. lJama CC91on Department of Agronomy and Soils Departmental Series No. 8 Variey '.4,' $SS 7 (F 1972 ALABAMA COTTON VARIETY REPORT- A Report of the Performance of Cotton Varieties Tested at Nine Locations in Alabama During 1972 2/ Wiley C. Johnson- The Alabama Cotton Variety Test is a continuing evaluation of avail- able cotton varieties from both private companies and state experiment stations. Breeding lines that are likely to be released as varieties are also tested. All tests are conducted on units of the Agricultural Experi- ment Station by Experiment Station personnel. All phases of culture are as generally recommended by the Experiment Station to farmers. Every effort is made to compare the varieties and present the data in an unbiased manner. Experimental Design A randomized block design in four replications was used at each of nine locations. Length of plots at different locations varied from 40 to 138 feet. All plots were single-row except at Prattville and Monroeville where 2-row plots were used. Seasonal Conditions In general, early weather conditions were adequate for successful establishment. At all locations stands were established within the optimum time period. Rainfall was near normal through midseason but most locations in the central and southern areas experienced some degree of moisture stress during the latter part of the season. Insects were not excessive and were adequately controlled. Explanation of Data Yield of Seed Cotton: Tests at Prattville, Tallassee, Belle Mina, Cross- ville, Brewton, and Monroeville were harvested by a mechanical spindle l/January 1973 Professor, Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University picker. Other tests were harvested by hand. Average weight of seed cotton per acre was determined for each variety at each location. Lint Percentage: A sample of seed cotton of each variety from each location was taken at the first harvest and ginned on a 10-saw gin. Lint percentage was calculated by dividing weight of lint by weight of seed cotton. Yield of Lint: Lint yield was determined by multiplying the lint percent- age by yield of seed cotton. Fusarium Wilt Percentage: All varieties submitted for testing in the Alabama Cotton Variety Tests were entered in the "Regional Cotton Fusarium Wilt Screening Test" conducted at the Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee, Alabama, on a soil heavily infested with rootknot nematodes and the Fusarium wilt fungus. Evaluations were made by counting the live plants in late June and again in late August. Differences in the counts were ex- pressed as a percentage and considered to be caused by Fusarium wilt. Earliness: Earliness percentage is calculated where more than one harvest is made by dividing the first harvest lint yield by total lint yield. Fiber Properties: Measurements of fiber properties are not available at this time. A supplement to this report will be made when this information is available. Approved Varieties Many factors are taken into account in approving varieties. Amount of lint harvested is one of the most important but certainly not the only factor of importance. Resistance to prevalent diseases, adaptability to mechanical harvesting, storm resistance, seedling vigor, and fiber quality are among other factors considered. The following varieties have been tested at least 3 years and are approved for use in Alabama. They are listed alphabetically in groups according to Fusarium wilt reaction. Resistant Intermediate Susceptible Auburn 56 Coker 201 Deltapine 45A Auburn M Coker 310 Hancock Dixie King II Coker 417 Hy-Bee 200A Delcot 277 Stoneville 213 Deltapine 16 Hy-Bee 100A Rex Smoothleaf 66 Stoneville 603 The following varieties have been tested for 2 years. Deltapine 25 (previously designated DPL 6225) - Selected for high lint yield, high lint percentage, and resistance to lodging. Tests to date indicate resistance to Fusarium wilt. It is conditionally approved on a trial basis. McNair 511 - This variety is similar to the familiar McNair 1032B which has been discontinued by its originators. McNair 511 differs from McNair 1032B in that it has longer fiber. It also appears to have good resistance to Fusarium wilt. McNair 511 is conditionally approved on a trial basis. McNair 210 - This variety is early and semideterminate. It was de- veloped especially for the northern part of the cotton belt or for other situations where earliness was especially important. Yield to date has been less than that of McNair 511. New and Experimental Varieties A6-688-BE and A6-741-AE are Auburn breeding lines with a high level of resistance to rootknot nematodes. Acala 1.517-70 and Lockett 4789-A are not grown in the Southeast. They are standard check varieties for the Regional Variety Test which is national in scope and in which Alabama participates. Acala 1517-70 is grown in California and Lockett 4789-A is grown in the Southwest. Lockett 4789-A is also used in some narrow-row culture. Coker 5110 was developed for use in the Southwest but is included to check its potential in Alabama. Dixie King 375, Coker 8103, DPL 652-679-72, McNair 0612, McNair 0718, and McNair 9512 are promising experimental lines which are included to obtain early information in the event of their re- lease as cotton varieties. Acknowledgement I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. A. J. Kappleman, Jr., for Fusarium wilt ratings, and to superintendents J. K. Boseck, S. E. Gissendanner, Robert Moore, J. G. Starling, F. T. Glaze, Emmett Carden, and J. W. Langford for growing and harvesting the variety tests. Table 1. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Northern Alabama, 1972 Yield of lint per acre Ln percenearins Belle Cross- Win- Belle Cross- Win- Variety N iina ville field Av. Nina yulle field Av. BleNn Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Pct, Pct. Pct., et Pct. Hy-Bee 200A Hancock Stoneville 213 DPL 652-679-72 Hy-Bee lO0A Delcot 277 Delta pine 25 Deltapine 45A Deltapine 16 Coker 310 Coker 201 Coker 417 Stoneville 603 Rex Smoothleaf 66 Dixie King li NcNair 511 NcNair 210 Auburn 56 Coker 8103. Auburn N Lockett 4789-A NcNair 9512 NcNair 0612 NcNair 0718 Dixie. King 3'75 Acala 1517-70 1,363 1,294 1,218 1,244 1,213 1 ,187 1,145 1,181 1,212 1,268 1,083 1,198 1,145 1,034 1,073 923 977 990 12045 967 761 1,105 1,100 1,047 565 527 443 412 526 401 496 519 415 367 418 379 401 443 418 508 439 443 326 272 263 512 225 987 899 942 911 807 885 829 769 818 775 900 802 826 892 866 794 779 756 814 815 753 971 906 868 855 849 824 823 823 815 801 800 793 791 790 786 741 732 730 728 718 592 42 43 42 45 40 41 42 43 43 44 44 43 46 44 43 46 44 43 44 44 44 42 40 39 42 43 39 40 42 40 40 (Following varieties were 41 44 41 897 44 42 42 42 44 41 41 41 42 40 40 not 44 46 45 47 44 44 46 43 43 44 44 43 43 43 44 42 41 40 42 41 42 tested at 42 39 43 44 43 46 43 43 45 43 43 44 44 42 41 41 44 42 40 40 42 41 41 all locations) 42 82 86 73 78 83 87 76 77 76 85 80. 81 79 8'2 80 71 81 75 84 81 74 73 77 78 Table 2. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Northern Alabama, Two-year Average, 1971-72 Yield of lint per acre Lint percentage Belle Cross- Win- Belle Cross- Win- Variety Nina ille field Av. Nina ville field Av. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Hy-fe 200A 1,383 828 1,098 1,103 42 43 42 42 Hy-Bee lOOA 1,361 803 1,097 1,087 42 43 42 42 Stoneville 213 1,351 736 1,149 1,079 42 42 43 42 Hancock 1,358 757 1,121 1,078 42 43 44 43 Coker 201 1,281 726 1,112 1,040 43 43 44 43 Deltapine 25 1,318 723 1,045 1,029 43 44 44 44 Coker 310 1,356 726 1,000 1,027 44 44 44 44 Dixie King II 1,294 743 1,011 1,016 42 44 43 43 Coker 417 1,372 708 953 1,011 42 42. 42. 42 Stoneville 603 1,266 746 1,014 1,009 40 41 41 41 Deltapine 45A 1,299 721 995 1,005. 43 43 42 43 McNair 511 1,194 832 - 946 991 42 41 .41 41 Deltapine 16 1,1286 711 958 985 42 42 42 42 Rex Smoothleaf 66 1,054 718 1,058 957 39 42 42 41 McNair 210 1,088 721 906 905 39 40 39 40 Delcot 277 992 670 1,034 899 42 41 .42 42 Auburn 56 1,086 738 872 899 40 41 40 40 Auburn M 981 683 961 875 40 39 41 40 (Following variety was not tested at all locations) Lockett 4789-A 952 Table 3. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Northern Alabamal Three-year Average, 1970-1971-1972 Yield of lint per acre Lint percentage Belle Cross- Win- Belle Cross- Win- Variety Nina ville field Av. Nina yule field Av. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct, Hy-Bee 200A 1,252 926 1,090 1,089 41 43 42 42 Stoneville 213 1,204 849 1,057 1,037 42 42 42 42 Stoneville 603 1,193 841 1,030 1,022 40 41 40 40 Hancock 1,154 866 1,040 1,020 42 42 43"42 Hy-Bee 100A 1,134 868 1,044 1,015 42 43 42 42 Deltapine 45A 1,212 850 975 1,013 42 42 41 42 Deltapine 16 1,186 801 1,021 1,003 41 41 41 41 Coker 310 1,199 830 961 997 43 43 42 42 Coker 417 " 1,197 823 933 984 41 41 41 41 Coker 201 1,089 801 1,038 976 43 42 42 43 Dixie King II 1,102 830 972 968 41 42 41 42 Delcot 277 1,009 806 1,016 944 41 41 41' 41 Rex Stnoothlea f 66 968 815 922 902- 39 41 41 40 Auburn M 871 798 967 879 40 40 39 40 Auburn 56 955 819 853 876 40 40 39 40 Table 4. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Southern Alabama, 1972 Yield of lint per acreLit ernae Au- Brew- Head- Monroe- Pratt- Tallas- Au- Brew- Head- Mno- Pat a Variety burn ton land ville yulle see Av. burn ton _land vle yl e Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. c. t e. Pet. Pt. Pct Hy-Bee 200A Dixie King II Delcott 277 Stoneville 213 Hy-Bee 100A Deltapine 25 Coker 201 Hancock Coker 417 Auburn 56 Deltapine 16 McNair 511 Rex Smooth- leaf 66 Coker 310 Deltapine 45A Stoneville 603 DPL 652.679-72 Auburn M McNair 210 A6,-741-AE A6-688-BE Coker 5110 MNair 9512 McNair 0718 Dixie King 375 Coker 8103 McNair 0612 Lockett 478 9-A Acala 1517-70 482 504 579 505 465 444 519 541 491 471 482 492 584 575 447 502 477 529 509 508 432 442 207 . 993 1,052 1,034 8 92 914 1,071 986 742 884 911 764 950 858 757 891 777 813 784 697 886 920 977 863 840 691 811 907 878 877 866 645 934 817 674 905 913 691 826 724 620 567 730 671 650 631 684 605 601 557 537 589 622 5 64 561 566 405 478 1,085 912 840 952 1,023 989 863 918 884 847 985 970 790 831 942 852 876 807 793 (Following varieties were not 899 926. 806 933 890 1,006 640 965 960 477 1,060 792 513 659 1,010 88 5 899 900 867 869 905 867 848 850 860 893 934 776 915 910 746 621 810 677 tested 830 870 853 821 819 491 483 843 818 816. 801 797 792 780 773 765 761 758 755. 755 753 738 724 711 671 663 at all 40 39 39 41 39 42 40 41 38 36 39 38 38 40 38 37 42 36 36 locations 38 39 37 37 43 43 42 38 42 46 43 43 40 40 41 40 41 42 43 41 44 40 39 41 39 38 40 38 42 40 39 38 36 39 37 38 40 40 38 42 37 38 40 41 40 43 43 44 43 43 42 40 43 42 41 43 42 41 42 41 41 40 39 43 41 41 39 42 41 38 41 41 38 41 42 44 40 42 40 Av Pc 41 42 41 42 41 44 43 41 41 39 41 41 38 44 42 40 33 38 37 41 41 40 41 41 44 42 42 40 39 41; 40 39, 42 42 40: 41 39 381 43 42 41 42 43 45 43 43 41 40 42 43 39 43 44 41 45 40 39 43 40 41 41 Lrrf L3A 7~ 11~T CI'I ~ C// O~/ I Table 5. Performance of Cotton Varieties 1/ in Southern Alabama, Two-year Average, 1971-1972-' Yield of lint per acre Lintp e Brew- Head- Monroe- Pratt-Brew- Variety Auburn ton land ville ville Av. Auburn ton Lb. Lb. Lb , Lb. Lb. Lb. ct. Pct. Hy-Bee 200A 624 1,194 -651 732 1,178 876 40 42 Hy-Bee 100A 570 1,224 574 713 1,152 846 39 43 Deltapine 25 653 1,227 517 729 1,106 846 42 45 Coker 201 655 1,184 630 750 993 842 41 43 Coker 417 606 1,139 664 737 1,045 838 39 41 McNair 511 620 1,220 469 752 1,087 830 38 40 Dixie King II 645 1,147 613 711 1,025 828 40 42 Stoneville 213 669 1,097 568 728 1,049 822 41 . 40 Deltapine 16 701 1,016 629 685 1,049 816 40 41 Goker 310 653 1,080 568 728 1,044 815 41 43 Delcot 277 626 1,178 645 678 915 808 39 '42 3 04 Deltapine 45A 623 1,129 515 710 1,03.7 803 39 43 3 24 Stoneville 603 601 957 711 711 972 790 38 41 3 04 Hancock 658 891 615 735 991 778 41 43 3 34 Auburn 56 592 1,045 653 619 . 952 772 37 :40 3 94 lMcNair 210 585 931 617 580 :913 725. 37 39 3 13 Rex Smoothleaf 66 632 905 657 594 834 724 37 40 3 03 Auburn M 585 908 567 509 869 687 37 40 3 04 (Following variety was not tested at all locations) Lockett 4789-A 524 38 Cotton was not harvested at Tallassee in 1971. Av PC, 41 41 43 42 40 40 40 41 40 42'. 40 41 40 42' 38,' 39i 39' 39 Table 6. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Southern Alabama, Three-year Average, 1970.1971-1972- Yield of lint peracre Lint per HeaHead- Pratt- Variety Auburn Brewton land ville Av. Auburn Brewton Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Pct. Pct. Hy-Bee 200A 612 1,021 689 1,114 859 39.42 Coker 201 640 1,054 780 943 855 41 43 Hy-Bee 100A 571 1,061 707 1,053 848 40 42 Deltapine 16 654 927 773 1,031 846 40.41 Coker 417 584 1,006 766 1,006 841 39 41 Dixie King II 620 1,014 733 980 837 40 42 Stoneville 213 647 974 714 995 832 40 40 3 24 Deltapine 45A 619 1,025 657 1,019 830 39 42 3 34 Coker 310 623 953 694 996 817 41 43 3 34 Stoneville 6C3 615 845 772 969 800 37 41 3 13 Delcot 277 600 971 708 869 787 39 42 3 14 Auburn 56 557 942 725 904 782 37 40 3 93 Hancock 629 777 662 953 755 41 42 3 24 Rex Smoothleef 66 604 762 768 795 732 38 40 3 83 Auburn N 563 768 " 702 816 712 37 40 3 93 t was not harvested at Tallassee in 1971 and at Monroeville in 1970. rt.. Table 7. Percentage of Plant Showing* Symptoms of Fusariurn Wilt I Av. Variety 1972 l970-71-72 Pct. Pct. Auburn 56 9.6 24.4 Auburn M 26,7 27.7 Coker 201 16.2 46.5 Coker 417 29.9 43.1 Coker 310 9.9 43.6 Delcot 277 11.6 39.3 Deltapine 16 25.8 55.2 Deltapine 45A 9.5 59.1 Dixie King 1I 16.4 24.3 Hy-Bee 100A 34.8 48.8 Hy-Bee 200A 43.9 70.2 Rex Smoothiaf 66 20.9 33.9 Stoneville 213 31.3 58.9 Stoneville 603 20.3 35.8 A6-668 BE 9.8 A6-741 AE 13.4 Coker 5110 10.8 Coker 8103 27.4 Coker 8304 26.3 Deltapine 25 13.4 DPL. 652~.679-72 16.9 McNair 210 29.4 .McNair 511 17.1 -Data were taken from a field severely infested with the Fusarium wilt fungus and root-knot nematodes, Plant Breeding Unit, Tal lassee, Alabama. ______CALCULATIONS FROM_ DATA FED. NO. SAMP. NO. 50 SL 2.5 SL Ti El1 STIZL. NO. MC 11/.c.7'9171 6Ac1 0.50__00590_ ._16.9 6 8 8.3 3 2 44 M 1C4(4c 1fb7 82 0.54 1.119 17.82 7,67 3 40 ! 1 ~ 93 0.5 2 1.15 16.,34 9.0 3 3 40 V6 ii.'j~34 0.52 1.14 17 .21 8.64 2 __ 42 u . c2k- W 86a 11 P)LC .24 - 7 4 87 0.52 0.52 0. 52 0.54 0.52 11l 16r7 92 0. 54 A'R- .. 0.53 / 93 0.52 /4X-j4O~c0.52 A11HLc 9 b 0052 11 4-~ 3/D 100 0.54 i & -._ = - 101. 0 0.5 4. 11 bi%7f .10 2 0.49 1 4dLl 5/2 1 14okz 06c.d 04.51 1. 10 1.10 1.*14 1.13 1.11 1.12 1.13 1. 16 .112 *1 10 16.668 16.14 18.*10 18.32 17.02 17.37 8.78 2 8.56 3 8.9?2 2 8.28 2 9.153 10.01 16.08 - X8.42 18.34 9.17 15. 16 8.59 16.55 8.30 4. 80 __4.30 . -- -4.15 4.82 4.22 3 2 2 3 2 4.48 4.22 3.75 4.07 4.55 1.12 18,001 8.14 2 4.85 1.11 17.39 __ 8.56 _3 __ 4.50 . 11 .17.9 3 + .. 7 08p -_.80_ 2-----.-- -- 4.2 5 1.13 17.06 9.51. 3 4.50 1.17 17. 35 8005 3 4.,027 1.20 17x75 1.18 ___19.86 1.e06 . 17.03 7 1.07 17.4 7 1.1l6 16.72_ 8.05 4.30 _6.72 _2 ____4.2?5 8.19 2 4.45 7.87 3 4.75 '1 I/ OOI1 10 5 0.48 1.07 17.01 7..43 3 44 1. /IJc.. 2 o A 106. 0.e4 8 _..1_"1.07 _16.9 5 7.19..2_4.15 1/'l~' I Of 107 0.4 8 1.06 18.82 7.0242 11 ,?1C/j-(- 108 0.46 1.05 16.84 :,7.37 3 46 I1 ~c'c4 109 0.4 1.03 169 650 4.2 11 110 0.47 1.05 16.69 8.80 3 40 11j2d- 44 ~ SZ 1ll 0.46 __1.05 16.55 7.50 2 _43 1 -7112 0 .5 0 1.10 18.14 9.21 3 39 1 ?- c.b113 0.4 1.04 16908 7.11 2 39 iI/Uo frz /6. 114 _._..:. 0.49 __. 1.07_:._..._18.5 7 -_ ___. 9.86 2 43 a 11A!AJcpA'M 115 0.51 1.0 6 17.13 8.5 3 3 41 1 1 ... - 2 5 1 1 60 . 4 7 1 .0 Q 4 ,. ... . . . . 1 7 . 3 ? 2 8 . 2 3 --.-. 3 4 .85&z G 7 z . 4 . 51 . 0 . 0? 11 118 0.47 1.05 17.80 6.17 2 43 __1 1 _, 0.50 .. 1.0 5.. 17.4 0 8.5 0 3 il1lc-tW&L4 (312 0 ~l&444,2c/ 121. 11 1" '7 122 11 Ow A-44, 3/o 12 3 .14/1 Wa -k, o7'J 124 0.50 0.49 0.51 0.49 0IS*I46 O.1{7 1.08 1 8. 69 8. 00 1.07 ___17.77 _ _6.98 1.11 17.69 7.34 1.10 18.89 6.83 1.05 17. 84 7.43 17,71074 2 4.15 3 .4.3C-- 2 4.2r 3 4 5-- ....._._.rr....+.w".re... ~CALC+~r~".. U LATIONS.... FROM. DATA....._. /....._ ........ .z2.. . . .I.. . _..._- .FEU. NO. SAMP. NO. 50 SL 2.5 SL Ti E l STIL. NO. MC 24ii.J~u(Z126 _ 04 _ 1.08 18 .28 6.56 __3 45 S127 0.46 1.04 1836~' 1.28 0..47 1.04 .18.88 7.94 3 42 11~ un / 1- 0. 51 1.*12 1852 7.46 3 41 11~~o 130 0.50 1.08 17.66 5.80 2 48 131 __0.5 2 1.13 18.2 9 6.0 2 2 43 132 .4+6 ,._1.13 ,_ ... 18.22.._ *7..043 42 1uc44O133 0.49 1.10 17.61 8.09 2 41 11 . ,t~~LcZ3 134 __ 0.5 3 1.13 17.71, 8.14 ..343 11/ Yk47.7 135 0.47 1.05 .16.78 7.12 3 38 1IbPL ! a54"z 7 -7 ,2136. 04 8 1 .12 17.3 9 7.6 2 2 36 1 074180.54 1.10 18.09 8.28 2 44 i.6- /139 __ 0.*51 1.13 18.040 9. .. . ?43?4.57 140 0.46 1.13 19.21 8.39 3 41 11/-to2 77 141 _0.49 1.09 __16.90 _ _7.04 _2 42 16 14 0.4 103 1638 - 7.8 0 3 46 *16 Lt/~140.1 1.09 17.0 0 7.x29 2 41 1L1 44 0.5 2 __1.0 7 17.a7 6 6.2 5 3 42 11 /44',V-&Z D 145 0.47 107 17.85 5.66 245 (11 Al /Ctbk7/ 146 _0.47 1.05 17.67 6.56 3 __44 1C1 1 13 4 ~2 -coA14 7 0.51 1.06 16.92 .. 7.40 2 48 111*&eL/a 148 0.52 1.11 17.45 .6.87 3 44 141~~yo 9 051.6887 .65___243 11Tc l0.49 1.06 18.42 6.90 2 45 ii6////1'151 0.51 1.09 19.79 7.04 2 44 114c 62120.46 1..08 .. 17.93 .5.99 3 46 1I2'LX96;r2. 153 0.51 1.07 18.64. 7.29 3 44 111W kc9 7/j!> 154 0.51 1.06 .19.99 .. 17.37 . 244 11 j/& ?i A 155 0.49 1.07 17.92 6.90 3 43 1156_ 0.46 1.02 17.52 7.07 2 44 T 1I i"S 5 0.47 1.0 6 18 E.86' 6.75 345 11/WCLA.-2JO0 158 0.46 1.05 :19.45 6.08 3 .1 S11046 1.0 174 7.2 ___(I44 _.Lc~~ o2s1 166 __.0.47 1 * _6 _86 6.65 2 48 11 iGZ- 7-721.67 0.4 6 1.04. _.. 16.6 8 7.6 3 3 44 1 9- C1.684 0.4 5 1.02 16.2 4 5.74 2 45 JL~w4 ZJ3Q 1.69 0.47 1.06 17 .29 7 .60 3 47 CALC4LAT NS.FRDATA.7 ,REED. NO. SAPP. NO. 50 SL 2.5 SL T1 El STIL. NO. MC >) 91/~61 ( 04 5 _ _10 ~ 17.4 6 6.9 9 2 _42 11 1l.^- f.2or 171- 0.46 1.04 18.30 6.90 3 43 11Z un- 7 172 0.50 1.13 20.49 5.85 2 42 11c.6 ) , o _ 1 173 ... _.r_.0?g.9 _ i 1.1 ._ 1.8081. 7.2 6 ... 3 - _ _- .2 S4cQ.o718f 17T4 0.43 0.98 18.02 6.79 2 43 1 1 y'2r5i 175 0.45 __0.99 _17.10 7.*69 3 46 av. 0 1. 6'._...._... 0.o47 1608 ^. __ 18.7 9 6 .0 7 ... 4.65._._.z-_.. S11@e 452T/0 177 0.50 1.10 19.27 6.?79 2 43 11 e/ Y/,2 178 0.48 1.03 19.33 6.49 2 __43 'L"1i 1 1, 4 I37r 1 "79 0.47 1.02 17.41 6.02 4.55 ...... . ......... .. r.a r.. .rw. r. .rr..r+rr. wr....r .. .r......i ' - ...-. 1.....rr..i.' 5.. .. :. ... .. ia3.Y a.u ... 1.-W.i.... w.....+r. w. +W ... Yw.. w.l... .+n.reo...... rw.r..w-... . ... r.....r" r.rw .-...... .,.. nYTT R TT.t.".1 .T..If:"1 .R.r.r .w . .. .. ... . M . .. .r..w .r . .. '. . .. . .... h WU4Y.aMa.r .W '- v.r wrb a w. .1.. r " r....n .. .rrr.. r . rw r .. rrr ... r ..... . ._.... ........_. ...._..._.. .. :... ... r . - .. _.. r - ..... ,....... -.-..... ._....._._._ _ ... _- -----.. _.,..M ....... _ _........_. .. .. ..-.. .o....-. .......... _.-___ _.__. _._....._..._....... ..... _........._. _...._...r.._-_.-r..-... ' "' e. , __-.. _ _ _ _ ry rwrwwr+.r.w Y .rrwyrrWr ww . 1+ ww .+r M w .r. r w.+y . rw 4 Y >.nr / r.. __ - __ w r . a...r r. .. r . . r.w ... .. ... . ... . .f . r[ 3 G : " -1 . .. L "..J ... J..Y.s_.4 . L i.iJ J .. . .... . . . .. . . .. ................ " .. .. . .. t ... " ' __ ____CALCULATIONSFROMDATA_ __ - WE=ED. NO . S AMP . NO. 50 SL 1iT,* A? /ooh 180 0.51 ^11- 181 0.50 11/}"AUti57/ 182_ 0.51 .,ZrL~-A/ 18 3 0.51 11 184 0.48 11 ~/4/) 185 0. 50 11/14wv &13186 0.46 2-~ c'7 18 7 "0.5 2 2. LT 1 S I*1.13 17.79 8.78 3 1.11 17.63 8.40 2 1.08 18.41 8.72 3 1.11 19.49 No 7.01 2 1.06 17.68 1.09 _17.71 1.06 17.70 1.15 19.5C0 ___1.13 __17.31 189 0.53 1.14 llL~rAI{2)19 0.50 1.08 11 C/.Ls'19l 0.51 1.1). 11Z65'6 1-292 0.49 1.09 alt 1 V .. 133 0,47 _ 16.06 " 11 tc~.i&,. 2-1J 9 4 0.4 9 1.09 t1 3Ld 1 ~ 195 0 .50 1.1.1 (~1---~Zj196 0. 47. 1.0 ~ i@4t/7197 0 .5 0 1.14 11 _~Z 319 .148 Y. 0.4 9 .. 15 7.35 0O. MI! 4t.5' 4.72 4.3' 8.04 __2 __4.62 8.43 3 492 9.76 3 4,001 8.13 3 4.0. 18.2 8 9.03 2 4.72 17.63 9.34 __3 _ 4.2~ 17.77 8.59 3 4.5' 11.84 7.95 2' 4.1 17.07 7.19 _ 3 4.0' 17.63 17.21 7.18 8.078 6.76 2 4.2~ 3 _ _4. 1 2 : 3.8 18.68 6.90 3 3. 7 18.99 7.15 2 4.42 11 C ~'t/319 9 0.51 1.12 19.7 9 11 ~~(1~7200 0.50 1.10 __17697 11o ~ A 201* 0.46b 1.11 17.10 11 f1 t -2,-'A 202 :.0.e47' 1.1 16.99 V Lt 1httS/I 203 0.50 n-+. 1.2 .9 1907 6.86 3 3.7. 6.65 __ 2 4. 1 * 8.10 3 3.2. *.7.40 2 3.7i 7.12 3 .. 3.7 11 flC/ULWL 2iOr 204 0.51 1.13 17.74 6.90 23. 11__I ,4zfC/c- 2C_5 047 1.08 _ 6.49 7.483 33. 11 , ~/ 206 0 048 1.09 17.17 7.51 2 37 11 OL4Z4I'{j 207 0.48 1.07 .18. 69 8.26 2 ... _11 d .c c'7-7.2.08Q 0.5 3 1.1 20.31 8.89 2 33 11 /L4' 209 0.47 1.10 17.22 7.81 33. 11_y~/ 210 0.49 1.15 17.58 9.12 2 34 11 cZ~'$211 0.4 9 1.09 9I-/~1 9-T-r4 ~33. 11 Ll7 -c 2 212 0.47 1.08 18.00 7.87 23. ~4_lIyyjI ts2-67q92~3 0.4 6. 1.0917.81 __ _8.12 3.4_ 11.utk44J 214 0.46 1.05 15.81 6.79 23. 1I34A 7 215 - ~ 0.50 .. ._-.1.0 9 _...17.4 0 8.17.3_____3. 11 .4Zn-t l4.23216 0.51 1.11 17.56 7.51 23. 11- i (W~,,D3 217 0.46 1.08 17.36 7.71 33. i1 20 218 0.9 _.__10 18.61 704 2 __ . *11 e/-i 91 219 0.4 9 1.11 19.5 5 7.71 33. 11l 3/-& /0 220 0.4 8 1.11 17.8 3 7. 90 __2 4.0 2'/ 21 0 .4 8 1 .1 1 19 .23 7 .4 5 336 11A62677Z2. 0.48 1.10 17.49 7.51 24. 1 r a _2 2 3 _0 .5 2 W 1..13_. 17.o84 _....__.9.3 0 3 ___ 3 CALCULATIONS FROM DATA .- 3REFD. NO. SAVP. NO. 50 SL 2.5 SL Ti E l S T IL. NO. 11 iL 5kk 224t 0.48 1.0a9 16.1? 7.87 2 17" I i t 5'a Z 225 0. 47 1.04 16.43 9.17 3 11 226 0.51 1.1 0 18.14 87 .187 . . ' _.22.7.--- 046 1.04 16. 36 7.35 3___ 1122 0.52 1.09 17.84 6.54 2 1 t1 - ?31 22 0.49I 11/ cce '233 0.52 1.06 17.35 7.65 2 A'i 23.... 0.51 _ _1.0 7 ..16.90 __._.. 8.72 3_. 3.8_ jZ _5~.9...46235 0.___ . 50 1.04 17.84 8.59 2 236 0.46 1.01 15e30 8.15 2 44 27__. 0.54 __ 1.07 _ 79 ,3 _250 X 0.5 1.0 1.9 7.68 2 115 M0 ---. 408 1.05 __17.7 6 8.0 4 2 :; 124 / 0.44 0.99 17.31 .7.4 8 2 46 l/ .L 24f1 .0.46 .1.00 19.92 8.00 3 49 -__._.. 0~ &~&c~ 4 .8 1.0 6 18.52 _ .03 _ 43 11 243 0.44 0.98 16.57 8.20 2 45 II04L7O 2 44 0.5 0 100 __- _-,- -... .J .' 24 -- '_ &17A/ 7 .-- r, 3 __ _ 44 2-02450.4 5 1.000 1-6- 4m~6/~;7---7 2 48 ! / i~a}iG&7/ 246 ';0.45 1. "00 1'/2,-& 9 3 11cA;p 6 _247_ ;0.44 .095 _15.82 .. 8.43._ 3 44 /'.249.__ 0.45 0.98 16.89 8.26 _ 3 42 1I .4 2:7 250 0.51_.__ .12 1 . 20 .2.-.z3. 10.28 -3 39 S 11 ,~ A -~ 251 . .0.46 1.0a3 . 15.6 5 8.17 2 4.1'? ._ O 48 . 1 . .. 11/ a/ '/253 0.45 0.96e 17.30 9.25 2 47 1. i/ v254- 0.43 0.97 15.76 7.03 3 45 1 255., 0.4 9 _.____.1. 0 3...__. 18.8 3 .__,._ 7.81 3 41 11 ~2~772256 0.45 1.00 17.34 .8.04 2 42