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.