Technical Bulletin: Bunker Spring Triticale

 
 
Download 118K pdf file ("TechBulletin_Bunker_FINAL.pdf")PDF
(118K)
     Subscribe to our free E-Newsletter, "Agri-News" (formerly RTW This Week)Agri-News
This Week
 
 
 
 Bunker spring triticale was developed by the Field Crop Development Centre in Lacombe and was registered in 2006. Bunker is available from FP Genetics.

Bunker is an awnletted (reduced awn expression) standard height spring triticale line intended for use as a feed grain and conserved forage. Based on 27 station-years of testing over a three-year period (Table 1) Bunker yields equivalent to Pronghorn (99%), higher than AC Certa (3%) and less than AC Ultima (-6%). During the last 2 years of the trial, Bunker was 4% higher yielding than Pronghorn and only 2% lower yielding than AC Ultima.

In 4 years of silage trials, Bunker was higher yielding than Pronghorn by 7% and AC Ultima by 3% (Table 5).

End use
The high silage yield and reduced awn expression in Bunker will diversify the use of spring triticale as a conserved forage (for silage and greenfeed/hay). Bunker will also be directed to the expanding ethanol market in the eastern prairies.

Agronomics and disease resistance
Bunker is similar in maturity to the earliest checks. It has a high test weight, and a large plump kernel (Table 2). It carries the required resistance (Table 3 and Table 4) to disease and has a level of resistance to FHB similar the most resistant cultivar (Pronghorn).

Origin and breeding
Bunker is derived from the cross between a germplasm line from CIMMYT, Mexico and an awnletted triticale line developed at the Field Crop Development Centre. The awnletted characteristic in Bunker comes from the same source as the winter triticale variety Bobcat.

Bunker was evaluated as 93L016002 in preliminary yield trials (from 1997-2001) and as T181 in the Western Spring Triticale Cooperative Test from 2002 to 2004.

Strengths
Bunker has resistance to FHB similar to the most resistant check variety (Pronghorn), early maturity similar to check cultivars AC Ultima and Pronghorn, good leaf and stem rust resistance and improved test mass.
Bunker also has higher silage yield than both AC Ultima and Pronghorn. The reduction in awn expression will diversify the use of spring triticale as a conserved forage (silage and greenfeed/hay).

Weaknesses
Bunker has a low falling number similar to other currently registered spring triticale varieties excluding AC Ultima.

Table 1. Summary of yield (kg ha-1) data from the Western Canadian Spring Triticale Cooperative trial 2002-2004. Values in ( ) are expressed as a percentage of the check Pronghorn.

Test Lines
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
3-year2003-2004
200220032004Mean200220032004Mean200220032004MeanMeanMean
Pronghorn29694360564043234825313744094124402147497026526543394553
(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)(100)
AC Certa30394760564244804366298843933916331231725466398341754433
(102)(109)(100)(104)(90)(95)(99)(95)(82)(67)(78)(76)(97)(98)
AC Ultima29604729652747385236313349364435333738055632425845504819
(107)(108)(116)(110)(114)(100)(111)(108)(83)(80)(80)(81)(106)(106)
Bunker23984641611443844448298948884108340948645526460042864718
(82)(107)(109)(99)(95)(95)(110)(100)(90)(102)(79)(90)(99)(104)
Tyndal24724762655345954384318751804250362045396076474544594963
(82)(109)(116)(102)(93)(102)(117)(104)(90)(96)(86)(91)(102)(109)
Stn Years4444441112718
LSD541967803381514969415711671
.

Table 2. Summary of agronomic data and Falling Number for the Western Canadian Spring Triticale Cooperative Yield Trial 2002-2004.

Test Line
Hgt (cm)
Mat (days)
Lodge
Kg hL-1
Kwt (gm)
FaNo (sec)
Kernel KvD
Pronghorn
96
109
2.7
69.9
42.3
94
Triticale
AC Certa
97
109
2.2
74.3
42.0
88
Triticale
AC Ultima
92
106
2.4
71.4
44.6
145
Triticale
Bunker
101
107
2.4
72.5
45.7
74
Triticale
Tyndal
92
106
2.0
72.7
42.2
72
Triticale
Stn Years
25
20
7
27
27
26
.

Table 3. Summary of disease reaction for the Western Canadian Spring Triticale Cooperative Trial 2002-2004.

Test Lines
Leaf Rust
Stem Rust
Fusarium Head Blight
200220032004
2002
2003
2004
2002
2003
2004
Pronghorn (T124)0/R/R0/R0/R25MSS3RMR/15S5RMR16R4MR16/10MR8MR
AC Certa (T128)0/R/R1/R0/R7RMRTrR/1RTrR48I/12I48/29MS9MR
AC Ultima (T150)
-
0/R0/R
-
TrR/1RTrR
-
49/34MS56S
Bunker (T181)0/R/R0/R0/R5RMRTrR/1RTrR36MR/9MR25/27I6R
Tyndal (T182)0/R/R0/R0/R3RTrR/1RTrR51I/22MS25/27I22I
(Leaf rust in 2002 is severity/rating/pustule reaction. Stem rust data collected at Nolette/Winnipeg in 2003 and at Winnipeg in 2004. Fusarium head blight index data collected at Glenlea/Carman in 2002 and 2003 and at Carman in 2004. All are resistant to common bunt.)


Table 4. Overall disease reaction for the Western Canadian Spring Triticale Cooperative Trial 2002-2004.
Test LinesBuntLeaf RustStem RustFHB
Pronghorn (T124)
R
R
I
MR
AC Certa (T128)
R
R
R
I
AC Ultima (T150)
R
R
R
S
Bunker (T181)
R
R
R
MR
Tyndal (T182)
R
R
R
MS


Table 5. Silage yield potential in FCDC tests at Lacombe, AB (2001-2004). Harvest stage was early dough.
Test Lines
2001
2002
2003
2004
t ha-1
%
t ha-1
%
t ha-1
%
t ha-1
%
Mean t ha-1
Mean %
Pronghorn12.71006.510013.810012.7100
11.4
100
AC Ultima12.5987.611714.210312.296
11.6
104
Bunker13.11037.010715.410913.7107
12.3
107
Tyndal12.2967.611714.210312.7100
11.7
104


Other Field Crop Development Centre varieties
 
 
 
 
Share via AddThis.com
For more information about the content of this document, contact Lori Oatway.
This document is maintained by Erin Collier.
This information published to the web on July 27, 2006.
Last Reviewed/Revised on May 23, 2017.