‘Duster’ Wheat: A Durable, Dual‐Purpose Cultivar Adapted to the Southern Great Plains of the USA

Abstract

W inter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production in the southern Great Plains is dominated by dual-purpose management schemes that provide a winter forage source for stocker cattle (Bos taurus L.) and grain production from the same crop. Relative emphasis on forage versus grain is highly impacted by a producer's personal preference, but factors intrinsic to a given crop season are also infl uential, such as forage availability before cattle turnout and the relative pricing of wheat versus beef. Wheat producers in the southern plains do not discriminate heavily among cultivars for dual-purpose capability, and most hard winter wheat breeding programs do not include dual-purpose adaptation as a selection criterion.A breeding-oriented emphasis is justifi ed, however, by the 40% lower rate of genetic gain observed for yield potential under dual-purpose (0.9% yr −1 ) versus grain-only (1.3% yr −1 ) production systems (Khalil et al., 2002). The yield difference between grain-only and dual-purpose systems (Winter and Thompson, 1990;Carver et al., 2001) can be attributed largely to the 4-wk earlier planting date essential to forage-biomass accumulation . Hence producers who choose a cultivar for dual-purpose production may prioritize early stand establishment with rapid canopy closure.The dual-purpose system provides an integral selection environment for the development and evaluation of experimental breeding lines (Thapa et al., 2010). Lines that reach candidate status are expected to excel in a grain-only system as well as they do in a dual-purpose system. The hard red winter (HRW) wheat cultivar 'Duster' (Reg. No. CV-1065,

‘Billings’ Wheat Combines Early Maturity, Disease Resistance, and Desirable Grain Quality for the Southern Great Plains, USA

“…The complete reports are available at http://wheat.okstate.edu/varietytesting/index.htm (accessed 15 July 2012). Other details in experimental design and procedures of the OSGVPT and the OET were provided by Edwards et al (2012).…”

“…In‐furrow fertilizer (9–23–0) was applied as (NH 4 ) 2 HP0 4 at seeding. The plots were not mowed or grazed and were checked for occurrence of first hollow stem (FHS) in a manner similar to that described by Edwards and Horn (2010) approximately every 3 d beginning in mid‐February and continuing until all cultivars had reached the FHS stage of growth (about Feekes Stage 5), defined as when the average length of hollow stem present in a 10‐plant subsample was ≥1.5 cm (Edwards et al, 2012).…”

“…Heading dates were collected from the same plots as FHS date at Stillwater, and from dual‐purpose experiments at Marshall, OK, as described further by Edwards et al (2012). Heading date was determined as the day of year by which 50% of the spikes in a plot had emerged completely from the boot (Feekes Stage 10.3).…”

“…Using observation nurseries grown in the field near Stillwater from 2007 to 2011, we recorded symptoms of both diseases during Feekes Stages 5.0 to 7.0 on a scale of 1 (resistant) to 4 (highly susceptible). Testing for the presence of each virus and interpretation of the ELISA data were described in Edwards et al (2012).…”

“…These two additional isolates were subsequently identified as PSTv‐46 (X. Chen, personal communication, 2012). Field evaluation protocols were further described in Edwards et al (2012). Infection type was scored on a 1‐to‐9 scale (Line and Qayoum, 1991), and disease severity was scored as a percentage of flag leaves infected.…”