Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AgriculturalExperiment Station
Technical Report
College of Agricultural Sciences Department of Soil & Crop Sciences Extension
Making Better Decisions
2016 Colorado Sunfl ower Variety
Performance Trials
TR 16-10
2
3
For the fastest access to up-to-date variety information and results visit us at: www.csucrops.com
Research conducted by Colorado State University Crops Testing ProgramDepartment of Soil and Crop SciencesColorado State University ExtensionColorado Agricultural Experiment Station
Disclaimer
**Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute endorsement by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.**
Colorado State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and complies with all Federal and Colorado State laws, regulations, and executive orders regarding affirmative action requirements in all programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity is located in 101 Student Services. In order to assist Colorado State University in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities, ethnic minorities, women, and other protected class members are encouraged to apply and to so identify themselves.
4
Table of Contents
Authors.........................................................................................................................................................5Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................5Summary of the 2016 Colorado Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trials......................................................62016 Limited-Irrigation Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Burlington........................................82016 Limited-Irrigation Confection Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Burlington...........................92016 Irrigated Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Prospect Valley..............................................102016 Irrigated Confection Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Prospect Valley.................................112016 Dryland Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Julesburg........................................................122016 Dryland Confection Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Julesburg...........................................132016 Dryland Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Genoa.............................................................14Effects of Additional Inputs on Sunflower Production...............................................................................15
5
AuthorsDr. Jerry Johnson - Professor and Extension Specialist - Crop Production, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-1454, Cell: 970-690-9259, E-mail: [email protected].
Sally Jones - Research Agronomist - Crops Testing, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-1914, E-mail: [email protected].
Ed Asfeld - Research Associate - Crops Testing, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, 40335 CR GG, Akron, CO 80720, Phone: 970-554-0980, E-mail: [email protected].
Dr. Merle Vigil - Director and Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Central Great Plains Research Station, 40335 County Road GG, Akron, CO 80720, Phone: 970-345-0517, E-mail: [email protected].
Ron Meyer - Extension Agronomist - Golden Plains Area, CSU Extension, 817 15th St., Burlington, CO 80807, Phone: 719-346-5571 ext. 302, E-mail: [email protected].
Kierra Jewell - Administrative Assistant III, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-6201, E-mail: [email protected].
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the collaborating Colorado farmers who voluntarily and generously contributed the use of their land, equipment, and time to facilitate the 2016 sunflower hybrid performance trials: Josh Leachman at Julesburg, Rob Boyd at Genoa, Gerhard Heintges at Burlington, and David Rupple at Prospect Valley. We thank DOW AgroSciences for doing the sunflower seed oil content analysis and Red River Commodities, Inc. for doing the confection sunflower seed-sizing analyses.
Acknowledgments
6
Summary of the 2016 Colorado Sunflower Hybrid Performance TrialsJerry Johnson, Sally Jones, Ed Asfeld, and Ron Meyer
Colorado State University conducts hybrid oil and confection sunflower performance trials to provide unbiased and reliable information to Colorado sunflower producers so they can select the best hybrids for their farms. Hybrid selection is a cornerstone of all crop production systems. Variable climatic conditions, innovations from plant breeding and biotechnology, acquisitions and mergers of seed companies, and rapid development of new hybrid lines means sunflower hybrid performance information is more important than ever to Colorado sunflower producers. The sunflower hybrid performance trial is made possible by funding received from company entry fees, the Colorado Sunflower Administrative Committee, and Colorado State University. CSU Crops Testing is a public service for Colorado producers powered primarily by entry fees by the seed companies. Please join us in thanking the sunflower seed companies that entered the 2016 trials.
Colorado sunflower producers harvested over 95 million pounds in 2016, according to the USDA National Ag. Statistics Service. Above-average rainfall and new hybrids contributed to high production in 2016 compared to 2015. Advances in weed control with a broader range of herbicides such as imidazolinone, Express, Clearfield, and Clearfield Plus have also benefited sunflower producers.
Figure 1 shows the variability of acreage for both oil and confection sunflowers in Colorado. This is especially true for oil type sunflowers in the past 20 years.
Acreage planted to oil type sunflowers has ranged from 35,000 (2014) planted acres up to 175,000 acres in 1999. The planted acres of confection sunflowers have generally decreased since 1999 and held steady since 2006. The variability of sunflower acreage could be due to several factors, including sunflower commodity prices, the availability of contracts, soil water at the time of planting, crop insurance requirements, and adoption of cropping rotations that do not include sunflower. Dryland sunflowers may have fallen out of favor in recent years due to the increasing popularity of dryland corn, especially with the new drought tolerant hybrids coming onto the market. On the other hand, herbicide tolerant sunflowers and new oil traits could lead to an increase of sunflower acreage in coming years. Food processors are demanding healthier oils, and sunflower oil meets this demand with the introduction of High Oleic type hybrids. High Oleic oil pressed from sunflower is more stable when used in cooking and has health benefits not found in other oils.
Colorado State University evaluated commercial and experimental oil and confection sunflower hybrids in eastern Colorado at one fully irrigated, one limited-irrigation, and two dryland locations in 2016. The limited irrigation trial was at Burlington and the fully irrigated trial was at Prospect Valley. The two
Table 1. Confection and oilseed sunflower acres planted in Colorado from 1997-2016.
7
dryland trials were located at Julesburg and Genoa (northeast Colorado).
Results tables for the dryland and irrigated trials are presented on the following pages. Twenty-eight hybrids with diverse origins and maturities were tested in the irrigated and dryland trials. Plot sizes were approximately 150 ft2 at Burlington and Prospect Valley (irrigated), and 310 ft2 in the dryland trials at Julesburg and Genoa. Seed yields for all trial varieties are reported in the tables. Yields and oil content (for oil trials) are adjusted to 10% seed moisture content.
8
2016
Lim
ited-
Irri
gatio
n O
il Su
nflow
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at B
urlin
gton
Bra
ndH
ybrid
Oil
Type
aTe
chno
logy
Tr
aits
b20
16
Yie
ldc
2-Y
ear A
vg.
Yie
ldc
Moi
stur
eTe
st
Wei
ght
Plan
t H
eigh
tPo
pula
tion
Lodg
ing
Oil
Con
tent
c
lb/a
clb
/ac
perc
ent
lb/b
uin
plan
ts/a
cpe
rcen
tpe
rcen
tM
ycog
en S
eeds
8H45
6CL
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M37
2128
377.
024
.870
19,1
461.
043
.8M
ycog
en S
eeds
8H44
9CLD
MH
OC
lear
field
, DM
3542
2814
6.6
28.7
6719
,228
1.1
44.5
Cro
plan
455
E H
OH
OEx
pres
sSun
, DM
3340
-6.
926
.868
17,2
1716
.041
.2C
ropl
an54
5 C
LN
SC
lear
field
, DM
3328
2835
7.5
26.4
7417
,294
0.0
40.2
Cro
plan
553
CL
HO
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M32
7025
707.
128
.272
16,6
871.
940
.7Sy
ngen
taSY
7919
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M32
56-
7.1
27.9
6217
,943
1.5
43.6
Nus
eed
Sier
raH
ON
/A31
84-
8.4
26.5
6720
,023
0.0
39.8
Nus
eed
Hor
net
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M30
3424
156.
628
.565
17,9
4010
.141
.4C
ropl
an54
9 C
L H
OH
OC
lear
field
, DM
2942
2385
6.5
28.6
7418
,542
1.6
40.1
Cro
plan
432
EN
SEx
pres
sSun
, DM
2760
2222
6.8
25.9
6217
,139
0.0
38.5
Syng
enta
3732
NS
NS
N/A
2508
1981
6.3
27.7
6120
,257
1.7
42.7
Cro
plan
458
E H
OH
OEx
pres
sSun
, DM
2356
1569
7.2
26.3
6718
,637
0.8
40.6
Nus
eed
N4H
M35
4H
OC
lear
field
, DM
2240
-6.
428
.464
17,0
220.
041
.8Sy
ngen
taSY
7717
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M20
5114
736.
427
.659
19,5
420.
041
.6N
usee
dD
ayto
naH
OC
lear
field
1879
-7.
028
.261
17,8
921.
540
.7N
usee
dC
obal
t II
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M17
91-
6.4
27.4
5921
,123
0.0
41.5
Ave
rage
2825
2310
6.9
27.4
6618
,477
2.3
41.4
d LSD
(P<0
.30)
299
d LSD
(P<0
.05)
574
Coe
ffic
ient
of V
aria
tion
(%)
14.3
a Oil
type
des
igna
tions
: HO
=Hig
h ol
eic;
NS=
NuS
un/M
id-o
leic
.
c Yie
ld a
nd o
il co
nten
t wer
e co
rrec
ted
to 1
0% m
oist
ure.
Plot
size
: 5' x
30'
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Col
labo
rato
r: G
erha
rd H
eint
ges
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
4, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:N
at 1
20 lb
/ac
and
P at
40
lb/a
cH
erbi
cide
:Sp
arta
n 4F
at 3
oz/
ac a
nd D
ual I
I Mag
num
at 1
.2 p
t/ac
appl
ied
on Ju
ne 8
.In
sect
icid
e:Lo
rsba
n at
1 p
t/ac
and
Lam
bda
at 3
.8 o
z/ac
Irrig
atio
n:C
ente
r-pi
vot;
pre-
wat
ered
3 in
ches
bef
ore
plan
ting
and
appl
ied
2 in
ches
dur
ing
grow
ing
seas
onSo
il Ty
pe:
Kum
a-K
eith
silt
loam
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntir
ety.
2016
Lim
ited-
Irri
gatio
n O
il Su
nflo
wer
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Bur
lingt
on
b Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; D
M=d
owny
mild
ew re
sist
ance
; Exp
ress
Sun=
tole
rant
to E
xpre
ss
herb
icid
e; N
/A=n
o te
chno
logy
trai
ts.
d If th
e di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n tw
o hy
brid
yie
lds e
qual
s or e
xcee
ds th
e LS
D v
alue
, the
re is
a 7
0% c
hanc
e (P
<0.3
0) o
r 95%
cha
nce
(P<0
.05)
the
diff
eren
ce is
sign
ifica
nt.
Oct
ober
14,
201
6
9
2016
Lim
ited-
Irri
gatio
n C
onfe
ctio
n Su
nflow
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at B
urlin
gton
Bra
ndH
ybrid
Tech
nolo
gy
Trai
tsa20
16
Yie
ldb
3-Y
ear
Avg
. Yie
ldb
Moi
sture
Test
Wei
ght
Plan
t H
eigh
tPo
pula
tion
Ove
r 24
/64
Ove
r 22
/64
Ove
r 20
/64
Ove
r 16
/64
lb/a
clb
/ac
perc
ent
lb/b
uin
plan
ts/ac
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 2
215
CL
Cle
arfie
ld30
3130
888.
320
.580
16,0
0518
.852
.482
.298
.4N
usee
dN
6LM
448
Cle
arfie
ld29
58-
9.2
18.5
6812
,935
43.2
64.2
84.4
98.2
Nus
eed
6946
DM
RD
M28
98-
7.2
22.7
6614
,969
12.6
37.0
71.4
95.8
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 8
015
N/A
2846
2829
8.1
17.9
7015
,849
16.6
49.2
85.8
98.8
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 2
215
N/A
2810
2838
7.7
21.6
7715
,527
9.8
38.0
74.2
96.8
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 8
042
N/A
2798
-9.
419
.467
13,9
7120
.045
.675
.896
.6R
ed R
iver
Com
mod
ities
, Inc
.R
RC
221
7 C
PC
lear
field
Plu
s26
8126
648.
418
.772
12,4
7837
.067
.290
.698
.6N
usee
dPa
nthe
r DM
RD
M20
15-
7.8
18.2
6212
,822
23.2
46.8
75.4
95.0
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 2
205
N/A
2011
-8.
119
.366
14,9
3425
.456
.878
.096
.8A
vera
ge26
7228
558.
219
.670
14,3
8823
.050
.879
.897
.2c LS
D (P
<0.3
0)29
7c LS
D (P
<0.0
5)57
7C
oeffi
cien
t of V
aria
tion
(%)
14.8
b Yie
lds w
ere
corre
cted
to 1
0% m
oistu
re.
Plot
size
: 5' x
30'
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Col
labo
rato
r: G
erha
rd H
eint
ges
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
4, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:N
at 1
20 lb
/ac
and
P at
40
lb/a
cH
erbi
cide
:Sp
arta
n 4F
at 3
oz/
ac a
nd D
ual I
I Mag
num
at 1
.2 p
t/ac
appl
ied
on Ju
ne 8
.In
sect
icid
e:Lo
rsba
n at
1 p
t/ac
and
Lam
bda
at 3
.8 o
z/ac
Irrig
atio
n:C
ente
r-piv
ot; p
re-w
ater
ed 3
inch
es b
efor
e pl
antin
g an
d ap
plie
d 2
inch
es d
urin
g gr
owin
g se
ason
Soil
Type
:K
uma-
Kei
th si
lt lo
am
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntire
ty.
Oct
ober
14,
201
6
2016
Lim
ited-
Irri
gatio
n C
onfe
ctio
n Su
nflo
wer
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Bur
lingt
onSe
ed R
etai
ned
Ove
r Scr
een
perc
ent
a Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; C
lear
field
Plu
s=to
lera
nt to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; N
/A=n
o te
chno
logy
trai
ts.
c If th
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
two
hybr
id y
ield
s equ
als o
r exc
eeds
the
LSD
val
ue, t
here
is a
70%
cha
nce
(P<0
.30)
or 9
5% c
hanc
e (P
<0.0
5) th
e di
ffere
nce
is sig
nific
ant.
10
2016
Irri
gate
d O
il Su
nflow
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at P
rosp
ect V
alle
y
Bra
ndH
ybrid
Oil
Type
aTe
chno
logy
Tr
aits
b20
16
Yie
ldc
Moi
stur
eTe
st
Wei
ght
Plan
t H
eigh
tPo
pula
tion
Lodg
ing
Oil
Con
tent
c
lb/a
cpe
rcen
tlb
/bu
inpl
ants
/ac
perc
ent
perc
ent
Pion
eer
P63H
E90
HO
Expr
essS
un39
938.
027
.859
14,9
073.
839
.2N
usee
dSi
erra
HO
N/A
3993
16.4
20.5
5516
,768
3.2
37.9
Myc
ogen
See
ds8H
456C
LH
OC
lear
field
, DM
3957
12.9
26.9
5614
,779
7.1
40.0
Myc
ogen
See
ds8H
449C
LDM
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M38
9611
.427
.960
15,3
381.
240
.5N
usee
dH
orne
tH
OC
lear
field
, DM
3643
7.4
26.0
4914
,465
1.1
39.5
Pion
eer
P64M
E01
NS
Expr
essS
un35
8811
.623
.354
14,8
020.
035
.6C
ropl
an54
5 C
LN
SC
lear
field
, DM
3446
13.1
24.6
5611
,582
1.1
36.8
Cro
plan
455
E H
OH
OEx
pres
sSun
, DM
3388
12.4
24.2
5511
,038
0.0
35.6
Syng
enta
3732
NS
NS
N/A
3254
7.9
25.3
4913
,990
0.7
40.3
Cro
plan
553
CL
HO
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M30
669.
825
.254
11,5
010.
037
.0C
ropl
an45
8 E
HO
HO
Expr
essS
un, D
M29
478.
626
.159
13,5
640.
539
.8Sy
ngen
taSY
7919
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M26
5210
.625
.945
10,7
261.
239
.3Pi
onee
rP6
3HE6
0H
OEx
pres
sSun
2619
7.6
25.4
5715
,911
0.0
39.4
Nus
eed
Day
tona
HO
Cle
arfie
ld24
528.
425
.446
16,2
611.
638
.0C
ropl
an43
2 E
NS
Expr
essS
un, D
M21
287.
124
.754
10,3
642.
336
.2C
ropl
an54
9 C
L H
OH
OC
lear
field
, DM
2108
10.9
24.1
608,
610
5.0
34.5
Nus
eed
N4H
M35
4H
OC
lear
field
, DM
2064
9.3
25.4
4716
,258
1.1
39.7
Nus
eed
Cob
alt I
IH
OC
lear
field
, DM
1937
7.4
23.6
4517
,511
0.5
37.2
Syng
enta
SY77
17H
OC
lear
field
, DM
1887
8.5
24.8
4714
,569
1.3
37.9
Ave
rage
3001
9.9
25.1
5313
,839
1.7
38.1
d LSD
(P<0
.30)
422
d LSD
(P<0
.05)
807
Coe
ffic
ient
of V
aria
tion
(%)
19.0
a Oil
type
des
igna
tions
: HO
=Hig
h ol
eic;
NS=
NuS
un/M
id-o
leic
.
c Yie
ld a
nd o
il co
nten
t wer
e co
rrect
ed to
10%
moi
stur
e.
Plot
size
: 5' x
30'
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Col
labo
rato
r: D
avid
Rup
ple
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
3, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:Po
ultry
man
ure
at 4
t/ac
Her
bici
de:
Sona
lan
at 3
pt/a
c,
Inse
ctic
ide:
War
rior I
I at 1
.3 o
z/ac
and
Lor
sban
at 0
.75
pt/a
c ap
plie
d A
ugus
t 2.
Irrig
atio
n:Fu
rrow
-irrig
atio
n th
ree
times
dur
ing
the
grow
ing
seas
onSo
il Ty
pe:
Col
by lo
am
2016
Irri
gate
d O
il Su
nflo
wer
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Pro
spec
t Val
ley
b Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; D
M=d
owny
mild
ew re
sist
ance
; Exp
ress
Sun=
tole
rant
to E
xpre
ss
herb
icid
e; N
/A=n
o te
chno
logy
trai
ts.
d If th
e di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n tw
o hy
brid
yie
lds e
qual
s or e
xcee
ds th
e LS
D v
alue
, the
re is
a 7
0% c
hanc
e (P
<0.3
0) o
r 95%
cha
nce
(P<0
.05)
the
diff
eren
ce is
sign
ifica
nt.
Oct
ober
17,
201
6
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntir
ety.
11
2016
Irri
gate
d C
onfe
ctio
n Su
nflow
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at P
rosp
ect V
alle
y
Bra
ndH
ybrid
Tech
nolo
gy
Trai
tsa
2016
Y
ield
b2-
Yea
r Avg
. Y
ield
bM
oist
ure
Test
W
eigh
tPl
ant
Hei
ght
Popu
latio
nLo
dgin
g O
ver
24/6
4O
ver
22/6
4O
ver
20/6
4O
ver
16/6
4lb
/ac
lb/a
cpe
rcen
tlb
/bu
inpl
ants
/ac
perc
ent
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 8
042
N/A
3262
-17
.116
.637
8,46
62.
461
.486
.695
.897
.4R
ed R
iver
Com
mod
ities
, Inc
.R
RC
221
5 C
LC
lear
field
3066
3424
15.5
20.0
539,
169
11.0
68.0
88.8
94.8
97.4
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 2
215
N/A
2477
2849
12.7
20.5
5110
,917
6.5
50.2
80.0
94.2
97.8
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 8
015
N/A
2266
2685
14.8
17.9
399,
099
4.8
64.2
85.4
94.4
98.2
Nus
eed
6946
DM
RD
M22
01-
12.0
19.6
447,
801
27.3
63.8
85.2
94.6
99.0
Nus
eed
N6L
M44
8C
lear
field
2025
-12
.819
.348
6,68
36.
158
.480
.292
.697
.6N
usee
dPa
nthe
r DM
RD
M19
50-
9.4
20.1
4812
,296
9.5
32.0
60.6
84.0
97.8
Red
Riv
er C
omm
oditi
es, I
nc.
RR
C 2
205
N/A
1943
-12
.918
.350
10,5
046.
763
.482
.690
.897
.0R
ed R
iver
Com
mod
ities
, Inc
.R
RC
221
7 C
PC
lear
field
Plu
s17
0526
4113
.919
.442
7,27
42.
764
.684
.892
.698
.4A
vera
ge23
2229
0013
.419
.146
9,13
48.
558
.481
.692
.697
.8c LS
D (P
<0.3
0)41
9
b Yie
lds w
ere
corre
cted
to 1
0% m
oist
ure.
Plot
size
: 5' x
30'
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Col
labo
rato
r: D
avid
Rup
ple
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
3, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:Po
ultry
man
ure
at 4
t/ac
Her
bici
de:
Sona
lan
at 3
pt/a
c,
Inse
ctic
ide:
War
rior I
I at 1
.3 o
z/ac
and
Lor
sban
at 0
.75
pt/a
c ap
plie
d A
ugus
t 2.
Irrig
atio
n:Fu
rrow
-irrig
atio
n th
ree
times
dur
ing
the
grow
ing
seas
onSo
il Ty
pe:
Col
by lo
am
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntir
ety.
2016
Irri
gate
d C
onfe
ctio
n Su
nflo
wer
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Pro
spec
t Val
ley
Seed
Ret
aine
d O
ver S
cree
n
perc
ent
a Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; C
lear
field
Plu
s=to
lera
nt to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; N
/A=n
o te
chno
logy
trai
ts.
c If th
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
two
hybr
id y
ield
s equ
als o
r exc
eeds
the
LSD
val
ue, t
here
is a
70%
cha
nce
(P<0
.30)
the
diffe
renc
e is
sign
ifica
nt.
Oct
ober
17,
201
6
12
12
2016
Dry
land
Oil
Sunfl
ower
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Jul
esbu
rg
Bra
ndH
ybrid
Oil
Type
aTe
chno
logy
Tr
aits
b20
16
Yie
ldc
Moi
stur
eTe
st
Wei
ght
Plan
t H
eigh
tPo
pula
tion
Lodg
ing
Oil
Con
tent
c
lb/a
cpe
rcen
tlb
/bu
inpl
ants
/ac
perc
ent
perc
ent
Myc
ogen
See
ds8H
456C
LH
OC
lear
field
, DM
2021
7.5
28.4
5912
,107
20.8
40.4
Nus
eed
Hor
net
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M19
356.
629
.254
12,4
5233
.5-
Cro
plan
553
CL
HO
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M17
787.
230
.455
13,3
5145
.739
.1Pi
onee
rP6
4ME0
1N
SEx
pres
sSun
1774
8.8
29.2
5712
,379
20.6
36.9
Syng
enta
3732
NS
NS
N/A
1765
6.7
30.7
5112
,150
29.7
38.2
Syng
enta
SY79
19H
OC
lear
field
, DM
1754
7.9
28.6
508,
695
24.8
37.1
Myc
ogen
See
ds8H
449C
LDM
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M17
097.
429
.455
11,9
9124
.339
.7N
usee
dSi
erra
HO
N/A
1659
9.0
27.6
5712
,449
28.1
36.3
Cro
plan
545
CL
NS
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M15
226.
829
.656
11,1
2935
.038
.2C
ropl
an45
5 E
HO
HO
Expr
essS
un, D
M14
907.
729
.753
11,2
0640
.238
.9Pi
onee
rP6
3HE9
0H
OEx
pres
sSun
1461
8.4
29.2
557,
850
49.5
36.6
Cro
plan
549
CL
HO
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M14
247.
129
.654
14,2
3637
.636
.7Pi
onee
rP6
3HE6
0H
OEx
pres
sSun
1386
7.0
30.0
5213
,052
37.9
38.3
Cro
plan
458
E H
OH
OEx
pres
sSun
, DM
1358
7.3
28.7
5012
,162
21.6
37.9
Nus
eed
Day
tona
HO
Cle
arfie
ld13
436.
828
.552
12,5
3436
.838
.0N
usee
dN
4HM
354
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M13
226.
530
.454
13,8
8134
.338
.2C
ropl
an43
2 E
NS
Expr
essS
un, D
M12
356.
729
.448
11,1
6630
.735
.5Sy
ngen
taSY
7717
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M11
688.
028
.450
8,17
829
.334
.9N
usee
dC
obal
t II
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M10
936.
529
.447
14,0
8130
.136
.6A
vera
ge15
377.
429
.353
11,8
4532
.137
.6d LS
D (P
<0.3
0)18
7d LS
D (P
<0.0
5)35
8C
oeff
icie
nt o
f Var
iatio
n (%
)16
.5a O
il ty
pe d
esig
natio
ns: H
O=H
igh
olei
c; N
S=N
uSun
/Mid
-ole
ic.
c Yie
ld a
nd o
il co
nten
t wer
e co
rrect
ed to
10%
moi
stur
e.
Plot
size
: 10'
x 3
1'
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Col
labo
rato
r: Jo
sh L
each
man
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
8, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:N
at 3
9 lb
/ac
and
P at
9 lb
/ac
at p
lant
ing
Her
bici
de:
Pre-
plan
t: Sp
arta
n at
4 o
z/ac
and
Pro
wl a
t 1.8
pt/a
cSo
il Ty
pe:
Ric
hfie
ld lo
amTr
ial C
omm
ents
:Tr
ial w
as h
aile
d in
late
-Jun
e. S
unflo
wer
pla
nts r
ecov
ered
des
pite
serio
us d
amag
e.
2016
Dry
land
Oil
Sunf
low
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at J
ules
burg
b Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; D
M=d
owny
mild
ew re
sist
ance
; Exp
ress
Sun=
tole
rant
to E
xpre
ss
herb
icid
e; N
/A=n
o te
chno
logy
trai
ts.
d If th
e di
ffer
ence
bet
wee
n tw
o hy
brid
yie
lds e
qual
s or e
xcee
ds th
e LS
D v
alue
, the
re is
a 7
0% c
hanc
e (P
<0.3
0) o
r 95%
cha
nce
(P<0
.05)
the
diff
eren
ce is
sign
ifica
nt.
Oct
ober
20,
201
6
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntir
ety.
13
13
2016
Dry
land
Con
fect
ion
Sunfl
ower
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Jul
esbu
rg
Bran
dH
ybrid
Tech
nolo
gy
Trai
tsa
2016
Y
ield
bM
oist
ure
Test
W
eigh
tPl
ant
Hei
ght
Popu
latio
nLo
dgin
gO
ver
24/6
4O
ver
22/6
4O
ver
20/6
4O
ver
16/6
4lb
/ac
perc
ent
lb/b
uin
plan
ts/a
cpe
rcen
tN
usee
dN
6LM
448
Cle
arfie
ld21
2417
.318
.153
5,15
421
.715
.435
.271
.894
.2N
usee
dPa
nthe
r DM
RD
M17
689.
522
.946
5,84
228
.059
.477
.086
.694
.2N
usee
d69
46 D
MR
DM
1737
10.0
22.7
495,
078
32.2
21.0
40.8
71.6
95.2
Ave
rage
1876
12.2
21.2
495,
358
27.3
31.9
51.0
76.7
94.5
c LSD
(P<0
.30)
NS
b Yie
ld c
orre
cted
to 1
0% m
oist
ure.
Plot
size
: 10'
x 3
1'
Col
labo
rato
r: Jo
sh L
each
man
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
8, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:N
at 3
9 lb
/ac
and
P at
9 lb
/ac
at p
lant
ing
Her
bici
de:
Pre-
plan
t: Sp
arta
n at
4 o
z/ac
and
Pro
wl a
t 1.8
pt/a
cSo
il Ty
pe:
Ric
hfie
ld lo
amTr
ial C
omm
ents
: Tria
l was
hai
led
in la
te-J
une.
Sun
flow
er p
lant
s rec
over
ed d
espi
te se
rious
dam
age.
2016
Dry
land
Con
fect
ion
Sunf
low
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at J
ules
burg
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Oct
ober
20,
201
6
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntir
ety.
Seed
Ret
aine
d O
ver S
cree
n
perc
ent
a Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Beyo
nd h
erbi
cide
; DM
=dow
ny m
ildew
resi
stan
ce.
c NS=
Yie
lds w
ere
not s
igni
fican
tly d
iffer
ent f
rom
eac
h ot
her.
14
2016
Dry
land
Oil
Sunfl
ower
Hyb
rid
Perf
orm
ance
Tri
al a
t Gen
oa
Bra
ndH
ybrid
Oil
Type
aTe
chno
logy
Tr
aits
bY
ield
cM
oist
ure
Test
W
eigh
tPl
ant
Hei
ght
Popu
latio
nO
il C
onte
ntc
lb/a
cpe
rcen
tlb
/bu
inpl
ants
/ac
perc
ent
Myc
ogen
See
ds8H
449C
LDM
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M20
595.
332
.050
10,0
9144
.6Sy
ngen
ta37
32 N
SN
SN
/A19
245.
229
.944
11,0
3541
.5M
ycog
en S
eeds
8H45
6CL
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M18
245.
128
.252
11,3
9844
.5Sy
ngen
taSY
7919
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M17
045.
829
.352
6,58
241
.0Sy
ngen
taSY
7717
HO
Cle
arfie
ld, D
M11
535.
229
.352
10,0
1941
.0A
vera
ge17
335.
329
.750
9,82
542
.5d LS
D (P
<0.3
0)23
1a O
il ty
pe d
esig
natio
ns: H
O=H
igh
olei
c; N
S=N
uSun
/Mid
-ole
ic.
c Yie
ld a
nd o
il co
nten
t wer
e co
rrect
ed to
10%
moi
stur
e.
Plot
size
: 10'
x 3
1'
Site
Info
rmat
ion
Col
labo
rato
r: R
ob B
oyd
Plan
ting
Dat
e:
June
8, 2
016
Har
vest
Dat
e:
Ferti
lizer
:N
at 5
0 lb
/ac
Her
bici
de:
Rou
ndup
at 3
6 oz
/ac
and
Spar
tan
Cha
rge
at 4
oz/
acSo
il Ty
pe:
Fort
Col
lins-
Plat
ner l
oam
s
2016
Dry
land
Oil
Sunf
low
er H
ybri
d Pe
rfor
man
ce T
rial
at G
enoa
d If th
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
two
hybr
id y
ield
s equ
als o
r exc
eeds
the
LSD
val
ue, t
here
is a
70%
cha
nce
(P<0
.30)
the
diffe
renc
e is
si
gnifi
cant
.
b Tech
nolo
gy tr
ait d
esig
natio
ns: C
lear
field
=tol
eran
t to
Bey
ond
herb
icid
e; D
M=d
owny
mild
ew re
sist
ance
; N/A
=no
tech
nolo
gy
This
tabl
e m
ay b
e re
prod
uced
onl
y in
its e
ntir
ety.
Nov
embe
r 1, 2
016
15
Effects of Additional Inputs on Sunflower ProductionRon F. Meyer
Sunflower production inputs were studied on irrigated fields during both the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons. Six treatments were imposed on confection sunflowers at Prospect Valley, Colorado. The six treatments are as follows: 1) check-plot fertilized according to recommendations from a soil test, 2) an insecticide applied during early vegetative stages, 3) a fungicide applied pre-bloom, 4) a micro-nutrient mix, 5) additional N-P-K (in addition to what was called for by the soil test), and 6) a treatment that included all the above. Treatments were not replicated within a year however the same experiment was conducted in the two years.
Flood irrigation was used on the trial. Both growing seasons during 2015 and 2016 were exceptional for sunflower production at the site. The check treatment received only farmer applied fertility based on soil sample analysis. The insecticide (treatment 2) used in 2015 was Counter, applied 6/23/15, while in 2016 Force was applied on 7/11/16. In addition, the producer also applied insecticide applications to the entire field during bloom stage. For treatment 3, Headline Amp was the fungicide applied, pre-bloom, on 7/23 both seasons. The micronutrient mix (treatment 4) consisted of the following actual nutrients applied per acre: 13 lb/ac nitrogen, 27 lb/ac phosphorous, 7 lb/ac potassium, 7 lb/ac sulfur, 1 lb/ac manganese, 1.5 lb/ac iron, 0.06 lb/ac boron, and 1.75 lb/ac of zinc. For treatment 5, actual additional nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium treatments applied were 50 lb/ac nitrogen, 30 lb/ac phosphorous, and 15 lb/ac potassium. Finally, treatment 6 consisted of all the above treatments.
Yield results indicate that additional N-P-K increased yields over the check even when soil tests indicated additional fertility may not be needed. When additional N-P-K was added yield increased 132 and 308 pounds per acre in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Micronutrients failed to increase yields in either year. Decreases of 914 and 231 pounds per acre were observed in 2015 and 2016, respectively, when micronutrients were applied. Similar lack of response has been observed in
the past by the author when micronutrients have been studied in sunflower. Insecticide applications early in the growing seasons were an attempt to control stalk boring insects primarily Dectes and sunflower stem weevil. However, in both years, early insecticide treatments did not increase yield and yields from both years were lower than the check where no early insecticide applications were made.
Likewise, fungicide applications failed to increase yield in this study. The seasonal nature of disease infestations is evident in the results, which may help explain the yield increase in 2015 where low levels of some leaf diseases were noted later in the season. Rust was not a yield limiting factor in either year.
When all treatments were combined there was a favorable response in 2016 but less so in 2015. It is felt that the micronutrient mix could have reduced yield when added to this combination in 2015.
Additional trials are planned for the 2017 season. It is hoped that we can separate the beneficial effects on sunflower yield of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.
Find us on Twitter: @csucrops
