2000 Seed Dealer Update Meetings2000 Seed Dealer Update...

2000 Seed Dealer Update Meetings2000 Seed Dealer Update Meetings

Joe Lauer

University of Wisconsiny

Lauer University of Wisconsin - Madison

Corn Yield (bu/A) in Wisconsin Since 1866Corn Yield (bu/A) in Wisconsin Since 1866200

1 1 ( )

160

1974 to 1998 = 1.6 bu A-1 yr-1 (HT)

1201960 to 1998 = 1.4 bu A-1 yr-1

40

80

1930 to 1959 = 1.3 bu A-1 yr-1

0

40

1866 to 1929 = 0.0 bu A-1 yr-1


01860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Years of Record Corn Yield and the Percent Increase Over the Previous Record Year

20200%bu/A Yield Percent change

15

20

150

200

10

15

100

150

5

10

50

100

00


Factors Contributing to Continued Yield GainFactors Contributing to Continued Yield Gain

Resistance to root and stalk lodging

Resistance to barrennesslodging

Necessary for machine harvesting at higher plant densities

Better pollen production

Production under higher l tidensities

Resistance to diseases - little data to support

population

Earlier planting dateBetter seed quality

Resistance to insects

Improvement of stay-green

Better seed qualityImproved cold tolerance, better

germination and emergencep y gContinuous improvement of 2nd

ECB resistance (Duvick 1984)

Use of single cross hybrids

Use of commercial fertilizers

Pest control techniques


Use of single-cross hybrids

University of WisconsinUniversity of WisconsinCorn Agronomy ProgramAshland

Spooner

Chippewa FallsWhite Lake

Marshfield Seymour

ValdersHancock

Galesville

Fond du Lac

Arlington

Lauer University of Wisconsin - MadisonJanesvilleLancaster

1999 Environment Characteristics for Corn Production in Wisconsin

WeatherT t F t GDU

Silage harvest began earlier than normal Grain dry downTemperature: Faster GDU

accumulation than normal over entire growing season.Precipitation: Adequate and

than normal. Grain dry-down was faster than normal.

PestsPrecipitation: Adequate and timely rains through pollination. Little precipitation during grain-filling.

Weeds: No major problems.Diseases: Eyespot, Anthracnose

and Gray Leaf Spot were gEvents: Scattered hail

Planting progress was faster than normal

observed often and early. Mycotoxin development in corn silage in eastern WI.I L Ethan normal

Pollination began earlier than normal

Insects: Low European corn borer pressure. High Corn rootworm pressure in scattered areas


areas.

1999 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials Grain Summary1989-1998 1999 Percent

Location N Yield N Yield ChangegArlington 1727 185 198 222 + 20Janesville 1727 177 198 222 + 25Lancaster 1727 170 198 192 + 13

Fond du Lac 1525 159 159 207 + 30Galesville 1525 157 159 202 + 29Hancock 1524 178 159 202 + 13

Chippewa Falls 1276 147 168 169 + 15Marshfield 990 137 168 179 + 31Seymour 922 144 69 171 + 19Valders 1400 145 168 199 + 37Valders 1400 145 168 199 + 37

Ashland 129 129 16 157 + 22Spooner 1901 123 189 168 + 37White Lake 582 85 63 147 + 73


White Lake 582 85 63 147 + 73Note: Seymour average includes New London 1989-1992.

Using Wisconsin Corn Hybrid Performanceg yTrial Results

Use multi-environment average dataBegin with trials in zone(s) nearest youCompare hybrids with similar maturitiesUse many years and locations

Evaluate consistency of performanceCheck performance in other zones and locationsCheck other reliable unbiased trialsBe wary of inconsistent performance.

You are taking a tremendous gamble if basing your hybrid l i d i i 1 2 l l l


selection decisions on 1 or 2 local test plots

Multi versus Single Environment TrialsMulti- versus Single-Environment Trials

Use Multi-Environment Use Single-Environmentinformation to evaluate:

Grain yield

information to evaluate:

Consistency of performance

Moisture and maturity Test weight

Standability Dry-down rate

Grain quality

Ease of combine-shelling or picking


Methods for Determining Corn Hybrid MaturityMethods for Determining Corn Hybrid Maturity

Minnesota Relative Maturity System (1929)

Growing Degree Days (1970)

Company ratingsCompany ratings

Wisconsin Comparative Relative Maturity rating


Method for determining Wisconsin comparative g prelative maturity - WI CRM (n=92)

115

ys)

110

turit

y (d

ay

105

elat

ive

Mat

100

mpa

ny R

e

9518 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Com Arlington - Late, 1998


Grain moisture (%)

Examples of hybrid CRM ratings (based on MN RM) p y g ( )using WI Corn Hybrid Performance Trial data

Pioneer Nk Brand J ngGoldenHar est Dekalb

YearPioneer

3751Nk Brand

N4242Jung2496

HarvestH2441

DekalbDK493

1989 97 981990 97 1011991 99 99 1001992 100 101 101 1041992 100 101 101 1041993 99 99 100 105 991994 99 99 105 991995 101 100 107 1001995 101 100 107 1001996 99 105 1011997 99 105 1011998 97 98


1998 97 98

Wisconsin Corn Hybrid Silage Performance TrialsWisconsin Corn Hybrid Silage Performance Trials

Each hybrid is tested at 2 l ti i d ti

Ashland olocations in a production zone

Seed companies are encouraged to enter silage hybrids in at least one grain trial o Marshfield

Valders o

Fond du Lac o

o Galesville

o Arlington

o Lancaster

1999 Wisconsin Corn Performance Trials Silage Summary

1989-1998 1999 PercentLocation N Yield N Yield changeArlington 322 9.3 66 10.1 + 9Lancaster 245 7 7 66 8 9 + 16Lancaster 245 7.7 66 8.9 + 16

Fond du Lac 207 8.7 67 9.8 + 13Galesville 207 8.0 67 8.1 + 1

Marshfield 346 6 6 60 7 5 + 14Marshfield 346 6.6 60 7.5 + 14Valders 273 7.0 60 8.0 + 14

A hl d 93 7 0 16 8 0 14Lauer University of Wisconsin - Madison

Ashland 93 7.0 16 8.0 + 14

Corn Specialty Hybrid Silage Yield and Quality p y y g yDuring 1990-1998 in Wisconsin

bmr Bt TMFHigh High

25000

A)

bmr Bt TMF

HOC OP waxyyield yield

&quality

15000

20000

r A

cre

(lb/

A

10000

15000

Milk

per

5000

1700 1900 2100 2300 2500

Highquality


1700 1900 2100 2300 2500Milk per Ton (lb/T)

Criteria for Selecting Silage HybridsCriteria for Selecting Silage Hybrids

Grain yield: allows flexibility (dual purpose)

Whole plant silage yield

Relative maturity: 5 10 days later than grain hybridsRelative maturity: 5-10 days later than grain hybrids

Standability: allows flexibility

Pest resistance

Silage qualitySilage quality

“Variation for silage yield and quality exists among commercial hybrids in Wisconsin ”


hybrids in Wisconsin.

GMO IssuesGMO Issues

Successes

Agronomic PerformanceYield lag and dragPollen drift

MarketingPremiumsEmotional

Pest Resistance ManagementPest Resistance Management

Crop Rotation


Specialty CornsSpecialty Corns

Specialty Marketing Corns Specialty Management Corns

Amylomaize (high amylose)

Waxy corn

“IMI” - Imidazolinone resistant or tolerant

“SR” S th di i t tHigh-protein (lysine) corn

High-oil corn

“SR” - Sethoxydim resistant

“Liberty Link” - Glufosinate resistantg

White & Yellow Food corn

HAP corn (high available P)

resistant

“Bt”

“Round up Ready” GlyphosateHAP corn (high available P)

Silage corn

S eet corn and Popcorn

“Round-up Ready” - Glyphosate resistant

“Gene stacking”


Sweet corn and Popcorn gBt,LL; Bt,IMI

Yield of “IMI” Hybrids in Relation to the Average of y gAll Hybrids in a Wisconsin Trial

Above trial average Below trial averageFrequency (%)

100n = 186

5050

0


1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Yield of “BT” Hybrids in Relation to the Average of y gAll Hybrids in a Wisconsin Trial


100 n = 585

5050

0


1996 1997 1998 1999

Yield of “Round-up Ready” Hybrids in Relation to the p y yAverage of All Hybrids in a Wisconsin Trial


100n = 77

5050

0


1998 1999

Yield of “Liberty Link” Hybrids in Relation to the y yAverage of All Hybrids in a Wisconsin Trial


100n = 35

5050

0


1997 1998 1999

Yield of “Gene Stacked” Hybrids in Relation to the yAverage of All Hybrids in a Wisconsin Trial


100n = 9n = 11

5050

01998 1999


Bt,LL Bt,IMI

Yield of Specialty Hybrids in Relation to the Average p y y gof All Hybrids in the 1999 Wisconsin Hybrid Trials


89100

5059

4250 5350

41

5850 4750 42

11

41

11

0Normal Bt IMI LL RR Bt,IMI


dent

Comparison of 2-row and 4-row PlotspMaterials and Methods

RCB in split-plot arrangement

Main: Plot size2-row (5’ x 25’)4-row (10’ x 25’)

Split: Randomly selected h b idhybrids

1998: Maturity1999: Heightg

In 1999, chose same hybrids as in HT Arlington

Planted adjacent to HT JanesvilleLancaster

Correlation Between 2 row and 4 row PlotsCorrelation Between 2-row and 4-row Plots

4

s 2 ( 0 97**)

Data includes Arlington, Janesville, and Lancaster (2- and 4-row: 1998, 1999; HT: 1999)

3

2-ro

w p

lots 2-row (r = 0.97**)

HT (r = 0.96**)

2

anki

ng in

2

1

Qui

ntile

Ra

00 1 2 3 4

Q

Bottom 20%


Quintile Ranking in 4-row plotsTop 20% Bottom 20%

Hybrid Challenge Iy gMaterials and Methods

Farmers feel that results from small plots do not relate to field

Farm-scale machinery used to plant manage and harvestsmall plots do not relate to field

scale production.

Paul Carter challenged Farmer

plant, manage and harvest plots

ConclusionsgHybrid selected using UW

resultsHybrid selected by seed

UW hybrids were starred (beat or tied farmer hybrid) in 47 of 60 trials or 78% of timecompany, consultant, or farmer

Random odds = ~50%

60 trials or 78% of time

UW Trial results were a useful predictor of future hybrid

Trials replicated and randomized (1991: n = 60)

Large plots: 0.1 to 0.5 A

p yperformance


a ge p ots 0 to 0 5

Hybrid Challenge IIy gMaterials and Methods

Data set = WAPAC Hybrid Performance Trials

Trials replicated and randomizedPerformance Trials

2 “standard” hybrids: Selected using UW trial results.Used to “set the bar”

randomized

Multi-environments: same set of hybrids grown at numerous set the bar

6 to 10 other hybrids. “Best of the best” Selected by seed companies, consultants, and

y glocations

Large plots: 0.1 to 0.5 Acompanies, consultants, and farmers

Random odds = ~25% Farm-scale machinery used to plant, manage and harvest plotsp


Hybrid Challenge II - Grain yieldy g yFrequency of trials with starred standard hybrids.

100Standard starred in trial n = 141

75

%)

Standard starred in trial

Standard not starred in trialn = 141

50

quen

cy (%

25

Freq

01996 1997 1998 1999 Average


gYear

Hybrid Challenge II - Grower returny gFrequency of trials with starred standard hybrids.100

Standard starred in trial n = 141

75

%)

Standard starred in trial

Standard not starred in trialn 141

50

quen

cy (%

25

Freq

01996 1997 1998 1999 Average


1996 1997 1998 1999 AverageYear

Quintile frequency of two hybrids in a trial where q y ythere is no significant difference

40

30

%)

Hybrid AHybrid B

20

quen

cy (%

10

Fre

0200-181 180-161 160-141 140-121 120-101

G i i ld i til (b /A)


Grain yield quintiles (bu/A)

Quintile frequency of two hybrids in a trial where q y ythere is a significant difference

30

40

%)

Hybrid AHybrid B

20

30

quen

cy (%

10

Freq

0200-181 180-161 160-141 140-121 120-101

G i i ld i til (b /A)


Grain yield quintiles (bu/A)


12 2 row (r = 0 93**)

Data includes Arlington, Janesville, and Lancaster (2- and 4-row: 1998, 1999; HT: 1999)

10

12

nk in

plot

s

2-row (r = 0.93**)HT (r = 0.71**)

6

8

n yi

eld

ran

w o

r HT

p

2

4

Gra

in2-

row

00 2 4 6 8 10 12


Grain yield rank in 4-row plots


1154 l t ( 0 03 )

Data includes Arlington, Janesville, and Lancaster (2- and 4-row: 1998, 1999)

105ches

)

4-row plots (r = -0.03 ns)

2-row plots (r = 0.03 ns)

105

heig

ht (i

nc

95

Plan

t h

850 2 4 6 8 10 12




2504 row plots (r = 0 86 **)

Data includes Arlington, Janesville, and Lancaster (2- and 4-row: 1998, 1999)

230

240

/A)

4-row plots (r = -0.86 **)2-row plots (r = -0.82 **)HT plots (r = -0.72 **)

220

230

yiel

d (b

u

200

210

Gra

in

190

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12



2000 Seed Dealer Update Meetings2000 Seed Dealer Update...

Documents

Transcript of 2000 Seed Dealer Update Meetings2000 Seed Dealer Update...