Northern Agricultural Research Center 2016 Field Day Handouts

Northern Agricultural Research Center

Field Day

June 22, 2016

Southern ARC

- HUNTLEY -

Northwestern ARC - CRESTON -

Western Triangle ARC

- CONRAD -

Central ARC

- MOCCASIN -

Northern ARC - HAVRE

Eastern ARC

- SIDNEY -

Western ARC

- CORVALLIS -

MSU

- BOZEMAN -

DAVID WICHMAN (retiring 07/08/16) Outgoing Superintendent, MS BOB STOUGAARD Superintendent, PhDdwichman@montana.edu Assistant Professor - Agronomy rns@montana.edu Professor - AgronomyPATRICK CARR Incoming Superintendent - PhD JESSICA TORRION Assistant Professor, PhDpatrick.carr@montana.edu Associate Professor - Cropping Systems jessica.torrion@montana.edu Crop PhysiologyLORRIE LINHART Administrative Associate III - AS DOVE CARLIN Administrative Associate III - BSllinhart@montana.edu dove.carlin@montana.eduSHABEG BRIAR Research Associate - PhD ERIK ECHEGARAY Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhDshabeg.briar@montana.edu Plant Pathology erik.echegaray@montana.edu EntomologySIMON FORDYCE Research Associate - BS BROOKE BOHANNON Research Associate - BSsimon.fordyce@montana.edu brooke.bohannon@montana.eduDARRYL GROVE Farm Operations Manager - BS JORDAN PENNEY Program Manager - AASdarryl.grove@montana.edu jordan.penney@montana.eduTIMOTHY BISHOP Farm Mechanic JOHN GARNER Research Assistant III - BStimothy.bishop1@montana.edu john.garner@montana.eduSALLY DAHLHAUSEN Ag Field Tech MICHAEL DAVIS Farm Mechanic- B Ssally.dahlhausen@montana.edu michael.davis18@montana.edu

CHENGCI CHEN Superintendent, PhD KENNETH KEPHART Superintendent, PhDcchen@montana.edu Professor - Cropping Systems/Agro kephart@montana.edu Professor - AgronomyFRANKIE CRUTCHER Assistant Professor, PhD KENT McVAY Associate Professor, PhDfrankie.crutcher@montana.edu Plant Pathology kmcvay@montana.edu Cropping SystemsCHERIE GATZKE Administrative Associate III-BS,AS PRASHANT JHA Associate Professor, PhDcherie.gatzke@montana.edu pjha@montana.edu Weed ScienceYESUF MOHAMMED Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhD TAMMY BALZER Administrative Associate IIIyesuf.mohammed@montana.edu tbalzer@montana.eduREZA KESHARVARZ Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhD VIPAN KUMAR Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhDrezakeshavarz@montana.edu vipan.kumar@montana.edu Plant ScienceMANINDER WALIA Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhD QASIM KHAN Research Associate - PhDmaninder.walia@montana.edu qkhan@montana.edu Cropping SystemsSHERRY TURNER Research Associate - MS TOM FISCHER Research Assistant - BSsherry.turner@montana.edu Plant Pathology tfischer@montana.edu Farm ForemanRONALD BROWN Farm Mechanic SHANE LELAND Program Manager-Weed Science - BSronald.brown7@montana.edu shane.leland@montana.eduREBECCA GARZA Research Assistant II - AS JANNA KRANSKY Research Assistant III - BSrebecca.garza@montana.edu janna.kransky@montana.eduCALLA KOWATCH-CARLSON Research Assistant III - BS,AScalla.kowatch@montana.eduTHOMAS GROSS Research Assistant IIIthomas.gross1@montana.edu

ZACH MILLER Superintendent, PhDzachariah.miller@montana.edu Assistant Professor - HorticultureDEB HARRISON Administrative Associate III - BSdharrison@montana.edu

DARRIN BOSS Superintendent, PhD MARTY KNOX Research Assistant III - BSdboss@montana.edu Asst Research Prof - Animal Science mknox@montana.eduLIGIA PREZOTTO Assistant Professor, PhD AMY HUTTON Program Coordinator IIligia.prezotto@montana.edu Animal Science amy.hutton1@montana.eduEMI SMITH Administrative Associate III - BS STEPHEN JOHNSON Farm Mangeremi.smith@montana.edu stephen.johnson11@montana.eduPEGGY LAMB Research Scientist - MSplamb@montana.edu AgronomyTHOMAS ALLEN Farm Operations Manager - MSthomas.allen@montana.eduCORY PARSONS Livestock Operations Manager - MS GADI V.P. REDDY Superintendent, PhDcory.parsons@montana.edu reddy@montana.edu Assoc Prof Entomology/Insect EcologyJULIA DAFOE Research Associate - MS ROGER ONDOUA Assistant Professor, PhDjdafoe@montana.edu Animal Science roger.ondoua@montana.edu Agronomy/Soil & Nutrient MgmtANGELA SEBELIUS Research Associate - MS JULIE ORCUTT Administrative Associate IIIangela.sebelius@montana.edu Agronomy julie.orcutt1@montana.eduJENNIFER THORSON Research Associate, PhD SCOTT PORTMAN Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhDjennifer.thorson2@montana.edu Animal Science scott.portman@montana.edu EntomologyGERALD BOHN Farm Mechanic - BS FRANK ANTWI Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhDgerald.bohn@montana.edu frank.antwi@montana.edu EntomologyDUSTIN CLARK Ranch Foreman GOVINDA SHRESTHA Post Doctoral Research Associate-PhDdustin.clark1@montana.edu govinda.shrestha@montana.edu AgroecologyDELYN JENSEN Research Assistant III-MS JOHN MILLER Research Associate - MSdelyn@montana.edu jhmiller@montana.eduSTEVE LAIRY Livestock Research Technician - AS AMBER FERDA Research Associate - MSsteve.lairy@montana.edu amber.ferda@montana.eduLES GRAY Research Assistant III SHAD CHRISMAN Farm Mechanic/Safety Coordinator

shad.chrisman@montana.eduJULIE PREWETT Research Assistant IIIjulie.prewett@montana.eduDEBRA MILLER Research Assistant IIIdebra.miller13@montana.eduPHIL HAMMERMEISTER Research Assistant IIp.hammermeister1@montana.edu

748 Railroad Hwy., Huntley, MT 59037SOUTHERN AG RESEARCH CENTER

580 Quast Lane, Corvallis, MT 59828WESTERN AG RESEARCH CENTER

PO Box 656, 9546 Old Shelby Rd., Conrad, MT 59425WESTERN TRIANGLE AG RESEARCH CENTER

http://www.sarc.montana.edu/php/

Phone: 406-265-6115 Fax: 406-265-8288

1501 North Central, Sidney, MT 59270EASTERN AG RESEARCH CENTER

3710 Assinniboine, Havre, MT 59501-8412NORTHERN AG RESEARCH CENTER

http://ag.montana.edu/earc/

http://ag.montana.edu/warc/Phone: 406-961-3025 Fax: 406-961-3026

http://ag.montana.edu/wtarc/Phone: 406-278-7707 Fax: 406-278-7797

Montana State University - Department of Research CentersBarry Jacobsen, Department Head Email: bjacobsen@montana.edu Phone: 406-994-5161

Shana Wold, Administrative Assistant IV Email: shana.wold@montana.edu Phone: 406-994-7289CENTRAL AG RESEARCH CENTER NORTHWESTERN AG RESEARCH CENTER

52583 US Hwy. 87, Moccasin, MT 59462-9512 4570 Hwy. 35, Kalispell, MT 59901Phone: 406-423-5421 Fax: 406-423-5422 Cell: 406-350-0803 Phone: 406-755-4303 Fax: 406-755-8951 Cell: 406-250-0234

http://ag.montana.edu/narc/

http://ag.montana.edu/carc/ http://ag.montana.edu/nwarc/

Phone: 406-433-2208 Fax: 406-433-7336 Williston Phone: 701-774-4315 Phone: 406-348-3400 Fax: 406-348-3410

FY17 MONTANA WHEAT & BARLEY GRANTS

GRANT TITLEPRINCIPAL

INVESTIGATOR MSU

CARC

EARC

NARC

NWAR

CSA

RC

WAR

C

WTA

RC

Genetically improved winter wheat cultivars for MT Phil Bruckner X X X X X X X XBuilding genomics foundations to accelerate wheat & barley improvement for Montana Hikmet Budak X

Expansion of on-farm research network in Montana Mary Burrows XUsing warm-season crops to enhance wheat-based cropping system resillence Pat Carr X

Molecular breeding pipeline for wheat Jason Cook XWheat double haploid project Jason Cook X

Advanced disease resistance in Montana wheat Alan Dyer XA novel approach to barley & wheat drought resistance Andres Fischer X

Creation & yield testing of new semi-drawfing alleles Mike Giroux XField evaluation & mapping of novel stem solidness genes in wheat Jack Martin X

Developing a dynamic crop coefficient to improve irrigation efficiency Kent McVay X XAssessing agronomic practices to advance cereal production in Montana Kent McVay X X X X X X X X

Legacy effects of long-term diversified cropping systems Perry Miller XOn-farm assessment of field bindweed impacts crop yields & response to organic management Zach Miller X

Improved quality of Montana hard red & hard white wheat Deanna Nash XEffect of soil water storage and evapotranspiration on total grain & protein yields Roger Ondoua X

Eval of effectiveness on entomopathogens & trap crops for the mgmt of wireworm on spr wheat Gadi V.P. Reddy XIdentifying and developing improved barley varieties for Montana Jamie Sherman X X X X X X X X

MSU barley quality lab Jamie Sherman XOrange wheat blossom midge management Bob Stougaard X X

Assessment & management of preharvest sprout and falling number in Montana wheat Bob Stougaard XRemote technologies for precision ag in wheat agroecosystems Paul Stoy X X X

Spring wheat breeding & genetics Luther Talbert X X X X X X X XIPM of wheat stem sawfly David Weaver X X X

FY17 FERTILIZER TAX AWARDS

GRANT TITLEPRINCIPAL

INVESTIGATOR MSU

CARC

EARC

NARC

NWAR

CSA

RC

WAR

C

WTA

RC

Optimization of nitrogen fertilizer in sugarbeet under no-till management Chengci Chen XNitrogen sources for short season dryland grain corn production in a low rainfall environment Peggy Lamb X

Foliar applications to correct micro-nutrient deficiencies in winter wheat Kent McVay XEnhancing Yield and Nutritional Quality of Dry Pea through Micro-nutrient Fertilization Yesuf Mohammed X

Optimizing Boron maintenance fertilization for alfalfa Jessica Torrion XNitrogen Fertilizer Recommendations for Contrasting Protein Requirements Jessica Torrion X

Second and third year evaluation of alfalfa response to spring broadcast fertilizer in central Montana’s Cascade, Fergus and Judith Basin Counties

Dave Wichman X

FY17 PEA AND LENTIL AWARDS

GRANT TITLEPRINCIPAL

INVESTIGATOR MSU

CARC

EARC

NARC

NWAR

CSA

RC

WAR

C

WTA

RC

Montana Statewide Pea, Lentil and Chickpea Variety Evaluation Chengci Chen X X X X X X X XHarvesting the Pea Genome, GAB II Norm Weeden X

Western Retional Cool Season Food Legume Evolution Trials Chengci Chen X X X X X X X XManagement of Pulse Crop Seedbourne Fungi Bright Agindotan X

Enhancing Yield and Nutritional Quality of Dry Pea through Micronutrient Fertilization Yesuf Mohammed XDetermining Pea Weevil Population, Distribution, Abundance and Pea Damage Assessments Gadi V.P. Reddy X

The Effect of Fungal Pathogens on Germination of Stored Chickpea Jessica Rupp X

DONATE A PORTION OF YOUR HARVEST THROUGH THE BUSHELS FOR BOBCATS PROGRAM.

WHY DONATE YOUR HARVEST?

By contributing commodities to the Montana State University Alumni Foundation, a Montana not-for-profit corporation, you are providing Montana State University with a donation that retains the full value of your crop.

Example: You donate $3,000 worth of your crop to the MSU Alumni Foundation, which then sells it for $3,000. Then the university receives the entire $3,000. However, if you sell the crop first and donate that revenue after taxes, you donate approximately $1,940 to the university. The amount may vary depending on the current market.

HOW TO DONATE

If you deliver your grain donation to an elevator, request the storage receipt be made out to the Montana State University Alumni Foundation. Or, if you store your grain on the farm, prepare a notarized letter of transfer to the MSU Alumni Foundation.

Mail, fax or email the storage receipt or a notarized letter of transfer along with the form to the MSU Alumni Foundation to:

Samantha Beebout Associate Director of Estate, Trust and Gift Planning Montana State University Alumni Foundation P.O. Box 172750 Bozeman, MT 59717-2750 Fax: 406-994-6081 Email: samantha.beebout@msuaf.org

A Montana State University development officer will work with you to make sure your gift goes to your preferred use.

Endowments: to establish an endowment of $25,000 or more, contact Kevin Brown at kevin.brown@msuaf.org.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT MSUAF.ORG/BUSHELS

BUSHELS FOR BOBCATS

THE IMPACT OF GIVING

“Having people give their time and money to support students like me at Montana State makes me want to do well in school. Having a scholarship means that I can be more active and get involved on campus.”

Taylor Brown '17 Agricultural Education

HOW TO GIFT YOUR BUSHELS.

TIMINGIt is best to donate grain grown in a previous tax year. Make the donation early enough in the year so that there is no question that it came from the prior year’s crop.

UNSOLD COMMODITYThe gift should be from unsold inventory with no sale commitment made prior to the gift.

PHYSICAL DELIVERYThe gift must be in the form of farm commodities, not warehouse receipts, which may be considered a cash equivalent. The charity (MSU Alumni Foundation) must be able to demonstrate “control and dominion” over the gifted property.

RETENTION OF CONTROLThe grower shall provide no guidance in the transfer agreement as to the retention or sale of the gifted commodity.

DOCUMENTATIONProvide either a properly executed warehouse receipt in the name of the “Montana State University Alumni Foundation; or a notarized letter of transfer for crops stored on the farm. The original sales invoice should list the charity (MSU Alumni Foundation) as the seller.

STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION COSTSAfter the transfer, the Montana State University Alumni Foundation will assume costs of storage, marketing or transportation.

CROP SHARE LEASESGifting will not work for a crop share landlord. A share of a crop received as a rental payment is considered the equivalent of rental income.

DONOR GIFT VALUEThe MSU Alumni Foundation will provide you with a donor receipt for the net settlement amount for your records. You do not need to declare a deduction or sale to the IRS.

800-457-1696 | plannedgiving@msuaf.org | msuaf.org/plannedgiving

FIELD DAY 2016

NORTHERN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER and

HAVRE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – AG APPRECIATION Havre, Montana June 22, 2016

3:30 pm REGISTRATION & REFRESHMENTS 3:50 pm WELCOME & ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. Darrin Boss, Superintendent, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre 4:00 pm ON-STATION RESEARCH TOURS/DISCUSSIONS Three different 90-minute field tours will be offered twice. There will be tours prior to and after supper.

TOUR A: Tom Allen, NARC Farm Operations Manager, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Host

Dustin Clark, Ranch & Farm Manager, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Guide Spring Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development

Dr. Luther Talbert, Montana Spring Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman Durum Breeding, Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development Dr. Mike Giroux, Durum Breeding Project Leader, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

Spring Barley Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development Dr. Jamie Sherman, Montana Barley Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman Winter Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development

Dr. Phil Bruckner, Montana Winter Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman MSU Plant Sciences Endowed Chair

Dr. Hikmet Budak, Wheat Geneticist, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

TOUR B: Angela Sebelius, Research Associate Agronomy, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Host Jerry Bohn, Mechanic, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Guide

Herbicide Plant-Back in Pulse Crop Rotations Dr. Prashant Jha, Weed Scientist, Southern Ag. Research Center-Huntley

Annual Forages and Specialty Crops, Sorghum, Spineless Safflower Mr. Dave Wichman, Superintendent, Agronomist, Central Ag Research Center-Moccasin

Thank You Dave for all your Service and Dedication to Montana Agriculture Disease Update from the Hi-Line Ms. Nicole Gray, Hill County Agricultural Extension Agent-Havre Various Crop and Personnel Update

Ms. Peggy Lamb, Research Scientist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre Yellow Pea Protein Study

Mr. Mike Bestwick, Research Associate, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences-Bozeman Montana Foundation Seed Program

Mr. Doug Holen, Montana Foundation Seed Director, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman

TOUR C: Cory Parsons, Livestock Operations Manager, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Host Les Gray, Livestock, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre, Guide MSU Beef Cattle Breeding Update

Dr. Jennifer Thomson, Livestock Geneticist, Animal and Range Science-Bozeman Characterization of Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 secretion in beef cattle

Dr. Ligia Prezotto, Assistant Professor, Northern Ag Research Center-Havre Dr. Jennifer Thorson, Research Associate, Northern Ag Research Center-Havre

Horn Fly Control Solutions for Your Herd Dr. Greg Johnson, Animal and Range Science-Bozeman

Cover Crop Termination and Subsequent Wheat Yield Dr. Darrin Boss, Ruminant Nutritionist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Statewide Cover Crop Evaluation Project Mr. Roger Hybner, Research Associate, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Rain Fall Simulator Ms. Joyce Trevithick, NRCS Area Agronomist-Great Falls

5:30 pm Dinner – Free Barbeque Courtesy of the Sponsors listed in the program, Please thank them. See Program and Dinner Tables –

Thank you event Sponsors we cannot do this joint event without your continued support throughout the year.

Dinner Cooked and Served by the Ag Committee of the Havre Area Chamber of Commerce

Thanks are expressed to these businesses and organizations for their generous support of NARC’s Annual Field Day, and North Central Montana Agriculture!

Agribusiness Committee Thank You Northwest Farm Credit Service for the use of their BBQ grill.

Thank you Uncle Joe’s Steakhouse for preparing the side Dishes.

Thank you Gary and Leo’s IGA for preparing the cookies.

Thank You Bear Paw BBQ and Scott Young for the use of the BBQ grill.

Montana State University Extension Service, Dr. Jeff Bader, Director

Thank You Mike and Craig Tilleman for the tent & your support year round

5:45 pm INTRODUCTIONS Dr. Darrin Boss, Superintendent, Northern Agricultural Research Center

GUEST SPEAKERS

Dr. Barry Jacobsen, Associate Director MAES, Head, Department Research Centers Recognition of Federal Delegation Representation

Christy Hagler, Ag Liaison, Congressman Ryan Zinke Alison Vergeront, Ag Liaison, Senator Steve Daines Jesse Anderson, Ag Liaison, Senator Jon Tester

Recognition of State Delegation -

Havre Area Chamber of Commerce, Agribusiness Committee Mr. Max Vogel, Chamber Agri-business President Ag Appreciation – Announcements and Award Recipients

6:30 pm TOUR DEPARTURES – Tours: A, B and C – See above 8:00 pm FIELD DAY PROGRAM ADJOURNED

Individuals desiring to remain after the main program to further discuss any research projects individually with the local scientists, or revisit specific project sites with scientists or staff, are welcome to do so.

THANK YOU FOR COMING! Please Drive Home Safely

Thank You: Torgerson’ LLC of Havre Montana for their Corporate Research Facility Equipment Lease Program

Table on Contents

Tour ......................................................................................................................................Page #

Tour A - Crop Variety Tour Spring Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development Dr. Luther Talbert, Spring Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Path.-Bozeman......................... 1

Durum Breeding, Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development Dr. Mike Giroux, Durum Breeding Project Leader, Plant Sciences & Plant Path.-Bozeman ........... 3

Spring Barley Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development Dr. Jamie Sherman, Barley Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology-Bozeman ........................... 5 Winter Wheat Variety Evaluations and New Variety Development Dr. Phil Bruckner, Winter Wheat Breeder, Plant Sciences & Plant Path.-Bozeman ......................... 9

MSU Plant Sciences Endowed Chair Dr. Hikmet Budak, Wheat Geneticist, Plant Sciences & Plant Path.-Bozeman.................................. 13

Tour B Alternative Crops and Cropping Systems

Herbicide Plant-Back in Pulse Crop Rotations Dr. Prashant Jha, Weed Scientist, Southern Ag. Research Center-Huntley ....................................... 15

Annual Forages and Specialty Crops, Sorghum, Spineless Safflower Mr. Dave Wichman, Agronomist, Central Ag Research Center-Moccasin ....................................... 17

Thank You Dave for all your Service and Dedication to Montana Agriculture

Disease Update from the Hi-Line Ms. Nicole Gray, Hill County Agricultural Extension Agent-Havre .................................................. 19

Various Crop and Personnel Update Ms. Peggy Lamb, Research Scientist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre

Yellow Pea Protein Study Mr. Mike Bestwick, Research Associate, Land Resources and Environ. Sciences-Bozeman ............. 21

Montana Foundation Seed Program Mr. Doug Holen, Montana Foundation Seed Director, Plant Sci. & Plant Path.-Bozeman .............. 23

Tour C – Beef Cattle MSU Beef Cattle Breeding Update Dr. Jennifer Thomson, Livestock Geneticist, Animal and Range Science-Bozeman .......................... 25

Characterization of Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 secretion in beef cattle Dr. Ligia Prezotto, Assistant Professor, Northern Ag Research Center-Havre

Dr. Jennifer Thorson, Research Associate, Northern Ag Research Center-Havre ............................. 27

Horn Fly Control Solutions for Your Herd Dr. Greg Johnson, Animal and Range Science-Bozeman ................................................................... 29

Cover Crop Termination and Subsequent Wheat Yield Dr. Darrin Boss, Ruminant Nutritionist, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre ................................ 31

Statewide Cover Crop Evaluation Project Mr. Roger Hybner, Research Associate, Northern Ag. Research Center-Havre ................................ 33

Rain Fall Simulator Ms. Joyce Trevithick, NRCS Area Agronomist-Great Falls ............................................................... 35

Thank You For Coming, and if there is anything you need today during your visit

or later, please contact any employee of Northern Agricultural Research Center

THANK YOU!! 2016 Field Day and Ag Appreciation Sponsors

White Level - $100 Baldwin Insurance Associates Bear Paw Credit Union Bergren Transmission & Auto Care Bosch, Kuhr, Dugdale, Martin & Kaze, PLLP Bullhook Community Health Center Culligan Fleet Wholesale Supply Flynn Realty, Inc. Gregoire Insurance Gusto Distributing McNair Furniture Prairie Farms Golf Course Scharfe, Kato & Co. Tire-Rama Triangle Communications &

Hill County Electric Cooperative Gold Level - $300 BNSF Bear Paw Veterinary Service Havre Lions Club North 40 Outfitters NorthWestern Energy Stockman Bank Torgerson’s Triangle Mobile Triple Dog Brewing US Bank Western Trailer Sales

Blue Level - $200 Anderson ZurMuehlen & Co. Diesel Doctor, Inc. CHS Big Sky Havre Ready Mix, Inc. Koefod Insurance Agency Office Equipment Patrick Construction Schine Electric State Farm – Tom LaFond Uncle Joes Steakhouse Valley Furniture Western Drug Pharmacy Blue & Gold Level - $500 Ezzie’s Wholesale, Inc. Independence Bank Northwest Farm Credit Services Wipfli Non-Profit Vendors Hill County 4-H Chuck Wagon MSU-Northern Alumni Foundation North Central Stockgrowers

Sponsors – This joint celebration would not have been possible without your continued support – we can’t thank you enough!

Small Grain QuickFacts: Hard Red Spring Wheat Luther Talbert and H.Y. Heo, Montana State University (Updated January 2016)

http://plantsciences.montana.edu/foundationseed/quickfacts

CHOTEAU – Choteau was derived from the cross of MT 9401/MT 9328. Choteau is a semidwarf hard red spring wheat with solid stems

conferring tolerance to the wheat stem sawfly. The spike is lax and tapered with white awns and glumes. Choteau is resistant to the

prevalent race of stem rust in Montana. Choteau has good grain protein and acceptable milling and baking quality. Choteau is

recommended for districts 2-6 under dryland and irrigated conditions. U.S. PVP #200400035. MAES Research Fees due on seed sold.

DUCLAIR - Duclair was derived from a cross of Choteau//Reeder/Scholar. Duclair is a solid stem semidwarf hard red spring wheat with

white glumes and awns. Compared with Choteau, Duclair is one day earlier in heading date and one inch taller. Duclair has slightly

fewer solid stems than Choteau and generally has more solid stems than Fortuna. Duclair is resistant to the prevalent races of stem

rust in Montana. Duclair exhibits good milling and baking traits. Duclair is recommended for districts 2-6 under dryland conditions. U.S.

PVP #201100372. MAES Research Fees due on seed sold.

VIDA - Vida was derived from the cross of Scholar/Reeder and is a semidwarf hard red spring wheat with white glumes and awns. Vida

is moderately resistance to leaf and stripe rust but is moderately susceptible to stem rust. Vida has good milling and baking

characteristics. Vida is recommended for districts 1-6 under dryland conditions. U.S. PVP #200600225. MAES Research Fees due on

seed sold.

WB9879CLP - WB9879CLP was derived from the cross of Choteau*3//Choteau/IMI8134 made in 2004 to be used as a two gene

Clearfield wheat. WB9879CLP is an awned semidwarf hard red spring wheat heading one and a half days later than Choteau while

plant height is 30 inches the same as Choteau. WB9879CLP has solid stems similar to Choteau. WB9879CLP exhibits acceptable

milling and baking quality traits similar to Choteau. WB9879CLP is currently licensed to WestBred, a unit of Monsanto. U.S. PVP

Pending # 201200491. To be sold by variety name only as a class of certified seed.

EGAN - Egan is a hard red spring wheat with resistance to the orange wheat blossom midge (OWBM). Egan has shown good yield

potential in northwestern Montana, and has relatively high grain protein content and resistance to stripe rust. Egan should be grown in

a blend with a OWBM-susceptible variety (90% Egan – 10% susceptible) to lessen the possibility that the OWBM will overcome the

resistance.

Spring Wheat Variety Performance Evaluations and Recommendations: http://plantsciences.montana.edu/crops

Table 1. Agronomic parameters for selected varieties in the advanced spring wheat nursery, 2012-2015

VARIETY

KALISPELL, BOZEMAN, HUNTLEY, MOCCASIN, CONRAD, HAVRE, SIDNEY(DRY), & SIDNEY(IRRIGAGION) BOZEMAN HAVRE KALISPELL KALISPELL

YIELD

(BU/AC)

TEST WEIGHT (LB/BU)

PROTEIN

(%)

PLANT HEIGHT

(IN)

HEADING (JULIAN DAYS)

STEM SOLIDNESS

(5-25)

SAW FLY CUT (%)

STRIPE RUST

(%)

LODGING

(%)

BRENNAN 57.9 60.7 15.0 28.6 174 8.6 4.2 30.4 0.0

SY TYRA 57.0 59.6 13.8 27.2 176 16.6 2.7 37.0 0.0

SY SOREN 56.8 59.2 15.1 28.4 175 7.0 3.5 32.4 0.0

WB GUNNISON 57.4 59.7 14.1 29.3 175 11.2 0.4 31.5 0.0

CORBIN 57.1 59.2 14.6 30.5 174 11.0 2.6 30.4 6.7

THATCHER 43.7 57.0 15.1 38.5 179 7.2 5.9 38.8 31.7

FORTUNA 52.3 59.7 14.6 36.9 176 16.2 3.7 28.0 15.4

REEDER 59.8 59.7 14.7 31.5 176 7.4 6.9 21.9 4.8

MCNEAL 58.3 58.4 14.7 31.6 177 7.2 12.2 33.5 0.0

CHOTEAU 55.4 58.7 14.8 29.6 175 19.2 3.3 29.0 0.8

VIDA 61.4 58.6 14.3 30.9 176 11.5 3.1 23.0 8.1

DUCLAIR 60.1 58.1 14.5 30.9 174 17.5 2.9 29.8 2.3

EGAN 55.8 58.4 16.0 30.5 177 7.2 5.5 8.3 0.4

WB9879CLP 56.7 59.1 14.8 29.7 176 20.0 3.0 26.7 0.0

AVERAGE 56.4 59.0 14.7 31.0 176 12.0 4.3 28.6 5.0

N=LOC*YEARS N=28 N=28 N=28 N=26 N=28 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=4

1

Table 2. Grain yield (Bu/Ac) for selected varieties in advanced spring wheat nursery across the Montana (8 environments), 2012-2015

VARIETY Kalispell Dryland

Bozeman Dryland

Huntley Dryland

Moccasin Dryland

Conrad Dryland

Havre Dryland

Sidney Dryland

Sidney Irrigated

Overall 8 Environments

BRENNAN 87.0 53.4 48.7 35.3 71.7 45.6 46.4 75.0 57.9

SY TYRA 89.4 56.3 45.2 30.9 76.4 44.7 39.0 74.5 57.0

SY SOREN 92.1 54.6 46.6 31.9 75.8 43.0 42.3 68.2 56.8

WB GUNNISON 97.5 54.0 46.4 36.0 69.6 43.2 33.3 79.4 57.4

CORBIN 93.5 52.0 52.6 31.7 75.6 43.1 35.1 72.9 57.1

THATCHER 69.5 41.9 35.3 26.3 59.0 33.6 30.1 54.4 43.7

FORTUNA 85.1 51.2 45.8 32.1 66.7 38.4 39.6 59.6 52.3

REEDER 96.2 53.6 49.6 33.4 77.8 45.5 43.7 78.6 59.8

MCNEAL 96.4 51.6 48.2 34.6 77.2 42.8 39.3 76.3 58.3

CHOTEAU 92.4 52.2 47.5 31.4 68.2 41.0 38.3 72.5 55.4

VIDA 99.3 59.5 51.9 35.6 77.4 49.1 44.8 73.6 61.4

DUCLAIR 99.6 54.4 52.1 34.4 73.2 46.4 42.5 78.1 60.1

EGAN 105.2 49.8 46.9 32.6 69.5 41.0 34.3 67.2 55.8

WB9879CLP 94.0 53.2 48.7 33.4 72.7 41.9 34.4 75.7 56.7

AVERAGE 92.7 52.7 47.5 32.8 72.2 42.8 38.8 71.9 56.4

N=LOC*YEARS N=4 N=4 N=3 N=4 N=4 N=4 N=2 N=3 N=28

Table 3. Mill and bake quality for selected varieties in the advanced spring wheat nursery, 2012-2014

VARIETY

WHOLE GRAIN MILLER FLOUR MIXOGRAPH BAKE

PROTEIN

(%)

HARDNESS

(%)

YIELD

(%)

PROTEIN

(%)

ASH

(%)

TIME

(MIN.)

ABSORP.

(%)

TIME

(MIN.)

ABSORP.

(%)

LOAF

VOLUME

(CC)

BRENNAN 15.2 81.4 65.0 13.3 0.42 3.6 65.3 5.7 75.0 1098

SY TYRA 14.2 92.0 64.2 12.5 0.41 4.8 65.1 9.4 75.3 1136

SY SOREN 15.5 80.5 63.7 13.6 0.43 4.5 65.9 8.9 75.8 1161

WB GUNNISON 14.4 85.3 63.1 12.7 0.42 8.4 65.7 14.1 76.5 1160

CORBIN 15.2 77.8 66.9 13.4 0.41 6.1 65.8 12.8 75.6 1147

THATCHER 15.3 80.2 64.8 13.6 0.41 4.2 64.9 8.2 74.8 1199

FORTUNA 15.0 74.0 66.5 13.4 0.42 3.7 64.2 6.4 74.3 1169

REEDER 15.1 79.8 65.5 13.4 0.39 3.9 65.1 5.9 74.7 1182

MCNEAL 15.0 95.0 62.6 13.5 0.43 7.6 67.4 13.4 77.9 1243

CHOTEAU 15.1 75.5 66.1 13.8 0.40 4.0 65.9 6.7 75.5 1191

VIDA 14.3 82.0 69.2 12.7 0.40 3.8 64.7 6.5 74.3 1148

DUCLAIR 14.8 73.3 65.2 13.2 0.40 5.3 65.0 8.9 74.8 1234

EGAN 16.3 85.6 64.8 14.4 0.40 8.8 68.6 15.9 79.1 1290

WB9879CLP 15.3 73.1 64.6 13.7 0.39 2.8 65.4 4.3 74.0 1086

AVERAGE 15.1 81.1 65.2 13.4 0.4 5.1 65.6 9.1 75.5 1175

2

Durum Facts and Selected Wheat Research Projects Document Prepared by Andy Hogg and Mike Giroux, mgiroux@montana.edu

Data from MAES Research Centers http://agresearch.montana.edu/wtarc/producerinfo/variety-testing/DurumWheatPerformance/2015%20DurumWheatPerformance.pdf

The goal of the Montana State University durum improvement and yield-testing program is to develop high yielding varieties with excellent end product quality that are adapted to Montana growing environments. Important agronomic characteristics include yield, drought tolerance, and lodging and disease resistance. Important end product qualities include test weight, seed size and color, milling yield, mixing properties, protein content, and falling number. The durum testing and improvement program is currently funded by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station and by the Montana Research and Economic Development Initiative. In Montana in 2015 the top five planted varieties were Mountrail (27%), Divide (21%), Alzada (14 %), Kyle (9%), and Tioga (5.5%). Mountrail, Divide, and Kyle are popular in Northeastern Montana while Alzada dominates Northcentral Montana. There were 605,000 acres of durum harvested in Montana in 2015 with an average yield of 31 bu. per acre. Brief descriptions of each of these varieties are given below along with information on several recently released varieties. Mountrail – Mountrail is a high yielding durum released in 1998 by NDSU and resulted from a cross between D8479 and Renville. It is

medium height and medium to late maturity and is resistant to leaf and stem rust but susceptible to scab. Mountrail has good semolina

milling yield.

Divide - Divide was released by NDSU in 2005. Divide has high yield, moderate protection against scab, medium maturity, strong straw,

excellent overall quality, white chaff and medium height. Divide also has good overall quality.

Alzada – Alzada was derived from a cross of Mohawk with Kofa and was released in 2004. Alzada has high yield potential, good wheat

stem sawfly resistance and good overall quality. It is medium maturity and is adapted to Northcentral and Northwest Montana.

Kyle – Kyle was derived from the cross of Wakooma with DT320 and DT322 and is a 1984 release from Ag Canada adapted to regions

with longer growing seasons. Kyle has late maturity, black awns and weak straw. Kyle is resistant to bunt but has poor tolerance to

head blight and loose smut.

Alkabo – Alkabo is derived from the cross of D901247 with D89263 and is a 2005 release from NDSU with high yield, large kernel size,

resistance to stem and leaf rust, high test weight and is average end product quality with strong gluten.

Carpio – Carpio is derived from crosses between a number of different NDSU breeding lines and Belzer and Munich. It was released in

2012 by NDSU and has high yield potential. Carpio has good gluten strength and has larger kernels than Mountrail. Carpio has

intermediate scab tolerance.

Joppa – Joppa is derived from crosses between Maier and 4 NDSU breeding lines. It was released in 2013 by NDSU and has high yield

potential, very good gluten strength and excellent semolina color.

Silver – Silver is derived from a blend of several male sterile facilitated recurrent selection populations from Arizona and is a 2012 release

from MSU. Silver has high yield, early flowering and maturity and is shorter than most currently grown varieties.

2015 Durum Wheat Variety Performance Evaluations

Table 1. Agronomic parameters for selected durum varieties in the interstate durum nursery 2015.

Variety

Dryland locations MSU-BOZEMAN, WTARC-Conrad, NARC-Havre, CARC-Mocassin, and

WREC-Williston, ND.

Irrigated Location EARC-Sidney

Yield

(bu/ac)

Test Weight (lb/bu)

Protein (%)

Plant Height

(in)

Heading (Julian Days)

Yield

(bu/ac)

Test Weight (lb/bu)

Protein

(%)

Plant Height

(in)

Heading (Julian Days)

Alkabo 28.4 58.3 16.3 27.3 174 57.9 62.6 13.1 35.0 173

Carpio 27.7 57.2 16.5 27.8 176 67.8 63.4 12.7 36.2 174

Divide 26.5 58.0 16.6 28.3 175 59.8 62.3 13.8 35.0 174

Grenora 28.2 57.7 15.9 26.2 175 70.2 61.9 13.2 33.9 174

Joppa 28.0 58.2 16.4 28.3 175 66.4 62.7 12.9 35.8 174

Mountrail 29.1 57.1 16.3 26.5 175 73.2 62.3 13.7 35.8 175

Silver 28.2 57.0 16.6 23.3 170 69.5 60.7 13.6 29.9 172

Tioga 29.2 58.6 16.8 28.2 175 63.0 62.3 12.9 35.8 174

Average 28.2 57.8 16.4 27.0 174.4 66.0 62.3 13.2 34.7 173.8

CV% 33.3 2.6 4.7 17.5 3 11.4 0.8 4.4 3.0 0.6

LSD (0.05) NS 0.8 0.5 1.0 2.1 13.2 0.8 1.0 2.0 0.6

-bolded data represent the highest and lowest values for each trait.

-Alzada is included in the 2016 Interstate Durum trials.

3

Table 2. Seed quality for selected varieties in the interstate durum nursery in 2015.

Line Large

Seeds % Small

Seeds %

Seed Hardness

Index

Seed Weight

(mg) Diameter

(mm)

NIR Protein

(12%mb)

Whole Meal Ash (14% mb)

Falling Number (sec)

Alkabo 42.8 18.2 83.8 39.0 2.7 15.6 1.5 416.2

Carpio 42.3 18.5 84.5 36.8 2.6 15.7 1.5 419.8

Divide 35.0 21.2 85.0 36.6 2.6 15.9 1.5 420.7

Grenora 36.7 19.3 86.6 38.0 2.7 15.4 1.5 409.8

Joppa 35.3 24.2 85.4 36.8 2.6 15.6 1.5 414.3

Mountrail 27.8 25.8 83.9 36.5 2.6 15.7 1.5 415.3

Silver 30.7 24.3 84.0 33.9 2.6 15.6 1.6 399.0

Tioga 40.2 18.7 83.0 38.3 2.7 16.0 1.5 408.8

Mean 36.4 21.3 84.5 37.0 2.6 15.7 1.5 413.0

CV% 15.0 16.9 2.5 3.3 1.6 3.0 3.3 5.6

P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

LSD(0.05) 6.2 4.4 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 27.1

-bolded data represent the highest and lowest values for each trait. -ANOVA was used to determine significance. -SKW=single kernel weight

Table 3. Durum Milling and semolina quality data from multi-location durum yield trials conducted in 2015.

Line Milling Yield %

Leco Protein

(12% mb) Oven Ash (14% mb)

Semolina Brightness L*

Semolina Yellowness b*

Alkabo 60.3 14.6 0.6 84.4 28.5

Carpio 60.6 14.7 0.7 84.0 29.9

Divide 60.7 14.6 0.6 84.6 26.8

Grenora 59.9 14.3 0.6 84.6 27.9

Joppa 61.1 14.8 0.6 84.3 28.7

Mountrail 60.7 15.1 0.7 84.5 25.1

Silver 59.0 14.5 0.6 84.0 24.8

Tioga 60.9 15.1 0.7 84.4 28.2

Mean 60.4 14.7 0.6 84.4 27.5

CV% 1.4 3.5 5.2 0.3 2.4

P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

LSD(0.05) 1.0 0.6 0.03 0.3 0.8

-bolded data represent the highest and lowest values for each trait. -ANOVA was used to determine significance.

4

Why Barley?

Barley is particularly suited to Montana’s environment and can be a useful part of a crop rotation. Barley production is moving west. In the map to the right, blue indicates increase in barley production; while red indicates decrease. New markets for barley (micromalt, microbreweries, aquaculture and human food) can provide additional revenue to Montana growers. The map below indicates that Montana has one of the highest densities of microbrews in the nation per capita.

Historical Importance of Barley to Montana

1893 Montana Experiment Station

1893-1938 Varietal Testing and Management

1941 – First line released – Compana

Lines have been released for a variety of purposes: Malt, food, feed and forage -Glacier 1943, Unitan 1959, Hypana 1965, Erbet & Shabet 1971, Purcell 1974, Ridawn & Clark 1980, Lewis 1985, Gallatin 1986, Haybet & BearPaw 1989, Chinook 1995, Prowashanupana 1996, Valier 1999, Haxby 2003, Hays 2006, Hockett 2008, Lavina 2010

Montana Barley Harvested Acres since 1882

Why institute breeding? Allows creation of new lines specifically adapted to Montana. What is breeding?

• Making controlled crosses • Making selections • Multiple generations 10 -15 years

5

Breeding Barley for Multiple Uses

Summary of the Offstation nursery performance, including 8 Dryland sites and 4 irrigated/high moisture sites. Lines are organized from high to low yield. Note the highest performing lines in irrigation are not highest performing in dryland. Of interest are the low protein experimental lines that we are hopeful will make malt under low moisture conditions. We are working to determine best management practices for low protein lines.

Also included are feed lines – Champion and Haxby and forage lines Lavina and Haybet.

6

Below is a summary of the mean forage performance in dryland. Lavina and Haybet are the most commonly grown barley forage lines in Montana. Note they have about same dry matter production. However, Lavina has much higher grain yield. Notice we have several experimental lines with as much or more tons/acre but none that have the grain yield of Lavina.

Quality tests indicate room for improvement of varieties for digestability and leaf protein.

Energy available for feed is inversely related to the amount of acid detergent fiber (ADF) in the forage. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is inversely related to dry matter intake. As NDF increases cows consume less dry matter because of rumen fill. Therefore forage with lower NDF and ADF are more efficient feed and can provide an economic advantage by increase weight gain or milk production. It has been estimated that a 1% increase in digestability results in a 3% increase in daily weight grain.

7

To the left are reported the state-wide averages of hull-less lines in irrigated and dry-land environments. Note experimental lines show promise due to high yield and high protein. Hull-less lines might provide new markets for Montana growers for human food and aquaculture.

Jamie Sherman, Barley Breeder, Montana State University (Jsherman@montana.edu)

Liz Elmore, Research Associate, Montana State University (lizelmore@montana.edu)

For complete report go to http://plantsciences.montana.edu/crops/2015BarleyReport.pdf

8

Recommended Solid-Stemmed Winter Wheat Varieties

Phil Bruckner and Jim Berg, Winter Wheat Breeding Program, Montana State University Small Grain QuickFacts: http://plantsciences.montana.edu./FoundationSeed (Updated 12/2015)

Description of selected varieties developed by MSU/MAES Winter Wheat Breeding Program:

Bearpaw – hard red winter wheat developed by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station in 2011. Bearpaw is a white-glumed, solid-stem, semi-dwarf (Rht1) wheat with medium maturity. Bearpaw has average yield, test weight, and protein, and below average winter hardiness. Bearpaw is resistant to prevalent races of stem rust but susceptible to stripe and leaf rust. Stem-solidness of Bearpaw is most similar to Rampart. Bearpaw is a high PPO variety with above average milling and average baking properties. PVP, Title V option has been issued (Certificate #201200407).

Judee – hard red winter wheat developed by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station in 2011. Judee is a white-glumed, solid-stem, semi-dwarf (Rht1) wheat with medium maturity. Judee has average yield, test weight, and protein, and below average winter hardiness. Judee is susceptible to prevalent races of stem and leaf rust but resistant to stripe rust. Stem-solidness of Judee is most similar to Genou. Judee is a high PPO variety with average mill and above average bake properties. PVP, Title V has been issued (Certificate #201200161).

Table 1. Yield of Recommended Solid-Stemmed Winter Wheat varieties, 2010-20151/

Variety

1 2 3 4 5 5 6- Sidney &

Kalispell Bozeman2/ Huntley3/ Moccasin4/ Conrad5/ Havre6/Williston

location-years 6 13 31 30 22 21 8 131

Warhorse 119.8** 70.8** 61.8* 48.6* 63.3* 51.7* 49.9* 60.2**

WB-Quake 115.4* 66.8* 61.2* 46.0 63.5* 52.3* 50.2* 59.4*

Judee 113.7* 68.8* 61.4* 44.7 64.1** 53.5** 41.4 58.6*

Bearpaw 72.4 63.5 63.3*** 48.9** 62.7* 52.2* 51.0** 57.9

Rampart 94.0 62.8 55.6 39.9 57.9 48.6 44.3 53.1

Genou 70.6 58.2 55.6 42.5 59.8 50.6 47.0* 53.0

LSD (0.05) 18.4 5.5 2.7 2.2 4 2.5 6.3 1.9** = indicates highest value w ithin a column

* = indicates varieties w ith values equal to highest variety w ithin a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

1/ = includes 2012-15 Saw fly , 2010-15 Intrastate and 2011-15 Off Station tests

2/ includes data from Dry Creek, Willow Creek

3/ includes data from Forsyth, Fort Smith, Hardin area, Hysham, Lodge Grass, Molt, Rapelje

4/ includes data from Belt, Denton, Geraldine, Winifred

5/ includes data from Choteau, Cut Bank, The Knees, Shelby

6/ includes data from Loma, Turner

DistrictsAll

Locations

Shaded entries are MSU/MAES released varieties since 2011

Table 2. 'Solid' Varieties: Yield Performance under Sawfly Pressure and % Sawfly Cutting (2010-2015)

Variety Havre Loma Turner Willow Aver- Havre Loma Turner Willow Aver-

Creek age Creek age

location-years 2 6 2 1 11 2 6 2 1 11

Judee 72.6 54.3 38.2 39.4* 53.3** 5 19 5* 2* 13

WBQuake 70.9 55.1 39.2 30.9 52.9* 3 14 6* 2* 10

Warhorse 70.8 54.3 31.6 43.2** 52.2* 2 5** 2** 1** 3**

Bearpaw 68.4 52.6 38.1 34.6 51.2* 4 17 12 2* 12

Genou 66.2 47.9 38.1 36.2* 48.4 11 19 13 2* 15

Rampart 62.7 48.3 33.1 29.7 46.4 5 11* 6* 1 8

LSD (0.05) ns ns ns 8.5 3.9 ns 8 9 7 5

Yield (bu/a) Sawfly Cutting (%)

9

Table 3. Stem solidness ratings of solid-stemmed varieties, (2011-2015)

Variety

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2011-15 Bozeman Conrad Havre Loma Moccasin

location-years 7 8 8 8 4 35 9 5 9 3 9

Warhorse 22.0** 22.1** 22.0* 20.4* 21.5** 21.6** 20.1** 22.4** 22.6* 20.9 21.9**

Bearpaw 19.9 21.5* 21.7* 20.8* 21.0* 21.0* 19.0* 21.8* 22.5* 21.3 21.0*

Rampart 18.7 21.4* 22.1** 21.0** 21.0* 20.9 17.5 21.9* 23.0** 21.0 21.5*

Judee 19.3 20.8 21.0* 18.5 20.2* 19.9 17.4 21.1* 21.4 20.0 20.3

WB Quake 19.2 21.0 20.2 18.9 18.1 19.6 16.8 20.9 21.4 20.3 19.8

Genou 15.5 19.6 20.7 18.4 17.3 18.5 14.4 19.3 21.0 19.9 19.1

LSD (0.05) 1.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.1 ns 1.0** = indicates highest yielding variety w ithin a column

* = indicates varieties yielding equal to highest yielding variety w ithin a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

Stem Solidness Rating (scale 5-25, higher = more solid) Stem Solidness by location, 2010-2015

Table 4. Agronomic characteristics of Recommended Solid-Stemmed Varieties, 2010-20151/

Variety Test Winter Plant Lodging Protein Saw fly Stripe Coleoptile

w eight survival height % cutting rust length

lb/bu % Julian Calendar in % % % in

location-years 131 7 61 132 21 130 19 11 3

Bearpaw 59.1 48 164.9 14-Jun 30.5 23 13.3 8 52 3.0

Genou 59.3 44 165.8 15-Jun 34.4 27 13.5 10 51 4.1

Judee 59.7** 31 165.2 14-Jun 31.1 17* 13.4 8 13* 3.7

Rampart 59.5* 39 166.0 15-Jun 34.1 27 13.9** 5* 34 4.4**

Warhorse 59.3 48 166.3 15-Jun 30.8 10** 13.4 3** 11** 3.3

WBQuake 59.3 48 167.1 16-Jun 31.3 15* 13.0 7 21* 2.7

LSD (0.05) 0.3 10 0.3 0.3 9 0.2 3 12 0.31/ = includes 2012-15 Saw fly , 2010-15 Intrastate and 2011-15 Off Station tests

** = indicates highest value w ithin a column

* = indicates varieties w ith values equal to highest variety w ithin a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

Heading date

Table 5. Mill and bake characteristics of Recommended Solid-Stemmed Varieties, 2010-2014

Variety PPO 1/

Kernel

hardness yield protein ash tolerance mix time absorption mix time absorption volume

% % % (1-6) min % min % cc

location-years 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

Bearpaw 0.270 82.6 68.4* 11.6 0.41* 3.4 4.6 61.0 7.5 71.1 1020

Genou 0.308 79.8 68.5** 11.9 0.41* 4.0* 5.6 63.3** 12.1 73.4** 1097

Judee 0.277 80.1 66.7 11.8 0.41** 4.1** 5.5 61.7 8.6 71.8 1141**

Warhorse 0.263 92.1 67.3 11.8 0.43 3.3 5.0 61.9 7.1 72.2 1076

LSD (0.05) 0.020 2.1 0.6 ns 0.01 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 25** = indicates highest value w ithin a column

* = indicates varieties w ith values equal to highest variety w ithin a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

1/ polyphenol oxidase, low is best for noodles

Flour Mixograph Baking

Warhorse - is an awned, white glumed, solid-stemmed hard red winter wheat released in 2013 by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. Warhorse has medium maturity and has medium short, semi-dwarf height. Warhorse’s winter hardiness, rated at 4 on 0-5 scale, is an improvement over other solid stem varieties. Stem solidness is similar to that of Bearpaw and Rampart, while sawfly cutting of stems is very low (similar to Rampart). Warhorse yield is similar to Judee, while test weight and protein are above average. Warhorse is resistant to both stem and stripe rust. Warhorse has acceptable mill and bake qualities. PVP, Title V has been issued (Certificate# 201400131). Phil Bruckner and Jim Berg, Montana State University, Agricultural Experiment Station <http:/plantsciences.montana.edu/crops>

10

Recommended Winter Wheat Varieties

Phil Bruckner and Jim Berg, Winter Wheat Breeding Program, Montana State University Updated 12/2015

OriginVariety (Release year) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Northwest Southwest Southeast Central North Northeast

Central

Bearpaw1/

Montana (2011) D D D

Broadview Alberta/Meridian Seeds (2009) D D

Carter WestBred (2006) D D D D D

CDC Falcon Saskatchewan/WestBred (1999) DI DI DI DI DI

Colter Montana (2013) D D D D

Decade Montana/North Dakota (2010) D D D D

Jerry North Dakota (2001) D

Judee1/

Montana (2011) D D D

Ledger WestBred (2004) D D D

Northern Montana (2015) D D D D

SY Wolf Syngenta (2010) D D D D

Warhorse1/

Montana (2015) D D D

WB-Quake WestBred (2011) D D D D D D

Yellowstone Montana (2005) D D D D D

D = Dryland

I = Irrigated

1/ = sawfly areas only

Districts

2015 Recommended Varieties: Hard Winter Wheat

for Montana by District

Table 1. Yield of Recommended Winter Wheat varieties, 2012-20151/

Variety

1 2 3 4 5 5 6- Sidney &

Kalispell Bozeman Huntley2/ Moccasin3/ Conrad4/ Havre5/Williston

location-years 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 27

Colter 132.3** 87.9* 77.8* 54.2* 94.2* 65.2 57.2* 81.4**

Yellowstone 122.4* 91.7* 78.1** 55.8** 98.1* 61.6 60.6** 81.3*

Northern 116.7* 87.6* 76.4* 54.7* 98.5** 63.2 54.2* 78.8*

SY Wolf 104.6 92.0** 77.5* 50.4 95.5* 64.7 42.7 75.3*

Warhorse 112.9 80.6 74.2* 48.9 78.6 57.5 48.2 71.4

CDC Falcon 82.4 75.4 72.3* 51.1 90.7 59.5 55.5* 69.5

WB-Quake 108.1 77.5 67.8 46.0 79.2 55.9 50.9* 69.4

Judee 107.3 79.2 67.9 42.7 83.7 60.8 34.7 68.0

Broadview 67.4 70.6 67.4 49.8 91.2* 63.4 57.9* 66.8

Ledger 93.6 74.3 62.9 44.3 83.2 59.0 42.6 65.8

Decade 58.5 77.2 73.8* 51.5* 88.4 59.7 50.9* 65.4

Jerry 59.7 73.9 64.1 49.6 82.9 54.4 59.3* 63.4

Bearpaw 61.6 73.0 67.5 49.4 81.5 59.4 49.6 63.0

LSD (0.05) 19.2 11.2 8.9 4.5 7.7 ns 10.1 6.2** = indicates highest value w ithin a column

* = indicates varieties w ith values equal to highest variety w ithin a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

1/ = 2012-2015 Intrastate tests; 'Carter' is also on the recommended list, but testing discontinued for 2015

All

Locations

Districts

11

Table 2. Agronomic characteristics of Recommended Hollow-Stemmed Varieties, 2012-20151/

Variety Test Winter Heading date Plant Lodging Protein Sawfly Stripe Coleoptile

weight survival height

cutting rust length

lb/bu % Julian Calendar in % % % % in

location-years 27 4 28 28 2 27 3 5 2

Bearpaw 58.2 34 162.0 11-Jun 31.6 12 13.4** 4* 68 3.0

Broadview 58.2 51* 162.8 12-Jun 32.3 10 12.9 7 64 2.8

CDC Falcon 58.8 53* 161.9 11-Jun 30.6 2 12.7 6* 55 2.9

Colter 59.7* 47* 164.2 13-Jun 34.0 2 12.9 11 25* 2.9

Decade 58.5 50* 161.1 10-Jun 32.1 2 13.3* 11 72 3.2

Jerry 57.9 59** 163.5 13-Jun 37.1 8 12.9 9 80 3.2

Judee 59.4* 17 162.5 12-Jun 32.5 15 13.4** 3* 19* 3.8

Ledger 60.1* 29 162.2 11-Jun 31.9 7 12.4 7 56 3.3

Northern 59.4* 39 164.4 13-Jun 32.9 12 13.1* 6* 22* 2.5

SY Wolf 60.3** 25 160.5 10-Jun 31.2 0 12.9 7 23* 3.0

Warhorse 59.3* 37 163.7 13-Jun 31.8 15 13.2* 2** 18** 3.3

WB-Quake 59.6* 35 164.6 14-Jun 32.8 12 13.2* 3* 34* 2.8

Yellowstone 59.4* 43 163.7 13-Jun 34.2 0 12.6 7 33* 2.7

LSD (0.05) 1.0 13 0.6 0.6 ns 0.4 4 18 0.2

1/ = 2012-2015 Intrastate tests ** = indicates highest value within a column

* = indicates varieties with values equal to highest variety within a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

Table 3. Mill and bake characteristics of Recommended Winter Wheat Varieties, 2012-2014

Variety PPO 1/

Kernel

hardness yield protein Ash tolerance mix time absorption mix time absorption volume

% % % (1-6) min % min % cc

location-years 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Bearpaw 0.291 84.3 68.9* 12.0 0.43 3.4 4.2 60.5 6.2 70.5 1039

Broadview 0.386 72.0 67.4 11.9 0.43 2.7 2.8 61.3 3.5 69.8 1052

Colter 0.280 82.2 68.6* 11.8 0.42* 5.1** 9.2 64.8* 17.4 75.8* 1066

Decade 0.307 79.5 68.4* 12.1 0.42* 4.8* 7.7 65.8** 17.4 75.9** 1093

Judee 0.299 81.4 68.0 12.5** 0.42* 4.1 5.2 62.7 8.5 72.6 1183**

Northern 0.110** 88.4 68.9* 12.1 0.45 3.8 4.1 62.3 6.0 72.2 1117

SY Wolf 0.295 80.1 68.8* 11.9 0.41** 2.4 4.2 59.6 6.0 69.6 1018

Warhorse 0.264 94.4 67.9 12.4* 0.44 3.4 4.7 62.6 6.8 72.9 1107

Yellowstone 0.205 82.5 69.0** 11.7 0.43 4.8* 8.5 64.3 15.1 74.8* 1092

LSD (0.05) 0.043 3.3 0.7 0.3 0.01 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.4 36** = indicates highest value w ithin a column

* = indicates varieties w ith values equal to highest variety w ithin a column based on Fisher's protected LSD (p=0.05)

1/ polyphenol oxidase, low is best for noodles

Mixograph BakingFlour

Phil Bruckner and Jim Berg, Montana State University, Agricultural Experiment Station <http:/plantsciences.montana.edu/crops>

12

June 16, 2016 Cereal Genomics Program at the Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology I am delighted to inform you about our cereal genomics activities and future plans towards developing highly resistant wheat cultivars with good yield and quality as the Plant Sciences team at Montana States University since 2016. Though we are in the beginning of tackling this daunting task, we have laid the foundations of promising projects and strong collaborations with the leading wheat scientists all over the world. Our projects with the collaborations of molecular geneticists, pathologists, entomologist and breeders will focus on three main topics; first development of tolerance or resistance to abiotic stresses like drought and heat, second combating the periodic biotic stressors of Montana wheat cultivars such as orange blossom wheat midge and more importantly wheat stem sawfly, and out third aim will be to target nutrient deficiencies. My lab is one of the coordinating member in IWGSC- International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium and WEWseq- The International Wild Emmer Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium working with the ultimate aim of dissecting all genomic elements of the bread and wild emmer wheat. The efforts of wheat genome sequencing consortiums have already begun to bear fruit and will be indispensable for the development of wheat cultivars with good yield and high resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. We will further boost the efficiency of our projects and goals with the knowledge produced by these consortiums. While exploiting genomics, molecular and metabolomics tools, results of our experiments in the laboratory will have their applications directly in the field. I am confident that together we will build a better future for Montana States’ agriculture practices with the aid of cutting edge technologies and scientific research.

Cereal Genomics program gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the Montana Grain Growers Association, Montana Grains Foundation, Montana Wheat and Barley Committee, Farmers, Growers and Stake Holders.

Email: hikmet.budak@montana.edu

13

14

INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT IN MONTANA CROPPING SYSTEMS

Prashant Jha Associate Professor/Weed Scientist, MSU–Southern Agricultural Research Center, Huntley, MT

Email: pjha@montana.edu Phone: 406-348-3400

1. Herbicide carry-over studies for successful integration of pulse crops in cereal-based cropping systems of Montana: MREDI and MWBC GRANTS

The field studies have been initiated across multiple locations: Huntley, Moccasin, Havre, and Sidney, MT, starting fall 2015. There are 3 major objectives:

1. Effect of fall-applied soil-residual herbicides in wheat stubble on pea, lentil, and chickpea tolerance (carry-over) and weed control in the following year

2. Effect of currently–used Group 2 Sulfonylurea herbicides applied in the fall/spring in winter wheat and carry-over to pea, lentil, and chickpea in the following year.

3. Effect of spring-applied premergence soil–residual herbicides for weed control in fallow and winter wheat response (crop safety).

Table 2. List of treatments applied in fall 2015 in postharvest wheat stubble and plant-back to pea, lentil, and chickpea in spring 2016. Multi-location trial: Huntley, Mocassin, Sidney, and Havre, MT

Trt Treatment Form Form Application No. Name Conc Type Rate Rate Unit Timing

1 METRIBUZIN 75 DF 75 DF 4 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 2 METRIBUZIN 75 DF 75 DF 8 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 3 SPARTAN CHARGE 4 SL 6 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 4 SPARTAN CHARGE 4 SL 12 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 5 VALOR SX 51 WG 3 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 6 VALOR SX 51 WG 6 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 7 CORVUS 2.63 SC 4 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 8 CORVUS 2.63 SC 8 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 9 AUTHORITY MTZ 45 DF 8 oz/a FALL-APPLIED

10 AUTHORITY MTZ 45 DF 16 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 11 CORVUS 2.63 SC 3 oz/a FALL-APPLIED

METRIBUZIN 75 DF 75 DF 4 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 12 CORVUS 2.63 SC 6 oz/a FALL-APPLIED

METRIBUZIN 75 DF 75 DF 8 oz/a FALL-APPLIED 13 ANTHEM FLEX 4.3 SC 3.64 fl oz/a FALL-APPLIED

14 ANTHEM FLEX 4.3 SC 7.28 fl oz/a FALL-APPLIED

15 PROWL H2O 3.8 SC 16 fl oz/a FALL-APPLIED OUTLOOK 6 EC 18 fl oz/a FALL-APPLIED

16 PROWL H2O 3.8 SC 32 fl oz/a FALL-APPLIED

OUTLOOK 6 EC 36 fl oz/a FALL-APPLIED

15

Results: Pea, lentil, and chickpea emerged successfully at all sites in spring 2016. No injury or stand reduction observed with the treatments, except corvus (4 to 8 oz/a), spartan charge (12 oz/a), authority MTZ (16 oz/a). The injury (chlorosis, stunting) was more severe in lentil than in pea or chickpea. All other treatments were relatively safe and provided 70-85% residual activity on kochia, Russian thistle, and some other weeds this summer (2016), with no additional herbicide application made in pulse crops this year. Injury ratings will be continued and the pulse crops will be harvested for yield. Soil samples will be collected in the fall for herbicide residue analysis across all sites.

2. New Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in Montana–Characterization & Management: MWBC Grant

Glyphosate-resistant Russian thistle confirmed in Choteau County, MT 2015, SARC Huntley

Glyphosate-resistant marestail (survivors of 40 fl oz/a Roundup) confirmed in Richland and McCone County, MT 2015, SARC Huntley

We are conducting studies to determine alternative herbicides (different modes of action) for controlling glyphosate-resistant marestail and Russian thistle in wheat-fallow. Evolutionary dynamics of herbicide resistance and integrated strategies to mitigate herbicide resistance in MT copping systems is being investigated at SARC, Huntley; the long-term effects of crop rotation, tillage, and herbicide use pattern is being studied. My program is also investigating hyperspectral imaging sensor technology to differentiate between herbicide-resistant and susceptible weeds for precision/selective weed control in-crop. One of the major milestones of this project is that we can differentiate glyphosate-resistant kochia from susceptible kochia in fallow and in wheat.

22 fl oz/a Roundup

32 fl oz/a Roundup

44 oz/a Roundup

16

Cereal Forages: A Tool in Managing Limited Water Resources

Dave Wichman, CARC-Montana State University, Moccasin, MT

Winter and spring cereal forage became a staple in many Montana forage production systems

in the late 1990s as a result of forage shortages caused by persisting drought conditions. Many

producers used cereals as an emergency source of hay. Concurrent to the droughty period, the

Montana Extension Service and Montana Agricultural Experiment Station did extensive cereal

forage production investigations and producer education on production methods and utilization.

The introduction and promotion of the hooded barley cultivar `Haybet’ provided a vehicle to

carry the message of the attributes of cereal forages. Haybet was a boon to both the forage

producers and seed producer/dealers. Haybet became the second most widely grown barley in

Montana. Only recently has Lavina, for dryland production, and Hays, for irrigated production,

displaced much of the Haybet acres.

In Montana production environments, winter and spring cereal forages often produce more

forage per acre than perennial forage species. The mean yields of winter cereal forage

cultivar/species trials were compared to the mean yields of alfalfa cultivar trials at four Montana

locations. For the data presented, the mean winter cereal for yield exceeded the mean alfalfa

yield. While the data for these comparisons were derived from adjacent trials and thus not a true

statistical comparisons, the message is clear, cereals have high forage yield potential. The

winter cereals at the Bozeman and Huntley were produced in a crop-fallow dryland environment

and had yields 138% and 280% greater than adjacent dryland alfalfa yields. The Kalispell yields

were from irrigated environments and the winter cereal forage yields 141% of the mean alfalfa

yield. The Moccasin winter cereal forage yields, produced in a continuous annual crop

environment, were 328% of the dryland alfalfa yield. Over an eleven year period, at the dryland

Moccasin site, spring and winter cereal forages continuously produce more dry matter per acre

than established stands of alfalfa.

In Montana, there has been an increase in harvesting cereal forges as graze for variety of

reasons and at various stages ranging from the three leaf through heading stage. Knowledge of

the effect of maturity on forage quality and relative yield potential may be useful for the producer

in developing their harvest strategy. Dryland winter cereals can accumulate 150 lbs. to > 200

lbs./ac. of dry matter per day during the stem elongation stage. Forage quality decreases as the

plant matures, so harvest stage should be adjusted to obtain the desired forage quality. Plant

tissue nitrate, which can accumulate at toxic levels, generally decreases with maturity. Plant

nitrate accumulation is often associated with a nutrient imbalance that may be corrected with

appropriate fertilizer use. In shallow loams Judith soils of central Montana, sulfur is often a

limiting nutrient, along with phosphorus. Deficiencies in S and P contribute to accumulation of

nitrates in cereal forages.

Winter wheat is the primary annual crop in much of central and north central Montana. Utilizing

cereal forages or other early season annual forage provides the opportunity to use a portion of

the crop year moisture while retaining some soil moisture for the establishment of the

September seeded winter wheat. When harvested for forage, the period of water use by the

17

cereal forage is shortened by three to four weeks. This provides for retaining and accumulating

soil moisture. The long term average precipitation in the June 25th to July 25th interval is 1.7

inches. Winter cereal forages typically head and are harvested prior to June 25th. Mid-late

March seeded spring barley will head by June 25th. However, spring cereals are typically

seeded in mid-April and head around July1. The cereal forage may be harvested at an early

stage, by grazing, if allowing the cereal to head prior to harvest utilized too much soil water.

The partial season forage crop provides the opportunity for income every year and help manage

against the leaching of nitrogen into the shallow ground water and the formation of saline seeps.

18

Hill County Extension Update 2016: Winter Wheat, Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus, Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus

Nicole Gray, MSU Hill County Extension Agent

WSMV Leaf Curl Mite BYDV Bird Cherry Oat Aphid

Photo Courtesy of Manitoba Ag Dep Photo Courtesy of OSU

2016 Growing Season Summary

The 2016 growing season has been one full of challenges for Hill County and surrounding area farmers. The majority of the 2016 winter wheat, spring wheat, and barley crops within the Hill County area are infected with Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus and some with Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus. The key component of these insects surviving is the availability of a grassy host. Hence, the term green bridge is important in understanding management of these insect caused viruses.

The green bridge is referencing the life cycle of plants in the field. For example, if cheatgrass emerges post harvest in a field and continues to grow prior to seeding and after the winter wheat emerges, the insects causing these viruses can move from one host to another (in this case cheatgrass to the new winter wheat). Therefore controlling volunteer and grassy weeds is extremely important prior to seeding in the fall.

Photo Courtesy of KSU

Photo Courtesy of Oklahoma State University

Cour

tesy

of N

DSU

19

Leading up to the 2016 growing year The 2015 growing season created the perfect storm for these viruses including the “hail storm of the century” and extremely good soil moisture conditions late in the fall. The combination of the volunteer from the hailed out cereal fields and the soil moisture conditions made it extremely difficult for producers to break the green bridge last year. Therefore, the leaf curl mite and aphid populations increased rapidly, causing the winter wheat to become infected with the two viruses. The barley and spring wheat planted this spring provided another green grass host for these insects. Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus (Burrows 2015, Cereal Viruses of Importance in Montana) Wheat Streak Mosaic is cause by Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus in winter wheat, spring wheat, durum, barley, corn, and grassy weeds. Common symptoms with WSMV include a mosaic pattern of yellowing on the leaves and is commonly confused with a nitrogen deficiency. Usually the yellowing in the field appears at the field edge and or near patches of cheatgrass or volunteer wheat in the field. Growth virtually stops and few or no heads are formed. Premature death is also possible. If infection occurs after tillering but before early jointing, grain can be formed. However, florets often are sterile. When wheat is infected at a later growth stage, grain is produced, but test weight may be low. Symptom severity is related to variety, the developmental state of the plant at the time of infection, plant nutrition, air and soil temperature, and the virus strain and or species involved. WSMV is transmitted by the wheat curl mite. The wheat curl mite is not easily seen with the naked eye, but when present in high numbers can make the wheat leaf curl so that the upper surface is rolled inward. Examine a curled leaf with a 10X magnifying lens for presence of the small white, cigar-shaped mite. (Burrows 2015, Cereal Viruses of Importance in Montana) Aphid transmitted viruses: Barley Yellow Dwarf (Burrows 2015, Cereal Viruses of Importance in Montana) Aphid transmitted viruses can occur sporadically in Montana. They are usually associated with aphids migrating from other states rather than aphids overwintering in Montana. These flights change yearly and are hard to predict. The most common aphid transmitted viruses we see are barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) and cereal yellow dwarf virus (CYDV). Symptoms include yellowing and or streaking of leaves and often purpling of the flag leaf and or stem. BYDV and CYDV cause barley yellow dwarf (BYD) disease. They are member of the family Luteoviridae and are only acquired in the vector and transmitted to a healthy plant if the aphid has an extended time to feed (more than two hours). Because of that fact, aphids that colonize the plants generally vector this disease rather than aphids that do not colonize cereal grains. The most common vetors in Montana are the greenbug (Schizaphis graminum), the bird cherry oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi)the English grain aphid (Stioboin avenae), and the corn aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis). The Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) is not a vector. To identity aphids in your field, you can use the MSU Extension Monguide, Aphids of Economic Importance in Montana (MT200503AG) that can be obtained from MSU Extension Publications, or contact your county Extension agent. The aphid vector can be effectively controlled using an insecticide. If there is already, a high number of plants in the field showing symptoms it is likely the infection is nearly 100% and control of aphids at that point is not recommended. In the case of severe virus infection, winter wheat could be destroyed in the fall and replanted to spring crops. (Burrows 2015, Cereal Viruses of Importance in Montana) Closing The key component for controlling these viruses will be breaking the green bridge this fall. Destroying the grassy host for these insects prior to seeding winter wheat will dramatically decrease the leaf curl mite and aphid populations. Farming communities need to be working jointly in breaking the greenbridge to provide an optimum environment for winter wheat seeding conditions this fall.

20

YELLOW PEA PROTEIN STUDY Supported by: Montana Research and Economic Development Initiative (MREDI) and Montana State University

STUDY MOTIVATION

Consumer demand for non-GMO plant-based sources of protein is adding value to yellow pea. Major companies that use pea protein are General Mills, Barista Noodles, and Kirkland among others. If management can be tailored to produce high protein, markets may begin to target Montana grown yellow pea. This may lead to greater net revenues for your yellow pea crop.

Management decisions that might affect protein content.

Q: What type of inoculant (if any) are you using? Roughly 50% of Montana producers use granular inoculant while the remaining 50% use peat based.

Q: Do you apply starter nutrients? Some Montana producers do not apply starter fertilizer, whereas others apply various rates of N-P-K-S fertilizers.

Q: Which variety are you growing? More than 10 different yellow pea varieties are grown across Montana.

Q: Does your rotation history include pea or other legumes? Legumes can increase nitrogen supply to subsequent crops, and greater nitrogen supply may be reflected in higher protein. This may reduce inoculant and fertilizer input requirements.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO IDENTIFY IF MANAGEMENT

MATTERS

In and effort to identify if current management is affecting protein content in yellow pea, the Montana Research and Economic Development Initivative (MREDI) has provided funding support to analyze your yellow pea samples—free of charge. To participate, simply send us a field representative sample following harvest. We will provide you with your protein content and will ask that you complete a short (10-question) survey covering inoculation, nutrient rates, variety, and rotation history. Your participation will help identify how management influences yellow pea protein and plan future studies for boosting protein content for yellow pea grown in Montana.

For more information visit the webstite at www.peaproteinproject.com, and don’t hesitate to contact Mike at:

Mike Bestwick Office: 406-994-5415 Email: michael.beswick@msu.montana.edu

HOW TO PARTICIPATE

Provide a yellow pea sample either by:

1. Sending a 1-quart ziploc bag of yellow pea directly to:

Attn: Mike Bestwick MSU-LRES 334 Leon Johnson Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717

2. If you plan to send a yellow pea sample to the Montana State Seed Lab in Bozeman and would like to have it tested for protein, contact Mike at:

Office: (406)-994-5415 Email: michael.bestwick@msu.montana.edu We will test and provide you with the protein content of your yellow pea sample. We will send you a short (10 question) survey asking about management of your peas.

21

22

Montana State University's Foundation Seed Program,

Connecting Variety Development to Montana's Producers Objective: Increasing seed quantities of recommended varieties while protecting the genetic and quality integrity and allowing equal access to Montana’s seed industry. Goal: Build a solid reputation statewide, regionally and nationally of protecting and providing quality seed of varieties developed in and for Montana’s producers. OUTLINE

I. What, Why, Who and Where II. Strong Partnerships

a. Montana Seed Growers Association b. Montana Seed Growers Across the State c. Private Industry d. Outstate Seed Growers/Crop Improvement Associations e. Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies f. MT Wheat and Barley, MT Dept. of Ag

III. 2016 Program Update IV. Long Term Goals V. Justification

a. Quality Seed b. Known Sources

VI. Ties Together With Attention to Detail Production a. Variety Identification b. Planting Precision c. Scouting and Growth Staging d. Putting Products in a Position to Succeed e. Environmental Conditions f. Harvesting What the Season Allows Knowing Our Decisions Weren’t the

Limiting Factor Doug Holen, Manager Tel: (406) 994-5687

Cell: 406-404-5726

Fax: (406) 994-7600

Email: douglas.holen@montana.edu 23

24

Beef Cattle Genetics/Genomics Research Update

Dr. Jennifer Thomson Jennifer.thomson@montana.edu, 406-994-7434 Assistant Professor of Animal Genetic/Genomics

The overall goal of the research program in beef cattle genetics and genomics at Montana State University is to understand the physiology of complex and economically important traits in livestock such as feed efficiency, cow longevity, immune response and reproduction. This update outlines the current research in these areas and provides a brief outline of other exciting work in our lab Initiation of the Red Bluff Research Ranch Beef Cattle Genetic Improvement Program The cattle herd at the Red Bluff Research Ranch has been underutilized for research in the past decade due to a lack of uniformity in the herd and a lack of complete and accurate cow records. The goals of the genetic improvement program are to:

• Provide a well-characterized research herd with known genetics for use in future range beef cattle production research

• Provide well-managed and well-characterized animals for teaching purposes

• Contribute complimentary data on production, physical characteristics, and animal performance in a different breed and production environment to the state-wide collaboration with NARC and Ft. Keogh on improving range cattle longevity

This breeding program will utilize EPD’s for Birth Weight, Weaning Weight, Calving Ease Direct and Maternal, Heifer Pregnancy, Maintenance Energy, Milk, and Stayability in an effort to develop a uniform cow herd that has strong maternal performance. This is being done in partnership with the Red Angus Association of America and Montana Red Angus Association. We are utilizing genetics donated by Montana producers and are partnering with Red Angus due to their strong maternal EPDs and maternal genetic evaluations. Future genetic research in this population will focus on the genetic and physiological basis of reproductive efficiency in the range beef cow. Additionally, the uniform cow herd will be a research tool to evaluate the impact of non-genetics factors such as environment, range quality, nutrition, management, and other interventions on reproductive efficiency and performance. This will also allow for vertical integration of studies in range utilization, heifer development, cow management, nutrition, and physiological interventions by providing cattle with consistent breeding plan and long term objectives.

25

Utilizing Blood Metabolites to Predict Animal Performance in Complicated traits We have been utilizing blood metabolite profiling to predict and evaluate performance in traditionally difficult to predict traits such as feed efficiency (RFI) and temperament. We can capture approximately 85% of the phenotypic variation in RFI using a blood metabolite profile. Likewise, we can predict temperament as measured by exit velocity and chute score with about 80% accuracy utilizing a blood metabolite profile generated using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy (NMR). These phenotypes will hopefully help us to identify genetic markers for use in selection and genetic evaluations. Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows the classification of animals by metabolite profile in high RFI (red) and low RFI (green) and Figure 2 shows the the classification of animals by metabolite profile with high exit velocity (red) and low (green) exit velocity Figure 1. Figure 2.

Carcass Quality Two research projects are underway looking at the genetic and physiological basis of carcass quality in beef. In the first, we are examining the differences in muscle gene expression in different USDA carcass quality grades. In our preliminary research we found 1,248 genes that were differentially expressed between muscle from a standard grade and a choice grade. These genes code for proteins involved in growth and fat development as well as unexpected functions such as intracellular signaling and immune response and may provide enhance selection in the future. The second project utilizes data from the American Simmental Carcass Merit Program. We will be identifying predictive genetic markers and candidate genes related to carcass quality as well as quantifying the correlations between selection for carcass quality and maternal performance. Additional Research Areas: We have ongoing research in feed efficiency and reproduction in domestic sheep as well as in the area of wildlife landscape genetics.

26

Characterization of Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 secretion in beef cattle.

L.D. Prezotto1, J.F. Thorson1, J. Dafoe1, M.R. Herrygers2, J. Berardinelli2

1 Northern Agricultural Research Center, Department of Research Centers, Montana State University; 2 Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University Introduction It is theorized that concentrations of Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 (FGF21) impact energy metabolism and ovarian function during the post-parturition period. To elucidate this relationship, the objectives of this project were to: 1) determine circulating concentrations of FGF21 during late gestation, parturition, and lactation; 2) determine the variation of energy metabolism throughout the year; and 3) analyze the correlations between changes in energy status and concentration of FGF21 in the beef cow maintained on pasture. Characterizing FGF21 secretion in the beef cow and understanding how it varies in response to changes in forage quality and quantity will provide insight as to whether FGF21 can be utilized as a biological marker for energy status and reproductive efficiency in the beef cow. Materials & Methods

• Timed AI protocol in multiparous beef cows (3 and 4 years old) fed a TMR to meet or exceed NRC requirements. • Blood samples and BW collected during the last month of gestation, at parturition, and during the first two

months of lactation (-14, -7, 0, 14, 28, and 60 days relative to parturition). • Blood samples were analyzed for concentrations of FGF21, glucose, plasma urea nitrogen (PUN), and non-

esterified fatty acids (NEFA). • Assess variation in the concentration of FGF21 in response to the advancement of gestation, parturition, and

lactation. • Correlated concentration of FGF21 to Glucose, PUN, NEFA, and ADG.

Results

• Concentrations of FGF21 increased as parturition neared. o Concentrations of FGF21 increased (P = 0.003) from day -14 (447 ± 120 pg/ml) to 0 (790 ± 87 pg/ml). o After parturition, concentrations of FGF21 decrease (P < 0.0001) by day 14 (299 ± 88 pg/ml) to

concentrations no different than day -14. o Concentrations of FGF21 were maintained (P = 0.85) out to day 28 (288 ± 88 pg/ml).

• Concentrations of glucose increased (P = 0.002) between day -14 and 0 and then decreased (P = 0.04) between day 0 and 14.

• Concentrations of PUN increased (P = 0.0006) from day -14 to 0, decreased (P = 0.03) between day 0 and 14, and then continued to decrease (P < 0.0001) from day 28 to 60.

• Concentrations of NEFA decreased (P < 0.0001) from day -14 to 0 and then increased (P = 0.04) by day 14 to concentrations maintained (P = 0.94) out to day 28.

• Correlations between concentrations of FGF21 and ADG: o On day 60, there was a tendency (P = 0.09) for animals with lower ADG to have higher concentrations of

FGF21. • Correlations between concentrations of FGF21 and metabolites:

o No correlation (P ≥ 0.42) between metabolites and concentration of FGF21 on day 0. o On day 60, concentrations of FGF21 tended to be negatively correlated with concentrations of glucose (P

= 0.09), positively correlated with concentrations of PUN (P = 0.0004), and did not correlate with concentrations of NEFA (P = 0.30).

27

Conclusions

• FGF21 has been well demonstrated in mice as a hormonal mediator of energy status and ovarian activity. • In bovine (dairy and beef), concentrations of FGF21 change in response to alterations in energy status. However,

no studies have investigated changes in reproductive efficiency. • Therefore, application of FGF21 as a biological marker of nutritional and reproductive efficiency in beef cattle is

promising.

28

Understanding and Managing the Horn Fly on Pastured Cattle

Greg Johnson, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, MSU-Bozeman

406-994-3875, gdj@montana.edu

Horn Fly Facts

• Horn flies are the most common biting fly on pastured cattle in Montana.

• Adult flies spend 95% of their time on mature cattle, not the calves.

• Both sexes feed on blood 25 - 30X a day – that’s a lot of annoying bites!

• The economic injury level (EIL) for horn flies has been established at 300 flies per cow for 30 days or more.

• Above the EIL, cattle use energy fighting flies causing:

• Decreased grazing efficiency

• Decreased milk production

• Reduced calf weaning weights (10 – 20 lb. per calf)

Horn Fly Management

A successful horn fly control treatment is one that keep fly levels below the EIL (300 flies per animal). Insecticides are the primary tool to achieve this. Selected methods of applying insecticides include:

• Pour-ons – ready-to-use products applied to the topline of cattle. Pour-ons will maintain horn fly numbers below the EIL for several weeks. However, retreatment may be necessary to achieve season long control.

• Dust bags and oilers - forced-use provides effective and economical fly control (70 – 80%). If used in a free-choice arrangement, expect 25-50% less horn fly control.

• Feed supplements with oral larvicides (IGR) - kills horn fly larvae developing in manure pats. To be effective, steady consumption is required throughout the summer. Adult horn flies can migrate from neighboring herds and infest cattle feeding on IGR mineral, masking the control effectiveness.

• Insecticide ear tags – tags contain one or more insecticides embedded in a plastic matrix. For maximum horn fly control, apply two ear tags per mature animal. It is important to rotate insecticide classes (pyrethroid, organophosphate, avermectin) each year to prevent horn fly resistance.

• • Insecticide strips - A new delivery system for horn fly control introduced by Y-TEX Corporation.

Strips, containing insecticide in a plastic matrix, are attached to the button side of an existing identification ear tag. Strips can also be attached to mineral feeders eliminating the need to tag individual animals (see below).

29

Horn fly control study 2015

Python insecticide strips attached to a mineral feeder were evaluated for horn fly control near Harrison, MT in 2015. In this study there were 42 pairs in the treated group which had access to two mineral feeders plus Python strips (Recommendation is one feeder per 10 to 25 head). The control group had 25 heifers with mineral tubs but no insecticide treatments. In the graph below, the red line is the EIL of 300 flies. Horn fly numbers in the untreated (control) group (green line) were above the EIL on all but one sampling date. The horn fly numbers in the treated group (blue line) were below the EIL for the entire study. In this study, using a mineral feeder with insecticide strips was an effective method to keep the horn fly numbers below the EIL. This was a cost effective method that did not require working and tagging individual animals.

Avg

no

. h

orn

fli

es

pe

r c

ow

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Economic Injury Level

Treated

Control

Sources for mineral feeder and Python strips:

AmeriAg mineral feeder – AmeriAg http://ameriag.com/ Nutra Lix (Billings)

AmeriAg insecticide strips – Zeitlow Distributing Co., http://www.zeitlow.com/Insecticide-Strips-p/aais.htm

29 7 20 3 17 31

June July August

30

Cover Crop Termination and Subsequent Wheat Yields on Large Grazing Trials

Darrin L. Boss, dboss@montana.edu, Julia Dafoe, jdafoe@montana.edu

Roger Hybner, roger.hybner@montana.edu, Pat Hensleigh, patrick.hensleigh@mt.usda.gov

Brown and Carlson (1990) illustrated the importance of fallow moisture and the effects it has upon

the potential yield of cereal grain when combined with average rainfall. When cover crops replace fallow

periods, there will be a reduction in available soil moisture to the following crop. Can this potential

reduction in cereal yield loss due to decreased moisture be compensated for by increasing some measure

of perceived soil health (reduction of inputs while maintaining current base cereal yields); or can the

cover crop, once established, be a benefit as an alternative economic stream if it were removed as a grazed

or hayed crop? The following data represents progress made and data being collected on evaluating cover

crops.

A large plot termination trial was established utilizing production scale equipment. The plots were

terminated one of three ways: 1. Chemical, 2. Grazing and 3. Mowing and baling. Planting date, severe

heat and limited moisture during germination were the primary factors that affected not only above

ground biomass, but all other traits including soil plant available water (PAW). Cocktails (entries) had

differential germination and survival in the extreme conditions. Entries hit particularly hard were the

warm season blends since they were planted so late and very little moisture as rainfall came after

germination. The blended cool/warm cocktails were intermediate in vigor to the warm and cool cocktails.

With one year of complete data, limited conclusions about soil health can be made. Wheat yields

following cover crops indicate a strong relationship to water use by previous crop however, with only one

year of wheat yield is a difficult to make recommendations. Recently, NRCS monies were leveraged for a

successful grant application with the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee for education of a graduate

student and to maintain these large plot for more rotations. Now the project is receiving funding through

the Montana Research and Economic Development Initiative. Evaluating the long term effects of Cover

Crops on wheat yields, soil characteristics and the economic viability of implementation on targeted areas

of Fallow in Montana.

Figure 1. Winter Wheat Yields and Spring Wheat Yields by year for Cool, Warm and Cool/Warm season

polycultures.

31

Figure 2. Four year cash value of all cover crop cocktails and wheat rotations.

Figure 3. Current rotation status of Cover Crop Figure 4. Four year cash value of Cool season

Wheat (winter and spring) cover crop and wheat rotation.

Figure 5. Four year cash value of Warm season Figure 4. Four year cash value of Cool/warm season

cover crop and wheat rotation. cover crop and wheat rotation.

32

Statewide Cover Crop Trials

Montana Research and Economic Develop Grant Funded Effort

NARC Darrin L. Boss, dboss@montana.edu,

Julia Dafoe, jdafoe@montana.edu

Roger Hybner, roger.hybner@montana.edu

CARC Pat Carr, patrick.carr@montana.edu

NWARC Jessica Torrion, jessica.torrion@montana.edu

WARC Zach Miller, patrick.carr@montana.edu,

Marth Knox, mknox@exchange.montana.edu

WTARC Roger Ondoua, roger.ondoua@montana.edu

SARC Kent McVay, kent.mcvay@montana.edu,

Qasim Khan, qasim.khan@montana.edu

EARC Chengci Chen, cchen@montana.edu,

Yesuf Mohammed, yesuf.mohammed@montana.edu

First year study – No data contact your local research center cooperator for local information.

Objective:

1. To evaluate alternative monocultures, or polycultures (cocktails) at the 7 RCs. Various

species are being recommended within cocktails but we do not know if they even germinate

or produce a significant amount of biomass alone or in competition in cocktails

(polycultures).

2. Determine Above Ground Biomass (AGB)

a. Determine Nutrient profiles of AGB and the nitrate content

Associated with the Large Grazing trial at NARC and the statewide effort there is also a study being

funded at Bozeman with Emily Glunk, emily.glunk@montana.edu, Animal and Range Science

Department, utilizing sheep as a termination step. Once data has been collected this year it will be able

to have a life time economic analysis done by Anton Bekkerman, anton.bekkerman@montana.ed, Ag

Economics, Bozeman.

Seed cost associated with the polycultures and single species in following table.

Species

Lbs

Seeding

Rate1

Lbs Full

Seeding

Rate

Blend

Weight

Number

of Seeds Seeds Cost Cost

C:N

Ratio2

N Fix Grazing Drought Frost Diversity Salinity

per acre per acre % per foot per lb per lb per acre

Purple Top turnip 0.94 4 4 7.67 181,600 $1.65 $1.55 33 0.7 9.2 6.5 8.5 5.5 6.9

Spring forage pea 6.37 44 26 1.04 4,774 $0.40 $2.55

Spring oat 12.65 73 53 4.69 15,562 $0.23 $2.91

Rapeseed/canola 1 4 4 3.1 108,095 $1.00 $1.00

Safflower 3.1 9 13 1.22 14,502 $0.65 $2.02

Total 17.72

Total Lbs/Acre3 24.06 $0.50 $12.03

Total Seeds/Acre 591,434 $0.025 $0.60

$22.66

* Results were obtained using Green Cover Seed's SMARTmix4.0 calculator.

1 Calculated on a Pure Live Seed basis.

2 24 is the optimum Carbon:Nitrogen ratio.

3 Seed is packaged in tote bags, shipping is not included .

on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best

Mixing

Inoculant

Total

ATTRIBUTES & ECONOMICS OF "MONTANA BIN BLEND" COOL SEASON COVER CROP MIX*

Increase soil organic matter - 7.2

33

34

Joyce Trevithick, Agronomist

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Department of Agriculture

12 3rd Street NW

Great Falls, MT 59404-1991

406-727-7580, ext. 128

Rain Fall Simulator Demonstration

The Rainfall Simulator provides a "seeing is believing" demonstration of how practices such as no-till

farming, cover crops, and prescribed grazing benefit soil health and improve the water cycle on cropland

and rangeland across the state. No-till, diverse rotations and rangeland managed with prescribed

grazing increase infiltration and reduce runoff and sedimentation. This demonstration includes

discussion of topics such as infiltration, aggregate stability, soil structure, and the relationship of these

properties to runoff, erosion, and water quantity.

35

36