The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc.   2001-2002 Grain Yields and Estimated Returns from Rye, Oat, Barley, Wheat and Triticale Varieties and Strains
 
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3

by Jerry Baker

Discussion
Small-grain varieties and strains were evaluated for forage and grain yield at Ardmore and Burneyville, Okla., during the 2001-2002 season. Forage yields are reported in NF-FO-02-02. The test included 19 ryes, 24 wheats, 13 triticales, one triticale-rye blend, nine oats and three barleys. Fall planting conditions varied widely between the two locations. The normal planting date of mid-September was delayed because of wet soil conditions at Ardmore, whereas more moderate rainfall in late August and early September allowed for a normal September planting on the sandy soils at Burneyville. The excellent early fall moisture allowed for good stand development at both locations. In general, early fall growth was delayed at Ardmore and good at Burneyville.

Growing conditions varied from good to average throughout the growing season. Adequate fall moisture was followed by relatively dry weather through the winter months. Good moisture in late March and most of April brought good growth but made the crops more susceptible to the dry, warm periods in May, resulting in average grain yields and reduced test weights. Leaf rust was common in the fall on the more susceptible varieties of wheat. Barley yellow dwarf virus was common throughout the growing season on the wheats, oats and triticales and undoubtedly caused some yield reduction. Powdery mildew, tan spot and septoria leaf blight were present on the lower leaves of some wheats and triticales in April, but dry weather in May slowed these diseases down and minimized damage to grain yield. Leaf rust increased on the wheats and triticales in the late spring but the crops were sufficiently mature to minimize losses to the disease. There was some scattered stripe rust infection in April on the lower leaves of susceptible varieties of wheat, but progression of the disease was slowed by the warm, dry weather in May and overall was not a problem this year. Though stem rust came in late on the oats, grain loss was minimal; however, test weights may have been affected.

Overall grain production averaged 45.5 bushels per acre at Ardmore (Table 1). Though vegetative growth was slowed during the winter months by dry weather, mild temperatures helped hasten jointing or first hollow-stem development in February. Many varieties had reached this stage by late February, so no forage clipping of the grain plots was initiated on the Feb. 28 harvest date. Therefore, all forage clipping of the grain plots was terminated after the Dec. 11 harvest date. Overall, average crop yields in bushels per acre were as follows: rye, 33.3; wheat, 50.8; oat, 70.8; triticale, 42.3; and barley, 20.6. Yields varied considerably between varieties within each crop. The ryes produced the most uniform yields in the test: 26.2 to 42.3 bushels per acre. Oat and wheat yields were the most variable. Some of the lower-yielding varieties suffered damage as a result of the late hard freezes in late February and early March, and diseases hurt some of the more susceptible varieties.

At Burneyville (Table 2), the overall grain yield average of 39.8 bushels per acre was the lowest since the 1996-97 crop year. The mild temperatures during the fall and early winter months contributed to plant growth being ahead of normal and the early jointing of many of the small grain varieties. As a result, all forage clipping of grain plots was terminated after Dec. 6. Overall crop yields in bushels per acre were as follows: rye, 29.2; wheat, 40.2; oat, 65.8; triticale, 35.4; and barley, 45.3. Again, the rye varieties were the most uniform at this location. Oat yields were the most variable, with a 47-bushel difference. The lowest-yielding entry in the test, TX98D1027 wheat (experimental strain), suffered heavy stand losses following the late February-early March hard freezes.

The estimated gross economic returns in Tables 1 and 2 were calculated on the basis of values at the bottom of the tables; substitute your own values as necessary. Grain prices were determined on the basis of reduced test weights in all of the crops this season. The gross income estimates are shown to encourage your calculating possible returns and profits from various varieties, crops and management strategies.

Table 3 shows the grain yields of commercially available varieties that have been tested at both locations throughout the last three growing seasons. Except during the 2000-2001 growing season, grain yields have been taken after forage clipping, which is generally terminated at the initial sign of jointing or first hollow-stem. Because of planting dates, varietal maturity, and fall-winter temperatures and moisture availability, jointing occurrence varies yearly. The early-maturing varieties generally incur the most grain yield loss when clipping continues beyond the jointing stage in the spring. This type of loss should not be a factor in this year's data from either location because forage was not harvested from the grain plots after the December clippings. Among the ryes, "Maton," a later maturing variety, has been more dependable and consistently yielded more than the early variety, "Oklon." The soft wheat varieties "Coker 9663" and "Coker 9704," and "2137" hard wheat have been stable for grain yield at both locations. However, "Jagger" hard wheat has consistently yielded low at both locations. "Horizon 314," a new oat variety developed by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, has been very stable in grain performance at both locations. Seed of this variety should be commercially available for the 2002 fall planting season.

Information in this report is inconclusive but can be of great value when compared with similar information from other sources. Use all available information pertaining to grain and forage production when making conclusions and decisions. This publication is intended to furnish supplemental information to aid in decision making and idea formulation.

I would like to acknowledge the following personnel for their valuable assistance in collecting and analyzing data and preparing this report: Julie Barrick, Dan Childs, Bret Flatt, Roger Hartwell, Steve Howe, Shawn Norton and Frank Motal.

© 1997-2008 by The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc.