1996 KANSAS PERFORMANCE TESTS WITH WINTER WHEAT VARIETIES INTRODUCTION ------------ This publication presents results from the 1995-96 Kansas Winter Wheat Performance Tests and other information related to winter wheat variety performance. The information included in the report is intended to assist wheat producers in the variety selection process. The first section includes a summary of statewide growing conditions and harvest information for the entire 1996 Kansas wheat crop. The second section includes the statewide acreage distribution of leading Kansas varieties and a summary of important agronomic and quality traits for these varieties. The third section presents procedures and results for the 1996 Kansas Winter Wheat Performance Tests. 1996 CROP CONDITIONS -------------------- Weather Conditions The critical weather factors for wheat are precipitation and temperature. The precipitation for the 1995-96 wheat season was extremely low. During the important October to April period, seven of the nine crop reporting districts reported the lowest average precipitation since 1895. The North Central district reported the second driest, and the Northwest reported the 13th driest period. The extremely dry conditions also affected the temperatures, because air with little moisture can both warm and cool more rapidly than moist air. Extremely low temperatures occurred in late March and again in late April. Rapid swings from high to low temperatures placed considerable stress on the wheat. The temperature swings and the dry conditions resulted in periodic dust storms throughout the winter and early spring. Rains returned in May but were frequently in the form of severe thunderstorms with torrential downpours, high winds, and hail. (From Mary Knapp, KSU State Climatologist). Crop Development The temperature and moisture extremes described above had a major impact on crop development and condition. This was evident already last fall when emergence was delayed because of dry soil conditions. Cool spring temperatures significantly delayed jointing, but the crop nearly caught up with the 5-year average by heading time. Harvest was close to the 5-year average and well ahead of the late 1995 harvest. The 1996 wheat crop started out in good condition last fall but declined until just before harvest. Early in the fall, 96% of the crop was rated as fair or better. That percentage dropped to 76% by late fall. However, in early spring only 57% was fair or better, and in late May, that percentage dropped to 35%. Small portions of the acreage were rated as excellent in the fall and summer. None of the acreage was in excellent condition from March through May. The condition of the crop improved during June, so that only 46% was rated as poor or very poor by harvest. Some of that improvement may have resulted from abandonment of the worst fields, but much was due to timely rains and favorable temperatures that allowed the wheat to develop and finish the season under close to ideal conditions. Soil moisture played a large role in determining the condition of the wheat crop. Low soil moisture through the fall and winter months limited fall growth and made the plants more susceptible to winter and spring freeze injury. However, dry spring conditions limited disease development. Rains in May and June helped improve the condition of the crop during the critical grain-filling period. (From Crop-Weather reports, Kansas Agricultural Statistics, Topeka). Diseases Relatively low disease levels contributed to better than expected yields in much of the state. However, the discovery of Karnal bunt in Arizona durum wheat provided much material for discussion and activity by disease-monitoring agencies and others in the wheat industry. Dry fall conditions contributed to the lowest level of fall disease development in several years. State plant pathologists detected trace levels of wheat streak mosaic in central and western Kansas fields planted next to wheat stubble. Some central and south central fields contained very low levels of speckled leaf blotch and tan spot. Although the continued dry weather during the winter months contributed to the severity of winter injury, freeze damage, and wind injury suffered by much of the state's wheat, it had the benefit of limiting disease development. In early May, wheat streak mosaic was active in some fields in western Kansas, but no leaf rust was detected there or in central Kansas. Some relatively unusual disease situations developed late in the growing season. Many central Kansas fields had low to moderate levels of almost pure Stagonospora nodorum leaf blotch. Speckled leaf blotch reached fairly high levels in far northwestern Kansas. Stem rust was detected on late-maturing varieties in eastern Kansas fields. Some scab appeared in north central fields. (From Plant Disease Survey Reports, Kansas State Board of Agriculture). Insects Although some fields experienced severe insect damage, many did not or were much more severely affected by other environmental conditions. Treatment for fall armyworms began last September but was cut short in most areas by the early freeze. State entomologists generally detected very little fall activity for greenbugs, oat birdcherry aphids, Russian wheat aphids, or wheat curl mites. Cold winter temperatures slowed or killed many insect populations, but the low winter precipitation favored others. Greenbugs caused some noticeable damage in southeastern fields last fall, but didn't cause much additional damage in the spring in that area. Greenbugs moved from Oklahoma into south central Kansas in March and April and caused severe damage in some fields. Brown wheat mites were favored by the dry winter. They were the predominant insect pest on wheat in southwest Kansas, although many of the dryland fields where they were found were in marginal condition from the winter, freeze, and wind damage and were not treated. Russian wheat aphids and oat birdcherry aphids remained at very low levels through the spring. (From Cooperative Economic Insect Survey Reports, Kansas State Board of Agriculture). Harvest Statistics Although early estimates were much lower, the Kansas Agricultural Statistics office's July 12 estimate of the 1996 crop was 237.6 million bushels harvested from 8.8 million acres. This estimate was down 17% from the 1995 harvest, but up 30% from the June 1 forecast. The statewide yield average of 27 bushels per acre was actually up 1 bushel from last year. Estimates of total production were lower than last year in all but the eastern districts, which were 28-67% above last year. The eastern districts had very low yields and production in 1995 and better than expected yields in 1996. Much of the decrease in total production was due to a high rate of abandonment, especially in the West Central Crop Reporting District where only half as many acres were harvested in 1996 as in 1995. (From July 12, 1996 CROPS report, Kansas Agricultural Statistics, Topeka). WHEAT VARIETIES GROWN IN KANSAS ------------------------------- Acreage Distribution The leading wheat varieties planted in Kansas are reported in Table 1. The top 10 varieties occupied 83.9% of the state's seeded acreage. The top 5 varieties for each crop reporting district are presented in the variety distribution map. TAM 107, Ike, and Larned predominated in western Kansas. Newton, Arapahoe, Karl/Karl 92, Scout/Scout 66, and Vista also occupied significant acreage in the west. 2163 and Karl/Karl 92 were the most popular varieties in the central and eastern districts. These two varieties occupied over 80% of the acreage in the eastern districts. Other popular varieties in the central third of the state included AgriPro Tomahawk, AGSECO 7853, TAM 107, and Ike. Variety Distribution Map: Leading wheat varieties in Kansas in 1996, presented as percent of seeded acreage by crop reporting districts for 1996 and 1995 (1995 in parentheses). From Wheat Variety Report, Kansas Agricultural Statistics, Feb. 8, 1996. ______________________________________________________________________ | TAM 107 30(40) | 2163 28(21) |Karl/Karl 92 58(51)\_ | Ike 14(2) | Karl/Karl 92 25(24) |2163 26(24) \ | Newton 7(6) | Tomahawk 13(18) |Tomahawk 3(6) / | Arapahoe 7(5) | Ike 7(1) |Jagger 3(-) \ | Larned 6(11) | 7853 5(5) |7853 1(2) \ |_________________________|________________________|________________________\ | | | | | TAM 107 48(58) | 2163 32(31) | Karl/Karl 92 56(60) | | Ike 16(2) | Karl/Karl 92 22(22) | 2163 26(18) | | Larned 10(14) | 7853 7(6) | Pecos 4(3) | | Ogallala 3(1) | TAM 107 7(9) | 7853 3(3) | | 7853 3(3) | Tomahawk 7(10) | Tomahawk 3(2) | |_________________________|________________________|_________________________| | | | | | TAM 107 40(41) | 2163 36(33) | Karl/Karl 92 69(75) | | Larned 12(20) | Karl/Karl 92 28(32) | 2163 16(10) | | Ike 11(1) | 7853 7(4) | Jagger 2(-) | | Scout(s) 5(4) | Tomahawk 5(8) | 7853 2(1) | | TAM 200 4(4) | TAM 107 3(3) | Tomahawk 1(2) | |_________________________|________________________|_________________________| Relatively few varieties have occupied significant statewide acreage since the late 1970's. These varieties occupied 86.1% of the planted wheat acres in 1996. Scout/Scout 66, Eagle, and Sage combined for nearly 60% of the statewide acreage in the late 1970's. In the early 1980's, Newton and Larned dominated, with over 50% of the acreage devoted to these two varieties. Larned consistently maintained nearly 10% of the planted acreage during the 1980's but has begun to drop off in recent years. Newton has dropped from a high of over 40% in 1982 to 1.3% in 1996. TAM 107 predominated in the early 1990's. In 1993, Karl/Karl 92 displaced TAM 107 as the leading variety. Karl/Karl 92, TAM 107, and 2163 together made up 57.8% of the total wheat acreage in 1996. (From February 8, 1996, Wheat Variety report, Kansas Agricultural Statistics, Topeka). Agronomic Characteristics Comparative ratings for important agronomic traits, pest resistance, and milling and baking quality are listed in Table 1. Varieties are included in this table if they appear in the annual Wheat Variety survey report from Kansas Agricultural Statistics. Ratings for a given trait in this table are experts' best estimates of the relative performance of the varieties based on information and observations over several seasons and from numerous sources. The ratings are updated annually to account for changes in performance that occur over time and to adjust for the changes in ranking that arise with the continued additions of new varieties. New Variety Descriptions General descriptions of new public entries in the Kansas Wheat Performance Tests are included below. These descriptions are abstracted from release notices or other material provided by the releasing agencies. 2137 hard red winter wheat was released by the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station in 1995. Foundation and registered seed should be available for fall planting in 1996. 2137 is intended to replace 2163 with improvements in yield, test weight, flour yields, and leaf rust resistance. Although similar, 2137 is generally 2 inches taller and 1 day later in heading than 2163. 2137 is adapted across Kansas, but will do best in areas where 2163 has done well, namely central, north central, and western Kansas. See Kansas State University Cooperative Extension Service Publication L-906, "2137 Hard Red Winter Wheat", for more complete information about this variety. Nekota hard red winter wheat was developed cooperatively by the South Dakota Experiment Station; Nebraska Experiment Station; and the Northern Plains Area, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Released in 1994, this variety is most likely adapted to north central and northwest Kansas. Nekota's flowering date is similar to that of Alliance, later than TAM 107's, and earlier than Arapahoe's. Nekota is moderately susceptible to leaf rust, and is susceptible to soilborne and wheat streak mosaic viruses and Hessian fly. Additional information about this variety can be obtained from the Nebraska Foundation Seed Division, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. TAM 110 hard red winter wheat should be released very soon by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. This variety is similar to TAM 107 in type and quality but possesses resistance to greenbug biotype E. A more complete description of this variety will be available with the official release notice. 1996 PERFORMANCE TESTS ---------------------- Objectives To help Kansas growers select wheat cultivars suited for their area and conditions, the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station annually compares both new and currently grown varieties and hybrids in the state's major crop-producing areas. The objective is to provide Kansas growers with unbiased performance information on all varieties and hybrids likely to become available in the state. Varieties Included in Tests Parentage and origin of public varieties included in the 1996 Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station tests are given in Table 2. Public varieties are selected for inclusion in the tests based on several criteria. Most represent new or established varieties with potential for successful utilization by Kansas wheat producers. Some are included as long-term checks for use in environment or maturity comparisons. Others are entered at the request of the originating institution. Privately developed varieties are entered into the Kansas Wheat Performance Tests by their originators or marketers. Entry is voluntary. Entrants choose both the entries and test sites and pay a fee for each entry-location to help defray test expenses. The program is similar to those for corn, sorghum, soybeans, and alfalfa. The 1996 private entrants and entries are listed in Table 3. Twelve entrants provided a total of 47 varieties and hybrids for testing at locations of their choice. Public and private entries were grown together at random in the same tests. Growers interested in more detailed descriptions of private entries should contact the entrants directly (see addresses and telephone numbers in Table 3 or consult the Kansas Crop Improvement Certified Seed Directory). Seed quality, including such factors as size, purity, and germination, can be important in determining the performance of a variety. Wheat seed used for public and private entries in the Kansas Crop Performance Tests is prepared professionally and usually meets or exceeds Kansas Crop Improvement Certification standards (See Table 12). Relative performance of a given variety or hybrid comparable to that obtained in these tests is best assured under similar environmental conditions and cultural practices and with the use of certified or professionally prepared seed. Environmental Factors Affecting Individual Tests Locations of test sites are shown on the map on the front cover. Six of the 17 tests had to be discarded in 1996. Specific reasons for abandonment and descriptions of environmental conditions are included below. Environmental factors should be considered when examining the results for a particular location. Site descriptions and management practices for each site are summarized in Table 4. Performance test summary: The performance tests were subjected to much the same regimen as described under the statewide growing conditions. Winter survival and spring injury notes from the 1996 performance tests are listed in Table 11. The location codes listed in parentheses after each location name are used as column headers in the data tables. EAST Brown County (BR): Adequate moisture at planting facilitated good stand establishment and decent fall growth. Warm periods alternating with very cold periods caused severe stand loss and winter injury in many varieties. Below-freezing soil temperatures quickly following extensive periods of warm weather likely caused most of the damage. Yield and other characteristics are reported for only those entries with greater than 50% survival. Winter injury and stand loss was severe and variable for the remaining varieties. Disease damage was minimal on all varieties. Riley County (RL): Planted in early October, varieties in this test established good stands and received little winter damage. The nursery received timely rains, and although plant height was reduced by a dry spring, yields were not reduced. Because of the dry spring, the usual diseases caused no significant yield reduction except for a late infection of stem rust, which reduced yields of late-maturing, susceptible entries. Virtually no lodging occurred in this trial, and yields were well above average. Franklin County (FR): Dry soil at planting delayed emergence and fall tiller development. Stands were generally good before winter. Winter temperatures varied widely. Several cycles of extreme cold and warm caused major stand loss in many varieties. Favorable moisture and limited disease pressure resulted in good yields for varieties with sufficient stand survival. Labette County (LB): Although the topsoil was very dry at planting, seedlings in most plots emerged well. Stand establishment was likely aided by drilling deep enough to reach moisture and by planting on a summer-fallow field. Seedlings emerged in some small, scattered spots after a late October rainfall. Temperatures varied widely during a very dry winter with no snow cover during the coldest periods. Low temperatures in early February and early March severely injured some varieties. Some rain in April combined with heavy rains in May facilitated high yields by some varieties but also resulted in scab in late May. CENTRAL Republic County (RP): The fall months were extremely dry, causing poor growth, although all varieties established good stands. Dry conditions continued through the winter. No snow cover persisted to alleviate the impact of very low temperatures. A succession of spring freezes caused significant loss of stand in many varieties. Cool, wet conditions in May allowed the surviving varieties to develop a higher than expected yield. Diseases were minimal because of the dry conditions in early spring. Harvey County (HV): Despite dry conditions, stand establishment was nearly normal. However, fall growth was limited by the absence of any meaningful precipitation until mid-December. Dry conditions continued through the winter and early spring, with negligible precipitation from January through April. Several cycles of extreme cold and warm temperatures continued into late March, causing major stand loss in many varieties. Favorable moisture and temperatures in May and June enabled the surviving varieties to attain good to excellent yield, despite delayed maturity. Some speckled leaf blotch, nodorum leaf blotch, and leaf rust were observed in June, but they developed too late to significantly reduce yields. Reno County (RN): Soil moisture was very good at planting, resulting in excellent stands. Low rainfall for the remainder of the fall resulted in minimal growth before winter. Dry conditions continued through the cold winter months and on into early spring. Rains finally came in May. Alternating warm and very cold temperatures, including some hard freezes, damaged some varieties. The dry spring combined with the later rains enabled the test to escape the leaf diseases normally prevalent at this site, while providing enough moisture for excellent yields. Stafford County, dryland (SD): Although all entries established good stands, a dry windy fall limited early growth. Strong winds in early spring completely destroyed the surviving plants. No results are available from this test. Sumner County (SU): All entries emerged well and established good stands. A very dry, open winter along with several cold temperature events (Feb. 2, March 5-6, and March 25-26) resulted in freeze back in some varieties. This site has low soil pH (5.1) and aluminum toxicity problems. Stress caused by aluminum toxicity and drought interacted with the cold temperatures. Blowing soil further reduced vigor and yield potential in late February and early March. It was necessary to spray the nursery three times to control greenbugs. Although control was obtained, the greenbugs caused some damage. These problems in the fall, winter, and spring, plus drought and high temperatures during grain filling, resulted in low yields at this site. WEST Ellis County (EL): Very dry conditions persisted from before planting until late spring, when freezes damaged some varieties. Plants were very short and had minimal yield potential. Unexplained stunting and variability in three of the four replications further contributed to the decision to abandon this test. Thomas County, dryland (TD): A wet snow on September 18 enabled good stand establishment, but fall growth was limited. The winter and spring months were very dry, with several periods of below-zero temperatures alternating with warm periods. For example, temperatures reached 80oF on March 24 but dropped to 1oF with blowing snow on the next day. Very little snow cover protected the plots during the coldest periods. Favorable conditions in late spring resulted in good yields for most varieties that withstood the rigorous winter. After maturity, cool, wet weather delayed harvest. Greeley County, dryland (GD): Dry fall and winter weather likely contributed to serious freeze injury to some varieties. Nonuniform variability caused by a large area of stunted plots in the middle of the test caused this test to be abandoned before harvest. Finney County, dryland (FD): Dry fall and winter weather limited early growth and made most varieties susceptible to early spring winds and late spring freezes. Damage was not uniform and prevented the collection of useful information from this test. IRRIGATED Stafford County, irrigated (SI): Good fall growth and adequate survival until early spring made this test a candidate for good yields. However, soilborne mosaic, strong winds, and late freezes caused so much nonuniform variation that this test was abandoned. Thomas County, irrigated (TI): A preplant irrigation and a wet snow on September 18 enabled good stand establishment and early growth. The winter and spring months were very dry, with several periods of below-zero temperatures alternating with warm periods. For example, temperatures reached 80oF on March 24 but dropped to 1oF with blowing snow on the next day. Very little snow cover protected the plots during the coldest periods. Favorable conditions in late spring resulted in excellent yields for most varieties that withstood the rigorous winter. Greeley County, irrigated (GI): Dry conditions prevailed during the fall and winter. Adequate fall growth likely minimized damage from cold spring temperatures. Diseases and insects caused no damage to varieties in this test. Stevens County, irrigated (ST): All varieties emerged well and established good stands after the October 11 planting. Although winter temperatures caused minor damage, all entries survived the winter and were growing vigorously in late February. In early March, high winds, gusting above 80mph at times, resulted in severe soil blowing and drifting within the irrigated circle where the test was planted. After 2 consecutive days of severe winds, the entire circle containing this test had to be destroyed because of the damage caused by blowing soil. Test Results and Variety Characterization Results from Kansas tests are presented in Tables 5 through 13. The information in these tables is derived from replicated varietal comparisons at several sites representing various wheat-producing areas of the state. Characteristics of specific 1996 entries can best be determined by examining Table 1 and data in Tables 5 through 12 for the relative performance of new varieties or hybrids of interest compared to those the grower is currently planting. Yields are reported in Table 5 as bushels per acre (60 pounds per bushel) adjusted to a moisture content of 12.5%, where moistures were reported at harvest. In Table 6, bushel yields are converted to yields as percentages of the test averages to speed recognition of highest yielding entries (more than 100%, the test average). The excellent performances of several of the entries are highlighted in these tables. Growers should examine Table 7 to check the performance of entries over several years at locations closest to their farms. These tables present multiyear yields as percent of the test average for the past 4 years. One-year or one-location results can be misleading because of the possibility of unusual weather conditions, such as those experienced this year. Measurements of characteristics often contributing to yield performance are shown in Table 8 (test weights); Table 9 (maturity differences); Table 10 (heights); Tables 11 (winter injury and disease ratings); and Table 12 (planted seed characteristics, coleoptile lengths, and Hessian fly ratings). At the bottom of each table is the L.S.D. (least significant difference) for each column of replicated data. The use of the L.S.D. is intended to reduce the chance of overemphasizing small differences in yield or other characteristics. Small variations in soil structure, fertility, water-holding characteristics, and other test-site characteristics can cause considerable yield variation among plots of the same variety grown only a short distance apart. Another statistical parameter is the coefficient of variation (C.V.) shown at the bottom of most columns. This figure, if properly interpreted, can be used to estimate the degree of confidence one may have in the data presented. In this testing program, C.V.'s below 10% generally indicate reliable, uniform data, whereas C.V.'s from 11 to 15% usually indicate less desirable but generally useful data for the rough performance comparisons desired from these tests. Protein Content Samples of grain from each variety harvested from Kansas Wheat Performance Tests are submitted annually for protein content, kernel hardness, kernel weight analysis, and other tests. Screening for protein and other analyses are conducted by the staff at the U.S. Grain Marketing and Production Research Center in Manhattan, Kansas. Because of the time requirement for obtaining analyses, protein results included in this report are for the previous year's tests. Results for the 1995 harvest are presented in Table 13. Excerpts from the UNIVERSITY RESEARCH POLICY AGREEMENT WITH COOPERATING SEED COMPANIES* Permission is hereby given to Kansas State University to test our varieties and/or hybrids designated on the attached entry forms in the manner indicated on the test announcement. I understand that all results from Kansas crop performance tests belong to the University and to the public and shall be controlled by the University so as to produce the greatest benefit to the public. It is further agreed that the name of the University shall not be used by the company in any commercial advertising either in regard to this agreement or any other related matter. * This agreement must be signed by an authorized individual before results involving the company's entries can be published by the Experiment Station. Except for the limitation that the name "KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY" cannot be used in advertising (you may use something like "official state tests" or "state yield trials"), this does not preclude the use of data for advertising, if done in a fair manner. CONTRIBUTORS ------------ MAIN STATION, MANHATTAN Kraig Roozeboom, Associate Agronomist (Senior Author) Rollin Sears, Wheat Breeder Robert Bowden, State Extension Plant Pathologist Mary Knapp, KSU State Climatologist RESEARCH CENTERS Patrick Evans, Colby James Long, Parsons T.Joe Martin, Hays Alan Schlegel, Tribune Merle Witt, Garden City EXPERIMENT FIELDS Mark Claassen, Hesston W. Barney Gordon, Scandia William Heer, Hutchinson Keith Janssen, Ottawa Brian Marsh, Powhattan Victor Martin, St. John Others providing information for this report: P.J. McCluskey, Grain Science & Industry W.W. Bockus, Plant Pathology J.H. Hatchett, USDA Entomology NOTE: Trade names are used to identify products. No endorsement is intended, nor is any criticism implied of similar products not named.