Issue 40
November 2001

Library

Home

E-Mail

Back

Prairie Grains is the official publication of the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers, North Dakota Grain Growers Association and South Dakota Wheat, Inc.

Copyright Prairie Grains Magazine November 2001

2001 North Dakota Small Grain Variety Trials Results

Small grain varieties are tested each year at North Dakota State University Research and Extension Centers.  Results of these trials are summarized in the following tables.  Wheat agronomic and quality ratings are presented in Tables 1 and 2, yield, protein and test weight data are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Durum agronomic and quality ratings are presented in Table 5a, 5b and 5c, yield, protein and test weight are presented in Tables 6 and 7.  Barley agronomic ratings are presented in Table 8 and yield, protein, test weight and plump data are presented in Tables 9a and 9b.

The 2001 growing season was characterized by unfavorable conditions at several research locations.  Trial data at Hettinger was lost due to severe hail in early July. Trial data was also lost due to severe lodging in Langdon, Fargo, and Prosper.  Use of data from trials at these locations would increase the incidence of making errors when selecting a variety.  Data from 2000 was reported for those sites where 2001 data was not reported.

Successful wheat, durum and barley production depends on multiple factors including selecting the right variety for a particular area. The information included in this publication is meant to aid in selecting that variety or group of varieties. The data is only meant to make relative comparisons of performance among varieties.

Characteristics to evaluate in selecting a variety are: yield potential in your area; protein content when grown with proper fertility;  straw strength and plant height; reaction to important diseases; and maturity.

When selecting a top yielding variety it is best to use data that summarizes several years and locations. The notion that the single data set nearest your farm will indicate which variety will perform the best for you is incorrect. Choose the variety that on average performs the best at multiple locations near you over several years.

Variety selection not only impacts production, but in the long term can impact markets.  The collective variety choices of producers have as great an impact on quality conscience markets, particularly international markets, as any other single factor.  Selecting varieties with good processing quality is essential to maintain market recognition.

Performance information coordinated by Michael Peel.

Table 1. 2002 North Dakota Hard Red Spring wheat variety descriptions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction to Disease 2

Quality Factors

Variety

Agent or
Orgin 1

Year Released

Beard

Height

Straw
Strength

Maturity

Stem
Rust

Leaf
Rust

Foliar
Disease

Root
Rot

Head
Scab

Test
Wt.

Pro.

Qual.
Rating

Coteau

ND

1978

yes

med

m. strg

med

R

 

M

MS

MS

avg.

high

good

Stoa

ND

1984

yes

med

m.strg.

m. early

R

MR

MS

M

MS

high

avg.

avg.

Butte 86

ND

1986

yes

med

med

early

R

MS

MS

MS

MS

high

avg.

avg

Amidon

ND

1988

yes

med

med

med

R

R

M

MR

S

high

avg.

avg.

Grandin

ND

1989

yes

sdwf

strg.

early

R

S

S

M

S

high

avg.

good

2370

NDSURF

1990

yes

sdwf

v. strg

m. early

R

N/A

S

S

MS*

high

avg.

poor-avg.

2375

NDSURF

1990

yes

sdwf

med

m.early

R

S

S

M

MS*

high

avg

poor-avg

Sharp

SD

1990

yes

med

med

early

R

MS

MS

S

MS*

high

avg

good

AC Barrie

Can

1994

no

med

med

med

R

S

M

M

M

high

avg

good

Kulm

ND

1994

yes

med

strg

early

R

MR

MS

MS

S

high

avg

avg-good

2398

NDSURF

1995

yes

sdwf

strg

m. late

R

S

MR

MS

VS

avg.

low

poor

Ernest

ND

1995

yes

med

med

med

R

MS

MS

MR

S

high

high

poor-avg

Glupro

ND

1995

yes

tall

med

m. late

R

MS

S

N/A

VS

avg

v. high

good

Gunner

AgriPro

1995

yes

med

m. strg

med

R

MS

MR

S

M

high

high

avg-good

Hamer

AgriPro

1995

yes

sdwf

v. strg

med

R

MR

M

N/A

S

avg.

avg

poor

Lars

AgriPro

1995

yes

sdwf

v. strg

med

R

R

MR

N/A

S

avg

low

poor

McNeal

MT

1995

yes

med

strg

m. early

MS

S

M

M

VS

avg

avg

poor-avg

Russ

SD

1995

yes

med

med

m. early

R

R

S

S

S*

avg

avg

avg

Trenton

ND

1995

yes

med

med

med

R

MR

MS

S

S*

high

avg

avg

Verde

MN

1995

yes

sdwf

strg

med

R

MR

MR

M

MS*

avg

low

poor

Keene

ND

1996

yes

med

med

med

R

R

MR

M

S

high

avg

avg

Oxen

SD

1996

yes

sdwf

strg

m. earlyr

R

R

S

S

S

avg

avg

avg-good

Forge

SD

1997

yes

sdwf

m. strg

early

R

S

MR

MS

MS

high

low

poor-avg

Nora

AgriPro

1997

yes

sdwf

strg

med

R

MS

MS

S

S

avg

high

avg

Argent 3

ND

1998

yes

sdwf

strg

early

R

S

S

S

S

high

avg

good

Hagar

AgriPro

1998

yes

sdwf

strg

med

R

MS

M

N/A

S

avg

low

poor-avg

HJ98

MN

1998

yes

sdwf

strg

m. early

R

MS

MS

MS

MS

avg

low

poor

Ingot

SD

1998

yes

sdwf

med

early

R

R

S

M

MS*

high

avg

poor-avg

Dandy

N. Star. G.

1998

yes

sdwf

v.strg

early

R

S

MS

S

S

high

avg

poor

McKenzie

Cenex

1998

yes

med

med

m. early

R

R

S

MS

S

high

avg

poor-avg

Parshall

ND

1999

yes

med

strg

m. early

R 4

MS

M

M

M

high

avg

good

Reeder

ND

1999

yes

sdwf

strg

m. early

R

MR

M

M

S

high

avg.

avg

McVey

MN

1999

yes

med

med

med

R

S

S

N/A

M

low

low

poor

Ivan

AgriPro

1999

yes

sdwf

v. strg

med

R

MR

S

MS

MS

high

low

poor

Ember

SDSU

1999

yes

sdwf

med

m. early

R

S

S

N/A

MS

high

low

poor

Aurora

N. Star G.

1999

yes

sdwf

strg

m. early

R

R

S

N/A

S

low

low

poor

Mercury

N. Star G.

1999

yes

sdwf

strg

m. early

R

MR

S

MS

S

avg

low

poor-avg

Norpro

AgriPro

1999

yes

sdwf

strg

med

R

R

S

MS

MS

avg

avg

poor

AC Intrepid

Canterra

1999

ne

med

med

med

R

R

N/A

N/A

S

N/A

N/A

N/A

Prodigy

Sask. Wht Pl

1999

yes

med

med

med

MR

MR

N/A

N/A

MR

N/A

N/A

N/A

Scholar

MT

1999

yes

med

med

med

R

S

N/A

N/A

S

high

avg

poor-avg

Conan

WPB

1999

yes

sdwf

v. strg

med

R

MR

N/A

N/A

S

N/A

N/A

N/A

AC Abbey

Canterra

1999

yes

med

med

m. early

R

N/A

N/A

N/A

S

N/A

N/A

N/A

Alsen

ND

2000

yes

sdwf

strg

m. early

R

R

S

MS

MR

high

avg

avg-good

Knudson

AgriPro

2001

yes

sdwf

strg

med

N/A

MR

S

N/A

M

N/A

N/A

N/A

Keystone

WPB

2001

yes

med

med

m. early

N/A

R

S

N/A

MS

N/A

N/A

N/A

Walworth

SD

2001

yes

sdwf

med

m. early

N/A

MS

S

N/A

S

N/A

N/A

N/A

AC Superb

Can

2001

yes

sdwf

strg

m. early

N/A

N/A

S

N/A

S

N/A

N/A

N/A

1 Refers to agent or developer: NDSURF = North Dakota State University Research Foundation; CDC = Crop Development Center,  
University of Saskatchewan; Can = Agriculture Canada.; N. Star G.= North Star Genetics. 
2   R = resistant; MR = moderately resistant; M = intermediate; MS = moderately susceptible; S = susceptible; VS = very Susceptible.
*  Yield and/or quality often higher than expected based on visual head blight symptoms.
3 Argent is a hard white wheat with good bread making qualities.
4 MR in artificially induced epidemics.

Table 2a. 2000 spring wheat analytical milling and baking data from field plot variety trials at Carrington, Casselton, Dickinson, Hettinger, Langdon, and Williston. NDSU Department
of Cereal Science.

Variety

Test
Weight

Falling
Number

Protein
14% MB

Flour
Extrac.

Farino
gram

Absorb-
ance

Loaf
Volume

 

(lb/bu)

(seconds)

(%)

(%)

(class)

(%)

(cc)

2375

61.4

455

14.6

69.8

5.3

64.2

968

Alsen

62.3

408

15.0

68.1

6.0

66.2

1031

Aurora

59.8

442

13.5

70.7

6.8

62.7

1007

Butte 68

61.0

440

14.8

67.8

4.3

66.2

946

Dandy

61.5

328

14.4

69.1

5.0

64.1

943

Ember

62.5

399

13.7

70.7

5.3

62.6

979

Grandin

60.9

424

15.1

69.9

6.0

67.4

1029

Gunner

62.3

459

15.3

69.3

5.7

66.1

968

Hager

60.9

423

14.0

70.4

6.3

65.4

1006

HJ98

60.4

420

13.8

70.9

6.8

63.6

1004

Ingot

63.1

401

15.0

69.3

5.3

65.2

1002

Ivan

61.5

414

13.2

70.2

5.3

61.9

916

McKenzie

61.7

437

15.2

68.6

5.0

65.5

979

McVey

58.8

460

12.9

71.0

4.7

66.4

935

NorPro

61.0

426

13.9

65.9

4.7

66.4

935

Parshall

62.6

413

15.1

68.6

5.7

66.0

1063

Reeder

61.3

427

15.0

67.9

5.5

65.3

968

Russ

61.2

402

14.5

68.0

5.7

67.5

953

Table 2b. Analytical milling and baking data from field plot variety trials, average of 1999-2000. NDSU Department of Cereal Science.

Variety

Test Weight

Falling Number

Protein 14% MB

Flour Extrac.

Farino-
gram

Absorb- ance

Loaf Volume

 

(lb/bu)

(seconds)

(%)

(%)

(clss)

(%)

(cc)

Alsen

61.5

409

15.1

67.6

6.4

66.1

1049

Butte86

60.1

430

15.0

67.4

4.5

66.1

991

Dandy

60.7

312

14.5

68.7

5.1

64.0

950

Ember

61.9

388

13.9

70.4

5.8

62.9

960

Grandin

59.8

423

15.1

68.9

6.1

66.1

1047

Gunner

61.7

454

15.5

68.8

6.1

66.5

996

Hagar

59.7

432

14.2

69.6

6.4

65.5

1031

HJ98

59.6

423

14.0

69.4

7.2

63.9

1000

Ivan

60.8

416

13.4

69.9

5.8

62.2

920

McVey

57.6

453

13.1

70

5

64.1

906

Mercury

60.1

469

14.2

70.3

5.8

65.0

955

Parshall

62.0

408

15.3

68.2

6.3

66.3

1075

Reeder

60.8

430

15.1

67.7

5.8

65.6

977

Russ

60.4

397

14.7

68

6

67.3

983

Table 3. Yield of hard red spring wheat at seven locations in North Dakota, 1999-2001.

 

Fargo +

Carrington

Langdon

Avg.
E ND

Minot

Williston

Dickinson

Hettinger

Avg.
W. ND

Variety

2000

3 yr

2001

3 yr

200 1

3 yr

2001

3 yr

2001

3 yr

2001

3 yr

2001

3 yr

2000

3 yr

2001

3 yr

2375

43.2

47.4

-

-

57.5

57.2

-

-

66.1

47.2

-

-

42.6

51.0

56.9

66.4

-

-

AC Intrepid

-

-

52.6

-

-

-

-

-

61.0

-

63.5

60.6

32.4

-

-

-

-

-

AC Superb

-

-

37.7

-

57.2

-

-

-

61.8

-

66.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Alsen

50.5

-

51.6

48.2

58.2

63.9

53.4

-

68.9

50.1

71.4

63.0

37.7

49.4

52.1

-

57.5

-

Amidon

-

-

40.9

42.7

-

-

-

-

59.3

43.1

66.6

58.8

43.6

-

-

-

-

-

Argent

-

-

39.7

40.7

-

-

-

-

58.4

44.2

64.4

60.2

35.3

48.2

-

-

-

-

Aurora

50.9

-

46.8

48.9

54.2

666

50.6

-

66.7

47.0

72.2

67.0

37.8

52.0

63.

-

 

 

Butte86

55.0

46.2

54.9

50.7

-

-

-

-

65.8

45.9

656

60.0

38.6

51.7

43.9

60.1

53.5

54.4

Dandy

52.3

-

62.1

49.3

69.6

70.8

61.3

-

65.9

46.5

63.2

58.5

31.4

49.2

51.2

-

52.9

-

Ember

56.8

47.8

48.0

49.5

63.8

62.8

56.2

53.4

67.6

52.7

70.1

67.0

37.8

54.8

53.2

67.8

57.2

60.6

Ernest

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55.5

39.9

64.6

58.6

38.6

47.2

48.8

61.4

51.9

51.8

Forge

-

-

54.4

49.6

60.5

65.4

-

-

64.4

49.1

-

-

37.9

52.3

50.9

69.5

-

-

Grandin

50.5

40.9

49.7

45.6

53.7

55.7

51.3

47.4

58.9

42.8

63.0

61.6

36.6

48.9

50.9

60.6

52.4

53.5

Gunner

41.9

34.1

49.2

46.8

50.6

61.5

47.2

47.5

63.4

44.4

65.9

60.5

40.9

50.0

46.7

61.6

54.2

54.1

Hagar

44.9

35.8

42.2

43.0

53.7

62.5

46.9

47.1

66.2

47.4

76.4

68.0

38.2

49.2

60.2

71.8

60.3

59.1

HJ98

54.4

42.7

44.5

50.1

60.7

69.8

53.2

54.2

69.5

51.7

75.1

68.4

41.1

52.2

68.6

75.7

63.6

62.0

Ingot

55.9

51.9

64.4

54.0

64.1

67.3

61.5

57.7

67.3

48.9

64.7

58.5

30.6

50.8

45.0

58.7

51.9

54.2

Ivan

53.7

46.1

40.6

48.6

46.9

65.2

47.1

53.3

70.0

51.2

66.7

66.3

44.9

52.6

66.3

78.8

62.0

62.2

Keene

52.4

48.1

48.9

45.0

-

-

-

-

66.4

43.2

66.6

62.5

38.9

52.9

46.3

64.4

54.6

55.8

Keystone

49.2

-

61.1

-

62.6

-

57.6

-

67.2

-

70.6

-

37.2

-

-

-

-

 

Knudson

60.8

-

57.5

-

58.4

-

58.9

-

73.4

-

73.7

-

39.5

-

-

-

-

-

McKenzie

52.8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

65.2

-

60.8

-

39.7

53.8

52.2

-

54.5

-

McNeal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

63.4

62.9

-

-

55.6

-

-

-

McVey

45.6

39.9

43.2

48.8

57.6

62.6

48.8

50.4

71.4

54.5

74.0

67.1

42.7

53.5

58.3

68.7

61.6

61.0

Mercury

56.6

-

44.8

47.6

64.1

68.7

55.2

-

74.4

52.3

67.7

65.3

36.0

51.1

67.6

-

61.4

-

Norpro

50.2

37.9

47.4

-

58.5

69.3

52.0

-

74.5

52.7

72.6

70.8

42.4

55.6

66.9

-

64.1

-

Oxen

59.1

54.1

44.5

50.1

55.1

63.5

52.9

55.9

67.9

51.8

70.5

65.1

41.7

53.1

61.9

70.6

60.5

60.2

Parshall

52.9

49.7

54.0

51.2

64.0

62.5

57.0

54.5

63.0

44.3

67.8

63.2

37.0

47.2

45.1

62.4

53.2

54.3

Prodigy

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

62.6

46.5

-

-

40.6

52.0

48.4

-

-

-

Reeder

53.7

43.2

53.6

52.7

56.0

64.6

54.4

53.5

69.3

52.8

75.3

70.8

42.0

54.2

55.8

73.3

60.6

62.8

Russ

50.6

42.2

52.2

53.0

60.7

61.7

54.5

52.3

67.0

51.8

67.6

62.6

36.3

48.0

54.4

66.4

56.3

57.2

Trenton

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

60.8

44.5

66.4

60.7

36.6

50.6

68.6

61.6

58.1

54.4

Walworth

63.3

59.7

60.2

58.5

58.2

-

60.6

-

68.1

-

72.5

-

43.0

-

-

-

-

-

+Data from 2000, 2001 data lost.

Table 4. Protein (%) and test weight (lb/bu) of hard red spring wheat varieties grown in North Dakota, 2001.

Variety

Fargo +

Carrington

Langdon

Minot

Williston

Dickinson

Hettinger +

Ave

 

TW

TW

PRO

TW

PRO

TW

TW

PRO

TW

PRO

TW

PRO

TW

PRO

2375

57.0

-

-

58.6

15.8

61.7

-

-

62.7

15.2

63.0

16.0

 

-

AC Intrepid

-

57.5

15.6

-

-

59.7

61.0

15.8

60.8

16.7

-

-

-

-

AC Superb

-

54.6

16.1

55.1

16.3

59.6

60.7

16.1

61.8

16.1

-

-

-

-

Alsen

59.5

59.0

15.7

58.6

15.6

61.8

63.4

16.1

63.3

16.1

62.4

16.4

61.1

16.0

Amidon

-

56.9

15.2

-

-

60.6

61.9

14.6

61.9

15.8

-

-

-

-

Argent

-

56.3

16.1

-

-

60.8

62.5

15.8

62.9

16.4

-

-

-

-

Aurora

57.6

55.3

14.2

55.8

14.6

58.2

60.3

13.4

61.6

14.7

60.7

14.2

58.5

14.2

Butte86

57.5

57.4

15.7

-

-

60.4

61.7

15.4

61.9

16.5

61.2

16.0

-

-

Dandy

59.5

59.5

14.4

59.1

14.9

60.5

62.2

14.6

62.4

15.8

61.5

16.0

60.7

15.1

Ember

60.7

58.9

14.6

58.5

14.6

62.2

63.8

14.5

63.3

15.2

62.3

16.1

61.4

15.0

Ernest

-

-

-

-

-

61.0

62.4

15.8

62.8

16.4

-

-

-

-

Forge

-

58.5

15.2

57.9

15.4

61.9

-

-

63.8

15.0

62.3

15.2

-

-

Grandin

58.2

55.5

15.8

55.1

15.9

59.6

61.5

15.9

62.6

15.9

60.7

15.7

59.0

15.8

Gunner

59.3

57.2

16.1

58.1

17.1

61.8

62.7

16.5

63.2

16.7

62.6

16.9

60.7

16.7

Hagar

56.7

53.6

15.8

55.8

15.4

60.3

62.2

15.0

61.7

15.8

61.4

14.7

58.8

15.3

HJ98

57.2

53.0

15.2

55.6

15.3

59.6

61.3

13.8

62.4

15.3

62.2

13.8

58.8

14.7

Ingot

60.7

61.4

15.3

60.6

15.4

63.2

63.7

15.9

63.6

16.2

62.6

16.4

62.3

15.8

Ivan

57.5

55.8

13.8

55.8

15.0

60.6

62.8

13.8

63.0

14.5

62.4

12.8

59.7

14.0

Keene

59.2

57.4

15.2

-

-

61.6

62.2

15.6

62.8

16.1

62.6

16.5

-

-

Keystone

59.7

59.7

14.2

59.9

14.2

62.2

63.2

14.2

63.8

15.2

-

-

-

-

Knudson

58.7

57.5

14.1

57.4

14.3

61.2

62.6

14.1

63.1

15.5

-

-

-

14.5

McKenzie

58.8

-

-

-

-

60.6

61.3

15.0

62.6

16.1

61.9

16.7

-

-

Mercury

57.3

54.5

14.6

56.5

14.9

59.8

62.4

14.3

62.6

15.5

61.7

15.5

59.3

15.0

Norpro

56.7

54.9

15.0

56.0

15.5

60.8

62.9

14.8

62.8

15.5

61.9

14.9

59.4

15.1

Oxen

57.3

50.7

15.5

53.9

15.3

59.4

60.9

15.0

61.9*

15.8

61.3

14.9

57.9

15.3

Parshall

60.0

59.5

15.5

60.0

15.5

61.9

62.9

15.6

63.2

16.5

62.6

17.0

61.4

16.0

Russ

57.5

54.8

15.3

55.4

15.0

59.4

61.1

15.4

62.4

15.6

61.9

15.7

58.9

15.4

Trenton

-

56.0

15.6

-

-

60.8

61.8

15.9

62.4

16.0

-

-

-

-

Walworth

58.8

56.4

15.4

56.8

15.9

59.8

60.8

14.8

61.5

15.8

-

-

-

15.5

+ Data from 2000, 2001 data lost.

Table 5a. 2002 North Dakota durum wheat variety descriptions, agronomic traits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction to Disease 1

Variety

Agent or Orgin 1

Year Released

Chaff Color

Height

Straw Strength

Maturity

Stem Rust

Leaf Rust

Foliar Disease

Scab

Ward

ND

1972

tan

tall

v. strg

m. early

R

R

MR

S

Rugby

ND

1973

tan

tall

v. strg

m. early

R

R

MR

S*

Cando

ND

1975

tan

s. dwf

v. strg

med.

R

R

M

VS

Vic

ND

1979

white

tall

med.

m. early

R

R

MR

S*

Lloyd

ND

1983

white

s. dwf

v. strg

med.

R

MR

S

VS

Medora

Can.

1983

white

tall

strg

m. early

R

R

MS

VS

Kyle

Can.

1984

white

tall

weak

med.

R

MR

M

N/A

Laker

WPB

1985

white

s. dwf

strg

med.

R

MR

S

S

Monroe

ND

1985

white

tall

med.

early

R

R

M

VS

Fjord

AgriPro

1986

white

tall

strg.

m. early

R

R

M

S

Renville

ND

1988

white

tall

med.

med.

R

R

M

S*

Plenty

Can.

1990

white

tall

weak

late

R

R

MR

MS

Voss

AgriPro

1994

white

s. dwf

v. strg

med.

R

MR

MS

S

Munich

ND

1995

white

med.

v. strg

med.

R

R

MR

S*

AC Melita

Can.

1995

white

tall

med.

med.

R

N/A

N/A

S

Ben

ND

1996

white

med.

strong

med.

R

R

MR

S*

Dressler

AgriPro

1996

white

tall

med.

med.

R

MR

N/A

VS

AC Morse

Can.

1996

white

s. dwf

strong

med.

R

R

M

N/A

AC Avonlea

Can.

1997

white

med.

med.

med.

R

R

M

S

Belzer

ND

1997

white

tall

med.

late

R

R

M

MR

Maier

ND

1998

white

med.

strong

m. late

R

R

M

S*

Mountrail

ND

1998

white

med.

strong

late

R

R

M

S*

Kari

AgriPro

1998

white

med

strong

med

R

R

M

S

Lebsock

ND

1999

white

med

strong

med

R

R

M

S

Plaza

ND

1999

white

s. dwf

strong

late

R

R

M

MS

AC Pathfinder

Can.

1999

white

med.

weak

med

R

R

M

S

AC Navigator

Can.

1999

white

s. dwf

weak

med

R

R

M

S

Pierce

ND

2001

white

med.

m. strg

med

R

R

MS

S

1  Refers to agent or developer: WPB = Western Plant Breeder.
2  R = resistant; MR = moderately resistant (slow rusters); M = intermediate; MS = moderately susceptible;
     S = susceptible; VS = very susceptible; Foliar Disease = reaction to tan spot and septoria leaf spot complex. Letter 
     ratings for head blight (scab) based on visual head symptoms.
*  Indicates yields and/or quality have often been higher than would be expected based on visual symptoms.

Table 5b. 2002 North Dakota durum wheat variety quality descriptions, and milling and processing data 1.

Variety

Semolia Extraction

Mixogram Score 2

Spaghetti Color 3

Falling Number

Test Wt.

Vit. Kernel

Kernal Size 4

Overall Quality

 

(%)

(1-8)

(1-12)

(Sec.)

(lb/bu)

(%)

 

 

Ward

--

--

--

--

--

--

med

poor

Rugby

61.8

3

9.1

385

59.8

92

med

poor

Cando

--

--

--

--

--

--

small

poor

Vic

60.9

6

9.3

394

59.7

94

large

good

Lloyd

60.2

6

8.9

405

57.9

89

med

average

Medora

60.7

9

*.2

439

59.6

93

large

good

Kyle

--

--

--

--

--

--

large

good

Laker

--

--

--

--

--

--

med

average

Monroe

61.3

6

9.1

387

59.0

92

large

good

Fjord

--

--

--

--

--

--

large

good

Renville

62.2

6

9.2

396

59.7

92

med

good

Plenty

61.5

5

9.3

436

588.9

94

N/A

good

Voss

--

--

--

--

--

--

med

average

Munich

61.3

5

9.6

390

59.3

92

med

good

Ben

61.7

6

9.1

401

60.4

93

large

excellent

Belzer

60.9

7

9.1

408

58.8

92

large

good

Maier

61.7

7

9.4

407

59.9

93

m-large

excellent

Mountrail

61.2

5

9.0

410

59.8

92

m-large

average

Lebsock

61.8

6

9.3

424

60.9

91

m-large

good

Plaza

61.2

5

9.2

421

59.1

88

m-large

average

Pierce

61.1

7

9.5

382

60.8

92

m-large

good

1 Average of 32 location years.
2  Scale 1 to 8, where 1=very weak and 8=very strong dough mixing properties. 
3   Scale 1 to 12, higher numbers reflect better color.
4 No. seeds/lb.: Large = less than 11,000; medium = 11,000-12,000; small = more than 12,000.

Table 5c. 2002 North Dakota durum wheat variety quality descriptions, and milling and processing data for 11 durum varieties not included in Table 2. Ben, Renville, Munich, and Mountrail are included for comparison.

Variety

Semolina Extraction

Mixogram Score 2

Spaghetti Color 3

Falling Number

Test Wt.

Vit. Kernel

Kernal Size 4

Overall Quality

 

(%)

(1-8)

(1-12)

(sec.)

(lb/bu)

%

 

 

Ben

63.4

6

9.3

377

61.2

94

large

excellent

Renville

63.9

6

9.4

377

60.8

94

medium

good

Munich

63.0

5

9.8

368

60.1

93

med

good

Mountrial