2007 Ohio Wheat Performance Test

Ohio State University Extension
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
The Ohio State University

Horticulture and Crop Science Series 228 - July 2007

James Beuerlein, Professor, Dept. Horticulture & Crop Science
Pierce Paul, Associate Professor, Dept. Plant Pathology
Clay Sneller, Associate Professor, Dept. Horticulture & Crop Science
Rich Minyo, Jr., Research Associate, Dept. Horticulture & Crop Science

The purpose of the Ohio Wheat Performance Trial is to evaluate wheat varieties, blends, brands, and breeding lines for yield, grain quality and other important performance characteristics. This information gives wheat producers comparative information for selecting the varieties best suited for their production system and market. Varieties differ in yield potential, winter hardiness, maturity, standability, disease and insect resistance, and other agronomic characteristics. Selection should be based on performance from multiple test sites and years.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Each entry was evaluated at five test sites (see map) using four replications per site in a randomized complete block design. Plots consisted of 7 rows, 7.5 inches apart and 35 feet long. Participating companies specified the seeding rate for each of their varieties. Tests were planted within ten days after the fly-safe date and approximately 30 pounds of nitrogen was applied at planting followed by the addition of 70-100 pounds in early spring. Herbicides were applied as needed for weed control and the following data were collected:

Yield is reported in bushels per acre at 13.5 percent moisture.

Test Weight is reported in lb/bushel averaged across all locations.

Seed Size in thousands of harvested seeds per pound (Ex: 15.5 = 15,500 seeds per lb.).

Percent Lodging is the percent of plants that lean more than 45 degrees from vertical.

Plant Height is the distance from the soil surface to the top of the heads.

Heading Date was the average calendar day of the year on which 50 percent of the heads were completely emerged. (Example: Day 136 = May 16.)

Powdery Mildew (PM) Powdery mildew (caused by Blumaria graminis f. sp. tritici) was evaluated at Wooster between June 1 and June 5 when most varieties were flowering (Feekes growth stage 10.5.1). Each plot was rated based on a 0 to 10 scale where: 0 = 0 to trace % leaf area covered; 1 = leaf 4 with trace - 50%; 2 = leaf 3 with 1-5%; 3 = leaf 3 with 5-15%; 4 = leaf 3 with > 15%; 5 = leaf 2 with 1-5%; 6 = leaf 2 with 5-15%; 7 = leaf 2 with >15%; 8 = leaf 1 with 1-5%; 9 = leaf 1 with 5-15%; and 10 = leaf 1 with >15% leaf area covered (leaf 1 = flag leaf). This scale takes into account the percentage leaf area affected and the progress of the disease upward on the plants.

Flour Yield is the percent flour yield from milled whole grain.

Flour Softness is the percent of fine-granular milled flour. Values higher than approximately 50 indicate kernel textures that are appropriate for soft wheat. Generally, high values are more desirable.

GROWING CONDITIONS

Field and weather conditions delayed planting in October, 2006. Fall growth was poor at all locations due to cold wet soil conditions, although there was a good week of growth in late December due to very warm weather. The crop was covered with snow through January and winter survival was good due to the general lack of harsh weather in February and March. April weather was cooler and wetter than normal, while May was warmer and dryer, allowing the crop to head about 5 days earlier than normal. June was very hot, slowing grain production throughout the extended grain filling period, resulting in average yields for most varieties at all sites other than Wooster where temperatures were a bit cooler then the other test sites. Grain test weights were very high and grain quality is generally outstanding. The straw was six inches shorter than normal and straw yield marginally reduced, but of excellent quality and brightness. Disease levels varied greatly by location and reduced the yield of some varieties at some test sites. The general lack of disease is partially responsible for the better-than-expected grain yield and the very high grain test weights.

RESULTS

Results of the 2007 wheat performance evaluation are presented in tables 1-3. Entries in the data tables are arranged in order of increasing average heading date. A least significant difference (LSD) value can be used to determine if the performance of two varieties was statistically different. The yields of two varieties are expected to be significantly different 70 percent of the time if their yields differ by more than the LSD value reported. Flour yield and softness tests were performed by USDA-ARS soft wheat quality laboratory, at OARDC in Wooster, OH, Dr. Ed Souza, director.

Test results for the 57 soft red winter wheat varieties and one soft white winter wheat variety are presented in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 contain multi-year performance data for many of the varieties. Depending on variety and test site, yields varied between 47.5 and 107.7 bushels per acre, and average test weight ranged from 58.2 to 63.0 pounds per bushel. Yield differences between test sites were due primarily to the weather during the grain fill period and disease level. Winter survival was excellent due to the mild winter and there was no lodging due to the shortness of the straw. The average heading date was five days earlier than normal, and average plant height was six inches shorter than normal. Powdery mildew ratings were recorded at Wooster in both 2006 and 2007. Mildew infection levels were much higher at Wooster in 2007 than in 2006.

Variety selection should be based on disease resistance, average yield across test sites and years (tables 2 & 3), winter hardiness, test weight and standability. Performance data for the white wheat variety is presented at the bottom of Table 1 in bold print, and marked with an asterisk.

Soft white winter wheat and hard red winter wheat should never be mixed with soft red winter wheat because they have very different flour characteristics and end uses. Mixing of different classes of wheat destroys their unique utility, makes them unacceptable for quality premiums and reduces their usefulness to animal feed only.

Table 4 contains reaction of winter wheat varieties to various diseases in Ohio and Table 5 contains the company contact information and seed treatments used for each variety entered in the 2007 wheat performance trial.

Table 5 contains the company contact information and seed treatments used for each variety entered in the 2006 wheat performance trial.

Inclusion of varieties in the Ohio Wheat Performance Trial does not constitute an endorsement of any variety by The Ohio State University, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, or Ohio State University Extension.