opportunities to produce canola in northern new...

1Respectively, Professor (retired), Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences (PES); Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business (AEAB); Professor, AEAB; Graduate Student, AEAB; and Assistant Professor, PES, New Mexico State University.

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, CONSUMER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

aces.nmsu.edu/pubs • Agricultural Experiment Station • Research Report 793

Opportunities to Produce Canola in Northern New Mexico:Results of Field Variety Trials

Michael K. O’Neill, Jay Lillywhite, Gerald Hawkes, Mario Trillanes, and Koffi Djaman1

New Mexico State Universityaces.nmsu.edu

The College of

Agricultural,

Consumer and

Environmental

Sciences is an

engine for economic

and community

development in New

Mexico, improving

the lives of New

Mexicans through

academic, research,

and Extension

programs.

ABSTRACTCanola (Brassica napus; Figure 1), introduced by Ca-nadian agronomists in the 1970s, has become an impor-tant agronomic crop for several states in the U.S. Producers from traditionally non-canola-pro-ducing regions are exploring opportu-nities to incorporate canola into their crop rotations. This study examined po-tential returns from producing canola in semi-arid northern New Mexico at the New Mexico State University Agri-cultural Science Center at Farmington (ASCF). The study used six-year variety trial results from plots managed by ASCF researchers compared to results from the National Winter Canola Varity Trial (NWCVT) over the same six-year period. Canola crop cost and return budgets were compared with other crops grown in the region. The greatest canola grain yields at ASCF were 4,150 lb/acre during the 2008/09 season and 4,321 lb/acre during the 2011/12 season. Over the length of the test, canola grain production averaged 28–74% greater than the mean canola yields obtained in four regions of the NWCVT. Us-ing the 2017 USDA canola price of $15.62/hundredweight (cwt; adjusted on geographical basis), returns for canola were projected to be $420 per acre. The study suggests that canola may be successfully incorporated into the region’s crop rotations if trial yields can be matched in a commercial setting and pro-cessing/distribution channels can be firmed up.

INTRODUCTIONCanola, an edible type of rapeseed and a member of the Brassica genus, was de-veloped by Canadian plant breeders in the 1970s (Canola Council of Canada, 2017). Unlike other rapeseed cultivars, canola has lower levels of erucic acid

Figure 1. Flower cluster of a canola (Brassica napus) oil-seed crop grown at the NMSU Agricultural Science Center in Farmington, New Mexico.

Research Report 793 •

Figure 2. USDA reported canola prices (USDA–ERS, 2017).

Figure 3. USDA reported canola oil production and consumption (USDA–ERS, 2017).

••••••• Price

Value

Production

Consumption


and glucosinolates, making it safe for hu-man consumption. While U.S. canola production is relatively small compared to world production, canola’s popularity, both in terms of consumption and pro-duction in the United States, is increasing significantly. In 2012, there were 1,033 million acres of canola seed harvested in the U.S., with a value of more than $364 million (Figure 2). The increase in value is principally a result of a continuing in-crease in acres planted rather than drastic increases in the price of canola grain. As a cool-season grain crop, canola fits into rotational cropping as an alternative to winter wheat in dryer areas of the country or under irrigation. Today, canola oil is the third-largest source of vegetable oil in the world, behind soybean and palm oils, and canola meal is the second-largest feed meal behind soybean meal (USDA–ERS, 2017; U.S. Canola Association, 2017). Demand for high-quality canola oil cannot pace supply (Figure 3).

Most of the canola grown in the United States is grown in the northern Great Plains; 79% of U.S. production of 1,777,000 acres of canola was grown in North Dakota (1,410,000 acres) in 2015 (USDA, 2016). Other states that reported canola production include Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, and Kansas (U.S. Canola Association, 2017). While geographically concentrated in a relatively small number of states, a variety of factors are contrib-uting to domestic consumption outpacing domestic production (Figure 3) and leading other regions of the country to explore opportunities to profitably produce canola. For example, in 2015 the southern Great Plains (Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado) reported canola acreage of 192,700 acres (USDA, 2016). Canola planted in these more southern regions tends to be planted in the fall and harvested in the spring, e.g., winter canola, and can be used in rotation with other crops or as a substitute for winter wheat. Including canola in a wheat rotation has numerous potential benefits, including weed control, improved wheat production, and mar-ket diversity (Boyles et al., 2012). Canola is, in realty, a dual-purpose crop in that the grain is crushed and processed for oil and the remaining residue, the meal, can be used as a protein-rich livestock feed supplement (Begna et al., 2017). An Archer Daniels Midland oil extraction and processing plant in Lubbock, TX, makes it relatively easy for growers in eastern New Mexico to market their canola crops.

Researchers at the New Mexico State University Agricultural Science Center at Farmington (ASCF)

have explored the agronomic feasibility of producing winter canola in northern New Mexico (Figure 4). This paper reports on canola yield field trials conducted by researchers at ASCF, a semi-arid site located in north-western New Mexico on land leased from the Navajo Nation. Furthermore, crop cost and return budgets developed by NMSU were used to investigate potential returns that might be associated with growing canola in New Mexico.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Canola Variety TrialsResearchers at ASCF participated in the National Winter Canola Variety Trial (NWCVT) for six years from the 2007/08 crop season through the 2012/13 crop season. The number of sites participating in the NWCVT, coordinated by Kansas State University, ranged from 17 in the 2012/13 season to 37 in the 2008/09 season (Figure 5). ASCF was included in the Great Plains region.

ASCF test plots for each year consisted of six rows, 10 inches wide by 20 feet long, in a Doak fine sandy loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Haplargid) (Keetch, 1980). Plots were organized under a center-pivot irrigation system in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Pre-plant field prepara-tion included chisel plowing and disking of previous crop residues. The test plots were seeded at a rate of 5 lb/acre each year. Plots were fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium each year based on recom-mendations from the Navajo Agricultural Products

Figure 4. Summer operations around the National Winter Canola Variety Trial; NMSU Agricultural Science Center at Farmington, NM.


Figure 5. Regional participation in the National Winter Canola Variety Trial 2007/08–2012/13 (source: Stamm et al., 2009–2014).

Figure 6. Average canola variety trial yields, by region and at the ASCF site, 2008–2012 (source: Stamm et al., 2009–2013).

Northern

Great Plains

Southeast

Midwest

Southeast

Northern

ASC Farmington

Great Plains

Midwest


Industry (NAPI), except in 2011 when only nitrogen was used. Irrigation was used to supplement rainfall each year such that plots received around 32 inches of water annually over the six-year period. Herbicides and insecticides were not used on test plots; hand-hoeing was carried out during each season. A description of agronomic operations performed at the ASCF site is provided in Table 1 (O’Neill et al., 2009–2014).

Economic Implications for Northern New Mexico ProducersWhile the high yields observed at the NMSU trial site over the six-year period are impressive, it remains to be seen if the yields will provide economic returns suf-ficient to entice growers to incorporate canola into their crop rotations. In order to better understand potential costs and returns associated with producing canola in northern New Mexico, crop budgets prepared by NMSU for Union County in 2017 were modified to reflect potential canola production costs and returns. NMSU’s crop budget for Union County was developed for a 1,280-acre farm that includes wheat, corn, grain sorghum, and Haygrazer (a forage combination of sor-ghum, sorgo, and Sudan grasses) in the crop rotation2.

Crop Budget AssumptionsThe canola budget used in the analysis assumes pro-duction practices that are similar to those assumed in NMSU’s wheat budget. For example, ground prepara-tion and harvesting practices and costs for canola were

assumed to be the same as those assumed in NMSU’s wheat budget for Union County.

YieldsCanola yields were based on field trial results at ASCF. The average yield over the six-year field trial period was 3,436 lb/acre or 34.4 cwt (Figure 6). Growing conditions and cultivation practices in field trials often differ from those observed in commercial production. For example, 27 states were represented by field trial participants over the NWCVT’s six-year trial period (participated at least one year during the six-year period). USDA pro-vides commercial canola yields for five of the 27 states: Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Washington. The average yield difference between trial yields and USDA-reported yields over the six-year period was -29.2%. That is, USDA-reported commercial yields were, on average, 29.2% lower than the yields reported in our field trials. This average differential was used in the crop budget to lower expected yields to more ac-curately reflect potential commercial yields. The budget uses an expected commercial yield of 24.3 cwt/acre.

PricesCanola prices used in the budget reflect USDA-report-ed average U.S. prices for canola in 2017 ($16.60/cwt), less a basis to reflect geographical differences between New Mexico and common canola production regions. The basis was approximated by taking the difference between wheat prices reported for New Mexico and re-

Table 1. Agronomic Operations for Canola at the NMSU Agricultural Science Center, Farmington, NM, 2007/08–2012/13

Crop Season

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Number of varieties tested

54 39 42 44 45 50

Planting date 9/06/07 9/05/08 9/03/09 9/07/10 9/08/11 9/06/12

Harvest date 8/08/08 7/29/09 7/29/10 7/21/11 7/17/12 7/18–19/13

Fertilization (lb/acre)

N 130 150 115 165 100 205

P2O

548 52 52 0 52 104

K2O 56 60 60 0 60 120

S 6 0 0 0 2 5

Z 0 0 0 0 5 13

Irrigation/rain (inches)

Irrigation 30.0 28.0 26.0 27.7 29.0 24.2

Precipitation 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.6 4.5 3.5

Total 34.6 32.8 31.1 33.3 33.5 27.7

2NMSU’s crop cost and return budget for Union County includes alfalfa hay. Alfalfa hay was not included in this analysis.


ported U.S. average wheat prices over the nine-year pe-riod between 2008 and 2016. Wheat price differences between New Mexico and the U.S. average ranged from a minimum of 19.7% (in 2016) to -0.2% (in 2014). The average difference for the nine-year period was -5.9%. That is, New Mexico wheat prices, on average, were 5.9% lower than U.S. wheat prices over the nine-year period. This geographical basis was used to adjust the 2016 $16.60/cwt U.S. canola price to $15.62/cwt.

Purchased Inputs NMSU’s wheat budget for Union County limits pur-chased inputs to seed, manure, and livestock facilities and equipment (since the budget assumes livestock graz-ing). Purchased inputs for canola production, shown in Table 2, were estimated using inputs used during the field trail, and included seed and fertilizer (phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen) costs. While herbicides were not used in the field trial (trial plots were hand-weeded), herbicide costs are budgeted for canola that would be produced commercially. In this case, herbicide costs were assumed to equal NMSU’s budgeted herbicide costs ($22.60/acre) for corn and grain sorghum. The estimated herbicide use and costs are similar to estimates in other similar production regions, e.g., Oklahoma (Boyles et al., 2012). Irrigation water, consistent with NMSU’s crop budget, was assumed to be groundwater. Costs for pumping 30 acre-inches of water were esti-mated to equal $99.85 per acre.

RESULTSThe six-year mean grain yield at ASCF was 3,436 lb/acre, which was 28% to 74% higher than other regions for six-year mean yields (Figure 6). Mean annual grain yield at the NMSU site was greater than the regional mean grain yields during all years except 2011, when only one site reporting in the Northern Region had a mean grain yield of 3,065 lb/acre, followed closely by NMSU with a mean grain yield of 2,942 lb/acre. The two highest yields reported for the entire six-year period were recorded at ASCF: 4,150 lb/acre during the 2008/09 season and 4,321 lb/acre during the 2011/12 season.

Potential Returns to New Mexico Canola ProductionTotal revenue for canola within the ASCF crop cost and return budget, using the 2017 canola grain price of $15.62/cwt and the adjustments described above, was $419.93 per acre, the second-highest return after grain corn at $740.00 per acre (Figure 7). Figure 8 shows that estimated returns to land and risk for canola, esti-mated at $66.15 per acre, were lower than Haygrazer ($120.99), wheat ($117.30), and corn ($66.67), but still positive and greater than grain sorghum (-$36.73).

A detailed copy of the canola budget is provided in Table 3. Irrigation represented a significant cost in producing canola, with an estimated cost of $99.85 per acre (23.8% of gross revenue). Fertilizer costs were also significant. Total cost for phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen fertilizer was $58.80, representing 14.0% of gross revenue.

Potential returns, described above, account for an unknown potential and significant yield loss between results observed in ASCF’s field trials and potential commercial yields. The discount used in the analysis, 29.2%, was calculated as the average difference observed in five states and may or may not reflect actual yield dif-ferences in New Mexico. For example, in one case (Min-nesota) observed field trial yields (for 2009/2010, the only year Minnesota participated in the trial) were larger than canola yields reported by USDA for Minnesota (by 10.8%). If farmers are able to replicate yields obtained by ASCF in their field trial, i.e., remove the 29.2% yield penalty, returns for canola production increase significantly. Gross returns increase to $576.72 per acre (second-highest gross revenues behind corn) and returns to land and risk increase to $211.96 (highest among the rotational crops considered).

CONCLUSIONSince its introduction in the 1970s, canola seed and its products, i.e., oil and meal, have grown rapidly in popularity. Given the commodity’s increasing demand, producers from traditionally non-canola-producing re-gions are exploring opportunities to incorporate canola into their crop rotations. This study presents results from ASCF’s six-year participation in the National Winter Canola Variety Trial between the 2007/08 and 2012/13 crop seasons, and explores potential returns associated with growing the crop in northern New Mexico. Using published NMSU crop cost and return budgets for crops produced in northern New Mexico, researchers investigated potential returns of canola in relation to returns from these established crops.

Table 2. Purchased Inputs and Costs Used in the Analysis from NMSU’s Crop Budget for Union CountyInput Quantity (lb/acre) Price ($/lb) Total Cost ($/acre)

Seed 5 3.00 15.00

Phosphorus 52 0.30 15.60

Potassium 60 0.32 19.20

Nitrogen 100 0.24 24.00

Herbicides 22.60


Figure 8. Estimated returns to land and risk projections (2015) for various crops in NMSU budget.

Figure 7. Estimated gross return projections (2015) for various crops in NMSU budget.

Corn Canola Wheat Grain Sorghum

Haygrazer$/

acre

$800

$700

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0

$240.00$271.14

$376.00$419.93

$740.00

$/ac

re

Haygrazer Wheat Corn Canola Grain Sorghum

$140

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0

-$20

-$40

-$60

$120.99

($36.73)

$66.15$66.67

$117.30

ASCF researchers were able to achieve impressive winter canola yields in the variety trials, with yields ranging from 2,517 lb/acre in 2010/11 to more than 4,000 lb/acre in both the 2008/09 and 2011/12 crop seasons. Canola yields observed by ASCF researchers were consis-tently higher than the national trial average, and during two years were more than double the NWCVT aver-age. It is hypothesized that the higher yields at ASCF are a result of the high elevation and existing irrigation water. Winter canola is a cool-season crop that is susceptible to heat and drought stresses, particularly in the reproductive stage. High elevation contributes to cooler temperatures, which are beneficial to both grain formation and yield. Because of the semi-arid environment of northern New Mexico (approximately 5 inches of growing season precipitation), irrigation water must be applied continually throughout the crop’s life cycle, reducing the potential for drought stress at key growth stages. In addition, fertility was managed to attain a yield potential of 3,000 lb/acre or greater.

Using the six-year average yield observed in the NWCVT conducted at ASCF, USDA-reported canola prices (adjusted by a geographical basis), and standard NMSU crop cost and return budget assumptions, canola had an estimated return to land and risk of $66.15 per acre (Fig-ure 8). Significant costs impacting the budget return for canola included irrigation (estimated to equal 23.8% of the crop’s gross revenue) and N-P-K fertilizers (estimated to equal 14.0% of the crop’s gross revenue).

While the budgeted return for canola was somewhat lower than the budgeted returns observed for several other crops produced in the region, the returns are sufficient to

suggest that canola may be profitably introduced into cropping systems, and further research to study this opportunity should be conducted. This conclusion is especially true if yields in a commercial setting can meet those obtained during the ASCF field trial. This conclusion is based on several key assumptions that have yet to be verified: (1) commercial yields will be similar to yields observed by NMSU researchers’ variety trial yields and (2) herbicide use will be similar to uses reported in other canola-producing regions, i.e., similar to herbicide use and costs reported in the Great Plains Canola Production Handbook (Boyles et al., 2012)


Table 3. Estimated Costs and Returns for Canola Production in Northern New Mexico, as Generated Using Union County Crop Cost and Return Budget Published by NMSUGross Returns Price Yield Inputs Labor Fuel and Lube Repairs Fixed Costs Total

Canola $16.60 24.3 cwt $403.75

Basis (transportation to market)

$0.98 $23.82

Net $15.62 $379.93

Total $419.93

Purchased Inputs Price Quantity Purchased Labor Fuel and Lube Repairs Fixed Costs Total

Seed $3.00 5 lb $15.00 $15.00

Phosphorus $0.30 52 lb $15.60 $15.60

Potassium $0.32 60 lb $19.20 $19.20

Nitrogen $0.24 100 lb $24.00 $24.00

Herbicide $22.60 1 lb $22.60 $22.60

Pump water 30 ac. in.

Subtotal $96.40 $96.40

Preharvest Operations Power Unit Accomplishment Purchased Labor Fuel and Lube Repairs Fixed Costs Total

Disc 185 hp 0.07 hr $0.60 $1.70 $1.26 $2.76 $6.32

Chisel 185 hp 0.09 hr $0.77 $2.19 $0.69 $2.75 $6.40

Disc 185 hp 0.07 hr $0.60 $1.70 $1.26 $2.76 $6.32

Drill 126 hp 0.12 hr $1.03 $2.33 $0.68 $1.93 $5.97

Irrigate (15×) 1.60 hr $12.00 $82.38 $0.00 $5.47 $99.85

Subtotal $15.00 $90.30 $3.89 $15.67 $124.86

Harvest Operations Power Unit Accomplishment Purchased Labor Fuel and Lube Repairs Fixed Costs Total

Combine Grain table 0.14 hr $1.20 $2.75 $0.52 $13.81 $18.28

Grain cart 93 hp 0.14 hr $1.20 $1.79 $0.44 $1.89 $5.31

Haul (field to road)

Semi 0.14 hr $1.20 $1.73 $0.39 $6.05 $9.37

Subtotal $3.60 $6.27 $1.35 $21.75 $32.96

Overhead Expenses Power Unit Accomplishment Purchased Labor Fuel and Lube Repairs Fixed Costs Total

Downtime 0.19 hr $1.62 $1.62

Employee benefits

$3.35 $3.35

Insurance $0.37 $0.37

Land taxes $0.20 $0.20

Supervision and management

$31.38 $31.38

Other expenses $45.96 $45.96

Subtotal $46.33 $36.35 $0.20 $82.88

Total Operating Expenses

$142.73 $54.95 $96.57 $5.24 $37.62 $337.11

Net Operating Profit

$82.83


ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to extend a special thanks to Curtis Owen, Research Assistant (Figure 9), for 35 years at ASCF, and all staff and interns for their outstanding con-tributions to the work. This study was funded in part by the NMSU Agricultural Experiment Station, the NMSU José Fernández Memorial Chair in Crop Production, and the Agriculture and Food Research Initia-tive (AFRI) of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

Table 3. Estimated Costs and Returns for Canola Production in Northern New Mexico, as Generated Using Union County Crop Cost and Return Budget Published by NMSU (continued)Overhead Expenses Power Unit Accomplishment Purchased Labor Fuel and Lube Repairs Fixed Costs Total

Interest on operating capital

$72.39 @ 5.50% $3.98

Interest on equipment investment

$12.69

Return to Land and Risk

$66.15

Summary

Gross return $419.93

Variable operating expenses

$244.56

Return over variable expenses

$175.37 (Gross margin)

Fixed expenses $37.62

Net farm income

$137.75 (Return to

capital, labor, land, and risk)

Labor and management cost

$54.93

Net operating profit

$82.83 (Return to

capital, land, and risk)

Capital costs $16.67

Return to land and risk

$66.15

Figure 9. Curtis Owen, long-time agronomist with ASCF, inspecting a field of canola.


REFERENCESBegna,S., S. Angadi, M. Stamm, and A. Mesbah. 2017.

Winter canola: A potential dual-purpose crop for the United States Southern Great Plains. Agronomy Jour-nal, 109, 2508–2520.

Bolyes M., J. Bushong, H. Sanders, and M. Stamm (Eds.). 2012. Great Plains canola production handbook [MF2734 revised]. Manhattan: Kansas State Univer-sity Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/MF2734.pdf

Canola Council of Canada. 2017. Accessed June 13, 2018, from http://www.canolacouncil.org/

Keetch, C.W. 1980. Soil survey of San Juan County New Mexico: Eastern part. Washington, D.C.: Unit-ed States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-tion Service.

O’Neill, M.K., C.K Owen, K.D. Kohler, and M.M. West. 2009. Winter canola—2008 variety trial. In M.K. O’Neill and M.M. West (Eds.), Forty-second annual progress report: 2008 cropping season. Farm-ington: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Science Center at Farmington. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722088_Forty-second_Annual_Progress_Report_2008_Cropping_Season

O’Neill, M.K., C.K Owen, K.D. Kohler, and M.M. West. 2010. Winter canola—2009 variety trial. In M.K. O’Neill and M.M. West (Eds.), Forty-third annual progress report: 2009 cropping season. Farm-ington: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Science Center at Farmington. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722246_Forty-third_Annual_Progress_Report_2009_Cropping_Season

O’Neill, M.K., C.K Owen, K.D. Kohler, and M.M. West. 2011. Winter canola—2010 variety trial. In M.K. O’Neill and M.M. West (Eds.), Forty-fourth annual progress report: 2010 cropping season. Farm-ington: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Science Center at Farmington. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722242_Forty-fourth_Annual_Progress_Report_2010_Cropping_Season

O’Neill, M.K., C.K Owen, K.D. Kohler, and M.M. West. 2012. Winter canola—2011 variety trial. In M.K. O’Neill and M.M. West (Eds.), Forty-fifth annual progress report: 2011 cropping season. Farm-ington: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Science Center at Farmington. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722237_Forty-fifth_Annual_Progress_Report_2011_Cropping_ Season

O’Neill, M.K., C.K Owen, K.D. Kohler, and M.M. West. 2013. Winter canola—2012 variety trial. In M.K. O’Neill and M.M. West (Eds.), Forty-sixth annual progress report: 2012 cropping season. Farm-ington: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Science Center at Farmington. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265784907_Forty-sixth_Annual_Progress_Report_2012_Cropping_Season

O’Neill, M.K., C.K Owen, K.D. Kohler, and M.M. West. 2014. Winter canola—2013 variety trial. In M.K. O’Neill and M.M. West (Eds.), Forty-seventh annual progress report: 2013 cropping season. Farm-ington: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural Science Center at Farmington. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265784810_Forty-seventh_Annual_Progress_Report_2013_ Cropping_Season

Stamm, M., et al. 2009. 2008 National Winter Canola Variety Trial, Report of Progress. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-performance-tests/documents/cotton-canola/2008-nvt.pdf

Stamm, M., et al. 2010. 2009 National Winter Canola Variety Trial, Report of Progress 1026. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion and Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-performance-tests/documents/cotton-canola/2009-nvt.pdf

Stamm, M., et al. 2011. 2010 National Winter Canola Variety Trial, Report of Progress 1044. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion and Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from Stamm, M., et al. 2012. 2011 National Winter Canola Variety Trial, Report of Progress 1062. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Ex-tension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-perfor-mance-tests/documents/cotton-canola/2011-nvt.pdf

http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-performance-tests/documents/cotton-canola/2011-nvt.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325722237_Forty-fifth_Annual_Progress_Report_2011_Cropping_

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265784810_Forty-seventh_Annual_Progress_Report_2013_


Stamm, M., et al. 2013. 2012 National Winter Canola Variety Trial, Report of Progress 1080. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion and Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-performance-tests/documents/cotton-canola/2012-nvt.pdf

Stamm, M., et al. 2014. 2013 National Winter Canola Variety Trial, Report of Progress 1098. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion and Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 13, 2018, from http://www.agronomy.k-state.edu/services/crop-performance-tests/documents/cotton-canola/2013%20NWCVT.pdf

U.S. Canola Association. 2017. What is canola? Ac-cessed September 22, 2017, from http://www.us-canola.com/what-is-canola

USDA–NASS. 2015. Acreage. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYR-PT/acrg0615.pdf

USDA–ERS. 2016. Oil crops yearbook. Accessed June 13, 2018, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-prod-ucts/oil-crops-yearbook.aspx

http://www.uscanola.com/what-is-canola

https://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/acrg0615.pdf

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook.aspx


Contents of publications may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. For permission to use publications for other purposes, contact [email protected] or the authors listed on the publication. New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and educator. NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

August 2018 Las Cruces, NM

opportunities to produce canola in northern new...

Documents