Making better decisions: 2016 Colorado sunflower variety performance trials

Agricultural

Experiment 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

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 Program Department of Soil and Crop Sciences

Colorado State University Extension Colorado 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...5

Acknowledgments...5

Summary of the 2016 Colorado Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trials...6

2016 Limited-Irrigation Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Burlington...8

2016 Limited-Irrigation Confection Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Burlington...9

2016 Irrigated Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Prospect Valley...10

2016 Irrigated Confection Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Prospect Valley...11

2016 Dryland Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Julesburg...12

2016 Dryland Confection Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Julesburg...13

2016 Dryland Oil Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trial at Genoa...14

Authors

Dr. 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: jerry.johnson@ colostate.edu.

Sally Jones - Research Agronomist - Crops Testing, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-1914, E-mail: sally.jones@colostate.edu.

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: ed.asfeld@colostate.edu. 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: merle.vigil@ars.usda.gov.

Ron Meyer - Extension Agronomist - Golden Plains Area, CSU Extension, 817 15th St., Burlington, CO 80807, Phone: 719-346-5571 ext. 302, E-mail: rf.meyer@colostate.edu.

Kierra Jewell - Administrative Assistant III, CSU Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Phone: 970-491-6201, E-mail: kierra.jewell@colostate.edu.

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.

6

Summary of the 2016 Colorado Sunflower Hybrid Performance Trials

Jerry 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.

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 ft}2 _{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 Limited-Irrigation Oil Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Burlington

Brand Hy brid Oil _Type a Te chno lo gy Traits b 2016 _Yield c 2-Ye ar Av g. Yie ld c Mo isture Te st We ig ht Pl an t He ig ht Po pulatio n Lo dg ing Oil Co nte nt c lb/ac lb/ac pe rce nt lb/bu in plants/ac pe rce nt pe rce nt My co ge n Se eds 8H456CL HO Cle arfie ld, DM 3721 2837 7.0 24.8 70 19,146 1.0 43.8 My co ge n Se eds 8H449CLDM HO Cle arfie ld, DM 3542 2814 6.6 28.7 67 19,228 1.1 44.5 Cro plan 455 E HO HO Ex pre ssSun, DM 3340 -6.9 26.8 68 17,217 16.0 41.2 Cro plan 545 CL NS Cle arfie ld, DM 3328 2835 7.5 26.4 74 17,294 0.0 40.2 Cro plan 553 CL HO HO Cle arfie ld, DM 3270 2570 7.1 28.2 72 16,687 1.9 40.7 Sy ng enta SY79 19 HO Cle arfie ld, DM 3256 -7.1 27.9 62 17,943 1.5 43.6 Nuse ed Sie rra HO N/A 3184 -8.4 26.5 67 20,023 0.0 39.8 Nuse ed Ho rne t HO Cle arfie ld, DM 3034 2415 6.6 28.5 65 17,940 10.1 41.4 Cro plan 549 CL HO HO Cle arfie ld, DM 2942 2385 6.5 28.6 74 18,542 1.6 40.1 Cro plan 432 E NS Ex pre ssSun, DM 2760 2222 6.8 25.9 62 17,139 0.0 38.5 Sy ng enta 3732 NS NS N/A 2508 1981 6.3 27.7 61 20,257 1.7 42.7 Cro plan 458 E HO HO Ex pre ssSun, DM 2356 1569 7.2 26.3 67 18,637 0.8 40.6 Nuse ed N4HM354 HO Cle arfie ld, DM 2240 -6.4 28.4 64 17,022 0.0 41.8 Sy ng enta SY77 17 HO Cle arfie ld, DM 2051 1473 6.4 27.6 59 19,542 0.0 41.6 Nuse ed Day to na HO Cle arfie ld 1879 -7.0 28.2 61 17,892 1.5 40.7 Nuse ed Co balt I I HO Cle arfie ld, DM 1791 -6.4 27.4 59 21,123 0.0 41.5 Average 2825 2310 6.9 27.4 66 18,477 2.3 41.4 d LSD (P< 0.30) 299 d LSD (P< 0.05) 574 Co efficie nt o f Variatio n (%) 14.3 a Oil ty pe de sig natio ns: HO= Hig h o le ic; NS= NuSun/Mid-o le ic. c Yie ld and o il co nte nt we re co rre cte d to 10% m oisture . Plo t size : 5' x 30' Si te Inf orm at io n Co llabo rato r: Ge rhard He intg es Pl an ting Da te : June 4, 2016 Harv est Date : Fe rtilize r: N at 120 lb/ac and P at 40 lb/ac He rbicide : Spar ta n 4F at 3 o z/ ac an d Du al II M ag nu m a t 1. 2 pt/ ac a pp lie d on Ju ne 8 . Inse cticide : Lo

rsban at 1 pt/ac and Lam

bda at 3.8 o z/ac Irrig atio n: Ce nte r-piv ot; pre -wate re d 3 inche s be fo re planting and applie d 2 inche s during g ro wing se aso n So il T ype : Kum a-Ke ith silt lo am Th is tabl e ma y be re pr odu ce d on ly in its en tire ty . 2016 Lim ite d-I rr igati on O il S un flow er H yb ri d P er for m an ce Tr ial at Bu rl in gton b Te chno lo gy trait de sig natio ns: Cle arfie ld= to le rant to Be yo nd he rbicide ; DM= do wny m ilde w re sistance ; Ex pre ssSun= to le rant to Ex pre ss he rbicide ; N/A= no te chno lo gy traits. d If the diffe re nce be twe en two hy brid y ie lds e quals o r e xce eds the LSD v alue , the re is a 70% chance (P< 0.30) o r 95% chance (P< 0.05) the diffe re nce is sig nificant. Octo be r 14, 2016

9

2016 Limited-Irrigation Confection Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Burlington

Br and H yb rid Technol ogy Trai ts a 2016 _Yield b 3-Y ear A vg. Y iel d b Moi stur e Test _Weight Pl ant H ei ght Popul at ion O ve r 24/ 64 O ve r 22/ 64 O ve r 20/ 64 O ve r 16/ 64 lb /a c lb /a c per cent lb /b u in pl ant s/ac Red Riv er C om m odi ties , I nc. RR C 2215 C L Cle arf ie ld 3031 3088 8.3 20.5 80 16,005 18.8 52.4 82.2 98.4 N use ed N 6L M448 Cle arf ie ld 2958 -9.2 18.5 68 12,935 43.2 64.2 84.4 98.2 N use ed 6946 D MR DM 2898 -7.2 22.7 66 14,969 12.6 37.0 71.4 95.8 Red Riv er C om m odi ties , I nc. RR C 8015 N /A 2846 2829 8.1 17.9 70 15,849 16.6 49.2 85.8 98.8 Red Riv er C om m odi ties , I nc. RR C 2215 N /A 2810 2838 7.7 21.6 77 15,527 9.8 38.0 74.2 96.8 Red Riv er C om m odi ties , I nc. RR C 8042 N /A 2798 -9.4 19.4 67 13,971 20.0 45.6 75.8 96.6 Red Riv er C om m odi ties , I nc. RR C 2217 C P Cl ear fiel d P lus 2681 2664 8.4 18.7 72 12,478 37.0 67.2 90.6 98.6 N use ed Pant her D MR DM 2015 -7.8 18.2 62 12,822 23.2 46.8 75.4 95.0 Red Riv er C om m odi ties , I nc. RR C 2205 N /A 2011 -8.1 19.3 66 14,934 25.4 56.8 78.0 96.8 A verage 2672 2855 8.2 19.6 70 14,388 23.0 50.8 79.8 97.2 c LSD (P <0.30) 297 c LSD (P <0.05) 577 Coef fici ent of V ar iat ion ( % ) 14.8 b Y iel ds w er e cor rect ed t o 10% m oi stur e. Pl ot si ze: 5' x 30' Si te I nf orm at ion Col labor at or : G er har d H ei nt ges Pl ant ing D at e: June 4, 2016 H ar ves t D at e: Fe rtiliz er: N at 120 l b/ ac and P at 40 l b/ ac H er bi ci de: Spar tan 4F at 3 oz/ ac and Dual II Ma gnum at 1.2 pt /ac appl ied on J une 8. Inse ct ici de: Lor sba n at 1 pt /ac and L am bda at 3.8 oz/ ac Irr igat ion: Cent er -pi vot ; pr e-w at er ed 3 i nches bef or e pl ant

ing and appl

ied 2 i nches dur ing gr ow ing se as on Soi l Ty pe: K um a-K ei th si lt l oam Thi s t abl e m ay be r epr oduced onl y i n i ts e nt ire ty. O ct ober 14, 2016

2016 Li

m

ite

d-Ir

rigation

Conf

ec

tion

Su

nf

low

er

Hy

br

id

Pe

rf

or

m

an

ce

Trial

at

Bu

rli

ngton

Seed Ret ai ned O ver Scr een per cent a Technol ogy tr ai t des ignat ions: C lear fiel d= tol er ant to B ey ond her bi ci de; C lear fiel d P lus=t ol er ant to B ey ond her bi ci de; N /A =no t echnol ogy tr ai ts. c If t he di ffer ence be tw een t w o hy br id y iel ds e qual s or excee ds t he L SD v al ue, t her e i s a 70% chance (P <0.30) or 95% chance (P <0.05) the di ffer ence i s signi ficant .

10

2016 Irrigated Oil Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Prospect V

alley

Bra nd Hy br id Oil T ype a Te chno lo gy Tra its b 2016 _Yield c M ois tur e Te st W eight Plant Height Po pulatio n Lo dging Oil Co ntent c lb/ ac per cen t lb/ bu in plants /ac per cen t per cen t Pio ne er P63HE 90 HO Ex pr es sS un 3993 8.0 27.8 59 14,907 3.8 39.2 Nus ee d Sierr a HO N/A 3993 16.4 20.5 55 16,768 3.2 37.9 M yco gen S eed s 8H456C L HO Clea rfield, DM 3957 12.9 26.9 56 14,779 7.1 40.0 M yco gen S eed s 8H449C LDM HO Clea rfield, DM 3896 11.4 27.9 60 15,338 1.2 40.5 Nus ee d Ho rne t HO Clea rfield, DM 3643 7.4 26.0 49 14,465 1.1 39.5 Pio ne er P64M E01 NS Ex pr es sS un 3588 11.6 23.3 54 14,802 0.0 35.6 Cr oplan 545 C L NS Clea rfield, DM 3446 13.1 24.6 56 11,582 1.1 36.8 Cr oplan 455 E HO HO Ex pr es sS un, DM 3388 12.4 24.2 55 11,038 0.0 35.6 Sy nge nta 3732 NS NS N/A 3254 7.9 25.3 49 13,990 0.7 40.3 Cr oplan 553 C L HO HO Clea rfield, DM 3066 9.8 25.2 54 11,501 0.0 37.0 Cr oplan 458 E HO HO Ex pr es sS un, DM 2947 8.6 26.1 59 13,564 0.5 39.8 Sy nge nta SY7919 HO Clea rfield, DM 2652 10.6 25.9 45 10,726 1.2 39.3 Pio ne er P63HE 60 HO Ex pr es sS un 2619 7.6 25.4 57 15,911 0.0 39.4 Nus ee d Da yto na HO Clea rfield 2452 8.4 25.4 46 16,261 1.6 38.0 Cr oplan 432 E NS Ex pr es sS un, DM 2128 7.1 24.7 54 10,364 2.3 36.2 Cr oplan 549 C L HO HO Clea rfield, DM 2108 10.9 24.1 60 8,610 5.0 34.5 Nus ee d N4H M 354 HO Clea rfield, DM 2064 9.3 25.4 47 16,258 1.1 39.7 Nus ee d Co ba lt I I HO Clea rfield, DM 1937 7.4 23.6 45 17,511 0.5 37.2 Sy nge nta SY7717 HO Clea rfield, DM 1887 8.5 24.8 47 14,569 1.3 37.9 Ave rage 3001 9.9 25.1 53 13,839 1.7 38.1 d LS D (P <0.30) 422 d LS D (P <0.05) 807 Co ef ficie nt o f Va riatio n ( % ) 19.0 a Oil t ype de signatio ns : HO= High o leic ; NS =N uS un/M id-oleic . c Yie ld and o il c ontent w er e c or re cted to 10% m ois tur e. Plo t s ize : 5' x 30' Sit e I nf or m at ion Co lla bo ra to r: Da vid Rupple Planting Da te: June 3, 2016 Ha rv es t Da te: Fe rtil iz er : Po ult ry m anur e a t 4 t /ac He rbicide : So na lan a t 3 pt /ac , Ins ec tic ide: W ar rio r I I a t 1.3 o z/ac a nd L or sba n a t 0.75 pt /ac a ppli ed Augus t 2. Irr igatio n: Fur ro w -ir rigatio n thr ee ti m es dur ing t he gr ow ing s ea so n So il T ype : Co lby lo am 20 16 Irr ig at ed Oil S un flo w er Hy brid Pe rf orm ance T ria l a t Pro sp ec t Va lley b Te chno lo gy tr ait de signatio ns : Cle ar field=to lerant to B ey ond he rbicide ; DM =do w ny m ilde w re sis tanc e; E xpr es sS un=to lerant to E xpr es s he rbicide ; N/A=no tec hno lo gy tr ait s. d If the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n tw o hy br id y ields e qua ls o r e xc ee ds the L SD v alue, the re is a 70% c ha nc e ( P<0.30) o r 95% c ha nc e ( P<0.05) t he dif fe re nc e is signi fica nt. Oc to be r 17, 2016 This tabl e may be re pr oduc ed only in it s e nti re ty.

11

2016 Irrigated Confection Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Prospect V

alley

Br an d Hy br id Te chnolog y Trai ts a 2016 _Yield b 2-Ye ar Av g. Yie ld b Moi stur e Te st W eig ht Plant Heig ht Population Lodg ing O ve r 24/64 O ve r 22/64 O ve r 20/64 O ve r 16/64 lb/ ac lb/ ac per cen t lb/ bu in plants/ ac per cen t Re d Riv er C om m odit ies, Inc . RR C 8042 N/A 3262 -17. 1 16. 6 37 8, 466 2. 4 61. 4 86. 6 95. 8 97. 4 Re d Riv er C om m odit ies, Inc . RR C 2215 C L Clea rfield 3066 3424 15. 5 20. 0 53 9, 169 11. 0 68. 0 88. 8 94. 8 97. 4 Re d Riv er C om m odit ies, Inc . RR C 2215 N/A 2477 2849 12. 7 20. 5 51 10, 917 6. 5 50. 2 80. 0 94. 2 97. 8 Re d Riv er C om m odit ies, Inc . RR C 8015 N/A 2266 2685 14. 8 17. 9 39 9, 099 4. 8 64. 2 85. 4 94. 4 98. 2 Nuse ed 6946 DMR DM 2201 -12. 0 19. 6 44 7, 801 27. 3 63. 8 85. 2 94. 6 99. 0 Nuse ed N6L M448 Clea rfield 2025 -12. 8 19. 3 48 6, 683 6. 1 58. 4 80. 2 92. 6 97. 6 Nuse ed Pa nther DMR DM 1950 -9. 4 20. 1 48 12, 296 9. 5 32. 0 60. 6 84. 0 97. 8 Re d Riv er C om m odit ies, Inc . RR C 2205 N/A 1943 -12. 9 18. 3 50 10, 504 6. 7 63. 4 82. 6 90. 8 97. 0 Re d Riv er C om m odit ies, Inc . RR C 2217 CP Clea rfield Plus 1705 2641 13. 9 19. 4 42 7, 274 2. 7 64. 6 84. 8 92. 6 98. 4 Av er age 2322 2900 13. 4 19. 1 46 9, 134 8. 5 58. 4 81. 6 92. 6 97. 8 c LS D (P <0. 30) 419 b Yie lds w er e cor re cted to 10% m ois ture . Plot si ze : 5' x 30' Site In for m at ion Coll abor ator: Da vid Rupple Planting Da te: June 3, 2016 Ha rv est Da te: Fer til izer : Poult ry m anur e at 4 t/a c He rbicide : Sona lan at 3 pt/ ac , Inse cti cide: W ar rior II at 1. 3 oz /ac a nd Lor sba n at 0. 75 pt/ ac a ppli ed Aug ust 2. Irr ig ati on: Fur row -irr ig ati on thre e tim es dur ing the gr ow ing se ason Soil Ty pe : Colby loam This tabl e may be re produc ed only in its enti re ty. 20 16 Ir riga te d Co nf ec tio n Su nf low er Hy br id Per fo rm an ce Tr ial at Pr os pe ct V all ey Seed R et ai ned O ver S cr een per cen t a Te chnolog y tra it de sig na tions: C lea rfield= tol er ant to Be yond he rbicide ; C lea rfield Plus =tol er ant to Be yond he rbicide ; N/A= no tec hnolog y tra its. c If the diff er enc e be tw ee n tw o hy br id yields equa ls or e xc ee ds the LS D va lue, ther e is a 70% c ha nc e (P <0. 30) the diff er enc e is sig nific ant. Oc tober 17, 2016

12

12

2016 Dry

land Oil Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Julesburg

Bra nd Hy br id Oil T ype a Te chno lo gy Tra its b 2016 _Yield c M ois tur e Te st W eight Plant Height Po pulatio n Lo dging Oil Co ntent c lb/ ac per cen t lb/ bu in plants /ac per cen t per cen t M yco gen S eed s 8H456C L HO Clea rfield, DM 2021 7.5 28.4 59 12,107 20.8 40.4 Nus ee d Ho rne t HO Clea rfield, DM 1935 6.6 29.2 54 12,452 33.5 -Cr oplan 553 C L HO HO Clea rfield, DM 1778 7.2 30.4 55 13,351 45.7 39.1 Pio ne er P64M E01 NS Ex pr es sS un 1774 8.8 29.2 57 12,379 20.6 36.9 Sy nge nta 3732 NS NS N/A 1765 6.7 30.7 51 12,150 29.7 38.2 Sy nge nta SY7919 HO Clea rfield, DM 1754 7.9 28.6 50 8,695 24.8 37.1 M yco gen S eed s 8H449C LDM HO Clea rfield, DM 1709 7.4 29.4 55 11,991 24.3 39.7 Nus ee d Sierr a HO N/A 1659 9.0 27.6 57 12,449 28.1 36.3 Cr oplan 545 C L NS Clea rfield, DM 1522 6.8 29.6 56 11,129 35.0 38.2 Cr oplan 455 E HO HO Ex pr es sS un, DM 1490 7.7 29.7 53 11,206 40.2 38.9 Pio ne er P63HE 90 HO Ex pr es sS un 1461 8.4 29.2 55 7,850 49.5 36.6 Cr oplan 549 C L HO HO Clea rfield, DM 1424 7.1 29.6 54 14,236 37.6 36.7 Pio ne er P63HE 60 HO Ex pr es sS un 1386 7.0 30.0 52 13,052 37.9 38.3 Cr oplan 458 E HO HO Ex pr es sS un, DM 1358 7.3 28.7 50 12,162 21.6 37.9 Nus ee d Da yto na HO Clea rfield 1343 6.8 28.5 52 12,534 36.8 38.0 Nus ee d N4H M 354 HO Clea rfield, DM 1322 6.5 30.4 54 13,881 34.3 38.2 Cr oplan 432 E NS Ex pr es sS un, DM 1235 6.7 29.4 48 11,166 30.7 35.5 Sy nge nta SY7717 HO Clea rfield, DM 1168 8.0 28.4 50 8,178 29.3 34.9 Nus ee d Co ba lt I I HO Clea rfield, DM 1093 6.5 29.4 47 14,081 30.1 36.6 Ave rage 1537 7.4 29.3 53 11,845 32.1 37.6 d LS D (P <0.30) 187 d LS D (P <0.05) 358 Co ef ficie nt o f Va riatio n ( % ) 16.5 a Oil t ype de signatio ns : HO= High o leic ; NS =N uS un/M id-oleic . c Yie ld and o il c ontent w er e c or re cted to 10% m ois tur e. Plo t s ize : 10' x 31' Sit e I nf or m at ion Co lla bo ra to r: Jo sh L each m an Planting Da te: June 8, 2016 Ha rv es t Da te: Fe rtil iz er : N a t 39 l b/ac a nd P a t 9 l b/ac a t pl anti ng He rbicide : Pr e-plant: S pa rtan a t 4 o z/ac a nd P ro w l at 1.8 pt/ ac So il T ype : Richf ield lo am Tr ial C om m ents : Tr ial w as ha ile d in l ate-J une . S unf lo w er plants re co ve re d de spit e s er io us da m age . 20 16 Dry la nd Oil S un flo w er Hy brid Pe rf orm ance T ria l a t Julesbu rg b Te chno lo gy tr ait de signatio ns : Cle ar field=to lerant to B ey ond he rbicide ; DM =do w ny m ilde w re sis tanc e; E xpr es sS un=to lerant to E xpr es s he rbicide ; N/A=no tec hno lo gy tr ait s. d If the dif fe re nc e be tw ee n tw o hy br id y ields e qua ls o r e xc ee ds the L SD v alue, the re is a 70% c ha nc e ( P<0.30) o r 95% c ha nc e ( P<0.05) t he dif fe re nc e is signi fica nt. Oc to be r 20, 2016 This tabl e may be re pr oduc ed only in it s e nti re ty.

13

2016 Dry

land Confection Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Julesburg

Br an d Hy br id Te chnolog y Trai ts a 2016 _Yield b Moi sture Te st W eig ht Plant Heig ht Population Lodg ing Ove r 24/64 Ove r 22/64 Ove r 20/64 Ove r 16/64 lb/ ac pe rc ent lb/ bu in plants/ ac pe rc ent Nuse ed N6L M448 Clea rfield 2124 17.3 18.1 53 5,154 21.7 15.4 35.2 71.8 94.2 Nuse ed Pa nther DMR DM 1768 9.5 22.9 46 5,842 28.0 59.4 77.0 86.6 94.2 Nuse ed 6946 DMR DM 1737 10.0 22.7 49 5,078 32.2 21.0 40.8 71.6 95.2 Ave rage 1876 12.2 21.2 49 5,358 27.3 31.9 51.0 76.7 94.5 c LS D ( P< 0.30) NS b Yie ld cor re cted to 10% moi sture . Plot siz e: 10' x 31' Coll abora tor: Josh L ea chman Planting Da te: June 8, 2016 Ha rve st Da te: Fe rtili ze r: N a t 39 l b/ac a nd P a t 9 l b/ac a t pl anti ng He rbic ide: Pre -pla nt: S pa rta n a t 4 oz /ac a nd P row l at 1.8 pt/ ac Soil Ty pe : Richf ield loam Tr ial Co mm ents: Tr ial wa s hailed in late -J une . S unflow er pla nts re cove re d de spit e ser ious d amag e.

20

16

Dryla

nd Confection Sunflo

w

er H

ybrid P

erform

ance Tria

l at Jules

burg

Site In for m at ion Oc tober 20, 2016 This t able m ay be reproduc ed only in it s entirety . Se ed Retaine d Ove r Scr ee n pe rc ent a Te chnolog y tra it de sig na tions: C lea rfield= tol era nt t o B ey ond he rbic ide; DM= downy mi ldew re sis tanc e. c NS=Y ields we re not s ig nific antl y diff ere nt fr om ea ch other .

14

2016 Dry

land Oil Sunflow

er Hybrid P

erformance Trial at Genoa

Br an d H yb rid O il Typ e a Te chnol og y Tr aits b Y ie ld c M oi stur e Tes t W ei gh t Pla nt H ei gh t Popul at ion O il Cont ent c lb /a c per cen t lb/ bu in pla nts /a c per cen t M yco gen S eed s 8H 449C LD M HO Cl ear fiel d, D M 2059 5. 3 32. 0 50 10, 091 44. 6 Syn ge nt a 3732 N S NS N/ A 1924 5. 2 29. 9 44 11, 035 41. 5 M yco gen S eed s 8H 456C L HO Cl ear fiel d, D M 1824 5. 1 28. 2 52 11, 398 44. 5 Syn ge nt a SY 7919 HO Cl ear fiel d, D M 1704 5. 8 29. 3 52 6, 582 41. 0 Syn ge nt a SY 7717 HO Cl ear fiel d, D M 1153 5. 2 29. 3 52 10, 019 41. 0 A vera ge 1733 5. 3 29. 7 50 9, 825 42. 5 d LS D (P <0. 30) 231 a Oil ty pe d es ig na tio ns : H O =H ig h ole ic ; N S= N uS un /M id -o le ic . c Yie ld and oi l c ont ent w er e cor re ct ed to 10% m oi stur e. Pl ot si ze : 10' x 31' Si te In for m at ion Col la bor at or : Rob Boy d Pla ntin g D ate : June 8, 2016 H ar ves t D at e: Fe rtiliz er : N a t 50 lb/ ac H er bi ci de: Roundup at 36 oz /a c and Spa rta n Cha rg e at 4 oz /a c Soi l T ype : Fo rt Co llin s-Pla tn er lo am s 20 16 D ry la nd O il S un flo w er H yb ri d P erf orm an ce T ri al a t G en oa d If th e di ffer en ce bet w een tw o hy br id y iel ds eq ual s o r ex ceed s t he LS D v al ue, th er e is a 70 % ch an ce (P <0 .3 0) th e di ffer en ce is sig nif ic an t. b Te chnol og y tra it de sig na tions : C le ar fie ld= tol er ant to Be yond he rbi ci de ; D M =dow ny m ilde w re sis ta nc e; N /A =no te chnol og y Thi s t abl e m ay be re pr oduc ed onl y i n i ts e nt ir et y. N ov em be r 1, 2016

15

Effects of Additional Inputs on Sunflower Production

Ron 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.