college of agricultural sciences department of soil & crop ......wheat planting in washington,...
TRANSCRIPT
riculturalExperiment Station
Technical Report TR20-1
AgCollege of Agricultural Sciences Department of Soil & Crop Sciences Extension
www.csucrops.com
Making Better Decisions
2019 Colorado Winter Wheat
Variety Performance
Trials
2020 Wheat Field Days Edition
CropsTesting
2
Table of Contents
Disclaimer:
**Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute endorsement by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.**
Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and complies with all Federal and Colorado State laws, regulations, and executive orders regarding affirmative action requirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity is located in 101 Student Services. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women, and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and to so identify themselves.
Authors.........................................................................................................................................................3Overview of 2018-2019 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat Trials...........................................................52019 Dryland Wheat Trial Management and Characteristics...............................................................9Summary of 2019 Dryland Winter Wheat Variety Performance Results...........................................11Summary of 2-year (2018 and 2019) Dryland Variety Performance Results.....................................12Summary of 3-year (2017, 2018, and 2019) Dryland Variety Performance Results..........................13Head-to-Head Yield Comparisons.........................................................................................................142019 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Variety Performance Results...........................................172019 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Variety Performance Results (table)................................182019 Wheat Variety Decision Tree for Dryland Production................................................................19Summary of 2019 Irrigated Variety Performance Results....................................................................21Summary of 2-year (2018 and 2019) Irrigated Variety Performance Results....................................22Summary of 3-year (2017, 2018, and 2019) Irrigated Variety Performance Results.........................232019 Wheat Variety Decision Tree for Irrigated Production...............................................................24Important Variety Selection Considerations..........................................................................................25Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado Dryland and Irrigated Trials (2019 and 2020) .................................................................................................26Wheat Quality Evaluations from the 2019 CSU Dryland and Irrigated Variety Trials...................32Wheat Stem Sawfly in Colorado – Frequently Asked Questions........................................................43CoAXium Wheat Production System for Winter Annual Grass Control driven by Aggressor Herbicide...................................................................................................47Colorado Wheat Update .........................................................................................................................48Sensor-Based Nitrogen Fertilization for Dryland Wheat Production in Colorado .........................51Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................55
3
Authors
Dr. Jerry Johnson - Professor & Extension Specialist - Crop Production, CSU Dept. of Soil & Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-1454, E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Scott Haley - Professor & Wheat Breeder, CSU Dept. of Soil & Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-6483, E-mail: [email protected]
Sally Jones-Diamond - Research Associate - Crops Testing, CSU Dept. of Soil & Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-214-4611, E-mail: [email protected]
Ed Asfeld - Research Associate - Crops Testing, CSU Dept. of Soil & Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-554-0980, E-mail: [email protected]
Ron Meyer - Extension Agent - Agronomy, CSU Extension, Phone: 719-346-5571 ext. 302, E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Wilma Trujillo - Area Agronomist, CSU Extension, Phone: 719-688-9168, E-mail: [email protected]
Dennis Kaan - Area Director - Agriculture and Business Management, CSU Extension, Phone: 970-345-2287, E-mail: [email protected]
Kelly Roesch - Area Agronomist, CSU Extension, Phone: 719-336-7734,E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. John Spring - Assistant Professor - Integrated Pest Management, Oregon State University, E-mail: [email protected]
Kevin Larson - Superintendent & Research Scientist, CSU Plainsman Research Center, Phone: 719-324-5643, E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Merle Vigil - Director & Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Central Great Plains Research Station, Phone: 970-345-0517, E-mail: [email protected]
Brett Pettinger - Research Associate, CSU Plainsman Research Center, Phone: 719-324-5643, E-mail: [email protected]
John Stromberger – Senior Research Associate & Wheat Quality Lab Manager, CSU Dept. of Soil & Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-2664, E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Todd Gaines - Assistant Professor - Molecular Weed Science, CSU Dept. of Agricultural Biology, Phone: 970-491-6824, E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Eric Westra - Research Associate - Weed Science, CSU Dept. of Agricultural Biology, E-mail: [email protected]
4
Chad Shelton - Director - Global Proprietary Products, Albaugh, LLC, E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Frank Peairs - Professor & Extension Specialist - Entomology, CSU Dept. of Agricultural Biology, Phone: 970-491-5945, E-mail: [email protected]
Brad Erker - Executive Director - Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, CO Association of Wheat Growers, & CO Wheat Research Foundation, Phone: 800-WHEAT-10, E-mail: [email protected]
Additional Resources on the InternetColorado State University Crop Variety Testing Program: www.csucrops.comColorado State University Wheat Breeding Program: www.wheat.colostate.eduColorado Wheat Variety Performance Database: www.ramwheatdb.comColorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC), Colorado Association of Wheat Growers (CAWG), and Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF): www.coloradowheat.org
5
Overview of 2018-2019 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat TrialsJerry Johnson and Sally Jones-Diamond
Colorado State University researchers provide current, reliable, and unbiased wheat variety information to Colorado producers. Support of our research keeps public variety testing thriving in Colorado. Farmer support of public variety testing is our hope for the future. Our work in Colorado is possible due to the support and cooperation of the entire Colorado wheat industry, especially support from the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (wheat assessment) and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (seed and trait royalties).
We test under a broad range of environmental conditions to best determine expected performance of new varieties. We have a uniform variety testing program, meaning that all dryland varieties are tested in all eleven dryland test locations and all irrigated varieties are tested in all three irrigated trials. There were 38 varieties including experimental lines in each of the 11 dryland trials. The three irrigated trials each had 24 varieties. The variety trials included a combination of public and private varieties and experimental lines. Seed companies with entries in the variety trials included AgriMaxx Wheat, AgriPro Syngenta, Dyna-Gro Seed, Limagrain Cereal Seeds, and WestBred Bayer. There were entries from the Colorado marketing organization, PlainsGold.
All dryland and irrigated trials were planted in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Plot sizes were approximately 150 ft2 (except the Fort Collins irrigated trial, which was 80 ft2) and all varieties were planted at 700,000 seeds per acre for dryland trials and 1.2 million seeds per acre for irrigated trials. Plot sizes for the COFT ranged from 0.15 to 2.2 acres per variety in side-by-side strips and seeding rates conformed to the seeding rate used by the collaborating farmer. Yields were corrected to 12% moisture. Variety trial plot weight, test weight, and grain moisture content information was obtained from a Harvest Master H2 weighing system on a plot combine.
General Growing Conditions in Southeast Colorado - Kelly RoeschAs is typical in the Southeast Area we received some moisture from the monsoon season in July that was followed by a hot and dry August. Some of the area received moisture in early September which allowed for good conditions for those producers who were willing to plant early. The wheat that was planted later was for the most part planted into dry conditions. Rain received in the last week of November got the crop started and wheat stands across the area looked good going into winter.
The winter brought more snow and cooler temperatures than have been experienced recently. As the wheat broke dormancy in the spring moisture remaining from the snow and rain combined with warmer temperatures had the wheat crop looking excellent.
A cold front on May 22nd brought temperatures in the 26-28°F range for several hours. Damage to the wheat depended on what growth stage it was in. Fields in the pollination stage suffered the worst damage. Lower lying portions of the fields had more damage than the hilltops. June and July continued to bring good moisture and growing conditions. Very little virus or rust presence was noted.
Yields ranged from 15-90+ bu/acre across the area depending on the extent of freeze damage. Protein levels were mixed however, with the higher yields there was still a lot wheat with
6
protein at 10 or below. Yields for the area as a whole were generally averaging in the 50 bu/acre range.
General Growing Conditions in Northwest High Plains of Colorado - Wilma Trujillo2019 was another challenging year for wheat producers. Most producers in Adams, Morgan, Logan, Southwest Washington and Weld counties planted in adequate soil moisture from late September to mid-October. Germination and stand establishment were adequate.
In general, normal conditions prevailed during the fall. September was characterized by dry and warm conditions. October and November were slightly wetter and cooler than normal. Warm and dry conditions predominated in December and January. Winter snowfall was sporadic and somewhat slightly below normal. The snow blizzards in mid-March and mid-April provided significant moisture. The mid-May snow-storm brought not only heavy rain/snow mix, but also freezing temperatures. May turned out to be exceptionally cooler than normal. Lower temperatures delayed the jointing and boot stages for about three weeks. June started with localized hail associated with several thunderstorm systems.
Stripe rust was present in most of the area, but dry conditions in June stopped further development of the disease. Other fungal (tan spot, leaf rust and cephalosporium stripe) and bacterial (bacterial streak) diseases were observed in the area. Damage to wheat from these diseases ranged from very low to mild depending on wheat variety.
Harvesting activities gradually began in the first week of July. In mid-July, producers made significant progress in harvesting wheat in the midst of scattered precipitation. Wheat harvest was wrapped up by the first week of August.
Yield ranged from the mid 30’s to low 70’s bu/ac across the area. Yield variability could be attributed to the weather pattern during the growing season, hail storms, selection of adapted wheat varieties, presence of the wheat stem sawfly and fertilization management. Grain protein content was highly variable, ranging from 7% to above 12%. Test weight varied from 58 lb/ac to 63 lb/ac.
General Growing Conditions in Northeast Colorado - Dennis Kaan and John SpringWheat planting in Washington, Yuma, Logan, Phillips, and Sedgwick counties for the 2019 crop ranged from optimal (latter-half of September) to later than normal (early-to-mid October). Seedbed conditions were generally dry over good subsoil moisture for earlier planted wheat, and mostly into adequate soil moisture for later planted. Stand establishment was adequate. Temperatures were relatively mild from September through January, but drier than usual. Fall growth and tillering was much less than usual going into winter dormancy. Unusually cold temperatures occurred in February and March, but generally were accompanied by snow events, and stand loss was not widespread across the region. Cold spring temperatures continued into April, delaying green-up and jointing by approximately 3 weeks relative to normal timing. Several late frosts further slowed spring growth but did not result in widespread damage.
The dry conditions observed over the winter reversed in April, and greater than average precipitation combined with lower than average temperatures for much of the remaining wheat growing season. Good moisture and mild temperatures did create favorable growing conditions for late tillering and development, and a good-to-excellent crop by maturity.
7
Despite concerns posed by cool, wet weather, stripe rust did not appear with any severity across the region until well after flag leaf emergence, or even heading. Late infestations of leaf and stripe rust did occur in susceptible varieties, but generally had minimal impacts on yield. While present across the region, viral diseases had minor effects as well. Background levels of tan spot and bacterial leaf streak were also observed, but with minimal yield loss. Cephalosporium stripe was unusually severe and resulted in appreciable yield losses in susceptible varieties in some fields across the area. Due to cold temperatures and slow early growth reducing the ability of wheat to withstand generally safe herbicides, unusual cases of severe crop injury resulted from spring applications of the Group 2 herbicides Beyond, PowerFlex, Osprey, and Olympus. While relatively isolated, in fields where such injury was observed yield losses ranged from severe to nearly complete loss. The area with wheat stem sawfly damage continued to expand relative to prior year observations, but the degree of loss was generally low. Hail damage was normal to light across the region.
Harvest did not begin in earnest until after the 4th of July and was not fully finished until August. Yields ranged from 40 to over 90 bu/ac across the area, with 60 to 70 bu/ac typical. Test weights were good to high, with most ranging from 60 to 64 lb/bu. Under-application of N fertilizer for yield level continued to result in low protein levels, with 9 to 10% typical. Where adequate N fertilizer was applied for yield potential, protein reached adequate levels of 11.5 to 12% or above.
General Growing Conditions in East Central Colorado - Ron MeyerThe 2019 wheat production season from east-central Colorado can be described as another successful season. Timely fall moisture enabled very good wheat stands along the I-70 corridor. Snow cover followed during the winter season, which further added to adequate soil moisture levels. Finally, better-than-average spring moisture allowed deep soil moisture to accumulate when the winter wheat crop began the journey to yield. In addition, air temperatures were cooler than normal which favors wheat production. As a result, reported wheat yields that were double long-term averages were common. Dryland wheat yields from many farms averaged 70 bushels per acre while some producers averaged more than 90 bushels per acre across the whole farm. As a result of very good yields, protein levels were again low. Better nitrogen fertilizer management is assisting protein levels, however, as yields increase protein tends to drop. This was the case locally, as well.
Stripe rust was evident early but did not proliferate and only a few fields were treated with a fungicide. I believe a combination of low rust spore populations, resistant wheat varieties, and lower humidity caused a failure to thrive for rust populations.
These exceptional wheat yields continue the trend and makes the last four wheat crops in this area better than our long-term average.
8
9
2019
Dry
land
Whe
at T
rial
Man
agem
ent a
nd C
hara
cter
istic
s
Akr
onA
rapa
hoe
Bur
lingt
onG
enoa
Jule
sbur
gL
amar
Orc
hard
Rog
gen
Sher
idan
Lak
eW
alsh
Yum
aA
vera
ge Y
ield
(bu/
ac)
6710
410
072
5453
4873
6090
86
40.1
493
39.0
015
39.2
852
39.3
516
40.8
356
38.0
026
40.4
817
40.0
727
38.5
345
37.4
312
40.1
907
-103
.137
3-1
02.2
461
-102
.279
5-1
03.5
093
-102
.342
9-1
02.6
135
-104
.109
9-1
04.3
019
-102
.471
2-1
02.3
104
-102
.661
1
Cou
nty
Was
hing
ton
Chey
enne
K
it Ca
rson
Linc
oln
Sedg
wic
kPr
ower
sM
orga
nW
eld
Kio
wa
Baca
Yum
a
Soil
Typ
eRa
go S
ilt L
oam
Kei
th-R
ichf
ield
sil
t loa
mK
uma-
Kei
th si
lt lo
amW
eld
silt l
oam
Kei
th-K
uma
silt
loam
sW
ilid
silt l
oam
Brig
gsda
le c
lay
loam
Wel
d lo
amW
iley
loam
Wile
y lo
amH
axtu
n sa
ndy
loam
Sand
-Silt
-Cla
y %
29-5
0-21
29-5
2-19
29-5
4-17
31-5
0-19
31-5
0-19
39-4
4-17
51-2
6-23
31-4
4-25
41-4
0-19
21-6
0-19
49-3
2-19
Soil
Org
anic
Mat
ter
1.5
%1.
6 %
1.9
%2.
0 %
1.6
%1.
1 %
1.2
%1.
4 %
1.3
%1.
7 %
1.4
%
Soil
pH6.
37.
97.
57.
26.
38.
17.
67.
67.
47.
97.
3
Soil
Nut
rien
ts a
t pl
antin
g (N
-P lb
/ac)
111-
1516
6-7
182-
1012
3-20
102-
2780
-570
-582
-10
87-1
013
7-11
117-
18
App
lied
Fert
ilize
r in
Se
ason
(N-P
-K lb
/ac)
8-28
-073
-46-
0-7S
-0.5
Zn92
-49-
062
-38-
0-1S
23-2
8-0-
1Zn
45-3
6-0
59-3
7-0-
2S-0
.25Z
n8-
28-0
54-2
8-0-
8.25
S56
-20-
037
-28-
0-2S
Tilla
geN
o-Ti
llV
ertic
le T
illag
eTi
lled
2x T
illed
No-
Till
No-
Till
No-
Till
No-
Till
No-
Till
Tille
dM
in-T
illed
Prev
ious
Cro
p 20
17/2
018
Pros
o m
illet
/ Ch
emfa
llow
Corn
/ Ch
emfa
llow
Corn
/ Ch
emfa
llow
Oil
Sunf
low
ers/
Fallo
wCo
rn/ F
allo
wW
heat
/ Ch
emfa
llow
Pros
o M
illet
/ Ch
emfa
llow
Corn
/ Fal
low
Gra
in S
orgh
um/
Chem
fallo
wW
heat
/ Fal
low
Pros
o M
illet
/ Fa
llow
Plan
ting
Dat
e3-
Oct
-201
813
-Sep
-201
813
-Sep
-201
818
-Sep
-201
82-
Oct
-201
812
-Sep
-201
82-
Oct
-201
81-
Oct
-201
812
-Sep
-201
818
-Sep
-201
819
-Sep
-201
8
Har
vest
Dat
e26
-Jul
-201
916
-Jul
-201
917
-Jul
-201
918
-Jul
-201
930
-Jul
-201
98-
Jul-2
019
29-J
ul-2
019
25-J
ul-2
019
12-J
ul-2
019
8-Ju
l-201
913
-Jul
-201
9
Hea
ding
Dat
e (A
vg)
4-Ju
n-20
1926
-May
-201
928
-May
-201
92-
Jun-
2019
8-Ju
n-20
1916
-May
-201
99-
Jun-
2019
5-Ju
n-20
1920
-May
-201
919
-May
-201
930
-May
-201
9
Day
s fro
m P
lant
ing
to
Hea
ding
(Avg
) 24
425
525
725
724
924
625
024
725
024
325
3
Bio
tic S
tres
s
Min
or sa
wfly
, tra
ce st
ripe
rust,
ta
nsy
mus
tard
pr
esen
t in
May
Som
e W
SMV
no
ted
mid
-May
Spra
yed
for
strip
e ru
st Ju
ne 1
-
Tan
Spot
, Ce
phal
ospo
rium
str
ipe,
WSM
V,
strip
e ru
st pr
esen
t
-Se
vere
saw
fly
Low
leve
l stri
pe
rust
note
d Ju
ne;
spra
yed
for r
ust i
n Ju
ne
-
Min
or le
af a
nd
strip
e ru
st,
barle
y ye
llow
dw
arf v
irus,
tan
spot
Low
leve
ls st
ripe
and
leaf
rust
Abi
otic
Str
ess
Free
ze -
poss
ible
*So
me
lodg
ing
--
Free
ze-
min
or*
Free
ze -
susp
ecte
d**
Free
ze -
seve
re*
Free
ze -
mod
erat
e*Sl
ight
hai
l dam
age
in Ju
ne
Free
ze -
mod
erat
e*Fr
eeze
- se
vere
*-
Leaf
rolli
ng
mid
-May
indi
cate
d dr
ough
t stre
ss2.
8" ra
in la
te M
ay
Tota
l Rai
n:A
pril
1 to
Har
vest
9.25
in6.
99 in
7.56
in8.
22 in
7.46
in**
5.
76 i
n8.
42 in
7.4
in9.
07 in
6.89
in5.
97 in
Last
Spr
ing
Free
ze
Dat
es
May
22:
2 hr
< 3
0 F
Tem
p to
29
F
No
Free
ze
Even
tsN
o Fr
eeze
Ev
ents
May
22:
2
hr <
30
FTe
mp
to 2
9 F
May
22:
Susp
ecte
d**
May
19:
15 m
in <
31 F
Tem
p to
30.
6 F
May
22:
3
hr <
30
FTe
mp
to 2
8.2
F
May
22:
1
hr <
30
FTe
mp
to 2
8.5
F
May
22:
1hr <
30
FTe
mp
to 2
8.7
F
May
22:
3 hr
s < 3
0 F
Tem
p to
28
F
No
Free
ze
Even
tsN
o Fr
eeze
Ev
ents
*Fre
eze
seve
rity
estim
ated
from
Kan
sas S
tate
Whe
at F
reez
e D
amag
e Pu
blic
atio
n (h
ttps:/
/ww
w.su
nflo
wer
.k-s
tate
.edu
/agr
onom
y/do
cs/c
646_
Who
le_W
heat
_Fre
eze_
Publ
icat
ion.
pdf)
**W
eath
er st
atio
n lim
ited
data
: Miss
ing
rain
prio
r to
May
17,
miss
ing
Tem
p - M
ay 2
2 m
idni
ght t
o 6:
20 a
m
WSM
V: W
heat
stre
ak m
osia
c vi
rus
Envrionment
2019
Dry
land
Whe
at T
rial M
anag
emen
t and
Cha
ract
eris
tics
Location
GPS
Coo
rdin
ates
(L
at/L
ong)
Soil Management Development
10
Irrigated Variety Performance Trials
Fort Collins, Larimer County: Planted 9/13/2018 and harvested 7/25/2019. Timely fall planting with fall moisture. Uniform emergence and good stands and fall growth. Ample spring precipitation, very lush growth and very high yield potential observed by late May. Cool spring temperatures led to late date of heading, about 8 days later than the 10-year average for the site. Pea-sized hail on June 4 caused minor damage. Damaging hail occurred on June 5, causing 20-30% damage, which was more severe on earlier entries. Severe stripe rust in the field effectively controlled with fungicide, but a later leaf rust infection was noted on susceptible entries. Lodging observed in some entries. Trial received 150 lb/ac of N and 30 lb/ac of P. GPS: 40.6529, -104.999
Haxtun, Phillips County: Planted 10/4/2018 and harvested 8/7/2019. Trial planted after corn silage harvest into tilled corn residue. Planted about 1.25” deep. Trial was irrigated in fall after planting. Good growth in spring and trial received hail damage from a storm at the end of May and again at the end of June. Trial was sprayed in mid-June with fungicide. Trial received 117 lb/ac N in the spring. GPS: 40.405, -102.6063
Burlington, Kit Carson County: Planted 10/3/2018 and harvested 7/17/2019. Planted into tilled corn residue about 1.25” deep. Plants looked good, albeit small in mid-May. Limited-irrigation applied during the season (4” total) and the late date of planting contributed to low yield. Wheat streak mosaic virus symptoms were severe in the trial by mid-May and significantly affected grain yield. Trial received 110 lb/ac of N and 40 lb/ac of P, no fungicide or insecticides were applied. GPS: 39.21465, -102.13837
11
Summary of 2019 Dryland Winter Wheat Variety Performance Results
Varietyb Akron Arapahoe Burlington Genoa Julesburg Lamar Orchard RoggenSheridan
Lake Walsh Yuma Yield YieldTest
Weight Headingc
bu/ac % of avg lb/bu days from avg.CO15D098R 73.7 118.1 111.2 81.3 57.5 58.5 52.3 82.1 62.7 91.7 96.3 80.5 110% 62.2 0Antero 71.1 112.3 109.5 78.5 57.4 66.3 52.0 78.9 64.5 96.9 95.8 80.3 110% 61.1 -1Sunshine 73.2 103.9 107.4 76.7 57.2 66.3 52.7 76.5 66.9 101.8 90.2 79.3 108% 61.3 -1Langin 74.6 110.6 109.7 72.9 56.6 54.1 43.8 77.9 64.4 99.7 95.1 78.1 107% 60.5 -3Byrd CL Plus 69.0 111.6 105.3 77.1 49.7 60.0 58.3 77.1 65.2 96.0 89.6 78.1 107% 60.8 0Avery 68.9 110.8 103.7 76.3 51.9 59.3 51.0 77.3 61.1 101.4 92.2 77.6 106% 60.3 1Whistler 64.1 112.4 96.8 74.3 57.3 65.5 46.6 79.4 70.5 98.4 84.7 77.3 106% 60.3 2Guardian 66.2 113.6 95.6 77.7 40.2 66.8 44.2 75.9 78.9 90.9 86.4 76.0 104% 61.8 1Snowmass 2.0 64.8 108.5 107.4 68.5 55.5 66.2 45.9 76.8 65.0 86.8 88.6 75.8 104% 61.3 -1CO13D1479 67.4 106.6 105.1 73.1 57.5 59.1 47.1 75.1 62.7 89.6 87.3 75.5 103% 61.2 1Breck 67.3 112.2 103.8 69.0 58.8 61.4 42.9 72.3 59.4 94.0 89.3 75.5 103% 62.6 0Crescent AX 66.8 108.2 102.5 74.2 52.1 50.1 56.9 76.1 59.9 90.8 91.7 75.4 103% 61.7 -1WB4595 69.2 98.3 100.6 75.9 60.7 54.2 55.0 77.0 62.6 92.8 82.7 75.4 103% 62.2 1Denali 61.3 107.9 108.6 74.1 57.3 59.2 46.4 70.5 62.8 90.5 89.3 75.3 103% 61.9 2Monarch 65.3 108.1 106.2 74.5 55.8 59.6 40.5 73.5 60.6 90.7 91.6 75.1 103% 61.1 1Canvas 68.7 105.4 101.5 75.1 51.6 61.8 40.4 72.2 69.4 89.8 86.2 74.7 102% 61.8 1CO13D0346 64.3 107.4 98.9 69.4 60.2 43.9 47.4 72.4 66.5 93.7 93.4 74.3 102% 60.6 -1Byrd 63.5 113.0 97.0 69.6 46.3 61.6 46.3 72.2 63.4 94.5 89.6 74.3 101% 60.7 -1WB4462 72.8 101.9 103.5 77.2 62.6 42.6 55.4 73.5 46.7 87.1 86.1 73.6 101% 62.0 -1WB4792 64.6 97.1 95.9 75.5 57.1 55.8 46.2 74.0 62.9 89.7 89.0 73.4 100% 61.7 3Fortify SF 72.3 108.4 93.2 70.5 51.2 50.2 59.4 75.2 58.4 81.8 85.5 73.3 100% 61.4 0SY Monument 65.6 102.6 103.6 68.1 58.2 57.1 50.0 73.2 49.4 89.3 84.9 72.9 100% 60.5 2WB-Grainfield 67.4 109.1 103.3 66.0 59.6 42.9 43.0 69.2 51.8 92.5 88.7 72.1 99% 61.6 -3SY Rugged 69.1 101.9 96.4 70.7 65.6 47.3 46.0 70.1 55.0 87.7 80.0 71.8 98% 61.1 -1Hatcher 70.7 100.8 94.2 74.7 41.6 48.2 48.1 77.4 62.5 88.0 80.7 71.5 98% 60.7 0CO15SFD092 69.5 107.2 98.1 63.1 50.5 42.1 53.0 74.2 51.6 86.2 85.8 71.0 97% 61.2 -1LCH15ACC-7-7 63.8 98.4 101.3 72.5 58.4 41.3 43.0 67.8 58.5 81.5 91.6 70.7 97% 61.5 -3SY Wolverine 64.9 101.3 101.9 68.0 45.4 52.1 36.5 69.7 56.3 94.5 87.0 70.7 97% 60.7 -1SY Wolf 63.6 98.5 99.2 69.7 56.2 49.6 44.4 72.6 50.6 90.3 81.4 70.6 96% 61.2 2AM Eastwood 71.0 93.1 95.2 62.9 57.0 44.5 45.2 68.5 48.2 85.9 87.1 69.0 94% 61.1 -1Spur 67.5 - 81.4 74.0 60.2 - 66.8 71.8 - - 76.8 68.7 94% 58.8 4Incline AX 55.7 98.5 90.8 78.0 41.6 65.8 41.1 68.5 59.9 85.2 69.8 68.6 94% 59.6 2Long Branch 64.2 96.6 91.6 69.3 44.8 51.0 39.1 72.3 58.3 85.9 81.7 68.6 94% 60.8 0Brawl CL Plus 64.5 95.8 94.2 61.7 51.6 37.2 57.6 66.1 49.2 84.9 84.4 67.9 93% 62.1 -2SY Legend CL2 61.1 96.9 95.5 66.7 61.9 45.1 37.9 68.3 52.1 83.9 75.6 67.7 93% 61.4 -1WB4418 64.7 95.8 97.4 71.5 58.6 31.0 47.1 65.5 47.3 90.6 71.1 67.3 92% 60.4 -1Snowmass 57.8 95.3 90.7 65.9 36.7 53.6 34.3 73.0 64.9 81.0 75.9 66.3 91% 61.3 0LCS Valiant 60.0 90.1 99.0 67.7 47.5 35.2 45.1 67.3 49.5 81.7 84.3 66.1 90% 61.4 -1Average 66.6 104.3 99.9 71.9 53.9 53.2 47.6 73.2 59.5 90.2 86.0 73.2 61.2 5/27/2019dLSD (P<0.30) 3.2 4.2 5.0 4.5 3.6 3.0 5.0 2.5 3.5 2.7 2.9aVarieties in the top LSD yield group in each location are in bold.bVarieties ranked according to average yield across eleven trials in 2019.
2019 Individual Trial Yielda
bu/ac
2019 Multi-Location Average
dIf the difference between two variety yields equals or exceeds the LSD value then they are significantly different with less than 30% probability that the difference is due to random error.
cVarieties with positive values headed later than the trial average and varieties with negative values headed earlier than the multi-location trial averages.
12
Summary of 2-year (2018 and 2019) Dryland Variety Performance Results
Varietyb Brand/SourceMarket Classc Yield Yield
Test Weight Test Weight
Plant Height
bu/ac % trial average lb/bu % trial average inAntero PlainsGold HWW 75.4 109% 60.4 100% 34CO15D098R Colorado State University Exp. HRW 74.8 108% 61.7 102% 35Langin PlainsGold HRW 74.7 108% 60.3 99% 31Sunshine PlainsGold HWW 73.6 106% 60.2 99% 32Whistler PlainsGold HRW 72.8 105% 59.6 98% 34Avery PlainsGold HRW 72.2 104% 60.1 99% 33Snowmass 2.0 PlainsGold HWW 72.2 104% 60.9 100% 32Byrd CL Plus PlainsGold HRW 71.9 104% 60.3 99% 34Breck PlainsGold HWW 71.8 104% 62.1 102% 33Monarch PlainsGold HWW 71.2 103% 60.7 100% 31CO13D1479 Colorado State University Exp. HWW 70.5 102% 60.9 100% 33Guardian PlainsGold HRW 70.5 102% 61.7 102% 33Denali PlainsGold HRW 70.4 102% 61.4 101% 34Canvas PlainsGold HRW 70.2 101% 61.2 101% 31Crescent AX PlainsGold HRW 69.9 101% 61.2 101% 33SY Monument AgriPro Syngenta HRW 69.3 100% 60.0 99% 32Byrd PlainsGold HRW 69.3 100% 60.5 100% 33WB4462 WestBred Bayer HRW 69.0 100% 61.3 101% 35WB-Grainfield WestBred Bayer HRW 68.0 98% 60.7 100% 33Fortify SF PlainsGold HRW 67.7 98% 61.0 101% 33Hatcher PlainsGold HRW 67.2 97% 60.4 100% 32SY Rugged AgriPro Syngenta HRW 67.1 97% 60.0 99% 30Long Branch Dyna-Gro Seed HRW 66.8 97% 60.0 99% 32SY Wolf AgriPro Syngenta HRW 66.3 96% 60.7 100% 31WB4418 WestBred Bayer HRW 66.2 96% 60.0 99% 30CO15SFD092 Colorado State University Exp. HRW 65.6 95% 60.8 100% 31Brawl CL Plus PlainsGold HRW 65.3 94% 61.4 101% 33AM Eastwood AgriMaxx Wheat HRW 64.9 94% 60.5 100% 28Incline AX PlainsGold HRW 64.4 93% 58.9 97% 32Snowmass PlainsGold HWW 63.9 92% 61.0 101% 33SY Legend CL2 AgriPro Syngenta HRW 63.7 92% 60.8 100% 31
Average 69.2 60.7 32
bVarieties ranked according to average 2-year yield.cMarket class: HRW=hard red winter wheat; HWW=hard white winter wheat.
2-Year Averagea
aThe 2-year average yield and test weight are based on 20 trials (eleven 2019 and nine 2018 trials). Plant heights are based on 19 trials (ten 2019 and eight 2018 trials).
13
Summary of 3-year (2017, 2018, and 2019) Dryland Variety Performance Results
Varietyb Brand/SourceMarket Classc Yield Yield
Test Weight Test Weight
Plant Height
bu/ac % trial average lb/bu % trial average inLangin PlainsGold HRW 75.5 108% 60.2 100% 31Antero PlainsGold HWW 74.7 107% 60.1 100% 34Whistler PlainsGold HRW 74.6 107% 59.3 98% 34Snowmass 2.0 PlainsGold HWW 73.2 105% 60.6 100% 32Avery PlainsGold HRW 72.6 104% 60.1 100% 34Canvas PlainsGold HRW 72.1 103% 61.0 101% 31Sunshine PlainsGold HWW 72.1 103% 59.8 99% 32Breck PlainsGold HWW 71.9 103% 61.9 103% 33Byrd CL Plus PlainsGold HRW 71.8 103% 59.9 99% 34Guardian PlainsGold HRW 71.7 103% 61.5 102% 33Monarch PlainsGold HWW 71.3 102% 60.5 100% 31Byrd PlainsGold HRW 71.1 102% 60.4 100% 33CO13D1479 Colorado State University Exp. HWW 70.4 101% 60.4 100% 33Denali PlainsGold HRW 68.9 99% 60.7 101% 34WB-Grainfield WestBred Bayer HRW 68.0 97% 60.6 100% 33SY Monument AgriPro Syngenta HRW 67.5 97% 59.6 99% 32WB4462 WestBred Bayer HRW 67.3 96% 61.0 101% 35SY Rugged AgriPro Syngenta HRW 66.8 96% 59.7 99% 30Hatcher PlainsGold HRW 66.1 95% 60.0 99% 32SY Wolf AgriPro Syngenta HRW 65.9 94% 60.3 100% 31Snowmass PlainsGold HWW 65.8 94% 60.6 101% 34Brawl CL Plus PlainsGold HRW 64.7 93% 60.9 101% 33Incline AX PlainsGold HRW 62.9 90% 58.0 96% 32
Average 69.9 60.3 33
bVarieties ranked according to average 3-year yield.cMarket class: HRW=hard red winter wheat; HWW=hard white winter wheat.
3-Year Averagea
aThe 3-year average yield and test weights are based on 28 trials (eleven 2019, nine 2018, and eight 2017 trials). Plant heights are based on 26 trials (ten 2019, eight 2018, and eight 2017 trials).
14
Head-to-Head Yield Comparisons
These regressions are used to compare the predicted performance of one variety relative to another variety. The regressions use results from multiple Dryland Variety Performance Trials results over the past three years (2017 through 2019). These (or any other) yield comparisons can be made online at ramwheatdb.com, which uses the Dryland Variety Performance Trial data. The equation shown in each graph can be used to predict the yield of a variety given a yield of the variety listed on the bottom (x-axis) of the graph. The R2 value of the regression is a statistical measure that represents how well a regression line fits the actual data. An R2 value equal to 1.0 means the regression line fits the data perfectly. It is important to point out that the comparisons are expected to be more reliable when they include results over multiple locations from different years.
The first graph compares two hard white wheat varieties with a premium at harvest. Snowmass and Snowmass 2.0 (new release). Across all of the yield levels shown, Snowmass 2.0 is expected to yield higher than Snowmass, and the difference is greater at higher yield levels. If Snowmass yielded 60 bu/ac, it is predicted that Snowmass 2.0 would yield 67.1 bu/ac.
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Yie
ld (b
u/ac
)
Snowmass Yield (bu/ac)
Yield Regression of Snowmass and Snowmass 2.0 Dryland Variety Trial Results (28 location-years, 2017-19)
Snowmass (solid)Avg. Yield = 65.8
Snowmass 2.0 (dashed)Avg. Yield = 73.2
y = 1.11x + .497R2 = 0.82
15
The graph above compares three hard white wheat varieties that generally bring a premium at harvest for high quality: Snowmass 2.0, Sunshine, and Breck. The trend is for Snowmass 2.0 to yield higher than Sunshine at all yield levels, and higher than Breck at yield levels above 60 bu/ac.
The above graph compares two medium-late maturity wheats, SY Monument and Whistler. Across all of the yield levels shown, Whistler is expected to yield higher than SY Monument, and the difference is greater at lower yield levels. If SY Monument yielded 60 bu/ac, it is predicted that Whistler would yield 68.5 bu/ac.
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Yie
ld (b
u/ac
)
Sunshine Yield (bu/ac)
Yield Regression of Breck, Snowmass 2.0, and SunshineDryland Variety Trial Results (28 location-years, 2017-19)
Sunshine (solid)Avg. Yield = 72.1
Snowmass 2.0 (dashed)Avg. Yield = 73.2
y = .992x + 1.67R2 = 0.84
Breck (dash-dot)Avg. Yield = 71.9
y = .936x + 4.375R2 = 0.90
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Yie
ld (b
u/ac
)
SY Monument Yield (bu/ac)
Yield Regression of Whistler and SY Monument Dryland Variety Trial Results (28 location-years, 2017-19)
SY Monument (solid)Avg. Yield = 67.5
Whistler (dashed)Avg. Yield = 74.6
y = .806x + 20.175R2 = 0.73
16
The final graph above compares two medium maturity, high-yielding varieties, Avery and Canvas. The regression line of Canvas (dashed) is at or below the Avery line at all yield levels shown and is consistently expected to yield similarly to Avery.
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Yie
ld (b
u/ac
)
Avery Yield (bu/ac)
Yield Regression of Canvas and Avery from Dryland Variety Trial Results (28 location-years, 2017-19)
Avery (solid)Avg. Yield = 72.6
Canvas (dashed)Avg. Yield = 72.1
y = 0.9857x + 0.559R2 = 0.86
17
2019 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Variety Performance Results
Jerry Johnson, Sally Jones-Diamond, Kelly Roesch, Wilma Trujillo, Dennis Kaan, Ron Meyer, John Spring, and Roger Tyler
In the fall of 2018, thirty eastern Colorado wheat producers received seed of the five or six varieties and planted them in side-by-side strips under the same conditions as the wheat in the rest of the field. Twenty-four viable harvest results were obtained. The objective of our on-farm testing program is to compare the performance of wheat varieties that are of most interest to Colorado farmers under farmer conditions. Five varieties were included in all tests and sixteen tests also included Snowmass 2.0. HRW varieties were Byrd, Avery, Langin, and Long Branch. HWW varieties were Breck, and Snowmass 2.0 if seed was available. Colorado State University Extension agents oversaw all aspects of the program. The COFT program is in its 23rd year and the majority of Colorado’s winter wheat acreage is planted to varieties that have been tested in the program. On-farm testing leads to more rapid replacement of older inferior varieties and wider and faster adoption of improved varieties. The varieties tested in COFT this year fit different farmer needs and readers are encouraged to study the tables in the Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado and the Dryland Decision Tree for more information.
Variety Yielda Test Weight Proteinbu/ac lb/bu percent
Langin 65.8 59.8 10.2Avery 64.5 60.0 9.9Byrd 63.1 60.3 10.1Breck 62.3 62.2 10.5Long Branch 60.3 59.9 10.3Average 63.2 60.4 10.2LSD(0.30) 1.2 0.3 0.1aYield corrected to 12% moisture.
Variety Yielda Test Weight Proteinbu/ac lb/bu percent
Langin 67.6 59.9 10.3Avery 65.9 59.9 10.1Byrd 64.7 60.5 10.2Snowmass 2.0 64.0 60.2 10.6Breck 63.4 61.9 10.6Long Branch 62.7 59.8 10.5Average 64.7 60.4 10.4LSD(0.30) 1.3 0.4 0.2aYield corrected to 12% moisture.
Summary of 2019 COFT Variety Results (24 tests included)
Summary of 2019 COFT Variety Results with Snowmass 2.0 (16 tests included)
18
2019
Col
labo
rativ
e O
n-Fa
rm T
est (
CO
FT) V
arie
ty P
erfo
rman
ce R
esul
ts
Cou
nty/
Nea
rest
Tow
nY
ield
aTe
st
Wei
ght
Prot
ein
Yie
lda
Test
W
eigh
tPr
otei
nY
ield
aTe
st
Wei
ght
Prot
ein
Yie
lda
Test
W
eigh
tPr
otei
nY
ield
aTe
st
Wei
ght
Prot
ein
Yie
lda
Test
W
eigh
tPr
otei
nbu
/ac
lb/b
upe
rcen
tbu
/ac
lb/b
upe
rcen
tbu
/ac
lb/b
upe
rcen
tbu
/ac
lb/b
upe
rcen
tbu
/ac
lb/b
upe
rcen
tbu
/ac
lb/b
upe
rcen
tA
dam
s/B
enne
tt N
44.1
61.2
10.7
60.3
62.6
9.3
56.3
628.
757
.563
.59.
3-
--
54.5
62.3
9.5
Ada
ms/
Pros
pect
Val
ley
36.2
60.1
7.7
36.9
60.0
7.8
33.0
60.0
7.5
33.2
63.7
8.0
37.7
61.1
8.1
35.4
61.0
7.8
Bac
a/Pr
itche
tt49
.957
.06.
644
.758
.96.
843
.658
.46.
644
.261
.36.
944
.259
.26.
845
.359
.06.
7B
aca/
Vila
s80
.858
.19.
080
.158
.19.
280
.558
.89.
077
.160
.010
.071
.158
.09.
777
.958
.69.
4B
aca/
Wal
sh87
.658
.9-
84.5
59.2
-83
.358
.9-
79.7
61.9
-75
.258
.5-
82.1
59.5
-B
ent/L
amar
59.0
59.3
11.3
54.6
59.6
11.3
60.3
59.5
11.3
56.5
61.6
11.2
54.6
58.4
12.3
57.0
59.7
11.5
Kio
wa/
Eads
46.6
58.7
9.6
47.8
59.6
9.7
45.7
58.9
10.9
40.8
62.3
11.8
38.3
59.7
10.5
43.8
59.8
10.5
Kio
wa/
Has
wel
l62
.062
.48.
265
.061
.88.
457
.461
.28.
465
.965
.08.
960
.062
.48.
662
.162
.68.
5K
it C
arso
n/B
ethu
ne51
.459
.110
.657
.959
.410
.949
.862
.612
.246
.960
.311
.037
.759
.712
.848
.860
.211
.5K
it C
arso
n/B
urlin
gton
N90
.264
.311
.479
.366
.211
.079
.166
.312
.087
.064
.610
.980
.062
.711
.683
.164
.811
.4K
it C
arso
n/St
ratto
n85
.561
.79.
681
.459
.89.
782
.460
.29.
577
.463
.710
.270
.660
.010
.279
.561
.19.
8Lo
gan/
Lero
y72
.859
.210
.973
.458
.210
.970
.159
.311
.268
.759
.411
.971
.657
.911
.371
.358
.811
.2M
orga
n/O
rcha
rd53
.658
.613
.051
.756
.912
.552
.859
.311
.754
.058
.312
.849
.356
.711
.452
.358
.012
.3Ph
illip
s/H
axtu
n94
.757
.212
.984
.157
.712
.789
.359
.913
.089
.157
.513
.188
.357
.712
.889
.158
.012
.9Ph
illip
s/H
olyo
ke93
.662
.49.
090
.963
.58.
787
.962
.78.
784
.364
.99.
386
.863
.48.
988
.763
.48.
9Pr
ower
s/H
olly
93.2
60.5
9.9
77.7
60.1
8.5
75.5
60.5
9.1
75.5
62.3
9.9
71.4
59.5
8.9
78.7
60.6
9.3
Prow
ers/
Lam
ar21
.957
.614
.635
.759
.912
.930
.959
.813
.837
.562
.113
.430
.559
.912
.931
.359
.913
.5Se
dgw
ick/
Jule
sbur
g77
.161
.09.
283
.662
.48.
581
.162
.08.
980
.865
.59.
273
.763
.09.
279
.262
.89.
0Se
dgw
ick/
Jule
sbur
g S
60.8
60.8
8.1
60.7
61.7
8.1
57.8
61.8
8.5
54.0
64.7
8.2
56.9
62.3
8.1
58.0
62.3
8.2
Was
hing
ton/
Akr
on66
.256
.810
.661
.255
.810
.961
.457
.210
.462
.259
.210
.860
.757
.310
.962
.457
.310
.7W
ashi
ngto
n/A
kron
S58
.958
.611
.155
.157
.410
.654
.460
.410
.648
.562
.212
.055
.560
.010
.754
.559
.711
.0W
eld/
New
Ray
mer
SE
57.0
62.5
11.0
51.9
63.3
10.5
51.2
62.1
10.4
50.8
64.8
11.2
50.6
62.4
10.0
52.3
63.0
10.6
Wel
d/R
ogge
n71
.359
.310
.268
.857
.110
.667
.856
.311
.570
.661
.211
.669
.257
.711
.669
.558
.311
.1Y
uma/
Yum
a64
.958
.88.
760
.460
.28.
361
.459
.48.
652
.762
.39.
053
.860
.78.
958
.660
.38.
7A
vera
ge65
.859
.810
.264
.560
.09.
963
.160
.310
.162
.362
.210
.560
.359
.910
.363
.160
.410
.2Y
ield
Sig
nific
ance
bA
BC
CD
LSD
(P<0
.30)
for y
ield
= 1
.2 b
u/ac
LSD
(P<0
.30)
for t
est w
eigh
t = 0
.3 lb
/bu
LSD
(P<0
.30)
for p
rote
in =
0.1
per
cent
a All
yiel
d an
d pr
otei
n da
ta a
re c
orre
cted
to 1
2% m
oist
ure.
b Yie
ld si
gnifi
canc
e: v
arie
ties w
ith d
iffer
ent l
ette
rs h
ave
yiel
ds th
at a
re si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent f
rom
one
ano
ther
.
2019
Col
labo
rativ
e O
n-Fa
rm T
est (
CO
FT) V
arie
ty P
erfo
rman
ce R
esul
ts20
19 V
arie
ties (r
anke
d le
ft to
righ
t by
high
est y
ield
)
CO
FT A
vera
geB
yrd
Ave
ryLa
ngin
Long
Bra
nch
Bre
ck
19
2019 Wheat Variety Decision Tree for Dryland ProductionJerry Johnson and Sally Jones-Diamond
The decision tree on the following page helps Colorado growers make variety selection decisions based on important traits. Under each variety name are the scores, YR for stripe rust and WSMV for wheat streak mosaic virus, with ‘1’ being very resistant and ‘9’ being very susceptible.
HWWIn addition to high yields in high and low yielding conditions, Antero has good test weight, moderate sprouting tolerance and fair straw strength. Monarch, a 2018 release, is a viable non-premium dryland wheat variety choice but is mainly targeted for irrigated conditions with good stripe rust resistance, excellent straw strength, and excellent yields. Snowmass 2.0, Sunshine, and Breck are in the Ultragrain Premium Program. Snowmass 2.0, expected to replace Snowmass, is better for yield, grain protein deviation, and straw strength. Sunshine has excellent quality, good sprouting tolerance and straw strength but is susceptible to viruses. Breck, is a high-yielding variety with good sprouting tolerance, and straw strength. It also has very high test weight and low polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activity for improved whole grain bread and noodle quality.
HRWThere are more choices for growers planting a two-gene Clearfield® variety. Brawl CL Plus, Byrd CL Plus and SY Legend CL2 (latter two are 2018 releases) are recommended for good control of winter annual grasses. Brawl CL Plus has good test weight, quality, grain protein content, and is early-maturing but has below-average yield. Byrd CL Plus is among the top yielding varieties in 2019 trials and very similar to the familiar Byrd parent. SY Legend CL2, from Agripro Syngenta, provides weed control and has good overall disease tolerance while yielding 92% of 2019 trial yield average.
The new CoAXium® Wheat Production System based on Aggressor® herbicide, a different class of compounds from Beyond, is an option for excellent control of winter annual grasses. Incline AX provides good weed control but has lower test weight and yield. Crescent AX (2018), is much higher yielding than Incline AX yet retains excellent control of winter annual grasses.
Although there are no wheat stem sawfly resistant varieties, there are some varieties that exhibit acceptable yield in the presence of strong sawfly pressure: Fortify SF has above trial average yields in 2018 and 2019. Spur, a 2016 Montana release marketed by Agripro Syngenta, was highest yielding in the Orchard trial this year in the face of very heavy sawfly infestation.
Most producers will plant high-yielding HRW varieties. The recommended early-maturing HRW variety is Langin (2016 release) from CSU, which is a top yielder. For the high-yielding, medium-maturing varieties, there are four recommendations: Avery, Byrd, Canvas, and Guardian. Byrd is well-known and Avery is similar to Byrd with a higher yield potential, larger kernels, slightly improved quality, and above-average test weight. Like Byrd, Avery carries wheat curl mite resistance. Canvas (2018 release) is better yielding than Byrd with a complete package of disease resistance and other traits. Guardian (2019) also has a good disease resistance package and good quality. The recommended high-yielding medium-to-late maturity HRW variety is a newcomer, Whistler, which has excellent yield and good stripe rust and WSMV resistance.
20
2019
Dry
land
Whe
at
Vari
ety
Dec
isio
n Tr
ee
Har
d W
hite
Prem
ium
Snow
mas
s 2.0
YR
: 4
WSM
V: 3
Suns
hine
YR
: 5
WSM
V: 7
Brec
kY
R: 3
W
SMV
: 4
No
Prem
ium
Ant
ero
YR
: 3
WSM
V: 5
Mon
arch
YR
: 5
WSM
V: 4
Har
d R
ed
Saw
fly
Res
ista
nce
Forti
fy S
FY
R: 7
W
SMV
: 2
Spur
YR
: 5
WSM
V: 8
Her
bici
de
Tole
rant
Agg
ress
or
(CoA
Xiu
m)
Incl
ine
AX
YR
: 6
WSM
V: 4
Cre
scen
t AX
YR
: 4
WSM
V: 2
Cle
arfie
ld
Dou
ble-
gene
Bra
wl C
L Pl
usY
R: 6
W
SMV
: 5
Byr
d C
L Pl
usY
R: 8
W
SMV
: 5
SY L
egen
d C
L2Y
R: 3
W
SMV
: 5
No
Her
bici
de
Tole
ranc
e1
Ear
ly
Mat
urity
Lang
inY
R: 3
W
SMV
: 6
Med
ium
M
atur
ity
Ave
ryY
R: 8
W
SMV
: 2
Byr
dY
R: 8
W
SMV
: 2
Can
vas
YR
: 3
WSM
V: 3
Gua
rdia
nY
R: 3
W
SMV
:1
Med
ium
-Lat
e M
atur
ity
Whi
stle
rY
R: 3
W
SMV
: 2
YR
=Stri
pe ru
st ra
ting
(1=r
esist
ant,
9=su
scep
tible
)
WSM
V=W
heat
stre
ak m
osai
c vi
rus r
atin
g (1
=res
ista
nt, 9
=sus
cept
ible
) 1 N
o to
lera
nce t
o Be
yond
®(C
lear
field
®sy
stem
) or
Agg
ress
or®
(CoA
Xiu
m®
syst
em) h
erbi
cide
s
21
Summary of 2019 Irrigated Variety Performance Results
Varietyb BurlingtonFort
Collins Haxtun Yield YieldTest
Weight Height Lodgingbu/ac % of avg lb/bu in score (1-9)c
CO13D0346 90.6 81.2 84.3 85.4 112% 60.2 30 3Guardian 91.6 89.7 73.8 85.1 112% 61.6 28 4Monarch 68.8 94.0 90.8 84.5 111% 59.5 32 1WB4303 63.0 98.0 86.0 82.3 108% 57.5 28 1Breck 74.7 79.4 92.3 82.1 108% 60.9 32 2WB4792 66.1 97.5 81.4 81.7 107% 59.8 34 1Crescent AX 80.7 86.4 76.4 81.2 107% 60.8 35 6WB4595 71.3 86.3 85.3 81.0 106% 61.3 30 1Denali 66.7 84.4 86.7 79.3 104% 59.6 30 1Canvas 77.6 83.2 75.4 78.7 103% 60.5 30 1CO15D098R 78.2 75.3 81.2 78.2 103% 60.6 32 5Snowmass 2.0 73.0 79.9 81.4 78.1 103% 59.7 30 4SY Wolverine 68.1 93.7 72.3 78.0 103% 59.4 25 1Sunshine 73.4 78.0 79.9 77.1 101% 59.9 28 5Long Branch 62.9 86.9 79.1 76.3 100% 58.8 28 6SY Wolf 64.0 85.0 77.6 75.5 99% 59.1 30 1SY Sunrise 69.4 76.4 71.1 72.3 95% 60.1 26 1AM Eastwood 57.2 76.8 73.4 69.1 91% 58.9 26 1WB4418 57.1 82.0 65.9 68.4 90% 58.3 29 1WB4699 51.6 81.0 70.0 67.6 89% 57.8 28 1WB-Grainfield 51.8 71.0 77.7 66.8 88% 60.4 32 3Brawl CL Plus 67.0 64.3 67.6 66.3 87% 60.6 31 1WB4269 42.7 84.0 71.7 66.1 87% 59.4 28 1Thunder CL 42.3 76.7 74.3 64.4 85% 59.5 33 1Average 67.1 83.0 78.2 76.1 59.8 30 2dLSD (P<0.30) 3.6 4.5 4.6
aVarieties in the top LSD yield group in each location are in bold.bVarieties ranked according to multi-location average yield in 2019.
2019 Individual Trial Yielda 2019 Multi-Location Average
bu/ac
dIf the difference between two variety yields equals or exceeds the LSD value then they are significantly different with less than 30% probability that the difference is due to random error.
cLodging score: 1 equals no lodging and 9 is severe lodging.
22
Summary of 2-year (2018 and 2019) Irrigated Variety Performance Results
Varietyb Brand/SourceMarket Classc Yield Yield
Test Weight Test Weight
Plant Height
bu/ac % trial average lb/bu % trial average inWB4303 WestBred Bayer HRW 89.0 108% 57.1 96% 30Monarch PlainsGold HWW 87.7 107% 59.3 99% 32Guardian PlainsGold HRW 86.9 106% 61.2 102% 31Breck PlainsGold HWW 85.8 104% 60.9 102% 33CO15D098R Colorado State University Exp. HRW 85.3 104% 60.5 101% 34Crescent AX PlainsGold HRW 84.8 103% 60.8 102% 34Denali PlainsGold HRW 84.7 103% 59.6 100% 32Canvas PlainsGold HRW 84.7 103% 60.5 101% 30Snowmass 2.0 PlainsGold HWW 83.5 102% 59.5 100% 32Long Branch Dyna-Gro Seed HRW 82.8 101% 58.6 98% 31SY Wolf AgriPro Syngenta HRW 82.7 101% 59.0 99% 31Sunshine PlainsGold HWW 82.2 100% 59.6 100% 31SY Sunrise AgriPro Syngenta HRW 79.8 97% 60.2 101% 28WB4418 WestBred Bayer HRW 79.7 97% 58.7 98% 30WB-Grainfield WestBred Bayer HRW 76.7 93% 60.1 101% 33Brawl CL Plus PlainsGold HRW 75.2 92% 60.7 102% 32AM Eastwood AgriMaxx Wheat HRW 74.0 90% 59.0 99% 28Thunder CL PlainsGold HWW 73.2 89% 59.2 99% 33
Average 82.2 59.7 31
bVarieties ranked according to average 2-year yield.cMarket class: HRW=hard red winter wheat; HWW=hard white winter wheat.
2-Year Averagea
aThe 2-year average yield and test weight are based on five trials (three 2019 and two 2018 trials). Plant heights are based on four trials (two 2019 and two 2018 trials).
23
Summary of 3-year (2017, 2018, and 2019) Irrigated Variety Performance Results
Varietyb Brand/SourceMarket Classc Yield Yield
Test Weight Test Weight
Plant Height
bu/ac % trial average lb/bu % trial average inMonarch PlainsGold HWW 95.6 110% 59.0 100% 33Guardian PlainsGold HRW 93.4 107% 60.4 102% 34WB4303 WestBred Bayer HRW 91.7 105% 56.4 96% 31Snowmass 2.0 PlainsGold HWW 91.1 104% 59.0 100% 33Breck PlainsGold HWW 90.1 103% 60.2 102% 34Canvas PlainsGold HRW 89.5 102% 59.3 100% 32Denali PlainsGold HRW 88.8 102% 59.2 100% 32SY Wolf AgriPro Syngenta HRW 88.2 101% 58.3 99% 33SY Sunrise AgriPro Syngenta HRW 84.7 97% 59.7 101% 29Sunshine PlainsGold HWW 84.5 97% 58.3 99% 32Brawl CL Plus PlainsGold HRW 81.0 93% 59.7 101% 33WB-Grainfield WestBred Bayer HRW 79.3 91% 59.6 101% 34Thunder CL PlainsGold HWW 77.4 89% 58.6 99% 34
Average 87.3 59.1 32
bVarieties ranked according to average 3-year yield.cMarket class: HRW=hard red winter wheat; HWW=hard white winter wheat.
3-Year Averagea
aThe 3-year average yield and test weight are based on eight trials (three 2019, two 2018, and three 2017 trials). Plant heights are based on five trials (two 2019, two 2018, and one 2017 trial).
24
2019
Whe
at V
arie
ty D
ecis
ion
Tree
for I
rrig
ated
Pro
duct
ion
Jerr
y Jo
hnso
n an
d Sa
lly Jo
nes-
Dia
mon
d
2019
Irri
gate
d W
heat
Va
riet
y D
ecis
ion
Tree
Har
d W
hite
No
Prem
ium
Mon
arch
YR
: 5
Stra
w S
treng
th: 1
Prem
ium Bre
ckY
R: 3
St
raw
Stre
ngth
: 3
Snow
mas
s 2.0
YR
: 4
Stra
w S
treng
th: 3
Har
d R
ed
Mat
urity
Med
-Ear
ly
Mat
urity
WB
4303
YR
: 6
Stra
w S
treng
th: 1
Med
ium
M
atur
ity
Gua
rdia
nY
R: 3
St
raw
Stre
ngth
: 7
Can
vas
YR
:3
Stra
w S
treng
th:1
Med
-Lat
e M
atur
ity
SY W
olf
YR
: 4
Stra
w S
treng
th: 2
Den
ali
YR
: 7
Stra
w S
treng
th: 4
YR
= S
tripe
rust
ratin
g (1
=res
ista
nt, 9
=sus
cept
ible
)
Stra
w S
treng
th (1
=ver
y go
od, 9
=ver
y po
or)
25
Important Variety Selection ConsiderationsIt is not possible to accurately predict which variety will perform best in each field every year. However, there are some selection guidelines to improve the ability to select superior varieties. The variety performance summary tables and decision trees in this report provide useful information to farmers for improving variety selections. Other guidelines that improve selections are below.
Focus on multi-year and location yield summary results when selecting a variety – use results from the three-year variety performance trials and from the collaborative on-farm tests.
Pay attention to ratings for maturity, plant height, coleoptile length, disease and insect resistance, and end-use quality characteristics. Refer to the Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado Dryland and Irrigated Trials (2019) for variety-specific information.
Use the wheat variety database, a great resource, at http://ramwheatdb.com/ to aid in variety selection. Head to head comparisions are easily made between varieties at http://ramwheatdb.com/
Some other factors that influence the success of a wheat crop that should not be neglected:
Control volunteer wheat and weeds to avoid loss of valuable soil moisture and to avoid creating a green bridge that could lead to serious virus disease infections vectored by the wheat curl mite (wheat streak mosaic virus, high plains wheat mosaic virus, and triticum mosaic virus) or vectored by aphids (barley yellow dwarf virus and cereal yellow dwarf virus).
Be aware of current ratings for stripe rust resistance as well as the potential of new races of stripe rust to develop unexpectedly. If variety susceptibility, market prices, expected yield, and fungicide and application costs warrant an application, consult the North Central Regional Committee on Management of Small Grain Diseases (NCERA-184) fungicide efficacy chart. Updates to this chart can be found on the CSU Wheat Breeding Program “Wheat Links” page (wheat.colostate.edu/links.html).
Plant treated seed for protection against common bunt (stinking smut) and other seed-borne diseases. Information on seed treatments is available from Michigan State University and Kansas State University at: tinyurl.com/hv5m9js and tinyurl.com/jgeznub
Soil sample to determine optimum fertilizer application rates. Sampling should be done prior to planting. Information on fertilizing winter wheat is available from Colorado State University Extension at: bit.ly/2Kn8egF
Plant seeds per acre and not pounds per acre. Different varieties and seed lots can vary widely in seed size. Refer to How to Calibrate Your Drill available online at csucrops.com (click on the winter wheat tab) or at this URL: bit.ly/1MS5Hdh
26
Nam
e/Class/Pedigree
Descrip
1onofW
interW
heatVarie1esinEasternCo
loradoDrylandandIrrigatedTrials(2019&2020)
Origin
HDHT
SSCO
L**
YRLR
WSM
V+TW
MILLBA
KECo
mments
PRO
++SR
AMEastwood
31
24
37
65
44
NotDisclosed
AgriM
AXXrelease(2017).Firste
nteredintoCSU
VarietyTrialsin2018.M
edium-early,
short,goodwinterhardiness,goodstrawstrength.M
oderatelyresistantto
strip
erust,
moderatelysuscep1b
leto
leafru
st.Go
odte
stweightandmillingandbakingquality.
AgriM
axx2017
Hardre
dwinter
32
Antero
46
75
37
55
46
KS01HW
152-1/TA
M111
CSUre
lease(2012),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.M
ediumheightandmaturity,goodtest
weight,fairstrawstrength,goodresistancetostrip
erust.M
oderatesprou1
ngtolerance.
CSU2012
Hardwhitewinter
52
Avery
57
55
88
25
43
TAM112/Byrd
CSUre
lease(2015),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Doubledhaploid-derivedline,similarto
Byrdwith
higheryieldpoten1al,largerkernelsandslightlyim
provedquality.Carrie
swheatcurlm
itere
sistancefrom
TAM
112parent.Suscep1b
letostrip
erust.
CSU2015
Hardre
dwinter
68
Braw
lCLPlus
26
18
66
54
33
Teal11A
/Above//CO
99314
CSUre
lease(2011),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Two-geneClearfieldwheat.Excellent
testweight,strawstrength,m
illingandbakingquality.Earlymaturity,m
ediumheight,
longcoleop1
le.Intermediatere
ac1o
ntobothstrip
erustandleafru
st.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2011
Hardre
dwinter
17
Breck
46
37
35
41
23
Denali/HV
9W07-482W//An
tero
CSUre
lease(2017),m
arketedbyPlainsGoldinCWRF-ArdentM
illsU
ltraG
rain
Prem
iumProgram
.Goodstrip
erustre
sistance,sp
rou1
ngto
lerance,strawstrength,
grainproteindevia1on,andquality.Veryhighte
stweight,lowerpolyphenoloxidase
(PPO
)ac1vityforimprovedwholegrainbreadandnoodlequality.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2017
Hardwhitewinter
12
Byrd
36
75
87
24
43
TAM112/CO970547-7
CSUre
lease(2011),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Excellentdroughtto
leranceandquality.
Averagetestweightandstrawstrength.M
oderatelysuscep1b
leto
strip
erust.Carrie
swheatcurlm
itere
sistancefrom
TAM
112parent.
CSU2011
Hardre
dwinter
68
ByrdCLPlus
57
54
85
55
55
CO06072/4*Byrd
CSUre
lease(2018),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Two-geneClearfieldwheatinByrd
background.H
ighlysim
ilartoByrdwith
excep1o
nofto
lerancetoBeyondherbicide.
Hasshownsomenonsolid-stembasedto
lerancetowheatstem
sawfly.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2018
Hardre
dwinter
68
Canvas
53
16
36
33
33
Denali/An
tero//Byrd
CSUre
lease(2018),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Hardredwinter,mediummaturing,
medium-short,goodstrawstrength.G
oodstrip
eandstem
rustre
sistanceandcarries
wheatcurlm
itere
sistancefrom
Byrdparent.G
oodtestweightandmillingandbaking
quality.
CSU2018
Hardre
dwinter
42
CO14A0
55-258
45
75
88
35
53
AF28/Byrd//AF10/2*Byrd
CSUexperimentalline,onincreaseforp
oten1alrelease.CoA
Xium
wheatforw
inter
annualgrassyweedcontrol.
CSUEXP
Hardre
dwinter
65
CO14A1
36-135
65
55
48
37
53
AF10/2*Byrd//AF26/Byrd
CSUexperimentalline,onincreaseforp
oten1alrelease.CoA
Xium
wheatforw
inter
annualgrassyweedcontrol.
CSUEXP
Hardre
dwinter
44
ColumnKe
y-headingdate(HD),plantheight(HT
),strawstrength(SS),coleop1
lelength(C
OL),striperustre
sistance(YR),leafrustresistance(LR),stemru
stre
sistance(SR),w
heatstreakmosaicvirustolerance(W
SMV),
testweight(TW
),protein(PRO
),milling(M
ILL)andbakingquality(B
AKE).Ra1ngscale:1-verygood,veryresistant,veryearly,orveryshortto9-verypoor,verysuscep1b
le,verylate,orverytall/long.
**Coleop1
lelengthra1n
gsrangefrom
1=veryshort(~50mmor~
2in)to9=verylong(~100mmor~
4in).Co
leop1lelengthsshouldbeinterpretedforrela1vevarietycom
parisonso
nly.
+WSM
Vra1n
gsarebasedonfieldevalua1onsinCo
loradounderpressurefrom
wheatcurlm
itetransm
ijedviru
ses.Scoresm
ayre
flectbothresistancetoth
ewheatcurlm
iteandre
sistancetomite
-transmijedviru
ses.
++PRO
ra1n
gsre
present“grainproteindevia1on”(rela1vegrainproteinlevelaccoun1
ngford
ifferencesingrainyield).
27
Nam
e/Class/Pedigree
Descrip1onofWinterW
heatVarie1esinEasternColoradoDrylandandIrrigatedTrials(2019&2020)
Origin
HDHT
SSCO
L**
YRLR
WSM
V+TW
MILLBAKE
Comments
PRO++
SR
CO15D098R
69
97
33
22
34
TAM114/Antero//Byrd
CSUexperimentalline,onincreaseforpoten1alrelease.M
ediummaturing,tall,
marginalstraw
strength.Goodresistancetoallthreerustsandcarriesresistanceto
thewheatcurlm
itefrom
Byrd.Goodtestweightandmillingandbakingquality.
CSUEXP
Hardredwinter
73
CO16SF065
45
54
63
--5
65
Antero/Judee//Antero
CSUexperimentalline,onincreaseforpoten1alrelease.Sem
i-solidstem
forpar1al
resistancetothewheatstem
sawfly.
CSUEXP
Hardredwinter
44
CO16SF070
34
54
51
--5
56
Antero/Judee//Antero
CSUexperimentalline,onincreaseforpoten1alrelease.Sem
i-solidstem
forpar1al
resistancetothewheatstem
sawfly.
CSUEXP
Hardredwinter
64
CP7017AX
55
34
34
--7
----
Undisclosed
CROPLAN
byWinFieldUnitedrelease(2020).FirstenteredintoCSUtrialsin2020.
CoAXiumwheatforw
interannualgrassyweedcontrol.Strongyieldpoten1al,strong
droughttolerance,toleratesacidsoilsandresistanttosoilbornemosaicvirus.
Cer1fiedseedonly.
Croplan2020
Hardredwinter
--1
CP7050AX
15
36
13
--3
----
Undisclosed
CROPLAN
byWinFieldUnitedrelease(2020).FirstenteredintoCSUtrialsin2020.
CoAXiumwheatforw
interannualgrassyweedcontrol.Excellentyieldpoten1al,early
maturity,strongstraw,goodtestweight,tolerancetoacidsoils,goodresistanceto
striperustandsoilbornemosaicvirus.Cer1fiedseedonly.
Croplan2020
Hardredwinter
--7
CP7869
85
35
11
--3
----
Undisclosed
CROPLAN
byWinFieldUnitedrelease(2017).FirstenteredintoCSUtrialsin2020.
Highyieldpoten1al,strongstraw,goodtestweight.Goodresistancetoleaf,stem,
andstriperusts.
Croplan2017
Hardredwinter
--1
CP7909
57
55
75
64
55
Undisclosed
CROPLAN
byWinFieldUnitedrelease(2018).FirstenteredintoCSUtrialsin2020
Excellentyieldsandhigherproteinpoten1alw
ithverygoodwinterhardiness,broad
adapta1on,andexcellentsoilbornemosaicresistance.
Croplan2018
Hardredwinter
--5
CrescentAX
26
55
46
23
33
(AF28/Byrd)//(AF10/2*Byrd)
CSUrelease(2018),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.CoAXium
wheatforw
interannualgrassy
weedcontrol.Approximately66%Byrdand34%Hatcherparentage.Earlierandmuch
improvedyieldandtestweightrela1vetoInclineAX.Intermediatereac1ontostripe
rustandcarriesw
heatcurlm
iteresistancefrom
Byrdparent.Cer1fiedseedonly.
CSU2018
Hardredwinter
7--
Denali
77
25
76
44
46
CO980829/TAM
111
CSUrelease(2011),m
arketedbyPlainsGoldandKansasWheatAllianceinKansas.
Excellenttestweight.Mediumtall,medium-late,m
edium-longcoleop1le.Goodstraw
strengthandaveragequality.Moderatesuscep1bilitytostripeandleafrust.
CSU2011
Hardredwinter
63
For1fySF
46
84
77
24
56
Byrd/Bearpaw
//Byrd
CSUrelease(2019),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Mediumheight,mediummaturity.
Carriesw
heatcurlm
iteresistancefrom
Byrdparentandsemi-solidstem
traitfor
par1alresistancetothewheatstem
sawfly.Cer1fiedseedonly.
CSU2019
Hardredwinter
74
ColumnKe
y-headingdate(HD),plantheight(HT),strawstrength(SS),coleop1lelength(COL),striperustresistance(YR),leafrustresistance(LR),stemrustresistance(SR),w
heatstreakmosaicvirustolerance(W
SMV),
testweight(TW
),protein(PRO
),milling(MILL)andbakingquality(BAKE).Ra1ngscale:1-verygood,veryresistant,veryearly,orveryshortto9-verypoor,verysuscep1ble,verylate,orverytall/long.
**Coleop1lelengthra1ngsrangefrom
1=veryshort(~50mmor~2in)to9=verylong(~100mmor~4in).Coleop1lelengthsshouldbeinterpretedforrela1vevarietycom
parisonsonly.
+WSM
Vra1ngsarebasedonfieldevalua1onsinColoradounderpressurefrom
wheatcurlm
itetransm
iledviruses.Scoresm
ayreflectbothresistancetothewheatcurlm
iteandresistancetomite-transmiledviruses.
++PRO
ra1ngsrepresent“grainproteindevia1on”(rela1vegrainproteinlevelaccoun1ngfordifferencesingrainyield).
28
Nam
e/Class/Pedigree
Descrip
1onofW
interW
heatVarie1esinEasternCo
loradoDrylandandIrrigatedTrials(2019&2020)
Origin
HDHT
SSCO
L**
YRLR
WSM
V+TW
MILLBA
KECo
mments
PRO
++SR
Guardian
55
75
34
12
43
Antero/Snowmass//Byrd
CSUre
lease(2019),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.M
ediumheight,mediummaturity.
Excellentre
sistancetoW
SMVduetocom
bina1o
nofre
sistancetowheatcurlm
iteandthevirusitself.Go
odcom
binedresistancetoallthreerusts,goodtestweight,
goodmillingandbakingquality,highgrainproteindevia1on.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2019
Hardre
dwinter
12
Hatcher
54
75
47
65
54
Yuma/PI372129//TAM
-200/3/4*Yum
a/4/KS91H1
84/Vista
CSUre
lease(2004),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.M
ediummaturingsemidwarf.Go
odte
stweight,moderateresistancetostrip
erust,goodmillingandbakingquality.Develops
“leafspeckling”condi1o
n.
CSU2004
Hardre
dwinter
73
InclineAX
84
45
66
49
84
(AF28/Byrd)//(AF10/2*Byrd)
CSUre
lease(2017),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.CoA
Xium
wheatforw
interannualgrassy
weedcontrol.Ap
proximately66%Byrdand34%Hatcherparentage.G
oodquality,
goodstrawstrength.Low
testweight.Cer1fiedseedonly.
CSU2017
Hardre
dwinter
7--
KSDallas
64
66
42
26
33
KS08HW
112-6//TX03A
0148/DanbyTR
KSU-Haysrelease(2019),m
arketedbyth
eKansasW
heatAlliance.Firste
nteredin
CSUvarietytrialsin2020.M
ediummaturity,m
ediumheight,averagestrawstrength,
medium-lo
ngcoleop1
le,m
oderatetointerm
ediatere
sistancetostrip
erust,goodleaf
rustre
sistance,verygoodwheatstreakmosaicvirusresistance,goodquality.
KS2019
Hardre
dwinter
--1
KSSilverado
23
35
42
32
33
KS05HW
122-5-2//KS05H
W15-2-2/KS06H
W46-3
KSU-Haysrelease(2019),m
arketedbyth
eKansasW
heatAlliance.Firste
nteredin
CSUvarietytrialsin2020.Earlymaturity,m
edium-short,goodstrawstrength,goodto
moderateresistancetostrip
erust,leafrust,andwheatstreakmosaicvirus.Goodtest
weight,goodmillingandbakingquality,goodpre-harvestsprou1n
gtolerance.
KS2019
Hardwhitewinter
--2
KSW
esternStar
55
36
33
34
24
Byrd/KS05H
W121-2
KSU-Haysrelease(2019),m
arketedbyth
eKansasW
heatAlliance.Firste
nteredin
CSUvarietytrialsin2020.M
ediummaturity,m
ediumheight,goodstrawstrength,
moderateresistancetostrip
eandleafru
st,resistanceto
wheatcurlm
ite,goodtest
weight,goodend-usequality.
KS2019
Hardre
dwinter
--5
Langin
23
74
36
65
52
CO050270/Byrd
CSUre
lease(2016),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Earlymaturingsemidwarf.Go
oddrought
stressto
leranceandwinterhardiness,striperustre
sistance,andquality.M
edium
coleop1le.Carrie
swheatcurlm
itere
sistancefrom
Byrdparent.Veryhighyield
poten1
alforirriga1on,butstrawstrengthre
quire
suseofgrowthre
gulator.
CSU2016
Hardre
dwinter
68
LCSHe
lixAX
44
36
74
--3
42
Undisclosed
Limagrainre
lease(2018),firste
nteredinCSU
VarietyTrialsin2020.CoA
Xium
wheat
forw
interannualgrassyweedcontrol.Broadadapta1o
n,goodresistancetostem
rustandFusariumheadblight.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
Limagrain2019
Hardre
dwinter
--1
LCSValiant
35
65
65
84
35
NI03418/Cam
elot(sel.)
Limagrainre
lease(2018),firste
nteredinCSU
VarietyTrialsin2019.M
edium-early
maturing,gooddroughtstresstolerance.GoodHe
ssianflyandstem
rustre
sistance
andend-usequality.
Limagrain2018
Hardre
dwinter
67
LongBranch
45
56
33
56
56
NotDisclosed
Dyna-Grore
lease(2016).Firste
nteredintoCSU
VarietyTrialsin2018.M
edium-late
maturing,medium-tallw
ithgoodstrawstrength,goodwinterhardiness,and
moderateresistancetostrip
erust.
Dyna-Gro2016
Hardre
dwinter
5--
ColumnKe
y-headingdate(HD),plantheight(HT
),strawstrength(SS),coleop1
lelength(C
OL),striperustre
sistance(YR),leafrustresistance(LR),stemru
stre
sistance(SR),w
heatstreakmosaicvirustolerance(W
SMV),
testweight(TW
),protein(PRO
),milling(M
ILL)andbakingquality(B
AKE).Ra1ngscale:1-verygood,veryresistant,veryearly,orveryshortto9-verypoor,verysuscep1b
le,verylate,orverytall/long.
**Coleop1
lelengthra1n
gsrangefrom
1=veryshort(~50mmor~
2in)to9=verylong(~100mmor~
4in).Co
leop1lelengthsshouldbeinterpretedforrela1vevarietycom
parisonso
nly.
+WSM
Vra1n
gsarebasedonfieldevalua1onsinCo
loradounderpressurefrom
wheatcurlm
itetransm
imedviru
ses.Scoresm
ayre
flectbothresistancetoth
ewheatcurlm
iteandre
sistancetomite
-transmimedviru
ses.
++PRO
ra1n
gsre
present“grainproteindevia1on”(rela1vegrainproteinlevelaccoun1
ngford
ifferencesingrainyield).
29
Nam
e/Class/Pedigree
Descrip
1onofW
interW
heatVarie1esinEasternCo
loradoDrylandandIrrigatedTrials(2019&2020)
Origin
HDHT
SSCO
L**
YRLR
WSM
V+TW
MILLBA
KECo
mments
PRO
++SR
Monarch
53
14
55
44
54
CO07W722-F5/Snowmass//CO07W722-F5
CSUre
lease(2018),m
arketedbyPlainsGold.Hardwhitewinterw
ithexcellentstraw
strengthandveryhighirrigatedyieldpoten1al.Go
odstrip
erustre
sistance.Quality
moresim
ilartoBreck,butverylowPPO
.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2018
Hardwhitewinter
82
Snow
mass
57
93
76
35
62
KS96HW
94//Trego/CO
960293
CSUre
lease(2009),m
arketedbyPlainsGoldinCWRF-ArdentM
illsU
ltragrainPremium
Program.H
ardwhitewheat.M
edium-m
aturing,medium-tall,poorstrawstrength.
GoodW
SMVresistance,moderatelysuscep1b
leto
strip
erust,m
oderatesprou1
ngtolerance.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2009
Hardwhitewinter
72
Snow
mass2
.03
43
54
53
44
1
CO07W722-F5/Snowmass//BrawlCLPlus
CSUre
lease(2018),m
arketedbyPlainsGoldinCWRF-ArdentM
illsU
ltragrainPremium
Program.H
ardwhitewheat,qualityprofileverysim
ilartoSnow
massb
utlowPPO
and
befe
rgrainproteindevia1o
n.Goodstrip
eandstem
rustre
sistanceandwheatstreak
mosaicvirusresistance.G
oodstrawstrength,goodtestweight.Cer1fiedseedonly.
CSU2018
Hardwhitewinter
41
Spur
93
46
54
89
82
MT02113*4/M
TS0359
MTStaterelease(2016),m
arketedbyCropResearchFounda1onofW
yomingand
Agrip
ro.Firste
nteredintoCSU
trialsin2015.Latematurity,averageleafandstrip
erustre
sistance,verysuscep1b
leto
mite
-transmifedviru
ses.Carrie
ssolidstem
trait
conferrin
gprotec1o
nagainstw
heatstem
sawflydam
age.
Agrip
ro2016
Hardre
dwinter
1--
Sunshine
24
36
56
76
43
KS01HW
152-6/HV
9W02-267W
CSUre
lease(2014),m
arketedbyPlainsGoldinCWRF-ArdentM
illsU
ltragrainPremium
Program.H
ardwhitew
heat.Excellentquality,goodsprou1
ngtoleranceandstraw
strength,intermediatere
ac1o
ntostrip
erust.Verysuscep1b
leto
mite
-transmifed
viruses.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
CSU2014
Hardwhitewinter
22
SYLegendCL2
43
52
33
54
65
Agrip
roExp/AP503CL2sib
Agrip
rore
lease(2018),firste
nteredinCSU
trialsin2018.Two-geneClearfieldwheat.
Goodoveralldiseasetolerance.StewardshipAgreem
entrequiresn
osavedseed.
Cer1fiedseedonly.
Agrip
ro2018
Hardre
dwinter
2--
SYM
onum
ent
75
44
23
86
41
BC991149-11/00x0090-4
Agrip
rore
lease(2014).Firste
nteredinCSU
VarietyTrialsin2014.Gooddrought
tolerance,winterhardiness,andre
sistancetobothleafandstrip
erust.Excellentend-
usequality.Verysuscep1b
leto
mite
-transmifedviru
ses.
Agrip
ro2014
Hardre
dwinter
42
SYRugged
51
45
25
86
23
Greer/Do
ans
Agrip
rore
lease(2016),firste
nteredinCSU
VarietyTrialsin2017.Drylandadapted,
goodstrip
erustre
sistance,goodmillingandbakingquality.Verysuscep1b
leto
mite
-transm
ifedviru
ses.
Agrip
ro2017
Hardre
dwinter
33
SYSunrise
61
13
34
82
37
BC98337-10-53/CD
CFalcon//NE03458
Agrip
rore
lease(2015),firste
nteredin2015CSUIrrigatedTrials.Shortse
midwarf,
verygoodstrawstrength,w
interhardiness,droughtto
lerance,strip
erustre
sistance,
testweight.Marginalbakingquality,verysuscep1b
leto
mite
-transmifedviru
ses.
Stew
ardshipAgreem
entrequiresn
osavedseed.Cer1fi
edse
edonly.
Agrip
ro2015
Hardre
dwinter
42
SYW
olf
74
24
42
65
46
W99-331/97x0906-8
Agrip
rore
lease(2011).Firste
nteredinCSU
VarietyTrialsin2011.Goodresistanceto
tanspot,septoria,leafandstrip
erust,andbacterialleafstreak.Bestp
erform
ancein
Coloradotrialsunderirriga1onandinth
eI-7
0corridorcoun1
esandfurthern
orth.
Verygoodstrawstrengthandgrainproteindevia1o
n.
Agrip
ro2010
Hardre
dwinter
12
ColumnKe
y-headingdate(HD),plantheight(HT
),strawstrength(SS),coleop1
lelength(C
OL),striperustre
sistance(YR),leafrustresistance(LR),stemru
stre
sistance(SR),w
heatstreakmosaicvirustolerance(W
SMV),
testweight(TW
),protein(PRO
),milling(M
ILL)andbakingquality(B
AKE).Ra1ngscale:1-verygood,veryresistant,veryearly,orveryshortto9-verypoor,verysuscep1b
le,verylate,orverytall/long.
**Coleop1
lelengthra1n
gsrangefrom
1=veryshort(~50mmor~
2in)to9=verylong(~100mmor~
4in).Co
leop1lelengthsshouldbeinterpretedforrela1vevarietycom
parisonso
nly.
+WSM
Vra1n
gsarebasedonfieldevalua1onsinCo
loradounderpressurefrom
wheatcurlm
itetransm
ifedviru
ses.Scoresm
ayre
flectbothresistancetoth
ewheatcurlm
iteandre
sistancetomite
-transmifedviru
ses.
++PRO
ra1n
gsre
present“grainproteindevia1on”(rela1vegrainproteinlevelaccoun1
ngford
ifferencesingrainyield).
30
Nam
e/Class/Pedigree
Descrip1onofWinterW
heatVarie1esinEasternColoradoDrylandandIrrigatedTrials(2019&2020)
Origin
HDHT
SSCO
L**
YRLR
WSM
V+TW
MILLBAKE
Comments
PRO++
SR
SYWolverine
42
25
42
45
26
Undisclosed
Agriprorelease(2019),firstenteredinCSUtrialsin2019.Goodoveralldisease
resistance,goodstrawstrength.SimilartoSYWolfinreac1ontowheatstreakmosaic
virus.
Agripro2019
Hardredwinter
32
TAM114
35
35
24
62
41
TAM111/TX98A0050
TexasA
&Mrelease(2014),m
arketedbyAGSECO.FirstenteredinCSUtrialsin2015.
GoodresistancetoleafandstriperustandHessianfly.Goodtestweight,grain
proteindevia1on,andbakingquality.
TX2014
Hardredwinter
27
ThunderCL
34
16
45
84
53
KS01-5539/CO
99W165
CSUrelease(2008),m
arketedbyPlainsGoldinCWRF-ArdentM
illsU
ltragrainPremium
Program.Single-genehardwhiteClearfieldwheat.Goodstrawstrengthforirriga1on.
Excellentquality,moderatestriperustresistance,moderatesprou1ngsuscep1bility.
Verysuscep1bletomite-transmigedviruses.Cer1fiedseedonly.
CSU2008
Hardwhitewinter
74
WB-Grainfield
26
31
46
84
36
G982231/G982159//KS920709W
Westbredrelease(2012).FirstenteredintoCSUTrialsin2013.Earlymaturingtall
semi-dwarf.Goodleafandstriperustresistance,shortercoleop1le.Verysuscep1ble
tomite-transmigedviruses.
Westbred2012
Hardredwinter
52
WB4269
12
35
24
95
66
KS98W0512-2--4//HV
9W02-846R/HV
9W96-1271R-1
Westbredrelease(2016),firstenteredinCSUtrialsin2019.Medium-shortplant
height,earlymaturity,w
ithgoodstrawstrength.VerygoodFusariumheadblight
tolerance,sotargetirrigatedacresfollowingcorn.Verysuscep1bletomite-
transm
igedviruses.GrowerAgreementrequired,nosavedseed.Cer1fiedSeedOnly.
Westbred2016
Hardredwinter
92
WB4303
41
15
64
88
56
PFAU
/WEAVER/3/MASON/JGR
//PECO
S/4/FARM
EC
Westbredrelease(2015),firstenteredinCSUVarietyTrialsin2016.Mediumshort,
medium-early,verygoodstrawstrength.M
oderatelyresistanttoleafrust,
intermediatereac1ontostriperust.Low
testweight.Bestadaptedforirrigated
produc1oncondi1ons.Verysuscep1bletomite-transmigedviruses.
Westbred2015
Hardredwinter
11
WB4418
42
12
44
56
84
XA4402
Westbredrelease(2017),firstenteredinCSUtrialsin2018.Mediumshortplant
height,m
ediummaturity,w
ithexcellentstrawstrength.Averagetoaboveaverage
fungalandviraldiseasepackage.Hasshow
nsomenonsolid-stembasedtoleranceto
wheatstem
sawfly.GrowerAgreementrequiresnosavedseed.Cer1fiedseedonly.
Westbred2017
Hardredwinter
5--
WB4462
38
54
73
83
25
TAM203//P25R47/Hitch
Westbredrelease(2015),firstenteredinCSUtrialsin2017.Westernadaptedvariety
withatallerplantstatureandmedium-earlymaturity.Goodwinterhardinessand
droughttolerance,m
oderatelysuscep1bletostriperust.Verysuscep1bletomite-
transm
igedviruses.
Westbred2015
Hardredwinter
34
WB4595
55
34
44
43
49
Undisclosed
Westbredrelease(2018),firstenteredinCSUtrialsin2019.Mediumplantheight,
mediummaturity,w
ithverygooddroughttoleranceandstandability,soagoodfitfor
eitherirrigatedordrylandacres.Verygoodfungalandviraldiseasepackage.Very
poorbakingquality.GrowerAgreementrequired,nosavedseed.Cer1fiedSeedOnly.
Westbred2018
Hardredwinter
8--
WB4699
62
23
43
47
79
Undisclosed
Westbredrelease(2018),firstenteredinCSUtrialsin2019.Shortplantheight,very
high1lleringwithverygoodstrawstrength.ImprovedFusariumHeadBlight
tolerance,sotargetirrigatedacresfollowingcorn.Verygoodfungalandviraldisease
package.Verypoorquality.GrowerAgreementrequired,nosavedseed.Cer1fied
SeedOnly.
Westbred2018
Hardredwinter
7--
ColumnKe
y-headingdate(HD),plantheight(HT),strawstrength(SS),coleop1lelength(COL),striperustresistance(YR),leafrustresistance(LR),stemrustresistance(SR),w
heatstreakmosaicvirustolerance(W
SMV),
testweight(TW
),protein(PRO
),milling(MILL)andbakingquality(BAKE).Ra1ngscale:1-verygood,veryresistant,veryearly,orveryshortto9-verypoor,verysuscep1ble,verylate,orverytall/long.
**Coleop1lelengthra1ngsrangefrom
1=veryshort(~50mmor~2in)to9=verylong(~100mmor~4in).Coleop1lelengthsshouldbeinterpretedforrela1vevarietycom
parisonsonly.
+WSM
Vra1ngsarebasedonfieldevalua1onsinColoradounderpressurefrom
wheatcurlm
itetransm
igedviruses.Scoresm
ayreflectbothresistancetothewheatcurlm
iteandresistancetomite-transmigedviruses.
++PRO
ra1ngsrepresent“grainproteindevia1on”(rela1vegrainproteinlevelaccoun1ngfordifferencesingrainyield).
31
Nam
e/Class/Pe
digree
Descrip
1onofW
interW
heatVarie1e
sinEa
sternCo
lorado
Dryland
and
Irrig
ated
Tria
ls(201
9&202
0)Orig
inHD
HTSS
COL**
YRLR
WSM
V+TW
MILLBA
KECo
mmen
tsPR
O++
SR
WB4
792
86
33
42
54
47
Und
isclosed
Westbredrelease(201
8),fi
rste
ntered
inCSU
trialsin201
9.M
ediumplantheigh
t,med
ium-la
tem
aturity
,goo
ddrou
ghttoleran
ceand
strawst
reng
th.V
erygo
odfu
ngal
andvirald
iseasepa
ckag
e.M
argina
lbakingqu
ality
.GrowerAgree
men
treq
uired,no
save
dseed
.Cer1fi
edSee
dOnly.
Westbred20
18
Hardre
dwinter
8--
Whistler
87
95
36
26
73
CO08
W21
8/Sn
owmass//Byrd
CSUre
lease(201
8),m
arke
tedby
PlainsG
old.Hardredwinter,laterm
aturing,ta
ll,margina
lstraw
streng
th.G
oodstrip
ean
dstem
rustre
sistanc
ean
dcarriesw
heatcurl
mite
resis
tanc
efrom
Byrdpa
rent.V
erygo
odm
illingan
dba
king
qua
lity.
CSU201
8
Hardre
dwinter
51
ColumnKe
y-h
eading
date(HD),p
lantheigh
t(HT
),strawst
reng
th(S
S),coleo
p1lele
ngth(C
OL),striperustre
sistanc
e(YR),lea
frustresist
ance(L
R),stemru
stre
sistanc
e(SR),w
heatst
reakm
osaicvirust
oleran
ce(W
SMV),
testweigh
t(TW
),protein(PRO
),milling(M
ILL)and
bakingqu
ality
(BAK
E).R
a1ng
scale:1-ve
rygoo
d,veryresis
tant,veryea
rly,o
rveryshortto9-v
erypo
or,verysuscep
1ble,verylate,o
rverytall/long
.
**Coleo
p1lele
ngthra
1ngsra
ngefrom
1=v
eryshort(~50
mmor~
2in
)to9=
verylo
ng(~
100mmor~
4in).Co
leop
1leleng
thss
houldbe
interpretedforrela1
vevarietycom
paris
onso
nly.
+WSM
Vra1n
gsarebased
onfie
ldevalua1
onsinCo
lorado
und
erpressurefrom
whe
atcurlm
itetran
smifed
viru
ses.Sco
resm
ayre
flectbothresis
tanc
etoth
ewhe
atcurlm
iteand
resis
tanc
etom
ite-transmifed
viru
ses.
++PRO
ra1n
gsre
presen
t“grainproteinde
via1
on”(rela1
vegrainproteinle
velaccou
n1ng
ford
ifferen
cesingrainyield).
32
Wheat Quality Evaluations from the 2019 CSU Dryland and Irrigated Variety Trials
John Stromberger, CSU Wheat Quality Lab Manager Scott Haley, CSU Wheat Breeder
Jerry Johnson, CSU Extension Agronomist
Introduction End-use quality maintenance and improvement is an important objective of virtually all wheat breeding programs. Grain milling and product manufacturing industries have become increasingly sophisticated in both domestic and export markets and, while wheat producers may not always be rewarded for improved functional quality, technological advancements promise to increase the ability of the grain trade to identify and source good quality and discount poor quality wheat. Breeding for wheat end-use quality is relatively complex in comparison to many other breeding objectives. Quality is a function of variety interacting with climate and agronomic practices and Colorado's harsh and variable climatic conditions often negatively impact quality. Quality assessment is commonly done through evaluation of multiple traits with many underlying genetic factors controlling their expression. Most experimental quality tests only approximate average quality needs of product manufacturers and don't exactly match specific requirements of different wheat product types and processes. For hard winter wheat, high grain protein content is an important criterion for baking quality but may be indicative of varieties with lower yield if yield differences at a given location are not taken into account (through “grain protein deviation”). Finally, wheat quality testing must accommodate the reality of large sample numbers and small sample sizes that are typical of all wheat breeding programs. Despite these challenges, standard testing methodologies have been developed that are consistent, repeatable, and can be done on large numbers of relatively small samples. These analyses provide reliable assessments of functional quality characteristics for a broad array of potential product types and processes. Our objective with providing quality data and summaries for entries in the CSU Dryland and Irrigated Variety Trials is to characterize the quality of public and private trial entries that are currently or have the potential to be marketed in Colorado. We hope that the data and resulting ratings will be included among the criteria by which wheat producers choose their varieties. At the very least, we encourage producers to carefully consider avoiding varieties that have lower wheat quality when other agronomically acceptable varieties with better quality are available.
Testing Methodology In 2019, grain samples were collected from each of the dryland (UVPT) and irrigated (IVPT) variety trial locations. Preliminary small-scale quality analyses were carried out to determine suitability of each location for full-scale analyses, with the selection criteria including grain protein content not too far below or above 11.5%, sound grain free of visual defects, and good discrimination among samples at a given location for experimental dough mixing properties (using the Mixograph). In this process of sample selection, the following locations were retained for full scale testing: UVPT – Akron, Burlington, Walsh, Yuma IVPT – Burlington, Fort Collins Using standard protocols, analyses were done in the CSU Wheat Quality Laboratory on samples from the remaining locations. These tests, reported in the attached tables, include the following:
Milling-Related Traits
• Test weight: obtained by standard methodology on a cleaned sample of the harvested grain.
• Grain protein and protein recovery: obtained using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRs) with a Foss NIRS™ DA1650 Feed and Forage analyzer. Grain protein is reported on a
33
standard 12% moisture basis. High grain protein content is associated with higher water absorption of flours and higher loaf volumes in the bakery. Protein recovery represents the numerical difference between grain and flour protein content and a value closer to zero is most desirable by the milling industry.
• Single kernel characterization system (SKCS): the Perten SKCS 4100 provides data on kernel weight and hardness of a grain sample. From 100-300 kernels are analyzed to provide an average value and a measure of variability for each trait. Millers prefer a uniform sample with heavier (>30 grams per 1000 kernels, or <15,133 seeds per pound) kernels for improved milling performance. Hardness should be representative of the hard winter wheat class (60-80 hardness units).
• Flour yield: obtained using a modified Brabender Quadrumat Milling System. Flour yield represents the percentage of straight grade flour obtained from milling a grain sample (approximately one pound). In general, millers prefer high flour extraction values. Due to variation among different milling systems, valid comparison of values from different mills and establishment of a single target value is not possible.
Baking-Related Traits
• Mixograph mixing time and tolerance: obtained using a National Manufacturing Computerized Mixograph. The Mixograph measures the resistance of dough during the mixing process. Bakers generally prefer flours with moderate mixing time requirements (between 3 and 6 minutes) and good tolerance to breakdown of the dough with over-mixing (subjective score >3). Some varieties with exceptionally long mixing times (i.e., Snowmass) may not compare favorably with other varieties in conventional evaluations but have unique characteristics that merit handling in an identity-preserved program such as with the CWRF Ardent Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program.
• Pup loaf bake test: using a 100-gram straight-dough test, data on bake water absorption, mixing time, loaf volume, and crumb characteristics are obtained. In general, bakers prefer higher water absorption (> 62%), high loaf volume (> 850 cubic centimeters), and higher crumb grain and crumb color scores (score > 3). The crumb grain and color scores are subjective assessments of the color and size, shape, and structure of the small holes in a slice of bread.
Composite Scores Because none of the traits measured can be used alone to represent overall milling or baking quality, development of a composite score has proven useful as a means to differentiate and characterize overall quality of different samples. The development of a composite score also has the advantage of accounting for differences in environmental conditions from year to year and utilizing all of the data generated on the samples collected at a given trial location. Composite scores are generated through a two-step process. First, each trait is ranked from high to low (or "very good" to "very poor") at individual locations and a score from 1=very good to 9=very bad is assigned to each variety for each trait depending on the optimal orientation of the trait. Second, these individual-trait scores are used to generate a composite score that weights the trait scores by the relative importance of that trait to overall milling or baking quality. The weights that we have used are similar to those developed by the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory for the Wheat Quality Council evaluations. These weights are as follows:
Milling – test weight 30%, grain protein content 10%, protein recovery 10%, kernel weight 20%, grain hardness 10%, flour yield 20% (100% total)
Baking – bake absorption 20%, Mixograph mixing time 20%, Mixograph tolerance 20%, loaf volume 20%, crumb color 10%, crumb grain 10% (100% total)
34
* B
old in
dica
tes
supe
rior
val
ue,
unde
rlin
ed in
dica
tes
infe
rior
val
ue.
Entr
yTe
stW
eigh
tG
rain
Prot
ein
SKCS
Wei
ght
SKCS
Har
dnes
sFl
our
Yiel
dBak
eAbs
orpt
ion
Mix
ogra
phM
ix T
ime
Mix
ogra
phTo
lera
nce
Loaf
Vol
ume
Cru
mb
Col
orCru
mb
Gra
in
20
19
UV
PT
Akr
onM
illin
gS
core
Bak
ing
Sco
re
Wh
eat
Mill
ing
an
d B
akin
g Q
ual
ity
Dat
a -
Prot
ein
Rec
over
yAM
Eas
twoo
d58
.812
.229
.858
.770
.461
.93.
492
900
54
36
-0.4
Ant
ero
58.3
12.1
29.5
55.8
71.3
61.9
4.18
388
52
24
7-0
.6Ave
ry56
.912
.228
.460
.370
.162
.15.
314
10
90
54
52
-0.6
Bra
wl C
L Pl
us58
.71
3.4
28.0
66.8
70.1
64
.23.
772
11
05
44
33
-0.2
Bre
ck6
0.4
12.7
27.0
60.5
72
.263
.14.
173
10
90
53
13
-0.5
Byr
d57
.012
.527
.958
.27
1.8
63.2
6.2
55
10
95
54
41
-0.6
Byr
d CL
Plus
56.7
12.5
29.6
57.0
70.5
62.9
3.64
398
52
35
5-0
.4Can
vas
59.0
13
.225
.964
.87
2.2
63.3
4.29
410
504
43
3-1
.0CO
13D
0346
57.1
12.8
28.9
68.0
69.5
63.0
4.65
410
254
36
4-0
.8CO
13D
1479
58.5
12.5
26.6
67.0
70.4
62.9
6.5
04
1040
44
52
-0.5
CO
15D
098R
58.6
12.7
28.3
56.8
71.0
62.2
4.02
31
09
03
35
4-1
.2CO
15SFD
092
57.8
12.1
26.4
54.8
72
.061
.33.
792
1000
24
56
-0.6
Cre
scen
t AX
58.9
12.0
28.1
62.4
71.4
62.6
4.70
41
10
05
53
2-0
.1D
enal
i57
.71
3.1
27.2
60.0
69.5
63.2
3.16
394
02
25
6-0
.9Fo
rtify
SF
58.7
12.2
25.3
55.9
72
.160
.13.
841
1055
53
57
-0.9
Gua
rdia
n56
.51
3.6
25.8
63.0
70.0
64
.15.
355
11
05
44
51
-0.8
Hat
cher
58.6
11.5
31
.260
.170
.161
.14.
914
990
65
43
-0.8
Incl
ine
AX
56.4
12.8
26.1
69.1
68.0
62.0
4.18
31
09
54
39
3-1
.3La
ngin
57.2
12.1
27.7
57.4
71.2
63.2
5.6
55
1055
44
51
-0.7
LCH
15ACC-7
-76
0.0
13.1
32
.660
.87
2.5
62.2
2.93
295
03
31
6-0
.8LC
S V
alia
nt58
.413
.129
.659
.970
.26
5.0
3.22
393
53
13
50
.0Lo
ng B
ranc
h58
.312
.33
0.9
62.4
69.7
61.9
3.25
210
055
43
5-0
.5M
onar
ch58
.011
.726
.967
.770
.263
.04.
914
1035
43
53
0.1
Sno
wm
ass
58.1
12.6
31
.364
.470
.162
.96
.23
51
10
54
43
1-0
.4Sno
wm
ass
2.0
57.8
12.3
29.3
60.2
70.6
63.1
5.6
75
1065
65
41
-0.1
Sun
shin
e59
.211
.829
.452
.271
.061
.04.
032
930
43
56
-0.6
SY
Lege
nd C
L257
.41
3.5
28.1
68.8
68.4
63
.93.
753
950
33
65
-0.9
SY
Mon
umen
t56
.512
.727
.867
.870
.763
.25
.92
510
155
36
2-0
.4SY
Rug
ged
58.3
12.7
32
.861
.97
1.7
62.0
3.93
399
54
31
4-0
.7SY
Spu
r55
.01
3.5
26.1
72.2
69.0
64
.15
.74
51
13
55
39
1-0
.8SY
Wol
f58
.31
3.3
27.1
67.8
70.1
61.1
4.43
199
54
34
6-0
.7SY
Wol
verine
59.4
12.8
29.3
60.4
71.0
61.8
4.16
195
02
22
7-0
.1W
B-G
rain
field
59.0
12.7
29.8
61.1
70.7
61.8
3.01
192
52
23
8-0
.3W
B44
1857
.512
.624
.575
.368
.36
4.1
3.82
310
204
48
4-0
.4W
B44
6259
.112
.83
2.5
58.6
71.2
62.0
3.57
295
04
32
6-0
.5W
B45
956
1.2
11.9
28.9
71.1
70.1
59.9
2.91
184
04
33
9-0
.5W
B47
925
9.6
12.7
28.5
67.5
70.4
60.9
3.42
285
04
23
8-0
.7W
hist
ler
56.2
12.7
26.7
62.5
69.5
64
.16
.04
510
853
47
1-0
.9
Ave
rage
58.1
12.6
28.4
62.6
70.5
62.5
4.39
3.1
1011
3.9
3.3
Min
imum
55.0
11.5
24.5
52.2
68.0
59.9
2.91
184
02
1M
axim
um61
.213
.632
.875
.372
.565
.06.
505
1135
65
-0.6
-1.3
0.1
35
* B
old in
dica
tes
supe
rior
val
ue,
unde
rlin
ed in
dica
tes
infe
rior
val
ue.
Entr
yTe
stW
eigh
tG
rain
Prot
ein
SKCS
Wei
ght
SKCS
Har
dnes
sFl
our
Yiel
dBak
eAbs
orpt
ion
Mix
ogra
phM
ix T
ime
Mix
ogra
phTo
lera
nce
Loaf
Vol
ume
Cru
mb
Col
orCru
mb
Gra
in
20
19
UV
PT
Bu
rlin
gto
nM
illin
gS
core
Bak
ing
Sco
re
Wh
eat
Mill
ing
an
d B
akin
g Q
ual
ity
Dat
a -
Prot
ein
Rec
over
yAM
Eas
twoo
d59
.911
.830
.261
.770
.062
.13.
814
890
54
54
-0.5
Ant
ero
60.2
11.7
33
.059
.472
.360
.24.
074
825
44
55
-1.1
Ave
ry58
.412
.327
.570
.472
.262
.25.
184
975
55
53
-0.8
Bra
wl C
L Pl
us61
.01
2.8
31.7
69.1
71.1
64
.24.
354
10
35
44
21
-0.6
Bre
ck6
1.4
12.5
28.4
69.8
73
.26
5.0
4.45
494
05
41
1-0
.5Byr
d58
.612
.326
.570
.77
3.8
62.4
6.6
65
10
10
45
51
-1.0
Byr
d CL
Plus
59.1
11.9
29.8
66.8
72.4
61.2
4.78
488
03
35
4-1
.1Can
vas
60.1
11.5
26.1
69.3
74
.363
.34.
735
865
43
33
-0.1
CO
13D
0346
57.9
12.2
27.3
74.3
69.8
60.9
5.30
487
53
38
4-0
.7CO
13D
1479
59.0
12.5
26.7
74.8
70.2
62.8
7.7
25
955
44
61
-0.6
CO
15D
098R
60.4
12.0
32.0
65.9
72.6
62.2
3.99
496
54
43
3-0
.6CO
15SFD
092
59.9
11.8
27.3
63.0
73
.661
.14.
784
880
23
55
-0.7
Cre
scen
t AX
61.1
12.0
35
.162
.072
.661
.25.
455
920
55
33
-1.3
Den
ali
60.9
12.1
31.2
64.1
72.3
61.4
3.41
375
02
34
7-1
.0Fo
rtify
SF
60.4
11.7
29.4
57.1
73
.861
.14.
884
925
55
43
-0.8
Gua
rdia
n59
.31
3.2
26.0
72.0
71.7
63.2
5.23
59
95
44
52
-1.1
Hat
cher
59.5
11.2
29.2
66.6
72.3
61.5
3.60
484
55
35
4-0
.4In
clin
e AX
60.5
11.7
31.7
73.0
71.0
61.1
5.10
489
05
54
3-0
.9La
ngin
58.7
12.0
28.9
65.7
73.1
61.4
6.7
15
970
55
52
-1.1
LCH
15ACC-7
-76
1.4
12.2
36
.663
.37
3.7
63.0
4.18
487
03
31
4-1
.0LC
S V
alia
nt60
.21
2.8
31.6
72.5
70.5
62.9
3.20
387
54
33
5-0
.7Lo
ng B
ranc
h59
.912
.232
.770
.370
.461
.13.
943
825
33
46
-1.1
Mon
arch
59.7
11.6
29.6
70.5
71.3
61.1
4.54
485
54
44
4-0
.7Sno
wm
ass
59.9
11.9
32.1
73.3
70.3
65
.08
.10
69
80
45
41
-0.6
Sno
wm
ass
2.0
59.9
11.9
31.0
73.0
71.6
63.1
8.0
56
915
56
41
-0.7
Sun
shin
e60
.012
.130
.562
.172
.762
.04.
174
805
33
45
-0.9
SY
Lege
nd C
L260
.111
.530
.073
.769
.361
.03.
293
850
32
66
-0.8
SY
Mon
umen
t60
.012
.332
.078
.972
.76
4.1
6.02
595
04
44
1-1
.0SY
Rug
ged
60.8
11.5
34
.270
.972
.460
.25.
014
945
53
34
-1.1
SY
Spu
r57
.012
.426
.878
.169
.663
.25.
125
10
50
45
91
-0.9
SY
Wol
f6
1.2
12
.831
.874
.071
.561
.24.
642
910
23
26
-0.9
SY
Wol
verine
60.1
13
.929
.165
.971
.661
.94.
472
925
44
45
-1.0
WB-G
rain
field
61
.211
.831
.068
.572
.461
.13.
983
825
22
36
-1.1
WB44
1859
.511
.825
.878
.468
.962
.24.
994
910
43
84
-1.0
WB44
6261
.11
2.9
35
.767
.271
.363
.04.
123
875
54
24
-1.0
WB45
956
2.7
11.3
30.5
79.6
70.6
59.0
3.21
271
04
34
9-0
.9W
B47
926
2.3
11.7
31.8
77.5
71.4
61.1
2.42
373
53
23
8-0
.8W
hist
ler
58.8
12.1
27.1
73.2
71.7
64
.36
.17
51
01
03
46
1-1
.1
Ave
rage
60.1
12.1
30.2
69.6
71.7
62.1
4.84
4.0
900
3.9
3.7
Min
imum
57.0
11.2
25.8
57.1
68.9
59.0
2.42
271
02
2M
axim
um62
.713
.936
.679
.674
.365
.08.
106
1050
56
-0.8
-1.3
-0.1
36
* B
old in
dica
tes
supe
rior
val
ue,
unde
rlin
ed in
dica
tes
infe
rior
val
ue.
Entr
yTe
stW
eigh
tG
rain
Prot
ein
SKCS
Wei
ght
SKCS
Har
dnes
sFl
our
Yiel
dBak
eAbs
orpt
ion
Mix
ogra
phM
ix T
ime
Mix
ogra
phTo
lera
nce
Loaf
Vol
ume
Cru
mb
Col
orCru
mb
Gra
in
20
19
UV
PT
Wal
shM
illin
gS
core
Bak
ing
Sco
re
Wh
eat
Mill
ing
an
d B
akin
g Q
ual
ity
Dat
a -
Prot
ein
Rec
over
yAM
Eas
twoo
d56
.41
2.5
26.8
50.5
68.8
62
.43.
983
975
44
63
-0.9
Ant
ero
58.1
11.7
28.7
45.5
71
.560
.54.
874
890
33
44
-0.7
Ave
ry58
.09.
628
.946
.269
.557
.24.
943
880
53
56
-0.6
Bra
wl C
L Pl
us5
8.9
13
.03
0.7
51.3
70.5
61
.34.
492
10
45
54
13
-0.8
Bre
ck5
9.1
12
.628
.351
.57
2.2
61
.33.
872
10
50
54
13
-0.7
Byr
d57
.510
.227
.249
.87
1.6
58.4
4.38
492
54
44
4-0
.8Byr
d CL
Plus
56.6
10.9
26.5
56.3
69.6
60.0
5.31
392
03
35
5-0
.8Can
vas
59
.111
.326
.153
.47
2.2
59.5
4.95
398
55
42
3-0
.7CO
13D
0346
56.2
11.2
27.5
57.1
69.1
58.2
4.96
390
03
36
5-1
.4CO
13D
1479
57.5
11.7
27.7
57.8
68.6
60.4
6.5
34
975
45
52
-1.4
CO
15D
098R
59
.69.
929
.950
.870
.458
.44.
513
970
44
24
-0.3
CO
15SFD
092
57.2
10.4
24.9
45.0
71
.358
.33.
873
860
22
56
-0.7
Cre
scen
t AX
58.4
11.5
33
.348
.771
.060
.26
.87
41
02
55
52
1-1
.4D
enal
i5
8.9
10.7
29.3
50.8
68.8
57.4
3.48
277
53
24
9-1
.2Fo
rtify
SF
56.7
10.9
24.0
41.2
71
.758
.33.
892
950
33
66
-1.0
Gua
rdia
n58
.311
.925
.860
.570
.660
.35.
544
1005
53
43
-1.5
Hat
cher
57.7
10.2
30.1
47.3
69.1
58.1
4.24
480
05
35
5-1
.0In
clin
e AX
56.4
10.7
24.2
65.1
67.1
59.3
5.09
498
54
49
3-0
.9La
ngin
56.6
10.3
28.1
46.7
70.5
58.4
8.9
25
955
44
52
-1.0
LCH
15ACC-7
-758
.210
.93
1.8
48.4
71
.36
1.2
3.49
486
04
33
4-0
.8LC
S V
alia
nt58
.211
.23
2.4
54.2
69.0
59.4
3.56
285
55
32
6-0
.8Lo
ng B
ranc
h56
.511
.827
.262
.968
.759
.43.
182
860
43
66
-0.5
Mon
arch
57.1
11.1
25.9
58.1
69.7
59.3
5.69
497
54
44
3-0
.5Sno
wm
ass
57.2
11.3
31
.163
.367
.36
2.5
9.2
16
985
45
51
-1.1
Sno
wm
ass
2.0
57.4
11.2
29.3
55.7
70.0
60.5
8.3
05
970
66
41
-0.8
Sun
shin
e57
.911
.428
.743
.47
1.4
59.6
4.44
385
03
35
5-1
.0SY
Lege
nd C
L258
.11
2.1
27.9
64.2
66.7
62
.14.
184
970
32
63
-0.8
SY
Mon
umen
t57
.310
.327
.963
.170
.359
.45.
725
990
44
52
-0.2
SY
Rug
ged
57.7
11.2
31
.351
.57
1.8
60.4
4.85
310
054
32
3-0
.6SY
Spu
r54
.511
.725
.174
.066
.46
2.2
5.03
51
14
54
59
1-0
.4SY
Wol
f58
.11
3.3
28.2
59.3
68.5
58.5
4.91
197
02
34
6-1
.3SY
Wol
verine
59
.411
.229
.550
.070
.557
.24.
461
885
42
27
-0.7
WB-G
rain
field
57.5
11.6
28.5
53.5
70.1
60.2
3.80
291
02
24
6-0
.6W
B44
1855
.611
.024
.947
.566
.86
1.3
4.32
399
04
38
3-0
.2W
B44
6257
.711
.63
2.5
53.9
69.5
59.3
3.21
190
06
32
6-0
.3W
B45
956
0.7
10.9
25.7
68.7
67.5
58.0
3.09
177
53
24
9-0
.5W
B47
925
9.2
11.2
25.1
67.6
68.3
58.1
3.50
180
04
25
8-0
.9W
hist
ler
57.0
11.0
24.9
67.7
68.3
59.3
6.4
25
950
45
72
-1.0
Ave
rage
57.7
11.2
28.0
54.8
69.6
59.6
4.90
3.2
935
3.9
3.4
Min
imum
54.5
9.6
24.0
41.2
66.4
57.2
3.09
177
52
2M
axim
um60
.713
.333
.374
.072
.262
.59.
216
1145
66
-0.8
-1.5
-0.2
37
* B
old in
dica
tes
supe
rior
val
ue,
unde
rlin
ed in
dica
tes
infe
rior
val
ue.
Entr
yTe
stW
eigh
tG
rain
Prot
ein
SKCS
Wei
ght
SKCS
Har
dnes
sFl
our
Yiel
dBak
eAbs
orpt
ion
Mix
ogra
phM
ix T
ime
Mix
ogra
phTo
lera
nce
Loaf
Vol
ume
Cru
mb
Col
orCru
mb
Gra
in
20
19
UV
PT
Yu
ma
Mill
ing
Sco
reB
akin
gS
core
Wh
eat
Mill
ing
an
d B
akin
g Q
ual
ity
Dat
a -
Prot
ein
Rec
over
yAM
Eas
twoo
d6
0.8
11.3
30
.165
.768
.460
.14.
093
815
54
34
-0.9
Ant
ero
60.4
10.6
31
.764
.470
.359
.44.
023
765
23
36
-0.9
Ave
ry56
.711
.924
.966
.468
.86
2.9
4.89
59
00
43
52
-0.6
Bra
wl C
L Pl
us6
0.9
12.0
29.7
72.0
69.2
62
.44.
393
880
44
23
-0.4
Bre
ck6
0.7
12
.326
.571
.670
.46
4.2
3.61
387
55
31
2-0
.2Byr
d57
.01
2.3
24.2
68.4
71
.562
.04.
665
92
54
55
1-1
.2Byr
d CL
Plus
58.3
10.4
28.4
60.9
69.7
58.5
4.60
478
03
26
5-0
.9Can
vas
58.7
12
.725
.469
.07
2.5
62.0
4.01
482
53
22
4-1
.0CO
13D
0346
57.1
11.2
25.4
79.1
66.8
61.1
4.41
478
53
37
4-0
.4CO
13D
1479
57.4
12
.424
.470
.766
.962
.16
.82
58
85
45
61
-1.1
CO
15D
098R
60.1
10.8
27.4
68.3
70.6
60.0
5.06
478
53
33
4-0
.8CO
15SFD
092
59.1
10.6
24.8
62.0
72
.259
.03.
963
790
32
46
-0.5
Cre
scen
t AX
60.3
10.3
30
.864
.470
.358
.34.
664
840
54
34
-1.1
Den
ali
59.0
13
.127
.367
.969
.462
.13.
213
750
21
47
-1.4
Fort
ify S
F59
.410
.425
.959
.47
1.1
59.0
4.17
378
53
35
5-0
.6G
uard
ian
58.1
11.6
24.7
67.8
69.7
60.9
5.05
48
90
44
53
-0.6
Hat
cher
58.6
11.5
27.5
69.1
69.6
61.0
3.89
378
53
34
5-0
.9In
clin
e AX
57.4
10.7
23.9
73.8
66.9
58.4
4.01
277
04
37
6-1
.0La
ngin
56.5
11.8
24.1
63.3
70.1
61.0
5.27
59
25
43
62
-0.9
LCH
15ACC-7
-760
.110
.73
2.1
64.1
71
.659
.34.
034
810
43
24
-0.6
LCS V
alia
nt60
.411
.929
.276
.867
.161
.22.
953
765
53
45
-0.9
Long
Bra
nch
59.9
11.3
29.5
75.2
68.1
60.1
3.46
375
04
34
5-0
.7M
onar
ch56
.81
2.5
24.0
71.7
68.1
63
.04.
994
870
43
63
-0.8
Sno
wm
ass
57.9
10.7
27.7
74.3
66.7
61.9
8.3
95
91
55
66
1-0
.7Sno
wm
ass
2.0
59.0
11.2
29.5
72.0
67.1
62.1
7.1
85
850
65
41
-0.6
Sun
shin
e59
.811
.529
.165
.370
.460
.33.
993
760
31
46
-1.1
SY
Lege
nd C
L258
.611
.829
.372
.666
.962
.13.
824
855
33
44
-0.5
SY
Mon
umen
t58
.211
.125
.676
.969
.960
.46
.12
582
04
35
2-0
.6SY
Rug
ged
59.4
11.2
30
.670
.370
.460
.35.
594
875
55
32
-1.0
SY
Spu
r55
.811
.023
.977
.967
.959
.93.
934
855
43
84
-0.6
SY
Wol
f6
0.8
11.0
27.5
74.9
70.0
57.3
4.49
281
52
33
7-0
.9SY
Wol
verine
61
.411
.33
0.1
71.5
70.6
58.9
4.44
276
04
31
6-0
.7W
B-G
rain
field
59.6
10.6
27.9
72.9
69.4
58.3
4.21
377
52
24
6-0
.5W
B44
1858
.411
.623
.478
.566
.862
.24.
733
845
43
74
-0.5
WB44
6260
.51
2.1
31
.568
.469
.361
.34.
253
825
64
23
-0.8
WB45
956
2.0
10.4
28.2
75.4
69.0
57.1
3.16
262
53
13
9-0
.7W
B47
926
1.1
10.2
28.1
76.0
69.6
58.1
3.53
372
06
24
6-0
.7W
hist
ler
54.3
12
.224
.167
.967
.661
.76
.11
59
15
34
81
-1.0
Ave
rage
59.0
11.4
27.3
70.2
69.2
60.5
4.58
3.6
820
3.8
3.2
Min
imum
54.3
10.2
23.4
59.4
66.7
57.1
2.95
262
52
1M
axim
um62
.013
.132
.179
.172
.564
.28.
395
925
66
-0.8
-1.4
-0.2
38
Summary of composite milling and baking quality scores from four 2019 Uniform Variety Trial (UVPT) locations. Entries are ranked in ascending order (from 1=good to 9=poor) by the average baking quality score across all four trial locations.
39
* B
old in
dica
tes
supe
rior
val
ue,
unde
rlin
ed in
dica
tes
infe
rior
val
ue.
Entr
yTe
stW
eigh
tG
rain
Prot
ein
SKCS
Wei
ght
SKCS
Har
dnes
sFl
our
Yiel
dBak
eAbs
orpt
ion
Mix
ogra
phM
ix T
ime
Mix
ogra
phTo
lera
nce
Loaf
Vol
ume
Cru
mb
Col
orCru
mb
Gra
in
20
19
IV
PT
Bu
rlin
gto
nM
illin
gS
core
Bak
ing
Sco
re
Wh
eat
Mill
ing
an
d B
akin
g Q
ual
ity
Dat
a -
Prot
ein
Rec
over
yAM
Eas
twoo
d53
.313
.125
.770
.165
.164
.24.
204
980
54
63
-0.9
Bra
wl C
L Pl
us57
.01
3.8
29
.663
.770
.46
6.1
5.01
51
03
55
42
1-0
.9Bre
ck54
.51
3.9
26.6
65.1
70.0
66
.24.
935
935
43
32
-0.6
Can
vas
54.8
12.9
22.0
64.2
71.1
63.4
4.74
597
55
54
2-0
.5CO
13D
0346
57.1
11.6
29
.267
.568
.961
.34.
964
935
55
34
-0.6
CO
15D
098R
57
.512
.328
.364
.78
6.1
61.1
5.02
41
03
03
31
4-1
.3Cre
scen
t AX
58
.211
.83
1.5
56.2
70.5
62.1
5.54
510
106
53
2-0
.8D
enal
i52
.613
.525
.358
.067
.764
.53.
683
835
22
56
-1.1
Gua
rdia
n5
9.9
11.5
30
.964
.270
.861
.33.
793
975
43
15
-1.2
Long
Bra
nch
55.9
12.0
27.5
69.8
67.6
62.2
3.66
488
04
45
5-0
.8M
onar
ch52
.313
.024
.366
.367
.463
.36
.11
592
53
35
3-0
.6Sno
wm
ass
2.0
54.4
13
.927
.665
.468
.26
5.4
8.4
96
10
45
56
31
-1.0
Sun
shin
e53
.912
.826
.359
.169
.162
.54.
694
855
31
56
-1.1
SY
Sun
rise
53.4
12.8
27.0
58.7
67.0
65.1
3.66
383
52
25
6-0
.2SY
Wol
f54
.11
4.1
27.0
63.1
68.6
62.4
5.42
496
02
24
5-1
.1SY
Wol
verine
57.0
12.6
29
.162
.569
.163
.15.
062
910
32
25
-0.4
Thun
der
CL
54.0
12.6
27.2
66.6
68.2
65
.26
.00
41
03
55
44
1-0
.6W
B-G
rain
field
54.7
14
.125
.866
.067
.464
.34.
124
900
33
34
-0.9
WB42
6953
.512
.922
.762
.967
.164
.34.
103
10
50
55
52
-0.3
WB43
0350
.61
4.5
26.0
63.7
67.2
65
.33.
664
940
33
54
-0.8
WB44
1852
.11
3.8
22.3
80.5
65.1
65
.24.
374
935
43
83
-0.7
WB45
955
8.4
12.2
25.6
75.9
68.1
62.2
3.26
382
53
24
7-0
.9W
B46
9951
.513
.122
.166
.367
.661
.33.
231
815
21
69
-0.8
WB47
9256
.512
.125
.075
.068
.262
.24.
093
850
43
55
-0.5
Ave
rage
54.9
12.9
26.4
65.6
69.0
63.5
4.66
3.8
936
3.8
3.3
Min
imum
50.6
11.5
22.0
56.2
65.1
61.1
3.23
181
52
1M
axim
um59
.914
.531
.580
.586
.166
.28.
496
1050
66
-0.8
-1.3
-0.2
40
* B
old in
dica
tes
supe
rior
val
ue,
unde
rlin
ed in
dica
tes
infe
rior
val
ue.
Entr
yTe
stW
eigh
tG
rain
Prot
ein
SKCS
Wei
ght
SKCS
Har
dnes
sFl
our
Yiel
dBak
eAbs
orpt
ion
Mix
ogra
phM
ix T
ime
Mix
ogra
phTo
lera
nce
Loaf
Vol
ume
Cru
mb
Col
orCru
mb
Gra
in
20
19
IV
PT
Fort
Col
lins
Mill
ing
Sco
reB
akin
gS
core
Wh
eat
Mill
ing
an
d B
akin
g Q
ual
ity
Dat
a -
Prot
ein
Rec
over
yAM
Eas
twoo
d61
.41
3.7
33.3
74.6
67.3
62.2
2.67
188
05
33
5-0
.8Bra
wl C
L Pl
us61
.01
3.8
32.2
76.3
66.9
62.0
2.42
01
05
54
23
5-0
.6Bre
ck6
2.7
13.5
33.1
77.8
67.9
62.0
3.21
11
01
56
52
3-1
.1Can
vas
62
.613
.130
.779
.96
9.6
62.2
3.8
44
960
44
22
-1.1
CO
13D
0346
60.1
13.2
31.1
85.4
64.5
63
.32.
983
915
43
73
-1.3
CO
15D
098R
61.3
12.8
32.4
79.7
68.2
62.1
3.58
21
02
04
43
3-0
.8Cre
scen
t AX
60.6
12.8
32.6
71.7
70
.56
2.9
3.9
23
11
05
54
41
-0.7
Den
ali
62
.212
.832
.575
.567
.460
.32.
671
795
21
37
-1.3
Gua
rdia
n61
.612
.530
.783
.868
.761
.03.
312
920
53
44
-0.9
Long
Bra
nch
60.3
13.0
32.7
80.6
64.8
59.1
1.93
080
04
35
8-1
.0M
onar
ch60
.911
.930
.982
.967
.260
.23
.77
388
55
35
3-1
.2Sno
wm
ass
2.0
60.4
13.1
34
.583
.667
.06
4.9
4.8
15
10
30
55
41
-1.2
Sun
shin
e61
.213
.233
.373
.168
.759
.12.
530
830
43
47
-1.5
SY
Sun
rise
61.8
13.4
35
.668
.768
.961
.11.
790
795
53
37
-1.0
SY
Wol
f61
.213
.532
.080
.566
.161
.43.
382
895
43
54
-1.8
SY
Wol
verine
61.5
13
.832
.776
.867
.261
.12.
680
945
43
36
-0.6
Thun
der
CL
60.7
13.4
32.3
77.4
68.3
62.4
3.33
21
02
54
43
3-1
.1W
B-G
rain
field
61.9
13
.73
5.2
79.7
67.8
61.1
2.14
082
53
22
7-1
.2W
B42
6960
.311
.928
.575
.162
.758
.22.
380
675
22
79
-0.6
WB43
0359
.713
.13
4.7
73.5
67.5
60.3
2.41
088
54
25
7-0
.7W
B44
1860
.112
.327
.487
.662
.260
.22.
600
905
34
86
0.2
WB45
956
3.0
12.1
32.4
89.7
66.1
58.1
2.24
069
02
24
9-1
.2W
B46
9959
.412
.424
.082
.967
.157
.32.
080
800
31
89
-1.1
WB47
926
2.7
12.4
32.8
85.3
67.9
59.8
2.31
074
53
33
8-1
.0
Ave
rage
61.2
13.0
32.0
79.3
67.1
60.9
2.87
1.2
891
3.9
3.0
Min
imum
59.4
11.9
24.0
68.7
62.2
57.3
1.79
067
52
1M
axim
um63
.013
.835
.689
.770
.564
.94.
815
1105
65
-1.0
-1.8
0.2
41
Summary of composite milling and baking quality scores from two 2019 Irrigated Variety Trial (IVPT) locations. Entries are ranked in ascending order (from 1=good to 9=poor) by the average baking quality score across both trial locations.
42
Grain protein values (12% moisture basis) of Irrigated Variety Performance Trial (IVPT, left) and Uniform Variety Performance Trial (UVPT, right) locations that were not used for complete milling and baking quality analyses. Data for the UVPT entries represent the average of the first two replications.
43
Wheat Stem Sawfly in Colorado – Frequently Asked QuestionsFrank PeairsWheat Stem Sawfly in Colorado – Frequently Asked Questions
Frank Peairs Q: How do I know if I have wheat stem sawfly in my field and what do they look like? A: Starting in early to mid-May, look for small yellow and
black wasps on wheat plants along the edges of the field. Resting sawflies will sit on the stem facing the ground. There are insects that are similar in appearance, but they would not have this resting posture or be abundant in field edges. In mid to late-June, stems can be cut open to look for the white, S-shaped larvae or the sawdust-like material resulting from their feeding. Near harvest, look for lodged stems in field margins.
Q: What do wheat stem sawfly larvae look like? A: In mid to late-June through harvest, white, S-shaped
larvae can be found feeding inside stems of wheat. After harvest, fully grown larvae will be found in what is left of the stem below where it was cut. They will remain here until the following spring.
Q: What does wheat stem sawfly damage look like? A: Before the stems dry, you can find evidence of feeding and tunneling, as well as the
sawdust-like material resulting from their feeding. When the larvae finish feeding they cut the insides of the stems near the soil, making them prone to lodging, especially after strong winds. Unlike stems lodged from other causes, cut stems are no longer connected to the plant.
Q: How and where do wheat stem sawfly survive the winter? A: As the larvae mature they move down to soil level and cut a V-shaped notch around the
interior of the stem. They then seal the interior of the stem just below this cut with silk and excrement to form an overwintering chamber. The upper stem often breaks at the cut just prior to harvest. The larvae overwinter in these chambers, just below soil level.
Q: Are there weather conditions that favor wheat stem sawflies? A: The parasitic wasps that attack wheat stem sawflies do better in cool, wet conditions, so
drier conditions tend to favor the sawfly. Also, there tends to be more movement out of overwintering sites and egg laying activity during warm, dry periods following a rain.
Q: Do we find wheat stem sawfly in all wheat producing counties? A: Yes, wheat stem sawfly occurs in all wheat producing counties in Colorado, at least in
non-cultivated grasses. Damage to winter wheat has yet to be observed in a few counties. Most damaging infestations have been found in north central CO, with a few lighter infestations occurring as far south as Baca County. Economically significant infestations are spreading to the south and east.
44
Q: Where are the wheat stem sawflies coming from? A: The wheat stem sawfly is native to Colorado. Until recently, it inhabited only non-
cultivated grasses. It recently started adapting to feeding on winter wheat, becoming our most important insect pest of wheat in the process.
Q: Why are we starting to have wheat stem sawfly problems now? A: There is no good answer to this question, but it likely is due to some combination of the
changes in the wheat stem sawfly’s preference for wheat, changes in production practices (e.g., reduced tillage), and changes in climate.
Q: How fast can wheat stem sawflies spread? A: They’re already here, what’s spreading is a change in behavior. According to CSU
survey results, damage in wheat was mostly limited to the New Raymer area in 2012. By 2015 it had been found infesting wheat as far south as Baca County and as far east as Sherman and Wallace counties in Kansas.
Q: Can we predict wheat stem sawfly infestations ahead of time? A: According to Canadian guidelines, greater than 10-15% cutting in stubble indicates that
adjacent fields should be planted to something other than wheat or to a resistant variety. Q: How do I prevent wheat stem sawfly infestations in my wheat? A: Current preventive measures include planting resistant varieties, reducing the amount of
wheat in your rotations to avoid planting new wheat next to previous crop stubble, and planting larger blocks to minimize the relatively severe infestations found in field edges.
Q: What rotation crops can reduce the level of wheat stem sawfly infestation? A: None of the common rotational crops (corn, proso millet, sorghum, sunflower) are
affected by wheat stem sawfly. It is very important to plan rotations so as to avoid planting new wheat immediately adjacent to stubble infested during the previous crop.
Q: How long do I have to stay out of wheat to reduce the problem so I can go back to
wheat with minimal loss of yield? A: Wheat stem sawfly infests a wheat crop in May and June and will remain in the stubble
from that crop until the following spring. At that time they will disperse from the field looking for new wheat to infest, so that field could be planted to wheat that fall without risk of infestation by the sawflies that infested that field the previous year. However, sawflies from adjacent fields or from even greater distances may infest this new crop.
Q: How effective is tillage in controlling the wheat stem sawfly? A: Both fall and spring tillage have been used to expose crowns containing overwintering
larvae to moisture and temperature extremes. However, if just 10% of the larvae survive this treatment, infestations will be similar to the previous season, and tillage rarely causes this level of mortality. Also, tillage will negatively impact the natural enemies that attack wheat stem sawfly.
45
Q: Are there varieties that are resistant to wheat stem sawfly?
A: The available highly resistant varieties, none of which are adapted to Colorado, have a trait called “solid stem”. CSU has released a moderately resistant variety, Fortify SF, a medium maturity variety with wheat curl mite resistance and a similar yield potential to Byrd under normal field conditions. It is not highly resistant because it has only a semi-solid stem, however, it is substantially more resistant than other locally adapted varieties.
Q: What is known about the consistency of expression of stem solidness, or degree of
resistance conferred by the new semi-solid varieties? A: Reports from Montana and Canada suggest that certain environmental conditions, such as
lower light intensity from increased cloudiness or lower elevation, may result in reduced expression of solidness. We do not yet know for certain how much of an issue this will be here in Colorado with our higher light intensities. The level of expression of semi-solidness observed has provided significant reduction in stem cutting in field trials.
Q: How much "yield drag" should we expect with the new semi-solid varieties? A: In three years of field trials (2016-2018) grain yield of the new semi-solid lines has been
roughly equivalent to the yield observed with Byrd and Denali varieties. Q: Does the wheat stem sawfly have any natural enemies? A: A few insect species feed on wheat stem sawfly. The most important of these are two
parasitic wasps, Bracon cephi and Bracon lissogaster, whose larvae can be found feeding on wheat stem sawfly larvae inside wheat stems.
Q: How important are these parasitic wasps in Colorado? A: To date, very few of either wasp species have been found feeding on wheat stem sawfly
larvae infesting winter wheat. They are more easily found on wheat stem sawfly larvae infesting non-cultivated grasses. These wasps are considered to be important in the Northern Plains, which have a longer history of wheat stem sawfly infestations in wheat.
Q: Are there practices that will encourage the parasitic wasps that attack wheat stem
sawfly? A: These parasitic wasps are expected to become more important as they adapt to wheat
stem sawfly infestations in wheat. Tillage and swathing are two practices known to affect them negatively.
Photo Credit: D. Kluth
46
Q: How can I control existing wheat stem sawfly infestations in my wheat? A: Management practices emphasize prevention. Little can be done once your wheat is
infested. No effective chemical controls are available. Stem cutting can be reduced by swathing. Stripper headers are better at picking up cut stems than traditional headers.
Q: Can wheat stem sawfly larvae be controlled with insecticides? A: No. The larvae are found within the stem, making them inaccessible to insecticides. Q: Can wheat stem sawfly adults can be targeted to reduce egg laying? A: The flight lasts about a month, so several applications might be necessary. Also, the
adults do not feed, thus limiting their insecticide exposure. Additionally, currently available insecticides don’t kill quickly enough to prevent individual females from laying at least some eggs.
Q: Will swathing my wheat reduce losses to wheat stem sawfly? A: Wheat can be swathed before stem cutting starts. Disadvantages to swathing include the
cost of an extra field operation and negative effects on the parasitic wasps that are feeding on sawfly larvae at this time. Costs can be reduced by swathing just the field margins, where infestations generally are more severe. Effects on natural enemies can be minimized by leaving the lower third of the stem intact.
Q: What is the best way to recover cut stems during harvest? A: Combines equipped with stripper headers are most efficient in picking up cut stems at
harvest. Q: Can the wheat stem sawfly be eradicated? A: No. To date, we have no appropriate management methods that can eliminate this insect
from even a single field. Further, this insect is native to Colorado and well adapted to our environment. Finally, you would need to eradicate them from non-cultivated grasses as well as from wheat, which would be next to impossible.
Q: What research is being conducted at CSU in response to the wheat stem sawfly
outbreak? A: CSU is emphasizing the development of high quality, productive wheat varieties resistant
to wheat stem sawfly. Other research projects include improved biological control, trap crops, new approaches to chemical control and surveys to track the spread of this pest.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Tyler Benninghoven, Darren Cockrell, Brad Erker, Assefa Gebre-Amlak, Scott Haley, Jerry Johnson, and Sally Jones-Diamond for providing questions and for reviewing earlier versions of this work. Additional Resources: https://wiki.bugwood.org/HPIPM:Wheat_Stem_Sawfly https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/insects/wheat-stem-sawfly-a-new-pest-of-colorado-wheat-5-612/ https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/landing-pages/crops/wheat-stem-sawfly-e-1479
47
CoAXium Wheat Production System for Winter Annual Grass Control driven by Aggressor Herbicide
Eric Westra, Todd Gaines, and Chad Shelton
• CoAXium® Wheat Production System is a combination of a patented herbicide-tolerant trait, elite varieties, a new branded herbicide Aggressor®, and robust stewardship
• AXigen® is a new non-GMO trait that confers tolerance to the Group 1 herbicide Aggressor registered for use on CoAXium wheat varieties with the AXigen trait for winter annual grass control in wheat (jointed goatgrass, feral rye, and downy brome)
• Commercially available CoAXium varieties with the AXigen trait currently include Crescent AX, Incline AX, LCS Fusion AX, and LCS Helix AX
• Additional wheat varieties with the AXigen trait will be available in upcoming years
Field studies evaluating Aggressor control of downy brome, jointed goatgrass, and feral rye were conducted in 2018-19 and the take away messages from these trials are:• Aggressor has flexibility for fall, spring, or fall/spring split applications
• Application timing can be chosen based on fall weed density to avoid competition for resources (i.e., higher fall weed density means you may want to consider a Fall application to remove competition prior to spring)
• Inclusion of adjuvant is required for increasing weedy grass control• NIS, MSO, COC, and Ammonium nitrogen fertilizer (refer to Aggressor label)
• Increasing carrier volume improves Aggressor weed control• Minimum of 10 gal/acre in non-arid areas, and 15 gal/acre in arid areas
• Cold temperatures (<32°F) directly following Aggressor application may reduce feral rye weed control efficacy• In 2019 trials, below freezing temperatures (snow covered) for 3 days after Aggressor
application resulted in reduced feral rye control• Attention to future weather forecast, especially cold weather, can help avoid weather
related impacts on weed control efficacy using Aggressor• As CoAXium wheat acres continue to increase, careful record keeping is needed to avoid
mixing up herbicide applications to fields (i.e. Clearfield vs CoAXium vs conventional) Feral rye control with Aggressor herbicide (left) and demonstration of lack of cross tolerance between Clearfield and CoAXium wheat production systems (Right). Aggressor herbicide applied to Clearfield wheat (right).
Feral rye control with Aggressor herbicide (left) and demonstration of lack of cross tolerance between Clearfield and CoAXium wheat production systems (Right). Aggressor herbicide applied to Clearfield wheat (right).
48
Colorado Wheat Update Brad Erker – Executive Director
The staff at Colorado Wheat has been busy for the past year serving the wheat farmers of Colorado in the many different aspects it takes to be successful growing wheat in our state. We consider it a privilege to work in such a great industry and welcome your comments and suggestions. The three organizations that make up Colorado Wheat work together for the wheat farmer, with direction from the elected Boards, through the research, education and promotional activities of the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC), the legislative work of the Colorado Association of Wheat Growers (CAWG), and the variety/trait business of the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF) and the PlainsGold brand.
Colorado wheat producers planted 1.85 million acres to wheat in the fall of 2019, down 300,000 acres from fall of 2018 and the lowest planted acreage since 1945. Langin, a hard red winter variety released by Colorado State University (CSU) in 2016, became the top planted variety with 20.1% of the acreage (NASS Winter Wheat Seedings by Variety Survey, 2020 Crop). This was the first year Langin took the first-place spot, which was previously held by Byrd for five years in a row. Langin also holds the top ranking for yield in the three-year average for Dryland Variety Performance plots conducted by CSU’s Crops Testing program. Avery took second place at 18.8%, followed by Byrd at 12.8%, Incline AX at 4.4%, Hatcher at 4.1%, and Brawl CL Plus at 2.8%. Colorado wheat producers also reported 32.8 percent of their seed planted was Certified seed.
PlainsGold released two new varieties last fall, from Foundation seed produced in Fort Collins, Colorado and Yuma, Arizona. Seed growers will produce Registered seed during 2020, with limited Certified seed available for planting in fall 2020.
Fortify SF is the first semi-solid stemmed variety bred at CSU to combat the wheat stem sawfly (WSS). The WSS has been devastating to wheat acres in northeast Colorado over the past several years and is expanding to new areas of the state. Fortify SF is a hard red winter wheat, with medium-early maturity, very good test weight and end-use quality, and yield similar to Byrd. It has very good tolerance to wheat streak mosaic virus, and is moderately susceptible to stripe rust. Most importantly, the semi-solid stem slows feeding of the WSS larvae, which has resulted in much improved standability under heavy WSS infestation in test plots. Validation of improved harvestability on a field scale will need to occur in 2020. If Fortify SF stands better under sawfly pressure in fields, as has been observed in plots, the variety will be an important tool for maintaining viable wheat production in areas experiencing WSS pressure. Fortify SF requires the use of Certified seed for all plantings, no saved seed is allowed.
Guardian is a new hard red winter wheat with excellent resistance to virus diseases and leaf diseases. Guardian is the first variety in its class to combine a gene for resistance to the wheat streak mosaic virus (Wsm-2) with a gene for resistance to the wheat curl mite which transmits wheat streak mosaic virus, wheat mosaic virus, and Triticum mosaic virus. It also has excellent resistance to stripe and stem rust, and very good resistance to leaf rust. Guardian also delivers very good drought tolerance, milling and baking quality, and ability to make protein. Guardian requires the use of Certified seed for all plantings, no saved seed is allowed.
49
Both Guardian and Fortify SF are the result of increased funding provided to the CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program at CSU from the CWAC assessment and royalty funds collected on the sale of Certified seed.
The CoAxium® Wheat Production System, which provides control of winter annual grassy weeds in wheat through tolerance to Aggressor® herbicide, increased in acreage to approximately 115,000 acres, or 6% of Colorado acreage. Key findings from the first year of using Aggressor® herbicide on CoAxium® wheat varieties included the following points that growers should employ moving forward: • Aggressor® rate by weed species – use 8-10 oz/acre for cheatgrass or downy bromegrass, use
10-12 oz/acre for feral rye and 12 oz/acre for jointed goatgrass.• Weed stage of growth – use the proper rate for the growth stage of the weeds; larger weeds
need higher rates.• Volume of application –coverage is critical with Aggressor®. Colorado is an arid
environment and Aggressor® needs 15 gallons of water/acre (minimum) to provide the best control.
• Surfactant use by weed species – feral rye and jointed goatgrass require the use of methylated seed oil; cheatgrass and downy bromegrass can be controlled with non-ionic surfactant.
• Crop and weed growth activity – plants must be actively metabolizing to get good control of weeds and for tolerant wheat varieties to metabolize the chemistry; allow 48 hours before and after a frost event before application of Aggressor® herbicide.
The Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee provides funding to the Entomology program at CSU in the Department of Agricultural Biology (formerly Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Managemnt, BSPM) for a wheat stem sawfly survey. The WSS expanded in 2019 to a total of 65% of fields infested, compared to 49% the previous year. Most WSS pressure continues to be in Northeastern Colorado. However, some southerly movement and expansion of the pest was observed in Western Adams and Arapahoe counties, Cheyenne county, and far Southeastern Colorado. CWAC and CWRF are continuing to monitor this pest closely and invest in technologies than can deflect economic damage such as (semi-solid wheat varieties and other technologies.
CWRF/Ardent Mills UltraGrain® Premium Program: CWRF continues to partner with Ardent Mills to provide Hard White Winter wheat varieties with sound agronomics and superior quality to farmers throughout the region, along with variety and protein premiums. The
Heat map of areas in Colorado affected by the wheat stem sawfly, as determined by the WSS survey. Data from 2018 and 2019 are provided, showing an increase in the pest year over year.
50
Ultragrain® family of flour delivers whole grain nutrition in mainstream foods with the taste, texture and color consumers prefer. It starts with exclusive varieties of white wheat for a sweeter, milder flavor that is uniquely milled to the granulation of white flour. This is one of the largest and most successful identity preserved grain programs in the country.
For the 2020 crop year, six varieties are included in the program (Snowmass, Snowmass 2.0, Breck, Monarch, Sunshine and Thunder CL). CSU continues to put significant breeding effort into hard white wheat. Certified seed is required on all Ardent Mills contracts, and the use of glyphosate for pre-harvest crop desiccation is prohibited. Ardent Mills is currently paying premiums as follows for the 2020 crop. Future year contracts are subject to market conditions and may change. For 2020, all varieties are paid at the same premium levels:
$0.10/bushel base grower premium, regardless of protein level$0.30 @ 11.0%-11.4% protein$0.35 @ 11.5%-11.9% protein$0.40 @ 12.0%-12.4% protein$0.45 @ 12.5%-12.9% protein$0.50 @ 13.0 or higher proteinFor further details on delivery points and seed availability from your local seed grower, visitcoloradowheat.org or plainsgold.com, or call the Colorado Wheat office at (970) 449-6994.
The Colorado Association of Wheat Growers (CAWG) actively lobbied for the interests of Colorado farmers over the past year. CAWG supported the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the US-China Phase One trade deals, with CAWG Board members traveling to the Fall and Winter National Association of Wheat Growers/US Wheat meetings to influence those national organization’s policies. CAWG hosted a legislative Farm Tour, and participated in Senator Cory Gardner’s Farm Tour in August 2019. CAWG testified in support of maintaining seed arbitration in the Colorado Seed Act Sunset Review in January 2020, and participated in discussions around modifications to the Commodity Handler’s Act during its Sunset Review. Both acts will hopefully be renewed if the Colorado Legislature can reconvene in late May. CAWG took positions, some in support and some in opposition, to many other bills that were proposed during the 2020 legislative session. The Colorado House and Senate suspended the General Assembly on March 15, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which had the effect of postponing, or delaying until next year’s session, all but the most critical of bills. CAWG will closely monitor all bills that affect wheat producers if the 2020 session resumes in late May.
For more information on any of the work being done by Colorado Wheat, stay in touch with us: Phone: (970) 449-6994Email: [email protected]: www.coloradowheat.org and www.plainsgold.com
Social media
51
Sensor-Based Nitrogen Fertilization for Dryland Wheat Production in Colorado
Wilma Trujillo
The optimal amount of nitrogen (N) fertilizer required for wheat crops may change considerably from year to year. This is due to a varying level of plant-available N in soil as a result of N turnovers from N-fixing organisms, mineralization of organic matter in the soil, and decomposition of crop residues. Most producers are aware that their yield levels change significantly but they are not aware that the yield response to additional N changes as well. Varietal response to nitrogen, yield and grain protein content dictate how much N should be applied. Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) changes each year as well.
Because of variation in the optimal N rate, standardized regional N application guidelines may have limited value as compared to more localized knowledge. Nitrogen fertilizer represents a significant share of variable production costs (15% to 25%). Both the under- and over-use of N can significantly reduce potential profits. For example, it takes approximately 2.4 lb N to produce one bushel of grain (Peairs and Armenta, 2010), resulting in N costs of approximately $0.84 to $1.03 to produce a bushel of grain worth about $4.53.
In Colorado, wheat producers typically follow one of two options for applying N fertilizer: (i) as a single application where all N is applied pre-plant or at planting; or (ii) as a split application where a small amount of N is applied pre-plant or at planting (10 lb N/ac), followed by a late-winter or early-spring topdressing (30 to 45 lb N/acre). Dryland winter wheat growers are often reluctant to invest in N fertilizer before they assess the condition of the crop in the spring. Split N applications provide increased management flexibility by allowing farmers to adjust N rates according to the crop and environmental conditions. Also, a split application is a sustainable and cost-effective way to produce high protein content wheat.
If the optimal N fertilizer rate changes from year to year, how can a farmer accurately calculate the correct amount of N fertilizer to apply? Certainly, yield response to N fertilizer is unpredictable at the time when pre-plant N is being applied. For example, when winters and springs are wet and warm, sufficient N can be mineralized from soil organic matter before and during the growing season. This mineralized N could be enough to meet the demands for maximum yields in that particular year.
Since the availability of N in-season is environmentally dependent, the common practice of soil testing before planting is not suitable for detecting N deficiencies and requirements later in the growing season. Field analysis procedures (tiller counts) and chemical analysis of soil and plant tissue are effective for monitoring N status during the growing season. However, the main issue with these methods is the time and cost required to sample, analyze, and recommend a rate to meet the demands of the growing crop.
Oklahoma State University developed a sensor-based N management approach utilizing an N-rich strip as a reference strip to provide information on the crop N status (Zhang and Raun, 2006). This approach has led to the development of a functional N fertilizer optimization algorithm that estimates midseason N requirement based on Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) measurements (Raun et al., 2002). This method accounts for the temporal variability effect on the crop’s N requirement during the growing season. The growing crop can
52
accurately show how much N was delivered for “free” (mineralized N) when comparing an N-Rich Strip with an area that represents the traditional farmer’s N rate.
Studies have shown that a sensor-based N management approach significantly increases NUE, grain yield, and profit compared with the traditional N rate used by farmers (Ortiz-Monasterio and Raun et al., 2002, 2005). A sensor-based approach for managing midseason N for winter wheat in Eastern Colorado could add an additional tool to the farmer’s toolbox.
Experiment Design and Data CollectionIn fall of 2018, eight experiment locations were set up to evaluate the use of the GreenSeeker™ (manufactured by Trimble) handheld sensor in guiding midseason N fertilizer applications (Map 1).
The GreenSeeker™ handheld is an optical reflectance sensor that uses red and near infrared light to calculate NDVI. The NDVI is a measurement of biomass. The NDVI readings were collected at least 24 inches above the wheat canopy at jointing (Feekes 6).
In each location, three N treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental design with three replications. Plot/Strip size ranged from 120 ft × 800 ft to 60 ft x 400 ft. depending on the size of the fields.
The N treatment rates (Table 1) were as follows:(1) Farmer’s Rate (FR): N rate that the producer traditionally applies to his wheat fields; (2) N- rich Rate (NR): a rate at least 50 lb/ac above the FR, applied within a month after planting; and(3) Sensor-Based Rate (SBR), a rate estimated with the online Sensor Based N Rate Calculator (SBNRC), using the NDVI readings from both the FR and NR strips and the number of days from planting to sensing when growing degree days were more than 0 (GDD > 0) or wheat is actively growing.
Map 1. Geographic distribution of the N-rich strip sites in Eastern Colorado and Nebraska Panhandle.
Colorado
Table 1. Locations, wheat variety, planting date, nitrogen source and nitrogen rates (FR, NR and SBR)
53
Grain was harvested from each NR, FR and SBR strip. Grain protein content was estimated at the CSU Wheat Quality Laboratory. Data was analyzed using an analysis of variance and the least significant difference (LSD0.05) method. Profitability of the proposed N-management strategy was evaluated in a standard partial budgeting framework (Swinton and Lowenberg-DeBoer, 1998).
Results and ConclusionsWeather conditions had a significant impact on wheat production in Eastern Colorado during the 2018- 2019 growing season. Fall precipitation was well above average. The winter was dry and mild, followed by above-average precipitation in the spring, which led to higher than normal yield potential.
At Feekes 6, the GreenSeeker™ detected biomass and vigor differences between the FR and NR in five (Fleming, Woodrow, Holly, Brandon and Lodgepole) out of the eight locations. In these five locations, the NDVI readings were significantly higher in the NR than in the FR strips, indicating that the FR strips could increase yield if an additional amount of N were applied. The rates were estimated using the SBNRC and applied before the boot stage. In Leroy, Bristol, and Julesburg, the FR and NR strips had similar NDVI, indicating that yield would not increase with an additional N application.
Grain yield responses to N treatments are shown in Figure 1. In Fleming, Brandon, and Lodgepole, the SBR had significantly higher yield than the FR. Yield increased by 13.3 bu/ac, 17.2 bu/ac and 14.5 bu/ac, respectively. Due to the wet conditions in Woodrow and experimental error in Holly, the SBR were not applied and no grain yield data is shown. In both locations, the NR significantly outperformed the FR. Yield was significantly lower in FR strips as compared with the yield in the NR strips. In Leroy, no yield advantage was observed with the NR. Increasing the rate over 124 lb N/ac did not significantly increase yield. In Bristol and Julesburg, no yield differences were observed between FR and NR.
Grain protein response to the N treatments followed the same response as yield. Protein content was significantly higher in the SBR than in FR, but similar or slightly lower when compared to NR in Fleming, Brandon and Lodgepole (data not shown). The wheat crop with FR could have experienced late-season N stress during grain filling and the rapid biomass accumulation might cause the dilution of protein, a common effect in high-yielding crops. The SBR had high yield
54
and adequate protein. This indicates that the wheat crop did not experience N stress and the additional N applied optimized both yield and protein.
Relative to the FR, SBR increased profit (Figure 2). Profit per acre in SBR plots was calculated at $54.20,$63.63, and $64.94 at Fleming, Brandon and Lodgepole, respectively. This economic gain was due to both increased yield and premium received for protein content greater than 10% and up to 13% ($0.03 per each 0.2% increase). For producers who currently use topdressing N, the observed level of profit advantage is probably enough to pay for the GreenSeeker™ ($500) and the
management time required to learn to use it effectively.
The use of sensor-based technologies (N-rich strip, GreenSeekerTM and SBNRC) has the potential to optimize yield and grain protein. Producers using the technology will be able to take advantage of environments that are conducive to higher yields and reduce inputs in years when yield is limited or the soil supplies adequate levels of N.
AcknowledgmentsI sincerely thank the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation for providing funding and the collaborating producers for assistance with plot management and harvesting.
ReferencesOrtiz-Monasterio, J., and W. Raun. 2007. Reduced nitrogen and improved farm income for irrigated spring wheat in the Yaqui Valley, Mexico, using sensor-based nitrogen management. J. Agric. Sci. 145(3):215-222.
Peairs, F. and Armenta, R., editors. Wheat Production and Pest Management for the Great Plains Region. CSU Extension XCM235.
Raun, W., J. Solie, M. Stone, K. Martin, K. Freeman, R. Mullen, H. Zhang, J. Schepers, and G. Johnson. 2005. Optical sensor- based algorithm for crop nitrogen fertilization. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 36(19–20):2759-2781.
Raun, W.R., J.B. Solie, G.V. Johnson, M.L. Stone, R.W. Mullen, K.W. Freeman, W.E. Thomason, and E.V. Lukina. 2002. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in cereal grain production with optical sensing and variable rate application. Agron. J. 94(4):815- 820.
Swinton, S.M. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., 1998. Evaluating the profitability of site-specific farming. J. Prod. Agri. 11(4):439-446.
Zhang, H., and B. Raun. 2006. Oklahoma soil fertility handbook. Dep. of Plant and Soil Sci., Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn., Oklahoma Coop. Ext. Serv., Division of Agric. Sci. and Natural Resour., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.
55
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for support received from Colorado State University and for the funding received from the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation who provide substantial financial support to CSU for wheat breeding and wheat-related research. We are thankful to Kierra Jewell (CSU Extension); Emily Hudson-Arns, Scott Seifert, and Victoria Anderson (Wheat Breeding Program); Karl Whitman and Mark Collins (Agricultural Research, Development and Education Center, Fort Collins); Delbert Koch, Cody Hardy, and Paul Campbell (USDA-ARS Central Great Plains Research Center, Akron); and Jeff Rudolph, Laura Newhard, and Darren Cockrell (Field Crops Entomology Program), for their work and collaboration that make these trials and this report possible.
The authors are thankful for the cooperation and selfless contributions of land, labor, and equipment made by the following Colorado wheat farmers who consented to having winter wheat variety performance trials conducted on their farms: Stulp Farms (Lamar, Prowers County), Scherler Farms (Brandon, Kiowa County), Dennis and Matt Campbell (Arapahoe, Cheyenne County), Michael Hinkhouse (Burlington, Kit Carson County), Carlson Farms (Julesburg, Sedgwick County), Steve and Bryce Boerner (Haxtun, Phillips County), Sprague Farms (Holyoke, Phillips County), Cooksey Farms (Roggen, Weld County), Steve Beedy (Genoa, Lincoln County), Wickstrom Farms (Orchard, Morgan County), Gary Mulch (Burlington, Kit Carson County), Jason Kramer (Burlington, Kit Carson County), and Andrews Brothers Farms (Yuma, Yuma County). We recognize valuable assistance provided by the CSU Extension agents who work with eastern Colorado wheat producers in all aspects of the COFT program. We are very thankful for the efforts and sacrifices made by Colorado wheat producers who contributed time, land, and equipment to the success of the Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) program. We appreciate the Tempel Grain (Wiley, CO) and CHS, Inc. (Otis, CO) elevators for analyzing COFT grain samples for protein. We thank Syngenta Crop Protection for their generous donation of seed treatment product.
Colorado State University is very grateful to the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee for printing this report.
**Mention of a trademark proprietary product does not constitute endorsement by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.
**Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and complies with all Federal and Colorado State laws, regulations, and executive orders regarding affirmative action requirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity is located in 101 Student Services. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women, and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and to so identify themselves.
Find us on Twitter: @csucrops
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences1170 Campus DeliveryFort Collins, CO 80523-1170