crop management 1 of 8

research

Grain Yield, Forage Yield, and Nutritive Value of Dual-Purpose Small Grains in the Central High Plains of the USAM. Anowarul Islam,* Augustine K. Obour, Malay C. Saha, Jerry J. Nachtman, Wendy K. Cecil, and Robert E. Baumgartner

AbstractDual-purpose small grains can extend the grazing period without compromising grain yield. In the Central High Plains of the USA, though vast acreages of wheat are planted each year, dual-purpose production is not common. This study evaluated the grain yield, forage yield, and forage nutritive value of two experimental lines along with a check cultivar from each of three species of small grains (rye, triticale, and wheat) in a replicated trial during 2008 to 2011. Average forage yields of rye and triticale lines were consistently greater than wheat. Forage yields of rye and triticale experimental lines were greater than the check cultivars. The check wheat cultivar Jagalene, however, produced more forage than wheat experimental lines. Wheat forage nutritive values were greater than rye, but similar to triticale. Grain yields of wheat were greater than triticale and rye. Small grains show potential for both forage and grain production in the Central High Plains.

In the U.S. Central High Plains (CHP), cereals, particularly wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), are predominantly grown as a

grain crop. In 2012, there were approximately 16.8 million ha of winter wheat planted nationwide, 3.3 million ha of which was planted in the CHP region comprised of Colorado, Mon-tana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming (19). Winter wheat is an important crop in Wyoming agricul-ture with 64,000 ha planted during the 2011–2012 growing season (19). With vast acreages of cereal crop production in the CHP region, potential exists for dual-purpose (grown for for-age and grain) usage of winter cereals to provide winter forage for livestock. The semiarid climate of Wyoming makes it an ideal environment for grain production due to reduced plant disease and pest pressure. Hence, Wyoming farmers could manage cereal grains for both forage and grain production.

Cereal crop pasture can provide a valuable source of forage rich in protein, energy, and minerals, and high digestibility in late fall, winter, and early spring when other forage sources in the region are low in quantity and quality. Stocker cattle grazing winter wheat pasture during peak forage production

Published in Crop Management DOI 10.1094/CM-2012-0154-RS © 2013 Plant Management Network

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.

M. Anowarul Islam, Assistant Professor; Augustine K. Obour, Research Scientist; Jerry J. Nachtman, Research Associate; Wendy K. Cecil, Research Associate; and Robert E. Baumgartner, Farm Manager; Dep. of Plant Sciences, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071; Malay C. Saha, Associate Professor, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, 2510 Sam Noble Pkwy., Ardmore, OK 73401. Received 12 May 2013. *Corresponding author (mislam@uwyo.edu).

Abbreviations: ADF, acid detergent fiber; DM, dry matter; CHP, Central High Plains; CP, crude protein; IVDMD, in vitro dry matter digestibility; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; NIRS, near infrared reflectance spectroscopy; PLS, pure live seeds.

Published June 13, 2014

2 of 8 crop management

in the spring can gain in excess of 1 kg d-1 (16). Our preliminary research has shown that small grain cereals (rye [Secale cereal L.], triticale [X Triticosecale Wittmack], and wheat) can produce forage dry matter (DM) yield of superior quality in the CHP region of Wyoming (8).

Seeding date, frequency and growth stage of forage harvest, subsequent moisture after forage harvesting, and crop cultivar influence the success of dual-purpose use of cereal crops (6,10,15). A few studies have evaluated the potential of using cereals as forage and grain in the CHP region. Forage removal during the fall had little effect on wheat grain yield, but forage harvesting at joint stage caused a 25% grain yield loss, and harvesting at boot stage produced no grain yield (10). The highly variable climatic pattern in the CHP deserves special consideration for the success of dual-purpose small grains in the region. Nonetheless, fall and spring forage growth from cereal grains can provide a good source of high quality forage for recently weaned spring-born calves and may limit the need for supplemental hay during winter and early spring in the CHP. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the forage and grain production potential, and to estimate and compare forage quality for rye, triticale, and wheat experimental lines and cultivars harvested for dual-purpose in southeastern Wyoming.

Location of the StudyThe study was conducted at the University of Wyoming James C. Hageman Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center (SAREC), Lingle, WY (42°14¢ N, 104°30¢ W; 1272 m elevation) for three growing seasons; 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2010–2011. The CHP region is char-acterized by cool temperatures and short growing seasons. The average frost-free period at SAREC is about 125 days with average annual precipitation of about 350 mm. More than 75% of the annual precipitation occurs during the summer months. The soils are generally loam and sandy loams with organic matter content of 1 to 2%. The soil at the experimental site is Haverson loam soil (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, calcareous, mesic Aridic Ustifluvents) with 1.2% organic matter, pH 8.0, phosphorus (P) 20 mg kg-1, potassium (K) 344 mg kg-1, and sulfur (S) 6 mg kg-1 measured on soil samples taken at 0 to 15 cm depth.

crop LineS/cuLtivarS, Land preparation, and pLantingTwo experimental lines and one check cultivar each of rye (Bates RS4, Maton II, and ‘Winter rye’), triticale (NF96213, NF96210, and ‘Presto’) and wheat (NF94120, NF95134A, and ‘Jagalene’) were evaluated. Winter rye, Presto, and Jagalene served as standard cultivar checks for rye, triticale, and wheat, respectively. The experiments were laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Before seeding, 56 kg N (as urea), 56 kg P (as mono-ammo-nium phosphate) and 22 kg S (as elemental sulfur) per ha were broadcast as starter fertilizer and incorporated using

a disk on 3 September, 3 September, and 23 August, for the 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2010–2011 growing seasons, respectively. An additional 56 kg N ha-1 and 22 kg S ha-1 were broadcast on 16 March, 30 March, and 23 March for the 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2010–2011 growing sea-sons, respectively. Due to the high soil test K concentration, K fertilizer was not applied. Seeding rate was 120 kg pure live seeds (PLS) ha-1. The seeds were planted using a cone planter with hoe shanks (shop-built with Haybuster shanks) with 35 cm row spacing and 2.5 cm planting depth. The individual plot size was 1.5 by 4.6 m and the study was con-ducted on the same plots over the three growing seasons. In each year, each line/cultivar was assigned to the same plot where they were in the previous year. Planting dates were 4 September, 8 September, and 2 September for 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2010–2011 growing seasons, respectively. All plots received supplemental irrigation water of 225, 250, and 260 mm in 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2010–2011 growing seasons, respectively.

forage harveSt and anaLySiSFall forage was harvested on 26 November, and 1 Decem-ber, respectively, for the 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 growing seasons. There was no fall harvesting in the 2009–2010 growing season due to inadequate plant growth. In the 2010–2011 growing season, a second for-age harvest in the spring was made on all plots at first hollow stem stage on 21 Apr. 2011. The fall and spring harvests are reported separately as fall and spring for-age DM production for all growing seasons. All harvests were done at 7.5 cm stubble height using a small plot forage harvester (Hege 212 Forage Plot Harvester, Win-tersteiger Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) mounted with a scale to record forage fresh weight. Subsamples were dried at 60°C for at least 48 h in a forced-air oven dryer (Des-patch Drying Oven, Despatch Industries, Minneapolis, MN) to a constant weight for DM determination. Oven-dried samples were ground to pass through a 1-mm mesh screen in a Wiley mill (Model 4, Laboratory Mill, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) and analyzed for for-age nutritive value. Forage nutritive value analysis was done for both fall and spring harvests and the average values were reported for each growing season.

Crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) were determined using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS; Foss InfraXact analyzer, Silver Spring, MD). Reference wet chemistry analyses of selected forage samples were used to develop NIRS calibration equations for the measured forage quality parameters. Briefly, calibration samples for tissue N concentration were determined by dry combustion using the Leco C/N analyzer (Leco Corp., St Joseph, MI). Crude protein was calculated by multiplying the tissue N concentration by 6.25. Acid detergent fiber and NDF calibration samples were replicated three times and analyzed using the ANKOM fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology Corp., Macedon, NY). Similarly, calibration samples for IVDMD were replicated

crop management 3 of 8

three times and analyzed following the two stage technique by Tilley and Terry (18) as modified by Moore and Mott (13). The calibration equations for each forage quality parameter were developed for each growing season using partial least squares (17).

grain harveStGrain was harvested from the entire plot area with an Almaco PMC 20 small plot combine (Almaco, Nevada, IA) equipped with an on-board automated data collection system. Harvest dates were 28 July, 29 July, and 27 July, respectively, for the 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2010–2011 growing seasons. Grain samples were taken during com-bining and cleaned to remove foreign material using a Clipper Eclipse 324 seed cleaner (Ferrell Company Inc., Bluffton, IN) fitted with slotted screens to determine the weight of cleaned seeds. Final grain yields per hectare were calculated based on cleaned seed weight at 14% moisture content. In addition, plant canopy height, flag leaf length, flag leaf width, number of nodes, and stem diameter were measured at harvest. Plant height was measured from the soil surface to the leaf canopy apex.

Statistical AnalysisStatistical analyses for ANOVA for all responses were done using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Small grain lines and year were considered as fixed effects, and replicates and their interactions were considered as random effects. The LSMEANS procedure and associated PDIFF were used for mean comparisons and single degree of freedom orthogonal contrasts were used to compare cereal species (rye, triticale, and wheat). Interac-tion and treatment effects were considered significant when F test P values were < 0.05. Simple correlation analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between grain yield and plant traits (plant height and flag leaf length). Cor-relations were determined separately for each species.

cLimatic dataDuring the study period, precipitation was greater than the 30-year average (Table 1). In general, > 70% of annual precipitation in the experimental site occurred in March through August, with May and June being the months with the highest rainfall. The 2008–2009 growing sea-son was relatively drier compared to the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 seasons. Average monthly temperatures were similar to the 30-year average except in the fall of the 2009–2010 growing season (Table 1). Inclement weather conditions with colder than normal temperatures (aver-age December temperature was 4.5°C below the 30-year normal) and greater than 17.5 cm of snow in late Octo-ber, 2009 (Table 1) resulted in reduction in growth of the cereal grains tested in the fall of 2009. Therefore, there was no harvestable forage in fall 2009.

forage dry matter yieLdThe interaction of year × line/cultivar on forage DM yield in the fall was significant (P < 0.0001) over the study period. Fall forage production among small grain species was similar in 2008–2009; however, it was different in 2010–2011 (Fig. 1). Average forage DM yields in fall 2008 were 533 kg ha-1 for rye, 799 kg ha-1 for triticale, and 734 kg ha-1 for wheat. Average fall forage productions of rye (732 kg ha-1) and triticale (703 kg ha-1) were significantly greater than wheat (470 kg ha-1) in the fall of 2011 (Fig. 1).

Forage DM yields in the fall of 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 growing seasons were significantly different among small grain lines/cultivars (Fig. 2). In the fall of the 2008–2009 growing season, triticale experimental line NF96210 produced the highest DM yield (1079 kg ha-1). Similarly, forage DM yield in the fall of the 2010–2011 growing season ranged from 383 kg ha-1 for NF95134A (wheat) to 981 kg ha-1 for NF96210 (triticale).

Forage production in the spring 2010–2011 growing season was different among small grain species (Fig. 3a).

Table 1. Monthly precipitation and average temperature at the James C. Hageman Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center (SAREC), University of Wyoming, over the study period.

MonthPrecipitation Temperature

2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 30-yr avg. (2) 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 30-yr avg. (2)–––––––––––––––––––––mm ––––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––––––––– °C –––––––––––––––––––––

September 26 16 0 32 13.7 13.4 15.4 15.4October 14 41 24 24 6.3 3.9 10.2 8.7November 9 3 14 14 3.6 3.1 -0.1 1.1December 1 9 11 9 -5.4 -7.7 -2.3 -3.2January 12 0 5 8 -2.8 -3.6 -3.7 -3.9February 4 23 14 10 0.2 -4.7 -4.6 -1.1March 17 26 25 18 2.3 3.6 3.9 3.1April 64 85 59 42 6.1 7.8 6.9 7.8May 23 66 114 64 13.5 11.2 10.0 13.4June 82 108 53 52 16.8 18.2 17.3 19.1July 22 25 24 45 20.3 20.9 22.7 22.4August 86 21 28 30 19.3 21.2 22.0 21.2Average 30 35 31 29 7.8 7.3 8.1 8.7Total 360 423 371 348 – – – –

4 of 8 crop management

Average spring forage production was 3062 kg ha-1 for rye, 1999 kg ha-1 for triticale and 1417 kg ha-1 for wheat (Fig. 3a). Forage DM yields in spring of the 2010–2011 growing season were greatest for Bates RS4 rye (3344 kg ha-1) and lowest for NF95134A wheat (786 kg ha-1) (Fig. 3b). Among rye lines/cultivars, Bates RS4 and Maton II performed better than check cultivar Winter rye (Fig. 3b). Similarly, DM yields of triticale lines NF96210 (981–1491 kg ha-1) and NF96213 (645–1289 kg ha-1) were greater than check cultivar Presto (303–1209 kg ha-1) (Fig. 2 and 3b). However, wheat cultivar Jagalene (check) produced the highest forage DM yield among the wheat lines/cultivars tested (Fig. 2 and 3b).

The higher forage DM yields of rye and triticale lines/cultivars in the current study are consistent with

the results of McCormick et al. (12) and Poysa (14) who showed that rye and triticale produced higher forage yields than wheat. In our current study, average forage yields of

Fig. 1. Average fall forage production (dry matter yield) of small grain species in 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 growing seasons. Means followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at P > 0.05. Lowercase and uppercase letters represent mean separations for 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 yields, respectively. Vertical bars represent standard error. Data are average over three replicates and lines/cultivars.

Fig. 2. Forage dry matter yield of small grain lines/cultivars in the fall of 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 growing seasons. Means followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at P > 0.05. Uppercase and lowercase letters represent mean separations for 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 yields, respectively. Vertical bars represent standard errors. Data are average over three replicates.

Fig. 3. Forage dry matter yield of (a) small grain species and (b) small grain lines/cultivars in the spring of 2010–2011 growing season. Means followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at P > 0.05. Data for small grain species are average across lines/cultivars and three replicates and data for small grain lines/cultivars are average over three replicates.

crop management 5 of 8

rye (1798 kg ha-1) exceeded the yields of triticale (1400 kg ha-1) and wheat (1024 kg ha-1) by 28 and 76%, respectively. Fall forage DM yields of wheat lines/cultivars in the current study are similar to the average fall forage yield of 1300 kg ha-1 reported for dual-purpose wheat forages in drier environments in the CHP region (10). The above normal precipitation and relatively warmer temperatures in 2010–2011 (Table 1) resulted in excellent plant growth and enabled two forage harvests. Therefore, total forage DM yields for the 2010–2011 growing season were three-fold greater compared to the 2008–2009 season.

forage nutritive vaLueForage nutritive values were significantly different among and within small grain species (Table 2). Forage CP values were affected by year × line interaction (P = 0.003). Crude protein of triticale and wheat lines/culti-vars was consistently greater than rye (Table 2). Crude protein values in the 2008–2009 growing season ranged from 183 g kg-1 for rye line Bates RS4 to 227 g kg-1 for wheat line NF94120. The same lines/cultivars had CP val-ues of 223 and 243 g kg-1, respectively, in 2010–2011. In general, the ranking of CP values over the study period was wheat > triticale > rye. The CP values are consistent with other studies reported in the Great Plains region. Lyon et al. (10) reported CP values of 210 to 390 g kg-1 for winter wheat forages harvested either in the fall or at the joint stage in Sidney, NE. The CP value of 86 g kg-1 reported for triticale lines/cultivars evaluated in the CHP region of NE (9) is lower than CP values (190–243 g kg-1) observed in this study. Crude protein requirement for a lactating cow weighing 546 kg is between 79 and 107 g kg-1 while dietary CP requirements of growing or replacement heifers (weighing 227 kg) is 84 to 169 g kg-1 (11). Therefore, the observed CP values of all cereal grain

lines/cultivars evaluated in this study were above the maintenance requirement levels for grazing cattle.

Similar to CP, year × line/cultivar interaction significantly (P = 0.004) affected IVDMD. In 2008–2009, IVDMD values of rye and wheat were different, but those of triticale and rye were not significantly different from each other (Table 2). Similarly, IVDMD values of triticale and wheat were not different in the 2008–2009 growing season. However, in the 2010–2011 growing season, IVDMD values were lowest for the rye lines, but triticale and wheat lines were not significantly different from each other. In general, IVDMD ranking was wheat > triticale > rye. The IVDMD values in this study are similar to those reported by Cherney and Marten (3), but greater than the average IVDMD of 650 g kg-1 reported for triticale in the CHP region (9). The IVDMD of wheat in this study is similar to the average value of 800 g kg-1 indicated for wheat in the CHP region (10). In vitro dry matter digestibility is considered an estimator of forage digestibility, suggesting that all cereal grain lines/cultivars evaluated in this study have excellent digestibility.

Forage ADF and NDF values were higher for rye lines/cultivars compared to wheat and triticale lines/cultivars (Table 2). Average ADF and NDF values were greatest in rye cultivar Bates RS4, and wheat cultivar Jagalene had the lowest values of these measured parameters in both years of the study (Table 2). Neutral detergent fiber values followed trends similar to those of ADF. The NDF values were in the order of rye > triticale > wheat (Table 2). The ADF and NDF are used to evaluate the fibrosity and energy value of forage crops of which NDF is widely used by dairy cattle nutritionists. The NDF is the primary total fiber or cell wall fraction of forage crops. Among the four components that constitute NDF, cellulose and hemicellulose are partially digestible, whereas lignin and

Table 2. Forage crude protein (CP), in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of small grain crops over the study period.

CP IVDMD ADF NDFSpecies Cultivar 2008–2009 2010–2011 2008–2009 2010–2011 2008–2009 2010–2011 2008–2009 2010–2011

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––g kg-1 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Rye Bates RS4 183 cz 223 c 800 d 867 c 290 a 246 a 663 a 553 a

Maton II 186 b 230 b 830 c 857 c 280 a 230 b 607 b 520 bWinter rye 203 b 230 b 833 c 867 c 287 a 220 b 583 b 496 b

Triticale NF96210 210 b 243 a 840 c 877 b 250 b 223 b 576 b 507 bNF96213 190 c 243 a 860 b 893 ab 253 b 223 b 593 b 510 b

Presto 203 b 240 a 833 c 873 b 240 bc 213 c 587 b 473 cWheat NF94120 227 a 243 a 900 a 877 b 243 bc 227 b 583 b 513 b

NF95134A 223 a 243 a 870 ab 900 a 240 bc 223 b 583 b 500 bJagalene 183 c 243 a 820 cd 887 ab 230 c 206 c 533 b 470 c

Mean 201 238 843 878 257 223 590 508SE 7 5 16 11 6 5 14 11Contrast P > FRye vs. triticale NS ** NS ** *** * * *Rye vs. wheat * *** ** *** *** * *** *Triticale vs. wheat NS NS NS NS * NS NS NSz = Means followed by the same letter(s) in a column are not significantly different at P > 0.05. NS = not significant; * = P £ 0.05; ** = P £ 0.01; *** = P £ 0.001; SE = standard error for mean comparison. Data are average of three replicates.

6 of 8 crop management

cutin are virtually indigestible. The ADF is similar to NDF except for the hemicellulose fraction. In ADF, the hemicellulose component is absent and, therefore, is the least digestible plant component. The ADF is inversely related to digestibility, so forages with high ADF values are least digestible and lower in energy. Because the hemicellulose fraction of NDF is degradable by ruminant microbes, NDF is related to organic matter intake and is used by ruminant nutritionists to predict voluntary feed intake. The ADF and NDF values of triticale lines/cultivars obtained in this experiment were less than those reported by Lekgari et al. (9) (average ADF and NDF values were 328 and 605 g kg-1, respectively) for triticale cultivars in the CHP region. These findings indicate the excellent forage quality potential of the small grain lines/cultivars evaluated in this study.

pLant traitSPlant height at maturity varied among small grain lines/cultivars and years. Average plant height was 97 cm in 2008–2009, 87 cm in 2009–2010, and 91 cm in 2010–2011 (Table 3). Rye had the tallest plants (height ranged from 100–110 cm) followed by triticale (85–105 cm) and wheat (60–88 cm) lines/cultivars. Perhaps, the observed greater forage DM yield of rye compared to triticale and wheat could be explained by the taller plants of rye relative to triticale and wheat. The number of nodes per plant was fairly consistent (P = 0.3) across all the tested lines (data not shown). The average number of nodes was 4 and 5 in 2008–2009 and 2009–2010, respectively. There was a significant (P = 0.0001) year × line/cultivar interaction effect on stem diameter. Average stem diam-eter over the three growing seasons was 0.31 cm for rye, 0.32 cm for triticale, and 0.24 cm for wheat.

Flag leaf length and width were different among small grain lines/cultivars (Table 3). Flag leaf length of wheat lines/cultivars ranged from 10.8 (Jagalene) to 16.9 cm (NF94120) in 2008–2009. Flag leaf length of rye lines/cultivars was similar in the 2008–2009 evaluation, but Winter rye had slightly longer leaves in 2009–2010. Flag leaf lengths among triticale lines/cultivars were similar in both years. There was no consistent trend in flag leaf length among the wheat lines/cultivars. Flag leaf width was not different among triticale and wheat lines/cultivars. However, average flag leaf width of rye lines/cultivars was greater than wheat lines/cultivars over the study period (Table 3).

grain yieLdThere was a significant (P < 0.0001) year × line/cultivar interaction effect on grain yield. Wheat cultivar Jagalene had the highest grain yield (4307 kg ha-1) in 2008–2009, while triticale line NF96213 had the lowest grain yield (2345 kg ha-1). Similarly in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, Jagalene (wheat check) had the highest grain yield (Table 3). Among the rye lines/cultivars, grain yield of the check cultivar Winter rye (2160–3634 kg ha-1) was Ta

ble

3. G

rain

yie

ld, p

lan

t h

eig

ht,

flag

leaf

len

gth

an

d w

idth

of

smal

l gra

in c

rop

s, a

nd

lin

es/c

ult

ivar

s w

ith

in e

ach

cro

p o

ver

the

thre

e g

row

ing

se

aso

ns.

Gra

in y

ield

Pla

nt h

eig

htF

lag

leaf

leng

thF

lag

leaf

wid

thS

pec

ies

Cul

tiva

r20

08–2

009

2009

–201

020

10–2

011

2008

–200

920

09–2

010

2010

–201

120

08–2

009

2009

–201

020

08–2

009

2009

–201

0

kg h

a-1

cmR

yeB

ates

RS

426

41cd

z13

14d

2070

c10

8a

105

a10

8a

13.2

b12

.8ab

0.7

b1.

0a

Mat

on II

2854

c15

20d

1738

c10

5a

103

a11

0a

12.2

bc11

.9bc

0.8

ab0.

8ab

Win

ter

rye

3634

b24

04c

2160

bc11

0a

100

a10

8a

12.7

bc14

.3a

0.8

ab0.

9ab

Triti

cale

NF9

6210

2722

cd26

02c

2446

ab10

5a

90b

100

b16

.8a

11.4

bc0.

8ab

0.8

abN

F962

1323

45d

3067

b26

98a

103

a90

b98

b16

.8a

13.8

ab1.

0a

0.8

abP

rest

o32

04bc

3553

ab27

01a

93b

85c

85c

15.4

ab13

.5ab

0.8

ab0.

7b

Whe

atN

F941

2022

48d

2629

c23

80ab

88bc

78d

73d

16.9

a10

.7bc

0.8

ab0.

7b

NF9

5134

A30

85c

2701

c21

39bc

83c

65e

73d

11.4

c9.

4c

1.0

a0.

7b

Jaga

lene

4307

a36

72a

2700

a80

c68

e60

e10

.8c

11.2

b0.

7b

0.7

bM

ean

3004

2607

2337

9787

9114

120.

80.

8S

E27

526

819

63.

54.

32.

62.

51.

60.

10.

1Contrast

P >

FR

ye v

s. T

ritic

ale

NS

***

***

****

***

NS

*N

SR

ye v

s. W

heat

NS

*N

S**

***

***

*N

SN

S**

**Tr

itica

le v

s. W

heat

NS

NS

***

***

***

**N

SM

SN

Sz =

Mea

ns fo

llow

ed b

y sa

me

lette

r(s) i

n a

colu

mn

are

not s

igni

fican

tly d

iffer

ent a

t P >

0.0

5. N

S =

not

sig

nific

ant;

* = P

£ 0

.05;

** =

P £

0.0

1; *

** =

P £

0.0

01; S

E =

stan

dard

err

or fo

r mea

n co

mpa

rison

. Dat

a ar

e av

erag

e of

thre

e re

plic

ates

.

crop management 7 of 8

greater than the experimental lines Bates RS4 (1314–2641 kg ha-1) and Maton II (1520–2854 kg ha-1). The check triticale cultivar Presto (2701–3553 kg ha-1) outper-formed experimental lines NF96210 (2446–2722 kg ha-1) and NF96213 (2345–3067 kg ha-1). Over the three growing seasons, average Jagalene grain yields were 47 and 35% greater than yields of wheat experimental lines NF94120 and NF95134A, respectively. All experimental lines used in this study were developed mainly for early fall forage production and earlier maturity, which may limit their ability for higher grain production.

Wheat grain yields were similar to triticale yields in two of the three growing seasons. Except the first year of the study, triticale yields were greater than rye (Table 3). The greater wheat and triticale grain yields compared to rye may be due to historically less breeding effort to increase grain yields of rye compared to wheat. There are inconsistencies in the literature concerning the effects of forage removal on cereal grain yield. Results have ranged from severe decrease in grain yield (5,15) to marked increase in grain yield (4,20) following forage harvest through grazing or clipping. Forage removal reduces plant height by preventing excessive stem elongation and thus prevents lodging. Grain yield of taller wheat cultivars, which are susceptible to lodging, is increased when grazed but yield of semi-dwarf types is reduced under grazing (20).

Although there was no forage harvest in 2009–2010, grain yields were 22% lower than 2008–2009 but 12% greater than 2010–2011. The decrease in grain yield in 2010–2011 may be due to the additional spring forage harvest at first hollow stem stage (21 Apr. 2011) compared to the single forage harvest in fall (26 Nov. 2008) of 2008–2009. Under supplemental irrigated conditions (as was done in our current study) coupled with adequate soil nutrient availability (through fertilization), small grain cereal crops can be managed to provide good quality fall forage while producing adequate grain yields.

The flag leaf is the final leaf to emerge before heading which makes it an important contributor of

photosynthates to the developing cereal grain. In the current study, there was no significant correlation between rye grain yield and flag leaf length (r = 0.02, P = 0.86), but plant height was negatively correlated with grain yield (r = –0.44, P = 0.06). Wheat grain yield was significantly correlated with plant height (r = –0.62, P = 0.0014; Fig. 4) and flag leaf length (r = 0.48, P = 0.03). However, triticale grain yields were correlated neither with plant height (r = 0.09, P = 0.2) nor with flag leaf length (r = 0.03, P = 0.47). Our data is consistent with previous reports that showed a significant correlation between flag leaf length and wheat grain yield (1,7). Similarly, in a study conducted at the CHP region of Sidney, NE, Lekgari et al. (9) showed no significant correlation between triticale grain yield and plant height.

concLuSionSIn the 3-year study period, forage DM and grain yields were significantly different among cereal grain lines/cul-tivars. Average forage yields of rye and triticale lines/cul-tivars were consistently greater than wheat. Forage DM yields of rye and triticale experimental lines were greater than the check cultivars. The check wheat cultivar Jaga-lene, however, produced more forage than wheat experi-mental lines. Wheat forage nutritive values (CP, IVDMD, ADF, and NDF) were greater than rye, but similar to trit-icale. Unlike forage DM yields, grain yields of wheat were greater than triticale and rye. Jagalene consistently pro-duced the highest grain yield. Notwithstanding forage removal, grain yields were similar or sometimes greater than those reported for winter wheat in Wyoming and surrounding areas. Based on the results of the study, it is realized that small grain cereal crops could potentially be managed for both forage and grain production in the CHP region. However, selecting the appropriate cultivar and management practices are important to provide good quality forage for livestock during fall and harvest appreciable grain yields.

Fig. 4. Relationship between wheat grain yield and plant height. Grain yield was negatively correlated with plant height.

8 of 8 crop management

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the Noble Foundation for providing small grain seeds.

Literature Cited1. Blake, N.K., S.P. Lanning, J.M. Martin, J.D. Sherman, and L.E. Talbert.

2007. Relationship of flag leaf characteristics to economically important traits in two spring wheat crosses. Crop Sci. 45:491–496. doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.05.0286.

2. Curtis, J., and K. Grimes. 2004. Wyoming climate atlas. Available at http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsc/climateatlas/title_page.html (verified Oct. 2012).

3. Cherney, J.H., and G.C. Marten. 1982. Small grain crop forage potential: I. Biological and chemical determinants of quality, and yield. Crop Sci. 22:227–231. doi:10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200020007x.

4. Day, A.D., R.K. Thompson, and W.F. McCaughey. 1968. Effects of clipping on performance of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L. emend Lam) seeded in October. Agron. J. 60:11–12. doi:10.2134/agronj1968.00021962006000010004x.

5. Dunphy, D.J., M.E. McDaniel, and E.C. Holt. 1982. Effect of forage utilization on wheat grain yield. Crop Sci. 22:106–109. doi:10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200010024x.

6. Edwards, J.T., and G.W. Horn. 2010. First hollow stem: A critical growth stage for dual-purpose producers. Factsheet PSS 2147. Oklahoma State Univ. Cooperative Extension Service, Stillwater, OK.

7. Hansen, K.A., J.M. Martin, S.P. Lanning, and L.E. Talbert. 2005. Correlation of genotype performance for agronomic and physiological traits in space-planted versus densely seeded conditions. Crop Sci. 45:1023–1028. doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.0194.

8. Islam, A., R. Baumgartner, and J. Nachtman. 2012. UW researchers study forage, grain yield potential of wheat, rye, triticale. Reflections 33–35. Univ. Wyoming, WY. Available at http://www.wyomingextension.org/emagazine/reflections2012/index.html (accessed 10 May 2013).

9. Lekgari, K.A., S.P. Baenziger, K.P. Vogel, and D.D. Baltensperger. 2008. Identifying winter forage triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) strains for the Central Great Plains. Crop Sci. 48:2040–2048. doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.01.0048.

10. Lyon, D.J., D.D. Baltensperger, and M. Siles. 2001. Wheat grain and forage yields are affected by planting and harvest dates in the Central Great Plains. Crop Sci. 41:488–492. doi:10.2135/cropsci2001.412488x.

11. National Research Council. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

12. McCormick, J.S., R.M. Sulc, D.J. Barker, and J.E. Beuerlein. 2006. Yield and nutritive value of autumn-seeded winter-hardy and winter-sensitive annual forages. Crop Sci. 46:1981–1989. doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.0140

13. Moore, J.E., and G.O. Mott. 1974. Recovery of residual organic matter from in vitro digestion of forages. J. Dairy Sci. 57:1258–1259. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(74)85048-4.

14. Poysa, V.W. 1985. Effect of forage harvest on grain yield and agronomic performance of winter triticale, wheat, and rye. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:879–888. doi:10.4141/cjps85-113.

15. Ramos, J.M., M.B. Garcia del Moral, J. Marinetto, and L.F. Garcia del Moral. 1993. Sowing date and cutting frequency effects on triticale forage and grain production. Crop Sci. 33:1312–1315. doi:10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300060038x.

16. Redmon, L.A., G.W. Horn, E.G. Krenzer, Jr., and D.J. Bernardo. 1995. A review of livestock grazing and wheat grain yield: Boom or bust? Agron. J. 87:137–147. doi:10.2134/agronj1995.00021962008700020001x.

17. Shenk, J.S., and M.O. Westerhaus. 1991. Population definition, sample selection, and calibration procedures for near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Sci. 31:469–474. doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100020049x.

18. Tilley, J.M.A., and R.A. Terry. 1963. A two stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 18:104–111. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x.

19. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012. Prospective Plantings [Online]. Available at http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/ProsPlan//2010s/2012/ProsPlan-03–30–2012.pdf (accessed 10 May 2013). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.

20. Winter, S.R., E.K. Thompson, and J.T. Musick. 1990. Grazing winter wheat: II. Height effects on response to production system. Agron. J. 82:37–41. doi:10.2134/agronj1990.00021962008200010008x.