Project Title:

Locus Ag industry trial in spring wheat

Objective:

To test different Locus Ag treatments for quality and yield for spring wheat.

Personnel:

J.A. Torrion, Daniel Porter

Summary:

WB9668 (Westbred) hard spring wheat was planted with the three Locus treatments and a grower practice as a check on two different locations: 1) rainfed silt-loam soil with subsurface recharge and 2) rainfed fine sandy loam soil. The management is shown in Table 1.

All the parameters observed were not significant for both studies. In study 1 with subsurface recharge (Table 3), yield and protein were low compared with the drier environment in Study 2 (Table 4). Study 1, with subsurface recharge, was flooded during the vegetative stage from runoff. We anticipated that there was significant nitrogen loss in this location, thus, with also low protein.

Table 1. Management Table

Seeding date: April 25th, 2022 Field Location: Y8
Julian date: 115 Harvest date: 8/30/2022
Seeding rate: Standard Julian date: 242
Previous crop: Canola Soil type: Creston silt loam
Herbicide: Axial Bold, CleansweepM 6/1/2022 Tillage: conventional
Insecticide:   Soil residual nutrient (NO3-, P, K lb/A): 71-40-342
Fungicide:   Nutrient fertilizer applied (N, P2O5, K2O lb/A): 80-20-25-10s (4/18/22)

 

Table 2. Management Table

Seeding date: April 21st, 2022 Field Location: R6
Julian date: 111 Harvest date: 8/29/2022
Seeding rate: Standard Julian date: 241
Previous crop: Alfalfa Soil type: fine sandy loam
Herbicide: Axial Bold, CleansweepM 6/1/2022 Tillage: conventional
Insecticide:   Soil residual nutrient (NO3-, P, K lb/A): 78-6-122
Fungicide:   Nutrient fertilizer applied (N, P2O5, K2O lb/A): 80-50-60-10s (4/6/2022)

 

Table 3. Spring wheat performance under silt loam soil with subsurface recharge (Study 1)

TRT No. TREATMENT Plant count/ft2 HT YLD1 PRO2 TWT1 TKW FN
    25-May Harvest in. bu/Ac % lb/bu g seconds
1 Grower’s Practice 25 24 27.1 56.7 10.5 63.7 34.5 414
2 Pantego® BA 21 24 26.5 51.1 10.5 63.7 34.7 395
3 Rhizolizer Duo BA® 26 29 26.1 55.2 10.6 63.5 34.8 422
4 LASTW21 19 27 27.7 56.2 10.5 63.8 34.2 416
  Mean 21.5 25.6 26.8 54.8 10.5 63.7 34.5 417.6
  CV 23.1 21.3 4.3 14 2.6 0.3 2.1 4.8
  LSD ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
  Pr<F 0.253 0.5456 0.318 0.734 0.925 0.201 0.726 0.836

HT = plant height at harvest, FN=falling number; PRO=protein, TWT = test weight, TKW = thousand kernel weight, YLD=yield, ns=nonsignificant, 1adjusted to 13% moisture, 2adjusted to 12% moisture

 

Table 4. Spring wheat performance under Flathead fine sandy loam soil (Study 2)

TRT No. TREATMENT Plant count/ft2 HT YLD1 PRO2 TWT1 TKW FN
    25-May Harvest in. bu/Ac % lb/bu g seconds
1 Grower’s Practice 21 26 28.2 76.7 14.6 59.6 29.7 457
2 Pantego® BA 24 25 27.7 72.4 14.9 59.5 29.5 443
3 Rhizolizer Duo BA® 22 27 27.5 75.6 14.7 59.6 29.6 457
4 LASTW21 20 26 27.5 74.4 14.7 59.8 30.4 453
  Mean 21.7 26.1 27.7 74.8 14.7 59.6 29.8 452.8
  CV 18 23.3 4.2 7.4 1.7 0.9 3.8 2.3
  LSD ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
  Pr<F 0.468 0.989 0.802 0.726 0.688 0.886 0.711 0.234

HT = plant height at harvest, FN=falling number; PRO=protein, TWT = test weight, TKW = thousand kernel weight, YLD=yield, ns=nonsignificant, 1adjusted to 13% moisture, 2adjusted to 12% moisture