Northern Agricultural Research Center 2014 Field Day Handouts

Notes: Northern Agriclutural Research Center Centennial Celebreation – July 1, 2015__________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

iii

iv

Montana State University - Department of Research Centers Barry Jacobsen, Interim Department Head Email: uplbj@montana.edu Phone: 406-994-5161

Shana Wold, Administrative Assistant IV Email: shana.wold@montana.edu Phone: 406-994-7289

NORTHERN AG RESEARCH CENTER SOUTHERN AG RESEARCH CENTER 3710 Assinniboine, Havre, MT 59501-8412 748 Railroad Hwy., Huntley, MT 59037 Phone: 406-265-6115 Fax: 406-265-8288 Phone: 406-348-3400 Fax: 406-348-3410

http://ag.montana.edu/narc/ http://www.sarc.montana.edu/php/

DARRIN BOSS Superintendent, PhD KENNETH KEPHART Superintendent, PhD dboss@montana.edu Asst Research Prof - Animal Science kephart@montana.edu Professor - Agronomy

EMI SMITH Administrative Associate III-BS KENT McVAY Associate Professor, PhD emi.smith@montana.edu kmcvay@montana.edu Cropping Systems

PEGGY LAMB Research Scientist, MS PRASHANT JHA Assistant Professor, PhD plamb@montana.edu Agronomy pjha@montana.edu Weed Science

ANDY MATAKIS Livestock Operations Manager-BS TAMMY BALZER Administrative Associate III-SARC amatakis@montana.edu tbalzer@montana.edu

THOMAS ALLEN Farm Operations Manager-MS MATHEW PETERSON-WALTER Research Associate, MS thomas.allen@montana.edu m.petersonwalter@montana.edu Agronomy

JULIA DAFOE Research Associate, MS QASIM KHAN Research Associate, PhD jdafoe@montana.edu Animal Science qkhan@montana.edu Cropping Systems

ANGELA SEBELIUS Research Associate-MS TOM FISCHER Research Assistant, BS angela.sebelius@montana.edu Agronomy tfischer@montana.edu Farm Foreman

GERALD BOHN Farm Mechanic-BS SHANE LELAND Program Manager-Weed Science-BS gerald.bohn@montana.edu shane.leland@montana.edu

DELYN JENSEN Research Assistant III-MS KELLI MAXWELL Research Associate-Agronomy-MS delyn@montana.edu kelli.maxwell@montana.edu

JAMES CHANDLESS Research Assistant III-BS JANNA KRANSKY Research Assistant III-BS james.chandless@montana.edu janna.kransky@montana.edu

STEVE LAIRY Livestock Research Technician-AS EASTERN AG RESEARCH CENTER

LES GRAY Research Assistant III 1501 North Central, Sidney, MT 59270

CENTRAL AG RESEARCH CENTER Phone: 406-433-2208 Fax: 406-433-7336 Williston Phone: 701-774-4315 52583 US Hwy. 87, Moccasin, MT 59462-9512 http://ag.montana.edu/earc/

Phone: 406-423-5421 Fax: 406-423-5422 Cell: 406-350-0803 JOHANNES "HANS" SCHNEIDER Superintendent, PhD http://ag.montana.edu/carc/ johannes.schneider@montana.edu Associate Professor - Plant Pathology

DAVID WICHMAN Superintendent, MS JOYCE ECKHOFF Professor, PhD dwichman@montana.edu Assistant Professor - Agronomy joyce.eckhoff@montana.edu Agronomy

CHENGCI CHEN Professor, PhD CHERIE GATZKE Administrative Associate III-BS,AS

cchen@montana.edu Cropping Systems Agronomist cherie.gatzke@montana.edu

LORRIE LINHART Administrative Associate III-AS SHERRY TURNER Research Associate, MS llinhart@montana.edu sherry.turner@montana.edu Plant Pathology

YESUF MOHAMMED Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhD RONALD BROWN Farm Mechanic yesuf.mohammed@montana.edu ronald.brown7@montana.edu

TIMOTHY BISHOP Farm Mechanic REBECCA GARZA Research Assistant II-AS timothy.bishop1@montana.edu rebecca.garza@montana.edu

SALLY DAHLHAUSEN Ag Field Tech CALLA KOWATCH-CARLSON Research Assistant III-BS,AS sally.dahlhausen@montana.edu calla.kowatch@montana.edu

WESTERN TRIANGLE AG RESEARCH CENTER THOMAS GROSS Research Assistant III 9546 Old Shelby Rd., Conrad, MT 59425 thomas.gross1@montana.edu

Phone: 406-278-7707 Fax: 406-278-7797 NORTHWESTERN AG RESEARCH CENTER http://ag.montana.edu/wtarc/ 4570 Hwy. 35, Kalispell, MT 59901

GADI V.P. REDDY Superintendent, PhD Phone: 406-755-4303 Fax: 406-755-8951 Cell: 406-250-0234 reddy@montana.edu Assoc Prof Entomology/Insect Ecology http://ag.montana.edu/nwarc/

OLGA WALSH Assistant Professor, PhD BOB STOUGAARD Superintendent, PhD olga.walsh@montana.edu Soil Nutrient Management rns@montana.edu Professor - Agronomy

LEANNE CURRY Administrative Associate III JESSICA TORRION Assistant Professor, PhD leanne.curry@montana.edu jessica.torrion@montana.edu Crop Physiology

BRIAN THOMPSON Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhD DOVE CARLIN Administrative Associate III-BS brian.thompson@montana.edu dove.carlin@montana.edu

JOHN MILLER Research Associate-MS BROOKE BOHANNON Research Associate-BS jhmiller@montana.edu brooke.bohannon@montana.edu

ROBIN CHRISTIAENS Research Associate-BS JORDAN PENNEY Program Manager-AAS robin.christiaens@montana.edu jordan.penney@montana.edu

JULIE PREWETT Research Assistant III JOHN GARNER Research Assistant III-BS julie.prewett@montana.edu john.garner@montana.edu

DEBRA MILLER Research Assistant III WESTERN AG RESEARCH CENTER debra.miller@montana.edu 580 Quast Lane, Corvallis, MT 59828

Fort Keogh - LARRL (not part of DRC; for contact info only) Phone: 406-961-3025 Fax: 406-961-3026 243 Fort Keogh Rd., Miles City, MT 59301 http://ag.montana.edu/warc/

Phone: 406-874-8200 Fax: 406-874-8209 ZACH MILLER Superintendent, PhD http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=3087 zachariah.miller@montana.edu Assistant Professor - Horticulture

MARK PETERSEN Program Leader DEB HARRISON Administrative Associate III-BS

mark.petersen@ars.usda.gov dharrison@montana.edu

BRAD EIK Operations Manager MARTY KNOX Research Assistant III-BS brad.eik@ars.usda.gov mknox@montana.edu

LINDSEY Cook Administrative Support BILL FLEMING Research Assistant II/Farm Foreman lindsey.voigt@ars.usda.gov wef@montana.edu

v

FY14 MONTANA WHEAT & BARLEY GRANTS

GRANT TITLE PRINCIPAL

INVESTIGATOR

MSU

CA

RC

EAR

C

NA

RC

NW

AR

C

SAR

C

WA

RC

WTA

RC

Identifying and developing improved barley varieties for Montana Tom Blake X X X X X X X

Winter wheat breeding and genetics - early line selection Phil Bruckner X X X

Winter wheat breeding and genetics - advanced line selection Phil Bruckner X X X X X X X X

Plant disease management and education in Montana Mary Burrows X X

Early generation durum selection and germplasm improvement Joyce Eckhoff X

A field survey for occurrence of herbicide-resistant kochia in Northern Montana Prashant Jha X

Light-activated sensor controlled sprayer technology Prashant Jha X

Strategic investment in SARC for small grains research in South Central Montana Ken Kephart X

Soil sampling equipment for field scale-small plot on & off-station research at NARC Peggy Lamb X

Weather data collection for producers in North Central Montana Peggy Lamb X

Adding ESN to urea as nitrogen source for irrigated spring wheat production Kent McVay X

Assessing agronomic practices to advance cereal production in Montana Kent McVay X X X X X X X

Trapping click beetles with pheromone traps (Coleoptera: Elateridae) Gadi V.P. Reddy X

Purchase of diesel pick-up Gadi V.P. Reddy X

Orange wheat blossom midge management Bob Stougaard X

Evaluation of materials/practices contributing to economic production in Montana Bob Stougaard X

Spring wheat breeding and genetics - early line selection Luther Talbert X X X

Spring wheat breeding and genetics - advanced line selection Luther Talbert X X X X X X X X

Sensor-based nitrogen fertilization Algorithm for winter wheat varieties Olga Walsh X X X X X

Expanded implementation of wheat stem sawfly IPM David Weaver X X

FY14 FERTILIZER TAX AWARDS

GRANT TITLE PRINCIPAL

INVESTIGATOR

MSU

CA

RC

EAR

C

NA

RC

NW

AR

C

SAR

C

WA

RC

WTA

RC

Tillage and crop rotation effect on nitrogen use efficiency and crop yield Chegnci Chen X

Nitrogen management of Roundup Ready sugar beets Joyce Eckhoff X

Effect of fertilizer nitrogen weed control and crop-weed competition in Montana cereal production Prashant Jha

X

Comparison of Urea to ESN as nitrogen source for irrigated corn production in Montana Ken Kephart X

Effects of alternative nitrogen sources applied in variable blends and timings on yield and quality of short seasoned dryland corn grown for grain production in a low rainfall

Peggy Lamb X

Comparison of foliar applied nitrogen fertilizers in spring wheat Olga Walsh X X

Evaluation of sensor-based technologies & nitrogen sources for improved recommendations for dryland & irrigated spring wheat production in Montana

Olga Walsh X X

Effect of nitrogen sources, rates & application time on spring wheat yield & grain protein Olga Walsh X

A comparison of nitrogen sources for spring wheat production Olga Walsh X X

Winter wheat, in a continuous crop system, yield and protein response to time of winter application of urea and ESN nitrogen fertilizer

Dave Wichman X

vi

Table on Contents

Tour ......................................................................................................................................Page #

Tour A - Crop Variety Tour and Cover Crop Explorations

Spring Barley Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development ...........................................NA Dr. Tom Blake, Montana Barley Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

Winter Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development ..............................................1 Dr. Phil Bruckner, Montana Winter Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

Wheat Insect Pests ..........................................................................................................................3 Dr. David Weaver, Research Entomologist, Land Resources & Environmental Sciences-Bozeman

Spring Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development ...............................................5 Dr. Luther Talbert, Montana Spring Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

Orange Wheat Blossom Midge Status in the Triangle Area ...........................................................7 Dr. Robert Stougaard, Superintendent, Weed Scientist, Northwestern Ag. Research Center, Creston

Cover Crop Evaluations .................................................................................................................9 Dr. Clain Jones, Extension Soil Specialist, Land Resources & Environ. Sciences-Bozeman

Cover Crop Termination and Subsequent Wheat Yield ............................................................... 11 Dr. Darrin Boss, Ruminant Nutritionist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Mr. Pat Hensleigh, NRCS State Agronomist-Bozeman

Tour B - Beef Research Tour

NARC Residual Feed Intake and Angus Breeding Project .......................................................... 13 Dr. Darrin Boss, Ruminant Nutritionist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

New Strategies in Range Cattle Synchronization Programs ......................................................... 15 Mr. Andrew Williams, Graduate Student, Animal and Range Sciences-Bozeman

Using NiaSure™ a Niacin Supplement Pre-Calving to Enhance Calf ........................................ 17 Ms. Julia Dafoe, Research Associate, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Range Recovery Post Fire and Fire Break Construction .............................................................. 19 Dr. Craig Carr, Range Ecologist, Animal and Range Sciences-Bozeman

Tour C - Specialty Crops, Disease and Water Use

Pea Forage and Corn Research ..................................................................................................... 21 Ms. Peggy Lamb, Research Scientist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Specialty Crops, Sorghum, Spineless Safflower and Annual Forages ............................................. 25 Mr. Dave Wichman, Superintendent, Agronomist, Central Ag. Research Center-Moccasin

Oilseed Production Options in Central Montana .......................................................................... 27 Mr. Mike Waring, Montana Specialty Mills, Great Falls, Montana

Brassica Carinata Breeding & Research ....................................................................................... 29 Dr. Rick Bennett, Plant Breeder, Agrisoma Biosciences

Rotation Crops and Water Use ..................................................................................................... 31 Mr. Mike Bestwick, MS Student, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences-Bozeman

Pulse Crop Disease Issues ............................................................................................................. 33 Dr. Barry Jacobsen, Plant Pathologist, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

Thank you For Coming if there is anything you need today during your visit

please contact any employee of Northern Agricultural Research Center

Remember 2015 is NARC’s Centennial Anniversary Plan on Attending!

Historic Pictures ............................................................................................................................ 37

vii

FIELD DAY 2014 NORTHERN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER

Havre, Montana July 2, 2014

3:30 pm REGISTRATION & REFRESHMENTS 3:45 pm WELCOME & ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. Darrin Boss, Superintendent, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre 4:00 pm ON-STATION RESEARCH TOURS/DISCUSSIONS Three different 90-minute field tours will be offered twice. There will be tours prior to and after supper.

TOUR A: Tom Allen, NARC Farm Operations Manager, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Host

Daniel Hanson, Summer Employee, MSU Bozeman Engineering student Spring Barley Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development

Dr. Tom Blake, Montana Barley Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman Winter Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development

Dr. Phil Bruckner, Montana Winter Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman Wheat Insect Pests

Dr. David Weaver, Research Entomologist, Land Resources & Environmental Sciences-Bozeman Spring Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development

Dr. Luther Talbert, Montana Spring Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman Orange Wheat Blossom Midge Status in the Triangle Area Dr. Robert Stougaard, Superintendent, Weed Scientist, Northwestern Ag. Research Center, Creston

Cover Crop Evaluations Dr. Clain Jones, Extension Soil Specialist, Land Resources & Environ. Sciences-Bozeman Cover Crop Termination and Subsequent Wheat Yield

Dr. Darrin Boss, Ruminant Nutritionist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre Mr. Pat Hensleigh, NRCS State Agronomist-Bozeman

TOUR B: Andy Matakis, Livestock Operations Manager, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Host

Les Gray, Livestock, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Guide James Chandless, Livestock, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Guide

NARC Residual Feed Intake and Angus Breeding Project Dr. Darrin Boss, Ruminant Nutritionist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre New Strategies in Range Cattle Synchronization Programs

Mr. Andrew Williams, Graduate Student, Beef Cattle Production, Animal and Range Sciences-Bozeman Using NiaSure™ a Niacin Supplement Pre-Calving to Enhance Calf Survivability in Northern Montana Ms. Julia Dafoe, Research Associate, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre Range Recovery Post Fire and Fire Break Construction Dr. Craig Carr, Range Ecologist, Animal and Range Sciences-Bozeman

TOUR C: Angela Sebelius, Research Associate Agronomy, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Host Jerry Bohn, Livestock, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Guide

Pea Forage and Corn Research Ms. Peggy Lamb, Research Scientist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Specialty Crops, Sorghum, Spineless Safflower and Annual Forages Mr. Dave Wichman, Superintendent, Agronomist, Central Ag. Research Center-Moccasin

Oilseed Production Options in Central Montana Mr. Mike Waring, Montana Specialty Mills, Great Falls, Montana

Brassica Carinata Breeding & Research Dr. Rick Bennett, Plant Breeder, Agrisoma Biosciences

Rotation Crops and Water Use Mr. Mike Bestwick, MS Student, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences-Bozeman

Pulse and Wheat Crop Disease Issues Dr. Barry Jacobsen, Plant Pathologist, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

viii

5:30 pm Dinner – Free Barbeque Courtesy of:

Bear Paw Meats-Chinook Gregoire Insurance Agency-Havre Havre Lions Club Independence Bank-Havre Anderson-ZurMuehlen-Havre

Northwest Farm Credit Services-Havre Stockman Bank-Havre U S Bank-Havre Wells Fargo Bank-Havre Northern Ag. Research Center & MAES

Dinner Cooked and Served by the Ag Committee of the Havre Area Chamber of Commerce Thanks are expressed to these businesses and organizations for their generous support of NARC’s Annual Field Day 2014, and North Central Montana Agriculture!

Agribusiness Committee

Thank you Uncle Joe’s Steakhouse for preparing the side Dishes.

Thank You Bear Paw BBQ and Scott Young for the use of the BBQ grills. 100 Anniversary Cake Montana State University Extension Service, Dr. Jeff Bader, Director

Thank You Mike and Craig Tilleman for the use of the tent and the support you give year round.

5:45 pm INTRODUCTIONS Dr. Darrin Boss, Superintendent, Northern Agricultural Research Center GUEST SPEAKERS

Ms. Nicole Grey, Hill County Extension, MSU Extension Service Dr. Barry Jacobsen, Interim Department Head, Department of Research Centers Dr. Glenn Duff, Interim Dean and Director, Montana Ag. Experiment Station and College of Ag.

MSU-N SCHOLARSHIP “50/50” DRAWING Ms. Heidi Borlaug, Havre Area Chamber of Commerce, Ag Committee 6:30 pm TOUR DEPARTURES – Tours: A, B and C – See above 8:00 pm FIELD DAY PROGRAM ADJOURNED

Individuals desiring to remain after the main program to further discuss any research projects individually with the local scientists, or revisit specific project sites with scientists or staff, are welcome to do so.

THANK YOU FOR COMING! Please Drive Home Safely

Thank You: Torgerson’s LLC of Havre Montana for their Corporate Research Facility Equipment Lease Program

1

Table 1. Yield of solid-stem winter wheat cultivars in Montana, 2010-2013

Variety

1 2 3 4 5 5 6- Sidney &

Kalispell Bozeman Huntley Moccasin Conrad Havre Williston

location-years 4 9 19 18 14 13 6 83

Warhorse 114.3** 66.2** 60.0 47.0 63.9* 54.2* 53.7* 59.7**

WB-Quake 110.6* 60.9* 59.7 44.1 64.0** 55.9** 52.6* 58.5*

Decade 48.9 64.0* 63.7** 50.8** 61.7* 55.8* 58.4** 58.3*

Judee 105.1* 63.8* 59.2 43.0 63.4* 55.6* 45.4 57.5*

Bearpaw 58.5 60.8* 61.3* 47.3 60.6* 54.7* 54.1* 56.4

Rampart 84.3 57.3 53.5 37.4 55.9 49.2 47.3 51.2

Genou 59.8 54.9 53.9 40.1 57.8 51.3 46.8 51.0

LSD (0.05) 23.6 6.4 3.7 3.0 5.5 3.4 7.1 2.7

All

Locations

Districts

Table 2. Stem-solidness of MT winter wheat cultivars, 2008-2012

2013 2012 2011 2010 2008-12

location-years 8 8 4 5 25

Bearpaw 21.7* 20.8* 21.0* 22.0** 21.4**

Warhorse 22.0* 20.4* 21.5** 21.2* 21.3*

Rampart 22.1** 21.0** 21.0* 19.5 21.0*

Judee 21.0* 18.5 20.2* 18.9 19.6

WB-Quake 20.2 18.9 18.1 19.5 19.3

Genou 20.7 18.4 17.3 16.3 18.5

LSD (0.05) 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.0 0.7

Stem Solidness Rating (scale 5-25, higher = more solid)

Table 3. Agronomic characteristics of MT solid-stem winter wheat cultivars, 2010-2013

Variety Test Winter Heading Plant Protein Sawfly Stripe Coleoptile

weight survival date height cutting rust length

lb/bu % Calendar in % % % in

location-years 83 5 85 78 15 10 3

Bearpaw 58.8 34 17-Jun 30.6 13.4 9* 43 3.0

Decade 58.9 50** 16-Jun 31.1 13.4 22 49 3.1

Genou 58.9 27 18-Jun 34.4 13.7 12 43 4.1

Judee 59.4 27 18-Jun 31.0 13.5 10 18* 3.7

Rampart 59.3 26 18-Jun 34.1 14.0** 7* 36 4.4**

Warhorse 59.1 36 19-Jun 30.7 13.5 3** 17** 3.3

WB-Quake 59.1 35 20-Jun 31.1 13.2 8* 24* 2.7

LSD (0.05) ns 9 0.4 0.2 7 14 0.3

2

Winter Wheat Cultivar Development. Phil Bruckner, Jim Berg, Ron Ramsfield

Thank you for support of your Winter Wheat Breeding Program through tax dollars

allocated to MSU and MAES, as well a check off funding administered by the Montana

Wheat & Barley Committee.

We appreciate the excellent collaboration we have with NARC and Peggy Lamb for our

breeding trials at Havre and Loma, where we are specifically focusing on wheat stem

sawfly resistance.

Our goal is to provide competitive, high-yielding cultivars that are adapted to NC Montana

growing conditions and pests with high end-use qualities to meet the needs of our Pacific

Rim wheat customers.

1. Solid-stem cultivars: Yield data (Table 1) indicates several solid stem cultivars

[Warhorse, WB-Quake, Judee, & Bearpaw] perform well at Havre & off farm sites

at Loma & Turner. Bearpaw, Warhorse, & Rampart have excellent stem solidness

(Table 2), significantly higher than Judee, WB-Quake, & Genou. These cultivars

differ for height, resistance to sawfly cutting, and stripe rust resistance (Table 3).

Still lacking: a solid-stem cultivar with good winter hardiness.

2. Hollow-stem cultivars: Over three years at NARC [2010, 2012, 2013] the highest

yielding cultivars in the Intrastate trial are Decade (65 bu/acre), Broadview (65),

Judee (65), Jagalene (65), Warhorse (64), Yellowstone (64), and Bearpaw (64).

Notice at this location the best performing lines include both solid-stem and hollow-

stem cultivars. Of these lines, Decade and Broadview have the best winter hardiness.

Judee, Warhorse, & Yellowstone have had the best stripe rust resistance over the

past 4 years.

Performance data can be accessed at

http://plantsciences.montana.edu/Crops/Default.htm

3. New cultivars: In 2013 we released and licensed to Syngenta ‘SY Clearstone 2CL’

which is a 2 gene Clearfield version of Yellowstone with resistance to imidazolinone

herbicide, Beyond. This past fall we released Warhorse and Colter, and licensed a

hard white line WB3768 to Monsanto/Westbred for marketing. SY Clearstone 2CL

and Colter performed very well at Havre in 2012 & 2013.

4. Other lines of interest: MT0978 - potential cultivar release. A reduced stature (-1.5

in.) Yellowstone type with superior disease resistance and Asian noodle properties.

MT1090 – highest yielding line in trial over the past 2 years, pedigree Reeder/6*

Yellowstone. Among highest yielders at Williston, ND & Sidney, therefore good

winter hardiness.

5. Feedback to breeding program. What is working or not working well?

Contact information: Phil Bruckner [406-581-1274; bruckner@montana.edu]

3

Wheat Stem Sawfly in North Central Montana David Weaver, weaver@montana.edu

Research on insect pests of wheat has been conducted for many years at the Northern Agricultural Research Center near Havre. The major focus in recent years has been on wheat stem sawfly, including research on- and off-station, and there have also been a significant number of field scale experiments planted by individual growers. These projects have often been multidisciplinary in scope, with strong partnering by agronomists, breeders, agricultural economists and soil fertility experts. Economic impacts of wheat stem sawfly. Using an extensive data set based on many projects conducted in the past 15 years, a bioeconomic model has been developed based on four potential outcomes from wheat stem sawfly infestation and the associated yield of each. These are infested and sawfly-cut, infested with a dead larva, infested with the larva parasitized and uninfested. Key points:

• Sawflies infest the best wheat stems. This results in two very similar outcomes. Stems containing a larva that has died or a larva that has been parasitized are the highest yielding.

• Sawfly-cut stems that are recovered yield more than uninfested. The more infested a field is, the poorer the quality of the uninfested stems. Stems that are sawfly-cut yield more, if recovered.

• Loss due to unrecovered sawfly-cut stems. The recovery of more than six sawfly-cut stems is required to make up for one that is not recovered.

Foregone revenues over the last 5 years range from $45 to $80 million

Tables by A. Bekkerman

Value of solid stems and parasitoids. Both of these are management options that you can influence by making planting and harvest decisions. Parasitoids reduce losses, but do this better in hollow stem wheat than in solid stem wheat, but solid stem wheat has lower losses due to larval feeding and stem cutting. What is the net benefit using an example from hard red spring wheat that

4

is: 28.8% infested; yields 36 bushels per acre for hollow stem and 34.8 bushels for solid stem – wheat @ $8.52 per bushel?

Foregone revenues are less in solid stem wheat with the average level of parasitoids.

Table by A. Bekkerman

Other mechanisms of host plant resistance. A key effort is to identify more types of host plant resistance to develop in commercial varieties.

• Solid stem wheat has partial resistance to wheat stem sawfly because some stems are cut.

• Less attractive varieties have partial resistance because they are still infested and depend on surrounding attractive varieties. This is best shown in varieties that are similar in stem solidness. The results below are from a hill plot nursery where sawflies (and parasitoids) can choose where they wish to lay their eggs. This is across environments and years for a scale rating each internode 1 for hollow and 5 for completely solid. A score of 25 would indicate 5 perfectly solid internodes.

‘Scholar’ has stem solidness of 12.7 and ‘Conan’ is less solid at 9.6

Genotype

Cut (%) Infested (%) Stems

Potentially

Cut (%)

Infested

Stems Cut

(%)

Infested

Stems

Potentially

Cut (%)

Parasitism

(%)

Scholar1 28.5** 58.9* 49.1* 50.3 83.1** 32.7*

Conan 13.9 32.8 20.3 36.9 52.9 16.0

RIL Mean2 22.5*** 46.3*** 33.7*** 45.8*** 67.8*** 22.1***

RIL Range 3.8-46.8 16.2-70.4 6.3-63.7 27.3-66.9 32.7-89.7 5.0-37.2

Talbert et al. (2014)

A new effort is to develop varieties that are even less attractive (antixenosis) and others that are capable of killing almost all larvae (antibiosis). A new form of antibiosis could be one that is highly attractive and kills all sawflies, but has a different mechanism. This could be a hollow stem variety with a toxin for sawfly larvae in the stem wall. Another option would be to have a variety that was almost never selected for oviposition by female sawflies. Both of these mechanisms exist in the germplasm in the Table above.

However, the antibiosis could be constituitive (always present) or induced only by larval feeding. Similarly, parasitoids are attracted by compounds that are induced by larval feeding inside the stems. A variety that is more attractive to parasitoids is also possible. These potential resistance mechanisms will be discovered only by careful exploration of wheat germplasm. A large project to accomplish this is underway. The results should yield new and valuable tools for wheat stem sawfly management.

5

Small Grain QuickFacts: Hard Red Spring Wheat

Luther Talbert and H.Y. Heo, Montana State University (Updated March 2014) http://plantsciences.montana.edu/FoundationSeed/

CHOTEAU – Choteau was derived from the cross of MT 9401/MT 9328. Choteau is a semidwarf hard red spring wheat

with solid stems conferring tolerance to the wheat stem sawfly. The spike is lax and tapered with white awns and glumes.

Choteau is resistant to the prevalent race of stem rust in Montana. Choteau has good grain protein and acceptable milling

and baking quality. Choteau is recommended for districts 2-6 under dryland and irrigated conditions. U.S. PVP #200400035.

MAES Research Fees due on seed sold.

DUCLAIR - Duclair was derived from a cross of Choteau//Reeder/Scholar. Duclair is a solid stem semidwarf hard red

spring wheat with white glumes and awns. Compared with Choteau, Duclair is one day earlier in heading date and one

inch taller. Duclair has slightly fewer solid stems than Choteau and generally has more solid stems than Fortuna. Duclair

is resistant to the prevalent races of stem rust in Montana. Duclair exhibits good milling and baking traits. Duclair is

recommended for districts 2-6 under dryland conditions. U.S. PVP #201100372. MAES Research Fees due on seed sold.

VIDA - Vida was derived from the cross of Scholar/Reeder and is a semidwarf hard red spring wheat with white glumes and

awns. Vida is moderately resistance to leaf and stripe rust but is moderately susceptible to stem rust. Vida has good milling

and baking characteristics. Vida is recommended for districts 1-6 under dryland conditions. U.S. PVP #200600225. MAES

Research Fees due on seed sold.

WB9879CLP - WB9879CLP was derived from the cross of Choteau*3//Choteau/IMI8134 made in 2004 to be used as a two

gene Clearfield wheat. WB9879CLP is an awned semidwarf hard red spring wheat heading one and a half days later than

Choteau while plant height is 30 inches the same as Choteau. WB9879CLP has solid stems similar to Choteau.

WB9879CLP exhibits acceptable milling and baking quality traits similar to Choteau. WB9879CLP is currently licensed to

WestBred, a unit of Monsanto. U.S. PVP Pending # 201200491. To be sold by variety name only as a class of certified

seed.

Spring Wheat Variety Performance Evaluations and Recommendations: http://plantsciences.montana.edu/crops

Table 1. Agronomic parameters for selected varieties in the Advanced spring wheat nursery, 2011-2013.

Conrad, Bozeman, Huntley, Havre, Sidney & Moccasin Bozeman Havre Kalispell

VARIETY

Yield

bu/ac Test Wt lb/bu

Protein

%

Plant

height

inches

Heading

Julian

days

Heading

Date

Stem Solid

Rating

5=hollow,

25=solid

Sawfly

Cutting

%

Stripe rust

leaf area

%

VIDA 52.6 58.8 14.2 28.7 181 30-Jun 11.0 6.1 31.5

BRENNAN 51.1 61.0 15.1 26.4 179 28-Jun 7.8 7.6 46.2

REEDER 50.9 59.5 14.7 29.2 180 30-Jun 7.5 12.9 29.5

ONEAL 50.1 59.2 14.7 29.0 181 30-Jun 8.7 7.0 64.1

DUCLAIR 50.0 57.8 14.4 28.7 179 28-Jun 20.2 12.3 36.5

SY TYRA 49.4 59.9 13.9 25.3 181 30-Jun 17.3 6.2 57.5

SY SOREN 49.3 59.4 15.2 26.4 180 29-Jun 7.3 5.3 46.5

MCNEAL 48.9 58.2 14.7 29.6 181 30-Jun 7.3 24.7 44.2

CORBIN 48.9 59.2 14.7 28.5 179 29-Jun 11.9 5.5 45.5

CHOTEAU 48.0 58.7 14.9 27.9 180 29-Jun 21.5 14.1 34.9

WB GUNNISON 47.9 59.5 14.2 27.4 180 29-Jun 11.2 2.1 41.3

WB9879CLP 47.8 59.0 14.8 27.8 181 30-Jun 23.3 12.6 42.1

VOLT 47.4 60.3 14.4 27.3 182 1-Jul 7.4 26.3 12.9

JEDD 46.8 59.9 14.4 24.3 179 29-Jun 8.4 6.6 81.7

MOTT 46.6 59.3 15.2 30.5 181 1-Jul 17.2 5.6 70.0

CONAN 44.8 59.5 15.1 27.5 180 29-Jun 10.1 2.3 50.3

FORTUNA 43.2 59.6 15.0 34.5 180 30-Jun 19.4 10.7 39.7

AVERAGE 48.5 59.3 14.7 28.2 180 30-Jun 12.8 9.9 45.6

n = Loc x yrs n = 21 n = 3 n = 3 n = 3

6

Table 2. Grain yield for selected varieties in the Advanced spring wheat nursery, 2011-2013.

(Overall 7 Locations; excluding Kalispell as impacted by the Orange wheat blossom midge, OWBM).

Location and

Environment

Kalispell

Dryland

Conrad

Dryland

Bozeman

Dryland

Huntley

Dryland

Sidney

Irrigated

Havre

Dryland

Sidney

Dryland

Moccasin

Dryland

Overall 7

Locations

VARIETY OWBM Grain Yield bu / ac

VIDA 61.0 75.3 55.7 55.4 55.9 48.8 43.1 34.1 52.6

BRENNAN 63.3 76.5 52.9 51.8 56.4 43.8 45.0 31.3 51.1

REEDER 70.4 73.6 51.7 53.0 57.3 45.4 45.2 30.3 50.9

ONEAL 50.9 69.5 53.8 49.8 54.0 48.4 42.4 32.9 50.1

DUCLAIR 67.0 75.6 53.0 56.1 49.6 46.1 36.9 32.8 50.0

SY TYRA 60.0 72.5 56.5 49.0 54.5 43.8 41.0 28.9 49.4

SY SOREN 59.5 78.5 54.1 50.2 47.9 42.5 42.6 29.1 49.3

MCNEAL 62.2 74.9 50.8 48.3 59.3 41.1 37.5 30.5 48.9

CORBIN 53.9 73.8 50.4 54.6 47.8 45.5 39.6 30.7 48.9

CHOTEAU 57.9 76.7 50.0 52.3 47.2 41.0 40.1 28.8 48.0

WB GUNNISON 61.4 67.6 51.2 49.5 51.9 45.0 35.4 34.5 47.9

WB9879CLP 59.6 70.9 50.5 53.0 51.4 43.0 36.9 28.9 47.8

VOLT 85.5 77.2 54.6 52.3 37.9 43.9 34.1 31.9 47.4

JEDD 39.6 64.3 49.1 49.1 52.9 42.4 38.1 31.6 46.8

MOTT 48.7 66.7 48.3 49.7 51.7 44.8 37.5 27.8 46.6

CONAN 50.8 66.5 41.8 49.3 48.2 44.2 33.3 30.5 44.8

FORTUNA 57.2 66.6 45.9 47.4 39.3 40.6 34.7 27.8 43.2

AVERAGE 59.3 72.1 51.2 51.2 50.8 44.1 39.0 30.7 48.5

n = Loc x yrs n = 3 n = 3 n = 3 n =3 n = 2 n = 3 n = 2 n = 3 n = 21

Table 3. Mill and bake quality for selected varieties in the Advanced spring wheat nursery, 2009-2011.

WHOLE GRAIN MILLER FLOUR MIXOGRAPH BAKE

VARIETY

Protein

%

Hardness

%

Yield

%

Protein

%

Ash

%

Time

min.

Absorp

%

Time

min.

Absorp

%

Loaf

Volume

cc

VIDA 13.7 74.2 69.2 12.4 0.40 4.4 65.7 6.1 75.0 1095

BRENNAN 14.4 72.7 66.0 12.5 0.42 4.1 66.6 5.7 76.4 1065

REEDER 14.1 72.0 66.5 12.7 0.40 4.2 65.3 5.7 75.0 1084

ONEAL 13.7 83.9 66.9 12.2 0.42 7.8 65.8 12.7 77.3 1160

DUCLAIR 13.9 68.5 66.2 12.4 0.41 5.4 66.5 8.2 75.9 1124

SY TYRA 13.3 82.4 66.2 11.7 0.41 4.5 66.0 8.2 76.1 1082

SY SOREN

MCNEAL 13.9 85.1 65.6 12.5 0.43 7.4 67.3 11.4 78.5 1153

CORBIN 13.8 67.8 67.6 12.3 0.42 5.7 65.5 11.4 75.7 1020

CHOTEAU 14.4 66.3 66.5 13.2 0.41 4.0 66.5 6.0 75.7 1120

WB GUNNISON 13.5 77.1 63.5 11.7 0.42 7.8 65.9 12.3 74.8 1035

WB9879CLP 13.7 68.9 63.9 12.0 0.40 3.9 65.9 5.2 74.8 1035

VOLT 13.4 82.4 66.3 11.9 0.43 7.4 66.1 15.3 78.0 1006

JEDD 13.8 81.0 67.0 12.6 0.43 5.5 67.1 9.6 77.1 1099

MOTT

CONAN

FORTUNA 14.3 67.5 68.7 12.8 0.42 3.6 65.1 5.5 74.8 1071

7

Orange Wheat Blossom Midge Status in the Triangle Area

Dr. Robert Stougaard, rns@montana.edu

The orange wheat blossom midge (OWBM) had a huge impact on spring wheat growers in

Flathead County during the 2006 growing season, with losses estimated to be nearly 1.5 million

dollars. Since 2006, extension agents have monitored for the presence of this pest in the Golden

Triangle area. Midge counts were low or non- existent until 2012, when high numbers were

recorded near Valier, MT. In response, scouting activities were increased during 2013.

Unfortunately, the distribution of the midge appears to be expanding. In 2013 the midge was

observed in Chouteau, Glacier, Liberty and Toole counties for the first time. Pondera County

again recorded high numbers, and over 12,000 acres were treated to control this pest. In

addition, there also appears to be a resurgence of the midge in the northeastern part of Montana

in Daniels County.

The insects’ exact distribution is uncertain, but it may be established in other parts of Montana as

well. The midge can remain undetected and exist at low populations for several years before

becoming a significant problem. However, as was the case in the Flathead Valley, populations

have the potential to increase rapidly when given the proper set of climatic conditions. It is for

this reason that we are trying to expand the OWBM monitoring effort in Montana.

In order to determine the distribution and abundance of the midge in Montana, six Montana

Agricultural Research Centers and 26 MSU Extension Offices are cooperating by placing

pheromone traps at various locations throughout the state. Some local growers, Vo-Ag and Ag

industry representatives will also be involved in the initial monitoring project. The information

they obtain will be posted on a new web site called the MSU Pest Management Network

(http://pestweb.montana.edu/). This information is being made available so that small grain

growers throughout the state can see if midge populations are present in their area and if the

numbers warrant scouting their fields.

The threshold value to initiate field scouting is when 10 adult midges are found in a trap over a 2

day period. Field scouting is needed to confirm that midges are present in the field at economic

levels and that the crop is vulnerable to attack. These points are discussed in a new MSU

MontGuide publication entitled Orange Wheat Blossom Midge. The midge MontGuide, and

other helpful information, can be found on the Pest Management Network website. The 2014

Midge Monitoring Project is funded by the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee.

For more information about the Orange Wheat Blossom Midge Monitoring Project, the new

Midge MontGuide, or the Montana Pest Management Network, contact your local MSU

Extension agent, your local MSU Agricultural Research Center or the following individuals: Dan

Picard (daniel.picard@montana.edu), Brooke Bohannon (brooke.bohannon@montana.edu), Gadi

Reddy (reddy@montana.edu), Bob Stougaard (rns@montana.edu), or Kevin Wanner

(kwanner@montana.edu).

8

9

Soil Fertility Update

by Clain Jones, Extension Soil Fertility Specialist, 406 994-6076, clainj@montana.edu

Recent documents (2013 and 2014)

Nutrient Management for Forages: Nitrogen (EB0216).

Nutrient Management for Forages: Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur and Micronutrients (EB0217).

Factors Affect Nitrogen Fertilizer Volatilization (EB0208)

Management to Minimize Nitrogen Fertilizer Volatilization (EB0209)

If I run out, can get from Extension Publications 994-3273, or download at:

http://landresources.montana.edu/soilfertility/publications.html

Urea volatilization study results (w/ Rick Engel)

Cover crop cocktail (CCC) study (w/ Perry Miller, Cathy Zabinski)

10 cover crop mixes, 4 small plot sites, 6 field sites. Focus is on soil quality.

Spring wheat yield after cover crops only recorded once in small plot study (1 site hailed out)

2012 and 2013 CCC biomass of fullest mix (6-8 species) no higher than of pea (n=4)

2013 grain yield after 6 species mix was not different than after fallow or pea (Conrad)

Good 2013 biomass may produce bigger responses in 2014.

2013 grain yield after CCCs on full scale farmer fields < after fallow (by 6-18 bu/ac)

10

Comparison of Haney Soil Health Index & soil tests on ww grain yield (w/ D. Boss)

NARC Cover Crop Plot Study (x different mixes and fallow, large plots)

Soils sampled in fall prior to winter wheat seeding, analyzed for:

Haney soil analyses: “Solvita C respiration”, dissolved (“water extractable”)

organic and inorganic carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P)

“Standard” soil analyses: OM, pH, nitrate, Olsen P, Potassium, Calcium,

Magnesium, Sodium, Sulfur, Zinc, cation exchange capacity (CEC)

Question: Are Haney soil tests or “standard” soil tests more strongly related with winter

wheat yield?

WHEN combine all variables, the soil tests explain the following % of variability:

Haney tests alone (15%). Dissolved organic C is most important variable

“Standard” tests alone (25%). 6 – 24” Nitrate is most important variable

Haney + “Standard” combined (39%). 6 – 24” Nitrate is most important variable

Take home: Haney soil tests appear no better related to ww grain yield than standard

tests, but DO improve the relationship compared to standard tests alone.

Want more information on cover crops and soil health? Come to the

MSU/NCAT/MSCA sponsored Cover Crop and Soil Health Field Day: July 8, Conrad.

RSVP at http://www.ncat.org/tours by July 3. Directions and agenda will be

sent.

Haney soil tests (top 6”) “Standard” soil tests (top 6” unless noted)

Important for yield Not important Important for yield Not important

Total dissolved C (10%) Organic dissolved P (9%)

Total dissolved P (5%) Haney soil health (5%)

Solvita C respiration (4%) Inorganic dissolved P (4%)

Dissolved N Dissolved inorg C Dissolved org C Dissolved C:N

Magnesium (9%) Olsen P (8%)

6 to 24” nitrate (6%) Calcium (5%)

CEC (4%) Sulfate (3%) Nitrate (2%)

pH (2%)

OM Potassium

Sodium Zinc

Important if >95% confidence that related to ww grain yield when yield was compared to each test separately. Italics and lighter color (Ca, CEC, sulfate, pH) indicates that that variable decreased yield. (x%) - shows % of variability that each test explains.

11

Cover Crop Termination and Subsequent Wheat Yields

Darrin L. Boss, dboss@montana.edu, Julia Dafoe, jdafoe@montana.edu

Pat Hensleigh, patrick.hensleigh@mt.usda.gov

Brown and Carlson (1990) illustrated the importance of fallow moisture and the effects it has upon the

potential yield of cereal grain when combined with average rainfall. When cover crops replace fallow

periods, there will be a reduction in available soil moisture to the following crop. Can this potential

reduction in cereal yield loss due to decreased moisture be compensated for by increasing some measure

of perceived soil health (reduction of inputs while maintaining current base cereal yields); or can the

cover crop, once established, be a benefit as an alternative economic stream if it were removed as a grazed

or hayed crop? The following data represents progress made and data being collected on evaluating cover

crops.

A large plot termination trial was established utilizing production scale equipment. The plots were

terminated one of three ways: 1. Chemical, 2. Grazing and 3. Mowing and baling. Planting date, severe

heat and limited moisture during germination were the primary factors that affected not only above

ground biomass, but all other traits including soil plant available water (PAW). Cocktails (entries) had

differential germination and survival in the extreme conditions. Entries hit particularly hard were the

warm season blends since they were planted so late and very little moisture as rainfall came after

germination. The blended cool/warm cocktails were intermediate in vigor to the warm and cool cocktails.

With one year of complete data, limited conclusions about soil health can be made. Wheat yields

following cover crops indicate a strong relationship to water use by previous crop however, with only one

year of wheat yield is a difficult to make recommendations. Recently, NRCS monies were leveraged for a

successful grant application for education of a graduate student and to maintain these large plot for more

rotations.

Above ground biomass and plant heights

for cover crop cocktail mixes near Havre,

Montana, 2012.

Dry

Matter

(lbs) Tall Short Medium Average

Fill Barley 8418.9 a 28.1 bc 26.7 27.4

Mix 1 6629.1 b 32.6 ab 27.2 13.6 24.9

Mix 2 6709.2 b 34.6 a 30.5 18.4 27.8

Mix 3 3994.5 cd 32.5 ab 24.8 17.0 24.8

Mix 4 4101.9 c 30.0 abc 24.6 17.2 23.9

Mix 5 1642.0 f 30.9 abc 24.1 10.4 21.8

Mix 6 0.0 h 10.5 c 10.2 3.8 7.7

Mix 7 0.0 h 11.0 c 8.5 5.4 8.3

Mix 8 144.0 hg 21.4 d 12.8 6.6 13.6

Mix 9 0.0 h 14.4 11.7 9.3 11.8

Mix 10 0.0 h 13.5 c 9.0 5.7 9.4

Mix 11 2797.8 e 32.9 ab 23.8 14.7 23.8

Mix 12 3233.5 de 29.7 bc 25.1 16.4 23.9

Mix 13 1326.1 f 31.7 abc 20.2 4.5 18.8

Mix 14 961.1 fg 31.4 abc 17.7 7.2 18.8

Mix 15 1550.3 f 27.6 c 18.0 13.1 19.6

Fallow 0.0 h 0.0 c 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSMEAN 2441.7 25.8 19.1 11.9 18.0

STDERR 288.00 1.68 2.11 3.94 1.99

P = <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0124 <.0001abcd Columns with different superscripts differ P<0.05.

Plant Height, in

12

Forage nutrient values for cover crop cocktail and effects of grazing treatments on different

cover crop mixes near Havre, Montana.

Represents 2013 crop year, both winter and spring wheat yields after 2012 cover crop treatments.

Dry Crude Acid Detergent Total Digestible Net Energy Nitrate Carbon Carbon:

Matter Protein Fiber Nutrients Lactation Maintence Gain (NO3) (Total) Nitrogen

(%) (%) (%) (%) Mcal/lbs Mcal/lbs Mcal/lbs (%) (%) Ratio

Fill Barley 61.807 8.24b

30.10b

60.50ab

0.63 0.61 0.37 0.06b

41.80cd

33.67a

Mix 1 55.6 6.97b

33.90a

56.07bc

0.58 0.55 0.31 0.12b

41.97bcd

38.33a

Mix 2 54.1 7.72 b 33.57 a 56.37 ab 0.58 0.55 0.32 0.17 b 41.97 bcd 36.00 a

Mix 3 49.1 6.76 b 37.13 a 52.30 c 0.53 0.50 0.28 0.06 b 42.40 bcd 40.00 a

Mix 4 46.5 7.77 b 33.27 a 56.63 ab 0.58 0.56 0.33 0.10 b 42.77 bc 34.67 a

Mix 5 43.4 8.04 b 40.10 a 48.70 c 0.49 0.47 0.27 0.08 b 42.45 bcd 33.00 a

Mix 6

Mix 7

Mix 8 30.2 15.80 a 34.00 ab 55.80 ab 0.57 0.55 0.33 0.28 ab 38.10 f 15.00 b

Mix 9

Mix 10

Mix 11 40.7 11.87 27.53 b 62.23 a 0.64 0.63 0.39 0.08 41.93 bcd 22.00 b

Mix 12 35.1 14.13 a 28.27 b 61.60 ab 0.63 0.62 0.38 0.34 a 41.33 c 18.67 b

Mix 13 28.3 13.53 a 31.03 b 57.47 ab 0.59 0.57 0.32 0.37 a 40.70 cde 19.00 b

Mix 14 33.2 14.37 a 32.27 b 56.60 ab 0.58 0.56 0.31 0.38 a 41.60 c 18.67 b

Mix 15 35.8 13.27 a 29.50 b 59.43 ab 0.62 0.59 0.35 0.34 a 40.63 cde 19.33 b

Fallow

LSMEAN 10.42 32.49 57.04 0.58 0.56 0.33 0.19 41.73 28.12

STDERR 0.807 2.165 2.311 0.026 0.028 0.021 0.060 0.337 3.217

P = <.0001 0.0085 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.006 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001abcd Columns with different superscripts differ P<0.05.

Cool Season Cool/Warm Season Warm Season

13

Selection Project, Residual Feed Intake and Performance

Darrin L. Boss, dboss@montana.edu, Julia Dafoe, jdafoe@montana.edu

The long-term efficiency of beef cattle females on the mixed grass prairie is being evaluated. Although

the selection pressure for the Angus and subsequent crossbred herd will be on a mature weight and weaning

weight selection indexes, the heifers each year are placed in NARC’s 32 node GrowSafe intake facility. This

system allows us to determine a modeled individual intake to be used in calculating residual feed intake (Koch

et al., 1963). Research at this center has been instrumental in documenting and illustrating the value of

crossbred cows in the western states. Individual intake and behavior observations both with straight bred and

crossbred cattle are vital. The data is currently in its infancy on the effects of the most efficient bull and its

potential long term genetic impact on their female offspring. Strong genetic relationships exist between feed

intake and efficiency post-weaning. Selection for lower residual feed intake (RFI) (a measure of net feed

efficiency that accounts for feed required to maintain body weight and for growth) measured post-weaning

will lead to a decrease in feed intake by cows, with no increase in cow size, unlike true feed efficiency.

Significant barriers to industry application remain. Measurement of RFI is very expensive compared with

other traits currently measured and used in genetic improvement programs. For the herd at NARC, preliminary

summary statistics using the Proc Mixed procedure of SAS illustrates that very little progress has been made

in the selection project. What difference was observed is likely not to produce significant biological advances.

However the project is still very young and numbers are now becoming large enough to begin additional

correlations with reproduction, RFI and longevity as we begin the crossbreeding portion of the project. Again

very little divergence has occurred in calf production parameters between the selection and controls through

the first years of the project. The project is at an age that we are just now producing mature cows that were

bred using the selection index. Although, not selecting for improved RFI, when that is calculated and

evaluated, no difference exists between selection and control herds. However, there are interesting trends

appearing that should be investigated further as numbers increase in the data set. When plotted by herd and

sire, both herds have positive (poorer) and negative (better) RFI numbers. These observations may prove

beneficial as we investigate further the long term efficiencies of the animals through their productive life.

Angus cow production traits of selection and control lines of cattle raised at NARC near Havre, MT. Main

effects of selection line and cow age effects are presented.

Cow Cow Cow Calving

Item1 Weight Ratio2 BCS3 Docility Date

ANc 1357 40 5.4 1.3 3/22 a

ANs 1339 41 5.3 1.3 3/19 b

Found 1348 42 5.3 1.4 3/18 ab

SE 1347.9 1.3 0.04 0.05 1.04

P= 0.3478 0.3097 0.2808 0.80 0.01

Age 2 1170 d 43 d 4.9 c 1.3 3/18 b

Age 3 1273 c 43 c 5.2 b 1.3 3/19 ab

Age 4 1396 b 40 b 5.3 b 1.4 3/20 ab

Age 5 1456 ab 38 a 5.6 a 1.4 3/18 ab

Age >=6 1444 a 39 ab 5.8 a 1.4 3/23 a

SE 18.6 1.3 0.04 0.05 1.20

P= 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.15 0.05 1 ANc = Angus control herd, bulls were selected as being average EPDs for the entire Angus breed. ANs = Angus selection herd were the bulls

were in the top 5% in weaining weight and lower than average in mature weight EPDs. Found= the foundational Angus cows initially purchased

to begin the breeding project. 2 Calf weaning weight divided by the cow weight at weaning * 100. 3 Body Condition Score (BCS) taken post-calving.

Columns with different superscripts differ P<0.05.

14

Calf production parameters raised by cattle selected on an index of cow mature weight and calf weaning

weight.

Calf

WW

Calv

Diff

Birth

Wt

Calf

Vig

Calc

205 Wt

Yearling

Wt

ANc 554 b 1.1 82.8 1.2 563 ab 832

ANs 548 b 1.1 82.4 1.1 554 b 842

Found 586 a 1.0 82.7 1.1 588 a

SE 7.8 0.03 1.54 0.05 5.8 5.7

P= 0.0062 0.2786 0.9829 0.4228 0.0036 0.2416

Bull 577 1.1 85.7 1.1 583.8

Heifer 549 1.0 79.5 1.2 552.7

SE 4.602 0.02 0.91 0.03 3.56

P= 0.0001 0.0090 0.0001 0.6650 0.0001

Residual Feed Intake (RFI) plotted by sire and selection or control herd of heifers after a 70 d RFI intake

trial. Heifers within year were in the test as one contemporary group throughout the 70 d and fed one high

forage diet balanced to meet or exceeded NRC guidelines.

15

NEW STRATEGIES IN RANGE CATTLE SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAMS

Andrew F. Williams

Masters of Science Candidate

Animal and Range Sciences

Montana State University, Bozeman

406-570-0600

boxr.cows@gmail.com

Why is Estrus Synchronization Important to AI?

Facilitates use of A.I.

Reduces time, labor, and cost of A.I.

Produces pregnancy rates that are as good or better than A.I. by heat detection

What can Estrus Synchronization with A.I. do for you? (Outcomes)

Shortens the A.I. breeding season and overall breeding season.

Results in more cows and heifers becoming pregnant early during the breeding season.

Shortens calving season for majority of heifers and cows.

Results in older, heavier, more uniform calves at weaning.

Beneficial effects on the next breeding season.

It is important to remember, economically and on terms of “stayability,” that every cow within a herd be

bred and conceive within an 80 day window. This is based off of 365 days a year minus the average gestation

length of beef cattle (282-284 days). However, during this window of 80 days there is the period of

postpartum anestrus (cows). Current research shows that the proportion of anestrus females at the start of

breeding season can vary from 20-70% with the days of postpartum anestrus ranging from 25 to >80 days.

Management obviously is the controlling factor. Age of the female, genetics, nutritional program and other

management factors all affect the proportion and length of postpartum anestrus.

Estrus synchronization is an extremely important and feasible tool that can ensure that replacement

females (heifers) and cows within a herd are bred with very high pregnancy rates within that 80 day window.

Without estrus synchronization programs, not only is A.I. use limited, but there is the high probability that a

cow will not make the current cut for the breeding/calving program. There have been relatively limited

change in estrus synchronization protocols approved by the FDA. However, the addition of new protocols

has provided producers with multiple options, providing choices relative to cost, handling, and labor

available. The following are three very effective new protocols for range cattle operations.

The two injection programs for synchronization with PGF are designed to increase the proportion of females

with a CL that is responsive to regression with PGF. With the first PGF injection, ~70% of the cyclic cows

will be expected to display heat during the next 4 - 5 days. Those animals that were not responsive to the

first injection, will respond to the second injection. With all systems that use PGF, another PGF injection

Figure 13. Two injection PGF protocols with breeding after both

(Program 1) or only after the second injection (Program 2).

14 0 Day 4-5 days

Check Heat & Breed (Program 1 & 2)

4-5 days

Check Heat & Breed (Program 1)

PGF

Injection

PGF

Injection

16

could be added to any protocol (11-14 days later) in cows not inseminated to provide another opportunity for

AI. Remember though, if cows did not initially respond because they were anestrus, an additional PGF

injection will be of little benefit.

The 14-day CIDR and PGF protocol has been demonstrated to deliver acceptable AI pregnancy rates in

heifers and cows. The CIDR eliminates the need for daily feeding and concerns about consistent feed

consumption. The long duration of the protocol (33 days), however, often limits its utilization in postpartum

cows. In postpartum cows with an annual calving interval, it is much more difficult to implement this type

of system, as there are not typically 33 days available between calving and the start of the next breeding

system. The last shot of GnRH is only necessary when implementing a timed A.I.

The 5-day approach to estrous synchronization. On day -5, females receive GnRH in an attempt to program

follicular wave patterns and are administered a CIDR. Five days later, on day 0 the CIDR is removed and

PGF is administered. Delivery of PGF is unique in the 5-day system. Because the interval from GnRH to

PGF is only 5 days, cows that ovulated to the initial GnRH will have a CL that is just becoming responsive

to the luteolytic actions of PGF. Therefore, in the 5-day system, additional doses of PGF are required. The

original recommendation was to administer one dose of PGF at CIDR removal with a second dose 8 to 12

hours later. Subsequently, it was demonstrated that the interval between doses could be reduced to 2 hours.

Most recently, however, a large multi-state study in beef cows observed that delivering both doses of PGF

simultaneously at CIDR removal was as effective as administering two doses at an 8-hour interval. This

alteration negates the need to handle the animals an additional time. Within beef heifers, research varies on

whether there is a necessity to delivery a single or two doses of PGF at CIDR removal. In some herds, a

single dose of PGF is adequate, however, in others, timed-AI pregnancy rates are improved if two doses are

administered. Therefore, administering two doses of PGF at the time of CIDR removal may be the best

approach.

17

The effect of Niacin on Cold Stress in Calves Ms. Julia Dafoe, Dr. Darrin Boss, Dr. Glenn Duff

jdafoe@montana.edu

Northern Ag Research Center

Montana State University – Bozeman

During the 2014 calving season, four-year-old Angus and Hereford cows were used to determine the effect of

feeding niacin on the dam’s calf’s ability to cope with cold stress. During late gestation cows were individually fed

(>30d) niacin in the form of NiaShure™ donated by Balchem every morning. Cows were weighed and blood was

collected every two weeks prior to calving. Cows were observed for signs of calving every 2 hours and observed

continuously once calving began. Twenty minutes post-calving and before nursing, newborn calves were weighed and

hand fed colostrum obtained from their dam, all calves were fed the same amount of colostrum on a per pound of birth

weight basis. A colostrum sample was collected at this time to measure colostrum quality. Calves were then muzzled

to prevent nursing the cow and returned to the cow for 3.5 hours to allow maternal bonding. The cow and calf pair

was housed in an individual pen during this time. At 4 hours old, the calf was separated from the cow, the muzzle

removed, and a catheter inserted into the jugular vein to allow blood collection with minimum disturbance to the calf.

Calves were fitted with a heart rate monitor and a rectal temperature probe was placed in the calf and the calf’s

temperature was automatically collected every minute with an electronic data logger. The calf was then placed in a

0oC environment for 120 minutes to induce cold stress. Blood was drawn, temperature and heart rate was monitored

every 20 minutes during the cold stress period. Once the cold stress period was completed the calf was returned to the

cow, allowed to nurse and bond with the cow. The calf was monitored for another 120 minutes while with the cow.

Blood was drawn every 30 minutes, temperature and heart rate was collected during this recovery period. Cows were

fed niacin supplement for two weeks after calving when a milk sample was collected from the cow to measure milk

quality. Cows and calves were weighted two weeks after calving and then turned out to spring pasture. Measurements

of morbidly and mortality rate, and performance parameters are ongoing.

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240

Tem

pe

ratu

re o

F

Minutes

Calf Temperature during and after cold stress

Control

NiaShure

Cold Stress Period Recovery Period

18

Sneaky cow trying to get extra grain Cows were individually fed supplement

Cows were individually fed supplement Before muzzling calves were fed colostrum

Pairs were able to bond before cold stress Recovery period after cold stress.

Ms. Julia Dafoe

Research Associate

NARC

jdafoe@montana.edu

(406) 265-6115

Dr. Darrin Boss

Superintendent

NARC

dboss@montant.edu

(406)-265-6115

Dr. Glenn Duff

Interim Dean and Director

College of Ag & MAES

glenn.duff@montana.edu

(406) 994-3681

19

20

21

Dryland Grain Corn Nitrogen Fertility Research

Peggy Lamb, plamb@montana.edu Northern Agricultural Research Center 406-265-6115

2013 & 2014 Dryland Grain Corn Nitrogen Research was funded by Montana Fertilizer Assessment

Funds and the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station.

2013 Objectives:

1. To determine the effects of Nitrogen source and timing on two short relative maturity corn

varieties under dryland conditions in north central Montana.

2. To develop baseline data for future expansion of grain corn research and production across

Montana in non-traditional corn producing areas, thus benefiting both farmers and ranchers statewide.

Due to increasing producer interest in the potential to produce grain corn in the dryer regions of

north central Montana, evaluation of N fertility on short seasoned corn was conducted near Havre,

Montana. Varying types, and timings of top dressed nitrogen were applied to two short relative maturity

corn varieties. Pre-plant soil samples, at increments to a depth of four feet, were taken in April and

composited to determine initial soil nutrient content. Averaged across the four replications, pre-plant soil

tests to 48 inches indicated the presence of 41 lb/ac nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N).

Study treatments consisted of two varieties of short relative maturity corn, planted on May 16, in a

randomized complete block design with four replications. Fertility was applied as per the Fertilizer

Guidelines for Montana Crops, at a rate of 1.2 lb N/bu to achieve a yield goal of 65 bu/ac grain corn.

According to calculations, a total of 78 lb N/ac was necessary to accommodate our yield goal. A starter

fertilizer of 5-15-10 was applied to all fertilized plots. The additional 32 lb/ac nitrogen requirement in the

form of urea and/or ESN® was broadcast within each plot at planting (May 16) or the V8 stage (June 27).

Urea and ESN® blends were broadcast by hand to equal the full rate of recommended nitrogen.

Data was collected throughout the season and all plots were harvested by hand on September

25, at physiological maturity. Plant population, days to tassel, grain yield, test weight and moisture was

determined for all plots. Post-harvest soil samples were collected on a per plot basis at 0-6, 6-24, 24-36

and 36-48 inch depth increments and shipped to a commercial lab for nutrient analyses.

Project Results and Relevancy to Montana:

Precipitation at Northern Ag Research Center was above average in 2013 resulting in 14.57” of

rainfall between seeding and harvest of the grain corn, which is 5.4” above normal. During late June one

of the varieties starting lodging and breaking off (Figure 1). In the literature, this lodging and breaking

problem has been associated with strong winds, shallow root systems, heavy rainfall, corn genetics,

herbicide applications, and/or insect feeding – in our plots, we observed all of the previously described

conditions with the exception of insect issues. It was determined that a later than ideal herbicide

application had affected both varieties. This in turn impacted yield and other variables measured. The

herbicide damage significantly affected one variety more than the other by causing the anchor roots to

fuse, eventually breaking and allowing the corn to either lodge or completely fall to the ground. Although

the second variety was affected, it appeared to recover and grow through the damage better, so trends

and data were analyzed.

Figure 1. Corn variability due to the interaction of variety and herbicide application (July 30).

Of all variables measured, plant population, tasseling date and grain yield were the agronomic

factors significantly influenced by nitrogen application. All yields were increased with the addition of

nitrogen, regardless of the source or timing, over zero fertility or the starter fertilizer only treatment (Figure

22

2). Grain yields were lower than initially expected, averaging just under 51 bu/ac, but this is attributed, in

part, to the herbicide damage observed.

This trial served as a baseline to collect data and refine grain corn fertility trial treatments and

protocols for future research. Although not a typical year for dryland corn production in north central

Montana, it is now understood how future research can be customized to deal with differing rainfall

patterns and available farm-scale equipment for seeding and fertilizing the small plots.

For growers who wish to diversify their dryland rotations, grain corn may be an alternative option.

Grain corn can be harvested from

late September to late October or

into early winter depending on

weather and ear dry down. This

harvest does not coincide with the

busy times of year including small

grain harvest and fall seeding.

Because Montana has an extensive

livestock industry importing a large

portion of the corn that is fed to the

livestock, corn could be marketed to

local livestock producers at a lower

price than what is typically paid for

the out of state commodity.

However, long term interactions

associated with inputs, yields,

rotational benefits and economics

still need to be investigated.

2014 Objectives:

1. To determine the effects of Nitrogen source and combination on a short relative maturity corn

variety under dryland conditions in north central Montana

2. To expand on baseline data gathered in 2013 for future expansion of grain corn research and

production across Montana in non-traditional corn producing areas, thus benefiting both farmers and

ranchers statewide

Study treatments consist of one variety of short relative maturity corn, planted in a randomized

complete block design with four replications. Fertility was be applied as per the Fertilizer Guidelines for

Montana Crops, at a rate of 1.2 lb N/bu to achieve a yield goal of 65 bu/ac grain corn. Nitrogen fertilizer

requirements in the form of urea, ESN®, NUTRISPHERE-N®, or AGROTAIN® coated urea will be

broadcast at planting along with other nutrients as the soil test indicates. The treatments including 100%

of each form along with blends of each in 25% increments will be broadcast to equal the full rate of

recommended nitrogen. Each plot will be harvested at physiological maturity, once the black layer has

formed for the determination of grain yield, test weight, moisture and soil samples will be taken post-

harvest to determine the amount of nitrate-N left in the soil.

We propose to determine the proper combination of nitrogen sources and use the results from

this dryland corn fertility trial to establish fertility management options for short seasoned corn production

in north central Montana.

Figure 2. Grain Corn Seed Yield Associated with Early and Late Urea and ESN Applications

23

Dryland Pea Forage Research

Peggy Lamb, plamb@montana.edu Northern Agricultural Research Center 406-265-6115

Dave Wichman, dwichman@montana.edu Central Agricultural Research Center 406-423-5421

The development of improved pea cultivars with the semi-leaf character has spurred the

expansion of field pea acreage across the Northern Great Plains. The more upright canopy structure of

the mature semi-leafless pea has provided for increased ease and speed of grain harvest. Concerns

about picking up rocks and soil clods with the ripened peas is no longer the paramount concern of pea

harvest combine operators. Most growers raising peas for forage and green manure still utilize the

standard leaf type peas due the perception that the leafy nature provides more and higher quality forage.

If there is not an advantage in forage yield or quality with standard leaf peas, there may be a seed cost

advantage for producers to utilize semi-leafless peas for forage and green manure crops. Pea cultivar

forage yield comparison trials have been conducted at Montana’s Central (CARC) and Northern

Agricultural Research Centers (NARC) located near Moccasin and Havre, respectively for several years.

The CARC location is continuous-crop rainfed, 15” annual precipitation environment with the forage peas

seeded no-till into the prior year’s barley crop stubble. The NARC is crop-fallow rainfed, 12.0” annual

precipitation environment with the peas seeded no-till into chemical fallowed prior year barley stubble.

Delta, Majorette, and Montech 4152 were semi-leafless pea lines and Arvika and Granger were standard

leaf lines, along with other entries used in the evaluation trials. The results have varied between locations

and years. The standard leaf type peas did not provide consistent advantage for yield or quality over the

semi-leafless type cultivars.

The 2014 trial was seeded on April 20 and includes the semi-leafless spring pea lines 4010,

Delta, Montech 4152 and Flex, and the standard leaf lines Arvika spring pea and Granger winter pea.

TABLE 1.

(Exp# 13-FR05-FR)

FORAGE CANOPY VINE

SPECIES CULTIVAR ENTRY PLANTS MOISTURE HEIGHT LENGTH

or SELECTION ID per sq ft Lb/Ac Ton/Ac % Julian Calendar in in

Spring Pea Arvika (Check) 12PF 02 6.3 4431.4 2.22 80.5 177.3 Jun 26 33.1 41.4

Spring Pea Delta 12PF 01 6.3 3860.6 1.93 78.1 171.0 Jun 20 21.9 23.6

Spring Pea Border Fill Fill - 3616.9 1.81 80.4 167.0 Jun 16 25.3 27.9

Spring Pea Flex 13PF 08 5.9 4953.7 2.48 82.9 177.5 Jun 26 32.8 47.7

Spring Pea Montech 1152 12PF 04 5.1 3191.5 1.60 81.3 171.5 Jun 20 24.6 27.4

Spring Pea NDP080111 12PF 05 5.4 4261.2 2.13 82.7 176.0 Jun 25 33.0 34.6

Spring Pea Nurtigreen 13PF 07 6.0 4613.9 2.31 81.8 176.8 Jun 25 25.8 35.4

Spring Pea PS05100632 12PF 06 6.3 4386.6 2.19 79.6 164.0 Jun 13 26.7 29.4

Winter Pea Granger 12PF 03 5.9 3720.1 1.86 80.4 178.0 Jun 27 30.0 38.3

EXPERIMENTAL MEANS 5.9 4115.1 2.06 80.8 173.2 Jun 22 28.1 34.0

LSD (0.05) ns 683.1 0.3 1.8 2.5 - 4.4 4.4

C.V.: ( S / MEAN)*100 14.0 11.4 11.4 1.5 1.0 - 10.6 8.8

P-VALUE (Entries) 0.3184 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 <.0001 - <.0001 <.0001

Bold Indicates highest yielding cultivar within a column.

Bold Indicates cultivars yielding equal to the highest yielding entry based on Fisher's Protected LSD at the 0.05 probability level.

** Indicates highest yielding cultivar within a column.

* Indicates cultivars yielding equal to the highest yielding entry based on Fisher's Protected LSD at the 0.05 probability level.

Seeded: April 25, 2013 Fertility: None Herbicide: None Previous Crop: Spring Barley

2013

FORAGE DRY YIELD FLOWERING DATE

Montana Pea Forage Evaluation Nursery Grown On-Station Under No-Till Dryland Recrop Conditions at

Northern Agricultural Research Center. Havre, Montana. 2013.

24

TABLE 2.

(Exp# 11-FR05-FR)

2011 2011 FORAGE CANOPY VINE

SPECIES CULTIVAR FORAGE DRY YIELD MOISTURE HEIGHT LENGTH

or SELECTION Lb/Ac Ton/Ac % Julian Calendar in in

Spring Pea 4010 1415.3 0.71 74.3 182.3 Jul 1 20.4 26.4

Spring Pea Arvika 1581.7* 0.79 73.0 182.3 Jul 1 21.0 27.2

Spring Pea Delta 1678.6** 0.84 73.9 176.0 Jun 25 14.8 16.5

Spring Pea Majorette 1574.0* 0.79 73.6 178.3 Jun 27 14.7 19.0

Spring Pea Tucker 1297.7 0.65 75.3 180.0 Jun 29 18.9 19.7

Winter Pea Granger 1330.9 0.67 74.1 182.3 Jul 1 18.5 26.3

1479.7 0.74 74.0 180.2 Jun 29 18.0 22.5

214.5 0.1 ns 1.0 - 2.5 2.7

8.0 8.0 1.3 0.3 - 7.6 6.5

P-VALUE (Entries) 0.0139 0.0139 0.1573 <0.0001 - 0.0006 <0.0001

Bold Indicates cultivars yielding equal to the highest yielding entry based on Fisher's Protected LSD at the 0.05 probability level.

** Indicates highest yielding cultivar within a column.

* Indicates cultivars yielding equal to the highest yielding entry based on Fisher's Protected LSD at the 0.05 probability level.

ns denotes no significant difference between cultivars within a column at the 0.05 probability level.

Montana Pea Forage Evaluation Nursery Grown On-Station Under No-Till Dryland

Recrop Conditions at Northern Agricultural Research Center. Havre, Montana.

C.V.: ( S / MEAN)*100

FLOWERING DATE

EXPERIMENTAL MEANS

LSD (0.05)

TABLE 3.

(Exp# 10-FR05-FR)

2010 2010 FORAGE CANOPY VINE NODES ACID NEUTRAL CRUDE

SPECIES CULTIVAR FORAGE DRY YIELD MOISTURE HEIGHT LENGTH w/ PODS PROTEIN DET FIBER DET FIBER FIBER

or SELECTION Lb/Ac Ton/Ac % Julian Calendar in in no. % % % %

Spring Pea 4010 4406.0* 2.20 79.2 182.0 Jul 1 25.4 53.7 3.6 14.5 23.4 21.9 26.8

Spring Pea Arvika 4552.0* 2.28 79.1 183.0 Jul 2 24.6 47.8 2.3 18.8 24.8 23.7 29.1

Spring Pea Delta 4838.1** 2.42 78.5 177.0 Jun 26 27.0 31.4 4.2 14.2 21.2 20.0 25.7

Spring Pea Majorette 4482.0* 2.24 78.5 178.8 Jun 28 26.0 26.6 4.0 12.2 22.2 22.4 27.6

Winter Pea Common AWP 4222.6 2.11 81.4 181.0 Jun 30 26.0 47.2 3.6 18.4 24.5 25.5 30.7

Winter Pea Granger 3548.8 1.77 77.8 181.5 Jul 1 31.4 47.0 2.9 13.7 24.7 24.9 32.0

4341.6 2.17 79.1 180.5 Jun 30 26.7 42.3 3.4 15.3 23.5 23.0 28.6

538.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 - 3.2 6.6 0.8 ns ns ns ns

8.2 8.2 1.1 0.2 - 8.0 10.3 14.6 13.7 13.2 9.0 7.3

1/ No. of Days from January 1 (181 = June 30).

** Indicates highest yielding cultivar within a column.

* Indicates cultivars yielding equal to the highest yielding entry based on Fisher's Protected LSD at the 0.05 probability level.

FLOWERING DATE

EXPERIMENTAL MEANS

LSD (0.05)

C.V.:

Montana Pea Forage Evaluation Nursery Grown On-Station Under No-Till Dryland Fallow Conditions at Northern Agricultural

Research Center. Havre, Montana. 2010.

25

Safflower by Dave Wichman CARC, dwichman@montana.edu

Safflower is an oilseed crop that has been commercially produced in Montana since 1957. An oilseed

crushing plant was built at Culberson Montana in 1957 for the purposes of expelling safflower oil.

Montana-North Dakota safflower acres have fluctuated over the past 57 years with peak acreage around

200,000 acres in 1962 and again in the 1985 to 1992 period. Two classes of safflower seed, oleic and

linoleic, are marketed as premium food oils.Much of the northern plains safflower currently goes into the

birdseed market.

Safflower, a warm season crop with spring frost tolerance, is typically seeded in Montana areas with

elevation 3000 ft or lower to insure sufficient heat units, 2000+ corn growing degree units, to mature

standard safflower.

Safflower also has utility as pump crop in managing saline seeps and as a forage. Safflower is deep

rooted, rooting deeper than winter wheat in some soils, enabling it to reach nutrients and water beyond the

reach of the roots of cereal grains and other crops. While it uses more water than some other crops,

safflower’s deeper roots provide access to more water. Safflower produces a quality palatable forage and

is attractive to cattle in spite of its spines. Safflower forage typically has relative feed values in excess of

100% in the bud through seed fill growth stages.

CARC has been selecting safflower lines for adaptation to fewer heat units and spineless character so as

to enhance its acceptance as an alternative forage crop and component of wildlife food plots. Bird hunters

prefer the spineless types! An unplanned benefit has been the use of the Moccasin spineless safflower in

Afghanistan as an alternative crop to opium poppies. Since women harvest many of the Afghanistan crops

by hand, the spineless character has been well received and contributed expanding safflower acres there.

It is anticipated that MAES will release a spineless safflower line in 2015.

Ten-Year Yield Summary of Selected Entries- Dryland Safflower & Barley Nursery.

Northern Agricultural Research Center. Havre, Montana. Mean YIELD (Lbs Per Acre)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Safflower 1208.4 1180.5 1055.6 1526.2 1844.8 2185.1 1872.5 1958.9 1368.1 1694.2

Barley 3911.3 2810.9 3084.2 3542.0 3088.5 3347.2 3760.0 1746.0 3454.1

Gross ($/a)

crop / price 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Safflower ($0.25/lb) 302.1 295.1 263.9 381.5 461.2 546.3 468.1 489.7 342.0 423.5

Barley ($0.10/lb) 391.1 281.1 308.4 354.2 308.8 334.7 376.0 174.6 345.4

Barley ($0.0725/lb) 283.6 203.8 223.6 256.8 223.9 242.7 272.6 126.6 250.4

Safflower ($0.10/lb) 120.8 118.1 105.6 152.6 184.5 218.5 187.3 195.9 136.8 169.4

26

27

Mike Waring

Agronomist

Montana Specialty Mills, GT. Falls

MY Cell 406-788-2433

Office Toll free; 1-800-332-2024

mike.waring@mtspecialtymills.com

www.mtspecialtymills.com

I am a graduate of Montana State University in 1982, with a B.S. in Agriculture.

I have worked in the Ag field as a Retailer for 3 years, a basic Ag Chemical Manufacturer

Representative for 23 years, and 6 years with Oilseed crops.

I am the on-staff Agronomist for Montana Specialty Mills, based out of Great Falls. We have an

Oil Processing facility in Great Falls, and a Mustard Mill in Conrad.

I work with our Growers from contracting, through the growing season and the end of Harvest. I

scout the fields, make recommendations, and give advice on seeding and harvesting.

Montana Specialty Mills currently contracts Growers to raise Yellow Mustard, Safflower,

Industrial Rapeseed, and Flax. We also contract growers to raise Organic Canola and Mustard.

We are a Montana based company with deep Montana roots.

In counties close to Havre (Hill, Chouteau, Liberty, Blaine)

Yellow Mustard

2013 acres 3100

2014 acres 6500

Safflower

2013 acres 1150

2014 acres 2000

Rapeseed

2013 acres 500

2014 acres 800

28

29

Rick Bennett – Agrisoma, rbennett@agrisoma.com

30

31

Winter Wheat Growth and Yield in Response to Different Weather Scenarios

Michael Bestwick, MS Candidate—Land Resource and Environmental Sciences

michael.bestwick@msu.montana.edu

Developing crop rotations that eliminate fallow remains a challenge in Montana’s dryland wheat-

based systems. With the right weather patterns, wheat yields may be sustained or possibly

improved by replacing summer fallow with an alternate crop. Under dry conditions, conversely,

the fallow period is critical for protecting yields. Thus the question is not necessarily can fallow

be eliminated, but when can fallow be eliminated?

The answer to this question depends greatly upon the weather, and particularly growing season

temperature, precipitation, and stored soil moisture. By monitoring how wheat yields respond to

varying levels of heat and water stress, it may be possible to make accurate yield predictions

under different weather scenarios. This in turn could help Montana farmers assess the tradeoffs

of eliminating fallow from their rotations based on their personal risk preference.

A two-year study is therefore being conducted at three Montana State University research centers

to track how winter wheat growth and yields respond to water and heat stress in rotation with

two potential fallow replacement crops. The research stations are Northern, Central, and

Southern Agricultural Research Centers located in Havre, Moccasin, and Huntley respectively,

and the fallow replacement crops are spring pea and camelina. Daily weather, weekly soil

moisture, canopy growth, and biomass measurements are being conducted at each site. Thus far,

favorable wet and cool growing conditions make it difficult to discern between a wheat-fallow

and continuous rotation in Huntley compared to Havre where less optimum growing conditions

have resulted in a more pronounced difference between continuous and wheat-fallow rotations

(Fig A, B.). Determining how heat and water stress caused these differences will be an important

factor for simulating wheat growth and yield under different weather scenarios.

32

Figure A. The left image is winter wheat planted on fallow, and the right image is winter wheat

planted on camelina in Huntley 2014. The approximate growth stage is flowering.

Figure B.. The left image is winter wheat planted on fallow and the right image is winter wheat

planted on spring pea in Havre 2014. The approximate growth stage is heading.

33

Pulse Crop Disease Issues

Dr. Barry Jacobsen, Plant Pathologist, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

Stand establishment is critical to obtaining optimal yields and weed control by a competitive

crop. Pulse crop stand establishment and maintenance of a competitive stand is compromised by

common soil pathogens including several species of Pythium, Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium

solani and Fusarium redolens. In areas where peas have a long history of production

Aphanomyces root rot is common limiting factor, although with our relatively recent production

history, this disease has not yet become important. Control of pre and post emergent damping-

off and root rots caused by these fungi requires the use of pathogen free/high quality/high vigor

seed planted into a seedbed favorable for germination and the use of fungicide seed treatments.

All seed lots should be assayed for Ascochyta (pea, chickpea, lentil) and Anthracnose (lentil).

Seed assays can be done at MSU at the Schutter Diagnostic Laboratory. Thresholds for

recommended use of seed lots is 0 for chickpea and 5% for pea and lentil.

Pythium species pathogenic to pulse crops are found in all soils and seed rots, damping-off and

root rots caused by Pythium species are favored by cool, wet soils. Because of this pathogen all

pulse crop seed should be treated with metalaxyl ( Allegience, Sebring, Dyna-Shield, Belmont)

or mefenoxam (Apron XL) or a product containing one of these active ingredients ( Apron Maxx

RTA, Apron-Maxx RFC, Maxim XL, Cruiser-Maxx-mefenoxam + fludioxanil) or EverGol

Energy ( prothioconazole+penflufen + metalaxyl), Rancona Summit (ipconazole+metalaxyl) or

Trilex 2000 (trifloxystrobin + metalaxyl).

The combination products will provide control of Rhizoctonia and Fusarium seedling blights and

root rots. Standalone products such as pyraclostrobin (Stamina), azoxystrobin (Dynasty),

trifloxystrobin (Trilex), sedaxane (Vibrance) and fludioxanil (Maxim 4FS, Spirato 480 )will

provide control of Rhizoctonia and can be mixed with metalaxyl or mefenoxam products to get

control control of Pythium. Thiabendazole (Mertect 340-F is commonly used for control of

seedborne Ascochyta blight and should be mixed with metalaxyl or mefenoxam. EverGol Energy

( prothioconazole+penflufen + metalaxyl) will also provide suppression of seedborne Ascochyta.

In addition, two Bacillus –based biological seed treatments are registered for pea. These are

Kodiak and GB 34 Yield Shield. There products promote growth and suppress Rhizoctonia and

Fusarium root rots. Please note that some seed treatment fungicides can affect Rhizobia

inoculants adversely- CHECK INOCULANT LABEL FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION.

Registered products are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. FUNGICIDE SEED TREATMENTS FOR USE ON PULSE CROPS

Common name Product name pea lentil chickpea Diseases controlled

Captan Captan, etc x Seed rots

azoxystrobin Dynasty x x x Rhizoctonia

pyraclostrobin Stamina x x x Rhizoctonia

trifloxystrobin Trilex x x x Rhizoctonia

fludioxanil Maxim 4FS

Spirato 480FS

x x x Rhizoctonia,

Fusarium

34

ipconazole Rancona 3.8FS x x x Rhizoctonia,

Fusarium

metalaxyl/mefenoxam Apron XL

Allegience

Sebring

Dyna-Shield

Belmont

x x x Pythium

sedaxane Vibrance x x x Rhizoctonia

thiabendazole Mertect 340F x x x Seedborne

Ascochyta,

Anthracnose

fludioxanil+ mefenoxam Apron Maxx

RFC

x x x Pythium, Fusarium,

Rhizoctonia

fludioxanil+ mefenoxam+

thimethoxam

CruiserMaxx x x x Pythium, Fusarium,

Rhizoctonia

Insects (see label)

ipconazole + metalaxyl Rancona

Summit

x x x Pythium, Fusarium,

Rhizoctonia

prothioconazole +

penflufen+metalaxyl

EverGol

Energy

x x x Pythium, Fusarium,

Rhizoctonia

Seedborne

Ascochyta

trifloxystrobin + metalaxyl Trilex 2000 x x x Pythium

Rhizoctonia

Note: products with ipconazole and prothioconazole will also suppress seedborne Botrytis and

Sclerotinia white mold.

Foliar diseases

PEA

Foliar diseases of peas common in Montana include powdery mildew, Sclerotinia white mold,

Grey mold (Botrytis), bacterial leaf blight and leaf spots caused by Ascochyta pisi, Mycosharella

pinoids and Phoma pinodella. With the exception of powdery mildew and Botrytis, crop

rotations of 2-3 years or more are highly effective. Both Ascochyta and Sclerotinia are

commonly seedborne and seed should have an effective fungicide treatment-see Table 1.

Powdery mildew is common but proven economic return from fungicide use has not been firmly

established. Powdery mildew can be controlled by application of sulfur, the QoI fungicides

:azoxystrobin (Quadris, Satori), pyraclostrobin (Headline) or picoxystrobin (Approach); the

35

SDHI fungicide Vertisan or the combination product Priaxor (pyraclostrobin + fluxapyroxad (an

SDHI fungicide.) All of these products except sulfur will control Ascochyta blight. Sclerotina

white mold can be controlled with Endura, Proline, Vertisan or Priaxor. Timing should be at

early bloom and again at full bloom. Prior to planting the biological control Coniothyrium

minitans (Contans) can be applied to the soil and this sclerotial parasite will provide good control

of white mold. Fall applications may be superior to spring applications.

LENTILS

Foliar diseases of lentils common in Montana include white mold, anthracnose and Ascochyta

blight. Both Anthracnose and Ascochyta blight will be suppressed by crop rotations of 2-3 years

or more and when combined with disease-free seed and effective seed treatment control is

generally good to excellent. Some lentil cultivars are listed as resistant to anthracnose but they

can be damaged by this disease and fungicide use may be necessary since losses of 50% or more

can occur. Fungicide registered for anthracnose control include Vertisan, Priaxor, and the QoI

fungicides (Headline, Quadris, Satori, and Approach). For Ascochyta control the fungicides

ProPulse, Priaxor, Proline and the QoI fungicides are registered. The decision to apply fungicides

for anthracnose control depends on stand, weather and disease incidence. Table 2. Below

provides guidelines for fungicide application on lentils and is based on Canadian research.

Table 2. Fungicide Decision support System for lentil- make assessment at 10-12 node stage or

early flowering.

A-Plant stand B-Days of rain past

14 days

C-5 day weather

forecast

D-Disease severity

Thin=0 0=0 Dry=0 No disease=0

Moderate=5 1-2 = 5 Unpredictable=10 Lesions on 1-5%

lower leaflets=5

Normal= 10 3-4 =10 Light showers= 15 Lesions on 6-10%

lower leaflets=15

Dense=15 5-6 = 15 Rain=20 Lesions on >10%

lower and upper

leaflets= 25

>7= 20 Premature leaf drop,

stem lesions, flowers

and peduncles

infected=25

The risk value is the sum of A+B+C+D. If the risk value is <50 fungicide application is not

warranted and another assessment should be made until crop is no longer flowering. If >50

fungicide application is warranted. If there is a high incidence of lesions at the base of plants and

the crop is no longer flowering fungicide application is not recommended. A single fungicide

application is usually sufficient.

Scleotinia white mold control is the same as pea.

36

CHICKPEA

Ascochyta blight is the most important disease of chickpea and can be a limiting factor on

production of Kabuli (large seeded) type chickpea although the cultivars Amit (B-90), CDC

Frontier and CDC Luna have fair to moderate resistance. The smaller dark seeded desi types are

more resistant. Chickpeas are only susceptible to the chickpea Ascochyta fungus (Ascochyta

rabiei) and are not affected by the Ascochyta fungi attacking peas or lentil. Management of this

disease starts before planting. All seed should be tested for seedborne Ascochyta and we

recommend only lots with 0% infection (500 seed test) be used for planting and then only with

an effective seed treatment. Rotations of 2-3 years or more are critical although ascospores of

this fungus can blow relatively long distances. Therefore do not plant adjacent to fields planted

to chickpea in the preceding two years. Foliar fungicides are commonly used and a preventive

fungicide program is recommended. Although registered, the QoI fungicides (Headline, Quadris)

should not be used because it can be presumed that MT isolates of Ascochyta rabiei are

resistant to these fungicides. A suggested fungicide program would be application of

chlorothalonil (Bravo, Echo, etc) at first sign of disease or 10 days before bloom to bloom stage.

If disease is detected before this stage the use of systemic fungicides such as Proline (fungicide

group 3), Vertisan (fungicide group 7), Endura (fungicide group 7) or ProPulse (fluopyram –

fungicide group 7 + prothioconazole –fungicide group 3) is strongly recommended as a first

spray. A note of caution, reduced sensitivity to Proline has been detected in North Dakota, it is

not known if this reduced level of sensitivity will affect field performance nor if this occurs in

MT. If disease levels are undetectable, 10-14 days after the chlorothalonil spray apply a systemic

fungicide or a systemic fungicide mixed with chlorothalonil and a third spray 10-14 days later.

The bloom through pod fill stages are most critical. Rotation of fungicide groups is critical since

this fungus has shown the ability to rapidly develop resistance and both the group 3 and group 7

fungicides are considered moderate to high risk for fungicide resistance development. Because

most strains of this fungus are resistant to the QoI fungicides (fungicide group 11), products

containing mixture of QoI fungicides and other fungicides, it can be assumed that the activity is

from the fungicide partner. Examples would be Priaxor (a combination of pyraclostrobin-group

11 and fluxapyroxad –group 7), Quadris Opti (azoxystrobin –group 11 +chlortohalonil –group

M5), Quadris Top (azoxystrobin + difenoconazole-group 3) and Quilt (azoxystrobin +

propiconazole-group 3). Ascochyta blight is favored by cool (59-77 F) temperatures, and high

humidity (fog, rain, dew). Predictive models and disease management research is being done by

MSU scientists, Dr. Mary Burrows and Dr. Hans Schneider and is funded by MAES and the

Northern Pulse Growers.

Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) is an emerging disease of lentil and chickpea and

has been found in MT. Fungicide programs for Ascochyta control have not been effective. This

pathogen is favored by warm humid conditions and it survives on crop residues and seed.

Therefore crop rotations and effective seed treatments are thought to be important management

tools.

Useful references:

Diseases of cool season legumes (Pulse crops: pea. Lentil, chickpea). MSU Extension Bulletin

EBO207 by Mary Burrows

Montana cool-season pulse production guide. MSU Extension Bulletin EBO210 by McVay,

Burrows, Menalled, Jones, Wanner and O’Neill

37

Thanks for Coming - Safe Travels Home

38

39

40