Canadian wheat is known for being a high-quality and premium wheat in the global marketplace. To maintain this reputation, high grading standards are set by the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) to ensure quality meets end-users’ needs.
In 2025, downgrading due to hard vitreous kernel (HVK) levels was one of the main factors affecting Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat, according to the CGC’s harvest sample program and the Cereals Canada 2025 New Wheat Crop Report Webinar. This blog post will provide an overview of HVKs and related grading thresholds.
What are HVKs and what is the downgrading threshold?
Vitreousness is used to describe the natural translucent colouring of hard wheat and is an indicator of kernel hardness.
It is described as a “glassy” appearance. HVKs are wheat kernels that have this translucent colouring.
HVKs are a grading factor for CWRS and Canadian Western Amber Durum (CWAD) wheats, but the grading factors differ between the two wheat classes.
Table 1. Canadian Grain Commission HVK grading thresholds.1
Wheat Class
Grade
Minimum HVK (%)
CWRS
No. 1
65
No. 2, 3 & feed
No minimum
CWAD
No. 1
80
No. 2
60
No. 3
40
No. 4 & 5
No minimum
Why is it important?
CWAD
In the CWAD class, there is a strong relationship between semolina extraction and high HVKs.
High extraction levels are important to millers and why CWAD has stricter HVK requirements than the CWRS class.
CWRS
HVK influences milling quality for CWRS wheat, but not to the same extent as with CWAD wheat.
For example, Cereals Canada states “a very low level of HVK could result in the production of more break flour and less purifiable endosperm during milling.”
Furthermore, high levels of HVKs are currently an important visual factor for some end-uses and is information some major importers require.
Winter wheat data from the 2024-2025 Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Trials (MCVET) is in! This data provides farmers with unbiased information regarding regional variety performance, allowing for variety comparison. Data was derived from small plot replicated trails from locations across Manitoba. Fungicides were not applied to these plots; thus, true genetic potential can be evaluated. Although considerable data is collected from MCVET, the disease ratings are from variety registration data.
Table 1. 2025 MCVET Winter Wheat Variety Descriptions (Table sourced from the 2024-2025 winter cereal MCVET trial and Seed Manitoba)
Table 2 below summarizes the yield results from the 2025 MCVET data by trial location. The yield results represent 2025 data only; therefore long-term trends should be considered when making variety selection decisions. Previous yield data can be found in past editions of Seed Manitoba. As well, apart from yield, there are other variety characteristics to consider when making variety selection decisions, these include disease, insect, and lodging resistance. Check out this Manitoba Crop Alliance article for more information on considerations when selecting a new cereal variety.
Table 2 also indicates if there were yield differences between varieties at each trial site. If there was a significant yield difference the least significant difference (LSD) is also included. The LSD (bu/ac) signifies the smallest difference necessary in bushels per acre for two varieties to be considered statistically significantly different from each other.
Table 2. 2025 MCVET winter wheat trial yield comparison (Table sourced from the 2024-2025 winter cereal MCVET trial and Seed Manitoba).
The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) has also released its 2025 Variety Market Share Report. This report breaks down the number of acres seeded to each crop type in Manitoba. As well, the relative percentage of acres each variety was seeded on within each crop type is reported. This information is useful to understand overall production patterns in Manitoba. A link to the 2025 report can be found here.
It is important to note that farmer members’ dollars directly contributed to the plant breeding research activities which were instrumental in the development of the top winter wheat varieties.
Select takeaways
A small number of winter wheat acres were seeded again in the 2024-2025 growing year, with approximately 41,000 acres seeded.
Figure 1. Summary of the amount of winter wheat acres seeded in Manitoba over the last six growing seasons. Data obtained from MASC Variety Market Share Reports from 2020-2025.
Seven varieties by percentage acres seeded are listed in Table 3, these are not the only varieties listed in this year’s MASC Variety Market Share Report, but represent 95 per cent of the seeded acres. All seven seeded varieties are Canada Western Red Winter (CWRW) wheat.
Table 3. 2025 seven winter wheat varieties by percentage of seeded acres in Manitoba.
Variety
Wheat Class
Relative Acreage (%)*
AAC Wildfire
CWRW
39.5
AAC Vortex
CWRW
22.5
Emerson
CWRW
12.7
AAC Goldrush
CWRW
6.7
AAC Overdrive
CWRW
6.2
AAC Coldfront
CWRW
4.8
CDC Buteo
CWRW
2.5
Note: * Data obtained from MASC 2025 Variety Market Share Report.
AAC Wildfire was the top seeded winter wheat variety, occupying 39.5 per cent of seeded winter wheat acres. This is a decrease of just over 13 per cent from 2024. AAC Wildfire was registered in 2015. AAC Vortex, which was registered in 2021, was seeded on just over 22 per cent of acres in 2025, up around 13 per cent from 2024. AAC Vortex is a medium-maturing variety with relative winter hardiness. AAC Goldrush, which was registered in 2016, decreased in percentage of acres seeded by just over one per cent from 2024 to 2025. AAC Overdrive, which was registered in 2022, increased by six per cent in 2025. Emerson, which has a Fusarium head blight rating of “resistant,” has been the most seeded variety in Manitoba for several years. However, its acreage has continued to drop in 2025.
Seed Manitoba Variety Selection and Growers Source Guide should be consulted when making variety selections.
Fusarium head blight (FHB), a complex and potentially devastating disease, has been impacting Manitoba farmers’ wheat and barley fields for over 30 years. Although there is no practice to completely control FHB and its impact on grain yield and quality, there are practices that when used in concert can mitigate its severity. Practices should be implemented before, throughout and after the growing season. Practices include crop rotations with a 1–2 year break in between cereals, selecting resistant varieties, fungicide application, harvest management and more.
Manitoba Crop Alliance and the Manitoba Government have numerous articles covering all aspects of FHB management. Below are article links that cover topics specific to in-season risk and management considerations.
FHB Risk Maps
A new Prairie-wide FHB risk map was developed in 2024 for spring, durum and winter wheat, plus barley. The risk map models were developed in Western Canada and are important tools when assessing FHB risk. The maps provide some insight into fungicide spray decisions, but in field scouting must occur to ensure all aspects of the disease triangle are addressed in the local area.
Fungicides are one prong of FHB management, but one of the few management practices that can be implemented in season. Currently, fungicides can only provide disease suppression. Once you’ve made the decisions to spray, there are a few considerations to think about, including fungicide choice, application timing and spray application technology.
Do you have questions about how the use of plant growth regulators (PGRs) might impact FHB infection? Research out of the University of Manitoba sheds light on the impact of PGR application on flower retention and FHB infection.
Manitoba Crop Alliance’s (MCA) Research on the Farm (ROTF) program conducts scientific research with farmer members using replicated strip trials on commercial fields. Farmer co-operators use their own equipment and management practices to conduct this research. Research projects are developed to investigate current and pressing agronomic questions and provide site-specific answers. More information about the ROTF program and all trial results can be found here.
Barley genetics for both malting and feed varieties have improved over the last decade. Evaluating current seeding rates for new barley varieties was necessary to understand if target plant stand densities are optimized for both grain yield and quality. The purpose of this trial was to investigate the economic and agronomic impact of farmers increasing and decreasing their target plant stands. This was done by having decreased and increased seeding rate treatments compared to the farmers’ normal.
Over the past three years (2022-24) MCA conducted 17 barley seeding rate trials. Throughout the trial period, seeding rates ranged from 78-225 lb/ac. Eleven sites planted feed barley and six sites planted malting barley. CDC Austenson (feed) and AAC Connect (malting) were the most planted varieties
At eight of 17 sites, the seeding rate had a significant impact on plant density. In all cases except one, the highest seeding rate resulted in the highest plant population.
Figure 1. Summary of average barley plant density by seeding rate for all trial sites from 2022 – 2024. Note: Letters indicate significant differences between treatments.
Higher plant densities have been linked to more uniform maturing crops, with increased crop protection product efficiency. Furthermore, increased plant density is an important cultural practice to improve crop weed competition.
Significant yield differences were found at two of the 17 sites (12 per cent). At site BP03-2023, the yields from the normal and high seeding rates were significantly higher than the low seeding rate treatment. At BP02-2024, the low seeding rate treatment was the highest yielding.
Figure 2. Summary of average barley yield by seeding rate for all trial sites from 2022 – 2024. Note: Letters indicate significant differences between treatments.
Overall, at most sites, grain yield was not affected by a change in seeding rate from normal practices. The data from these trials suggests that these farmer participants have a good understanding of the optimal seeding rate for their farm. No statistical analysis was conducted on grain quality.
One last piece of the research puzzle is to understand the impact on profit from changing your seeding rate. The results of a simple profit analysis can be found in Table 1. At 11 of the 17 sites (65 per cent), the lowest seeding rate was most profitable. The higher seeding rates were found to be economical at only two sites. This analysis is looking at the cost of seed only; no other parameters, such as inputs and equipment costs, were included in these calculations.
Table 1.Economic analysis of all trial sites from 2022-2024.
Note: Seed costs are based on Manitoba Agriculture 2024 Cost of Production Guidelines ($12/bu). Barley prices based on Manitoba Agriculture’s Grain and Oilseed price report ($4.63/bu). Net profit calculated based on seeding costs only.
Tone Ag Consulting carries out MCA’s ROTF trials in all six of our crop-types. They assist the farmer with plot planting and harvesting. They also capture and collect key information throughout the growing season, including soil samples, growth stage notes and precipitation data.
Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a complex and potentially devastating disease for Manitoba farmers. Identifying field areas with high levels of FHB infection and Fusarium-damaged kernels (FDK) is important when making harvest management decisions. Recognizing FHB symptoms is key to identifying infected wheat heads, but first, we need to identify the parts of a wheat head to properly make disease assessments (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Wheat head parts during flowering. Photo credit: University of Wisconsin (used with permission).
FHB diagnostic symptoms can be found below and in Figure 2:
Premature bleaching of wheat heads and spikelets.
Orange-pink sporulation or white/orange superficial fungal growth on the seams of glumes and spikelets.
Dark purple-brown discolouration of the stem right below the wheat head (peduncle).
White, chalky and shrivelled kernels (i.e., FDK).
Figure 2. Examples of FHB-infected wheat heads (left), spikelet (middle left) and peduncles (middle right), and Fusarium-damaged kernels (right). Photo credit: David Kaminski.
There are many diseases and abiotic stresses that can be confused with FHB infection and we saw an excellent example of this in 2024. Farmers and agronomists were finding wheat heads that had a salmon-pink colour on spikelets and glumes (Figure 3). The affected wheat heads were empty or had only a few shrivelled kernels (Figure 3).
Although these sound like FHB symptoms, in these cases the problem was a little more complicated. The pink colouration of the wheat heads was most likely due to a saprophytic microorganism that grows on dead plant tissue, which means these wheat heads prematurely died. In several cases, the cause of plant death was probably hot, dry conditions in combination with a common root rot infection.
Common root rot typically impacts the whole plant when symptoms are found in mature plants. Symptoms include premature plant death, with bleached or very light green stems and heads. As well, symptoms include sudden death, reduced root growth, and root and crown decay. The sub-crown internode will decay and turn a dark/reddish brown. The whole plant can be removed from the soil with a moderate pull.
Figure 3. Wheat head colonized with a saprophytic microorganism.
Last month, Canada hosted researchers, industry stakeholders and commodity organizations from across the world for the sixth International Symposium on Fusarium Head Blight (FHB). This conference showcased the latest research from around the world, illustrated the progress made over the last decade in understanding and combating FHB, and highlighted the challenges we still face.
There were four main takeaways from the conference:
Breeding works
Researchers have come a long way in understanding the disease
Canada is a leader in FHB research and training the next generation of FHB scientists
MCA-funded research has a direct impact on combating FHB
Understanding the disease
Fusarium is a complex fungus that can survive on multiple plant species and plant parts. Understanding the species population, mechanism of plant infection, disease spread and plant response is crucial to combating FHB. Conference presentations and posters provided new insights, such as the role of mycotoxin (e.g., deoxynivalenol) in the Fusarium head blight infection, understanding the effectors critical for FHB infection and unraveling plant-microbe interactions. MCA-funded researcher Matthew Bakker was one of the researchers that presented his work in this space.
Matthew Bakker presenting his research at the sixth International Symposium on Fusarium Head Blight.
Breeding and food safety
Canada has an impressive and long-standing expertise in cereal breeding and food safety. This was on full display at the conference, with presentations from breeders, including Curtis Pozniak from the University of Saskatchewan (U of S) and Richard Cuthbert from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The moral of the story is that breeding works. Newly released spring wheat and durum varieties have improved FHB resistance ratings, which is important for an integrated disease management plan. MCA is a core-breeding funder and provides resources for this important work to get elite wheat (e.g., AAC Brandon) and barley varieties that carry great agronomic traits along with strong disease-resistance packages into farmers’ hands.
A presentation by Sean Walkowiak also demonstrated the robustness of Canada’s grain handling and monitoring system. Walkowiak presented on the Canadian Grain Commission’s Harvest Sample Program results from past years, showing the extent of FHB impact across the Canadian Prairies, but also highlighted the effectiveness of the safety system in Canada, where everyone works together to deliver safe, healthy cereal ingredients to consumers. Canadian grain safety programs achieved technical equivalence against the Global Food Safety Initiative benchmarking requirements in September 2022.
Training the next generation
The skill among the next generation of FHB researchers in Canada was on display at the conference, with many posters and talks presented by graduate students and early career researchers. Specifically, many of these researchers and students are from Western Canada, which puts Canada in a great position to continue to be a global leader in FHB research. MCA is a key part of ensuring that strong and impactful FHB research continues in Canada by providing funding to important projects and sponsoring the student awards at this conference. MCA specifically chose this sponsorship, as we believe in training and investing in the next generation of leaders in the agriculture industry.
Examples of project posters that have received MCA funding.
Final thoughts
FHB is one of the most devastating cereal diseases in the world. Financial losses to farmers in epidemic years can be extensive in Western Canada through yield loss and quality downgrading. In the last epidemic year (2016), there was an estimated $1 billion lost because of FHB infections. We have come a long way with stronger resistance built into available varieties, fungicides that can suppress the disease and a better understanding of agronomic approaches for the integration of these tools. However, we continue to experience challenges, including increased incidence during the 2024 growing season. Continued investment in FHB research is paramount to understand the disease and find innovative breeding and management solutions to reduce its impact on farmers.
Winter wheat yield data from the Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Trials (MCVET) is in for the 2024 growing season. This data provides farmers with unbiased information regarding regional variety performance, allowing for variety comparison. Data was derived from small plot replicated trails from locations across Manitoba. Fungicides were not applied to these plots; thus, true genetic potential can be evaluated. Although considerable amounts of data are collected from MCVET, the disease ratings are from variety registration data.
Table 2 below summarizes the yield results from the 2024 MCVET data by trial location. The yield results represent 2024 data only, therefore long-term trends should be considered when making variety selection decisions. Previous yield data can be found in past editions of Seed Manitoba. As well, apart from yield, there are other variety characteristics to consider when making variety selection decisions, such as disease, insect and lodging resistance. Check out this Manitoba Crop Alliance article for more information on considerations when selecting a new cereal variety.
Table 2 also indicates if there were yield differences between varieties at each trial site. If there was a significant yield difference the least significant difference (LSD) is also included. The LSD signifies the smallest difference necessary in bushels per acre for two varieties to be considered significantly different from each other.
Table 2. 2024 MCVET winter wheat yield comparison data
Note: Table 2 sourced from MCVET team.
MASC Variety Market Share Data
The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation (MASC) has also released its 2024 Variety Market Share Report. This report breaks down the number of acres seeded to each crop type in Manitoba, as well as the relative percentage of acres each variety was seeded on within each crop type. This information is useful to understand overall production patterns in Manitoba. A link to the 2024 report can be found here.
It is important to note that farmer members’ dollars directly contributed to the plant breeding research activities that were instrumental in the development of the top winter wheat varieties.
Select takeaways
A small number of winter wheat acres were seeded again in 2024, with approximately 35,000 acres seeded.
Figure 1. Summary of the amount of winter wheat acres seeded in Manitoba over the last five growing seasons. Data obtained from MASC Variety Market Share Reports from 2020-2024.
Eight varieties by percentage acres seeded are listed in Table 1, these are the only varieties listed in this year’s MASC Variety Market Share Report. All eight seeded varieties are Canada Western Red Winter (CWRW) wheat.
Table 1. The top eight 2024 winter wheat varieties by percentage of seeded acres in Manitoba.
Variety
Wheat Class
Yield (bu/ac)**
Relative Maturity**
Lodging**
Relative Winter Hardiness**
FHB Resistance**
Relative Acreage (%)*
AAC Wildfire
CWRW
89
Late
Good
Very Good
Moderately Resistant
52.8
Emerson
CWRW
83
Medium
Very Good
Good
Resistant
14.7
AAC Vortex
CWRW
87
Medium
Very Good
Very Good
Moderately Resistant
8.9
AAC Goldrush
CWRW
82
Medium
Good
Very Good
Intermediate
7.9
No Var
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.7
AAC Gateway
CWRW
82
Medium
Very Good
Fair
Intermediate
5.2
CDC Buteo
CWRW
80
Medium
Fair
Very Good
Moderately Resistant
2.7
AAC Overdrive
CWRW
82
Early
Very Good
Very Good
Moderately Resistant
0.2
Note:* Data obtained from MASC 2024 Variety Market Share Report. ** Data obtained from the 2023 MCVET Winter Wheat and Fall Rye report. Fusarium Head Blight; FHB.
AAC Wildfire was the top seeded winter wheat variety, occupying 52.8 per cent of seeded winter wheat acres. This is an increase of just over nine per cent from 2023. AAC Wildfire was registered in 2015 and is a late maturing CWRW variety. AAC Vortex, which was registered in 2021, was seeded on just under nine per cent of acres in 2024, up close to five per cent from 2023. AAC Goldrush, which was registered in 2016, decreased in percentage of acres seeded, dipping by just under five per cent from 2023. AAC Overdrive, which was registered in 2022, increased in acres seeded by 0.2 per cent in 2024.
Emerson, which has a Fusarium head blight rating of “resistant,” has been the most seeded variety in Manitoba for several years. However, its acreage has dropped just over 20 per cent since 2022. A similar trend was seen in AAC Gateway, which dropped from 16.1 per cent in 2022, to just over five per cent in 2024. AAC Elevate, which had steady acreage of just over five per cent in 2022 and 2023, dropped out of the top eight in 2024.
Seed Manitoba Variety Selection and Growers Source Guide should be consulted when making variety selections.
The Prairie Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) Risk Map interactive tool provides information on the risk of FHB, Fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) and deoxynivalenol (DON) for spring wheat, durum, winter wheat and barley across the agricultural region of the Canadian Prairies.
The new FHB risk maps indicate varying risk levels between crop types, which is expected. For example, the durum and barley maps have been showing a low risk for FHB while spring wheat maps have been showing a higher risk level. These risk levels are contrary to what producers expect, especially for durum, as it is more susceptible to FHB than spring wheat.
The risk model algorithms were developed independently of each other and were selected based on their individual statistical accuracy. Significant efforts have been and continue to be made to ensure the risk maps represent risk accurately for different cereal crops and regions of the prairies. The risk maps are based on air temperature, humidity, and precipitation levels reported at weather stations. Each algorithm uses different weather parameters, including air temperature, humidity, and precipitation levels reported at weather stations. As a result, the risk level determined at a given location and a given day can vary between the different models for each crop and risk type.
For instance, FHBi risk was best predicted in durum when humidity is above 80 per cent and temperature is between 15-30°C. For barley, the selected parameters are rainfall and temperature between 25-28°C. While spring wheat risk is based on maximum relative humidity and temperature. The algorithms selected for each crop best represented the risk to that crop over the past five years.
It is important to note that if your field is irrigated, the risk level displayed on this map may not be representative for your field. The FHB risk level on irrigated fields is normally higher than that shown on this map because the weather data input does not account for irrigation practices that have an influence on parameters that influence fusarium.
Until the start of July 2024, we did not have many hours that meet both conditions to hit the high-risk thresholds for the maps for durum and barley. This reinforces that the FHB risk maps are a tool that should be used in conjunction with daily field scouting, field history, crop rotation, crop stage, economics and the producers’ own individual risk tolerance.
If you want to discuss the maps further, please contact your provincial cereal crop commissions or pathologists.
Identifying wheat and barley growth stages is integral for proper application timing of crop protection products. Application timing of crop protection agents can strongly influence product effectiveness. This is no different for fungicide application timing for Fusarium head blight (FHB) suppression. Below are pictures that can help guide scouting efforts to determine crop stages, which can help you make informed fungicide application decisions.
Figure 1. Spring wheat at different growth stages (head emergence to flowering). Photo used with permission from Dr. Andrew Friskop of North Dakota State University.
In Figure 1 (above), growth stages range from late head emergence to multiple stages of flowering in spring wheat. Wheat is self-pollinating and begins to flower shortly after head emergence. Wheat head #3 (red box) is at the early flowering stage (GS 61). This is identified by anthers (yellow filaments) extruding from the middle to upper-middle portion of the wheat head only. Flowering moves both upwards and downwards along the wheat head until completion (spike #4 and #5). Flowering progression can move quickly depending on temperature. The degree of flowering will vary within a field; therefore, it is important to check 7-10 spots across a field when determining a crop’s growth stage. Click here for more information on spray timing and fungicide management for FHB.
Figure 2. Barley head emergence growth stages. Photo used with permission from Dr. Andrew Friskop of North Dakota State University.
In Figure 2 (above), the barley head outlined with the red box is at full head emergence, while barley heads #1 – #3 are still emerging. Barley flowers at a different growth stage compared to wheat. Barley flowers while in the boot and as the head emerges. This makes barley flowering difficult to identify. However, the optimal spray timing for FHB suppression differs between wheat and barley. Waiting until the majority of barley heads (70 – 100 per cent) on the main stem have fully emerged to three days post head emergence is the recommended spray timing for most fungicides approved for use on barley. (Always read and follow product labels and label directions. Refer to the Manitoba Guide to Field Crop Protection 2024 for more information.) Good coverage of the barley head is necessary for FHB suppression. Click here for more information on spray timing and fungicide management for FHB.
Information from Table 1 (below) was acquired from Table 3. Foliar Fungicides for Disease Control in Wheat and Barley in Manitoba’s Guide to Field Crop Protection 2024. Always refer to Manitoba’s Guide to Field Crop Protection and the product label before in-field application. As well, before fungicide application, review Keep it Clean to understand potential market access risk.
Table 1. Summary of products listed in Manitoba’s Guide to Field Crop Protection 2024 with suppression of FHB.
Product
Crop
Active Ingredient (Group)
Page
Advantage Prothioconazole 480 SC
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3)
602
Advantage Prothio +Teb 250 EC
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
600
Advantage Tebuconazole 250
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
Bravo ZN / Bravo ZNC
Wheat
Chlorothalonil (M5)
545
Caramba
Wheat/Barley
Metconazole (3)
541
Echo NP/Echo 90WSP
Wheat
Chlorothalonil (M5)
545
Folicur
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
Holdfast
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3)
602
Hornet 432 F
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
Joust
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3)
602
MIRAVIS Ace
Wheat/Barley
Pydiflumetofen (7) + propiconazole (3)
578
Miravis Era
Wheat/Barley
Pydiflumetofen (7) + prothioconazole (3)
581
Orius 430 SC
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
Palliser
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
Pavise 480SC
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3)
602
Proline 480SC
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3)
602
Prosaro PRO
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Fluopyram (7)
598
Prosaro XTR
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
600
Roxar
Barley
Tetraconazole (3) + Metconazole (3)
622
Shalimar
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
600
Soraduo
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
600
Soratel
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3)
602
Sphaerex
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Metconazole (3)
627
StarPro
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
600
Tebbie
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
TILMOR 240 EC
Wheat
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
633
Toledo 250EW
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
Twinline*
Wheat/Barley
Pyraclostrobin (11) + Metconazole (3)
637
VIKING Tebuconazole
Wheat
Tebuconazole (3)
630
VIKING Tromso
Wheat/Barley
Prothioconazole (3) + Tebuconazole (3)
600
Refer to product pages and labels for application information as well as expectations for control vs. suppression.
By Anne Kirk and Chami Amarasinghe, Manitoba Agriculture
The Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team (MCVET) has been evaluating the effects of Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) on spring wheat, winter wheat and barley varieties under conditions of natural infection for a number of years. Varietal resistance ratings for FHB, as presented in Seed Manitoba, are determined through inoculated trials conducted during the period the variety is tested in the variety registration system. While this provides good information on resistance to FHB, the data generated provides limited comparisons with other registered varieties.
Post-registration FHB analysis provides an opportunity to compare fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) and deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation among registered varieties over a number of locations in Manitoba. Fungicides are not applied to MCVET trials, and FHB infection is the result of natural infection. Due to variety turnover in MCVET trials, on-going analysis is required to evaluate the response of newly registered varieties.
In 2023, DON accumulation was low at the majority of sites. At the spring wheat sites, mean DON accumulation was below the detection limit of 0.5 ppm at ten of the eleven sites tested; DON ranged from 0.5 to 1.2 ppm at the one site where DON was detected (Table 1). Mean DON accumulation at the barley sites was below detection limit at six of eleven sites, and ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 ppm at the remaining sites (Table 2). Mean DON accumulation in winter wheat was below detection limit at all sites tested (Table 3). Varieties with the highest FDK and DON levels were generally rated as susceptible (S), moderately susceptible (MS), or intermediate (I) for FHB resistance; however, there is variability in FDK and DON within each of the five resistance categories.
FHB infection is highly influenced by environmental conditions; however, there are management options that should be used to mitigate the risk of FHB. The first step is to select varieties with improved resistance to FHB. Resistance ratings published in Seed Manitoba are a good first place to look for disease resistance information. Caution must be used with one year of data, as presented in these tables. Other management strategies include crop rotation and fungicide application.
Thanks to Manitoba Crop Alliance for providing funding to conduct FDK and DON analysis and the Manitoba Crop Variety Evaluation Team and contractors who provided the harvested samples.
