Wheat Field Days June 2011

Making Better Decisions 2011 Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance Trials

Agricultural Department of Soil Experiment Station & Crop Sciences Table of Contents Authors...... 3 2010 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance Trials...... 4 Summary of 2010 Dryland Variety Performance Results...... 6 Summary of 2-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results...... 7 Summary of 3-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results...... 8 2010 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Results...... 9 2010 Collaborative On-Farm Tests (COFT) Variety Performance Results...... 10 Summary of 2010 Irrigated Variety Performance Results...... 11 Summary of 2-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results...... 12 Summary of 3-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results...... 13 Winter Wheat Variety Selection in Colorado for Fall 2010...... 14 2010 Wheat Crop Climatic Conditions and Specific Trial Comments...... 17 Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado Trials...... 20 Wheat Quality Evaluations -2010 CSU Dryland and Irrigated Trials...... 24 Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Akron...... 27 Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Fort Collins...... 28 Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Haxtun...... 29 Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Walsh...... 30 Grain Protein Content from 2010 Burlington and Orchard UVPT Samples...... 31 Wheat Stem Sawfly: A New Pest of Colorado Wheat...... 32 Dryland Wheat Strips for Forage and Grain Yield at Walsh, 2010...... 35 2010 Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance...... 36 2008-2010 Summary of Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance...... 37 The Future of Certified Wheat Seed in Colorado...... 38 Clearfield* Two-Gene Wheat Being Tested for Feral Rye Control...... 40 CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program Update June 2011...... 41 Collaborative On- Farm Testing (COFT) ...... 46 CWRF/ConAgra Mills Ultragrain Premium Program...... 48 Wheat Information Resources...... 50 Acknowledgments...... 51

2 Authors

Dr. Jerry Johnson - Associate Professor/Extension Specialist - Crop Production, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C12 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-1454, fax: 970-491-2758, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Scott Haley - Professor/Wheat Breeder, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C136 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-6483, fax: 970-491-0564, e-mail: [email protected].

Mike Bartolo - Superintendent/Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Arkansas Valley Re- search Center, 27901 Road 21, Rocky Ford, CO 81067, phone: 719-254-6312, fax: 719-254-6312, e-mail: [email protected].

Kevin Larson - Superintendent/Research Scientist, Colorado State University, Plainsman Re- search Center, P.O. Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: kevin.larson@ colostate.edu.

Bruce Bosley - Extension Agent, Morgan/Logan County, 508 South 10th Ave, Suite 1, Sterling, CO 80751-3408, phone: 970-522-3200, fax: 970-522-7856, e-mail: [email protected].

Brad Erker - Director, Colroado Seed Growers Association, Colorado State University, C 143 Plant Sciences Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-6202, e-mail: brad.erker@colo- state.edu.

Deborah Harn - Research Associate, Plainsman Research Center, PO Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Frank Peairs - Professor, Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State Univer- sity, 102 Insectary, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5945, e-mail: frank.peairs@ colostate.edu.

John Stromberger - Sr. Research Associate, Department of Soil & Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, 1170 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-2664.

Calvin Thompson - Plainsman Research Center, PO Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324- 5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Dennis Thompson - Research Farm Tech, Plainsman Research Center, PO Box 477, Walsh, CO 81090, phone: 719-324-5643, e-mail: [email protected].

Philip Westra - Professor, Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State Univer- sity, 112 Weed Research Lab, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5219, e-mail: philip. [email protected].

3 2010 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance Trials Jerry Johnson and Scott Haley

Colorado State University provides unbiased and reliable information to Colorado wheat producers to help them make better wheat variety decisions. It provides excellent research faculty and staff, a focused breeding program, graduate and undergraduate students, and dedicated agricultural extension specialists. However, wheat improvement in Colorado would not be possible without the support and cooperation of the entire Colorado wheat industry. On- going and strong support for a public breeding program is critical because variety development and testing is a long process, especially under the highly variable climatic conditions in Colorado.

There is an increasing investment in wheat breeding by private seed companies in the Great Plains. WestBred has become a unit of Monsanto and AgriPro COKER has become part of Syngenta. Limagrain is poised to begin winter wheat breeding in Fort Collins this fall. More traits and adapted varieties or hybrids should be available to Colorado producers in the future.

Our wheat variety performance trials and collaborative on-farm testing represent the final stages of a wheat breeding program where promising experimental lines are tested under an increasingly broad range of environmental conditions. Variation in precipitation, as well as variable fall, winter, and spring temperature regimes, hail and spring freeze events, interact with disease and insect pests and variety maturity to affect wheat yields. As a consequence of large environmental variation, Colorado State University annually conducts a large number of performance trials, which serve to guide producer variety decisions and to assist our breeding program to more reliably select and advance the most promising lines toward release as new varieties.

2010 Trials

Dryland trials were planted in Lamar, Sheridan Lake, and Arapahoe in early September; in Burlington and Orchard in mid-September; and in Julesburg, Yuma, Akron, and Walsh in late September (due to unseasonably wet conditions in mid-September at the Northeast Colorado locations). Variety trial emergence was good across locations although cool, dry conditions in the fall led to slow growth and small plants going into winter. Moist spring conditions in most locations ensured good plant growth as well as creating good conditions for the spread of stripe rust. Rust, high temperatures and strong winds stripped the leaves from wheat plants prematurely at Walsh, Lamar, and Sheridan Lake. Even so, yields were above average at these locations. Two trials, at Genoa and Roggen, were lost to hail in June. A new race of stripe rust developed in the southern states and spread to Colorado in 2010. Many varieties previously resistant to stripe rust are now fully susceptible to the new race. Stripe rust infected all trials to different degrees and at different times. Seemingly, the late-planted locations at Julesburg, Yuma, and Akron were most affected by a late-season stripe rust infection following an especially wet period. Russian wheat aphid was not a problem in 2010.

4 The Irrigated Variety Performance Trials (IVPT) at Fort Collins and Rocky Ford were planted in mid-September while wet mid-September conditions made it impossible to plant at Haxtun until late September. The trial at Rocky Ford suffered from a severe infection of powdery mildew and lodging resulting from lush fall and spring growth which led to low irrigated wheat yields. In spite of late planting, yields of some varieties at Haxtun still surpassed 100 bu/ac. The yields at Fort Collins were very good even though the trial may have benefitted from more spring and summer irrigation. Stripe rust was most serious at Fort Collins and less so at Haxtun (due to fungicide application).

There were 40 different entries in the dryland performance trials (UVPT) and 32 entries in the irrigated performance trials (IVPT). All trials included a combination of public and private varieties and experimental lines from Colorado and surrounding states. All dryland and irrigated trials were planted in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Plot size was approximately 180 ft2 and all varieties were planted at 700,000 viable seeds per acre for dryland trials and 1.3 million viable seeds per acre for irrigated trials. Yields are corrected to 12% moisture. Test weight information was obtained from a combine equipped with a Harvest Master measuring system.

5 Summary of 2010 Dryland Variety Performance Results

Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yieldd Test Weight Height bu/ac lb/bu in CSU exp CO06424 HRW 65.9 60.2 30 CSU exp CO050322 HRW 63.8 60.5 29 CSU exp CO050303‐2 HRW 63.6 62.0 32 CSU exp CO050173 HRW 63.5 62.4 30 CSU exp CO050337‐2 HRW 62.7 60.8 31 CSU exp CO050233‐2 HRW 62.5 60.5 30 CSU exp CO050270 HRW 61.7 59.9 29 CSU exp CO05W111 HWW 61.5 61.6 31 NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 61.1 60.6 29 WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 60.5 61.8 30 CSU exp CO05W194 HWW 60.1 60.2 29 TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 59.2 61.3 31 CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 59.2 60.7 30 CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 59.0 59.2 29 CSU exp CO050175‐1 HRW 59.0 62.0 31 CSU exp CSU Blend09 HRW 59.0 60.1 29 CSU 2010 Snowmass HWW 59.0 61.1 31 CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 58.8 60.9 30 NE 2004 Infinity CL HRW 58.4 61.0 32 CSU exp CO04393 HRW 58.3 60.3 30 CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 58.3 58.7 31 WB 2008 Armour HRW 58.3 59.7 27 CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 58.0 59.8 29 CSU exp CO06052 HRW 58.0 61.3 30 NE 2008 Camelot HRW 57.7 60.8 32 CSU‐TX 2001 Above HRW 57.6 60.1 30 AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 57.4 61.4 30 TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 57.4 60.7 30 KSU 2005 Danby HWW 57.2 62.5 30 KSU 2009 Everest HRW 57.1 61.5 29 CSU/AG 2004 Protection HRW 56.7 58.7 32 CSU exp CO04499 HRW 56.6 60.8 32 WB 2005 Keota HRW 56.4 61.5 31 AP 2006 Hawken HRW 56.1 60.6 28 OK 2006 Duster HRW 55.5 60.8 30 CSU 1998 Prairie Red HRW 55.4 59.2 29 WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 55.3 60.4 29 WB 2010 Stout HRW 55.1 58.7 30 KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 54.9 60.5 30 KSU 1994 Jagger HRW 53.8 60.5 30 Average 58.7 60.6 30 aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; CSU‐TX=Colorado State University/Texas A&M University; CSU/AG=CSU release, marketed by AGSECO; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University. bVarieties ranked according to average yield in 2010 cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheat d2010 average yield and test weight are based on nine 2010 trials.

6 Summary of 2-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results

2‐Yr Averaged Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yield Test Weight bu/ac lb/bu NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 58.9 60.2 CSU exp CO04393 HRW 58.8 60.5 CSU exp CSU Blend09 HRW 58.7 59.8 CSU 2010 Snowmass HWW 58.3 60.9 TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 58.2 61.3 CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 58.1 59.4 CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 58.1 58.8 WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 58.0 61.4 CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 57.6 60.7 CSU exp CO04499 HRW 57.6 60.8 CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 57.4 60.4 CSU‐TX 2001 Above HRW 57.3 60.0 TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 57.2 61.2 NE 2004 Infinity CL HRW 56.8 60.3 KSU 2005 Danby HWW 56.0 61.6 NE 2008 Camelot HRW 55.9 60.3 CSU 1998 Prairie Red HRW 55.8 59.4 AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 55.8 60.8 WB 2008 Armour HRW 55.8 59.3 CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 55.8 59.7 OK 2006 Duster HRW 55.8 60.3 WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 55.2 60.2 AP 2006 Hawken HRW 54.7 60.3 WB 2005 Keota HRW 54.3 60.1 KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 53.5 59.7 KSU 1994 Jagger HRW 52.4 60.1 Average 56.6 60.3 aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; CSU‐TX=Colorado State University/Texas A&M University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University. bVarieties ranked according to average 2‐yr yield cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheat d2‐yr average yield and test weight are based on nine 2010 trials and ten 2009 trials.

7 Summary of 3-Yr Dryland Variety Performance Results

3‐Yr Averaged Origina and Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yield Test Weight bu/ac lb/bu NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 56.5 60.3 CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 55.9 59.5 CSU 2010 Snowmass HWW 55.8 60.8 WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 55.1 61.5 CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 54.8 60.8 TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 54.6 61.2 CSU‐TX 2001 Above HRW 54.5 60.0 CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 54.4 60.7 CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 54.4 59.3 TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 54.2 61.0 NE 2004 Infinity CL HRW 53.8 60.4 NE 2008 Camelot HRW 53.0 60.5 OK 2006 Duster HRW 52.8 60.4 CSU 1998 Prairie Red HRW 52.7 59.7 WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 52.7 60.6 KSU 2005 Danby HWW 52.4 61.8 AP 2006 Hawken HRW 52.3 60.6 CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 51.8 60.0 WB 2005 Keota HRW 51.5 60.0 KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 51.1 60.1 KSU 1994 Jagger HRW 50.0 60.0 Average 53.5 60.4 aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; CSU‐TX=Colorado State University/Texas A&M University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University. bVarieties ranked according to average 3‐yr yield cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheat d3‐yr average yield and test weight are based on nine 2010 trials, ten 2009 trials, and six 2008 trials.

8 2010 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Results

Much of Colorado’s 2010 wheat acreage was planted to winter wheat varieties that have been tested in the COFT program which is in its 12th year of operation. In the fall of 2009, twenty- one eastern Colorado wheat producers planted COFT trials in Baca, Prowers, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Washington, Yuma, Phillips, Logan, Adams, and Weld counties. Each collaborator planted five varieties in side-by-side strips (approximately 1.25 acres per variety) at the same time and at the same seeding rate as they seeded their own wheat. Viable harvest results were obtained from 19 of the 21 tests; failed tests were lost to severe hail damage.

The objective of the 2010 COFT was to compare performance and adaptability of popular and newly-released CSU varieties (Snowmass, Ripper, and Bill Brown), and promising commercial varieties from WestBred (Winterhawk) and Watley Seed (TAM 112) under unbiased testing conditions. The COFT trial results are intended to be interpreted based on the average across all tests within a year and not on the basis of a single variety comparison on a single farm in one year. Interpreted as an average of 19 test results, the 2010 COFT results can be a powerful complement to our other trial results for helping farmers make better variety decisions.

Eastern Colorado Extension Wheat Educators

Bruce Bosley - Extension Agronomist, Logan County, 508 South 10th Avenue, Suite 1, Sterling, CO 80751-3408, phone: 970-522-3200, fax: 970-522-7856, e-mail: d.bruce.bosley@colostate. edu.

Wilma Trujillo – Extension Agronomist, Prowers County, 1001 South Main, Maxwell Annex Building, Lamar, CO 81052, phone: 719-336-7734, fax: 719-336-2985, e-mail: wilma.trujillo@ colostate.edu.

Alan Helm - Extension Agronomist, Phillips County, 127 E. Denver, PO Box 328, Holyoke, CO 80734-0328, phone: 970-854-3616, fax: 970-854-4347, e-mail: [email protected]

Ron Meyer – Extension Agronomist, Golden Plains. 251 16th Street, Suite 101, Burlington, CO 80807-1674, phone: (719) 346-5571, fax: (719) 346-5660, e-mail: [email protected].

9 7 7 7 ‐ ‐ 11. 0 11.8 11.3 11.8 7 0 0 Wt Protein Average 58.8 12.4 56. 6 63.1 9. 56.859.8 13.1 58.5 11.5 59.9 11.5 lb/bu % COFT 2 0 0 7 7 0 45.239.8 60.4 53. 0 61.8 14. 0 58.3 57.8 11. 49. 77.256. 0 60.3 10.5 64.857. 61.2 14.2 48.850. 62.8 9. 7 52.257.8 61.954. 57. 11.2 51. 65.3 60.4 11. 0 43.462.4 58.8 61. 11. 0 48.2 59.9 9. 45.9 60. bu/ac 0.2% and ‐ ‐ a Wt Protein Yield Test lb/bu % Ripper for test weight, 2 44.5 58.0 45.1 58.2 bu/ac ‐ ‐ c Results for yield, 0.4 lb/bu Wt Protein Yield Test lb/bu % Winterhawk 2 45.5 62.0 51.1 58.8 bu/ac values (1.3 bu/ac ‐ ‐ b Variety Performance 1 the LSD Wt Protein Yield Test Varieties lb/bu % = 0.2% Snowmass 2 2010 44.3 60.0 49.6 61.3 bu/ac for protein On ‐ Farm Tests (COFT) ‐ ‐ bc (0.30)

Wt Protein Yield Test LSD lb/bu % TAM 112 Collaborative 2010 different from one another based on 2 in 2010 46.1 61.0 51.9 60.3 bu/ac yield ‐ ‐ c significantly are to average for test weight = 0.4 lb/bu Wt Protein Yield Test bbbac Brown lb/bu % (0.30)

Bill 2 aaabb 2010 Collaborative On-Farm Tests (COFT) Variety Performance Results Performance Variety (COFT) Tests On-Farm 2010 Collaborative LSD 56.0 60.1 11.3 54.9 60.4 11.5 54.7 60.1 11.6 52.5 60.8 11.4 52.1 58.0 11.8 70.3 60.0 14.3 66.8 63.0 14.5 72.0 61.0 13.6 49.9 62.0 13.8 65.0 60.0 14.8 44.1 63.0 13.2 39.0 62.0 14.3 38.5 61.0 13.5 36.0 63.0 14.2 41.6 60.0 15.0 50.1 60.0 9.7 51.5 60.5 9.6 47.7 61.0 9.3 48.8 60.0 9.5 42.8 58.0 10.2 47.2 61.0 11.2 46.0 60.0 11.8 40.6 60.0 12.7 47.6 62.5 12.1 48.3 60.0 11.4 51.9 56.3 13.2 52.6 58.8 12.7 45.5 56.5 13.4 46.9 56.7 12.3 48.0 55.6 13.7 45.5 61.0 64.8 62.0 10.3 67.7 61.5 10.6 63.2 61.0 11.3 70.0 60.5 10.9 60.6 57.0 11.9 61.2 58.5 11.3 59.2 57.0 11.6 61.5 58.5 11.7 58.9 60.0 11.5 50.5 55.0 12.3 52.7 63.0 9.0 50.5 63.6 9.8 48.0 64.0 9.9 45.6 63.5 10.1 53.1 61.5 10.0 57.5 57.2 11.5 61.3 57.2 11.9 56.8 56.4 11.8 60.5 59.4 11.7 53.0 55.0 12.3 73.6 61.5 10.7 82.8 61.3 9.6 81.8 60.3 11.0 68.9 58.1 10.7 78.9 60.2 10.2 Yield Test different letters bu/ac moisture = 1.3 bu/ac

to 12% E 54.4 57.5 11.1 54.8 56.5 11.5 62.7 58.2 11.4 58.3 57.4 9.4 50.0 53.6 11.4 t ranked left to right according Varieties with Yield Test Wt Protein 3 3 3 Raymer 53.7 63.0 10.6 52.0 62.0 11.3 54.5 61.5 11.3 47.9 62.0 11.9 52.9 61.0 10.9 for yield corrected (0.30)

Varieties are Yield Significance: for protein) Adams/Bennet Significance Significance LSD Bent/Lama r Cheyenne/ArapahoeKiowa/Haswell 55.1 58.0 12.5 56.1 58.5 13.0 54.8 60.0 12.6 50.8 60.5 11.5 48.4 57.0 12.7 County/Town Baca/Walsh Logan/Sterling Phillips/Haxtun 1 2 3 Phillips/Haxtun Prowers/Lamar Washington/Akron 59.6 59.0 11.4 59.0 58.0 11.5 57.6 58.5 11.8 58.3 60.0 11.3 53.9 57.0 11.7 Baca/Two ButtesBaca/Vilas 49.9 63.0 9.5 49.3 63.5 9.8 52.3 63.0Weld/New 9.5 43.0Average 63.0 10.2 49.7 61.5 9.3 Yuma/Yuma Logan/Leroy Kit Carson/BethuneLogan/Peetz 61.0 60.5 Washington/WoodlinWashington/Woodrow 45.1 65.5 55.0 63.0 11.7Significance 11.5 39.0 58.2 60.0 62.0 10.8 11.2 44.5 64.0 60.0 60.0 10.7 11.3 44.0 65.2 62.5 62.5 10.7 11.6 44.6 59.1 56.5 57.5 11.3 10.9

10 Summary of 2010 Irrigated Variety Performance Results

Origina and Market Heading Date at Stripe Rust at Lodging at Release Year Varietyb Classc Yieldd Test Weight Height Ft. Collins Ft. Collins Rocky Ford bu/ac lb/bu in Days from trial avg. Scale 1‐9d Scale 1‐9e CSU exp CO06424 HRW 92.4 61.8 37 0 4 7 AP 2001 Jagalene HRW 91.3 61.0 38 1 9 7 NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 89.3 60.7 36 1 3 3 CSU exp CO050175‐1 HRW 89.0 62.1 38 1 4 7 WB 2006 Aspen HWW 89.0 60.2 32 ‐1 11 CSU exp CO06052 HRW 88.5 62.4 35 ‐3 41 CSU exp CO050303‐2 HRW 88.2 61.7 37 2 1 2 CSU exp CO04393 HRW 88.0 61.8 37 0 2 2 CSU exp CO050233‐2 HRW 88.0 60.3 36 1 1 1 WB 2007 Winterhawk HRW 87.9 61.0 36 0 1 4 WB 2008 Armour HRW 86.9 60.7 32 ‐3 16 CSU exp CO050322 HRW 86.8 59.9 36 2 1 7 CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 86.4 60.4 37 ‐1 71 CSU exp CO050337‐2 HRW 86.4 61.2 37 3 1 8 WB 2010 Stout HRW 85.7 59.4 36 ‐1 82 CSU exp CO05W194 HWW 85.5 61.0 33 0 5 1 WB 2005 Keota HRW 85.5 61.4 36 0 6 3 TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 85.3 60.4 38 1 1 7 CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 85.1 60.1 35 ‐1 22 OK 2006 Duster HRW 84.5 60.9 36 0 4 5 OK 2009 Billings HRW 84.2 61.8 36 1 3 5 CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 83.5 59.2 34 ‐1 86 AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 82.7 60.3 35 ‐1 53 WB 2008 Hitch HRW 82.4 59.4 32 1 8 1 KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 82.2 60.6 35 ‐2 77 CSU 1991 Yuma HRW 81.8 60.1 33 0 5 3 CSU exp CO05W111 HWW 81.8 61.1 37 3 2 3 CSU exp CO050270 HRW 81.7 60.3 35 ‐3 27 WB 2006 Smoky Hill HRW 81.2 60.2 36 1 8 6 CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 80.1 60.6 35 0 2 4 TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 78.8 62.4 35 ‐1 77 CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 75.4 60.0 34 0 4 7 Average 85.2 60.8 36 6/2/2010 4 4 aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University. bVarieties ranked according to average yield in 2010 cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheat d2010 average yield and test weight based on three 2010 trials. eStripe rust rating: 1‐no rust, 9‐severe rust fLodging rating: 1‐no lodging, 9‐fully lodged

11 Summary of 2-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results 2‐Yr Averaged Origina and Heading Date at Release Year Varietyb Market Classc Yield Test Weight Height Ft. Collins Lodging bu/ac lb/bu in Days from trial avg. Scale 1‐9e NE 2008 Settler CL HRW 91.9 60.4 36 1 2 WB 2006 Aspen HWW 90.5 58.5 33 ‐11 CSU exp CO04393 HRW 90.0 60.6 37 0 3 AP 2001 Jagalene HRW 89.3 60.1 37 0 4 TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 88.9 60.0 37 1 4 WB 2008 Armour HRW 87.4 59.3 32 ‐24 CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 86.6 59.3 37 0 3 CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 86.5 58.9 35 0 2 CSU 2006 Ripper HRW 85.8 57.9 35 ‐15 WB 2008 Hitch HRW 84.1 58.8 33 1 1 WB 2005 Keota HRW 83.9 59.7 37 0 3 AP 2010 SY Gold HRW 81.1 59.1 35 0 2 TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 80.9 61.3 36 ‐16 KSU 2006 Fuller HRW 80.1 58.9 35 ‐14 CSU 1991 Yuma HRW 78.8 58.6 34 1 3 CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 78.2 59.3 34 0 5 CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 78.1 59.2 35 0 5 Average 84.8 59.4 35 0 3 aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co.; KSU=Kansas State University; NE=University of Nebraska; OK=Oklahoma State University. bVarieties ranked according to average 2‐yr yield cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheat d2‐yr average yield and test weight are based on three 2010 trials and three 2009 trials. eLodging rating: 1‐no lodging, 9‐fully lodged

12 Summary of 3-Yr Irrigated Variety Performance Results 3‐Yr Averaged Origina and Market Heading Date at Release Year Varietyb Classc Yield Test Weight Height Ft. Collins Lodging bu/ac lb/bu in Days from trial avg. Scale 1‐9e CSU exp CO04393 HRW 91.8 60.8 36 0 4 AP 2001 Jagalene HRW 91.2 60.5 35 1 5 TX/A 2002 TAM 111 HRW 89.6 60.4 35 1 5 CSU 2004 Bond CL HRW 88.7 59.0 35 ‐14 WB 2006 Aspen HWW 87.8 58.4 31 ‐13 CSU 2008 Thunder CL HWW 86.5 58.9 35 ‐12 WB 2005 Keota HRW 86.4 59.9 35 1 4 CSU 1991 Yuma HRW 83.1 59.2 33 1 4 CSU 2004 Hatcher HRW 82.5 59.7 33 1 6 TX/W 2005 TAM 112 HRW 81.4 61.6 34 ‐27 CSU 2007 Bill Brown HRW 81.1 59.6 32 0 6 Average 86.4 59.8 34 0 4 aVariety origin code: CSU=Colorado State University; WB=WestBred, LLC; AP=AgriPro COKER; TX/A=Texas A&M release, marketed by AgriPro COKER; TX/W=Texas A&M release, marketed by Watley Seed Co. bVarieties ranked according to average 3‐yr yield cMarket class: HRW=Hard Red Winter Wheat; HWW=Hard White Winter Wheat d3‐yr average yield and test weight are based on three trials in 2008, 2009, and 2010. eLodging rating: 1‐no lodging, 9‐fully lodged

13 Winter Wheat Variety Selection in Colorado for Fall 2010

Variety performance summary tables from CSU are intended to provide reliable and unbiased information to farmers, seed producers, and wheat industry representatives in Colorado and surrounding states. Although we have yet to find the perfect variety, this section of the report is designed to provide guidance to farmers so they can weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different varieties and choose the variety that best fits their farm conditions.

• Producers should focus on multiple-year summary yield results when selecting a new variety. Over time, the best buffer against making poor variety decisions has been to select varieties based on their three year average performance and not on their performance in a single year, especially not to select a variety based upon performance at a single location in one year. • Producers should consider planting more than one variety based on different maturity, disease or insect resistance, test weight, lodging, herbicide tolerance, coleoptile length, height, or end-use quality characteristics. These non-yield traits are useful to spread your risk due to the unpredictability of climatic conditions and pest problems. • Producers should be aware that a new race of stripe rust emerged in 2010 and varieties that were resistant before are now susceptible. (See variety descriptions for new stripe rust ratings). • Producers should control volunteer wheat and weeds to avoid the negative effects of a green bridge that could lead to serious virus disease infections vectored by the wheat curl mite or aphids. • Producers should soil sample to determine optimum fertilizer application rates. In the absence of soil sampling, grain protein levels should be monitored closely. If protein levels in a field fall below 12%, nitrogen fertilizer was likely insufficient to meet demands for yield and yield was lost (consult http://wheat.colostate.edu/00555.pdf).

Although many new varieties possessing valuable traits and with high potential are in the breeding and selection process, emphasis here is placed on variety yield performance over the past three years and the specific traits they possess.

Ten dryland wheat varieties to consider based on the order of relative performance for three years:

Settler CL – This 2008 Nebraska release is a HRW Clearfield* winter wheat that has performed well in three years of testing and has good test weight. It is later maturing, medium height, and is moderately resistant to leaf and stripe rust.

Ripper – An early maturing HRW 2006 CSU release that is high yielding, taller than Hatcher, excellent baking quality, and has a medium-long coleoptile. It has relatively lower test weight, and is susceptible to both leaf and stripe rust. Ripper has shown extremely stable yields, being in the top three of the three-year yield averages every year since 2005.

14 Snowmass – A HWW CSU released in 2009 is a medium maturing, taller semi-dwarf with excellent milling and baking quality. It has good resistance to wheat streak mosaic virus and stripe rust and moderate sprouting tolerance. Snowmass has relatively poor straw strength and will not be recommended for high-yield irrigated conditions. It is being handled in the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat (HWW).

Winterhawk – This 2007 WestBred release is medium maturing, medium-tall, and has a longer coleoptile with good stripe rust resistance. It has good test weight and good baking quality but is susceptible to both leaf and stem rust. It has been high yielding in our variety and COFT trials.

Bill Brown – A CSU HRW release (2007) that can be compared to Hatcher and Ripper: It is similar in maturity to Hatcher and later maturing than Ripper. Like Ripper, it is slightly taller than Hatcher. It has good resistance to stripe rust like Hatcher, which is much better than Ripper, and also very good resistance to leaf rust (unlike Hatcher and Ripper). It has superior test weight to Hatcher and other varieties, especially Ripper (low) and better baking quality than Hatcher but not quite as good as Ripper. Bill Brown is susceptible to stem rust, which is a much greater concern under irrigated conditions.

TAM 111 – A HRW 2002 release from Texas A&M and marketed by AgriPro has good test weight, good straw strength and excellent stripe rust resistance making it well adapted to irrigated conditions. TAM 111 also has good milling and baking characteristics, but is susceptible to leaf rust. TAM 111 performed below average in 2008 under drought conditions, but above average under higher dryland yield levels in 2009 and 2010.

Above – This CSU Clearfield* HRW (2001) release and Ripper are the earliest maturing varieties in the 2010 trials. On a three-year average, Above is the second highest yielding Clearfield*variety. It has average test weight and is susceptible to leaf and stripe rust and has relatively poor baking quality.

Hatcher – This medium maturing, high yielding 2004 CSU HRW variety was planted on more Colorado wheat acres in fall 2009 than any other variety. It has good stress tolerance, good test weight and adult plant resistance to stripe rust. Hatcher is also relatively short and develops a “speckling” condition on the leaves in the spring in the absence of any apparent disease. Hatcher is stable and was in the top three of three year yield averages every year from 2003- 2009. Hatcher remains a highly recommended HRW wheat variety based on yield record, stress tolerance, and resistance to stripe rust.

Bond CL – A medium maturing, taller 2004 HRW CSU release with high yields and good baking quality in addition to the Clearfield* trait. It has a lower test weight and is susceptible to stripe rust.

TAM 112 – A HRW 2005 release from Texas A&M and marketed by Watley Seed Company has good dryland adaptation and is distinguished by excellent wheat streak mosaic virus resistance

15 (or resistance to its vector, the wheat curl mite), a medium-long coleoptile, early maturity, and good test weight and baking quality. It is susceptible to leaf and stripe rust and has poor straw strength.

Four irrigated wheat varieties to consider based on the order of relative performance for three years:

The most important variety selection criteria for irrigated varieties are yield, straw strength, and stripe rust resistance.

Jagalene - An Agripro release (2001) with good test weight., and good wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance. It is leaf and stripe rust susceptible. Observed to shatter in CO and KS trials

TAM 111 – A HRW 2002 release from Texas A&M and marketed by AgriPro that is a high yielding irrigated variety with good straw strength, excellent resistance to stripe rust, and good test weight.

Bond CL – A medium maturing, taller HRW CSU release (2004) with high yields, average straw strength, but susceptible to stripe rust. It has lodged significantly in some high yielding irrigated trials. It has low test weight that is more manageable and less of a concern in irrigated conditions.

Thunder CL - A CSU 2008 hard white Clearfield* wheat release with excellent irrigated yield, good straw strength, and excellent baking quality. It has moderate resistance to stripe rust and wheat streak mosaic virus but is moderately susceptible to pre-harvest sprouting (intermediate to Platte and Trego). Thunder CL is being handled in the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat (HWW).

16 2010 Wheat Crop Climatic Conditions and Specific Trial Comments

After a high-yielding 2009 crop, there were sufficient rains throughout the state for planting into good soil moisture although heavy and prolonged rain in the northeast prevented farmers from planting until late September and early October. The fall of 2009 was windy and cool such that fall growth and tillering were retarded compared to other years with a warm fall. The winter of 2010 was windy with variable amounts of rain and snow. The crop came out of winter in decent shape with adequate soil moisture in most places . Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV) and Triticum mosaic virus were found alone or together in many places in eastern Colorado. Stripe rust infections were observed throughout the state - earlier in southeast Colorado and later in northeast Colorado. Deleterious effects of stripe rust were more obvious in northeast Colorado due to late plant development brought on by later dates of planting and cool fall conditions. In addition, the emergence of a new race of stripe rust rendered previously resistant varieties susceptible, which increased general vulnerability to yield loss due to stripe rust infection. Russian wheat aphid was not a factor in in the 2010 cropping season. 2010 was not free from hail incidence, especially along the central Front Range and Limon areas where it affected significant acreages. Overcast, cool, wet, and cloudy weather dominated the early harvest season in noretheast Colorado.

Specific comments on individual 2010 dryland and irrigated trials:

Dryland Locations

Walsh - Planted 9/21/2009 into clean-tilled summer fallow. GPS Coordinates: N 37 25.642 W 102 18.794. Satisfactory plant stands due to rain immediately following planting. Rain and snow from January through March. Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV) and Triticum mosaic virus were found together on isolated plants in the trial. Freeze damage was evident but may not have caused as much damage as first thought. Stripe rust was present by late May but not as heavy as other locations. Harvested 6/29/2010. Trial average yield = 53.1 bu/ac; test weight = 56.6.4 lb/bu.

Lamar - Planted 9/10/2009 into no-till wheat stubble ~ 500 feet west of the 2009 trial. GPS Coordinates: N 37 45.305 W 102 29.035. Satisfactory plant stands, some grasshopper damage. Dry winter and early spring conditions prevailed followed by late season drought and high temperatures. Plants defoliated by early June due to a combination of the effects of drought, high temperatures and a late-season stripe rust infection. Harvested 6/29/2010. Trial average yield = 46.3 bu/ac; test weight = 59.6 lb/bu.

Sheridan Lake - Planted 9/10/2010 into no-till sunflower stalks into satisfactory soil moisture for good stands with timely fall rains. GPS Coordinates: N 38 31.724 W 102 28.356. Good sub-soil moisture in early spring albeit dry surface conditions. Timely spring and early summer rains. Stripe rust infection was present but not severe. Harvested 6/30/2010. Trial average yield = 51.3 bu/ac; test weight = 63.5 lb/bu.

17 Arapahoe - Planted 9/11/2009 into good soil moisture conditions and good emergence. GPS Coordinates: N 38 52.353 W 7.705. WSMV present in the trial at very low levels. Good spring and early summer moisture but excessive rains delayed harvest until 7/11/2010. Stripe rust was heavier in the trial than the locations further to the south. Trial average yield = 61.5 bu/ac; test weight = 62.8 lb/bu.

Burlington - Planted 9/17/2009 into tilled ground with good soil moisture. GPS Coordinates: N 39 11.096 W 102 16.805. Excellent emergence and good growing conditions, including timely moisture throughout the year, although early July rain prevented harvest until 7/17/2010. Stripe rust detected late May and sprayed with a fungicide soon afterwards. Trial average yield = 79.9 bu/ac; test weight = 61.6 lb/bu.

Genoa – Trial lost to hail in June 2010.

Roggen – Trial lost to hail in June 2010.

Orchard - Planted 9/16/2009 into short millet stubble with good soil moisture conditions. GPS Coordinates: N 40 30.641 W 104 04.241. Good to very good growing conditions throughout the year with relatively heavy stripe rust by early June. Harvested 7/12/2010. Trial average yield = 67.4 bu/ac; test weight = 63.0 lb/bu.

Akron – Relatively late planting on 9/29/2009 into marginal soil moisture led to mediocre fall stands that tillered well in the spring and filled in the rows. GPS Coordinates: N 40 08.970 W 102 09.715. Some spots in the trial showed stress in late spring but trial uniformity was better than most years. Late planting led to late plant development and significant stripe rust infection during grain formation and filling. Harvested on 7/12/2010 after wet early July conditions. Trial average yield = 57.5 bu/ac; test weight = 59.5 lb/bu.

Yuma - Planted later than normal due to wet mid-September conditions on 9/30/2009 into clean-tilled summer fallow with good soil moisture. GPS Coordinates: N 40 16.400 W 102 39.684. Average stand establishment but late date of planting slowed down spring growth and plant development. Stripe rust visible by end of May but remained at relatively low levels. The average plant height in the trial was 28 inches, nearly 10 inches shorter than the 2009 trial when the trial yielded almost 80 bu/ac. Harvested 7/13/2010. Trial average yield = 50.7 bu/ac; test weight = 59.7 lb/bu.

Julesburg - Planted 9/29/2009 into no-till corn stubble and good moisture leading to good fall stands but small plants going into winter. Spring growth retarded due to small plant size resulting from late planting and cool fall and spring conditions. Stripe rust was relatively heavy by early June; both leaf rust and tan spot/Septoria were also present. Average plant height was approximately 7 inches shorter in 2010 than in 2009 when the average yield was over 80 bu/ac. Harvested 7/16/2010. Trial average yield = 60.9 bu/ac; test weight = 61.3 lb/bu.

18 Irrigated Locations

Haxtun - Planted 9/29/2009 into tilled sandy soil following dry beans with good soil moisture. GPS Coordinates: N 40 40.287 W 102 39.806. Good uniform stands but not over planted. Cool fall temperatures reduced plant development leading to few early spring tillers and small plants. Severe wind damage during winter. Excellent management resulted in better than expected average yields. Stripe rust evident at the end of May and field was sprayed with a fungicide. Harvested 7/16/2010. Trial average yield = 93.0 bu/ac; test weight = 61.9 lb/bu.

Rocky Ford - Planted 9/17/2009. Emergence was uneven with some plants not emerging until spring 2010. Stands and plant height were highly variable with early and severe infection of powdery mildew and potential soil problems. Harvested 7/15/2010. Trial average yield = 57.0 bu/ac; test weight = 57.8 lb/bu.

Fort Collins – Planted 9/18/2009 into good moisture, excellent emergence and fall growth. Some blowing during the winter, good conditions though coming into spring. Excellent early spring wet snows. Drought stress in early May and again in early June may have reduced yields slightly. Stripe rust became heavy shortly after heading (by June 10) and continued to develop, completely taking out flag leaves of susceptible entries by mid-grain filling. Some leaf rust present on stripe rust resistant varieties. Harvested 7/23/2010. Trial average yield = 105.5 bu/ac; test weight = 62.7 lb/bu.

19 Description of Winter Wheat Varieties in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011) Comments CSU/Texas A&M release (2001). winter wheat. Early maturing semidwarf, Clearfield* excellent dryland yield in CO. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7ble. Marginal baking quality. heavy 7llering, good leaf and Westbred release (2008). Early maturing semidwarf, short Lower test weight. stripe rust resistance. wheat (HWW), good sprou7ng tolerance. Westbred release (2006). Hard white winter good Short semidwarf, leaf and stripe rust resistance. Lower test weight. CSU release (2007). Good dryland and irrigated yield record in CSU trials. High test good leaf rust resistance, moderate resistance to stripe rust. Very suscep7ble to weight, stem rust. Good baking quality, short coleop7le. Oklahoma State release (2009). First entered into CSU Irrigated Variety Trials in 2010. Good leaf and stripe rust resistance. CSU Slightly later, release (2004). Clearfield* winter wheat. slightly taller than Above. irrigated yields, excellent baking quality, lower in CO, very high Excellent dryland yield test weight. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7ble. taller wheat, rela7vely poor straw strength. release (2008). Medium-­‐early, Nebraska to stripe rust. moderately resistant Good leaf rust resistance, 2011 release. CSU targeted toward fall experimental, High dryland and irrigated yields, average milling and baking quality. Medium tall, medium-­‐late, medium coleop7le weight, good straw strength. Resistant to stripe rust. length. Excellent test Two-­‐gene 2011 release. Clearfield*, excellent CSU targeted toward fall experimental, medium height, medium-­‐long coleop7le. milling and baking quality. Early maturity, Excellent test weight straw and strength. Moderate resistance to stripe rust. 2011 release. CSU targeted toward fall experimental, High dryland and irrigated yield, maturity, coleop7le excellent height, length. Good test weight and quality, medium stripe rust, straw strength. Moderate resistance to moderate suscep7bility leaf rust. 7 4 6 3 2 3 4 6 2 3 BAKE 4 4 4 6 2 6 4 4 4 3 MILL 5 7 7 2 8 8 6 2 2 3 TW 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ WSMV 9 3 3 2 2 6 2 8 6 6 LR 9 1 1 4 2 7 4 1 3 4 YR 9 8 8 3 6 4 4 8 9 7 COL** 3 3 1 4 5 7 3 2 4 -­‐-­‐ SS 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 7 5 5 HT 4 1 3 5 7 6 3 6 4 5 HD S S S S S S S S R* R* RWA* NE 2008 NE OK 2009 OK Origin CSU 2007 CSU 2004 CSU 2011 CSU 2011 CSU 2011 CSU CSU-­‐TX 2001 Westbred 2008 Westbred 2006 Russian wheat aphid resistance (RWA), heading date (HD), plant height (HT), straw strength (SS), coleop7le length (COL), stripe rust resistance (YR), leaf (LR), wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance (WSMV), length (COL), stripe (SS), coleop7le (HT), straw strength plant height date (HD), (RWA), heading Russian wheat aphid resistance or very short to 9 -­‐ poor, suscep7ble, late, tall. early, very good, resistant, 1 -­‐ Ra7ng scale: baking quality (BAKE). (MILL), and (TW), milling quality test weight * RWA ra7ng denotes resistance to the original biotype (biotype 1) of RWA. All available cul7vars are suscep7ble new biotypes RWA. ** Coleop7le length ra7ngs range from 1=very short (~ 50 mm or ~2 in) to 9=very long (~100 mm or ~4 in). Coleop7le lengths should be interpreted for rela7ve variety comparisons only. Descrip7on of Winter Wheat Varie7es in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011) and Pedigree Class, Name, Above Hard red winter TAM 110*4/FS2 Armour Hard red winter B1551-­‐WH/KS94U326 Aspen Hard white winter TAM 302/B1551W Bill Brown Hard red winter Yumar/Arlin Billings Hard red winter N566/OK94P597 Bond CL Hard red winter Yumar//TXGH12588-­‐120*4/FS2 Camelot Hard red winter SIB//KS91HW29/3/NE82761/Redland/4/VBF0168 KS91H184/Arlin CO050303-­‐2 Hard red winter CO980829/TAM 111 CO06052 Hard red winter Teal 11A/Above//CO99314 CO06424 Hard red winter TAM 112/CO970547-­‐7

20 Comments KSU-­‐Hays release (2005). wheat KSU-­‐Hays Hard white (HWW), very high test weight. Similar to preharvest Trego with improved sprou7ng tolerance. baking quality, stripe rust Lower suscep7ble. Oklahoma State release (2006). short coleop7le, leaf rust Medium tall, medium late, stripe rust. moderately resistant to resistant, KSU-­‐Manhaian release (2009). First entered into CSU Variety Trials in 2010. Good leaf and stripe rust resistance. Targeted in more eastern por7ons of the for produc7on Plains. test weight, good KSU-­‐Manhaian release (2006). Early maturing semidwarf. Average Lower straw strength. stripe rust suscep7ble. leaf rust resistance, Agripro release (2009). First entered in CSU Variety Trials in 2011. Medium early, medium short. Lower test weight. Good test weight, moderate CSU release (2004). Medium maturing semidwarf. resistance to stripe rust. Excellent the High Plains, good milling and dryland yield across baking quality. Develops “leaf speckling” condi7on. short semidwarf. Good leaf rust resistance, maturing, Agripro release (2006). Medium good straw strength. stripe rust suscep7ble, Westbred release (2008). Posi7oned for High Plains irrigated pr oduc7on. Good straw resistance, stripe rust suscep7ble, good leaf rust lower milling and baking strength, quality. release (2005). Medium maturing, taller wheat, Nebraska Clearfield* winter wheat. moderate resistance to stripe rust. Improved baking quality rela7ve to Above. Develops “leaf speckling” similar to Hatcher. good mosaic virus tolerance. weight, wheat streak Agripro release (2001). Good test Observed to shaier in CO and KS trials. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7ble. 7 3 8 3 5 3 3 6 5 4 BAKE 3 6 3 5 7 4 5 8 5 2 MILL 2 4 4 5 6 4 4 4 4 3 TW 5 7 7 5 8 8 7 6 4 -­‐-­‐ WSMV 6 2 2 2 8 2 2 3 9 -­‐-­‐ LR 9 4 1 7 3 8 7 3 9 -­‐-­‐ YR 6 4 7 3 9 6 2 4 6 3 COL** 4 3 7 6 2 2 6 5 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ SS 5 8 3 3 2 2 2 2 7 5 HT 4 8 5 2 5 6 2 6 5 5 HD S S S S S S S S S R* RWA* NE 2004 NE OK 2006 OK Origin KSU 2005 KSU 2009 KSU 2006 KSU CSU 2004 CSU Agripro 2009 Agripro 2006 Agripro 2001 Westbred 2008 Russian wheat aphid resistance (RWA), heading date (HD), plant height (HT), straw strength (SS), coleop7le length (COL), stripe rust resistance (YR), length (COL), stripe leaf rust resistance (LR), wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance (WSMV), (SS), coleop7le (HT), straw strength plant height date (HD), (RWA), heading Russian wheat aphid resistance or very short to 9 -­‐ poor, suscep7ble, late, tall. very good, resistant, early, 1 -­‐ Ra7ng scale: (MILL), baking quality (BAKE). (TW), milling quality and test weight to the new biotypes of RWA. of RWA. All cul7vars are suscep7ble * RWA ra7ng denotes resistance to the original biotype (biotype 1) available ** Coleop7le length ra7ngs range from 1=very short (~ 50 mm or ~2 in) to 9=very long (~100 ~4 in). lengths sh ould be interpreted for rela7ve variety comparisons only. Descrip7on of Winter Wheat Varie7es in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011) and Pedigree Class, Name, Danby Hard white winter TREGO/JGR 8W Duster Hard red winter WO405D/HGF112//W7469C/HCF012 Everest Hard red winter HBK1064-­‐3/KS84063-­‐9-­‐39-­‐3-­‐4W//VBF0589-­‐1/IL89-­‐6483 Fuller Hard red winter Bulk selec7on Greer Hard red winter HBK0935-­‐29-­‐15/KS90W077-­‐2-­‐2/VBF0589-­‐1 Hatcher Hard red winter Yuma/PI 372129//TAM-­‐200/3/4*Yuma/4/KS91H184/Vista Hawken Hard red winter Rowdy/W96-­‐427 Hitch Hard red winter 53/3/ABL/1113//K92/4/JAG/5/KS89180B Infinity CL Hard red winter Windstar/3/NE94481//TXGH125888-­‐120*4/FS2 Jagalene Hard red winter Abilene/Jagger

21 Comments KSU-­‐Manhaian release (1994). Early maturing semidwarf, baking quality, good KSU-­‐Manhaian release (1994). Early maturing good very leaf and stripe WSMV tolerance, rust suscep7ble. Breaks dormancy very early in the spring. Westbred release (2005). Leaf and stripe rust Taller plant stature, maintains suscep7ble. height under stress. release (2010). First entered in CSU Variety Nebraska Trials in 2011. Medium maturity, medium height. Low test weight. 107, resistant to RWA biotype 1. Good of TAM deriva7ve CSU release (1998). Backcross poor stress tolerance, end-­‐use quality reputa7on, lower yields rela7ve to more recent wheat releases. Leaf and stripe rust suscep7ble. CSU marketed by AGSECO. release (2004), Clearfield* winter wheat. Lower yield rela7ve to Bond CL in CSU Variety Trials 2003 2004. Taller plant stature, moderate and suscep7bility to stripe rust. high dryland tolerance, yields in Colorado, excellent CSU stress release (2006). Excellent milling and baking quality. Very good recovery from stand reduc7on. Leaf and stripe lower test weights. rust suscep7ble, release (2010). First entered in CSU Variety Nebraska Trials in 2011. Medium maturity, medium short. release (2008). winter wheat. Excellent dryland and irrigated yield Nebraska Clearfield* in CSU Variety Trials. Later maturing, medium height. Moderately suscep7ble to leaf moderately resistance rust, to stripe rust. Westbred release (2006). Medium late, shorter semidwarf. Good leaf rust resistance, good stripe rust suscep7ble, baking quality. CSU Medium-­‐maturing, taller release (2009). Hard white winter wheat (HWW). semidwarf. Good resistance to wheat streak mosaic virus and stem stripe rust, moderate sprou7ng tolerance. Grown under contract with ConAgra. 4 5 4 7 7 3 5 4 2 3 BAKE 4 3 6 4 4 3 7 3 5 5 MILL 5 6 8 6 8 7 4 4 5 4 TW 4 8 5 4 7 7 8 2 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ WSMV 9 8 9 9 9 8 2 5 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ LR 8 7 8 7 9 4 8 2 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ YR 2 6 1 8 4 9 7 5 5 5 COL** 5 5 3 3 4 3 4 8 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ SS 5 6 6 3 7 4 2 5 3 6 HT 3 5 6 4 3 2 5 8 6 7 HD S S S S S S S S R* R* RWA* NE 2010 NE 2010 NE 2008 NE Origin KSU 1994 KSU CSU 1998 CSU 2006 CSU 2009 CSU Westbred 2005 Westbred 2006 AGSECO/CSU 2004 Russian wheat aphid resistance (RWA), heading date (HD), plant height (HT), straw strength (SS), coleop7le length (COL), stripe rust resistance (YR), leaf (LR), wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance (WSMV), length (COL), stripe (SS), coleop7le (HT), straw strength plant height date (HD), (RWA), heading Russian wheat aphid resistance or very short to 9 -­‐ poor, suscep7ble, late, tall. early, very good, resistant, 1 -­‐ Ra7ng scale: baking quality (BAKE). (MILL), and (TW), milling quality test weight * RWA ra7ng denotes resistance to the original biotype (biotype 1) of RWA. All available cul7vars are suscep7ble new biotypes RWA. ** Coleop7le length ra7ngs range from 1=very short (~ 50 mm or ~2 in) to 9=very long (~100 mm or ~4 in). Coleop7le lengths should be interpreted for rela7ve variety comparisons only. Descrip7on of Winter Wheat Varie7es in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011) and Pedigree Class, Name, Jagger Hard red winter KS82W418/Stephens Keota Hard red winter Custer/Jagger McGill Hard red winter NE92458/Ike Prairie Red Hard red winter CO850034/PI372129//5*TAM 107 Protec7on Hard red winter Jagger//TXGH12588-­‐120*4/FS2 Ripper Hard red winter CO940606/TAM107R-­‐2 Robidoux Hard red winter (sib) NE96644/Wahoo CL Seiler Hard red winter SIB//TXGH125888-­‐120*4/FS2 N95L164/3/MILLENNIUM Smoky Hill Hard red winter 97 8/64 MASA Snowmass Hard white winter KS96HW94//Trego/CO960293

22 Descrip7on of Winter Wheat Varie7es in Eastern Colorado Trials (2010 and 2011) Name, Class, and Pedigree Origin RWA* HD HT SS COL** YR LR WSMV TW MILL BAKE Comments SY Gold Agripro 2009 S 4 5 5 2 7 3 -­‐-­‐ 3 5 5 Agripro release (2009). First tested in CSU trials in 2009. Good leaf rust resistance, Hard red winter suscep7ble to stripe rust. Good milling quality, lower baking quality. W95-­‐301/W98-­‐151

T163 Trio 2010 S 3 4 -­‐-­‐ 4 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ 6 5 7 Trio (Limagrain) release (2010). First entered in CSU Variety Trials in 2011. Hard red winter 93WGRC27/T811

TAM 111 TX 2002 S 6 7 3 8 1 8 5 2 4 5 Texas A&M release (2002), marketed by Agripro. Medium maturing, taller wheat. Good Hard red winter test weight, good straw strength, good irrigated yield. Leaf rust suscep7ble, very good TAM-­‐107//TX78V3630/CTK78/3/TX87V1233 stripe rust resistance.

TAM 112 TX 2005 S 2 4 7 7 7 9 2 2 4 2 Texas A&M release (2005), marketed by Watley Seed. Good test weight, good quality, Hard red winter excellent wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance. Suscep7ble to leaf and stripe rust, poor U1254-­‐7-­‐9-­‐2-­‐1/TXGH10440 straw strength.

Thunder CL CSU 2008 R* 4 4 3 7 3 5 4 4 5 2 CSU release (2008). Hard white Clearfield* wheat. Good straw strength, high yields Hard white winter under irriga7on. Excellent quality, moderate resistance to stripe rust and wheat streak KS01-­‐5539/CO99W165 mosaic virus, moderate sprout suscep7bility. Grown under contract with ConAgra.

WB-­‐Cedar Westbred 2010 S -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ 7 -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐ 4 6 Westbred release (2010). First entered in CSU Variety Trials in 2011. Hard red sister 23 Hard red winter selec7on to Aspen hard white wheat. TAM 302/B1551W

WB-­‐Stout Westbred 2009 S 1 3 5 4 8 2 4 8 8 3 Westbred release (2009). First tested in CSU trials in 2010. Good leaf rust resistance, Hard red winter stripe rust suscep7ble, lower test weight. KS94U275/1878//Jagger

Winterhawk Westbred 2007 S 5 5 5 8 2 8 5 2 2 4 Westbred release (2007). Medium maturing, medium tall, longer coleop7le. Good stripe Hard red winter rust resistance, suscep7ble to leaf rust, very suscep7ble to stem rust. Good test weight, 474S10-­‐1/X87807-­‐26//HBK0736-­‐3 good quality.

Wolf Agripro 2011 S 6 4 -­‐-­‐ 5 6 4 -­‐-­‐ 4 2 7 Agripro release (2011). First entered in CSU Variety Trials in 2011. Good milling quality, Hard red winter poor baking quality. Good resistance to tan spot and septoria, moderately suscep7ble W99-­‐331/97x0906-­‐8 to stripe rust, moderately resistant to leaf rust.

Yuma CSU 1991 S 6 3 3 1 5 5 6 6 5 4 CSU release (1991). Medium maturity, semidwarf, short coleop7le, good baking quality Hard red winter characteris7cs. Moderate resistance to stripe rust. Good yields especially under NS14/NS25//2*Vona irriga7on.

Russian wheat aphid resistance (RWA), heading date (HD), plant height (HT), straw strength (SS), coleop7le length (COL), stripe rust resistance (YR), leaf rust resistance (LR), wheat streak mosaic virus tolerance (WSMV), test weight (TW), milling quality (MILL), and baking quality (BAKE). Ra7ng scale: 1 -­‐ very good, very resistant, very early, or very short to 9 -­‐ very poor, suscep7ble, late, or tall. * RWA ra7ng denotes resistance to the original biotype (biotype 1) of RWA. All available cul7vars are suscep7ble to the new biotypes of RWA. ** Coleop7le length ra7ngs range from 1=very short (~ 50 mm or ~2 in) to 9=very long (~100 mm or ~4 in). Coleop7le lengths should be interpreted for rela7ve variety comparisons only. Wheat Quality Evaluations from the 2010 CSU Dryland and Irrigated Variety Trials

John Stromberger, CSU Wheat Quality Lab Manager Scott Haley, CSU Wheat Breeder Jerry Johnson, CSU Extension Specialist - Crop Production Introduction

End-use quality maintenance and improvement is an important objective of virtually all wheat breeding programs. Grain buying and end-use industries have become increasingly sophisticated in all markets and, while wheat producers are seldom rewarded for improved functional quality, technological advancements promise to increase the ability of the trade to identify and source good quality and thus discount poor quality.

Breeding for improved quality is very challenging. Quality is a function of variety interacting with climate and agronomic practices. Colorado climatic conditions are highly variable and unpredictable which slows down breeding progress. Also, quality is measured by many traits and many genes are involved, further complicating breeding. Most experimental quality tests only approximate average quality needs of product manufacturers and don’t match specific requirements of different wheat product types and processes. For hard winter wheat, high grain protein content is an important criterion for improved quality but is often associated with lower yields (and vice versa). Finally, wheat quality testing must accommodate the reality of large sample numbers and small sample sizes that are typical of all wheat breeding programs. Despite these challenges, standard testing methodologies have been developed that are consistent, repeatable, and can be done in our laboratory on large numbers of small samples. They provide reliable assessments of functional quality characteristics for a broad array of potential product types and processes.

Our objective with providing quality data and summaries for entries in the Colorado variety trials is to fully characterize the quality of public and private trial entries that are currently, or have the potential to be marketed in Colorado. We hope that these data and ratings will be included among the criteria by which wheat producers make their variety selection decisions. At the very least, we encourage producers to carefully consider avoiding varieties that have lower wheat quality when other agronomically acceptable varieties with better quality are available.

Testing Methodology

In 2010, grain samples were collected from four dryland (UVPT) variety trial locations (Akron, Burlington, Orchard, and Walsh) and two irrigated (IVPT) variety trial locations (Fort Collins and Haxtun). Preliminary small-scale quality analyses were carried out to determine suitability of the samples for full-scale analyses. Criteria for sample suitability included grain protein values not too far below or above 12% grain protein content, sound grain free of visual defects, and good discrimination among samples at a location for experimental dough mixing properties. In this process of sample selection, two of the dryland locations (Burlington and Orchard), were excluded from further analyses beyond protein content.

24 Using standard testing protocols, quality tests were done in the CSU Wheat Quality Laboratory on variety trial samples from the remaining locations. These tests, reported in the attached tables, include the following:

Milling-Related Traits

Test weight: obtained by standard methodology on a cleaned sample of the harvested grain. Grain protein and ash content: obtained by prediction using whole-grain near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRs) with a Foss NIRSystems 6500. Both grain protein and ash are reported on a standard 12% moisture basis. High grain protein percentage is associated with higher water absorption of flours and higher loaf volumes in the bakery. Grain ash represents the remaining weight of a grain sample following incineration in a high-temperature oven. Millers prefer low wheat ash (values < 1.6%) as this tends to result in low-ash flour following milling and products with improved color properties.

Single kernel characterization system (SKCS): the Perten SKCS 4100 provides data on kernel weight and hardness of a grain sample. To provide an average and a measure of variability (standard deviation, STD) for each trait, 100-300 kernels are analyzed. Millers prefer a uniform sample with heavier (>30 grams/1000 kernels) kernels for improved milling performance. Hardness should be representative of the hard winter wheat class (60-80 hardness units).

Flour yield: obtained using a modified Brabender Quadrumat Milling System. Flour yield represents the percentage of straight grade flour obtained from milling a grain sample (approximately one pound). In general, millers prefer high flour extraction percentage with low flour ash values. Due to variation among different milling systems, valid comparison of values from different mills and establishment of a single target value is not possible.

Baking-Related Traits

Mixograph mixing time and tolerance: obtained using a National Manufacturing Computerized Mixograph. The Mixograph measures the resistance of a dough during the mixing process. Bakers generally prefer flours with moderate mixing time requirements (between three and six minutes) and good tolerance to breakdown of the dough with overmixing (subjective score >3). Some varieties with exceptionally long mixing times (i.e., Snowmass, Thunder CL) may not compare favorably with other varieties in conventional evaluations but have unique characteristics that merit handling in an identity-preserved program such as with the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program.

Pup loaf bake test: using a 100-gram straight-dough test, data on bake water absorption, mixing time, loaf volume, and crumb characteristics are obtained. In general, bakers prefer higher water absorption (> 62%), high loaf volume (> 850 cubic centimeters), and a higher crumb grain score and crumb grain color (score > 3). The crumb grain and color scores are subjective assessments of the color and size, shape, and structure of the small holes in a slice of bread.

25 Composite Scores

Because none of the traits measured can be used alone to represent overall milling or baking quality, development of a composite score may be used as a means to differentiate and characterize quality of different samples. The development of a composite score also has the advantage of “smoothing” out differences in environmental conditions from year to year and utilizing all of the data generated on the samples.

Composite scores are generated through a two-step process. First, each trait is ranked from high to low (or “good” to “bad”) at individual locations and a score from 1 (good) to 9 (bad) is assigned to each variety for each trait. Second, these individual trait scores are used to generate a composite score that weights the trait scores by the relative importance of that trait to overall milling or baking quality. The weights that we have used are similar to those developed by the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory for the Wheat Quality Council evaluations.

These weights are as follows: Milling – test weight 30%, grain protein content 10%, kernel weight 20%, grain hardness 10%, flour yield 20%, grain ash content 10% (100% total) Baking – bake absorption 20%, Mixograph mixing time 20%, Mixograph tolerance 20%, loaf volume 20%, crumb color 10%, crumb grain 10% (100% total)

26 g e n r i o 6 4 6 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 3 3

k 8 9 7 7 c a S B g e n r i l o 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 6 5 4 4 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 7 7 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 2 7 2 3 7 3 1 2 1 7 9 1 l c i S M 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 2 5 5 5 indicates inferior value. 3.6 Grain Crumb

italics 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 4.0 Color Crumb 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 9 5 8 4 5 6 5 3 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 910 935 940 965 930 925 975 955 985 910 960 962 825

Loaf 865 825 835 860 860 850 850 845 885 855 875 885 835 1000 1025 1020 1010 1155 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volume 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 6 2 1 5 5 5 2 6 1 5 5 2 5 6 6 3.7 Tolerance Mixograph indicates superior value, value in 2 8 2 3 5 5 1 6 4 4 2 2 1 0 8 3 0 2 d 3 9 6 2 3 6 8 3 1 5 3 3 6 3 7 6 7 5 l ...... o 3.88 3.95 6.17 3.68 4.31 4.11 4.14 6.21 4.11 4.26 4.05 3.60 4.24 5.06 2.97 8.00

4 4 4 5 5 5 3.00 4 4 5 4 7.61 4 5 2.97 5 8.00 7.30 5 3.36 7.14 7.22 8.00 4 5 5 5 b Mix Time Mixograph 2 2 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 4 ...... 8 7 5 5 5 5 5 8 6 7 6 6 6 * Value in 63.1 64.4 63.1 63.4 64.1 63.2 64.2 65.2 65.2 63.3 63.3 63.1 64.1 65.0 64.0 64.0 59.3 68.2 Bake 59.3 62.1 6 6 6 6 6 6 62.3 6 6 62.3 6 62.0 62.3 61.3 62.1 6 62.1 6 61.1 6 60.2 6 62.3 Absorption 5 4 6 2 4 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...... Ash 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.48 1.38 1.39 1.49 1.39 1.42 1.40 1.39 1.44 1.40 1.37 1.46 1.46 1.45 1.45 1.43 1.50 1.40 1.49 1.47 1.47 1.45 1.43 1.31 1.56

1.55 1 1.56 1 1 1 1 1.51 1.52 1 1.52 1.53 1 Grain n 2 5 4 3 9 3 9 o ...... r 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 k 69.4 68.9 69.8 69.5 69.9 70.1 69.3 69.6 69.6 69.9 68.9 69.0 69.4 70.1 68.4 69.2 69.5 69.3 69.8 70.2 70.0 68.1 70.0 70.1 69.3 65.4 71.9 Yield 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Flour 67.8 67.9 66.9 68.0 67.3 68.1 67.2 65.4 66.3 A 0 1 0 2

71.6 73.0 71.8 67.3 70.6 64.5 69.7 62.0 64.4 68.5 68.7 60.5 63.5 64.4 68.5 59.4 70.4 63.0 65.3 73.0 78.9 65.0 65.4 66.3 71.5 65.3 71.6 68.3 75.8 69.7 58.5 65.4 68.8 79.1 82.8 64.9 75.2 68.1 76.9 63.7 68.5 58.5 82.8 SKCS - a Hardness t a 8 4 2 7 1 0 0 D ...... y 6 7 0 7 7 9 7 t 26.3 24.5 23.8 25.5 24.0 25.2 26.1 25.9 24.7 25.8 26.0 23.8 23.3 26.0 25.9 23.9 23.7 24.7 24.0 24.8 25.7 23.9 25.1 25.4 25.6 24.9 21.3 30.2 i

21.4 2 2 21.3 22.9 3 2 2 22.7 22.3 2 23.1 22.3 22.3 2 SKCS l Weight a u 8 4 1 3 6 0 1 2 4 ...... Q 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 g 13.7 13.6 13.2 13.5 12.8 13.2 13.0 13.0 13.1 13.1 13.6 13.6 13.3 12.9 14.0 13.1 13.4 13.1 13.1 12.7 13.7 13.4 13.6 12.8 13.4 11.6 15.4

12.0 1 12.2 1 1 1 1 12.2 1 12.5 1 12.5 1 11.6 1 12.0 Grain n Protein i k a 8 2 5 6 1 4 8 ...... B 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 d Test 55.2 56.5 56.2 55.7 56.6 56.4 56.9 56.8 56.2 55.2 56.9 55.0 56.4 56.9 56.3 55.7 55.3 55.8 54.7 56.8 55.3 57.0 56.6 55.4 55.9 52.3 58.8

54.0 53.9 5 5 54.3 5 53.5 5 54.0 5 52.6 54.0 5 54.1 52.3 5 n Weight a g n i l l i CL Hill M e y y t y g er er a y e gg pp h Entr Above Armour Brown Bill Bond CL Camelot CO04393 CO04499 CO050173 CO050175-1 CO050233-2 CO050270 CO050303-2 CO050322 CO050337-2 CO05W111 CO05W194 CO06052 CO06424 CSU Blend09 Danb Duster Everest Fuller Hatcher Hawken Infinit Ja Keota Prairie Red Protection Ri Settler CL Smok Snowmass SY Gold TAM 111 TAM 112 Thunder CL WB Stout Winterhawk Maximum W Avera Minimum Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Akron Milling and Baking Quality Data- Wheat

27 Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Fort Collins 2010 Fort Milling and Baking Quality Data- Wheat

28 Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Haxtun Milling and Baking Quality Data- Wheat

29 g e n r i o 4 5 5 5 6 5 4 5 4 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 3

k 9 9 7 8 9 7 8 c a S B g e n r i l o 5 5 6 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 4 9 3 2 1 1 3 3 2 8 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 9 8 8 2 l c i S M 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 2 6 2 indicates inferior value. 3.2 Grain Crumb

italics 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 5 5 5 2 2 5 5 5 2 5 2 5 5 5 3.8 Color Crumb 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 4 3 7 5 3 6 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 925 925 965 900 985 950 895 935 965 920 905 935 925 960 955 990 958 740

Loaf 740 885 825 825 880 840 855 820 800 1025 1000 1010 1000 1025 1165 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volume 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 0 6 0 1 5 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 6 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 2 6 1 2 2.4 Tolerance Mixograph indicates superior value, value in 4 1 9 3 1 9 2 3 7 5 1 6 5 6 7 6 7 3 4 3 d 5 4 9 2 9 6 8 9 7 8 7 5 6 2 8 3 4 1 4 8 l ...... o 3.06 4.94 3.10 3.04 3.06 2.88 2.39 2.69 5.30 2.84 4.85 4.89 3.06 4.68 3.92 2.12 7.90

2.24 3 4 3 4 3 3 2.12 3 3 3 3 6.84 3 3 3 5.66 3 3 3 3 5.81 7.90 4 3 3 b Mix Time Mixograph 5 4 4 4 5 1 3 4 5 4 2 0 2 0 ...... 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 * Value in 67.4 67.4 66.5 66.4 65.8 66.8 65.6 66.6 66.7 65.7 67.6 67.5 65.6 66.6 66.3 66.3 66.2 66.9 67.3 66.7 61.4 69.5 Bake 61.5 64.2 6 65.5 6 6 6 61.4 64.5 6 6 6 6 63.4 65.5 6 6 6 6 6 6 Absorption 7 8 9 1 7 8 4 4 4 5 4 4 ...... Ash 1.62 1.52 1.57 1.60 1.57 1.65 1.56 1.60 1.60 1.61 1.60 1.57 1.63 1.56 1.58 1.54 1.57 1.59 1.57 1.52 1.55 1.57 1.64 1.57 1.63 1.62 1.57 1.59 1.47 1.73

1.66 1 1 1.67 1.68 1 1 1.67 1 1.66 1.73 1.68 1 Grain h s 6 4 2 7 1 4 3 7 0 l ...... a 9 8 8 0 8 8 9 8 9 67.5 67.0 67.2 66.6 66.3 67.7 67.4 67.2 67.4 67.2 67.4 66.2 67.6 67.1 66.4 66.3 67.0 67.7 67.3 66.8 65.8 67.9 66.8 62.8 70.7 Yield 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 Flour 63.7 65.3 62.9 64.0 65.2 65.6 65.1 62.8 63.1 W 0 1 0 2

73.2 70.2 79.4 75.7 69.4 67.3 69.8 67.3 65.8 68.4 62.3 70.0 71.8 68.8 74.7 57.8 70.2 61.8 63.7 78.0 82.7 68.8 73.5 63.7 73.8 67.5 74.9 67.3 75.6 72.9 65.7 64.5 71.4 76.3 83.1 66.1 82.4 62.4 74.5 73.2 70.7 57.8 83.1 SKCS - a Hardness t a 3 7 4 0 9 1 2 2 1 3 D ...... y 7 8 7 8 6 7 1 8 7 7 t 26.7 26.0 25.1 26.4 26.5 24.6 23.5 23.7 25.2 23.2 23.4 25.2 24.9 24.2 24.6 23.4 25.2 24.1 24.2 25.2 23.4 24.8 24.9 19.7 31.2 i

22.4 21.0 21.2 2 2 2 22.6 19.7 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 22.6 21.8 22.8 SKCS l Weight a u 3 1 9 . . . Q 7 7 6 g 16.1 15.5 16.1 16.5 15.8 15.9 15.6 15.9 16.0 16.5 16.1 16.5 15.5 15.8 15.4 16.3 15.7 15.4 16.2 16.0 16.2 15.7 15.4 15.9 16.3 15.8 15.8 16.3 15.7 15.6 15.5 15.8 14.8 17.3

14.9 14.9 14.8 15.0 15.0 1 1 15.0 1 Grain n Protein i k a 5 4 0 8 1 8 8 ...... B 9 0 9 9 9 8 9 d Test 58.6 57.6 57.2 57.7 56.5 57.7 57.4 58.6 57.7 57.3 58.4 57.5 58.2 57.7 56.8 57.7 56.9 57.8 57.1 58.7 57.9 57.3 56.8 58.6 57.5 54.7 60.4

56.1 55.2 5 6 56.2 5 55.8 5 5 5 56.0 5 56.2 55.0 54.7 55.1 n Weight a g n i l l i CL Hill M e y y t y g er er a y e gg pp h Entr Above Armour Brown Bill Bond CL Camelot CO04393 CO04499 CO050173 CO050175-1 CO050233-2 CO050270 CO050303-2 CO050322 CO050337-2 CO05W111 CO05W194 CO06052 CO06424 CSU Blend09 Danb Duster Everest Fuller Hatcher Hawken Infinit Ja Keota Prairie Red Protection Ri Settler CL Smok Snowmass SY Gold TAM 111 TAM 112 Thunder CL WB Stout Winterhawk Maximum W Avera Minimum Wheat Milling and Baking Quality Data- 2010 Walsh Milling and Baking Quality Data- Wheat

30 Grain Protein from 2010 UVPT Samples Collected at Burlington and Orchard

Entry Burlingtona Orcharda percent percent Above 11.6 10.7 Armour 11.6 10.4 Bill Brown 11.0 10.2 Bond CL 11.2 11.5 Camelot 11.9 11.8 CO04393 11.9 10.2 CO04499 12.0 10.9 CO050173 11.4 10.4 CO050175-1 10.9 10.3 CO050233-2 11.9 12.6 CO050270 11.1 10.0 CO050303-2 11.0 10.4 CO050322 11.4 10.1 CO050337-2 10.3 10.5 CO05W111 11.5 10.6 CO05W194 11.6 10.6 CO06052 13.2 11.1 CO06424 11.1 12.3 CSU Blend09 11.3 10.5 Danby 11.2 11.0 Duster 11.2 11.6 Everest 11.8 10.0 Fuller 12.2 10.4 Hatcher 11.2 11.0 Hawken 12.4 10.4 Infinity CL 11.4 10.5 Jagger 12.5 12.9 Keota 11.7 12.6 Prairie Red 12.2 11.8 Protection 11.3 11.1 Ripper 11.3 10.1 Settler CL 12.3 10.5 Smoky Hill 11.8 11.0 Snowmass 10.9 11.4 SY Gold 11.7 10.5 TAM 111 11.8 11.8 TAM 112 11.8 8.9 Thunder CL 11.7 9.8 WB Stout 12.0 11.9 Winterhawk 10.9 12.2 Average 11.6 10.9 Minimum 10.3 8.9 Maximum 13.2 12.9

aPercent protein content based on 12% grain moisture

31 Wheat Stem Sawfly: A New Pest of Colorado Wheat Ben Irell and Frank Peairs Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University

The wheat stem sawfly is a native grass-feeding insect that has long been a threat to spring wheat production in the northern Plains. In the early 1990s, however, it emerged as a significant pest of winter wheat as well. Since then, sawfly infestations in winter wheat have spread from North Dakota and Montana into southeastern Wyoming, the Nebraska Panhandle, and, most recently, northeastern Colorado. Damage to winter wheat was first reported in Colorado in 2010 from areas along Highway 14 in Weld County.

Identification/ Life Cycle: The wheat stem sawfly has one generation per year. Adults emerge in late May or early June and are generally active when field temperatures are above 50⁰ F. The adult wheat stem sawfly (Figure 1) is about ¾ of an inch long with smoky-brown wings. It is wasp-like in appearance, with a shiny black body with three yellow bands around the abdomen. They can be observed resting, upside down, on the wheat stem. Figure 1: Wheat stem sawfly Females begin egglaying about five days after they emerge adult. Image courtesy of J. Kalisch, and continue for two-three weeks. They preferentially select Department of Entomology, the largest wheat stems available and insert a single egg in the University of Nebraska. stem below the uppermost node. If sawflies are abundant, eggs may be laid in smaller stems, and multiple eggs may be laid in a single stem. However, only one larva will survive in each stem due to cannibalism. Females lay an average of 33 eggs. Eggs are difficult to observe because they occur inside the stem.

Sawfly larvae remain within the wheat stem after they hatch. They move slowly down the stem as they feed, for approximately 30 days. When the larvae are mature they move down toward soil level and cut a V-shaped notch around the interior of the stem. They then seal the interior of the stem with frass (bodily waste) and move down near the crown. The upper stem usually breaks at this notch, and the remaining stem containing the overwintering chamber is referred to Figure 2: as the “stub”. The larvae overwinter here, slightly below soil level, before pupating Wheat in early spring. Sawfly larvae are cream colored, have a broad head, and are ½ to ¾ stem sawfly larva in of an inch in length when fully grown. stem. Image courtesy Host Plants and Damage: of the The wheat stem sawfly has traditionally infested spring wheat, but damage is Department becoming increasingly common in winter wheat. It also feeds in several hollow- of Entomology, stemmed noncultivated grasses, including quackgrass, smooth brome and various University of wheatgrasses. It does not attack corn or broad leaf crops. Nebraska.

32 Although the sawfly may lay eggs in other cereals, including barley, oat, and rye, larvae will not mature in these hosts.

Darkened areas on the stem, just beneath the node, indicate infestation. To verify the presence of the sawfly in a suspected plant, split the stem from top to bottom. A stem filled with a sawdust-like substance indicates feeding activity. The larva will most likely be located in a chamber within the stem, just above the crown.

The most visible impact of the wheat stem sawfly is stem breakage or lodging. The stem is greatly weakened by the groove the larva cuts around the base of the plant. Lodging becomes more obvious as harvest approaches and results in yield loss because the combine Firgure 3: Wheat stems cut cannot pick up the heads of lodged stems. In addition, physiological by the wheat stem sawfly. damage caused by feeding activity results in yield losses of five to ten Image courtesy of the percent if infested heads can be harvested. Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska.

Management

Cultural Controls: Tillage is an effective method of controlling an infestation because the sawfly larvae overwinter in wheat stubble. Tilling after harvest or before winter lifts the crowns and loosens the soil around them. This maximizes the larvae’s exposure to the late summer dryness and winter cold, increasing mortality. Spring tillage should bury the stubble so surviving sawfly adults have difficulty emerging. The combination of fall and spring tillage can reduce sawfly emergence by about 50 percent.

Planting trap crops such as barley, oat, or rye along the edge of wheat fields may be effective in decreasing damage and reducing the number of sawflies the following year. The sawflies will oviposit in the trap crop, but the larvae will be unable to complete development. This method is especially effective when the sawfly population is low to moderate. When the population is high, sawfly adults may move past the trap crop to the wheat and damage reduction may not be sufficient.

Planting wheat in larger blocks as opposed to narrow strips is another cultural practice that may reduce sawfly damage potential. This minimizes the amount of field border adjacent to stubble, which is the part of the crop most vulnerable to infestation. Sawflies are not strong fliers and tend to fly only until they reach a stem that is suitable for egg laying, which is the basis for this practice. Though the soil erosion benefits of planting in narrow strips may be reduced, larger fields are still a viable option if erosion is addressed by no-till practices.

Resistant Wheat Varieties: Solid stem varieties of wheat have been shown to be effective in reducing damage caused by the wheat stem sawfly. The availability of several adapted solid-stemmed wheat cultivars provides a viable management option for parts of the northern Great Plains. In areas where the

33 sawfly is a recent arrival, wheat breeding programs are beginning to focus on incorporation of the solid stem characteristic into adapted varieties, using both conventional selection and linked DNA markers. The program at Colorado State University also is initiating long term research into novel methods for making the wheat plant less attractive to the sawfly.

Chemical Control: Insecticides are ineffective and cost-prohibitive. Insecticides are potentially effective only during the egg-laying period. Insecticides are not effective on larvae. Careful monitoring would be necessary to pinpoint when and where the adult population is emerging. Using solid-stemmed cultivars and cultural controls are currently the most effective alternatives.

34 2010 Walsh Dryland Veriety Strip Tests for Forage and Grain Yield K. Larson, D. Thompson, D. Harn, and C. Thompson

Purpose: To determine which wheat varieties are best suited for dual-purpose forage and grain production in Southeastern Colorado.

Materials and methods: Fifteen wheat varieties were planted on September 30, 2009 at 50 lb seed/a in 20 foot by 800 foot strips with two replications. We applied 50 lb N/a with a sweep and seedrow applied 5 gal/a of 10-34-0 (20 lb P2O5, 6 lb N/a). Ally Extra 0.3 oz/a and 2,4-D 0.38 lb/a was sprayed for weed control. Two 2 foot by 2.5 foot forage samples were taken at jointing (April 6) and at boot (May 10). We measured the forage for fresh weight, oven-dried the samples, and recorded dry weight at 15% moisture content. Stripe rust was observed, but it came late in the season and no fungicide was applied. We harvested the plots on June 30 with a self-propelled combine and weighed them in a digital weigh cart. Grain yields were adjusted to 12% grain moisture content.

Results: Grain yields were good, averaging 44 bu/a. Less than 5 bu/a separated the highest yielding variety, Armour, from the lowest yielding variety, Bond CL. Armour had the highest grain yield, 46.4 bu/a, but it was not significantly higher than the 10 other varieties tested. Hawken had the highest forage yield at jointing, and Bond CL had the highest forage yield at boot. Surprisingly, Hawken and Bond CL had the two lowest grain yields. Armour had the second highest dry weight at jointing and the fourth highest dry wet at boot. Five varieties had higher three-year grain yield averages than the trial averages. The variety with the highest three-year average yield was Bond CL.

Discussion: Based on the 2010 results, my choice for the best overall dual-purpose wheat variety is Armour. Armour produced the highest grain yield, second highest forage yield at jointing, and the fourth highest forage yield at boot. The early forage yields, particularly the boot forage yield, indicated that Bond CL was on track for the best overall dual-purpose wheat; however, at grain harvest, Bond CL had the lowest yield. I do not know the reason for its low yield, but the range from highest to lowest yielding was small.

Grain yields of the last three years have been much below (2008), and near the average (2009), and higher (2010) than the Baca County average. Four wheat varieties, TAM 111, Ankor, Ripper, and Bill Brown had average or above average grain yields each year of the last three seasons. Producing average or above average yields in response our wide-ranging seasonal conditions shows that these four varieties are well adapted for our environment. TAM 111, Ankor, Ripper, and Bill Brown would be good varietal choices regardless of year-to-year precipitation fluctuations.

35 2010 Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance ______Variety Jointing Boot Plant Test Grain Fresh Wt. Dry Wt. Fresh Wt. Dry Wt. Height Residue Weight Yield ______------lb/a------in lb/a lb/bu bu/a

Armour 9745 2025 27686 8323 30 3470 59 46.4 TAM 112 7604 1735 29597 8231 30 4215 61 46.1 Bill Brown 7105 1602 38512 8902 30 3487 61 45.5 Winterhawk 5605 1322 23346 7014 30 3738 62 45.5 TAM 111 8146 1810 26543 7860 31 4152 61 45.1

NuDakota 6934 1496 23788 7238 28 3480 57 44.6 Hatcher 9744 1974 27628 8151 28 3958 58 44.6 Ripper 8962 1883 25977 7455 31 3600 58 44.5 Snowmass 5971 1395 23538 7360 32 3667 60 44.3 Ankor 5366 1241 25708 7240 31 3379 60 43.5

Jagalene 7136 1720 21300 6103 32 3335 61 43.3 Danby 7377 1661 23288 7123 31 3363 62 42.9 TAM 110 7377 1625 26515 7643 31 3434 60 42.5 Hawken 10146 2269 24537 7872 27 3282 59 42.0 Bond CL 8953 1946 31201 9108 32 3751 59 41.6 ______Average 7745 1714 26611 7708 30 3621 60 44.2 LSD 0.05 2778.7 483.2 2911.0 816.5 826.2 3.32 ______Planted: September 30, 2009; 50 lb seed/a; 5 gal/a 10-34-0. Jointing sample taken April 6, 2110. Boot sample taken May 10, 2010. Wet Weight is reported at field moisture. Dry Weight is adjusted to 15% moisture content. Grain Yield adjusted to 12% grain moisture content. Residue is reported at field moisture.

36 ______2008-2010 Summary of Walsh Dryland Variety Strip Test Performance _ Grain Yield Yield as % of Trial Average 2-Year 3-Year 2-Year 3-Year Firm Variety 2008 2009 2010 Avg Avg 2008 2009 2010 Avg Avg ______------bu/a------%------

AGSECO TAM 110 3 23 43 33 23 60 92 98 94 92

AgriPro TAM 111 6 26 45 36 26 120 104 102 101 103 AgriPro Jagalene 3 20 43 32 22 60 80 98 90 88 AgriPro NuDakota 5 -- 45 -- -- 60 -- 102 -- -- AgriPro Hawken -- 22 42 32 -- -- 80 95 91 --

Colorado State Hatcher 3 27 45 36 25 60 108 102 103 100 Colorado State Prairie Red 5 27 ------100 108 ------Colorado State Ankor 6 26 44 35 25 120 104 100 100 101 Colorado State Bond CL 8 28 42 35 26 160 112 95 100 104 Colorado State Ripper 5 27 45 36 26 100 108 102 103 103 Colorado State Bill Brown 5 25 46 36 25 100 100 105 101 101

Kansas State Danby 3 25 43 34 24 60 100 98 97 95

Watley TAM 112 4 25 46 36 25 80 100 105 101 100

Westbred Winterhawk -- 23 46 35 -- -- 100 105 99 -- Westbred Keota 5 24 ------100 96 ------______Average 5 25 44 35 25 ______Grain Yields were adjusted to 12.0 % grain moisture content.

37 The Future of Certified Wheat Seed in Colorado Brad Erker, Director of Colorado Seed Programs

The past decade has seen a marked increase in the use of Certified seed to plant Colorado’s wheat crop, from around one-fifth of the crop in 2001 to about one-third of the crop in 2011. The graph (side) shows trends in the percentage of winter wheat planted with Certified seed (black bars) and the percentage of winter wheat planted with Clearfield* wheat (gray bars). What are the factors behind this, and what benefits will it bring in the future?

New Varieties One of the main factors in the increased Certified seed use is new varieties. Fortunately for wheat producers in Colorado, there are several strong wheat breeding programs in the region providing a consistent stream of new, higher yielding varieties with other improved characteristics. The limited generation system of Certified seed production provides a way for clean, pure seed of these new varieties to be made available to producers rather quickly, and they have responded by choosing to adopt these new varieties. Since new varieties now have a royalty associated with them, these purchases pump dollars back into the research programs that provided them. This creates a positive feedback loop and is keeping the pipeline full of new and better varieties for the future.

Identity Preserved Varieties Another factor is the development of some Identity Preserved grain markets that require the use of Certified seed. For these markets, the grain purchaser desires a consistent product of specific varieties and is willing to pay a premium for that grain. Ensuring the crop is planted with Certified seed through contracting, these programs further increase Certified seed use. They create a win-win-win situation where the seed grower, producer, and purchaser all gain value from the program. Since these programs are voluntary, every player in the chain needs to gain this value or the program won’t be sustainable.

Clearfield* Varieties A third factor is Clearfield* wheat, which requires all grain produced to be sold, with none saved back for planting the next year’s crop. Each new crop must be planted using Certified

38 seed, and this is enforced by the trait owner (BASF) through their patent of the Clearfield* technology. The Certified seed model was chosen by BASF as part of an overall weed resistance management strategy to prevent the development of resistant weeds and maintain use of the technology long-term. Producers that choose to plant Clearfield* wheat have determined that the benefits of the herbicide control program outweigh the costs of buying new Certified seed each year.

Plant Variety Protection and Enforcement Prior to about the mid 1990s, many wheat varieties were released with Plant Variety Protection (PVP) obtained by universities that may or may not have enforced the seed-selling restrictions contained in Title V of the PVP. This portion of the PVP provides a protection to the variety owner whereby seed of that variety can only be sold as a class of Certified seed. With the advent of wheat marketing organizations (such as the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation and the Kansas Wheat Alliance) across the Great Plains, enforcement of PVP has increased. While some view this as intrusive, the reality is that PVP enforcement has increased Certified seed use, leading to greater royalty dollars returned to breeding programs that in turn, support the development of new varieties. This new legal environment has in turn attracted additional investment in wheat from both the public and private sectors.

What does the future hold? I believe the past decade of increased Certified seed use, and associated increased funding to wheat breeding programs, whether public or private, will yield big dividends in the upcoming decade. The trend has created a strong base of qualified seed growers, a healthy seed grower’s organization, and a strong pipeline of improved wheat varieties in all areas: red and white wheat, herbicide resistance, disease resistance, milling and baking quality, adaptation to Identity Preserved markets, insect resistance, and more. It has also allowed the breeding programs to invest in the latest technologies like marker assisted breeding and doubled haploids to bring new varieties to market even faster.

Since Colorado is primarily a wheat state, it hasn’t benefitted as much as the Midwestern states from technology advances in corn and soybeans. The “priming of the pump” from the past decade will begin to show dividends to wheat producers in Colorado in the near future. These advances in wheat are not destined to happen the same way they did for corn and soybeans. Private investment in wheat breeding programs has recently seen a significant increase across the country. This private investment is competing with strong public breeding and marketing organizations, that have strong support from producers in their respective states. Public-private collaborations are being discussed and implemented. The gains from this system have the potential to make gains from the past decade look quite small and slow. Nobody knows where all of this activity in wheat will lead, but competition is good for the consumer, and in this case it is good for the wheat producer.

39 Clearfield* Two-Gene Wheat Being Tested for Feral Rye Control Dr. Philip Westra, Weed Scientist, BSPM, CSU

Clearfield* wheat varieties such as Above, Bond CL, and Infinity CL carry a single copy of the modified ALS gene that provides tolerance to Beyond herbicide. However, these “single-gene” wheat varieties are not absolutely tolerant to either high rates of Beyond (above 6 fl oz) or to Beyond applied with oil-based adjuvants. Single-gene wheat varieties have allowed wheat producers to obtain good control of downy brome and jointed goatgrass, but feral rye control is currently listed as suppression on the Beyond label. Feral rye is inherently harder to control with Beyond than either downy brome or jointed goatgrass. Use of an adjuvant plus liquid nitrogen is required to provide good activity of Beyond herbicide on winter annual grass and mustard weeds. Years of research have shown that applying Beyond with methylated seed oil (MSO) or crop oil concentrate (COC) can push the single-gene wheat varieties beyond good crop tolerance.

Wheat varieties carrying a second copy of a modified ALS gene exhibit much higher tolerance to Beyond herbicide, even when it is applied with oil based adjuvants. Available “two-gene” varieties currently include only AP503 CL2 from AgriPro, though other programs are hoping to soon release promising alternatives. Although these two-gene wheat varieties have been successfully tested against Beyond rates as high as 20 fl oz per acre, they will not be labeled at these high rates because of herbicide cost and federal registration requirements. Rather, our current testing involves Beyond rates of 5 or 6 fl oz per acre when applied with MSO or COC at 1% v/v plus liquid nitrogen usually applied at 2.5% v/v. These combinations are much more effective on feral rye, and should greatly enhance our ability to control feral rye in our Colorado wheat crop while providing excellent wheat crop safety. The CSU Wheat Breeding Program, with funding assistance and support from the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC), and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF), is making good progress in the development of new two-gene Clearfield* wheat varieties. One of these experimental lines (CO06052) is currently in statewide variety trial testing and is expected to be released in August, 2011.

40 CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program Update June 2011 Scott Haley, CSU Wheat Breeder

Introduction The primary goal of the CSU Wheat Breeding and Genetics Program is to develop and release improved wheat cultivars and germplasm adapted for the diverse production conditions in Colorado and the High Plains. In over 50 years of continuous wheat improvement at CSU, we have developed a uniquely adapted germplasm base and have brought many new cultivars to the market to address production and marketing constraints facing Colorado’s wheat producers. We are fortunate to receive generous funding support from CSU (Colorado Ag Experiment Station) and from the Colorado wheat industry through the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC) and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF). The funding we receive, enhanced considerably with the CWAC assessment increase in 2007, supports several different activities focused on wheat cultivar development. The following descriptions of these activities highlight our progress over the last few years, particularly since the CWAC assessment increase in 2007.

Breeding Program Core The primary goal of our breeding program is the development and release of improved wheat cultivars adapted for Colorado and the High Plains region. Funding provided by CWAC is used for partial salary/benefits for two research associates (4 months for one, 1 month for another) and general program support (supplies, temporary labor, travel). The Colorado Ag Experiment Station provides funding (8 months) to our program for a full-time research associate for greenhouse management.

• For the 2010-11 season, we have over 17,000 yield trial plots scattered across 14 field locations in Colorado. In addition to yield trials, we have over 35,000 F4 and F5 generation headrows, nearly 1,000 early-generation (F2-F4) populations, and over 1,500 new cross combinations planted at Fort Collins in 2010-11. • Snowmass HWW was released in fall 2009. Snowmass has yielded very well in three years of dryland variety trial testing (2008-10) and, together with Thunder CL HWW (released in 2008), has generated considerable interest through the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program. • Three HRW experimental lines are currently on foundation seed increase for possible release in 2011. These include CO06424, CO050303-2, and CO06052 (2-gene Clearfield*, for enhanced feral rye control). All three lines have shown high yield in field trials, good test weight, and good stripe rust resistance. Two of the lines (CO06424 and CO06052) have exceptional milling and baking quality. If released, CO06052 would be the first publicly- developed 2-gene Clearfield* winter wheat. • In 2010 we engaged in collaborations to: transfer novel third-party, non-GM-derived traits to our breeding program (high amylose, high biomass); strengthen collaborations with Kansas State and Oklahoma State Universities; and develop methodologies for field-based assessment of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) (in collaboration with the USDA-ARS at Akron, CO).

41 Drought Stress Tolerance The basic objective of this effort is to develop a “pre-breeding capacity” focused on transferring drought stress tolerance traits from exotic or unadapted germplasm into adapted CSU germplasm. Funding provided by CWAC is used for salary/benefits support for a PhD-level research scientist and general research support (supplies, temporary labor, travel). • In 2010-11, the third year of a drought tolerance study will be completed at the USDA-ARS Limited Irrigation Research Farm in Greeley, CO. Twenty-four winter wheat experimental lines and cultivars with a range of drought stress responses were planted under five drip- irrigation treatments to gain a better understanding of the stress tolerance mechanisms in our germplasm. Remote sensing for rapid assessment of early growth has shown a good correlation with early biomass development and is now being used for breeding line evaluation. Digital imagery has also proven useful for growth assessment. • We have increased our use of “synthetic wheats” for enhanced drought stress tolerance. We are using synthetic wheats derived at the International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico by crossing durum wheat with wild wheat, thus expanding the range of genetic variability available for use in wheat breeding. Ninety synthetic wheat populations were obtained from Texas A&M University in fall 2008. About 100 selections were made from these populations in 2010 and are being evaluated in yield trials at Walsh and Sheridan Lake in 2010-11. A second group of populations developed with a new set of synthetics were planted in early spring 2011. Pat Byrne is also co-lead of a USDA-funded project focusing on developing a knowledge base to more effectively exploit synthetic wheat germplasm. • Each year since 2008, we have conducted side-by-side full/reduced irrigation evaluations of germplasm collections at ARDEC in Fort Collins. Materials originate from the hard winter wheat region and international trials coordinated by CIMMYT in Turkey. This effort has proven useful in identifying new drought stress tolerant germplasm for use in our crossing program. • Populations have been developed to enable DNA marker mapping of several novel semi- dwarfing genes. These genes reportedly confer a longer coleoptile and enhanced early growth characteristics under stress and deep planting relative to conventional sources of semi-dwarfism. The populations have been characterized and marker assays will be done in fall 2011. • Under Pat Byrne’s leadership, we received a Beachell-Borlaug grant to fund a PhD graduate student to focus on “association mapping” for drought stress tolerance. Pat Byrne is leading our involvement in a new $25 million USDA-funded project entitled “Improving Barley and Wheat Germplasm for Changing Environments”, with our involvement focusing on drought stress tolerance in a winter wheat association mapping panel.

DNA Marker-Assisted Selection The core of this effort involves application of DNA molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS) in a rapid generation advance scheme called “single seed descent” (SSD) that will allow us to rapidly develop experimental lines with desired trait combinations. We are also working to identify new DNA markers for traits of interest in our breeding program. Funding provided by CWAC is used for salary/benefits for a MS-level research associate and laboratory supplies and reagents.

42 • Each spring since 2008 we have initiated SSD with 30-50 different cross populations. Each set is assayed for key DNA markers during the first generation in the greenhouse and then two subsequent generations are advanced in the greenhouse. Experimental lines from the first set in spring 2008 are in yield trials in 2010-11. Approximately 1/8 of the 1,200 experimental lines at this stage of the program in 2011 were developed via SSD with DNA marker-assisted selection. • In addition to our efforts with SSD, in 2010-11 we have also committed to have 1,000 doubled haploid lines (costing $30/line) made for us by the Heartland Plant Innovation Center (HPI) in Manhattan, KS. Doubled haploids are “true-breeding” lines developed in a one-two years time frame rather than the four-five year time frame with conventional breeding methods. We hope to continue to use this service as our budget allows. The CWRF royalties that are returned to our program are used for this purpose. • We routinely use DNA markers for rapid transfer of unique traits from unadapted germplasm. We have focused on the following: leaf, stripe, and Ug-99 stem rust resistance; wheat streak mosaic virus resistance; gluten strength; polyphenol oxidase (PPO) content; pre-harvest sprouting. • We have identified novel DNA markers linked to the wheat streak mosaic virus resistance gene in Snowmass HWW (in collaboration with Texas A&M University) and a gene for RWA resistance identified in an Iranian landrace selection. We are also in the third year of a collaboration with Australian researchers to identify DNA markers for Russian wheat aphid (RWA) resistance in several mapping populations. • We are pursuing implementation of a breeding method known as “genomic selection”. This novel method utilizes advances in DNA sequencing and bioinformatics tools to potentially lead to more rapid yield gains in wheat breeding. A PhD-level graduate student is currently working on this project from the standpoint of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) enhancement.

TILLING for Novel Trait Development TILLING (Targeting Induced Local Lesions In Genomes) is a novel technique that uses a combination of chemical mutagens and advanced genomics to identify useful plant mutations. The objective of this project is to identify useful novel, non-GM traits for potential deployment in wheat cultivars for Colorado. Funding provided by CWAC is used for laboratory supplies and salary/benefits for a PhD level scientist that focuses on TILLING mutant identification (under the leadership of Nora Lapitan) and a MS-level research associate focusing on novel trait validation and transfer to our breeding materials. • A mutagenized population of Hatcher has been generated using the mutagen ethyl methyl sulfonate (EMS), which creates single-base changes in DNA. A total of 3000 mutagenized plants have been isolated in two rounds of chemical mutagenesis. A second mutagenized population, in a spring wheat background, has been obtained from Univ. California-Davis. • A reliable working protocol for TILLING mutant screening has been developed. We have explored different methods of mutant detection to optimize our procedures and plan to purchase a new DNA fragment analyzer (using funding from CWRF) that will greatly streamline the process. • Using virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), we confirmed the role of a candidate gene in conferring enhanced drought stress tolerance in wheat. Using bioinformatic tools and sequence information from rice and barley, we have identified 15 wheat plants (all three

43 genomes) that carry a mutation in this gene. Crosses with these plants are being made in the breeding program for trait validation and potential trait deployment. • A second drought-related gene has been identified as a potential target for TILLING. Bioinformatic tools described above have been used to identify TILLING mutants in this gene in wheat. We have identified mutants in two of wheat’s genomes and are conducting research on the third genome. • Candidate genes for other useful traits (drought stress tolerance, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance) have been identified and will be used in TILLING and conventional mutant identification (where possible) to identify wheat plants carrying mutations in these genes.

Russian Wheat Aphid Resistance Our efforts in this area have focused on identification of germplasm resistant to the new RWA biotypes and rapid transfer of the resistance to adapted backgrounds via backcross and forward breeding. Our program, in close collaboration with Frank Peairs, has also focused on identification of molecular DNA markers linked with different resistance genes for use in marker-assisted selection (MAS). Funding provided by CWAC is used for partial salary/benefits (8 months) for one research associate with the remaining 4 months funded by the Colorado Ag Experiment Station RWA project. • Four experimental lines with RWA biotype 2 resistance are in the state dryland variety trial (UVPT) in 2010-11. Pending trial results, one or more of these lines may be moved toward seed increase for potential release in 2012. Because the resistance in these lines is from the rye-derived Dn7 gene, we are concerned about the quality of the lines (additional tests are being done). • In spring 2010, we confirmed that our efforts to separate the negative quality effects from the Dn7 gene were successful. Backcross-derived lines with this resistance in a Bill Brown background are being increased in the field in spring 2011 to enable preliminary yield tests in 2012. • In 2010, 36 line selections in a Snowmass background were advanced for yield trials in 2010- 11. Two different sources of RWA biotype 2 resistance (PI 572652 and PI 626580) were used to develop these materials. A limited number of these lines will be advanced for further testing in the CSU Elite Trial in 2012.

End-Use Quality Improvement The primary goals of this effort are to conduct milling and baking quality evaluations on experimental lines in our breeding program and samples collected from the state dryland (UVPT) and irrigated (IVPT) variety trials. Our overall strategy in breeding line evaluation is to identify lines with unacceptable quality early in the breeding process (so that they may be discarded) and identify superior quality lines so that they may be properly positioned for a ConAgra-type, identity-preserved program. Funding provided by CWAC is used for temporary labor (student and non-student hourly) and for repair and maintenance of equipment in the laboratory. The Colorado Ag Experiment Station provides funding (11 months) to our program for a full-time research associate for wheat quality lab management during the winter months. • Comprehensive milling and baking quality evaluations are done on selected locations of the state dryland (UVPT) and irrigated (IVPT) variety trial program every year. Since 2007, data and interpretations from these evaluations have been reported in the Making Better

44 Decisions booklet to assist producers in the variety selection process. • Comprehensive milling and baking quality evaluations are done annually at several different stages of our breeding program. We are currently testing entries each year from four locations of the CSU Elite Trial, two locations of the Advanced Yield Nursery, and a single location of the Preliminary Yield Nursery. Each year we do over 2,000 single kernel characterization system (SKCS) tests, over 2,000 Mixographs, over 600 polyphenol oxidase (PPO) assays, and over 600 full-scale Quadrumat Senior milling and pup-loaf bake tests. • Through our federal special research grant, we have developed and implemented several calibrations for rapid end-use quality prediction using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRs).

45 Collaborative On-Farm Testing (COFT) Collaboration among Agents, Farmers, Specialists, and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation Makes COFT a Unique and Rewarding Experience Bruce Bosely, Colorado State University Extension

Colorado State University Extension’s Collaborative On-Farm Trial (COFT) program is unique among Land Grant University Extension Programs. Colorado has the only COFT program in the United States that features a uniform set of varieties tested on all farms. It has been conducted annually in Colorado since 1996. In a recent wheat grower survey, farmers picked CSU Extension’s COFT data as their most reliable source of information when choosing new wheat varieties. Without an exception, those farmers who participate in the COFT program express their appreciation of this program. They see firsthand how the different wheat varieties perform on their farm and make wheat planting decisions based on test results. The CSU COFT program is a partnership among farmers, CSU Extension field agents, CSU campus-based wheat specialists, and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF). This article outlines how these partners collaborate in all aspects of the program to help farmers make better variety decisions.

Collaborating COFT farmers agree to plant four to six wheat varieties in one of their wheat fields. They receive 100 pounds of wheat seed for each variety. The wheat for all COFT trials is provided by the CWRF or private seed companies. CWRF also contributes to program operation expenses. COFT farmers agree not to save back seed of COFT varieties for subsequent wheat plantings. All harvested wheat is mixed together with the other wheat harvested from that field and sold for grain.

Farmers manage their COFT plots and harvest operations like the wheat in the rest of the field. They use their own or rented equipment and may use custom sprayers or combines for all field operations. They use the same fertilizer, weed and pest control, and tillage practices as they use in their other fields.

Each wheat trial strip needs to be planted as wide as, or wider than, the combine header width that will be used for harvest. In that way, there will be a full combine header and all varieties will be treated equally. Farmers plant the varieties in parallel side-by-side strips inside one of their normal commercial wheat fields. There should always be at least one round of border wheat planted around the COFT plots to avoid the variable effects of field edges on the variety comparison.

Deciding the best place to plant the COFT strips so that all varieties will be fairly compared is of utmost importance. Field agents help COFT collaborators choose suitable locations for the strips. Avoid planting the strips in such a manner that it is obvious, even before planting, that one variety would benefit more than another variety from a favorable spot in the field. CSU Extension agents help farmers select unbiased field sites for the strips and often help in the actual planting process. The agents flag the corners of the strips, keep track of the variety planting order, locate the field using GPS equipment, and monitor the wheat throughout the growing season. Extension agents work with farmers to schedule harvest and minimize the

46 disruption to other harvest operations. A portable weigh wagon is brought to the field for measuring the grain weight of each variety. The agent and the farmer select the most uniform portion of the field to make the variety comparison as meaningful as possible. They measure the length of the strips to be harvested and, knowing the width of the combine, can accurately compute yield for each variety. A grain sample of each variety is taken for measuring grain moisture and test weight in the field. These samples are sometimes passed on to the wheat breeding program for multiple measurements of wheat quality.

Extension Agents supply the information for each trial to the cooperating farmer and forward the test results to Jerry Johnson, CSU Crops Testing Extension Specialist. He compiles all COFT data and reports the results in annual CSU wheat publications and websites. All cooperating farmers get a copy of all the trial data from these COFT plots.

Cooperating Colorado Extension Agents are: Bruce Bosley, Thaddeus Gourd, Alan Helm, Ron Meyer, and Wilma Trujillo.

47 CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program Premium Program Pays 3 Ways: Yield, Price, and Protein A Powerful Pair of Hard White Wheat Varieties... Snowmass

Snowmass is the newest addition to the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program and was first available for planting in fall 2010. This hard white wheat variety combines high dryland yields, good test weight, good sprouting tolerance and excellent milling and baking qualities. Snowmass has excellent resistance to stripe and stem rust and is one of the few varieties with built-in resistance to wheat streak mosaic virus, which is becoming an increasing yield threat. Colorado growers will really appreciate the strong agronomic traits of this wheat variety paired with the excellent premium opportunities. Snowmass had a top 3-year trial average for 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the CSU Uniform Variety Dryland Performance Trials. Thunder CL

Thunder CL was the first hard white wheat variety accepted into the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program. This wheat variety has growers excited with its strong field performance and high trial yield results, particularly under irrigated conditions. Thunder CL has excellent stripe and stem rust resistance, good stress tolerance, very good straw strength and excellent milling and baking qualities. It also carries the Clearfield® herbicide-tolerance trait for control of winter annual grassy weeds.

Consumer and Export Demand

Colorado growers are uniquely qualified to serve the growing consumer and export market for hard white wheat, creating a valuable long-term market opportunity. There is an added benefit because Commerce City, Colo. is one of the key milling locations for ConAgra’s Ultragrain flour, creating a reliable market that growers can count on. Major brands like Papa John’s, Sara Lee and Pepperidge Farms are utilizing the new flour, and the demand for whole-grain flour with properties similar to enriched white flour is growing annually. The health benefits of whole grain suggest these products are here to stay. In addition, a U.S. Wheat Associates survey of export customers says there is unmet demand for 215 million bushels of hard white wheat for export.

How can you join the program?

The first step for wheat producers who wish to participate in the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program is contacting your local seed grower. The seed supplier will then have you sign a Grain Pricing Schedule with ConAgra Mills, detailing the contract terms and requiring delivery of all production to ConAgra, and a Wheat Seed Agreement with CWRF that requires planting of certified seed. Growers selecting Thunder CL will also sign a “Clearfield® Wheat Stewardship Grower Agreement” with BASF. The cost of Thunder CL and Snowmass certified seed will be similar to other CWRF varieties. You can buy the certified seed from the CWRF seed grower participants listed on the following page.

48 Snowmass Seed Growers: Thunder CL Seed Growers:

Anderson Wheat Farms, Haxtun (970) 774-4143 Anderson Wheat Farms, Haxtun (970) 774-4143 Cooksey Farms, Roggen (303) 849-5214 Cooksey Farms, Roggen (303) 849-5214 Jim Dolezal, Julesburg (308) 889-5365 Frank Fry, Grand Junction (970) 858-7181 Eagle Farms, Holyoke (970) 854-5328 Splitter Farms, Sheridan Lake (719) 729-3567 Kochis Farms, Matheson (719) 775-2596 Harry Thompson, Snyder (970) 842-3168 Pachner Ag Enterprises, Akron (970) 345-6457 Thunderbird Livestock & Seed, Towner (800) 289-1415 Scherler Farms, Sheridan Lake (719) 729-3367 Wagers Seed, Woodrow (970) 842-2022 Splitter Farms, Sheridan Lake (719) 729-3567 Ryan Weaver, Burlington (719) 340-1234 Gary Rafert, Amherst (970) 854-2607 Terry Ring, Crook (970) 253-5009 Mertens Brothers, New Raymer (970) 437-5358 Thunderbird Livestock & Seed, Towner (800) 289-1415 Wagers Seed, Woodrow (970) 842-2022 Cary Wickstrom, Orchard (970) 656-3656 Randy Wilks, Burlington (719) 346-7314

The Colorado Wheat Research Foundation is excited to continue its partnership with ConAgra Mills in the CWRF ConAgra Mills Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat. ConAgra Mills is investing in this sustainable, ongoing, value-added hard white wheat program with the support of the breeding program at Colorado State University. The result is high-yielding, top quality varieties, the first step in creating high-value flour.

Ultragrain is a 100 percent whole wheat flour that combines the nutritional benefits of whole grains with the finished recipe qualities of refined flour. The milling and baking qualities of Snowmass and Thunder CL set this program apart and give Colorado wheat growers a new opportunity to boost their incomes. In 2011, ConAgra will pay a minimum premium of 30 cents per bushel, plus a protein premium of 2 cents per bushel for each 0.2 percent of protein greater than 12 percent up to 15 percent. An additional 5 cents per bushel will be added to the premium at both 13 and 13.5 percent protein with a maximum premium of 40 cents per bushel for grain with 15 percent protein.

Minimum premium 30¢ per bushel, plus a maximum protein premium of 40¢ per bushel = 70 cents per bushel:

Protein Scale: 12.0% 12.8% 8¢ 13.5% 24¢ 14.2% 32¢ 12.2% 2¢ 13.0% 15¢ 13.6% 26¢ 14.4% 34¢ 12.4% 4¢ 13.2% 17¢ 13.8% 28¢ 14.8% 38¢ 12.6% 6¢ 13.4% 19¢ 14.0% 30¢ 15.0% 40¢

Grower premiums and protein scales for 2012 and subsequent crops will be set by ConAgra no later than August 15th of the fall the wheat is to be planted.

For more information about participating in the CWRF ConAgra Ultragrain® Premium Program for hard white wheat, contact the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation at (970) 449-6994 or visit www.coloradowheat.org. 49 Wheat Information Resources

Dr. Jerry Johnson - Associate Professor/Extension Specialist - Crop Production, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C12 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-1454, fax: 970-491-2758, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Scott Haley - Professor/Wheat Breeder, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C136 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-6483, fax: 970-491- 0564, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Jessica Davis - Professor/Extension Specialist/Soils, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C09 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1170, phone: 970-491-1913, fax: 970- 491-2758, e-mail: [email protected].

Brad Erker - Director of Colorado Seed Programs, Colorado State University, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, C143 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523, phone: 970-491-6202, e-mail: brad.erker@ colostate.edu.

Darrell Hanavan - Executive Director of the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee/Colorado Association of Wheat Growers/Colorado Wheat Research Foundation, 4026 South Timberline Rd, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525, phone: 970-449-6998, fax: 970-449-6999, e-mail: dhanavan@ coloradowheat.org.

Dr. Frank Peairs - Professor/Extension Specialist/Entomologist, Colorado State University, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, 102 Insectary, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970- 491-5945, fax: 970-491-6990, e-mail: [email protected].

Dr. Ned Tisserat - Professor/Plant Disease Specialist, Colorado State University, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, C137 Plant Science Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-6527, fax: 970-491-3862, e-mail: [email protected]

Thia Walker - Extension Specialist - Pesticide Education, Colorado State University, 1177 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: (970) 491-6027, fax: (970) 491-3888, e-mail: thia.walker@colostate. edu.

Dr. Phil Westra - Professor/Extension Specialist/Weed Science, Colorado State University, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences & Pest Management, 112 Weed Research Lab, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177, phone: 970-491-5219, fax: 970-491-3862, e-mail:[email protected].

Additional Wheat Information Resources on the Web: http://www.csucrops.com- Colorado State University Crop Variety Testing Program http://wheat.colostate.edu - Colorado State University Wheat Breeding Program http://wheat.colostate.edu/database.html - Colorado Wheat Variety Performance Database (CSU Wheat Breeding Program). http://www.coloradowheat.org - Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC), Colorado Association of Wheat Growers (CAWG), and Colorado Wheat Research Foundation (CWRF) website. 50 Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for support received from Colorado State University and for the funding received from the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee and the Colorado Wheat Research Foundation. The Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee provides substantial financial support to Colorado State University for wheat breeding and wheat-related research. We are thankful to Kierra Jewell (CSU Extension), Jim Hain, Sally Sauer (Crops Testing); John Stromberger, Emily Heaton, Rebecca Kottke, Scott Seifert, Victoria Valdez, and Marc Moragues (Wheat Breeding Program); Chris Fryrear, Mark Collins, and Bob Bee (Agricultural Research, Development and Education Center); Dave Poss (USDA); Merle Vigil, Delbert Koch, Paul Campbell (Central Great Plains Research Center); Kevin Larson, Dennis Thompson, and Deb Harn (Plainsman Research Center); Mike Bartolo and Jeff Davidson (Arkansas Valley Research Center); and Frank Peairs, Jeff Rudolph, Thia Walker, Terri Randolph (Russian Wheat Aphid Program), for their work and collaboration that make these trials and this report possible. The authors are thankful for the cooperation and unselfish contributions of land, labor and equipment made by the following Colorado wheat farmers who consent to having winter wheat variety performance trials conducted on their farms: John and Jensen Stulp (Lamar, Prowers County), Burl Scherler (Brandon, Kiowa County), Dennis and Matt Campbell (Arapahoe, Cheyenne County), Randy Wilks (Burlington, Kit Carson County), Jim Carlson (Julesburg, Sedgwick County), Brian Kipp (Haxtun, Phillips County), Steve Meakins (Haxtun, Phillips County), Cooksey Farms (Roggen, Weld County), Ross Hansen (Genoa, Lincoln County), Cary Wickstrom (Orchard, Morgan County), and Bill and Steve Andrews (Yuma, Yuma County). We recognize valuable assistance provided by the CSU Extension agents who work with eastern Colorado wheat producers in all aspects of the COFT program: Bruce Bosley (Platte River agronomist); Wilma Trujillo (SE Area agronomist); Ron Meyer (Golden Plains agronomist); Alan Helm (Golden Plains agronomist); Thaddeus Gourd (Adams County Extension). We are also very thankful for the efforts and sacrifices made by Colorado wheat producers who contributed time, land, and equipment to the success of the Collaborative On-Farm Testing program.

Funded by the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, Colorado Wheat Research Foundation, and Colorado State University.

**Mention of a trademark proprietary product does not constitute endorsement by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.**

Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and complies with all Federal and Colorado State laws, regulations, and executive orders regarding affirmative action requirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity is located in 101 Student Services. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women, and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and to so identify themselves.

51  