96

What’s New?

New Android app, Crop Calculators for Corn ................ 96

Crops

2013 Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance

Test Results .................................................................... 96

Assessing Hail Damage in Corn ..................................... 96

Vegetable Crop Update newsletter #16 .......................... 97

Is that Soybean Mosaic Virus or

Herbicide Injury? ........................................................... 98

Plant Disease

Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Summary ....... 97

Insects and Mites

Wisconsin Pest Bulletin 8/15/13..................................... 97

New Android app, Crop Calculators for Corn

Joe Lauer, UWEX corn agronomist, Roger Schmidt, UWEX

technologist

Crop Calculators is an Android app that lets corn growers

calculate grain yields, maturity dates, and silage price

adjustments using their smartphones. This app was created by

the NPM program, and is based on university research data

from Joe Lauer, UWEX corn agronomist.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ipcm.calc.cropm

anager

Silage Moisture Cost Adjuster for Corn

This calculator makes it easy to see how the price for a ton of

silage changes if the percent moisture at harvest is different

from the negotiated moisture.

Maturity Date Predictor for Corn

When you enter a tassel date, the app displays date ranges for

50% kernel milk and black layer. If you then enter a frost date,

these date ranges will change color to indicate whether the

frost will occur before or after the date range.

Grain Yield Estimator for Corn

The number of bushels of corn per acre is estimated after you

enter the density of your field in plants per 1000th acre. There

is a help screen to assist with this easy measurement.

To create and share a report from any of these calculations, use

the “Email report” button provided in the app.

2013 Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance Test Results

Shawn Conley, Adam Roth, John Gaska, UW Agronomy

The Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance Tests are

conducted each year to give growers information to select the

best-performing varieties that will satisfy their specific goals.

The performance tests are conducted each year at four

locations in Wisconsin: Arlington, Chilton, Janesville and

Lancaster. Trials include released public varieties,

experimental lines from University breeding programs, and

lines from private seed companies. The primary objective of

these trials is to quantify how varieties perform at different

locations and across years. Growers can use this data to help

select which varieties to plant; breeders can use performance

data to determine whether to release a new variety.

To view the full PDF article scroll down to the bottom of this

newsletter.

Assessing Hail Damage in Corn

Joe Lauer, UWEX Corn Agronomist

This past Tuesday evening, an intense storm with hail and

high winds swept through northern Wisconsin. Some hail

damage has been reported in western Wisconsin. Any corn

knocked down by wind will likely recover since it is still early

Volume 20 Number 23 - - - University of Wisconsin Crop Manager - - - August 15, 2013

97

enough in the growing season and the stalk and leaves are still

green.

Hail affects yields primarily by reducing stands and

defoliating the plant. Defoliation causes most of the loses.

Knowing how to recognize hail damage and assess probable

loss is important for decision making.

The keys to storm related damage of crop fields are to: 1) be

patient, 2) determine the crop growth stage, and 3) assess plant

health accurately. Go ahead and view the damage, but do not

make any assessments until 7-10 days have passed because it is

difficult to distinguish living from dead tissue immediately

after a storm, It will take that long for the corn plant to begin

growing again if it can. For guidelines on assessing hail

damage click here.

Hail adjusters use standard tables to calculate compensation

for yield loss associated with hail. Four assessments are made

on corn when hail occurs after silking (Vorst, 1990) including:

1. Determining yield loss due to stand reduction,

2. Determining yield loss due to defoliation,

3. Determining direct ear damage, and

4. Bruising and stalk damage.

It is important to work with your crop insurance adjuster

before any final decisions are made.

Further Reading

Lauer, J.G., G.W. Roth, and M.G. Bertram. 2004. Impact of

Defoliation on Corn Forage Yield. Agron J 96:1459-1463.

Roth, G.W., and J.G. Lauer. 2008. Impact of Defoliation on

Corn Forage Quality. Agron J 100:651-657.

Vorst, J.V. 1990. Assessing Hail Damage to Corn. National

Corn Handbook NCH-1:4 pp.

Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) Update

Brian Hudelson, Ann Joy, Erin DeWinter and Joyce Wu, Plant

Disease Diagnostics Clinic

The PDDC receives samples of many plant and soil samples

from around the state. The following diseases/disorders have

been identified at the PDDC from August 3, 2013 through

August 9, 2013.

Plant/Sample Type, Disease/Disorder, Pathogen, County

FIELD CROPS,

Corn, Fusarium Stalk Rot, Fusarium oxysporum, Walworth

Corn, Gibberella Stalk Rot, Fusarium graminearum, Walworth

Corn, Purple Leaf Sheath, None, Dane

Soybean, Brown Spot, Septoria glycines, Outagamie

Soybean, Charcoal Rot, Macrophomina phaseolina, Adams

Soybean, Dicamba Injury, None, Outagamie

Soybean, Fusarium Root Rot, Fusarium sp., Adams

Soybean, Soybean Cyst, Heterodera glycines, Outagamie

FRUIT CROPS,

Blueberry, Phomopsis Canker, Phomopsis sp., Brown

Blueberry, Red Ring Spot, Red Ringspot Virus, Brown

Chokeberry, Cercospora Leaf Spot, Cercospora sp., Dane

Chokeberry, Phomopsis Canker, Phomopsis sp., Dane

Chokeberry, Rhizoctonia Stem Blight, Rhizoctonia sp., Dane

Grape, Growth Regulator Herbicide Injury, None, Dane

Grape, Oxidant Stipple, None, Dane

Grape, Brown Rot, Monilinia fructicola, Dane

Grape, Plum Pockets, Taphrina communis, Dane

Raspberry, Root/Crown Rot, Phytophthora sp., Pythium sp.,

Rhizoctonia sp., Columbia

VEGETABLES,

Potato , Late Blight, Phytophthora infestans, Adams, Brown

Squash, Root Rot, Rhizoctonia solani, Dane

Tomato, Late Blight, Phytophthora infestans, Brown, Racine

Tomato, Unidentified Viral Disease, Not identified, Polk

Tomato, Walnut Toxicity, None, Wood

SOIL,

Soybean Soil, Soybean Cyst Nematode, Heterodera glycines,

Rock

For additional information on plant diseases and their

control, visit the PDDC website at pddc.wisc.edu.

Vegetable Crop Update newsletter #16

The 16th issue of the Vegetable Crop Update is now

available. Topics in the newsletter include:

Late blight updates

DSVs and Blitecast for late blight management

PDays for early blight management

Cucurbit downy mildew updates and management

The file linked below also includes Supplemental issues 6, 7,

and 8.

http://ipcm.wisc.edu/download/vgu/VegCropUpdate16-

Sup6-7-8.pdf

This file is printed at the end of this newsletter as well.

98

Is that Soybean Mosaic Virus or Herbicide Injury?

Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Vince

Davis, Extension Weed Scientist, Shawn Conley, Extension

Soybean Specialist, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Download or print the full article as a PDF at >>>

http://fyi.uwex.edu/fieldcroppathology/files/2013/08/SMVHer

b.pdf

Calls, photos, and plant samples have been coming in over

the last week or so with soybeans exhibiting abnormal growth

including leaf cupping and strapping. Some of the symptoms

look very similar to soybean mosaic virus (SMV) giving the

leaves a somewhat bumpy and rippled appearance (see Fig.

1). However, further investigation has yielded clues that the

cause of the symptoms is not SMV. Samples coming into the

diagnostic lab are actually lacking few symptoms of virus but

exhibiting symptoms of growth regulator herbicide injury.

There have been several viruses identified in soybean fields

this season in Wisconsin. Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV; Fig. 2)

and Bean pod mottle virus (BPMV; Fig 3) have both been

observed in soybean fields. However, SMV has not yet been

identified. This isn’t to say that SMV isn’t out in fields in

Wisconsin, we simply haven’t seen symptoms or positively

identified the presence of the virus. Keep in mind the

following points about these three viruses of soybeans:

Figure 1. Mosaic symptoms on soybean caused by Soybean

mosaic virus. Photo Credit: Craig Grau.

Soybean mosaic virus

Soybean mosaic virus can be transmitted in seed (Hill,

1999). Aphids can also transmit SMV. Yield loss from SMV

infection can be as high as 66-86% in susceptible cultivars

(Hill, 1999).

Symptoms of SMV can vary from leaf deformation, to more

pronounced mosaic symptoms, and reduced pod yield or

malformed pods. Symptoms can be less severe at moderate

temperatures (~75 F) and non-existent at high temperatures

(>86 F). Management includes using SMV-free seed and also

planting late.

Figure 2. Mosaic symptoms on a soybean caused by Alfalfa

mosaic virus. Photo Credit: Craig Grau.

Alfalfa mosaic virus

Alfalfa mosaic virus is transmitted in low levels in soybean

seed (Tolin, 1999). Aphids transmit AMV. Symptoms of

AMV can vary from localized dead lesions on leaves, to large

areas of yellowing. The impact of AMV infection on soybean

yield is unknown (Giesler and Ziems, 2006).

Figure 3. Irregular leaf growth as a result of infection by Bean

pod mottle virus. Photo Credit: Craig Grau.

Bean pod mottle virus

Bean pod mottle virus is transmitted in low levels (0.1%) in

soybean seed (Gergerich, 1999). Some perennial weeds have

also been found as hosts. Leaf-feeding beetles are vectors of

BPMV. Beetles can acquire the virus during feeding and

immediately transmit particles (Gergerich,

1999). Management of BPMV includes controlling broadleaf

weeds at field edges, utilizing a trap crop for leaf feeding

beetles at field edges, and resistant cultivars.

Regardless of the viruses present this year, most symptoms

on soybean plants being sent to the diagnostic lab are mostly

not indicative of the viruses described above. While symptoms

included some bumpiness on the surface, most of the leaves on

the plants exhibited cupping, strapping, and shoe-stringing

which is more indicative of growth regulator-herbicide

injury. In addition, the incidence (number of plants exhibiting

99

Follow us on

symptoms) within fields this year in Wisconsin is often very

high (>75%). Giesler and Ziems (2006) conducted a survey of

AMV, BPMV, and SMV in Nebraska in 2001 and 2002. In

that survey it was possible to find an occasional field with

incidence of these viruses as high as 90-100%. However, the

majority of fields that tested positive for one or more of these

viruses, had incidence levels of 50% or less. High incidence

levels (>50%) are considered unusual for these viruses in

soybean fields. Therefore, incidence of leaf cupping or other

abnormal leaf growth at incidence levels of 90% or 100% are

more likely suggestive of an abiotic disorder, such as herbicide

injury.

Figure 4. Leaf epinasty and cupping as a result of injury by a

growth regulator herbicide. Photo Credit: Craig Grau.

While insect vectors can transmit these viruses, thereby

increasing observed incidence in the field, it isn’t likely that

insects have played a major role this season in

transmission. Soybean aphid populations were approaching

economic thresholds in the southern portions of Wisconsin in

June and early July. However, once cooler, wet weather

moved in, populations have fallen to nearly non-existent. The

same has been true for other insect vectors this season. So

again it is unlikely that significant transmission of viruses via

insect vectors has occurred.

Figure 5. “Shoe-stringing” of leaves on a soybean plant. Photo

credit: Damon Smith.

Mild to severe leaf cupping and epinasty are suggestive of

damage from a growth regulator herbicide (Fig. 4). Growth

regulator herbicides commonly used in corn and other grass

crops include 2,4-D, dicamba, and clopyralid. Damage can

occur on soybean after being exposed by these herbicides

through spray drift during nearby applications or by carryover

from an application in a previous crop on the same field. Due

to the drought last year, herbicide carryover might be playing a

larger role this year than expected following normal growing

conditions. Issues from drift this time of year would most

likely come from 2,4-D or dicamba products, whereas damage

from carryover are more likely to be from herbicides

containing clopyralid. In addition to herbicide damage from

growth regulator herbicides, several samples from counties in

the northern soybean production tier of the state have also been

sent in exhibiting “shoe-stringing” or “draw-stringing”

symptoms (Fig. 5). These symptoms are commonly observed

when conditions are cool and wet after chloroacetamide

herbicides like S-metolachlor, acetochlor, or diamethenamid

are used as pre or post-emergence herbicides to soybeans.

Wisconsin Pest Bulletin 8-15-13

Issue No. 15 of the Wisconsin Pest Bulletin is now available

at: http://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/pb/index.jsp PRINT

THIS ISSUE

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E

LOOKING AHEAD: Western bean cutworm flight expected

to subside shortly

FORAGES & GRAINS: Pea aphids favored by cool, mostly

dry weather

CORN: Preliminary results of the annual corn rootworm beetle

survey

SOYBEANS: Soybean aphid densities still low in most fields

FRUITS: Spotted wing drosophila confirmed in several more

counties

VEGETABLES: Cucurbit downy mildew detected in Jefferson

Co.

NURSERY & FOREST: Update on emerald ash borer and

gypsy moth quarantines

DEGREE DAYS: Degree day accumulations through August

14, 2013

A3868

Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance

Tests 2013

Shawn Conley, Adam Roth and John GaskaDepartment of Agronomy

College of Agricultural and Life Science

University of Wisconsin-Madison

www.coolbean.info

Table of Contents

2013 Year in Review ..................................................................................................................3

Using This Data to Select Top-Yielding Varieties ............................................................4

Experimental Procedures .......................................................................................................4

Table 1. Brand and Company Information of 2013 Entered Varieties

and Seed Treatments ...............................................................................................................5

Table 2. Combined 2013 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results ........................6

Table 3. Arlington 2013 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results ..........................8

Table 4. Chilton 2013 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results ............................ 10

Table 5. Janesville 2013 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results ....................... 12

Table 6. Lancaster 2013 Winter Wheat Performance Test Results ....................... 14

Additional Information ......................................................................................................... 16

3

A3868

ChiltonCooperator: Kolbe SeedsLoam soil7.5 inch row spacingApplied 75 lb N/a Post-emergent herbicide: Huskie Planted: September 26, 2012 Harvested: August 2, 2013

ArlingtonCooperators: Mike Bertram, Matt RepkingSilt loam soil7.5 inch row spacingApplied 55 lb N/a (nitrogen credited from previous legume)Post-emergent herbicide: Huskie Planted: September 24, 2012 Harvested: July 24, 2013

LancasterCooperator: Tim Wood Silt loam soil7.5 inch row spacingApplied 75 lb N/a Post-emergent herbicide: HuskiePlanted: September 27, 2012 Harvested: July 24, 2013

JanesvilleCooperators: Jim Stute, Rock Co. FarmSilt loam soil7.5 inch row spacingApplied 55 lb N/a (nitrogen credited from previous legume)Post-emergent herbicide: Huskie Planted: October 9, 2012Harvested: July 18, 20132013 Year in Review

Acreage and Growing ConditionsWisconsin’s harvested winter wheat acres are forecasted at 280,000 in 2013, up 12% from the previous year. The forecasted yield for the 2013 crop is 61 bu/a, down 14 bu/a from last year. Decreased yield was primarily due to poor establishment during the 2012 drought coupled with severe winterkill in the spring of 2013. Wheat establishment was a challenge due to extreme drought across much of the WI winter wheat growing regions. Wheat germinated late and had poor tiller development prior to winter dormancy. This led to thin spring stands and weed control problems. Wheat broke dormancy in April and continued to progress one to two weeks behind for much of the growing season. Winterkill and severe spring flooding led to thousands of wheat acres sprayed out and replanted to either corn or soybean. Furthermore, saturated fields delayed or prohibited many operations to the wheat crop including spring nitrogen, herbicide, and fungicide applications. (Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (www.nass.usda.gov))

Overall, winter wheat yield and test weights were average in 2013. Wheat yields at the Arlington, Chilton, Janesville and Lancaster locations averaged 85, 89, 67 and 87 bu/a, respectively. Winterkill was moderate at Arlington and severe at Chilton in 2013.

DiseasesStatewide incidence and severity of powdery mildew was relatively light in 2013. Low incidence of barley yellow dwarf virus visual symptoms was observed at all variety trial locations. Stripe rust followed by leaf and stem rust appeared in June at the Janesville site. Leaf rust appeared in June at the Arlington site. The timing of flowering coincided with weather conditions that were not favorable for Fusarium head blight in 2013.

The Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance Tests are conducted each year to give growers information to select the best-performing varieties that will satisfy their specific goals. The performance tests are conducted each year at four locations in Wisconsin: Arlington, Chilton, Janesville and Lancaster. Trials include released public varieties, experimental lines from University breeding programs, and lines from private seed companies. The primary objective of these trials is to quantify how varieties perform at different locations and across years. Growers can use this data to help select which varieties to plant; breeders can use performance data to determine whether to release a new variety.

Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance Tests—2013Shawn Conley, Adam Roth, and John Gaska

4

Experimental Procedures

Using This Data to Select Top-Yielding Varieties

Wheat at lower test weights may be discounted. Both environment and pests may affect test weight; there-fore, selecting a variety that has a high test weight po-tential in your region is critical to maximizing economic gain.

Select a variety that has the specific insect and dis-ease resistance characteristics that fits your needs. By selecting varieties with the appropriate level of resis-tance, crop yield loss may be either reduced or avoided without the need of pesticides. Careful management of resistant cultivars through crop and variety rotation, are required to ensure that these characteristics are not lost.

Crop height and lodging potential are also impor-tant varietal characteristics that may be affected by your cropping system. If the wheat crop is intended for grain only, it may be important to select a variety that is short in stature and has a low potential for lodging. This may decrease yield loss due to crop spoilage and harvest loss as well as increase harvesting rate. However, if the wheat crop is to be used as silage or is to be harvested as both grain and straw, then selecting a taller variety may be warranted.

Lodging: Lodging scores were based on the average erectness of the main stem of plants at maturity. 1 = all plants erect, 2 = slight lodging, 3 = plants lodged at 45o angle, 4 = severe lodging, 5 = all plants flat.

Data PresentationYield: Listed in Tables 2-6. Data for both 2012 and 2013 are pro-vided if the variety was entered in the 2012 trials.

Least significant difference: Variations in yield and other characteristics occur because of variability in soil and other grow-ing conditions that lower the precision of the results. Statistical analysis makes it possible to determine, with known probabilities of error, whether a difference is real or whether it may have oc-curred by chance.

Growers can use the appropriate least significant difference (LSD) value at the bottom of the tables to determine true statistical differences. Where the difference between two selected varieties within a column is equal to or greater than the LSD value at the bottom of the column, there is a real difference between the two varieties in nine out of ten instances. If the difference is less than the LSD value, there may still be a real difference, but the experi-ment has produced no evidence of it. Data that does not differ is indicated by NS.

As with any crop, variety selection is the most important factor to consider in maximizing winter wheat yield and profitability. When choosing a winter wheat variety, sev-eral factors must be considered. These include winter survival, insect and disease resistance, heading date, lodging, test weight, and most importantly, yield. Since no variety is ideal for every location, it is important to understand the crop environment and pest complex that affects your specific region to maximize yield.

Yield is based on the genetic potential and environ-mental conditions in which the crop is grown. There-fore, by diversifying the genetic pool that is planted, a grower can hedge against crop failure. Select those varieties that perform well, not only in your area, but across experimental sites and years. This will increase the likelihood that, given next year’s environment (which you cannot control), the variety you selected will perform well. (Table 2 gives an overview of yields across all locations.)

Test weight is also an important factor to consider when selecting a variety. The minimum test weight to be considered a U.S. #2 soft red winter wheat is 58 lb/bu.

At PlantingSite details: Summarized in front page graphic.

Seedbed preparation: Conventional and conservation tillage methods.

Seeding rate: 1.5 million viable seeds per acre.

Seed treatments: Identified in Table 1.

Fertilizer and herbicides: Nitrogen was applied in spring accord-ing to UWEX recommendations. Phosphorus and potassium were applied as indicated by soil tests. Herbicides were applied for weed control as necessary.

Planting: A grain drill with a 9 row cone seeder was used to plant the plots, all 25 feet in length. To account for field variability and for statistical analysis, each variety was grown in four separate plots (replicates) in a randomized complete block design at each location.

HarvestYield: The center seven rows of each plot were harvested with a self-propelled combine. Grain was weighed and moisture and test weight were determined in the field using electronic equipment on the plot harvester. Yield is reported as bu/a (60 lb/bu) at 13.5% moisture content.

5

Tabl

e 1.

Br

and

and

Com

pany

Info

rmat

ion

of 2

013

Ente

red

Vari

etie

s an

d Se

ed T

reat

men

tsBrand & Company Information 2013 Varieties Seed TreatmentsAgriMAXX www.agrimaxxwheat.comAgriMAXX Wheat Company (855-629-9432)

413, 427, 434, 438, Exp. 1342 Dividend Extreme, Cruiser

Croplan Genetics www.answerplot.comWinfield Solutions (608-516-4636)

8925, 9012, 9101, 9201 Warden Cereals, Storicide II

Diener www.biotownseeds.comBioTown Seeds (219-984-6038)

D492W, D506W, D512W Dividend Extreme, Cruiser, Storicide II

Dyna-Gro www.dynagroseed.comDyna-Gro Seed (614-761-4110)

9042, 9223 Foothold Extra, Awaken

Equity Seed www.go2dei.comDirect Enterprises (888-895-7333)

Quest, Sienna, Guardian Nforce ST (+ N-Hibit)

FS Seed www.fsseed.com/midwestGrowmark, Inc. (309-660-5576)

FS 602, FS 622, FS 625, FS 626 Dividend Extreme, Cruiser

Jung www.jungseedgenetics.comJung Seed Genetics (920-326-5891)

5820, 58555930

Dividend Extreme, CruiserDividend Extreme

LCS/ VanTreekVanTreek Seed Farms (920-467-2422)

L-423 Dividend Extreme, Cruiser

LCS/ Welter www.welterseed.comWelter Seed & Honey Co. (800-470-3325)

L-314 None

Legacy www.legacyseeds.comLegacy Seeds Inc. (715-467-2555)

LW 1065, LW 1155, LW 1210, LW 1230, LW 1250, LXW 1323 LW 1312, LW 1335LW 1370LXW 1375

Sativa IM, Sabrex Dividend Extreme, CruiserDividend Extreme, Apron XLDividend Extreme

Limagrain Cereal Seeds Limagrain Cereal Seeds (970-498-2200)www.limagraincerealseeds.com

LCS 38686 Dividend Extreme, Cruiser

Pioneer www.pioneer.comDuPont Pioneer (507-625-3045)

25R34, 25R40, 25R46, 25R47 Dividend Extreme, Gaucho

PIP www.pipseeds.comPartners in Production (877-GRO-SEED)

702, 703, 721, 722, 726, 727, 729, 732, 733, 734, 735, 740, 748, 749, 752, 758, 759, 760, 761, 769, 781, 782, 783

Charter, ImidaclopridCharter, ImidaclopridCharter, Imidacloprid

Pro Seed GeneticsPro Seed Genetics Cooperative (920-388-2824)

PRO 200, PRO 260, PRO 320A, PRO Ex 370 ,PRO Ex 390 PRO Ex 310 PRO Ex 330PRO Ex 350PRO Ex 380

Dividend Extreme, Bio-Forge, Macho 600ST Difenoconazole Difenoconazole, Mefenoxam, ImidaclopridDividend Extreme, CruiserDividend Extreme, Cruiser, Storicide II

Public WI Foundation Seeds (608-846-9761)www.wisconsinfoundationseeds.wisc.edu

Hopewell, Kaskaskia, Red Devil Brand, Sunburst Dividend Extreme, Bio-Forge, Macho 600ST

Public-exp wcia.wisc.eduWI Crop Improvement Assn. (608-262-0167)

VA 09W-73 Raxil MD, Storicide II

Syngenta www.agriprowheat.comSyngenta Seeds (765-412-5420)

SY 483, SY 1526, W1104 Dividend Extreme, Cruiser 5FS

Tracy www.tracyseeds.com Tracy Seeds, LLC (608-752-2767)

TW30-12, TW73-12 TW52-13

Proceed, GauchoDividend Extreme, CruiserMaxx

Van Treeck VanTreek Seed Farms 920-467-2422

Exp. J-334 Dividend Extreme, Cruiser

6

Tabl

e 2.

Com

bine

d 20

13 W

inte

r Whe

at P

erfo

rman

ce T

est R

esul

ts (c

ontin

ued

on

next

pag

e)

2013 Arlington Chilton Janesville Lancaster 2012

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

AgriMAXX 413 * 89 58.9 85 57.1 * 104 60.1 73 60.5 93 58.0 109427 80 57.5 80 56.5 86 58.4 68 57.4 88 57.7 111434 82 58.8 85 57.6 84 58.4 66 59.9 92 59.3 --438 85 58.1 88 57.3 87 57.7 * 74 58.5 92 59.0 --Exp. 1342 72 58.7 78 56.8 70 58.3 62 60.5 81 59.2 --

Croplan Genetics

8925 81 60.2 79 59.0 * 95 61.2 70 61.7 82 59.0 1009012 * 87 60.4 * 92 58.4 93 59.6 71 61.8 92 61.7 969101 84 59.2 89 57.4 80 59.5 73 61.1 95 59.0 1119201 76 58.7 82 57.7 73 58.4 63 59.8 85 59.0 --

Diener D492W * 91 59.5 * 92 57.3 * 101 59.5 72 60.9 98 60.2 109D506W 73 56.3 81 55.9 70 56.4 65 56.1 78 56.8 104D512W 81 58.1 84 57.3 84 57.7 70 58.4 86 59.0 --

Dyna-Gro 9042 82 58.8 77 57.4 89 58.9 68 59.0 96 60.0 1139223 * 87 58.1 84 56.5 * 95 58.5 * 74 58.8 94 58.7 113

Equity Seed Quest 78 57.3 75 55.9 78 57.6 65 57.6 93 57.9 105Sienna 83 58.6 90 57.3 84 58.9 65 59.1 94 59.2 104Guardian 80 58.8 87 56.8 79 59.2 64 58.8 91 60.5 --

FS Seed FS 602 * 87 59.0 89 57.2 * 98 59.4 71 60.9 90 58.6 109FS 622 83 61.1 84 59.4 * 96 61.8 66 62.2 88 61.0 107FS 625 80 57.3 82 56.4 86 58.1 67 56.8 87 57.8 112FS 626 77 58.7 84 57.7 85 59.0 60 59.0 80 59.2 --

Jung 5820 84 60.1 * 93 58.3 85 60.0 71 61.8 87 60.3 1015855 * 86 58.8 88 57.8 93 59.3 66 58.5 98 59.8 1035930 84 58.7 * 93 56.4 92 60.1 66 59.2 86 59.1 --

LCS / Van Treek L-423 78 60.3 73 57.9 84 60.2 68 61.6 86 61.3 --LCS / Welter L-314 80 59.6 75 57.1 85 59.9 70 60.9 90 60.5 --Legacy LW 1065 82 59.8 81 58.9 93 60.6 67 60.1 87 59.5 99

LW 1155 83 59.1 77 56.4 92 59.8 71 60.7 92 59.4 105LW 1210 84 60.4 89 57.7 90 60.3 70 62.2 89 61.3 100LW 1230 78 59.5 78 57.8 * 94 60.4 59 59.4 81 60.5 99LW 1250 80 60.5 82 59.4 90 61.9 60 59.9 89 61.0 92LW 1312 84 58.1 87 56.6 85 57.5 * 76 59.2 88 59.0 --LW 1335 81 59.8 84 58.8 * 98 62.0 55 58.5 85 59.6 --LW 1370 82 59.1 85 59.0 93 59.5 63 58.8 87 59.2 --LXW 1323 85 59.7 87 57.7 88 59.7 73 61.4 91 60.2 --LXW 1375 * 91 59.0 89 55.1 * 95 60.1 * 75 59.7 * 105 61.0 --

Limagrain Cereal Seeds LCS 38686 83 59.1 78 57.2 * 97 60.3 * 74 60.8 81 58.0 --Pioneer 25R34 83 58.5 89 56.7 * 105 59.4 67 59.3 68 58.5 * 117

25R40 84 60.0 91 58.8 83 59.9 71 61.4 93 59.9 * 12225R46 * 86 60.4 * 94 58.5 90 60.7 71 61.2 87 61.0 --25R47 * 88 58.3 91 56.6 * 103 59.7 64 58.5 93 58.5 * 117

PIP 702 84 59.0 85 57.8 93 59.7 69 59.2 89 59.2 104703 85 58.8 82 57.2 93 59.3 * 77 59.7 89 58.9 --721 85 57.7 * 92 56.7 87 57.6 68 57.4 93 59.2 113

4-testaverage

4-testaverage

7

Tabl

e 2.

Com

bine

d 20

13 W

inte

r Whe

at P

erfo

rman

ce T

est R

esul

ts (c

ontin

ued

from

pre

viou

s pa

ge)

2013 Arlington Chilton Janesville Lancaster 2012

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

Yield (bu/a)

PIP (cont’d) 722 77 57.3 80 56.6 85 58.1 63 57.7 81 57.0 * 114726 80 59.0 84 57.6 * 94 60.6 61 60.2 83 57.7 --727 83 60.3 86 59.2 * 96 61.7 59 60.2 92 60.1 --729 84 60.1 87 59.0 * 97 61.2 64 60.5 89 59.5 109732 79 58.8 83 56.9 82 58.6 62 59.2 92 60.4 111733 * 92 58.8 * 99 57.6 * 98 58.8 * 79 60.4 94 58.6 --734 * 89 61.2 * 92 59.5 * 97 61.3 * 76 62.6 94 61.3 --735 * 87 59.3 91 57.9 * 97 59.6 69 61.2 91 58.7 --740 78 58.1 80 57.2 86 57.6 69 59.5 78 58.2 105748 82 60.5 89 58.9 * 95 61.1 59 61.2 87 60.7 --749 85 57.8 86 56.1 * 94 57.8 71 58.4 88 59.0 --752 83 58.8 81 57.8 86 58.2 * 74 59.6 91 59.6 106758 81 60.0 82 58.8 92 61.5 60 59.9 90 60.0 --759 84 58.1 90 57.3 89 58.1 71 58.6 87 58.3 --760 85 59.7 91 57.5 92 61.1 67 59.7 91 60.5 91761 84 59.2 90 57.3 * 96 61.1 64 59.4 84 58.8 92769 81 57.4 84 56.5 88 57.4 68 58.1 86 57.8 --781 74 59.0 74 56.3 80 59.3 60 60.4 81 59.8 --782 85 62.7 * 92 60.9 91 63.6 69 63.1 86 63.2 --783 85 60.1 87 58.0 89 59.8 71 60.9 95 61.6 --

Pro Seed Genetics

PRO 200 84 60.7 89 59.4 * 99 61.0 67 61.9 79 60.7 93PRO 260 80 58.0 82 57.6 93 58.7 69 59.1 77 56.5 104PRO 320A 80 59.7 83 57.9 84 60.2 71 62.5 84 58.2 105PRO Ex 310 84 58.3 91 57.4 91 58.9 62 58.8 93 58.2 104PRO Ex 330 77 57.2 80 56.0 75 56.7 60 57.0 93 59.1 106PRO Ex 350 81 57.7 82 57.3 84 58.3 67 57.7 88 57.7 106PRO Ex 370 79 57.8 81 57.5 91 58.7 66 58.7 77 56.3 --PRO Ex 380 84 62.3 87 60.5 90 63.2 * 79 64.1 80 61.6 --PRO Ex 390 80 59.6 81 58.4 83 59.2 66 59.6 90 61.4 --

Public Hopewell 82 59.6 79 58.5 * 94 60.6 71 60.2 83 59.4 99Kaskaskia 83 61.4 89 59.9 * 95 62.2 67 62.7 83 60.7 97

Red Devil Brand 80 59.7 83 59.1 * 98 60.7 64 61.4 75 57.8 106Sunburst * 86 61.7 83 59.6 * 103 62.5 69 62.7 90 62.1 107

Public-exp VA 09W-73 43 54.2 49 54.4 26 55.9 49 58.3 42 49.3 --Syngenta SY 483 85 58.6 80 55.2 89 59.6 * 81 60.0 89 59.8 108

SY 1526 72 58.1 84 57.2 74 59.1 57 58.5 73 57.6 --W1104 79 57.7 82 55.8 72 57.4 * 75 60.3 85 57.4 109

Tracy TW30-12 79 59.0 88 57.7 89 60.9 58 58.2 82 59.3 --TW52-13 79 59.8 87 59.6 * 94 61.5 56 58.7 80 59.2 --TW73-12 * 86 58.6 81 56.3 * 104 60.0 69 60.5 90 57.7 --

Van Treeck Exp. J-334 82 59.9 87 59.7 * 103 61.0 53 58.8 85 60.2 --Mean 82 59.1 85 57.6 89 59.6 67 59.9 87 59.2 102

LSD (.10) 6 1.1 7 1.2 11 1.1 7 1.1 7 1.4 8

* Yield is not significantly different (0.10 level) than that of the highest yielding cultivar

4-testaverage

4-testaverage

8

Tabl

e 3.

A

rlin

gton

201

3 W

inte

r Whe

at P

erfo

rman

ce T

est R

esul

ts (c

ontin

ued

on

next

pag

e)

2013 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)Height

(in.)Lodging

(1-5)Winterkill1

(%)Yield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)AgriMAXX 413 85 57.1 32 1.0 9 120 62.5

427 80 56.5 33 1.0 15 128 60.8434 85 57.6 32 1.0 14 -- --438 88 57.3 35 1.0 9 -- --Exp. 1342 78 56.8 32 1.0 20 -- --

Croplan Genetics 8925 79 59.0 35 1.0 19 113 62.59012 * 92 58.4 35 1.0 16 113 63.59101 89 57.4 33 1.0 16 121 63.19201 82 57.7 33 1.0 13 -- --

Diener D492W * 92 57.3 32 1.0 13 121 62.4D506W 81 55.9 32 1.0 19 121 60.6D512W 84 57.3 35 1.0 15 -- --

Dyna-Gro 9042 77 57.4 32 1.0 19 129 61.99223 84 56.5 35 1.0 6 121 60.5

Equity Seed Quest 75 55.9 33 1.0 19 120 61.0Sienna 90 57.3 37 1.0 15 116 60.8Guardian 87 56.8 35 1.0 11 -- --

FS Seed FS 602 89 57.2 31 1.0 9 115 62.5FS 622 84 59.4 34 1.0 20 126 64.2FS 625 82 56.4 33 1.0 13 126 61.9FS 626 84 57.7 34 1.0 19 -- --

Jung 5820 * 93 58.3 36 1.0 15 117 63.65855 88 57.8 36 1.0 11 114 60.55930 * 93 56.4 35 1.0 15 -- --

LCS / VanTreek L-423 73 57.9 32 1.0 9 -- --LCS / Welter L-314 75 57.1 36 1.0 24 -- --Legacy LW 1065 81 58.9 34 1.0 11 107 62.4

LW 1155 77 56.4 31 1.0 20 117 62.3LW 1210 89 57.7 37 1.0 11 117 63.7LW 1230 78 57.8 33 1.0 10 99 62.6LW 1250 82 59.4 34 1.0 11 99 63.3LW 1312 87 56.6 35 1.0 21 -- --LW 1335 84 58.8 34 1.0 10 -- --LW 1370 85 59.0 33 1.0 13 -- --LXW 1323 87 57.7 35 1.0 14 -- --LXW 1375 89 55.1 32 1.0 16 -- --

Limagrain Cereal Seeds LCS 38686 78 57.2 32 1.0 8 -- --Pioneer 25R34 89 56.7 36 1.0 9 * 139 61.9

25R40 91 58.8 32 1.0 11 * 143 64.325R46 * 94 58.5 32 1.0 18 -- --25R47 91 56.6 33 1.0 9 * 138 61.6

PIP 702 85 57.8 33 1.0 11 120 61.0703 82 57.2 33 1.0 20 -- --721 * 92 56.7 36 1.0 11 128 60.9

9

Tabl

e 3.

A

rlin

gton

201

3 W

inte

r Whe

at P

erfo

rman

ce T

est R

esul

ts (c

ontin

ued

from

pre

viou

s pa

ge)

2013 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)Height

(in.)Lodging

(1-5)Winterkill1

(%)Yield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)PIP (cont’d) 722 80 56.6 34 1.0 15 131 61.2

726 84 57.6 35 1.0 28 -- --727 86 59.2 35 1.0 13 -- --729 87 59.0 36 1.0 14 122 62.5732 83 56.9 32 1.0 15 128 62.7733 * 99 57.6 35 1.0 15 -- --734 * 92 59.5 35 1.0 8 -- --735 91 57.9 33 1.0 16 -- --740 80 57.2 32 1.0 24 123 63.2748 89 58.9 35 1.0 15 -- --749 86 56.1 35 1.0 19 -- --752 81 57.8 33 1.0 23 128 61.2758 82 58.8 35 1.0 15 -- --759 90 57.3 36 1.0 14 -- --760 91 57.5 37 1.0 16 91 61.3761 90 57.3 36 1.0 14 95 61.6769 84 56.5 35 1.0 15 -- --781 74 56.3 34 1.0 31 -- --782 * 92 60.9 36 1.0 13 -- --783 87 58.0 36 1.0 14 -- --

Pro Seed Genetics PRO 200 89 59.4 37 1.0 3 95 61.8PRO 260 82 57.6 34 1.0 20 124 63.1PRO 320A 83 57.9 38 1.0 16 117 63.1PRO Ex 310 91 57.4 38 1.0 10 118 60.8PRO Ex 330 80 56.0 33 1.0 15 121 61.9PRO Ex 350 82 57.3 33 1.0 13 123 60.9PRO Ex 370 81 57.5 33 1.0 18 -- --PRO Ex 380 87 60.5 32 1.0 13 -- --PRO Ex 390 81 58.4 34 1.0 24 -- --

Public Hopewell 79 58.5 35 1.0 9 110 62.6Kaskaskia 89 59.9 39 1.0 8 103 64.0Red Devil Brand 83 59.1 36 1.0 9 115 62.5Sunburst 83 59.6 30 1.0 13 123 64.9

Public-exp VA 09W-73 49 54.4 29 1.0 48 -- --Syngenta SY 483 80 55.2 33 1.0 11 115 61.7

SY 1526 84 57.2 32 1.0 20 -- --W1104 82 55.8 31 1.0 21 123 61.3

Tracy TW30-12 88 57.7 37 1.0 8 -- --TW52-13 87 59.6 34 1.0 11 -- --TW73-12 81 56.3 31 1.0 9 -- --

Van Treeck Exp. J-334 87 59.7 34 1.0 9 -- --Mean 85 57.6 34 1.0 15 113 62.3

LSD(.10) 7 1.2 1 NS 10 6 0.7* Yield is not significantly different (0.10 level) than that of the highest yielding cultivar1 Winterkill = visual estimate taken at green-up of the percent total plot stand loss due to winter injury

10

Tabl

e 4.

Chi

lton

2013

Win

ter W

heat

Per

form

ance

Tes

t Res

ults

(con

tinue

d o

n ne

xt p

age)

2013 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)Height

(in.)Lodging

(1-5)Winterkill1

(%)Yield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)

AgriMAXX 413 * 104 60.1 29 1.0 8 107 59.1427 86 58.4 32 1.0 35 * 114 60.1434 84 58.4 29 1.0 24 -- --438 87 57.7 33 1.0 40 -- --Exp. 1342 70 58.3 29 1.0 51 -- --

Croplan Genetics 8925 * 95 61.2 33 1.0 28 108 61.99012 93 59.6 34 1.0 28 101 59.99101 80 59.5 31 1.0 65 110 60.49201 73 58.4 29 1.0 53 -- --

Diener D492W * 101 59.5 30 1.0 15 * 113 58.7D506W 70 56.4 30 1.0 65 107 59.4D512W 84 57.7 33 1.0 28 -- --

Dyna-Gro 9042 89 58.9 31 1.0 16 * 113 59.79223 * 95 58.5 34 1.0 29 112 60.0

Equity Seed Quest 78 57.6 31 1.0 34 109 59.4Sienna 84 58.9 35 1.0 53 104 58.7Guardian 79 59.2 31 1.0 29 -- --

FS Seed FS 602 * 98 59.4 30 1.0 10 108 59.6FS 622 * 96 61.8 31 1.0 31 103 62.2FS 625 86 58.1 31 1.0 31 * 115 59.6FS 626 85 59.0 29 1.0 33 -- --

Jung 5820 85 60.0 31 1.0 41 97 59.35855 93 59.3 35 1.0 41 108 58.25930 92 60.1 32 1.0 19 -- --

LCS / VanTreek L-423 84 60.2 32 1.0 40 -- --LCS / Welter L-314 85 59.9 35 1.0 31 -- --Legacy LW 1065 93 60.6 31 1.0 35 * 114 61.8

LW 1155 92 59.8 29 1.0 30 * 117 59.4LW 1210 90 60.3 33 1.0 34 99 59.9LW 1230 * 94 60.4 31 1.0 10 105 61.4LW 1250 90 61.9 32 1.0 15 101 61.3LW 1312 85 57.5 34 1.0 25 -- --LW 1335 * 98 62.0 34 1.0 14 -- --LW 1370 93 59.5 32 1.0 24 -- --LXW 1323 88 59.7 35 1.0 44 -- --LXW 1375 * 95 60.1 32 1.0 40 -- --

Limagrain Cereal Seeds LCS 38686 * 97 60.3 31 1.0 25 -- --Pioneer 25R34 * 105 59.4 32 1.0 21 * 119 60.5

25R40 83 59.9 27 1.0 34 111 60.825R46 90 60.7 30 1.0 35 -- --25R47 * 103 59.7 30 1.0 6 * 119 59.7

PIP 702 93 59.7 31 1.0 10 102 58.4703 93 59.3 31 1.0 21 -- --721 87 57.6 33 1.0 29 * 119 59.7

11

Tabl

e 4.

Chi

lton

2013

Win

ter W

heat

Per

form

ance

Tes

t Res

ults

(con

tinue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

)

2013 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)Height

(in.)Lodging

(1-5)Winterkill1

(%)Yield

(bu/a)Test weight

(lb/bu)

PIP (cont’d) 722 85 58.1 31 1.0 35 * 115 59.4726 * 94 60.6 33 1.0 44 -- --727 * 96 61.7 33 1.0 18 -- --729 * 97 61.2 33 1.0 18 * 113 61.6732 82 58.6 29 1.0 23 * 122 59.7733 * 98 58.8 32 1.0 11 -- --734 * 97 61.3 33 1.0 23 -- --735 * 97 59.6 32 1.0 30 -- --740 86 57.6 32 1.0 46 111 59.3748 * 95 61.1 33 1.0 21 -- --749 * 94 57.8 33 1.0 19 -- --752 86 58.2 32 1.0 23 110 60.2758 92 61.5 33 1.0 25 -- --759 89 58.1 34 1.0 26 -- --760 92 61.1 33 1.0 18 105 61.7761 * 96 61.1 35 1.0 10 105 61.9769 88 57.4 33 1.0 26 -- --781 80 59.3 31 1.0 66 -- --782 91 63.6 34 1.0 14 -- --783 89 59.8 33 1.0 35 -- --

Pro Seed Genetics PRO 200 * 99 61.0 36 1.0 5 104 59.7PRO 260 93 58.7 32 1.0 23 * 114 60.1PRO 320A 84 60.2 35 1.0 18 96 60.3PRO Ex 310 91 58.9 36 1.0 50 * 115 59.2PRO Ex 330 75 56.7 31 1.0 35 106 58.8PRO Ex 350 84 58.3 31 1.0 44 * 113 59.9PRO Ex 370 91 58.7 32 1.0 33 -- --PRO Ex 380 90 63.2 31 2.0 11 -- --PRO Ex 390 83 59.2 32 1.0 53 -- --

Public Hopewell * 94 60.6 35 1.0 15 101 61.2Kaskaskia * 95 62.2 37 1.0 13 101 62.4Red Devil Brand * 98 60.7 33 1.0 8 111 61.0Sunburst * 103 62.5 31 1.0 11 * 113 63.9

Public-exp VA 09W-73 26 55.9 26 1.0 96 -- --Syngenta SY 483 89 59.6 32 1.0 34 * 114 61.1

SY 1526 74 59.1 32 1.0 56 -- --W1104 72 57.4 30 1.0 68 108 59.6

Tracy's TW30-12 89 60.9 35 1.0 13 -- --TW52-13 * 94 61.5 34 1.0 18 -- --TW73-12 * 104 60.0 30 1.0 20 -- --

Van Treeck Exp. J-334 * 103 61.0 35 1.0 6 -- --Mean 89 59.6 32 1.0 29 107 60.5

LSD (.10) 11 1.1 2 0.2 20 9 0.9* Yield is not significantly different (0.10 level) than that of the highest yielding cultivar1 Winterkill = visual estimate taken at green-up of the percent total plot stand loss due to winter injury

12

Tabl

e 5.

Ja

nesv

ille

2013

Win

ter W

heat

Per

form

ance

Tes

t Res

ults

(con

tinue

d o

n ne

xt p

age)

2013 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test wt. (lb/bu)

Height (in.)

Lodging (1-5)

Winterkill1 (%)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

AgriMAXX 413 73 60.5 30 1.0 0 * 94 62.6427 68 57.4 31 1.0 0 * 102 60.0434 66 59.9 30 1.0 0 -- --438 * 74 58.5 33 1.0 0 -- --Exp. 1342 62 60.5 30 1.0 0 -- --

Croplan Genetics 8925 70 61.7 31 1.0 0 83 62.49012 71 61.8 33 1.0 0 82 62.99101 73 61.1 31 1.0 0 * 94 61.79201 63 59.8 30 1.0 0 -- --

Diener D492W 72 60.9 28 1.0 3 87 62.2D506W 65 56.1 32 1.0 0 86 61.9D512W 70 58.4 34 1.0 3 -- --

Dyna-Gro 9042 68 59.0 30 1.0 0 * 95 62.29223 * 74 58.8 33 1.0 0 * 102 60.7

Equity Seed Quest 65 57.6 32 1.0 0 86 61.0Sienna 65 59.1 33 1.0 0 * 93 61.3Guardian 64 58.8 32 1.0 0 -- --

FS Seed FS 602 71 60.9 27 1.0 0 * 98 62.2FS 622 66 62.2 30 1.0 0 91 63.9FS 625 67 56.8 30 1.0 0 * 102 60.1FS 626 60 59.0 30 1.0 0 -- --

Jung 5820 71 61.8 32 1.0 0 89 63.25855 66 58.5 34 1.0 3 87 61.55930 66 59.2 31 1.0 0 -- --

LCS / VanTreek L-423 68 61.6 32 1.0 0 -- --LCS / Welter L-314 70 60.9 33 1.0 0 -- --Legacy LW 1065 67 60.1 30 1.0 0 80 62.3

LW 1155 71 60.7 28 1.0 4 89 61.8LW 1210 70 62.2 33 1.0 0 81 62.8LW 1230 59 59.4 29 1.0 0 89 63.1LW 1250 60 59.9 29 1.0 0 81 62.6LW 1312 * 76 59.2 33 1.0 0 -- --LW 1335 55 58.5 31 1.0 0 -- --LW 1370 63 58.8 32 1.0 0 -- --LXW 1323 73 61.4 32 1.0 0 -- --LXW 1375 * 75 59.7 33 1.0 0 -- --

Limagrain Cereal Seeds LCS 38686 * 74 60.8 29 1.0 0 -- --Pioneer 25R34 67 59.3 33 1.0 0 * 102 61.5

25R40 71 61.4 27 1.0 0 * 101 62.725R46 71 61.2 30 1.0 0 -- --25R47 64 58.5 30 1.0 0 * 101 61.3

PIP 702 69 59.2 33 1.0 3 79 60.6703 * 77 59.7 31 1.0 0 -- --721 68 57.4 33 1.0 0 90 61.3

13

Tabl

e 5.

Jan

esvi

lle 2

013

Win

ter W

heat

Per

form

ance

Tes

t Res

ults

(con

tinue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

)

2013 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test wt. (lb/bu)

Height (in.)

Lodging (1-5)

Winterkill1 (%)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

PIP (cont’d) 722 63 57.7 30 1.0 0 * 101 60.4726 61 60.2 33 1.0 3 -- --727 59 60.2 32 1.0 0 -- --729 64 60.5 32 1.0 0 89 63.0732 62 59.2 28 1.0 0 87 61.8733 * 79 60.4 31 1.0 0 -- --734 * 76 62.6 34 1.0 0 -- --735 69 61.2 29 1.0 0 -- --740 69 59.5 30 1.0 0 87 62.1748 59 61.2 32 1.0 0 -- --749 71 58.4 33 1.0 0 -- --752 * 74 59.6 32 1.0 0 82 60.7758 60 59.9 30 1.0 3 -- --759 71 58.6 32 1.0 4 -- --760 67 59.7 32 1.0 0 76 60.5761 64 59.4 32 1.0 4 81 60.7769 68 58.1 33 1.0 0 -- --781 60 60.4 32 1.0 0 -- --782 69 63.1 32 1.0 0 -- --783 71 60.9 33 1.0 3 -- --

Pro Seed Genetics PRO 200 67 61.9 32 1.0 0 87 62.9PRO 260 69 59.1 30 1.0 3 79 61.7PRO 320A 71 62.5 35 1.0 0 88 62.3PRO Ex 310 62 58.8 34 1.0 0 79 61.0PRO Ex 330 60 57.0 32 1.0 0 89 61.1PRO Ex 350 67 57.7 31 1.0 0 84 60.1PRO Ex 370 66 58.7 31 1.0 0 -- --PRO Ex 380 * 79 64.1 28 1.0 0 -- --PRO Ex 390 66 59.6 32 1.0 0 -- --

Public Hopewell 71 60.2 33 1.0 3 86 62.3Kaskaskia 67 62.7 34 1.0 0 81 63.8Red Devil Brand 64 61.4 31 1.0 0 89 62.7Sunburst 69 62.7 28 1.0 0 89 65.3

Public-exp VA 09W-73 49 58.3 30 1.0 15 -- --Syngenta SY 483 * 81 60.0 33 1.0 0 88 60.8

SY 1526 57 58.5 31 1.0 0 -- --W1104 * 75 60.3 30 1.0 3 86 60.4

Tracy TW30-12 58 58.2 34 1.0 0 -- --TW52-13 56 58.7 30 1.0 0 -- --TW73-12 69 60.5 30 1.0 0 -- --

Van Treeck Exp. J-334 53 58.8 30 1.0 0 -- --Mean 67 59.9 31 1.0 1 87 62.0

LSD (.10) 7 1.1 1 NS 5 10 0.9* Yield is not significantly different (0.10 level) than that of the highest yielding cultivar1 Winterkill = visual estimate taken at green-up of the percent total plot stand loss due to winter injury

14

Tabl

e 6.

La

ncas

ter 2

013

Win

ter W

heat

Per

form

ance

Tes

t Res

ults

(con

tinue

d o

n ne

xt p

age)

2012 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test wt. (lb/bu)

Height (in.)

Lodging (1-5)

Winterkill1 (%)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

AgriMAXX 413 93 58.0 35 1.3 0 117 60.9427 88 57.7 36 1.0 3 96 59.0434 92 59.3 34 1.0 0 -- --438 92 59.0 38 1.0 3 -- --Exp. 1342 81 59.2 36 1.0 0 -- --

Croplan Genetics 8925 82 59.0 37 1.0 3 98 61.19012 92 61.7 39 1.3 0 87 61.39101 95 59.0 36 1.0 0 120 62.19201 85 59.0 34 1.0 0 -- --

Diener D492W 98 60.2 34 1.0 0 118 61.5D506W 78 56.8 35 1.3 6 104 59.4D512W 86 59.0 38 1.0 0 -- --

Dyna-Gro 9042 96 60.0 36 1.0 3 112 61.39223 94 58.7 39 1.0 3 117 61.0

Equity Seed Quest 93 57.9 35 1.0 6 104 60.2Sienna 94 59.2 40 1.0 0 102 59.6Guardian 91 60.5 37 1.0 3 -- --

FS Seed FS 602 90 58.6 35 1.0 0 115 60.9FS 622 88 61.0 37 1.0 0 109 63.4FS 625 87 57.8 37 1.0 9 105 60.4FS 626 80 59.2 35 1.0 0 -- --

Jung 5820 87 60.3 39 1.0 0 100 61.55855 98 59.8 41 1.0 0 104 61.15930 86 59.1 36 1.0 3 -- --

LCS / VanTreek L-423 86 61.3 36 1.3 3 -- --LCS / Welter L-314 90 60.5 37 1.0 3 -- --Legacy LW 1065 87 59.5 36 1.3 3 94 60.8

LW 1155 92 59.4 35 1.0 0 96 60.6LW 1210 89 61.3 39 1.0 3 102 62.0LW 1230 81 60.5 36 1.0 0 101 61.9LW 1250 89 61.0 37 1.0 3 87 61.1LW 1312 88 59.0 38 1.0 0 -- --LW 1335 85 59.6 37 1.3 0 -- --LW 1370 87 59.2 37 1.0 0 -- --LXW 1323 91 60.2 38 1.0 0 -- --LXW 1375 * 105 61.0 38 1.0 0 -- --

Limagrain Cereal Seeds LCS 38686 81 58.0 35 1.0 5 -- --Pioneer 25R34 68 58.5 38 1.0 0 103 61.0

25R40 93 59.9 32 1.0 0 * 135 62.725R46 87 61.0 34 1.0 3 -- --25R47 93 58.5 35 1.0 3 109 60.7

PIP 702 89 59.2 36 1.0 0 114 60.7703 89 58.9 35 1.0 0 -- --721 93 59.2 39 1.0 0 116 60.5

15

Tabl

e 6.

La

ncas

ter 2

013

Win

ter W

heat

Per

form

ance

Tes

t Res

ults

(con

tinue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

)

2012 4-test average 2012 4-test average

Brand EntryYield

(bu/a)Test wt. (lb/bu)

Height (in.)

Lodging (1-5)

Winterkill1 (%)

Yield (bu/a)

Test wt. (lb/bu)

PIP (cont’d) 722 81 57.0 36 1.0 0 109 60.7726 83 57.7 39 1.0 0 -- --727 92 60.1 37 1.0 0 -- --729 89 59.5 37 1.0 0 113 61.2732 92 60.4 35 1.0 0 108 60.9733 94 58.6 36 1.0 3 -- --734 94 61.3 37 1.3 3 -- --735 91 58.7 34 1.0 0 -- --740 78 58.2 34 1.0 0 99 60.6748 87 60.7 37 1.0 0 -- --749 88 59.0 37 1.0 0 -- --752 91 59.6 35 1.0 3 104 61.1758 90 60.0 37 1.0 0 -- --759 87 58.3 38 1.5 3 -- --760 91 60.5 39 1.3 0 94 61.2761 84 58.8 39 1.0 0 86 61.3769 86 57.8 37 1.3 3 -- --781 81 59.8 36 1.3 6 -- --782 86 63.2 38 1.5 3 -- --783 95 61.6 38 1.0 0 -- --

Pro Seed Genetics PRO 200 79 60.7 38 2.3 0 83 59.5PRO 260 77 56.5 36 1.0 0 97 60.6PRO 320A 84 58.2 41 1.3 4 120 61.0PRO Ex 310 93 58.2 40 1.0 3 105 60.8PRO Ex 330 93 59.1 37 1.0 3 110 59.9PRO Ex 350 88 57.7 36 1.0 0 104 60.5PRO Ex 370 77 56.3 36 1.0 3 -- --PRO Ex 380 80 61.6 33 2.0 0 -- --PRO Ex 390 90 61.4 37 1.5 3 -- --

Public Hopewell 83 59.4 37 1.0 0 100 61.5Kaskaskia 83 60.7 41 1.3 0 104 62.5Red Devil Brand 75 57.8 37 1.0 0 107 60.9Sunburst 90 62.1 35 1.0 0 101 64.6

Public-exp VA 09W-73 42 49.3 30 1.0 43 -- --Syngenta SY 483 89 59.8 36 1.4 0 114 61.5

SY 1526 73 57.6 36 1.0 6 -- --W1104 85 57.4 34 1.3 6 119 61.2

Tracy TW30-12 82 59.3 37 2.0 0 -- --TW52-13 80 59.2 37 1.8 0 -- --TW73-12 90 57.7 35 1.0 0 -- --

Van Treeck Exp. J-334 85 60.2 37 2.0 0 -- --Mean 87 59.2 36 1.1 2 101 61.1

LSD (.10) 7 1.4 1 0.3 5 14 1.4* Yield is not significantly different (0.10 level) than that of the highest yielding cultivar1 Winterkill = visual estimate taken at green-up of the percent total plot stand loss due to winter injury

The Wisconsin Winter Wheat Performance Tests were conducted by the Departments of Agronomy and Plant Pathology, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and the Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Extension in cooperation and with support from the Wisconsin Crop Improvement Association.

Check the following publications for additional information on small grain production and seed availability. Both are updated annually.

Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops (A3646) available at learningstore.uwex.edu

The Wisconsin Certified Seed Directory available at wcia.wisc.edu

For information on seed availability of public varieties:

Wisconsin Crop Improvement Association554 Moore Hall, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706

(608) 262-1341, wcia.wisc.edu

To access crop performance testing informa-tion electronically, visit: www.coolbean.info

Authors: Shawn Conley is a Professor in Agronomy; Adam Roth is a Senior Research Specialist, and John Gaska is a Senior Research Agronomist in Agronomy, College of Agricul-tural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. S. Conley also holds an appointment with University of Wisconsin-Extension, Coop-erative Extension. Produced by Cooperative Extension Publishing.

Vegetable Disease Update – Amanda J. Gevens, Assistant Professor & Extension Vegetable

Plant Pathologist, UW-Madison, Dept. of Plant Pathology, 608-890-3072 (office), Email:

gevens@wisc.edu. Vegetable Path Webpage: http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/

Late blight status in WI and the U.S.: We had a few new late blight samples this past week

– however – none from new counties. Table 1 includes further details. In the past week, MA,

ME, NY, OH, and OR reported late blight on potato and/or tomato. The OR sample on

potato was of the US-24 genotype; US-23 predominated other tested samples. To date this

production year, late blight has been reported in in FL, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, NJ, NY,

OH, OR, PA, TN, WI, and WV. The website: http://www.usablight.org/ indicates location of

positive reports of late blight in the U.S. and provides further information on disease

characteristics and management.

Table 1. Characterization of late blight from Wisconsin in 2013.

County Host Genotype Date of Confirmation

Adams potato US-23 28 Jun

Juneau potato US-23 29 Jun

Sauk tomato US-23 2 Jul

Dunn potato US-23 29 Jul

Portage potato US-8/US-23 29 Jul/6 Aug

Brown potato+tomato US-23 6 Aug

Langlade potato US-23 6 Aug

Racine tomato US-23 8 Aug

Waushara potato US-23 8 Aug

As a reminder, US-8 is resistant to mefenoxam/metalaxyl fungicides and is an A2 mating type;

US-23 is sensitive to mefenoxam/metalaxyl fungicides and is an A1 mating type.

In This Issue

Late blight updates

DSVs (Disease Severity Values)/Blitecast for late blight management

PDays for early blight management Cucurbit downy mildew updates

Calendar of Events

Aug 22 – UWEX-Langlade County Airport Research Station Field Day, Antigo, WI

Vegetable Crop Update

A newsletter for commercial potato and vegetable growers prepared by the

University of Wisconsin-Madison vegetable research and extension specialists

No. 16 – August 12, 2013

A

B

C A B C

A

C

Current P-Day (Early Blight) and Severity Value (Late Blight) Accumulations P-Day of ≥ 300 indicates threshold for early blight risk and triggers preventative application of fungicide. DSV of

≥ 18 indicates threshold for late blight risk and triggers preventative application of fungicide. Red text in table

below indicates threshold has been met. NA indicates that information is not yet available as emergence has yet to

occur. http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/contents_pages/pday_sevval_2013.html

Location Planted 50% Emergence P-Day

Cumulative (increase from

7/29)

DSV Cumulative (increase from

7/29)

Calculation Date

Antigo Area Early 5/13 6/4 507 (67) 50 (6) 8/12/13

Mid 5/22 6/17 430 (67) 42 (6) 8/12/13

Late 6/7 6/29 332 (67) 20 (3) 8/12/13

Grand Marsh Area

Early 4/15 5/10 628 (69) 252 (49) 8/12/13

Mid 5/1 5/21 594 (69) 252 (49) 8/12/13

Late 5/15 6/5 503 (69) 225 (49) 8/12/13

Hancock Area Early 4/20 5/15 696 (76) 86 (16) 8/12/13

Mid 5/5 5/23 635 (76) 84 (16) 8/12/13

Late 5/15 6/5 553 (77) 62 (16) 8/12/13

Plover Area Early 4/22 5/17 617 (27) 169 (19) 8/8/13*

Mid 5/7 5/30 537 (27) 145 (19) 8/8/13*

Late 5/24 6/5 495 (27) 136 (19) 8/8/13*

*Plover area weather station is having technical difficulties. Data could not be collected for

determination of risk values for 8/12/13. We’re working to correct the problem.

DSVs and Late Blight: From in-potato-field weather stations here in Wisconsin, we have

exceeded initial threshold for Blitecast in all monitored locations. Accumulations of DSVs were

moderate to low in most sites. However, in Grand Marsh, DSVs accumulated rapidly with

maximum DSVs accumulated over the past 8 days – very promotive weather for late blight. I

added some information in the above table to indicate increase in accumulated PDays and DSVs

from previous week. A 5 to 7-day fungicide program is appropriate at this time given presence

of pathogen in state and favorable weather. Cool nights are leading to very foggy mornings in

many areas of the state which promote late blight.

In order to help better understand the epidemic at hand, please submit samples to my lab or

work through your county agent and request that they send to me for genotyping. Even if a

sample has already been submitted from your county and determined to be US-23. All we need

to know is the county of sample origin. Identification of genotype at the county level would be

very helpful in improving our understanding of this epidemic and potential future risks. Lab

address is: Amanda Gevens, 1630 Linden Dr, Room 689, Plant Pathology Dept., University of

Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. Please send infected leaves in a slightly inflated ziplock bag

with no paper towel. Overnight shipping is best.

PDays and Early blight: P-Days have reached/surpassed the threshold of 300 in all plantings of

potato in WI. Fungicide applications for the management of early blight are recommended at

this time. Because of the dual risk of late and early blight, consider management options that

control against both diseases. Symptoms of early blight are advancing in lower and mid-plant

canopies throughout most of Wisconsin.

Cucurbit Downy Mildew: has not been identified in Wisconsin at this time in commercial fields,

home gardens, or our sentinel monitoring plots. In the past week, many states reported

cucurbit downy mildew including AL, GA, KY, MA, MI, NC, NJ, NY, PA, and WV. In

summary this year, AL, CT, DE, FL, GA, IN, KY, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TX, VA,

WV, and Ontario Canada have reported cucurbit downy mildew across multiple cucurbit hosts. I

will be keeping tabs on disease reports in the region and will provide updates in this newsletter.

No forecasted risk of movement of spores from states reporting detects to Wisconsin at this time.

Forecasts have the pathogen moving to the north and east of active sites at this time and we do

not have inoculum sources to our direct south or west. The website: http://cdm.ipmpipe.org/

offers up to date reports of cucurbit downy mildew and disease forecasting information.

The 2013 A3422 Commercial Vegetable Production in Wisconsin guide is available for purchase

through the UW Extension Learning Store website: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Commercial-

Vegetable-Production-in-Wisconsin2013-P540.aspx

A pdf of the document can be downloaded or is available at the following direct link:

http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/A3422.pdf

Vegetable Disease Update – Amanda J. Gevens, Assistant Professor & Extension Vegetable Plant

Pathologist, UW-Madison, Dept. of Plant Pathology, 608-890-3072 (office), Email:

gevens@wisc.edu. Vegetable Path Webpage: http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/

Late blight update: In summary this production season, late blight has been confirmed in 9

Wisconsin counties, details specified in Table 1 below. Most recent determinations are indicated in red

text.

Table 1. Characterization of late blight from Wisconsin in 2013.

County Host Genotype Date of Confirmation

Adams potato US-23 28 Jun

Juneau potato US-23 29 Jun

Sauk tomato US-23 2 Jul

Dunn potato US-23 29 Jul

Portage potato US-8/US-23 29 Jul/6 Aug

Brown potato+tomato US-23 6 Aug

Langlade potato US-23 6 Aug

Racine tomato US-23 8 Aug

Waushara potato US-23 8 Aug

In order to help better understand the epidemic at hand, please submit samples to my lab or work

through your county agent and request that they send to me for genotyping. Even if a sample has already

been submitted from your county and determined to be US-23. All we need to know is the county of

sample origin. Identification of genotype at the county level would be very helpful in improving our

understanding of this epidemic and potential future risks. Lab address is: Amanda Gevens, 1630 Linden

Dr, Room 689, Plant Pathology Dept., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. Please send

infected leaves in a slightly inflated ziplock bag with no paper towel. Overnight shipping is best.

For further symptom and management information:

2013 WI organic tomato and potato late blight fungicides:

http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/pdf/2013/Organic%20late%20blight%20control%202013.pdf

2013 WI commercial potato late blight fungicides:

http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/pdf/2013/Potato%20Late%20Blight%20Fungicides%202013.pdf

Vegetable Crop Update

A newsletter for commercial potato and vegetable growers prepared by the

University of Wisconsin-Madison vegetable research and extension specialists

Disease Supplement #6 – August 9, 2013

A

B

C A B C

A

C

Organic Vegetable Field Day Announcement – Date: Monday August 12, 2013

Dr. Erin Silva, Organic Vegetable Specialist, UW-Department of Agronomy

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff WWiissccoonnssiinn

OOrrggaanniicc VVeeggeettaabbllee FFiieelldd DDaayy

WWeesstt MMaaddiissoonn AAggrriiccuullttuurraall RReesseeaarrcchh SSttaattiioonn

1:00– 1:15 Registration and Welcome – Walk to Fields

1:15 – 1:35 Carrot Improvement for Organic Agriculture (Phil Simon, USDA)

1:35 – 2:00 Organic potato Variety Trials and Mulching Studies (Ruth Genger, UW

Plant Pathology)

2:00 – 2:20 Producing Vegetables with Living Mulches (Anne Pfeiffer, UW

Horticulture)

2:20 – 2:35 Organic No-till Vegetable Production

(Erin Silva, UW Agronomy)

2:35 - 3:00 Organic Variety Trials: Sweet Corn, Leafy Greens, Winter Squash,

Carrots, and Snap Peas

(Erin Silva, UW Agronomy)

3:15-3:30 Organic Raspberry High Tunnel Production

(Jesse Dahir-kanehl, UW Horticulture)

3:40-4:00 Veggie Compass Cost of Production Tool

(Erin Silva, UW Horticulture)

RSVPs Requested but not Required

Please contact Erin Silva

(emsilva@wisc.edu) with RSVP’s

and questions

Field Day Location:

West Madison Agricultural

Research Station

8502 Mineral Point Rd,

Verona, WI 53593

PH(608) 262-2257

Vegetable Disease Update – Amanda J. Gevens, Assistant Professor & Extension Vegetable Plant

Pathologist, UW-Madison, Dept. of Plant Pathology, 608-890-3072 (office), Email:

gevens@wisc.edu. Vegetable Path Webpage: http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/

This supplement provides some clarification of fungicide label allowances for disease management in

conventional potato systems.

There have been some questions on which chlorothalonil formulations have Special Local Needs use

extensions for long season potatoes grown in Wisconsin. The table below summarizes the formulations

and their allowable use rates.

Fungicide Trade

Name

Active

Ingredients

Fungicide

Groups

Manufacturer Maximum Allowable Use

Bravo Ultrex chlorothalonil M5 Syngenta 16.0 lb a.i./acre/year

has WI Special Local Needs

label expires 2017

Bravo Weather Stik chlorothalonil M5 Syngenta 16.0 lb a.i./acre/year

has WI Special Local Needs

label expires 2017

Bravo Zn chlorothalonil M5 Syngenta 16.0 lb a.i./acre/year

has WI Special Local Needs

label expires 2017

Chloronil 720 chlorothalonil M5 Syngenta 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Chlorothalonil 720

SC

chlorothalonil M5 Arysta

LifeScience

11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Echo 720 chlorothalonil M5 SipcamAdvan 16.0 lb a.i./acre/year

has WI Special Local Needs

label expires 2014

Echo 90DF chlorothalonil M5 SipcamAdvan 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Echo Zn chlorothalonil M5 SipcamAdvan 16.0 lb a.i./acre/year

has WI Special Local Needs

label expires 2014

Equus 500 Zn chlorothalonil M5 MANA 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Equus 720SST chlorothalonil M5 MANA 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Equus DF chlorothalonil M5 MANA 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Initiate 720 chlorothalonil M5 Loveland 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Initiate Zn chlorothalonil M5 Loveland 11.25 lb a.i./acre/year

Vegetable Crop Update

A newsletter for commercial potato and vegetable growers prepared by the

University of Wisconsin-Madison vegetable research and extension specialists

Disease Supplement #7 – August 9, 2013

A

B

C A B C

A

C

Mefenoxam and metalaxyl fungicide formulations can effectively control sensitive strains of ‘water

mold’ pathogens causing pink rot, late blight (US-23, US-22), and tuber rots. The table below provides

some clarity on allowable uses.

Fungicide Trade

Name

Active

Ingredients

Fungicide

Groups

Manufacturer Allowable Use

Ridomil Gold Bravo

SC

chlorothalonil

+ mefenoxam

M5+4 Syngenta Can be applied to foliage to row touch at

2.5 pt/acre. Pre-harvest interval (PHI) is

14 days.

Ridomil Gold MZ

WG

mancozeb +

mefenoxam

M3+4 Syngenta Can be applied to foliage at up to 2.5

lb/acre. For late blight, up to 4

applications can be made, beginning

preventatively. Subsequent applications

should be separated by 14 days for

control. Applications should end when

rows touch. 3 applications can be made

for storage rot control, separated by 14

day intervals. PHI is 3 days in WI.

Ridomil Gold SL mefenoxam 4 Syngenta In-furrow application only with Ridomil

Gold SL. Label states, “you may need to

follow this in-furrow application with a

Ridomil pre-pack foliar application at

tuber initiation” for storage rots.

Ridomil

Gold/Copper

copper

hydroxide +

mefenoxam

M1+4 Syngenta Can be applied to foliage to row touch for

storage rots and late blight. For late

blight control, tank mix 1 pack of

Ridomil Gold Copper (5 lb. product)/2.5

acres plus base protectant such as

mancozeb or chlorothalonil. Begin

program before infection. Apply no later

than when plant foliage meets in row.

Can make up to 3 applications separated

by 14 days. PHI is 14 days.

Ultra Flourish mefenoxam 4 Syngenta Can be applied to foliage at flowering at

6.4 fl oz/acre. And, can be applied 2

additional times as needed, separated by

14 days for control of storage rots. Tank-

mix with base protectant such as

chlorothalonil or mancozeb. PHI is 14

days.

MetaStar 2E metalaxyl 4 LG

International

Can be applied to foliage at flowering at

12.8 fl oz/acre. And, can be applied 2

additional times as needed, separated by

14 days for control of storage rots. Tank-

mix with base protectant such as

chlorothalonil or mancozeb. PHI is 14

days.

Vegetable Disease Update – Amanda J. Gevens, Assistant Professor & Extension Vegetable Plant

Pathologist, UW-Madison, Dept. of Plant Pathology, 608-890-3072 (office), Email:

gevens@wisc.edu. Vegetable Path Webpage: http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/wivegdis/

Cucurbit Downy Mildew has been visually diagnosed in Jefferson County, Wisconsin this morning

on melon and winter squash crops. Cucumbers grown on the same farm appear to be unaffected.

I have had no additional reports of the disease on commercial, home garden, or sentinel cucurbits yet

today, but suspect that the southern tier of Wisconsin may have received inoculum about one week ago.

Growers of all cucurbits should carefully inspect their plants for symptoms shown below in Figure 1.

Earliest symptoms may appear as slightly off-color or pale leaves, mimicking N deficiency. Check leaf

undersides for most diagnostic pathogen signs – the dense brown, gray, sometimes purple masses of

sporulation. If the bottom of the leaf looks ‘dirty’ in distinct patches and top of leaf has a yellow to

brown discoloration in same patch – downy mildew may likely be involved. The pathogen can spread

rapidly due to prolific spore production on leaf undersides (Figure 2).

Reiteration from Newsletter #16 – August 12, 2013: In the past week many states reported cucurbit

downy mildew on multiple hosts including AL, CT, DE, KY, MD, MI, NC, NY, OH, PA, and VA. In

summary this year, AL, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TX, VA, and Ontario Canada

have reported cucurbit downy mildew across multiple cucurbit hosts. I will be keeping tabs on disease

reports in the region and will provide updates in this newsletter. Prior to this detection, there was no

forecasted risk of movement of spores to Wisconsin at this time. However, it is important to

recognize that the forecast is driven by reports of field infection. Since we now have the pathogen

in the state within Jefferson County, it is likely that counties to its south may have been exposed

and counties to the north and east of Jefferson are at risk of spore movement and downy mildew

infection. With the addition of this report to the Cucurbit Downy Mildew Forecasting Center,

forthcoming forecasts will include our inoculum source and map movement. The website:

http://cdm.ipmpipe.org/ offers up to date reports of cucurbit downy mildew and disease forecasting

information.

Early detection and management of this disease is critical. Please contact your UWEX county agent, crop

consultant, or myself if you suspect downy mildew in cucurbits. Tentative diagnoses can generally be

made based on good email pictures, but confirmed diagnoses will require physical sample to confirm

sporulation by magnification or other technique. Samples can be sent to the Plant Disease Diagnostic

Clinic or to the UW Vegetable Pathology Laboratory at 1630 Linden Dr. Rm. 689, Plant Pathology Dept.,

Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison WI 53706.

Vegetable Crop Update

A newsletter for commercial potato and vegetable growers prepared by the

University of Wisconsin-Madison vegetable research and extension specialists

Disease Supplement #8 – August 13, 2013

A

B

C A B C

A

C

A B

C D

Figure 1. Symptoms and

signs of cucurbit downy

mildew. A. Yellow angular

lesions on butternut squash.

B. Dark brown pathogen

sporulation on leaf underside

of butternut squash. C.

Yellow angular lesions on

pickling cucumber. D. Dark

brown pathogen sporulation

on leaf underside of picking

cucumber.

Figure 2. Disease cycle of cucurbit downy

mildew (Pseudoperonospora cubensis). The

pathogen is not known to overwinter in

Wisconsin. Pathogen may sporadically arrive

mid- to late-season depending upon weather

conditions and disease progress. Spores arrive

typically from more southerly locations.

Favorable weather includes wet and warm –

cloudy conditions are very promotive to downy

mildew. Infection and disease progress to

observable lesions can occur in 3-5 days. New

spores produced on leaf undersides can further

spread to healthy crops within field and to other

farms at distance on the wind.

Once identified in a region, cucurbit downy mildew should be carefully managed with effective

fungicides. I have included fungicide recommendations for cucurbit downy mildew below – based on

efficacy trials and recommendations of Dr. Mary Hausbeck at Michigan State University.

CUCUMBER

Fungicides applied BEFORE disease

7 day interval

Fungicides applied AFTER disease

5 day interval

Gavel 75WG (5 day phi) Presidio 4FL (2 day phi)

Presidio 4FL (2 day phi) Previcur Flex 6SC (2 day phi)

Previcur Flex 6SC (2 day phi) Ranman 3.6SC (0 day phi)

Ranman 3.6SC (0 day phi) Tanos* 50WG (3 day phi)

Tanos* 50WG (3 day phi)

Zampro 4.4SC (0 day phi)

Alternate products and mix with either:

mancozeb (ie: Dithane) OR

chlorothalonil (ie: Bravo)

Alternate products and mix with either:

mancozeb (ie: Dithane) OR

chlorothalonil (ie: Bravo)

Use of the highest labeled rate of products is recommended. *NOTE: Tanos did not provide adequate

control of downy mildew when used alone on cucumbers during a 2011 MI field trial.

OTHER VINE CROPS such as pumpkin, winter squash, melon, gourds, zucchini

Fungicides applied BEFORE disease

7-10 day interval

Fungicides applied AFTER disease

7 day interval

Gavel 75WG (5 day phi) Presidio 4FL (2 day phi)

Presidio 4FL (2 day phi) Previcur Flex 6SC (2 day phi)

Previcur Flex 6SC (2 day phi) Ranman 3.6SC (0 day phi)

Ranman 3.6SC (0 day phi) Tanos* 50WG (3 day phi)

Tanos* 50WG (3 day phi)

Zampro 4.4SC (0 day phi)

Alternate products and mix with either:

mancozeb (ie: Dithane) OR

chlorothalonil (ie: Bravo)

Alternate products and mix with either:

mancozeb (ie: Dithane) OR

chlorothalonil (ie: Bravo)

Use of the highest labeled rate of products is recommended. *NOTE: Tanos did not provide adequate

control of downy mildew when used alone on cucumbers during a 2011 MI field trial.

Dr. Sally Miller, Vegetable Extension Pathologist with The Ohio State University offers a nice fact sheet

on Cucurbit Downy Mildew control in organic production systems (link below). Unfortunately, cultivar

resistant options are limited. Copper has been shown to have some efficacy when applied in advance of

infection.

Organic Cucurbit Downy Mildew Control: http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/3000/pdf/3127.pdf

The 2013 A3422 Commercial Vegetable Production in Wisconsin guide is available for purchase through

the UW Extension Learning Store website: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Commercial-Vegetable-

Production-in-Wisconsin2013-P540.aspx

A pdf of the document can be downloaded or is available at the following direct link:

http://learningstore.uwex.edu/Assets/pdfs/A3422.pdf