2016-2017 Winter Canola Performance Trials

Published Aug. 2017|Id: CR-2144

By Josh Lofton

Jump To:

Production Season
El Reno, Canadian County Conventional
El Reno, Canadian County Glyphosate Tolerant
Fairview, Major County, Glyphosate Tolerant
Fort Cobb, Caddo County Conventional
Fort Cobb, Caddo County Glyphosate Tolerant
Kingfisher, Kingfisher County, Conventional
Kingfisher, Kingfisher County Glyphosate Tolerant
Lahoma, Garfield County Conventional
Lahoma, Garfield County Glyphosate Tolerant
Miami, Ottawa County Conventional
Miami, Ottawa County Glyphosate Tolerant
Pond Creek, Grant County Glyphosate Tolerant
Perkins, Payne County Conventional
Perkins, Payne County Glyphosate Tolerant
Chickasha, Caddo County Conventional
Chickasha, Caddo County Glyphosate Tolerant

Production Season

The 2016-2017 production season was full of mixed growing conditions, therefore crop performance winter canola across Oklahoma was mixed. This was the first year since the historic drought that canola growers throughout the state were faced with several canola production challenges. Throughout the season, the crop was rated as good to poor, depending on time of year, planting date, management and location.

During planting, growers that planted early were able to get the crop emerged and begin early growth very quickly following planting. This was a result of adequate soil moisture and timely rainfall events, paired with mild temperatures during the end of September into early October. Growers that planted during the last week to 10 days of September or early October were met with several challenging conditions that limited the number of acres that were successfully established during this period. Dry conditions in portions of the state limited growers’ ability to plant in a timely manner, while other areas of the state had adequate moisture at planting and received heavy rainfall events following planting. The latter resulted in several fields being drowned out or severely crusted, which limited overall emergence or resulted in very uneven emergence across the field. Many of these growers had to replant in mid- to late October, which is later than OSU recommends.

After planting, optimum growing conditions were present from October through late November to early December. This resulted in excessive vegetative growth for the early planted canola, with many reports of two- to four-foot canola and some canola attempting to bolt prior to the first major freeze event. For those that planted late or had to replant into later October, this provided adequate time for the canola crop to mature, as well as set enough leaves and roots to aid in over-winter survival. The first major freeze event for most of Oklahoma occurred in late November or early December. While most of the state did receive adequate chilling days prior to this first freeze, many of these days were interspersed with very warm conditions, thereby not allowing the canola plant to adequately harden-off or prepare for winter. A heavy freeze event occurred in mid-December in which several locations across Oklahoma reached temperatures below 0 F, with several locations reported -20 F. Additionally, in many areas, soil moisture was limited at the times of these freeze events, which increased the level the damage typically resulting in higher winterkill events than if adequate soil moisture had been present. These heavy freeze events caused a high amount of winterkill issues across the state, with many producers reporting more than 50 percent winterkill. This was especially true on fields planted in early September and had excessive vegetative growth. Winterkill was not seen as prominently in fields that had been replanted or were planted during the mid- to late October period.

Spring green-up occurred much earlier than normal with many locations around the state starting to see regrowth in late January to early February. This resulted in many producers not being able to make timely fertilizer or herbicide applications prior to the bolting stage. Due to the winter freezes and the early spring, many plants started bolting with little to no additional leaf growth. As most photosynthesis still occurs in green leaves during the bolting and early flowering stages, many of these plants appeared stressed during early reproductive stages. This resulted in many plants only reaching 2 to 3 feet tall prior to flowering. With little leaf material prior to flowering, weed control became an issue in many locations with warm conditions paired with timely rainfall events.

Temperatures cooled during the months of March and April and above-average pod filling conditions existed. During this time, the crop appeared to improve with increased number of lateral branches producing very large racemes and pods. While the crop reached reproduction earlier than normal, the crop matured at or near the normal timeframe. Growers experienced near perfect swathing conditions with good drying conditions at and near swathing due to the increased number of lateral pods. However, as swathing continued across the region, high temperatures and high winds lead to rapid drying and resulted in swathed canola reaching full dry-down in as little as three to five days. This potentially contributed to some pods having shrunken or smaller seeds than expected. At harvest, yields varied greatly. Several growers reported much lower yields than expected and in previous years.

In addition to environmental conditions possibly decreasing the yield potential, higher than average pest pressure potentially decrease yields. High lepidoptera pressure occurred throughout the fall. Most producers had increased pressure from armyworm in the early part of the fall, with increased diamondback moth larva during late fall and early winter. Due to weather and application cost, many producers were not able to adequately control these pests, which caused significant damage. Pest pressure continued throughout the spring. In late winter and early spring, lepidoptera pressure continued, mostly as diamondback moth larva and armyworm. If left untreated, pest pressure was high enough to terminate the crop in many areas. For many growers, insecticide treatments proved ineffective. It is unsure if this was a misapplication, poor conditions at application or resistance issues. As the canola progressed further into early flowering and early pod development, green peach aphids and cabbage aphids increased pressure through much of the state. While these initially started as isolated incidences, more wide-spread pressure resulted.

Overall, the year was mixed for canola producers throughout the state, with many growers having higher or substantially lower yields than previous seasons. For many growers throughout the state, the cost of growing canola increased with the elevated pest pressure they were faced with throughout the fall and spring. On a brighter side, many producers throughout the region noted the wheat following last season’s canola was noticeable higher yielding. This has increased the interest in canola throughout the state, and several growers are planning on continuing with the crop for the foreseeable future.

Interpreting the data

Details of establishment and management of each test are noted above the production tables. Least significant differences (LSD) for yield are listed at the bottom of the summary tables at the beginning of the document. Differences between cultivars are significantly different only if they are equal to or greater than the LSD value. If a given cultivar out-yields another cultivar by as much or more than the LSD value, then we are 95 percent sure the yield differences are due to actual differences, with only 5 percent probability that the differences are due to chance alone. For example, if cultivar X yielded 500 pounds per acre more than cultivar Y, then it is significantly difference only if the LSD value is 500 or less. If the LSD value is 501 pounds per acre or greater than we are less confident that cultivar X outperformed cultivar Y under the conditions of the test. Additionally, in the summary tables, the highest yielding cultivar is bolded and all cultivars that are not significantly different than the highest yielding cultivar are highlighted.

The results of these tests should be representative of what would occur throughout the state, but are more indicative of the environmental conditions and management practices similar to those under the testing conditions. This is due to the amount of influence that soil type, winter conditions, soil moisture, diseases and insects can play on yield.

Methods

All test locations contained both conventional and glyphosate-resistant cultivars. Plots were 5 feet wide by 20 feet long and seeded at the rate of 3 pounds per acre. All conventionally tilled plots were planted at 7.5-inch spacing, indifferent of tillage practices under the trial. Soil sample results are indicated on each table. All pest management practices were carried out in accordance with Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service recommendations. Entire plots were either swathed and harvested or directly harvested (indicated on each table) at maturity.

Additional information

A copy of this publication as well as additional variety information and current recommendations for winter canola management in the southern Great Plains can be found at: canola.okstate.edu.

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their cooperation in gathering information for this current report:

Cooperating producers:

Jeff Scott- Pond Creek

Jay and Lee Leeper- Dacoma (plots at Dacoma had 100 percent winter kill)

Brent Rendel- Miami

Jerry Lingo- El Reno

Jeff Wichert- Fairview

Mark Walta- Kingfigher

Cooperating County Educators:

Kassie Junghanns- Grant

Greg Highfill- Woods

Rick Nelson- Garfield

Nathan Anderson- Payne

Zack Meyer- Kingfisher

Kyle Worthington- Canadian

David Nowlin- Caddo

Courtney May- Ottawa

Cooperating Station Superintendents:

Josh Massey- Cimarron Valley Research station (Perkins)

Richard Austin- North Central Research station (Lahoma)

Bobby Weidenmaier- Caddo Research station (Fort Cobb)

Michael Pettijohn- South Central Research station (Chickasha)

Overview of cultivars used in the 2016-2017 Oklahoma winter canola tests.

Company	Entry	Hybrid or Open Pollinated	Herbicide Resistant	SU Residual Tolerant
Kansas State University	Riley	OP	N	N
	Torrington	OP	N	N
	KSR 4704	OP	Glyphosate	N
	KSR 4653S	OP	Glyphosate	N
	KSR 4706S	OP	Glyphosate	N
	KSR 07363	OP	Glyphosate	N
	KSR 1121	OP	N	Y
Rubisco	Mercedes	HYB	N	N
	Inspiration	HYB	N	N
	Edimax CL	HYB	Clearfield*	N
Photosyntech	Quartz	HYB	N	N
	Hekip	HYB	N	N
	AY 04	HYB	N	N
Limagrain	Aresenal	HYB	N	N
	Atenzo	HYB	N	N
Star Specialty Seeds	Star 915W	OP	Glyphosate	N
DL Seeds	14DL40203	HYB	Glyphosate	N
	14DL40201	HYB	Glyphosate	N
Pioneer	P 46W94	HYB	Glyphosate	N
Monsanto/Dekalb	DKW 44-10	OP	Glyphosate	N
	DKW 46-15	OP	Glyphosate	Y
	DKW 45-25	OP	Glyphosate	Y
Croplan Genetics	Croplan 52-16	OP	Glyphosate	Y
	Croplan 115	OP	Glyphosate	Y
	Croplan 225	OP	Glyphosate	Y

*Show potential cross-tolerance to SU family of herbicides as well as true Imidazolinone family herbicides. These cultivars show tolerance to soil residual imidazolinone herbicides and post-emergent Beyond® herbicides.

Table 1. Summary of yield results for the OSU conventional winter canola variety trials in 2017.

	Cultivar¹	Kingfisher	Fort Cobb	Chickasha²	Pond Creek	Fairview	El Reno	Miami	Perkins	Lahoma
Conventional	Riley	1550	2560	3110	-	-	2600	2150	1180	1480
	Torrington	1420	2340	4920	-	-	2660	2750	1150	1350
	KSR 4704	1380	1660	-	4092.9	784.2	2580	2190	1200	1640
	Mercedes	1520	3420	4440	-	-	2540	2910	1230	1230
	Inspiration	1960	3210	4590	-	-	2540	2350	1100	1690
	Quartz	1630	3720	4060	-	-	2240	1600	1360	1520
	Hekip	1690	3170	4060	-	-	2450	1550	1460	1440
	Aresenal	1230	3810	-	-	-	2050	2070	1150	1270
	Atenzo	1410	3430	-	-	-	2430	3410	1260	1560
	Edimax CL	2110	3210	4660	-	-	2540	3280	1220	1090

	Mean	1590	3050	4260	-	-	2460	2420	1230	1430
	LSD(0.05)	336.7	487.2		-	-	299.8	515.6	113.4	284.5
	CV	15.1	20.0				8.5	21.6	9.7	16.3

1 Cultivars with a dash were not collected at the given location
2 Data collected as part of the OSU national variety tests

Table 2. Summary of yield results for the OSU glyphosate tolerant winter canola variety trials in 2017.

	Cultivar¹	Kingfisher	Fort Cobb	Chickasha²	Pond Creek	Fairview	El Reno	Miami	Perkins	Lahoma
Glyphosate tolerant	KSR 4653S	1350	2510	3130	3010	740	2360	1750	1200	1550
	KSR 4706S	1120	1760	-	3840	790	2350	1710	1060	1850
	KSR 07363	1080	2040	3600	2810	840	2670	2030	1290	1480
	KSR 1121	1250	2450	3720	3550	420	2130	2240	1150	1670
	Star 915W	920	1730	3670	4120	470	2220	1750	1110	1560
	14DL40203	1210	3020	-	3910	880	2280	2340	1230	1690
	14DL40201	1290	3440	-	4300	800	2300	1340	1180	1600
	P46W94	1350	2430	-	3410	640	2410	1610	1240	1370
	DKW 44-10	1280	2740	3090	4190	930	2350	1300	1180	1660
	DKW 46-15	1120	2930	3110	4530	790	2860	1420	1320	1570
	DKW 45-25	1060	2680	3690	4130	770	2630	1440	1280	1880
	Croplan 52-16	1430	2650	3660	4100	880	2210	2710	1080	1370
	Croplan 115	800	2580	3750	4460	670	2420	2380	1200	1700
	Croplan 115	1320	2860	3380	4340	960	2630	2080	1140	1370

	Mean	1270	2590	3830	3920	760	2270	1970	1120	1420
	LSD(0.05)	224.8	547.3	-	522.8	411.2	459.7	382.4	157.1	319.0
	CV	12.9	16.5		11.7	14.2	8.6	22.6	6.6	13.0

1 Cultivars with a dash were not collected at the given location
2 Data collected as part of the OSU national variety tests

Table 3. Oil percentages from the OSU conventional winter canola variety trials in 2017.

	Cultivar¹	Kingfisher	Fort Cobb	Chickasha2	Pond Creek	Fairview	El Reno	Miami	Perkins	Lahoma
Conventional	Riley	41.7	41.6	41.9	-	-	39.3	44.0	37.5	42.4
	Torrington	42.2	41.4	41.7	-	-	39.1	44.2	38.4	42.6
	KSR 4704	39.9	41.6	-	40.6	38.0	39.3	44.4	39.7	42.1
	Mercedes	42.9	43.7	42.3	-	-	41.0	44.2	39.0	42.3
	Inspiration	42.8	42.3	41.9	-	-	40.0	43.9	36.8	42.8
	Quartz	42.1	41.8	42.7	-	-	41.8	43.4	38.9	42.7
	Hekip	42.7	42.3	41.6	-	-	38.3	44.0	36.0	41.9
	Aresenal	42.5	43.1	-	-	-	38.4	44.8	39.2	41.1
	Atenzo	42.5	42.9	-	-	-	38.6	45.3	37.1	42.2
	Edimax CL	42.1	43.8	40.9	-	-	38.4	45.8	37.4	42.1

	Mean	42.2	42.5		-	-	39.4	44.4	38.0	42.2

1 Cultivars with a dash were not collected at the given location

Table 4. Oil percentages from the OSU glyphosate tolerant winter canola variety trials in 2017.

	Cultivar¹	Kingfisher	Fort Cobb	Chickasha²	Pond Creek	Fairview	El Reno	Miami	Perkins	Lahoma
Glyphostate tolerant	KSR 4653S	40.5	41.4	42.4	40.5	37.6	40.1	46.7	36.8	40.8
	KSR 4706S	40.1	41.0	-	40.6	38.3	40.3	45.8	37.2	42.5
	KSR 07363	40.1	41.4	41.6	40.6	38.6	39.7	44.7	37.1	42.5
	KSR 1121	39.8	39.8	41.6	37.0	38.3	38.7	44.7	36.9	42.1
	Star 915W	39.8	40.8	42.7	39.5	40.2	38.8	43.3	36.8	42.1
	14DL40203	40.7	41.5	-	41.6	39.2	40.2	42.9	38.6	42.0
	14DL40201	41.5	42.3	-	41.3	37.9	40.0	42.7	36.7	41.5
	P46W94	42.9	42.6	-	41.0	39.6	41.5	43.4	38.6	43.2
	DKW 44-10	40.7	40.2	40.4	40.2	37.2	38.6	42.8	38.3	41.7
	DKW 46-15	42.2	42.1	43.0	41.9	40.2	40.9	43.9	37.9	41.7
	DKW 45-25	39.7	40.4	41.3	39.9	36.1	38.8	44.2	36.8	43.2
	Croplan 52-16	40.7	40.3	24.6	40.5	37.5	38.5	45.2	36.5	41.3
	Croplan 115	39.5	41.6	23.9	41.4	36.0	39.0	45.4	37.4	43.4
	Croplan 225	40.0	40.9	24.4	40.4	38.6	40.0	44.5	35.8	41.0

	Mean	40.6	41.1		40.5	38.3	39.6	44.1	37.3	42.2

1 Cultivar with a dash were not collected at the given location

2016-2017 Winter Canola Performance Trials

Production Season

Interpreting the data

Methods

Additional information

Cooperating producers:

Cooperating County Educators:

Cooperating Station Superintendents:

El Reno, Canadian County Conventional

El Reno, Canadian County Glyphosate Tolerant

Fairview, Major County, Glyphosate Tolerant

Fort Cobb, Caddo County Conventional

Fort Cobb, Caddo County Glyphosate Tolerant

Kingfisher, Kingfisher County, Conventional

Kingfisher, Kingfisher County Glyphosate Tolerant

Lahoma, Garfield County Conventional

Lahoma, Garfield County Glyphosate Tolerant

Miami, Ottawa County Conventional

Miami, Ottawa County Glyphosate Tolerant

Pond Creek, Grant County Glyphosate Tolerant

Perkins, Payne County Conventional

Perkins, Payne County Glyphosate Tolerant

Chickasha, Caddo County Conventional

Chickasha, Caddo County Glyphosate Tolerant

Was this information helpful?