Home » 2014
Yearly Archives: 2014
Wheat disease updates are written by Dr. Bob Hunger, OSU Extension Plant Pathologist
Oklahoma: We’ve not seen any diseases so far this fall around Stillwater, but we have been relatively dry and much of the wheat was not planted until the past couple of weeks. Mark Gregory (Area Extn Agron Spclt – southwestern OK) indicated to me earlier this week that he has not seen or heard any reports of leaf rust or other diseases. However, Bryan Vincent (Crop Scout – NW/NC Oklahoma) sent me some photos of leaf rust pustules he found in several fields around the Aline-Helena area (30-40 miles northwest of Enid in north-central OK). The pustules were extremely sparse and found only in very early planted wheat. Bryan also reported seeing some light tan spot infections. Leaf rust also has been observed in Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska (see reports below), and stripe rust has been reported in Wyoming, Montana and the PNW.
When leaf rust occurs in the fall in Oklahoma, the question arises regarding the value of spraying to control that rust. Fall-infected leaf rust plants typically have yellowed lower/older leaves with rust pustules, but the youngest 2 or 3 leaves are green and healthy. As temperature drops through November and December, the older rust-infected leaves die and new infections are greatly slowed and inhibited. Grazing also helps to remove these leaves and increase air circulation and drying that are conditions less favorable to spread of the disease. Given these considerations, spraying to control leaf rust in the fall is of limited value. The primary concern with fall infections of leaf rust is that with a mild winter and sufficient moisture, the rust will survive through the winter and inoculum will be present in fields to start the disease early in the spring. Hence, monitoring of these fields through the winter and early next spring is recommended to determine if a split application of a fungicide is merited to control the rust (and also possibly tan spot, septoria, and/or powdery mildew) in the early spring.
Reports/excerpts of reports from other states:
Kansas (Dr. Erick De Wolf, Extn Plant Pathologist, Kansas State University) 27-Oct-2014: Wheat Leaf Rust Update in Kansas: Planting of the winter wheat crop in Kansas is well underway. Farmers are reporting that wheat has emerged and is looking good in many areas of the state. Wheat planting on some farms was delayed by a late soybean harvest this fall, but these acres should be planted soon.
I was checking wheat this week in Manhattan (Northeast KS) and found leaf rust in some research plots. This wheat was sown about 2-weeks prior to the optimal planting date but well within the normal planting range for wheat production in the state. The leaf rust was not difficult to find with disease incidence near 5% some plots. The severity was 2 percent or less on most of the infected leaves. This level of fall infection of leaf rust is common in Kansas; however, 60% of the time cold temperatures and leaf desiccation during the winter months will eliminate the disease in many fields.
Ned Tisserat, retired plant pathologist from Colorado State University, also reported leaf rust in Northeast Colorado this past week. So it is possible that leaf rust is active in other areas of Kansas as well. I will be checking other locations for leaf rust in Kansas this coming week and let the group now what I find.
Nebraska (Dr. Stephen Wegulo, Extn Plant Pathologist, Univ of Nebraska) 27-Oct-2014: On Friday last week, Oct 24, I answered a call from a crop consultant who told me there is leaf rust in several wheat fields in the Panhandle of Nebraska.
By Tom Royer, OSU Extension Entomologist
Crop consultants have reported greenbugs in a few northwestern Oklahoma wheat fields. The hit or miss nature of greenbugs and other aphid pests in wheat fields can make scouting challenging. Fortunately, there is an online tool called the Cereal Aphid Decision Support Tool that simplifies scouting for greenbugs and also considers the effects of natural predators.
Start by going to the Cereal Aphids Decision Support Tool on your computer http://entoplp.okstate.edu/gbweb/index3.htm and selecting the Greenbug Calculator.
By answering a few simple questions, you can determine an economic threshold for controlling greenbugs. This threshold is based on the estimated cost of treating the field and the estimated price of wheat. Once a threshold is calculated, you can print a Glance ‘n Go scouting form, take it to a field and record your sampling results. The form will help you to decide if the field needs to be treatment for greenbugs. There are several things that make Glance ‘n Go a good way to make such a decision. You only have to “Glance” at a tiller to see if it has greenbugs (no counting greenbug numbers). You can make a decision to treat “on the Go” because you stop sampling once a decision is reached (no set number of samples). Finally, you can account for the activity of the greenbug’s most important natural enemy, Lysiphlebus testaceipes.
When scouting with the Glance ‘n Go system, keep a running count of tillers that have aphid mummies and a running count of tillers that are infested with one or more greenbugs. After each set of 5 stops, the Glance ‘n Go form directs you to look at your total number of infested tillers and tillers with mummies. If there is enough parasitoid (mummy) activity, you will be directed to stop sampling and DON’T TREAT, even if you have exceeded the treatment threshold for greenbugs! Why? Because research showed that at that level of parasitism, almost all of the healthy-looking greenbugs have been “sentenced to death” and will be ghosts within 3-5 days. If they have received their “sentence” you can save the cost of an unnecessary insecticide application.
Treatment thresholds will probably fall around 2-4 greenbugs per tiller, but make sure you are using the Fall (Sept.-December) form, not the spring form. If a field needs to be treated, check with Current Report CR-7194, “Management of Insect and Mite Pests in Small Grains”. If you treat for greenbugs and have a failure, please contact our Department and we will investigate further to determine if insecticide resistance might be an issue. Dr. Ed Bynum, Extension Entomologist from Amarillo, reported finding some greenbug populations in 2013 that were shown to be resistant to chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in Lorsban 4E, and other generic products (Govern 4E, Hatchet, Nufos, Vulcan, Warhawk, Whirlwind). The bottom line: he tested some suspect greenbug populations using a diagnostic test that he developed for testing greenbugs in sorghum in the 1990’s, and found that they were resistant to chlorpyrifos at labeled rates.
by: Tom Royer, OSU Extension Entomologist
Fall armyworms are active this fall. I checked a field of wheat this past weekend with significant damage from fall armyworms that averaged 6-7 fall armyworms per square foot. Scout for fall armyworms by examining plants in several (5 or more) locations in the field. Fall armyworms are most active in the morning or late afternoon. Look for “window paned” leaves and count all sizes of larvae.
Examine plants along the field margin as well as in the interior, because they sometimes move in from road ditches and weedy areas. The caterpillars were widely distributed in the field that I checked, suggesting that they were the result of a large egg lay from a recent adult moth flight. The suggested treatment threshold is 2-3 larvae per linear foot of row in wheat with active feeding. We won’t get relief from fall armyworms until we get a killing frost, since they do not overwinter in Oklahoma.
Consult the newly updated OSU Fact Sheet CR-7194 Management of Insect and Mite Pests of Small Grains for control suggestions.
This blog post contains information from OSU Current Report 2135 Protein Content of Winter Wheat Varieties in Oklahoma. A complete pdf version of the report with a brief explanation of sampling procedures can be found at www.wheat.okstate.edu.
The grass always seems to be greener on the other side when it comes to wheat protein. In a low protein year, everyone is scrambling to find higher protein wheat to blend. In a high protein year, such as this one, the same low protein wheat that was considered marginally acceptable the year before might command a slight premium. While wheat protein is important to end users, wheat protein is just one of many attributes which determine end-use quality and marketability of winter wheat. In fact, some millers and bakers would argue that functionality of wheat protein is more important than the quantity of protein. While varietal differences commonly exist, differences in wheat protein among environments are generally much larger than differences among varieties. Factors such as nitrogen fertility and drought stress, for example, can sharply impact final protein content of the grain, and most producers are better served focusing on good agronomic practices than slight genetic differences in wheat protein content.
To reflect environmental impacts on wheat grain protein content, 2014 wheat variety test data are reported by variety and location in Table 1. The 18.5% average wheat grain protein for the Thomas location is a good example of how fertility and environment can impact protein content. Soil tests at the time of sowing revealed 141 lb/acre of residual nitrogen available, which should be enough to produce a 70 bu/acre wheat crop. Due to extreme drought, however, average grain yield at Thomas was 13 bu/acre. Under these circumstances, wheat plants were able to pull large amounts of nitrogen from the soil and move this nitrogen to the developing grain. Grain size was reduced and grains were shriveled due to drought, thus resulting in abnormally high wheat protein. A similar situation was reported for Altus in 2013.
In Table 2 we reported the wheat grain protein content as a deviation from location mean for each variety, as this provides easier comparison of wheat grain protein among varieties across locations. Billings, for example, is a variety with solidly positive deviation from location means, indicating it has a tendency for above-average grain protein content. Iba, on the other hand, has negative deviations from location means, indicating a tendency for lower than average grain protein content. Adequate nitrogen fertility as recommended by a recent soil test or sensor-based nitrogen management program can help ensure that varieties such as Iba produce grain protein within the acceptable range for end-use customers. Iba is also a prime example of how protein data can sometimes be misused, as the functionality of the protein in Iba is above average, which can offset lower absolute grain protein content.
No, this blog post is not about a get rich quick scheme, but there is a way for the average wheat farmer in the southern Great Plains to add $50,000 to $100,000 to the bottom line in a single day. Most soil tests I have pulled this summer have shown 50 to 90 lb/ac of NO3-N in the top 18 inches of soil. Ninety pounds of N equates to about $45 of N fertilizer, and this knowledge could save a 2,500 acre wheat farmer in excess of $100,000 in fertilizer cost. Soil testing is laborious, but the potential economic returns for spending a day or two soil sampling are outstanding.
There is still time to soil sample. Soil samples only take a few days to process once they are in the OSU lab. It is not unusual for transit time to the lab to the slowest part of the process, so if you need a fast turnaround a trip to drop samples in the Ag Hall basement in Stillwater will help (plus you have probably been wanting cheese fries). If you have already applied pre-plant fertilizer or sown wheat, there is still time to assess soil N availability and uptake via the N-Rich Strip. In its simplest form, the N-rich strip is an area where N is not limiting. Either by visual assessment or with the assistance of an optical sensor, you can use the N-rich strip to determine your top dress N requirement, but you must create the N-rich strip this fall.
The bottom line is that a day of soil testing or putting out N-rich strips is well worth your time investment. On another note, how would you like to make money and improve your health at the same time? I have a multi-level marketing opportunity that I can get you in on the ground floor, but don’t tell anyone else. I can only make this deal for you and only today. There will be a small “buy in” fee that you will need to pay cash up front, though.
Partial funding for the research included in this blog post was provided by USDA Project No.2012-02355 through the National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Regional Approaches for Adaptation to and Mitigation of Climate Variability and Change
Kickoff of the college football season and the start of wheat planting are Labor Day traditions in the southern Great Plains. Many producers are waiting to see if rain forecasted for this weekend materializes, but it is likely that forage-based wheat farmers will start sowing wheat next week whether it rains or not. This means sowing wheat into hot soil conditions which can cause wheat germination and emergence issues. Given the potential problems, there are a few questions producers should ask themselves prior to planting into soil temperatures >90F.
Will you have to plant deep to reach moisture? That first structure protruding from a germinating wheat seed is actually not a leaf. It is the coleoptile. The wheat coleoptile is a rigid structure whose sole purpose is to “punch through” the soil surface so that the first true leaf emerges above the soil surface. If this does not happen, the first true leaf will try to extend below the soil surface, turn yellow, and take on an accordion-like appearance (picture above). Modern semi-dwarf wheat varieties have shorter coleoptiles than older, tall wheat varieties and coleoptile length is shortened even further by hot soil conditions. So it is important to plant a variety with a longer coleoptile length (e.g. Garrison or Doans) if planting deeply into hot soils. A rating of coleoptile lengths for wheat varieties can be found in OSU Fact Sheet 2141 OSU Wheat Variety Comparison Chart available at www.wheat.okstate.edu or at the direct link to the publication here.
Is the variety high temperature germination sensitive? High temperature germination sensitivity is a fancy way of saying that some wheat varieties simply don’t germinate well in hot soil conditions (e.g. 2174, Overley). The extent of the sensitivity varies by year, so Overley might germinate fine in 95F soils one year and produce a 10% stand in the same soil conditions the next. When sowing early, it is best to plant varieties that do not have high temperature germination sensitivity (e.g. Duster, Gallagher, or Armour). Soil conditions generally cool due to lower ambient temperatures or cooling rains by about September 20; however our summer temperatures seem to be arriving late this year, so it is best to know the level of germination sensitivity in the variety you are planting. A rating of high temperature germination sensitivity for wheat varieties can be found in the variety comparison chart linked above. A more detailed explanation of the phenomenon can be found in OSU Fact Sheet PSS 2256 Factors affecting wheat germination and stand establishment in hot soils (available by clicking here).
Partial funding for the research included in this blog post was provided by USDA Project No.2012-02355 through the National Institute for Food and Agriculture’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Regional Approaches for Adaptation to and Mitigation of Climate Variability and Change
Agriculture Policy News is written by Dr. Jody Campiche, OSU Extension Economist. You can find more of her newsletters at http://agecon.okstate.edu/agpolicy/index.asp?type=newsletters
The new Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), available through the federal crop insurance program, will be available for corn, cotton, grain sorghum, rice, soybeans, spring barley, spring wheat, and winter wheat in selected counties for the 2015 crop year. The first enrollment deadline is September 30, 2014 for winter wheat. Producers will have the option to purchase SCO through a crop insurance agent along with their underlying individual insurance policy.
SCO is designed to cover county-wide losses and complement a producers’ individual insurance policy which is a new concept as producers have not previously been allowed to stack insurance policies for the same crop. To be eligible to purchase SCO, producers must also have an individual policy for the crop enrolled in SCO. The individual policy can be a Revenue Protection (RP) policy, a Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE) policy, or a Yield Protection (YP) policy. SCO coverage is tied to the individual yield or revenue insurance policy. So a producer with an individual Yield Protection (YP) policy would only have the option to purchase an SCO yield protection policy (as opposed to a revenue protection policy). SCO will cover losses from 86% minus the coverage level of the producer’s individual policy. For example, if a producer has a 70% RP policy, the SCO coverage level would be 16% (86% – 70%). As shown in the figure below, SCO is only offered in certain counties/states for 2015 winter wheat and spring wheat crops.
For Oklahoma, the list of counties with 2015 winter wheat coverage and the SCO expected county yields are shown in the table below.
|SCO Expected County Yield|
Enrollment in the new Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) programs through the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are now tied to enrollment in the SCO crop insurance program. The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) just released rules/guidelines for the SCO program but the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has not released rules/guidelines for ARC and PLC. Therefore, the information provided in this blog post is based on my current (08/11/2014) understanding of the interaction between these programs and could change once all final program details are released.
Producers who elect to participate in ARC are not eligible for SCO for the crop/farm number participating in ARC. Enrollment in ARC or PLC occurs on an FSA crop/farm number basis. Producers cannot receive benefits for both ARC and SCO on the same acreage/farm number of a crop. SCO is elected on crop/county basis so producers will need to report which acreage/farm numbers are enrolled in SCO and which acreage/farm numbers are enrolled in ARC.
The ARC/PLC decision is a one-time decision that will remain in effect for the life of the farm bill. Producers will likely enroll in ARC/PLC in late 2014 or early 2015. The initial ARC/PLC enrollment is for the 2014 crop year (although it may not take place until 2015). SCO is not available for the 2014 crop year. SCO is available for certain crops/counties for the 2015-2018 crop years. The SCO election will take place each crop year when a producer enrolls in an individual RP, RP-HPE, or YP policy. A producer who enrolls a crop/farm number in ARC will not have the option to purchase SCO for that crop/farm number for any of the 2015-2018 crop years. The deadline to enroll in SCO for winter wheat for the 2015 crop year is September 30, 2014.
For ARC and PLC, producers enroll base acres (with the exception of generic or cotton base acreage) but producers enroll planted acres in SCO. So, a producer could enroll base acreage of one crop in ARC on a particular farm number but plant a different crop on the same farm number and enroll that crop in SCO.
For example, assume Producer Jones has 100 base acres of grain sorghum on FSA farm number 1111 and 100 base acres of wheat on FSA farm number 2222:
Scenario 1: Producer Jones plants 100 acres of wheat on farm 1111 and 100 acres of wheat on farm 2222 during the 2015 crop year. Here are some available options:
- Farm 1111
- Enroll the grain sorghum base acreage in PLC, option to purchase SCO on planted wheat acres for the 2015 crop year (and through 2018)
- Enroll the grain sorghum base acreage in ARC, option to purchase SCO on planted wheat acres for the 2015 crop year (and through 2018)
- Farm 2222
- Enroll the wheat base acreage in PLC, option to purchase SCO on planted wheat acres for the 2015 crop year (and through 2018)
- Enroll the wheat base acreage in ARC, CANNOT purchase SCO on planted wheat acres in any year
Scenario 2: Producer Jones plants 100 acres of grain sorghum on farm 1111, 50 acres of wheat on farm 2222, and 50 acres of canola on farm 2222. Here are some available options:
- Farm 1111
- Enroll the grain sorghum base acreage in PLC, option to purchase SCO on planted grain sorghum acres for the 2015 crop year (and through 2018)
- Enroll the grain sorghum base acreage in ARC, CANNOT purchase SCO on planted grain sorghum acres for the 2015 crop year (and through 2018)
- Farm 2222
- Enroll the wheat base acreage in PLC, option to purchase SCO on planted wheat acres, CANNOT purchase SCO on the planted canola acres for the 2015 crop year since SCO is not available for canola in 2015 (may have the option to purchase SCO for canola in some counties in 2016-2018, but this is uncertain)
- Enroll the wheat base acreage in ARC, CANNOT purchase SCO on the planted wheat acres in any year, CANNOT purchase SCO on the planted canola acres for the 2015 crop year since SCO is not available for canola in 2015 (may have the option to purchase SCO for canola in certain counties in 2016-2018)
Since producers will likely not be able to enroll in ARC or PLC prior to the Sept. 30 deadline for SCO coverage on 2015 winter wheat, SCO coverage can be withdrawn on any farm where producers intend to elect ARC for winter wheat by the earlier of their acreage reporting date or Dec. 15, without penalty. This allows producers additional time to make an informed decision between ARC or PLC for winter wheat. If producers withdraw SCO coverage for a farm by the earlier of their acreage reporting date or Dec. 15, they will not be charged a crop insurance premium. In order to withdraw coverage without penalty, producers must notify their crop insurance agent of their intended election for ARC by the earlier of their winter wheat acreage reporting date or Dec. 15. The option to withdraw SCO coverage will only be allowed for the 2015 crop year for fall planted wheat.
A producer who chooses to purchase an SCO policy has several options. The producer could keep the previous coverage level on the individual RP, RP-HPE, or YP policy and add SCO coverage. As an example, if a producer has a 70% RP policy, the producer could buy 16% SCO coverage (86%-70%). The producer could also decide to lower the coverage level on the individual policy and add more SCO coverage. For example, the producer could lower RP coverage to 60% and buy 26% SCO coverage (86%-60%). However, it is important to note that if a producer decides to withdraw from SCO later this year (due to enrollment in ARC), the producer would not be able to change the coverage level of the underlying policy for the 2015 crop year. For example, assume a producer usually purchases a 70% RP policy on wheat. If the producer decides to lower RP coverage to 60% and purchase 26% SCO coverage (86%-60%) for the 2015 crop year, but then decides to withdraw from SCO, the producer would not be able to change the 60% RP coverage for the 2015 crop year.
Due to the complexity of decisions related to ARC, PLC, SCO, and individual insurance policies, producers should consider several factors. Some of the key points to think about are:
- What level of coverage does the producer currently have on the individual policy?
- SCO only provides coverage up to 86% so a producer with an 85% RP policy may not want SCO coverage (although the producer could lower the coverage on the individual policy and buy more SCO coverage
- Is SCO offered for the crop/county in 2015 and/or later years?
- RMA may add additional crops/counties for the 2016 crop year.
- Does the producer currently have enterprise units on the underlying individual crop insurance policy? If so, the producer may want to examine the marginal costs of increased coverage on the underlying policy as opposed to adding SCO coverage.
- Enterprise units would cover losses closer to the individual farm-level than county-level SCO coverage (may cost less than SCO depending on coverage level).
- SCO covers losses at the county-level while an RP, RP-HPE, or YP policy covers losses at the farm level. If a farm-level loss occurs but a county-level loss does not occur, SCO would not pay an indemnity. If a farm-level loss does not occur but a county-level loss does occur, SCO would pay an indemnity.
- What is the cost of the underlying individual crop insurance policy?
- Can the producer obtain higher levels of coverage on the individual policy at affordable rates? If not, SCO could provide a higher level of coverage at a more affordable rate. The SCO premium subsidy is 65% compared to a 59% subsidy for a 70% RP policy (the subsidy varies for other levels of coverage on an individual policy).
- Does the producer want to enroll in ARC for a particular crop/farm number? If so, SCO is not an option for the same crop/farm number.
- Does the producer want to have the option to purchase SCO for a crop/farm number in a later year (after the 2015 crop year)? If so, the crop/farm number cannot be enrolled in ARC.
- Does the producer want to have more time to think about SCO for the 2015 winter wheat crop? If so, the producer may want to obtain SCO coverage for winter wheat prior to the Sept. 30 deadline and withdraw later if enrolling in ARC.
For additional information:
SCO Endorsement: http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2015/15sco.pdf
SCO Underwriting Standards Handbook: http://www.rma.usda.gov/handbooks/18000/2015/15_18180.pdf
At the time of writing this post, 2014 Oklahoma wheat production is estimated to be approximately 51 million bushels, which is roughly half of 2013 production (Table 1). Oklahoma has not seen wheat production this low since the 43 million bushel crop of 1957, and with any luck, production will not be this low again for at least another 60 years.
|Table 1. Oklahoma wheat production for 2013 and 2014 as estimated by OK NASS, July 2014|
|Harvested Acres||3.4 million||3.0 million|
|Total bushels||105 million||51 million|
The 2013-2014 wheat production season had a good start in central Oklahoma. Topsoil moisture was short in September, but October rains resulted in favorable conditions for wheat emergence and establishment. In addition, many areas had a fair amount of stored soil moisture from the summer of 2013. This stored soil moisture allowed sites such as Chickasha and Lahoma to produce 43 and 47 bu/ac average wheat yield on less than eight inches of rainfall during the growing season. Stored soil moisture also contributed to adequate forage production at grazed sites such as Marshall Dual-Purpose, but production of a forage crop did not leave behind enough moisture to fuel much of a grain crop.
The multi-year drought never released its stranglehold on western Oklahoma during the 2013-2014 wheat production season. Small rains here or there allowed most producers to obtain an acceptable stand of wheat, but moisture was never sufficient to spur tillering or leaf area development. Early winter snowfall made for a few bright spots for forage production in southwestern Oklahoma, but this moisture was quickly utilized by growing wheat plants and dry conditions soon returned. As a result, many fields in southwestern and western Oklahoma were abandoned and not taken to harvest.
The winter of 2013-2014 wasn’t just dry; it was cold too. Young, drought-stressed wheat plants had difficulty dealing with the cold, windy conditions, and winterkill was common in late-sown wheat. Winterkill was also common in grazed wheat that was stressed by heavy grazing pressure and inadequate soil moisture. Considerable winterkill was also present in no-till wheat without adequate seed to soil contact in northwestern Oklahoma. The inadequate seed to soil contact was generally the result of heavy residue from the previous year’s wheat crop.
While the wheat crop did not appear to be on its way to bumper production, most producers hoped for a turnaround similar to 2013 and topdressed in late winter. Unlike the spring of 2013, however, the rains never came and much of this topdress N applied did not make it into the soil until the crop was at boot stage or later.
The cold winter delayed the onset of first hollow stem by about five days as compared to 2013 and 25 days as compared to 2012. Despite a slow start to the spring, wheat in southern Oklahoma was near heading when a hard freeze occurred the morning of April 15, 2014. As expected, drought stressed wheat in advanced stages in southwestern Oklahoma suffered severe freeze damage; however, injury from the 2014 spring freeze did not always follow the “rule of thumb” guidelines used by agronomists. Many areas that received small amounts of rain just prior to the freeze seemed to escape widespread injury, regardless of growth stage. In southcentral Oklahoma, injury seemed to be most severe on later maturing varieties that were approximately Feekes GS 7 to booting, while earlier-maturing varieties that were just starting to head escaped freeze injury. Wheat that was barely past two nodes in northern Oklahoma suffered severe injury, while more advanced wheat in central Oklahoma endured similar temperatures with minimal injury.
There were relatively few insect or disease issues to deal with during the 2013-2014 wheat production season. Winter grain mite and/or brown wheat mite infestations proved to be too much for some drought stressed wheat fields in northcentral and northwestern Oklahoma. Some fields already devastated by the drought were left unsprayed, while others still showing some sign of yield potential were treated.
Other than a rare siting of a single leaf rust pustule, there was no foliar disease in Oklahoma in 2014. The lack of foliar disease is evidenced by the lack of response to foliar fungicides at either Chickasha or Lahoma. These two sites provided a rare opportunity in 2014 to observe yield impacts of foliar fungicides in the absence of disease, as most years we report at least light or negligible foliar disease at these sites. While foliar disease was not an issue in 2014, wheat streak mosaic virus was an issue for many producers. This disease has historically been most prevalent in northwestern Oklahoma and the Panhandle. Wheat streak mosaic virus was confirmed in several fields downstate this year, however, and it is likely that some fields affected by wheat streak mosaic virus were not identified as such because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish wheat streak mosaic virus symptoms from those of severe drought stress. The wheat variety testing program was not immune from this disease, and we lost our Kildare location to wheat streak mosaic virus.
Warmer temperatures in May hastened crop maturity and the Oklahoma wheat harvest began near Frederick on May 22, 2014. By the first week of June, harvest was in full swing, only to be delayed by rain shortly thereafter. Harvest resumed across most of the state by June 13 and was mostly completed by June 30. The exceptions being some waterlogged areas in northern Oklahoma. The Cherokee Mesonet site, for example, reported 5.1 inches of rainfall from October 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014, but the same site received 10 inches of rain from June 1 to June 30, 2014.
The 2014 Oklahoma wheat harvest is underway and results from the Walters and Thomas wheat variety trials are now posted at http://www.wheat.okstate.edu. Depending on field operations, I usually get variety trial results posted on the web within a day or two of harvest. The best way to learn when results are posted are to follow me on Twitter @OSU_smallgrains or subscribe to our Extension news list serve (send me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org to be added to the listserv).
I have posted a few pics from our harvest operations below.
In the mid-1970s Dr. Robert Westerman banded 18-46-0 with wheat at planting in a low-pH soil near Haskel Ok. The impact was immediately evident. Soon after Oklahoma State University recommended the “Banding of Phosphate in Wheat: A Temporary Alternative to Liming” Figure 1. This method was a Band-Aid solution for the significant amount Oklahoma winter wheat production area which was either too far from a reliable lime source or under a short term lease contract.
Still today grain producers throughout the United States commonly farm a large percentage of land that is not their own. In the leasing process agreements can widely vary both on length of the lease and the amount of inputs that the land owner will pay. The wheat belt of Oklahoma is known for having large areas with low soil pH levels…
View original post 1,199 more words