Using Yield Monitors to Evaluate Cotton Variety Tests

Wednesday, January 9, 2013: 3:45 PM
Salons E/F (Marriott Riverwalk Hotel)
Randy Taylor , Oklahoma State University
Randy Boman , Oklahoma State University Southwest REC
Wesley M. Porter , Oklahoma State University
Shane Osborne , Oklahoma State University
Tom Barber , University of Arkansas
Blake McClelland , University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Will Henderson , Clemson University
Michael J. Buschermohle , Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science, The University of Tennessee
John Wilkerson , University of Tennessee
Chris Main , The University of Tennessee
Lori Gibson , Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science, The University of Tennessee
John P. Fulton , Auburn University
Dale Monks , Auburn University
Greg Pate , Auburn University
John Wanjura , USDA-ARS
Mark Kelley , Texas Cooperative Extension
Chris Ashbrook , Texas AgriLife Extension Service
Alex Thomasson , Texas A&M University, Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering
Gaylon Morgan , Texas AgriLife Extension
Yufeng Ge , TAMU - BAEN Dept.
Guy Collins , University of Georgia
George Vellidis , University of Georgia
Ed Barnes , Cotton Incorporated
Grain yield monitors have successfully been used to harvest variety and hybrid trials when certain guidelines were followed. However, there has been concern regarding cotton yield monitors and the way that they measure flow rate. A Beltwide effort was initiated to assess yield monitor performance in replicated variety trials with the objective of determining the source of yield monitor errors and developing protocols for using yield monitors to accurately harvest cotton variety trials. Data were collected from at least seven trials across six states. The trials were conducted with field scale plots containing at least six varieties. Yield was measured with the yield monitor and a reference scale. The reference scale varied among locations, but was an accepted device to measure variety yield. Other items were measured on each plot to assess potential sources of error between the yield monitor and reference scale. These included lint turnout, moisture content, and average boll mass.