2011 Colorado Winter Wheat

AgriculturalExperiment Station

Department of Soil & Crop Sciences

Wheat Field DaysJune2011

Making Better Decisions2011 Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance Trials

2

Authors......................................................................................................................32010 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance Trials............................4Summary of 2010 Dryland Variety Performance Results.........................................6Summary of 2-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results............................................7Summary of 3-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results............................................82010 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Results......................................................92010 Collaborative On-Farm Tests (COFT) Variety Performance Results................10Summary of 2010 Irrigated Variety Performance Results.......................................11Summary of 2-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results.........................................12Summary of 3-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results........................................13Winter Wheat Variety Selection in Colorado for Fall 2010.....................................142010 Wheat Crop Climatic Conditions and Specific Trial Comments......................17Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado Trials..........................20Wheat Quality Evaluations -2010 CSU Dryland and Irrigated Trials.........................24Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Akron.............................................27Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Fort Collins.....................................28Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Haxtun...........................................29Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Walsh.............................................30Grain Protein Content from 2010 Burlington and Orchard UVPT Samples......31Wheat Stem Sawfly: A New Pest of Colorado Wheat.............................................32Dryland Wheat Strips for Forage and Grain Yield at Walsh, 2010...........................352010 Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance..............................................362008-2010 Summary of Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance..............37The Future of Certified Wheat Seed in Colorado....................................................38Clearfield* Two-Gene Wheat Being Tested for Feral Rye Control.............................40CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program Update June 2011............................41Collaborative On- Farm Testing (COFT) .....................................................................46CWRF/ConAgra Mills Ultragrain Premium Program.................................................48Wheat Information Resources................................................................................50Acknowledgments...................................................................................................51

Table of Contents

3

Authors

Dr. Jerry Johnson - Associate Professor/Extension Specialist - Crop Production, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C12 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-1454, fax: 970-491-2758, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Scott Haley - Professor/Wheat Breeder, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C136 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-6483, fax: 970-491-0564, e-mail: [email protected].

Mike Bartolo - Superintendent/Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Arkansas Valley Re-search Center, 27901 Road 21, Rocky Ford, CO 81067, phone: 719-254-6312, fax: 719-254-6312, e-mail: [email protected].

Kevin Larson - Superintendent/Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Plainsman Re-search Center, P.O. Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Bruce Bosley - Extension Agent, Morgan/Logan County, 508 South 10th Ave, Suite 1, Sterling, CO 80751-3408, phone: 970-522-3200, fax: 970-522-7856, e-mail: [email protected].

Brad Erker - Director, Colroado Seed Growers Association, Colorado State University, C 143 Plant Sciences Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-6202, e-mail: [email protected]. Deborah Harn - Research Associate, Plainsman Research Center, PO Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Frank Peairs - Professor, Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State Univer-sity, 102 Insectary, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5945, e-mail: [email protected].

John Stromberger - Sr. Research Associate, Department of Soil & Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, 1170 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-2664.

Calvin Thompson - Plainsman Research Center, PO Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Dennis Thompson - Research Farm Tech, Plainsman Research Center, PO Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Philip Westra - Professor, Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State Univer-sity, 112 Weed Research Lab, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5219, e-mail: [email protected].

4

2010 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance TrialsJerry Johnson and Scott Haley

Colorado State University provides unbiased and reliable information to Colorado wheat producers to help them make better wheat variety decisions. It provides excellent research faculty and staff, a focused breeding program, graduate and undergraduate students, and dedicated agricultural extension specialists. However, wheat improvement in Colorado would not be possible without the support and cooperation of the entire Colorado wheat industry. On-going and strong support for a public breeding program is critical because variety development and testing is a long process, especially under the highly variable climatic conditions in Colorado.

There is an increasing investment in wheat breeding by private seed companies in the Great Plains. WestBred has become a unit of Monsanto and AgriPro COKER has become part of Syngenta. Limagrain is poised to begin winter wheat breeding in Fort Collins this fall. More traits and adapted varieties or hybrids should be available to Colorado producers in the future.

Our wheat variety performance trials and collaborative on-farm testing represent the final stages of a wheat breeding program where promising experimental lines are tested under an increasingly broad range of environmental conditions. Variation in precipitation, as well as variable fall, winter, and spring temperature regimes, hail and spring freeze events, interact with disease and insect pests and variety maturity to affect wheat yields. As a consequence of large environmental variation, Colorado State University annually conducts a large number of performance trials, which serve to guide producer variety decisions and to assist our breeding program to more reliably select and advance the most promising lines toward release as new varieties.

2010 Trials

Dryland trials were planted in Lamar, Sheridan Lake, and Arapahoe in early September; in Burlington and Orchard in mid-September; and in Julesburg, Yuma, Akron, and Walsh in late September (due to unseasonably wet conditions in mid-September at the Northeast Colorado locations). Variety trial emergence was good across locations although cool, dry conditions in the fall led to slow growth and small plants going into winter. Moist spring conditions in most locations ensured good plant growth as well as creating good conditions for the spread of stripe rust. Rust, high temperatures and strong winds stripped the leaves from wheat plants prematurely at Walsh, Lamar, and Sheridan Lake. Even so, yields were above average at these locations. Two trials, at Genoa and Roggen, were lost to hail in June. A new race of stripe rust developed in the southern states and spread to Colorado in 2010. Many varieties previously resistant to stripe rust are now fully susceptible to the new race. Stripe rust infected all trials to different degrees and at different times. Seemingly, the late-planted locations at Julesburg, Yuma, and Akron were most affected by a late-season stripe rust infection following an especially wet period. Russian wheat aphid was not a problem in 2010.

5

The Irrigated Variety Performance Trials (IVPT) at Fort Collins and Rocky Ford were planted in mid-September while wet mid-September conditions made it impossible to plant at Haxtun until late September. The trial at Rocky Ford suffered from a severe infection of powdery mildew and lodging resulting from lush fall and spring growth which led to low irrigated wheat yields. In spite of late planting, yields of some varieties at Haxtun still surpassed 100 bu/ac. The yields at Fort Collins were very good even though the trial may have benefitted from more spring and summer irrigation. Stripe rust was most serious at Fort Collins and less so at Haxtun (due to fungicide application).

There were 40 different entries in the dryland performance trials (UVPT) and 32 entries in the irrigated performance trials (IVPT). All trials included a combination of public and private varieties and experimental lines from Colorado and surrounding states. All dryland and irrigated trials were planted in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Plot size was approximately 180 ft2 and all varieties were planted at 700,000 viable seeds per acre for dryland trials and 1.3 million viable seeds per acre for irrigated trials. Yields are corrected to 12% moisture. Test weight information was obtained from a combine equipped with a Harvest Master measuring system.

6

Summary of 2010 Dryland Variety Performance Results

Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yieldd Test Weight Heightbu/ac lb/bu in

CSU exp CO06424 HRW 65.9 60.2 30CSU exp CO050322 HRW 63.8 60.5 29CSU exp CO050303‐2 HRW 63.6 62.0 32CSU exp CO050173 HRW 63.5 62.4 30CSU exp CO050337‐2 HRW 62.7 60.8 31CSU exp CO050233‐2 HRW 62.5 60.5 30CSU exp CO050270 HRW 61.7 59.9 29CSU exp CO05W111 HWW 61.5 61.6 31NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 61.1 60.6 29WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 60.5 61.8 30CSU exp CO05W194 HWW 60.1 60.2 29TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 59.2 61.3 31CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 59.2 60.7 30CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 59.0 59.2 29CSU exp CO050175‐1 HRW 59.0 62.0 31CSU exp CSU Blend09 HRW 59.0 60.1 29CSU 2010 Snowmass HWW 59.0 61.1 31CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 58.8 60.9 30NE 2004 Infinity CL HRW 58.4 61.0 32CSU exp CO04393 HRW 58.3 60.3 30CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 58.3 58.7 31WB 2008 Armour HRW 58.3 59.7 27CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 58.0 59.8 29CSU exp CO06052 HRW 58.0 61.3 30NE 2008 Camelot HRW 57.7 60.8 32CSU‐TX 2001 Above HRW 57.6 60.1 30AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 57.4 61.4 30TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 57.4 60.7 30KSU 2005 Danby HWW 57.2 62.5 30KSU 2009 Everest HRW 57.1 61.5 29CSU/AG 2004 Protection HRW 56.7 58.7 32CSU exp CO04499 HRW 56.6 60.8 32WB 2005 Keota HRW 56.4 61.5 31AP 2006 Hawken HRW 56.1 60.6 28OK 2006 Duster HRW 55.5 60.8 30CSU 1998 Prairie Red HRW 55.4 59.2 29WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 55.3 60.4 29WB 2010 Stout HRW 55.1 58.7 30KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 54.9 60.5 30KSU 1994 Jagger HRW 53.8 60.5 30

Average 58.7 60.6 30

aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; CSU‐TX=Colorado State University/Texas A&M University; CSU/AG=CSU release, marketed by AGSECO; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University.bVarieties ranked according to average yield in 2010cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheatd2010 average yield and test weight are based on nine 2010 trials.

7

Summary of 2-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results

Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yield Test Weightbu/ac lb/bu

NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 58.9 60.2CSU exp CO04393 HRW 58.8 60.5CSU exp CSU Blend09 HRW 58.7 59.8CSU 2010 Snowmass HWW 58.3 60.9TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 58.2 61.3CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 58.1 59.4CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 58.1 58.8WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 58.0 61.4CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 57.6 60.7CSU exp CO04499 HRW 57.6 60.8CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 57.4 60.4CSU‐TX 2001 Above HRW 57.3 60.0TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 57.2 61.2NE 2004 Infinity CL HRW 56.8 60.3KSU 2005 Danby HWW 56.0 61.6NE 2008 Camelot HRW 55.9 60.3CSU 1998 Prairie Red HRW 55.8 59.4AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 55.8 60.8WB 2008 Armour HRW 55.8 59.3CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 55.8 59.7OK 2006 Duster HRW 55.8 60.3WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 55.2 60.2AP 2006 Hawken HRW 54.7 60.3WB 2005 Keota HRW 54.3 60.1KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 53.5 59.7KSU 1994 Jagger HRW 52.4 60.1

Average 56.6 60.3

aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; CSU‐TX=Colorado State University/Texas A&M University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University.bVarieties ranked according to average 2‐yr yieldcMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheatd2‐yr average yield and test weight are based on nine 2010 trials and ten 2009 trials.

2‐Yr Averaged

8

Summary of 3-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results

Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yield Test Weightbu/ac lb/bu

NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 56.5 60.3CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 55.9 59.5CSU 2010 Snowmass HWW 55.8 60.8WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 55.1 61.5CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 54.8 60.8TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 54.6 61.2CSU‐TX 2001 Above HRW 54.5 60.0CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 54.4 60.7CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 54.4 59.3TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 54.2 61.0NE 2004 Infinity CL HRW 53.8 60.4NE 2008 Camelot HRW 53.0 60.5OK 2006 Duster HRW 52.8 60.4CSU 1998 Prairie Red HRW 52.7 59.7WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 52.7 60.6KSU 2005 Danby HWW 52.4 61.8AP 2006 Hawken HRW 52.3 60.6CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 51.8 60.0WB 2005 Keota HRW 51.5 60.0KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 51.1 60.1KSU 1994 Jagger HRW 50.0 60.0

Average 53.5 60.4

aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; CSU‐TX=Colorado State University/Texas A&M University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University.bVarieties ranked according to average 3‐yr yieldcMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheatd3‐yr average yield and test weight are based on nine 2010 trials, ten 2009 trials, and six 2008 trials.

3‐Yr Averaged

9

2010 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Results

Much of Colorado’s 2010 wheat acreage was planted to winter wheat varieties that have been tested in the COFT program which is in its 12th year of operation. In the fall of 2009, twenty-one eastern Colorado wheat producers planted COFT trials in Baca, Prowers, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Washington, Yuma, Phillips, Logan, Adams, and Weld counties. Each collaborator planted five varieties in side-by-side strips (approximately 1.25 acres per variety) at the same time and at the same seeding rate as they seeded their own wheat. Viable harvest results were obtained from 19 of the 21 tests; failed tests were lost to severe hail damage.

The objective of the 2010 COFT was to compare performance and adaptability of popular and newly-released CSU varieties (Snowmass, Ripper, and Bill Brown), and promising commercial varieties from WestBred (Winterhawk) and Watley Seed (TAM 112) under unbiased testing conditions. The COFT trial results are intended to be interpreted based on the average across all tests within a year and not on the basis of a single variety comparison on a single farm in one year. Interpreted as an average of 19 test results, the 2010 COFT results can be a powerful complement to our other trial results for helping farmers make better variety decisions.

Eastern Colorado Extension Wheat Educators

Bruce Bosley - Extension Agronomist, Logan County, 508 South 10th Avenue, Suite 1, Sterling, CO 80751-3408, phone: 970-522-3200, fax: 970-522-7856, e-mail: [email protected].

Wilma Trujillo – Extension Agronomist, Prowers County, 1001 South Main, Maxwell Annex Building, Lamar, CO 81052, phone: 719-336-7734, fax: 719-336-2985, e-mail: [email protected].

Alan Helm - Extension Agronomist, Phillips County, 127 E. Denver, PO Box 328, Holyoke, CO 80734-0328, phone: 970-854-3616, fax: 970-854-4347, e-mail: [email protected]

Ron Meyer – Extension Agronomist, Golden Plains. 251 16th Street, Suite 101, Burlington, CO 80807-1674, phone: (719) 346-5571, fax: (719) 346-5660, e-mail: [email protected].

10

2010

Col

labo

rativ

e O

n-Fa

rm Te

sts (

COFT

) Var

iety

Per

form

ance

Res

ults

Coun

ty/Tow

nYield

Test W

tProtein

Yield

Test W

tProtein

Yield

Test W

tProtein

Yield

Test W

tProtein

Yield

Test W

tProtein

Yield

Test W

tProtein

bu/ac2

lb/bu

%bu

/ac2

lb/bu

%bu

/ac2

lb/bu

%bu

/ac2

lb/bu

%bu

/ac2

lb/bu

%bu

/ac2

lb/bu

%Ad

ams/Be

nnett

47.2

61.0

11.2

46.0

60.0

11.8

40.6

60.0

12.7

47.6

62.5

12.1

48.3

60.0

11.4

45.9

60.7

11.8

Baca/Two Bu

ttes

49.9

63.0

9.5

49.3

63.5

9.8

52.3

63.0

9.5

43.0

63.0

10.2

49.7

61.5

9.3

48.8

62.8

9.7

Baca/Vilas

52.7

63.0

9.0

50.5

63.6

9.8

48.0

64.0

9.9

45.6

63.5

10.1

53.1

61.5

10.0

50. 0

63.1

9.7

Baca/W

alsh

45.5

61.0

‐46

.161

.0‐

44.3

60.0

‐45

.562

.0‐

44.5

58.0

‐45

.260

.4‐

Bent/Lam

ar44

.163

.013

.239

.062

.014

.338

.561

.013

.536

.063

.014

.241

.660

.015

.039

.861

.814

.0Ch

eyen

ne/Arapaho

e55

.158

.012

.556

.158

.513

.054

.860

.012

.650

.860

.511

.548

.457

.012

.753

.058

.812

.4Kiow

a/Ha

swell

51.9

56.3

13.2

52.6

58.8

12.7

45.5

56.5

13.4

46.9

56.7

12.3

48.0

55.6

13.7

49. 0

56.8

13.1

Kit C

arson/Be

thun

e61

.060

.5‐

51.9

60.3

‐49

.661

.3‐

51.1

58.8

‐45

.158

.2‐

51. 7

59.8

‐Logan/Leroy

64.8

62.0

10.3

67.7

61.5

10.6

63.2

61.0

11.3

70.0

60.5

10.9

60.6

57.0

11.9

65.3

60.4

11.0

Logan/Pe

etz

50.1

60.0

9.7

51.5

60.5

9.6

47.7

61.0

9.3

48.8

60.0

9.5

42.8

58.0

10.2

48.2

59.9

9.7

Logan/Sterling

61.2

58.5

11.3

59.2

57.0

11.6

61.5

58.5

11.7

58.9

60.0

11.5

50.5

55.0

12.3

58.3

57.8

11.7

Phillips/Ha

xtun

73.6

61.5

10.7

82.8

61.3

9.6

81.8

60.3

11.0

68.9

58.1

10.7

78.9

60.2

10.2

77.2

60.3

10.5

Phillips/Ha

xtun

E54

.457

.511

.154

.856

.511

.562

.758

.211

.458

.357

.49.4

50.0

53.6

11.4

56.0

56.6

11.0

Prow

ers/Lamar

70.3

60.0

14.3

66.8

63.0

14.5

72.0

61.0

13.6

49.9

62.0

13.8

65.0

60.0

14.8

64.8

61.2

14.2

Washington/Ak

ron

59.6

59.0

11.4

59.0

58.0

11.5

57.6

58.5

11.8

58.3

60.0

11.3

53.9

57.0

11.7

57. 7

58.5

11.5

Washington/Woo

dlin

45.1

55.0

11.7

39.0

60.0

10.8

44.5

60.0

10.7

44.0

62.5

10.7

44.6

56.5

11.3

43.4

58.8

11.0

Washington/Woo

drow

65.5

63.0

11.5

58.2

62.0

11.2

64.0

60.0

11.3

65.2

62.5

11.6

59.1

57.5

10.9

62.4

61. 0

11.3

Weld/New

Raymer

53.7

63.0

10.6

52.0

62.0

11.3

54.5

61.5

11.3

47.9

62.0

11.9

52.9

61.0

10.9

52.2

61.9

11.2

Yuma/Yuma

57.5

57.2

11.5

61.3

57.2

11.9

56.8

56.4

11.8

60.5

59.4

11.7

53.0

55.0

12.3

57.8

57.0

11.8

Average

56.0

60.1

11.3

54.9

60.4

11.5

54.7

60.1

11.6

52.5

60.8

11.4

52.1

58.0

11.8

54. 0

59.9

11.5

Significance3 Yield

aa

ab

bSignificance3 Test W

tb

bb

ac

Significance3 Protein

cbc

bc

aLSD

(0.30) fo

r yield

= 1.3 bu/ac LSD

(0.30) fo

r test w

eight =

0.4 lb/bu LSD

(0.30) fo

r protein = 0.2%

1 Varietie

s are ra

nked

left to

right a

ccording

to average yield in

201

02 Yield corrected

to 12%

moisture

3 Significance: V

arietie

s with

differen

t letters are significantly differen

t from one

ano

ther based

on the LSD values (1

.3 bu/ac fo

r yield, 0.4 lb/bu for test w

eight, and 0.2%

for protein)

COFT Average

2010

Collabo

rativ

e On‐Farm

Tests (C

OFT) V

ariety Perform

ance Results

Winterhaw

kRipp

erBill Brow

n20

10 Varietie

s1

Snow

mass

TAM 112

11

Summary of 2010 Irrigated Variety Performance ResultsOrigina and Release Year Varietyb

Market Classc Yieldd Test Weight Height

Heading Date at Ft. Collins

Stripe Rust at Ft. Collins

Lodging at Rocky Ford

bu/ac lb/bu in Days from trial avg. Scale 1‐9d Scale 1‐9e

CSU exp CO06424 HRW 92.4 61.8 37 0 4 7AP 2001 Jagalene HRW 91.3 61.0 38 1 9 7NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 89.3 60.7 36 1 3 3CSU exp CO050175‐1 HRW 89.0 62.1 38 1 4 7WB 2006 Aspen HWW 89.0 60.2 32 ‐1 1 1CSU exp CO06052 HRW 88.5 62.4 35 ‐3 4 1CSU exp CO050303‐2 HRW 88.2 61.7 37 2 1 2CSU exp CO04393 HRW 88.0 61.8 37 0 2 2CSU exp CO050233‐2 HRW 88.0 60.3 36 1 1 1WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 87.9 61.0 36 0 1 4WB 2008 Armour HRW 86.9 60.7 32 ‐3 1 6CSU exp CO050322 HRW 86.8 59.9 36 2 1 7CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 86.4 60.4 37 ‐1 7 1CSU exp CO050337‐2 HRW 86.4 61.2 37 3 1 8WB 2010 Stout HRW 85.7 59.4 36 ‐1 8 2CSU exp CO05W194 HWW 85.5 61.0 33 0 5 1WB 2005 Keota HRW 85.5 61.4 36 0 6 3TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 85.3 60.4 38 1 1 7CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 85.1 60.1 35 ‐1 2 2OK 2006 Duster HRW 84.5 60.9 36 0 4 5OK 2009 Billings HRW 84.2 61.8 36 1 3 5CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 83.5 59.2 34 ‐1 8 6AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 82.7 60.3 35 ‐1 5 3WB 2008 Hitch HRW 82.4 59.4 32 1 8 1KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 82.2 60.6 35 ‐2 7 7CSU 1991 Yuma HRW 81.8 60.1 33 0 5 3CSU exp CO05W111 HWW 81.8 61.1 37 3 2 3CSU exp CO050270 HRW 81.7 60.3 35 ‐3 2 7WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 81.2 60.2 36 1 8 6CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 80.1 60.6 35 0 2 4TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 78.8 62.4 35 ‐1 7 7CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 75.4 60.0 34 0 4 7

Average 85.2 60.8 36 6/2/2010 4 4

aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University.bVarieties ranked according to average yield in 2010cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheatd2010 average yield and test weight based on three 2010 trials.eStripe rust rating: 1‐no rust, 9‐severe rustfLodging rating: 1‐no lodging, 9‐fully lodged

12

Summary of 2-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results

Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yield Test Weight Height

Heading Date at Ft. Collins Lodging

bu/ac lb/bu in Days from trial avg. Scale 1‐9e

NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 91.9 60.4 36 1 2WB 2006 Aspen HWW 90.5 58.5 33 ‐1 1CSU exp CO04393 HRW 90.0 60.6 37 0 3AP 2001 Jagalene HRW 89.3 60.1 37 0 4TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 88.9 60.0 37 1 4WB 2008 Armour HRW 87.4 59.3 32 ‐2 4CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 86.6 59.3 37 0 3CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 86.5 58.9 35 0 2CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 85.8 57.9 35 ‐1 5WB 2008 Hitch HRW 84.1 58.8 33 1 1WB 2005 Keota HRW 83.9 59.7 37 0 3AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 81.1 59.1 35 0 2TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 80.9 61.3 36 ‐1 6KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 80.1 58.9 35 ‐1 4CSU 1991 Yuma HRW 78.8 58.6 34 1 3CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 78.2 59.3 34 0 5CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 78.1 59.2 35 0 5

Average 84.8 59.4 35 0 3

aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University.bVarieties ranked according to average 2‐yr yieldcMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheatd2‐yr average yield and test weight are based on three 2010 trials and three 2009 trials.eLodging rating: 1‐no lodging, 9‐fully lodged

2‐Yr Averaged

13

Summary of 3-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results

Origina and Release Year Varietyb

Market Classc Yield Test Weight Height

Heading Date at Ft. Collins Lodging

bu/ac lb/bu in Days from trial avg. Scale 1‐9e

CSU exp CO04393 HRW 91.8 60.8 36 0 4AP 2001 Jagalene HRW 91.2 60.5 35 1 5TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 89.6 60.4 35 1 5CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 88.7 59.0 35 ‐1 4WB 2006 Aspen HWW 87.8 58.4 31 ‐1 3CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 86.5 58.9 35 ‐1 2WB 2005 Keota HRW 86.4 59.9 35 1 4CSU 1991 Yuma HRW 83.1 59.2 33 1 4CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 82.5 59.7 33 1 6TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 81.4 61.6 34 ‐2 7CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 81.1 59.6 32 0 6

Average 86.4 59.8 34 0 4

aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.bVarieties ranked according to average 3‐yr yieldcMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheatd3‐yr average yield and test weight are based on three trials in 2008, 2009, and 2010.eLodging rating: 1‐no lodging, 9‐fully lodged

3‐Yr Averaged

14

Winter Wheat Variety Selection in Colorado for Fall 2010

Variety performance summary tables from CSU are intended to provide reliable and unbiased information to farmers, seed producers, and wheat industry representatives in Colorado and surrounding states. Although we have yet to find the perfect variety, this section of the report is designed to provide guidance to farmers so they can weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different varieties and choose the variety that best fits their farm conditions.

• Producers should focus on multiple-year summary yield results when selecting a new variety. Over time, the best buffer against making poor variety decisions has been to select varieties based on their three year average performance and not on their performance in a single year, especially not to select a variety based upon performance at a single location in one year.

• Producers should consider planting more than one variety based on different maturity, disease or insect resistance, test weight, lodging, herbicide tolerance, coleoptile length, height, or end-use quality characteristics. These non-yield traits are useful to spread your risk due to the unpredictability of climatic conditions and pest problems.

• Producers should be aware that a new race of stripe rust emerged in 2010 and varieties that were resistant before are now susceptible. (See variety descriptions for new stripe rust ratings).

• Producers should control volunteer wheat and weeds to avoid the negative effects of a green bridge that could lead to serious virus disease infections vectored by the wheat curl mite or aphids.

• Producers should soil sample to determine optimum fertilizer application rates. In the absence of soil sampling, grain protein levels should be monitored closely. If protein levels in a field fall below 12%, nitrogen fertilizer was likely insufficient to meet demands for yield and yield was lost (consult http://wheat.colostate.edu/00555.pdf).

Although many new varieties possessing valuable traits and with high potential are in the breeding and selection process, emphasis here is placed on variety yield performance over the past three years and the specific traits they possess.

Ten dryland wheat varieties to consider based on the order of relative performance for three years:

Settler CL – This 2008 Nebraska release is a HRW Clearfield* winter wheat that has performed well in three years of testing and has good test weight. It is later maturing, medium height, and is moderately resistant to leaf and stripe rust.

Ripper – An early maturing HRW 2006 CSU release that is high yielding, taller than Hatcher, excellent baking quality, and has a medium-long coleoptile. It has relatively lower test weight, and is susceptible to both leaf and stripe rust. Ripper has shown extremely stable yields, being in the top three of the three-year yield averages every year since 2005.

15

Snowmass – A HWW CSU released in 2009 is a medium maturing, taller semi-dwarf with excellent milling and baking quality. It has good resistance to wheat streak mosaic virus and stripe rust and moderate sprouting tolerance. Snowmass has relatively poor straw strength and will not be recommended for high-yield irrigated conditions. It is being handled in the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat (HWW).

Winterhawk – This 2007 WestBred release is medium maturing, medium-tall, and has a longer coleoptile with good stripe rust resistance. It has good test weight and good baking quality but is susceptible to both leaf and stem rust. It has been high yielding in our variety and COFT trials.

Bill Brown – A CSU HRW release (2007) that can be compared to Hatcher and Ripper: It is similar in maturity to Hatcher and later maturing than Ripper. Like Ripper, it is slightly taller than Hatcher. It has good resistance to stripe rust like Hatcher, which is much better than Ripper, and also very good resistance to leaf rust (unlike Hatcher and Ripper). It has superior test weight to Hatcher and other varieties, especially Ripper (low) and better baking quality than Hatcher but not quite as good as Ripper. Bill Brown is susceptible to stem rust, which is a much greater concern under irrigated conditions.

TAM 111 – A HRW 2002 release from Texas A&M and marketed by AgriPro has good test weight, good straw strength and excellent stripe rust resistance making it well adapted to irrigated conditions. TAM 111 also has good milling and baking characteristics, but is susceptible to leaf rust. TAM 111 performed below average in 2008 under drought conditions, but above average under higher dryland yield levels in 2009 and 2010. Above – This CSU Clearfield* HRW (2001) release and Ripper are the earliest maturing varieties in the 2010 trials. On a three-year average, Above is the second highest yielding Clearfield*variety. It has average test weight and is susceptible to leaf and stripe rust and has relatively poor baking quality.

Hatcher – This medium maturing, high yielding 2004 CSU HRW variety was planted on more Colorado wheat acres in fall 2009 than any other variety. It has good stress tolerance, good test weight and adult plant resistance to stripe rust. Hatcher is also relatively short and develops a “speckling” condition on the leaves in the spring in the absence of any apparent disease. Hatcher is stable and was in the top three of three year yield averages every year from 2003-2009. Hatcher remains a highly recommended HRW wheat variety based on yield record, stress tolerance, and resistance to stripe rust.

Bond CL – A medium maturing, taller 2004 HRW CSU release with high yields and good baking quality in addition to the Clearfield* trait. It has a lower test weight and is susceptible to stripe rust.

TAM 112 – A HRW 2005 release from Texas A&M and marketed by Watley Seed Company has good dryland adaptation and is distinguished by excellent wheat streak mosaic virus resistance

16

(or resistance to its vector, the wheat curl mite), a medium-long coleoptile, early maturity, and good test weight and baking quality. It is susceptible to leaf and stripe rust and has poor straw strength.

Four irrigated wheat varieties to consider based on the order of relative performance for three years:

The most important variety selection criteria for irrigated varieties are yield, straw strength, and stripe rust resistance.

Jagalene - An Agripro release (2001) with good test weight., and good wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance. It is leaf and stripe rust susceptible. Observed to shatter in CO and KS trials

TAM 111 – A HRW 2002 release from Texas A&M and marketed by AgriPro that is a high yielding irrigated variety with good straw strength, excellent resistance to stripe rust, and good test weight.

Bond CL – A medium maturing, taller HRW CSU release (2004) with high yields, average straw strength, but susceptible to stripe rust. It has lodged significantly in some high yielding irrigated trials. It has low test weight that is more manageable and less of a concern in irrigated conditions.

Thunder CL - A CSU 2008 hard white Clearfield* wheat release with excellent irrigated yield, good straw strength, and excellent baking quality. It has moderate resistance to stripe rust and wheat streak mosaic virus but is moderately susceptible to pre-harvest sprouting (intermediate to Platte and Trego). Thunder CL is being handled in the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat (HWW).

17

2010 Wheat Crop Climatic Conditions and Specific Trial Comments

After a high-yielding 2009 crop, there were sufficient rains throughout the state for planting into good soil moisture although heavy and prolonged rain in the northeast prevented farmers from planting until late September and early October. The fall of 2009 was windy and cool such that fall growth and tillering were retarded compared to other years with a warm fall. The winter of 2010 was windy with variable amounts of rain and snow. The crop came out of winter in decent shape with adequate soil moisture in most places . Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV) and Triticum mosaic virus were found alone or together in many places in eastern Colorado. Stripe rust infections were observed throughout the state - earlier in southeast Colorado and later in northeast Colorado. Deleterious effects of stripe rust were more obvious in northeast Colorado due to late plant development brought on by later dates of planting and cool fall conditions. In addition, the emergence of a new race of stripe rust rendered previously resistant varieties susceptible, which increased general vulnerability to yield loss due to stripe rust infection. Russian wheat aphid was not a factor in in the 2010 cropping season. 2010 was not free from hail incidence, especially along the central Front Range and Limon areas where it affected significant acreages. Overcast, cool, wet, and cloudy weather dominated the early harvest season in noretheast Colorado.

Specific comments on individual 2010 dryland and irrigated trials:

Dryland Locations

Walsh - Planted 9/21/2009 into clean-tilled summer fallow. GPS Coordinates: N 37 25.642 W 102 18.794. Satisfactory plant stands due to rain immediately following planting. Rain and snow from January through March. Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV) and Triticum mosaic virus were found together on isolated plants in the trial. Freeze damage was evident but may not have caused as much damage as first thought. Stripe rust was present by late May but not as heavy as other locations. Harvested 6/29/2010. Trial average yield = 53.1 bu/ac; test weight = 56.6.4 lb/bu.

Lamar - Planted 9/10/2009 into no-till wheat stubble ~ 500 feet west of the 2009 trial. GPS Coordinates: N 37 45.305 W 102 29.035. Satisfactory plant stands, some grasshopper damage. Dry winter and early spring conditions prevailed followed by late season drought and high temperatures. Plants defoliated by early June due to a combination of the effects of drought, high temperatures and a late-season stripe rust infection. Harvested 6/29/2010. Trial average yield = 46.3 bu/ac; test weight = 59.6 lb/bu.

Sheridan Lake - Planted 9/10/2010 into no-till sunflower stalks into satisfactory soil moisture for good stands with timely fall rains. GPS Coordinates: N 38 31.724 W 102 28.356. Good sub-soil moisture in early spring albeit dry surface conditions. Timely spring and early summer rains. Stripe rust infection was present but not severe. Harvested 6/30/2010. Trial average yield = 51.3 bu/ac; test weight = 63.5 lb/bu.

18

Arapahoe - Planted 9/11/2009 into good soil moisture conditions and good emergence. GPS Coordinates: N 38 52.353 W 7.705. WSMV present in the trial at very low levels. Good spring and early summer moisture but excessive rains delayed harvest until 7/11/2010. Stripe rust was heavier in the trial than the locations further to the south. Trial average yield = 61.5 bu/ac; test weight = 62.8 lb/bu.

Burlington - Planted 9/17/2009 into tilled ground with good soil moisture. GPS Coordinates: N 39 11.096 W 102 16.805. Excellent emergence and good growing conditions, including timely moisture throughout the year, although early July rain prevented harvest until 7/17/2010. Stripe rust detected late May and sprayed with a fungicide soon afterwards. Trial average yield = 79.9 bu/ac; test weight = 61.6 lb/bu.

Genoa – Trial lost to hail in June 2010.

Roggen – Trial lost to hail in June 2010.

Orchard - Planted 9/16/2009 into short millet stubble with good soil moisture conditions. GPS Coordinates: N 40 30.641 W 104 04.241. Good to very good growing conditions throughout the year with relatively heavy stripe rust by early June. Harvested 7/12/2010. Trial average yield = 67.4 bu/ac; test weight = 63.0 lb/bu.

Akron – Relatively late planting on 9/29/2009 into marginal soil moisture led to mediocre fall stands that tillered well in the spring and filled in the rows. GPS Coordinates: N 40 08.970 W 102 09.715. Some spots in the trial showed stress in late spring but trial uniformity was better than most years. Late planting led to late plant development and significant stripe rust infection during grain formation and filling. Harvested on 7/12/2010 after wet early July conditions. Trial average yield = 57.5 bu/ac; test weight = 59.5 lb/bu.

Yuma - Planted later than normal due to wet mid-September conditions on 9/30/2009 into clean-tilled summer fallow with good soil moisture. GPS Coordinates: N 40 16.400 W 102 39.684. Average stand establishment but late date of planting slowed down spring growth and plant development. Stripe rust visible by end of May but remained at relatively low levels. The average plant height in the trial was 28 inches, nearly 10 inches shorter than the 2009 trial when the trial yielded almost 80 bu/ac. Harvested 7/13/2010. Trial average yield = 50.7 bu/ac; test weight = 59.7 lb/bu.

Julesburg - Planted 9/29/2009 into no-till corn stubble and good moisture leading to good fall stands but small plants going into winter. Spring growth retarded due to small plant size resulting from late planting and cool fall and spring conditions. Stripe rust was relatively heavy by early June; both leaf rust and tan spot/Septoria were also present. Average plant height was approximately 7 inches shorter in 2010 than in 2009 when the average yield was over 80 bu/ac. Harvested 7/16/2010. Trial average yield = 60.9 bu/ac; test weight = 61.3 lb/bu.

19

Irrigated Locations

Haxtun - Planted 9/29/2009 into tilled sandy soil following dry beans with good soil moisture. GPS Coordinates: N 40 40.287 W 102 39.806. Good uniform stands but not over planted. Cool fall temperatures reduced plant development leading to few early spring tillers and small plants. Severe wind damage during winter. Excellent management resulted in better than expected average yields. Stripe rust evident at the end of May and field was sprayed with a fungicide. Harvested 7/16/2010. Trial average yield = 93.0 bu/ac; test weight = 61.9 lb/bu.

Rocky Ford - Planted 9/17/2009. Emergence was uneven with some plants not emerging until spring 2010. Stands and plant height were highly variable with early and severe infection of powdery mildew and potential soil problems. Harvested 7/15/2010. Trial average yield = 57.0 bu/ac; test weight = 57.8 lb/bu.

Fort Collins – Planted 9/18/2009 into good moisture, excellent emergence and fall growth. Some blowing during the winter, good conditions though coming into spring. Excellent early spring wet snows. Drought stress in early May and again in early June may have reduced yields slightly. Stripe rust became heavy shortly after heading (by June 10) and continued to develop, completely taking out flag leaves of susceptible entries by mid-grain filling. Some leaf rust present on stripe rust resistant varieties. Harvested 7/23/2010. Trial average yield = 105.5 bu/ac; test weight = 62.7 lb/bu.

20

Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011)

Nam

e, Class, and Pedigree

RWA*

Descrip7o

n of W

inter Wheat Varie7es in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011)

Origin

HD

HT

SSCO

L**YR

LRWSM

VTW

MILL

BAKE

Comments

Above

S4

53

99

95

54

7

TAM 110*4/FS2

CSU/Texas A&M release (2001). Clearfield* winter wheat. Early maturing semidwarf,

excellent dryland yield in CO. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7

ble. M

arginal baking quality.

CSU-‐TX 2001

Hard red winter

Arm

our

S1

13

81

36

74

4

B1551-‐WH/KS94U

326

Westbred release (2008). Early maturing short sem

idwarf, heavy 7llering, good leaf and

stripe rust resistance. Low

er te

st weight.

Westbred 2008

Hard red winter

Aspen

S3

21

81

35

74

6

TAM 302/B1551W

Westbred release (2006). H

ard white winter wheat (H

WW), good sprou7n

g tolerance.

Short sem

idwarf, good leaf and stripe rust resistance. Low

er te

st weight.

Westbred 2006

Hard white winter

Bill Brow

nR*

53

43

42

62

63

Yumar/Arlin

CSU release (2007). G

ood dryland and irrigated yield record in CSU

trials. H

igh test

weight, good leaf rust resistance, moderate resistance to

stripe rust. Very suscep7b

le to

stem

rust. Good baking quality, short coleop7

le.

CSU 2007

Hard red winter

Billings

S7

4-‐-‐

62

27

82

2

N566/OK94P597

Oklahom

a State release (2009). First entered into CSU

Irrigated Variety Trials in 2010.

Good leaf and stripe rust resistance.

OK 2009

Hard red winter

Bond CL

R*6

65

47

68

86

3

Yumar//TXGH12588-‐120*4/FS2

CSU release (2004). Clearfield* winter wheat. Slightly later, slightly taller than Above.

Excellent dryland yield in CO, very high irrigated yields, excellent baking quality, low

ertest weight. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7

ble.

CSU 2004

Hard red winter

Camelot

S3

77

44

27

64

4

KS91H184/Arlin SIB//KS91HW29/3/NE82761/Redland/4/VBF0168

Nebraska release (2008). M

edium-‐early, taller wheat, rela7vely poor straw strength.

Good leaf rust resistance, moderately resistant to stripe rust.

NE 2008

Hard red winter

CO050303-‐2

S6

73

81

8-‐-‐

24

6

CO980829/TAM 111

CSU experimental, targeted to

ward fall 2011 release. H

igh dryland and irrigated yields,

average milling and baking quality. M

edium tall, medium-‐late, m

edium coleop7

lelength. Excellent te

st weight, good straw strength. Resistant to

stripe rust.

CSU 2011

Hard red winter

CO06052

S4

52

93

6-‐-‐

24

2

Teal 11A

/Above//CO

99314


ward fall 2011 release. Two-‐gene Clearfield*, excellent

milling and baking quality. Early maturity, m

edium height, medium-‐lo

ng coleop7

le.

Excellent te

st weight and straw

strength. M

oderate resistance to

stripe rust.

CSU 2011

Hard red winter

CO06424

S5

54

74

6-‐-‐

33

3

TAM 112/CO970547-‐7


ward fall 2011 release. H

igh dryland and irrigated yield,

excellent quality, medium height, maturity, coleop7

le length. G

ood test weight and

straw strength. M


stripe rust, m

oderate suscep7b

ility to

leaf rust.

CSU 2011

Hard red winter

Russian wheat aphid resistance (RWA), heading date (H

D), plant h

eight (HT), straw

strength (SS), coleop7

le length (C

OL), stripe rust resistance (YR), leaf rust resistance (LR), w

heat streak mosaic virus tolerance (W

SMV),

test weight (TW

), milling quality (M

ILL), and baking quality (B

AKE). Ra7n

g scale: 1 -‐ very good, very resistant, very early, or very short to

9 -‐ very poor, very suscep7b

le, very late, or very tall.

* RW

A ra7ng denotes resistance to th

e original biotype (biotype 1) of R

WA. All available cul7vars are suscep7

ble to th

e new biotypes of RWA.

** Coleop7

le length ra7ngs range from

1=very short (~ 50 mm or ~2 in) to

9=very long (~100 mm or ~4 in). Co

leop7le lengths should be interpreted for rela7ve variety comparisons only.

21

Nam


RWA*

Descrip7o

n of W


Origin

HD

HT

SSCO

L**YR

LRWSM

VTW

MILL

BAKE

Comments

Danby

S4

54

69

65

23

7

TREG

O/JGR 8W

KSU-‐Hays release (2005). H

ard white wheat (H

WW), very high test weight. Similar to

Trego with

improved preharvest sprou7n

g tolerance. Low

er baking quality, stripe rust

suscep7b

le.

KSU 2005

Hard white winter

Duster

S8

83

44

27

46

3

WO405D

/HGF112//W7469C/HCF012

Oklahom

a State release (2006). M

edium tall, medium late, short coleop7

le, leaf rust

resistant, moderately resistant to stripe rust.

OK 2006

Hard red winter

Everest

S5

3-‐-‐

71

27

43

8

HBK

1064-‐3/KS84063-‐9-‐39-‐3-‐4W

//VB

F0589-‐1/IL89-‐6483

KSU-‐M

anhaian release (2009). First entered into CSU

Variety Trials in 2010. Good leaf

and stripe rust resistance. Targeted for produc7o

n in more eastern por7ons of th

ePlains.

KSU 2009

Hard red winter

Fuller

S2

37

37

25

55

3

Bulk selec7o

n

KSU-‐M

anhaian release (2006). Early maturing semidwarf. Average te

st weight, good

leaf rust resistance, stripe rust suscep7

ble. Low

er straw

strength.

KSU 2006

Hard red winter

Greer

S5

2-‐-‐

9-‐-‐

-‐-‐-‐-‐

67

5

HBK

0935-‐29-‐15/KS90W

077-‐2-‐2/VB

F0589-‐1

Agripro release (2009). First entered in CSU

Variety Trials in 2011. M

edium early,

medium short. Low

er te

st weight.

Agripro 2009

Hard red winter

Hatcher

R*6

26

63

88

44

3

Yuma/PI 372129//TAM-‐200/3/4*Yum

a/4/KS91H184/Vista

CSU release (2004). M

edium maturing semidwarf. Good test weight, moderate

resistance to

stripe rust. Excellent dryland yield across the High Plains, good milling and

baking quality. Develops “leaf speckling” condi7o

n.

CSU 2004

Hard red winter

Haw

ken

S2

22

28

28

45

3

Rowdy/W

96-‐427

Agripro release (2006). M

edium maturing, short sem

idwarf. Good leaf rust resistance,

stripe rust suscep7

ble, good straw strength.

Agripro 2006

Hard red winter

Hitch

S6

22

47

27

48

6

53/3/ABL/1113//K92/4/JAG/5/KS89180B

Westbred release (2008). Posi7oned for High Plains irrigated produc7o

n. Good straw

strength, good leaf rust resistance, stripe rust suscep7

ble, lower milling and baking

quality.

Westbred 2008

Hard red winter

Infinity CL

S5

76

63

36

45

5

Windstar/3/NE94481//TXGH125888-‐120*4/FS2

Nebraska release (2005). Clearfield* winter wheat. M

edium maturing, taller wheat,

moderate resistance to

stripe rust. Improved baking quality rela7ve to

Above. D

evelops

“leaf speckling” similar to Hatcher.

NE 2004

Hard red winter

Jagalene

S5

55

39

94

32

4

Abilene/Jagger

Agripro release (2001). G

ood test weight, good wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance.

Observed to shaier in CO and KS trials. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7

ble.

Agripro 2001

Hard red winter


D), plant h

eight (HT), straw


le length (C



SMV),

test weight (TW



AKE). Ra7n




* RW




ble to th


** Coleop7





22

Nam


RWA*

Descrip7o

n of W


Origin

HD

HT

SSCO

L**YR

LRWSM

VTW

MILL

BAKE

Comments

Jagger

S3

55

28

94

54

4

KS82W418/Stephens

KSU-‐M

anhaian release (1994). Early maturing semidwarf, good baking quality, good

WSM

V tolerance, very leaf and stripe rust suscep7

ble. Breaks dorm

ancy very early in

the spring.

KSU 1994

Hard red winter

Keota

S5

65

67

88

63

5

Custer/Jagger

Westbred release (2005). Leaf and stripe rust suscep7

ble. Taller plant stature, m

aintains

height under stress.

Westbred 2005

Hard red winter

McGill

S6

6-‐-‐

1-‐-‐

-‐-‐-‐-‐

86

4

NE92458/Ike

Nebraska release (2010). First entered in CSU


edium maturity,

medium height. Low

test weight.

NE 2010

Hard red winter

Prairie Red

R*4

33

88

95

64

7

CO850034/PI372129//5*TAM 107

CSU release (1998). Backcross deriva7ve of TAM 107, resistant to

RWA biotype 1. G

ood

stress to

lerance, poor end-‐use quality reputa7on, low

er yields rela7ve to more recent

wheat releases. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7

ble.

CSU 1998

Hard red winter

Protec7o

nS

37

34

79

48

47

Jagger//TXGH12588-‐120*4/FS2

CSU release (2004), m

arketed by AGSECO

. Clearfield* winter wheat. Low

er yield rela7ve

to Bond CL in CSU

Variety Trials in 2003 and 2004. Taller plant stature, m

oderate

suscep7b

ility to

stripe rust.

AGSECO

/CSU

2004

Hard red winter

Ripper

R*2

44

99

97

73

3

CO940606/TAM107R-‐2

CSU release (2006). Excellent stress tolerance, high dryland yields in Colorado, excellent

milling and baking quality. Very good recovery from

stand reduc7o

n. Leaf and stripe

rust suscep7

ble, lower te

st weights.

CSU 2006

Hard red winter

Robidoux

S5

2-‐-‐

7-‐-‐

-‐-‐-‐-‐

47

5

NE96644/W

ahoo (sib)

Nebraska release (2010). First entered in CSU


edium maturity,

medium short.

NE 2010

Hard red winter

Seiler CL

S8

53

54

87

43

4

N95L164/3/M

ILLENNIUM SIB//TXGH125888-‐120*4/FS2

Nebraska release (2008). Clearfield* winter wheat. Excellent dryland and irrigated yield

in CSU

Variety Trials. Later maturing, medium height. M

oderately suscep7b

le to

leaf

rust, m

oderately resistance to

stripe rust.

NE 2008

Hard red winter

Smoky Hill

S6

34

58

28

55

2

97 8/64 MASA

Westbred release (2006). M

edium late, shorter sem

idwarf. Good leaf rust resistance,

stripe rust suscep7

ble, good baking quality.

Westbred 2006

Hard red winter

Snow

mass

S7

68

52

52

45

3

KS96HW94//Trego/CO

960293

CSU release (2009). H

ard white winter wheat (H

WW). Medium-‐m

aturing, taller

semidwarf. Good resistance to

wheat streak mosaic virus and stem

and stripe rust,

moderate sprou7

ng to

lerance. Grown under contract with

ConAgra.

CSU 2009

Hard white winter


D), plant h

eight (HT), straw


le length (C



SMV),

test weight (TW



AKE). Ra7n




* RW




ble to th


** Coleop7





Nam


RWA*

Descrip7o

n of W


Origin

HD

HT

SSCO

L**YR

LRWSM

VTW

MILL

BAKE

Comments

SY Gold

S4

55

27

3-‐-‐

35

5

W95-‐301/W

98-‐151

Agripro release (2009). First te

sted in CSU

trials in 2009. Good leaf rust resistance,

suscep7b

le to

stripe rust. G

ood milling quality, low

er baking quality.

Agripro 2009

Hard red winter

T163

S3

4-‐-‐

4-‐-‐

-‐-‐-‐-‐

65

7

93WGRC

27/T811

Trio (Limagrain) release (2010). First entered in CSU

Variety Trials in 2011.

Trio 2010

Hard red winter

TAM 111

S6

73

81

85

24

5

TAM-‐107//TX78V3

630/CTK78/3/TX87V1

233

Texas A&M release (2002), m

arketed by Agripro. M

edium maturing, taller wheat. G

ood

test weight, good straw strength, good irrigated yield. Leaf rust suscep7

ble, very good

stripe rust resistance.

TX 2002

Hard red winter

TAM 112

S2

47

77

92

24

2

U1254-‐7-‐9-‐2-‐1/TXG

H10440

Texas A&M release (2005), m

arketed by W

atley Seed. G

ood test weight, good quality,

excellent wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance. Suscep7

ble to leaf and stripe rust, poor

straw strength.

TX 2005

Hard red winter

Thunder CL

R*4

43

73

54

45

2

KS01-‐5539/CO

99W165

CSU release (2008). H

ard white Clearfield* wheat. G

ood straw strength, high yields

under irriga7o

n. Excellent quality, moderate resistance to

stripe rust and wheat streak

mosaic virus, moderate sprout suscep7

bility. Grown under contract with

ConAgra.

CSU 2008

Hard white winter

WB-‐Cedar

S-‐-‐

-‐-‐-‐-‐

7-‐-‐

-‐-‐-‐-‐

-‐-‐4

6

TAM 302/B1551W

Westbred release (2010). First entered in CSU

Variety Trials in 2011. Hard red sister

selec7on to

Aspen hard white wheat.

Westbred 2010

Hard red winter

WB-‐Stout

S1

35

48

24

88

3

KS94U275/1878//Jagger

Westbred release (2009). First te

sted in CSU

trials in 2010. Good leaf rust resistance,

stripe rust suscep7

ble, lower te

st weight.

Westbred 2009

Hard red winter

Winterhaw

kS

55

58

28

52

24

474S10-‐1/X87807-‐26//HBK

0736-‐3

Westbred release (2007). M

edium maturing, medium tall, longer coleop7

le. G

ood stripe

rust resistance, suscep7

ble to leaf rust, very suscep7b

le to

stem rust. Good test weight,

good quality.

Westbred 2007

Hard red winter

Wolf

S6

4-‐-‐

56

4-‐-‐

42

7

W99-‐331/97x0906-‐8

Agripro release (2011). First entered in CSU

Variety Trials in 2011. Good milling quality,

poor baking quality. G

ood resistance to

tan spot and septoria, moderately suscep7b

leto stripe rust, m

oderately resistant to leaf rust.

Agripro 2011

Hard red winter

Yuma

S6

33

15

56

65

4

NS14/NS25//2*V

ona

CSU release (1991). M

edium maturity, sem

idwarf, short coleop7

le, good baking quality

characteris7cs. M


stripe rust. G

ood yields especially under

irriga7o

n.

CSU 1991

Hard red winter


D), plant h

eight (HT), straw


le length (C



SMV),

test weight (TW



AKE). Ra7n




* RW




ble to th


** Coleop7





23

24

Wheat Quality Evaluations from the 2010 CSU Dryland and Irrigated Variety Trials

John Stromberger, CSU Wheat Quality Lab ManagerScott Haley, CSU Wheat Breeder

Jerry Johnson, CSU Extension Specialist - Crop ProductionIntroduction

End-use quality maintenance and improvement is an important objective of virtually all wheat breeding programs. Grain buying and end-use industries have become increasingly sophisticated in all markets and, while wheat producers are seldom rewarded for improved functional quality, technological advancements promise to increase the ability of the trade to identify and source good quality and thus discount poor quality.

Breeding for improved quality is very challenging. Quality is a function of variety interacting with climate and agronomic practices. Colorado climatic conditions are highly variable and unpredictable which slows down breeding progress. Also, quality is measured by many traits and many genes are involved, further complicating breeding. Most experimental quality tests only approximate average quality needs of product manufacturers and don’t match specific requirements of different wheat product types and processes. For hard winter wheat, high grain protein content is an important criterion for improved quality but is often associated with lower yields (and vice versa). 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 in our laboratory on large numbers of small samples. They 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 Colorado variety trials is to fully characterize the quality of public and private trial entries that are currently, or have the potential to be marketed in Colorado. We hope that these data and ratings will be included among the criteria by which wheat producers make their variety selection decisions. 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 2010, grain samples were collected from four dryland (UVPT) variety trial locations (Akron, Burlington, Orchard, and Walsh) and two irrigated (IVPT) variety trial locations (Fort Collins and Haxtun). Preliminary small-scale quality analyses were carried out to determine suitability of the samples for full-scale analyses. Criteria for sample suitability included grain protein values not too far below or above 12% grain protein content, sound grain free of visual defects, and good discrimination among samples at a location for experimental dough mixing properties. In this process of sample selection, two of the dryland locations (Burlington and Orchard), were excluded from further analyses beyond protein content.

25

Using standard testing protocols, quality tests were done in the CSU Wheat Quality Laboratory on variety trial 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 ash content: obtained by prediction using whole-grain near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRs) with a Foss NIRSystems 6500. Both grain protein and ash are reported on a standard 12% moisture basis. High grain protein percentage is associated with higher water absorption of flours and higher loaf volumes in the bakery. Grain ash represents the remaining weight of a grain sample following incineration in a high-temperature oven. Millers prefer low wheat ash (values < 1.6%) as this tends to result in low-ash flour following milling and products with improved color properties.

Single kernel characterization system (SKCS): the Perten SKCS 4100 provides data on kernel weight and hardness of a grain sample. To provide an average and a measure of variability (standard deviation, STD) for each trait, 100-300 kernels are analyzed. Millers prefer a uniform sample with heavier (>30 grams/1000 kernels) 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 percentage with low flour ash 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 a dough during the mixing process. Bakers generally prefer flours with moderate mixing time requirements (between three and six minutes) and good tolerance to breakdown of the dough with overmixing (subjective score >3). Some varieties with exceptionally long mixing times (i.e., Snowmass, Thunder CL) 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 ConAgra 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 a higher crumb grain score and crumb grain color (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.

26

Composite Scores

Because none of the traits measured can be used alone to represent overall milling or baking quality, development of a composite score may be used as a means to differentiate and characterize quality of different samples. The development of a composite score also has the advantage of “smoothing” out differences in environmental conditions from year to year and utilizing all of the data generated on the samples.

Composite scores are generated through a two-step process. First, each trait is ranked from high to low (or “good” to “bad”) at individual locations and a score from 1 (good) to 9 (bad) is assigned to each variety for each 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%, kernel weight 20%, grain hardness 10%, flour yield 20%, grain ash content 10% (100% total)Baking – bake absorption 20%, Mixograph mixing time 20%, Mixograph tolerance 20%, loaf volume 20%, crumb color 10%, crumb grain 10% (100% total)

27

Whe

at M

illin

g an

d Ba

king

Qua

lity

Data

- 201

0 Ak

ron

* Val

ue in

bol

d in

dica

tes

supe

rior

val

ue,

valu

e in

italics

indi

cate

s in

ferior

val

ue.

Entr

yTe

stW

eigh

tG

rain

Prot

ein

SKCS

Wei

ght

SKCS

Har

dnes

sFl

our

Yiel

dG

rain

Ash

Bak

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

10

Akr

onM

illin

gS

core

Bak

ing

Sco

re

Wh

eat

Mill

ing

an

d B

akin

g Q

ual

ity

Dat

a -

Abo

ve55

.212.0

26.3

71.6

67.8

1.41

59.3

4.3

22

865

44

56

Arm

our

54.0

14

.821.4

73.0

69.4

1.42

63.1

3.88

11

09

54

47

4Bill

Bro

wn

56.5

12.2

24.5

71.8

67.9

1.43

62.1

4.9

85

910

44

53

Bon

d CL

53.9

13.7

23.8

67.3

66.9

1.44

68

.24

.62

410

004

37

1Cam

elot

56.2

15

.425

.570

.668

.91.55

67

.23.

953

935

54

42

CO

0439

355

.713

.624

.064

.57

1.2

1.45

65

.45

.23

51

05

55

43

1CO

0449

956

.61

4.1

25.2

69.7

69.8

1.48

65

.45

.35

31

08

54

43

1CO

0501

735

7.8

13.2

26.1

62.0

70

.51

.35

64.4

5.6

54

10

40

54

12

CO

0501

75-1

58

.213

.525

.964

.47

0.4

1.38

65

.36.

174

10

55

54

12

CO

0502

33-2

56.4

12.8

24.7

68.5

69.5

1.56

63.1

3.00

3825

32

48

CO

0502

7054.3

14

.325

.868

.768.0

1.39

65

.33.

683

835

32

56

CO

0503

03-2

57

.513

.226

.060

.569

.91.

4963

.44.

314

860

32

35

CO

0503

2256

.913

.02

6.8

63.5

70.1

1.3

462.3

4.8

14

860

32

25

CO

0503

37-2

56.8

13.0

27

.464

.469

.31

.36

65

.34.

113

850

32

35

CO

05W

111

56.2

14

.623

.868

.569

.61.

396

8.2

4.3

63

940

32

32

CO

05W

194

55.2

12.2

23.3

59.4

69.6

1.3

262.3

5.1

45

965

54

52

CO

0605

256

.91

5.0

26.0

70.4

69.9

1.42

66

.34

.54

21

06

55

42

1CO

0642

453.5

13.1

21.3

63.0

71

.31.

4064

.17.61

61

15

55

47

2CSU

Ble

nd09

55.0

12.5

25.9

65.3

68.9

1.3

462.0

4.14

3850

43

46

Dan

by5

8.6

13.1

23.9

73.0

69.0

1.39

63.2

4.3

23

845

32

26

Dus

ter

56.4

13.6

23.7

78.9

69.4

1.51

64.2

5.3

24

930

44

62

Ever

est

56.9

13.6

24.7

65.0

70.1

1.44

62.3

2.97

1885

32

39

Fulle

r56

.313

.324

.065

.468

.41.

4065

.26.

215

10

35

54

51

Hat

cher

55.7

12.9

24.8

66.3

69.2

1.37

61.3

5.6

13

925

54

45

Haw

ken

54.0

14.0

22.9

71.5

69.5

1.52

65.2

8.00

51

07

04

57

3In

finity

CL

55.3

13.1

25.7

65.3

69.3

1.46

62.1

7.30

497

54

54

5Ja

gger

55.8

15

.123

.971

.67

0.9

1.46

67

.34.

113

955

44

32

Keo

ta5

8.1

12.5

30

.268

.369

.81.

4563

.35

.30

4855

43

14

Prai

rie

Red

54.7

13.4

25.1

75.8

67.3

1.45

62.1

4.26

210

254

46

5Pr

otec

tion

52.6

14

.225

.469

.770

.21.

436

6.2

3.36

3875

22

55

Rip

per

54.0

11.6

27

.758.5

70.0

1.3

161.1

4.05

3885

33

67

Set

tler

CL

56.8

13.1

27

.165

.47

1.3

1.52

63.3

7.14

598

54

42

5Sm

oky

Hill

55.3

13.1

22.7

68.8

68.1

1.50

66

.17.22

61

10

55

56

1Sno

wm

ass

57.0

12.7

25.6

79.1

67.2

1.40

63.1

8.00

610

204

56

4SY

Gol

d56

.61

4.4

22.3

82.8

68.1

1.49

64.1

4.7

83

910

44

63

TAM

111

58

.412.0

29

.064

.970

.01.

4760.2

3.60

4835

33

17

TAM

112

55.4

13.7

23.1

75.2

65.4

1.53

65.0

5.6

34

11

00

55

71

Thun

der

CL

54.1

13.4

22.3

68.1

70.1

1.3

26

6.4

5.7

04

10

65

54

51

WB S

tout

52.3

13.6

22.3

76.9

66.3

1.47

64.0

4.24

410

104

49

3W

inte

rhaw

k5

8.8

12.8

27

.063

.77

1.9

1.45

62.3

5.5

24

960

54

13

Ave

rage

55.9

13.4

24.9

68.5

69.3

1.43

64.0

5.06

3.7

962

4.0

3.6

Min

imum

52.3

11.6

21.3

58.5

65.4

1.31

59.3

2.97

182

52

2M

axim

um58

.815

.430

.282

.871

.91.

5668

.28.

006

1155

55

28

Whe

at M

illin

g an

d Ba

king

Qua

lity

Data

- 201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s

29

Whe

at M

illin

g an

d Ba

king

Qua

lity

Data

- 201

0 Ha

xtun

30

Whe

at M

illin

g an

d Ba

king

Qua

lity

Data

- 201

0 W

alsh

* Val

ue in

bol

d in

dica

tes

supe

rior

val

ue,

valu

e in

italics

indi

cate

s in

ferior

val

ue.

Entr

yTe

stW

eigh

tG

rain

Prot

ein

SKCS

Wei

ght

SKCS

Har

dnes

sFl

our

Yiel

dG

rain

Ash

Bak

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

10

Wal

shM

illin

gS

core

Bak

ing

Sco

re

Wh

eat

Mill

ing

an

d B

akin

g Q

ual

ity

Dat

a -

Abo

ve58

.614.9

26.7

73.2

63.7

1.62

61.5

2.24

0740

43

59

Arm

our

56.1

16.1

22.4

70.2

67.5

1.52

64.2

3.5

41

10

50

45

54

Bill

Bro

wn

57.6

15.5

21.0

79.4

67.0

1.57

67.4

4.4

14

925

43

63

Bon

d CL

55.2

14.9

21.2

75.7

65.3

1.60

67.4

3.9

95

925

43

91

Cam

elot

57.2

16.1

27

.369

.467

.21.66

66.5

3.06

096

55

33

5CO

0439

357

.716

.526

.067

.36

9.6

1.57

66.4

4.2

32

10

50

44

23

CO

0449

956

.515

.825

.169

.86

8.4

1.65

68

.54.

944

1025

44

42

CO

0501

735

9.5

15.9

26.4

67.3

68

.21

.47

65.8

3.9

11

10

45

44

13

CO

0501

75-1

60

.415

.62

8.7

65.8

66.6

1.4

866

.83

.69

11

03

55

41

3CO

0502

33-2

57.7

15.9

26.5

68.4

66.3

1.67

65.6

2.12

0885

21

49

CO

0502

7057

.414.8

27

.462

.367

.71.

5665.5

3.10

3825

21

47

CO

0503

03-2

58.6

16.0

24.6

70.0

67.4

1.68

66.6

3.04

110

003

43

5CO

0503

2256.2

16.5

22.6

71.8

67.2

1.60

68

.43

.82

290

03

35

3CO

0503

37-2

57.7

16.1

23.5

68.8

67.4

1.60

68

.43

.93

398

54

44

2CO

05W

111

57.3

16.5

19.7

74.7

67.2

1.61

69

.43

.77

310

104

46

1CO

05W

194

58.4

15.5

28

.057.8

67.4

1.60

66.7

3.8

52

1000

54

32

CO

0605

25

9.0

15.8

26

.970

.266

.21

.49

65.7

3.06

11

07

55

52

3CO

0642

457

.515

.423

.761

.87

0.7

1.57

67.6

6.84

61

15

55

44

2CSU

Ble

nd09

55.8

15.0

25.2

63.7

62.9

1.63

61.4

2.88

0825

43

88

Dan

by5

9.8

16.3

23.2

78.0

67.6

1.56

64.5

2.39

0880

31

39

Dus

ter

58.2

15.7

23.4

82.7

67.1

1.58

67.5

3.7

14

950

44

62

Ever

est

59

.115

.425

.268

.866

.41.

5465

.62.

690

895

33

37

Fulle

r5

8.8

16.2

27

.173

.564.0

1.57

68

.53

.56

3840

43

33

Hat

cher

57.7

15.0

24.9

63.7

68

.11

.51

66.6

3.6

54

935

43

43

Haw

ken

56.8

16.0

24.2

73.8

65.2

1.59

68

.15.

304

965

44

53

Infin

ity C

L56.0

16.2

24.6

67.5

66.3

1.67

68

.35.66

510

254

36

3Ja

gger

57.7

17

.323

.474

.96

8.4

1.57

68

.43

.26

092

02

23

5Keo

ta5

9.8

15.7

31

.267

.367

.01.

5263.4

3.8

72

855

52

16

Prai

rie

Red

56.2

15.4

25.2

75.6

67.7

1.55

65.5

3.3

63

905

33

55

Prot

ectio

n56

.915

.92

8.2

72.9

67.3

1.4

766

.32.

841

820

21

28

Rip

per

55.0

16.3

27

.165

.766

.81.

576

9.5

3.4

73

935

32

62

Set

tler

CL

57.8

15.8

27

.364

.56

9.3

1.66

68

.44.

853

10

35

43

32

Sm

oky

Hill

57.1

17

.122.6

71.4

65.8

1.73

68

.25.81

21

16

55

35

3Sno

wm

ass

54.7

15.8

21.8

76.3

65.6

1.64

68

.07.90

61

09

05

69

1SY

Gol

d58

.716

.324

.183.1

65.1

1.57

68

.24

.13

3800

32

64

TAM

111

57.9

15.7

22.8

66.1

67.9

1.63

66.3

3.4

41

925

43

55

TAM

112

57.3

15.6

24.2

82.4

62.8

1.68

66.2

3.8

33

960

44

83

Thun

der

CL

56.8

15.0

25.2

62.4

68

.71

.48

66.9

4.89

41

03

55

44

2W

B S

tout

55.1

16

.923

.474

.563.1

1.62

68

.03.

062

955

33

84

Win

terh

awk

58.6

15.5

24.8

73.2

69

.01.

5767

.34.

683

990

43

23

Ave

rage

57.5

15.8

24.9

70.7

66.8

1.59

66.7

3.92

2.4

958

3.8

3.2

Min

imum

54.7

14.8

19.7

57.8

62.8

1.47

61.4

2.12

074

02

1M

axim

um60

.417

.331

.283

.170

.71.

7369

.57.

906

1165

56

31

Grain Protein from 2010 UVPT Samples Collected at Burlington and Orchard

Entry Burlingtona Orcharda

percent percentAbove 11.6 10.7Armour 11.6 10.4Bill Brown 11.0 10.2Bond CL 11.2 11.5Camelot 11.9 11.8CO04393 11.9 10.2CO04499 12.0 10.9CO050173 11.4 10.4CO050175-1 10.9 10.3CO050233-2 11.9 12.6CO050270 11.1 10.0CO050303-2 11.0 10.4CO050322 11.4 10.1CO050337-2 10.3 10.5CO05W111 11.5 10.6CO05W194 11.6 10.6CO06052 13.2 11.1CO06424 11.1 12.3CSU Blend09 11.3 10.5Danby 11.2 11.0Duster 11.2 11.6Everest 11.8 10.0Fuller 12.2 10.4Hatcher 11.2 11.0Hawken 12.4 10.4Infinity CL 11.4 10.5Jagger 12.5 12.9Keota 11.7 12.6Prairie Red 12.2 11.8Protection 11.3 11.1Ripper 11.3 10.1Settler CL 12.3 10.5Smoky Hill 11.8 11.0Snowmass 10.9 11.4SY Gold 11.7 10.5TAM 111 11.8 11.8TAM 112 11.8 8.9Thunder CL 11.7 9.8WB Stout 12.0 11.9Winterhawk 10.9 12.2

Average 11.6 10.9Minimum 10.3 8.9Maximum 13.2 12.9

aPercent protein content based on 12% grain moisture

32

Wheat Stem Sawfly: A New Pest of Colorado WheatBen Irell and Frank Peairs

Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest ManagementColorado State University

The wheat stem sawfly is a native grass-feeding insect that has long been a threat to spring wheat production in the northern Plains. In the early 1990s, however, it emerged as a significant pest of winter wheat as well. Since then, sawfly infestations in winter wheat have spread from North Dakota and Montana into southeastern Wyoming, the Nebraska Panhandle, and, most recently, northeastern Colorado. Damage to winter wheat was first reported in Colorado in 2010 from areas along Highway 14 in Weld County.

Identification/ Life Cycle: The wheat stem sawfly has one generation per year. Adults emerge in late May or early June and are generally active when field temperatures are above 50⁰ F. The adult wheat stem sawfly (Figure 1) is about ¾ of an inch long with smoky-brown wings. It is wasp-like in appearance, with a shiny black body with three yellow bands around the abdomen. They can be observed resting, upside down, on the wheat stem.

Females begin egglaying about five days after they emerge and continue for two-three weeks. They preferentially select the largest wheat stems available and insert a single egg in the stem below the uppermost node. If sawflies are abundant, eggs may be laid in smaller stems, and multiple eggs may be laid in a single stem. However, only one larva will survive in each stem due to cannibalism. Females lay an average of 33 eggs. Eggs are difficult to observe because they occur inside the stem.

Sawfly larvae remain within the wheat stem after they hatch. They move slowly down the stem as they feed, for approximately 30 days. When the larvae are mature they move down toward soil level and cut a V-shaped notch around the interior of the stem. They then seal the interior of the stem with frass (bodily waste) and move down near the crown. The upper stem usually breaks at this notch, and the remaining stem containing the overwintering chamber is referred to as the “stub”. The larvae overwinter here, slightly below soil level, before pupating in early spring. Sawfly larvae are cream colored, have a broad head, and are ½ to ¾ of an inch in length when fully grown.

Host Plants and Damage: The wheat stem sawfly has traditionally infested spring wheat, but damage is becoming increasingly common in winter wheat. It also feeds in several hollow-stemmed noncultivated grasses, including quackgrass, smooth brome and various wheatgrasses. It does not attack corn or broad leaf crops.

Figure 1: Wheat stem sawfly adult. Image courtesy of J. Kalisch, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska.

Figure 2: Wheat stem sawfly larva in stem. Image courtesy of the Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska.

33

Although the sawfly may lay eggs in other cereals, including barley, oat, and rye, larvae will not mature in these hosts.

Darkened areas on the stem, just beneath the node, indicate infestation. To verify the presence of the sawfly in a suspected plant, split the stem from top to bottom. A stem filled with a sawdust-like substance indicates feeding activity. The larva will most likely be located in a chamber within the stem, just above the crown.

The most visible impact of the wheat stem sawfly is stem breakage or lodging. The stem is greatly weakened by the groove the larva cuts around the base of the plant. Lodging becomes more obvious as harvest approaches and results in yield loss because the combine cannot pick up the heads of lodged stems. In addition, physiological damage caused by feeding activity results in yield losses of five to ten percent if infested heads can be harvested.

Management

Cultural Controls:Tillage is an effective method of controlling an infestation because the sawfly larvae overwinter in wheat stubble. Tilling after harvest or before winter lifts the crowns and loosens the soil around them. This maximizes the larvae’s exposure to the late summer dryness and winter cold, increasing mortality. Spring tillage should bury the stubble so surviving sawfly adults have difficulty emerging. The combination of fall and spring tillage can reduce sawfly emergence by about 50 percent.

Planting trap crops such as barley, oat, or rye along the edge of wheat fields may be effective in decreasing damage and reducing the number of sawflies the following year. The sawflies will oviposit in the trap crop, but the larvae will be unable to complete development. This method is especially effective when the sawfly population is low to moderate. When the population is high, sawfly adults may move past the trap crop to the wheat and damage reduction may not be sufficient.

Planting wheat in larger blocks as opposed to narrow strips is another cultural practice that may reduce sawfly damage potential. This minimizes the amount of field border adjacent to stubble, which is the part of the crop most vulnerable to infestation. Sawflies are not strong fliers and tend to fly only until they reach a stem that is suitable for egg laying, which is the basis for this practice. Though the soil erosion benefits of planting in narrow strips may be reduced, larger fields are still a viable option if erosion is addressed by no-till practices.

Resistant Wheat Varieties: Solid stem varieties of wheat have been shown to be effective in reducing damage caused by the wheat stem sawfly. The availability of several adapted solid-stemmed wheat cultivars provides a viable management option for parts of the northern Great Plains. In areas where the

Firgure 3: Wheat stems cut by the wheat stem sawfly. Image courtesy of the Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska.

34

sawfly is a recent arrival, wheat breeding programs are beginning to focus on incorporation of the solid stem characteristic into adapted varieties, using both conventional selection and linked DNA markers. The program at Colorado State University also is initiating long term research into novel methods for making the wheat plant less attractive to the sawfly.

Chemical Control:Insecticides are ineffective and cost-prohibitive. Insecticides are potentially effective only during the egg-laying period. Insecticides are not effective on larvae. Careful monitoring would be necessary to pinpoint when and where the adult population is emerging. Using solid-stemmed cultivars and cultural controls are currently the most effective alternatives.

35

2010 Walsh Dryland Veriety Strip Tests for Forage and Grain YieldK. Larson, D. Thompson, D. Harn, and C. Thompson

Purpose: To determine which wheat varieties are best suited for dual-purpose forage and grain production in Southeastern Colorado.

Materials and methods: Fifteen wheat varieties were planted on September 30, 2009 at 50 lb seed/a in 20 foot by 800 foot strips with two replications. We applied 50 lb N/a with a sweep and seedrow applied 5 gal/a of 10-34-0 (20 lb P2O5, 6 lb N/a). Ally Extra 0.3 oz/a and 2,4-D 0.38 lb/a was sprayed for weed control. Two 2 foot by 2.5 foot forage samples were taken at jointing (April 6) and at boot (May 10). We measured the forage for fresh weight, oven-dried the samples, and recorded dry weight at 15% moisture content. Stripe rust was observed, but it came late in the season and no fungicide was applied. We harvested the plots on June 30 with a self-propelled combine and weighed them in a digital weigh cart. Grain yields were adjusted to 12% grain moisture content.

Results: Grain yields were good, averaging 44 bu/a. Less than 5 bu/a separated the highest yielding variety, Armour, from the lowest yielding variety, Bond CL. Armour had the highest grain yield, 46.4 bu/a, but it was not significantly higher than the 10 other varieties tested. Hawken had the highest forage yield at jointing, and Bond CL had the highest forage yield at boot. Surprisingly, Hawken and Bond CL had the two lowest grain yields. Armour had the second highest dry weight at jointing and the fourth highest dry wet at boot. Five varieties had higher three-year grain yield averages than the trial averages. The variety with the highest three-year average yield was Bond CL.

Discussion: Based on the 2010 results, my choice for the best overall dual-purpose wheat variety is Armour. Armour produced the highest grain yield, second highest forage yield at jointing, and the fourth highest forage yield at boot. The early forage yields, particularly the boot forage yield, indicated that Bond CL was on track for the best overall dual-purpose wheat; however, at grain harvest, Bond CL had the lowest yield. I do not know the reason for its low yield, but the range from highest to lowest yielding was small.

Grain yields of the last three years have been much below (2008), and near the average (2009), and higher (2010) than the Baca County average. Four wheat varieties, TAM 111, Ankor, Ripper, and Bill Brown had average or above average grain yields each year of the last three seasons. Producing average or above average yields in response our wide-ranging seasonal conditions shows that these four varieties are well adapted for our environment. TAM 111, Ankor, Ripper, and Bill Brown would be good varietal choices regardless of year-to-year precipitation fluctuations.

36

___________________________________________________________________________Variety Jointing Boot Plant Test Grain

Fresh Wt. Dry Wt. Fresh Wt. Dry Wt. Height Residue Weight Yield___________________________________________________________________________

------------------------lb/a------------------------ in lb/a lb/bu bu/a

Armour 9745 2025 27686 8323 30 3470 59 46.4TAM 112 7604 1735 29597 8231 30 4215 61 46.1Bill Brown 7105 1602 38512 8902 30 3487 61 45.5Winterhawk 5605 1322 23346 7014 30 3738 62 45.5TAM 111 8146 1810 26543 7860 31 4152 61 45.1

NuDakota 6934 1496 23788 7238 28 3480 57 44.6Hatcher 9744 1974 27628 8151 28 3958 58 44.6Ripper 8962 1883 25977 7455 31 3600 58 44.5Snowmass 5971 1395 23538 7360 32 3667 60 44.3Ankor 5366 1241 25708 7240 31 3379 60 43.5

Jagalene 7136 1720 21300 6103 32 3335 61 43.3Danby 7377 1661 23288 7123 31 3363 62 42.9TAM 110 7377 1625 26515 7643 31 3434 60 42.5Hawken 10146 2269 24537 7872 27 3282 59 42.0Bond CL 8953 1946 31201 9108 32 3751 59 41.6___________________________________________________________________________Average 7745 1714 26611 7708 30 3621 60 44.2LSD 0.05 2778.7 483.2 2911.0 816.5 826.2 3.32___________________________________________________________________________Planted: September 30, 2009; 50 lb seed/a; 5 gal/a 10-34-0.Jointing sample taken April 6, 2110.Boot sample taken May 10, 2010.Wet Weight is reported at field moisture.Dry Weight is adjusted to 15% moisture content.Grain Yield adjusted to 12% grain moisture content.Residue is reported at field moisture.

2010 Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance

37

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Grain Yield Yield as % of Trial Average

2-Year 3-Year 2-Year 3-YearFirm Variety 2008 2009 2010 Avg Avg 2008 2009 2010 Avg Avg__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

---------------------bu/a------------------------ -------------------------%-------------------------

AGSECO TAM 110 3 23 43 33 23 60 92 98 94 92

AgriPro TAM 111 6 26 45 36 26 120 104 102 101 103AgriPro Jagalene 3 20 43 32 22 60 80 98 90 88AgriPro NuDakota 5 -- 45 -- -- 60 -- 102 -- --AgriPro Hawken -- 22 42 32 -- -- 80 95 91 --

Colorado State Hatcher 3 27 45 36 25 60 108 102 103 100Colorado State Prairie Red 5 27 -- -- -- 100 108 -- -- --Colorado State Ankor 6 26 44 35 25 120 104 100 100 101Colorado State Bond CL 8 28 42 35 26 160 112 95 100 104Colorado State Ripper 5 27 45 36 26 100 108 102 103 103Colorado State Bill Brown 5 25 46 36 25 100 100 105 101 101

Kansas State Danby 3 25 43 34 24 60 100 98 97 95

Watley TAM 112 4 25 46 36 25 80 100 105 101 100

Westbred Winterhawk -- 23 46 35 -- -- 100 105 99 --Westbred Keota 5 24 -- -- -- 100 96 -- -- --__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Average 5 25 44 35 25__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Grain Yields were adjusted to 12.0 % grain moisture content.

2008-2010 Summary of Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance

38

The Future of Certified Wheat Seed in ColoradoBrad Erker, Director of Colorado Seed Programs

The past decade has seen a marked increase in the use of Certified seed to plant Colorado’s wheat crop, from around one-fifth of the crop in 2001 to about one-third of the crop in 2011. The graph (side) shows trends in the percentage of winter wheat planted with Certified seed (black bars) and the percentage of winter wheat planted with Clearfield* wheat (gray bars). What are the factors behind this, and what benefits will it bring in the future?

New Varieties One of the main factors in the increased Certified seed use is new varieties. Fortunately for wheat producers in Colorado, there are several strong wheat breeding programs in the region providing a consistent stream of new, higher yielding varieties with other improved characteristics. The limited generation system of Certified seed production provides a way for clean, pure seed of these new varieties to be made available to producers rather quickly, and they have responded by choosing to adopt these new varieties. Since new varieties now have a royalty associated with them, these purchases pump dollars back into the research programs that provided them. This creates a positive feedback loop and is keeping the pipeline full of new and better varieties for the future.

Identity Preserved Varieties Another factor is the development of some Identity Preserved grain markets that require the use of Certified seed. For these markets, the grain purchaser desires a consistent product of specific varieties and is willing to pay a premium for that grain. Ensuring the crop is planted with Certified seed through contracting, these programs further increase Certified seed use. They create a win-win-win situation where the seed grower, producer, and purchaser all gain value from the program. Since these programs are voluntary, every player in the chain needs to gain this value or the program won’t be sustainable.

Clearfield* Varieties A third factor is Clearfield* wheat, which requires all grain produced to be sold, with none saved back for planting the next year’s crop. Each new crop must be planted using Certified

39

seed, and this is enforced by the trait owner (BASF) through their patent of the Clearfield* technology. The Certified seed model was chosen by BASF as part of an overall weed resistance management strategy to prevent the development of resistant weeds and maintain use of the technology long-term. Producers that choose to plant Clearfield* wheat have determined that the benefits of the herbicide control program outweigh the costs of buying new Certified seed each year.

Plant Variety Protection and Enforcement Prior to about the mid 1990s, many wheat varieties were released with Plant Variety Protection (PVP) obtained by universities that may or may not have enforced the seed-selling restrictions contained in Title V of the PVP. This portion of the PVP provides a protection to the variety owner whereby seed of that variety can only be sold as a class of Certified seed. With the advent of wheat marketing organizations (such as the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation and the Kansas Wheat Alliance) across the Great Plains, enforcement of PVP has increased. While some view this as intrusive, the reality is that PVP enforcement has increased Certified seed use, leading to greater royalty dollars returned to breeding programs that in turn, support the development of new varieties. This new legal environment has in turn attracted additional investment in wheat from both the public and private sectors.

What does the future hold? I believe the past decade of increased Certified seed use, and associated increased funding to wheat breeding programs, whether public or private, will yield big dividends in the upcoming decade. The trend has created a strong base of qualified seed growers, a healthy seed grower’s organization, and a strong pipeline of improved wheat varieties in all areas: red and white wheat, herbicide resistance, disease resistance, milling and baking quality, adaptation to Identity Preserved markets, insect resistance, and more. It has also allowed the breeding programs to invest in the latest technologies like marker assisted breeding and doubled haploids to bring new varieties to market even faster.

Since Colorado is primarily a wheat state, it hasn’t benefitted as much as the Midwestern states from technology advances in corn and soybeans. The “priming of the pump” from the past decade will begin to show dividends to wheat producers in Colorado in the near future. These advances in wheat are not destined to happen the same way they did for corn and soybeans. Private investment in wheat breeding programs has recently seen a significant increase across the country. This private investment is competing with strong public breeding and marketing organizations, that have strong support from producers in their respective states. Public-private collaborations are being discussed and implemented. The gains from this system have the potential to make gains from the past decade look quite small and slow. Nobody knows where all of this activity in wheat will lead, but competition is good for the consumer, and in this case it is good for the wheat producer.

40

Clearfield* Two-Gene Wheat Being Tested for Feral Rye ControlDr. Philip Westra, Weed Scientist, BSPM, CSU

Clearfield* wheat varieties such as Above, Bond CL, and Infinity CL carry a single copy of the modified ALS gene that provides tolerance to Beyond herbicide. However, these “single-gene” wheat varieties are not absolutely tolerant to either high rates of Beyond (above 6 fl oz) or to Beyond applied with oil-based adjuvants. Single-gene wheat varieties have allowed wheat producers to obtain good control of downy brome and jointed goatgrass, but feral rye control is currently listed as suppression on the Beyond label. Feral rye is inherently harder to control with Beyond than either downy brome or jointed goatgrass. Use of an adjuvant plus liquid nitrogen is required to provide good activity of Beyond herbicide on winter annual grass and mustard weeds. Years of research have shown that applying Beyond with methylated seed oil (MSO) or crop oil concentrate (COC) can push the single-gene wheat varieties beyond good crop tolerance.

Wheat varieties carrying a second copy of a modified ALS gene exhibit much higher tolerance to Beyond herbicide, even when it is applied with oil based adjuvants. Available “two-gene” varieties currently include only AP503 CL2 from AgriPro, though other programs are hoping to soon release promising alternatives. Although these two-gene wheat varieties have been successfully tested against Beyond rates as high as 20 fl oz per acre, they will not be labeled at these high rates because of herbicide cost and federal registration requirements. Rather, our current testing involves Beyond rates of 5 or 6 fl oz per acre when applied with MSO or COC at 1% v/v plus liquid nitrogen usually applied at 2.5% v/v. These combinations are much more effective on feral rye, and should greatly enhance our ability to control feral rye in our Colorado wheat crop while providing excellent wheat crop safety. The CSU Wheat Breeding Program, with funding assistance and support from the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC), and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF), is making good progress in the development of new two-gene Clearfield* wheat varieties. One of these experimental lines (CO06052) is currently in statewide variety trial testing and is expected to be released in August, 2011.

41

CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program Update June 2011Scott Haley, CSU Wheat Breeder

IntroductionThe primary goal of the CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program is to develop and releaseimproved wheat cultivars and germplasm adapted for the diverse production conditions in Colorado and the High Plains. In over 50 years of continuous wheat improvement at CSU, we have developed a uniquely adapted germplasm base and have brought many new cultivars to the market to address production and marketing constraints facing Colorado’s wheat producers. We are fortunate to receive generous funding support from CSU (Colorado Ag Experiment Station) and from the Colorado wheat industry through the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC) and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF). The funding we receive, enhanced considerably with the CWAC assessment increase in 2007, supports several different activities focused on wheat cultivar development. The following descriptions of these activities highlight our progress over the last few years, particularly since the CWAC assessment increase in 2007.

Breeding Program CoreThe primary goal of our breeding program is the development and release of improved wheat cultivars adapted for Colorado and the High Plains region. Funding provided by CWAC is used for partial salary/benefits for two research associates (4 months for one, 1 month for another) and general program support (supplies, temporary labor, travel). The Colorado Ag Experiment Station provides funding (8 months) to our program for a full-time research associate for greenhouse management.

• For the 2010-11 season, we have over 17,000 yield trial plots scattered across 14 field locations in Colorado. In addition to yield trials, we have over 35,000 F4 and F5 generation headrows, nearly 1,000 early-generation (F2-F4) populations, and over 1,500 new cross combinations planted at Fort Collins in 2010-11.

• Snowmass HWW was released in fall 2009. Snowmass has yielded very well in three years of dryland variety trial testing (2008-10) and, together with Thunder CL HWW (released in 2008), has generated considerable interest through the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program.

• Three HRW experimental lines are currently on foundation seed increase for possible release in 2011. These include CO06424, CO050303-2, and CO06052 (2-gene Clearfield*, for enhanced feral rye control). All three lines have shown high yield in field trials, good test weight, and good stripe rust resistance. Two of the lines (CO06424 and CO06052) have exceptional milling and baking quality. If released, CO06052 would be the first publicly-developed 2-gene Clearfield* winter wheat.

• In 2010 we engaged in collaborations to: transfer novel third-party, non-GM-derived traits to our breeding program (high amylose, high biomass); strengthen collaborations with Kansas State and Oklahoma State Universities; and develop methodologies for field-based assessment of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) (in collaboration with the USDA-ARS at Akron, CO).

42

Drought Stress Tolerance The basic objective of this effort is to develop a “pre-breeding capacity” focused on transferringdrought stress tolerance traits from exotic or unadapted germplasm into adapted CSU germplasm. Funding provided by CWAC is used for salary/benefits support for a PhD-level research scientist and general research support (supplies, temporary labor, travel).• In 2010-11, the third year of a drought tolerance study will be completed at the USDA-ARS

Limited Irrigation Research Farm in Greeley, CO. Twenty-four winter wheat experimental lines and cultivars with a range of drought stress responses were planted under five drip-irrigation treatments to gain a better understanding of the stress tolerance mechanisms in our germplasm. Remote sensing for rapid assessment of early growth has shown a good correlation with early biomass development and is now being used for breeding line evaluation. Digital imagery has also proven useful for growth assessment.

• We have increased our use of “synthetic wheats” for enhanced drought stress tolerance. We are using synthetic wheats derived at the International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico by crossing durum wheat with wild wheat, thus expanding the range of genetic variability available for use in wheat breeding. Ninety synthetic wheat populations were obtained from Texas A&M University in fall 2008. About 100 selections were made from these populations in 2010 and are being evaluated in yield trials at Walsh and Sheridan Lake in 2010-11. A second group of populations developed with a new set of synthetics were planted in early spring 2011. Pat Byrne is also co-lead of a USDA-funded project focusing on developing a knowledge base to more effectively exploit synthetic wheat germplasm.

• Each year since 2008, we have conducted side-by-side full/reduced irrigation evaluations of germplasm collections at ARDEC in Fort Collins. Materials originate from the hard winter wheat region and international trials coordinated by CIMMYT in Turkey. This effort has proven useful in identifying new drought stress tolerant germplasm for use in our crossing program.

• Populations have been developed to enable DNA marker mapping of several novel semi-dwarfing genes. These genes reportedly confer a longer coleoptile and enhanced early growth characteristics under stress and deep planting relative to conventional sources of semi-dwarfism. The populations have been characterized and marker assays will be done in fall 2011.

• Under Pat Byrne’s leadership, we received a Beachell-Borlaug grant to fund a PhD graduate student to focus on “association mapping” for drought stress tolerance. Pat Byrne is leading our involvement in a new $25 million USDA-funded project entitled “Improving Barley and Wheat Germplasm for Changing Environments”, with our involvement focusing on drought stress tolerance in a winter wheat association mapping panel.

DNA Marker-Assisted SelectionThe core of this effort involves application of DNA molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS) in a rapid generation advance scheme called “single seed descent” (SSD) that will allow us to rapidly develop experimental lines with desired trait combinations. We are also working to identify new DNA markers for traits of interest in our breeding program. Funding provided by CWAC is used for salary/benefits for a MS-level research associate and laboratory supplies and reagents.

43

• Each spring since 2008 we have initiated SSD with 30-50 different cross populations. Each set is assayed for key DNA markers during the first generation in the greenhouse and then two subsequent generations are advanced in the greenhouse. Experimental lines from the first set in spring 2008 are in yield trials in 2010-11. Approximately 1/8 of the 1,200 experimental lines at this stage of the program in 2011 were developed via SSD with DNA marker-assisted selection.

• In addition to our efforts with SSD, in 2010-11 we have also committed to have 1,000 doubled haploid lines (costing $30/line) made for us by the Heartland Plant Innovation Center (HPI) in Manhattan, KS. Doubled haploids are “true-breeding” lines developed in a one-two years time frame rather than the four-five year time frame with conventional breeding methods. We hope to continue to use this service as our budget allows. The CWRF royalties that are returned to our program are used for this purpose.

• We routinely use DNA markers for rapid transfer of unique traits from unadapted germplasm. We have focused on the following: leaf, stripe, and Ug-99 stem rust resistance; wheat streak mosaic virus resistance; gluten strength; polyphenol oxidase (PPO) content; pre-harvest sprouting.

• We have identified novel DNA markers linked to the wheat streak mosaic virus resistance gene in Snowmass HWW (in collaboration with Texas A&M University) and a gene for RWA resistance identified in an Iranian landrace selection. We are also in the third year of a collaboration with Australian researchers to identify DNA markers for Russian wheat aphid (RWA) resistance in several mapping populations.

• We are pursuing implementation of a breeding method known as “genomic selection”. This novel method utilizes advances in DNA sequencing and bioinformatics tools to potentially lead to more rapid yield gains in wheat breeding. A PhD-level graduate student is currently working on this project from the standpoint of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) enhancement.

TILLING for Novel Trait DevelopmentTILLING (Targeting Induced Local Lesions In Genomes) is a novel technique that uses a combination of chemical mutagens and advanced genomics to identify useful plant mutations. The objective of this project is to identify useful novel, non-GM traits for potential deployment in wheat cultivars for Colorado. Funding provided by CWAC is used for laboratory supplies and salary/benefits for a PhD level scientist that focuses on TILLING mutant identification (under the leadership of Nora Lapitan) and a MS-level research associate focusing on novel trait validation and transfer to our breeding materials.• A mutagenized population of Hatcher has been generated using the mutagen ethyl methyl

sulfonate (EMS), which creates single-base changes in DNA. A total of 3000 mutagenized plants have been isolated in two rounds of chemical mutagenesis. A second mutagenized population, in a spring wheat background, has been obtained from Univ. California-Davis.

• A reliable working protocol for TILLING mutant screening has been developed. We have explored different methods of mutant detection to optimize our procedures and plan to purchase a new DNA fragment analyzer (using funding from CWRF) that will greatly streamline the process.

• Using virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), we confirmed the role of a candidate gene in conferring enhanced drought stress tolerance in wheat. Using bioinformatic tools and sequence information from rice and barley, we have identified 15 wheat plants (all three

44

genomes) that carry a mutation in this gene. Crosses with these plants are being made in the breeding program for trait validation and potential trait deployment.

• A second drought-related gene has been identified as a potential target for TILLING. Bioinformatic tools described above have been used to identify TILLING mutants in this gene in wheat. We have identified mutants in two of wheat’s genomes and are conducting research on the third genome.

• Candidate genes for other useful traits (drought stress tolerance, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance) have been identified and will be used in TILLING and conventional mutant identification (where possible) to identify wheat plants carrying mutations in these genes.

Russian Wheat Aphid ResistanceOur efforts in this area have focused on identification of germplasm resistant to the new RWAbiotypes and rapid transfer of the resistance to adapted backgrounds via backcross and forwardbreeding. Our program, in close collaboration with Frank Peairs, has also focused on identification of molecular DNA markers linked with different resistance genes for use in marker-assisted selection (MAS). Funding provided by CWAC is used for partial salary/benefits (8 months) for one research associate with the remaining 4 months funded by the Colorado Ag Experiment Station RWA project.• Four experimental lines with RWA biotype 2 resistance are in the state dryland variety trial

(UVPT) in 2010-11. Pending trial results, one or more of these lines may be moved toward seed increase for potential release in 2012. Because the resistance in these lines is from the rye-derived Dn7 gene, we are concerned about the quality of the lines (additional tests are being done).

• In spring 2010, we confirmed that our efforts to separate the negative quality effects from the Dn7 gene were successful. Backcross-derived lines with this resistance in a Bill Brown background are being increased in the field in spring 2011 to enable preliminary yield tests in 2012.

• In 2010, 36 line selections in a Snowmass background were advanced for yield trials in 2010-11. Two different sources of RWA biotype 2 resistance (PI 572652 and PI 626580) were used to develop these materials. A limited number of these lines will be advanced for further testing in the CSU Elite Trial in 2012.

End-Use Quality ImprovementThe primary goals of this effort are to conduct milling and baking quality evaluations on experimental lines in our breeding program and samples collected from the state dryland (UVPT) and irrigated (IVPT) variety trials. Our overall strategy in breeding line evaluation is to identify lines with unacceptable quality early in the breeding process (so that they may be discarded) and identify superior quality lines so that they may be properly positioned for a ConAgra-type, identity-preserved program. Funding provided by CWAC is used for temporary labor (student and non-student hourly) and for repair and maintenance of equipment in the laboratory. The Colorado Ag Experiment Station provides funding (11 months) to our program for a full-time research associate for wheat quality lab management during the winter months.• Comprehensive milling and baking quality evaluations are done on selected locations of

the state dryland (UVPT) and irrigated (IVPT) variety trial program every year. Since 2007, data and interpretations from these evaluations have been reported in the Making Better

45

Decisions booklet to assist producers in the variety selection process.• Comprehensive milling and baking quality evaluations are done annually at several

different stages of our breeding program. We are currently testing entries each year from four locations of the CSU Elite Trial, two locations of the Advanced Yield Nursery, and a single location of the Preliminary Yield Nursery. Each year we do over 2,000 single kernel characterization system (SKCS) tests, over 2,000 Mixographs, over 600 polyphenol oxidase (PPO) assays, and over 600 full-scale Quadrumat Senior milling and pup-loaf bake tests.

• Through our federal special research grant, we have developed and implemented several calibrations for rapid end-use quality prediction using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRs).

46

Collaborative On-Farm Testing (COFT)Collaboration among Agents, Farmers, Specialists, and the Colorado Wheat Research

Foundation Makes COFT a Unique and Rewarding ExperienceBruce Bosely, Colorado State University Extension

Colorado State University Extension’s Collaborative On-Farm Trial (COFT) program is unique among Land Grant University Extension Programs. Colorado has the only COFT program in the United States that features a uniform set of varieties tested on all farms. It has been conducted annually in Colorado since 1996. In a recent wheat grower survey, farmers picked CSU Extension’s COFT data as their most reliable source of information when choosing new wheat varieties. Without an exception, those farmers who participate in the COFT program express their appreciation of this program. They see firsthand how the different wheat varieties perform on their farm and make wheat planting decisions based on test results. The CSU COFT program is a partnership among farmers, CSU Extension field agents, CSU campus-based wheat specialists, and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF). This article outlines how these partners collaborate in all aspects of the program to help farmers make better variety decisions. Collaborating COFT farmers agree to plant four to six wheat varieties in one of their wheat fields. They receive 100 pounds of wheat seed for each variety. The wheat for all COFT trials is provided by the CWRF or private seed companies. CWRF also contributes to program operation expenses. COFT farmers agree not to save back seed of COFT varieties for subsequent wheat plantings. All harvested wheat is mixed together with the other wheat harvested from that field and sold for grain.

Farmers manage their COFT plots and harvest operations like the wheat in the rest of the field. They use their own or rented equipment and may use custom sprayers or combines for all field operations. They use the same fertilizer, weed and pest control, and tillage practices as they use in their other fields.

Each wheat trial strip needs to be planted as wide as, or wider than, the combine header width that will be used for harvest. In that way, there will be a full combine header and all varieties will be treated equally. Farmers plant the varieties in parallel side-by-side strips inside one of their normal commercial wheat fields. There should always be at least one round of border wheat planted around the COFT plots to avoid the variable effects of field edges on the variety comparison. Deciding the best place to plant the COFT strips so that all varieties will be fairly compared is of utmost importance. Field agents help COFT collaborators choose suitable locations for the strips. Avoid planting the strips in such a manner that it is obvious, even before planting, that one variety would benefit more than another variety from a favorable spot in the field. CSU Extension agents help farmers select unbiased field sites for the strips and often help in the actual planting process. The agents flag the corners of the strips, keep track of the variety planting order, locate the field using GPS equipment, and monitor the wheat throughout the growing season. Extension agents work with farmers to schedule harvest and minimize the

47

disruption to other harvest operations. A portable weigh wagon is brought to the field for measuring the grain weight of each variety. The agent and the farmer select the most uniform portion of the field to make the variety comparison as meaningful as possible. They measure the length of the strips to be harvested and, knowing the width of the combine, can accurately compute yield for each variety. A grain sample of each variety is taken for measuring grain moisture and test weight in the field. These samples are sometimes passed on to the wheat breeding program for multiple measurements of wheat quality.

Extension Agents supply the information for each trial to the cooperating farmer and forward the test results to Jerry Johnson, CSU Crops Testing Extension Specialist. He compiles all COFT data and reports the results in annual CSU wheat publications and websites. All cooperating farmers get a copy of all the trial data from these COFT plots.

Cooperating Colorado Extension Agents are: Bruce Bosley, Thaddeus Gourd, Alan Helm, Ron Meyer, and Wilma Trujillo.

48

CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program

Snowmass

Snowmass is the newest addition to the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program and was first available for planting in fall 2010. This hard white wheat variety combines high dryland yields, good test weight, good sprouting tolerance and excellent milling and baking qualities. Snowmass has excellent resistance to stripe and stem rust and is one of the few varieties with built-in resistance to wheat streak mosaic virus, which is becoming an increasing yield threat. Colorado growers will really appreciate the strong agronomic traits of this wheat variety paired with the excellent premium opportunities. Snowmass had a top 3-year trial average for 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the CSU Uniform Variety Dryland Performance Trials.

Thunder CL

Thunder CL was the first hard white wheat variety accepted into the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program. This wheat variety has growers excited with its strong field performance and high trial yield results, particularly under irrigated conditions. Thunder CL has excellent stripe and stem rust resistance, good stress tolerance, very good straw strength and excellent milling and baking qualities. It also carries the Clearfield® herbicide-tolerance trait for control of winter annual grassy weeds.

Consumer and Export Demand

Colorado growers are uniquely qualified to serve the growing consumer and export market for hard white wheat, creating a valuable long-term market opportunity. There is an added benefit because Commerce City,Colo. is one of the key milling locations for ConAgra’s Ultragrain flour, creating a reliable market that growers can count on. Major brands like Papa John’s, Sara Lee and Pepperidge Farms are utilizing the new flour, and the demand for whole-grain flour with properties similar to enriched white flour is growing annually. The health benefits of whole grain suggest these products are here to stay. In addition, a U.S. Wheat Associates survey of export customers says there is unmet demand for 215 million bushels of hard white wheat for export.

How can you join the program?

The first step for wheat producers who wish to participate in the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program is contacting your local seed grower. The seed supplier will then have you sign a Grain Pricing Schedule with ConAgra Mills, detailing the contract terms and requiring delivery of all production to ConAgra, and a Wheat Seed Agreement with CWRF that requires planting of certified seed. Growers selecting Thunder CL will also sign a “Clearfield® Wheat Stewardship Grower Agreement” with BASF. The cost of Thunder CL and Snowmass certified seed will be similar to other CWRF varieties. You can buy the certified seed from the CWRF seed grower participants listed on the following page.

A Powerful Pair of Hard White Wheat Varieties...

Premium Program Pays 3 Ways:Yield, Price,

and Protein

49

The Colorado Wheat Research Foundation is excited to continue its partnership with ConAgra Mills in the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat. ConAgra Mills is investing in this sustainable, ongoing, value-added hard white wheat program with the support of the breeding program at Colorado State University. The result is high-yielding, top quality varieties, the first step in creating high-value flour.

Ultragrain is a 100 percent whole wheat flour that combines the nutritional benefits of whole grains with the finished recipe qualities of refined flour. The milling and baking qualities of Snowmass and Thunder CL set this program apart and give Colorado wheat growers a new opportunity to boost their incomes. In 2011, ConAgra will pay a minimum premium of 30 cents per bushel, plus a protein premium of 2 cents per bushel for each 0.2 percent of protein greater than 12 percent up to 15 percent. An additional 5 cents per bushel will be added to the premium at both 13 and 13.5 percent protein with a maximum premium of 40 cents per bushel for grain with 15 percent protein.

Minimum premium 30¢ per bushel, plus a maximum protein premium of 40¢ per bushel = 70 cents per bushel: Protein Scale:12.0% 12.8% 8¢ 13.5% 24¢ 14.2% 32¢12.2% 2¢ 13.0% 15¢ 13.6% 26¢ 14.4% 34¢12.4% 4¢ 13.2% 17¢ 13.8% 28¢ 14.8% 38¢12.6% 6¢ 13.4% 19¢ 14.0% 30¢ 15.0% 40¢

Grower premiums and protein scales for 2012 and subsequent crops will be set by ConAgra no later than August 15th of the fall the wheat is to be planted.

For more information about participating in the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat, contact the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation at (970) 449-6994 or visit www.coloradowheat.org.

Thunder CL Seed Growers:

Anderson Wheat Farms, Haxtun (970) 774-4143Cooksey Farms, Roggen (303) 849-5214Frank Fry, Grand Junction (970) 858-7181Splitter Farms, Sheridan Lake (719) 729-3567Harry Thompson, Snyder (970) 842-3168Thunderbird Livestock & Seed, Towner (800) 289-1415Wagers Seed, Woodrow (970) 842-2022Ryan Weaver, Burlington (719) 340-1234

Snowmass Seed Growers:

Anderson Wheat Farms, Haxtun (970) 774-4143Cooksey Farms, Roggen (303) 849-5214Jim Dolezal, Julesburg (308) 889-5365Eagle Farms, Holyoke (970) 854-5328Kochis Farms, Matheson (719) 775-2596Pachner Ag Enterprises, Akron (970) 345-6457Scherler Farms, Sheridan Lake (719) 729-3367Splitter Farms, Sheridan Lake (719) 729-3567Gary Rafert, Amherst (970) 854-2607Terry Ring, Crook (970) 253-5009Mertens Brothers, New Raymer (970) 437-5358Thunderbird Livestock & Seed, Towner (800) 289-1415Wagers Seed, Woodrow (970) 842-2022Cary Wickstrom, Orchard (970) 656-3656Randy Wilks, Burlington (719) 346-7314

50

Wheat Information Resources

Dr. Jerry Johnson - Associate Professor/Extension Specialist - Crop Production, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C12 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-1454, fax: 970-491-2758, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Scott Haley - Professor/Wheat Breeder, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C136 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-6483, fax: 970-491-0564, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Jessica Davis - Professor/Extension Specialist/Soils, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C09 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-1913, fax: 970-491-2758, e-mail: [email protected].

Brad Erker - Director of Colorado Seed Programs, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C143 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523, phone: 970-491-6202, e-mail: [email protected].

Darrell Hanavan - Executive Director of the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee/Colorado Association of Wheat Growers/Colorado Wheat Research Foundation, 4026 South Timberline Rd, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525, phone: 970-449-6998, fax: 970-449-6999, e-mail: dhanavan@ coloradowheat.org.

Dr. Frank Peairs - Professor/Extension Specialist/Entomologist, Colorado State University, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, 102 Insectary, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5945, fax: 970-491-6990, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Ned Tisserat - Professor/Plant Disease Specialist, Colorado State University, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, C137 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-6527, fax: 970-491-3862, e-mail: [email protected]

Thia Walker - Extension Specialist - Pesticide Education, Colorado State University, 1177 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: (970) 491-6027, fax: (970) 491-3888, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Phil Westra - Professor/Extension Specialist/Weed Science, Colorado State University, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, 112 Weed Research Lab, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5219, fax: 970-491-3862, e-mail:[email protected].

Additional Wheat Information Resources on the Web:

http://www.csucrops.com- Colorado State University Crop Variety Testing Program

http://wheat.colostate.edu - Colorado State University Wheat Breeding Program

http://wheat.colostate.edu/database.html - Colorado Wheat Variety Performance Database (CSU Wheat Breeding Program).

http://www.coloradowheat.org - Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC), Colorado Association of Wheat Growers (CAWG), and Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF) website.

51

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. The Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee provides substantial financial support to Colorado State University for wheat breeding and wheat-related research. We are thankful to Kierra Jewell (CSU Extension), Jim Hain, Sally Sauer (Crops Testing); John Stromberger, Emily Heaton, Rebecca Kottke, Scott Seifert, Victoria Valdez, and Marc Moragues (Wheat Breeding Program); Chris Fryrear, Mark Collins, and Bob Bee (Agricultural Research, Development and Education Center); Dave Poss (USDA); Merle Vigil, Delbert Koch, Paul Campbell (Central Great Plains Research Center); Kevin Larson, Dennis Thompson, and Deb Harn (Plainsman Research Center); Mike Bartolo and Jeff Davidson (Arkansas Valley Research Center); and Frank Peairs, Jeff Rudolph, Thia Walker, Terri Randolph (Russian Wheat Aphid Program), for their work and collaboration that make these trials and this report possible. The authors are thankful for the cooperation and unselfish contributions of land, labor and equipment made by the following Colorado wheat farmers who consent to having winter wheat variety performance trials conducted on their farms: John and Jensen Stulp (Lamar, Prowers County), Burl Scherler (Brandon, Kiowa County), Dennis and Matt Campbell (Arapahoe, Cheyenne County), Randy Wilks (Burlington, Kit Carson County), Jim Carlson (Julesburg, Sedgwick County), Brian Kipp (Haxtun, Phillips County), Steve Meakins (Haxtun, Phillips County), Cooksey Farms (Roggen, Weld County), Ross Hansen (Genoa, Lincoln County), Cary Wickstrom (Orchard, Morgan County), and Bill and Steve Andrews (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: Bruce Bosley (Platte River agronomist); Wilma Trujillo (SE Area agronomist); Ron Meyer (Golden Plains agronomist); Alan Helm (Golden Plains agronomist); Thaddeus Gourd (Adams County Extension). We are also 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 Testing program.

Funded by the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, Colorado Wheat Research Foundation, and Colorado State University.

**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.

2011 Colorado Winter Wheat

Documents

Transcript of 2011 Colorado Winter Wheat