Kaganishiki

It took on the "autumn-declining" fields

"Hokuriku No.36" was crossed in 1937 at the Ou Testing Site of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Agricultural Experiment Station, taking "Ou No.199" as the mother and "Paddy Rice Norin No.1" as the father; the F3 seed was received in 1940, selection and fixing were pursued at this station thereafter, and from fiscal 1946 it was distributed to the relevant prefectures under the line name "Hokuriku No.36" while its regional suitability was examined.

Ishikawa Prefecture decided to adopt it as a recommended variety in fiscal 1950.

The cross was made in 1937; the father Norin No.1.

Its destination is written plainly.

The area expected for its spread in Ishikawa Prefecture, as the variety that should replace "Paddy Rice Norin No.1" on the flat land where "autumn decline" is severe, is estimated at roughly 6,000 cho.

"Autumn decline" is a soil condition in which the plant loses vigour late in the season and fills poorly. It replaces Norin No.1 on the fields where that is severe — about 6,000 cho.

Its own document and a later variety's document disagree about it

This document describes Kaganishiki this way:

Its blast resistance, in both leaf and panicle neck, is stronger than "Paddy Rice Norin No.1"'s, and the culm is strong.

Stronger than Norin No.1, with a strong culm.

But Tedoriwase's historical document, three years later, describes Kaganishiki inside Ishikawa's reason for adoption like this:

"Kaganishiki", adopted as a recommended variety in 1950, gradually increased its area and reached 20 cho by 1952, but while its blast resistance is slightly stronger than "Norin No.1"'s, its thin and somewhat long culm is not strong and it lodges easily; its fertiliser tolerance is weak, making it unsuited to fertile land and heavy fertilisation, and its grain quality is also somewhat inferior.

"Slightly stronger." "The culm is not strong and it lodges easily."

Its own document says strong, with a strong culm; the successor's document says slightly strong, and not strong. The same variety, written up differently by the same prefecture.

Neither says which is right. This site carries both as they stand. A breeding report is written to put a variety into the world. The next variety's report is written to replace it. When the purpose of the writing differs, so does the assessment of the same thing.

Note also "reached 20 cho by 1952". The area expected at adoption was 6,000 cho. The actual area is one three-hundredth of the forecast.