|
|
|
Wheat COFT trials testing new varietiesBy D. Bruce Bosley CSU Extension Agent, cropping systems Colorado I've written a lot about the value of past crop residues for capturing and storing precipitation. In harvesting some of the wheat Collaborative On-Farm Trials (W-COFT) with area farmers in mid-July, the value of residue moisture capture was very evident and made the difference in wheat yields in this particularly dry spring and early summer wheat season. I'd worked with seven farmers in Northeast Colorado harvesting wheat COFT variety trials tested in their fields with their management strategies. In these trials this year, Colorado State University Extension and the cooperating farmers are testing five newer wheat varieties planted across full field lengths to get a better feel how the varieties fit our High Plains climate and growing conditions. Trial yields on individual varieties ranged from as low as 6.3 to as high as 70 bushels per acre through these seven different trials, with the low and high picked from two different farmer's fields. I'll admit that there may have been a little more rainfall in May and June in the higher yielding field but the differences were less than one inch total. The poorer yielding farm had large skips where the wheat failed to germinate and establish and, according to the farmer, it blew out with the winter and spring winds. Even where there was wheat on this field, drought stress was certainly evident. By comparison, the high yielding farmed field had good wheat height and had plants with plenty of tillers. A better comparison can be made between two farmers' fields which received nearly the same amount of rainfall and are within five miles of each other. These two had average trial yields (the mean of all tested varieties) of 32.8 and 61.1 bushels per acre. What caused such differences in the trial yields? Certainly farming practices had a lot to do with the different yields; field management, fertility, plant population, weed and pest control probably all played a part. The wheat varieties were the same. However, I believe that the main difference which caused such wide variations in wheat yields was how the farmer managed his fields, and in particular, his previous crop residues. Jacob and Justin Wagers, near Woodrow, Colo., had the very high yielding wheat COFT trial. Jacob attributes this exceptionally high yield to storage of precipitation received in the winter of 2006-2007 when their 2006 corn stalks retained all snowfall and caught blowing snow from neighboring fields having little to no residues. Standing corn stubble and good weed management prior to wheat planting helped to maintain this moisture in the soil profile. Having good soil moisture last fall helped get the crop well established despite the very dry fall. Good December snows contributed to this year's yield, as well. Fields farmed using conventional tillage had little reserves of soil moisture this past fall and had consequently smaller harvested wheat yields. In Jacob and Justin's case, their field retained more than 4 inches of additional water that we expect from no-till farming alone. Having a good crop rotation system and using no-till are complementary and combine to make even more efficient moisture savings for dryland crops. With these comparisons, can you doubt why I promote no-till cropping systems? Please contact me, Bruce Bosley, about these or other cropping systems or natural resource topics at 970-522-3200, extension 285 in Sterling or 970-542-3540 in Fort Morgan. 8/4/08 Date: 7/30/08 Advertisement
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
