Preliminary Report: 2006 Wheat, Barley and Oat Variety Performance in Minnesota

Preface by Jochum Wiersma

The drought that has had the western states in its grip for the past few years, extended east in 2006 to include much of Minnesota, including the Red River Valley basin.  The monthly precipitation totals recorded at the Northwest Research and Outreach Center illustrates this well with just over 2 inches, or less than a third of the long-term average, of precipitation in the months of June and July. The lack of rain had everyone worried about the crops. Ultimately, (near) record yields for wheat, sugar beets, and sunflowers are a testament to the value of subsoil moisture.

In the weekly crop weather report of April 24, 2006, the National Agricultural Statistics Service reported that all of northwest Minnesota had surplus topsoil moisture.  Planting progress was slightly below the 5-year average of 18% at 16% completed. By May 1, planting was 44% completed, ahead of the 5-year average of 35%.  Rains slowed planting progress by the end of the first week of May with 73% of spring wheat acreage planted, 18% behind the 5-year average.

Warm weather in the later part of May and the beginning of June pushed crop development. On June 5, already 16% of the spring wheat was jointed compared to 11% for the five-year average. As warm and dry conditions prevailed in the following weeks, spring wheat development continued to be pushed well ahead of the 5-year average with 25% of the crop heading by June 18, 2006. By July 3, 84% of the spring wheat had headed, compared to 49% for the 5-year average.  Topsoil moisture continued to decline in the same period as very little, if any, precipitation was received throughout a large part of the state. By mid-July, approximately 75% of the state had either short or very short topsoil moisture supplies. The spring wheat crop matured rapidly and harvest started several weeks ahead of normal.

Based on lack of precipitation and above-average temperatures, the USDA forecasted hard red spring wheat yields to be 40 bushels per acre on July 1. In USDA’s September Small Grain Summary, Minnesota’s spring wheat yield revised its final yield estimate upwards to 47 bushels per acre. The overall quality of the crop was rated as excellent albeit grain protein was lower than expected in some fields. In sharp contrast to 2005, disease problems were minimal and no damage due to Fusarium head blight was reported.  Harvested acres were 1.65 million acres, down 80,000 acres from last year.

Winter wheat enjoyed a particularly successful production year.  The state saw a threefold increase in acreage to 45,000 acres. A large portion of this acreage was a result of preventive planting in 2005 in the northern counties of Roseau and Kittson.  The average yield was estimated at 62 bushels per acre, nearly a third higher than the average spring wheat yield.

Barley and oats acreage remained stable. The average grain yield of oats slipped 6 bushels to 56 bushels per acre, while barley’s average yield increased 17 bushels to 60 bushels per acre.

Introduction
Successful small grain production begins with selecting the best varieties for a particular farm or field.  For that reason, varieties are compared in trial plots on the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) sites at St. Paul, Rosemount, Waseca, Lamberton, Morris, and Crookston. In addition to the five MAES locations, trials are also planted with a number of farmer cooperators. These plots are handled such that the factors affecting yield and performance are as nearly the same for all entries at each location as is possible.

The MAES 2006 Wheat, Barley and Oat Variety Performance in Minnesota Preliminary Report is presented under authority granted by the Hatch Act of 1887 to the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station to conduct performance trials on farm crops and interpret data to the public.

The MAES and the College Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences grants permission to reproduce, print, and distribute the data in this publication - via the tables, only in their entirety, without rearrangement, manipulation, or reinterpretation. Permission is also granted to reproduce a maturity group sub-table provided the complete table headings and table notes are included.

Use and reproduction of any material from this publication must credit the MAES and the College Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences as its source.

Variety Classifications
Varieties are listed in the tables by heading date from earliest to latest.  No other distinction or classification is used to group varieties.  Seed of tested varieties can be eligible for certification, and use of certified seed is encouraged.  However, certification does not imply a recommendation. Registered and certified seed is available from seed dealers or from growers listed in the ‘Minnesota Registered and Certified Seed Directory for 2007 Planting’, available at through the Minnesota Crop Improvement Association office in St. Paul or online at www.mncia.org.

Interpretation of the Data

The presented data are the preliminary variety trial information for single (2006) and multiple year (2004-2006) comparisons in Minnesota. The yields are reported as a percentage of the location mean, with overall mean (bu/A) listed below. Two-year and especially one-year data are less reliable and should be interpreted with caution.  Similarly, averages across multiple environments, whether they are different years and/or locations, provide a more reliable estimate of mean performance. The least significant difference or LSD is a statistical method to determine whether the observed yield differences between two varieties are due to true, genetic differences between the varieties or to interactions with other variables such as a difference in soil fertility or experimental error. If the difference in yield between two varieties equals or exceeds the LSD value, the higher yielding one was indeed superior in yield.  If the difference is less, the yield difference may have been due to chance rather than genetic differences, and we are unable to distinguish between the two varieties. The 5% unit indicates that with 95% confidence, the observed difference is indeed a true difference in performance. Lowering this confidence level will allow more varieties to appear different from each other, but also increases the chances that false conclusions are drawn.

The Authors and Contributors

This report is written, compiled, and edited by Dr. Jochum Wiersma, Small Grains Specialist. The contributing authors/principal investigators are: Dr. James Anderson, Wheat Breeder, Department of Agronomy & Plant Genetics; Dr. Kevin Smith, Barley Breeder, Department of Agronomy & Plant Genetics; Dr. Deon Stuthman, Oat Breeder, Department of Agronomy & Plant Genetics; Dr. Ruth Dill-Macky, Plant Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology; Dr. Char Hollingsworth, Extension Plant Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology; Dr. Brian Steffenson, Plant Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology; Dr. Martin Carson, USDA-ARS, Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul; Dr. James Kolmer, USDA-ARS, Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul.; Dr. Yue Jin, USDA-ARS, Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul; Mr. Gerald Ochocki, USDA-ARS, Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul; and Dr. John Wiersma, Agronomist, Northwest Research & Outreach Station, Crookston.

In addition, Dr. Fred Kolb, University of Illinois contributed BYDV data for oats.

Robert Bouvette, James Cameron, Roger Caspers, Mark Hanson, Tom Hoverstad, Gary Linkert, Jill Miller-Garvin, George Nelson, Steve Quiring, Edward Schiefelbein, Catherine Springer, Galen Thompson, and Donn Vellekson supervised fieldwork at the various sites. 

Special thanks are also due to all cooperating producers.