Wheat Variety Performance Tests in Tennessee

Transcription

1 Wheat Variety Performance Tests in Tennessee 2017 Dennis West, Professor, Plant Science Department David Kincer, Research Associate, Plant Science Department Ryan Blair, Extension Area Grains & Cotton Specialist Tyson Raper, Assistant Professor, UT Extension Cotton and Wheat Specialist Agronomic Crop Variety Testing and Demonstrations Department of Plant Sciences University of Tennessee Knoxville Telephone: (865) FAX: (865) Variety test results are posted on UT s website at: and UTCrops.com

2

3 Acknowledgments This research was funded by the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station and UT Extension with partial funding from participating companies. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals in conducting these experiments: Research and Education Centers: East Tennessee Research and Education Center, Knoxville Robert Simpson, Center Director BJ DeLozier, Farm Manager, Plant Sciences Unit Derick Hopkins, Agricultural Service Supervisor Plateau Research & Education Center, Crossville Walt Hitch, Center Director Greg Blaylock, Light Farm Equipment Operator Sam Simmons, Light Farm Equipment Operator Highland Rim Research and Education Center, Springfield Robert Ellis, Center Director Brad S. Fisher, Research Associate Research and Education Center at Milan, Milan Blake Brown, Center Director Jason Williams, Research Associate James McClure, Research Associate Chris Bridges, Research Associate West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson Robert Hayes, Center Director Randi Dunagan, Research Associate Agricenter International, Memphis Bruce Kirksey, Director 1

4 County Standard Wheat Test: Coordinator: Ryan Blair, Extension Area Specialist, Grain Crops Chester County Steve Rickman, Extension Agent Frank Van Nes Farm Dyer County Tim Campbell, Extension Director Alan/Keith Sims Farm Fayette County Jeff Via, Extension Agent Ames Plantation Franklin County Ed Burns, Extension Agent Myron/David Denton Farm Bobby Woodall Farm Gibson County Philip Shelby, Extension Director Andrew Steele Farm Henry County Ranson Goodman, Extension Agent Edwin & Brenda Ables Farm Lake County Greg Allen, Extension Director Jon Dickey Farm Madison County Jake Mallard, Extension Agent Matt Griggs Farm Moore County Larry Moorehead, Extension Director Jerry Ray Farm Weakley County Jeff Lannom, Extension Director Gary Hall Farm 2

5 Table of Contents General Information... 4 Interpretation of Data. 5 page Wheat Tests Results... 5 Location information from Research & Education Centers (REC) where the Wheat Variety Tests were Conducted in Research and Education Center Wheat Performance Data County Standard (CST) Wheat Performance Data Combined REC & CST Wheat Performance Data Two year Research & Education Center Wheat Performance Data Three year Research & Education Center Wheat Performance Data Seed Company Contact Information

6 General Information Research and Education Center Tests: The variety performance tests were conducted on 69 soft red winter wheat varieties in each of the physiographic regions of the state. Tests were conducted at the East TN (Knoxville), Plateau (Crossville), Highland Rim (Springfield), Milan (Milan), and West TN (Jackson) Research and Education Centers (REC). A test at the Agricenter in Memphis was lost due to damage from deer. All varieties were seeded at rates of 35 seed per square foot (1.5 million seed per acre) (Table 1). Plots were seeded with drills using inch row spacing. The plot size was six, seven, nine or ten rows, 20 to 25 feet in length depending on location equipment. Plots were replicated three times at each location. Seed of all varieties were treated with a fungicide. County Standard Tests: The County Standard Wheat Test was conducted on 26 soft red winter wheat varieties across ten counties in Middle and West Tennessee (Chester, Dyer, Fayette, Franklin, Gibson, Henry, Lake, Madison, Moore, and Weakley). Each variety was evaluated in a large strip-plot at each location, thus each county test was considered as one replication of the test in calculating the overall average yield and in conducting the statistical analysis to determine significant differences. At each location, plots were planted, sprayed, fertilized, and harvested with the equipment used by the cooperating producer in their farming operation. The width and length of strip-plots were different in each county; however, within a location in a county, the strips were trimmed so that the lengths were the same for each variety, or if the lengths were different then the harvested length was measured for each variety and appropriate harvested area adjustments were made to determine the yield per acre. Growing Season: Planting of the winter wheat crop proceeded in a timely manner in 2016 at all locations except Knoxville. Planting at Knoxville was delayed due to extremely dry fall conditions. The growing season was normal for winter wheat and the crop progressed in a timely manner up to harvest. Disease pressure was light across most of Tennessee, with leaf blight caused by Septoria tritici being the most widespread problem. According to the Tennessee Agricultural Statistics Service (TASS), Estimated State yield average is 72 bu/a in Tennessee producers planted approximately 380,000 acres of wheat in the fall of Approximately 285,000 acres are estimated to be harvested for grain. According to TASS, the total wheat production in Tennessee for 2017 is projected to be 20.5 million bushels, a decrease of 26 percent from 2016 production. 4

7 Interpretation of Data The tables on the following pages have been prepared with the entries listed in order of performance, the highest-yielding entry being listed first. All yields presented have been adjusted to 13.5% moisture. At the bottom of the tables, LSD values stand for Least Significant Difference. The mean yields of any two varieties being compared must differ by at least the LSD amount shown to be considered different in yielding ability at the 5% level of probability of significance. For example, given that the LSD for a test is 8.0 bu/a and the mean yield of Variety A was 50 bu/a and the mean yield of Variety B was 55 bu/a, then the two varieties are not statistically different in yield because the difference of 5 bu/a is less than the minimum of 8 bu/a required for them to be significant. Similarly, if the average yield of Variety C was 63 bu/a then it is significantly higher yielding than both Variety B (63-55 = 8 bu/a = LSD of 8) and Variety A (63-50 = 13 bu/a > LSD of 8). The coefficient of variation (C.V.) values are shown at the bottom of each table. This value is a measure of the error variability found within each experiment. It is the percentage that the square root of error mean square is of the overall test mean yield at that location. For example, a C.V. of 10% indicates that the size of the error variation is about 10% of the size of the test mean. Similarly, a C.V. of 30% indicates that the size of the error variation is nearly one-third as large as the test mean. A goal in conducting each yield test is to keep the C.V. as low as possible, preferably below 20% Wheat Results Summary Yield and Agronomic Traits: During 2017, 69 wheat varieties were evaluated in five Research and Education Center (REC) tests, and 26 varieties were evaluated in 12 county standard tests (CST). Sixteen varieties in the CST were also present in the REC tests (Table 5). Fourteen companies and three universities entered varieties into the tests this year. The average yield of the 69 varieties in the 2017 REC tests was 73 bu/a (range from 57 to 83 bu/a, Table 2). The varieties ranged in heading date from 113 to 122 days after January 1 (Julian date) with most of the varieties clustering around 117 days (Table 3). The average yield of the 26 varieties in the county tests was 83 bu/a, with individual varieties ranging from 90 to 74 bu/a (Table 4). The test weight values ranged from 51.6 to 56.8 lbs/bu in the REC tests (Table 3) and 51 to 56 lbs/bu in the CST (Table 4). 5

8 Table 1. Location information from research and education centers where the wheat variety tests were conducted in Research and Education Center Location Planting Date Harvest Date Seeding Rate Soil Type Knoxville Knoxville 11/15/2016 6/12/ /ft mill./ac Huntington Silt Loam Highland Rim Springfield 10/24/2016 6/14/ /ft mill./ac Dickson Silt Loam West Tennessee Jackson 10/18/2016 6/13/ /ft mill./ac Dexter Silt Loam Milan Milan 10/28/2016 6/14/ /ft mill./ac Grenada Silt Loam Plateau Crossville 10/25/2016 6/14/ /ft mill./ac Hendon Silt Loam 6

9 Table 2. Mean yields of 69 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations in Tennessee during 2017 Avg. Yield Brand Variety (n=5) Knoxville Crossville Springfield Jackson Milan bu/a Pioneer 26R USG Progeny #Boss Progeny #Bullet Va Tech VA12W Pioneer 26R USG EXP Va Tech Hilliard Becks Stratton Go Wheat Becks USG Croplan by Winfield SRW Becks DeltaGrow USG Croplan by Winfield SRW Progeny #Turbo TN Exp. TN Stratton AGS Dyna-gro Dyna-gro Progeny PGX Pioneer 26R TN Exp. TN

10 (continued) Table 2. Mean yields of 69 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations in Tennessee during 2017 Avg. Yield Brand Variety (n=5) Knoxville Crossville Springfield Jackson Milan bu/a Dyna-gro Progeny P Limagrain LES Progeny #Warrior Limagrain L Va Tech VA11W-108PA Dyna-gro Pioneer 26R USG Armor Mayhem USG Syngenta SY Viper USG USG EXP Stratton Go Wheat Armor Menace Dyna-gro WX Syngenta SY USG Stratton Go Wheat EXP Progeny PGX Pioneer 26R Dyna-gro Armor ARW DeltaGrow

11 (continued) Table 2. Mean yields of 69 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations in Tennessee during 2017 Avg. Yield Brand Variety (n=5) Knoxville Crossville Springfield Jackson Milan bu/a Univ. of Ga GA E USG TFC FFR Progeny P Progeny PGX Univ. of Ga GA E USG EXP Va Tech VA11W TN Exp. TN Pioneer XW15C Univ. of Ga GA E Stratton AGS Texas A&M Tx-EL Progeny PGX TN Exp. TN TN Exp. TN Va Tech VA11W Univ. of Ga GAJT E TN Exp. TN Average (bu/a) L.S.D..05 (bu/a) C.V. (%) All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments 9

12 Table 3. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 69 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations in Tennessee during 2017 Avg. Test Heading Lodged Leaf Yield Weight# Date Height Plants blotch Brand Variety (n=5) (n=3) (n=5) (n=6) (n=3) (n=4) bu/a lbs/bu julian in. % 1 to 9 Pioneer 26R USG Progeny #Boss Progeny #Bullet Va Tech VA12W Pioneer 26R USG EXP Va Tech Hilliard Becks Stratton Go Wheat Becks USG Croplan by Winfield SRW Becks DeltaGrow USG Croplan by Winfield SRW Progeny #Turbo TN Exp. TN Stratton AGS Dyna-gro Dyna-gro Progeny PGX Pioneer 26R TN Exp. TN

13 (continued) Table 3. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 69 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2017 Avg Test Heading Lodged Leaf Yield Weight# date Height Plants Blotch Brand Variety (n=5) (n=3) (n=5) (n=6) (n=3) N=3 bu/a lbs/bu julian in. % 1 to 9 Dyna-gro Progeny P Limagrain LES Progeny #Warrior Limagrain L Va Tech VA11W-108PA Dyna-gro Pioneer 26R USG Armor Mayhem USG Syngenta SY Viper USG USG EXP Stratton Go Wheat Armor Menace (nee 1521) Dyna-gro WX Syngenta SY USG Stratton Go Wheat EXP Progeny PGX Pioneer 26R Dyna-gro Armor ARW DeltaGrow

14 (continued) Table 3. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 69 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at six locations in Tennessee during 2017 Avg. Test Heading Lodged Leaf Yield Weight# date Height plants Blotch Brand Variety (n=7) (n=3) (n=5) (n=6) (n=3) (n=3) bu/a lbs/bu julian in. % 1 to 9 Univ. of Ga GA E USG TFC FFR Progeny P Progeny PGX Univ. of Ga GA E USG EXP Va Tech VA11W TN Exp. TN Pioneer XW15C Univ. of Ga GA E Stratton AGS Texas A&M Tx-EL Progeny PGX TN Exp. TN TN Exp. TN Va Tech VA11W Univ. of Ga GAJT E TN Exp. TN Average All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments # Official test weight of No. 2 wheat = 58 lbs/bu. Heading date = Days from Jan 1 to heading. Leaf blotch incited by Septoria tritici. Rating scale: 1 = no disease, 9 = all leaves dead. 12

15 Table 4. Yields of 26 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated in 11 County Standard Test in Tennessee during AvgYld MOIST TWT Chester Dyer Fayette Franklin 15 Franklin 7.5 Gibson Henry Lake Madison Moore Weakley MS Brand/Variety bu/a % lbs/bu 11/3 11/1 11/11 11/21 11/10 11/7 11/2 11/9 10/26 11/2 10/18 A Progeny #Boss AB USG AB **USG AB **Warren Seed McKay ABC AgriPro SY Viper ABCD AgriPro SY ABCD Armor Mayhem ABCD **Dyna-Gro ABCDE Croplan SRW ABCDE Dyna-Gro ABCDEF *USG BCDEFG Beck's BCDEFG Warren Seed McKenna BCDEFGH Beck's BCDEFGH Armor ARW BCDEFGH Stratton Seed AGS BCDEFGH Croplan SRW CDEFGHI Dyna-Gro CDEFGHI Armor Menace DEFGHI USG EFGHI Dyna-Gro EFGHI Dyna-Gro FGHI Warren Seed McKenna GHI Progeny P HI Stratton Seed I Progeny P Average Yields have been adjusted to 13.5% moisture. Each variety was evaluated in a large strip-plot at each location, thus each county test was considered as one replication of the test in calculating the average yield and in conducting the statistical analysis to determine significant differences (MS) MS=Varieties that have any MS letter in common are not statistically different in yield at the 5% level of probability. Varieties denoted with an asterisk (*), or (**), were in the top performing group in 2017 and 2016, or , respectively. Official test weight of No. 2 wheat=58 lbs/bu. TWT = Avg. Test Wt. 10 locations. Franklin Co. had two separate locations with different row spacings. 15in., and 7.5 in. 13

16 Table 5. Average yields and test weights of 16 soft red winter wheat varieties that were in common to both the County Standard (CST) Tests (n=12) and the Research and Education Center (REC) Tests (n=5) in Tennessee during Average of CST & REC Tests County Standard Te sts REC Tests Avg. Avg. Avg. Brand Variety Yield Test Weight Yield Test Weight Yield Test Weight bu/a lbs/bu bu/a lbs/bu bu/a lbs/bu Progeny #Boss USG USG AgriPro SY Viper AgriPro SY Dyna-Gro USG Beck's Armor ARW Stratton Seed AGS Croplan SRW Dyna-Gro Armor Menace Progeny P Stratton Seed Progeny P Average

17 Table 6. Mean yields of 27 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations (n=10) in Tennessee for two years, 2016 and 2017 Avg. Yield Brand Variety (n=10) Knoxville Springfield Milan Crossville Jackson bu/a Pioneer 26R USG Pioneer 26R USG Progeny #Bullet Va Tech Hilliard USG Stratton Go Wheat USG USG Stratton Go Wheat Pioneer 26R Progeny #Warrior TN Exp. TN Syngenta SY Viper Becks Progeny #Turbo USG USG Pioneer 26R Dyna-gro Dyna-gro Croplan by Winfield SRW TN Exp. TN Progeny P TFC FFR Progeny P Average (bu/a) L.S.D..05 (bu/a) C.V. (%) All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments 15

18 Table 7. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 27 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations (n=10) in Tennessee for two years, 2016 and Test Date Lodged Avg. Yield Weight# Headed Height Plants Brand Variety (n=10) (n=6) (n=6) (n=8) (n=3) bu/a lbs/bu Julian in. % Pioneer 26R USG Pioneer 26R USG Progeny #Bullet Va Tech Hilliard USG Stratton Go Wheat USG USG Stratton Go Wheat Pioneer 26R Progeny #Warrior TN Exp. TN Syngenta SY Viper Becks Progeny #Turbo USG USG Pioneer 26R Dyna-gro Dyna-gro Croplan by Winfield SRW TN Exp. TN Progeny P TFC FFR Progeny P Average All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments 16

19 Table 8. Mean yields of 16 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations (n=15) in Tennessee for three years, Avg. Yield Spring Brand Variety (n=15) Knoxville Field Jackson Milan Crossville bu/a USG Pioneer 26R Va Tech Hilliard USG Pioneer 26R USG Stratton Go Wheat USG Pioneer 26R Pioneer 26R Croplan by Winfield SRW Dyna-gro Dyna-gro TN Exp. TN TFC FFR Progeny P Average (bu/a) L.S.D..05 (bu/a) C.V. (%) All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments 17

20 Table 9. Mean yields and agronomic characteristics of 16 soft red winter wheat varieties evaluated at five locations (n=15) for three years, Avg. Yield Test Weight Date Height Lodged Brand Variety (n=15) (n=9) Headed (n=12) Plants bu/a lbs/bu julian in. % USG Pioneer 26R Va Tech Hilliard USG Pioneer 26R USG Stratton Go Wheat USG Pioneer 26R Pioneer 26R Croplan by Winfield SRW Dyna-gro Dyna-gro TN Exp. TN TFC FFR Progeny P All yields are adjusted to 13.5% moisture. n = number of environments Date headed = no. of days after January 1. Average

21 Table 10. Contact information for wheat seed companies evaluated in yield tests in Tennessee during Company Contact Phone Web site Address Armor Seed Lane Dill P.O. Box 9, Waldenburg, AR Beck's Hybrids E. 276th St., Atlana, IN Cache River Valley Seed Ted Holt P.O. Box 10, Hwy 226 E., Cash, AR Croplan by Winfield th St. NW, Thief River Falls, MN Delta Grow Seed Lee Hughes P O Box 219, England, AR Dyna-Gro Jonathan Fant Jonathan.Fant@cpsagu.com South First St., Union City, TN Pioneer Hi-Bred Int. George Stabler george.stabler@pioneer.com 59 Greif Parkway, Suite 200, Deleware, OH Progeny Bret Mize bret@progenyag.com Hwy 193, Wynne, AR Steyer Seeds Joe Steyer joesteyer@yahoo.com PO Box 209, Old Fort, OH Stratton Seed Company Heath North hnorth@strattonseed.com Hwy 79, South Stuttgart AR Syngenta Ken Davis kenneth.davis@syngenta.com River Place Drive, Bourbonnais, IL LimaGrain Gary Moore gary.moore@limagrain.com Tennessee Farmers Co-Op Bryan Johnson bjohnson@ourcoop.com Old Nashville Hwy, LaVergne, TN University of Tennessee Dennis West dwest3@utk.edu 3421 Joe Johnson Dr, Knoxville, TN

22 (continued) Table 10. Contact information for wheat seed companies evaluated in yield tests in Tennessee during Company Contact Phone Web site Address University of Georgia Mohamed Mergoum Griffin, GA Unisouth Genetics (USG) Stacy Burwick C HWY 46 South, Dickson, TN David Fandrich Mark Huffstetler Trey Hurt Wes Miller Obion Grain Co. Inc, Obion, TN Billy Sellers Sellers Seed, Obion, TN Virginia Crop Improvement Tom Hardiman Virginia Crop Improvement Assoc Atlee Branch Lane Mechanicsville, VA