2017 Statewide Canola Variety Trial

Disclaimer: The information given herein is supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station is implied. The results of data and studies are considered to be of a PRELIMINARY nature and should NOT be considered as a product endorsement or recommendation for commercial use. 

Project Leaders

Simon Fordyce Research Associate, CARC, Moccasin
Pat Carr Superintendent & Cropping Systems Agronomist, CARC, Moccasin
Sally Dahlhausen Research Assistant III, CARC, Moccasin
Lorrie Linhart Administrative Associate III, CARC, Moccasin

Project Personnel

Chengci Chen Superintendent & Cropping Systems Agronomist, EARC, Sidney
Yesuf Mohammed Research Scientist, EARC, Sidney
Peggy Lamb Research Scientist, NARC, Havre
Ken Kephart Superintendent & Agronomist, SARC, Huntley
Zach Miller Superintendent & Horticulturist/Agronomist, WARC, Corvallis
Marty Knox Research Assistant III, WARC, Corvallis
John Miller Research Scientist, WTARC, Conrad

Summary

Spring canola production in Montana is increasing, with record-breaking acreage¹ predicted in 2017. In 2016, Montana ranked third in total production (2 million bu), behind North Dakota (53 million bu) and Oklahoma (2.3 million bu), but seventh place when comparing production on a per acre basis (i.e., yield). Selection of canola varieties well suited to Montana’s many unique production environments can improve the state’s yield standing at the national level. Here, we summarize five years of varietal performance data at six locations across Montana.

¹ Based on intended plantings as indicated by reports from farmers in ‘Prospective Plantings’, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017.

Objectives

The objective of the Montana Statewide Spring Canola Variety Trial is to evaluate the agronomic performance of available canola varieties and breeding lines submitted by commercial entities at six research locations across the state. The information obtained from these trials is intended to provide canola growers in Montana with reliable, unbiased information regarding which canola varieties are best suited to their specific production environment.

Methods

In spring 2017, twenty canola varieties (Brassica napus) of four herbicide tolerant types were submitted by seven sponsors (Table 1). The seed was distributed to six agricultural research centers (Figure 1): Central Ag near Moccasin (CARC), Eastern Ag near Sidney (EARC), Northern Ag near Havre (NARC), Southern Ag near Huntley (SARC), Western Ag near Corvallis 1 Based on intended plantings as indicated by reports from farmers in ‘Prospective Plantings’, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017 (WARC), and Western Triangle Ag near Conrad (WTARC). Unlike past years in which all combinations of varieties and locations were represented, a subset of 15 varieties was tested at the two irrigated sites, EARC and WARC, while the full set of 20 varieties was tested at CARC, NARC, SARC, and WTARC.

Plots were seeded at 14 PLS/ft² , with a goal of 12 established plants/ft² . Seed was treated prior to seeding with Prosper® Evergol®, Lumiderm®, or Helix XTra® for control of flea beetle. Varieties were grown in small plots ranging from 70 to 100 ft2 and were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design, with the exception of the trial located at SARC. This location employed an alpha-lattice design. Varieties were compared for establishment, height, days to flowering, grain yield, test weight, and percent oil. Grain yield and oil content were adjusted to 8% moisture. Days to maturity was assessed at both NARC and SARC, while frost damage and nuisance bird damage were assessed at CARC and WARC, respectively. Irrigation water was tracked at EARC and WARC. Seeding and harvest dates, fertilizer and pesticide applications, row spacing, tillage systems, and field crop histories were recorded for each location. (Table 2). Meteorological and soils data were also recorded (Table 3).

Interpreting Results

Results are presented in tabular form (Tables 4-21). Note that varieties are sorted by herbicide tolerance system, despite weeds having been managed uniformly across herbicide tolerance types. In other words, imidazolinone herbicides were not used for in-crop weed control on plots containing Clearfield® varieties; or glufosinates for incrop weed control on Liberty Link® varieties; or sulfonylurea herbicides on sulfonylureatolerant varieties; or glyphosate on Roundup Ready® varieties. Rather, glyphosate was applied for weed control either pre-plant or pre-emergence, depending on the location (Table 2). Weeds were controlled during the growing season by means of hand-weeding and alternative chemicals, not by means of herbicides paired to tolerance systems represented in the trial.

Performance data are presented by location in Table 4 and Table 5. Individual locations are summarized in Tables 6-21. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) values are presented for making pairwise comparisons between treatment means (varieties). If the difference between two treatment values within a column exceeds the LSD value, the entries are considered statistically different from one another for that particular response variable. If the difference does not exceed the LSD value, the entries are considered statistically equivalent. The LSD value is replaced with ‘NS’ for ‘non-significant’ when the coefficient of variation (CV) value exceeds 15% and/or the probability value (PValue) exceeds 0.05. A P-Value of 0.05 indicates that 19 times out of 20, a difference would be detected among treatment means if the study was repeated. A P-Value of 0.001 probability indicates that 999 times out of 1000, a difference would be detected among treatment means if the study was repeated.

Results & Discussion

The following results are for informational purposes only. The presentation of data for the varieties evaluated does not imply approval or endorsement by Montana State University.

Central Ag Research Center, Moccasin

Plant density in this dryland trial averaged 12.8 plants/ft2 (Table 6). Yields averaged 8.4 bu/ac and ranged from 6.2 to 11.1 bu/ac. Varietal differences in yield were not detected at this location. Abnormally high temperatures and dry conditions developing in June caused remarkable yield reductions. Light frosts observed 11 June and 23 June also affected yields. Frost damage averaged 2.6 on a 5 point scale, and ranged from 1.5 to 3.9, where a rating of 1 indicates zero plants damaged and a rating of 5 indicates all plants damaged. Test weights averaged 50.8 lb/bu and oil contents averaged 44.5%. Statistics for test weight and oil content were omitted, as it was not possible to measure these variables without bulking seed from all replicates. Multi-year averages at this location suggest the varieties ‘HyCLASS 930’, ‘HyCLASS 955’, and ‘InVigor L252’ are top performers in terms of yield (Table 7) as well as oil content (Table 8), though multiyear data were unavailable for many varieties.

Eastern Ag Research Center, Sidney

Average plant density in this irrigated trial was 12.3 plants/ft2 (Table 9). Yields averaged 37.3 bu/ac and ranged from 27.5 to 44.8 bu/ac. ‘InVigor L252’ and ‘6074 RR’ were the highest yielding varieties at 44.5 and 44.8 bu/ac, respectively. Test weights averaged 52.9 lb/bu, while oil contents averaged 50.6%, the highest of any location. Two-year averages at this location suggest the varieties ‘HyCLASS 955’, ‘HyCLASS 970’, and ‘DKL 70-10’ are top performers in terms of yield (Table 10), while ‘HyCLASS 955’, ‘HyCLASS 970’, ‘HyCLASS 930’, ‘DKL RESULTS & DISCUSSION 3 35-23’, ‘6074 RR’, and ‘C5507’ are top performers in terms of oil content (Table 11), though two-year data were not available for all varieties.

Northern Ag Research Center, Havre

Plant density averaged 5.2 plants/ft2 in this dryland trial (Table 12), up from 3.7 plants/ft2 last year, indicating that a lower percentage of survival should be used when calculating seeding rates for environments similar to that of Havre. Yields averaged 14.1 bu/ac and ranged from 9.2 to 18.6 bu/ac, with four varieties yielding statistically equivalent to the highest yielding variety ‘HyCLASS 955’. Test weight averaged 51.3 lb/bu and oil content averaged 41.2%. Statistics for oil content were omitted, as it was not possible to measure this variable from all replicates. Multi-year averages at this location suggest ‘HyCLASS 955’ and ‘HyClass 930’ are top performers in terms of yield (Table 13) and oil content (Table 14), though multi-year data were not available for all varieties.

Southern Ag Research Center, Huntley

Plant density in this dryland trial exceeded the target population, averaging 13.9 plants/ft2 (Table 15). Yields averaged 24.8 bu/ac and ranged from 16.0 to 35.0 bu/ac. Varietal differences in yield were not detected when analyzed as a randomized complete block design. However, this location’s experimental design (alpha-lattice) allowed for a separate analysis which identified ‘HyCLASS 955’ as the top yielding variety, a finding corroborated by two-year averages (Table 16). Test weight averaged 50.0 lb/bu and oil content averaged 35.1 %. Five varieties performed statistically equivalent to the top performing variety ‘HyCLASS 930’ in terms of oil content. This variety is also a top-performer based on twoyear averages (Table 17), though two-year averages were not available for all varieties.

Western Ag Research Center, Corvallis

Plant densities in this irrigated trial exceeded the target population, averaging 13.6 plants/ft2 (Table 18). Yields averaged just 4.6 bu/ac due to late season damage by nuisance birds. Bird damage averaged 9.7% and ranged from 0 to 35%. Test weight averaged 51.6 lb/bu and oil content averaged 44.9 %. Statistics for test weight and oil content were omitted, as it was not possible to measure these variables without bulking seed from all replicates. Multi-year data were unavailable for this location.

Western Triangle Ag Research Center, Conrad

Plant density was not measured in this dryland trial. Yields averaged 24.5 bu/ac and ranged from 15.4 to 31.4 bu/ac (Table 19). Four varieties yielded statistically equivalent to the highest yielding variety, ‘HyCLASS 955’. Test weight averaged 51.6 lb/bu and oil content averaged 44.4%. Multi-year averages at this location suggest ‘HyCLASS 955’, ‘HyCLASS 930’, ‘DKL 70-10’, ‘DKL 35- 23’ and ‘InVigor L140P’ are the top yielding varieties (Table 20), while ‘HyCLASS 930’, ‘HyCLASS 955’, ‘6080 RR’, and ‘C5522’ are the top performers in terms of oil content (Table 21), though multi-year data were not available for all varieties.

Future Plans

With continued support from the canola industry and research center personnel, multi-location canola evaluations will continue in 2018.

Table 1. Spring canola variety trial entries, with sponsors and contact information.

¹ G35153 in 2016 trial

Herbicide Tolerance: CL = Clearfield; LL = Liberty Link; RR = Roundup Ready; SU = Sulfonylurea

Disease Resistance: BL = Blackleg; SC: Sclerotinia; FS = Fusarium; CR = Clubroot

Table 2. Spring canola variety trial management information by location, 2017.

Table 3. Soil type and metorological data by location.

Table 4. Yield summary by location with ranked multi-location averages

Table 5. Oil content summary by location with ranked multi-location averages

Table 6. 2017 Spring Canola variety trial, CARC, Moccasin, MT.

¹ Frost Damage: 1 = No plants damaged; 5 = All plants damaged

² Adjusted to 8% moisture

³ Only one replicate summarized

⁴ LSD considered non-significant when grain yield CV% > 15

Bold italics indicate top-performing cultivar(s) in a column

Bold indicates cultivar performing statistically equivalent to top-performing cultivar(s)

Seeding Date: 4/20/17

Harvest Date: 7/28/17

Table 7. Yield summary 2013-2017 with ranked multi-year averages, CARC, Moccasin, MT

Table 8. Oil summary 2013-2017 with ranked multi-year averages, CARC, Moccasin, MT.

Table 9. 2017 Spring canola variety trial, EARC, Sidney, MT.

¹ Adjusted to 8% moisture

Bold italics indicate top-performing cultivar(s) in a column

Bold indicates cultivar performing statistically equivalent to top-performing cultivar(s)

Seeding Date: 4/18/17

Harvest Date: 7/27/17

Table 10. Yield summary 2013-2017 with ranked two-year averages, EARC, Sidney, MT.

Table 11. Oil summary 2013-2017 with ranked two-year averages, EARC, Sidney, MT.

Table 12. 2017 Spring canola variety trial, NARC, Havre, MT.

¹Adjusted to 8% moisture

²Only one replicate summarized

Bold italics indicate top-performing cultivar(s) in a column

Bold indicates cultivar performing statistically equivalent to top-performing cultivar(s)

Seeding Date: 4/17/17

Harvest Date: 7/25/17

Table 13. Yield summary 2013-2017 with ranked multi-year averages, NARC, Havre, MT.

Table 14. Oil summary 2013-2017 with ranked multi-year averages, NARC, Havre, MT.

Table 15. 2017 Spring canola variety trial, SARC, Huntley, MT.

¹ Adjusted to 8% moisture

² Analyzed as rectangular alpha-lattice design

Bold italics indicate top-performing cultivar(s) in a column

Bold indicates cultivar performing statistically equivalent to top-performing cultivar(s)

Seeding Date: 4/11/17

Harvest Date: 7/25/17

Table 16. Yield summary 2013-2017 with ranked two-year averages, SARC, Huntley, MT.

Table 17. Oil summary 2013-2017 with ranked two-year averages, SARC, Huntley, MT.

Table 18. 2017 Spring canola variety trial, WARC, Corvallis, MT.

¹ Adjusted to 8% moisture

² Only one replicate summarized

³ Not enough grain sample to measure test weight or oil content

⁴ LSD considered non-significant when grain yield CV% > 15

Bold italics indicate top-performing cultivar(s) in a column

Bold indicates cultivar performing statistically equivalent to top-performing cultivar(s)

Seeding Date: 4/26/17

Harvest Date: 8/4/17

Table 19. 2017 Spring canola variety trial, WTARC, Conrad, MT.

¹ Adjusted to 8% moisture

Bold italics indicate top-performing cultivar(s) in a column

Bold indicates cultivar performing statistically equivalent to top-performing cultivar(s)

Seeding Date: 5/1/17

Harvest Date: 8/15/17

Table 20. Yield summary 2013-2017 with ranked multi-year averages, WTARC, Conrad, MT.

Table 21. Oil Summary 2013-2017 with ranked multi-year averages, WTARC, Conrad, MT.