manitoba wheat and barley growers association ......m anitoba wheat and barley growers association...

EVALUATING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE SPRING WHEAT PRODUCTION IN MANITOBA | PAGE 4

Highlighting research funded by Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association

WINTER 2019/20 EDITION

MANAGING FUSARIUMHEAD BLIGHT

Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association (MWBGA) continues to build its research program and remains committed to funding research that increases the profitability of Manitoba

spring wheat and barley farmers. Research is at the centre of everything that goes on within the organization, hence the name of this publication, The Focal Point. I, along with the entire board of directors and staff at MWBGA, are excited to finally share this new addition to our communications initiative with you, Manitoba producers. MWBGA is always looking for new ways to showcase to you, and other professionals in the agriculture industry, the great work that we assist in funding and some of the amazing people who make it happen.

We hope that you enjoy this publication and can find ways to utilize the information provided to benefit your farm.

Yours Truly,

Fred Greig MWBGA Chair

Message from the ChairFred Greig - Reston, Manitoba

2 M W B G A F O C A L P O I N T · W I N T E R 2 0 1 9

WELCOME

MWBGA Research in Numbers 2014 - 2019

ResearchProjects

Serving Manitoba wheat and barley

producers

invested in projectsworth over

YEARS43 6$4.92 MILLION

$86.72 MILLION

Connect with us

CONTENTS

3M W B G A F O C A L P O I N T · W I N T E R 2 0 1 9

PROJECT 1 | Managing Fusarium Head Blight Evaluating management strategies to improve spring wheat production in Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4PROJECT 2 | Fusarium Head Blight Resistance Ratings Aren’t Always Enough Post-registration studies provide valuable information for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8PROJECT 3 | On-Farm Network Research Management of lodging in spring wheat with a plant growth regulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10PROJECT 4 | Optimizing Pre-Harvest Sprouting in Malt Barley Addressing the problem to help Manitoba farmers produce better malt-quality barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12PROJECT 5 | A Balancing Act Nitrogen management for high-yielding spring wheat . . . . . . . . . 14PROJECT 6 | Characterizing Fusarium What species are affecting the major crops in Manitoba? . . . . . . 16PROJECT 7 | Genomics for Improved FHB Resistance and Lower DON Strengthening breeding tools for two-row malting barley . . . . . . 18PROJECT 8 | What’s Next? Extremes of Moisture Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

THE FOCAL POINT | WINTER 2019 EDITION

Each project featured in this publication is proudly funded by

Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association

Visit our website to learn more about MWBGA & the research that we fund www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

Twitter: @mbwheatbarley

Instagram: @mbwheatbarley

Facebook: Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association


Managing Fusarium Head BlightEvaluating management strategies to improve spring wheat production in Manitoba

As many producers are aware, Fusarium head blight (FHB) is the most serious fungal disease affecting wheat on the Canadian prairies. This

fungal disease results in noticeable yield losses, mainly due to a reduction in grain quality from Fusarium-dam-aged kernels (FDK) and contamination of grain with the mycotoxin, deoxynivalenol (DON). We currently do not have one fully effective, single control strategy to manage either FHB or mycotoxin contamination in spring wheat. This project evaluated the impact of various seeding rates, cultivar selection and the timing of fungicide application on FHB management. Stud-ies were conducted in Morden and Portage La Prairie, Manitoba from 2016 to 2018. Sixty-three combinations of management practices were evaluated including three Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat cultivars (AAC Brandon, Glenn and Muchmore), three seeding rates (23, 30 and 38 plants/ft.2) and seven fungicide

application treatments (including fungicide for leaf diseases — Twinline).

Fungicide Application Treatments:

F1 – Unsprayed control F2 – Early leaf: (Twinline): Application at flag leaf (Flag leaf ligule and collar visible)F3 – Heading: (Prosaro): Application at 85% of heads

completely emerged from the boot (Zadoks 58, BBCH 59).

F4 – Anthesis: (Prosaro): Application at 75% of heads at 20% – 50% flowering (Zadoks 60-64, BBCH 61-65).

F5 – Early leaf/Anthesis: (Twinline + Prosaro): Appli-cation at flag leaf + Application at 75% of head at 20% – 50% flowering (Zadoks 60-64, BBCH 61-65).

F6 – Heading/Early Milk: (Prosaro + Prosaro): Appli-

SPRING WHEAT

LEAD RESEARCHER: Maria Antonia Henriquez, AAFC, Morden Research and Development CentreCOLLABORATORS: Brent McCallum, Scott Duguid, Oscar Molina, Curtis Cavers and Mohammad Khakbazan


cation at 85% of completely emerged from the boot (Zadoks 58, BBCH 59) + application at 10 days after anthesis (early milk – Zadoks 73, BBCH 73).

F7 – Anthesis/Early Milk: (Prosaro + Prosaro): Application at 75% of head at 20% – 50% flowering (Zadoks 60-64, BBCH 61-65) + Application at 10 days after anthesis (Zadoks 73, BBCH 73).

Trials were irrigated and inoculated with a mixture of four Fusarium graminearum isolates to promote infec-tion. Data collection included plant stand count, FHB incidence and severity, yield, protein content, FDK, TKW and DON content.

FHB Index, FDK, DON Results showed signif-icant fungicide treatment and cultivar effects

on FHB Index, FDK and DON content. Overall, all fungicide treatments showed lower FHB Index, FDK and DON content compared to the unsprayed control, with the exception of the fungicide treatment for leaf diseases at Early leaf (F2). The FHB Index, FDK and DON content was 41% to 50% lower than the unsprayed control when cultivars were treated with fungicide at the Anthesis (F4), Early leaf/Anthesis (F5) and Heading/Early Milk (F6) stages (Figure 1). There was no statistically significant difference among the latest treatments. All cultivars treated with fungicide at the Anthesis/Early Milk (F7) stages showed 61% lower FHB Index, FDK and DON content compared to the unsprayed control. Despite the effectiveness of the treatments at Heading/Early Milk (F6) and Anthesis/Early Milk (F7) stages (two applications of Prosaro) to reduce FHB Index, FDK and DON content, according to the Guide to Field Crop Protection it is only allowed to apply one application of Prosaro per season. Results showed no significant seeding rate effect on FHB

Index, FDK and DON content. However, when plots were seeded at 30 and 38 plants/ft.2, the Index and DON content tend to be lower than plots seeded at 23 plants/ft.2 by 18% and 20% respectively. There was a significant interaction between fungicide treatments and seeding rate affecting FHB Index, FDK and DON content. Overall, when plots were seeded at 30 and 38 plants/ft.2, the FHB Index was similar between the fun-gicide treatments at Anthesis (F4), Early leaf/Anthesis (F5) and Heading/Early Milk (F6). However, when plots were seeded to 23 plants/ft.2, the fungicide treatments at Heading (F3), Anthesis (F4) and Early leaf/Anthesis (F5) were similar (Figure 2). In addition, there were no significant differences in FHB Index between plots treated at the Anthesis/Early Milk (F7) and Early leaf/Anthesis (F5) stages at 30 plants/ft.2. Also, plots seeded to 30 and 38 plants/ft.2 and treated at Anthesis (F4) and the Anthesis/Early Milk (F7) stages showed similar DON content.

Regardless of fungicide treatment or seeding rate, AAC Brandon and Glenn showed similar FHB Index, FDK and DON content. On the other hand, the FHB Index, FDK and DON content was 50% higher in Muchmore than AAC Brandon and Glenn.

Yield: Results showed no significant seeding rate effects in yield. In fact, regardless of seeding rate, the fungicide treatment and cultivar influenced yield. Also, there was no significant interaction between the seed-ing rate, cultivar and the fungicide treatment. This study found that yield was similar to the unsprayed control for the fungicide treatments at Early Leaf (F2), Heading (F3) and Anthesis (F4). However, the fungicides at the Early leaf/Anthesis (F5), Heading/Early Milk (F6) and Anthesis/Early Milk (F7) stages increased the yield by up to six bu./ac. compared to the unsprayed control (Figure 1). Continues on next page »

Figure 1. The effect of fungicide treatments in deoxynivalenol (DON) content and yield. *Different letters above bars indicate statistically significant differences among treatments.

DO

N (

pp

m)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FHB

23 (Plants/Sq.ft)

AAC Brandon GlennCultivar

Muchmore

25

25

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5

0

P<0.001

30 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Seeding Rates

38 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

F1

a

a

ab

bc

bb

a

cd dcd

e

aa

ab

b

c c c

d

a

b

ccd

c

d

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14ab

b

c c c

d

Yie

ld (

pp

m)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7F1

b

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

b

ab aba a

a

Yie

ld (

bu

c/a

c)


Muchmore

85

90

80

75

70

65

60

aa

b

DO

N (

pp

m)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FHB

23 (Plants/Sq.ft)


Muchmore

25

25

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5

0

P<0.001

30 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Seeding Rates

38 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7


F1

a

a

ab

bc

bb

a

cd dcd

e

aa

ab

b

c c c

d

a

b

ccd

c

d

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14ab

b

c c c

d

Yie

ld (

pp

m)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7F1

b

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

b

ab aba a

a

Yie

ld (

bu

c/a

c)


Muchmore

85

90

80

75

70

65

60

aa

b


Managing Fusarium Head Blight Continued

DO

N (

pp

m)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FHB

23 (Plants/Sq.ft)


Muchmore

25

25

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5

0

P<0.001

30 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Seeding Rates

38 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7


F1

a

a

ab

bc

bb

a

cd dcd

e

aa

ab

b

c c c

d

a

b

ccd

c

d

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14ab

b

c c c

d

Yie

ld (

pp

m)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7F1

b

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

b

ab aba a

a

Yie

ld (

bu

c/a

c)


Muchmore

85

90

80

75

70

65

60

aa

b

DO

N (

pp

m)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FHB

23 (Plants/Sq.ft)


Muchmore

25

25

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5

0

P<0.001

30 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Seeding Rates

38 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7


F1

a

a

ab

bc

bb

a

cd dcd

e

aa

ab

b

c c c

d

a

b

ccd

c

d

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14ab

b

c c c

d

Yie

ld (

pp

m)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7F1

b

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

b

ab aba a

a

Yie

ld (

bu

c/a

c)


Muchmore

85

90

80

75

70

65

60

aa

b

DO

N (

pp

m)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FH

B I

nd

ex (

%)

FHB

23 (Plants/Sq.ft)


Muchmore

25

25

20

15

10

5

0

20

15

10

5

0

P<0.001

30 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Seeding Rates

38 (Plants/Sq.ft)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7


F1

a

a

ab

bc

bb

a

cd dcd

e

aa

ab

b

c c c

d

a

b

ccd

c

d

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14ab

b

c c c

d

Yie

ld (

pp

m)

Fungicides

F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7F1

b

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

b

ab aba a

a

Yie

ld (

bu

c/a

c)


Muchmore

85

90

80

75

70

65

60

aa

b

Figure 2. Interaction between fungicide treatments and seeding rate affecting FHB Index. *Different letters above bars indicate statistically significant differences among treatments.

Figure 1. Response of different wheat cultivars to artificial Fusarium graminearum inoculation. *Different letters above bars indicate statistically significant differences among treatments.

SPRING WHEAT

Dr. Maria Antonia Henriquez is a wheat pathologist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) stationed at the Morden Research and Development Centre (MRDC). She has more than 18 years of research experience in the area of plant pathology. Maria Antonia's research program strives to find innovative and sustainable technologies to enhance genetic resistance and management strategies for fusarium head blight (FHB) and leaf spot diseases in spring wheat and winter wheat.

RESEARCHER PROFILE

Maria Antonia Henriquez


On Your FarmMany approaches must be taken to manage fusarium risk for your crop

There is currently no fully effective single control strategy for growers to manage either Fusarium head blight (FHB) or

mycotoxin contamination in spring wheat. There is evidence that a combination of prac-tices including crop rotation, tillage, cultivar selection, fungicide use and application timing, reduce FDK and DON levels in an additive manner. In addition, recent advances in FHB modeling and disease prediction should help growers to assess the disease risk during the growing season and consequently deter-mine the need for fungicide application. The impact of seeding rates, cultivar selection and the timing of fungicide application for FHB management was illustrated in research done by AAFC. Field trials were conducted under artificial inoculation from 2016 to 2018 at two sites in Manitoba. The researchers looked at three spring wheat cultivars with different FHB resistance ratings, and the impact of seeding rates and fungicide treatments on FHB and yield. In the research, Maria Antonia Henriquez and colleagues from AAFC includ-ing Brent McCallum, Scott Duguid, Oscar Molina, Curtis Cavers and Mohammad Khak-bazan found that under higher FHB pressure AAC Brandon and Glenn had superior FHB resistance (low FHB index) with reduced FDK

and DON levels, and higher yield. Brandon is rated Moderately Resistant and Glenn is rated as Intermediate. The susceptible cultivar Muchmore had higher FHB index, FDK and DON content and lower yield. Additionally, the commonly used timing for fungicide application by growers at the anthe-sis growth stage, as well as at flag leaf and anthesis growth stages, generally produced lower FHB index, FDK and DON content com-pared to the unsprayed control in all seeding rates. The fungicide treatment at anthesis showed similar yield to the unsprayed control. Nevertheless, the fungicide treatment at flag leaf and anthesis growth stage showed higher yield than the unsprayed control. For wheat growers, selecting a cultivar with good FHB-resistance is the first step in managing FHB, along with managing the crop as per their normal best management practices, and following the Guide to Field Crop Protection.

To learn more about this project, Integrated Strategies for Fusarium

Head Blight Management in Spring Wheat in Manitoba, and more projects regarding FHB visit the research section on MWBGA’s website www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

FD

K (

%)

an

d D

ON

(p

pm

) L

ev

els

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

560Z

HR (M

R)56

0HR (

MR)

AAC B

RAND

ON (M

R)AA

C CON

NERY

(MR)

CARB

ERRY

(MR)

CARD

ALE (

MR)

CDC P

LENT

IFUL (

MR)

CDC T

ITANI

UM VB

(MR)

CDC V

R MOR

RIS (M

R)CO

LEMA

N (M

R)SY

433 (

MR)

SY63

7 (MR

)WA

SKAD

A (M

R)W

R859

CL (M

R)56

03HR

(I)

5604

HR CL

(I)

AAC B

AILE

Y (I)

AAC C

AMER

ON VB

(I)

AAC E

LIE (I

)AA

C JAT

HARIA

VB (I

)AA

C PRE

VAIL

VB (I

)AA

C RED

BERR

Y (I)

AAC R

EDWA

TER (

I)AA

C VIEW

FIELD

(I)

AAC W

1876 (

I)AC

BARR

IE (I)

CDC B

RADW

ELL (

I)CD

C KER

NEN

(I)CD

C LAN

DMAR

K (I)

FIELD

STAR

VB (I

)GL

ENN

(I)KA

NE (I

)SY

SLAT

E (I)

SY47

9 VB (

I)TH

ORSB

Y (I)

UNITY

VB (I

)VE

SPER

VB (I

)

FDK DON


Fusarium Head Blight Resistance Ratings Aren’t Always EnoughPost-registration studies provide valuable information for producers

The top five varieties of Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat, by acreage planted in Manitoba this year (2019), made up more than 90% of the total wheat acres

(2.7 million acres). Each of these varieties were rated as either moderately resistant (MR) or intermediate (I) with respect to their Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) reaction. Two of these varieties have only had two or three years of commercial production. Varieties are assigned a disease rating in Seed Manitoba based on three years of pre-registration testing where the levels of fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) and deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation are used. In Manitoba, the data for this study was generated after a variety is supported for registration by testing the varieties at a dozen sites via the Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Trials (MCVET). FHB infection is assessed based on FDK and DON accumulation in harvest samples collected from the various MCVET locations. As Manitoba producers can attest, we’ve just been through three consecutive drier summers (2017-19) where the average incidence of FHB has been quite low. Is that a fair test? In a word, yes. Such testing has been catalogued since this study was initiated in 2009, so it also includes data from a number of years in which the FHB pressure was much higher.

Your spring wheat check-off dollars contribute to the ongoing evaluation of resistance to FHB before and after registration. As new varieties become available to Manitoba farmers, this is vital data to mitigate the economic impact of FHB. The variety AAC Viewfield had a higher level of DON than its Intermediate FHB rating should predict. However, it has only had two seasons in commercial production.

WHEAT

David Kaminski – Field Crop Pathologist, Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development

Figure 1. Average Fusarium damaged kernel (FDK) and deoxynivalenol (DON) levels of Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat varieties rated moderately resistant (MR) or intermediate (I) for Fusarium head blight (FHB)

• Varieties with better FHB ratings usually result in lower fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) and mycotoxin (DON) levels, despite year-to-year variability, than varieties rated MS (moderately susceptible) or S (susceptible).

• DON level might be more reflective of genetic resistance, yet FDK remains the grading standard.

• In other classes of spring wheat (e.g. Canada Prairie Spring, Canada Western Special Purpose, etc.), the correlation of resistance rating and FHB incidence is not as clear – more site years of data collection are needed.

Here are some key findings that came out of MCVET:

SPRING WHEAT

On Your Farm


The Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team (MCVET) committee is made up of representatives from the seed industry including producers, plant breeders, researchers, agronomists, and commodity associations. They facilitate variety evaluations of many different crop types in this province and serve as an independent third-party crop variety evaluation program for producers and the seed industry in Manitoba. MCVET strives to provide producers with the most recent yield data available not only in their own growing region but throughout the whole province.

Holly Derksen – former Field Crop Pathologist at Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development

How heavily do growers lean on varietal resistance of wheat in dealing with FHB?

When it comes to managing FHB, no grower has ever thought, “I wish I had less information.” When a

grower selects what variety to grow, many traits can influence his or her decision including protein, height, lodging resistance, and resistance to a variety of diseases. The objective of this study was not to replace the ratings the varieties receive through the regis-tration process, but rather to provide produc-ers with supplemental information regarding the FHB resistance ratings in spring wheat varieties after they were registered.

The ratings presented in Seed Manitoba are based on three years of rigorous testing which MWBGA provides funding towards. In the reg-istration system, plants are grown in “ideal” conditions for FHB infection. During these tests, plants are inoculated with the disease at the optimum timing and grown under irriga-tion to ensure conditions remain conducive for infection. Pathologists and industry experts assign the disease ratings after review of the extensive dataset at the annual Prairie Grain Development Committee (PGDC) meetings.

The data from MCVET is dependent on natural infection where conditions can vary greatly from location to location and from day to day. These “natural” conditions lead to other variables coming into play, variables you are more likely to experience on your farm, such as flowering timing or midge resistance. Another factor that contributes to FHB risk is the crop

stage. A variety that flowers two or three days later than a neighbouring variety may be at a higher or lower risk for FHB infection based on the weather conditions at the time of flowering. In addition, it is common for midge-resistant varieties to show a stronger resistant response to FHB under natural (un-inoculated) field con-ditions as the midge is thought to contribute to the spread of FHB.

While the main objective of this study was to compare varieties, it has also shed some light on the relationship between DON and FDK levels. Grain in Canada is graded on level of FDK in a sample, but almost all buyers have a limit on the allowable level of DON they will accept. While this relationship is some-times considered to be one-to-one, this is not always the case. If looking at individual years of data from this study, more often than not, average FDK are slightly higher than average DON levels, but there are years where the opposite is true. In addition, the relationship between these two measurements is not always highly correlated, so a formula cannot be used to predict DON based on the level of FDK in a sample and vice versa.

RESEARCH PROFILE

Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team

You can find more information on MCVET in the research section on MWBGA’s

website: www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

To access information from Seed Manitoba, visit www.seedmb.ca


On-Farm Network ResearchManagement of lodging in spring wheat with a plant growth regulator

Lodging is a major wheat production issue, especially in high-yielding environments. Yield losses can range from five to 40%, with the greatest losses when lodging occurs

ten days to two weeks following head emergence. Lodging can be managed through variety selection and agronomics. Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are a management tool that may be used to reduce lodging. PGRs are synthetic compounds that alter hormonal activity to modify plant growth and development. PGRs are used to improve crop standability and harvestability, as they are intended to produce shorter, thicker and stronger stems. The response to PGRs depends on the crop type and variety, PGR type, application timing and weather conditions. While PGRs may be a good fit for producers targeting high yields, more information is needed about their effects.

An on-farm research project was conducted in 2018 and 2019 to quantify the impact of the plant growth regulator Manipulator 620 (chlormequat chloride) on height and yield of spring wheat. While other PGRs are registered for use on wheat in Canada, Manipulator 620 is most commonly used due to its wide application window.

Participating farmers planted a Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) or Canada Northern Hard Red (CNHR) spring wheat variety and managed the crop as per their normal management practices. Maniuplator 620 was sprayed at the recommended rate and timing; growth stage 31 to 32

(early stem elongation, the one to two-node stage), on four strips, alternating with four untreated strips. To ensure an accurate yield from each strip, the strips were the full length of the field and wide enough to allow for a full pass with the combine header. Stand establishment, plant height, lodging, crop maturity and yield data were collected for each strip. Ten farms participated in 2018 and 13 participated in 2019. In both years of the study lodging wasn’t a major issue.

Plant Height Manipulator 620 reduced plant height by an average of 8 cm in 2018 and 5 cm in 2019. In 2018, the

height decrease ranged from four to 11 cm at the ten locations. In 2019, the height decrease ranged from 3 to 9 cm at twelve locations. One location showed no height difference between treated and untreated strips.

Yield There were no significant yield differences between treated and untreated strips at eight of the ten locations

in 2018. Manipulator 620 application resulted in yield increases of 3 and 7 bushels per acre, respectively, at location 2 and 9 in 2018 (Figure 1). In 2019, yield was not significantly different between treated and untreated strips at 9 of the 13 locations. Manipulator 620 application resulted in yield increases of 3.2 to 3.6 bushels per acre at sites 2, 8, and 10, and a yield decrease of 2 bushels per acre at site 7 (Figure 2).

SPRING WHEAT

Réjean Picard – Farm Production Extension Specialist – Cereals, Manitoba Agriculture and Resource DevelopmentAnne Kirk – Cereal Crop Specialist, Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development

Yie

ld (

bu

/ac)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Treated*

*

Untreated

110

2018

-01

2018

-02

2018

-03

2018

-04

2018

-05

2018

-06

2018

-07

2018

-08

2018

-10

2018

-09

Figure 1. Impact of PGR application on spring wheat yield at 10 on-farm locations in 2018. Statistically significant differences are indicated by an Asterix (P>0.05).

On Your Farm


Rejean Picard is the Farm Production Extension Specialist serving on the Cereal Grains Team for Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development Specialist for Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development.

Where do plant growth regulators fit in wheat production?

Profitability of wheat is linked to yield which in turn depends on nutrient inputs like nitrogen that can contribute to

lodging, a yield-limiting factor. Split nitrogen applications, the use of shorter strong-strawed varieties and the use of PGRs can help avoid those yield losses. PGRs can help protect yield potential and aid in harvestability.

The on-farm research trials showed no benefit to PGR application at most locations; however, lodging was not an issue in either year of the on-farm trial. If lodging had been an issue, a positive yield response to PGR application may have been expected at more locations.

It is difficult to predict if a PGR application will be beneficial since response to PGRs depends on crop type and variety, PGR type, application timing and environmental conditions. Studies have shown that not all wheat cultivars have similar height and yield responses to PGRs. At this point not enough research has been conducted to give cultivar specific recommendations for PGR application.

If you want to try a PGR on your farm, application timing at the proper growth staging is critical. The ideal time to apply Manipulator 620 is from the beginning of stem elongation until the two-node stage (growth stage 30-32). In order to properly stage wheat, pull plants from the ground and remove tillers so that staging is based on the main stem. The developing nodes can be seen by cutting the stem lengthwise (Figure 3). Plant growth regulators should not be used under stressful environmental conditions.

PGRs will not be necessary or economical on every acre every year. Fields that have the best chance of benefiting from PGR application are those with a high yield potential, have high fertility and are most prone to lodging. Keep in mind that PGRs are just one tool to manage lodging. Lodging can also be managed through variety selection, nitrogen management and plant density.

RESEARCHER PROFILES

Yie

ld (

bu

/ac)

201

30

40

50

60

70

80Treated Untreated

90

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

*

*

*

To learn more about this project, Management of Lodging in Spring

Wheat With a Plant Growth Regulator, and more projects regarding PGRs visit the research section on MWBGA’s website www.mbwheatandbarley.ca.

Figure 2. Impact of PGR application on spring wheat yield at 13 on-farm locations in 2019. Statistically significant differences are indicated by an Asterix (P>0.05).

Figure 3. Growth stage 31, first node is indicated by arrow. Photo credit: Amy Mangin, University of Manitoba.

Anne Kirk works as the Cereal Crop Specialist for Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development.


Optimizing Pre-Harvest Sprouting in Malt BarleyAddressing the problem to help Manitoba farmers produce better malt-quality barley

Malting barley is an important crop in Manitoba and Western Canada. Like many other crops, weather-related factors such as preharvest sprouting (PHS) can

unfortunately significantly affect the crop’s yield and quality. PHS, also known as field sprouting, refers to the germination of barley grains while they are on the spike under wet summer or fall conditions.

The quality of malting barley grains is of great significance to maltsters. When grains have sprouted they are rated as poor quality for malting. Therefore, they are sold into the feed market for a lower price, leading to substantial economic loss to the producers. PHS is controlled by the level of dormancy present in the barley grains. Dormant grains are resistant to field sprouting while less dormant grains are susceptible to sprouting. However, too much dormancy is not desirable for malting either, as this does not allow for the grains to germinate readily and uniformly after harvest. Because of this, maintaining an optimum balance between germination and dormancy is paramount for developing successful malting barley cultivars.

To mitigate the problem of PHS in malt barley, our research project, Optimizing Pre-Harvest Sprouting Tolerance in Malting Barley, is aimed at generating genomic tools that can facilitate the breeding of malting barley cultivars with an optimized level of dormancy. This project is mainly focused on plant hormones, compounds produced by plants like those that we

consume everyday such as starch and proteins. However, these compounds are produced at small quantity and have powerful effects in controlling plant developmental processes such as germination or sprouting and the level of dormancy in cereal grains. The specific focus of this project is on two types of plant hormones, namely gibberellins (GA) and abscisic acid (ABA). Both play critical roles in controlling dormancy and germination. GA promotes germination/sprouting whereas ABA inhibits germination or promotes dormancy/resistance to sprouting. The balance between these two hormones is crucial for maintaining an optimal level of dormancy in malting barley grains.

A recent finding has shown that malting barley grains with high ABA content are more dormant and do not germinate readily even if optimal germination conditions, such as sufficient moisture, are available (Figure 1). Those containing a lower amount of ABA are less dormant and can germinate easily as long as they are exposed to optimal conditions. Using the ABA related molecular elements identified through our studies, my research team, in collaboration with Dr. Ana Badea of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada-Brandon Research and Development Center, is currently screening barley germplasm lines to identify candidates with an optimized level of dormancy and incorporate this trait into the elite malting barley lines.

BARLEY

Dr. Belay Ayele – Associate Professor, Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba

Germination %

AB

A m

ark

er

leve

l

00 20 40 60 80 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

y = -0.007x+ 0.8933R2 = 0.809

Figure 1. Germination percentage and ABA marker level in different malting barley lines. Malting barley grains with high level of ABA germinate less while those with lower level germinate readily.

Malt barley shortly after it had been removed from the steeping vessel, beginning the malting process. The next step is the germination vessel, where it is important that the malt barley is not too dormant and will germinate.

On Your Farm


Dr. Belay Ayele is an Associate Professor in the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba. His research program is focused on investigating plant hormones, also known as plant growth regulators (PGRs), with respect to their roles in enhancing yield and adaptation to a changing environment of cereal crops, mainly wheat and barley, that are important to Manitoba.

New varieties can help

Varieties that will be developed from this research will be beneficial to Manitoba producers because they will allow

producers to grow higher quality malt barley with less risk of PHS, a major challenge that currently exists. When malting barley grain sprouts in the field prior to harvest, this causes the grain to uptake more water during steeping. This may contribute to the formation of mold and consequent reduction in malt quality. Sprouted grains lose their viability rapidly to unacceptable levels during storage. All these factors contribute to a significant decrease in grain yield and quality. Therefore, the economic impact of PHS has been widely recognized by Manitoban malting barley producers. As a result of this, malting barley producers are constantly seeking cultivars with an optimal level of dormancy that can prevent field sprouting and at the same time allow the grains to germinate rapidly after harvest.

Improving PHS tolerance of malting barley has been the focus of barley research programs but most of the previous efforts used conventional breeding approaches. Since field sprouting represents a complex trait, the development of malting barley cultivars with enhanced tolerance to field sprouting using such strategies has been very difficult. Using the recently available barley genomic resources and collaborating closely with Dr. Ana Badea, we hope to develop

genomic tools that can speed up malting barley breeding for optimal dormancy in order to mitigate the risk of sprouting damage without hampering the post-harvest rapid germination characteristics required for the malting process. The genomic tools produced by this research can be deployed directly into the barley breeding program to develop malting barley cultivars with a desired level of dormancy. Making these varieties available to producers will enable producers, who choose to grow malting barley in Manitoba, to provide high quality and high value malting barley to both domestic and international markets. To reduce your risk of PHS and improve your malting barley quality, seek out varieties that have an optimal level of dormancy.

RESEARCHER PROFILE

Dr. Belay Ayele

To learn more about this project, Optimizing Pre-Harvest Sprouting Tolerance in Malting Barley, and other

research projects done by Dr. Ayele, visit the research section on MWBGA’s website www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

To access more information about malting barley varieties available, consult:

Seed Manitoba – www.seedmb.ca

Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre – www.cmbtc.com


A Balancing ActNitrogen management for high-yielding spring wheat

High yielding spring wheat is possible today in Manitoba due to improved genetics, technologies and favourable weather. Although these new varieties are great for farm-

ers, this high yielding wheat often lacks sufficient protein content and fails to meet market standards, leading to discounted prices. To act in addressing the protein consistency challenge, a two-year, on-farm project was undertaken by about two dozen committed Manitoba farmers to use nitrogen as a management tool. The basic premise of this project focused on improved nitrogen management — a key factor in yield production and critical in protein concentration. The three strategies evaluated can be referred to as: “brute force,” “enhanced source” and “last-ditch-nitrogen” manipulation. During these test years of 2016-17, rainfall was generous (9.4 to 16.6" growing season rain-fall) and 17 of the 30 sites actually had yields limited by excess wetness and/or lodging issues.

Twelve on-farm tests that were evaluated were evidently using the first strategy, otherwise known as “brute force” — applying an additional 30 to 60 lbs. N/ac. above the grower’s normal base rate, either at or shortly following seeding. The results that are shown in Figure 1 indicate that on average, the grower’s base N rate was suitable for the full yield available and did not impact protein. The only statistically significant results across these 12 sites were a single increase in yield (3 bu./ac.), a single increase in protein (0.2%) and increased lodging at two sites.

The second strategy, enhanced source N (ESN) test evalu-ated a 40-50% blend of applied nitrogen in the form of ESN (44-0-0) in anticipation that it would protect against losses of early season N and release some N later in the growing season to match protein accumulation. At three sites, the ESN blend had numerically higher yields (78.7 versus 76.4 bu./ac.) but these findings were not statistically significant and protein was 13.3 versus 13.1% with a statistical difference at one site. The eco-nomic return resulting from ESN use was greatest on the wetter, clay site which saw a slight yield benefit and a protein increase of 0.4%.

The third strategy was “last-ditch-N.” This entailed using the post anthesis nitrogen (PAN) application of 30 lbs. N/ac. as UAN solution, diluted 50:50 with water and sprayed on the plant some 7-10 days after anthesis. So as long as applications were made in the early morning or evening, the burn of the flagleaf was limited to 5-15% and yields were not affected. Pro-tein was significantly increased at 9 of the 15 sites with an aver-age increase of 0.6% for Canada Northern Hard Red (CNHR), 0.4% for Canadian Western Red Spring (CWRS) and 0.3% for Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) classes. With the prevailing wheat price and protein premiums in February 2018, only 2 of the sites

had a profitable response. At these sites, protein increased by between 1-1.5%. The boost of 1.5% protein resulted when a mod-estly fertilized CNHR crop produced 87 bu./ac. of 10.9% protein with 136 lbs. N/ac. (fertilizer & soil N).

In summary, responses to increased nitrogen management were limited because:• many growers were already applying base N rates sufficient

to match N requirements for the yields produced (Figure 2);• in many instances, excess moisture restricted yield potential

and promoted lodging — which was not controlled with PGRs;• economics were rarely positive since yields and/or protein

was not sufficiently increased. The results agreed well with the intensive research sites

which found an economically optimum nitrogen requirement of about 2 lbs. N/bu. of yield potential produced.

SPRING WHEAT

John Heard – Crop Nutrition Specialist, Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development

Figure 2. Summary of average nitrogen requirement at test sites.

Figure 1. Additional nitrogen impact on yield, protein and profitability (based on February 2017 wheat and protein values and nitrogen at $0.50/lb)

CNHR (16 sites)

CWRS (10 sites)

CPS (3 sites)

FP (1 site)

Fertilizer and Soil N supply (lb N/ac)

158 135 127 135

Yield bu/ac 72 70 72 85

Protein % 13.8 14.3 13.8 11.9

N required per bu (range)

2.3 (1.4-3.1)

2.0 (1.7-2.3)

1.7 (1.5-1.9)

1.6

Yie

ld (

bu

/ac),

Pro

tein

%, R

etu

rns

$/a

c

Average Wheat Response to Increased N

-60

Yield CNRS Yield CWRS Protein CNRS Protein CWRS

$ Return CNRS $ Return CWRS

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100Base rate & 30N & 60N

AVERAGE NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS

On Your Farm


Amy Mangin — Ph.D. Candidate, University of Manitoba

Optimizing nitrogen fertilizer

An intensive small plot study was completed during the 2016-17 growing seasons to evaluate nitrogen

management strategies for high-yielding spring wheat in Manitoba.

Research questions of this study included:1. How much N do the current spring wheat

varieties require to reach economic optimum?

2. Can we increase the efficiency of N fertilizer applied by altering the N source and timing of application?

3. Can we estimate the amount of organic soil N that will be released to the crop by mineralization during the growing season?

4. Can we estimate N sufficiency for yield and protein during the growing season?

5. Can post-harvest soil NO3-N tests be used to “audit” N budgets?

Take home messages from this study were:• Average total supply of N (spring soil NO3-N

+ fertilizer) required to obtain economic optimum yield and protein was 2 lbs. N/bu. grain yield;

• ESN blends had no advantage over conventional urea (midrow banded);

• In-season applications of N resulted in similar or increased yield, plus increased protein content, compared to similar rates applied entirely at planting;

• Post-anthesis application of 30 lbs. N/ac. increased protein content by 1.1 to 1.8%; urea solution produced greater yield and protein content compared to UAN;

• Growing season soil N mineralization is extremely difficult to predict due to variability in environmental conditions and management history;

• GreenSeeker (NDVI) and SPAD (Chlorophyll Meter) were relatively reliable predictors of grain yield across varieties and site-years, especially at flag leaf or anthesis;

• Post-harvest soil NO3-N levels >60 lbs./ac. indicated N supply was greater than needed for economic optimum yield and protein content.

RESEARCHER PROFILES

For more detail including experimental treatments and data collection/analysis

refer to the Optimum Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Strategies for High-Yielding Spring Wheat final project report in the research section on MWBGA’s website www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

John Heard works as the Crop Nutrition Specialist for Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development. John is a proud Certified Crop Advisor (CAA) and was recognized as International CCA of the Year in 2014.

Amy Mangin is currently completing her Ph.D. program, focussed on spring wheat agronomy, with Dr. Yvonne Lawley and Dr. Don Flaten at the University of Manitoba.

Dr. Don Flaten is a professor in the Department of Soil Science at the University of Manitoba, where he specializes in crop nutrition and nutrient management teaching and research, with a focus on agricultural phosphorous management from agronomic and environmental points of view.

Amy Mangin speaking with a Crops-a-Palooza 2019 attendee at MWBGA’s station, What You Need to Know About Managing Your High-Yielding Spring Wheat”


Characterizing FusariumWhat species are affecting the major crops in Manitoba?

Most producers have heard the word “Fusarium,” and for those whose crop production has suffered from a serious Fusarium issue in the past, this word comes as

a chilling gust to the ear. Fusarium is a fungus that is widely distributed in soil with a tremendous number of species, most of which are actually harmless. However, there are Fusarium species that cause some of the most important diseases to crops, as well as a few others that can cause health issues to humans and animals.

A well-known plant disease caused by Fusarium is the Panama disease of bananas, which is currently making the news. There are fears that this disease could wipe out banana production in Latin America. A scary thought! Who can imagine a world without bananas? Another example that is much closer to home is Fusarium Head Blight (FHB). FHB affects cereal crops. It is a big deal when the Fusarium toxin is present in grains because it directly affects the humans and animals that consume them. In Manitoba, besides FHB of cereals, pathogenic Fusarium species have also been causing headaches for pro-ducers, and not only for cereals. For instance, soybean produc-tion in Manitoba has been consistently suffering from root rots caused by a complex group of soil-borne Fusarium species.

Before producers can properly deal with these pathogens, there is still a multitude of questions to be answered about the life of these fungi in the soil in the vicinity of plant roots, how they interact with them and even how they are able to move from one plant species to another while causing differ-ent degrees of damage. One recent intriguing fact has been to isolate the same Fusarium that causes FHB in cereals (F. graminearum) from soybean roots. This raised several ques-tions: does it cause disease in soybeans and does it produce toxins in this crop?; Does it use soybeans as an alternative host during rotations?; Do the other Fusarium species involved in FHB (F. avenaceum, F. poae) have the same ability to cross-in-fect other economic crops? Answering “yes” to any of these questions would make cereal, soybean and pulse crop produc-ers extremely worried.

We decided to start a project with the purpose of investigating these questions. The results showed that the tested Fusarium strains that infect wheat, barley and/or oats, where they cause FHB, can also cause severe root rot symptoms in soybeans. The project also allowed us to fine-tune the methods used to inoc-ulate Fusarium with soybean plants for research purposes. This provided a standardized inoculation method which will make future research on this topic much easier. The next objective was to tackle the competitiveness of these different Fusarium species in the presence of these crops. In other words, are fungal strains from wheat more competitive in infecting soybeans and

vice versa? We found that Fusarium strains isolated from wheat inhibited the growth of those isolated from barley, peas or soy-beans, which may in part explain why F. graminearum was found in soybean roots in the first place.

While working on the different aspects of this project, our lab also published the first report ever of F. cerealis, causing root rots on soybean. We also developed a DNA-based protocol to specifically differentiate F. graminearum from other close species involved in FHB and root rot diseases.

CEREALS

Dr. Fouad Daayf – Professor & Head, Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba


Dr. Fouad Daayf is a Professor of Plant Pathology and Head of the Department of Plant Science at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Daayf’s research interests include molecular mechanisms of plant-microbe interactions, including plant defense and pathogen counter-defense, mechanisms of biological control of plant diseases, role of secondary metabolites in plant defense and defense signaling, role of microbial inducers and suppressors in plant induced disease resistance and susceptibility.

Dr. Daayf currently works on both basic and applied aspects of potato late blight and verticillium wilt, as well as on Goss's wilt of corn and soybean diseases.

The tested Fusarium strains that infect wheat, barley and/or oats, where they cause FHB, can also cause severe root rot

symptoms in soybeans. Many Fusarium species can infect a range of plant species, not only one single crop. Fusarium is a very common soil-borne fungus, with more than 10 species that have the potential to cause root rot in soy-beans making it more difficult to find rotation crops that are immune to them.

Knowing the enemy that can cause disease in a crop or produce mycotoxins becomes an important tool in the fight against these patho-genic microbes. Mycotoxins can be produced by many of the tested Fusarium species and can end up in the harvested grain. They are harmful to humans and farm animals, compro-mising both productivity and health. The ability to specifically differentiate F. graminearum from other Fusarium species such as F. poae and F. avenaceum will provide more accurate

information to develop better disease manage-ment recommendations.

Current and further advancements in screening for mycotoxin production in crops other than cereals will provide farmers and industry with valuable information about mycotoxins and their impact on the production process, thereby mitigating the risks related to mycotoxins in general. The ultimate goal of this project is to help producers get faster and more accurate disease diagnostics, which will result in more informed farm management decisions. With the right information producers can choose whether to select or exclude par-ticular crops or varieties in their rotations.

RESEARCHER PROFILE

Dr Fouad DaayfTo learn more about this project, Charac-terizing the Fusarium Species that Affect

Major Crops in Manitoba, and others regarding FHB, visit the research section on MWBGA’s website www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

On Your FarmHelping producers make more informed decisions around fusarium


Genomics for Improved FHB Resistance and Lower DONStrengthening breeding tools for two-row malting barley

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a devastating disease in all cereals including barley. Besides decreasing the grain quality and yield, it results in the accumulation of mycotoxins such

as deoxynivalenol (DON). Due to its toxic nature, DON is highly regulated in animal feed, malting and brewing industries.

Following the Red River Valley outbreaks from two decades ago, large breeding efforts have been undertaken to develop FHB resistant varieties. Progress has been made in combining FHB resistance with elite germplasm and several varieties adapted to western Canadian environments have been released. However, it has been slowed by lack of proper resistance sources and enormous labor requirements of screening nurseries.

This project, Application and Evaluation of Genomic Selection for Improving FHB Resistance and Lowering DON Accumulation in Two-Row Malting Barley, was undertaken as a collaboration between University of Manitoba and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada — Brandon Research and Development Centre (AAFC-BRDC) to investigate the potential of using new breeding methodologies to continue and support progress on efforts to develop FHB-resistant barley cultivars.

Genetic studies in barley have been used to identify molecular markers linked to FHB resistance and low DON accumulation. Marker assisted selection (MAS) allows the selection of a trait of interest from a breeding population. Since the effect of the markers was minor and/or not validated the use of MAS in barley for FHB and DON is limited.

It was proposed that breeders for the development of FHB-resistant cultivars should use a more comprehensive selection such as genomic selection (GS) instead. GS is a procedure of MAS which estimates effects of markers distributed over the whole genome. It uses a training population which is both genotyped (genetics are known) and phenotyped (the physical characteristics are known) to predict trait values in lines based on genotype information alone. Use of whole-genome molecular markers to calculate genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) could deliver breeders a strong advantage for breeding difficult traits that are controlled by many small genes, as is the case with FHB and DON. Usually, breeding for such traits is quite expensive due to the field nursery requirements and labor costs (Figure 1).

The main goal of this study was to initiate the work towards the assessment of this new breeding selection method in the breeding program at AAFC-BRDC. The project was developed as a collaboration between Dr. Dilantha Fernando from University of Manitoba’s Department of Plant Science and Dr. Ana Badea

and Dr. Bill Legge (retired) from AAFC-BRDC, and in support of Mr. James Tucker’s thesis as a partial fulfillment of his doctoral degree.

While work for the project was completed, further data analysis is being conducted using several different methods such as machine learning, which is a method of data analysis that automates analytical model building, in order to improve the prediction.

BARLEY

Dr. Ana Badea – Research Scientist – Barley Breeding and Genetics, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada – Brandon Research and Development Centre, Dr. Dilantha Fernando – Professor, Dean of Studies, University of Manitoba James Tucker – Research Scientist, Brandon Research and Development Centre

Figure 1. Hand harvesting in the FHB nursery at Brandon.

The main outcomes of the project are as follows:

• a large data set was generated with head-to-head analysis of FHB/DON resistance for historic, elite breeding materials and varieties from ongoing breeding activities of cultivar development at AAFC-BRDC;

• a new whole genome molecular marker set (50K SNP array) released by the International Barley Sequencing Consortium was evaluated which demonstrated high applicability for use in Canadian breeding programs;

• whole genome molecular markers applied in preliminary genomic models demonstrate moderate predictive for FHB and DON content; and indicated that GS might be a useful method for barley breeders to enhance FHB resistance in two-row barley;

• the molecular marker (genotyping) data generated for the collection of the two-row barley genotypes used in this project could be used to study other important traits (ie. yield, quality, etc.);

• tighter collaboration between Dr. Fernando and Dr. Badea’s labs and contributed to the development of highly qualified personnel, Mr. James Tucker.

On Your Farm


FHB resistance will help producers compete

Fusarium head blight (FHB), incited by Fusarium graminearum, emerged during the mid-90's in the eastern

prairie growing region of Canada as a predominant disease of barley. This disease is particularly damaging due to commonly associated mycotoxins such as deoxynivalenol (DON) which reduce grain quality. DON is strictly regulated by animal feed, malting and brewing industries. As a result of this project, barley researchers at AAFC-BRDC are continuing to explore the application of genomic-based tools for development of FHB resistance in barley. Classical breeding with genomic information offers the ability and an advantage of selection prior to field evaluation, thereby allowing breeders to use

precious field resources in a more efficient manner.

Having access to new cultivars that will also have improved FHB resistance will allow western Canadian malting barley producers to stay competitive by producing high quality malting barley suitable for both Canadian and global markets and benefit from the price premiums that are set on the crop.

RESEARCHER PROFILES

To learn more about this project, Application and Evaluation of Genomic

Selection for Improving FHB Resistance and Lowering DON Accumulation in Two-Row Malting Barley, and more regarding FHB, visit the research section on MWBGA’s website www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

Dr. Dilantha Fernando is a full professor and Dean of Studies

at the University of Manitoba. He is a plant pathologist working on host-pathogen interactions in wheat, barley and canola.

Mr. James Tucker joined the Agri-Food Canada Brandon

Research and Development Centre (AAFC-BRDC) in 2001, where he worked as a Barley Pathologist in support of barley breeding efforts. Currently, James works at the AAFC-BRDC as a Research Scientist — Barley Genomics.

Dr. Ana Badea is a Research Scientist — Barley Breeding

and Genetics with AAFC-BRDC based in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. She is also the Chair of the Agronomy Team of the PRCOB, an Adjunct Professor with the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences at the University of Manitoba and an Associate Editor for two scientific journals.


WHAT’S NEXT? Extremes of Moisture InitiativeExpanding Manitoba farmers’ “toolbox” to better manage moisture challenges

To state that the 2017, 2018 and 2019 crop years have been challenging for many Manitoba producers would be an understatement. Dry growing seasons followed

by extremely wet harvests make for testing times. For some areas of the province, extremely wet conditions are not a new phenomenon, for others, it’s becoming more frequent. In an ideal world, we could control the weather to give us just enough moisture when we need it and turn it off completely when it’s time to harvest. Although it might be dreamt about, the weather is just one of those things that we can’t control. So, if the amount of moisture we get can’t be controlled, how can we manage it?

This question sparked an interest in the board and staff at Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association (MWBGA). Although there are many factors that can affect profit, extreme moisture, both too much and too little, is the main factor at play when looking at economic loss for grain production in Manitoba.

Knowing this, it became clear that research needed to be done to better understand how producers can learn to deal with this large and complex problem.

To make this project a reality, MWBGA knew they could not do it alone. A project of this scale, with so many moving parts needs and deserves attention and collaboration from as many areas as possible. Fortunately, others agreed that this was an issue that needed to be tackled. A team was established.

Technical Experts and Stakeholders — we have brought together talented researchers with an understanding of Manitoba conditions and challenges from multiple disciplines. Each researcher has national and international linkages to bring outside perspectives and ideas.

ALL CROPS

By Kate Menold — Communications Co-ordinator, Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers AssociationContributors: Brent VanKoughnet, Agri-Skills Inc. and Lori-Ann Kaminski, Research Manager, Manitoba Wheat and Barley Grower Association

THIS TEAM INCLUDES:


COLLABORATORS Grower Organizations — MWBGA, Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers (MPSG) and Manitoba Canola Growers Association (MCGA) have collaborated, with each organization bringing unique talent and support to the table. This partnership is critical to reach the scale that is needed for progress.

Technical Working Groups — working groups in engineering, agronomy, genetics and plant physiology, systems and rotations, big data and forecasting, and socioeconomics have been established. These working groups work both independently and collaboratively to facilitate important discussions, leading to forming new ideas and identifying/encouraging collaboration across disciplines.

GOALS:• Generate ideas and prioritize projects;• Provide producers with credible tools and

practices that solve current and expected extreme moisture challenges;

• Create a rapid and meaningful return on investment.

What makes the Extremes of Moisture initiative stand out amongst a long list of other research projects currently underway is the number of projects that are bundled into it and the diversity of each of these interdisciplinary approaches. A total of nine projects have been successfully approved and are now underway. Together these projects have brought in $1.4 million in funding, which is expected to generate over $14 million in economic impact. There are plans for more projects to be added under this initiative, currently two additional projects have been proposed and are currently under review.

APPROVED PROJECTS:

Tile Drainage in Heavier Soils• Uses the research protocol from a highly

successful Winkler project with different soils and will create the basis for modeling the requirements for all variations of soil combination between the two;

• Excellent “add-on” to a project already underway.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Optimized trial drainage design for a wide range of Manitoba soil types.

Genetic Selection• Adding extreme moisture (excess moisture)

stress evaluation to a portion of Manitoba variety trials;

• Excellent “add-on” to a variety evaluation process already underway.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Adequate field data for producers to compare and select current commercial varieties for extreme moisture adaptation.

Genetic resilience• A moisture resilience marker;• Important implications for early screening of crop varieties of all types.Anticipated Farm Management Tools: The identification and inclusion of a moisture resilience gene.

Soil Moisture Monitoring• Refining moisture predictability and crop

health/risk implications in near real time from existing soil monitoring infrastructure.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Real time soil moisture, soil moisture modeling and risk management information with minimal infrastructure.

Soil Moisture Capacity• Organic matter is the single most important

soil characteristic for soil moisture resiliency;• Review, standardize and compare multiple

techniques for dramatic organic matter increases (including landscape restoration).

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Cost effective method of rapidly increasing organic matter and capturing the resulting soil resilience benefits.

Cropping Systems 1• Integration of intensive measurement and

monitoring systems into existing long-term rotation studies.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Multiple crop combinations and sequence alternatives for moisture management.

Cropping Systems 2• Integration of intensive measurement and

monitoring systems into existing crop intensification studies.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Companion crop and crop intensification strategies for extreme water conditions.Continues on next page »

• University of Manitoba Departments of Biosystems Engineering, Plant Science, Soil Science, Civil Engineering, and Agricultural Economics and Agri-Business.

• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Portage la Prairie, Brandon Research and Development Centre (BRDC), and Winnipeg branches.

• Manitoba Agriculture and Resource Development• Brandon University,

Rural Development Institute

• University of Saskatchewan, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department

• Memorial University • Okayama University,

Japan• Prairie Agricultural

Machinery Institute (PAMI)

• Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team (MCVET)

• Prairies East Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (PESAI)

• Agri-Earth • PBS Water Engineering • North Carolina State

University • Ped-Aqua Environmental

Consulting • ProFessional Resource

Management Ltd. • Antara Research • USDA-ARS Brookings

South Dakota• South Dakota State

University • Aquanty • Strategic Community

Consulting


ALL CROPS

Optimum Nutrient• Development of improved data-based decision

systems for nitrogen management under extreme moisture conditions;

• Emphasis on extremes rather than averages. Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Optimum N management guidelines and risk management considerations for extreme moisture conditions.

Science to Socioeconomic• Develop a framework for quantitative analysis of

producer and community economic impact of various farm based extreme moisture management options;

• Direct linkages to defendable economic consequences of captured and uncaptured opportunities.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Quantifiable measurement techniques for individual farm, community and economic impact to support defendable benefits and optimum policy development.

PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW:

Trafficability • Yield and profit consequences of various tire/track

configurations of seeding equipment in suboptimal conditions;

• Measures of the impact of soil compaction in current and subsequent years resulting from each option.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Direct measures of yield and economic impact of tire/track options in suboptimal conditions.

Water Management Options in Undulating Terrain (surface/subsurface)• The development of best management practices for

soil moisture management in undulating landscapes of western Manitoba based on the application of core principles and the experimentation of practices from other jurisdictions;

• Considerable emphasis on the unique climate and soil conditions of western Manitoba and the complicating challenges of salinity management.

Anticipated Farm Management Tools: Water management tools and practices specific to undulating soils.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO YOUR FARM?There is no greater threat to grain production in Manitoba

than extremes in moisture. Even modest incremental steps in progress translate to millions of dollars in farm revenue, risk reduction and positive impact on the economy. No one farm or region will be able to resolve their extreme moisture challenges with a single farm management solution. The development of many tools addressing the problems from multiple different angles is intended to expand producers’ toolbox of options and open the possibility of each farm finding the unique combination of tools that best addresses their ever-evolving challenges.

CONNECT WITH US

Visit our website to learn more about MWBGA & the research that we fund www.mbwheatandbarley.ca

@mbwheatbarley

@mbwheatbarley

Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association

204-745-6661

[email protected]

manitoba wheat and barley growers association ......m anitoba wheat and barley growers association...

Documents