DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado Wheat Farmer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

VOL. 55, NO. 3 Summer 2013

Colorado

www.coloradowheat.org

Wheat Farmer

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE COLORADO WHEAT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

President’s Column

Colorado Winter Wheat Harvest Smallest Since ‘06

By Steve Beedy

  • Colorado
  • winter
  • wheat

In my first president’scolumn, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Steve Beedy, and I was born and raised on a farm north of

production in 2013 is projected at 43,500,000 bushels, down 59 percent from 73,780000 bushels produced last year, and down 60 percent from the 10-year average crop of 71,978,000 bushels. The estimate for the 2013 Colorado winter wheat crop is based upon 1,500,000 acres being harvested with an average yield of 29.0 bushels per acre. This compares with 2,170,000 acres harvested last year and the 10-year average of 2,122,000 acres harvested. An estimated 2,200,000 acres were planted last fall for harvest in 2013, compared with 2,350,000 acres planted for harvest in 2012 and the 10-year average of 2,395,000 acres planted for harvest. Colorado ranked 14th in winter wheat production for 2013, compared to tenth in 2012 and sixth in 2011.
1,500,000 acres is the lowest amount of harvested acres for Colorado since 1965.
Approximately 700,000 acres were totally abandoned and not harvested in Baca, Prowers, Bent, Kiowa and Cheyenne counties due to poor emergence last fall or drought and freeze damage this spring.
Some farmers in the Holly,
Cheyenne Wells and Brandon area harvested no wheat at all, some for the first time in their farm history, and some for the first time since the 1950s.
On August 12, USDA estimated
U.S. all-wheat production (the sum total of winter, spring and durum production)in2013at2,114,085,000 bushels, down seven percent from 2,269,117,000 bushels in 2012, and

Genoa, Colorado.

  • The farm
  • I
  • live on was

  • homesteaded
  • by
  • my
  • great-

grandparents in 1894 and I live in the house they built in 1900. I graduated from Colorado State University (CSU) with a B.S. in Farm/Ranch management. The farm is operated by my parents, Raymond and Gloria, my brother Gary, my three sons ages 13, 25, and 30, and myself. We grow all dryland crops with no-till and min-till wheat, corn, and sunflowers and also have a commercial cow/calf operation.
I started serving on the Colorado
Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC) board in the 1990s as an alternate for Lincoln County. I also serve on several other boards: Arikaree Ground Water Board, HiPlains Soil Conservation Board and the Lincoln County Tourism Board.
While on the CWAC board I have had the pleasure of serving on several related boards, such as the Wheat Foods Council (WFC) and the Wheat Marketing Center (WMC). The WFC educates and promotes the use of wheat in the domestic market. The WMC in Portland, Oregon does education on the quality of U.S. wheat and milling and baking classes for domestic and overseas markets. I am currently serving on the U.S. Wheat Associates (USWA) board, representing Colorado wheat growers. USWA works on exports of

Hard white winter wheat harvest at Anderson Farms near Dailey this July.

down two percent from the 10-year average of 2,165,663,900 bushels.
U.S. winter wheat production in
2013 is estimated at 1,542,605,000 bushels, down six percent from 1,645,202,000 bushels in 2012, and down less than one percent from the 10-year average of 1,552,150,200 bushels.
U.S. spring wheat production in 2012 is estimated at 511,280,000 bushels, down six percent from 541,959,000 bushels in 2012, and down three percent from the 10-year average of 529,041,600 bushels.
U.S. durum wheat production in 2012 is estimated at 60,200,000 bushels, down 27 percent from 81,956,000 bushels in 2012, and down 29 percent from the 10-year average of 84,472,100 bushels.
Kansas winter wheat production is projected at 328,200,000 bushels in 2013, down 14 percent from 2012 production of 382,000,000 bushels, and down six percent from the 10-year average of 349,380,000 bushels.
Oklahoma production winter projected wheat

  • at
  • is

115,500,000 bushels in 2013, a decrease of 25 percent from 154,800,000 bushels in 2013, and down seven percent from the 10-year average of 124,110,000 bushels.
Texas winter wheat production is projected at 64,000,000 bushels in 2013, down 33 percent from 96,000,000 bushels in 2012, and 30 percent from the 10-year average of 90,845,000 bushels.

  • Nebraska
  • winter
  • wheat

productionisprojectedat41,760,000 bushels in 2013, down 22 percent from 53,300,000 bushels in 2012, and down 40 percent from the 10- year average of 69,176,000 bushels.

  • The
  • next
  • USDA
  • Crop

Cont’d on p. 8

Production Report will be released September 12.

Help the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee Update Our Mailing List

In preparation for the Spring 2014 referendum to re-approve the two-cent wheat assessment, the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee (CWAC) is updating our mailing list. Thank you to everyone who has updated your address with us so far.
We want to keep you on our mailing list if you are still farming, have your wheat ground in CRP, receive income as a landlord, rent land to farm and receive income from a wheat crop, own land that someone else farms for you, share-crop, receive income from a trust that owns land that is farmed for wheat, or otherwise receive any income from wheat farming.
If you no longer receive any income from wheat farming, directly or indirectly, and you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please call 1-800-Wheat-10

V I C E R E Q U E S C T H E A D N G E S E R

P e r m i t N o . 1 3 1 2
, C O D e n v e r
A P I D

(1-800-943-2810) or email [email protected]. Also, please let us

F o r t C o l l i n s , C O 8 0 5 2 5

know if you are receiving multiple copies of our mailings.

i m T b e r l i n e 4 R 0 d 2 . , 6 S S t e . . 1 0 0
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o C m o m l o i r t a t e d e o W h e a t

If you are retired and no longer farming but still enjoy receiving our publications,

U . S . P o s t a g e N o n - P r o fi t O r g .

please let us know and we will mark you as such on our list, and you still may

  • r m F e a r
  • C o l o r a d o W h e a t

receive The Colorado Wheat Farme r .

2 COLORADO WHEAT FARMER SUMMER 2013

2013 Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) Results

2013 Collaborative On-Farm Tests (COFT) Variety Performance Results

  • 2013 Varietiesa
  • COFT

  • Average
  • Byrd
  • Antero
  • Brawl CL Plus
  • Denali
  • Hatcher
  • Snowmass

Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt

  • County/Town
  • bu/acb
  • lb/bu

56.1 57.9 57.5 59.0 59.0 55.0 53.8 60.0 55.0 55.5 58.5 56.0 56.5 59.0 59.6 57.2 bu/acb
10.0 12.5 36.3 24.2 30.8 32.0 43.3 36.3 19.8 22.6 39.9 33.1 33.0 56.6 34.1 31.0 A,B lb/bu 55.2 59.0 56.6 59.5 59.0 56.0 54.1 60.0 55.0 58.5 58.5 57.0 57.0 60.0 60.3 57.7

  • bu/acb
  • lb/bu

57.9 58.6 56.6 62.0 59.0 55.5 55.4 61.5 56.0 56.9 60.5 56.5 58.0 60.0 61.5 58.4

  • bu/acb
  • lb/bu

57.1 59.1 55.6 59.0 58.0 56.0 55.8 62.0 56.0 58.2 61.0 58.0 57.0 60.0 61.2 58.3

  • bu/acb
  • lb/bu

56.0 59.1 55.8 59.5 57.2 56.5 52.8 60.0 55.0 57.5 59.0 59.0 56.0 61.0 59.4 57.6

  • bu/acb
  • lb/bu

54.6 58.2 55.4 58.0 58.0 53.5 52.4 60.0 55.0 55.3 59.0 57.0 56.0 60.0 59.1 56.8

  • bu/acb
  • lb/bu

56.2 58.7 56.3 59.5 58.4 55.4 54.1 60.6 55.3 57.0 59.4 57.3 56.8 60.0 60.2

57.7

  • Baca/Vilas
  • 8.2
  • 6.5
  • 5.2
  • 5.7
  • 6.3

7.0

Kit Carson/Burlington Lincoln/Arriba
15.0 32.8 25.6 30.1 34.8 48.0 39.0 16.7 21.3 48.8 37.7 26.8 49.8 37.8 31.5 A
16.5 34.8 24.2 19.6 35.3 46.7 40.5 18.1 22.0 42.5 35.3 24.9 48.4 37.0 30.1 B,C
14.2 37.0 26.9 37.8 31.5 44.5 34.8 17.0 21.7 41.7 27.9 25.3 52.2 33.7 30.1 B,C
11.5 31.6 23.4 36.3 33.8 43.5 30.5 15.6 20.4 40.2 34.7 26.2 49.4 32.8 29.0 C
11.4 28.4 21.1 29.6 27.2 36.3 37.8 15.5 19.8 34.8 25.2 26.7 41.0 27.8 25.9 D

13.5 33.5 24.2 30.7 32.4 43.7 36.5 17.1 21.3 41.3 32.3 27.1 49.6 33.9

29.6
Logan/Leroy Logan/Peetz Logan/Sterling W Phillips/Haxtun Washington/Akron S Washington/Akron W Washington/Central Washington/Otis Weld/Keenesburg Weld/New Raymer Weld/Roggen Yuma/Yuma Average yield/Test Wt Significancec LSD(P<0.30) for yield = 1.2 bu/acre, LSD(P<0.30) for test weight = 0.3 lb/bu. aVarieties are ranked from left to right by highest average yield. bYield corrected to 12 percent moisture. cSignificance: Varieties with different letters are have yields that are significantly different from one another.

The objective of the
2013 COFT was to compare performance and adaptability of popular and newly released CSU varieties (Byrd, Brawl CL Plus, Denali, and Antero) with a proven high-yielding variety (Hatcher), and with a variety with a grower price-premium (Snowmass) under unbiased, field-scale testing conditions. The COFT program is in its 15th year and the majority of Colorado’s 2013 wheat acreage was planted to winter wheat varieties that have been tested in the COFT program.
In the fall of 2012, thirtythree eastern Colorado wheat producers planted on-farm tests in Baca, Bent, Prowers, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Washington, Yuma, Phillips, Sedgwick, Lincoln, Logan, Adams, and Weld counties. Each collaborator planted the six varieties in side-by-side strips (approximately one acre per variety) at the same seeding rate as they seeded their own wheat. Fifteen viable harvest results were obtained from the thirty-three tests due to the extremely dry conditions farmers experienced during the growing season. The COFT results need to be interpreted based on all tests within a year and not on the basis of a single variety comparison on a single farm in one year.

2013 Field Days Yield Contest Winners Announced

  • The
  • 2013
  • Colorado

Wheat Field Days featured the Third Annual Yield Contest. Attendees chose the variety they thought would yield highest at that plot location. The person predicting the top variety, or the variety closest to the top, won a $25 Visa gift card. The tie breaker was the yield, so the winner was the participant who guessed closest to the actual yield.

Darrell Hanavan

Dan Maltby is filling in for Darrell Hanavan for this issue, and his guest column appears on page 6.

At Burlington, the highest yielder was WestBred’s variety Winterhawk at 14.1 bushels per acre. The next highest variety that anyone picked was TAM 112, which was picked by two people. Dale Conrardy of Stratton was the only one to put down a yield, so he was the winner.

Colorado Wheat

2013 Colorado Wheat Field Days at Wickstrom Farms near Orchard, June 2013.

Farmer

which eight people picked. The closest yield estimate was Ted Carter of Julesburg, who estimated it would yield 47 bushels to the acre. At .3 bushel away from the actual yield, he had the closest guess of all of the trial locations.
40.3 bushels per acre. Justin Wagers of Woodrow and Kurt Heupel of Weldona tied for the honors at this location as both guessed Byrd would yield 42 bushels to the acre.
The best variety at the
Haxtun irrigated trial was PlainsGold variety Denali, which no one selected. It yielded 134.8 bushels per acre. The highest yielding variety that anyone chose was CSU experimental variety CO07W722-F5 at 123 bushels per acre, which was selected by Steve Millage of Holyoke, who estimated it would yield 134 bushels.

The Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee is organized under the Colorado Wheat Marketing Order approved by a referendum of Colorado wheat producers in 1958.

The top variety at Roggen was PlainsGold varietyAntero, at 39.5 bushels per acre. While 18 people chose Antero, Lyle Cooksey, Roggen, had the best guess at 42 bushels per acre.
At Yuma, the best yielding variety was Limagrain Cereal Seeds’ T163, which no one guessed, at 28.2 bushels per acre. The highest yielding variety that anyone chose was PlainsGold variety Brawl CL Plus, which was selected by Steve Andrews of Yuma. His estimate was 42 bushels per acre, and it yielded 27.6 bushels per acre. This is the second win in a row for him.
The top yielder at Orchard

WHEAT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Darrell Hanavan.........................................................Executive Director Glenda Mostek....................................Communications/Marketing Director Anne Seavey............................................................Office Manager Joe Westhoff.................................................................Field Representative

The top yielding variety

SPEAKERS AVAILABLE

The Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee members and staff are available for speaking engagements. If you need a speaker on markets or Committee programs or activities, please contact our office by phone (970) 449-6994, orwritetheCommittee.Thereisnochargefortheseengagements.

at the Akron plot was PlainsGold’s Byrd at 24.3 bushels per acre, which was selected as the winner by 26 people. The closest yield estimate was from Gary Barkey ofAkron, who guessed that Byrd would yield 25 bushels per acre.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Steve Beedy, District #6, Genoa, CO ............................................... President Randy Wilks, District #3, Burlington, CO.................................. Vice President Dave Anderson, District #1, Haxtun, CO..........................Secretary/Treasurer Sara Olsen, District #2, Yuma, CO...........................................Past President Dale Ness, District #5, Byers, CO .......................................................Director Brad Warren, District #4, Keenesburg, CO .........................................Director Shelby Britten, District #7, Haswell, CO..............................................Director Brett Shelton, District #8, Lamar, CO ..................................................Director Mike Williams, District #9, Hayden, CO...............................................Director

  • Complete
  • results
  • of

the 2013 Colorado State University wheat trials are available at: http://plainsgold. com/wheat-genetics-testing/.
At the Julesburg plot location, the best yielding variety was PlainsGold variety Denali at 47.3 bushels per acre,

www.coloradowheat.org

was PlainsGold’s Byrd, at

COLORADO WHEAT FARMER SUMMER 2013 3

2013 Eastern Colorado Winter Wheat Variety Performance Trials

By Jerry Johnson and Scott Haley

Summary of 2013, 2-Yr, and 3-Yr Average Yield and Test Weight for Colorado Dryland Variety Trialsc

  • 2013 Averagea
  • 2-Yr Averagea

2012-13
3-Yr Averagea
2011-13 Yield

The Colorado State University
(CSU) Crops Testing and Wheat Breeding and Genetics programs provide current, reliable, and unbiased wheat variety information as quickly as possible to Colorado producers for making better variety decisions. CSU has an excellent research faculty and staff, a focused breeding program, graduate and undergraduate students, and dedicated agricultural extension specialists. Wheat improvement in Colorado would not be possible without the support and cooperation of the entire Colorado wheat industry. Ongoing and strong producer support for our programs is critical for sustained public variety development and testing.
Our wheat variety performance

2013 Yield bu/ac
2013
Test Weight lb/bu

  • 2012-13
  • 2011-13

Test Weight lb/bu
Yield Test Weight

  • bu/acc
  • Brand/Source Variety
  • Variety
  • lb/bu
  • Variety
  • bu/ac

PlainsGold PlainsGold Limagrain PlainsGold
Anterob Byrd LCS Mint Brawl CL Plus
27.5 27.1 26.7 26.0 26.0 25.8 25.7 25.4 25.3 25.3 25.1 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.9 24.8 24.7 24.7 24.5 24.4 24.2 24.1 24.1 24.0 24.0 23.8 23.7 23.3 23.3 23.0 22.7 22.5 22.3 22.1 22.1 22.1 21.8 21.2 20.5 19.4 24.1
56.3 55.3 57.9 56.2 54.6 56.6 54.7 56.6 55.8 57.3 54.7 56.9 55.6 54.4 55.0 56.7 56.9 54.5 56.8 57.3 54.8 54.8 55.7 55.3 56.1 57.0 55.7 55.7 55.0 55.8 56.4 56.0 53.2 54.3 56.0 54.6 53.4 54.6 53.9 56.2 55.6

  • Byrd
  • 42.8

42.7 40.8 40.1 40.0 39.6 39.5 38.9 38.8 38.6 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.3 38.2 38.1 38.0 37.8 37.6 37.5 37.5 37.0 36.9 36.7 35.9 35.8 35.4 35.3 34.7 38.2
58.9 59.6 58.4 59.5 59.8 57.9 60.1 59.0 59.4 58.6 60.0 60.1 58.2 58.4 59.1 59.8 59.5 59.6 59.2 58.9 60.5 59.1 57.0 60.4 58.9 56.4 58.2 58.9 58.2 59.0

  • Byrd
  • 46.4

46.0 42.9 42.6 42.2 41.8 41.6 41.5 41.3 41.2 41.1 41.1 41.0 40.7 39.9 39.0 38.7 38.2 41.5
59.0 59.6 59.7 58.0 59.8 58.6 59.6 58.2 59.1 59.3 59.9 59.4 59.2 59.2 58.9 58.3 56.7 58.2 58.9

  • Anterob
  • Anterob

CO07W722-F5b

TAM 112 Brawl CL Plus Ripper
TAM 112 Ripper Denali Settler CL

Brawl CL Plus

Above Hatcher Bill Brown Winterhawk SY Wolf

CO05W111b

T163 Robidoux Snowmassb Bond CL McGill
Husker Genetics Settler CL KSU exp CSU exp

Oklahoma Genetics

KS09H19-2-3 CO07W722-F5b Iba
CO08W218b T158
Watley Seed

WestBred Monsanto

TAM 112 Winterhawk WB-Grainfield Denali T154 Ripper
TAM 113 Settler CL Denali Winterhawk Above CO08263 TAM 111 SY Wolf CO05W111b T163 Bill Brown Robidoux CO08346 Hatcher

WestBred Monsanto

PlainsGold Limagrain PlainsGold Limagrain CSU exp KWA PlainsGold CSU exp
T158 CO08W218b Clara CLb Above CO05W111b CO08346 T153
CSU exp Limagrain PlainsGold

AgriPro Syngenta

trials and Collaborative On-Farm Test (COFT) represent the final stages of a wheat breeding program where promising and newly released experimental lines are tested under an increasingly broad range of

Bill Brown

  • TAM 111
  • Protection

Clara CLb 1863 Bond CL McGill
Husker Genetics Robidoux Limagrain

AgriPro Syngenta

Oklahoma Genetics

T163 SY Wolf Gallagher TAM 113 LCH08-80 NI08708 1863
AGSECO Limagrain NE exp KWA PlainsGold PlainsGold
NE05496 Snowmassb

  • environmental conditions. As
  • a

consequence of large environmental variation, CSU annually conducts a large number of performance trials and on-farm tests. These trials 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.
There were 40 entries in the dryland performance trials (UVPT) and 28 entries in the irrigated performance trials (IVPT). All trials included a combination of public and private varieties and experimental lines from Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Montana. All dryland and irrigated trials were planted in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Plot sizes were approximately 175 ft2 (except the Fort Collins IVPT, which was 60 ft2) and all varieties were planted at 700,000 viable seeds per acre for dryland trials and 1.2 million viable seeds per acre for irrigated trials. Yields were corrected to 12 percent moisture. Test weight information was obtained from an air blower-cleaned sample of the first replication or from a combine equipped with a Harvest Master measuring system.

Recommended publications
  • 2017 Agricultural Research Update

    2017 Agricultural Research Update

    2017 Agricultural Research Update NDSU Williston Research Extension Center ************************** MSU Eastern Agricultural Research Center Serving the MonDak Region Regional Report No. 23 – December 2017 Thank you to our 2017 MonDak Ag Showcase and Agricultural Research Update Sponsors Table of Contents Off Station Cooperators 2 Weather Information 3 Spring Wheat 4 Wheat Variety Comparisons 12 Durum 13 Winter Wheat 20 Barley 24 Oats 31 Flax 34 Safflower 36 Sunflower and Carinata 38 Canola 39 Soybean 43 Corn 45 Beans 46 Lentil 48 Field Pea 53 Chickpea 60 Irrigated Alfalfa 63 Dryland Crop Performance Comparisons 64 Horticulture Program 65 Sustainable Agroecosystem for Soil Health in the Northern Great Plains 71 Effects of Cropping Sequence, Ripping, and Manure on Pipeline Reclamation 76 Comparing Tillage Systems 80 Saline Seep Reclamation Research 82 Growth and Yield of No-Till Dryland Spring Wheat in Response to N and S Fertilizations 85 2017 Integrated Pest Management Crop Scouting Results 87 2017 Spring Wheat and Durum Yield and Quality Improved by Micronutrient Zn 89 Effect of Nitrogen and Sulfur on Yield and Quality of Spring Wheat 90 Yield and Quality Responses of Spring Wheat and Durum to Nitrogen Management 91 Improving Yield and Quality of Spring Wheat and Durum by Cropping and Nitrogen Management 93 DON Accumulation in Durum Varieties 95 Effect of Planting Date and Maturity on Durum Yield and Disease 97 Planting Scabby Seed: Effect of DON on Durum Germination, Establishment of Yield 99 Irrigated Durum Fusarium Head Blight
  • From Seed to Pasta & Beyond

    From Seed to Pasta & Beyond

    Internati onal Conference FROM SEED TO PASTA & BEYOND A SUSTAINABLE DURUM WHEAT CHAIN FOR FOOD SECURITY AND HEALTHY LIVES Bologna, Italy Milan, Italy 31 May - 2 June 2015 3 June 2015 Conference Center EXPO 2015 FlyON Italian Pavillion Invited Speakers & Oral Presentati ons - Abstract - FROM SEED TO PASTA & BEYOND A Sustainable Durum Wheat Chain for Food Security and Healthy Lives INDEX INVITED SPEAKERS & ORAL PRESENTATIONS Abstracts OPENING SESSION Durum wheat breeding: an historical perspecti ve Antonio Blanco - E. Porceddu, University of Bari, Italy Industrial perspecti ves of pasta producti on wheat breeding: an historical perspecti ve Marco Silvestri, Barilla, Italy What kind of pasta for a healthy gut microbiome? Patrizia Brigidi, University of Bologna, Italy Wheat genomics & its applicati ons (Opening keynote lecture) Peter Langridge, University of Adelaide, Australia Session 1. BRIDGING DURUM AND BREAD WHEAT SCIENCE Wheat physiology in a changing climate Matt hew Reynolds, CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico Genomics platf orms for durum wheat genomics Jorge Dubcovsky, UC Davis, USA Ph1 gene of wheat and its applicati on in durum improvement Kulvinder Gill, Washington State University, USA Improving the health value of durum wheat Domenico Lafi andra, University of Tuscia, Italy Session 2. IMPROVING DURUM PRODUCTIVITY Wheat wild relati ves and their use for the improvement of culti vated wheat Tzion Fahima, University of Haifa, Israel Mapping and cloning valuable QTLs in durum wheat Roberto Tuberosa, University of Bologna, Italy Chromosome
  • Ag Horizons Conference & Prairie Grains Conference Details Inside!

    Ag Horizons Conference & Prairie Grains Conference Details Inside!

    Ag Horizons Conference & Prairie Grains Conference Details Inside! IT TAKES ENDURANCE TO WITHSTAND THE UNEXPECTED You can’t control nature. But you can plant the latest WestBred® Certified Seed varieties, built on years of research and breeding to stand strong against the season’s unknowns. WB9590 • WB9479 TAKE ON THE SEASON AT WestBred.com ® ® Page 2 PrairieWestBred Grains and Design • Nov.-Dec. and WestBred 2018 are registered trademarks of Bayer Group. ©2018 Bayer Group, All Rights Reserved. MWEST-19009_PRAIRIEGRAINS_122018-032019 PUBLISHER Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers 2600 Wheat Drive • Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 218.253.4311 • Email: [email protected] Web: www.smallgrains.org PRAIRIE GRAINS EDITORIAL Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers 2600 Wheat Drive • Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 November / December 2018 | Issue 165 Ph: 218.253.4311 • Fax: 218.253.4320 Email: [email protected] CIRCULATION Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers 2600 Wheat Drive • Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 Ph: 218.253.4311 • Fax: 218.253.4320 Email: [email protected] ADVERTISING SALES CONTENTS Marlene Dufault 2604 Wheat Drive • Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 Ph: 218.253.2074 Email: [email protected] 4 Taming the Bulls and Bears ABOUT PRAIRIE GRAINS Prairie Grains magazine is published seven times annually and delivered free of charge to members of these grower associations, and to spring wheat and 6 Now it the Time to Ask Yourself the Big Question - Why? barley producers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. To subscribe or change address, please
  • Durum Wheat in Canada

    Durum Wheat in Canada

    1 SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION OF DURUM WHEAT IN CANADA The purpose of the durum production manual is to promote sustainable production of durum wheat on the Canadian prairies and enable Canada to provide a consistent and increased supply of durum wheat with high quality to international and domestic markets. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction: respecting the consumer and the environment: R.M. DePauw 4 2. Durum production and consumption, a global perspective: E. Sopiwnyk 5 PLANNING 3. Variety selection to meet processing requirements and consumer preferences: R.M. DePauw and Y. Ruan 10 4. Field selection and optimum crop rotation: Y. Gan and B. McConkey 16 5. Planting date and seeding rate to optimize crop inputs: B. Beres and Z. Wang 23 6. Seed treatment to minimize crop losses: B. Beres and Z. Wang 29 7. Fertilizer management of durum wheat: 4Rs to respect the environment: R.H. McKenzie and D. Pauly 32 8. Irrigating durum to minimize damage and achieve optimum returns: R.H. McKenzie and S. Woods 41 9. Smart Farming, Big Data, GPS and precision farming as tools to achieve efficiencies. Integration of all information technologies: Big Data: R.M. DePauw 48 PEST MANAGEMENT 10. Integrated weed management to minimize yield losses: C.M. Geddes, B.D. Tidemann, T. Wolf, and E.N. Johnson 50 11. Disease management to minimize crop losses and maximize quality: R.E. Knox 58 12. Insect pest management to minimize crop losses and maximize quality: H. Catton, T. Wist, and I. Wise 63 HARVESTING TO MARKETING 13. Harvest to minimize losses: R.M.
  • Review Paper the Role of Genetic, Agronomic and Environmental

    Review Paper the Role of Genetic, Agronomic and Environmental

    1 Review Paper 2 The Role of Genetic, Agronomic and Environmental Factors on Grain Protein Content of 3 Tetraploid Wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) 4 5 6 Abstract 7 For commercial production of tetraploid wheat, grain protein content is considered very 8 important. As the grain received great market attention due to protein premium price paid for 9 farmers, mainly above 13% that will give about 12% of protein in the milled semolina. However, 10 this review paper stated that grain protein content of tetraploid wheat is sensitive to environmental 11 conditions pertaining before and during grain filling, crop genetics and cultural practices. This 12 and associated problems universally calls agronomic based alternative solution to ameliorate 13 protein concentration in durum wheat grain. This could be modified through manipulating seeding 14 rates, selection crop varieties, adjusting nitrogen amount and fertilization time and sowing date. 15 The decision of time of nitrogen application however should be made based on the interest of the 16 farmers. If the interest gears towards grain yield, apply nitrogen early in the season and apply the 17 fertilizer later i.e. heading for better protein concentration. 18 Keywords: seeding rate, tillage, nitrogen application, temperature, Genotype, Protein 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1. Introduction 31 The tetraploid or “durum wheat” (Triticum turgidum L.) is the second most important Triticum 32 species being cultivated throughout the world next to bread wheat for human consumption and 33 commercial production as well (Peńa et al., 2002). The commercial value and quality of durum 34 wheat for pasta and macaroni manufacturing is directly related with its grain protein and gluten 35 content.
  • RCED-95-28 Wheat Pricing: Information on Transition to New

    RCED-95-28 Wheat Pricing: Information on Transition to New

    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters December 1994 WHEAT PRICING Information on Transition to New Tests for Protein GAO/RCED-95-28 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-258389 December 8, 1994 Congressional Requesters Protein levels in wheat are an important factor in determining hard red spring (HRS) wheat prices, particularly for HRS wheat grown in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Higher protein commands higher prices in the market. Therefore, the accuracy and reliability of protein testing is of primary importance to these areas and to those who buy and sell high-protein wheat. In 1993, concerns were raised that a new technology for estimating the protein levels of wheat—the Near Infrared Transmittance (NIRT) technology—was producing estimates that were lower than those provided by an older technology. This new technology was introduced by the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)—an agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that provides official inspections of grain. Inspections by laboratories other than those supervised by FGIS are known as unofficial inspections. While official inspections must meet FGIS’ standards and are used for both domestic and export sales, they are generally required for export sales. In contrast, unofficial inspections are not subject to FGIS’ standards. Unofficial inspectors can range from “in-house” graders at grain elevators and processing plants to third-party inspection agencies. Because of the above concerns, you asked us to (1) describe the pricing situation for wheat in 1993, (2) evaluate FGIS’ introduction of the NIRT technology, (3) analyze the economic impact of the NIRT technology on segments of the industry, and (4) describe recent efforts to standardize unofficial protein testing of wheat.
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,339,052 B1 Schwartz (45) Date of Patent: May 17, 2016

    (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,339,052 B1 Schwartz (45) Date of Patent: May 17, 2016

    US009339052B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,339,052 B1 Schwartz (45) Date of Patent: May 17, 2016 (54) PREMIUM PET FOOD AND PROCESS FOR 4,910,038 A * 3/1990 Ducharme .................... 426,641 TS MANUFACTURE 4,997,671 A * 3/1991 Spanier ......................... 426,646 5,558,896 A 9/1996 Kobayashi 6,344,224 B1 2/2002 Bazzaro et al. (75) Inventor: Barry Schwartz, Beverly Hills, CA 6,733,263 B2 5/2004 Pope et al. (US) 6,905,703 B2 * 6/2005 Rothamel et al. ............. 424/439 7,244,460 B2 * 7/2007 Lee et al. ...................... 426,302 (73) Assignee: All-American Pet Company, Inc., 7,250,186 B2 7/2007 Pfaller et al. Beverly Hills, CA (US) 7,585,533 B2 9/2009 Fritz-Jung et al. s 2008.0003270 A1 1, 2008 Martinez (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 2008/0233228 A1 9, 2008 Lindee et al. patent is extended or adjusted under 35 OTHER PUBLICATIONS U.S.C. 154(b) by 839 days. Bonnot webpage (http://www.thebonnotco.com/Extruders), 2012.* (21) Appl. No.: 12/799,067 National Dog Food (http://web.archive.org/web/20051216061857/ http://www.nationaldogfood.com/products.html). 2005.* (22) Filed: Apr. 16, 2010 * cited by examiner (51) Int. Cl. A23K L/00 (2006.01) Primary Examiner — Viren Thakur A23K L/18 (2006.01) Assistant Examiner — Lela S Williams A23K L/10 (2006.01) (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Thomas I. Rozsa (52) U.S. Cl. CPC. A23K I/00 (2013.01); A23K I/I86 (2013.01); (57) ABSTRACT A23K 1/003 (2013.01); A23K 1/1846 (2013.01) The present invention relates to a process of creating semi (58) Field of Classification Search moist pet food, and primarily dog food and dog treats, that is CPC ..
  • Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain for International Trade

    Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain for International Trade

    Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain for International Trade February 1989 NTIS order #PB89-187199 ——— Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Enhancing the Quality of U.S. Grain for International Trade, OTA-F-399 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1989). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600592 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) American agriculture, long the sector of the economy considered the most productive and competitive in the world, began to show signs of declining interna- tional competitiveness in the early 1980s. Many reasons have been given for this, including the problems of the quality of U.S. grain. The quality issue is receiving renewed attention in the current world buyers’ market for grain, Some are con- cerned that as the influence of important economic variables such as the strength of the dollar and the extent of agricultural price support cause U.S. exports to be- come more price-competitive, opportunities to increase exports may be hampered by buyers’ qualms about U.S. grain quality. Complaints of overseas buyers about low-quality U.S. grain receive widespread attention. Buyers protest that they receive dirty, molded, or infested grain, or that characteristics contracted for, such as a certain protein level, were not met. Ex- porters argue that foreign buyers are using quality complaints to bargain for lower prices. Farmers and many Members of Congress point to loss of market share to prove the importance of quality.
  • PNW 578-Updated

    PNW 578-Updated

    PNW 578 Nitrogen Management for Hard Wheat Protein Enhancement Brad Brown, Mal Westcott, Neil Christensen, Bill Pan, Jeff Stark anaging nitrogen (N) to produce both high yields and acceptable protein of Contents M hard winter or spring wheat, especially in Page high rainfall and irrigated systems, has been frus- Key Points .........................................................2 trating for Pacific Northwest (PNW) growers and Wheat Nitrogen Utilization...................................4 those who serve them in an advisory capacity.A N Uptake........................................................4 better understanding of the principles of wheat Yield and Protein Relationships...........................5 nitrogen utilization, the relationships of protein to Satisfying the N Requirements for Yield ..............6 yield and available N, and N management for hard Nitrogen and Wheat Protein ................................6 wheat should enable fieldmen, consultants, advis- Late Season N for Increasing Protein ..................7 Rate and Timing .............................................7 ers, and growers to produce high yields of hard Yield Effects...................................................8 wheat with acceptable protein more consistently. N Use Efficiency .............................................8 Land-grant programs in the Pacific Northwest Application and Irrigation Method ....................8 have conducted considerable research on N man- Planting Dates and Varieties............................9 agement for irrigated
  • High-Quality Durum Wheat in North Dakota

    High-Quality Durum Wheat in North Dakota

    A1825 Field Guide to Sustainable Production of High-quality Durum Wheat in North Dakota North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota May 2017 Introduction ............................................................1 Field Selection and Crop Rotation ...............3 Tillage and Residue Management ................5 Variety Selection ..................................................9 Planting Date and Seeding Rate ................15 Seed Treatment ..................................................17 Fertility Management ......................................19 Weed Management ..........................................25 Disease Management ......................................29 Insect Pest Management ...............................39 Drying and Storage ...........................................49 Authors Joel Ransom, Extension Agronomist Greg Endres, Area Extension Specialist/Cropping Systems Shana Forster, Director, NDSU North Central Research Extension Center Andrew Friskop, Extension Plant Pathologist David Franzen, Extension Soil Science Specialist Richard Zollinger, Extension Weed Specialist Kirk Howatt, Associate Professor, NDSU Plant Sciences Janet Knodel, Extension Entomologist Patrick Beauzay, Extension Entomologist Research Specialist Kenneth Hellevang, Extension Agricultural Engineer Cover photos and pasta photo on page 1: iStock.com urum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var durum Desf.) is Done of three classes of wheat commonly grown in North Dakota. Durum wheat acreage in North Dakota varies from year to year based on
  • Single Kernel Protein Variance Structure in Commercial Wheat Fields in Western Kansas

    Single Kernel Protein Variance Structure in Commercial Wheat Fields in Western Kansas

    Single Kernel Protein Variance Structure in Commercial Wheat Fields in Western Kansas Tod Bramble, Timothy J. Herrman,* Thomas Loughin, and Floyd Dowell ABSTRACT tries has increased the demand for improved wheat This research was undertaken to quantify the structure of protein quality by export customers (Dexter and Preston, 2001). variation in a commercial hard red winter (HRW) wheat (Triticum A key element of the Grain Quality Acts involves aestivum L.) production system. This information will augment our the development of rapid quality detection systems such knowledge and practices of sampling, segregating, marketing, and as the single kernel characterization system (SKCS) and varietal development to improve uniformity and end-use quality of whole kernel NIR technology. Osborne et al. (1997) HRW wheat. The allocation of kernel protein variance to specific evaluated the SKCS 4100 as a means of measuring wheat components in southwestern Kansas was performed by a hierarchical kernel weight, hardness, moisture content, and sample sampling design. Sources of variability included Field, Plot (plots uniformity and found it performed satisfactorily during within a field), Row (rows within a plot), Plant (plants within a row), Head (heads within a plant), Position (spikelets at a specific position harvest in Australia. Baker et al. (1999) developed a on a head), Spikelet (spikelets within a position), and Kernel (kernels wheat segregation strategy to be used at elevators in within a spikelet). Individual kernels (10 152) were collected from 46 which the SKCS and whole grain NIR are used to predict fields planted to one of four cultivars: Jagger, 2137, Ike, or TAM 107. a composite milling and baking yield within 60 s.
  • Canadian I Rain Marketing System

    Canadian I Rain Marketing System

    Agricultural Economics Report No. 130 December, 1978 The Canadian i rain Marketing System Keith B.etier and Donald E. Anderson Department of Agricultural Economics Agricultural Experiment Station North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota FOREWORD This study was initiated as a Master's Thesis project under the North Central Regional Grain Marketing Committee (NC-139). Further data collection and analysis were carried out under a grant from the North Dakota Wheat Commission. The authors are indebted to members of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grains Commission, the Canada Grains Council, the Canadian Inter- national Grains Institute, and numerous members of the Canadian Grain Trade interviewed in this study. A special word of thanks is due to North Dakota elevator operators who supplied data for this study. The authors are appreciative of review comments provided by Dr. Alex McCalla, University of California, Davis; Dr. Larry Riglau, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Mr. Mel Maier, North Dakota Wheat Commission; Mr. Tim Nordquist, North Dakota Wheat Commission; and numerous members of the Grain Trade who made comments on early drafts of the study. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Highlights .. ..... ...... ......... ii History of Grain Marketing in Canada . ............ 1 Description of Canadian Grain Marketing Institutions ....... 5 Canadian Wheat Board . .. .. .. .. ... 5 Canadian Grain Commission .. .... .. ..... 8 Canada Grains Council ....................... 10 Canadian International Grains Institute .. .... 11 Description of Production and Utilization of Grains ....... 12 Production . 12 Geographic Dispersion of Production . ............ 12 Utilization . .. 14 Market Channels .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 15 Quota System . ......................... 15 Producer Marketing . .................. .. .. 17 Country Elevator System ....... ..... 19 Terminal Elevators ....... .. ......... .. 20 Tariffs . 22 Transportation System . ....... ........... ... 22 Railway . ... 22 Trucking . 27 Water Movement .....