Page 1

Development and Management of Winter Canola for the Great Plains Region Canola Project Directors’ Workshop March 18, 2013

J. Ernest Minton – Associate Director of Research and Technology Transfer for KSRE and Co-Project Director Michael J. Stamm – K-State Canola Breeder and Co-Project Director


Winter Canola Acres in the Southern Great Plains (**2013 estimated; Sources: NASS, FSA) 350,000

Planted Acres

300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2009

2010

2011

2012

Year Oklahoma

Kansas

Other (CO & TX)

2013**


Great Plains Canola Research Program 

Since 1994, $2.309 million of NCRP funds invested in the region. The Project Directors allows the individual subcontractors to determine how to divide funding. 

A significant amount supports the longstanding regional variety testing network. Performance testing is critical for the development, evaluation, and release of new, better-adapted winter canola varieties.

Today, the region’s highest priorities remain variety development and new crop production research.

Great Plains SACC 9/1/2007 to 8/31/2013 $472,158 31%

$1,039,192 69% SACC Funds KSU F&A Costs

Total: $1,511,826 3


Research Objectives The long-term goal of this multi-state, multidisciplinary project is to facilitate the adoption of winter canola as a viable rotational crop for the Great Plains and the southern High Plains. Researchers have the goal of significantly increasing canola production and/or acreage by developing and testing superior germplasm, improving methods of production, and transferring new knowledge to producers. The following supporting objectives guide the program.

Continue the evaluation and development of highyielding, locally adapted canola cultivars for the region  Improve canola production systems in the region by addressing agronomic management issues  Extend production and marketing technology for canola through appropriate, coordinated technology transfer programs 

4


FY12 Project Personnel J. Ernest Minton

KSU

Co-PD, Assoc. Dir. of Research and Technology Transfer for KSRE

Michael J. Stamm

KSU

Co-PD, Associate Agronomist – Canola Breeder

Johnathon D. Holman

KSU

Associate Professor, Cropping Systems

Kraig Roozeboom

KSU

Associate Professor, Cropping Systems/Crop Production

Jerry J. Johnson

CSU

Associate Professor, Crop Production Extension Coordinator

Dipak Santra

UNL

Assistant Professor, Alternative Crops Breeding

Sangu Angadi

NMSU

Assistant Professor, Crop Physiologist

Rick Kochenower

OSU

Area Crop and Soil Extension Specialist

Paul DeLaune

TAMU – Vernon

Assistant Professor, Environmental Soil Science

Calvin Trostle

TAMU – Lubbock

Associate Professor, Extension Agronomist

5


FY12 Project Breakdown - $187,476 Institution Funding Level

CSU

KSU

UNL

NMSU

$33,000

$88,976

$10,000

$33,000

$5,000

$7,500

$10,000

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Canola Variety Dev. National Winter Canola Variety Trial

X

X

Great Plains Canola Variety Trial

X

X

X

X

X

Early Generation Screening Nursery Canola Establishment

X

Irrigation Management

X

X

TAMUV

TAMUL

X X

Planting Date Planting Rate

OSU

X

X

X

X

X

X

Canola Forage

X

Harvest Management

X

6


Winter Canola Research

• K-State coordinates the Great Plains Canola Research Program and the National Winter Canola Variety Trial (NWCVT). • Participating locations in the 2012-2013 growing season. University research station and Great Plains Canola Research Program member  Supported by the USDA - NIFA Supplemental and Alternative Crops program. NWCVT locations  The NWCVT includes 50 commercial and experimental winter canola varieties from public and private entities.  The NWCVT increases the visibility of winter canola across the USA.


8


9


10


2011-2012 Regional Variety Trials – lb/a NWCVT Location

State

Mean

Range

Akron

CO

Rocky Ford †

CO

3,007

2,113 – 3,832

Yellow Jacket

CO

945

607 – 1,311

Walsh †

CO

Columbia

MO

1,761

1,167 – 2,191

Clovis †

NM

2,708

1,563 – 3,930

Scottsbluff †

GPCVT Mean

Range

EGSN Mean

Range

Lost to drought

Lost to drought

Lost to drought 1,824

1,554 – 2,140

NE

769

410 – 1,318

789

506 – 1,328

Enid

OK

2,115

1,312 – 2,859

2,160

1,347 – 2,758

Goodwell †

OK

2,145

1,886 – 2,354

Chillicothe †

TX

Etter †

TX

2,003

1,198 – 2,952

Lubbock †

TX

2,368

1,292 – 3,346

Irrigated

2,113

1,474 – 2,656

Severe storm

Severe storm

1,984

1,309 – 2,381


2011-2012 Kansas Variety Trials – lb/a Location

Mean

Range

Andale

1,339

557 – 2,795

Belleville

3,979

3,040 – 4,846

Colby † Garden City †

2,300

Range

1,385

914 – 1,834

Mean

Range

2,049

988 – 2,936

Lost to drought

Kiowa

2,117

1,583 – 2,991

Manhattan

2,191

1,343 – 3,557

Marquette

771

345 – 1,629

Irrigated

Mean

EGSN

1-165 – 3,507

Hutchinson

GPCVT

NWCVT

2,465

2,013 – 2,946


Canola Planting Management: K-State Planting Date x Tillage x Variety Aug. 31

Sept. 9

Sept. 22

Oct. 3

Pictures taken October 7, 2011 13


Canola Planting Management, cont. Planting Date x Tillage x Variety Aug. 31

Sept. 9

Sept. 22

Oct. 3

Pictures taken March 9, 2012 14


Figure 1. Canola winter survival response to cultivar and tillage, 2009-10 and 2011-12.

Figure 2. Canola yield response to cultivar and tillage, 2009-10.


Figure 3. Canola winter survival response to planting date and tillage over three seasons, 2009-10 to 2011-12.

Figure 4. Canola yield response to planting date and tillage over three seasons, 2009-10 to 2011-12.


Figure 1. Grazing Treatment Effects on Winter Survival a a 100 a a b 80 c b b PRE 60 POST 40 NONE SPRING 20 0 2010

a

2000 1500

a b b

b b

1000

c

500 2009

Figure 3. Genotypic Differences in Winter Survival after Grazing 100 a

a

95 Survival (%)

2500

0 2009

90 b

85

Figure 2. Grazing Treatment Effects on Grain Yield

Yield (kg/ha)

Survival (%)

Dual purpose grain and forage crop

b

80 75 2009

2010

Griffin Wichita

2010

PRE POST NONE SPRING


4500

1400 1200

b

1000

c

800

a

4000

a

600 400

Forage Yield (lbs/A DM)

3500

ab

3000 c

2500

bc

bc c

2000

bc

bc

c

1500 1000 500

200

No

Wichita Hayed

Gr if

Gr iff

Wichita NotHayed

in

Griffin Hayed

fin

Griffin NotHayed

ne T in rit ic W al in e te r Tr iti ca Gr le iff in Ra di Gr sh iff in Tu rn W ip W i ch ic hi it a ta No Sp ne r W i ng ic hi Tr ta iti W ca in le te r Tr iti ca W le ic hi ta Ra di W sh ic hi ta Tu rn ip

0

0

Sp ri ng

1600

a

Gr iff

Grain Yield (lb/A 9% moisture)

1800

Haying Effects on Canola Hay Not-Hayed Hayed

Grain Yield Fall Stand Spring Stand Winter Survival (9% moisture) Plants m-1 row Plants m-1 row % lbs/acre 20 a 14 a 68 a 1573 a 18 b 8 b 44 b 930 b ANOVA P>F

<0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 LSD 0.05 1.9 1.4 4.8 Letters within a column represent differences at LSD 0.05

<0.0001 104.1

bc


Companion Crop Effects on Canola Canola Fall Spring Companion Vigor Fall Stand Stand Plants-1 m Plants-1 m (0-10) row row None Spring Triticale Winter Triticale Radish Turnip

Grain Winter Yield (9% Test Survival moisture) Weight %

lbs/acre

9

a

19

ab

11

ab

63

a

1461

7

bc

19

ab

12

a

60

a

8 7 7

b c bc

21 17 17

a b b

13 a 59 8 c 48 9 bc 50 ANOVA P>F

a b b

Source of Variation <0.0001 LSD 0.05 1

<0.05 3

<0.001 2

<0.01 8

a

lb/bu 48

a

1321 ab

49

a

1296 b 1240 b 914 c

48 47 47

ab c bc

<0.0001 165

Letters within a column represent differences at LSD 0.05

19

<0.001 1


Developing cultivars tolerant to sulfonylurea herbicide carryover

No herbicide (14 DAP)

0.25x rate of Finesse PPI (14 DAP)

0.50x rate of Finesse PPI (14 DAP)

1.0x rate of Finesse PPI (14 DAP) 20


New cultivar response to carryover Figure 1. Response of KSUR21 to different rates of sulfonylurea herbicides. 100 90

Percent of Viable Plants

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.25x

0.5x

1x

2x

Rates Sumner (Finesse)

Sumner (Olympus)

KSUR21 (Finesse)

KSUR21 (Olympus)

Figure 2. Response of KSUR18 to different rates of sulfonylurea herbicides. 100 90 Percent of Viable Plants

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.25x

0.5x

1x

2x

Rates Sumner (Finesse)

Sumner (Olympus)

KSUR18 (Finesse)

KSUR18 (Olympus)

21


Other breeding interests  

 

 

Glyphosate resistance. Oil quantity and quality.  Mid to high oleic acid Blackleg resistance. Tolerance to winter decline syndrome. Aphid tolerance. Wide range of maturities.

Glyphosate Tolerance Study

Winter Decline Syndrome

22


Outreach/Extension 

 

“Riley Winter Canola” published in the Journal of Plant Registrations. “Effects of planting date and tillage on winter canola” was published by the Plant Management Network. Over 300 producers and ag professionals attended the 8 th annual Canola Production Conference in Enid and Lawton, OK. KSU conducted 3 radio broadcasts and wrote 7 Department of Agronomy e-Updates on insect pests, harvest management, profitability, seeding, and varieties. KSU canola agronomists participated in 9 spring field days and 2 fall field days in 2012. Seven winter canola risk management schools were held from August 2012 to March 2013 with over 225 in attendance. KSU is conducting 8 canola tours/field days in spring 2013. Hosting the spring 2013 Great Plains Canola Association board meeting at KSU. 23


Colorado State University (1994-present) 

5 variety testing locations     

Akron – NWCVT Fruita – NWCVT Rocky Ford – NWCVT Walsh – NWCVT & GPCVT Yellow Jacket – NWCVT

Canola On-Farm Testing Program  

Effective program for wheat Canola program plagued by drought   

2011/12 – Seed of 6 cultivars for 1 acre each 2012/13 – Seed of 3 cultivars for 2 acres each 2013/14 – Seed of 1 cultivar for larger area of production

Season

Planned Sites

Actual Sites

Lost to Drought

Dryland

Irrigated

Cultivars

Yield (lb/a)

2011/12

20

13

6

3

4

6

1,738

2012/13

15

10

5

1

4

3

?

24


CSU, cont. 

Agronomic research at Rocky Ford in 2012/13. 

Canola irrigation study 

Canola planting rate study 

3 varieties plus 4 planting rates in lb/a

Outreach/Extension   

3 varieties plus limited irrigation treatments

100 youth from Denver visited canola plots near Fruita Discussions with advisory boards at each center Over 75 field day participants

Critical needs   

Variety testing and development Limited irrigation and leasing issues Market development 25


New Mexico State University – Clovis  

Cooperator since 2009. High elevation (4,200 ft) with irrigation potential. Tremendous yield potential.   

3,463 lb/a in 2009/10. 2,708 lb/a in 2011/12. Drought and late spring freezes are the biggest deterrents.

Forage potential of canola (field day on April 15). Evaluating water use patterns and water use efficiency of canola varieties under deficit irrigation management conditions. 26


Water Extraction (mm) 1 30

4

7

10

a

13

1

4

7

10

13

1

4

7

2011

10

13

c

b

Canola Wheat

50

70

0 inch

90 110 130

150 30

d

f

e

Soil depth

50 70

6 inch

90 110 130

150 30

g

i

h

50 70

12 inch

2011 season was extremely stressful with low rainfall, record cold temperatures, strong winds, and late spring frost. At all irrigation levels, wheat extracted more water than canola at the planting to regrowth and regrowth to flowering stages. Canola extracted more water than wheat in a dry year at the flowering to maturity stage. 

90 110

130 150

Planting to Regrowth

Regrowth to Flowering

Flowering to Maturity

Flowering most critical stage for water demand. Root growth up until flowering and pod fill.


SeedYield (Mg ha-1)

6

2009

2010

2011

5

4 3 2

Biomass Yield (Mg ha-1)

1 Canola (DKW41-10) Canola (Rally) Wheat (TAM 111)

19 17

15

13 11 9

7

Harvest Index

5 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

1.3 Oil Yield (Mg Ha-1)

Water is most limiting factor, but stresses at critical stages have been challenging.

1.1 0.9

0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Total Water Use (mm)

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2009 – Average year with late spring blizzard 2010 – Wet year 2011 – Dry year with late spring frost

Wheat yields were generally higher than canola, but were closer to equal in 2011. Above ground biomass for canola was equal to wheat in 2009 and 2011. Harvest index similar to wheat in 2010. Oil yield was similar for the two cultivars except for 2011 because of late freeze.


Texas AgriLife Extension – Lubbock 

High elevation, limited rainfall and irrigation. Excellent yield potential.  

  

2011/12 Canola Trial – Etter, TX

Etter – 2,003 lb/a Lubbock – 2,368 lb/a

Cabbage aphids are a major concern in the spring – 3 sprays in 2012. Interest in dual-purpose, forage and grain, canola. Possibility of ADM canola crusher in Lubbock exists. Water efficient crops are desperately needed.

29


Texas AgriLife Research – Vernon   

Cooperator since 1994 Excellent potential for production under irrigation (3,000 lb/a) Most producers are interested in planting canola in a rotation and future research is warranted showing benefits of canola as a rotational option.    

Tillage, planting date, seeding rate, and fertility requirements. Improved glyphosate resistant varieties. Extension efforts lacking because of the loss of a specialist (OSU helps). Marketing outlets and information are needed. SDI (5 in) yield trial 2009-2010 Type

Yield

% of Mean

Safran

Hybrid

3412

124

Sitro

Hybrid

3240

117

Dynastie

Hybrid

3231

116

Wichita

OP

2559

89

Kadore

OP

2423

88

Virginia

OP

2323

84

426

15

LSD (0.05)

30


University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1994-present) 

Winter survival is very critical for adaptation to western NE Panhandle. 

Lack of snow cover, high winds, and geese have negatively affected survival during the winter.

New cultivars and advanced breeding lines, developed at KSU, have shown above average winter survival. Agronomic research on establishing winter canola under dryland conditions is the critical research need. 

Establishment study started in 2011/12 and continued in 2012/13.

4 treatments (no-till, minimum till, stale seedbed, and full tillage).  Drought reduced stands and the trial was not taken to harvest. Development of a local marketing system is the critical need for increasing canola production in western NE. 

31


Oklahoma State University – Goodwell    

Cooperator since 2001 High elevation, low rainfall. Biggest obstacle is stand establishment in the fall. Critical GPCVT location for variety development on the High Plains. Planting date, average yield, yield range, and coefficient of variation for NWCVT location, Goodwell, OK. Season

Planting Date

Yield

Range

CV

2001-2002

9/17/2001

1,147

631 – 1,695

27

2002-2003

9/17/2002

1,497

1,001 – 2,303

18

2003-2004

9/24/2003

1,476

291 – 2,841

22

2004-2005

9/29/2004

1,814

1,192 – 2,299

22

2006-2007

9/18/2006

2,914

2,088 – 3,808

10

2008-2009

9/17/2008

2,109

1,551 – 2,752

10

2010-2011

9/17/2010

1,690

1,000 – 2,506

21

2011-2012

9/20/2011

2,113

1,474 – 2,474

11

32


Implications 

Canola acres are increasing in the southern Great Plains. 

As a general rule, yield potential is greater than the national average. 

Agronomic research and variety testing are fostering expansion and critical for the future.

Huge potential for winter canola acreage growth under limited irrigation. More information on winter canola water use efficiency is needed.

SACC grant funding is critical for growth in the southern Great Plains. 33


Next Steps 

Maintain the level of support and increase it if possible. Continue to work with individual investigators to meet the needs for growers across the broader Great Plains region. Engage stakeholders from across a diverse region. 

Utilize the Great Plains Canola Association.

Engage investigators more in writing the grant proposal. 34


Questions?

Great Plains Kansas Research  

National Canola Research Program