2014 Test Plot Results - HighLine Grainhighlinegrain.com/images/603/2014_TP_Results.pdf · 2015. 2....

2014

Test Plot Results Central Washington Grain Growers, Inc.

2014 Test Plot Results Central Washington Grain Growers, Inc.

Table of Contents:

Introduc on 1

Precipita on Chart 3

2014 Crop Revenue Comparison 4

Winter Tri cale Trial Summary 5

Wilbur Winter Tri cale Variety Yield Trial 6

Winter Canola Variety Trial Summary 8

Canola On‐Farm‐Test: Denver & Monte Black 9

Canola On‐Farm‐Test: Tom Poole 11

Winter Pea Variety Trial Summary 13

Wilbur Winter Pea Variety Trial 16

Spring Cereal Variety Trial Summary 18

Waterville Spring Barley/Tri cale Variety Trial 20

Wilbur Spring Barley/Tri cale Variety Trial 22

Waterville Spring Wheat Variety Trial 24

Wilbur Spring Wheat Variety Trial 26

Vitazyme Spring Cereal Trial Summary 28

Waterville Spring Barley/Tri cale Vitazyme Trial 29

Wilbur Spring Barley/Tri cale Vitazyme Trial 31

Waterville Spring Wheat Vitazyme Trial 33

Wilbur Spring Wheat Vitazyme Trial 35

Spring Canola Variety and Agronomic Trial Summary 37

Data compiled by Howard Nelson, Manager of Member/Special Services, Central Wash‐ington Grain Growers, Inc. For addi on informa on on the material presented in this brochure contact Howard Nelson at 509‐647‐5395 or E‐Mail at [email protected]

Table of Contents (con nued):

Spring Canola Seeding Date Trial 38

Wilbur Spring Canola Variety Trial 40

Wilbur Spring Canola Fer lity Trial 42

Wilbur Spring Canola Foliar Fer lity Trial 44

Garbanzo Bean Variety and Agronomic Trial Summary 46

Wilke Garbanzo Bean Variety Trial 49

Wilke Garbanzo Bean Seeding Rate Trial 51

Wilke Garbanzo Bean Foliar Fer lity Trial 53

Garbanzo Bean Broadleaf Weed Control Summary 55

Garbanzo Bean Broadleaf Weed Control Yield Trial 57

2013 Crop Class response to drought 59

Introduc on

Welcome to the tenth annual Central Washington Grain Growers test plot report. The impact our cli-mate has on agricultural produc on was felt in a big way this year. The first issue was the extremely cold temperatures in December and then again in February. The February cold event saw tempera-tures drop to –11°F in Douglas County and –6°F in Lincoln County as recorded by WSU AgWeather Net. These temperatures tested the cold hardiness of our crops and, with the excep on of the winter peas, they survived the cold. These temperatures were the first test of the winter hardiness of our current varie es of winter canola and their survival was a big improvement from varie es we have previously grown. In addi on, the cold temperatures froze the soil and when the winters snow melted, it ran off the fields and didn’t soak into the soil. The cold winter was followed by a dry spring and summer. Al-mira received only 8.5 in of precipita on during the crop season and this is nearly 4 inches below it’s average precipita on of 12.4 in. As a result, yields of our crops were below average. The winter wheat yields in the WSU Regional trial at Creston were down 43% from average and WSU didn’t report the yields for their so white spring wheat in Almira due to “low yields and high variability”. For the first me in our tes ng program, there aren’t any winter wheat trials this year. The work load last August centered around marke ng specialty crops, harves ng test plots and prepara on to seed the plots for this year was too much to overcome. A decision was made to focus on trials that are not duplicated in our area and trials for tri cale, winter peas and winter canola were planted. Wheat varie-ty trials are conducted in our area by WSU and are located at St Andrews, Almira and Creston and these trials overlap the trials that we conduct. To help with the work load, Nick Loebsack was given addi on-

al responsibili es this spring to help with our tes ng program, and this has allowed us to plant winter wheat tri-als again in Waterville and Wilbur this fall. These winter wheat trials will compliment the WSU trials and will have varie es from the many private wheat breeding companies that are not included in the WSU trials. In January, we were given approval to build a new test plot drill that would give us the capability to seed in both conven onal and

try with our drill was unsuccessful under high residue condi ons when we discovered that the two ranks of openers were mounted too close together which caused straw to plug the drill. We modified the drill, moving the ranks further apart solving the plugging problems and we were able to complete the seeding of our spring trials. Since using it last spring, we have made several more modifica ons to the drill and now have it func oning properly. The picture on page 1 shows the stand of our winter wheat trial at Wilbur that was seeded into stubble from a tri cale crop that yielded 3 ton/ac in 2013 and the picture above shows our winter canola trial at Mansfield seeded into winter wheat stubble. Each year when I put the results from the years trials together, it gives me a chance to reflect on what has been learned. This year we felt the impact that our climate has on agriculture and most of the tri‐als didn’t show any differences among the treatments. The last page in this booklet has a comparison of the different crops and their yields from this year compared to last year. This comparison is a gener‐aliza on of how the different crops responded to drought, which I found to be very interes ng, and one of the few things that can be learned in a dry year. The one benefit we received from the cold temperatures was the iden fica on of a new winter pea variety that has be er winter hardiness and food quality than our current yellow pea variety, Windham. We will start seed produc on of this vari‐ety and we hope to have it available to our growers in 2 to 3 years.

I would like to thank the farmers that allowed me to plant trials in their fields, Mark Thomsen, Randy and David Brandt, Mark Sheffles, Bob and Bobby Bandy and Keith, Craig and Braidy Haden. Nick Loebsack, who is now helping me with the test plot program, is finishing his first season and will be giv‐en addi onal responsibili es this year. I hope that you find the informa on from the following studies interes ng and I con nue to look for new crops and products to help you be more profitable on your farm.

Howard Nelson

direct seed situa ons. (Shown on the cover) While our old test plot drill had been used suc‐cessfully for many years, we were not able to get an adequate stand of winter canola with it. With the help of Nick Loebsack, a tool bar was built and 5 John Deere ConservaPak openers were a ached. Two fer lizer tanks were also mounted on the drill with pumps that allow the applica‐

on of both starter and nitrogen fer lizers when we seed. Our first

2014 Wilbur Revenue/Acre Comparison

The chart below shows revenue that could have been received from the different crops grown in the Wilbur area this year. We were not able to plant a winter wheat trial last fall so the winter wheat yields used in the revenue comparison are from the WSU Regional Nursery North of Creston. The remainder of the crops compared were from the CWGG yield trials. A different crop has had the highest revenue each of the past years and this year the best crop to grow was So White Club wheat. It is not surprising that “club” wheat has the highest revenue this year because the current club wheat premium of $2.75/bu gives it a higher market price while most of the other crops have a lower market price this year. Mela CL+ had the best revenue of the Clearfield winter wheat varie es. This variety again showed some straw strength prob‐lems and growers need to monitor this variety for Pseudocercosporella foot rot and should consider an applica on of Tilt and Topsin in the spring if condi‐

ons warrant. The revenue from winter tri cale pro‐duc on was down this year when lower corn prices caused tri cale prices to also drop. Winter tri cale yields were good given the dry year and were 2½ ton/acre in the trial. The revenue from winter peas were down when this crops lower level of winter hardiness reduced its yield more on average than the other crops. The revenue from Royal garbanzo beans dropped this year falling below winter wheat, but was s ll the best of the spring planted crops. Lynx green pea held the #5 posi on from the top. It survived the winter rea‐sonably well and the market for this pea is for cover crop use and currently has a $5.50/cwt premium to Windham yellow peas. The spring crops were very poor and the revenue from many of the crops were less than $100/acre. As with the winter crops, JD spring club wheat had the highest revenue of the spring wheat varie es.

Winter Tri cale Variety Yield Trials

Winter tri cale produc on con nues to have a place in many growers cropping systems as the high vigor of the tri cale plant gives it advantages over winter wheat. In addi on, tri cale has tolerance to low soil pH condi ons and tolerance to several nematode species which are emerging as an issue in winter wheat produc on. Growers have few produc on issues when they grow tri cale as it’s management is nearly iden cal to winter wheat. The only nega ve aspect of tri cale produc on is not an agronomic issue, but the lack of a muli‐peril or a revenue type of crop insurance which limits its produc on. There may be some improvement here as the 2013 Farm Bill now allows private insurance companies to pe ‐

on RMA to expand insurance coverage to new crops without that recommenda on star ng with RMA. We have assisted an insurance company, AgriLogic, in a pe on to RMA this fall. If their pe on is accept‐ed, a pilot program will be ini ated and I would en‐courage all tri cale growers to par cipate to help with its success. The table below shows the three year average yields for winter tri cale in the Wilbur area. While we had to cut back the number of our trials in the fall of

2013, we maintained our winter tri cale trial. Four of the lines tested were new varie es and were com‐pared to our current variety, TriMark 099. Tri cale yields were down this year and averaged 4,132 lbs/ac as compared to 5,524 lbs/ac last year. TriMark 099 held the top posi on this year, with a respectable yield of 5,108 lbs/ac (2.55 tons/ac) and the three‐year average of 6,252 lbs/ac. The table below shows that tri cale suffered less yield loss due to the drought than the winter wheat varie es in the WSU regional trial. The yield of TriMark 099 was 80.3% of last year and the three winter wheat varie es shown had a yield that averaged 58.0% of 2013.

2014 WILBUR WINTER TRITICALE VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Chemical Fallow, 2012 Spring WheatSeeding Date: August 28, 2013Seeding Rate: 75 lbs/acreFertility: Starter: None Top dress: 70-0-0-14, March 12, 2014Herbicide: Buctril 1 1/2 pt/ac + NIS, April 30, 2014Harvest: August 4, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:43:44Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\WTritWBVar.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) WB Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:

Rows of data with missing values removed: 0Rows which remain: 18

Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 781700.1111 390850.06 1.352253 .3021 ns Main Effects Variety 5 8782855.111 1756571 6.0773394 .0077 ** Error 10 2890361.889 289036.19<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 17 12454917.11

Model 7 9564555.222 1366365 4.7273147 .0139 *

R^2 = SSmodel/SStotal = 0.7679340727Root MSerror = sqrt(MSerror) = 537.620859797Mean Y = 4131.77777778Coefficient of Variation = (Root MSerror) / abs(Mean Y) * 100% = 13.011853%

Compare MeansFactor: 1) VarietyTest: Tukey's HSDSignificance Level: 0.1Variance: 289036.188889Degrees of Freedom: 10Keep If:

n Means = 6LSD 0.1 = 795.608073123MSD 0.1 = 1323.52661721

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------ ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 TriMark 099 5108 3 a 2 ACS 10402 4505 3 ab 3 ACS 12403 4505 3 ab 4 08GX02 4212 3 abc 5 ACS 12401 3409 3 bc 6 ACS 12402 3052 3 c

Compare MeansFactor: 2) RepTest: Tukey's HSDSignificance Level: 0.1Variance: 289036.188889Degrees of Freedom: 10Keep If:

n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 562.579863672MSD 0.1 = 717.708745961

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 3 4340 6 a 2 1 4208 6 a 3 2 3847 6 a

Winter Canola Variety Yield Trials

Winter canola acreage con nues to grow in our area as growers seek the benefits from growing a deep rooted crop, the enhanced weed control from growing a Roundup Ready crop and the long term benefits received from a crop rota on breaking the diseases that effect winter wheat. Canola produc on had a small foothold in our area un l three years ago when the combina on of NRCS programs and an improved Roundup Ready variety, HyCLASS 115W became available.

While growers are very successful with winter wheat produc on, winter canola produc on requires very different management. The first issue in winter canola produc on is the establishment of an adequate plant stand. Win‐ter canola requires a much shallower seeding depth than winter wheat. Maintaining soil seed zone moisture at a shallow depth requires growers to pay more a en on to field opera ons in the fallow period preceding canola produc on. Our goal is have 4 to 6 plants per square foot for successful produc on. The second issue in canola produc on is a fer lity program to maximize canola yields. The guideline for canola produc on is 10 lbs of availa‐ble nitrogen per 100 lbs of yield. This means that growers should increase their fer lizer applica ons by almost double the amount that they would apply to winter wheat. The second fer lity issue is the proper ming of the applica on of that fer lizer. We want our winter canola to reach the 6 to 8 leaf stage before winter dormancy, but these leaves seldom survive our cold winter condi ons. These leaves die and the canola plants regrow from the plant crown. The nutrients that are in these leaves are not lost, but are now in the plant organic ma er lay‐ing on the soil surface and may not be available to the canola plant during its growing period. It may be be er to delay and split our fer lizer applica ons with the majority of it applied in the fall a er plant establishment and then some again in the spring to make sure that the plants have adequate nutrients for regrowth in the spring. The third issue we face with canola produc on is the fact that insects will need to be monitored each year for their impacts on yield. Cabbage seedpod weevil has been a problem in winter canola produc on and cabbage aphid has emerged as a problem in spring canola produc on. While we are able to manage these issues, it illus‐trates the changes growers need to make if they want to be successful winter canola growers.

The chart below shows the winter canola yields from the Wilbur variety trial. The yields shown are from the plot in our trial that had the best yield. Although this was a replicated trial, the plots on the East side didn’t emerge.

This caused some varie‐es to have only 1 or 2

plots that we were able to harvest instead of the 3 needed for a repli‐cated trial. We chose to show the varie es yields in a chart for your informa on. Two growers in the Mansfield area conduct‐ed on‐farm variety yield tests and we assisted them with collec on of the yield data. The re‐sults from those tests are shown in the follow‐ing pages.

BLACK WINTER CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL, ON-FARM-TEST

ANOVA2014-10-24 08:14:23Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 3151.166667 1575.5833 0.7248412 .5224 ns Main Effects Variety 3 123619.5833 41206.528 18.956909 .0018 ** Error 6 13042.16667 2173.6944<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 11 139812.9167

Model 5 126770.75 25354.15 11.664082 .0048 **



n Means = 4LSD 0.1 = 73.9718895871MSD 0.1 = 109.420619753

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Baldur 514 3 a 2 Hornet 473 3 a 3 115W 468 3 a 4 Safran 254 3 b


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 64.0615355484MSD 0.1 = 82.9654436804


TOM POOLE WINTER CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL, ON-FARM-TEST



Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 3 857.375 285.79167 0.0601187 .9775 ns Main Effects Variety 1 20301.125 20301.125 4.2705121 .1307 ns Error 3 14261.375 4753.7917<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 7 35419.875

Model 4 21158.5 5289.625 1.112717 .4844 ns



n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 114.734512851MSD 0.1 = 114.729049201

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- -------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 EdiMax CL 852 4 a 2 HyCLASS 115W 751 4 a


n Means = 4LSD 0.1 = 162.259104147MSD 0.1 = 253.469023736

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 3 812 2 a 2 2 809 2 a 3 4 799 2 a 4 1 786 2 a

Winter Pea Yield Trials

While it was a tough year for growers with winter pea fields that didn’t survive the cold, those cold condi ons gave us the ability to determine the winter hardiness of the different pea lines. Temperatures in the Wilbur area dropped to –6°F in December and to –3°F again in February. The picture above shows a line that was kept in our program from 2013 that was the top yielding line this year at 2,853 lbs/acre. At one point this spring, we felt that none of the varie es had survived, but we con nued with our trials. The ra ngs of the Wilbur trial and the final yield is shown on page 14. This is only the second year of tes ng for the many of the pea lines so they were sort‐ed on their two‐average yield. The line, PRO 122‐7150, did not look good at any of the ra ngs and was a big sur‐prise when it regrew and was the top yielding variety in the trial. Our new pea for the cover crop market, Lynx showed it’s good winter hardiness, had the second highest yield of 2,387 lbs/ac and moved up in the two‐year averages to #4. Our current variety, Windham, didn’t recover as well from the cold and yielded 1,184 lbs/acre which dropped it to #6 in the two‐year average. PRO 124‐7130 also showed good winter hardiness and it moved from #4 to #2 in the two‐year averages. The top yielding line in 2013, PRO 122‐7117, showed that it lacked win‐ter hardiness and yielded only 594 lbs/ac compared to 5,162 lbs/ac last year. We were not able to harvest the Waterville trial because the deer found our trial and ate it down to the ground. In addi on to measuring the yield of winter peas an assessment is made on their quality for sales into the food markets. These markets want a large pea with good color and spli ng quali es. Our current varie es lack the size and color for most markets, but are acceptable for both the cover crop and starch extrac on markets and there is a growing market for each. The fourth highest yielding line in our trial this year, PRO 124‐7130, has im‐proved food use quali es than Windham with a seed size of 17.7 g/100 seeds and less ghost mo ling on the seed coat. This variety is star ng to approach the size of spring yellow pea varie es which typically are 20 to 22 g/100 seeds. The highest yielding variety this year, PRO 122‐7150, is a green pea with a small seed. The small seed size

makes this variety unacceptable in the food market and there would need to be a mar‐ke ng channel for this variety before it could brought into produc on. When we look at the combina on of winter hardiness, seed quali es for the food market and the 2 year yield averages, PRO 124‐7130, has an advantage over our current variety, Windham. We will start to increase seed of this variety with the expecta on that it will replace Windham if it con nues to show good performance in our trials. We con nue to explore the crop rota onal benefits from the inclusion of winter peas in our cropping system. This year a winter wheat crop following winter peas yielded 59.0 bu/acre in the Waterville area without the applica on of any nitrogen fer lizer. The

grain protein of the so white wheat in the field was 10.8% showing that it was not deficient in nitrogen as the grain protein at the maximum yield of so white wheat is 10.5%. It appears that the high N:C ra o in winter pea stubble s mulates the soil microbiological ac vity in the fallow period causing the release of nitrogen from the soil organic ma er. (A picture of the field is shown below) Winter pea produc on is about to take another step forward when we change to a new variety with be er win‐ter hardiness and seed quali es will make this crop easier to market. We are planning two herbicide trials on winter peas to screen exis ng material with labels to see if we can find an alterna ve to Raptor herbicide. Rap‐tor herbicide has the same ac ve ingredient as Beyond herbicide and with the growth of the acreage devoted to Clearfield wheat produc on, we are concerned that use of these herbicides over mul ple years could promote the development of weed resistance.

Pag

e 1

5

2014 WILBUR WINTER PEA VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Chemical Fallow, 2012 Spring WheatSeeding Date: August 28, 2013Seeding Rate: Variable to achieve 6 plants/ft2Fertility: NoneHerbicide: Raptor 5 oz/ac + 1% COC, April 30, 2014Harvest: July 22, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:47:40Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\WPeaVar.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) WB Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 40271.29167 20135.646 0.2957257 .7461 ns Main Effects Variety 15 40845306.33 2723020.4 39.992114 .0000 ***Error 30 2042668.042 68088.935<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 47 42928245.67

Model 17 40885577.63 2405034 35.32195 .0000 ***



n Means = 16LSD 0.1 = 361.610675482MSD 0.1 = 727.653752193

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Pro 122-7150 2853 3 a 2 Lynx ("180") 2387 3 ab 3 PS10300025W 2158 3 abc 4 Pro 124-7130 1974 3 bc 5 Pro 124-7146 1459 3 cd 6 Koyote 1441 3 cd 7 Pro 124-7148 1234 3 de 8 Windham 1184 3 de 9 PS10300004W 974 3 def 10 Pro 122-7116 594 3 efg 11 Pro 122-7159 420 3 fg 12 PS07300136W 0 3 g 13 PS06300028W 0 3 g 14 Pro 122-7163 0 3 g 15 PS06300024W 0 3 g 16 Whistler 0 3 g


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 156.582015623MSD 0.1 = 196.812912677


Spring Wheat, Barley and Tri cale Variety Yield Trials

The picture above shows the effect that this years drought had on spring wheat fields. Many areas in the fields dried up early giving the fields this blotchy appearance. The yields of our test plots were ex‐tremely low and the grain protein levels were very high. The spring barley and tri cale varie es aver‐aged only 1,070, lbs/ac in Wilbur as compared to 2,435 lbs/ac last year, a 56.7% reduc on. Spring wheat yields were very similar to the barley/tri cale trial and averaged 14.6 bu/ac this year as compared to 39.7 bu/ac last year, a 63.2% reduc on. A spring tri cale line that was in our trials for the first

me, 05TN10247, was the top yielding spring feed grain. Our new spring tri cale variety, Logo, was the #3 yielding variety at Wilbur, but was the #1 yielding variety at Waterville. Logo has consistently per‐formed be er in our Waterville trial than our Wilbur

trial. We will have limited amounts of Logo seed this spring for anyone that is interested in growing it. The highest yielding spring wheat at Wilbur this year was JD spring club wheat and the highest yielding spring wheat at Waterville was a new red spring wheat variety from WSU, WA 8165. The yields of the spring cereal crops were very low and few conclu‐sions can be made about which variety is the best for our area.

2014 WATERVILLE BARLEY/TRITICALE VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Spring Wheat, 2012 Spring WheatSeeding Date: April 16, 2014Seeding Rate: 70 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 16, 2014 Banded, Sol 32: 50-0-0-0, April 16, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 20, 2014Harvest: August 12, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:26:31Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 4) WA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:



Model 9 415757.875 46195.319 1.071201 .4381 ns



n Means = 8LSD 0.1 = 298.643942221MSD 0.1 = 530.417685272

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------ ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Logo 1528 3 a 2 Champion 1463 3 a 3 175476 1370 3 a 4 05TN10247 1346 3 a 5 TriMark 054 1320 3 a 6 LCS Vespa 1280 3 a 7 Genie 1154 3 a 8 Lentenah 1146 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 182.881318304MSD 0.1 = 231.86256565


2014 WILBUR SPRING TRITICALE/BARLEY VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Seeding Rate: 70 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 60-0-0-0, April 23, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 21, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:30:14Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) WB Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 3385992.583 1692996.3 31.792643 .0000 ***Main Effects Variety 7 185434.5 26490.643 0.4974657 .8213 ns Error 14 745516.75 53251.196<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 23 4316943.833

Model 9 3571427.083 396825.23 7.4519496 .0005 ***



n Means = 8LSD 0.1 = 331.859985363MSD 0.1 = 589.412274567

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------ ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 05TN10247 1228 3 a 2 LCS Vespa 1169 3 a 3 Logo 1090 3 a 4 175476 1074 3 a 5 Champion 1043 3 a 6 TriMark 054 1021 3 a 7 Lentenah 1002 3 a 8 Genie 932 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 203.221907547MSD 0.1 = 257.650990911

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 3 1525 8 a 2 2 1080 8 b 3 1 605 8 c

2014 WATERVILLE SPRING WHEAT VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Spring Wheat, 2012 Spring WheatSeeding Date: April 16, 2014Seeding Rate: 60 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 16, 2014 Banded, Sol 32: SWH, 50-0-0-0, DNS, 80-0-0-0, April 16, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 20, 2014Harvest: August 12, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:11:23Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 4) WA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:



Model 17 152.9377083 8.9963358 1.3314399 .2398 ns



n Means = 16LSD 0.1 = 3.60225973026MSD 0.1 = 7.2486737445

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 WA8165 26.1 3 a 2 Diva 25.6 3 a 3 Kelse 23.9 3 a 4 605 CL2 23.7 3 a 5 SY Steelhead 23.6 3 a 6 Tara 2000 23.3 3 a 7 WA8166 22.7 3 a 8 UI Stone 22.6 3 a 9 BR 7030W 22.3 3 a 10 Dayn 21.7 3 a 11 JD 21.5 3 a 12 Louise 21.2 3 a 13 WB 6341 20.8 3 a 14 LCS Star 20.7 3 a 15 LCS Atomo 20.6 3 a 16 Seahawk 19.5 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 1.55982421872MSD 0.1 = 1.96059264231

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 1 22.6 16 a 2 2 22.5 16 a 3 3 22.3 16 a

2014 WILBUR SPRING WHEAT VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Seeding Rate: 70 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded Sol 32: SWH, 60-0-0-0, DNS, 90-0-0-0, April 23, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 21, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:05:01Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) WB Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 326.0179167 163.00896 29.628042 .0000 ***Main Effects Variety 15 292.2414583 19.482764 3.5411314 .0016 ** Error 30 165.0554167 5.5018472<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 47 783.3147917

Model 17 618.259375 36.368199 6.6101796 .0000 ***



n Means = 16LSD 0.1 = 3.25055288911MSD 0.1 = 6.54094905607

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 JD 19.1 3 a 2 Seahawk 18.8 3 ab 3 Diva 17.0 3 abc 4 UI Stone 16.9 3 abc 5 Louise 15.9 3 abc 6 WA8165 15.9 3 abc 7 WB 6341 15.5 3 abc 8 605 CL2 14.8 3 abc 9 WA8166 13.9 3 abc 10 Tara 2000 13.4 3 abc 11 Kelse 12.5 3 bc 12 SY Steelhead 12.4 3 bc 13 LCS Star 12.2 3 bc 14 Dayn 12.0 3 c 15 BR 7030W 11.9 3 c 16 LCS Atomo 11.0 3 c


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 1.40753068916MSD 0.1 = 1.76917006409

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 3 18.2 16 a 2 2 13.3 16 b 3 1 12.2 16 b

Vitazyme is a product marketed as a “bio s mulant”. The literature for the product states that it “promotes more intensive biological nitrogen fixa on by s mu‐la ng natural rhizosphere organisms to produce need‐ed plant growth factors.” It is also said to s mulate the plant to photosynthesize be er, fixing more sun‐light energy in the form of carbon compounds to in‐crease the transfer of carbohydrate, proteins and oth‐er growth substances into the root zone. This then s mulates root growth and exuda on which enhances the popula on of rhizosphere organisms to a higher level.

A grower in the Waterville area used this product on his winter pea crop in 2013 with good results. We decided to test this product in our small plot program and this year it was applied to spring barley, spring tri cale and garbanzo beans. Our trials this year indi‐cated no significant differences in yield. We will con‐

nue tes ng Vitazyme next year hoping that normal precipita on will give us a be er test of this product.

The Effect of Vitazyme on the Yields of Spring Wheat, Barley and Tri cale.

2014 WATERVILLE BARLEY/TRITICALE VITAZYME TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Spring Wheat, 2012 Spring WheatSeeding Date: April 16, 2014Variety; Lentenah Barley and Logo TriticaleSeeding Rate: 70 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 16, 2014 Banded, Sol 32: 50-0-0-0, April 16, 2014Vitazyme: Seed Treatment, 15% Solution, Foliar 13 oz/ac, May 20, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 20, 2014Harvest: August 12, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:39:28Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 2WRB.AOV - 2 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 5) WA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment 2nd Factor: 2) Variety Blocks: 3) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 89204.16667 44602.083 2.0136507 .2142 ns Main Effects Treatment 1 14214.08333 14214.083 0.6417234 .4536 ns Variety 1 253170.75 253170.75 11.429902 .0148 * Interaction Treatment x Variety 1 25116.75 25116.75 1.1339462 .3279 ns Error 6 132899.1667 22149.861<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 11 514604.9167

Model 5 381705.75 76341.15 3.4465747 .0820 ns


Compare MeansFactor: 1) TreatmentTest: Tukey's HSDSignificance Level: 0.1Variance: 22149.8611111Degrees of Freedom: 6Keep If:

n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 166.969816893MSD 0.1 = 166.965447913

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 None 1337 6 a 2 Vitazyme 1268 6 a


n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 166.969816893MSD 0.1 = 166.965447913

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Logo 1448 6 a 2 Lentenah 1157 6 b


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 204.495426917MSD 0.1 = 264.83994927


2014 WILBUR SPRING TRITICALE/BARLEY VITAZYME TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Variety; Lentenah Barley and Logo TriticaleSeeding Rate: 70 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 60-0-0-0, April 23, 2014Vitazyme: Seed Treatment, 15% Solution, Foliar 13 oz/ac, May 21, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 21, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:36:24Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 2WRB.AOV - 2 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 4) WB Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment 2nd Factor: 2) Variety Blocks: 3) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 1341626.167 670813.08 13.113578 .0065 ** Main Effects Treatment 1 87381.33333 87381.333 1.7081986 .2391 ns Variety 1 59925.33333 59925.333 1.1714673 .3207 ns Interaction Treatment x Variety 1 8640.333333 8640.3333 0.168908 .6954 ns Error 6 306924.5 51154.083<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 11 1804497.667

Model 5 1497573.167 299514.63 5.8551461 .0263 *



n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 253.742153004MSD 0.1 = 253.735513514

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 None 1046 6 a 2 Vitazyme 876 6 a


n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 253.742153004MSD 0.1 = 253.735513514

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Logo 1032 6 a 2 Lentenah 890 6 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 310.769400547MSD 0.1 = 402.474292537

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 3 1405 4 a 2 2 879 4 b 3 1 598 4 b

2014 WATERVILLE SPRING WHEAT VITAZYME TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Spring Wheat, 2012 Spring WheatSeeding Date: April 16, 2014Variety; Diva Soft White Wheat and Kelse Red Spring WheatSeeding Rate: 60 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 16, 2014 Banded, Sol 32: SWH, 50-0-0-0, DNS, 80-0-0-0, April 16, 2014Vitazyme: Seed Treatment, 15% Solution, Foliar 13 oz/ac, May 20, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 20, 2014Harvest: August 12, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:21:33Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 2WRB.AOV - 2 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 5) WA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment 2nd Factor: 2) Variety Blocks: 3) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 6.486666667 3.2433333 0.5995071 .5789 ns Main Effects Treatment 1 34.34083333 34.340833 6.3476587 .0453 * Variety 1 6.020833333 6.0208333 1.1129082 .3321 ns Interaction Treatment x Variety 1 0.300833333 0.3008333 0.0556069 .8214 ns Error 6 32.46 5.41<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 11 79.60916667

Model 5 47.14916667 9.4298333 1.7430376 .2585 ns



n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 2.60946273844MSD 0.1 = 2.60939445849

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 None 24.7 6 a 2 Vitazyme 21.4 6 b


n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 2.60946273844MSD 0.1 = 2.60939445849

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Diva 23.8 6 a 2 Kelse 22.3 6 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 3.195926106MSD 0.1 = 4.13901142213

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 1 24.1 4 a 2 3 22.6 4 a 3 2 22.4 4 a

2014 WILBUR SPRING WHEAT VITAZYME TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Variety; Diva Soft White Wheat and Kelse Red Spring WheatSeeding Rate: 70 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 60-0-0-0, April 23, 2014Vitazyme: Seed Treatment, 15% Solution, Foliar 13 oz/ac, May 21, 2014Herbicide: Huskie 15 oz/ac + Buctril 1 pt/ac, May 21, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 15:17:18Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 2WRB.AOV - 2 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 4) WB Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment 2nd Factor: 2) Variety Blocks: 3) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 91.23166667 45.615833 12.933528 .0067 ** Main Effects Treatment 1 14.96333333 14.963333 4.242577 .0851 ns Variety 1 45.63 45.63 12.937544 .0114 * Interaction Treatment x Variety 1 1.08 1.08 0.3062141 .6000 ns Error 6 21.16166667 3.5269444<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 11 174.0666667

Model 5 152.905 30.581 8.6706781 .0102 *



n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 2.10693810013MSD 0.1 = 2.10688296938

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Vitazyme 17.0 6 a 2 None 14.7 6 b


n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 2.10693810013MSD 0.1 = 2.10688296938

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Diva 17.8 6 a 2 Kelse 13.9 6 b


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 2.58046163247MSD 0.1 = 3.34192963696

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 3 18.7 4 a 2 2 16.7 4 a 3 1 12.1 4 b

Spring Canola Variety and Agronomic Trial Summary

The growing interest in canola produc on has caused us to increase our work with that crop. This was the first trial that we seeded with our new direct seed test plot drill this spring. We quickly found that it was not working properly and modifica ons were needed to be made to the drill. We completed seeding our variety trial and then replanted that trial a er the drill was modified. This gave us an interes ng opportunity to compare the effect of seeding date on the yield of spring canola. Even though there was only 1 week between the two seeding dates, the yields from the early seeding were significantly higher than the later seeding. The table below shows the yields of the canola varie es from the different seeding dates.

We compared the yields of the different varie es that were planted in the first seeding and there weren’t any signifi‐cant differences in yield. Oasis CL was the highest yielding variety with a yield of 309 lbs/ac. We also had a fer lity trial with 4 different rates of nitro‐gen fer lizer. Again there wasn’t any significant differ‐ences in yield, but the 120 lb nitrogen rate per acre had the highest yield at 531 lbs/ac. We also compared some different micronutrients and combina ons of those micro‐nutrients and again no differ‐ences in yield were observed.

The treatment that combined Vitazyme with Boron, Manga‐nese and Zinc had the highest yield at 391 lbs/ac. We plan to repeat these trials next year and hope that we will have be er weather con‐di ons so that we can have more confidence that our results were caused by the different treatments and not caused by drought condi‐

ons.

2014 WILBUR SPRING CANOLA SEEDING DATE TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowFirst Seeding Date: April 15, 2014Second Seeding Date: April 23, 2014Seeding Rate: 5 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 80-0-0-0, April 23, 2014Herbicide: Reglone, July 31, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-31 14:26:01Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 2WRB.AOV - 2 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 4) Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety 2nd Factor: 3) Date Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 4181.722222 2090.8611 0.7942409 .4645 ns Main Effects Variety 5 26592.88889 5318.5778 2.0203311 .1153 ns Date 1 26352.11111 26352.111 10.010193 .0045 ** Interaction Variety x Date 5 15921.22222 3184.2444 1.2095768 .3375 ns Error 22 57915.61111 2632.5278<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 35 130963.5556

Model 13 73047.94444 5619.0726 2.134478 .0565 ns



n Means = 6LSD 0.1 = 50.8665947934MSD 0.1 = 82.1730040732

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- -------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Oasis CL 248 6 a 2 Invigor 244 6 a 3 Star 402RR 212 6 a 4 VT-X121 208 6 a 5 HyCLASS 955RR 184 6 a 6 HyCLASS 930RR 175 6 a

Compare MeansFactor: 3) DateTest: Tukey's HSDSignificance Level: 0.1Variance: 2632.52777778Degrees of Freedom: 22Keep If:

n Means = 2LSD 0.1 = 29.3678421967MSD 0.1 = 29.3749910851

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Early 239 18 a 2 Late 185 18 b


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 35.9681141143MSD 0.1 = 45.3376690352


2014 WILBUR SPRING CANOLA VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Seeding Rate: 5 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 80-0-0-0, April 23, 2014 Micros: June 11, 2014Herbicide: Reglone, July 31, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014




Model 7 44255.72222 6322.246 1.4405665 .2897 ns



n Means = 6LSD 0.1 = 98.0374749529MSD 0.1 = 163.089355133

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- -------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Oasis CL 309 3 a 2 Invigor 282 3 a 3 Star 402 241 3 a 4 VT-X121 237 3 a 5 HyCLASS 930RR 187 3 a 6 HyCLASS 955RR 178 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 69.3229633496MSD 0.1 = 88.4384605719


2014 WILBUR SPRING CANOLA FERTILITY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Seeding Rate: 5 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 80-0-0-0, April 23, 2014 Micros: June 11, 2014Herbicide: Reglone, July 31, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 03:43:09Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 1540.5 770.25 0.1366008 .8750 ns Main Effects Treatment 3 34628.33333 11542.778 2.0470657 .2089 ns Error 6 33832.16667 5638.6944<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 11 70001

Model 5 36168.83333 7233.7667 1.2828797 .3801 ns



n Means = 4LSD 0.1 = 119.139766791MSD 0.1 = 176.233798978

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------ ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 120 N: 20 S 531 3 a 2 160 N: 20 S 488 3 a 3 40 N: 20 S 434 3 a 4 80 N: 20 S 389 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 103.178064642MSD 0.1 = 133.624862998


2014 WILBUR SPRING CANOLA FOLIAR FERTILITY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Variety: HyCLASS 930RRSeeding Rate: 5 lbs/acreFertility: Starter + Thiosol: 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Banded: Sol 32: 80-0-0-0, April 23, 2014 Micros: June 11, 2014Herbicide: Reglone, July 31, 2014Harvest: August 8, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 11:54:28Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\SCMicro.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 2877.583333 1438.7917 0.6687962 .5280 ns Main Effects Treatment 7 18043.33333 2577.619 1.1981595 .3648 ns Error 14 30118.41667 2151.3155<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 23 51039.33333

Model 9 20920.91667 2324.5463 1.0805232 .4325 ns



n Means = 8LSD 0.1 = 66.7025221201MSD 0.1 = 118.469496222

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ----------------- ------------- ------- -------------------------------------- 1 Vitazyme, B & Mn 391 3 a 2 K SO4 & Boron 349 3 a 3 None 341 3 a 4 Boron 331 3 a 5 B & Mn 320 3 a 6 K SO4 313 3 a 7 Vitazyme 303 3 a 8 Roundup 301 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 40.8467859378MSD 0.1 = 51.7868127479


This years garbanzo bean trials were similar to the results from our other spring trials with low yields caused by the dry year. We planted two trials this year, but were only able to harvest the Wilke Farm trial because the Wil‐bur trial was destroyed when the grower seeded winter wheat through the trial before it was harvested. The small chickpea varie es yielded slightly be er than the large seeded varie es and averaged 516 lbs/acre com‐pared to 439 lbs/ac for the large seeded types. The revenue from these low yields would have been used to cov‐er the high seed cost. The small seeded variety Fron er was the highest yielding variety at 533 lbs/ac which was 40.8% of it’s yield in 2013. The large seeded variety, Royal which has the highest three‐year average yield of the large seeded types, yielded 492 lbs/ac which was 36.0% of it’s yield in 2013. We measured the percentage of 10mm beans for each variety when we graded the garbanzo beans this year. The 10 mm bean size is included with the 9 mm beans for the percentage of A beans. We were interested to see if the new varie es of Nash and Royal would have a higher percentage of 10 mm beans because growers may be able to receive a premium for those beans. The variety Nash did have the highest percentage, 24.1%, of 10 mm beans, but had the second highest percentage of A beans at 75.2%. Royal had the third highest percentage of 10 mm beans and was the fourth highest for percentage of A beans, 68.2%. (See table on page 45) We included several agronomic studies along with our variety trial this year, the first being a foliar fer lity trial. Garbanzo beans, like the other legume crops, do not require the applica on of nitrogen fer lizer. Instead, an inoculant is added to the seed at plan ng. The rhizobium in the inoculant forms a nodule on the plant root where it converts nitrogen from the air in the soil into nitrogen for use by the plant. Garbanzo beans do need other nutrients for growth and both phosphorus and sulfur should be applied for successful produc on. We

Garbanzo Bean Variety and Agronomic Trial Summary

wanted to see if foliar applica on of nutrients could supply the nutrients needed for growth. We applied these treatments at the same me as the grass herbicide as an applica on at this me would save on the cost of that applica on. In addi on to the fer lity treatments, we also applied a growth s mulant, Vitazyme, to the trial. We followed the recommenda on for Vitazyme with an applica on to the seed as a seed treatment combined with a foliar spray applica on. There were no significant yield differences in treatments as compared to the plot that didn’t receive any foliar fer lity. (See graph on page 46) These results were not surprising as the limi ng yield factor this year was a lack of moisture. We will duplicate this study in 2015 to see if we may get a response in a year with normal precipita on. The second agronomic study that we conducted was a seeding rate study. One of the issues with garbanzo bean produc on is the high per acre seeding cost. The recommenda on is to seed at a rate to achieve 4 plants/square foot. The lot of Royal that was used for this trial had a seed count of 811 seeds per pound and using a germina‐

on rate of 90%, 239 lbs of seed per acre would be the recommended seeding rate. The cost of the seed at this rate would be $150/acre. We started a plan ng rate study to see if less seed could be planted without signifi‐cantly lowering the yield of the crop. There were not any significant differences in yield across the treatments, but the plan ng rate to achieve 1 plant per square foot had the lowest yield and the 2 plants per square foot was the highest . The trend line from this trial shows the high yield at 4 plants/ 2, but the trend line has only a mod‐erate correla on at 68.5%. (See graph above) We will repeat this study next year to see what the results would be in a year that received more rainfall than we did in 2014. There have been enough issues with garbanzo bean produc on, that we will discon nue field produc on of this crop un l those issues become resolved. The main issue to resolve is weed control which is covered in the next segment.

Pag

e 4

8

2014 WILKE SPRING CHICKPEA VARIETY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Seeding Rate: Variable to Achieve 4 plants/ft2Fertility: Starter + Thiosol, 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014Herbicide: Spartan 4.5 oz, Valor 2 oz/acre, April 24, 2014Fungicide: Headline, 9 oz/acre, June 11, 2014Harvest: August 27, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 12:08:54Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\CoStat2014.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) DA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:



Model 13 164272.9444 12636.38 1.3668501 .2507 ns



n Means = 12LSD 0.1 = 134.806889844MSD 0.1 = 258.687948433

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- ------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 CDC Frontier 533 3 a 2 Sawyer 529 3 a 3 Amit 529 3 a 4 Billy Beans 505 3 a 5 CA0790B0042C 495 3 a 6 Marvel 494 3 a 7 Royal (851C) 492 3 a 8 CA0790B0043C 472 3 a 9 Nash (843C) 436 3 a 10 CA0790B0034C 408 3 a 11 CA0790B0733C 408 3 a 12 Sierra 331 3 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 67.4034449221MSD 0.1 = 84.9617822052


2014 WILKE SPRING CHICKPEA SEEDING RATE TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Variety: Royal Large ChickpeaSeeding Rate: 1 plant/ft2, 2 plants/ft2, 3 plants/ft2, 4 plants/ft2, 5 plants/ft2 &Fertility: Starter + Thiosol, 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014Herbicide: Spartan 4.5 oz, Valor 2 oz/acre, April 24, 2014Fungicide: Headline, 9 oz/acre, June 11, 2014Harvest: August 27, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 12:04:37Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\GarbSdRate.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) DA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Seed Rate Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 25564.33333 12782.167 2.2125321 .1601 ns Main Effects Seed Rate 5 82580 16516 2.8588408 .0740 ns Error 10 57771.66667 5777.1667<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 17 165916

Model 7 108144.3333 15449.19 2.6741812 .0772 ns


Compare MeansFactor: 1) Seed RateTest: Tukey's HSDSignificance Level: 0.1Variance: 5777.16666667Degrees of Freedom: 10Keep If:

n Means = 6LSD 0.1 = 112.481349613MSD 0.1 = 187.117332241

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Royal 2 633 3 a 2 Royal 4 618 3 a 3 Royal 5 599 3 ab 4 Royal 3 579 3 ab 5 Royal 6 566 3 ab 6 Royal 1 427 3 b


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 79.5363250681MSD 0.1 = 101.468111124


2014 WILKE SPRING CHICKPEA FOLIAR FERTILITY TRIAL

Previous Crop: 2013 Winter Wheat, 2012 Chemical FallowSeeding Date: April 23, 2014Variety: Royal and Nash Large ChickpeaSeeding Rate: Variable to Achieve 4 plants/ft2Fertility: Starter + Thiosol, 16-20-2-20, April 23, 2014 Foliar: June 11, 2014 Vitazyme: Seed Treatment-15% Solution, Foliar-June 11, 2014Herbicide: Spartan 4.5 oz, Valor 2 oz/acre, April 24, 2014Fungicide: Headline, 9 oz/acre, June 11, 2014Harvest: August 27, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-23 12:00:15Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\GarbMicro.dt.AOV Filename: 2WRB.AOV - 2 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 4) DA Yield 1st Factor: 1) Variety 2nd Factor: 2) Treatment Blocks: 3) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 2 267033.0833 133516.54 11.3515 .0012 ** Main Effects Variety 1 4592.666667 4592.6667 0.3904659 .5421 ns Treatment 3 4753 1584.3333 0.1346991 .9377 ns Interaction Variety x Treatment 3 13870.33333 4623.4444 0.3930826 .7599 ns Error 14 164668.25 11762.018<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 23 454917.3333

Model 9 290249.0833 32249.898 2.7418678 .0443 *



n Means = 2

LSD 0.1 = 77.983213302MSD 0.1 = 77.9873245721

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 Royal 456 12 a 2 Nash 429 12 a


n Means = 4LSD 0.1 = 110.284917889MSD 0.1 = 157.754266754

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- -------------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 B, Mn & Zn 460 6 a 2 Vitazyme 451 6 a 3 K SO4 + B, Mn 435 6 a 4 None 424 6 a


n Means = 3LSD 0.1 = 95.5095405462MSD 0.1 = 121.089935924

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 1 592 8 a 2 2 375 8 b 3 3 361 8 b

Broadleaf Weed Control in Garbanzo Beans

When we start produc on of a new crop, the first issue that generally arises is the lack of adequate weed control. While there are several herbicides reg‐istered for use in garbanzo beans, they either require pre‐plant incorpora on or 0.5 inches of precipita on to ac vate the herbicide. In a conven onal llage system, we are able to achieve adequate weed con‐trol with soil incorpora on, but in a direct seed sys‐tem, we need ac va on by rainfall before the weeds emerge. In addi on, we are trying to control ALS re‐sistant Russian Thistle and Kochia. These weeds are not a problem to growers in the major garbanzo bean produc on area in the Palouse, but are in our area. Weed control would be improved if there was an op‐

on to control weeds post‐emergent to the garbanzo crop. A literature review of weed control of garbanzo beans was conducted and a trial with both registered and not registered herbicides was conducted. The unreg‐istered herbicides were selected that had promise to provide weed control with adequate crop safety. A table lis ng the herbicides and the trial results are on page 56. A site was obtained in a produc on field

that provided adequate and fairly even levels of both Tumble Mustard and Russian Thistle, but distribu on of Kochia was sca ered throughout the trial. The treatments were applied with a hand boom on May 23rd and were rated through the crop season for their efficacy on the weeds in the trial. Three of the treatments showed some promise, but were herbi‐cides without a label for garbanzo beans. We desic‐cated the trial on Aug 1st with an applica on of Roundup plus Sharpen and then harvested to deter‐mine the yield from the different treatments. There were no significant differences in yield but the higher yielding treatments were also the ones that had some suppression on weeds. Notes were taken on the pres‐ence of green weed material in the harvested sample as this has an effect on the storability of the harvested material. We are planning to con nue our broadleaf herbicide study again next year and plan to add some addi onal herbicides. We will also add a NIS surfactant and COC to some of the herbicides to see if they would en‐hance weed control.

Pag

e 5

6

2014 BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL IN CHICKPEA

Cooperator: Haden FarmsChickpea Variety: MarvelSeeding Date: April 5, 2014Early Post-Emergent Application: May 27, 2014Harvest: Aug 7, 2014

ANOVA2014-10-24 07:43:26Using: C:\Users\HNelson\Documents\Test Plots\2014\GarbWdCont.dt.AOV Filename: 1WRB.AOV - 1 Way Randomized Blocks Y Column: 3) Yield 1st Factor: 1) Treatment Blocks: 2) RepKeep If:


Source df Type III SS MS F P------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Blocks 3 48993.75 16331.25 5.3777973 .0037 ** Main Effects Treatment 12 49426.57692 4118.8814 1.3563266 .2316 ns Error 36 109324.5 3036.7917<-------------------------- -------- ----------- --------- --------- ----- ---Total 51 207744.8269

Model 15 98420.32692 6561.3551 2.1606208 .0294 *



n Means = 13LSD 0.1 = 65.7872199256MSD 0.1 = 126.415670671

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-signific----- ------------------------------------------- ------------- ------- ------------ 1 Balance Pro, 4 oz/ac 257 4 a 2 Lorox, 1/2 lb/ac 242 4 a 3 Sencor, 1/3 lb/ac 242 4 a 4 Reflex, 1 pt/ac 231 4 a 5 Strongarm, 0.45 oz/ac + Butrac 200, 1 pt/ac 223 4 a 6 Strongarm, 0.45 oz/ac 202 4 a 7 Sencor, 1/2 lb/ac 192 4 a 8 Basagran, 1 pt/ac 187 4 a 9 None 186 4 a 10 FirstRate. 0.6 oz/ac + Butrac 200, 1 pt/ac 182 4 a 11 Butrac 200, 1 1/2 pt/ac 180 4 a 12 FirstRate. 0.6 oz/ac 167 4 a 13 Outlook, 18 oz/ac 155 4 a


n Means = 4LSD 0.1 = 36.4921838018MSD 0.1 = 51.3693813898

Rank Mean Name Mean n Non-significant ranges----- --------- ------------- ------- ---------------------------------------- 1 1 227 13 a 2 4 225 13 a 3 3 211 13 a 4 2 151 13 b

2013 Crop Class Response to Drought

While this is not a scien fic study, the differences in yields from 2013 to 2014 give us an indica on of how a crop type responds to drought. I included all of the crops for your reference, but winter canola should be removed from this comparison. The variety, HyCLASS 115W, had a higher yield in 2014 than 2013. This is contrary to the yields of all of the other crops and skews the response of winter canola to drought. This unusual yield reflects more on how the winter canola plots were managed last year compared to this year. It should be noted that I used the top three yielding winter peas and the top yielding winter tri cale for this comparison because those were the varie es that had the most winter hardiness. I wanted to try to eliminate cold hardiness and its effect on crops from this comparison. Winter tri cale had the lowest yield decrease due to this years drought of the crops as shown in the table to the right. It yield‐ed 80% of last year. As expected, the winter crops showed less of a drop in yield because they were planted in fallow ground that held more moisture reserves than were available to the spring planted crops. Winter peas had an almost iden cal re‐sponse to drought as winter wheat which was surprising. Spring garbanzo beans showed the greatest response to drought and yielded only 34% of last year. The chart at the top is sorted with the crop with the least response to drought on the le and the highest response to drought on the right.

2014 Test Plot Results - HighLine Grainhighlinegrain.com/images/603/2014_TP_Results.pdf · 2015. 2....

Documents

Transcript of 2014 Test Plot Results - HighLine Grainhighlinegrain.com/images/603/2014_TP_Results.pdf · 2015. 2....