August 2004 newsletter

Performance trial results help Colorado wheat producers make better variety decisions.

Colorado State University, with the support and cooperation of the Colorado wheat industry, conducts annual dryland (UVPT) and irrigated (IVPT) variety performance trials to obtain unbiased and reliable information for Colorado wheat producers to make better wheat variety decisions. Good variety decisions can return millions of dollars to Colorado wheat producers.

Dryland planting conditions in fall of 2003 were generally poor due to dry soil conditions. These conditions led to extremely narrow planting windows at most locations to plant and obtain good stands. Inadequate fall and winter precipitation was followed by a dry spring (with the exception of some timely rains in AUGUST) and moderate drought stress conditions at many locations. The spring drought was aggravated by very short sub-soil moisture conditions. Uneven and incomplete fall emergence was observed at Lamar, Cheyenne Wells, Genoa, and Orchard and led to these trials being abandoned (Genoa and Orchard) or yield data that were too variable to be useful for variety comparisons (Lamar and Cheyenne Wells). The trial at Walsh was lost to severe hail damage on the eve of harvest and the trial at Burlington was lost to spring drought and a severe spring freeze at flowering in mid-May. Rains beginning during the third week in June and continuing into early July provided very moderate temperatures during grain filling as well as leading to serious weed pressure in trials and production fields alike. The rain made it difficult to get into fields for harvest and led to reports of sprouting in both hard white and hard red varieties.

Russian wheat aphid pressure was high again this year, especially in east-central and southeastern Colorado. The new Russian wheat aphid biotype, denoted as “biotype B,” overcomes the resistance in all RWA-resistant varieties released to date. This new biotype was found throughout eastern Colorado in 2004 in conjunction with the original RWA biotype (denoted as “biotype A”). Recent findings suggesting that additional biotypes may be present in Colorado and other areas of the Great Plains could present formidable challenges to our entomology and wheat breeding programs. Wheat steak mosaic virus and high plains disease were not problematic in 2004 while barley yellow dwarf virus, due to high greenbug infestation levels, was observed at the IVPT at Rocky Ford. Both leaf rust and stripe rust were identified in late-maturing wheat (due to poor stands) at some locations but infestations were generally very light and too late in the grain filling period to cause significant damage.

The following summary tables of results are designed to disseminate the essential information as quickly as possible to as many people as possible through the wheat industry, popular press, and DTN.


	Location										2004

	Akron		Bennett		Julesburg		Sheridan Lake		Yuma		Averages

		Test		Test		Test		Test		Test		% of Trial	Grain	Test	Plant
Variety¹	Yield	Wt	Yield	Wt	Yield	Wt	Yield	Wt	Yield	Wt	Yield	Average	Moisture	Wt	Ht

	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	%	%	lb/bu	in
Jagalene	69.6	60.2	51.4	56.6	53.7	59.7	50.4	57.4	45.3	56.3	54.1	114	11.2	58.0	25
Above	61.1	59.1	57.6	54.7	49.9	57.4	43.4	55.8	45.0	56.2	51.4	108	11.1	56.6	23
Harry	66.9	57.4	52.3	55.6	46.7	54.6	49.0	51.9	41.3	51.8	51.2	108	9.9	54.3	25
Goodstreak	68.2	59.8	54.5	57.0	50.7	59.4	42.6	58.1	39.1	56.1	51.0	108	11.2	58.1	29
Avalanche	57.9	60.2	56.0	57.8	44.0	58.9	50.7	58.0	44.5	56.2	50.6	107	11.3	58.2	25
Stanton	57.8	59.6	57.2	58.3	51.3	58.3	41.6	57.6	44.1	55.7	50.4	106	11.5	57.9	24
TAM 111	64.9	59.7	52.4	58.4	46.1	56.9	46.9	57.6	40.9	55.9	50.2	106	11.3	57.7	26
W99-194	61.5	57.8	55.5	56.5	47.2	57.2	42.6	57.7	39.1	55.5	49.2	104	11.4	57.0	26
Wahoo	59.2	57.4	53.9	57.5	47.1	56.9	47.4	55.3	37.7	54.7	49.1	103	11.1	56.4	25
Lakin	67.1	59.2	54.0	58.3	47.9	57.3	41.4	57.8	34.9	57.1	49.0	103	11.6	57.9	24
Yumar	66.5	59.6	57.6	56.1	48.3	58.5	40.0	56.6	31.0	55.1	48.7	103	11.1	57.2	25
AP502 CL	55.3	57.2	52.4	55.4	50.0	56.7	46.0	55.9	39.4	54.8	48.6	103	10.7	56.0	24
Yuma	66.8	58.3	54.6	54.9	50.4	57.1	38.6	57.1	31.6	54.7	48.4	102	10.9	56.4	24
Ankor	54.2	59.0	56.3	58.7	43.9	57.0	48.2	56.5	38.8	56.1	48.3	102	11.2	57.5	23
NuHills	56.4	61.2	50.4	54.6	46.4	58.2	44.0	56.3	43.2	54.6	48.1	101	11.1	57.0	24
Prairie Red	55.5	59.7	53.5	57.4	45.0	57.6	43.5	56.1	42.6	54.8	48.0	101	11.2	57.1	22
Trego	60.7	61.7	54.1	59.7	37.5	59.8	48.8	58.9	37.3	56.3	47.7	101	11.8	59.3	23
NuFrontier	68.1	60.2	51.3	57.5	40.3	57.2	39.1	57.1	37.9	55.4	47.3	100	11.3	57.5	25
Jagger	52.5	59.1	48.0	56.8	56.1	56.6	38.5	56.1	41.5	54.1	47.3	100	10.6	56.6	23
Akron	52.1	59.1	55.0	56.7	43.6	57.4	40.5	56.6	42.4	55.8	46.7	99	11.2	57.1	23
Alliance	64.0	57.7	55.8	54.9	49.1	56.6	35.9	57.1	26.9	55.0	46.4	98	11.1	56.3	24
T81	51.3	60.0	50.8	56.2	46.5	58.2	43.7	57.5	35.2	55.3	45.5	96	11.6	57.5	23
Overley	42.9	60.1	50.6	56.2	54.4	57.6	41.1	55.6	36.7	55.9	45.1	95	10.9	57.1	25
Millenium	62.6	59.2	47.8	59.3	49.8	57.8	32.9	55.1	32.4	55.7	45.1	95	11.4	57.4	28
NuHorizon	51.2	60.3	49.8	58.6	39.2	57.6	44.0	57.6	34.3	56.0	43.7	92	11.3	58.0	22
Thunderbolt	55.7	61.1	48.0	58.0	46.7	58.1	34.2	59.5	30.3	57.2	43.0	91	11.5	58.8	25
Prowers 99	54.4	60.0	49.7	59.6	44.2	57.5	26.8	57.3	35.8	55.0	42.2	89	11.8	57.9	27
Halt	50.3	58.7	52.2	57.2	49.3	56.2	32.4	57.3	25.6	54.4	41.9	88	10.9	56.8	22
Arrowsmith	43.4	58.9	42.3	58.8	49.7	59.4	36.0	56.2	35.2	56.2	41.3	87	11.9	57.9	27
Antelope	47.4	58.9	51.6	57.2	45.2	57.6	32.2	55.6	28.5	53.9	41.0	87	11.1	56.6	24
Average	58.2	59.3	52.6	57.2	47.3	57.7	41.4	56.8	37.3	55.4	47.4	100	11.2	57.3	24
CV %	10.0		7.3		10.8		13.2		13.7
LSD_(0.30)	5.0		3.3		4.5		4.5		4.3

¹Varieties in table ranked by the average yield over four locations in 2004.

Colorado winter wheat 3-Yr and 2-Yr Uniform Variety Performance Trial summary.


	Averages

Variety¹	3-Yr	2-Yr	2004	2003	2002	3-Yr	2-Yr
	--------------Yield (bu/ac)--------------					--Twt (lb/bu)--

Above	48.4	52.2⁽¹⁾	51.4	52.8	34.5	58.2	57.9
TAM 111	48.0	51.6⁽²⁾	50.2	52.6	35.0	59.1	59.1
Trego	47.0	50.5⁽⁵⁾	47.7	52.9	34.3	60.2	60.2
Jagalene	46.9	50.0	54.1	46.6	35.7	59.4	59.2
Ankor	46.7	50.2	48.3	51.8	33.7	58.2	58.3
Avalanche	46.5	50.5⁽⁴⁾	50.6	50.4	31.6	59.7	59.5
Yuma	46.4	50.9⁽³⁾	48.4	53.0	30.0	58.2	58.0
Stanton	46.2	49.8	50.4	49.4	32.6	59.1	59.0
Prairie Red	46.1	49.2	48.0	50.2	34.6	58.2	58.1
Yumar	45.6	49.6	48.7	50.3	30.8	58.6	58.6
AP502 CL	45.3	48.8	48.6	48.9	32.7	57.7	57.6
Lakin	45.3	48.4	49.0	47.8	33.9	58.8	58.6
Alliance	45.2	48.6	46.4	50.5	32.5	58.2	58.0
Akron	45.1	48.3	46.7	49.6	33.2	58.2	58.2
Jagger	43.4	46.6	47.3	46.0	31.7	58.2	58.0
Halt	42.4	44.5	41.9	46.7	34.7	58.0	57.8
Prowers 99	41.3	43.9	42.2	45.4	31.8	59.4	59.4
Thunderbolt	38.9	41.1	43.0	39.6	30.8	59.7	59.7

¹Varieties in table ranked based on 3-Yr average yields. ^1……5Varieties rank based on 2-Yr average yields.

Colorado winter wheat Irrigated Variety Performance Trial summary for 2004.


	Location				2004

	Haxtun		Rocky Ford		Averages

		Test		Test		% of Trial	Grain	Test	Plant
Variety¹	Yield	Weight	Yield	Weight	Yield	Average	Moisture	Weight	Height

	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	lb/bu	bu/ac	%	%	lb/bu	inches
Yuma	133.5	57.5	95.8	55.9	114.6	112	11.9	56.7	34
Ankor	120.6	59.4	97.3	53.9	108.9	106	11.6	56.6	38
Prairie Red	109.1	56.9	106.0	55.2	107.6	105	11.1	56.1	34
Ok102	112.3	59.3	99.9	57.7	106.1	103	12.3	58.5	35
NuHills	103.8	58.4	102.1	55.5	102.9	100	11.6	56.9	34
Overley	119.7	58.3	85.6	56.8	102.7	100	11.7	57.5	39
NuFrontier	111.7	56.2	92.2	57.4	101.9	99	11.9	56.8	38
Dumas	113.8	58.2	88.2	58.0	101.0	98	11.7	58.1	35
Jagalene	119.9	59.0	81.5	57.0	100.7	98	12.2	58.0	37
Antelope	121.5	57.0	79.6	54.8	100.6	98	11.2	55.9	36
Nuplains	110.6	58.6	89.1	57.0	99.9	97	12.5	57.8	37
NuHorizon	121.6	60.3	77.4	56.4	99.5	97	12.4	58.3	35
Wesley	113.8	58.9	83.3	54.2	98.6	96	11.2	56.5	33
Platte	107.8	61.0	77.2	53.2	92.5	90	12.0	57.1	33
Average	115.7	58.5	89.7	55.9	102.7	100	11.8	57.2	36
CV %	6.1		8.9
LSD_(0.30)	6.1		6.8

¹Varieties in table ranked by the average yield over two locations in 2004.

Colorado winter wheat 3-Yr and 2-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Trial summary.


	Averages

Variety	3-Yr	2-Yr		2004	2003	2002	3-Yr	2-Yr

	--------------------Yield (bu/ac)--------------------						-----Twt (lb/bu)-----
Yuma	105.1	110.1	⁽¹⁾	114.6	107.1	92.6	57.8	57.9
Jagalene	104.5	109.4	⁽²⁾	100.7	115.1	92.5	59.0	58.7
Prairie Red	104.4	108.1	⁽³⁾	107.6	108.5	94.9	57.1	56.6
Wesley	100.1	103.7	⁽⁴⁾	98.6	107.1	91.0	58.2	57.8
Antelope	97.0	101.1	⁽⁵⁾	100.6	101.5	86.9	58.0	57.6
Ankor	96.9	100.1		108.9	94.3	88.8	56.7	57.0
Platte	96.2	96.3		92.5	98.8	95.8	57.8	56.8
Dumas	95.9	100.6		101.0	100.3	84.3	59.1	58.3
Nuplains	88.8	88.5		99.9	81.0	89.5	58.5	57.9
Ok102	----	100.2		106.1	96.2	----	----	58.1

¹Varieties in table ranked based on 3-Yr average yields.

Jerry Johnson and Scott Haley
Extension Crop Production Specialist and Wheat Breeder
Colorado State University


FROM THE GROUND UP agronomy news is a monthly publication of Cooperative Extension, Department of Soil & Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Web Site: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/SoilCrop/extension/Newsletters/news.html The information in this newsletter is not copyrighted and may be distributed freely. Please give the original author the appropriate credit for their work.

Troy Bauder, Raj Khosla, and Reagan Waskom Technical Editors Direct questions and comments to: Deborah Fields Phone: 970- 491-6201 Fax: 970-491-2758 e-mail: dfields@lamar.colostate.edu		Extension staff members are:
		Troy Bauder, Water Quality Mark Brick, Bean Production Joe Brummer, Forages Betsy Buffington, Pesticide Pat Byrne, Biotechnology Jessica Davis, Soils Brad Erker, Seed Certification	Jerry Johnson, Variety Testing Raj Khosla, Precision Farming Sandra McDonald, Pesticide Calvin Pearson, New Crops James Self, Soil, Water & Plant Testing Reagan Waskom, Water Resources

	Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Colorado counties cooperating. Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. The information given herein is supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by Colorado State University Cooperative Extension is implied.