농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원
전라북도농업기술원
경상남도농업기술원
National Institute of Crop Science (NICS), RDA, Jeonju, 55365, Republic of Korea
Jeollabuk-do Agricultural Research & Extension Service, Iksan, 54591, Republic of Korea
Gyeongsangnam-do Agricultural Research & Extension Service, Jinju, 52733, Republic of Korea
Copyright: © 2018 by the Korean Society of Breeding Science
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
| Cultivar | Flowering date | Maturity Date | Stem height (cm) | No. of nods | No. of branch | No. of pods per plant | Weight per 100 seeds (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chamol | July 23 | Sep 18 | 44 | 11 | 2.9 | 31 | 27.7 |
| Saeolkong | July 23 | Sep 12 | 43 | 11 | 2.1 | 30 | 25.0 |
|
|
|||||||
| t-value z | - | - | 0.54ns | -0.28ns | 3.43** | 0.42ns | 3.17** |
| Location | Chamol (Month. Date) | Saeolkong (Month. Date) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | Days from planting to maturity | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | Days from planting to maturity | |
| Milyang | Sept.17 | Sept.27 | Sept.22 | Sept.22 | 103 | Sept.14 | Sept.16 | Sept.15 | Sept.15 | 96 |
| Suwon | Sept.13 | Sept.24 | Sept.7 | Sept.14 | 107 | Sept.9 | Sept.9 | Sept.7 | Sept.8 | 100 |
| Iksan | Sept.24 | Sept.26 | Sept.13 | Sept.21 | 98 | Sept.19 | Sept.26 | Sept.17 | Sept.20 | 97 |
| Jeju | Sept.18 | Sept.16 | - | Sept.17 | 99 | Sept.5 | Sept.10 | - | Sept.7 | 89 |
| Jinju | Sept.12 | Sept.19 | Sept.19 | Sept.16 | 93 | Sept.8 | Sept.13 | Sept.12 | Sept.11 | 87 |
|
|
||||||||||
| Mean | Sept.16 | Sept.22 | Sept.15 | Sept.18 | 100 | Sept.13 | Sept.7 | Sept.12 | Sept.12 | 94 |
|
|
||||||||||
| t-value z | 4.24** | |||||||||
| Cultivar | Lodging at field (1-9) z | Shattering | Damaged seed for Pod borer (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||
| Normal culture | Density culture | Field (1-9) y | Ratios by Oven test (%) x | ||
| Chamol | 1 | 3 | 7 | 73.8 | 2.1 |
| Saeolkong | 1 | 2 | 8 | 71.0 | 0.9 |
| Cultivar | Bacterial pustule (0-9) z | Root rot (%) | Soybean Mosaic Virus | Percentages of damaged seed (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| Field | Inoculation y | Inoculation x | Field (0-9) | Purple seed stain | Seed spot | Phomopsis | ||||
|
|
||||||||||
| G7H | G6H | G5 | ||||||||
| Chamol | 1 | 2 | 0.4 | -/- | -/M | L/- | 0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.7 |
| Saeolkong | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | -/M | -/M | M/M | 0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| Cultivar | Crude protein (%) | Crude oil (%) | Fatty acids (%) | Isoflavone (μg/g) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Sat | Unsat | Daidzein | Glycitein | Genistein | Total | |||
| Chamol | 43.7 | 19.3 | 15.3 | 84.7 | 367 | 297 | 665 | 1,330 |
| Saeolkong | 45.1 | 18.8 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 206 | 159 | 332 | 698 |
|
|
||||||||
| t-value z | -0.44ns | 0.26ns | 0ns | 0ns | 2.48ns | 4.68ns | 2.85ns | 3.06ns |
| Cultivar | Yield (%) | Bean Curd Residue (%) | Color value z | Physical characteristics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| L | a | b | ΔE | Elasticity | Gum | Cohesiveness | Chewiness | Hardness (g/3.14mm2) | |||
| Chamol | 171 | 124 | 83 | 0.76 | 16.0 | 1.4 | 0.88 | 1,059 | 0.67 | 827 | 1,425 |
| Saeolkong | 181 | 146 | 84 | 0.45 | 16.9 | 0.87 | 631 | 0.77 | 550 | 828 | |
|
|
|||||||||||
| t-value z | -0.59ns | -4.03ns | - | - | - | - | 1ns | 2.77ns | -1.54ns | 1.19ns | 1.07ns |
| Cultivar | Meju (Soybean malt) | Cheonggukjang (Fermented soybean) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| Yield (%) | Scent (1-5) z | Yield (%) | Degree of Stickiness (1-5) y | Scent (1-5) z | γ-PGA (mg/g) | |
| Chamol | 84.7 | 2 | 232 | 2 | 2 | 23.2 |
| Saeolkong | 82.5 | 2 | 182 | 2 | 3 | 20.6 |
|
|
||||||
| t-value x | - | - | 2.95ns | - | - | 0.59ns |
| Cultivar | Yield (Ton/ha) | Index | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| PYT z (’07) | AYT z (’08) | Mean | ||
| Chamol | 1.85 | 2.29 | 2.07 | 123 |
| Saeolkong | 1.69 | 1.67 | 1.68 | 100 |
| Location | Chamol (Ton/ha) | Saeolkong (Ton/ha) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | Index | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | |
| Suwon | 2.43 | 2.19 | 1.74 | 2.12 | 113 | 2.60 | 1.58 | 1.44 | 1.87 |
| Miryang | 2.47 | 2.90 | 2.77 | 2.71 | 116 | 2.23 | 2.59 | 2.21 | 2.34 |
| Iksan | 2.24 | 2.83 | 2.47 | 2.51 | 138 | 1.84 | 1.82 | 1.82 | 1.83 |
| Jinju | 3.47 | 2.74 | 2.99 | 3.07 | 139 | 2.65 | 1.99 | 1.96 | 2.20 |
| Jeju | 2.61 | 2.84 | - | 2.73 | 137 | 1.68 | 2.29 | - | 1.99 |
|
|
|||||||||
| Mean | 2.64 | 2.70 | 2.49 | 2.62 | 128 | 2.20 | 2.05 | 1.86 | 2.05 |
|
|
|||||||||
| t-value | 3.75** | ||||||||
Qualitative characteristics of ‘Chamol’.
| Cultivar | Growth habit | Leaflet shape | Flower color | Pubescence color | Pod color | Seed coat Color | Hilum color | Seed shape |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chamol | Determinate | Oval | White | Grey | Yellow | Yellow | Yellow | Spherical |
| Saeolkong | Determinate | Oval | White | Grey | Light brown | Yellow | Yellow | Spherical |
Quantitative characteristics of ‘Chamol’ determined by regional yield trial from 2009 to 2011.
| Cultivar | Flowering date | Maturity Date | Stem height (cm) | No. of nods | No. of branch | No. of pods per plant | Weight per 100 seeds (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chamol | July 23 | Sep 18 | 44 | 11 | 2.9 | 31 | 27.7 |
| Saeolkong | July 23 | Sep 12 | 43 | 11 | 2.1 | 30 | 25.0 |
|
|
|||||||
| t-value
|
- | - | 0.54ns | -0.28ns | 3.43** | 0.42ns | 3.17** |
z(ns)non-significant; *, ** are significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 by student t-test between Chamol and Saeolkong.
Maturing date and growing days of ‘Chamol’ on the regional yield trials carried out at 5 locations.
| Location | Chamol (Month. Date) | Saeolkong (Month. Date) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | Days from planting to maturity | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | Days from planting to maturity | |
| Milyang | Sept.17 | Sept.27 | Sept.22 | Sept.22 | 103 | Sept.14 | Sept.16 | Sept.15 | Sept.15 | 96 |
| Suwon | Sept.13 | Sept.24 | Sept.7 | Sept.14 | 107 | Sept.9 | Sept.9 | Sept.7 | Sept.8 | 100 |
| Iksan | Sept.24 | Sept.26 | Sept.13 | Sept.21 | 98 | Sept.19 | Sept.26 | Sept.17 | Sept.20 | 97 |
| Jeju | Sept.18 | Sept.16 | - | Sept.17 | 99 | Sept.5 | Sept.10 | - | Sept.7 | 89 |
| Jinju | Sept.12 | Sept.19 | Sept.19 | Sept.16 | 93 | Sept.8 | Sept.13 | Sept.12 | Sept.11 | 87 |
|
|
||||||||||
| Mean | Sept.16 | Sept.22 | Sept.15 | Sept.18 | 100 | Sept.13 | Sept.7 | Sept.12 | Sept.12 | 94 |
|
|
||||||||||
| t-value
|
4.24 |
|||||||||
z, **is significantly different at 0.01 by student t-test between ‘Chamol’ and ‘Saeolkong’.
The response of ‘Chamol’ to abiotic stress and pod borer estimated from 2009 to 2011.
| Cultivar | Lodging at field (1-9)
|
Shattering | Damaged seed for Pod borer (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||
| Normal culture | Density culture | Field (1-9)
|
Ratios by Oven test (%)
|
||
| Chamol | 1 | 3 | 7 | 73.8 | 2.1 |
| Saeolkong | 1 | 2 | 8 | 71.0 | 0.9 |
z1: Tolerant, 9: Susceptible, Normal culture: 70×15 cm, Density culture: 70×7.5 cm
y1: Tolerant, 9: Susceptible.
xShattering after 48hr at 40°C dry oven
The resistance of ‘Chamol’ to the diseases of soybean estimated from 2009 to 2011.
| Cultivar | Bacterial pustule (0-9)
|
Root rot (%) | Soybean Mosaic Virus | Percentages of damaged seed (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| Field | Inoculation
|
Inoculation
|
Field (0-9) | Purple seed stain | Seed spot | Phomopsis | ||||
|
|
||||||||||
| G7H | G6H | G5 | ||||||||
| Chamol | 1 | 2 | 0.4 | -/- | -/M | L/- | 0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.7 |
| Saeolkong | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | -/M | -/M | M/M | 0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 |
z0: Resistant, 9: Susceptible,
y8ra strain
xReaction of inoculated leaf/upper leaves, -: No symptom, L: Local reaction, M: Mosaic.
Major chemical component of Seed in ‘Chamol’ estimated from 2010 to 2011.
| Cultivar | Crude protein (%) | Crude oil (%) | Fatty acids (%) | Isoflavone (μg/g) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Sat | Unsat | Daidzein | Glycitein | Genistein | Total | |||
| Chamol | 43.7 | 19.3 | 15.3 | 84.7 | 367 | 297 | 665 | 1,330 |
| Saeolkong | 45.1 | 18.8 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 206 | 159 | 332 | 698 |
|
|
||||||||
| t-value
|
-0.44ns | 0.26ns | 0ns | 0ns | 2.48ns | 4.68ns | 2.85ns | 3.06ns |
z(ns)non-significant
Evaluation of tofu characteristics of ‘Chamol’.
| Cultivar | Yield (%) | Bean Curd Residue (%) | Color value
|
Physical characteristics | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| L | a | b | ΔE | Elasticity | Gum | Cohesiveness | Chewiness | Hardness (g/3.14mm2) | |||
| Chamol | 171 | 124 | 83 | 0.76 | 16.0 | 1.4 | 0.88 | 1,059 | 0.67 | 827 | 1,425 |
| Saeolkong | 181 | 146 | 84 | 0.45 | 16.9 | 0.87 | 631 | 0.77 | 550 | 828 | |
|
|
|||||||||||
| t-value
|
-0.59ns | -4.03ns | - | - | - | - | 1ns | 2.77ns | -1.54ns | 1.19ns | 1.07ns |
zL: lightness, a: (-)Green~(+)Red, b: -(Blue)~(+)Yellow, ΔE: 0.5~1.5% (Slightly difference).
Meju (Soybean malt) and Cheonggukjang (fermented soybean) process ability of ‘Chamol’.
| Cultivar | Meju (Soybean malt) | Cheonggukjang (Fermented soybean) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| Yield (%) | Scent (1-5)
|
Yield (%) | Degree of Stickiness (1-5)
|
Scent (1-5)
|
γ-PGA (mg/g) | |
| Chamol | 84.7 | 2 | 232 | 2 | 2 | 23.2 |
| Saeolkong | 82.5 | 2 | 182 | 2 | 3 | 20.6 |
|
|
||||||
| t-value
|
- | - | 2.95ns | - | - | 0.59ns |
z1: worst ~ 5: best.
y1: weak ~ 5: strong.
xns : not significantly different between ‘Chamol’ and ‘Saeolkong’ by student t-test.
Yield of ‘Chamol’ on yield trials carried out at Milyang.
| Cultivar | Yield (Ton/ha) | Index | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| PYT
|
AYT
|
Mean | ||
| Chamol | 1.85 | 2.29 | 2.07 | 123 |
| Saeolkong | 1.69 | 1.67 | 1.68 | 100 |
zPYT: Preliminary yield trial, AYT: Advanced yield trial.
Yield of ‘Chamol’ on the regional yield trials carried out at 5 locations
| Location | Chamol (Ton/ha) | Saeolkong (Ton/ha) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | Index | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Mean | |
| Suwon | 2.43 | 2.19 | 1.74 | 2.12 | 113 | 2.60 | 1.58 | 1.44 | 1.87 |
| Miryang | 2.47 | 2.90 | 2.77 | 2.71 | 116 | 2.23 | 2.59 | 2.21 | 2.34 |
| Iksan | 2.24 | 2.83 | 2.47 | 2.51 | 138 | 1.84 | 1.82 | 1.82 | 1.83 |
| Jinju | 3.47 | 2.74 | 2.99 | 3.07 | 139 | 2.65 | 1.99 | 1.96 | 2.20 |
| Jeju | 2.61 | 2.84 | - | 2.73 | 137 | 1.68 | 2.29 | - | 1.99 |
|
|
|||||||||
| Mean | 2.64 | 2.70 | 2.49 | 2.62 | 128 | 2.20 | 2.05 | 1.86 | 2.05 |
|
|
|||||||||
| t-value | 3.75 |
||||||||
**Significant at the 1% level of probability by t-test between Chamol and Saeolkong.
(ns)non-significant; *, ** are significantly different at 0.05 and 0.01 by student t-test between Chamol and Saeolkong.
is significantly different at 0.01 by student t-test between ‘Chamol’ and ‘Saeolkong’.
1: Tolerant, 9: Susceptible, Normal culture: 70×15 cm, Density culture: 70×7.5 cm
1: Tolerant, 9: Susceptible.
Shattering after 48hr at 40°C dry oven
0: Resistant, 9: Susceptible,
8ra strain
Reaction of inoculated leaf/upper leaves, -: No symptom, L: Local reaction, M: Mosaic.
(ns)non-significant
L: lightness, a: (-)Green~(+)Red, b: -(Blue)~(+)Yellow, ΔE: 0.5~1.5% (Slightly difference).
1: worst ~ 5: best.
1: weak ~ 5: strong.
ns : not significantly different between ‘Chamol’ and ‘Saeolkong’ by student t-test.
PYT: Preliminary yield trial, AYT: Advanced yield trial.
Significant at the 1% level of probability by t-test between Chamol and Saeolkong.