The forage yield potential of Lavina hooded barley

The relative forage yield potential of Lavina hooded barleyby David Wichman, Peggy Lamb, Mal Westcott and Marty KnoxLavina hooded spring barley was released by the Montana AgriculturalExperiment Station in 2008. The first foundation seed was distributed to MontanaSeed Growers in the spring of 2010. Therefore, some certified and registeredclasses of seed should be available in the spring o 2011.Lavina was released as a replacement for Haybet with the attributes of slightlyhigher forage production potential and much higher grain production potential.Haybet has been widely grown in the Northern Great Plains and the PacificNorthwest since the mid-1990s. Lavina was developed from a Baronesse xHaybet cross that was made to enhance seed production while maintaining orenhancing the forage production potential.Lavina and Haybet were both entries in 23 performance evaluation trials inMontana and North Dakota in the 2004 to 2010 period. The locations includedthe Montana Agricultural Experiment Station farms and research centers atBozeman, Corvallis (WARC), Havre (NARC), Huntley (SARC), Kalispell(NWARC), and Moccasin(CARC). NDSU Dickinson provided one year’sevaluation, also. The mean forage yield across the 23 locations was quite similarfor these two cultivars. Lavina’s average yield was 2.576 tons per acre andHaybet averaged 2.512 t/a while the overall mean of all entries of the 23 trialswas 2.406 t/a. Lavina and Haybet yields were regressed against mean yields ofeach trial to develop a predictive equation (y=a+ bx) to project how each varietymight perform at a given yield level. The equations factors are: y = predictedyield, x= given yield level, b= the slope of the line and a is the y axis intercept.At the one ton yield level for Haybet appears to have a slight advantage over theLavina. However, at the two yield level and up, Lavina is expected to producemore than Haybet (see Table 1).Table 1 Projected forage yields of Lavina and Haybet calculated from relativeperformance in 23 locations years across seven research center sites.Cultivar Predictive EquationDry Matter Yieldt/a t/a t/a t/a t/aYield Levels: 1.000 2.000 2.406 3.000 4.000Lavina y=0.2887+ 0.95033 x 1.239 2.189 2.576 3.140 4.090Haybet y=0.4673 + 0.84985 x 1.317 2.167 2.512 3.017 3.866High forage producing hooded barley cultivars often have low grain yields. Whilehaving grain yields much higher than the notorious low seed producer Ridawn(no data presented), Haybet is frequently near the bottom of grain yield trials.In 2010 spring cereal forage grain yield evaluations at CARC, Lavina produced14 or more bushels of grain per acre than Haybet in two trials at Moccasin (Table2). The extremely low Horsford grain yield on fallow was due to severe lodging

caused by the nursery receiving the same nitrogen rate as adjacent spring wheattrials, 60lbs N/ acre. In addition to having lower grain producing potential, Haybetis susceptible to severe shatter when conditions are conducive to shatter.The 2010 spring cereal forage yields at Moccasin, Havre and Corvallis show noone spring cereal forage variety is consistently the high yielder across an array ofcrop environments (Tables 3-6). Along with variability in yield rankings acrosslocations there is variability in quality factor rankings, also. Nitrate levels werewell within the safe to feed for the two Moccasin locations. Nitrate levels at theHavre site were all in the restricted or do not feed ranges. The Corvallis site hadnitrate levels ranging safe to feed up through restricted feeding levels.The spring cereal forage research is funded by the Montana AgriculturalExperiment Station and with variety testing fees. Several research scientists fromthe participating research centers and Extension Forage specialist Dennis Cashcontribute to conducting cereal forage trials at the various locations. 2010Cooperating scientist were Mal Westcott and Marty Knox at the WARC Corvallisand Peggy Lamb at the NARC, Havre.Table: 22010 CARC-Fallow and recrop spring cereal forage grain yields.Exp 230710 Central Agricultural Resarch Center. Moccasin, Montana.CARC Fallow CARC Continuous CropTest Grain Grain Test GrainCultivar Yield Yield Weight Protein Yield Weight Proteinlbs/a bu\a lbs\bu % bu/a lbs/bu %HB62-2 2783 58.0 49.4 10.8 45.0 46.8 10.8Haxby 3107 64.7 53.1 10.7 47.0 52.3 10.7Haybet 2022 42.1 48.8 11.7 35.0 46.0 11.7Hays 2859 59.6 49.3 11.0 46.0 49.3 11.0Hockett 2764 57.6 53.6 11.1 50.0 53.9 11.1Horsford 1122 23.4 45.8 12.1 39.5 44.9 12.1Lavina 2865 59.7 48.3 11.7 49.7 48.1 11.7Stockford 2382 49.6 49.5 10.3 42.3 47.3 10.3Pronghorn 2274 45.4 \1 48.6 12.104T90141-141 2163 43.3 48.7 12.5Mean 2434 49.5 11.4 44.3 48.6 11.2CV 1 10.0 1.3 11.4 6.3LSD (0.05) 417.1 1.466 8.81 5.38Counts per mean 3 2 1 3 3 1Seed Date: 12 Apr 10 into 2008 barley stubble and 2009 camelina stubble.Harvest: 20-Aug-10 and 17Aug 10 1/ Triticale bushel is 50lbs.

Table 3 2010 CARC No-till recrop spring cereal forage agronomic and quality performance.Exp. 237010 Central Agricultural Research Center. Moccasin, MontanaHead PlantForage Dry MatterSpecies Date Height Content Yield Protein ADF NDF C. Fiber NO3-NJulian cm # t/a % % % % ppmHB62-2 barley 182 26 35 2.248 6.9 28.5 51.8 29.2 75Haxby barley 181 28 34 2.388 8.9 27.3 49.9 27.9 143Hockett barley 182 31 33 2.380 8.5 29.6 51.7 29.1 120Hays barley 185 30 33 1.998 7.7 28.0 51.9 29.2 89Haybet barley 182 32 34 2.277 7.3 28.7 51.9 28.8 79Horsford barley 180 34 32 2.309 7.7 29.2 52.3 29.3 69Lavina barley 182 31 32 2.502 8.6 29.9 53.9 30.2 72Stockford barley 183 31 31 2.303 7.9 27.5 50.4 27.5 65Pronghorn triticale 182 34 27 1.940 8.9 30.1 52.9 29.8 72Mean 182.1 30.8 32.2 2.261 8.038 28.75 51.84 29.00 86.9CV1 7.6 4.0 11.8 11.9 6.2 4.8 6.7 30.8LSD (0.05) 4.1 2.220 ns ns ns ns ns nsCounts per mean 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2Typical toxic threshhold to restrict intake NO 3 -N=350ppmTable: 4 2010 CARC-Fallow spring cereal forage variety agronomic performance.Exp 230710 Central Agricultural Resarch Center. Moccasin, Montana.Head Plant Height Forage Dry MatterCultivar Species Date 8-Jul Content yield Protein ADF NDF C. Fiber NO 3 -NJulian cm % t/a % % % % ppmHB62-2 barley 181 30 35 3.007 7.6 30.3 54.6 28.2 68Haxby barley 181 33 32 2.499 7.6 29.1 51.4 26.2 84Haybet barley 182 33 37 3.385 8.3 28.5 52.5 26.7 88Hays barley 183 29 39 3.525 7.5 27.9 52.4 26.5 85Hockett barley 181 33 36 3.073 8.1 27.6 50.2 25.7 89Horsford barley 180 34 33 2.642 7.7 27.0 48.6 25.8 127Lavina barley 182 33 29 2.849 8.5 30.6 54.8 28.2 82Stockford barley 182 33 30 2.769 7.7 28.4 51.2 26.7 8204T90141-141 triticale 187 38 29 2.675 9.8 32.7 55.3 29.8 94Pronghorn triticale 183 37 25 2.526 11.4 32.8 55.8 30.6 201Mean 182.2 33.4 32.5 2.895 8.429 29.48 52.67 27.43 99.7CV 1 0.3 4.3 5.4 9.2 8.8 3.2 3.0 3.6 51.1LSD (0.05) 0.87 2.5 3.00 0.46 1.69 2.14 3.55 2.22 nsCounts per mean 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2Typical toxic threshhold to restrict intake NO 3 -N=350ppm

Table 5 2010 NARC dryland (rainfed) fallow spring cereal forage yield and quality evaluations.Exp 23NARC Northern Agricultural Research Center. Havre, MontanaPlant Forage Dry MatterCultivar/ID Species Head DateHeight Content Yield Protein ADF NDF C. Fiber NO 3 -NJulian in % ton/ac % % % % ppmHB62-2 barley 183 30.2 27 2.971 9.2 49.9 53.4 29.1 1050Haxby barley 180 32.1 27 2.495 12.6 30.2 51.5 29.1 573Haybet barley 180 38.6 26 3.677 13.6 29.1 51.1 28.9 556Hays barley 183 32.3 26 3.202 11.1 29.9 51.3 27.7 364Hockett barley 184 29.5 29 3.495 10.3 29.8 50.8 29.4 633Horsford barley 177 38.2 21 2.112 12.7 32.6 55.7 30.4 1320Lavina barley 183 31.5 27 3.398 9.0 32.6 53.2 31.5 566Stockford barley 180 36.7 25 3.382 9.1 31.1 52.3 29.4 36904T90141-141 triticale 184 50.3 26 2.698 10.5 36.3 58.4 33.7 495Pronghorn triticale 180 43.9 24 2.829 14.5 32.9 54.5 31.5 1048Average 181.5 36.3 25.8 3.026 11.25 33.43 53.22 30.05 697.1LSD (p=0.05) 0.54 3.11 2.393 0.64 3.81 19.86 4.80 2.48 nsCV% 0.17 4.98 5.409 12.31 14.98 26.26 3.99 3.65 0.47Counts per mean 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2Typical toxic threshhold to restrict intake NO 3 -N=350ppmTable 6 2010 WARC-Corvallis irrigated spring cereal forage agronomics and quality evaluations.Exp 23WARC Western Agricultural Research Center. Corvallis, MontanaHead Plant Forage Dry MatterCultivar Entry Date Height Content Yield Protein ADF NDF C.Fiber NO 3 -NJulian inches # t/a % % % % ppmHB62-2 barley 188 32 0.27 3.447 9.9 30.9 52.3 27.7 267Haxby barley 188 34 0.31 3.421 12.7 28.4 50.0 25.7 315Haybet barley 188 38 0.29 3.163 10.3 29.8 49.5 26.2 567Hays barley 188 32 0.29 4.165 12.6 31.6 53.7 30.2 675Hockett barley 190 37 0.34 4.529 10.5 27.7 48.5 24.3 373Horsford barley 179 37 0.23 2.665 12.1 31.2 53.2 28.8 736Stockford barley 188 35 0.27 3.585 13.0 30.5 51.3 27.6 509Lavina barley 188 35 0.26 3.792 11.8 32.9 54.4 28.5 61904T90141-143 triticale 190 52 0.34 3.919 10.0 37.1 59.4 32.5 288Pronghorn triticale 187 48 0.29 3.238 10.5 36.3 56.3 31.2 461Mean 187.2 38.0 0.29 3.592 11.34 31.62 52.87 28.26 480.8CV1 6.7 11.7 17.1 15.1 2.7 3.3 4.4 41.3LSD (0.05) 4.377 0.06 ns ns 1.95 3.922 2.813 nsCounts per mean 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2Irrigation: total of 10 inches in 2 inch sets across the season.Typical toxic threshhold to restrict intake NO 3 -N=350ppm