PROJECT RESULTS

Quality Enhancement of Various Crop Commodities

Applicant: 

Kathi Furniss
Pembina Valley Conservation District
Manitou, Manitoba  R0G 1G0  Canada

Table of Contents:

• Background and Objectives
• Procedure and Project Activities
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusions

ARDI Project:

#98-228

Project Status:

Completed February, 2001

Background and Objectives:

The objective of the original proposal was two-fold:

1. To determine the effect of fertilizer timing, rate and formulation on grain protein in spring and winter wheat.
2. To investigate palatability and feed value differences among a number of different perennial forage species.

Price premiums are currently available for high grain protein content in spring and winter wheat. However, producers want to achieve high protein without sacrificing yield and ensuring there is an economic benefit. In recent years, protein premiums have been significant and important since commodity base prices remain low. Questions are being asked by producers whether split applications of nitrogen can translate into higher grain protein. Research has shown that late-season nitrogen applications (after tilling to after anthesis) have a greater impact on grain protein than grain yield. Much of this research has focused on foliar nitrogen applications and in spring wheat. Therefore, this project was designed to investigate whether mid-season applications of ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) could impact the grain protein of spring or winter wheat.

Procedure and Project Activities:

Replicated small plots were established in 1999 and 2000. Plots were approximately 5 m X 5 m in size and there were four replicates. The two trials (winter and spring wheat) were established at two sites. Two varieties of winter wheat (CDC Clair and CDC Kestrel) were seeded at Rosebank, MB (sandy loam site) and Crystal City (clay loam site). Three fertilizer treatments were applied to the winter wheat: 1) 100 lbs N at green-up in spring 2) 100 lbs N at green-up plus 25 lbs N at flowering and 3) 125 lbs N at green-up. Measurements included: yield and grain protein determination (elevator and lab analysis).

Three varieties of spring wheat were seeded in 1999 (AC Majestic, AC Barrie and AC Cora). Three fertilizer treatments applied were: 1) 80 lbs N banded at seeding 2) 80 lbs N banded at seeding plus 20 lbs N at flowering and 3) 100 lbs N banded at seeding. Measurements included: yield and grain protein determination (lab analysis only).

In 2000, the winter wheat did not establish at the Crystal City site (winter killed) and had to be abandoned. A fertilizing error at Rosebank resulted in the spring wheat trial to discontinue at Rosebank in 2000. A late season hail storm caused significant damage at the Crystal City site so the spring wheat trial was not taken to yield. Therefore, the only data obtained in 2000 was from the winter wheat trial at Rosebank.

Mid-season fertilizer treatments were broadcast applied (see photo 1). Recommended agronomic practices (e.g. seeding rate, herbicides, fungicides, etc.) were used throughout the project. Protein analysis was conducted by Norwest Labs and at a major grain handling facility.

Photo 1. Mid-season application of ammonium nitrate to winter wheat.

Results and Discussion:

Spring Wheat 1999

Data tables for the spring wheat are illustrated in Appendix A (Crystal City 1999) and Appendix B (Rosebank 1999). No statistical differences were detected in the spring wheat data analysis. All three varieties responded similarly at both locations. Yield and protein were unaffected by the different fertilizer rates and timings. Therefore, in this trial, the spring wheat did not respond to the additional nitrogen applied mid-season. Protein premiums begin to show larger returns per bushel when grain protein tests higher than 13.0 % (up to 15.5). Generally, all three varieties at both locations tested higher in protein than 13.0 %. Both locations tested low in soil nitrogen prior to seeding and very little nitrogen remained in the soil post-harvest. This indicates that even the lowest rate of fertilizer was adequate at achieving high yield while maintaining protein content. Perhaps a larger range of treatments would have resulted in more critical levels being determined.

Winter Wheat 1999

No significant differences were detected in wheat yield at Rosebank (Appendix C). Both varieties yielded similarly under the three different fertilizer regimes. At Crystal City, the 100 lbs N at green-up plus 25 lbs N at flowering yielded highest for both CDC Clair and CDC Kestrel. This treatment yielded significantly higher than the other two (which were not different from each other). In 1999, therefore, the winter wheat crop at Crystal City responded to the addition of mid-season nitrogen application in the form of yield.

The additional nitrogen applied mid-season, however, appeared to increase grain protein more consistently at both sites (Appendix D). At Rosebank both varieties of winter wheat and at Crystal City CDC Clair accumulated the greatest grain protein treatment #2 (100 lbs N at green-up plus 25 lbs N at flowering/anthesis). All three of these proteins were significantly greater than the other two treatments (which were not significantly different from each other). At Crystal City, no significant difference in grain protein (lab or elevator analysis) was detected in any treatments applied to CDC Kestrel variety. The winter wheat crop responded with both a yield and protein increase to the mid-season fertilizer application.

Winter Wheat 2000

The yield of CDC Kestrel winter wheat was significantly lower in treatment # 3 (125 lbs N at green-up) than the other two treatments (Appendix E). No scientific explanation can be given for this occurring. The other two treatments in the CDC Kestrel and all three treatments applied to CDC Clair did not result in statistical yield differences. Although treatment # 2 appeared to yield the highest when absolute values are considered. No significant differences in grain protein were detected among the three treatments on either winter wheat variety. The response to mid-season fertilizer application as seen in 1999 did not occur. Timely rains in 1999 would have resulted in the broadcast application of 34-0-0 being carried into the soil and root zone encouraging root uptake. Extremely dry conditions in July and August in 2000 after the mid-season application of fertilizer could explain the lack of response.

Elevator vs. Lab Protein Analysis

In 1999, there was a relatively large discrepancy between the elevator protein test result compared to the lab analysis result (Appendix F). On average (including both sites, varieties and treatments) the difference ranged from 1.7 to 2.1% protein with the lab analysis being consistently higher. Protein premiums for winter wheat begin at 11.5%. The discrepancy between the elevator and lab protein analysis was large enough in some treatments to impact achieving vs. not achieving the protein premium level of 11.5% (the elevator analysis would be lower, but the lab analysis would be higher). The elevator protein tester had been calibrated for winter wheat, but continued to test consistently lower. In 2000, the lab analysis again consistently tested higher than the elevator method, but the difference was not as large (0.2 to 0.5%) as in 1999. After discussion with the elevator company in 1999, it was suggested that a larger harvested grain sample (manufacturer recommends minimum of 250 g) be used for protein determination via the elevator method. This was taken into account in 2000 and as a result the difference between the two test methods was not as large.

Conclusions:

The spring wheat varieties did not respond to the different rates or timing of fertilizer in this trial. Perhaps a larger range of rates would have produced different results. It appears that the winter wheat varieties did respond with yield and protein increases when additional nitrogen was applied mid-season (at anthesis). Previous research by others has shown that mid-season nitrogen uptake must be through the root system (whether foliar applied or broadcast). Therefore, a response to mid-season nitrogen application is dependent on rainfall occurring after application to increase uptake.

Acknowledgements:

Funding for this project was obtained from the Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative (ARDI). Technical assistance from Manitoba Agriculture and Food is gratefully acknowledged. In-kind support from Westco, Agricore and Cargill Grain is also gratefully acknowledged.

Appendices:

Appendix A - Spring Wheat Results at Crystal City in 1999

Table 1. Yield and Protein of AC Majestic Spring Wheat at Crystal City in 1999.

Table 2. Yield and protein of AC Barrie spring wheat at Crystal City in 1999.

Table 3. Yield and protein of AC Cora spring wheat at Crystal City in 1999.

Appendix B. Spring Wheat Results at Rosebank in 1999

Table 1. Yield and protein of AC Majestic spring wheat at Rosebank in 1999.

Table 2. Yield and protein of AC Barrie spring wheat at Rosebank in 1999.

Table 3. Yield and protein of AC Cora spring wheat at Rosebank in 1999.

Appendix C. Effect of Fertilizer Rate and Timing on Winter Wheat Yield in 1999

Appendix D. Effect of Fertilizer Rate and Timing on Winter Wheat Protein in 1999

Appendix E. Effect of Fertilizer Rate and Timing on Winter Wheat Yield and Protein in 2000

Appendix F. Winter Wheat Protein Comparisons (Elevator vs. Lab Analysis)

Table 1. Elevator and Lab Protein Analysis of Winter Wheat at Rosebank in 1999.

Table 2. Elevator and Lab Protein Analysis of Winter Wheat at Crystal City in 1999.

Table 3. Elevator and Lab Protein Analysis of Winter Wheat at Rosebank in 2000.

ARDI Home - Contact ARDI