C U LT I V A R

Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 27

Registration of ‘Bailey’ PeanutThomas G. Isleib,* Susana R. Milla-Lewis, Harold E. Pattee, Susan C. Copeland, M. Carolina Zuleta, Barbara B. Shew, Joyce E. Hollowell, Timothy H. Sanders, Lisa O. Dean, Keith W. Hendrix, Maria Balota, and Jay W. Chapin

T.G. Isleib, S.R. Milla-Lewis, S.C. Copeland, and M.C. Zuleta, Dep. of Crop Sci., Box 7629, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7629; H.E. Pattee, Dep. of Biol. and Agric. Engineering, Box 7625, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7625; B.B. Shew and J.E. Hollowell, Dep. of Plant Pathology, Box 7903, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7903; T.H. Sanders, L.O. Dean, and K.W. Hendrix, USDA-ARS, Market Quality and Handling Res. Unit, Raleigh, NC 27695-7624; M. Balota, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., Tidewater Agric. Res. & Ext. Ctr., 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA 23437; J.W. Chapin, Dep. of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sci., Clem-son Univ., Edisto Res. & Educ. Ctr., 64 Research Rd., Blackville, SC 29817. Development of this cultivar was supported by grants from the Natl. Peanut Board, the N.C. Peanut Growers Assoc., the N.C. Crop Improvement Assoc., the N.C. Foundation Seed Producers, Inc., and the Peanut Foundation. Registration by CSSA. Received 31 Dec. 2009. *Corresponding author (tom_isleib@ncsu.edu).

Abbreviations: CBR, Cylindrocladium black rot; ELK, extra large ker-nels; NCARS, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service; NCSU, North Carolina State University; PBRS, Peanut Belt Research Station; PRWN, Puerto Rico Winter Nursery; PVQE, Peanut Variety and Qual-ity Evaluation; SB, Sclerotinia blight; SMK, sound mature kernels; SSD, single-seed descent; TSW, tomato spotted wilt; UCPRS, Upper Coastal Plain Research Station; UPPT, Uniform Peanut Performance Test; VC, Virginia-Carolina.

Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) grown in the Virginia-Car-olina (VC) production area, which comprises Virginia,

North Carolina, and South Carolina, are predominantly of the virginia market type. Virginia-type peanuts have large pods and seeds, and most are marketed either as in-shell pea-nuts or as shelled kernels. Only a small fraction of the VC peanut crop is processed into peanut butter or paste. The VC peanut crop is subject to reduction of yield and market qual-ity resulting from the occurrence of several diseases, includ-ing four that occur with regularity: early leaf spot (caused by Cercospora arachidicola Hori), late leaf spot [caused by Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Deighton], Cylindrocladium black rot (CBR; caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticum Crous, M.J. Wingf. & Alfenas), Sclerotinia blight (SB; caused by S. minor Jagger), and tomato spotted wilt (TSW; caused by the Tomato spotted wilt tospovirus). All of the previously released virginia-type cultivars are susceptible to one or more of these four diseases.

The Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and the Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 reduced the U.S. federal support price for peanuts in two steps from its level of $740 Mg−1 in 1995 to its current level of $389 Mg−1. That 47% reduction in price forced growers to reevaluate their production practices with the goal of reducing production costs, including those associated with disease control. Growers had previously shown interest in disease-resistant cultivars primarily when the cost of chem-ical control was extremely high, as in the case of SB, or if there was no chemical control available, as in the case of TSW. Today, growers are eager to use resistant cultivars whenever that use will reduce the cost of production. The

Published in the Journal of Plant Registrations 4:27–39 (2010).doi: 10.3198/jpr2009.12.0742crcPublished online 15 Nov. 2010.© Crop Science Society of America5585 Guilford Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USAAll rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or trans mitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.

ABSTRACT‘Bailey’ (Reg. No. CV-111, PI 659502) is a large-seeded virginia-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea L. subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea) with partial resistance to fi ve diseases that occur commonly in the Virginia-Carolina production area: early leaf spot (caused by Cercospora arachidicola Hori), late leaf spot [caused by Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Deighton], Cylindrocladium black rot [caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticum Crous, M.J. Wingf. & Alfenas], Sclerotinia blight ( caused by Sclerotinia minor Jagger), and tomato spotted wilt (caused by Tomato spotted wilt tospovirus). It also has partial resistance to southern stem rot (caused by Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.). Bailey was developed as part of a program of selection for multiple-disease resistance funded by growers, seedsmen, shellers, and processors. Bailey was tested under the experimental designation N03081T and was released by the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service (NCARS) in 2008. Bailey was tested by the NCARS, the Virginia Agricultural Experimental Station, and fi ve other state agricultural experiment stations and the USDA-ARS units participating in the Uniform Peanut Performance Tests. Bailey has an alternate branching pattern, an intermediate runner growth habit, medium green foliage, and high contents of fancy pods and medium virginia-type seeds. It has approximately 34% jumbo and 46% fancy pods, seeds with tan testas and an average weight of 823 mg seed−1, and an extra large kernel content of approximately 42%. Bailey is named in honor of the late Dr. Jack E. Bailey, formerly the peanut breeding project’s collaborating plant pathologist.

C U L T I V A R28 Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011

peanut breeding program at North Carolina State Univer-sity (NCSU) has a long history of releasing disease-resistant cultivars such as ‘NC 5’ (Emery and Gregory, 1970), ‘NC 6’ (Campbell et al., 1977), ‘NC 8C’ (Wynne and Beute, 1983),

‘NC 10C’ (Wynne et al., 1991a), ‘NC 12C’ (Isleib et al., 1997), and ‘Perry’ (Isleib et al., 2003). However, those cultivars were developed in separate subprograms that bred for resis-tance to each economically important disease named above, each based on separate sources of resistance and each suc-cessful to a greater or lesser degree, leading to the current situation in which each cultivar is susceptible to at least one of the four diseases. In 1998, the breeding program at NCSU initiated a program of simultaneous selection for resistance to the four consistently economically damaging diseases using early-generation testing for resistance com-bined with selection for improved pod and seed charac-teristics in superior families. The program was funded by grower check-off dollars from the National Peanut Board and the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association with additional support from the North Carolina Crop Improve-ment Association, the North Carolina Foundation Seed Producers, Inc., and the Peanut Foundation. ‘Bailey’ (Reg. No. CV-111, PI 659502) is the fi rst cultivar to be released from this program.

CharacteristicsBailey is a large-seeded, virginia-type peanut (A. hypogaea subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea) with partial resistance to fi ve diseases that occur commonly in the VC production area: early leaf spot, CBR, SB, and TSW. Bailey was tested under the experimental designation N03081T and was released by the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service (NCARS) in 2008. Bailey was tested by the NCARS, by the Virginia Agricultural Experimental Station, and by fi ve other state agricultural experiment stations and the USDA-ARS units participating in the Uniform Peanut Performance Tests (UPPT). Bailey has an alternate branching pattern, an inter-mediate runner growth habit, medium green foliage, and high contents of fancy pods and medium virginia-type seeds. It has seeds with tan testas and an average weight of 823 mg seed−1, approximately 34% jumbo and 46% fancy pods, and an extra large kernel (ELK) content of approxi-mately 42%. Bailey is named in honor of the late Dr. Jack E. Bailey, formerly the peanut breeding project’s collaborating plant pathologist.

MethodsBreeding History

Bailey was developed using a combination of pedigree selec-tion and modifi ed pedigree selection (single-seed descent, SSD) among and within families descended from the fi rst backcross of multiply-resistant registered germplasm line N96076L (Isleib et al., 2006c) to virginia-type cultivar NC 12C. The initial cross, X98008, was made in the winter of 1997–1998 using NC 12C as a female and N96076L as a male. To increase the probability of recovering an inbred line superior to NC 12C, the more agronomically desirable of the two parents (Isleib, 1999), a fi rst backcross, X98035,

was made in the summer of 1998 using NC 12C as a female and F1 plants of X98008 as males.

Eight BC1F1 seeds were planted at the 1998–1999 win-ter nursery at the Illinois Crop Improvement Association’s facility in Juana Diaz, PR (the Puerto Rico Winter Nurs-ery, PRWN). Six individual plants were harvested and their BC1F1:2 progeny planted separately at the Peanut Belt Research Station (PBRS) at Lewiston in Bertie County, NC in 1999. The BC1F1:2 plots were subjected to plant selection, and BC1F2:3 progenies of selected BC1F1:2 plants were planted at the 1999–2000 PRWN where a single pod was harvested from each mature plant within a family, then the balance of the pods were harvested in bulk. A single BC1F2:4 seed was shelled from each pod in the single-pod harvest bag, and a selection nursery was planted in 2000 at PBRS. Bulk-harvested BC1F2:4 seeds were used to plant replicated trials to evaluate the families’ reactions to the soil-borne diseases CBR and SB. The CBR trial was conducted on infested soil in Martin County, NC, with no application of metam sodium [sodium methyldithiocarbamate], the fumigant used to control CBR. The SB trial was conducted on infested soil in Gates County, NC, with no application of fl uazinam [3-chloro-N-(3-chloro-5-trifl uoromethyl-2-pyridyl)-α,α,α-trifl uoro-2,6-dinitro-p-toluidine] or boscalid [2-chloro-N-(4′-chlorobiphenyl-2-yl)nicotinamide], the fungicides labeled for control of SB in peanut. Plots were planted in May and stand counts made in June. Symptomatic plants were counted in each plot, the data converted to a propor-tion of symptomatic plants in each plot, and families with low incidence of CBR and SB identifi ed. Plant selections were made in the resistant BC1F2:4 families in the nursery planted for that purpose at PBRS.

BC1F4:5 progenies of the selected plants were planted at the PRWN in the winter of 2000–2001, SSD and bulk har-vests made for each family, BC1F4:6 families were planted in 2001: a selection nursery at PBRS planted from the SSD harvest; replicated trials for resistance to CBR at Chowan County, NC, to SB at Gates County, NC, and to defoliation caused by early leaf spot in a third test added to the program in 2001, a replicated (r = 2) test conducted at PBRS without any application of leaf spot fungicides. Disease trials were planted from bulk-harvested seed. CBR and SB incidence data were collected at the Chowan and Gates counties tests, and defoliation due to leaf spot was rated using a nine-point proportional scale where a rating of 1 indicated no defolia-tion, a rating of 5 indicated 50% defoliation, and a rating of 9 indicated complete defoliation. BC1F4:6 families combin-ing the lowest means for CBR incidence, SB incidence, and defoliation were identifi ed, and plants were selected from the nursery grown for that purpose at PBRS.

BC1F6:7 progenies of selected plants were grown at the 2001–2002 PRWN and harvested only in bulk because no further selection within families was anticipated. BC1F6:8 families were grown in replicated trials for CBR in Chowan County, for SB in Gates County, and for early leaf spot at PBRS. A fourth disease trial was added in 2002 to evaluate the reactions of families in the multiple-disease resistance program to TSW, estimating TSW incidence in each plot in the same manner as was used for CBR and SB. TSW trials

C U L T I V A RJournal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 29

‘Brantley’ (Isleib et al., 2006a), ‘VA-C 92R’ (Mozingo et al., 1994), and ‘VA 98R’ (Mozingo et al., 2000). Pod characteris-tics and grade of Bailey were most similar to those of ‘NC-V 11’ and VA 98R. Bailey was notable for its high content of bright fancy pods.

In the PVQE trials in 2005 through 2008 (Table 2), Bai-ley had greater yield averaged across diggings than any of the released cultivars used as checks (NC-V 11 [Wynne et al., 1991b], NC 12C, Perry, Phillips, Brantley, VA 98R, ‘Wil-son’ [Mozingo et al., 2004], and ‘CHAMPS’ [Mozingo et al., 2006]). This advantage came mainly on the yields achieved in the late digging because the yield of Bailey in the early digging was not signifi cantly greater than those of the early maturing cultivars VA 98R, Wilson, and CHAMPS. Pod characteristics of Bailey were similar to NC-V 11 or VA 98R, but Bailey had brighter pods, more ELK, more sound mature kernels (SMK), fewer other kernels, and greater sup-port price. Combined with the high yield of Bailey, these differences resulted in greater value per hectare compared with NC-V 11 and VA 98R in both the early and late dig-gings. The difference between the results obtained by the NCSU breeding project and the PVQE program may refl ect the use of irrigation at all NCDA research stations used as test locations by the NCSU project, the sparser seeding rate used in the NCSU trials (4.9 vs. 16.4 seeds m−1), or the dif-ferential occurrence or severity of diseases at some test sites.

Because Bailey was tested as a local option in the North Carolina UPPT in 2005 and 2006, 4 yr of data were collected in the VC region (Table 3). Bailey compared favorably with virginia-type checks ‘NC 7’ (Wynne et al., 1979), NC-V 11,and CHAMPS. Entered in the 2007 and 2008 UPPT as an offi cial entry tested at all locations, Bailey had the greatest mean yield of any line tested in either or both years (Table 4).

Resistance to Leaf SpotsBailey’s reaction to leaf spots was evaluated from 2003 through 2008 in fi eld trials at PBRS with no application of leaf spot fungicide during the entire season and in two tests at a location in Perquimans County, NC where leaf spot control failed in 2004 (Table 5). Defoliation was rated on a proportional scale of 1 (no defoliation) to 9 (complete defoliation) in late September or early October each year. Yield was measured on the unsprayed plots at PBRS. Bailey was not signifi cantly different in defoliation from its par-tially resistant nonrecurrent parent N97076L (5.07 vs. 5.44 defoliation score, NS) but had more defoliation than the resistant check GP-NC 343 (Campbell et al., 1971) (5.07 vs. 4.44 defoliation score, P < 0.05). It was not different in yield from either GP-NC 343 or N96076L (4006 vs. 3713 and 3847 kg ha−1,respectively, NS). Bailey should be considered partially resistant to leaf spots.

Resistance to Cylindrocladium Black RotBailey was entered in CBR trials on infested soil from 2003 through 2008. Reactions to CBR were expressed as the pro-portion of plants exhibiting symptoms in plots grown on infested soil (Table 5). CBR incidence in Bailey was not sig-nifi cantly greater than that of the resistant check N96076L (0.144 vs. 0.141, NS). In greenhouse assays in which the

were conducted using wide (51 cm) seed spacing and no chemical control of thrips (Frankliniella fusca Hinds), the most common vector of TSW in North Carolina. In addi-tion to the disease trials, replicated (r = 2) yield trials were conducted at PBRS and the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (UCPRS) near Rocky Mount, NC, with full chemical control of diseases, and a seed multiplication nursery was planted for bulk harvest at PBRS. By this stage, only descen-dants of the sixth BC1F1 plant had survived the selection process. Within the BC1F1–derived family, all descendants traced to only two BC1F2 plants.

In 2003, the disease-resistant BC1F6:9 family identifi ed as X98035-BC1F1–06–01-S-03-S-05: F09 was numbered N03081T. From 2003 through 2008, N03081T was entered in the Disease Advanced Test series, which included repli-cated (r = 3 or 4) CBR and SB tests in Chowan County and leaf spot and TSW tests at PBRS. The advanced leaf spot test included two replicated (r = 2) trials of the same entries in adjacent sections of the same fi eld, one sprayed with leaf spot fungicides and the other left unsprayed to allow defoliation to occur. Yield and grade were measured in both advanced leaf spot trials. Reactions of N03081T to SB and CBR were also measured under controlled conditions in greenhouse assays conducted in 2003 through 2008 (Hollowell et al., 2008). N03081T was evaluated for its reaction to TSW, late leaf spot and southern stem rot (caused by Sclerotium rolf-sii Sacc.) in replicated trials conducted at Clemson Univer-sity’s Edisto Research and Education Center in Blackville, SC in 2006, 2007, and 2008 (Chapin et al., 2010). N03081T was entered from 2003 through 2008 in the Advanced Yield Test series of replicated (r = 2) trials conducted at PBRS, UCPRS, and the Border Belt Tobacco Research Station near Whiteville, NC using best management practices. In 2005 through 2008, N03081T was entered in the Peanut Vari-ety and Quality Evaluation (PVQE) program (Coker, 2006a, 2006b; Coker and Shokes, 2007a, 2007b; Shokes et al., 2008 a, 2008b; Balota, 2009a, 2009b.), which was coordinated by personnel from the Tidewater Research and Extension Center of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-sity and conducted at fi ve sites annually with separate two-replicate tests dug early and late at each site in 2005 and 2006 and at only two sites in 2007 and 2008. N03081T was entered in the multiple-state UPPT as a “local option” at the North Carolina location in 2005 and 2006 (Branch et al., 2006, 2007) and as a multiple-site entry in 2007 and 2008 (Branch et al., 2008, 2009).

Genotypic means from each replicated test mentioned above were stored in databases. Subsets of the data were used to perform summary ANOVAs and mean separations. When possible, orthogonal subsets were used.

ResultsAgronomic Performance and Grade

Under recommended management practices, the yield of Bailey is superior to most existing virginia-type cultivars. In the NCSU Advanced Yield Tests averaged across 6 yr (Table 1), Bailey yielded signifi cantly more than ‘Gregory’ (Isleib et al., 1999), Perry, ‘Phillips’ (Isleib et al., 2006b),

C U L T I V A R30 Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011

Tab

le 1

. P

erfo

rman

ce s

umm

ary

for

lines

ent

ered

in t

he N

CSU

Ad

vanc

ed Y

ield

Tes

t (A

YT

) ser

ies

dur

ing

the

per

iod

20

03−

20

08,

a t

ota

l of

17 t

ests

in 6

yea

rs.

The

AY

T se

ries

is c

ond

ucte

d a

t th

ree

site

s ea

ch y

ear

(the

Pea

nut

Bel

t R

esea

rch

Stat

ion

at L

ewis

ton,

the

Up

per

Co

asta

l Pla

in R

esea

rch

Stat

ion

near

Ro

cky

Mo

unt,

an

d t

he B

ord

er B

elt

Tob

acco

Res

earc

h St

atio

n at

Whi

tevi

lle).†

Line

Fore

ign

mat

eria

l Lo

ose

she

lled

ke

rnel

s W

eig

ht

of

100

po

ds

Farm

er s

tock

fa

ncy

po

ds

Bri

ght

ness

Jum

bo

po

ds

Jum

bo

po

d

bri

ght

ness

Jum

bo

po

d

red

ness

Jum

bo

po

d

yello

wne

ssFa

ncy

po

ds

Fanc

y p

od

b

rig

htne

ssFa

ncy

po

d

red

ness

%%

g%

Hun

ter

L sc

ore

%H

unte

r L

sco

reH

unte

r a

sco

reH

unte

r b

sc

ore

%H

unte

r L

sco

reH

unte

r a

sco

re

Bai

ley

1.1d

0.5d

231.

1def

67.3

g45

.1ab

c23

.9h

40.8

d3.

6c13

.6d

43.3

a45

.8a

4.0ns

‡

Flo

rig

iant

1.3cd

0.8b

cd23

2.7c-

f78

.1b

cd45

.4ab

37.5

ef44

.7a

3.7ab

c14

.7ab

40.9

ab45

.2ab

4.1ns

NC

71.

3cd1.

2ab25

2.8a

76.5

cd43

.8ef

47.8

cd44

.8a

3.8ab

14.8

a28

.6d

41.7

fg3.

9ns

NC

-V 1

11.

4bcd

0.6cd

226.

3f70

.3fg

44.3

cde

30.0

g42

.7b

cd3.

9a14

.0b

cd40

.4ab

44.7

bc

4.2ns

NC

12C

2.0a

1.4a

240.

4cd75

.8d

e44

.4cd

e42

.5d

e44

.8a

3.8ab

c14

.9a

33.2

c43

.2d

e4.

0ns

Gre

go

ry1.

5bcd

0.9b

c25

1.8ab

83.9

a44

.1d

ef57

.7a

45.2

a3.

6bc

15.0

a26

.1d

41.3

g3.

9ns

Perr

y1.

7abc

0.9b

cd24

2.0b

c81

.6ab

44.0

ef49

.6b

c44

.6ab

3.9a

15.1

a32

.0c

42.6

ef4.

1ns

Phill

ips

1.5b

cd0.

8bcd

234.

6c-f

72.1

ef45

.7a

31.9

fg43

.8ab

c3.

6bc

14.5

abc

39.9

b46

.0a

3.9ns

Bra

ntle

y1.

5bcd

1.0ab

c25

6.6a

80.4

abc

44.2

def

54.0

ab45

.3a

3.8ab

c15

.0a

26.7

d41

.4g

4.1ns

VA 9

8R1.

8ab0.

9bcd

229.

1ef68

.6fg

44.7

bcd

28.2

gh

41.9

cd3.

6bc

13.8

cd40

.3ab

45.2

ab4.

0ns

Wils

on

1.3d

0.8b

cd23

6.7cd

e70

.5fg

43.5

f31

.8g

41.5

d3.

7abc

13.8

cd38

.4b

43.8

cd4.

1ns

Mea

n1.

50.

923

9.5

75.0

44.5

39.5

43.6

3.7

14.5

35.4

43.7

4.0

CV

(%)

42.8

72.1

6.2

8.1

2.5

21.1

6.5

9.5

8.1

13.7

3.4

9.7

LSD

.05

0.4

0.4

10.1

4.1

0.8

5.6

1.9

0.2

0.8

3.3

1.0

ns

Line

Fanc

y p

od

ye

llow

ness

Jum

bo/

fan

cyW

eig

ht o

f 10

0 se

eds

Sup

er e

xtra

-la

rge

kern

els

Ext

ra-la

rge

kern

els

Soun

d

mat

ure

kern

els

Soun

d s

plit

sO

ther

ker

nels

Mea

t c

ont

ent

Sup

po

rt

pri

cePo

d y

ield

Cro

p v

alue

§

Hun

ter

b s

core

g—

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

— %

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

¢ kg

−1kg

ha−1

$ ha

−1

Bai

ley

15.5

a0.

58e

84.6

d9.

0d37

.9ef

64.6

bc

4.1a

2.2ab

68.6

bc

39.2

6bcd

4013

a15

78a

Flo

rig

iant

14.9

bc

1.00

d86

.3cd

6.6d

30.3

g62

.7d

3.4b

cd2.

4a66

.1e

37.6

2e30

86c

1162

d

NC

713

.7e

1.80

b91

.8ab

c18

.7b

44.2

bc

65.7

b3.

5abc

1.8c

69.4

ab39

.85ab

c30

52c

1227

cd

NC

-V 1

114

.8b

c0.

80d

e84

.1d

8.3d

35.2

f64

.6b

c3.

3bcd

2.2ab

68.0

cd38

.76d

3367

bc

1311

bcd

NC

12C

14.2

d1.

34c

89.3

a-d

18.3

b44

.5b

c65

.8b

3.9ab

1.8c

69.6

ab40

.05a

3404

bc

1376

bc

Gre

go

ry13

.6e

2.33

a93

.8a

21.9

a46

.5ab

65.6

b2.

9d1.

7c68

.6b

c39

.53ab

c33

38b

c13

23b

c

Perr

y14

.2d

1.67

b92

.6ab

13.0

c39

.2e

63.6

cd3.

6abc

2.4a

67.3

de

38.5

7d32

69b

c12

65cd

Phill

ips

15.1

ab0.

85d

e86

.1cd

16.1

b42

.0cd

65.9

ab3.

7abc

2.0b

c69

.6ab

39.9

2ab32

38c

1304

bcd

Bra

ntle

y13

.6e

2.16

a89

.5a-

d23

.2a

47.4

a65

.6b

3.4b

cd1.

7c69

.2ab

c39

.80ab

c31

79c

1271

cd

VA 9

8R15

.1b

0.78

de

87.0

bcd

8.7d

37.9

e64

.8b

c3.

8ab1.

9bc

68.7

bc

39.1

7cd32

06c

1259

cd

Wils

on

14.6

cd0.

89d

88.8

a-d

13.3

c39

.8d

e67

.1a

3.0cd

1.8c

70.2

a40

.15a

3641

ab14

60ab

Mea

n14

.51.

2988

.514

.340

.465

.13.

52.

068

.739

.33

3345

1321

CV

(%)

4.4

34.1

9.5

28.1

9.8

3.0

27.6

26.0

2.7

2.7

17.5

17.9

LSD

.05

0.4

0.30

5.7

2.7

2.7

1.3

0.7

0.3

1.3

0.73

396

160

† Mea

ns fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

lett

er w

ithi

n a

colu

mn

are

not

dif

fere

nt b

y t-

test

(P <

0.0

5).

‡ ns,

var

iati

on

amo

ng li

nes

was

no

t si

gni

fi can

t (P

> 0

.05)

by

F-te

st.

§ Cro

p v

alue

co

mp

uted

by

app

lyin

g t

he fe

der

al s

upp

ort

pri

ce t

o t

he e

ntir

e yi

eld

.

C U L T I V A RJournal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 31

roots of plants grown for 6 wk in medium inoculated with 25 microsclerotia per gram of medium and were then rated for root rot on a proportional scale of 0 (none) to 5 (complete), Bailey was not signifi cantly different from the most resistant line tested (Table 6). Exhibiting levels of resistance comparable to those of NC 12C and Perry, Bai-ley should be considered partially resistant to CBR.

Resistance to Sclerotinia BlightBailey was entered in SB trials on infested soil from 2003 through 2008 (Table 5). No SB developed in the trials in 2004 or 2007, and data from those years were not included in the ANOVA or computation of means. Reactions to SB are expressed as the proportion of plants exhibiting symptoms in plots grown on infested soil. The incidence of Sclerotinia blight in Bailey was similar to that in resis-tant check N96076L (0.065 vs. 0.083, NS). In greenhouse

assays where mainstem lesion growth was measured up to 7 d after inoculation and incubation was in a mist chamber (Table 6), Bailey developed shorter lesions than most culti-vars. Bailey should be considered partially resistant to SB.

Field Resistance to Tomato Spotted Wilt

Bailey’s reaction to TSW was evaluated in trials from 2002 through 2008 at PBRS in plots planted at 51-cm seed spac-ing (Table 5). The thin seeding rate and withholding of insecticide from the plots promoted feeding by thrips, the vector of TSW. Reaction to TSW was measured as the pro-portion of plants exhibiting foliar symptoms at any time during the season. TSW incidence in Bailey was not dif-ferent from that in the fi eld resistant check PI 576636, a hirsuta-type line (A. hypogaea subsp. hypogaea var. hirsuta

Table 2. Summary of agronomic performance and grade for lines entered in the 2005–2008 Peanut Variety and Quality Evaluation (PVQE) program conducted at fi ve or six locations each year with an early- and a late-dug test at each location in 2005 and 2006 (only two locations in 2007 and 2008), totaling 34 tests over 4 yr.†

LineForeign material

Loose shelled kernels

Farmer stock fancy pods Jumbo pods Fancy pods Jumbo pods/fancy podsContent Brightness Content Brightness Content Brightness

% Hunter L score % Hunter L score % Hunter L score % Hunter L score

Bailey 0.9bc 0.6ef 81.0d 44.7a 35.7e 45.2a 45.8a 44.3a 0.84e

NC-V 11 1.0b 0.8ef 80.6d 43.1cd 36.8e 43.8cde 44.2ab 42.6de 0.89de

NC 12C 1.2a 2.4a 84.7c 43.2cd 56.9c 43.6def 28.6e 42.3e 2.23c

Gregory 1.4a 1.6c 90.7a 42.7d 73.8a 43.0f 17.5g 41.1f 4.95a

Perry 1.3a 0.9de 79.5de 43.7bc 38.0e 44.1cd 41.8bc 43.2cd 0.96de

Phillips 0.8c 0.9def 84.4c 44.7a 44.9d 45.1ab 40.2cd 44.2ab 1.21de

Brantley 0.9bc 1.9b 88.5b 42.9d 64.6b 43.3ef 24.3f 41.8ef 2.99b

VA 98R 0.9bc 0.8ef 78.6e 44.0ab 36.8e 44.4bc 42.3bc 43.6abc 0.91de

Wilson 0.8c 0.6f 85.9c 43.9b 45.3d 44.3c 41.2cd 43.5bcd 1.20de

CHAMPS 0.9bc 1.1d 84.6c 44.0ab 46.3d 44.3c 38.8d 43.6abc 1.28d

Mean 1.0 1.2 83.9 43.7 47.9 44.1 36.5 43.0 1.75

CV (%) 38.3 54.7 4.5 3.4 13.9 3.3 14.8 4.0 48.5

LSD.05 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.7 3.2 0.7 2.6 0.8 0.40

LineExtra-large

kernelsSound mature

kernelsSound splits

Other kernels

Damaged kernels

Meat content

Support price

Pod yield

Crop value§

————————————————————— % ————————————————————— ¢ kg−1 kg ha−1 $ ha−1

Bailey 43.0c 65.9a 3.1bc 2.0bc 1.9e 73.0ab 39.00a 5391a 2108a

NC-V 11 37.2e 63.8bc 2.8cd 2.5a 3.1cd 72.1cd 36.29cd 4996b 1871b

NC 12C 48.0b 65.5a 3.5a 1.5d 3.1cd 73.6a 38.32ab 4672cd 1821bcd

Gregory 46.6b 61.1d 2.4d 1.8cd 4.8a 70.1e 32.86f 4667cd 1612e

Perry 42.9c 65.0ab 3.3ab 2.1b 2.7d 73.0abc 37.72abc 4474d 1723cde

Phillips 47.9b 64.9ab 3.6a 1.6d 3.2cd 73.4ab 37.09bc 4860bc 1845bc

Brantley 49.9a 63.2c 3.3ab 1.6d 3.9b 71.9d 35.48de 4661cd 1719de

VA 98R 39.8d 63.0c 3.7a 2.2b 3.9b 72.8a-d 35.36de 4852bc 1786bcd

Wilson 36.7e 61.0d 3.1bc 2.2b 3.4bc 69.7e 34.67e 4884bc 1738cd

CHAMPS 41.1cd 64.9ab 2.6d 2.0b 3.3cd 72.6bcd 36.63cd 4798bc 1808bcd

Mean 43.3 63.8 3.1 2.0 3.3 72.2 36.34 4825 1803

CV (%) 9.1 4.3 26.9 27.7 39.4 2.6 8.4 10.8 14.3

LSD.05 1.9 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.46 248 123

†Means followed by the same letter within a column are not different by t-test (P < 0.05). §Crop value computed by applying the federal support price to the entire yield.

C U L T I V A R32 Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011

Blanching CharacteristicsBlanching characteristics of extra large and medium ker-nels of Bailey were measured in the PVQE trials in 2005–2008 (Table 7). Genotypic variation was detected only for the content of split kernels and partially blanched whole kernels in both the extra large and medium grades. Bailey

Köhler) (0.181 vs. 0.160, NS). In trials conducted in South Carolina, Bailey exhibited resistance to TSW, late leaf spot, and southern stem rot comparable to that of ‘Georgia-03L’ (Branch, 2004), a resistant runner-type cultivar. Bailey should be considered fi eld resistant to TSW.

Table 3. Means and standard errors of traits measured on Bailey and other lines in the 2005-2008 Uniform Peanut Performance Test (UPPT) combined across trials conducted in the Virginia-Carolina production area (one test at Suffolk, VA, one at Lewiston, NC, and one test at Blackville, SC; data for lines tested in at least three trials over three years included in the analysis).†

Extent of testing

Market type/entry

No. of tests

No. of years

First year

Last year Pod yield

Yield rank

Fancy pod content

Total sound mature kernels Other kernels

kg ha−1 ————————————— % ————————————

Virginia type 5148±108α 80.1±0.9α 70.0±0.3β 2.1±0.1β

Bailey 11 4 2005 2008 5513±239a 2 75.0±2.0bc 70.4±0.6b 2.1±0.3c

N02005 5 3 2005 2007 4728±363abc 11 81.9±3.1b 70.1±0.9b 2.3±0.5c

N02009 5 3 2005 2007 4962±363ab 9 80.7±3.1bc 70.8±0.9ab 2.3±0.5c

N02020J 7 3 2005 2007 5297±305a 6 89.9±2.6a 68.6±0.8b 2.0±0.4c

N03088T 5 3 2005 2007 5550±363a 1 81.2±3.1b 70.7±0.9ab 2.7±0.5bc

N03089T 9 4 2005 2008 5170±268a 8 81.6±2.3b 69.7±0.7b 2.6±0.3bc

N03090T 9 4 2005 2008 5355±268a 5 81.6±2.3b 70.3±0.7b 2.4±0.3c

N03091T (Sugg) 9 4 2005 2008 5194±268a 7 77.2±2.3bc 69.8±0.7b 2.2±0.3c

NC 7 15 4 2005 2008 4042±199c 13 79.7±1.8bc 69.5±0.5b 1.7±0.3c

NC-V 11 3 3 2006 2008 5412±479a 3 70.4±4.1c 70.4±1.2ab 1.2±0.6c

CHAMPS 4 3 2006 2008 5407±417a 4 82.5±3.6ab 70.2±1.1b 1.5±0.5c

Runner type 4548±173β 17.0±1.6β 71.6±0.4α 3.6±0.2α

Florunner 15 4 2005 2008 4362±199bc 12 20.2±1.9d 70.5±0.5b 3.7±0.2a

Georgia Green 8 3 2006 2008 4733±284ab 10 13.8±2.4e 72.7±0.7a 3.4±0.4ab

Mean 4651 65.9 70.3 2.3

CV (%) 16.5 9.9 2.7 41.6

Market type/ entry Damaged kernels Meat content

Extra-large or jumbo kernels Medium kernels No. 1 kernels

Weight of 100 seeds

—————————————————————————— % ————————————————————————— g

Virginia type 1.2±0.2ns‡ 73.0±0.3β 48.8±0.6β 13.3±0.5β 3.8±0.2β 93.5±0.7α

Bailey 0.8±0.5b 73.1±0.7cd 45.3±1.4cd 16.6±1.2cd 4.4±0.4bc 86.1±1.5d

N02005 — 76.3±1.1ab 53.9±2.2ab 8.8±1.8f 3.1±0.6c 91.9±2.1bc

N02009 — 73.6±1.1bcd 54.8±2.2a 8.9±1.8f 3.3±0.6c 93.4±2.1bc

N02020J 3.3±0.7a 71.7±0.9d 52.7±1.8ab 9.5±1.5f 3.4±0.5c 103.8±2.0a

N03088T — 73.9±1.1a-d 50.3±2.2abc 11.8±1.8ef 3.6±0.6c 94.2±2.1bc

N03089T 1.3±0.7ab 72.9±0.8cd 47.7±1.6c 12.0±1.3ef 4.5±0.4bc 95.8±1.6b

N03090T 0.3±0.7b 73.1±0.8cd 49.2±1.6bc 12.7±1.3ef 3.7±0.4c 95.3±1.6b

N03091T (Sugg) 0.9±0.7b 72.5±0.8d 50.2±1.6abc 11.2±1.3ef 3.6±0.4c 94.9±1.6b

NC 7 1.1±0.3b 71.8±0.6d 48.0±1.2c 13.6±1.0de 3.4±0.3c 92.8±1.2bc

NC-V 11 0.9±0.5b 72.0±1.4cd 40.0±2.9d 22.4±2.4b 4.3±0.8bc 86.8±3.5cd

CHAMPS 1.1±0.5b 72.2±1.2cd 44.2±2.5cd 18.5±2.1bc 4.7±0.7bc 93.4±2.9bc

Runner type 0.9±0.3ns 75.6±0.5α 25.3±1.0β 35.4±0.9α 5.7±0.3α 60.1±1.1β

Florunner 1.1±0.3b 74.8±0.6abc 24.8±1.2e 34.2±1.0a 6.2±0.3a 60.1±1.2e

Georgia Green 0.7±0.5b 76.5±0.8a 25.8±1.7e 36.5±1.4a 5.2±0.4ab 60.2±1.8e

Mean 1.0 73.2 43.8 18.0 4.0 87.3

CV (%) 88.9 3.1 10.4 21.1 29.7 5.2†Market-type means followed by the same Greek letter are not different (P < 0.05) by t-test. Line means followed by the same Roman letter within a column are not different by t-test (P < 0.05).

‡ns, no signifi cant variation among entries by F-test.

C U L T I V A RJournal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 33

Tab

le 4

. M

arke

t ty

pe

and

line

mea

ns f

rom

the

20

07-2

00

8 U

nifo

rm P

eanu

t P

erfo

rman

ce T

est

com

bin

ed a

cro

ss a

ll te

sts

cond

ucte

d in

the

So

uthe

aste

rn (o

ne t

est

at

Tif

ton,

GA

, one

at

Mar

iann

a, F

L, a

nd o

ne a

t H

ead

land

, AL)

, So

uthw

este

rn (o

ne t

est

at S

tep

henv

ille,

TX

, one

at

Pea

rsal

l, T

X, o

ne a

t B

row

nfi e

ld, T

X, a

nd o

ne a

t Fo

rt C

ob

b, O

K),

and

Vir

gin

ia-C

aro

lina

pro

duc

tio

n ar

eas

(one

tes

t at

Tif

ton,

GA

, Suf

folk

, VA

, one

at

Lew

isto

n, N

C, a

nd o

ne t

est

at B

lack

ville

, SC

).†

Mar

ket

typ

e/

entr

y

Ext

ent

of

test

ing

Pod

yie

ldY

ield

ra

nk

Fanc

y p

od

co

nten

t

Tota

l so

und

m

atur

e ke

rnel

sO

ther

ke

rnel

sD

amag

ed

kern

els

Mea

t co

nten

t

Ext

ra-

larg

e o

r ju

mb

o ke

rnel

sM

ediu

m

kern

els

No.

1

kern

els

Wei

ght

of

100

seed

s

No.

o

f te

sts

No. of

yr

Firs

t yr

Last

yr

kg h

a−1—

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

— %

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

g

Run

ner

4979

+52

ns‡

28.7

±0.

9β74

.0±

0.1α

2.5±

0.1α

0.9±

0.1β

77.0

±0.

1α38

.2±

0.4β

27.5

±0.

3α4.

2±0.

1α67

.4±

0.3β

AR

SOK

-R1

132

2007

2008

4985

+22

0b-e

1429

.0±

3.2ij

75.8

±0.

5b2.

4±0.

2e-h

0.7±

0.2c

78.6

±0.

4c41

.0±

1.7hi

j27

.2±

1.5b

4.1±

0.4d

e70

.4±

1.3g

h

C72

4-19

-25

212

2007

2008

4979

+169

b-e

1540

.8±

2.4fg

h73

.5±

0.4d

e2.

3±0.

2e-h

0.9±

0.2b

c76

.4±

0.3e-

h42

.7±

1.3g

hi24

.5±

1.1b

c3.

5±0.

3efg

75.1

±1.

0f

CR

SP 6

4810

120

0720

0749

58+

256b

-e16

59.3

±3.

5e73

.1±

0.6d

ef1.

8±0.

3g-j

0.8±

0.3b

c75

.4±

0.5g

-k49

.6±

2.0cd

e15

.6±

1.7fg

h3.

3±0.

5efg

78.5

±1.

5f

CR

SP 7

0210

120

0720

0749

54+

256b

-e17

45.8

±3.

5f71

.4±

0.6f-

i2.

4±0.

3d-h

0.7±

0.3b

c74

.2±

0.5kl

m47

.3±

2.0c-

g19

.6±

1.7d

ef3.

2±0.

5efg

70.7

±1.

5gh

CR

SP 7

0811

120

0820

0844

66+

242e

-h23

32.7

±3.

5hi70

.7±

0.6h

-k2.

7±0.

3c-f

1.0±

0.3b

c73

.9±

0.5lm

42.7

±1.

9ghi

22.7

±1.

6cd3.

3±0.

5efg

66.3

±1.

4ij

GA

032

803

101

2007

2007

5289

+25

6a-d

835

.0±

3.5g

hi75

.8±

0.6b

2.4±

0.3d

-g0.

8±0.

3bc

78.8

±0.

5bc

42.4

±2.

0ghi

27.7

±1.

7b3.

5±0.

5efg

62.6

±1.

5jk

GA

032

902

112

2007

2008

5557

+24

2ab3

43.8

±3.

2fg75

.9±

0.6b

1.9±

0.3f-

i1.

0±0.

2bc

78.6

±0.

4c42

.7±

1.9g

hi25

.1±

1.6b

c3.

4±0.

5efg

64.8

±1.

5ijk

GA

032

913

101

2007

2007

5563

+25

6ab2

44.1

±3.

5fg

75.5

±0.

6bc

2.3±

0.3e-

h1.

0±0.

3bc

78.3

±0.

5cd40

.4±

2.0hi

j26

.5±

1.7b

c3.

3±0.

5efg

64.9

±1.

5ijk

GA

052

524

111

2008

2008

5156

+24

2bcd

1018

.3±

3.5kl

77.8

±0.

6a1.

8±0.

3g-j

0.8±

0.3b

c80

.1±

0.5ab

42.3

±1.

9ghi

24.5

±1.

6bc

3.2±

0.5ef

g64

.3±

1.4ijk

GA

052

527

111

2008

2008

5068

+24

2b-e

1221

.1±

3.5jk

78.1

±0.

6a1.

6±0.

3hij

0.8±

0.3b

c80

.4±

0.5a

44.6

±1.

9e-h

22.8

±1.

6cd3.

1±0.

5efg

65.9

±1.

4ijk

GA

052

529

111

2008

2008

5150

+24

2bcd

1120

.3±

3.5jk

l78

.0±

0.6a

1.7±

0.3g

-j0.

9±0.

3bc

80.2

±0.

5a43

.2±

1.9g

hi24

.5±

1.6b

c3.

3±0.

5efg

66.4

±1.

4ij

TX

L 06

1816

122

2007

2008

5391

+25

6abc

642

.0±

3.5fg

h74

.7±

0.6b

cd2.

0±0.

3f-i

0.7±

0.3b

c77

.2±

0.5d

e46

.4±

2.0d

-g22

.0±

1.7cd

e3.

3±0.

5efg

74.9

±1.

5f

TX

L 06

1821

122

2007

2008

3782

+23

1i28

11.8

±3.

5lm70

.4±

0.6h

-k4.

3±0.

3a1.

5±0.

3b75

.6±

0.4f-

j19

.9±

1.8m

36.1

±1.

5a9.

8±0.

4a57

.1±

1.3l

UF0

7303

212

2007

2008

5491

+169

ab4

27.6

±2.

4ij71

.1±

0.4hi

3.2±

0.2b

c0.

8±0.

2c74

.7±

0.3jk

l27

.9±

1.3k

35.2

±1.

1a5.

4±0.

3c65

.3±

1.0ijk

UF0

7304

101

2007

2007

4787

+25

6c-g

207.

9±3.

5m74

.1±

0.6cd

e2.

3±0.

3e-h

0.7±

0.3c

76.9

±0.

5ef36

.1±

2.0j

28.0

±1.

7b3.

3±0.

5efg

66.5

±1.

5ij

UF0

7305

212

2007

2008

5425

+169

ab5

15.5

±2.

4klm

72.8

±0.

4efg

2.4±

0.2ef

g0.

7±0.

2c75

.6±

0.3hi

39.9

±1.

3ij27

.2±

1.1b

4.0±

0.3d

e71

.1±

1.0g

UF0

8301

111

2008

2008

5339

+24

2a-d

715

.9±

3.5kl

m73

.2±

0.6d

ef3.

1±0.

3bcd

0.8±

0.3b

c76

.8±

0.5ef

g27

.3±

1.9kl

37.3

±1.

6a4.

9±0.

5cd65

.8±

1.4ijk

Flo

runn

er21

220

0720

0843

16+1

71f-

i24

18.0

±2.

4kl73

.8±

0.4d

e2.

7±0.

2cde

0.9±

0.2b

c77

.2±

0.3d

e26

.4±

1.3kl

37.7

±1.

1a5.

5±0.

3c62

.6±

1.0k

Tifg

uard

10

120

0720

0739

27+

231hi

2716

.8±

3.5kl

m70

.5±

0.6h

-k3.

6±0.

3b0.

9±0.

3bc

74.6

±0.

4i-l22

.6±

1.8lm

38.9

±1.

5a7.

3±0.

4b67

.1±

1.3hi

Vir

gin

ia48

29+7

5ns84

.3±

0.9α

70.5

±0.

2β1.

4±0.

1β1.

2±0.

1α72

.7±

0.1β

50.2

±0.

6α15

.2±

0.5β

3.2±

0.1β

94.6

±0.

4α

Bai

ley

212

2007

2008

5741

+169

a1

75.8

±1.

9d71

.6±

0.4g

h1.

6±0.

2ij0.

6±0.

2c73

.5±

0.3m

47.9

±1.

3def

18.2

±1.

1ef3.

4±0.

3efg

89.6

±1.

0d

NC

721

220

0720

0840

67+1

69hi

2683

.9±

2.0ab

c70

.1±

0.4ijk

1.4±

0.2ij

1.1±

0.2b

c72

.3±

0.3n

52.0

±1.

4abc

13.4

±1.

2ghi

2.9±

0.3fg

97.6

±1.

0c

CR

SP 9

1111

120

0820

0842

02+

242g

hi25

82.4

±2.

8bcd

68.7

±0.

6l1.

5±0.

3ij2.

7±0.

3a71

.9±

0.5n

51.9

±1.

9a-d

10.5

±1.

6i4.

0±0.

5de

84.3

±1.

4e

N99

103o

l10

120

0720

0750

21+

256b

-e13

79.5

±2.

9cd69

.3±

0.6kl

1.7±

0.3hi

j1.

1±0.

3bc

71.9

±0.

5n43

.9±

2.0f-

i18

.2±

1.7d

ef4.

1±0.

5de

86.0

±1.

5de

N02

020J

101

2007

2007

4742

+25

6c-g

2188

.9±

2.9ab

69.6

±0.

6jkl

1.3±

0.3ij

1.4±

0.3b

72.1

±0.

5n55

.2±

2.0ab

10.4

±1.

7i2.

3±0.

5g10

4.5±

1.5a

N04

072C

T11

120

0820

0848

64+

242b

-f19

88.0

±2.

8ab71

.1±

0.6hi

j1.

2±0.

3ij1.

1±0.

3bc

73.0

±0.

5mn

56.4

±1.

9a10

.9±

1.6hi

2.4±

0.5g

101.

6±1.

4ab

N05

008

111

2008

2008

5235

+24

2a-d

986

.9±

2.8ab

c70

.4±

0.6h

-k1.

3±0.

3ij1.

0±0.

3bc

72.3

±0.

5n44

.7±

1.9e-

h22

.0±

1.6cd

3.2±

0.5ef

g88

.2±

1.4d

VT

0030

6910

120

0720

0746

71+

256d

-g22

83.6

±2.

9abc

72.9

±0.

6efg

1.4±

0.3ij

0.8±

0.3b

c75

.0±

0.5i-l

49.4

±2.

0cde

16.5

±1.

7fg3.

8±0.

5def

99.8

±1.

5bc

VT

0240

5111

120

0820

0849

25+

242b

-e18

90.0

±2.

8a70

.7±

0.6h

-k1.

2±0.

3j0.

9±0.

3bc

72.4

±0.

5n50

.5±

1.9b

cd16

.4±

1.6fg

2.6±

0.5fg

99.5

±1.

4bc

Mea

n44

0250

.772

.82.

20.

975

.641

.424

.14.

076

.1

CV

(%)

15.8

17.3

2.6

39.5

82.8

1.9

14.7

21.4

37.5

5.8

† Gro

up m

eans

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e G

reek

lett

er a

re n

ot

dif

fere

nt(P

< 0

.05)

by

t-te

st. L

ine

mea

ns fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

Ro

man

lett

er w

ithi

n a

colu

mn

are

not

dif

fere

nt b

y t-

test

(P <

0.0

5).

‡ ns,

no

sig

nifi c

ant

vari

atio

n am

ong

ent

ries

by

F-te

st.

C U L T I V A R34 Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011

Table 5. Disease reactions of Bailey compared with released virginia-type cultivars and checks evaluated in fi eld trials.†

Leaf spot‡ Cylindrocladium black rot (CBR)§

Group/lineNo. of tests

No. of yr First yr Last yr

Defoliation score

Pod yield without leaf- spot control

No. of tests

No. of yr First yr Last yr Incidence

1=none 9=complete kg ha−1

Bailey 9 6 2003 2008 4.93±0.23bα 3998±219aα 12 6 2003 2008 0.146±0.046aα

Cultivars 6.19±0.07β 2958±66β 0.272±0.018β

NC 7 12 9 2000 2008 6.03±0.19de 2688±184de 8 6 2003 2008 0.216±0.056ab

NC-V 11 13 9 2000 2008 6.61±0.18ef 2852±176cde 13 6 2003 2008 0.324±0.043bc

NC 12C 18 9 2000 2008 5.79±0.15d 3131±147cd 12 6 2003 2008 0.196±0.045ab

Gregory 15 9 2000 2008 6.29±0.17e 2900±163cde 17 6 2003 2008 0.219±0.037ab

Perry 18 9 2000 2008 5.82±0.15d 2917±147cde 18 6 2003 2008 0.244±0.036ab

Phillips 16 9 2000 2008 5.93±0.17de 3000±164cd 12 6 2003 2008 0.342±0.045bc

Brantley 9 8 2001 2008 6.23±0.22de 2905±215cde 10 6 2003 2008 0.323±0.050bc

VA 98R 14 9 2000 2008 6.97±0.18f 2499±169e 8 6 2003 2008 0.447±0.056c

Wilson 9 8 2001 2008 6.45±0.22ef 3046±214cd 8 6 2003 2008 0.241±0.056ab

CHAMPS 3 3 2006 2008 5.84±0.39cde 3639±375abc 3 3 2006 2008 0.169±0.091ab

Research checks 4.66±0.18α 3455±177α 0.191±0.037αβ

GP-NC 343 14 9 2000 2008 4.26±0.18a 3849±169a 10 6 2003 2008 0.203±0.050ab

N96076L 11 9 2000 2008 5.18±0.20bc 3713±193ab 16 6 2003 2008 0.140±0.038a

PI 576636 2 2 2007 2008 4.54±0.49ab 2803±468b-e 3 2 2007 2008 0.231±0.092ab

Mean 5.79 3177 0.243

CV (%) 11.2 19.6 62.3

Sclerotinia blight (SB)§                           Tomato spotted wilt (TSW)¶          

Group/lineNo. of tests

No. of yr First yr Last yr Incidence

No. of tests

No. of yr First yr Last yr Incidence

Bailey 10 4 2003 2008 0.062±0.033aα 16 7 2002 2008 0.179±0.030aα

Cultivars 0.190±0.013β 0.427±0.010γ

NC 7 5 4 2003 2008 0.175±0.046bc 19 9 2000 2008 0.488±0.027efg

NC-V 11 10 4 2003 2008 0.178±0.032c 29 9 2000 2008 0.420±0.022cde

NC 12C 8 4 2003 2008 0.276±0.036c 27 9 2000 2008 0.485±0.023fg

Gregory 12 4 2003 2008 0.169±0.029c 38 9 2000 2008 0.355±0.019c

Perry 13 4 2003 2008 0.119±0.028abc 38 9 2000 2008 0.532±0.019g

Phillips 9 4 2003 2008 0.261±0.034c 20 9 2000 2008 0.445±0.027def

Brantley 7 4 2003 2008 0.172±0.039bc 18 8 2001 2008 0.502±0.028fg

VA 98R 6 4 2003 2008 0.153±0.042abc 21 9 2000 2008 0.375±0.026cd

Wilson 6 4 2003 2008 0.219±0.042c 17 9 2000 2008 0.348±0.029c

CHAMPS 3 2 2006 2008 0.174±0.060abc 4 3 2006 2008 0.319±0.059bc

Research checks 0.141±0.041αβ 0.256±0.016β

GP-NC 343 6 4 2003 2008 0.228±0.043c 16 8 2001 2008 0.352±0.030c

N96076L 11 4 2003 2008 0.084±0.031ab 31 9 2000 2008 0.256±0.021b

PI 576636 1 1 2008 2008 0.110±0.110abc 14 7 2000 2008 0.159±0.032a

Mean 0.170 0.389

CV (%) 58.9 29.2†Group means followed by the same Greek letter within a column are not different (P < 0.05) by t-test. Line means followed by the same Roman letter within a column are not signifi cantly different (P < 0.05) by t-test.

‡Leaf spot reaction measured in plots with no chemical control of leaf spot.§CBR and SB measured in separate trials conducted in naturally infested fi elds with no application of metam sodium in the CBR trials or fl uazinam or boscalid in the Sclerotinia trials, and with any plant expressing symptoms of the specifi c disease counted as a “dead or diseased” plant.

¶TSW incidence measured in trials conducted with wide (25 or 50 cm) seed spacing, with no control of thrips (Frankliniella fusca Hinds) at any time during the growing season.

C U L T I V A RJournal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 35

was among the group of lines with greater con-tents of split kernels and lower contents of partially blanched kernels. The blanching characteristics of Bailey are within the range defi ned by other released virginia-type cultivars that are currently in use.

Oil ChemistryBailey has normal oil chemistry, that is, it does not express the high-oleic oil trait (Norden et al., 1987; Moore and Knauft, 1989; Knauft et al., 1993). Aver-aged across 21 PVQE tests in the PVQE program from 2005 through 2008, contents of individual fatty acids and the oleic-to-linoleic ratio for Bailey were within the range defi ned by the eight cur-rently grown normal-oleic cultivars included as checks (Table 8).

Flavor CharacteristicsThe fl avor of Bailey was evaluated by an eight-member, trained, descriptive sensory panel in the Department of Food Science at NCSU. Samples of SMK from a total of 13 tests conducted from the 2003−2007 growing seasons were evaluated by the sensory panel, along with samples of check cultivars and other elite breeding lines (Table 9). Heritability of the roasted-peanut sensory attributer is low (Pat-tee et al., 1994, 1998), and there was no among-line variation in roasted peanut intensity detected in the data that included measurements of the U.S. peanut industry fl avor standards ‘Florunner’ (Norden et al., 1969) and ‘Georgia Green’ (Branch, 1996). Intensity of the sweet attribute in Bailey was intermediate to those of the virginia-type fl avor standard NC 7 and the runner-type standard Florunner. Intensity of the bitter attribute in Bailey was not different from that of NC 7 and was greater than that of Florun-ner. The fl avor profi le of Bailey as measured in SMK samples was very similar to that of Gregory.

Flavor was also evaluated as part of the coopera-tive UPPT (Sanders et al., 2006). Bailey was grown as a “local option” at the North Carolina site (PBRS) in 2005 and 2006 and at all locations in 2007 and 2008. The fl avor of Bailey was compared to experi-mental virginia-type lines and checks grown at the Virginia and North Carolina sites (Table 10). In this data, the fl avor of Bailey was not different from that of NC 7 for the roasted peanut, sweet aromatic, sweet, or bitter sensory attributes. Bailey was not signifi cantly different from Florunner in roasted peanut or bitter attributes, but it had less intense sweet aromatic and sweet attributes.

AvailabilityBreeder seed of Bailey will be maintained by NCARS, Box 7643, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695–7643. Founda-tion seed will be distributed by the North Carolina Foundation Seed Producers, Inc., 8220 Riley Hill Rd., Zebulon, NC 27597. An application is pending for protection of Bailey under the U.S. Plant Variety Pro-

Tab

le 6

. R

eact

ions

of

Bai

ley

com

par

ed w

ith

rele

ased

vir

gin

ia-t

ype

cult

ivar

s, e

lite

bre

edin

g li

nes,

and

che

cks

to S

cler

oti

nia

blig

ht (S

B) a

nd C

ylin

dro

clad

ium

bla

ck r

ot

(CB

R) e

valu

ated

in g

reen

hous

e as

says

.†

Gro

up o

r lin

eN

o. o

f yr

Firs

t yr

Last

yr

SB le

sio

n le

ngth

af

ter

4 d

SB le

sio

n le

ngth

af

ter

5 d

SB le

sio

n le

ngth

af

ter

6 d

SB le

sio

n le

ngth

af

ter

7 d

Are

a un

der

d

isea

se-

pro

gre

ss c

urve

No.

of

yrFi

rst

yrLa

st

yrC

BR

ro

t sc

ore

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

— m

m —

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

mm

day

s0

= n

one

, 5 =

co

mp

lete

Exp

tl. l

ine

8.0±

1.5β

22.8

±2.

4β

38.1

±3.

3β

55.7

±3.

6β

111.

0±10

.8β

2.43

±0.

17β

Bai

ley

620

0320

098.

5±2.

0cd21

.2±

3.2d

e33

.9±

4.4b

c49

.3±

4.9d

101.

3±14

.4d

ef5

2004

2009

2.53

±0.

22cd

N03

091T

520

0320

097.

5±2.

3cd24

.4±

3.6cd

e42

.3±

4.8ab

c62

.1±

5.4b

cd12

0.7±

16.0

cde

420

0420

092.

33±

0.25

d

Cul

tiva

r11

.9±

1.0α

30.2

±1.

6α

50.3

±2.

1α73

.0±

2.4

α14

7.7±

7.0α

3.21

±0.

11α

NC

74

2004

2009

4.1±

2.6d

e24

.6±

4.1b

-e46

.3±

5.5ab

69.0

±6.

1ab11

6.2±

18.1

cde

420

0420

093.

00±

0.25

a-d

NC

-V 1

13

2003

2009

8.0±

3.0cd

26.3

±4.

7a-e

47.8

±6.

4ab67

.6±

7.2ab

c12

6.8±

21.2

b-e

220

0820

093.

35±

0.36

abc

NC

12C

220

0420

0822

.4±

3.7a

39.4

±5.

8a54

.2±

7.9a

80.7

±8.

8ab19

0.9±

26.0

ab2

2004

2008

3.02

±0.

36a-

d

Gre

go

ry5

2003

2009

10.4

±2.

3bcd

30.5

±3.

6a-d

47.8

±4.

9ab73

.2±

5.5ab

141.

3±16

.2a-

d4

2004

2009

2.90

±0.

25a-

d

Perr

y5

2003

2009

10.5

±2.

3bcd

29.2

±3.

6a-d

49.3

±4.

9a70

.6±

5.5ab

142.

3±16

.2a-

d4

2004

2009

3.41

±0.

25ab

Phill

ips

520

0320

0915

.8±

2.3ab

38.2

±3.

6a60

.5±

4.9a

84.4

±5.

5a18

2.3±

16.2

ab4

2004

2009

2.87

±0.

25b

cd

Bra

ntle

y5

2003

2009

13.1

±2.

3bc

32.8

±3.

6abc

54.6

±4.

9a77

.5±

5.5ab

161.

3±16

.2ab

c4

2004

2009

3.39

±0.

25ab

VA 9

8R4

2003

2009

14.0

±2.

6abc

35.8

±4.

1ab54

.3±

5.5a

76.4

±6.

2ab16

4.0±

18.2

abc

320

0420

093.

19±

0.30

abc

Wils

on

320

0420

09-1

.5±

3.0e

9.4±

4.8f

27.4

±6.

4c49

.1±

7.2cd

58.4

±21

.2f

320

0420

093.

67±

0.30

a

CH

AM

PS2

2008

2009

22.1

±3.

7a35

.4±

5.8ab

c61

.0±

7.9a

81.6

±8.

8ab19

3.3±

26.0

a2

2008

2009

3.28

±0.

36ab

c

Res

earc

h C

heck

6.2±

2.0

β18

.9±

3.2β

33.3

±4.

4β

50.0

±4.

9β91

.0±

14.4

β3.

53±

0.22

α

N96

076L

620

0320

096.

2±2.

0d18

.9±

3.2ef

33.3

±4.

4bc

50.0

±4.

9d91

.0±

14.4

ef5

2004

2009

3.53

±0.

22ab

Mea

n11

.330

.049

.571

.214

3.5

2.95

CV

(%)

44.1

26.5

21.6

16.8

24.7

16.8

† Gro

up m

eans

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e G

reek

lett

er w

ithin

a c

olu

mn

are

not

diff

eren

t (P

< 0

.05)

by

t-te

st. L

ine

mea

ns fo

llow

ed b

y th

e sa

me

Ro

man

lett

er w

ithin

a c

olu

mn

are

not

sig

nifi c

antly

diff

eren

t (P

< 0

.05)

by

t-te

st.

C U L T I V A R36 Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011

ReferencesBalota, M., and F.M. Shokes. 2009a. Peanut variety and quality evalu-

ation results, 2008. I. Agronomic and grade data. Info. Ser. No. 488. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tide-water Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA.

Balota, M., and F.M. Shokes. 2009b. Peanut variety and quality evalu-ation results, 2008. II. Quality data. Info. Ser. No. 489. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk VA.

Branch, W.D. 1996. Registration of ‘Georgia Green’ peanut. Crop Sci. 36:806.

Branch, W.D. 2004. Registration of ‘Georgia-03L’ peanut. Crop Sci. 44:1485–1486.

Branch, W.D., D.L. Coker, T.G. Isleib, J.W. Chapin, J.P. Bostick, D.W. Gorbet, B.L. Tillman, C.E. Simpson, M.D. Burow, M. Baring, and B. Greenhagen. 2006. Uniform peanut performance tests, 2005. Prog. Rep. No. 4–06. Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

Branch, W.D., D.L. Coker, F.M. Shokes, T.G. Isleib, J.W. Chapin, J.P. Bostick, D.W. Gorbet, B.L. Tillman, C.E. Simpson, M.D. Burow, M. Baring, B. Greenhagen, and C. Godsey. 2007. Uniform peanut performance tests, 2006. Prog. Rep. No. 4–07. Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn.. Tifton, GA.

Branch, W.D., D.L. Coker, F.M. Shokes, T.G. Isleib, J.W. Chapin, J.P. Bos-tick, B.L. Tillman, C.E. Simpson, M.D. Burow, M. Baring, and K.D. Chenault. 2008. Uniform peanut performance tests, 2007. Prog. Rep. No. 4–08. Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

tection Act as amended in 1994, under which Bailey may be sold only as a class of certifi ed seed. Genetic material of this release has been deposited in the National Plant Germ-plasm System, where it will be available for distribution 20 yr from the date of publication, upon expiration of the PVP protection. Until then, NCARS will provide small (50–100 seed) samples to research organizations for research pur-poses under Plant Variety Transfer Agreement to be admin-istered by the Offi ce of Technology transfer of NCSU.

ConclusionsThe authors anticipate that the high yield potential and disease resistance of Bailey, coupled with its bright pods and good fl avor profi le, will result in its widespread use in the VC peanut production area, where there has been little interest shown on the part of the shelling industry to deploy high-oleic cultivars. In the Southeast and Southwest, where there is more interest in high-oleic cultivars, Bailey may fi nd little use. However, high-oleic backcross deriva-tives of Bailey and closely related sister lines are currently in the early stages of performance testing.

Table 7. Blanching characteristics of extra large and medium kernels of Bailey compared with released cultivars in the 2005-2008 Peanut Variety and Quality Evaluation trials. Data collected from the early digging at two locations per year (8 total year-by-location combinations).†

Line

Moisture content before

roasting

Moisture content after

roastingMoisture loss

in roasting Split kernels

Whole blanched kernels

Unblanched kernels

Partially blanched kernels

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– g kg−1 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Extra large kernels (ELK)

Bailey 58ns‡ 44ns 15ns 86ab 827ns 0ns 65ns

NC-V 11 57ns 44ns 17ns 74bc 825ns 0ns 75ns

NC 12C 57ns 45ns 16ns 76bc 860ns 1ns 38ns

Gregory 58ns 44ns 18ns 44e 863ns 5ns 62ns

Perry 56ns 44ns 14ns 85ab 843ns 1ns 47ns

Phillips 56ns 45ns 18ns 68cd 837ns 2ns 63ns

VA 98R 57ns 42ns 14ns 76bc 820ns 1ns 81ns

Wilson 57ns 43ns 18ns 97a 810ns 4ns 64ns

CHAMPS 57ns 45ns 15ns 51de 839ns 1ns 86ns

Mean 57 44 16 73 836 2 64

CV (%) 3.4 4.6 20.8 24.0 4.0 229.6 52.3

LSD.05 2 ns ns 1.7 ns ns ns

Medium kernels

Bailey 58a 47a 15ns 110bcd 699ns 38ns 129ns

NC-V 11 56bc 42b 17ns 122a-d 687ns 27ns 141ns

NC 12C 57abc 43b 17ns 138ab 661ns 36ns 139ns

Gregory 56bc 42b 18ns 105cd 674ns 47ns 151ns

Perry 55c 42b 17ns 145a 669ns 36ns 126ns

Phillips 56abc 43b 18ns 112bcd 686ns 28ns 149ns

VA 98R 57ab 43b 15ns 92d 673ns 28ns 191ns

Wilson 56abc 42b 18ns 128abc 668ns 35ns 143ns

CHAMPS 56abc 42b 18ns 102cd 689ns 30ns 154ns

Mean 56 43 17 117 678 34 147

CV (%) 3.1 7.8 18.6 27.8 6.9 70.0 25.1

LSD.05 0.2 0.3 ns 3.3 ns ns ns†Means followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different by t-test (P < 0.05).

‡ns, no signifi cant differences among means line effects by F-test (P > 0.05).

C U L T I V A RJournal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 37

Branch, W.D., F.M. Shokes, M. Balota, T.G. Isleib, J.W. Chapin, J.P. Bos-tick, B.L. Tillman, C.E. Simpson, M.D. Burow, M. Baring, and K.D. Chamberlin. 2009. Uniform peanut performance tests, 2008. Prog. Rep. No. 4–09. Univ. of Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA.

Campbell, W.V., D.A. Emery, and W.C. Gregory. 1971. Registration of GP-NC 343 peanut germplasm (Reg. No. GP 1). Crop Sci. 11:605.

Campbell, W.V., J.C. Wynne, D.A. Emery, and R.W. Mozingo. 1977. Registration of NC 6 peanuts (Reg. No. 20). Crop Sci. 17:346.

Chapin, J.W., J.S. Thomas, T.G. Isleib, F.M. Shokes, W.D. Branch, and B.L. Tillman. 2010. Field evaluation of virginia-type peanut culti-vars for resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus, late leaf spot, and stem rot. Peanut Sci. 37:1–7.

Coker, D.L. 2006a. Peanut variety and quality evaluation results, 2005. I. Agronomic and grade data. Info. Ser. No. 479. Virgina Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA.

Coker, D.L. 2006b. Peanut variety and quality evaluation results, 2005. II. Quality data. Info. Ser. No. 480. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA.

Coker, D.L., and F.M. Shokes. 2007a. Peanut variety and quality evalu-ation results, 2006. I. Agronomic and grade data. Info. Ser. No. 483. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tide-water Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA.

Coker, D.L., and F.M. Shokes. 2007b. Peanut variety and quality eval-uation results, 2006. II. Quality data. Info. Ser. No. 484. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA.

Emery, D.A., and W.C. Gregory. 1970. Registration of NC 5 peanuts (Reg. No. 6). Crop Sci. 10:460.

Hollowell, J.E., T.G. Isleib, S.P. Tallury, S.C. Copeland, and B.B. Shew. 2008. Screening of virginia-type peanut breeding lines for resis-tance to Cylindrocladium black rot and Sclerotinia blight in the greenhouse. Peanut Sci. 35:18–24.

Isleib, T.G. 1999. Recovery of superior homozygous progeny from biparental crosses and backcrosses. Crop Sci. 39:558–563.

Isleib, T.G., P.W. Rice, J.E. Bailey, R.W. Mozingo, and H.E. Pattee. 1997. Registration of ‘NC 12C’ peanut. Crop Sci. 37:1976.

Isleib, T.G., P.W. Rice, R.W. Mozingo, II, J.E. Bailey, R.W. Mozingo, and H.E. Pattee. 2003. Registration of ‘Perry’ peanut. Crop Sci. 43:739–740.

Isleib, T.G., P.W. Rice, R.W. Mozingo, II, S.C. Copeland, J.B. Grae-ber, W.P. Novitzky, H.E. Pattee, T.H. Sanders, R.W. Mozingo, and D.L. Coker. 2006a. Registration of ‘Brantley’ peanut. Crop Sci. 46:2309–2311.

Isleib, T.G., P.W. Rice, R.W. Mozingo, II, S.C. Copeland, J.B. Graeber, H.E. Pattee, T.H. Sanders, R.W. Mozingo, and D.L. Coker. 2006b. Registration of ‘Phillips’ peanut. Crop Sci. 46:2308–2309.

Isleib, T.G., P.W. Rice, R.W. Mozingo, II, S.C. Copeland, J.B. Graeber, B.B. Shew, D.L. Smith, H.A. Melouk, and H.T. Stalker. 2006c. Reg-istration of N96076L peanut germplasm. Crop Sci. 46:2329–2330.

Isleib, T.G., P.W. Rice, R.W. Mozingo, R.W. Mozingo, II, and H.E. Pat-tee. 1999. Registration of ‘Gregory’ peanut. Crop Sci. 39:1526.

Knauft, D.A., K.M. Moore, and D.W. Gorbet. 1993. Further studies on the inheritance of fatty acid composition in peanut. Peanut Sci. 20:74–76.

Moore, K.M., and D.A. Knauft. 1989. The inheritance of high oleic acid in peanut. J. Hered. 80:252–253.

Mozingo, R.W., T.A. Coffelt, and T.G. Isleib. 2000. Registration of ‘VA 98R’ peanut. Crop Sci. 40:1202–1203.

Mozingo, R.W., T.A. Coffelt, P.M. Phipps, and D.L. Coker. 2006. Regis-tration of ‘CHAMPS’ peanut. Crop Sci. 46:2711–2712.

Mozingo, R.W., T.A. Coffelt, C.W. Swann, and P.M. Phipps. 2004. Reg-istration of ‘Wilson’ peanut. Crop Sci. 44:1017–1018.

Mozingo, R.W., J.C. Wynne, D.M. Porter, T.A. Coffelt, and T.G. Isleib. 1994. Registration of ‘VA-C 92R’ peanut. Crop Sci. 34:539.

Norden, A.J., D.W. Gorbet, D.A. Knauft, and C.T. Young. 1987. Vari-ability in oil quality among peanut genotypes in the Florida breed-ing program. Peanut Sci. 14:7–11.

Norden, A.J., R.W. Lipscomb, and W.A. Carver. 1969. Registration of Florunner peanuts (Reg. No. 2). Crop Sci. 9:850.

Tab

le 8

. Fa

tty

acid

co

mp

osi

tio

n, io

din

e va

lues

, ole

ic-l

ino

leic

rat

ios,

po

lysa

tura

ted

-sat

urat

ed r

atio

s, a

nd c

alci

um c

ont

ent

of

seed

s o

f B

aile

y co

mp

ared

wit

h re

leas

ed

cult

ivar

s g

row

n in

the

20

05

-20

08

Pean

ut V

arie

ty a

nd Q

ualit

y E

valu

atio

n tr

ials

. A

dju

sted

mea

ns f

rom

ana

lysi

s o

f al

l dat

a o

n th

e in

dic

ated

line

s co

llect

ed s

ince

20

01.†

Line

Fatt

y ac

id c

ont

ents

Iod

ine

valu

e‡

Ole

ic/

lino

leic

ra

tio

Tota

l sa

tura

tes§

Poly

-un

satu

rate

/sa

tura

te r

atio

¶

Long

-ch

ain

sat

urat

es#

Ca

Palm

itic

(16:

0) a

cid

Stea

ric

(18:

0) a

cid

Ole

ic(1

8:1)

aci

dLi

nole

ic(1

8:2)

aci

dA

rach

idic

(2

0:0)

aci

dG

ado

leic

(20:

1) a

cid

Beh

enic

(22:

0) a

cid

Lig

noce

ric

(24:

0) a

cid

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

g k

g−1

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

––––

g k

g−1

g k

g−1

mg

kg

−1

Bai

ley

97.2

de

26.3

d51

3.0e

298.

8c13

.1d

12.0

b25

.8c

13.8

c96

8.3c

17.3

e17

6.2c

17.0

bc

52.7

d54

1cd

NC

-V 1

110

4.4a

25.8

d49

5.1h

312.

3a12

.3e

11.5

c24

.4d

14.3

a97

5.8a

15.9

f18

1.1b

17.3

a51

.0e

548cd

NC

12C

98.6

c32

.7a

526.

3d28

0.2d

14.7

b10

.0d

25.3

c12

.0e

945.

9e18

.9d

183.

4a15

.3e

52.0

d51

5d

Gre

go

ry92

.4f

29.3

b54

0.5b

271.

1e14

.1c

12.3

ab26

.5b

13.9

c94

4.1e

20.1

b17

6.1c

15.4

e54

.4ab

c51

3d

Perr

y97

.6d

28.8

b50

9.5ef

298.

3c13

.9c

11.5

c26

.4b

13.9

bc

964.

0d17

.2e

180.

6b16

.5d

54.2

bc

558b

c

Phill

ips

98.6

c27

.3c

507.

1f30

0.7c

13.3

d12

.1b

26.8

ab14

.0ab

c96

6.6cd

17.0

e18

0.1b

16.7

cd54

.1c

529cd

VA 9

8R10

3.2b

26.2

d50

0.4g

307.

5b12

.4e

11.7

c24

.4d

14.3

a97

2.2b

16.4

f18

0.4b

17.0

ab51

.0e

558b

c

Wils

on

86.9

g32

.6a

560.

8a25

3.0f

15.0

a11

.7c

26.8

ab13

.3d

929.

7f22

.4a

174.

5d14

.5f

55.0

ab59

4ab

CH

AM

PS96

.7e

28.8

b53

2.5c

274.

3e13

.9c

12.5

a27

.0a

14.2

ab94

2.9e

19.6

c18

0.7b

15.2

e55

.2a

606a

Mea

n97

.328

.652

0.6

288.

513

.611

.725

.913

.795

6.6

18.3

179.

216

.153

.355

1

CV

(%)

0.9

2.8

1.0

1.5

1.6

2.2

2.1

2.3

0.4

3.0

0.7

1.5

1.7

7.8

LSD

.05

0.9

0.8

4.9

4.3

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.3

3.6

0.5

1.2

0.2

0.9

42† M

eans

follo

wed

by

the

sam

e le

tter

wit

hin

a co

lum

n ar

e no

t si

gni

fi can

tly

dif

fere

nt (P

< 0

.05)

by

t-te

st.

‡ Wei

ght

ed s

um o

f ole

ic, l

ino

leic

, and

eic

ose

noic

aci

d c

ont

ents

[0.8

601(

18:1

)+1.

7321

(18:

2)+

0.78

54(2

0:1)

]/10

.§ S

um o

f pal

mit

ic, s

tear

ic, a

rach

idic

, beh

enic

, and

lig

noce

ric

acid

co

nten

ts.

¶R

atio

of l

ino

leic

aci

d c

ont

ent

to t

ota

l sat

urat

ed fa

tty

acid

co

nten

t.

# Sum

of a

rach

idic

, beh

enic

, and

lig

noce

ric

acid

co

nten

ts.

C U L T I V A R38 Journal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011

Shokes, F.M., T.G. Isleib, and J.W. Chapin. 2008b. Peanut variety and quality Evaluation results, 2007. II. Quality data. Info. Ser. No. 486. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tide-water Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA.

Wynne, J.C., and M.K. Beute. 1983. Registration of NC 8C peanut (Reg. No. 27). Crop Sci. 23:184.

Wynne, J.C., M.K. Beute, J. Bailey, and R.W. Mozingo. 1991a. Registra-tion of ‘NC 10C’ peanut. Crop Sci. 31:484.

Wynne, J.C., T.A. Coffelt, R.W. Mozingo, and W.F. Anderson. 1991b. Registration of ‘NC-V 11’ peanut. Crop Sci. 31:484–485.

Wynne, J.C., R.W. Mozingo, and D.A. Emery. 1979. Registration of NC 7 peanut (Reg. No. 22). Crop Sci. 19:563.

Pattee, H.E., T.G. Isleib, and F.G. Giesbrecht. 1994. Genotype-by-environment interaction in roasted peanut attribute. Peanut Sci. 21:94–99.

Pattee, H.E., T.G. Isleib, and F.G. Giesbrecht. 1998. Variation in inten-sity of sweet and bitter sensory attributes across peanut genotypes. Peanut Sci. 25:63–69.

Sanders, T.H., L.O. Dean, and M.C. Lamb. 2006. Uniform peanut per-formance tests (UPPT) for 2005: Chemical, sensory and shelf-life properties by variety. Available at http://152.1.118.27 (verifi ed 19 May 2010).

Shokes, F.M., T.G. Isleib, and J.W. Chapin. 2008a. Peanut variety and quality evaluation results, 2007. I. Agronomic and grade data. Info. Ser. No. 485. Virginia Polytech. Inst. State Univ., Virginia Agric. Exp. Stn., Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., Suffolk, VA

Table 9. Flavor profi le of Bailey compared with those of released cultivars and elite breeding lines. Sensory data collected by the descriptive sensory analysis panel in the North Carolina State University Department of Food Science from samples grown from the Virginia-Carolina peanut production area.†

Group/line

Extent of testing Sensory attributeNo. of

reps.

No. of

tests

No. of yr

First yr

Last yr

Roast color

Over-roast

Under-roast

Roasted peanut Sweet Bitter

—————————————————— fl avor intensity units (1–14) ——————————————————

Exptl. lines 57.84±0.11ns 1.48±0.03α 1.68±0.04β 4.79±0.04ns 3.81±0.04β 2.22±0.03α

Bailey 16 13 5 2003 2007 58.23±0.26bc 1.50±0.08abc 1.75±0.09a-e 4.94±0.09ns 3.80±0.09c-f 2.26±0.07abc

N99103ol 9 7 3 2004 2007 57.66±0.36bc 1.51±0.11abc 1.71±0.12b-e 4.78±0.12ns 3.70±0.12d-h 2.43±0.10a

N00098ol 6 6 3 2003 2007 57.33±0.44c 1.65±0.14a 1.64±0.15cde 4.57±0.15ns 3.49±0.15f-i 2.35±0.13ab

N01013T 11 11 4 2003 2007 58.75±0.32ab 1.37±0.10a-d 1.66±0.11cde 4.89±0.11ns 3.91±0.11b-e 2.10±0.09bcd

N03005J 8 8 3 2004 2006 57.59±0.38c 1.58±0.12ab 1.66±0.13b-e 4.79±0.13ns 3.65±0.13d-i 2.28±0.11abc

N03023EF 7 6 3 2004 2007 59.00±0.41ab 1.26±0.13bcd 1.84±0.14a-e 4.56±0.14ns 3.30±0.14i 2.48±0.12a

N03088T 12 10 4 2003 2006 57.63±0.31c 1.36±0.10a-d 1.69±0.10b-e 4.69±0.10ns 3.96±0.10bcd 2.01±0.09cd

N03089T 10 9 4 2004 2007 57.09±0.34c 1.49±0.11a-d 1.62±0.11de 4.83±0.12ns 4.07±0.11bc 2.17±0.10a-d

N03090T 15 13 5 2003 2007 57.54±0.27c 1.55±0.09ab 1.66±0.09de 4.99±0.09ns 4.05±0.09bc 2.06±0.08bcd

N03091T 13 11 5 2003 2007 57.53±0.29c 1.52±0.09abc 1.55±0.10e 4.87±0.10ns 4.17±0.10b 2.10±0.08bcd

Virginia cultivars 58.58±0.22ns 1.28±0.07β 2.02±0.07α 4.71±0.07ns 3.56±0.07γ 2.32±0.06α

NC 7 15 14 5 2003 2007 58.07±0.27bc 1.44±0.08a-d 2.16±0.09ab 4.63±0.09ns 3.48±0.09hi 2.43±0.08a

NC-V 11 2 2 1 2007 2007 59.29±0.76ab 0.91±0.24d 2.26±0.25a 4.70±0.26ns 3.69±0.25b-i 2.25±0.22a-d

NC 12C 2 2 1 2004 2004 58.74±0.76abc 1.50±0.24a-d 1.90±0.25a-e 4.77±0.26ns 3.24±0.26ghi 2.61±0.22a

Gregory 15 11 4 2003 2007 58.51±0.27abc 1.22±0.09cd 2.04±0.09ab 4.72±0.09ns 3.76±0.09d-g 2.26±0.08abc

Perry 2 2 1 2007 2007 59.27±0.76ab 0.91±0.24d 2.22±0.25ab 4.69±0.26ns 3.38±0.25e-i 2.18±0.22a-d

Phillips 6 6 2 2003 2004 57.94±0.44bc 1.54±0.14abc 1.64±0.15b-e 4.67±0.15ns 3.93±0.15b-e 2.17±0.12a-d

Brantley 10 8 3 2003 2007 58.26±0.34abc 1.46±0.11a-d 1.95±0.11abc 4.80±0.11ns 3.42±0.11hi 2.31±0.10ab

Runner cultivars 58.87±0.32α 1.30±0.10αβ 1.88±0.10αβ 4.87±0.11ns 4.53±0.11α 1.92±0.09β

Florunner 6 3 3 2004 2007 58.44±0.46abc 1.39±0.14a-d 1.84±0.15a-e 4.97±0.15ns 4.27±0.15b 1.95±0.13cd

Georgia Green 6 5 2 2006 2007 59.30±0.44a 1.20±0.14cd 1.93±0.15a-d 4.77±0.16ns 4.79±0.15a 1.89±0.13d

Mean 58.09 1.45 1.78 4.74 3.81 2.24

CV (%) 1.8 22.7 19.5 7.3 9.0 13.2†Group means followed by the same Greek letter within a column are not different (P < 0.05) by t-test. Line means followed by the same Roman letter within a column are not signifi cantly different (P < 0.05) by t-test.

C U L T I V A RJournal of Plant Registrations, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2011 39

Table 10. Sensory data on Bailey compared with those of elite breeding lines, virginia cultivars and runner cultivars. Data collected by the USDA, ARS Market Quality and Handling Research Unit, Raleigh, NC, from samples collected from the 2001–2008 Uniform Peanut Performance Tests grown at Suffolk, VA, Lewiston, NC, Blackville, SC, Tifton, GA, Marianna, FL, Headland, AL, Denver City, TX, Brownfi eld, TX, Stephenville, TX, Pearsall, TX, and Fort Cobb, OK.†

Group/line

Extent of testing Sensory attributeNo. of

samples No. of yrFirst year Last year

Roast color

Dark roast

Raw or beany

Roasted peanut

Hunter L score ——————— fl avor intensity units (0–15) ————————

Exptl. lines 49.69±0.20α 2.99±0.03ns 2.01±0.03ns 4.62±0.03α

Bailey 21 4 2005 2008 49.73±0.43b-f 2.91±0.07cde 2.00±0.06ns 4.55±0.06a-f

N99103ol 12 3 2002 2007 49.62±0.56b-f 3.00±0.09a-e 2.00±0.07ns 4.66±0.08a-d

N00098ol (Gre) 9 2 2003 2004 49.95±0.64a-e 3.20±0.10a 1.87±0.08ns 4.67±0.09abc

N01013T 28 4 2003 2006 49.46±0.37b-f 2.97±0.06b-e 2.05±0.05ns 4.71±0.05a

N02006 18 3 2004 2006 50.82±0.46abc 2.92±0.07cde 2.08±0.06ns 4.51±0.07b-g

N02020J 11 3 2005 2007 50.97±0.58ab 2.88±0.09cde 2.09±0.08ns 4.55±0.08a-g

N03089T 11 3 2005 2007 49.85±0.58b-e 2.90±0.09cde 2.10±0.08ns 4.66±0.08a-d

N03090T 13 3 2005 2007 48.21±0.55f 3.10±0.09abc 1.90±0.07ns 4.70±0.08a

N03091T 12 3 2005 2007 48.64±0.55ef 3.01±0.09a-e 1.98±0.07ns 4.60±0.08a-e

Virginia cultivars 49.73±0.28α 2.94±0.04ns 2.08±0.04ns 4.45±0.04β

NC 7 76 8 2001 2008 49.34±0.21def 3.00±0.03a-e 2.07±0.03ns 4.48±0.03d-g

NC-V 11 4 4 2003 2007 49.78±0.93a-f 2.93±0.15a-e 2.19±0.12ns 4.31±0.13efg

Gregory 4 4 2003 2007 51.22±0.92ab 2.77±0.15de 2.11±0.12ns 4.67±0.13a-d

Perry 3 3 2004 2007 48.58±1.06c-f 3.01±0.17a-e 2.02±0.14ns 4.55±0.15a-g

Phillips 12 3 2002 2007 48.51±0.57ef 3.18±0.09ab 1.98±0.08ns 4.48±0.08c-g

Brantley 10 2 2003 2007 48.82±0.62def 3.01±0.10a-e 2.03±0.08ns 4.33±0.09g

CHAMPS 23 5 2002 2007 50.04±0.41a-d 2.77±0.07e 2.13±0.05ns 4.39±0.06dfg

Georgia-08V 9 1 2006 2006 51.53±0.64a 2.85±0.10cde 2.11±0.09ns 4.43±0.09c-g

Runner cultivars 49.02±0.20β 2.90±0.03ns 2.04±0.03ns 4.69±0.03α

Florunner 76 8 2001 2008 48.51±0.21f 3.02±0.03a-d 1.97±0.03ns 4.70±0.03a

Georgia Green 32 7 2001 2007 49.53±0.36b-f 2.79±0.06e 2.12±0.05ns 4.67±0.05ab

Mean 49.64 2.96 2.04 4.56CV (%) 3.5 9.3 11.4 5.3

Group/line

Sensory attributeSweet

aromatic Sweet Bitter AstringentFruity or

fermentedStale or

cardboard——————————————————————————— fl avor intensity units (0–15) ———————————————————————————

Exptl. lines 2.90±0.02β 2.28±0.02β 2.74±0.02α 1.04±0.01ns 0.09±0.02ns 0.30±0.03ns

Bailey 2.88±0.04c 2.29±0.05b-e 2.70±0.05bde 1.03±0.02ns 0.08±0.05ns 0.37±0.07ns

N99103ol 2.92±0.06bc 2.31±0.06b-e 2.74±0.06a-e 1.05±0.02ns 0.15±0.07ns 0.11±0.09ns

N00098ol (Gre) 2.93±0.06abc 2.22±0.07c-f 2.83±0.07a-d 1.03±0.02ns 0.13±0.07ns 0.29±0.10ns

N01013T 2.93±0.04bc 2.26±0.04cde 2.68±0.04e 1.02±0.01ns 0.15±0.04ns 0.24±0.06ns

N02006 2.78±0.05cd 2.13±0.05ef 2.83±0.05a-d 1.05±0.02ns 0.08±0.05ns 0.34±0.07ns

N02020J 2.80±0.06c 2.17±0.07def 2.85±0.06abc 1.06±0.02ns 0.07±0.07ns 0.27±0.09ns

N03089T 2.88±0.06c 2.39±0.06abc 2.68±0.06cde 1.03±0.02ns 0.05±0.07ns 0.42±0.09ns

N03090T 3.08±0.06a 2.44±0.06ab 2.71±0.06b-e 1.06±0.02ns 0.12±0.06ns 0.25±0.09ns

N03091T 2.87±0.06c 2.34±0.06bcd 2.66±0.06de 1.02±0.02ns -0.03±0.07ns 0.40±0.09ns

Virginia cultivars 2.80±0.03γ 2.17±0.03γ 2.80±0.03α 1.04±0.01ns 0.08±0.03ns 0.31±0.04ns

NC 7 2.81±0.02c 2.15±0.02ef 2.81±0.02a-d 1.04±0.01ns 0.05±0.03ns 0.33±0.03ns

NC-V 11 2.58±0.09d 2.00±0.10f 2.94±0.10a 1.03±0.04ns 0.12±0.11ns 0.25±0.14ns

Gregory 2.95±0.09abc 2.34±0.10a-e 2.66±0.10b-e 1.03±0.04ns 0.07±0.11ns 0.25±0.14ns

Perry 2.88±0.11abc 2.22±0.12b-f 2.76±0.11a-e 1.05±0.04ns 0.13±0.12ns 0.23±0.17ns

Phillips 2.84±0.06c 2.22±0.06c-f 2.84±0.06a-d 1.07±0.02ns 0.12±0.07ns 0.52±0.09ns

Brantley 2.79±0.06cd 2.14±0.07ef 2.84±0.06a-d 1.06±0.02ns 0.10±0.07ns 0.35±0.10ns

CHAMPS 2.76±0.04cd 2.10±0.05f 2.72±0.04b-e 1.02±0.02ns 0.02±0.05ns 0.36±0.06ns

Georgia-08V 2.76±0.06cd 2.20±0.07def 2.85±0.07ab 1.01±0.02ns 0.03±0.08ns 0.21±0.10ns

Runner cultivars 3.03±0.02α 2.46±0.02α 2.60±0.02β 1.05±0.01ns 0.10±0.03ns 0.27±0.03ns

Florunner 3.00±0.02ab 2.42±0.03ab 2.61±0.02e 1.04±0.01ns 0.14±0.03ns 0.23±0.03ns

Georgia Green 3.07±0.04a 2.50±0.04a 2.58±0.04e 1.05±0.01ns 0.07±0.05ns 0.32±0.06ns

Mean 2.87 2.25 2.75 1.04 0.09 0.30CV (%) 5.9 8.5 6.7 6.5 273.0 93.7†Group means followed by the same Greek letter within a column are not different (P < 0.05) by t-test. Line means followed by the same Roman letter within a column are not signifi cantly different (P < 0.05) by t-test.