A-1245 (Revised) March 2007

2007 North Dakota Forage Crop Variety Performance

Compiled by

Roger Ashley
Area Extension Specialist/Cropping Systems

Dwain Meyer
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences

This publication contains forage yield and quality information on selected alfalfa and annual forage crop varieties tested by North Dakota State University; Agricultural Research Service Northern Great Plains Research Center, Mandan, N.D.; and Eastern Montana Research Station, Sidney, Mont., in 2004-2006.

Click Here for a 170KB PDF version of this publication.

Information contained in this publication is from research conducted by the following agronomists at the North Dakota Research Extension Centers, Eastern Montana Research Center and USDA-Agricultural Research Service:

Steve Zwinger, Carrington
Patrick Carr, Dickinson
Dwain Meyer, Fargo
Eric Eriksmoen, Hettinger
Bryan Hanson, Langdon
John Hendrickson and John Berdahl, USDA-ARS, Mandan
Mark Halvorson, Minot
Neil Riveland, Williston
Joyce Eckhoff, EMRS, Sidney, Mont.

Additional variety information may be found on the NDSU Web site at www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/variety/index.htm . Contact the NDSU Main Station, Research Extension Centers or Extension Service county offices for more detailed and site-specific information on alfalfa and forage crop variety performance and production recommendations.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Variety Comparisons
Growing Conditions 2004-2006
Alfalfa Performance Tests
Roundup Ready Alfalfa
Salt-tolerant Alfalfa
Grazing-tolerant Alfalfa
Traffic-resistant Alfalfa
Annual Forages
Annual forage variety characteristics
Trial planting and harvesting dates
Cool-season spring-seeded annual forage yields
Warm-season annual forage yields
Fall-seeded winter cereal forage yields
Spring-seeded annual legume yields

Thanks to the following research specialists and technicians:
Todd Ingebretson, Lucas Frost and Anthony Hoffman, Carrington;
Lee Tisor and Jeff Gunderson, Dickinson;
Robert Nudell, Fargo; Rick Olson, Hettinger; Richard Wilhelmi, Langdon;
Robert �Yabo� Gjellstad, Minot; and Gordon Bradbury, Williston.
Also, thanks to information specialist Sherri Schnider for her assistance with this publication.

Introduction

In 2005, alfalfa and alfalfa-grass mixed hay were produced on 1,650,000 acres and annual forages and grass hays were produced on an additional 1,380,000 acres in North Dakota (Ag Statistics No. 75, June 2006). This forage base is important to the livestock industry and the economic well-being of North Dakota.

Annually, producers seed approximately 107,000 acres of alfalfa in addition to annual forages. Forage growers need to select varieties based on yield and quality performance for their specific area. Varieties best suited for western North Dakota dryland conditions are different from varieties adapted for irrigated and higher rainfall areas of the state. Specific field and management conditions will affect the performance of these varieties; therefore, time and money spent on selecting the most suitable variety will be rewarded with higher yields and a net increase in profits.

This publication summarizes information gleaned from university and USDA-Agricultural Research Service trials related to forage variety performance for North Dakota. Additional data and information from the North Dakota Research Extension Centers can be found at www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/variety/index.htm  www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/plantsci/vtrial/vtrial.htm  and www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/plantsci/forage/index.htm  (click on alfalfa).

Variety selection is only a part of the process producers should use for successfully growing a forage crop. A thorough understanding of all aspects of crop management is required. Additional information and recommendations on all aspects of forage crop management, including stand establishment, soil fertility, pest management, harvesting, forage quality and grazing, can be found in other NDSU Extension Service publications.

Variety Comparisons

Statistical analysis of variety comparisons is provided to growers to aid in the selection process in this publication, as well as at listed Web sites above. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) value provides a number producers can use to determine if one variety is significantly higher yielding than another variety under the conditions in which these varieties were tested. If the difference in yield between two varieties being compared does not exceed the LSD value, then the producer should have little confidence that there is a real difference in yield between these two varieties due to varietal performance. In addition, the Coefficient of Variation (CV) is listed. The CV provides additional information about the degree of precision with which the varieties are compared and is a good indication of the reliability of the trial.
The lower the CV value, the more reliable the trial.

Growing Conditions 2004-2006

Winterkill
Winterkill can be a problem in alfalfa grown in North Dakota but has not been a widely reported problem the last two years. Fall dormancy has been used to select varieties thought to be more winter hardy and capable of withstanding severe winter conditions. Fall dormancy and winter survival ratings are listed in Table 1 for those alfalfa varieties reported in this publication. Fall dormancy ratings are a measure of the variety�s recovery rate in the fall. Older varieties with a high fall dormancy rating generally recover faster from cutting but are often less winter hardy than varieties with a low score. Newer varieties have broken this relationship so there are varieties with a 3, 4 or 5 fall dormancy rating, but winter survival ratings less than 2. Winter survival scores can range from 1 for superior winter survival to 6 for complete winterkill. A variety with a winter survival score of 2 is significantly more winter hardy than a score of 3. Though conditions in North Dakota often will differ from the states where the winter survival score are derived, these ratings should provide a useful guideline for North Dakota producers. If alfalfa fields have slow green up or thin stands after a normal winter, producers should consider selecting a variety with a lower winter survival score.

Precipitation
Precipitation varies by location and year. Alfalfa is grown under irrigation at both Carrington
and Sidney, Mont., and supplemental water is applied to meet evapotranspiration needs. At all other locations reporting, alfalfa is grown without supplemental water. Also, all annual forages reported in
this publication are grown under dryland conditions.

Carrington precipitation

Dickinson precipitation

Hettinger precipitation

Fargo precipitation

Minot precipitation

Williston precipitation

Alfalfa Performance Tests

Relative yield performance of alfalfa varieties in Table 1 are compared to either Vernal at North Dakota locations or to Ladak 65 at Sidney, Mont., grown in the same trial in the same year. When two or more trials containing the same variety were grown at the same location, the relative yields are averaged. Specific data for each trial, including planting date and number of cuttings, can be found on the Web sites listed on Page 3. Varieties with a yield index greater than 100 percent tended to yield more than the check variety. Varieties with a yield index less than 100 percent tended to yield less than the check variety. Varieties tend to yield most the year after seeding. Therefore, compare only varieties with multiple site-years to ensure that data from more than the first year is included in the mean. Higher site-year averages indicate greater confidence. This is important because of variation in weather from one year to the next, in soil type, etc. Thus, a variety with yield stability over a broad range of conditions most likely will perform well regardless of soil type and growing condition differences. (see Table 1, a 20KB PDF)
 

Roundup Ready Alfalfa

Roundup Ready alfalfa was licensed in June 2005 and seed made available to producers. Roundup Ready alfalfa varieties were bred to be resistant to glyphosate, providing producers another herbicide option for controlling weeds during establishment and in crop weed control during subsequent years. Adaptability of these varieties to North Dakota conditions have been evaluated for only one year in NDSU trials, and no general trends have been established in terms of productivity compared to standard varieties. The cost of seed, as well as other costs for establishing and maintaining alfalfa, should be considered when comparing Roundup Ready and conventional alfalfa varieties. Roundup Ready alfalfa cannot be terminated with glyphosate. Management systems relying on glyphosate to terminate alfalfa will need to consider eliminating the competition from Roundup Ready alfalfa varieties in subsequent crops with either tillage or some other registered herbicide product. Products registered for the control of weeds in alfalfa can be found in the �2007 North Dakota Weed Control Guide� (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/weeds/).

Salt-tolerant Alfalfa

Producers in western North Dakota have shown interest in establishing alfalfa in salt-affected soils. Alfalfa, like many legumes of economic importance in North Dakota, is sensitive to salt, thus adversely affecting germination and growth in these salt-affected soils. A few varieties have shown some tolerance to salt in National Alfalfa Variety Review Board Standard Tests comparing performance in NaCl solutions (Table 2). These tests include germination, whole plant or both. NaCl solutions are used to identify those varieties with the potential to germinate and grow in salt-affected soils but do not necessarily indicate actual performance under field conditions. Field salts are highly variable, therefore performance data are limited. Salt-tolerant alfalfa may provide the desired effect for a period of time, but if salt concentrations increase, even salt-tolerant alfalfa will be affected adversely by salt. Producers need to understand the underlying causes of increasing salt levels and develop management practices that address reduction or elimination of the problem.

Table 2. Alfalfa germination of selected varieties at various concentrations of NaCl.

¹ Courtesy of S. Smith, University of Arizona, Tucson, and Don Miller, Target Seed Inc, Parma, Idaho
²Sea water is approximately 3%.
Means in columns followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (P�0.05).

Grazing-tolerant Alfalfa

Persistence of alfalfa under grazing by livestock in the northern Great Plains can be short-lived. The combination of stress created by continuous grazing, as well as cold temperatures, will reduce alfalfa plant populations over time. Recent research illustrates the need for producers to emphasize not only grazing tolerance but also climatic adaptability when choosing a variety (Table 3). Plant populations of varieties developed from warmer regions declined more than varieties with both good winter survival and grazing tolerance. Producers should choose varieties that are not only grazing tolerant but can withstand the climatic conditions in the region.

Table 3. Survival of selected alfalfa varieties planted July 1996 and continuously grazed during the growing season from July 1997 through September 2000 at Mandan. Hedrickson and Berdahl, USDA, ARS, 2003.

Means in columns followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (P�0.05).

Traffic-resistant Alfalfa

No significant differences in alfalfa varieties have been detected in traffic trials at Fargo. Trials initially seeded in 2004 and 2005 had a traffic treatment applied on half of all plots. The traffic treatment was one pass with a medium-sized tractor five days after harvest. Forage yields averaged 1 ton/acre less in 2005, when the traffic treatment was applied. The reduction in yield from traffic in 2006 was much less than in 2005, when the forage yield was reduced 0.4 ton/acre with traffic. Statistical analysis of the yield data from these trails indicate no significant yield performance advantage of one variety over another when exposed to traffic.

Annual Forages

Producers have found annual forages, both cool and warm season, useful in meeting feed requirements in North Dakota. Producing annual forages helps spread production risks, as well as make up for shortfalls when other sources fail to meet producers� needs. Annual forage variety trials grown at Carrington, Dickinson, Hettinger, Langdon, Minot and Williston were evaluated and their performance reported in this publication. Additional information on other species and mixtures of species, as well as quality information found in the extensive trials conducted by the NDSU Research Extension Centers on cool-season and warm-season forages, can be reviewed at the Web site at www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/variety/index.htm.

Annual Forage Species and Growing Season
Prior to variety selection, producers should consider both rotational requirements and date of planting. If intensive cool-season cereal rotations, for example wheat-wheat or wheat-barley, have been used extensively, producers should consider a warm-season forage species. Inclusion of warm-season species can increase water-use efficiency and break disease and insect cycles common in intense cool-season rotations. Also, warm-season forage species provide another opportunity to plant when optimum planting dates for cool-season forage species has passed. After determining the species to seed, producers then can narrow their search for an annual forage variety.

Annual forage varieties and their characteristics are listed in Tables 4 to 9. Of the spring-type cereal varieties tested and reported in this publication, Table 4 lists barley varieties; Table 5 lists oat; and Table 6 lists spring triticale, emmer and spelt varieties. Yield data for the spring-type cereals can be found in Table 11. Winter-type cereal varietal characteristics of triticale, rye, spelt and wheat are found in Table 7. Yield data from these winter-type cereals can be found in Table 13. Table 8 lists warm-season varietal characteristics of millet and sorghum-sudan, while Table 10 shows yield data for these varieties. Annual legume varietal characteristics such as field pea and lentil are listed in Table 9 with yield data reported in Table 14.

Planting and Harvest Dates
Planting and harvest dates/growth stages at each location are provided in Table 10. Fertility, rotational sequence and other agronomic data specific to the trial and location can be found in the individual forage trial reports posted on the Web.

Cereal and Legume Mixed Forages
Specific cereal and legume mixtures are not reported in this publication. A number of species and variety mixtures are reported in some of the individual forage trial reports on the Web. In general, cereal and legume mixtures will not yield more than the cereal component of the mixture if the cereal was grown by itself. The protein content of cereal and legume mixtures will not be as high as the protein content of the legume forage if it were grown by itself but is intermediate between the protein content of the individual components of cereal and legume. Variety characteristics are provided to assist producers in matching varieties for a desired result.  (see Tables 4-14, a 31KB PDF)

A-1245, March 2007