII (Continued)

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety Inches F1 Inches Variety Inches

MANGUM

Wheatland 32o0 Oklahoma 5901 42"8 Y-8 4008

Westland 3506 Oklahoma 5902 43ol Y-8 4008
Martin 39o4 Oklahoma 5903 45o3 Y-8 4008
Combine Kafi:r.4,-60 38"8 Oklahoma 5904 4506 Y-8 40 .. 8
Redlan
Dwarf Early Redlan
40o5
36;,7
Oklahoma 5905
Oklahoma 5906
45 .. 7
43o2
V
Y-8
-
... 8 4008
40,.8
Combine Kafir-60 3808 RS 610 40 .. 8 Combine 7078 32,,6
Combine Kafir-60 3808 Texas 660 4105' Gaprock 37"9

Average 3706 43"5 39 .. 4

Hybrid increase above

average of parents 5"0 inches

L0S0D0 -- 2o07 and 2o75 inches at 5 percent and I percent level, respectivelyo

w
'°
 TABLE XVIII --~~--

COMPARISON OF HE.AD LENGTH OF VARIETIES VSc HYBRIDS .AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW ENDOSPERM
VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959
Unit: {In~
Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum .Average
Hvbrid
Average lL.4 10 .. 7
Yellow (12)* llol
Range 9o2-13o0 802-13 .. 2
Average 10o4 9 .. 8
Varieties Non-yellow lOol
(24}* (12) Range 808-1105 8 .. 7-1007
.Average 10.,9 10o2
10 .. 6
Range 808-13 .. 0 8 .. 2-1302
.Average 13 .. 8 12 .. 6
Yellow (8) 13o2
Range 11 .. 5-1504 12 .. 0-14 .. o
.Average 11 .. 6 11.2
Hybrid is Non-yellow 11 .. 4
(13) (5) Range 10.,2-12 .. 7 907-12"4
.Average 12 .. 9 12 .. 0
12 .. 5
Range 10 .. 2-15"4 9 .. 7-1400
Hybrid increase above the average 2o0 108 1.,9
of varieties
* The arabic number in the parathesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids.
g
 41

The head length data on the eight hybrids and their par-
ent~ may be found in Table XIXo The head length of all eight
hybrids were longer than the average of their parent~o The
head types and length of the eight hybrids with their parents
are shown in Figures 1 and 2o Among the varieties Y-8 had the
longest heads and Combine 7078 the shortest .. .Among the hy-
bridiS, Oklahoma 5'906 had the longest and RS 610 had the short-
est heads in both testso

The bu;shel weight data are given in column 6 of Table IV

and V,, The average busihel weight of all entries was more
than two pounds per bushel heavier at Mangum than at Perkins ..
Lodging, exce~sive rainfall, and the accompanying weathering
of the grain and germination of seeds in the head probably ac-
counted for the lower bushel weight at Perkins,, Bushel weight
ranged from 53 to 60 pounds per bushel at Perkins and from 56
to 61 pounds per bushel at Mangum .. Dwarf Early Red Ka.fir 4-1-4 9
Tan Redlan, Martin, and Oklahoma 5903 were among the heavieiSt
at bath Perkins and Mangumo The 12 yellow endosperm selection/Sl
were among the lowest for bushel weight0 The analyses of var-
iimce for bu;shel weight are given in Table XX (Perkin~) and
Table XX! (Mangum)., Highly s.ignificant differences were found
I

arpong entrieso
In Table XXII may be found bushel weight compari~cin~ among
varietie~ and hybrids with and without yellow endosperm .. With-
in the varieties, the yellow endosperm selections averaged 54"7
 TABLE XIX
BEAD LENGTH OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Parent Hybrid · Male Parent

Variety Inches F1 Inches Variety Inches

PERKINS

Wheatland 10,.8 Oklahoma 5901 13.,6 Y-8 13<>5

Westland 9.,8 Oklahoma 5902 13,,9 Y-8 13 .. 5
Martin llo4 Oklahoma 5903 1306 Y-8 13o5
Combine Kafir-60 906 Oklahoma 5904 13 .. 8 Y-8 13o5
Redlan 9r;;7 Oklahoma 5905 13 .. 8 Y-8 13,,5
Dwarf Early Redlan 11-~/ Oklahoma 5906 ll+o3 Y-8 13.,5
Combine. Kafir-60 9 oO RS 610. 10o2 Combine 7078 9Q4
Combine Kafir-60 9 .. 6 Texas 660 11<>2 Caprock lL,2

Average 10o2 13.,1 12o7

Hybrid increase above

average of parents 1.,6 inches

+
I\)
 TABLE XIX (Qontinued)

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety In~hes F1 Inches Variety Inches

MANGUM

Wheatland 9o3 Oklahoma ,901 12o0 Y-8 12o9

Westland 9o4 Oklahoma 5902 1205' Y-8 12o9
Martin 10'o7 Oklahoma 5903 120.? Y-8 12o9
Combine Kafir=60 908 Oklahoma 5904 12o9 Y-8 12 .. 9
Redlan 9o5 Oklahoma 5905 12o7 Y-8 12o9
Dwarf Early Redlan 10o7 Oklahoma 5906 13 .. 0 Y-8 12o9
Combine Kafir-60 908 R:tf 610 9o7 Combine 7078 807
Combine Kafir-60 908 Texas 660 llol Caprock 10 .. 5

Average 9o9 12 .. 1 12 .. 1

Hybrid increase above

average of parents lal inches

-I'="'
w
 44

A - 1. Wheatland B - 1. Westland
2. Oklahoma 5901 2. Oklahoma 5902
3. Y - 8 3. Y - 8

C - 1. Ma rtin D - 1. Combine Kafir - 60

2. Oklah oma 5903 2. Okla h oma 5904
3. Y - 8 3. Y - 8
Figure 1. The Hea d Sha pe of F our Hybrids (center) with the ir
F ema l e (left) and f\;.~l e (rir·ht) fa r ents.
 45

E - 1. Redlan F - 1. D·:,a rf Early Redlan

2. Oklahoma 5905 2. Oklahoma 5906
3. Y - 8 3. Y - 8

K - 1. Combine Kafir - 60 L - 1. Combine Kafir - 60

2. RS 610 2. Texa s 660
3. Combine 7078 3. Caprock
Figure 2. The Head Sh3pe of Four Hybrids (center) rri th their
Fe!'lale (left ) and Male (ripht) I-arents.
 46

TABLE XX
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BUSHEL WEIGHT AT PERKINS, 1959

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

Freedom

Total . 147 461 .. 06

Replication 3 0 .. 76
Entry 36 416.22 lL. 562**
Error 108 44 .. 08 o. 408

**Significant difference at 1 percent level a

!

TABLE XXI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BUSHEL WEIGHT AT MANGUM, 1959

S~urce of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

1 Freedom
I

Total 147 196007

Replication 3 0"53
Entry 36 172o57 4Q 794**
Error 108 22097 0 .. 213
I

*+Significant difference at 1 percent level ..

I
I
 TABLE XXII
COMP J\RISON OF BUSHEL WEIGHT OF VARIETIES vs·o -HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VS o NON-YELLOW ENDOSPERM
VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959
Unit: Pounds :Qer Bushel
Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum Average
Hrbrid
Average 54"7 57"6
Yellow (12)* 56o2
Range 53"0-56" 7 5505-58 .. 6
.Average 57o3 59"3
Varieties Non-yellow 58"3
(24)* (12) Range 54"4-5907 57"6-60"8
Average 56oO 58o4
57o2
Range 53"0-590 7 5505-60"8
Average 57"2 58G8
Yellow (8) 58.,0
Range 55 .. 8-58"8 58 .. 1-60<>0
Average 57.,3 59.,2
Hybrids Non-yellow 58 .. 1
(13) (5) Range 56"0-58,,0 5806-59 .. 8
Average 57.,3 58 .. 9
58<>1
Range 55"8-58<>0 58 .. 1-6000
Hybrid increase above the average L.3 0 .. 5 Oa9
of varieties
+
* The arabic number in the para.thesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids" "'-J
 48

pound~ compared to 57o3 pounds per bushel for non-yellow endo-

1

sperm varieties at Perkins ..

I
Similar values from Mangum were
,706 and 59 . 3 pounds per bushelo Among the hybrids the yellow
and non-yellow endosperm crosses had almost identical bushel
weight at both }.locations... Averaged over all, the hybrids had·
~o3 and 0 .. 5 pounds per bushel higher bushel weight than the
varieties, at Perkins and Mangum, respectively ..
Comparisons among the eight hybrids and th(pir parent~
for bushel weight are shown in Table XXIII.. The hyb:r'ids av-.·
e:raged lo 5 pounds. and LO pounds per bushel heavier than the
average of the parents at Perkins and Mangum, respectively,.
A few of the hybrids,had bushel weights in excess ef the
heavier parent,;,;'but· only ,in the case of Oklahoma 5906 was the
hybrid significantly heavier at both loc·ations,. Martin and
its hybrid had the highest bushel weights in both tests,. Y-8
was rather low in bushel weight, but hybrids produced from it
were appro:ximatel,y equal to the heavier parent,. It would
appear that high bushel weight wa$ dominant in the F1 o
These findings may not 'be in c0mplete agreement with
previous results,., Quinby, et alo (29) indicated that bu~hel
weight or hybrid~ was lo4 pounds higher than that of their
parents under irrigation.. Cemrersely, Walter (40) reported
that the bushel weight of hybrids was slightly lower than the
~~andard varietieso
i
Weight of 1 3 000 seed:

The data on weight of 1,000 seed are given in Table IV

 TABLE XXIII
BUSHEL WEIGHT OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959
Unitg Pounds per Bushel
Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent ....
Variety Poundslbu~hel F1 Pounds/bushel Variety Pounds/bushel

PERKINS

Wheatland 58o0 Oklahoma 5901 5706 Y-8 5308

Westland 56o4 Oklahoma 5902 57"1 Y-8 53a8
Martin 59o3 Oklahoma 5903 58a8 Y-8 5308
Combine Kafir-60 56o9 Oklahoma 5904 57al Y-8 5308
Redlan 58o0 Oklahoma.5905 J7o5 Y-8 5308
Dwarf Early Redlan 55oO Oklahoma 5906 57el Y-8 53,,8
Combine Kafir-60 56o9 RS 610 56"0 Combine 7078 54o4
Combine Kafir-60 56o9 Texa~ 660 57o0 Caprock 57"7

Average 5'7o2 57o3 ·5404

Hybrid increase above

average of parents lo5 pounds per bushel

LaSoDo -- lo27 and 1068 pounds per bushel at 5 percent and 1 percent level, respectivelyo

+
'°
 .. TABLE XXIII (Continued

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety Pounds/bushel F1 Pounds/bushel Variety Pounds/bushel

MANGUM

Wheatland 5'9o3 Oklahoma 5901 59o0 Y-8 56<>4-

Westland 59<>3 Oklahoma 5902 58o9 Y-8 5604-
Martin 60o0 Oklahoma 5903 60<>0 Y-8 5604-
Combine Kafir-60 58o9 Oklahoma 5904- 58o2 Y-8 5604-
Redlan 59o9 Oklahoma 5905 59o0 Y-8 5604-
Dwarf Early Redlan 57cr8 Oklahoma 5906 5806 Y-8 5604-
Combine Kafir-60 58o9 RS 610 5806 Comb:i,ne 7078 5706
Combine Kafir-60 58e9 Texas 660 59o3 Caproek 59,.0

Average 5991 59,.0 5699

Hybrid increase above

average of parents loO pounds per bushel

LoSoDo -- Oo65 and 0.,86 pounds per bushel at 5 percent and l percent level, respectively,.

~
 51
i
and v,
i,
column 7, for Perkins and Mangum, respectively .. Seed
I
weights at Perkins averaged 1~6 grams per 1,000 heavier than
at Mangum" Apparently the individual kernels produced at
Mangum were smaller than those produced at Perkins, but they
were not lighter in weight by volume since bushel weight3
averaged heavier at Mangum than at Perkinse
'

'.rhe weights of 1,000 seed ranged from 21o 9 to 39"0 grams

at;, Perk.ins and from 24o5 to 33e9 grams at Mangumo Entries in

the high weight group at Perkins were Woodward 5805 (39QO
gra.m::i;), y .... 3 (3506 grams), Woodward 5601 (34o2 grams), and
'Wheatland (33e0 grams) o Y-2 (21 .. 9 grams), and Tan Redla.n
(25o7 grams) were among the low ones<> Those in the high weight
group at Mangum were Wheatland (33o9 grams), Y-9 _(33"5 grams),
811-Redlan (3208 grams), and Woodward 5601 (32 .. 4 grams)o
Dwarf Early Red Kafir 4-1-4 (2495 grams) had the low weighto
Significant differences among entries were indica.ted in
the analyses of variance, Table XXIV and XXV, at both loca-
tionso
In the comparisons of the yellow vs., non-yellow varieties
iind hybrid~, Table XXVI, the average ·weight of 1,000 seed of

the yellow endosperm varieties was lo9 grams more than that
o:f the non-yellow endosperm varieties at Perkin~ a.nd 0,, 7 gram~

m,Jre at Mangurno The average weight of the non-yellow hybrids

was; approximately the same as the yellow endosperm hybrids at

P~rkins, but at Mangum the non""lyellow hybrids were 2o2 gram~

heaviero
In Table XXVII, the weight of 1,000 seed for the eight
hybrids and their parents :revealed that the average o:e the
 52

TABLE XXIV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR WEIGHT OF 1,000 SEED
. AT PERKINS, 1959

~ource of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

Freedom
I
I
~otal 147 1592,.81
!
ijeplication 3 9.,77
i
Entry
I
36 1318.,82 36 .. 634**
Error 108 264 .. 22 2 .. 449

*\*Significant difference at 1 percent level ..

!
'

TABLE XXV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR WEIGHT OF 1,000 SEED
AT MANGUM, 1959

Source of Variation. Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

i Freedom
I

Total 147 1188., 76

R;eplication 3 13051
!
Er try 36 954 .. 59 260516**
Error 108 220066 20043
I
~~'

+Signifieant difference at 1 percent level.,

I

I!
 TABLE XXVI
COMPARISON OF WEIGHT OF 1,000 SEED OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRI-DS .AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW
ENDOSPERM VARIETIES .AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959
Unit: Gram
Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum Average
Hybrid
Average 30,.9 29,.2
Yellow (12)* 30 .. 1
Range 2L,9-34.,8 25,.4-33 .. 5
Avera_ge 29o0 28 .. 5
Varieties Non-yellow 28 .. 8
(24)* (12) Range 25,.7-33.,0 24,.1-33 .. 9
Average 2~ .. 9 28 .. 8
29 .. 4
Range 21., 9-34 .. 8 24.,1-33 .. 9
Average 30o3 26.,9
Yellow (8) 28 .. 6
Range 27 .. 6-39,.0 24G)9-27 .. 8
Average 30 .. 4 29 .. 1
Hybrids Non-yellow 29.,8
(13) (5) Range 28 .. 5-34 .. 2 28.,1-32,.4
Average 36 .. 3 27 .. 8
29 .. l
Range 2706-39,.0 24,.9-32 .. 4
Hybrid increase above the -verage o.. 4 -1 .. 0 -0.,3
of varieties
* The arabie number in the parathesis shows the number of varieties o~ hybridsa ~
 TABLE XXVII
WEIGHT OF 1;000 SEED OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Parent H~brid Male Parent

Variety Gram~ Fl Grams Variety Grams

PERKINS

Wheatland 33o0 Oklahoma 5901 29 .. 9 Y-8 2608

Westland 28 .. 2 Oklahoma 5902 27~8 Y-8 26 .. 8
Martin 29o4 Oklahoma 5903 29 .. 9 Y-8 2608
Combine Kafir-60 2904 Oklahoma 5904 29a9 Y-8 2608
Redlan 28o5 Oklahoma 5905 27 .. 6 Y-8 26 .. 8
Dwarf Early Redlan 2706 Oklahoma 5906' 28 .. 5 Y-8 2608
Combine Kafir-60 29o4 RS 610 30ol Combine 7078 30ol
Combine Kafir-60 29o4 Texas 660 30 .. 7 · Oa:prock 28 .. 3

Average 29a4 29 .. 3 27 .. 4

Hybrid increase above

average of parents Oo9

L.. SoDo -- 2ol9 and 2o91 grams at 5 pereent and 1 percent level, respectively"

~
 TABLE XXVII (Continued)

~ ·-··· ··-~~-~~-·--·- /--~-~--~~-~-~--~~-----~-~~-------~----------

Female ,parent H~brid Male Parent
"Variety Grams Fl Grams Variety Grams

MANGUM

Wheatland 33o9 Oklahoma 5901 2708 Y-8 2606

Westland 28o9 Oklahoma 5902 26o5 Y-8 2606
Martin 2'7o3 Oklahoma 5903 26o5 Y-8 2606
Combine Kafir-60 27o9 Oklahoma 5904 2606 Y-8 26o6
Redlan 28o7 Oklahoma 5905 26oO Y-8 26 .. 6
Dwarf Early Redlan 26o5 Oklahoma 5906 24o9 Y-8 2606
Combine Kafir-60 27o9 RS 610 28"2 Combine 7078 30,,7
Combine Kafir-60 27o9 Texas 660 28"1 Caproek 29 .. 1
-
Average 2806 2608 27o4

Hybrid increase above

average of parents -lo2

LoSoDo -- 2o0 and 2o7 grams at 5 percent and 1 percent level, respectivelyo

\J1.
'v1
 56
nybrids was Oo9 gram heavier than the average of the parents
at Perkins, but lo2 grams lighter at Mangum .. The 1,000 seed
~eights of most of the yellow endosperm hybrids were heavier
than the male parent (Y-8), but lighter than their female
parentso Bartel (3) also reported that the 1,000 seed weights
of hybrids were intermediated between parentso The non-yellow
endosperm hybrids had 1,000 seed weights heavier than the
yellow endosperm hybrids .. This probably was due to the heav-
ier seed weight of the pollen parents of the non-yellow hybrids ..

Till!ll:, percentage:

The data for tiller percentage are given in column 8 of

Table 1V and Vo There.was considerable variation in tillering,
especially at Perkins where the average tillering of all en-
tries was 1508 percent<) Combine 7078 had the most tillering
(108, percent)o This was probably a result of cbinch bug
injury at an early stage in the life of the plantso The aver-
age tillering for all entries at Mangum was 28G4 percento
The comparison in Table XXVIII indicated the hybrids and
varieties tillered alike at Mangum, but the hybrids tillered
more at Perkinso Within varieties the yellow endosperm se-
lections tillered less than non-yellow endosperm selections 1
but the opposite was true within hybrids"'
The data f'rom the eight hybrids and their parents are
presented in Table XXIXo
'·
It was found that the hybrids pro-
duced 606 percent more tillers at Perkins and 604 percent
more tillers at Mangum than the average of the parentso This
 Tm:cE-xxv11r-
COMPARISON OF TILLER PERCENTAGE OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW
ENDOSPERM VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT :PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959

Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum .Average

Hybrid
Average 1108
-
25 .. 6
Yellow (12)* 18 .. 7
Range 202-23 .. 7 17.. 6... 33.,2
'
Average -1504 29 .. 9
Varieties Non-~ellow ~2 .. 7
(24)* (1 ) Range 3Gl5-105 .. 9** 17 .. 9-57.,1
.Average 13 .. 6 27 .. 8
20 .. 7
Range 2 .. 2-105Gl9 17 .. 6-5'7 .. 1
Average 26 .. 9 31 .. 5
Yellow (8) 29.,2
Range 7 .. 8-41 .. 1 21 .. 9-52 .. ?
.Average 8.,5 26 .. 7
Hybrids Non-yellow 17 .. 6
(13) (5) Range 5.. 1-14.,l 17.,2-31..9
.Average 1908 29 .. 7
2408
Range 5.. 1-41.,1 17 .. 2-52 .. 7
Hybriq increase above the average 6 .. 2 1.,9 4 .. 1
of varieties "1

* The arable number in the parathesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids .. ""
**Combine 7078 due to chinch bug damage ..
 TABLE XXIX
TILLER PERCENT.AGE OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety Percentage F1 Percentage Variety Percentage

PERKINS

Wheatland llo9 Oklahoma 5901 41 .. 1 Y-8 23r.7

Westland 9o9 Oklahoma 5902 3108 Y-8 23 .. 7
Martin 6@1 Oklahoma 5903 19o3 Y-8 23 .. 7
Combine Kafir-60 7~5
-\._-
Oklahoma 5904 37 .. 8 Y-8 23 .. 7
Redlan 4ol Oklahoma 5905 32 .. 3 Y-8 23 .. 7
Dwarf Early Redlan 6G4 Oklahoma 5906 26 .. 3 Y-8 23 .. 7
Combine Kafir-60 7o5 RS 610 608 . Combine 7078 105 .. 9
Combine Kafir-60 7Q5 Texas 660 14ol Caprock 5.,0

.Average 7@6 26 .. 2 31 .. 6

Hybrid increase above

average of parents 6@6%

\J"l
OJ
 TABLE XXIX (Continued)

Female Parent Hzbrid Male Parent

Variety Percentage F1 Percentage Variety Percentage

MANGUM

Wheatland 28o4 Oklahoma 5901 36<>1 Y-8 20 .. 1

Westland 57ol Oklahoma 5902 2L,9 Y-8 20ol
Martin 22,,0 Oklahoma 5903 · 35,,8 Y-8 20.,1
Combine Kafir-60 21)+ Oklahoma 5904 52<>7 Y-8 20.,l
Redlan 25o5 Oklahoma 5905 32@8 Y-8 20 .. 1
Dwarf Early Redlan 520 7 Oklahoma 5906 32@7 Y-8 20ol
Combine Kafir-60 2L.4 RS 610 3L,9 Combine 7078 28c6
Combine Kafir-60 2L,4 Texas 660 19.,3 Caprock 24.,8

.Average 31.,2 32o9 21.,8

Hybrid increase above

average of parents 604%

V1.
'°
 60

jay be due in part to an appiirent tendeney of the Y-8 varie-

1

ty to produce tillering in hybrid combinationo

I -
Dodging Percentage:
I
l
I
I
Lodging oceured only at Perkins due to the storms and
i

~eavy rains in early Septembero Another important factor in-

I
~lueneing the lodging percentage at Perkins was the disease--
I
cjharcoal rota In general, factors such as plant height,
i

JJength of peduncle, and size of heads also influence lodging ..

I
i
i The data on lodging f ereentage at Perkins are given in
~able IV, column 9 .. Lodging percentage varied among the 37
Jntries, ranging from 0 .. 6 to 40 .. 0 perc.entQ Generally, the
nybrids lodged considerably more than varieties as is indi-
1 _.

elated by the data in Table XXXQ These comparisons showed that

I
Hybrids lodged. approximately 14 percent more than the varie-
!
I

tieso Within the varieties, the yellow endosperm selections

ljodged less than non-yellow ones, and the same was true with-
i

i:n the hybrids.. It appeared that the standing ability of the

iellow selections has been slightly improved over the non-yel-
low varietieso A much greater improvement was evident where
the yellow endosperm pollen parent was used in hybrid combina-
tiono
In Table XXXI the data on the eight hybrids showed that
i
the hybrids lodged 12 percent more than the average of the
nlarentso Wheatland had very little lodging, and its hybrid
~ith Y-8 had less lodging than any other hybrid in this com-
p!arisono
! '

i
I·
I
i
 61

TABLE XXX
G;OMPARISON OF LODGIN.G ,PERCENTAGE OF VARIETIES VS., HYBRIDS AND
~1ELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW ENDOSPERM VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT
1
PERKINS , 1959
i
I
~ariety or Yellew or non-yellow Perkins
Hybrid

Average 8"1
Yellow (12)*
Range 1.,9-37 .. 5
Average 9 .. 8
inarieties Non~yellow
(24)* (12) Range 0 .. 6-26 .. 5
Average 8 .. 9
Range 0 .. 6....37.,5
Average 20 .. 8
Yellow (8)
Range 7 .. 5-40 .. 0
Average 26 .. 0
Hybrids ~Non~yello~
I (13) ~ (5) -.Rang() 8~8-35 .. 4
Avera,ge 23 .. 8
,..,

·:: ~ange 7.. 5-40 .. 0

I

H~brid increase above the average

of varietie:,:

*: The arabic number in the parathesis shows the number of

i varieties or hybrids ..
 -·· --------

TABLE XXXI
LODGING PERCENTAGE OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Parent Hybrid Male Pa.rent

Variety Percentage F1 . Percentage Variety Percentage

PERKINS

Wheatland 2.,0 Oklahoma 5901 11.,0 Y-8 10 .. 0

Westland 17.,5 Oklahoma 5902 28"0 Y-8 10 .. 0
Martin llo5 Oklahoma 5903 33.,2 Y-8 lOaO
Combine Kafir-60 26"5 Oklahoma 5904 40"0 Y-8 lOaO
Redlan 2L.6 Oklahoma 5905 24 .. 9 Y-8 .10 .. 0
Dwarf Early Redlan 1605 Oklahoma 5906 13.,2. Y-8 10 .. 0
Combine Kafir-60 26.,5 RS 610 . 33,.4. Combine 7078 o.. 6
Combine Kafir-60 26.,5 Texas 660 18 .. 6 Caproek 5.. 0
Average 18,.6 25 .. 3 8 .. 2

Hybrid increase above

average of parents 12,%

°'
I\)
 63

In previous experiments, workers found that the lodging

of hybrids was more than that of their parents (3)o However,
in
i
other experiments (7, 9), the opposite was reportedo

~hreshing
I
Percentage:

The data for threshing percentage are given in Table IV

I
and V, column 10, for Perkins and Mangum., respectively. There
was little difference between the two locations, with the aver-
age threshing percentage at Perkins being 75.5 compared to
78o3 at Mangum.a Germination of the seeds on the head during
riainy weather and the subsequent shattering out of seeds at
Perkins explains in part the reduction in threshing percentage.
In Table XXXII a comparison of yellow with non-yellow en-
dosperm varieties and hybrids showed that the non-yellow endo-
sperm varieties and hybrids had higher threshing percentage
at both locations although there was very little difference
among the hybridso In the comparisons of varieties and hybrids,
the hybrids had a slight :.advantage
,. at both locations of approx-
imately 2 percents This same conclusion was drawn by Davies
(9) and Clapp (7)o
Table XXXIII gives a comparison of the eight hybrids and
tp.eir parentso In this case there was probably no real differ-
ence in the threshing percentage of the hybrids compared to an
ayerage of their parentss Compared to the female parents only,
h9wever, the hybrids had a lower threshing percentage at both
!
locations~ This characteristic does not seem to help explain
the increased yield of hybrids over varieties.
 - - - - - ~ - ~ _ ---~--------~-----TABLE-XXXI-I
COMPARISON OF THRESHING PERCENTAGE OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW
- ENDOSPERM VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959

Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum Average

Hybrid
Average 71.,3
--
74 .. 8
Yellow (12)* 73 .. 1
Range 61 .. 9-7607 45 .. 7-81 .. 0
Average 77,.7 80 .. 5
Varieties Non-yellow 79.1
(24)* (12) Range 73,.3-80 .. 7 77.,5-83 .. 2
Average 74 .. 5 77 .. 7
76,.l
Range 61 .. 9-80 .. 7 45 .. 7-83 .. 2
.Average 77"1 78"9
Yellow (8) 78.0
Range 73,. 7-79 .. 6 77 .. 6-80 .. 4
Average 77 .. 6 80 .. 5
Hybrids Non-yellow 79 .. 2
(13) (5) Range 76 .. 3-79 .. 5 77 .. 3-82 .. 6
Average 77,.3 79,.5
78 .. 4
Range 73 .. 1-79 .. 6 77 .. 3-82 .. 6
Hybrid increase above the average 2 .. 8 1 .. 8 2 .. 3
of varieties
* The arabic number in the parathesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids ..
°'
-i:-
 -- -------------~~-- .... -------~
TABLE XXXIII
THRESHING PERCENTAGE OF K{GHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Variety · ~ercent Fl Percent Variety.. Percent

PERKINS

Wheatland 80.,7 Oklahoma 5901 79,.6 Y-8 75o9

Westland 7809 Oklahoma 5902 7506 Y-8 75o9
Martin 80,,1 Oklahoma 5903 78o2 Y-8 75o9
Combine Katir-60 7706 Oklahoma 5901+ 78a2 Y-8 75o9
Redlan 80o2 . Oklahoma 5905 77~ Y-8 75o9
Dwarf Early Redlan 77,,9 Oklahoma 5906 7706 Y-8 75 .. 9
Combine Kafir-60 7706 RS 610 78o4 Combine 7078 '74ol
~
' -- .----
Combine_Kafir-60 7706 Texas 660 76.,5 Caprock 76.,8

Average 78,,8 77,.7 75 .. 8

Hybrid increase above

average of parents Oo4%

°"
\J1
 TABLE XXXIII (Continued)

Female Parent H~brid Male Parent

Variety Pereent F1 Percent Variety Percent

MANGUM

Wheatland 8lo5 Oklahoma 5901 79"0 Y-8 80.,3

Westland 790 7 Oklahoma 5902 77,.8 Y-8 80.,3
Martin 79"8 Oklahoma 5903 80G4 Y-8 80 .. 3
Combine Kafir-60 7Bo5 Oklahoma 5904 77.,6 Y-8 80o3
Redlan 8lo6 Oklahoma 5905 77G5 Y-8 80 .. 3
Dwarf Early Redlan 83o2 Oklahoma 5906 79G 7 Y-8 80o3
Combine Kafir-60 7805 RS 610 82"6 Combine 7078 80 .. 5
Combine Kafir-60 78"5 Texas 660 77,.3 Caprock 7906

Average 80.,2 79o0 80 .. 2

Hybrid increase above

average of parents -1,.2%

°'
°'
 67
I
~he Relationshin Between Grain Yield and Other Agronomic Char-
Jcteristics~

The fact that grain sorghum hybrids produce more grain

I

than the varieties or their parents has been recognized by

I
,orgµum workers for a long timeo Many sorghum workers have
~een interested in the interpretation of heterosis of sorghum
~rain yield, especially after the establishment of male ste-
rility for producing hybrid seedso In this study, informa-
iiion assembled on several agronomic charaeteristics discussed
I

above may be used to help explain hybrid vigore

I Three·agronomic characteristics might be related to grain
yieldo The hybrids could (1) produce more heads (tillers) per
I

~lant; (2) produce more seeds per head or per plant; and (3)
~roduce larger and/or heavier seeds. Any one ar combination
Jr
,
!
the three
. possibilities may be considered capable of in-
. -

creasing grain weight~

I
Tiller percentage.has been discussed
~n this study, and it wa.s found that the hybrids produced
~bout 6 percent. more tillers than the average of the parentsQ
I
1he same was true at both lpcattonso Compared with the female
rlarents, the eight hybrids produced about 19 percent more til-
lers at Perkinso

Jjerkins,
Seed number per plant has been observed by Khan (20) at
Oklahoma in 19590 He studied the F1 of two crosses
ind their parentsQ The crosses were Redlan X Plainsman· and
1ombine Kaf.ir-60 X Combine 7078Q The F1 hybrid of the first
cross produced 3346 seeds per plant while- the parents produc-
~d 2955 seeds (Redlan 2912 and Plainsman' 3000)0 The F1 hybrid
 68

produced about 13 percent more seed per planto In the second

cross the F1 hybrid produced about 31 percent more seeds than
the average of the parentso The analysis of variance showed
a: significant difference in both the crosses,,
Whether the hybrids produce larger or heavier seeds may
be determined from the present data on weight of 1,000 seed
I
ahd bushel weight .. The results on bushel weight in this test
showed that the hybrids were loO to L,5 pounds per bushel
heav·ier than the average of the parents o · Other workers such
as Quinby, et al .. (29) and Khan (20) obtained similar results ..
I

Bht Walter (40) found that the hybrids were less than the
average of the parents in bushel weighto As to the 1,000 seed
weight, it was found in the present study that the hybrids
were slightly heavier than the average of their parents .. They
usually ranged between the two parents, if the parents were
different in 1,000 seed weighto Similar conclusions were
dra~m by Bartel (3) and Khan (20) ..
From the three agronomic characteristics, two of them,
number of tillers and seed number per plant, were found to be
higher in the hybrid than in the average of the parents(} Bush-
el weight and weight of 1,000 seed were not consistently higher
i~ the hybridso From the data available, the increase yield
of hybrids mrer varieties may be best explained on the basis
of increased tillering and increased number of seed per planto

Chemical Characteristics

Erote:iJl Content:

Determinations of protein content were made for both

 69

locationso The summary of the data are given in Table XX.XIV ..

It was found that the grain from Perkins contained less pro-
,

tein than that from Mangumo

Among the 37 entries, Y-6 and 811-Redlan were high in
l)rotein content, whereas Oklahoma 5906 and Woodward 5601 were
J,:ow at both locationso The difference between the highest
and the lowest was about 3 .. 5 percent protein for both loca-
tionso These averages ranged from 9Q53 to 13@24 percent pro-
4- . 0
\,,61.Ilo

Among the yellow endosperm selections, Y-6 and Y-10 were

high in protein content in the average of both locations,
while Y-3 and Y-9 were lowo Among the non-yellow varieties,
811-Redlan and Martin were high in protein content and Wheat-
land was lm,1 o
The analyses of variance of protein percentage are given
in Table rov and XXXVI for Perkins and Mangum, respectively"
Highly significant differences were indicated for virtually
every comparisono
In Table XXXVII, the average of 24 varieties was compared
to the average of 13 hybridso The hybrids were about 1 per-
; cent lower in protein content at both locationso In the aver-
age of both locations the hybrids showed a decrease of 10"4
percent in protein contento This substantiated previous find-
ings by Bartel (3), Garner (11), Lowe (24), and Sieglinger (34)"
Among the varieties, the protein content of yellow and of
non-yellow endosperm kinds showed very little difference, with
the average of all, varieties being 11 .,4 percent protein.. .Among
 70
TABLE XXXIV
SOMMA.RI·.· Y OF PROTEIN CONTENT OF SOME GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES
I . AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS AND MANGUM, 1959
I
Ep.tries Perkins Mangum Mean
I
O)rlahoma 5901 - 10.17 9.64
Oklahoma 5902 10.79 10.41
Oklahoma 5903 10076 10 .. 88
O~lahoma 5904 10.69 10 .. 53
Oµ:lahema 5905 10.69 10.06
O;klahoma 5906 9.,89 9.53
Oklahoma 5907 .10.88 10 .. 99
Wheatlmd 11"22 10,.43
W~stland I0.90 11 .. 24
Martin
1
126193 12.,57
cbmbine Kafir-60 lL.97 11 .. 68'
Redlan
I
Dwarf Early Redlan
12.26
11.53
11 ..2·,
11 .. 16
Yrl
Y-2
11.84
12ra07
11.30
11.74
yL3 9.,79 10.28
Y~4 (white) 10 .. 90 11.08
Y-4 (yellow) 10.69 11 .. 30
g
i-ri
y 7
11..71
13039
11 .. 31
13 .. 24
11 .. 42 11 .. 17
yrs llo20 10,.58.
Y~9 10 .. 93 10 .. 53
Y~lO 13.24 12078
Yr-11 10 .. 74 10,.88
Wbodward 5601 10;.51 9.88
Wbodward 5602 10.93 10.,31
Wpodward 580 5 10005 9o90
Rp 610 10.76 10.,91
T~:x:as 660 10060 :40.,72
DeKalb E56a 11060 11:.,60
Tan Redlan 11.,18 10.,66
Dwarf Early Red Kafir 4-1-4 11.,?4 11.,34
DfNarf Early Red Kafir 8~2 11 .. 16 11.,71
811-Redlan 14.,10 13.,16
Cpmbine 7078 11067 lL.19
CF'prock 12 .. 19 11 .. 50
'

10.,73 11035 1L.o4

 TABLE XXXV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PROTEIN CONTENT AT PERKINS,
1959

!
Source of Var';iation Degrees of ~um of Squares Mean Square
Freedom

Total 147 276 .. 35

Replicatien 3 46 .. 96
Entry 36 139 .. 60 3.,878**
Variety VSo hybrid l- 24 .. 05 24,.050**
Among variety 23 81057 3o.5'47**
Yellow VSo non~yellow 1 14042 14G420**
Among yellow ... 11 34 .. 47 3 .. 143**
Among non-yell~ 11 32,,68 2 .. 971**
Among hybrid 12 33 .. 98 2"832**
Yellow vs,, non-yellow 1 4 .. 47 4 .. 470**
Among yellow 6 12 .. 13 2 .. 022**
Among non-yellow 5 17,.38 3 .. 476**
Error 108 89.,79 0 .. 831

**Significant difference at 1 percent level ..

;:3
 TABLE XXXVI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PROTEIN CONTENT AT MANGUii,
- 1959

Source of Variation Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Square

Freedom

Total 147 1860 71

Replication 3 20<>56
Entry 36 135,,08 3o 752**
Variety vs., hybrid 1 400 70 40,.700**
Among variety 23 85 .. 29 3 .. 708**
Yellow vs" non-yellow 1 5@94 5Q940**
Among yellow 11 48,.29 4 .. 390**
Among non-yellow 11 31,,06 2"824**
Among hybrid 12 9,.10 0"758**
- Yell@w vs~ non-yellow 1 o. t1-6 Oa460:t
Among yellow 6 3<>31 o.. 552*~
Among non-yellow 5 5.,34 1 .. 068.**
Error 108 31 .. 07 0.,288

* Sigmificant difference at 5 percent, level"'

**Significamt difference at 1 percent level"

f\5
 TABLE XXXVI I
COMPARISON OF PROTEIN CONTENT OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRIDS AND YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW
ENDOSPERM VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT PERKINS .AND MANGUM, 1959

Variety or Yellow or non-yellow Perkins Mangum .Average

Hyb;rid
Average 11020 lL.49
Yellow (12)* 11035
Range 9.,96-13Qos 9<>79-13024
.Average 10099 11099
Varieties Non-yellow 11.,49
(24)* (12) Range 9063-12025 1L,16-14Ql0
.Average 11009 11 .. 74
11042
Range 9"63-13.,08 9 .. 79-14 .. 10
.Average 9o77
---
10.,55
Yellow (8) 10 .. 16
Range 9 .. 11-10,.99 9 .. 89-10 .. 88
Average 10036 10<>74
Hybrid Non-yellow 10055
(13) (5) Range 9"21+-11.,06 10"05-11.,60
Average 10<>04 10<>64
10034
. Range - -
9,,11-11.,06 9,,89-11,,60
Hybrid decrease below the average lo05 L.10 lo08
of varieties 10046% 10o34-% 10040%
* The arabic number in the parathesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids .. 23
 74

the hybrids, the non-yellow endosperm kinds showed slightly

i
mbre protein at both locations .. The average protein percent-
a~e for all hybrids was 10 .. 3, or lol percent less than the
I

VflTietieSo
In Table XXXVIII, the hybrids were compared with their
parental lines and showed that the average of eight hybrids
W?S Oo5 percent lower in protein than the average of both
parental lines at Perkins and 1 .. 1 percent lower in protein
at Mangum .. Compared with their female parents, the hybrids
were 1 percent lower at Perkins and 1Q5 percent lower at
M~ngumQ The male parent, Y-8, was as low as the hybrids
at' Perkins, but slightly higher at Mangum .. Of the hybrids,
Oklahoma 5903 and RS 610 were higher than the others in pro-
tein content at both locationso

The Relationship Between Protein and Grain Yield of Grain

Sc;,rghum:

The correlation of protein content with grain yield has

been recognized by Garner (11), Sieglinger (34), Bartel (3),
and Lowe (24)a In this experiment a correlation was obtained
alsoo The correlation coefficients calculated for both loea-
ttons were -00727 for Perkins and -Oo~76 for Mangum,. The
r~gression lines were drawn in Figures 3 and 4 for Perkins
and Mangum, respeetivelya
The protein content of sorghum grain is determined in
part ··by the total nitrogen available te the plant from the
soil,. Nelson (27) indicated that the protein content of
 ---- --- -- -· --- ------------

TABLE XXXVIII
PROTEIN CONTENT OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH 'flIEIR PARENTS, 1959

Female Parent Hybrid Male £g.rent

Variety Percent Fl Percent Variety Percent

PERKINS

Wheatland 906 Oklahoma. 5901 9.,1 Y-8 10 .. 0

Westland 1006 Oklahoma 5902 lOoO Y-8 10 .. 0
Martin 12,,2 Oklahoma 5903 lL,O Y-8 lOoO
Combine Kafir-60 llo4 Oklahoma 5904 10.,4 Y-8 lOoO
Redlan 10o2 Oklahoma 5905 9 .. 4 Y-8 _lOoO
Dwarf Early Redlan 10.,8 Oklahoma 5906 9.,2 Y-8 10 .. 0
Combine Kaf'ir-60 11.,4 RS 610 11.,l Combine 7078 10 .. 7
Combine Kafir-60 11.,4 Texas 660 10 .. 8 Caproek 10.8

Average - lloO - 10 .. 1 10 20

Hybrid decrease below 0.,5

average of paren-ts 4,.7%

LeSoDo -- lo25 and lo70 pereent at 5 percent and 1 percent level, respectively,.

'-...:J
'V\
 T.ABLE XXXVIII (Continued)

Female Parent H:t:brid Male Parent

Variety Percent F1 Percent Variety Percent

MANGUM

Wheatland llo2 Oklahoma 5901 10 .. 2 Y-8 llo2

Westland llo9 Oklahoma 5902 10,,8 Y-8 11.,2
Martin 12o9 Oklahoma 5903 1008 Y-8 lL.2
Combine Kafir-60 12o0 Oklahoma 5904 10,.7 Y-8 11.,2
Redlan 12"3 Oklahoma 5905 10 ..;-7 Y-8 llo2
Dwarf Early Redlan il.,5 Oklahoma 5906 9.,9 Y-8 lL.2
Combine Kafir--60 12,.0 RS 6l0 10 .. 8 Combine 7078 11Q7
Combine Kafir-60 12<>0 Texas 660 10 .. 6 Caprock 12Q2

Average 12o0 1006 llo4

Hybrid decrease below

----
L.l
average of parents 9Q4%

LoSoDo -- Oo75 and loOO perGent at 5 percent and 1 percent level, respectivelyo

~
 77

r -o,. 727
I\
.- Y = 13073·- OQ109x
13

,1 'L-----"-----',___ _..,__ __..i;_ _ _ _---'--".....-.a:.---'-----'---

•

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
9rain yield in 100 pounds per acre

Figure 3o. The Regression.Line of-Percentage of Protein

Content on Grain Yield of Sorghum at Perkins,
1959
 78

•
r = ..60476
A .
Y = 13005 - Oo045x

.µ
~
.µ
§ 11
()

i:I
or-I
IQ)
.µ
0
cf: 10
' .
9
~,1~-10---1~,---2~0--~2,---3~0---3~,--4~0~·--4~,---5~0--~,,---6~0---6~,--~70

Grain yield in 100 pounds per acre

Fal·gure 40 The Regressi@n Line of Percentage of Protein Content
·0nGrain Yield of Sorghum at Mangum, 1959
 79

sbrghum grain for three varieties increased with each incre-

m~nt of nitrogen fertilizer applied .. If a soil is uniform
w~th a uniform nitrogen level, the amount of nitrogen taken
I

up from the soil by individual plant of the same crop should,

theoretically, be equal. Thus, it might follow that the
mbre grain produced in a unit area, the less nitrogen con-
1

tained in the grain" Conversely, the less grain produced

in a ·unit area, the more nitrogen contained in the grain ..
This i~ illustrated in Figures 3 and 4@

Q.arotenes, Xanthophylls, and Total Carotenoid ~ontent ln

!
I

.fil,rg_hum Grain:

The determinations of carotenes, xanthophylls, and total·

c~rotenoid pigments were made on the grain from :Mangum .. In
I •

aadition to the 37 entries in this test, hybrid seeds from

!

four different possible combinations of yellow and non-yellow

varieties were determinedo Yellow corn was used for compari-
~on in all determinationso. The results of the chemical anal-
yses are given in Table XXXIX ..
In contrast with yellow corn, the carotene, xanthophyll
and carotenoid pigments in yellow endosperm sorghum grain
were relatively low, especially in carotene content,, The
y~llow corn contained about 19 .. 4 parts per million in total
I

carotenoids, but the yellow endosperm sorghum varieties con-

11

tained only 406 ))arts per millione The same results were
I
i.ndi.eated by BJ!essin, et ale (5)o
There was considerable vari.ation among the yellow endo-
i
sperm vari.e/ties., Y-1 to Y-11, for carotene, xanthophyll, and
i !
j
/!
,/
I
 80

TABLE XXXIX
CAROTENE, XANTHOPHYLL, AND TOTAL C.AROTENOID IN SORGHUM
GRAINS AT MANGUM, 1959*
Unit: Parts Per Million .
Caro t,i!=!ne X.an th. ophyll Tt>tai ..
----------------------~~~~~·
i
Ei;itries

O];rlahoma 5901 OoOOO lo550

CarotenoJ.ds

2.,800
O!Flahoma 5902 0.,025 lo550 2 .. 675
Oklahoma 5903 0 .. 005 1.,725 2 .. 775
Oklahoma 5904 0 .. 025 1.,700 2,.650
Oklahoma 5905 0 .. 025 2.,200 3a250
Ok:lahoma 5906 0,.000 20475 3 .. 200
Oklahoma 5907 0.,163 L.875 3"088
Wheatland 0.,125 0 .. 900 L. 525
Westland 0 .. 125 1 .. 025 1 .. 550
Martin 00063 0.,850 1 .. 450
Cc,mbine Kafir-60 0,.150 1.,138 lo850
R$dlan 0.,156 · 1 .. 500 20200
Dwarf Early Redlan 0 .. 275 l .. 5bO 2., 550
Y~l 0 .. 313 2o550 3.,800
y.;..2 0,.125 2.,575 3.,575
Y-3 0~197 2., 7>+4 40038
y.,.4 (white) 0 .. 200 2e82~ 4 .. 300
Y~4 (yellow) 0,.150 2062:5 >+.,075
y.;..5 0.,171 3.,>+50 4e792
Y+6 0,.150 2 .. 750 4 .. 450
Y•7 0,.063 20725 3 .. 875
Y•8 0 .. 150 2 .. 925 >+ .. 813
Y-9 0 .. 200 30350 40725
Y-10 0 .. 328 >+., 750 60225
y ...11 Oa075 50650 7,.250
Woodward 5601 0,.005 0"675 1.,750
Woodward 5602 0,.125 1 .. >+30 20225
Woodward 5805 00175 2a200 30450
RS 610 0.,150 1 .. 060 10800
DeKalb E56a 0,.063 1 .. 350 2el5'0
Texas 660 0.,025 1 .. 325 2o050
Tan Redlan 00105 le378 20150
Dwarf Early Red Kafir 4-1-4 0 .. 100 1.,193 lo775
Dwarf Early Red Ka.fir 8-2 0.,063 0,,900 1 .. 575
811-Redlan 0.,060 10253 20125
Combine 7078 0 .. 163 L.003 10675
Caprock 0 .. 232 1,.572 20400
N6n-yellow X Non-yellow 0"200 10643 2o550
Yellow X Non~yellow
I
0 .. 163 20200 3 .. 175
Ncpn-yellow X Ye.llow Oal68 20413 3Q450
Yellow X Yellow 0.,188 >+e 763 60050
Corn le20Q 17<>620 190400

* Analysis from biochemistry by Dro Ja E .. Webster ..

 81

total carotenoids contento Y-10 and Y-11 had substantially

more xanthophyll and total carotenoids than any of the other
varieties in this seriese They were not higher in carotene,
howevero It was noted that the non-yellow endosperm varieties
and hybrids showed as much carotene and in some cases as much
xanthophyll, as the yellow endosperm typese Woodward 5805,
having a yellow endosperm male parent, developed nearly as
much car otene, xanthophyll and total earotenoids as the yel-
low varieti eso
Theoretically, the hybrid seed from a cross from two
yellow
I
endosperm varieties
.
should have more carotenoid pig-
ments than any of the other three combinations (bottom of
Table XXXIX)o In this test it appeared to be trueo The
yellow times yellow was the highest one in all carotenoid
p1gmentso In contrast to yellow corn, it had about one sixth
as much carotene, one fourth as much xanthophyll and one
third as much total carotenoidso
Variation in carotenoid pigments due to bagging was point -
ed out by Blessin, et ala (5)o He found that the bagged seeds
contained about twice as much carotene and xanthophyll as · open
s eeds o The hybrid s eeds from non-yellow times non-yellow con-
tained about one half of the xanthophyll and total carotenoids
in the hybrid seeds as from the yellow times yellow, but it
was higher in carotene than the other non-yellow times non-
yellow hybrids such as RS 610, Texas 660, Woodward 5601 and
5602 and DeKalb E56ao This probably was also due to the fact
that the seeds were produced under bagso Hybrid seeds from
 82

non-yellow times yellow and yellow times non-yellow contained

approximately the same amount in carotene, xanthophyll and
t otal carotenoids and they ranked between the yellow times
yellow and non-yellow times non-yellow hybridso These re-
sults indicated that the amount of yellow pigments in the
hybrids came from both or either of the parents in equal a-
mount depending on the yellow endosperm typeo
Comparison of yellow and non-yellow endosperm kinds may
be found in Table XXXXa Among the varieties, the yellow
endosperm type had more carotene, xanthophyll and total caro-
tenoids than the non-yellow typesa In the hybrids, the non-
yellow hybrids actually had more carotene than the yellow
hybrids 9 but the yellow ones had more xanthophyll and total
carotenoidso The differences were not as great among the
hybrids as among the varietieso The yellow varieties showed
more carotene, xanthophyll and total carotenoids than the
yellow hybridso This might have been expected since only
t wo of the eight hybrids, indicated as yellow, had both yel-
low male and female parentso The other six had only a yellow
male parento
In Table XXXXI the eight hybrids were compared with
their parentso The hybrids had less carotene than the yellow
parent , but also less than the non-yellow parento This can
not be readily explainedo The hybrids had 00123 par ts per
million less carotene than the average of the parentso
In xanthophyll (Table XXXXII), the hybrids exceeded the
non-yellow parents, but showed Ool60 parts per million less
 TABLE X:XXX
---------------

COMPARISON OF CAROTENE, XANTHOPHYLL AND TOTAL CAROTENOIDS OF VARIETIES VSo HYBRIDS AND
YELLOW VSo NON-YELLOW ENDOSPERM VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS AT MANGUM, 1959

Variety or Yellow or non-yellow C~l%6tlme- Xanthophyll Total

Hybrid Carotenoid
Average 0,,169 2o815 4 .. 660
Yellow(l2)*
Range Oo063-0o313 2o 500-5"650 30575-7,,250
Average 00135 l.,184 1.,902
Varieties Non-yellow
(24)* (12) Range 0 .. 063-0,,275 0.,850-1 .. 572 1"450-2,, 550
Average OG152 20000 30281
Range Oc,063-0"313 0"850-5"650 1..l+50-7" 250
Average Oa052 L,885 2 .. 986
Yellow (8)
Range 0,.000-0.,163 1,,550-2"475 2 .. 650-3Q450

Average 0.,074 1"168 1"626

Hybrids Non-yellow
(13) (5) Range 0.,005-0.,150 o. 675-1"430 l" 750-3,.450
Average 0.,061 L.609 2"463
Range 0.,000-0 .. 163 o .. 675-2 .. 475 1 .. 750-J,,450
Yellow Corn I,"200 J,7c;,620 19 .. 400
* The arabic number in the parathesis shows the number of varieties or hybrids., CX>
w
 TABLE XXXXI
CAROTENE CONTENT OF RTGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR
PARENTS AT MANGUM, 1959
Unit: Parts per Million
Female Parent Hybrid Male Parent

Wheatland Oo.125 Oklahoma 5901 0 .. 000 Y-8 00150

Westland Ool25 Oklahoma 5902 00025 Y-8 00150
Martin Oo0'63 Oklahoma 5903 Oo005 Y-8 00150
Combine Kafir-60 Ool50 Oklahoma 5904 0<>025 Y-8 0<>150
Redlan Ool56 Oklahoma 5905 00025 Y-8 0.,150
Dwarf Early Redlan Oo2'75 Oklahoma 5906 0 .. 000 Y-8 Or;,150
Combine Kafir-60 00150 RS- 61.0 0"150 Combine 7078 0 .. 163
Combine Kafir-60 0<>150 Texas 660 0 .. 025 Caproek 0 .. 232

Average 00149 0.,032 0.,162

-
Hybrid decrease below 0,,123 PoPolilo
average of parents

~
 TABLE XXXXII
XANTHOPHYLL CONTRNT OF EIGHT HYBRIDSCOMPARED WITH THEIR
.-PARENTS '.AT. MANGUM, 1959
Unit: Parts ~er Million
Female Parent Hybri.d · Male Parent

Wheatland 0.,900. Oklahoma 5901 1 .. 550 Y--8 2 .. 925

Westland lo025 Oklahoma 5902 lo550 Y-8 2.,925
Martin Oo850 Oklahoma 5903 lo 725 Y-8 2.,925
Combine Kafir-60 lol38 Oklahoma 5904 1., 700 Y-8. 20925
Redlan 1 .. 500 Oklahoma 5905 2.,000 Y-8 2 .. _925
Dwarf Early Redlan lo500 Oklahoma r:;906 2.,475 Y-8 2092,·
Combine Kafir-60 10138 RS 610 lo06Q ·combine 7078 10003
Combine Kafir-60 10138 'Texas 660 1 .. 325 Caprock lr;572

Average 10149 1 .. 673 2i;5l6

Hybrid decrease below average of

parents OG160 pr;p.,m ..

co
\.J\
 86
i
tµan the average of the parents$ The highest reading for a
~brid was 20475 parts per million for Oklahoma 59060
I The hybrids had about 0$3 parts per million less total
earotenoids than the average of the parents (Table XXXXIII)$
F~r this determination the hybrids clearly had more caroten-
o~ds than the female (non-yellow) parents$
I
I
 TABLE XXXXIII
TOTAL C.AROTENOIDS OF EIGHT HYBRIDS COMPARED WITH THEIR
PARENTS AT MANGUM, 1959
- - ~ - - _________________________U.ni t_: Parts~er Mill_iqn
Female Parent. Hybrid Male Parent

Wheatland 1"525 Oklahoma 5901 .20800. y ...3 40813

Westland lo550 Oklahoma 5902 2.,675 Y-8 4,,813
Martin lo450 Oklahoma 5903 20775 Y-8 4<>813
Combine.. Kafir ...60 . lo850 Oklahoma 5904 2"650 y ... 3 4 .. 813
Redlan 20200 Oklahoma 5905 30250 Y-8 4 .. 813
Dwarf'. Early Redlan. 2o 550 Oklahoma 5906 3~200 Y-8 4 .. 813
CombineKafir-60 · lo850 RS 610 l,.800 Combine 7078 L.675
Combine Kafir-60 , L,850 Texas 660 2 .. 050 . Gaprock 2,.400

Av-er age 1"853 20650 4 .. 119

Hybrid decrease below

average of parents 0"336 p,.p .. m.,

O')
"'1
 SUMMARY

i The experiment was conducted at four locations in Oklahoma.,

I
I .

Tney were Perkins, Mangum, Woodward, and Goodwell~ The results

fliom the Woodward test were received too late to be included
I

iri. this studyo The Goodwell test was not harvested due to poor
$eedling establishmento Thus the data presented in this study
'

c,me from Perkins and Mangumo

I Thirty-seven grain sorghum varieties and hybrids were in
this testo Thirteen hybrids consisted of seven experimental

1
c osses with a yellow endosperm pollinator from Stillwater,
three experimental crosse~ from Woodward, and three ~tandard
I

h~brids to serve as check&

I
Twenty-four varieties consisted
I

of twelve yellow endosperm selections from the Oklahoma breed-

itjg program, six non-yellow varieties as parents of the hybrids
~ix other selections in the early stages of t~sting0
The test was sown in a randomized complete block design,
I

u~ing four replications" Single rows 40 inches apart and 40

I
I

f e,et long served as plots a

.All the obse:r·ved characteristics in this study were di vid-

e~ into two groups: (1) yield and other agronomic characteris-
ti\rt;s, including days to bloom, plant height, head length, bush-
ell weight, weight of 1,000 seed, tiller percentage, lodging
pereentage, and thre~hing percentage; and (2) chemical charac-
teristics including protein and carotenoid pigment contento

88
 89

The hybrids produced from 30 to 40 percent more grain,

were from 1 to 2 days earlier in blooming, were from 4 to 5
inches taller in plant height, were from 1 to 2 inches longer
in head length, had from 6 to 14 percent more tillers and
l0dged 12 perc€nt more than the average of parents.
Compared with the check hybrids, some of the yellow endo-
sperm hybrids were higher and some were lower in grain yield,
bushel weight and threshing percentageo Other characteristics
vari ed , but these difference were not greato
Woodward hybrid 5601 was highest in grain yield, but was
aiso the tallest and had the highest lodging percentageo
Compared with other varieties, in most cases, the yellow
endosperm varieties were slightly lower in grain yield, in
bushel weight and in lodging percentageo
It was c oncluded that hybrids produced more grain than
varieties due to increased tillers and increased number of
seed per plant, and that there was no consistant relationship
with weight of 1 ,poo seed and bushel weighto
Hybrids had about 1 percent less protein than the average
of the parentso The 811-Redlan strain wa s the highest with
14 percento In the yellow endosperm strains, Y-11 and Y-6
wer e higher t han other yellow endosperm strainso Grain yield
was negatively correlated with protein contento The correla-
tion coefficients Cr) were -O o7 and -Oo4 for Perkins and Mangum,
respectivelyo
Yellow endosperm varieties had one seventh as much caro-
t ene, one sixth as much xanthophyll, and one fdurth as much
 90
I

t©tal earotenoid pigments as yellow corno

I
Hybrids with only
one yellow endosperm parent had about one-third as much care-
'
I 1
tene, one-half as much xanthophyll, and three-fifths as much
l,.tal earotenoid pigments as the yellow endosperm varietieso
t~

I
I
I
I
I
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

lQ Ball, c . R. and B. E. Rothgeb. Grain sorghum experi-

ments in the Panhandle of Texas. u.··-s. Department
of Agr .. Bul. 698, 1918.
2 .. Bartel, Ao T. Effect of tillers on the development of
grain sorghum. ~gron. Jour. 27:707-714, 1935 ..
_ _...,...........,,.......,,.,-• Hybrid vigor in sorghums.. Agron. Jour.
41:147~152, 1949 ..
I

4o Blchoff, E.. M., G.. F .. Li vingston, G. F. Bailey and C. R..

1

Thompson .. Xanthophyll determination in dehydrated

alfalfa meal. Jour. Assoc. of Agr. Chem. 37:894-
902, 1954.
5 .. Blessin, c. w., c . H. Van Etten and R.. Wiebe. Carotenoid
content of the grain from yellow endosperm-type
sorghums. Cereal Chem. 35:359-365. 1958 ..
60 Chaffin~ Wesley. Sorghums for grain and forage. Okla.
~gr .. Exp~ Sta. Circular E-~78 .. 1958.

Clapp, A. L.. Kansas grain sorghum performance test 1958 ..

Kan .. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. ~03. 1959 ..
8 .. Conner, A. B.. and R.. E.. Karper o Hybrid vigor in sorghum ..
Tex .. Agr. Expo Sta. Bul. 359 .. 1927.
Davies, F .. F .. ferformanee tests of sorghum varieties and
hybrids ~958 .. Okla .. Agr .. Exp .. Sta .. Misc .. Pub .. MP-53 ..
1959 ..
10" -----,,---• Performance tests of sorghum hybrids and
varieties 1957., Okla ,. Agr .. Expo Sta. Mimeo. CircQ
M-294 0 1958 ;
llo Garner, G.. s . , L.. E.. Cavanah, and E .. L.. PinnellQ Coopera-
tive studies Departments of Agricultural Chemistry
and Field Crops . Sorghum Newsletter Vol. 1:31 .. 1958 ..
Gross, William and V. G.. Heller. The carotene content of
the grain sorghums .. Proceeding of Oklahoma Academy
of science. 2~:97-98. 1944.
Heller, V.. G. and J .. B.. Sieglinger. Chemical composition
of Oklahoma gpain sorghums. Okla .. Agr .. Exp .. Sta ..
Bul., 274 .. 191+4.
91
 92

140 and Robert Green. The chemical and nutri-

~ - - ~ ~ - - -9
tive properties of the grain sorghums. Jour. Metabolic
Research 8:205-216. 1926. ~

Horwitz , William. Official methods of analysis of the

association of official agricultural chemists.
Eighth Ed. 1955 ..
Hubbard, J.E., H. Ho Hall, and F. R. E~rle. Composition
of the componenet parts of the sorghum kernel.
Cereal Chem. 27:415-420. 1950.
Karper, Ao Bo and Jo R" Quinby .. Sorghum---itsyroduction,
utilization and breeding. Econ. Bot. 1:355-371. 1947"

~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " Hybrid vigor in sorghums"

Jour. Hered" 28:82-91. 1937 ..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " -·, D. L., Jones, and R. Eo
Dickson" Grain sorghum date-planting and spacing ex-
periments. Texas Agr. Expo Sta. Bul. 424. 1931.
Khan, T. A" A study of quantitative characters in two
crosses of sorghum. MoSe Thesis, Oklahoma State
University Library, ; 1960. \
210 LeClerc, J .. A.. and L" H. Bailey. The composition of grain
sorghum kernels. Agron. Jour. 8:i-lo o 1917.
22 0 Li, Jerone C. R.. In:t;:roduction to statistical inference.
Edwqrds Brothers, Inc .. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1957.
Loeffel, Wm. J. Grain sorghums as feeds for beef cattle
and hogs" Neb .. Agr. Exp,. Sta" Bul. SB-4390 1957"
24 .. Lowe, A" E. Protein content and grain yields of hybrids
and varieties of grain sorghum. Agron .. Abs" 61"
19590
Martin, Jo Ho Plant characters and y~eld in grain sorghumso
Agron o Jour .. 20:1117-11820 1928.
26" Meyer , B" S,. and Do B.. Anderson. Plant physiology" Second
Ed" Do Van Nostrand Company, Inco, New York, 19520
Nelson, Co E. Effect ,o f spacing and nitrogen ?PPlications
on yield o:r,.-grain sorghums under irrigation" Agron.
Jouro 44:303-305 .. 19520
28" Quinby , J" Rm and R.. E.. Karpero Heterosis in sorghum re-
sulting.from the heterozygous condition of a s:i.ngle
gene that effects duration of growth. !mer" Jouro
Bot" 33: (9) 716-721 " 1946 ..
 93

~~~~~-~ N., Wo Kramer, J., C.. Stephens, K. A.. Lahr,

and R.. ~. Karpero Grain sorghum production in
Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 912 .. 1958.,
30 .. ~~--~~-, and J .. H. Martin. Sorghum improvement ..
Advanced in Agronomy. 6:305-359. 19.51+.
31 .. ~~~~~-, J., c. Stephens, R. E. Karper and D., L'" Jones ..
Forage sorghum in Texas .. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
496. 1934.
32. Robins, W. A., and R.H .. Porter. Germinability of sorghum
and soybean seed exposed to low temperature. Agron.
Jour .. 38:905~~13 .. 1946.
330 Ronning, M.,, E., R.. Berousek, J. L .. Griffith and W'" D.,
Gallup., Carotene requirements of Dairy Cattle'"
Okla .. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech., Btil. 76. 1959.
Sieglinger, J .. B.. Grain sorghum experiments at the
Woodward field station in Oklahoma. u.. s .. Department
of Agr .. Bul .. 1175 .. 1923.
~~~~~~~~ .. , and J. H. Martin. Ti~lering ability
of sorghum varieties .. Agron .. Jour .. 31:475-4880 19390
36 .. Smith, M.. C., The comparative value of yellow corn and
the grain sorghum hegari and yellow milo. Jour. Agr ..
Res .. 40:1129-1145. 1930.. ~

Snedecor, Go W'" Statistical methods applied to experiments

in agriculture and biology .. The Iowa State College
Press, Ames, Iowa .. 1956.
38., Stephens, J .. c. Male-sterility in sorghums: its possible
utilization in productiqn of hybrid seed .. Agrono
Jour .. -29:690-696 .. 1937 ..
Swanson, A., F., Recent developments in grain sorghum pro-
duction by plant breeding methods .. Agron. Jour.,
41:179-181~ 1949.
40 .. Walter, To L.. Grain sorghum protein analysis. Sorghum
N~wsletter 2:37., 1959.,
41.. Weibel, D.. D. Sorghum research in Oklahoma. Ta1k to
-- sorghum improvement association., ~959.,
42<> - Wiseman, H.. Ga, H.. M. Irwin, and 1.,
A., Moore. Determina-
'
tion of carotene in silages and forage. Jouro Agr,.
and Food Chem. 5:134-137. 1957.
 VITA
Wei-ning Fu
Candidate for the Degree bf'
Master of Science
i
!

Thesis: AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, PROTEIN, AND CAROTENOID

·~ i
COMPOSITION OF SOME GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES, STRAINS
AND HYBRIDS --- WITH EMPHASIS ON YELLOW ENDOSPERM
TYPES
Major Field: Agronomy (Field Crops)
B:i.ographical:
Personal Data: Born at Shantung, China, February 24,
1925, the son of T.. c .. Fu and-Shill Yu,.
Education: Attended primary school and high school in
Shangtung, China,. Graduated from high school in
1945; received the Bachelor of Science degree .
from National Honan University, with a major in
Agronomy, in 1949; completed the requirements for
the Master of Science degree in May, 1960 ..
Professional experience: Served as teacher in high
school at Taipei, Taiwan, China, 1949-1952;
entered Taiwan T0bacco Research Institute as
assistant agronomist at Taichung, Taiwan, China
1952-1957.. .
Professional Organizations: Member of Agricultural
Association of China and the American Society of
Agronomy ..
D~te of Final Examination: May 1960