1 / 15

Wheat Protein Enhancement with N Intervention: Why the Concern?

Wheat Protein Enhancement with N Intervention: Why the Concern?. B.D. Brown and N.W. Christensen. Treasure Valley HRS Wheat Production Survey - 1999. 13 growers 32 fields Grower reported yield, fertilizer and protein 14 furrow irrigated fields 18 sprinkler irrigated

zorana
Download Presentation

Wheat Protein Enhancement with N Intervention: Why the Concern?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wheat Protein Enhancement with N Intervention: Why the Concern? B.D. Brown and N.W. Christensen

  2. Treasure Valley HRS Wheat Production Survey - 1999 13 growers 32 fields Grower reported yield, fertilizer and protein 14 furrow irrigated fields 18 sprinkler irrigated 10 of the 13 growers applied late season N for protein enhancement

  3. Only 5 of 32 (15%) fields made 14% proteinOnly 11 of 32 (33%) fields made 13% or higher proteinOf those fields over 14%4 were sprinkler irrigated, 1 was furrow irrigated Mean late season N added = 90 kg ha-1 75,72,100,50, 100 Mean lb fertilizer N per bushel = 2.2 lb 2.47, 1.17, 2.40, 2.86, 1.60

  4. Furrow vs Sprinkler Yield Protein furrow 88 11.1% sprinkler 92 13.3% Fall vs Spring Planted HRS8 of 32 (25%) of the fields were fall planted Yield Protein Fall 113 bu/A 11.7% Spring 83 bu/A 12.9%

  5. CenexHarvest States Cooperative Madras, OR 1999 Season Surveying 48 irrigated HRS wheat fields (14 growers) Flag leaf N determined in a commercial lab Protein determined by OSU Cereals Extension

  6. Varieties: 85% Yecora Rojo, 15% Express Previous Crops: Small grains (12) Grass seed (11) Sugarbeets (9) Garlic/carrots (9) Coriander (3) Fallowed (3) Potatoes (1) Preplant N: 100-250 lb/A, mean=195 Irrigation: sprinkled (39) flood (9) Planting dates: March 1 - April 27

  7. Yield: 70-146 bu/A, mean=105 Protein: 11.2-15.7%, mean=13.2 small grains 12.8% grass seed 12.5% sugarbeet 13.5% garlic/carrot 13.9% Flag leaf N: 3.8-5.6%, n=35 small grains 4.69 grass seed 4.73 sugarbeets 4.75 garlic/carrots 4.91

  8. Flag leaf N at heading has not been consistently successful in predicting protein or the protein increase with late season N when used on a commercial scale.

  9. Late season N has increased protein in many studies. But questions linger regarding the quality of the protein increased with late season N intervention.

  10. There is a common perception that late season moisture stress is essential for increasing protein to acceptable levels. Do producers have to sacrifice yield for acceptable protein?

  11. Wheat protein is directly related to available N. But how much N is required to produce both high yields and acceptable protein? Is better N distribution during periods of active utilization all that is needed, or is the requirement for high yield and high protein greater than the N required to just maximize yield?

More Related