Page 1

Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

Chinook Applied Research Association

CARA a member of ARECA

2011 Annual Report


Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

Chinook Applied Research Association Box 690, Oyen, Alberta, Canada T0J 2J0 Phone: (403) 664-3777 Fax: (403) 664-3007 cara-1@telus.net Visit our Home Page: http://www.cara.areca.ab.ca

CARA is a producer-directed society dedicated to improving the sustainability and profitability of agriculture in the Special Areas and the MD of Acadia. Our program of applied research and demonstration projects provides a link in the transfer of technology between research and the producer. Producers, industry, government and others can access reliable data on crop, livestock and soils that is relevant to the area and its soil and climatic conditions. We are pleased to make available the 32nd edition of our Projects Report. It contains a description and summary of results of projects carried out or monitored by CARA in 2011. Articles from this publication may be reprinted provided the source is given credit and that no endorsement of a specific product is stated or implied.


Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

Table of Contents Introduction President’s Message Manager’s Message 2011 Board of Directors 2011 CARA Staff Acknowledgements Crop Trials & Demonstrations Variety Trials ......................................................................................................1 Wheat and Durum Variety Trial ..........................................................................3 Triticale Variety Trial ........................................................................................23 Barley Variety Trial ...........................................................................................29 Oat Variety Trial ...............................................................................................46 Winter Wheat Variety Trial ...............................................................................51 Field Pea Variety Trial ......................................................................................54 Special Crops Demo ........................................................................................62 Demonstration of Weed Management Options in Lentils .................................66 Canola Agronomic Demonstration ...................................................................72 Broadcast Urea Fertilizer Compared to Side-Banded Urea at Planting Custom Project Work ..............................................................................77 Viterra Variety Performance Trials—Custom Project Work .............................81 Forage Trials & Demonstrations Annual Forage Dry Matter Trial ...................................................................... 83 Perennial Forage Trials and Demonstrations ................................................. 95 Developing Biological Control Strategies for Foxtail Barley in Saline Pastures, Hayfields and Other Areas ...................................... 96 Evaluating Salinity Tolerance Among Selected Alfalfa Lines ........................ 108 Trees and Insects Shelterbelt Demonstration and Nursery ........................................................115 2012 Insect Forecast .....................................................................................121 Extension Program 2011 Extension ..............................................................................................127 Appendix Guide to Interpretation of Results ................................................................. 133 Definitions of Common Feed Nutrient Terms ................................................ 138 Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle .......................................................... 140 Nutrient Composition of Typical Feed Sources ............................................. 141 Agronomic & Tolerance Information for Perennials ...................................... 142 ARECA Map .................................................................................................. 144 ARECA 2011 – A Year in Review ................................................................. 145 ARECA Crops ............................................................................................... 147 ARECA Forages ........................................................................................... 149 Membership Page ......................................................................................... 151


Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

President's Message 2012 The Staff of CARA have once again finished their year, and are ready to go to press with another annual report. As Chairman, I sincerely hope that the information herein helps you to successfully manage your farm and ranch operations. I believe that we are entering a time of great change in agriculture as well as a time of great promise. Hopefully we can manage this change in a profitable manner. Cattle prices are the highest since 2003 and commodities have taken a turn for the better. The upcoming changes to wheat marketing in Western Canada are probably foremost. Some producers view the possible outcomes with fear and trepidation while others look at it with promise and excitement As many farms in our region celebrate their 100th year, one must remind themselves that from the past to future, horses to 500 hp tractors, and from reins to satellite guidance systems agriculture has always been about analyzing and adapting to change. CARA continues to support and promote agriculture at the grassroots level, and through their research and producer programs will hopefully enable you to capitalize on the future. I invite you to put forth your ideas for future programming, as the strength of this organization continues to be driven by the people it serves. I would also like to mention that CARA is a member of the Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta (ARECA). This partnership has enabled our association and other ARAs alike through improved co-ordination and collaboration, to better serve our local producers and have more of a far reaching impact on Alberta’s agriculture. In the meantime this organization we call our own will continue its research and extension activities at the local level to assist you in this ever changing endeavour some casually call “farming”. Respectfully yours, David Eaton


Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

Manager's Message 2012 It is hard for me to believe 2011 has already passed by the rear view mirror. East central Alberta producers enjoyed a good year in managing crop and forage crops, resulting in above average yields for most of the acreage. Following the bumper hay crop of 2010, the feed yards of many cattlemen were filled beyond capacity. This unusual situation turned several local growers into hay exporters – somewhat of a rare occurrence for this part of the province when we are the ones typically looking for feed. It was unfortunate the growing conditions were also ideal for the development of ergot which was found in many grain samples harvested last fall. The downgrade in quality, and concerns for cattle feed and use of the crop for seed have created a need for extra management considerations. A highlight of 2011 for CARA was delivery of our new Henderson 500 seed drill, thanks to a partnership with Viterra. We were very happy with the performance of this new drill which has improved our seed and fertilizer placement capabilities. It was a pleasure to work with a number of great partners in a variety of project and extension activities during the past year. Many producers, organizations and businesses have contributed to our local program in many ways, supporting the delivery of project results and information. Collaboration with ARECA staff and member associations has resulted in excellent projects, provincial conferences and training opportunities. Assistance from federal and provincial scientists and specialists helps us develop the unbiased information our producers request. I would like to express my appreciation to all those we work with for helping complete the link between research and the producer. Without these relationships, we would be hard pressed to carry out our program. I would also like to thank our Directors and staff members for their dedication to CARA’s program – your time and effort does not go unnoticed. I look forward to the coming year. CARA will continue to provide area producers with information and tools to manage agricultural challenges as they arise. Dianne Westerlund


Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

Board Members 2011 David Eaton, Sibbald (President & ARECA Representative) Kyle Christianson, Sedalia (Vice President) Walter Suntjens, Hanna (Past President) Marvin Molzan, Sibbald (Financial Supervisor) Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley (Executive Director at Large) Richard Bailey,Veteran Darryl Conners, Hanna George Doupe, Oyen Craig Horner, Cessford John Kimber, Youngstown Kirby Laughlin, Youngstown

Kevin Letniak, Consort Gloria Nelson, Veteran Anne Rafa, Empress Bonnie Sansregret, Consort Charles Schmidt, Chinook

Aerial Picture of CARA Center

2011 Staff Manager: Dianne Westerlund Crops Agronomist: Audrey Bamber Forage Agronomist: Candice Armstrong Office Manager: Shelley Norris Field Managers: Aaron Dietrich Brandon Armstrong (part time) Summer Technician: Danny Rude Summer Technician: Melissa Duque Part time: Clint Bergstreser, Brett Bamber Pam Gorgichuk, Rita Anderson


Chinook Applied Research Association — 2011 Annual Report

2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of CARA’s 2011 program was again testament to the tremendous support and partnerships we have with a number of organizations and individuals. There are many benefits to the relationships which have developed with ARECA member groups on projects and extension activities. Contributions from Alberta Agriculture and Agriculture Canada specialists have enhanced our work and the information we are able to pass on to our producers. There is no doubt that the scope of projects CARA is able to carry out would not happen without our local municipalities behind us. A number of Agricultural Societies, agri-businesses, producer and community groups support our trials, demonstrations and events in various ways. Finally, we work with a great group of farmers and ranchers in all aspects of the program and are very proud to be part of the agricultural industry in our community. Many thanks to the following who have contributed to the CARA program by providing funding, donations, inputs, partnering on projects or extension or otherwise have lent a helping hand. Our sincere apologies for anyone we have missed. 20/20 Seed Labs A & L Laboratory Group Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta & Member Groups Agricultural Service Boards—Special Area 2, 3, 4 & M.D. of Acadia Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Agri-Environment Services Branch (AAFC) Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (AARD) Alberta Barley Commission Alberta Beef Producers Alberta Canola Producers Commission Alberta Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) Alberta Pulse Growers Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission Allen’s Agrocentre, Oyen ATB Financial BASF Canada Becker Underwood Big Country Adult Learning Centre Big Country Agricultural Society Bodycote/Exova Testing Group Buffalo Ag Society Buster Klassen Canola Council of Canada Diana Walker Donna Scory, Oyen Farm Credit Corporation

Farm Link Marketing Solutions Farm Safety Camp Supporters & Volunteers G Macs Ag Team Inc. Alex Fedko, (AARD) Hanna & District Ag Society Indian Head Research Farm KAC Agricultural Society Kirby & Renee Laughlin Lee Melvill Manfred Gross Millet King Seeds of Canada Inc. Municipal District of Acadia Neutral Hills Ag Society Nigel Seymour Parkland Laboratories Proven Seeds Ratepayers of Special Areas and M.D. of Acadia Richardson Pioneer Grain Ron Barnett Sandberg Labs Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food SeCan Association Shelley Barkley, AARD Semi-Arid Prairie Agricultural Research Center (SPARC) Special Areas Board Spondin Ag Society University of Alberta University of Saskatchewan


Yellow mustard at Oyen site

Flax at Consort site

Pea variety trial at Oyen site Wheat, triticale and pea variety trial at Oyen Site


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

1

Variety Trials The following project description applies to all the variety trials. Site differences are noted in the individual reports. Long term data from past years and sites is included in individual reports. Please use caution when interpreting cumulative data as it may have been collected from only a few years. The number of years the varieties were tested is included in the tables. Purpose: To provide information on the performance of new and established crop varieties when grown under dry land conditions in east-central Alberta. Project Description: Fallow or stubble fields selected for the project sites are soil tested to determine soil fertility prior to seeding. Pre-seeding tillage is usually done by the cooperator. In the case of stubble seeding, the plots are seeded directly into stubble following a pre-seed burn-off with glyphosate. The plots are seeded with CARA's Henderson 500 drill, with Morris contour openers, through a single belt cone with spinner/splitter with 5 paired rows (separated by 4 inches) on 12 inch spacing. Fertilizer is delivered through a chute between the paired rows. Plots are 1.52 m x 5.0 m laid out in a randomized complete block design with 3 or 4 replications. CARA uses seeding rates that are based on recommendations for this area: the targeted plant population for cereals is 18 - 24 plants per sq. ft and for peas is 8 plants/square foot. The amount of seed required for each plot is calculated using the thousand kernel weight of that variety, percent germination and estimated seed mortality. Weed control is obtained by the appropriate use of herbicides. Performance of the varieties is evaluated periodically throughout the season. At maturity, height measurements are taken and the plots are straight cut with a plot combine. The samples are air dried, cleaned and weighed for yield determination. Bushel weight is then determined. Thanks to the Richardson Pioneer Grain staff in Oyen for grade and protein determination. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference (LSD) test is performed on the data. A difference in yield (in lb/A) between varieties greater than the LSD (least significant difference) figure is significant at a 95% level of confidence. If two or more varieties have yields that fall within the LSD range, they are not significantly different from each other at 95% confidence level. The 95% confidence level means that we are 95% certain that the result is not a chance occurrence. A coefficient of variation (C.V.%) less than 20% means that the data is reliable. Long term yield is reported in the cumulative tables in each report. Variety names are spelled and capitalized as they appear on the registration with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.


2

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

More information on varieties is available in the seed.ab.ca seed guide published by the Alberta Seed Industry Partnership, the www.seed.ab.ca website or the Varieties of Cereal and Oilseed Crops report on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. Feel free to call the CARA office with your questions.

Packages of seed are organized, ready for planting

One packet of seed per plot


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

3

Wheat and Durum Variety Trial Summary Wheat variety trials were conducted in 2011 to evaluate the performance of several varieties and their potential in east-central Alberta. Varieties of durum, hard red spring, Canada prairie spring, general purpose and soft white spring were tested at Hanna, Acadia Valley and Oyen as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. Soft white spring varieties were introduced to the trials in 2007 due to their usage in the production of ethanol. Soft white wheat has been considered a crop for use under irrigation but we have found that the crop yields very well under dry land in east-central Alberta. Five orange blossom wheat midge resistant varieties were included in the hard red spring wheat test: Goodeve VB, Unity VB, Vesper VB, CDC Utmost and Shaw VB. The CPS variety Conquer VB was also included. VB is an abbreviation for a variety blend consisting of 90% wheat midge resistant wheat and 10% susceptible wheat. For example, Goodeve VB is a variety blend of 90% Goodeve (wheat midge resistant) and 10% Intrepid (susceptible to wheat midge). Blending to the level of 10% with a susceptible variety provides a refuge area for the non-virulent midge to survive at low levels thereby extending the useful life of the midge tolerance gene. The sites were planted into excellent moisture conditions. The weather in May and June was relatively wet, with dry conditions beginning the latter part of July and extending into the fall. In general terms, the wet conditions and presence of ergot bodies from last year were conducive to the development of ergot in east central Alberta in 2011. Of our sites, the Oyen site was affected the most, with ergot found in nearly all of the samples of hard wheat, durum, utility and soft white wheat. At the Hanna site, ergot was found only in a few of the durum, utility and soft white wheat samples. No ergot was found in the hard wheat at Hanna. The samples from Acadia Valley were unaffected by ergot. Generally speaking, all the wheat was of number one status, except where ergot was present. The long term averages for all sites are included in this report. More information on varieties is available in the seed.ab.ca seed guide published by the Alberta Seed Industry Partnership, the www.seed.ab.ca website or the Varieties of Cereal and Oilseed Crops report on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. Feel free to call the CARA office with your questions. Cooperators:

Dwayne Smigelski, Oyen SE 16-28-3-W4 Barry Redel, Consort SW 12-35-7-W4 (in past years) Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4 Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NW 27-24-2-W4

Project Description: Please see “Variety Trials�, page 1.


4

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Site Information: Soil Analysis Oyen

Hanna

Acadia Valley

(0-24”)

70 lb/A (deficient)

79 lb/A (deficient)

73 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”)

50 lb/A (marginal)

36 lb/A (marginal)

11 lb/A (deficient)

Potassium

(0-6”)

902 lb/A (optimum)

866 lb/A (optimum)

1200 lb/A (excess)

Sulfate

(0-24”)

28 lb/A (marginal)

53 lb/A (optimum)

1220 lb/A (excess)

0.55 (good)

0.29 (good)

1.06 (good)

6.0 (slightly acidic) Clay (21% S, 29% Si, 50% C)*

8.0 (slightly alkaline) Clay (13% S, 29% Si, 58% C)*

Nitrogen

Soil Salinity (E.C.) pH

7.0 (neutral) Sandy Loam (49% Soil Texture S, 23% Si, 28% C)* * S = Sand, Si = Silt, C = Clay

Precipitation 2011 Month

Oyen

Hanna

Acadia Valley

May June July August Total

1.0 2.6 2.8 1.6 8.0 inches

1.4 3.4 2.4 1.2 8.4 inches

1.0 5.5 1.6 0.6 8.7 inches

Agronomic Information Oyen

Hanna

Acadia Valley

Previous Crop

Chem fallow

Tilled fallow

Chem fallow

Seeding Date

May 16

May 30

May 19

Seeding Depth

2 inches

2 inches

2 inches

Seedbed Condition

Excellent moisture conditions

Seeding Rate

18 plants per square foot

Fertilizer

Seedbed Preparation

109 lb/A of 40-30-5-5 placed between the rows Henderson 500 drill (5 paired rows on 12” spacing, fertilizer between rows) Pre-seed glyphosate Cultivated, harrowed Pre-seed glyphosate

Herbicide

Achieve Liquid Gold

Fungicide

Headline EC applied Hard wheat – Aug 30, remainder – Sept 15

Seeder

Harvest Date

All were combined – Sept 26

Hard wheat – Sept 8, remainder – Sept 13


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

5

Precipitation Summary* (inches) Oyen

Consort

Hanna

Acadia Valley

1990

3.3

N/A

N/A

N/A

1991

9.1

9.7

9.3

N/A

1992

5.4

6.5

7.5

N/A

1993

6.2

8.6

5.8

13.1

1994

8.2

6.9

11.7

5.7

1995

8.7

5.7

N/A

9.4

1996

6.9

6.5

9.5

3.0

1997

5.2

9.3

4.9

4.9

1998

5.3

3.9

5.8

5.1

1999

12.2

14.5

19.3

12.2

2000

3.6

N/A

6.5

6.8

2001

2.8

N/A

4.0

3.0

2002

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

N/A

10.0

6.0

N/A

2004

N/A

15.1

10.9

N/A

2005

N/A

N/A

11.8

N/A

2006

N/A

N/A

6.6

N/A

2007

9.3

N/A

13.1

N/A

2008

10.6

7.95

10.25

N/A

2009

7.8

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

12.4

N/A

14.0

12.4

2011 8.0 8.0 8.4 * Summary of precipitation received May through August - Data not recorded

8.7

Results: Table 1 Durum - Oyen 2011

Variety Brigade Enterprise Eurostar CDC Verona Strongfield Transcend Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 3473 3391 3287 3253 3200 3135 3290 375 9

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 58 57 55 54 53 52 55 6

Protein % 10.9 11.3 11.2 11.5 11.2 11.3 11

Height (cm) 77 75 77 75 72 79 76

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 66.8 67.0 66.3 66.0 66.0 65.6 66

TKW (grams) 46.2 37.2 44.4 44.6 42.9 44.0 43


6

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Comments: The durum had relatively high yield, with an average of 55 bu/A. Statistically, with a least significant difference of 6 bu/A, there was little difference between the varieties. All samples were downgraded due to the presence of ergot. LSD’S and C.V.’S: A difference in yield (in lb/A) between varieties greater than the LSD is significant at a 95% level of confidence. This also means that if two or more varieties have yields that fall within the LSD range, they are not significantly different from each other at 95% confidence level. The 95% confidence level means that we are 95% certain that the result is not a chance occurrence. A Coefficient of Variance (C.V.) of less than 20 means the data is reliable. Table 2 Durum Long Term Yield at Oyen Ave. Yield as % of

# of Years

Avg. Yield as % of

# of Years

Kyle Grown Strongfield Grown Variety AC Avonlea 109 5 97 1 AC Melita 97 6 AC Morse 105 3 AC Navigator 113 4 114 1 Brigade 108 2 103 4 CDC Verona 113 1 94 3 Commander 145 1 122 1 Enterprise 119 1 98 3 Eurostar 112 2 100 4 Kyle (check) 100 14 88 3 Napoleon 103 1 Plenty 101 9 Sceptre 104 9 Strongfield (check) 115 3 100 5 Transcend 91 2 Wakooma 98 7 During the years 1990-2000, Kyle average yield was 42 bu/A. During the years 2007-2011, Strongfield average yield was 55 bu/A. In this table, the varieties are compared to Kyle (the check variety from 1990-2000) and/or Strongfield (the check variety from 2007-2011).


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

7

Table 3 Durum Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield as % of Kyle*

# of Years Grown*

AC Avonlea

108

3

AC Melita

91

5

AC Morse

119

2

AC Navigator

110

2

Kyle (check)

100

6

Plenty

108

5

Sceptre

104

5

Variety

Wakooma 87 *During the years 1993, 1995-1999. *Kyle long term average yield is 49 bu/A.

3

Table 4 Durum - Hanna 2011

Variety

Yield (lb/A)

CDC Verona Eurostar Brigade Transcend Strongfield Enterprise Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

3536 3515 3366 3241 3217 3089 3327 166 4

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 59 59 56 54 54 51 56 3

Protein (%)

Height (cm)

Bushel Weight (lb/bu)

11.4 11.4 11.9 11.9 11.8 12.8 12

83 86 85 86 83 83 84

66.4 66.8 67.1 65.8 66.8 65.8 66

TKW (grams) 46.7 48.4 46.1 47.8 48.0 45.3 47

Comments: The varieties had relatively high yield, with an average of 56 bu/A. The top yielding varieties were CDC Verona and Eurostar. A few samples were downgraded due to the presence of ergot.


8

Table 5

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Durum Long Term Yield at Hanna

Ave. Yield # of Avg. Yield # of as % of Years as % of Years Variety Grown Strongfield Grown Kyle AC Avonlea 104 6 88 1 AC Melita 96 5 AC Morse 103 6 96 2 AC Navigator 106 6 94 2 Brigade 94 1 98 2 CDC Verona 109 1 Commander 112 3 99 3 Enterprise 94 1 Eurostar 93 1 100 2 Kyle (check) 100 14 92 5 Napoleon 102 2 Plenty 98 6 Sceptre 108 6 Strongfield (check) 109 5 100 6 Transcend 100 1 Wakooma 100 4 During the years 1991-92, 1994, 1996-2001, 2003-2006, 2008, Kyle average yield was 52 bu/A. During the years 2003-2006, 2008, 2011, Strongfield average yield was 64 bu/A. In this table, the varieties are compared to Kyle (the check variety from 1991-2008) and/or Strongfield (the check variety from 2003-2011).

Table 6 Durum - Acadia Valley 2011

Variety Brigade Eurostar Transcend CDC Verona Strongfield Enterprise Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 3864 3831 3825 3770 3496 3332 3686 238 5

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 64 64 64 63 58 56 62 4

Protein % 12.2 12.7 12.9 12.4 12.8 12.4 13

Height (cm) 83 83 86 79 77 78 81

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 68.3 68.0 67.4 67.4 66.2 67.4 67

TKW (grams) 44.9 46.0 44.8 47.2 44.6 41.5 45

Comments: The durum yielded well at Acadia Valley, with an average of 62 bu/A. All samples graded number one. There was no ergot present at this site.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

9

Table 7 Durum Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Variety

Ave. Yield

# of

Avg. Yield

# of

as % of

Years

as % of

Years

Kyle

Grown

Strongfield -

Grown -

AC Avonlea 105 2 AC Melita 84 6 AC Morse 102 3 AC Navigator 106 2 AC Pathfinder 101 2 Brigade 108 2 CDC Verona 106 2 Enterprise 100 2 Eurostar 108 2 Kyle (check) 100 8 Napoleon 104 1 Plenty 103 8 Sceptre 99 8 Strongfield (check) 100 2 Transcend 110 2 Wakooma 93 6 During the years 1991-2000, Kyle average yield was 52 bu/A.  During the years 2010-2011, Strongfield average yield was 60 bu/A. In this table, the varieties are compared to Kyle (the check variety from 1991-2000) or Strongfield (the check variety from 2010-2011).


10

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 8 Hard Spring Wheat - Oyen 2011 Yield Yield bu/A Protein Variety (lb/A) (60 lb/bu) (%) Muchmore 3899 65 11.7 Stettler 3711 62 -Glenn 3677 61 11.3 CDC Stanley 3664 61 11.0 CDC Utmost VB 3644 61 11.5 WR859 CL 3641 61 11.3 BW 901 3637 61 11.2 Goodeve VB 3464 58 12.9 Carberry 3445 57 11.6 Shaw VB 3374 56 11.0 CDC Kernen 3272 55 11.3 Unity VB 3231 54 11.1 BW 433 3214 54 10.8 Lillian 3194 53 12.5 5604HR CL 3176 53 10.9 CDC Thrive 3166 53 11.0 AC Barrie 3042 51 11.4 Katepwa 3033 51 11.4 Vesper VB 2951 49 10.1 5603HR 2751 46 11.9 HW024 2589 43 11.0 Mean 3323 55 11 LSD (.05) 184 3 C.V.% 9 Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides.

Height (cm) 74 81 83 83 82 80 85 85 75 91 89 87 88 82 83 87 86 83 86 80 79 83

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 67.4 66.5 68.4 65.2 66.0 67.4 65.6 65.1 67.0 66.3 66.7 66.8 66.5 63.8 66.7 66.2 65.7 65.4 66.3 65.2 64.8 66

TKW (grams) 39.6 36.9 38.5 31.5 34.5 34.7 36.4 36.4 37.5 36.1 35.2 34.7 37.3 35.1 30.9 34.1 34.2 32.9 34.4 32.4 31.4 35

Comments: The hard wheat yielded well at Oyen, with an average of 55 bu/A. Muchmore was the highest yielder with 65 bu/A. The quality of samples was excellent, except that some varieties were downgraded due to the presences of ergot bodies.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

11

Table 9 Hard Red and White Spring Long Term Yield at Oyen

Variety 5602HR 5603HR 5604HR CL AC Abbey AC Barrie AC Cadillac AC Cora AC Domain AC Eatonia AC Elsa AC Intrepid AC Majestic AC Minto AC Splendor Alvena BW 433 BW 901 Carberry CDC Abound CDC Alsask CDC Go CDC Kernen CDC Makwa CDC Stanley CDC Teal CDC Thrive CDC Utmost VB Columbus Conway

Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa 122 108 107 101 106 104 103 99 98 100 97 96 99 99 105 106 120 116 122 107 114 111 101 124 105 113 121 103 97

# of Years Grown* 3 3 3 3 12 3 7 6 7 5 4 6 9 3 3 1 1 3 4 3 1 3 11 3 8 3 3 8 9

Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. *During the years 1990-2000, 2007-2011. *Katepwa long term average yield is 43 bu/A.

Variety Fieldstar VB Glenn Goodeve VB Harvest HW024 Infinity Kane Katepwa (check) Laura Leader Lillian McKenzie Muchmore Neepawa Pasqua Peace Prodigy Roblin Shaw VB Snowbird (white) Snowstar (white) Somerset Stettler Superb Unity VB Vesper VB Waskada WR859 CL

Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa 107 117 108 110 84 110 106 100 105 102 110 104 127 102 103 106 100 93 125 100 103 106 120 129 115 112 109 118

# of Years Grown* 3 3 5 2 1 1 3 16 8 5 3 4 3 8 8 1 3 8 3 1 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 4


12

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 10 Hard Red Spring Wheat Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa* 96 98 98 98 100 91 105 100 94 92 96 97 101 93 87 100 104 86 108 95 85 99 95 96

Variety AC Abbey  AC Barrie AC Cadillac AC Cora AC Domain AC Eatonia  AC Elsa AC Intrepid AC Majestic AC Minto AC Splendor CDC Makwa CDC Teal Columbus Conway Katepwa (Check) Laura Leader  McKenzie Neepawa Park Pasqua Prodigy Roblin Solid stemmed variety. *During the years 1993, 1995-1999. *Katepwa long term average yield is 47 bu/A.

# of Years Grown* 2 5 2 5 4 6 4 3 5 5 2 6 6 4 5 6 4 2 3 4 2 4 2 5


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

13

Table 11 Hard Spring Wheat - Hanna 2011

Variety

Yield (lb/A)

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu)

Protein (%)

Height (cm)

Bushel Weight (lb/bu)

TKW (grams)

Lillian

2705

45

13.4

84

64.7

35.4

Carberry

2669

44

12.2

71

66.3

37.9

CDC Stanley

2611

44

10.9

80

64.7

29.3

Stettler

2610

43

12.4

79

66.5

34.8

Muchmore

2539

42

12.7

69

65.8

35.7

CDC Utmost VB

2538

42

12.3

82

65.2

35.1

WR859 CL

2504

42

11.9

75

65.6

30.7

Shaw VB

2407

40

11.6

87

67.1

35.8

Goodeve VB

2382

40

12.9

80

65.6

36.0

BW 901

2309

38

11.3

83

65.6

33.2

Unity VB

2305

38

11.8

88

67.2

33.5

Glenn

2256

38

12.3

77

67.7

32.9

BW 433

2141

36

11.2

89

65.3

34.5

5604HR CL

2104

35

11.6

83

64.8

29.0

HW024

2088

35

12.2

86

63.4

30.5

CDC Kernen

2081

35

11.2

84

65.9

33.5

Vesper VB

2040

34

10.8

86

65.3

33.0

CDC Thrive

2017

34

11.8

83

65.6

31.4

AC Barrie

1796

30

11.5

83

64.2

29.5

Katepwa

1787

30

11.8

88

64.9

31.3

5603HR

1691

28

11.6

82

65.6

31.3

Mean

2266

38

12

82

66

33

LSD (.05)

126

2

C.V.%

9

Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. Comments: The hard wheat was unaffected by ergot and all varieties graded number one. The hard wheat had a low yield for Hanna, with an average of 38 bu/A.


14

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 12 Red and White Hard Spring Wheat Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa* 106 107 95 119 106 118 100 103 102 99 97 99 103 106 98 95 100 113 120 127 122 121 117 109 114 108 101 105 109 143 100 123 149 96

# of Years Grown* 1 2 3 5 3 2 4 16 4 6 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 4 1 1 2 4 5 1 5 3 2 9 4 2 7 2 2 6

Variety 5500HR 5600HR 5601HR 5602HR 5603HR 5604HR CL AC Abbey AC Barrie AC Cadillac AC Cora AC Domain AC Eatonia AC Elsa AC Intrepid AC Majestic AC Minto AC Splendor Alvena BW 433 BW 901 Carberry CDC Abound CDC Alsask CDC Bounty CDC Go CDC Imagine CDC Kernen CDC Makwa CDC Osler CDC Stanley CDC Teal CDC Thrive CDC Utmost VB Columbus Solid stemmed variety.  Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. *During the years 1991-2008, 2010-2011. *Katepwa long term average yield is 48 bu/A.

Variety Conway Fieldstar VB Glenn Goodeve VB Harvest Helios HW024 Infinity Journey Kanata (white) Kane Katepwa (check) Laura Leader Lillian Lovitt McKenzie Muchmore Neepawa Park Pasqua Peace Prodigy Roblin Shaw VB Snowbird (white) Snowstar (white) Somerset Stettler Superb Unity VB Vesper VB Waskada WR859 CL

Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa* 91 119 110 128 106 116 117 106 106 92 119 100 111 101 121 99 102 122 99 100 103 116 99 105 120 95 112 118 132 120 123 123 108 123

# of Years Grown* 7 2 2 4 4 1 1 4 3 5 2 18 6 4 6 2 6 2 6 7 6 3 4 7 2 4 3 3 3 8 3 2 3 3


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

15

Table 13 Hard Spring Wheat - Acadia Valley 2011

Variety

Yield (lb/A)

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu)

Muchmore

3331

56

14.1

72

66.0

38.5

Carberry

3149

52

14.7

75

66.0

36.3

Lillian

3046

51

14.1

82

64.3

35.0

Stettler

2990

50

14.0

80

66.7

35.6

CDC Stanley

2874

48

12.7

80

63.9

29.9

Shaw VB

2835

47

13.6

87

66.0

34.4

Protein (%)

Height (cm)

Bushel Weight (lb/bu)

TKW (grams)

WR859 CL

2832

47

13.6

77

64.7

31.2

BW 901

2751

46

13.7

86

63.7

34.9

CDC Utmost VB

2650

44

13.4

81

64.6

32.8

Glenn

2645

44

14.5

79

67.7

32.4

CDC Kernen

2637

44

13.4

85

63.9

32.5

Goodeve VB

2636

44

14.0

79

64.6

34.3

Vesper VB

2532

42

12.8

86

65.4

32.8

5604HR CL

2514

42

12.6

83

64.4

28.2

BW 433

2472

41

12.3

84

65.7

33.1

Unity VB

2335

39

12.3

84

67.1

30.9

5603HR

2225

37

13.3

78

64.3

30.9

Katepwa

2132

36

12.7

86

64.3

32.2

CDC Thrive

1878

31

13.0

82

64.3

30.2

AC Barrie

1817

30

12.9

83

63.0

28.2

HW024

1712

29

12.9

88

65.2

28.3

Mean

2571

43

13

82

65

33

LSD (.05)

189

3

C.V.%

11

Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. Comments: The hard wheat had good yield at Acadia Valley, with an average of 43 bu/A. Muchmore had the highest yield with 56 bu/A. All samples were graded number one and had no ergot. Protein was excellent, with an average of 13%.


16

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 14 Hard Red and White Spring Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Avg. Yield as % of

# of Years

Variety Katepwa Grown* 5500 HR 98 2 5600HR 97 2 5601HR 77 1 5603HR 111 2 5604HR CL 111 2 AC Abbey 97 3 AC Barrie 102 8 AC Cadillac 97 4 AC Cora 99 5 AC Domain 92 7 AC Eatonia 92 6 AC Elsa 101 4 AC Intrepid 98 3 AC Majestic 96 5 AC Minto 96 5 AC Splendor 93 4 Alikat 96 2 Alvena 108 1 BW 433 114 1 BW 901 128 1 Carberry 128 2 CDC Abound 108 1 CDC Bounty 105 2 CDC Go 108 1 CDC Kernen 116 2 CDC Makwa 103 5 CDC Stanley 122 2 CDC Teal 103 7 Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. *During the years 1991-2000, 2010-2011. *Katepwa long term average yield is 46 bu/A.

Variety CDC Thrive CDC Utmost VB Columbus Conway Fieldstar VB Glenn Goodeve VB Harvest HW024 Katepwa Laura Leader Lillian McKenzie Muchmore Neepawa Park Pasqua Prodigy Roblin Shaw VB Snowbird Stettler Superb Unity VB Vesper VB Waskada WR859 CL

Avg. Yield as % of

# of Years

Katepwa 103 118 99 103 113 114 115 115 81 100 100 102 142 104 133 99 95 99 100 95 118 95 124 119 114 110 96 119

Grown* 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 11 8 2 1 3 2 6 3 5 3 8 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

17

Table 15 Utility and Soft White Wheat - Oyen 2011

Variety AC Andrew NRG010 CDC NRG003 Minnedosa SY985 (HY985) Conquer VB AC Crystal AC Taber

Type Soft white General Purpose General Purpose General Purpose CPS CPS CPS CPS Mean LSD (.05) C.V.% Wheat midge resistant variety blend.

Yield (lb/A) 4419 3940 3855 3720 3507 3456 2712 2683 3537 213 6

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 74 66 64 62 58 58 45 45 59 4

Protein (%) 9.5 10.7 10.4 12.8 11.7 12.2 9.9 10.6 11

Height (cm) 75 74 74 76 72 80 70 69 74

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 64.3 63.7 63.7 63.7 65.2 64.9 62.7 62.9 64

TKW (grams) 35.5 37.8 40.0 39.4 40.5 39.2 36.4 36.6 38

Comments: AC Andrew out yielded all the other varieties in this test with a yield of 74 bu/A. The three general purpose varieties had similar yields, between 62 and 66 bu/A. AC Crystal and AC Taber had low yields, at 45 bu/A. Most of these samples were downgraded due to the presence of ergot. Table 16 Utility Wheat Long Term Yield at Oyen

Variety Type 5702 PR CPS AC Andrew Soft white AC Crystal CPS AC Foremost CPS AC Karma CPS AC Meena Soft white AC Taber (check) CPS AC Vista CPS CDC NRG003 General purpose Conquer VB CPS Minnedosa General Purpose NRG010 General Purpose Sadash Soft white SY985 (HY985) CPS *During the years 1991-1998, 2008-2011. *AC Taber long term average yield is 48 bu/A. Wheat midge resistant variety blend.

Avg. Yield as % of AC Taber 94 137 99 110 104 136 100 110 123 123 113 119 139 112

# of Years Grown* 2 4 6 5 5 1 12 3 2 2 3 3 3 2


18

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 17 Soft White Wheat Average Yield at Oyen Variety AC Andrew (check) AC Meena Bhishaj Sadash

2007 76 79 83 -

2008 78 69 78

Year 2009 71 76

2010 66 79

2011 74 -

Avg. Yield as % of AC Andrew 100 97 110 109

# of Years Grown* 5 2 1 3

* AC Andrew long term average yield is 73 bu/A.

Table 18 Canada Prairie Spring Long Term Yield at Consort

Variety

Avg. Yield as % of AC Taber*

# of Years Grown*

5702PR

91

1

AC Crystal

93

3

AC Foremost

104

4

AC Karma

104

4

AC Taber (check)

100

6

AC Vista 99 *During the years 1993-1998, 2008. *AC Taber long term average yield is 49 bu/A.

3

Acadia Valley variety trial site


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

19

Table 19 Utility and Soft White Wheat - Hanna 2011 Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu)

Protein (%)

Height (cm)

Bushel Weight (lb/bu)

TKW (grams)

Variety

Type

Yield (lb/A)

AC Andrew

Soft white

3417

57

9.5

75

64.4

33.9

Minnedosa

General Purpose

3122

52

11.4

82

65.6

40.8

NRG010

General Purpose

3016

50

11.0

81

64.6

40.1

CDC NRG003

General Purpose

2819

47

11.2

79

64.8

39.8

SY985 (HY985)

CPS

2652

44

13.0

73

64.1

41.9

Conquer VBď‚‚

CPS

2592

43

12.8

84

65.2

41.7

AC Taber (check)

CPS

1191

20

11.1

77

58.5

30.2

AC Crystal

CPS

902

15

11.2

76

58.9

29.1

Mean

2464

41

11

78

63

37

LSD (.05)

237

4

C.V.%

10

ď‚‚Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Comments: AC Andrew, the only soft white wheat in the test, was the top yielder, with 57 bu/A. This was followed by the gnereal purpose then CPS varieties. AC Taber and AC Crystal had extremely low yields of 20 and 15 bu/A respectively. The seed of AC Taber provided for these sites had a germination of 76%. The seeding rate was raised to compensate for this, but yield was low. Since the check variety AC Taber had a substandard yield, the data from this year will not be included in the long term table. All of these varieties graded number one, except for one which had ergot. Table 20 Canada Prairie Spring and Soft White Long Term Yield at Hanna

Variety Type 5700 PR CPS Red 5701 PR CPS Red 5702 PR CPS Red AC Andrew Soft White AC Crystal CPS Red AC Foremost CPS Red AC Karma CPS White AC Taber (check) CPS Red AC Vista CPS White *During the years 1994-98, 2003-2007 *AC Taber long term average is 62 bu/A.

Avg. Yield as % of AC Taber 99 95 97 127 91 103 99 100 102

# of Years Grown* 2 3 1 1 4 4 4 11 3


20

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 21 Utility and Soft White Wheat - Acadia Valley 2011 Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu)

Protein (%)

Height (cm)

Bushel Weight (lb/bu)

TKW (grams)

Variety

Type

Yield (lb/A)

Minnedosa

General Purpose

4051

68

12.3

78

64.6

42.6

AC Andrew

Soft white

3773

63

10.4

72

64.7

34.0

NRG010

General Purpose

3722

62

11.4

78

65.5

39.7

Conquer VB

CPS

3639

61

13.6

77

65.8

43.1

CDC NRG003

General Purpose

3384

56

11.5

74

64.9

39.7

SY985 (HY985)

CPS

3364

56

13.3

70

65.6

40.9

AC Taber

CPS

1322

22

11.1

72

62.3

32.3

AC Crystal

CPS

1123

19

11.4

76

60.1

29.7

Mean

3047

51

12

75

64

38

LSD (.05)

141

2

C.V.%

5

Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Comments: Minnedosa had the highest yield at 68 bu/A. AC Taber and AC Crystal had extremely low yields of 22 and 19 bu/A respectively. The seed of AC Taber provided for these sites had a germination of 76%. The seeding rate was raised to compensate for this, but yield was low. Since the check variety AC Taber had a substandard yield, the data from this year will not be included in the long term table. All of these varieties graded number one. Table 22 Canada Prairie Spring Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Variety

Avg. Yield as % of AC Taber

# of Years Grown*

5700 PR

98

2

5701 PR

84

1

AC Crystal

95

5

AC Foremost

97

7

AC Karma

96

7

AC Taber (check)

100

9

AC Vista

100

2

Conquer VB

99

1

Cutler

79

7

SY985 (HY985) 89 *During the years 1992-2000, 2010. *AC Taber long term average yield is 55 bu/A. Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides.

1


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

21

Table 23 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa

# of Years Grown

AC Corinne

107

2

Amazon

104

3

Bluesky

110

6

CDN Bison

140

1

Glenlea

104

6

Katepwa (check)

100

12

Laser

101

4

Variety

Wildcat 105 *During the years 1990-2000, 2010. *Katepwa long term average yield is 40 bu/A.

5

Table 24 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa*

# of Years Grown*

AC Corinne

81

1

Amazon

86

2

Bluesky

100

5

Glenlea

102

5

Katepwa (Check)

100

6

Laser

108

3

Variety

Wildcat 103 *During the years 1993, 1995-1998 *Katepwa long term average yield is 47 bu/A.

4


22

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 25 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa*

# of Years Grown*

AC Barrie (check)

103

4

AC Corinne

93

3

Amazon

102

8

Bluesky

106

5

CDC Rama

126

2

Glenlea

106

5

Katepwa (check)

100

12

Laser

100

5

Variety

Wildcat 107 *During the years 1993-1994, 1996-2001, 2003-2006 *Katepwa long term average yield is 51 bu/A.

3

Table 26 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Avg. Yield as % of Katepwa/Neepawa

# of Years Grown*

AC Corinne

100

4

Amazon

102

4

Bluesky

102

9

CDN Bison

125

1

Glenavon

102

1

Glenlea

108

7

Katepwa/Neepawa

100

10

Laser

98

3

Variety

Wildcat 98 *During the years 1991-2000, 2010. *The long term average yield for Neepawa/Katepwa is 45 bu/A.

8


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

23

Triticale Variety Trial Summary Triticale variety trials were conducted in 2011 to evaluate the performance of six varieties and their potential in east-central Alberta. They were tested at Consort, Acadia Valley and Oyen as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. The long term averages for all sites are included in this report. More information on varieties is available in the seed.ab.ca seed guide published by the Alberta Seed Industry Partnership, the www.seed.ab.ca website or the Varieties of Cereal and Oilseed Crops report on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. Feel free to call the CARA office with your questions. Cooperators:

Dwayne Smigelski, Oyen SE 16-28-3-W4 Barry Redel, Consort NW 12-35-7-W4 Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4 Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NW 27-24-2-W4

Project Description: Please see “Variety Trials”, page 1. Site Information: Soil Analysis Oyen

Consort

Acadia Valley

(0-24”)

70 lb/A (deficient)

52 lb/A (deficient)

73 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”)

50 lb/A (marginal)

39 lb/A (marginal)

11 lb/A (deficient)

Potassium

(0-6”)

902 lb/A (optimum)

644 lb/A (optimum)

1200 lb/A (excess)

Sulfate

(0-24”)

28 lb/A (marginal)

1285 lb/A (excess)

1220 lb/A (excess)

0.55 (good)

1.10 (good)

1.06 (good)

7.3 (neutral) Sandy Loam (39% S, 37% Si, 24% C)*

8.0 (slightly alkaline) Clay (13% S, 29% Si, 58% C)*

Nitrogen

Soil Salinity (E.C.) pH

7.0 (neutral) Sandy Loam (49% Soil Texture S, 23% Si, 28% C)* * S = Sand, Si = Silt, C = Clay

Precipitation 2011 Month

Oyen

Consort

Acadia Valley

May June July August Total

1.0 2.6 2.8 1.6 8.0 inches

1.5 2.9 3.0 0.6 8.0 inches

1.0 5.5 1.6 0.6 8.7 inches


24

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Agronomic Information Oyen

Consort

Acadia Valley

Previous Crop

Chem fallow

Chem fallow

Chem fallow

Seeding Date

May 16

May 26

May 19

Seeding Depth

2 inches

2 inches

2 inches

Seedbed Condition

Excellent moisture conditions

Seeding Rate

18 plants per square foot

Fertilizer

Seedbed Preparation

109 lb/A of 40-30-5-5 placed between the rows Henderson 500 drill (5 paired rows on 12� spacing, fertilizer between rows) Pre-seed glyphosate Pre-seed glyphosate Pre-seed glyphosate

Herbicide

Achieve Liquid Gold

Fungicide

Headline EC applied

Harvest Date

Sept 15

Seeder

Sept 27

Sept 13

Â

Precipitation Summary* (inches) Oyen

Consort

Hanna

1990 3.3 N/A N/A 1991 9.1 9.7 9.3 1992 5.4 6.5 7.5 1993 6.2 8.6 5.8 1994 8.2 6.9 11.7 1995 8.7 5.7 N/A 1996 6.9 6.5 9.5 1997 5.2 9.3 4.9 1998 5.3 3.9 5.8 1999 12.2 14.5 19.3 2000 3.6 N/A 6.5 2001 2.8 N/A 4.0 2002 N/A N/A N/A 2003 N/A 10.0 6.0 2004 N/A 15.1 10.9 2005 N/A N/A 11.8 2006 N/A N/A 6.6 2007 9.3 N/A 13.1 2008 10.6 7.95 10.25 2009 7.8 N/A N/A 2010 12.4 N/A 14.0 2011 8.0 8.0 8.4 * Summary of precipitation received May through August - Data not recorded

Acadia Valley N/A N/A N/A 13.1 5.7 9.4 3.0 4.9 5.1 12.2 6.8 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.4 8.7


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

25

Results: Table 1 Triticale - Oyen 2011

Variety Brevis (T200) AC Ultima Sunray (T204) Bumper Taza Pronghorn Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 5189 4759 4475 4444 4304 4257 4571 376 6

Yield bu/A (52 lb/bu) 100 92 86 85 83 82 88 7

Height (cm) 90 94 85 91 98 94 92

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 62.6 59.1 59.1 62.4 59.3 58.6 60

TKW (grams) 47.6 44.1 45.1 47.7 48.8 40.8 46

Comments: The triticale yielded very well at Oyen, with an average of 88 bu/A. A new variety, Brevis, had the highest yield at 100 bu/A. LSD’S and C.V.’S: A difference in yield (in lb/A) between varieties greater than the LSD is significant at a 95% level of confidence. This also means that if two or more varieties have yields that fall within the LSD range, they are not significantly different from each other at 95% confidence level. The 95% confidence level means that we are 95% certain that the result is not a chance occurrence. A Coefficient of Variance (C.V.) of less than 20 means the data is reliable. Table 2 Triticale Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield # of as % of Years Variety Pronghorn Grown* AC Alta 96 5 AC Certa 95 4 AC Copia 97 4 AC Ultima 105 6 Banjo 94 2 Brevis (T200) 122 1 Bumper 114 3 Bunker 86 3 Companion 94 1 Pronghorn (check) 100 9 SANDRO 92 3 Sunray (T204) 105 2 Taza 101 2 Tyndal 105 3 Wapiti 96 2 *During the years 1997-2000, 2007-2011. *Pronghorn long term average yield is 64 bu/A.


26

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 3 Triticale - Consort 2011

Variety Brevis (T200) Sunray (T204) Pronghorn AC Ultima Bumper Taza Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 4153 3744 3625 3553 3378 3209 3610 224 5

Yield bu/A (52 lb/bu) 80 72 70 68 65 62 70 4

Height (cm) 89 90 96 94 90 97 93

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 63.8 60.6 59.5 60.8 62.3 59.5 61

TKW (grams) 44.9 41.6 43.0 42.2 43.6 47.3 44

Comments: The triticale averaged 70 bu/A at Consort. Brevis, a new variety, had the best yield at 80 bu/A. Table 4 Triticale Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield # of as % of Years Variety Pronghorn* Grown* AC Alta 100 7 AC Certa 100 6 AC Copia 101 7 AC Ultima 95 5 Banjo 88 2 Brevis (T200) 114 1 Bumper 93 1 Companion 75 1 Pronghorn (check) 100 8 SANDRO 96 5 Sunray (T204) 103 1 Taza 89 1 Wapiti 87 2 *During the years 1997-2001, 2003-2004, 2011 *Pronghorn long term average yield is 63 bu/A.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

27

Table 5 Triticale Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield # of as % of Years Variety Pronghorn Grown* AC Alta 106 8 AC Certa 102 6 AC Copia 106 5 AC Ultima 99 7 Banjo 99 2 Bumper 106 1 Bunker 99 2 Companion 96 3 Pronghorn (check) 100 10 SANDRO 93 5 Sunray (T204) 93 1 Taza (T198) 95 1 Tyndal 97 2 Wapiti 99 2 *During the years 1997-2001, 2003, 2005-2007, 2010

Table 6 Triticale - Acadia Valley 2011

Variety Brevis (T200) Pronghorn AC Ultima Bumper Sunray (T204) Taza Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 3735 3487 3391 3373 3250 2880 3353 224 5

Yield bu/A (52 lb/bu) 72 67 65 65 62 55 64 4

Height (cm) 79 87 83 79 82 83 82

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 64.1 59.3 60.7 63.8 59.2 59.4 61

TKW (grams) 41.7 41.4 40.7 45.2 42.0 42.7 42

Comments: The triticale varieties averaged 64 bu/A. As at Oyen and Consort, Brevis had the highest yield.


28

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 7 Triticale Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Ave. Yield as % of Variety Pronghorn AC Alta 104 AC Certa 102 AC Copia 100 AC Ultima 101 Banjo 95 Brevis (T200) 107 Bumper 108 Pronghorn (check) 100 SANDRO 102 Sunray (T204) 92 Taza 94 Wapiti 108 *During the years 1995-2000, 2010, 2011. *Pronghorn long term average yield is 60 bu/A.

# of Years Grown 5 5 5 4 3 1 2 7 2 2 2 4

Brandon and Dan with CARA’s Wintersteiger combine


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

29

Barley Variety Trial Thanks to the Alberta Barley Commission for their contribution towards this project. Summary: Barley variety trials were conducted in 2011 to evaluate the performance of several varieties and their potential in the brown soil zone. Nineteen 2 row and seven 6 row varieties were tested at Hanna as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. Germination was excellent and growth was good. Conditions in May and June were wet and cool. The plots were combined September 7 with average yields. The 2 row varieties had an average yield of 88 bu/A, while the 6 row varieties averaged 71 bu/A. The long term averages are included in this report. More information on varieties is available in the variety guide in the seed.ab.ca seed guide or website or on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. Recommended Malting Barley Varieties: Each year the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre releases a list of recommended barley varieties based on projected market needs. For the 2012 year, the recommended 2 row malting barley varieties are AC Metcalfe, CDC Copeland, CDC PolarStar, CDC Meredith and Newdale. The recommended 6 row malting barley varieties are Legacy, Tradition and Stellar-ND. Please consult your local malting company selector in regards to demand for other malting varieties. Cooperators:

Dwayne Smigelski, Oyen SE 16-28-3-W4 (Prior to 2003) Barry Redel, Consort NE 11-35-7-W4 Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4 Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NE 28-24-2-W4 (Prior to 2003)

Project Description: Please see “Variety Trials” on page 1 of this report. Site Information: Soil Analysis Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Sulfate

(0-24”) (0-6”) (0-6”) (0-24”)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) pH Soil Texture

Hanna 2011 79 lb/A (deficient) 36 lb/A (deficient) 866 lb/A (optimum) 53 lb/A (optimum) 0.52 (good) 6.7 (neutral) Clay (21% S, 29% Si, 50% C)*

* S = Sand, Si = Silt, C = Clay


30

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Precipitation 2011 Month

Hanna 2011

May June July August Total

1.4 3.4 2.4 1.2 8.4 inches

Agronomic Information Site

Hanna 2011

Previous Crop

Chem fallow

Seeding Date

May 30

Seeding Depth

2 inches

Seedbed Condition

Moist

Seeding Rate

Seeder

18 plants per square foot 44 lb/A actual N, 33 lb/A actual P2O5 , 5 lb/A actual K2O, 5 lb/A actual S with the seed CARA’s Henderson 500 (5 paired rows on 12� spacing)

Seedbed Preparation

Cultivated and harrowed

Herbicide

Achieve Liquid Gold

Harvest Date

September 7

Fertilizer

Planting with the new Henderson 500 drill


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

31

Precipitation Summary* (inches) Oyen

Consort

Hanna

Acadia Valley

1990

3.3

N/A

N/A

N/A

1991

9.1

9.7

9.3

N/A

1992

5.4

6.5

7.5

N/A

1993

6.2

8.6

5.8

13.1

1994

8.2

6.9

11.7

5.7

1995

8.7

5.7

N/A

9.4

1996

6.9

6.5

9.5

3.0

1997

5.2

9.3

4.9

4.9

1998

5.3

3.9

5.8

5.1

1999

12.2

14.5

19.3

12.2

2000

3.6

N/A

6.5

6.8

2001

2.8

N/A

4.0

3.0

2002

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

N/A

10.0

6.0

N/A

2004

N/A

15.1

10.9

N/A

2005

N/A

N/A

11.8

N/A

2006

N/A

N/A

6.6

N/A

2007

9.3

N/A

13.1

N/A

2008

10.6

7.95

10.25

N/A

2010

12.4

N/A

14.0

N/A

2011 8.0 8.0 8.4 * Summary of precipitation received May through August - Data not recorded

8.7


32

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Results: Table 1 2 Row Barley - Hanna 2011 Yield

Yield bu/A

Height

Bushel Weight

TKW

Variety

Type

(lb/A)

(48 lb/bu)

(cm)

(lb/bu)

(grams)

CDC Austenson

Feed

5064

106

74

56.3

48.1

Bentley

Malt

4702

98

80

55.5

48.6

TR 07728

Feed

4664

97

69

56.0

47.0

CDC Meredith

Malt

4663

97

72

54.1

47.8

Major

Malt

4610

96

70

53.8

48.2

CDC Kindersley

Malt

4601

96

78

56.6

46.0

Gadsby

Forage

4563

95

76

56.2

57.0

Cerveza

Malt

4503

94

65

54.2

46.6

Champion

Feed

4485

93

70

57.0

49.3

CDC Reserve

Malt

4166

87

75

54.9

45.2

CDC PolarStar

Malt

4117

86

73

56.4

45.4

XENA

Feed

4086

85

64

54.1

49.6

AC Metcalfe

Malt (Check)

3974

83

69

55.3

46.2

CDC Carter

Hulless Feed

3973

83

69

67.0

39.4

Merit 57

Malt

3885

81

67

53.8

42.1

Norman

Malt

3862

80

66

54.5

45.3

FB205

Forage

3465

72

93

56.8

55.7

CDC ExPlus

Hulless Malt

3433

72

71

64.0

42.6

HB08304

Hulless Malt

3163

66

69

65.7

46.8

Mean

4209

88

72

57

47

LSD (.05)

451

9

C.V.%

16

Comments: The test average was 88 bu/A which is around average for this site. CDC Austenson had the highest yield at 106 bu/A. A difference in yield greater than 9 bu/A is significant. Bushel weights are high, averaging 57 lb/bu. Three hulless varieties were included in this test: CDC Carter, CDC ExPlus and HB08304.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

33

Table 2 2 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield

# of

Avg. Yield

# of

as % of

Years

as % of

Years

Variety

Type

Check

Grown*

Variety

Type

Check

Grown*

Abee

Feed

108

1

CDC Trey

Feed

96

4

AC Bountiful

Malt

101

4

Cerveza

Malt

110

2

AC Metcalfe (check)

Malt

100

14

Champion

Feed

108

5

AC Oxbow

Malt

92

3

CONLON

Feed

86

3

B 1215

Malt

104

3

Conrad

Malt

89

2

Bentley

Malt

111

3

FB205

Forage

87

1

Bridge

Feed

101

4

Formosa

Feed

95

2

Busby

Feed

122

1

Gadsby

Forage

115

1

Calder

Malt

96

3

Harrington

Malt

102

10

CDC Austenson

Feed

115

2

Major

Malt

113

2

CDC Bold 

Feed

98

1

Manley

Malt

106

3

CDC Coalition

Feed

109

2

McLeod

Feed

108

5

CDC Copeland

Malt

99

3

Merit

Malt

121

4

CDC Cowboy

Forage

92

4

Merit 16

Malt

96

1

CDC Dolly

Feed

107

7

Merit 57

Malt

102

3

CDC Fleet

Feed

85

4

Newdale

Malt

121

2

CDC Helgason

Feed

107

2

Niobe

Feed

105

2

CDC Kendall

Malt

100

7

Norman

Malt

99

2

CDC Kindersley

Malt

112

2

Ponoka

Feed

105

6

CDC Landis

Malt

87

1

Rivers

Feed

107

2

CDC Meredith

Malt

104

3

Seebe

Feed

102

7

CDC Mindon

Feed

103

2

Stein

Malt

106

3

CDC PolarStar

Malt

104

1

TR05671

Malt

101

2

CDC Reserve

Malt

102

3

TR07728

Feed

108

2

CDC Select

Malt

106

2

Winthrop

Feed

102

3

CDC STRATUS

Malt

104

5

XENA

Feed

109

10

CDC THOMPSON 

Feed

93

4

 Semi-dwarf  Check variety is AC Metcalfe *During the years 1995-2000, 2003-2008, 2010-2011. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 90 bu/A.


34

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 3 6 Row Barley - Hanna 2011

Variety

Type

Yield (lb/A)

Yield bu/A (48 lb/bu)

Height (cm)

Bushel Weight (lb/bu)

AC Metcalfe

2 Row Malt (Check)

3998

83

69

54.9

45.7

Vivar

Semi-Dwarf Feed

3691

77

66

52.1

42.2

Muskwa (BT 584)

Feed

3491

73

60

53.5

40.8

Chigwell

Feed

3449

72

70

52.3

38.8

Stellar-ND

Malt

3397

71

73

51.8

40.6

Celebration

Malt

3392

71

71

53.2

39.6

CDC Mayfair

Malt

3115

65

73

51.4

42.1

CDC Anderson

Malt

2897

60

73

52.7

37.3

Mean

3429

71

69

53

41

LSD (.05)

448

9

C.V.%

12

TKW (grams)

Comments: The check AC Metcalfe, a 2 row variety, out yielded the 6 row varieties at 83 bu/A. The 6 row with the best yield was Vivar, a semi-dwarf feed, with a yield of 77 bu/A. The average yield for all varieties in this test was 71 bu/A. The bushel weights were high, with an average of 53 lb/bu.

Dan marking the plots with stakes


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

35

Table 4 6 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield

# of

Avg. Yield

# of

as % of

Years

as % of

Years

Type

Check

Grown*

Type

Check

Grown*

AC Albright

F

100

2

Duel

F

107

3

AC Harper

F

105

6

Foster

M

101

3

AC Lacombe

F

108

8

Johnston

F

102

3

AC Metcalfe 

M

100

14

Kasota 

F

106

6

AC Ranger

G

103

1

Lacey

M

114

3

AC Rosser

F

112

7

Leduc

F

114

3

Alston

F

102

3

LEGACY

M

105

5

B 1602

M

102

4

Mahigan 

F

94

1

Brier

F

117

3

Manny

F

122

4

Bronco

F

103

4

Muskwa (BT 584)

F

87

1

CDC Anderson

M

72

1

Niska 

F

97

1

CDC Battleford

M

108

5

Robust

M

102

3

CDC Clyde

M

107

4

Stander

F

96

5

CDC EARL 

F

100

3

Stellar-ND

M

88

3

CDC Kamsack

M

92

2

Sundre

F

111

3

CDC Mayfair

M

81

2

Tankard

M

110

3

CDC Sisler

M

102

7

Tradition

M

103

5

CDC Springside

M

117

2

Trochu

F

119

4

CDC Tisdale

M

92

2

Tukwa

F

107

3

CDC YORKTON

F

97

2

Virden

F

111

2

Celebration

M

89

3

Vivar 

F

119

7

Chigwell

F

97

3

Variety

*During the years 1995-2000, 2003-2008, 2010-2011. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 89 bu/A.  Semi-dwarf   Barley Type: M=Malt, F=Feed, G=Forage  Check variety is AC Metcalfe (2 row)

Variety


36

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 5 Hulless Barley Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield

# of

as % of

Years

AC Metcalfe

Grown*

AC Bacon (6r)

95

3

AC Hawkeye (6r)

82

3

AC Metcalfe (check)

100

11

CDC Candle (2r)

90

4

CDC Carter (2r)

106

2

CDC Dawn (2r)

90

5

CDC ExPlus (2r)

84

2

CDC Freedom (2r)

81

1

CDC Gainer (2r)

87

4

CDC McGwire (2r)

108

3

CDC Silky (6r)

85

4

Condor (2r)

84

2

Falcon (6r) 

82

5

HB08304 (2r)

80

1

Jaeger (6r)

80

3

Merlin (2r)

75

1

Millhouse (2r)

85

2

Peregrine (6r) 

72

1

Phoenix (2r)

82

4

Tercel (2r)

83

3

Variety

Tyto (6r) 77 3  Semi-dwarf  *During the years 1995-2000, 2003-4, 2006-7, 2010-2011. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 88 bu/A. 


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 6

37

2 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield

# of

as % of

Years

Variety

Type

AC Metcalfe*

Grown*

Abee

Feed

96

2

AC Bountiful

Malt

102

4

AC Metcalfe (check)

Malt

100

7

AC Oxbow

Malt

92

4

B 1215

Malt

103

4

Bridge

Feed

99

5

CDC Bold 

Feed

122

1

CDC Copeland

Malt

100

1

CDC Dolly

Feed

107

6

CDC Fleet

Feed

88

4

CDC Kendall

Malt

100

6

CDC STRATUS

Malt

103

6

CDC THOMPSON 

Feed

94

5

Harrington

Malt

103

7

Manley

Malt

102

5

Merit

Malt

94

2

Seebe

Feed

99

4

Stein

Malt

106

4

Winthrop

Feed

100

4

XENA Feed 104 *During the years 1994-2000. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 68 bu/A. Semi-dwarf barley

2

  


38

Table 7

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

6 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Oyen

Variety

Type

Avg. Yield as % of AC Metcalfe*

# of Years Grown*

AC Albright

Feed

85

2

AC Harper

Feed

99

4

AC Lacombe

Feed

103

7

AC Metcalfe (2 row check)

Malt

100

7

AC Rosser

Feed

106

5

B 1602

Malt

99

5

Brier

Feed

109

4

Bronco

Feed

99

5

CDC EARL 

Feed

93

4

CDC Sisler

Malt

93

5

Duel

Feed

101

4

Foster

Malt

107

3

Johnston

Feed

100

4

Kasota 

Feed

93

3

Leduc

Feed

96

3

Mahigan 

Feed

81

1

Niska 

Feed

106

1

Stander

Feed

107

5

Tankard

Malt

103

4

Tukwa 

Feed

95

4

Virden Feed 95 *During the years 1994-2000. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 68 bu/A. Semi-dwarf barley

3


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

39

Table 8 Hulless Barley Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield as % of AC Metcalfe*

# of Years Grown*

AC Bacon (6r)

91

3

AC Hawkeye (6r)

86

3

AC Metcalfe (2 row hulled check)

100

7

CDC Candle (2r)

92

4

CDC Dawn (2r)

88

5

CDC Freedom (2r)

78

1

CDC Gainer (2r)

94

4

CDC McGwire (2r)

80

1

CDC Silky (6r)

84

6

Condor (2r)

88

3

Falcon (6r)

82

5

Jaeger (6r)

85

3

Merlin (2r)

103

1

Peregrine (6r)

61

1

Phoenix (2r)

92

4

Tercel (2r) 90 *During the years 1994-2000. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 68 bu/A.

3

Variety (number of rows)

Audrey, Melissa and Brandon preparing the seed and fertilizer


40

Table 9

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

2 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Consort

Variety

Type

Avg. Yield as % of Harrington*

Abee

Feed

108

5

AC Bountiful

Malt

99

6

AC Metcalfe

Malt

104

3

AC Oxbow

Malt

93

6

B 1215

Malt

105

6

Bridge

Feed

112

8

CDC Bold 

Feed

104

4

CDC Copeland

Malt

97

4

CDC Dolly

Feed

102

6

CDC Fleet

Feed

85

5

CDC Helgason

Feed

99

3

CDC Kendall

Malt

103

6

CDC Select

Malt

97

3

CDC STRATUS

Malt

101

6

CDC THOMPSON 

Feed

90

6

Harrington (check)

Malt

100

13

Manley

Malt

96

8

Merit

Malt

107

6

Newdale

Malt

100

2

Niobe

Feed

107

1

Ponoka

Feed

109

1

Seebe

Feed

98

6

Stein

Malt

101

6

Winthrop

Feed

100

6

106

5

XENA Feed *During the years 1991-2001, 2003-2004. *Harrington long term average is 73 bu/A. Semi-dwarf barley

# of Years Grown*


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 10

41

6 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Consort

Variety

Type

Avg. Yield as % of Harrington*

AC Albright

Feed

89

4

AC Harper

Feed

90

7

AC Lacombe

Feed

98

12

AC Rosser

Feed

105

8

B 1602

Malt

92

10

Brier

Feed

107

7

Bronco

Feed

84

6

CDC Battleford

Malt

94

2

CDC EARL 

Feed

94

5

CDC Sisler

Malt

95

5

CDC Springside

Malt

94

1

CDC Tisdale

Malt

94

2

CDC YORKTON

Malt

86

3

Duel

Feed

99

7

Foster

Malt

107

3

Harrington (2 row check)

Malt

100

13

Johnston

Feed

107

7

Kasota 

Feed

85

3

Lacey

Malt

106

1

Leduc

Feed

111

7

LEGACY

Malt

99

2

Mahigan 

Feed

92

1

Manny

Feed

111

1

Niska 

Feed

88

3

Stander

Feed

96

5

Tankard

Malt

99

7

Tradition

Malt

88

1

Trochu

Feed

109

1

Tukwa

Feed

95

5

Virden

Feed

114

6

Vivar 

Feed

104

2

*During the years 1991-2001, 2003-2004. *Harrington long term average is 73 bu/A.  Semi-dwarf barley

# of Years Grown*


42

Table 11

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Hulless Barley Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield as % of Harrington*

# of Years Grown*

AC Bacon (6r)

91

6

AC Hawkeye (6r)

80

5

CDC Alamo (2r)

70

1

CDC Candle (2r)

82

5

CDC Dawn (2r)

90

5

CDC Fibar (2r)

78

1

CDC Freedom (2r)

78

4

CDC Gainer (2r)

88

5

CDC McGwire (2r)

89

2

CDC Silky (6r)

78

6

Condor (2r)

91

6

Falcon (6r)

79

6

Harrington (2 row hulled check)

100

13

Jaeger (6r)

65

4

Peregrine (6r)

63

2

Phoenix (2r)

81

6

Tercel (2r)

72

4

84

1

Variety (number of rows)

Tyto (6r) *During the years 1991-2001, 2003-2004. *Harrington long term average is 73 bu/A.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 12

43

2 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Variety

Type

Avg. Yield as % of Harrington*

AC Bountiful

Malt

102

3

AC Metcalfe

Malt

97

7

AC Oxbow

Malt

101

6

B1215

Malt

100

4

CDC Bold 

Feed

107

2

CDC Copeland

Malt

94

2

CDC Dolly

Feed

102

7

CDC Fleet

Feed

85

3

CDC Helgason

Feed

97

1

CDC Kendall

Malt

94

5

CDC Select

Malt

94

1

CDC STRATUS

Malt

94

7

CDC THOMPSON 

Feed

89

5

Harrington (check)

Malt

100

9

Manley

Malt

105

7

Merit

Malt

106

3

Seebe

Feed

95

9

Stein

Malt

110

4

XENA Feed 100 *During the years 1991-1996, 1998-2000. *Harrington long term average over 9 years is 69 bu/A.  Semi-dwarf barley

# of Years Grown*

2


44

Table 13

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

6 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Variety

Type

Avg. Yield as % of Harrington*

AC Albright

Feed

76

6

AC Harper

Feed

98

4

AC Lacombe

Feed

99

8

AC Rosser

Feed

109

4

AC Stacey

Feed

87

5

B1602

Malt

97

6

Brier

Feed

98

4

Bronco

Feed

110

1

CDC EARL 

Feed

101

6

CDC Sisler

Malt

100

4

CDC YORKTON

Feed

101

3

Duel

Feed

93

3

Excel

Malt

94

1

Foster

Malt

100

3

Harrington (2 row check)

Malt

100

8

Kasota 

Feed

95

6

Leduc

Feed

93

4

Mahigan 

Feed

99

3

Niska

Feed

96

2

Stander

Feed

100

3

Tankard

Malt

88

5

Trochu

Feed

99

1

Tukwa

Feed

91

6

Vivar 

Feed

107

1

Semi-dwarf barley *During the years 1991-1993, 1994-1996, 1998-2000. *Harrington long term average over 8 years is 76 bu/A.

# of Years Grown*


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 14

45

Hulless Barley Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Avg. Yield as % of Harrington*

# of Years Grown*

AC Bacon (6r)

83

4

AC Hawkeye (6r)

104

3

CDC Candle (2r)

91

3

CDC Dawn (2r)

102

5

CDC Freedom (2r)

89

4

CDC Gainer (2r)

94

3

CDC McGwire (2r)

87

3

CDC Silky (6r)

83

5

Condor (2r)

88

6

Falcon (6r)

76

10

Harrington (Check)(2r)

100

10

Jaeger (6r)

85

3

Peregrine (6r)

61

3

Phoenix (2r)

103

6

Tercel (2r)

88

3

Variety (number of rows)

*During the years 1991-1996, 1998-2001. *Harrington long term average over 10 years is 67 bu/A.

Project site at Hanna two weeks after seeding.


46

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Oat Variety Trial Summary: Six oat varieties were planted at the Hanna site in 2011 to evaluate their potential in the dark brown soil zone, as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. The site was seeded on May 30. May and June were relatively wet, followed by drier conditions in mid-July through harvest. The oats yielded high, averaging 112 bu/A. The long term averages for previous oat variety trials are included in this report. More information on varieties is available in the variety guide in the seed.ab.ca seed guide or website or on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. Cooperators:

Ernest Monagle, Consort NE 10-35-7-W4 (1993-2000) Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4 Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NE 28-24-2-W4 (1991-2001)

Project Description: Please see “Variety Trials”, page 1. Site Information: Soil Analysis Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Sulfate

(0-24”) (0-6”) (0-6”) (0-24”)

Hanna 2011 79 lb/A (deficient) 36 lb/A (deficient) 866 lb/A (optimum) 53 lb/A (optimum)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) 0.52 (good) pH 6.7 (neutral) Soil Texture Clay (21% S, 29% Si, 50% C)* * S = Sand, Si = Silt, C = Clay

Precipitation 2011 Month May June July August Total

Hanna 2011 1.4 3.4 2.4 1.2 8.4 inches


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Agronomic Information Site

Hanna 2011

Previous Crop

Tilled fallow

Seeding Date

May 30

Seeding Depth

2 inches

Seedbed Condition

Moist

Seeding Rate

Seeder

18 plants per square foot 44 lb/A actual N, 33 lb/A actual P2O5 , 5 lb/A actual K2O, 5 lb/A actual S with the seed CARA’s Henderson 500 (5 paired rows on 12� spacing)

Seedbed Preparation

Cultivated and harrowed

Herbicide

Buctril M

Harvest Date

September 14

Fertilizer

Precipitation Summary* (inches) Consort

Acadia Valley

Hanna

1990 N/A N/A N/A 1991 9.7 N/A 9.3 1992 6.5 N/A 7.5 1993 8.6 13.1 5.8 1994 6.9 5.7 11.7 1995 5.7 9.4 N/A 1996 6.5 3.0 9.5 1997 9.3 4.9 4.9 1998 3.9 5.1 5.8 1999 14.5 12.2 19.3 2000 N/A 6.8 6.5 2001 N/A 3.0 4.0 2002 N/A N/A N/A 2003 10.0 N/A 6.0 2004 15.1 N/A 10.9 2005 N/A N/A 11.8 2006 N/A N/A 6.6 2007 N/A N/A 13.1 2008 7.95 N/A 10.25 2009 N/A N/A N/A 2010 N/A 12.4 14.0 2011 8.0 8.7 8.4 * Summary of precipitation received May through August - Data not recorded

47


48

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Results: Table 1 Oat Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield # of as % of Years Variety Calibre* Grown* AC Assiniboia 93 4 AC Belmont (hulless) 71 3 AC Ernie (hulless) 70 1 AC Juniper 92 5 AC Medallion 109 3 AC Mustang 97 6 AC Preakness 104 6 AC Rebel 115 1 Athabasca 70 1 Bullion (hulless) 79 2 Calibre (Check) 100 7 Cascade 102 6 CDC Boyer 103 6 CDC Pacer 111 4 Derby 106 6 Foothill 89 6 Jasper 103 6 SW EXACTOR 105 1 Triple Crown 98 2 Waldern 104 4 *For the years 1993-1996, 1998-2000. *The long term yield for Calibre is 91 bu/A.

Table 2 Oats – Hanna 2011

Variety Stride (OT 2069) CDC Minstrel CDC Big Brown (OT 3037) CDC Dancer CDC Seabiscuit Bradley Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 4008 3911 3731 3723 3723 3670 3794 352 7

Yield bu/A (34 lb/bu) 118 115 110 110 110 108 112 10

Height (cm) 92 88 92 93 88 88 90

Bushel Weight (lb/bu) 45.0 43.2 44.7 44.0 41.0 42.5 43

TKW (grams) 32.3 38.0 38.1 34.4 41.7 38.4 37

Comments: The oats did well, with an average yield of 112 bu/A. The higher yielding varieties were Stride and CDC Minstrel.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 3 Oats Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield # Of as % of Years Variety CDC Dancer Grown 7600M 90 1 AC Morgan 111 3 Bradley 108 2 CANMORE 113 1 Cascade 94 4 CDC Big Brown (OT 3037) 103 2 CDC Dancer (check) 100 6 CDC Minstrel 105 3 CDC Morrison 94 1 CDC Nasser 103 1 CDC Orrin 114 2 CDC ProFi 104 2 CDC Seabiscuit 100 1 CDC Sol-Fi 109 1 CDC Weaver 116 2 Furlong 99 1 HiFi 90 2 Jordan 122 3 Lee Williams (hulless) 88 1 Leggett 107 2 Lu 112 1 Murphy 107 1 Ronald 98 2 Stainless 70 1 Stride (OT 2069) 107 1 SW Betania 106 3 Triactor 113 3 *During the years 2003, 2006-8, 2010-2011. *The long term yield for CDC Dancer is 106 bu/A.

49


50

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 4 Oat Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Avg. Yield Variety AC Assiniboia AC Belmont (hulless) AC Ernie (hulless) AC Gwen (hulless) AC Juniper AC Medallion AC Morgan AC Mustang AC Preakness AC Rebel Boudrias (hulless) Bullion (hulless) Calibre Cascade (Check) CDC Boyer CDC Dancer CDC Pacer Derby Jasper Kaufmann Lu Pinnacle Ronald SW EXACTOR Triple Crown

as % of Cascade*

# of Years Grown*

98 78 73 55 96 101 105 110 106 101 82 59 109 100 104 83 102 105 99 79 87 103 89 95 98

6 8 2 2 7 4 3 10 7 5 1 3 5 10 8 2 4 9 8 2 1 3 2 3 3

Waldern 113 *During the years 1991-1996, 1998-2001. *The long term yield for Cascade is 89 bu/A.

5


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

51

Winter Wheat Variety Trial Thanks to the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission for their support of this project. Summary: A trial was initiated in 2010/2011 to evaluate the performance and potential of winter wheat varieties in the brown soil zone. Eighteen varieties of winter wheat were seeded at a site near Oyen under the direction of Rob Graf of Agriculture Canada and funded by the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission. The site was seeded on September 8, 2010 into firm soil. Emergence was very good. Past Results: Cumulative yield from the years 2003-2011 is reported in the table below, combining the results between past years at Acadia Valley and this year at Oyen. More information on varieties is available in the variety guide in the seed.ab.ca seed guide or website or on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. The check has changed to CDC OSPREY. Seven varieties have yielded as well as, or better than the check. They are AC Bellatrix, CDC CLAIR, Radiant, Peregrine, CDC Ptarmigan, CDC Kestrel and CDC Harrier. A visual survey of sawfly cutting in the winter wheat variety trials in 2004 and 2005 has shown that there is less sawfly damage in the Radiant plots. Cooperators:

Jerry and Brenda Knapik, Acadia Valley NE 6-25-2-W4 Pat and Alice Kuhn, Oyen NW 15-28-04-W4

Soil Analysis Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Sulfate

(0-24”) (0-6”) (0-6”) (0-24”)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) pH

Precipitation Month May June July August Total

Oyen 2011 1.0 2.6 2.8 1.6 8.0 inches

Oyen Fall 2010 63 lb/A (deficient) 17 lb/A (deficient) 525 lb/A (optimum) 24 lb/A (marginal) 0.48 (good) 8.0 (slightly alkaline)


52

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Agronomic Information Site

Oyen 2010/2011

Previous Crop

Chem fallow

Seeding Date

Sept 8, 2010

Seeding Depth

1.5 inches

Seedbed Condition

Firm, relatively dry

Seeding Rate

18 plants per square foot

Fertilizer

20 lb/A actual N, 18 lb/A actual P2O5 with the seed

Seeder

CARA’s double disc drill (6 rows on 7” spacing)

Seedbed Preparation

2,4-D applied on chem fallow

Herbicide

Achieve Liquid Gold spring 2011

Harvest Date

August 23, 2011

Results: Table 1 Winter Wheat - Oyen 2011 Yield Bushel Yield bu/A Protein Height Weight TKW Variety (lb/A) (60 lb/bu) % (cm) (lb/bu) (grams) CDC Ptarmigan 3034 51 6.9 64 59.9 33.4 Peregrine 2786 46 7.8 68 62.6 30.8 CDC OSPREY 2678 45 8.3 68 62.1 30.8 CDC Falcon 2547 42 8.7 53 62.8 30.6 Flourish 2526 42 9.0 59 62.3 31.3 Sunrise 2535 42 7.8 61 61.5 30.7 Radiant 2456 41 8.4 72 62.9 35.6 AC Bellatrix 2417 40 7.7 64 63.7 29.1 Broadview 2408 40 8.3 55 63.4 28.4 CDC Buteo 2386 40 8.8 60 64.5 30.1 Accipiter 2263 38 8.3 60 63.4 28.9 Moats 2160 36 8.8 61 63.0 29.8 Mean 2516 42 8 62 63 31 LSD (.05) 511 9 C.V.% 12 Radiant is resistant to the wheat curl mite, the insect vector that carries Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus.

Comments: The test yield was average for the area, at 42 bu/A. CDC Ptarmigan, Peregrine and CDC OSPREY had the higher yields. All samples graded number 3. Protein was low, averaging 8%.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 2 Winter Wheat Long Term Yield Acadia Valley/Oyen Yield bu/A* Avg. Yield # of AV AV AV Oyen as % of Years Variety Class 2003 2004 2005 2011 CDC OSPREY* Grown Select AC Bellatrix 35 62 45 40 103 4 Select AC Readymade 31 58 38 94 3 Select AC Tempest 34 58 39 98 3 Gen Purp Accipiter 38 84 1 Gen Purp Broadview 40 89 1 Select CDC Buteo 33 60 37 40 95 4 Generic CDC CLAIR 38 69 42 111 3 Generic CDC Falcon 34 54 38 42 95 4 Generic CDC Harrier 32 62 41 100 3 Generic CDC Kestrel 33 62 42 103 3 Select CDC OSPREY 34 61 39 45 100 4 Gen Purp CDC Ptarmigan 51 113 1 Generic CDC Raptor 29 54 47 99 3 Select Flourish 42 93 1 Select McClintock 25 55 33 83 3 Select Moats 36 80 1 Select Norstar 30 88 1 Gen Purp Peregrine 46 102 1 Select Radiant 37 66 39 41 102 4 Gen Purp Sunrise 42 93 1 *CDC OSPREY average yield is 45 bu/A. *Average based on yield at Acadia Valley (AV 2003-2005) and Oyen (2011). Radiant is resistant to the wheat curl mite, the insect vector that carries Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus.

Note: The Canadian Grain Commission advises that the varieties CDC CLAIR, CDC Harrier, CDC Kestrel and CDC Raptor will be moved to the Canada Western General Purpose class as of August 1, 2013. CDC Falcon will follow in 2014.

Winter wheat variety trial near Oyen

53


54

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Field Pea Variety Trial Summary: Five green and eight yellow field pea varieties were grown at Oyen and Consort to determine their performance in the area, as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. The sites were planted May 11 and 17, into excellent moisture. Growing conditions were very good, with sufficient moisture. The weather in August was dry, allowing the plants to mature and be harvested by the end of the month. The varieties performed very well at Oyen, with both the green and yellow pea tests averaging 63 bu/A. The green test averaged 41 bu/A and the yellow 45 bu/A at Consort. Long term yield for previous field pea variety trials are included in this report. More information on varieties is available in the variety guide in the seed.ab.ca seed guide or website or on the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development website at www.agric.gov.ab.ca. Cooperators:

Dwayne Smigelski, Oyen SE 16-28-3-W4 Barry Redel, Consort NW 12-35-07-W4 Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4 (2003-2004)

Project Description: Please see “Variety Trials”, page 1. Site Information: Soil Analysis Oyen

Consort

(0-24”)

70 lb/A (deficient)

52 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”)

50 lb/A (marginal)

39 lb/A (marginal)

Potassium

(0-6”)

902 lb/A (optimum)

644 lb/A (optimum)

Sulfate

(0-24”)

28 lb/A (marginal)

1285 lb/A (excess)

0.55 (good)

1.10 (good)

Nitrogen

Soil Salinity (E.C.) pH

7.0 (neutral) Sandy Loam (49% Soil Texture S, 23% Si, 28% C)* * S = Sand, Si = Silt, C = Clay

Precipitation 2011 Month

Oyen

Consort

May June July August Total

1.0 2.6 2.8 1.6 8.0 inches

1.5 2.9 3.0 0.6 8.0 inches

7.3 (neutral) Sandy Loam (39% S, 37% Si, 24% C)*


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

55

Agronomic Information Oyen

Consort

Previous Crop

Chem fallow

Canola

Seeding Date

May 11

May 17

Seeding Depth

2 inches

2 inches

Seedbed Condition

Excellent moisture

Moderate moisture

Seeding Rate

9 plants per square foot

Fertilizer

60 lb/A of 11-52-0 placed between the rows

Seeder

Henderson 500 drill (5 paired rows on 12� spacing, fertilizer between rows)

Seedbed Preparation

Pre-seed glyphosate

Pre-seed glyphosate

Fungicide Herbicide

Headline EC applied Odyssey

Headline EC applied

Harvest Date

Aug 22

Aug 29

Precipitation Summary* (inches) Consort Oyen Hanna N/A 1990 3.3 N/A N/A 1991 9.1 9.3 N/A 1992 5.4 7.5 N/A 1993 6.2 5.8 N/A 1994 8.2 11.7 N/A 1995 8.7 N/A N/A 1996 6.9 9.5 N/A 1997 5.2 4.9 N/A 1998 5.3 5.8 N/A 1999 12.2 19.3 N/A 2000 3.6 6.5 N/A 2001 2.8 4.0 N/A 2002 N/A N/A N/A 2003 N/A 6.0 N/A 2004 N/A 10.9 N/A 2005 N/A 11.8 N/A 2006 N/A 6.6 N/A 2007 9.3 13.1 N/A 2008 10.6 N/A N/A 2009 7.8 N/A N/A 2010 12.4 N/A 8.0 2011 8.0 8.4 * Summary of precipitation received May through August - Data not recorded


56

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Results: Table 1 Green Peas - Oyen 2011

Variety Cooper CDC Pluto CDC Patrick CDC Tetris CDC Raezer (CDC 2235-4) Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 4207 3969 3868 3647 3320 3802 580 11

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 70 66 64 61 55 63 10

Height (cm) 58 54 62 68 71 63

Standability (1=erect, 9=flat) 4 5 3 3 3 4

TKW (grams) 290 191 205 220 261 233

Comments: The green peas had excellent yield at Oyen, with an average of 63 bu/A. Cooper, the check variety, was the highest yielder with 70 bu/A. Note that the long term average for Cooper is 42 bu/A. Table 2

Green Field Pea Long Term Yield at Oyen

Avg. Yield as % of Variety COOPER* Camry 112 CDC Patrick 109 CDC Pluto 94 CDC Raezer (CDC 2235-4) 79 CDC Sage 100 CDC Striker 107 CDC Tetris 87 COOPER (check) 100 Mendel 91 Nessie 117 Nitouche 104 Stratus 102 TAMORA 89 Vortex 111 *During the years 2004, 2007-2011. *The long term yield for COOPER is 42 bu/A.

# of Years Grown* 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 4 1 2 1


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

57

Table 3 Yellow Peas - Oyen 2011

Variety CDC Saffron (CDC 2093-22) CDC Meadow CDC Hornet Hugo Argus Cutlass Canstar Stella Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 4121 4099 4075 4012 3866 3760 3368 2744 3756 530 14

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 69 68 68 67 64 63 56 46 63 9

Height (cm) 61 67 67 50 64 54 64 74 63

Standability (1=erect, 9=flat) 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

TKW (grams) 257 250 225 251 260 261 291 224 252

Comments: The yellow peas performed very well, with an average of 63 bu/A. The top yielders were CDC Saffron, CDC Meadow, CDC Hornet and Hugo.

Peas should be checked for Aschochyta lesions on lower stems


58

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 4 Yellow Field Pea Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield as % of Variety Cutlass* Agassiz 112 Argus 96 Canstar 97 Carrera 119 CDC Bronco 106 CDC Centennial 97 CDC Golden 107 CDC Handel 106 CDC Hornet 102 CDC Meadow 103 CDC Minuet 118 CDC Mozart 121 CDC Prosper 100 CDC Saffron (CDC 2093-22) 110 CDC Treasure 106 Cutlass (check) 100 DS-Admiral 98 DS-Stalwarth 80 Eclipse 101 Hugo 106 Miser 101 Noble 79 Polstead 94 Reward 97 Stella 85 SW Cabot 97 SW CAPRI 123 SW Carousel 101 SW CIRCUS 103 SW Marquee 58 SW MIDAS 93 SW SALUTE 120 Swing 115 Thunderbird 101 Topeka 126 Tudor 81 *During the years 2003-4, 2007-2011. *The long term yield for Cutlass is 40 bu/A.

# of Years Grown* 3 2 5 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 7 2 1 5 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 2


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

59

Table 5 Green Peas - Consort 2011

Variety Cooper CDC Tetris CDC Raezer( CDC 2235-4) CDC Patrick CDC Pluto Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 2928 2570 2494 2256 2056 2461 652 19

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 49 43 42 38 34 41 11

Height (cm) 49 49 50 37 32 43

Standability (1=erect, 9=flat) 3 3 3 3 6 4

TKW (grams) 256 224 215 150 142 197

Comments: The green peas had an average yield of 41 bu/A. Statistically, the coefficient of variation (C.V.) is high at 19%, meaning that there is a lot of variability in the data from 3 reps of 5 varieties. This means that the differences in yield are not very dependable. Table 6 Yellow Peas - Consort 2011

Variety Hugo CDC Hornet CDC Saffron (CDC 2093-22) Canstar CDC Meadow Cutlass Argus Stella Mean LSD (.05) C.V.%

Yield (lb/A) 3037 2909 2748 2742 2707 2628 2541 2057 2671 440 16

Yield bu/A (60 lb/bu) 51 48 46 46 45 44 42 34 45 7

Height (cm) 37 51 46 45 43 35 42 56 44

Standability (1=erect, 9=flat) 4 2 3 3 3 5 3 2 3

TKW (grams) 198 191 212 203 189 199 198 205 199

Comments: The yellow peas had an average of 45 bu/A. Once again, the coefficient of variation (C.V.) is slightly above the acceptable 15%, meaning that there is a fair amount of variability in the data from 3 reps of 8 varieties. This means that the differences in yield are not very dependable.


60

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 7 Green Field Pea Long Term Yield at Provost Avg. Yield

# of

as % of

Years

Variety

Nitouche*

Grown*

Camry

91

1

CDC Striker

93

2

COOPER

98

1

Madoc

90

1

Millennium

87

1

Nessie

102

2

Nitouche (check)

100

2

Stratus

96

Vortex 103 *During the years 2003-2004. *The two year average yield for Nitouche is 38 bu/A.

2 2

Table 8 Yellow Field Pea Long Term Yield at Provost Avg. Yield as % of Carrera*

# of Years Grown*

Carrera (check)

100

2

CDC Bronco

90

2

CDC Golden

116

2

CDC Handel

77

1

Cutlass

110

2

DS-Admiral

98

2

DS-Stalwarth

97

1

Eclipse

99

2

Miser

102

1

SW Cabot

84

1

SW CAPRI

107

1

SW Carousel

77

1

SW CIRCUS

88

2

SW MIDAS

89

1

SW SALUTE

130

1

Swing

102

2

Topeka

94

2

Variety

Tudor 92 *During the years 2003-2004. *The two year average yield for Carrera is 41 bu/A.

1


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 9 Green Field Pea Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield as % of Nitouche* 105 91 104 84 84 92 100 98 96

Variety Camry CDC Striker COOPER Madoc Millennium Nessie Nitouche (check) Stratus Vortex *During the years 2003-2004. *The two year average yield for Nitouche is 31 bu/A.

# of Years Grown* 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Table 10 Yellow Field Pea Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield # of as % of Years Variety Eclipse* Grown* Canstar 92 1 Carrera 97 2 CDC Bronco 88 2 CDC Centennial 76 1 CDC Golden 99 2 CDC Handel 96 1 CDC Meadow 88 1 Cutlass 96 3 DS-Admiral 91 3 DS-Stalwarth 101 1 Eclipse (check) 100 3 Miser 83 2 Polstead 82 1 Reward 100 1 SW Cabot 90 1 SW CAPRI 98 1 SW Carousel 92 1 SW CIRCUS 84 2 SW Marquee 88 1 SW MIDAS 87 2 SW SALUTE 122 1 Swing 103 2 Topeka 92 2 Tudor 83 2 *The two year average yield for Eclipse is 36 bu/A.

61


62

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Special Crops Demo Objective: To demonstrate several types of lesser known crops in small plots. Cooperator: Barry Redel, Consort NW 12-35-07-W4 Project Description: Several types of crops were planted in small plots, 1.5 m x 5 m, at the Consort variety trial site. This is a summary of some special crops that are sometimes grown in Alberta. The information was sourced from Alberta Agriculture, Saskatchewan Agriculture, Manitoba Agriculture and Wikipedia. 

Anise (Pimpinella anisum) – is an herbaceous flowering annual plant native to the Mediterranean and Asia. The seed is used as a licorice flavoring; medicinal herb and fishing lure scent.

Borage (Borago officinalis) – is an annual herb; seeds are a rich source of gamma linolenic acid which is of medicinal value. It is susceptible to a wide range of insects and diseases, is a weak competitor with weeds and shatters easily. The leaves taste like fresh cucumber and are used in German recipes including “Green Sauce”. The leaves have been found to contain trace amounts of alkaloids that can be toxic to the liver.

Calendula (Calendula officinalis) – is an herbaceous annual of the marigold family. The petals have marked anti-fungal activity and may be used both internally and externally to combat infections. Calendula is also used for treating skin problems including inflammation, external bleeding, minor burns and scalds, slow-healing wounds, bruising or skin ulcers. Internal uses include the treatment of ulcers. The petals are also used as dye for fabrics, foods and cosmetics.

Camelina (Camelina sativa) – also known as gold-of-pleasure, false flax, wild flax, linseed dodder, German sesame and Siberian oilseed, is a flowering plant of the Brassicaceae family. It is native to the Mediterranean and Central Asian areas. It is used to produce vegetable oil and animal feed. Lately its popularity has grown due to its demand for biodiesel plants in Montana. Camelina oil has potential as a functional food. The seed has exceptionally high levels (up to 45%) of omega-3 fatty acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids. It is very rich in natural antioxidants, such as tocopherols, making this highly stable oil very resistant to oxidation and rancidity. It is well suited for use as a cooking oil and has an almond-like flavor and aroma.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

63

Canary Seed (Phalaris canariensis) – is a grassy plant widely grown for birdseed. An itch-less variety, CDC Maria, is available but has a lower yield. Canada is the world leader in the production and export of canary seed used in caged and wild bird food mixtures.

Caraway (Carum carvi) – is a member of the Umbelliferae (carrot family). Caraway is a biennial spice crop, but an annual type also occurs. Caraway produced in western Canada is mostly of the biennial type. In the first year biennial caraway produces a bushy green plant and sets seed in the second or third year. Yields in Saskatchewan can be variable, ranging from 300-1000 lb/acre. Caraway seed is used to flavor foods such as bread, cheese and sauerkraut. Essential oils extracted from the seed are used to flavor meats, mouthwash and liqueurs.

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum – is an annual pulse crop. There are two types of chickpeas: the small, brown, roughed coated Desi and the large beige, smooth coated Kabuli (also known as the garbanzo bean). Chickpeas are native to the middle east and are grown extensively in India and the Mediterranean. Chickpeas are a large part of the diet of the people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It provides an excellent source of protein, zinc, fiber and folate.

Coriander (Coriandrum sativum) – is an annual herb from the carrot family. Cilantro is the term for the leaves commonly used as a cooking herb. Coriander seed is used as a spice and used to flavor gin. Coriander germinates slowly, loves heat, but competes poorly with weeds.

Fababeans (Vicia faba minor) – are a traditional crop in Europe, Africa, the MidEast and Asia. Other names include broad beans, horse beans, tick beans, pigeon beans and Windsor beans. Fababeans are adapted to moist areas with a cool growing season. Irrigation (if needed) and herbicide treatment are recommended to obtain a good yield. Fababeans are excellent nitrogen fixers. They should be produced for a guaranteed market or for on-farm use. Protein content in fababeans is high (24-30%). They are used as cooked vegetables and as stock feed.

Fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum) – is an annual herb of the legume family. It has various uses: leaf vegetable, medicine, spice, cattle forage and nitrogen fixer.


64

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Flax (Linum usitatissimum) – Canada is the world's largest producer and exporter of flaxseed. It has a high potential for increased industrial use, as well as for human food and feed markets. Flaxseed (linseed) oil is a non-edible drying oil used in manufacturing paints, varnishes, linoleum, printing ink, oilcloth, putty and plastics. Edible flax is called "Linola" which is lower in omega-3 fatty acids than the conventional flaxseed lines, but is more stable at high temperatures and less likely to go rancid, making it well suited for the vegetable oil market. Demand for flax straw for use as a natural fiber is growing.

Lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus) – is a creeping vine also known as grass pea or chickling vetch. It is the leading pulse crop in Bangladesh, and is also grown in India, the Middle East, southern Europe and South America. It is usually grown for grain outside of North America, but can be used for fodder. Grain is very high in protein, but a neurotoxic amino acid is present in wild and most cultivated forms that if consumed in sufficient amounts can cause the irreversible crippling disease known as lathyrism. This toxin has been bred out of some cultivars. Because of its drought tolerance, Lathyrus has been judged to have good potential as a future new pulse crop for low rainfall areas of the Canadian prairies. In Canada, Lathyrus has been used mainly as a drought-tolerant green manure crop.

Lentils (Lens culinaris) – are classified into two groups by seed size. The large seeded Chilean type has a seed size which averages 60 to 70 grams per 1000 seeds. The small seeded Persian type has a seed size which averages 30 to 40 grams or less per 1000 seeds. For both types of lentils, the seeds are lensshaped. Lentil is well suited as a stubble crop in the Dark Brown soil zone with soil pH of 6.0 to 8.0. Lentil plants do not tolerate waterlogged soils or salinity. The lentil plant is moderately drought tolerant requiring 6 to 8 inches of precipitation for optimum yields. Most varieties require 105 to 111 days to maturity.

Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) – is a highly branched, herbaceous, thistle like annual. It is used for edible or industrial oil, meal, or whole seed for dairy cattle or birdseed. The oil is nutritionally similar to sunflower oil. Safflower needs a long growing season.

Siberian Millet (Setaria italica) – is an early maturing, warm season annual suited for hay, silage and swath grazing. It is a high quality feed with a fine stem, short to medium in stature and heads out in early August. Varieties include German and Golden German.

Soybean (Glycine max) – is an annual legume that requires at least 2300 corn heat units, adequate moisture and the absence of frost. It has been grown successfully in parts of southern Manitoba. Soybean is used in human and livestock diets. It is used to produce fermented products, oil, flour and meal. The oil also has industrial uses.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

65

Spelt (Triticum spelt) – is an ancient wheat that has been a staple grain in Ethiopia for centuries. It has become a top-selling organic and health food, grown as a special crop, often for people with allergies and for pasta. Spelt may be easier for humans to digest than wheat. Yield is inconsistent. In Montana, some cattle producers in regions of low growing season precipitation plant winter spelt in preference to spring oats.

Sunwheat (Helianthus annuus) – is an early maturing short stature sunflower. This variety is lower yielding than other hybrids but, like Sunola, has an advantage when planting is delayed to mid-May to mid-June. Time to maturity is 100-110 days. The plant reaches a height of 96-120 cm.

Vernal Emmer (Triticum dicoccon) – is an ancient wheat which is predominantly awned with spikelets consisting of two well developed kernels that will shatter. The emmers are grown for grain and used as cattle feed, replacing either oats or barley in feedlot rations. Protein levels of emmer grain can be 5%-35% higher than oats or barley. Breads produced from whole grain flour of emmers are heavy textured with a pleasing taste that is milder than breads made from rye flour.

Yellow Mustard (Sinapsis Alba) – seed is used as a spice or pressed for oil. The plant is tolerant to drought and some insects.

Canary seed


66

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Demonstration of Weed Management Options in Lentils Thanks to the Alberta Pulse Growers for supporting this project. We appreciate the donation of Solo, Heat and Merge from BASF. Background Lentils are a relatively non-competitive crop. Due to this, weed control has historically been one of the biggest issues in lentil production. The development of Clearfield resistant lentils has improved control options. In addition, products such as Heat and Edge offer other options for group 2 resistant weeds. Although Edge is not recommended for spring application in lentils, many producers are using it in direct seeding systems with good results. Due to the non-competitive nature of lentils, weeds can emerge through the open canopy during the growing season. This results in more dockage at harvest and in some situations causing problems at harvest. This project will address the challenge of weed control in lentils and demonstrate the herbicide options available to producers. Objectives:  To demonstrate weed management options in lentils.  To host a crop walk at the site and have a discussion about weed control options in lentils.  To record the level of weed control achieved with plant counts and photos.  To measure lentil yield, plant stand, and maturity differences. Cooperator: Shaune Switzer, Sibbald NW 31-28-01-W4 Project Description A field was staked out in April according to a plan for herbicide applications. Prior to planting, Edge herbicide was applied to a portion of the field by the Cooperator. In midMay CDC Maxim lentils were planted with a plot seeder in a block 60 m by 25 meters in size. The pre-emergent herbicide applications of Roundup and Heat were applied in late May. Each treatment was 7 m by 25 m, except for the untreated check strip which was only 3 m wide. Applications of in crop herbicides Odyssey, Solo and Poast Ultra were made in June with CARA’s 7 m wide plot sprayer. Weed counts were taken June 8 and July 3. Photographs of the treatment strips were taken regularly. At harvest, yield on the treatment strips was measured with a plot combine.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Agronomic Summary Previous crop

Wheat

Seeding date

May 19, 2011

Seeding depth

1 inch (2.5 cm)

Seedbed condition

Excellent moisture

Variety

CDC Maxim (Clearfield)

Seeding rate

12 plants/square foot

Planter

Henderson 500 with Morris contour openers

Fertilizer

60 lb/A of 11-52-0

Harvest date

September 12, 2011

Treatment Dates Herbicide Roundup + Heat Odyssey, Solo Poast Ultra

Date applied May 24 June 8 June 16

Treatment List 1. Pre-seed Roundup (0.5 L/Acre) + Heat (at 10.5 g/Acre) tank mix (+Merge at 0.2 L/A) 2. (a) Pre-seed Roundup (0.5 L/Acre) + Heat (at 10.5 g/Acre) tank mix, plus (b) In crop grassy herbicide Poast Ultra (at 190 ml/A) + Merge at 0.4 L/A 3. Untreated Check 4. (a) Pre-seed Roundup (0.5 L/Acre) + Heat (at 10.5 g/Acre) tank mix, plus (b) In crop Odyssey (at 17 g/A + Merge at 230 ml/A) 5. (a)Pre-seed Roundup (0.5 L/Acre) plus (b) In crop Odyssey (at 17 g/A + Merge at 230 ml/A) 6. (a)Pre-seed Roundup (0.5 L/Acre) plus (b) In crop Solo (11.7 g/A + Merge at 230 ml/A) 7. Buffer area- at the beginning of the Edge - one pass of sprayer with Pre-seed Roundup (0.5 L/Acre) + Heat (at 10.5 g/Acre) tank mix (+ Merge at 0.2 L/A) 8. Pre-plant Edge (at 6.9 kg/A rate and not incorporated) then pre-seed Roundup (at 0.5 L/Acre) 9. (a) Pre-plant Edge (at 6.9 kg/A rate and not incorporated) plus (b) In crop Odyssey (at 17 g/A + Merge at 230 ml/A)

67


68

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Results: Treatment 1. Roundup + Heat 2. Roundup + Heat plus Poast Ultra 3. Untreated Check 4. Roundup + Heat, plus Odyssey 5. Roundup, plus Odyssey 6. Roundup, plus Solo 7. Buffer area 8. Edge, plus Roundup 9. Edge, plus Odyssey

Yield 46 bu/A 47 46 46 48 45 -44 28 (yield reduced by unexplained irregular patch of field)

Yield The treatments had similar yields, between 44 and 48 bu/A, except for the Edge plus Odyssey treatment, which recorded a much lower yield at 28 bu/A. This treatment was affected by an unexplained irregular area in the field, which matured early and yielded poorly. It is difficult to explain what may have caused the irregularity and it would be unfair to attribute the low yield to the herbicide treatments alone. In fact, the adjacent variety demonstration which had the same herbicide treatments (Edge plus Odyssey) was only partially affected by the irregular area. Weed Counts Weed counts were taken June 8 and July 3. The predominant weed was volunteer wheat, with a few flixweed. There was the odd foxtail barley and volunteer mustard plant. What is evident from the weed counts is that the treatments that included Odyssey, Solo or Edge had fewer weeds than the treatments that did not include one of these. Photos Photos taken during the season provide the best comparison of weed growth in the treatments. The treatments having the most weeds were the untreated check, the Roundup + Heat and the Roundup + Heat plus Poast Ultra treatment. The Roundup plus Odyssey treatment had fewer weeds than the three treatments mentioned above. The Edge plus Odyssey was the cleanest looking treatment, followed by the Edge plus Roundup, then Roundup plus Odyssey then Roundup plus Solo. Please refer to the photos on the following pages.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

The untreated check strip (3m wide) is evident, July 8.

Untreated check strip at harvest (Visual weed control rating 0/10)

69


70

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Roundup plus Odyssey treatment (Visual weed control rating 4/10)

Edge plus Odyssey treatment (Visual weed control rating 7/10) Maturity differences We did not see differences in maturity between the treatments.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

71

Crop Walk A crop walk at the Lentil Herbicide Demo site was held on July 14, as part of CARA’s annual crop tour.

Alberta Pulse Growers Research Officer Jenn Walker discusses weed control options with producers on the tour. Summary According to weed counts taken June 8 and July 3, the treatments that included the residual herbicides Odyssey, Solo or Edge had fewer weeds than the treatments that did not include one of these. Weed counts were not taken after July 3, but photos were. There was a great deal of late season weed growth and the photos provide the best comparison of the treatments. At this site, under the conditions present in 2011, the treatments with Edge provided the best weed control. The addition of Odyssey improved weed control. The use of residual herbicides such as Edge and Odyssey resulted in improved season long weed control. The treatments with Roundup performed poorly, probably because of weeds germinating after application. Residual herbicides are a good choice for the control of late season weeds in lentils. Group 2 herbicides such as Odyssey can provide excellent weed control in Clearfield lentils. However, when there is kochia or other Group 2 resistant weeds, Edge or other non-group 2 herbicides should be used. It is important to note that these results are based on a single site for one season. The results may vary between sites having different weed spectrums or environmental conditions.


72

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Canola Agronomic Demonstration Thanks to the Alberta Canola Producers Commission for project funding! Thanks to the Canola Council of Canada Agronomists for their participation in the crop walks. Objectives:  To demonstrate recommended practices for successful establishment of a canola crop  To host a canola crop walk to view seeding treatments and discuss canola establishment  To demonstrate pest scouting practices Cooperator: Barry Redel, Consort SE 14-35-07-W4 Project Description: Demonstration The site was prepared by applying glyphosate for pre-seed weed control. The treatment strips were planted side by side into moist barley stubble with CARA’s Henderson 500 plot drill on May 17, 2011. The drill delivers seed in five split rows on 12 inch spacing, with Morris contour openers. Fertilizer is placed between the split rows, one inch below the seed row. All treatments, other than the “too deep” treatment, were planted ½ inch deep. A fertilizer blend of 40-30-5-5 at 109 lb/A was applied to all plots except the various fertilizer treatments. The variety used was 5020 Canola (Liberty Link) with a thousand seed weight of 5.0 grams. The seeding rate was adjusted for the germination of 87%. Liberty was applied at 1.35 L/A for weed control on June 7, 2011. The site was marked with a project sign and the treatments marked for self-guided tours.

Canola treatments were planted in strips


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Treatments Regular rate of speed 3.5 mph High rate of speed 7.0 mph Seed regular depth 1/2 inch Seed too deep 2 to 2.25 inches Seed too deep 2.5 inches Fertilized at 150 lb/A 40-30-5-5 Fertilized at 100 lb/A 40-30-5-5 Not fertilized Target seeding rate plus 25% Low seeding rate 7/sq ft Target seeding rate 14/sq ft plus 5% Target seeding rate plus 25%

Fertilized at 100 lb/A of 40-30-5-5 on left, unfertilized on right.

73


74

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

The difference between the unfertilized strip and fertilized strips on either side was dramatic Extension Crop Walk June 15, 2011 On June 15, a crop walk was held at the site. Alberta Canola Producers Commission representative Rick Taillieu and Canola Council of Canada agronomists Troy Prosofsky and Dan Orchard led the discussion on canola establishment. The group of thirteen producers and agronomists was very interested in looking at the various seeding treatments and felt that they would like to see them again in August.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

CCC Agronomist Dan Orchard

CCC Agronomist Troy Prosofsky demonstrates plant counts

Crop Walk June 15

75


76

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Crop Walk August 17, 2011 Canola Council of Canada Agronomist Troy Prosofsky led a group of 18 producers and agronomists on a walk through the various canola treatments on August 17. Troy talked about pest scouting, fertilizer application, swathing and combining. The producers had many questions regarding canola production. The plan was for CARA to apply liquid fertilizer across the treatments in late June but this was not possible due to a nozzle shortage. The producers stated they would like to see liquid fertilizer treatments in future demonstrations.

Crop Walk August 17 Canola Yield At harvest on September 1, yield on the various strips was measured with CARA’s plot combine. Since the yield is based on a single measurement from a treatment strip, the results will not be published as they may be misleading. The most dramatic difference was between the fertilized and unfertilized strips. The 100 lb/A rate of 40-30-5-5 had double the yield of the unfertilized strip. The 150 lb/A rate of the same fertilizer had yield 2.5 times the yield of the unfertilized strip. Summary The canola agronomic demonstration and crop walks were successful in extending important information to canola producers regarding the fine points of canola establishment, fertilizer use, pest scouting and timing of swathing. There is a demand for hands-on information by both new and experienced canola growers. Growers have requested that demonstrations and crop walks be continued in the future.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

77

Broadcast Urea Fertilizer Compared to Side-Banded Urea at Planting – Custom Project Work Objective: The objective of this trial is to compare various broadcast applications of urea (regular and large size), two types of loss inhibitors, fall and spring timing, with side banded nitrogen at planting. Summary: A project was initiated in the fall of 2010 with Dr. Tom Jensen of the International Plant Nutrition Institute comparing several methods of nitrogen application in a wheat crop. The fertilizer applications were made in October 2010 and spring 2011. Lillian wheat was planted to all treatments and yield was measured at harvest. A report will be available once data from multiple years of the project has been accumulated. Cooperator: Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NW 27-24-2-W4

Regular-size (1/8 inch diameter) granular urea

Large-size (1/2 inch diameter) granular urea


78

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Treatments Nitrogen Form

Size

N Rate kg/ha

Placement

Time

1

Urea

regular

70

broadcast

fall

2

Large Urea

large

70

broadcast

fall

3

Urea

regular

70

broadcast

spring

4

Large Urea

large

70

broadcast

spring

5

Urea treated with Agrotain

regular

70

broadcast

fall

6

Large Urea treated with Agrotain

large

70

broadcast

fall

7

Urea treated with Agrotain

regular

70

broadcast

spring

8

Large Urea treated with Agrotain

large

70

broadcast

spring

9

Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve

regular

70

broadcast

fall

10

Large Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve

large

70

broadcast

fall

11

Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve

regular

70

broadcast

spring

12

Large Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve

large

70

broadcast

spring

13

Super U

regular

70

broadcast

fall

14

Super U

regular

70

broadcast

spring

15

Large Urea plus Agrotain Plus

large

70

broadcast

fall

16

Large Urea plus Agrotain Plus

large

70

spring

17

Urea

regular

70

18

Urea treated with Agrotain

regular

70

broadcast side-banded at planting side-banded at planting

19

Untreated Check

N/A

0

N/A

N/A

spring spring

Agrotain - Urea treated with a urease inhibitor to reduce potential volatile ammonia losses from urea applied to the surface of a soil N-Serve - Urea treated with a urease inhibitor plus a nitrification inhibitor that can reduce both volatile ammonia losses as well as denitrification losses in saturated soils Large - Large granule urea usually called “Forestry Grade Urea” (10 mm or ½ inch in diameter) Regular - Regular size granule urea (3 mm or 1/8 inch in diameter) Super U – Super Urea is a blue, granular fertilizer manufactured by the reaction of ammonia and carbon dioxide under high pressure. It contains both N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, a urease inhibitor which prevents nitrogen loss by ammonia volatilization from urea, and dicyandiamide, an organic nitrogen material which retards nitrification.  70 kg/ha is equivalent to 62 lb/A.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

79

Results: The 2010/2011 project year was successfully completed and the project is being duplicated in 2011/2012. A report will be available once data from multiple years of the project has been accumulated. Discussion: For discussion purposes, here is a background article prepared by Dr. Tom Jensen, Northern Great Plains (NGP) Regional Director, International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) Earlier in my agricultural career I worked under Dr. Wayne Lindwall who was a research scientist at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Station in Lethbridge, AB. Dr. Lindwall was conducting some of the pioneering research for no-till or direct-seeding research in western Canada. One part of my research on a direct-seeding research project was to evaluate side-banding urea nitrogen (N) fertilizer during the planting operation compared to pre-plant broadcast surface applications. Generally our research, back in the early 1980’s showed that banding was more efficient than broadcasting. In the Prairie Provinces of Canada it is now generally thought that sidebanding N, or so-called “double-shooting” during the planting operation of springseeded crops is the best way to apply N fertilizer. Interestingly enough, when I began working for the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), four years ago, my geography of experience was expanded. I had previously mostly worked in western Canada, but now my IPNI work responsibilities also included the states of North Dakota and Montana. During my first visit to Montana I asked a Montana State University (MSU) cropping researcher, how much of the Montana springseeded small grains, dryland cropped area was planted using direct seeding? He said well over 90%. I then asked how much of that was planted using “double-shoot” airdrills. I was surprised when he said “Very little, most of the area has the N applied as a surface broadcast operation a day or two before single-shoot direct-seeding.” I was greatly surprised and a bit astounded. “But that isn’t the best way to apply N fertilizer is it?” I questioned. “Well Tom” he answered, “We have done research and surface broadcasting just before direct-seeding works well under our usually drier Montana conditions. Having a fertilizer dealer custom apply the urea N a few days before planting, a grower only applies some seed-row blend, mostly P and K with a little N, and need handle much less fertilizer at planting. This allows planting to be done in a shorter window of time in the busy spring season.” I have been working with researchers the past year in Alberta and Montana comparing surface broadcast applications of urea to side-banding N at the time of planting. We are not only using regular granular urea, but we have also included some recently available technologies or methods for further comparison. 1) Urea treated with a urease inhibitor (Agrotain), that can reduce potential volatile ammonia losses from urea applied to the surface of a soil;


80

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

2) Urea treated with a urease inhibitor plus a nitrification inhibitor (DCD, or N-Serve), that can reduce both volatile ammonia losses as well as denitrification losses if saturated soils are experienced; 3) Large granule urea usually called “Forestry Grade Urea” (10 mm or ½ inch in diameter), compared to regular size granule urea (3 mm or 1/8 inch in diameter), use of large urea granules has been shown to result in greater yields than regularly sized urea under some conditions; and lastly 4) Fall-applied compared to spring-applied treatments. Application in the fall helps spread out field work. There was one research site done in 2010, near Edmonton, Alberta by the University of Alberta, where we planted spring barley. In that initial experiment the broadcast applications in the fall or spring did as well, or better than side-banding urea at planting. I was surprised at the results and realized we cannot make any firm conclusions from one site and one year of results, so we are repeating the spring barley experiment at Edmonton, as well as expanding the research to a spring wheat site near Acadia Valley, AB conducted by the Chinook Applied Research Association (CARA), and a winter wheat site at Moccasin, MT conducted by MSU. The potential benefits of using a surface applied urease-treated urea in the spring and/or a urease and nitrification inhibitor treated urea in the fall, compared to sidebanding N at planting are as follows: 

This would allow a lower cost, low energy input method of applying N to no-till cropped, or direct seeded fields in the Northern Great Plains (NGP). Using a narrow single-shoot opener compared to a wider double-shoot opener, uses less diesel fuel for each acre planted. Some areas of the NGP now apply broadcast applications of regular sized urea in the fall or in the spring prior to planting. Under conditions conducive to ammonia volatilization losses, use of a urease inhibitor would reduce ammonia volatile losses There is potential to allow farmers to apply N in the fall at a time when urea N prices are usually less than the following spring prices, and spread out their work load by applying N in the fall and having less fertilizer to handle just before, or at planting in the spring. The use of the larger granule sized urea is compatible with surface broadcast applications and may further reduce volatile ammonia and denitrification losses compared to regular sized urea granules.

If this initial research shows an advantage for fall application of the large granule urea treated with urease and nitrification inhibitors, this may become a viable option compared to side-banding N at planting for farmers in the Northern Great Plains.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

81

Viterra Variety Performance Trials – Custom Project Work Objective: The objective of these trials is to determine the performance of selected varieties of Brassica juncea (oil quality mustard), hard red spring, durum, Italian durum and 2 row barley grown in east central Alberta. Summary: These variety performance trials were initiated by Jim Anderson and Tim Ferguson of Viterra based in Calgary. The seed was pre-weighed at Viterra and delivered to CARA in Oyen. The variety trials were established, maintained and harvested by CARA and the results submitted to Viterra. The data from these variety comparisons belongs to Viterra. This project work is being done by CARA in return for rental of the new seed drill from Viterra. Cooperators and Trials: Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NW 27-24-2-W4  Hard red spring wheat (22 varieties)  Durum (10 varieties)  Italian Durum (24 varieties) Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4  2 row Barley (14 varieties) Gerald Pearen, Oyen SW 14-28-03-W4  Brassica juncea/Oil quality mustard (18 varieties)

Yellow and Oriental Mustard Co-ops – Custom Project Work Objective: The objective of this trial is to determine the performance of six yellow and eleven oriental mustard varieties selected by the Co-operative variety pre-registration process. Summary: This Co-operative variety pre-registration trial was under the direction of Daryl Rex of Viterra based in Carman, Manitoba. The seed was pre-weighed and delivered to CARA in Oyen. The variety trials were established, maintained and harvested by CARA and the results submitted to Viterra. Since the data is from a Cooperative trial, the results are exempt from publishing. Cooperator: Gerald Pearen, Oyen SW 14-28-03-W4


82

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Aaron applying herbicide

The new drill has 5 paired rows on 12� centres, with a fertilizer chute between the rows


Annual forages site near Stanmore Harvesting annual forages site near Consort

Harvesting saline tolerant alfalfa at site near Sibbald

Annual forages late July


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Annual Forage Dry Matter Trial Note: Supported by the Alberta Beef Producers. Special thanks to Meghan Elsen of the Lakeland Agricultural Research Association for coordinating this project.

Overview: This project is part of a provincial initiative developed to evaluate the yield and quality potential of a number of annual crops grown for forage use. 2011 is the final year of a three year project. CARA has conducted two sites of the trial in the Special Areas of the brown soil zone in east central Alberta. Unfortunately, drought conditions in 2009 resulted in no data. This report includes a summary of the results from 2010 and 2011 as well as results from previous CARA projects measuring yield of annual crops for forage yield. Objective: To evaluate the forage potential of various annual crops when grown under dryland conditions. Cooperators: James Madge, Stanmore NE 21-30-11-W4 (Special Area 2) Barry Redel, Consort NW 12-35-07 W4 (Special Area 4) Project Description: Seeder: Henderson 500 plot drill with Morris contour openers Seeding Rate: 18 plants per square foot for cereals 8 plants per square foot for peas Previous Crop: Stanmore – Chem-fallow Consort – Canola stubble Seedbed Preparation: Glyphosate was applied prior to seeding at both sites Seeding Depth: Cereals and Peas at 2 - 2 ½ inches Late Seeded crops at 1 - 1 ½ inches Seeding Dates: Stanmore – May 31 (late seeded June 29) Consort – May 17 (late seeded June 15) Plot Size: 1.52 m by 5 m, replicated 4 times in randomized block design Fertilizer: 109 lb/A of 28-26-0 placed between the rows in the cereal plots 60 lb/A of 11-52-0 was placed between the rows in the peas Herbicides: All plots were sprayed with MCPA Sodium for in-crop weed control Harvest: The target harvest stage for all crops was soft dough, although some blocks were farther along in maturity than desired when cut. Each crop block was harvested the same day.

83


84

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Site Information: Table 1 Soil Analysis Nutrient

Madge Site

Consort Site

Nitrogen (0-24)

95 lb/A

52 lb/a

Phosphorus (0-6)

51 lb/A

39 lb/A

Potassium (0-6)

1176 lb/A

644 lb/A

Sulfate (0-24)

1273 lb/A

1285 lb/A

Soil Salinity (E.C.)

0.93

1.10

pH

8.0

7.3

-

-

O.M. %

Crops Seeded in 2011: Barley: AC Lacombe AC Ranger Busby (TR0663) CDC Austenson CDC Cowboy Chigwell Ponoka Seebe Sundre Trochu Vivar Xena Oats: AC Mustang CDC Baler CDC SOI Derby Everleaf Foothill Jordan Morgan Murphy OT 3039 Waldern Peas: 40-10 CDC Sonata

Triticale: AC Ultima CDC Bunker Companion Pronghorn Taza (T198) Tyndal Late Seeded: Murphy Oats Pronghorn Triticale Vivar Barley Millet King Red Proso PS Crown Millet PS German Golden Millet PS Siberian Millet Pea Combinations: 40-10 + Vivar 40-10 + Murphy 40-10 + Pronghorn CDC Sonata + Murphy CDC Sonata + Pronghorn CDC Sonata + Vivar


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

85

Results: Table 2 Summary of Dry Matter Forage Yield

Oats AC Mustang CDC Baler CDC SOI Derby Everleaf Foothill Jordan Morgan Murphy (check) OT 3039 Waldern Barley AC Lacombe AC Ranger Busby (TR0663) CDC Austenson CDC Cowboy Chigwell Ponoka Seebe Sundre Trochu Vivar (check) Xena Triticale AC Ultima CDC Bunker Companion Pronghorn (check) Taza (T198) Tyndal Late-Seeded Murphy Pronghorn Vivar (check) Crown Millet German Millet Proso Millet Siberian Millet

Average (lb/A)

Stanmore 2011 Yield as % Check

Average Yield as % Check

Average (lb/A)

Consort 2011 Yield as % Check

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

102 129 77 97 97 88 101 100

5937 6389 6852 6977 6155 7398 6539 5537 7221

82 88 95 97 85 102 91 77 100

95

6519

90

98 102 95 101 99 112 103 104 100 119 104

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

121 133 138 141 140 123 151 129 128 124 100 118

5111 4974 5792 5453 5941 6227 5612 5474 5557 5417 5662 5587

90 88 102 96 105 110 99 97 98 96 100 99

94 97 109 97 106 104 98 98 96 96 100 92

8367 6331 8178

112 85 110

110 94 106

6850 6832 6932

90 89 91

94 108 90

7465

100

100

7641

100

100

5374 7166

72 96

86 98

5917 6537

77 86

87 94

6815 5479 7425 5417 3027 5090 4997

92 74 100 73 41 69 67

122 97 100 63 46 61 51

8022 8431 7559 4129 3493 4368 3377

106 112 100 55 46 58 45

117 118 100 61 51 63 54

 2010 and 2011 data combined

Average Yield as % Check


86

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 2 con’t Summary of Dry Matter Forage Yield Stanmore Average 2011 Yield (lb/A) as % Check Pulse Crops Vivar (check) Murphy Pronghorn 40-10 Peas 40-10 / Vivar 40-10 / Murphy 40-10 / Pronghorn Tucker Pea Tucker / Vivar Tucker / Murphy Tucker / Pronghorn CDC Sonata Pea CDC Sonata / Vivar CDC Sonata / Murphy CDC Sonata / Pronghorn 603-1 Chickpea ICC-8923 Chickpea

Average (lb/A)

Consort 2011 Yield as % Check

9802 9031 9067 6043 7151 8152 6914 5677 7653 10719

100 92 93 62 73 83 71 58 78 109

6544 7557 6987 4055 5096 6057 5279 3756 4861 7364

100 115 107 62 78 93 81 57 74 113

5903

60

6147

94

4733 7343

48 75

4019 6270

61 96

7241

74

6334

97

6695

68

5785

88

3820 4347

39 44

Note: No date was collected from the Pulse Crop block in 2010


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 3

87

Feed Quality Analysis 2011 – Stanmore SIte Feed Quality TDN as Ca as % % Check Check

Crude Protein as % Check

ADF as % Check

P as % Check

Mg as % Check

K as % Check

94 110 87 69 123 123 120 79 100 72

83 86 64 80 104 93 75 88 100 104

107 86 115 108 99 103 110 105 100 98

72 94 72 81 84 88 88 91 100 100

109 95 118 123 91 91 118 114 100 95

75 85 90 95 105 95 95 75 100 90

60 72 51 68 99 63 67 84 100 84

96 81 126 101 80 89 139 104 66 105 100 96

136 133 134 151 138 105 104 148 146 111 100 104

93 93 93 90 99 92 99 90 91 98 100 99

300 171 129 186 136 136 143 157 150 157 100 107

92 88 88 83 83 88 104 83 67 71 100 92

93 107 93 107 100 107 113 87 100 100 100 97

145 123 64 184 103 88 122 127 120 112 100 89

78 98 85 100 137 112

101 108 110 100 105 111

100 97 96 100 98 96

80 107 100 100 113 100

105 86 86 100 109 95

93 93 100 100 93 75

91 96 85 100 126 96

126 125 100 132 130 160 126

148 133 100 126 127 118 134

87 91 100 93 93 95 91

75 108 100 83 113 100 78

81 165 100 104 104 135 73

124 100 100 200 212 235 218

139 142 100 136 258 145 197

Oats AC Mustang CDC Baler CDC SOI Derby Everleaf Foothill Jordan Morgan Murphy (check) Waldern Barley AC Lacombe AC Ranger Busby (TR0663) CDC Austenson CDC Cowboy Chigwell Ponoka Seebe Sundre Trochu Vivar (check) Xena Triticale AC Ultima CDC Bunker Companion Pronghorn (check) Taza (T198) Tyndal Late Seeded Murphy Pronghorn Vivar (check) Crown Millet German Millet Red Proso Millet Siberian Millet


88

Table 3 con’t

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Feed Quality Analysis 2011 – Stanmore SIte Feed Quality Crude Protein as % Check

ADF as % Check

TDN as % Check

Ca as % Check

P as % Check

Mg as % Check

K as % Check

100 103 115 93 98 145 125 140 129 114

100 102 106 139 64 116 96 127 113 113

100 100 98 89 110 95 101 92 96 97

100 114 81 533 90 167 129 619 300 186

100 130 110 80 130 110 145 110 100 125

100 113 94 294 100 138 125 219 181 131

100 148 174 178 89 193 134 228 204 179

98

98

100

186

120

138

124

106 101 99

143 61 109

88 111 97

624 76 229

70 135 140

375 94 144

213 87 166

109

105

98

124

115

106

179

125 92

105 153

98 85

452 333

135 85

300 225

246 227

Pulse Crops Vivar (check) Murphy Pronghorn 40-10 Peas 40-10/Vivar 40-10/Murphy 40-10/Pronghorn Tucker Pea Tucker Pea/Vivar Tucker Pea/Murphy Tucker Pea/ Pronghorn CDC Sonata Pea CDC Sonata/Vivar CDC Sonata/Murphy CDC Sonata/ Pronghorn 603-1 Chickpea ICC-8923 Chickpea


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

89

Table 4 Feed Quality Analysis 2011 – Consort Site

Oats AC Mustang CDC Baler CDC SOI Derby Everleaf Foothill Jordan Morgan Murphy (check) Waldern Barley AC Lacombe AC Ranger Busby (TR0663) CDC Austenson CDC Cowboy Chigwell Ponoka Seebe Sundre Trochu Vivar (check) Xena Triticale AC Ultima CDC Bunker Companion Pronghorn (check) Taza (T198) Tyndal Late Seeded Murphy Pronghorn Vivar (check) Crown Millet German Millet Red Proso Millet Siberian Millet

Feed Quality TDN as Ca as % % Check Check

Crude Protein as % Check

ADF as % Check

P as % Check

Mg as % Check

K as % Check

129 143 149 122 158 107 112 118 100 118

75 90 76 72 90 91 94 74 100 83

112 105 112 114 105 104 103 113 100 108

82 89 86 100 100 96 89 100 100 89

106 106 128 116 100 94 100 117 100 117

95 116 95 95 89 95 116 100 100 95

81 112 78 70 106 102 116 83 100 82

132 132 127 128 87 118 152 122 109 128 100 173

92 107 88 99 100 113 111 111 112 99 100 89

102 98 104 100 100 96 96 96 96 100 100 104

93 124 76 76 79 117 169 145 117 107 100 114

100 100 100 100 105 80 100 90 90 80 100 105

95 95 74 84 89 89 95 89 100 105 100 84

82 122 80 83 84 103 111 98 111 80 109 96

99 98 119 100 108 80

89 94 89 100 93 111

103 102 103 100 102 97

113 120 107 100 107 93

106 111 111 100 89 133

107 121 143 100 93 100

84 94 92 100 109 70

102 113 100 104 110 119 95

148 131 100 117 167 130 150

89 93 100 96 85 93 89

90 73 100 90 97 87 73

133 147 100 93 93 87 87

105 100 100 157 114 124 110

153 164 100 145 321 136 206


90

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 4 con’t Feed Quality Analysis 2011 – Consort SIte Crude Protein as % Check

ADF as % Check

Feed Quality TDN as Ca as % % Check Check

P as % Check

Mg as % Check

K as % Check

Pulse Crops Vivar (check) Murphy Pronghorn 40-10 Peas 40-10 / Vivar 40-10 / Murphy 40-10 / Pronghorn Tucker Pea Tucker / Vivar Tucker / Murphy Tucker / Pronghorn CDC Sonata Pea CDC Sonata / Vivar CDC Sonata / Murphy CDC Sonata / Pronghorn

100 99 122 160 120 116 122 171 121 120

100 118 85 155 125 103 105 155 149 108

100 96 104 87 94 99 99 87 88 98

100 112 48 524 204 104 224 624 260 116

100 80 95 75 90 105 95 80 70 100

100 121 74 179 111 111 105 226 137 105

100 119 81 148 138 104 108 152 129 135

115

100

100

120

90

89

111

206 162 126

139 115 114

91 96 97

528 336 160

100 95 100

195 126 147

178 136 119

141

126

94

220

90

121

126


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

91

Table 5 Historical Data Special Area 3 Site Average Average Yield (lb/A)  as % Foothill Oats AC Lu 3447 (2) 88 AC Mustang 3350 (4) 100 Cascade CDC Baler 3398 (4) 89 CDC Bell 3448 (5) 94 Derby 4095 (7) 104 Everleaf Foothill (check) 3928 (7) 100 Murphy 3971 (2) 101 Waldern 3767 (6) 101 Barley AC Harper 3678 (5) 103 AC Lacombe AC Ranger 3365 (3) 103 AC Rosser Brier 4012 (6) 110 BT 566 CDC Cowboy 5184 (1) 111 CDC Dolly CDC Helgason Conlon Dillon 3700 (2) 92 Haybet 4143 (2) 106 Johnston 3671 (6) 99 Manny 4789 (1) 102 McLeod Niobe Ponoka 4070 (2) 104 Seebe 3850 (4) 117 Sommerville 4150 (2) 106 Stockford Sundre Trochu Vivar Westford 3548 (6) 95 Xena Triticale AC Alta 3352 (4) 98 AC Certa 4295 (4) 114 AC Copia 3881 (5) 105 AC Ultima 3657 (4) 108 CDC Bunker Companion 5608 (1) 120 Pronghorn 3719 (5) 101 Sandro 3349 (3) 97 Tyndal 1995-2006: Average (# years grown at site)  Percent of Foothill in years grown  1995-2007: Average (# years grown at site)

Special Area 4 Site Average Average Yield as % (lb/A)  Foothill 6867 (4) 5770 (6) 5511 (2) 7592 (5) 6499 (7) 5755 (9) 4570 (1) 5907 (11) 5538 (6) 5820 (9)

91 95 86 112 118 102 91 100 85 103

5431 (5) 6022 (2) 5530 (5) 4802 (1) 5782 (7) 5412 (1) 6612 (3) 5069 (2) 4713 (2) 5693 (1) 5720 (4) 6047 (4) 5611 (9) 5019 (3) 5485 (1) 4853 (1) 6033 (4) 5050 (6) 6160 (3) 6167 (1) 6338 (1) 5057 (1) 5350 (1) 5581 (9) 3717 (1)

90 105 87 68 97 76 94 86 80 80 78 83 97 73 109 81 80 90 71 123 126 101 107 95 74

5409 (8) 5130 (4) 5740 (6) 5274 (5) 4308 (1) 7110 (3) 6202 (8) 5039 (3) 2380 (1)

86 96 91 91 86 98 101 96 47


92

Table 5 con’t

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Historical Data Special Area 3 Site Average Avg Yield as (lb/A)  % Foothill

Others AC Taber CPS Gazelle Spring Rye Glenlea ESW AC Commander Durum

3269 (4) 3447 (4) 3095 (5) 4389 (1) 2864 (4) 3922 (1) 6496 (1) 4792 (1) 5298 (1) 4389 (1)

AC Strongfield Durum Kyle Durum Plenty Durum Hybrid Sorghum Crown Millet Golden German Millet Proso Millet Siberian Millet Barley Blends Brier + Companion 5604 (1) Brier + Derby 4031 (6) Brier + Foothill 3778 (6) Brier + Waldern 3993 (6) Sommerville + Foothill 4329 (2) Triticale Blends AC Alta + Brier 3652 (5) AC Alta + Foothill 6507 (5) Companion + Foothill 5286 (1) Peas 4010 6084 (4) AC Greenfield 2289 (3) AC Nugget 2504 (2) Carneval 2659 (3) CDC Sonata 7927 (1) MP1106 9633 (1) Journey SW Salute 6561 (1) Pea Combinations AC Greenfield +AC Alta 3746 (4) CDC Sonata + Companion 4888 (1) AC Greenfield + Brier 3741 (4) CDC Sonata + CDC Cowboy AC Greenfield + Foothill 3436 (4) CDC Sonata + CDC Baler C Greenfield + Glenlea 3453 (4) AC Greenfield + Kyle 3428 (4) AC Greenfield + Sommerville 3962 (1) Carneval + AC Taber 2957(3) CDC Sonata + AC Strongfield 1995-2006: Average (# years grown at site)  Percent of Foothill in years grown  1995-2007: Average (# years grown at site)

Special Area 4 Site Average Avg Yield as (lb/A)  % Foothill

85 104 84 94 85 94 139 102 113 94

4130 (5) 4323 (4) 5198 (6) 4274 (1) 4440 (2) 5286 (1) 5459 (5) 3401 (2) 3647 (1) 2656 (1) 3389 (2) 3079 (2)

73 82 86 85 69 76 94 46 51 30 45 40

120 109 100 110 112

7701 (1) 5884 (7) 5983 (7) 5474 (7) 7161 (2)

88 99 100 91 78

103 97 113

5273 (5) 5702 (5) 7246 (1)

86 92 82

70 65 73 72 140

4661 (3) 3749 (3) 5549 (2) 4149 (3) 7427 (1) 5316 (1) 5007 (1)

76 62 70 74 104 75 57

97 85 98

3979 (3) 4742 (2) 4825 (4) 4533 (1) 4887 (5) 4161 (4) 4361 (4) 4006 (2) 3443 (3) 2740 (1)

68 63 78 64 75 67 71 51 39

86 91 91 85 78 -


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

93

Discussion: Drought conditions in 2009 resulted in poor germination and very uneven growth so samples were not taken for yield evaluation. The opposite was true in 2010 when higher than average growing season moisture resulted in exceptional yields. The growing season in 2011 also brought good moisture conditions, although not as high as the previous year. Unfortunately, scale problems at the Stanmore site during harvest resulted in unusable oat and barley data. A summary of yields is presented in Table 2. At the Stanmore site in Special Area 2, average yields of the AC Ultima and Companion triticales are greater than the check Pronghorn. Murphy oats leads the average yield in the late seeded block, significantly higher than the warm season millets. This is most likely due to the relative cool temperatures characteristic of the summers of 2010 and 2011 not allowing the warm season crops to reach their potential. The Tucker/Murphy combination had the highest yield in the pulse block. Two forage chickpea varieties were also included in the Stanmore trial. Both yielded less than the other crops, possibly due in part to a set back from the herbicide application. There are limited herbicide options with chickpeas. At the Consort site in Special Area 4, Foothill oats has the highest relative yield in the oat block. Jordan, Morgan, CDC Baler, Derby and Waldern also look good. Busby barley, CDC Cowboy and Chigwell barley have all averaged higher than the Vivar check. CDC Bunker and Pronghorn are the higher yielding triticales. As was the case at the Stanmore site, the barley, oat and triticale varieties all yielded greater than the warm season millets in the late seeded block. The Murphy oats and Tucker/Murphy combination led the yield in the pulse block. Nutritional qualities of the Stanmore and Consort crops are reported in Table 3. It appears as much variation occurs within crops as between crops, which may be attributed to differences in variety maturity. The delay of harvest past soft dough for some of the crops and/or varieties resulted in slightly lower protein levels and higher fibre content. All the late seeded crops, except the barley, had much higher protein levels which would be consistent with the lower maturity at cutting particularly at the Stanmore site. It is interesting to note the high calcium levels relative to the cereals found in the straight pulses. Table 5 contains data generated in past projects evaluating annual crops for forage yield in Special Areas 3 and 4. Multiple data exists for many of the varieties while some are limited to one site year. In the Special Area 3 summary, the following crops have yielded well: Derby, Murphy and Waldern oats; CDC Cowboy and Brier barley and AC Ultima, AC Certa, AC Copia and Pronghorn triticales. In Special Area 4, leading varieties are: CDC Bell, CDC Baler and Waldern oats; AC Lacombe, CDC Cowboy, Johnston and Brier barley and AC Pronghorn, AC Certa and Sandro triticales.


94

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Consort site late July 2011

Tucker peas late July 2011

Stanmore site July 2011


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

95

Perennial Forage Trials and Demonstrations Plans are in place to establish a new perennial forage site in 2012 within the Special Areas of east central Alberta. The project will include a number of alfalfas and grasses in a small plot, replicated trial to provide much needed data on forage production.


96

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Developing Biological Control Strategies for Foxtail Barley in Saline Pastures, Hayfields and Other Areas * *Condensed from Dr. Harold Stepphun’s Final Report for funding agencies December 2011

Background: Agricultural producers across Canada consider foxtail barley (Hordeum jabatum) a major weed detrimental to both field crop and livestock production. The plant invades disturbed pastures, hayfields and cultivated land alike and has proven difficult to control, especially in saline soils. This perennial weed typically produces abundant quantities of wind-dispersed seed which contribute to infestations year after year. The plant’s sharp, stiff awns become slivers penetrating, lodging and infecting the tender nose and mouth parts of cattle, sheep and horses. Infected animals eat less, gain less weight and produce less milk. The current chemical controls include heavy pre-emergence applications and in-crop doses in annual field crops and fall spraying in forage crops. Foxtail barley has a shallow, fibrous root system that makes it more responsive to control by tillage than many other perennial weeds and tends to become more of a problem whenever tillage frequency is decreased as in hayfields, pastures and reduced tillage grain fields. Seeds are easily carried by the wind, spreading quickly from contaminated field margins, shores of water bodies, wetlands and adjacent fields. New plants tend to invade any area that is not occupied by other plants, showing behavior typical of a pioneer species. This is why the weed frequently inhabits saline environments. Abstract Although foxtail barley’s inability to compete with other vegetation has been known for over 50 years, the use of forage plants to suppress this weed has been limited. It is also known that foxtail barley frequents a range of saline soils from slight to severe. Ten forage-crop suppressor treatments were applied at two foxtail barley-infected sites in Alberta, one site classified as slightly-to-moderately saline (Peterson) and the second as moderately-to-severely saline (Chiliak). The candidate treatments (alfalfa, Nuttall’s salt-meadow grass, smooth bromegrass, the Saltmaster forage blend and six wheatgrass treatments: western, northern, tall, green-slender alternative rows and green alone in rows 6 and 12 inches apart) were compared with an unseeded control. The three green wheatgrass treatments, smooth bromegrass, tall wheatgrass and the Saltmaster blend all suppressed foxtail barley and downy bromegrass to a 90%+ control level within three growing seasons (2006 – 2008) at the least saline site. Foxtail barley suppression at the second, more severely saline site required twice the time (20062011) to achieve 80%+ control. The forage crops which brought about this level of control at the Chiliak Site occurred only under the three green wheatgrass suppression treatments. In this study, AC Saltlander green wheatgrass, a new, more salinity-tolerant forage was also compared by in vitro analyses for forage feed value and in livestock weight gain of pasturing steers to those for smooth bromegrass. Average forage quality constituents were similar between the green wheatgrass and smooth bromegrass over the four years of 2008-2011. Similar animal grazing performance by the steers in the


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

97

replicated pastures of the two test forage crops resulted in average daily weight gains exceeding 2.6 lb/day over 1.5 grazing months each year in 2001, 2010 and 2011 and equaled approximately 1.7 lb/day during the 2009 drought year. No differences in grazing preference were observed. Average available and peak forage productions for the two forage crops were also similar over the four year evaluation. Objectives: The overall study objective is to develop effective biological/agronomic control strategies to eliminate or reduce foxtail barley growing in saline pastures, hayfields and other areas. The strategies sought strive to avert injury to livestock, increase forage production, promote animal weight gains, minimize pesticide dependency, enhance wise environmental farm/ranch planning and decrease further spread of the weed into pastures, hay and grain fields, roadsides, waterfowl habitats, abandoned fields and elsewhere. To achieve this objective the study consists of three sub-objectives:  To compare efficacy of candidate suppressor forages (species with potential of suppressing foxtail barley, including AC Saltlander green wheatgrass) with the forages commonly recommended for seeding into saline soils.  To determine the maximum level of root-zone salinity to which each suppressor treatment can control foxtail barley infestations based on plant establishment and shoot biomass yield  To determine forage quality, digestibility, livestock gains, forage utilization and pasture longevity of AC Saltlander compared to that of smooth brome grass in pastures and hayfields Note: AC Saltlander green wheatgrass (Elymus hoffmannii) is a perennial forage cultivar developed at the Semi-arid Prairie Research Centre (SPARC) that has salinity tolerance approaching and equaling that of tall wheatgrass. Tall wheatgrass is noted for its capacity to produce forage and persist in areas that are too alkaline or saline for other productive crops. The blades of tall wheatgrass, however, are often covered with short, stiff hairs making them scratchy and of lower palatability. AC Saltlander is reported to be palatable for livestock, but research information on grazing performance and stand longevity is limited. It starts growing early in the spring and has been reported to recover rapidly after grazing or defoliation and has good winter hardiness. Cooperators:

Red Wing Farms (The Chiliaks), Sibbald, Alberta SW11-29-1-W4 Smith Valley View Farms, Swift Current, Saskatchewan Hal Peterson Farm, Warner, Alberta

Project Team Leader: Dr. Harold Steppuhn, Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural Research Center (SPARC), Swift Current Project Partners: Ken Wall, Senior Technician, SPARC, Swift Current Dr. Robert Blackshaw, AAFC, Lethbridge Dr. Alan Iwaasa, SPARC, Swift Current Alberta Dryland Salinity Association (Warner site)


98

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Miller Seeds Proven Seed (Viterra) Warner County Agricultural Service Board The Wheatland Conservation Area Funding Support: Alberta Beef Producers The Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency Federal Matching Investment Initiative The Environmental Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Program (Sibbald site) Project Description: Three field study sites were selected in 2006 based on guidance from project partners, the land owner’s approval and on-site inspections. One site is located in Saskatchewan near Swift Current and two sites are located in Alberta, one near Warner and the second north of Sibbald in Special Area 3. This summary focuses on the Sibbald (Chiliak) site, which is consists of 20% Orthic brown chernozem and 80% brown alluvium, resulting in a clay loam texture. The site was evaluated for general salinity by surveying with an EM38 meter. Glyphosate was applied to kill top growth, followed by working with a double disc, rototiller and harrow-packing to prepare a seed bed. Proven Seed (Viterra) provided the seed. Seeding was delayed to June 29th in 2006 due to cool, wet weather. A forage plot seeder was used to put down seed into plots measuring 40 X 6 feet. All plots were replicated 6 times in a randomized design. Three sub-plots within each plot, measuring 10 X 4 feet, were further divided into 2 sampling areas of 2 X 2 feet for detailed salinity assessment, plant counts and yield harvests. It was assumed the 432 sampling points represented the site variation in salinity, soil, micro-climate and foxtail barley seed distribution. Core samples to 15 cm (6 in) were taken by hand next to each subplot after seeding. A second set of root zone soil cores were taken in mid-October. The cores were analyzed for soil characteristics and salinity. Root zone salinity ranged between 0.96 and 16.06 dS/m with a mean of 7.73 dS/m, categorizing the site as moderately to severely saline, although there are also small pockets with negligible salt. Plant establishment was determined by plant counts taken August 3rd, 2006. The site was mowed November 2nd. A barbed wire fence was constructed to enclose the plots and prevent grazing activity. First year establishment and survival plus new plant emergence was measured May 30th and 31st of 2007. Plant count summaries are shown in Table 2. Above ground forage biomass samples from each subplot were cut by hand, bagged, dried and weighed July 4th - 5th of 2007, July 7th - 9th in 2008, August 4th - 5th in 2010 and August 15th - 16th in 2011. No clips were taken in 2009 due to poor growth from drought. Foxtail barley material was separated from the seeded perennials. Remaining forage material has been swathed and baled off each year.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

99

Table 1 Candidate Suppressor Forages for Foxtail Barley Control Strategies Treatment Seeding Rate (lb/A) SM Saltmaster Seed Mix* (Proven Seeds/Viterra) 10.6 SBG AC Rocket Smooth Bromegrass 15.4 Alfalfa Spredor 4 Alfalfa 8.7 GWG-6 AC Saltlander Green Wheatgrass on 6 inch (15 cm) spacing 15.7 GWG-12 AC Saltlander Green Wheatgrass on 12 inch (30 cm) spacing 15.7 NSG Nuttall’s Salt Meadow Grass 2.4 NWG Polar Northern Wheatgrass 8.6 GSWG Green and Slender Wheatgrass in alternating rows 7.9 GWG; 6.7 SWG WWG Poole Western Wheatgrass 13.1 TWG Orbit Tall Wheatgrass 21.1 *Mix includes 20% each of tall fescue, tall wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, smooth brome grass and alfalfa

Plant Establishment and Early Survival Counts of the emerging and early surviving plants by species (5 – 6 weeks after seeding) appear in Table 2. Using 40 plants/m2 as an acceptable standard: Western wheatgrass ranked below the standard, Northern wheatgrass and Nuttall’s salt grass failed the minimum and Tall wheatgrass and smooth bromegrass emerged with the highest number of plants. The Saltmaster seed mix was also high in emergence. AC Saltlander and the slender/green wheatgrass mixes ranked average. New foxtail barley plants were present in all treatments. The 2007 plant count data more or less matches the data recorded in 2006 (Table 2), so the rankings among the species with potential to control foxtail barley remained the same in both years. The average foxtail barley count increased considerably between the 2006 and 2007 counts in all treatments. This follows the classic pattern for foxtail barley contamination: top growth killed by glyphosate, pre-worked forage seedbed, relatively slow establishment period for seeded species, germination of fresh foxtail barley seed blowing in from off-plot sources followed by good growing conditions. From 2006 to 2007, the average plant count of seeded forages at Sibbald: 1. Decreased for alfalfa, smooth bromegrass, Saltmaster and northern wheatgrass 2. Remained the same for the green and tall wheatgrass 3. Increased for the slender/green wheatgrass and western wheatgrass treatments The Nuttall's salt grass treatment was considered a failure, averaging no greater than six plants per square meter after two years of relatively good moisture. Despite the presence of established plants of both northern and western wheatgrasses, average weed counts increased in these treatments.


100

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 2 Average Plant Emergence and Early Survival (Plants/m2) Sibbald Site 5 Weeks After Seeding One Year After Seeding Suppressor Foxtail Forages Foxtail Barley Forages Treatment Barley Spredor 4 Alfalfa

72.3

15.8

42.1

130.9

6 in. rows

46.9

16.8

45.4

78.3

12 in. rows

46.4

9.6

44.1

93.3

Smooth Bromegrass

60.6

13.4

52.8

88.1

Saltmaster Mix

51.8

11.6

41.7

65.3

0

15.3

0

131.2

SWG/GWG 

40.8

8.7

69.8

35.1

Nuttall’s Salt Grass

0.8

14.1

5.7

62.5

Northern Wheatgrass

20.8

15.2

14

73.4

Tall Wheatgrass

62.4

10.8

56.4

44.1

Western Wheatgrass

5.9

10.8

18.8

59.5

Unseeded Control II

0

8.8

0

48.0

AC Saltlander GWG :

Unseeded Control I

Root-zone Salinity Table 3 categorizes salinity into general ranges from non-saline to very strongly saline. These values are used for plant selection for saline soils. Salinity levels can vary widely across a saline seep and also from spring to fall. Salinity usually appears on the soil surface just after spring thaw. Electrical conductivity is used to measure saline levels in a soil. Units are usually given in deciSiemens per metre (dS/m). Table 3 General Salinity Ratings (taken from ARD’s Ropin’ the Web) Soil Depth 0 – 60 cm (0 - 2 feet) 60 – 120 cm (2 – 4 feet)

Non-Saline

Weakly Saline

Moderately Saline

Strongly Saline

Very Strongly Saline

<2 dS/m

2 - 4 dS/m

4 - 8 dS/m

8 - 16 dS/m

>16 dS/m

<4 dS/m

4 - 8 dS/m

8 - 16 dS/m

16 - 24 dS/m

>24 dS/m

Contour maps of the Chiliak site, based on EM38 salinity measurements, appear in Figures 1 and 2. Initial levels measured as high as 16.06 dS/m in the root zone, which would classify the site as moderately to severely saline. Cores were again taken at designated sampling points in 2008 and 2010. The mean salinity of the 0-61 depth layer increased by +3.37 dS/m from 2006 to 2008 but did not change significantly between 2008 and 2010, which would indicate that salts in solution moved upward in the soil profile during the 2006-2008 period.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

101

Figure 1. Apparent salinity contours at Chiliak site September 2007

Plant Biomass A review of the above ground biomass harvested at the Chiliak site revealed significantly greater production by the green-slender wheatgrass mix and the green wheatgrass at 6 and 12 in. spacings over the Nuttallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s saltmeadow grass, the northern wheatgrass and western wheatgrass in all years. See Table 4. Forage production from


102

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

the alfalfa, smooth bromegrass and tall wheatgrass remained less than the green wheatgrasses but greater than the native grass group. The Saltmaster blend was statistically equal to those of one or two of the green wheatgrass treatments. Foxtail barley shoot biomass yield data in the control plots of the Chiliak site reveals the existence of foxtail barley in each of the study years (2007 – 2011). Similar foxtail barley quantities on average were consistently measured among the Nuttall’s salt grass, alfalfa and northern wheatgrass plots as in the control plots during each study year. The western wheatgrass treatment showed comparable foxtail barley yields in every year except 2011 indicating a very slow effective suppression. Green and slender wheatgrass mix, green wheatgrass at 6 and 12 in, smooth brome grass, tall wheatgrass and the Saltmaster treatments allowed significantly less foxtail barley than the control treatments in all measurement years. A large foxtail barley seed source existed upwind at this site throughout the study which caused the weed to invade any opening in plant cover within any of the plots in any year. Average above ground biomass for the green wheatgrass 6 and 12, the Saltmaster mix, and the green slender wheatgrass mix treatments exceeded the average foxtail barley shoot biomass in 2007 through to 2011. The alfalfa, smooth bromegrass and tall wheatgrass biomass exceed the foxtail barley biomass in all but 2010. Foxtail barley biomass was greater than the northern wheatgrass and Nuttall’s salt grass in all years (excepting 2011 when no data was collected for the Nuttall’s salt grass). Western wheatgrass biomass exceeds the foxtail barley only in 2011. Until 2011, the green and slender wheatgrass mix treatments provided the largest biomass but were surpassed in 2011 by the green wheatgrass 6 and 12 treatments. Above ground biomass samples were not collected in 2009 due insufficient growth from drought conditions. Above average rainfall was received during the 2010 growing season, resulting in good growth of both treatment species and foxtail barley levels (Table 4). Biomass of the foxtail barley was higher than that of the alfalfa, smooth brome grass, northern wheatgrass, tall wheat grass and western wheatgrass, while the biomass of the AC Saltlander and AC Saltlander mix continued to exceed that of the foxtail barley. The Saltmaster seed mix was slightly higher in biomass than the foxtail barley.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

103

Table 4 Average Above-Ground Biomass (g/m2) for Suppressor Forages and Weeds by Treatment at Sibbald Site (2007 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2010) 2007 Biomass 2008 Biomass 2010 Biomass 2011 Biomass Forage Foxtail Forage Foxtail Forage Foxtail Forage Foxtail Alfalfa

280

115

225

205

210

355

130

120

GWG-6

320

140

270

160

350

160

255

20

GWG-12

340

120

305

115

400

140

250

20

SMG

280

95

245

165

210

290

105

80

SM

315

110

275

170

300

285

190

95

-

250

-

360

-

395

-

140

GSWG

420

80

355

90

410

150

195

35

NSG

15

220

30

370

20

430

NWG

20

265

50

360

45

390

35

120

TWG

240

120

245

225

220

360

140

80

WWG

15

230

105

270

100

275

105

65

-

240

-

400

-

380

-

130

Control 1

Control 2

To quantify control of the foxtail barley, the fraction of foxtail barley biomass relative to the biomass of the foxtail + forage is calculated. In 2007, 2008 and 2010, no treatment averaged more than 79% foxtail barley control. In 2011, the green wheatgrass-6, green wheatgrass-12 and the green slender wheatgrass mix treatments resulted in mean ratios indicating greater than 80% control, significantly better than any of the other treatments. The western wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, smooth bromegrass and Saltmaster registered between 47% and 55% control, while the alfalfa featured a 39% control. Samples collected in 2007 were also analyzed for nutrient qualities, as summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Average Protein and Fibre of Suppressor Forages, July 2007 Forage

Protein (%)

Acid Detergent Fibre (%)

Smooth Brome Grass

7.52

30.51

Spredor 4 Alfalfa AC Saltlander Green Wheatgrass 6 in. rows AC Saltander Green Wheatgrass 12 in. rows Northern Wheatgrass

19.94

24.84

9.06

33.58

8.49

33.51

8.27

37.06

Western Wheatgrass

14.67

29.66

Tall Wheatgrass

8.39

35.6

Nuttall's Salt Grass

11.25

31.07


104

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Maximum Salinity Level for Suppression After six growing seasons, the maximum salinity level that treatments achieved 80% or greater suppression of the foxtail barley is as follows: GWG-6 16.4 dS/m GWG-12 14.7 SM 14.4 GSWG 14.0 SBG 13.1 WWG 11.9 Alfalfa 11.5 TWG 9.3 NSG none The better foxtail barley suppression for the green wheatgrass treatments was not a surprise given this forageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s salinity tolerance. The good showing of the Saltmaster blend could have been related to its longer-lived and more salinity tolerant tall wheatgrass and smooth bromegrass fractions combining with the rapid plant cover produced by its slender wheatgrass, tall fescue and alfalfa components. Tall wheatgrass alone did not control the foxtail barley as well, perhaps because of its bunch grass habit allowing the foxtail barley to invade the open spaces between the plant rows. Forage and Grazing Performance A completely randomized design was utilized to evaluate the forage and grazing potential of AC Saltlander green wheatgrass and smooth bromegrass on site at Agriculture Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre in Swift Current. The forages were each seeded into three paddocks (ie. three replications) of 3 acres in size in May of 2006 using a disc drill with 12 inch row spacings. The target seeding rate for the AC Saltlander was 8 lb/A and 6 lb/A for the smooth bromegrass. 50 lb/A of 1151-0-0 fertilizer was applied to all seeded paddocks. Five representative quarter meter samples were taken from each paddock prior to grazing in June in order to estimate available forage production for grazing (Figure 3) and forage quality. Samples were again taken in late July from grazing enclosures within each pasture to determine peak pasture yields. Available forage production from the June and late July samplings did not differ much between the two forages, although differences were observed between years due to moisture and growing conditions. The forage production of the AC Saltlander was slightly higher than the smooth bromegrass in all years, but was 26% higher in the 2009 drought, which may indicate the AC Saltlander has a better drought tolerance.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

105

Figure 3 Average Available Forage Dry Matter (kg/ha) 2008-2011 for AC Saltlander and Smooth Brome

Drought conditions prevented grazing in 2007, but grazing information was obtained each year during the 2008 through 2011 period. Uniform groups of Angus steers, weighing approximately 740 lb in 2008; 708 lb in 2009, 686 lb in 2010 and 586 lb in 2011 were used in the grazing component of the study. 3 or 4 steers were randomly allocated to each paddock for a grazing season of generally 1 to 1 ½ months depending on the forage production each year. Paddocks were entered when the grass was at the boot to heading stage and steers were removed when the pasture utilization was visually estimated to be between 40 and 50%. Average daily gain, total live production and grazing days were calculated. An estimate of residual pasture yields was also determined. Average daily gain by the steers is summarized in Figure 4. Figure 4 Average Daily Gain 2008-2011 of AC Saltlander and Smooth Brome

Conclusion and Implication Average available and peak forage productions were similar between AC Saltlander and smooth bromegrass over a four year evaluation. Thus, there are opportunities to utilize AC Saltlander for grazing and hay production in saline and non-saline areas and achieve good forage production. In non-saline areas the production will be as good as smooth bromegrass and in slight to moderate saline areas the AC Saltlander has shown


106

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

good forage productivity. Further research is needed to evaluate AC Saltlander drought tolerance attributes and forage productivity. Average forage quality constituents were similar between AC Saltlander and smooth bromegrass over a four year evaluation. Therefore, AC Saltlander can be utilized for grazing and forage production and provide nutritious forage during the spring to summer grazing period. Further research is needed to determine what the forage quality of AC Saltlander is for late fall grazing or as a stockpile forage. It may be possible to graze it early in the season, allow the forage to re-grow and either graze again the fall or stockpile the forage for grazing in the winter. Animal grazing performance for AC Saltlander was similar to smooth brome over a four year evaluation. No difference in grazing preference by yearling steers was observed. Further research is needed to determine AC Saltlander re-growth potential under different environmental conditions and multiple years. Overall Foxtail Barley Control Strategies The applicable, specific, agronomic control strategy to suppress foxtail barley resulting from this study will vary with each livestock operation and the severity of the soil salinity. Under severe salinity levels, such as was present at the Chiliak site, the green wheatgrass treatments would likely be the best crop recommended. Livestock weight gain would likely equal that obtained from smooth bromegrass, as was shown in this study under negligible salinity. In pastures where the soil salinity ranges from slight-to-moderate additional suppressor forage treatments can be recommended as a strategy for foxtail suppression and control. Based on this study, the effective suppressor forages include smooth bromegrass and the Saltmaster forage blend together with the three green wheatgrass treatments. Applying any of the five treatments should control the foxtail barley at such sites provided root-zone salinity remains sufficiently below 8 dS/m. A final recommendation forming part of an effective biological/agronomic control strategy to reduce or eliminate foxtail barley requires proper preparation of the seedbed appropriate for the seeder used to seed the suppressor forage crop. The Chiliak site, for example, was treated with glyphosate, rototilled, harrow-packed and then seeded with a disc drill equipped with trialing packer wheels. Ample quantity of seed is also a requirement when trying to establish forage under saline conditions as individual salinity tolerance of forage plants exists in any particular seed lot.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

107

AC Saltlander Summer 2011

Harvest 2011


108

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Evaluating Salinity Tolerance Among Selected Alfalfa Lines *Condensed from Dr. Harold Steppuhn’s Fall 2010 Progress Report This project is supported by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Cal/West Seeds, Northstar Seeds and Viterra (Proven Seed)

Project Team Leader: Dr. Harold Steppuhn, Research Scientist, AAFC, Swift Current Background: This trial is Phase II (Field Phase) of a project initiated to evaluate the salinity tolerance of new, dormant-type alfalfa lines. Phase I, conducted in Canada’s Salinity Testing Laboratory in Swift Current, included nine dormant-type alfalfa lines and identified six lines for Phase II field testing. Two dryland sites, the Chiliak site in Alberta and Field 18 site at the Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre near Swift Current, Saskatchewan, were selected and respectively seeded on June 30th and July 2nd of 2010. Canada’s Salinity Tolerance Testing Facility at the Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural Research Center (SPARC), Swift Current

The lines selected from the lab phase for further testing include two Canadian lines (long time standard Rangelander and L4039 SC from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada’s alfalfa breeding program in Lethbridge) plus four varieties from the US based Cal/West Seeds. The lines are designated as follows for the purpose of this test: A = Rangelander C = L4039 SC Salt D = CW34024 F = CW064027 G = Rugged J = TS4002 A = Rangelander A creeping rooted alfalfa chosen as the standard genetic line, or check, for this test. It shows long-term persistence and remains the alfalfa of choice for semi-arid, dryland fields for many growers. Although Rangelander was developed primarily for mixedgrass pastures and native rangelands, it has also provided excellent hay within pure stands in rain-fed environments.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

109

C = L4039 SC Salt The L4039 SC Salt population was mass selected from two previous alfalfa test lines: one began in 1998 from plants representing Apica, Barrier, Heinrichs and Roamer cultivars crossed with AC Blue Jay and Beaver at Lethbridge; the second began in 2000 and originated from a mass-cross of 50% Rangelander and 50% Beaver alfalfa plants surviving 18 dS m-1 and greater salinity in the testing facility at Swift Current. D = CW34024 This variety is registered in the United States and its is seed marketed as PGI 427 by Producer’s Choice Seed, a subsidiary of Cal/West Seeds. PGI 427 was approved for registration and license in 2007, developed from parent plants selected for winter hardiness, high forage dry matter yield, high relative feed value, resistance to various pests and tolerance to salinity. Parent germplasm traces to Wintergold (8%), DK 142 (31%) and miscellaneous Cal/West breeding lines (61%). It is promoted as having "improved salt tolerance with sound agronomics". It has a fall dormancy rating of 2.5. F = CW064027 Pedigree of this experimental line remains confidential. G = Rugged Rugged was approved for registration and license in the United States in 2008. It is a synthetic variety with 200 parental clones which trace to Amerigraze 401Z and Ameristand 403T selected for tolerance to continuous grazing while maintaining a large healthy crown and root system as well as tolerance to salinity at germination. Rugged has a fall dormancy rating of 3 and a winter survival ines of 1.2. Flowers of the Syn 2 generation are approximately 63% purple and 37% variegated with a trace of white, cream and yellow. It has a similar tolerance to continuous grazing as Alfagraze. It has a strong pest resistance package. J = TS4002 Parental lines of TS 4002 were selected for improved drought, salt, traffic/compaction, grazing tolerance and increased stand life. The parental lines trace to AmeriGraze 401Z, AmeriStand 403T and Alfagraze selected from old hay fields in Wyoming. Resulting crosses were screened for tolerance to salinity at germination. The line has a fall dormancy rating of 4 with a winter survival index of 2.0 and strong disease and pest resistance. This numbered line awaits approval for registration and license. Project Cooperator: Red Wing Farms (The Chiliaks), Sibbald Project Site: SW 11-29-1-W4 Project Description All seed involved in the test was checked for germination and vigor allowing the alfalfa to be seeded with confidence of uniform density. The two sites were sub-divided into six side-by-side blocks. The alfalfa lines were randomly assigned to one of six plots measuring six feet wide by 80 feet long (1.8 m by 24.4 m) within each block. Up to five two square meter sampling units along both sides of the length of each plot will be used. It is assumed the salinity within each sampling unit will be consistent – a technique used to overcome the variability of the salinity within the site. Splitting each ‘sampling unit’


110

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

provides a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;split-plotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; with each half seeded to a different line. Each alfalfa line was paired at least twice with each of the other genetic lines at each site. EM 38 meter readings taken during the establishment year verifies a range in soil salinity concentrations across each site. Each line, therefore, will be evaluated at various soil salinity levels in paired testing with the other lines. The Phase II field verification study covers two growing seasons: the 2010 establishment year and the 2011 forage production year. Split-plot sampling of the above ground (shoot) biomass will be done at sampling units along the borders of each plot. Soil samples will be taken within the same sampling units. EM-38 measurements for salinity will complement the core sampling in association with plant sampling for crop establishment and forage production. The site was prepared for seeding by a spring application of glyphosate followed by roto-tilling twice and harrow-packing. Each line of alfalfa was seeded at 9 lb/A in 12 inch rows at .5 inches deep. Wet weather in May delayed seeding until June 30 at the Chiliak site and July 2nd at the Swift Current site. Post seeding weed control included .2 L/A Assure II plus .5 L/A Merge (surfactant) on August 28 at the Chiliak site for control of grassy weeds, in particular foxtail barley. Spot applications of glyphosate were made to control Canada thistle but no further herbicides were required for broadleaf control. Results: Evaluation of Alfalfa Establishment in 2010 Plant emergence, height and spacing were measured six weeks following seeding and are summarized in Table 1. Plants representing all the genetic lines of the test alfalfa averaged 90% or better emergence at both the Chiliak and Swift Current sites. The alfalfa plants seemed to emerge with equal vigor across all the genetic lines, resulting in no statistical differences based on Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s t least significant difference comparisons between all test line pairs at either field site. These results reflect the benefits of spring rainfall occurring just after seeding. Plant heights averaged 239 mm at the Chiliak site compared to 253 at the Swift Current site. The CW064027 (F) line ranked tallest at both sites, statistically exceeding L4039 (C) and Rangelander (A). CW064027 continued to be visually tallest among all the lines during a mid September site visit. Plant spacings were not statistically different between lines at either site. Generally, the first-year emergence data indicated that the plants representing the six Phase II alfalfa test lines were all successfully established at both sites and will be used to verify or question the Phase I salt lab results in forage production from saline rootzone environments.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

111

Table 1 2010 Mean Emergence, Height and Spacing Ratio at Chiliak Site Line¹

Emergence (%)²

Line

Height (mm)³

Line

Spacing Ratio (%)4

G

94.7 a

F

265 a

F

85.3 a

F

93.9 a

D

243 ab

G

80.0 a

D

92.5 a

G

240 ab

D

79.3 a

J

92.5 a

J

234 ab

J

77.9 a

C

91.9 a

C

231 b

C

74.4 a

A

90.3 a

A

221 b

A

74.0 a

No significant difference

No significant difference

¹ A = Rangelander; C = L4039 SC Salt; D = CW 34024; F = CW064027; G = Rugged; J = TS4002 ² Emergence of at least 1 plant per 50 mm segment along meter length averaged for 18 samples ³ Height of tallest plant per meter length averaged for 18 samples 4 Frequency of change in 50 mm segments with or without plants divided by the number of segments without a plant multiplied by 2.5 expressed as a percent.

Table 2 2010 Mean Emergence, Height and Spacing Ratio at Swift Current Site Line¹

Emergence (%)²

Line

Height (mm) ³

A

94.2 a

F

282 a

D

86.7 a

G

92.8 a

J

258 ab

F

80.7 a

D

92.9 a

G

258 ab

A

77.6 a

C

92.5 a

C

246 ab

C

76.5 a

F

92.2 a

D

240 b

G

75.4 a

J

90.0 a

A

233 b

J

72.1 a

No significant difference

Line

Spacing Ratio (%)4

No significant difference

¹ A = Rangelander; C = L4039 SC Salt; D = CW 34024; F = CW064027; G = Rugged; J = TS4002 ² Emergence of at least 1 plant per 50 mm segment along meter length averaged for 18 samples ³ Height of tallest plant per meter length averaged for 18 samples 4 Frequency of change in 50 mm segments with or without plants divided by the number of segments without a plant multiplied by 2.5 expressed as a percent.

2011 Yield and Salinity Tolerance Evaluation Above ground forage matter was harvested by hand clipping June 28th, 2011. Good early season moisture resulted in good growth at the site. The yield information will be analyzed and mapped against the soil core and EM 38 readings in the sample unit sites. The data was still being processed at the time this report was written.


112

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

2010 Photos

Alfalfa mid summer

Alfalfa mid fall

Dr. Harold Steppuhn, SPARC and Dr. Don Miller, Cal/West Seeds evaluating the alfalfa plots.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

113

2011 Photos

June 23

May 4

Clipping biomass samples June 28


Aschochyta lesions on pea leaves

Canola disease surveys

Glume blotch disease on wheat

Shelterbelts at CARA building


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

115

Shelterbelt Demonstration and Nursery

Cooperator: Donna Scory, Oyen Shelterbelt Demonstration CARA continues to maintain and monitor a Shelterbelt Demonstration site adjacent to the CARA Centre at Oyen. It was initially developed in the summer of 2004 with seedlings obtained from the PFRA Shelterbelt Enhancement Program. Eight tree species, including Colorado Spruce, Green Ash, Manitoba Maple, Chokecherry, Villosa Lilac, Hawthorn, Sea Buckthorn and Silver Buffaloberry were planted in rows 100 metres long on May 28, 2004. Once the seedlings were planted, a drip tape irrigation system was laid out at the base of the trees. Black plastic mulch, which comes in rolls four feet wide, was placed along the entire length of the row out using an applicator pulled by a small tractor. Two discs, one on each side of the unit, cut a small trench in the soil when the machine moves forward. As the mulch unrolls, discs near the back of the unit throw soil over each edge of the plastic, securing it to the ground. A small hole is then cut where each seedling has been planted and the tree is gently pulled upright.


116

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

The drip tape irrigation system consists of a plastic tape which has outlets at regular intervals that allow a slow trickle of water to be delivered directly to the root systems of the seedlings. At the CARA Centre, the water source consists of two 1250 gallon water tanks on either side of the equipment storage shop. Rain water is collected from the roof of the shop and then piped to the trees. Rainfall was abundant in 2010 so the drip tape was only used in the fall when the water tanks were drained for the winter. In 2011, the trees were watered twice during the summer and once late in the fall. The progress of all species included in the demonstration has been maintained and monitored. Few losses have occurred and most species are showing reasonable growth for our prairie climate. The plastic mulch has become weathered in places, particularly where it was not held firmly to the soil. Deer hooves have broken the plastic in several places. Damage from wildlife has also caused leaks in the drip tape. Adding wood chips as a mulch to the rows where the plastic mulch was not installed was considered in 2009, but the cost was prohibitive. Oyen Tree Nursery In the summer of 2006, the Shelterbelt Demonstration expanded by approximately 200 trees. It began in the spring when CARA took over the responsibility of caring for the Oyen Centennial Tree Nursery in partnership with the town of Oyen and Community in Bloom (Grow Oyen!). Twenty five trees and shrubs were re-located from a town site to a more convenient location behind the CARA building. Later in the spring, the Thundering Hooves 4-H Club donated 100 white spruce seedlings to the nursery. These trees will eventually be used as part of the tree replacement program for the Town of Oyen. In late June, the nursery expanded further when Oyen resident Darrow Tye arranged for the delivery of approximately 100 seedlings from Alberta Environment. Among this delivery were Ponderosa Pine, Lodgepole Pine and Red Pine. These seedlings were between 1 and 2 feet tall, and were planted into holes dug with a 3 point hitch post hole auger. Drip tape was not installed with this group of trees, but they have been watered by hand when necessary.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

117

Fall vs Spring Planting Demonstration The Shelterbelt Demonstration was expanded further in the fall of 2007 when a partnership was developed with PFRA to demonstrate the effect of fall versus spring planting of green ash seedlings. The seedlings were planted into strips covered with the plastic mulch. Holes for the seedlings had to be dug with the three point hitch post hole auger as the ground was very hard. Drip tape was not installed. An identical strip adjacent to the fall planting was planted in the spring of 2008. Soil conditions were much better, so planting was done by hand. Establishment and hardiness of the different plantings will be monitored. A count of the trees in the fall of 2008 showed the spring planting to have a much better survival rate. Fourteen out of 38 fall planted trees appeared either severely stressed or dead, while only 2 out of the spring planted trees did not survive. It is assumed the fall planted seedlings were stressed by the winter conditions, and perhaps the root development was inhibited by the hard soil at the time of planting. Roots may not have been able to penetrate out of the cylindrical hole left by the auger. The surviving green ash trees have progressed reasonably well, with few losses in 2009. Rooting zones will be examined during the next two growing seasons to determine if action of the auger in the hard dry soil at seeding time impedes future root development. Would other planting strategies (eg. soaking holes with water before seeding) have been beneficial?

Photo taken August 2011 The trees continue to be maintained for demonstration purposes. A total of 17,315 trees were delivered to the Special Areas through the Shelterbelt Program for planting in 2008, 11,770 in 2009, 23,365 in 2010 and 39,840 in 2011.


118

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

There are currently 12 different species of trees and shrubs growing in the CARA Shelterbelt Demonstration/Oyen Tree Nursery. These are listed below along with a short description of each. For more information on these trees and others please refer to Shelterbelt Varieties for Alberta, published by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (Agdex 277/33-1). Colorado Spruce Colorado Spruce is native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States. This coniferous tree has a pyramidal shape with a tight, closed canopy. The lifespan of these trees is anywhere from 50 to 100 years. A mature tree can reach a height of 25 metres (80 feet) and a spread of 6 metres (20 feet). Colorado Spruce is adapted to a wide range of soils and can survive short periods of low moisture. They cannot tolerate periods of flooding. These hardy trees prefer to be planted in full sun, but can withstand some shade. The annual growth of these trees is very slow during the first few years but increases annually.

Green Ash Green Ash has a straight, single trunk with a high, open crown. Leaves are late to appear in the spring and are among the first to drop in the fall. A mature Green Ash can reach heights of 12 to 20 metres (40 - 65 feet) and will spread up to 9 metres (30 feet). These attractive trees have a lifespan ranging from 50 to 90 years. Green Ash are adapted to a wide range of soils including wet, alkaline and drought conditions. They prefer to be planted in full sun, but will tolerate some shade. Manitoba Maple Native to the eastern prairies, Manitoba Maple has an upright, spreading and open form. When mature these trees reach a height of 12 to 17 metres (23 - 40 feet) and have a spread of 11 metres (36 feet). Commonly found along streams and wooded valleys on the prairies and parkland these trees are adapted to most soils and can withstand drought periods and extreme climatic conditions. Chokecherry Chokecherry is a large deciduous shrub or small tree with a mature height of 4 to 8 metres (13 - 26 feet) and a spread of 5 metres (17 feet). Chokecherries prefer a loam soil and can withstand some shade and periods of low moisture. They will survive extreme climatic conditions. Clusters of white flowers occur in early June that develop into cherries from early July to September. Chokecherries grow wild along


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

119

coulees, riverbanks, thickets and open woods. Villosa Lilac Native to Northern China and Mongolia, Villosa Lilac performs well in all regions of the prairies. A large, coarse shrub with a rapid growth rate, Villosa Lilac can reach heights of 3 to 5 metres (10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 16 feet) with a spread of 2.5 metres (8 feet). This hardy shrub can live more than 50 years. Villosa Lilac grows best in well drained clay or loam soils. It does not do well in sandy soils and does not tolerate poorly drained sites. Villosa Lilac is very drought resistant and prefers full sun. Hawthorn Native to eastern Canada, this wide spreading dense shrub reaches a maximum height of 4 metres (13 feet) in a 40 year lifespan. Hawthorn are adapted to all eco-regions but prefer rich, moist, well drained soils. This hardy shrub prefers full sun but can tolerate some shade. Clusters of white flowers develop on the tips of the branches in spring, followed by small apple like fruit. The fruit will often stay on the trees during winter. Hawthorn are found on the slopes of coulees, in river valleys and in open woods. Sea Buckthorn Sea Buckthorn is a large deciduous shrub growing to a mature height of 4 to 6 metres (13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 20 feet) and a spread of 3.5 metres (15 feet). Sea Buckthorn has an irregular shape with spiny branches and showy orange-yellow berries persisting through the winter. Sea Buckthorn prefers sandy soil and is intolerant of shade. It can also survive drought conditions and alkaline soils. Silver Buffaloberry Native to the prairies, Silver Buffaloberry has a spreading growth habit that suckers freely and forms a dense irregular hedge that reaches a height of 4.5 metres (14 feet). Silver Buffaloberry prefers moist, well drained sites but will grow reasonably well on drier sites. They will tolerate infertile soil because it has the ability to fix and assimilate atmospheric nitrogen. Silver Buffaloberry is drought tolerant and will grow in moderately saline soils. White Spruce White Spruce is a dense evergreen that can grow to a height of 25 metres (80 feet) and spread up to 6 metres (20 feet). It has been known to have a lifespan of 50 to 100 years. Found throughout North America, White Spruce is adapted to a wide range of soil types but prefers well drained, slightly dry soils. It can withstand periodic flooding but will not do well if left in standing water for long periods. White Spruce can also survive brief periods of low moisture but will not last on dry sites. Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa Pine is a large-crowned tree with a straight trunk, usually about 25 to 30 metres (80 - 100 feet) tall, but sometimes reaching a height of 50 metres (165 feet). Mature Ponderosa Pines can be easily identified by their distinctive orange-brown bark which is arranged in large plates. The dark yellow-green needles are 5-10" long and


120

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

grow in clusters of three. Ponderosa pine grows on a variety of soils, from extremely dry to well-drained, relatively deep, moist soils. Ponderosa pine has a long, deep root that enables it to access the deeper, moister soil. The long root also makes it quite wind-firm. These trees can live as long as 400 to 500 years. Lodgepole Pine Lodgepole Pine is a tall, narrow evergreen that can grow to heights of 25 metres (80 feet) with a spread of 6 metres (20 feet). Lodgepole pine can live up to 100 years. It is adapted to a wide range of sites but prefers well drained loamy soils. Lodgepole Pine is tolerant of shade but cannot survive on saline soils.

Red Pine Red Pine grows best in light, sandy, well-drained soils that are relatively low in nutrients. It does not tolerate urban conditions very well or shading by other tree species. Red pines grow very rapidly for their first 60 or 70 years of life. They can live for up to 350 years and reach heights of 120 feet and diameters of up to three feet. The young pine seedlings need intense, direct sunlight in order to grow.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

121

2012 Insect Forecast The following information was taken from Alberta Agriculture’s Alberta Insect Pest Monitoring Network Home Page as prepared by ARD Entomologist Scott Meers. “The past year was a relatively quiet one on the insect front; however, things never stay the same in the insect world and 2012 has the potential to provide challenges in several areas,” says Scott Meers, provincial Pest Management Specialist with Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. “Annual surveys are carried out for seven insects, the pests that historically pose problems in one part of the province or another.” Bertha Armyworm – Bertha armyworm (Mamestra configurata) was monitored in 2011 using a network of pheromone-baited traps placed in 146 locations throughout Alberta. Pheromone traps are used to determine the density and distribution of moths. This network of pheromone traps is organized by AARD but individual traps are managed by a wide range of cooperators. (Note: CARA manages one trap site). Without dedicated and willing cooperators such a comprehensive monitoring system would not be possible. Overall numbers of BAW moths remained below the first alert level but many trap catches were elevated over the previous year. The bottom line is a real potential for BAW problems exists in 2012. The 2012 bertha armyworm survey will be very important in determining the risk. Bertha armyworm 2012 survey results will be coming in mid June when the new survey season starts. Potential damage from bertha armyworm may be more or less severe than suggested by the moth count data depending on weather and crop conditions and localized population dynamics. An insecticide application is recommended when the larval numbers meet the economic threshold. For pesticide options visit Alberta Agriculture's Pesticide Selector. Bertha armyworm populations are normally kept in check by such factors as weather and natural enemies. Generally parasitism rates of 50 - 60 percent in bertha larval populations have indicated the end of a local outbreak. Cumulative moth counts in traps during June and July help determine the level of risk for August. The results from 2011 suggest that bertha armyworm has been through the low part of the cycle and may be making a recovery. It is advisable for farmers to watch the maps and stay updated as the coming growing season progresses. Eight locations in 2011 were in the first warning level of Uncertain. These sites were over a wide range from Fort Vermillion through central Alberta and as far south as Vulcan. Control operations were required in the northern Peace region and in several fields in central Alberta. Cumulative moth counts in traps during June and July of 2012 will give us a much better evaluation of the population and therefore the risk in August. Diamondback Moth – Diamond back moth is primarily a pest of canola in western Canada but in other parts of the world it is also a serious pest of various crops in the mustard family. Diamond back moth rarely overwinters in western Canada so major


122

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

outbreaks are often the result of migrations from United States and warm dry conditions that allow multiple generations to develop. In order to assess the population, a network of 25 monitoring sites has been established across Alberta. (Note: CARA manages one monitoring site) This network is meant to act as part of an early warning system for diamond back moth and should be used in conjunction with crop scouting. The insect makes up to three complete life cycles in Alberta each year. The monitoring indicates the number that show-up early in the season and from there, predictions on how severe the potential problems could be. There is usually only about two to three weeks advance warning for this pest, due to its lifecycle patterns. Diamond back moth counts were very low at the Special Area site monitored by CARA in 2011. Cabbage Seedpod Weevil â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cabbage seedpod weevil was first found infesting canola in southern Alberta in 1995, since then, the weevil has spread to south-central Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. The distribution and abundance of the cabbage seedpod weevil have been monitored yearly in western Canada since 1997. Predictive models based on climate data indicate that this pest will eventually disperse to all regions of canola production in western Canada, including the Peace River region. The 2011 survey covered all the canola growing areas of Alberta with over 320 fields sampled in 44 municipalities. 10 sites were surveyed by CARA. The cabbage seedpod weevil is still only found in the southern areas of the province. There was no significant expansion of the cabbage seedpod weevil range in Alberta in the past year. The northern limits of the range include (from west to east) Rocky View County, Kneehill County, Special Areas 2, Special Areas 3 and the MD of Acadia. Producers in Wheatland County had to consider control for the first time in 2010. The cabbage seedpod weevil is still not found in central Alberta or in the Peace River region. While this is not a true forecast, the numbers of weevils found at most sites south of Highway 1 have the potential to result in economically damaging populations in the next growing season. Cooler temperatures and rainfall in August favors the development of the new generation of weevils and may lead to higher numbers in 2012. Any producers that grow canola in southern Alberta and into the south portion of central Alberta will have to check their canola crops as they come into flower. The earliest flowering canola crops tend to have the highest risk from cabbage seedpod weevil and should be monitored very closely. Cabbage seedpod weevil overwinters as an adult so the risk of infestation is further indicated by the adult population of the preceding fall. High numbers of weevil adults in fall will likely mean significant infestation levels in the following spring. The cabbage seedpod weevil takes roughly eight weeks to develop from egg to adult. Development


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

123

time will vary somewhat depending on weather conditions, especially temperature. There is one generation per year. Crop damage from cabbage seedpod weevil can occur from:  bud-blasting (potentially reducing yield in dry years)  larval feeding within developing pods (larva consumes about five seeds)  premature shattering of damaged pods  new generation adults that emerge in the fall feeding on nearly developed seeds. The larval feeding alone can result in yield losses of 15 to 20 percent in each pod infested. Cabbage seedpod weevil adult abundance is best monitored by using sweep net samples. Sampling should begin when the crop first enters the bud stage and continue through the flowering period. Select ten locations within each field, and at each location count the number of weevils from ten 180 degree sweeps. Sampling locations should include both the perimeter and interior of the field to obtain a representative estimate of weevil numbers throughout the field. This monitoring procedure will also give an indication of the number of lygus bugs present and may serve as an early warning for lygus damage, provided that the same fields are monitored into the early pod stage. The 2011 cabbage seedpod weevil survey was carried out by Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development with support from the Applied Research Associations (Southern Applied Research Association, Chinook Applied Research Association, Lakeland Applied Research Association, Battle River Research Group, Gateway Research Organization, and Smoky Applied Research and Demonstration Association) and the toll free number 310-2777 (Alberta Pest Surveillance System). Wheat Stem Sawfly – The area at risk of economically significant sawfly populations in 2012 will be smaller than last year. The 2011 field margin survey shows low populations in most of the area surveyed including the traditional sawfly areas in the Special Areas. The damage ratings are based on 50 fields in 13 municipalities (CARA surveyed 7 sites). Some areas of southern Alberta still have populations that are high enough to result in significant damage to wheat crops. The highest populations of sawfly were found in Newell and Forty Mile counties. Overall this is the lowest level of sawfly concern since the outbreak began over 12 years ago. The Wheat Stem Sawfly Map is based on cut stem counts conducted after the 2011 harvest. The percent of stems cut by sawfly gives an indication of the number of reproductive adult sawflies that will emerge in late June through early July. Winter conditions have very little impact on sawfly populations and a high proportion of wheat stems cut in the fall will produce adults. Producers in areas with moderate to high levels of cutting should consider using solid stem wheat as a control strategy. Female sawflies lay eggs inside grass and grassy crop stems; the eggs hatch and tunnel inside stems until near harvest. As the crop starts to ripen the sawfly larva migrates to the stem base and cut a notch most of the way through the stem. Feeding


124

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

damage from the tunneling can result in hidden yield losses of 10 to 15 percent. Further yield losses can occur from lodging at harvest. It is possible that population hot spots still exist in areas of lower risk, individual producers need to be aware of the potential risks in their own fields. Cutting levels higher than 10 to 15 percent in the previous crop indicate the need to consider seeding solid stem wheat to reduce sawfly losses. It is important farmers evaluate their individual situations in making their variety choices. Parasitism can reduce populations and reduce the level of cutting. A parasitic wasp, Bracon cephi, has been shown to have significant impact on sawfly populations. The use of solid stem wheat varieties and the increase in parasitism are the major factors in lower sawfly populations in Alberta. Wheat Midge â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Alberta wheat midge forecast for 2012 indicates an increase in the range of wheat midge occurrence. Overall midge risk for 2012 will be lower than in 2011. Many areas show a lower wheat midge count in the annual survey. Some areas, however, show an increase over previous years. Pockets of moderate risk remain through much of central and southern Alberta. Throughout central and southern Alberta and there is the risk that individual fields could have a high population even if the forecast in the area is low. Wheat midge was confirmed in the Peace region in the past year although the survey indicates that midge levels remain low. Producers throughout Alberta will need to monitor their fields in 2012. The 2011 fall survey included wheat growing areas throughout Alberta. The survey was expanded to include all dryland and irrigated wheat growing areas in southern Alberta. In addition, in response to reports of midge in the Peace region the survey was expanded to that area as well. 9 sites were sampled by CARA and a total 290 samples were taken in 59 different counties. The survey involves taking soil samples from wheat fields after harvest using a standard soil probe. The larval cocoons are then washed out of the soil samples using a specialized series of screens. The larvae are counted, and then dissected to determine if they are parasitized. The midge density displayed on the forecast map is based on viable (live, non-parasitized) midge larvae. This forecast is not intended to take the place of individual field monitoring. The forecast for Alberta shows areas of risk of midge damage for 2012. It is important to note that over such a wide range, populations in individual fields can be and often are highly variable. Producers should plan on monitoring their fields when the midge adults are flying and the wheat is in the susceptible stage. In all areas where wheat midge is present growers are urged to monitor wheat fields during the susceptible period (from when any part of the wheat head is visible until anthesis). Regular field scouting on multiple nights in succession is important in understanding the population in a particular field. Although a number of factors influence the over-wintering survival of the midge, the survey and map provide a general picture of existing densities and the potential for infestation in 2012. Climatic conditions, mainly temperature and moisture, will ultimately


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

125

determine the extent and timing of midge emergence during the growing season. Temperature and wind also play critical roles in egg-laying activities of the adult female midge. The level of damage from wheat midge is determined by the synchrony of wheat midge emergence and the number wheat midge and timing of wheat susceptibility. Pea Leaf Weevil â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The annual pea leaf weevil (Sitona lineatus L.) survey was carried out in late May and early June, 2011. Pea leaf weevil (PLW) damage of concern was found in essentially the same range as surveys in previous years. Damage once again increased in severity in Wheatland county but otherwise the damage is similar and in similar areas to previous years. The 2011 survey was based on damage ratings in 121 fields from 27 municipalities. In each field the total notches per plant are counted on 50 plants (10 plants in 5 locations near the field margin). The damage rating for a particular field is the average number of notches per plant. Some VERY low levels of feeding damage were once again found in Red Deer, Stettler, Paintearth and Provost counties as well as Special Areas 4. This damage is so low that there is no risk of serious issues with pea leaf weevil in 2012. This area is almost exactly the same as previous years and although this is recent range expansion the damage rating numbers are still exceedingly low. It will be important to watch the development of these populations over the next few years. For any producers south of Highway 1 plus the counties of Wheatland, Newell and Cypress there is risk of damaging levels of pea leaf weevil in 2012. This is very similar to the area from the previous yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey. Producers should use this information along with their own experience to plan control strategies such as seed treatment for the 2012 crop year. Although this is not a strict forecast, experience from the last couple of years has shown us that the higher the damage rating in this survey, the higher the risk of damage in the next year. Based on studies of pea leaf weevil biology, moisture in August appears to be a significant predictor of changes in population. Together this information suggests that pea leaf weevil has the potential to be an important pest in 2012. Spring weather conditions have a large impact on the timing and severity of pea leaf weevil damage. When warm conditions (>20 C) persist for more than a few days in late April or early May the weevils arrive in fields early. Early arrival corresponds to the potential for higher yield losses. In years where cool weather persists, the arrival of PLW can be much later and the resulting yield impact appears to be lower especially when the crop advances past the 6 node stage before weevils arrive. In every case control decisions should be made on a field by field basis. Those who were fighting this pest in 2011 will need to continue in this coming year. Seed treatment for this pest is the best preventative measure producers can take. Grasshoppers â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Grasshopper populations follow the weather, so depending on the spring temperatures and precipitation, producers will see populations accordingly.


126

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

The 2012 grasshopper forecast is based on adult grasshoppers counts conducted in early August of 2011 at over 1600 sites by participating Agriculture Fieldmen across the province. These adult counts give an indication of the number of adults at the end of the season that are capable of reproduction and egg laying. Counts in south and central Alberta showed quite low populations and the risk in north central Alberta is variable. Environmental factors, particularly spring temperatures and precipitation, can result in higher or lower actual populations than forecast. Individual producers need to be aware of the potential risks in their area and monitor fields in order to be prepared to make the appropriate decisions to implement control measures. On individual farms, particular attention should be paid to areas that traditionally have higher grasshopper populations. In addition, grasshoppers tend to lay their eggs near areas of green growth in the fall that will provide potential food sources for emerging young the following spring. Areas with early green plant growth such as field margins, fence-lines and roadsides are also areas that will give early indications of potential grasshopper problems. If insecticides are needed, note label precautions regarding user safety, proper application techniques and instructions to reduce impacts on non-target organisms. It is important to remember that control measures are intended to protect the crops from economic damage and are never successful in totally eliminating grasshopper populations. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development acknowledges the commitment and support of the Agriculture Fieldmen across the province in conducting the surveys essential to the creation of this forecast. This survey was coordinated by Maureen Vadnais and data management was done by Pam Retzloff, both of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. For more information and to view the survey and forecast maps for the above insect pests, visit the Alberta Insect Pest Monitoring Network homepage at www.agriculture.alberta.ca/bugs-pest.


Forage tour at Consort Site

Tree pruning workshop in Oyen

Crop Strategy Seminar

Farm Safety Camp at the Crossroad Center

Carbon 101 Workshop in Veteran Combine Clinic with Martin Reichelt


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

127

2011 Extension Newsletters Eleven editions of CARA’s ‘Grain, Grass and Growth’ newsletter was mass-mailed to 1625 producers. The publications includes research results, timely agricultural topics and coming events. Cooperator Appreciation Evening – January 13, Cereal To show our appreciation for the support CARA receives from local producers, the Special Areas Board, MD of Acadia, Ag Service Boards, Ag Societies and local businesses, CARA hosted a Cooperator Appreciation Night at the Cereal Community Hall on January 13. Attendees enjoyed a delicious roast beef meal catered by the East Sounding Creek 4-H Beef Club and were treated to Doris Daley’s version of the history, humor and western way of life through her cowboy poetry. Dianne Westerlund also presented a brief overview of CARA’s program during the past year. Business Decision Making Workshop – February 2, Consort CARA partnered with ARD Production Economist Dale Kaliel to lead producers through a ‘Management Tools to Direct Your Business’ workshop. Producers left with knowledge and tools for making business/enterprise decisions in their farming operation. Brush Control Seminar – February 8, Altario CARA facilitated an afternoon seminar to discuss brush control options with Dow Agrosciences area rep Mark Alberts. CropChoice$ Workshop – February 9, Hanna Dale Kaliel, Production Economist with Alberta Agriculture, led producers through the CropChoice$ software in a hands-on workshop held at the Hanna Learning Center’s computer lab.

Carbon 101 Workshop – February 11, Veteran CARA hosted one of a series of seminars on carbon credits organized by ARECA member associations. A number of speakers addressed issues related to carbon offsets, market opportunities and what lies ahead in the future of carbon trading.


128

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

CARA Annual Project Review – February 24, Youngstown CARA’s Annual General Meeting/Projects Review was held February 24 at the Youngstown Community Hall. In addition to general business items, the agenda included program highlights by staff members. CowCalfenomics Seminar – March 9, Hanna CARA assisted Alberta Agriculture in promoting the CowCalfenomics information seminars and also performed the registration for the event in Hanna. Crop Strategy Seminar – March 17, Oyen Crop producers were provided with information on crop disease by Barry Little of 2020 Seed Labs and fertilizer requirements by ARD’s Mark Cutts. Marketing Consultant Lee Melvill led the group in a discussion on the crop market outlook for the coming year.

Combine Clinic – March 21, Big Stone Martin Reichelt, from Germany, spent a day in Kirby Laughlin’s shop with local farmers discussing how to get the most performance out of their combines Classroom Ag Program – March/April Candice Armstrong and Aaron Dietrich delivered presentations to elementary students at Oyen Public, Oyen Assumption, New Brigden and Prairieview Colony schools. They discussed the importance of agriculture, the environment and safety. Shelterbelt Workshop – April 19, Oyen Nigel Seymour provided pruning guidance and other tips for maintaining shelterbelts at an early spring workshop held in Oyen. Progressive Farm Safety Camp – June 2, Oyen CARA staff joined forces with local Alberta Health Services personnel to conduct a Progressive Safety Day for local students June 2. The Camp took place at the Crossroads Centre, Oyen and included over 200 students in grades one through six from Berry Creek, New Brigden, Oyen Public, Oyen Assumption, Warren Peers and Youngstown schools. A highlight of the day was the opening presentation by Darrow Tye, a retired farmer who had lost his hand in a harvesting incident. The students and their


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

129

teachers/supervisors spent the rest of the day rotating through nine stations, giving them targeted discussion on a number of safety issues. The Safety Day would not have been possible without the tremendous support received from local businesses and volunteers.

Canola Crop Walks – June 15 & August 17, Consort With support from the Canola Council of Canada and the Alberta Canola Producers Commission, CARA established a field demonstration of various canola seeding practices. Two crop walks were held at the site during the summer when Agronomists Troy Prosofsky and Dan Orchard led discussions on the best management practices for growing canola. SPARC Tour – June 27, Swift Current CARA staff members, Candice and Brandon Armstrong and Aaron Dietrich, attended the Forage Project Tour at the Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural Research Center in Swift Current. Crop Diagnostic School – July 5, Lethbridge Crop Agronomist Audrey Bamber attended this field school produced by Farming Smarter. Summer Crop Tour – July 14, Oyen/Acadia Valley areas Producers visited several project sites in the eastern area of Special Area 3 and the MD of Acadia during CARA’s annual summer crop tour. Stops included a winter wheat trial site, 2 spring cereal variety trial sites, a field pea variety trial, the lentil variety and weed control field demonstration and an oilseed variety trial site. Jenn Walker, from the Alberta Pulse Growers, joined the tour to share production tips for the pulse crops.


130

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Summer Forage Tour – July 10, Consort The use of annual crops for forage was the focus of CARA’s 2011 summer forage tour held at the Redel project site west of Consort. An interesting information exchange was made with students from an Agricultural College in France who participated in the tour.

Yearling Management and Marketing Seminar (Dr. Gordon Hazard) – September 15, Big Stone CARA partnered with the Foothills Forage and Grazing Association to bring Dr. Gordon Hazard, a retired veterinarian and well-known grazing specialist from Mississippi, to the Big Stone Community Hall in September. Dr. Hazard shared many tips from his 80 plus years of experience in managing yearlings on grass, reducing stress, limiting shrink and maximizing return per head with the 45 cattlemen who attended. Cattlemen Clinic – October 13, Oyen Four hot topics for fall were up for discussion at CARA’s 2nd Annual Cattlemen Clinic at the Crossroads Center in Oyen on October 13. Barry Yaremcio, Feed Specialist, Alberta Agriculture, began the day with a presentation on managing different qualities of feed and problems such as ergot and nitrates. Dr. Cec Ruschkowski, Oyen Vet Services, brought everyone up to date on new drugs which are now available for use. A panel discussion on ‘less stress’ weaning options included information on weaning onto swath grazing; Travis Foot, Foot Print Farms, Esther who relayed his experience with using quiet wean nose flaps, and Leroy Lausen who showed everyone a no stress sorting alley he uses to wean calves in his Hanna operation. Winding up the day was a Market Outlook presentation by Debbie McMillin, Calberta Ag Consulting of Hanna. Clinic participants also had the opportunity to discuss Price Protection Programs with Haley Rutherford of AFSC and electric fencing options with John and Kelsey Beasley of Deer River Ranching.

Canola Grower Seminar – November 16, Acadia Valley Canola Council Agronomists Troy Prosofsky and Dan Orchard discussed many canola production tips with farmers during a grower’s meeting in Acadia Valley.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

131

Traceability Program CARA assisted 46 producers with age verification of over 4500 calves and provided information on Premise ID and other traceability issues during 2011. Growing Forward Program CARA responded to 45 inquiries regarding the Growing Forward program, assisted 17 producers with applications resulting in $183,000 in grant money. Sample Analysis CARA provided 70 producers with information, use of a bale probe and/or facilitated analysis of 182 feed, seed, soil and crop disease samples during 2011. General Inquiries CARA responded to inquiries from 53 producers requesting specific information on crops, forages and agronomics. Information Updates by Email CARA maintains email contact lists of over 200 members for regular information and coming event updates. Conference Management CARA managed administration and registration for the Western Canadian Holistic Management (February in Lloydminster) and Capturing Feed Grains and Forage Opportunities (November in Strathmore) conferences


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

133

Guide to Interpretation of Results All project reports have been prepared with the producer in mind and an attempt has been made to keep the descriptions and explanation of results straightforward. As much background information as possible has been included for each project site. If more information or further explanation is needed, please call the CARA office. When going through the reports there are a few points which should be kept in mind. Please consider that the data and yield figures are a result of weather conditions, etc. which existed at that particular site during a given year. When available, longterm data has also been included. Within each project all possible efforts have been made to control all variables which may influence results. For example, in variety trials, attempts are made to control all variables except the genetic potential of the test varieties. Any factors which could not be controlled (eg. weather) have been noted within the project description or results. 1. Interpretation of Soil Analysis 1.1 Plant Available Nutrients: All soil analysis are done at Norwest Labs. An example of a Test Results sheet is given below. CARA uses these recommendations as a guideline but usually not more than 30 lb/A actual nitrogen is applied with the seed. It is also important to understand that climate, soil management and crop management (choice of variety, weed control measures, etc.) will have considerable impacts on yields. Another important aspect to remember is that results will differ depending on the laboratory that is used to do soil tests. Table 1 gives expected range of available plant nutrients from soil tests. Soil test results can be used to plan fertilizer application or understand crop response on different parts of your field.

Table 1 Soil Test (lb/A) Nitrogen Phosphate Potassium Top 6 Inches: Deficient

Sulfur

Zinc

Copper

Manganese <2

0-16

0-30

0-150

0-8

<1

<1.6

Marginal

16-30

30-80

150-300

8-16

1-2

1.6-3

Adequate

30-54+

80+

300+

16+

2+

3+

Top 2 Feet: Deficient Marginal Adequate

0-30 30-60 60+

2+

0-16 16-30 30+

Taken from Guide to Interpretation of Soil Analysis Results - Soil and Crop Diagnostic Centre AAFRD


134

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

1.2 Soil Salinity & Conductivity: Conductivity (tabulated in mmhos) is a measure of the total soluble salt concentration in a soil. 0 - 2 mmhos 3-4 5 - 10 11 - 16 16+

negligible salt effects very sensitive crops affected yield of most crops reduced only tolerant crops will not be affected very high

Table 2 Crop Tolerance to Salinity Tolerance

Electrical Conductivity (EC) (dS/cm)

Crops

Forages Altai Wild Ryegrass Tall Wheatgrass Slender Wheatgrass Russian Wild Ryegrass

16

High

8

6 Row Barley Sunflower 2 Row Barley Oats Fall Rye Wheat Yellow Mustard Oats

Medium

Sweet Clover Alfalfa Brome Grass Crest Wheatgrass Intermediate Wheatgrass Meadow Fescue Reed Canary grass

Canola Flax Corn

4 Low

Timothy White Dutch Clover Red Top Alsike Red Clover

Potatoes Peas Field Beans

0

Note: Remember a soil test represents an average of the areas sampled. Specific locations may be much higher or lower than average. Adapted from Agriculture Canada Publication 1624/E

1.3 pH: pH is a measure of soil acidity or alkalinity. Table 3 pH Values 5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Extremely Strongly Medium Slightly Mildly Neutral Neutral Acid Acid Acid Acid Alkaline Best Range for Most Crops

8.5 Moderately Alkaline

Strongly Alkaline


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

1.4 Organic Matter: The organic matter test is an estimate of the humus content of the soil and does not include recent additions of straw, manure or sod. The productivity of most soil does not relate to the absolute concentration of organic matter, but may be affected by changes in concentration. 1.5 Soil Type & Texture: Soil type is a reflection of the relative proportions of sand, silt and clay in the soil. Characteristics of each texture group are as follows: Coarse: Feels and sounds distinctly gritty, many particles are coarse. When pressed by the thumb it does not retain a clear print and crumbles easily. Moderately Coarse: Feels and sounds gritty but particles are relatively fine. Contains enough silt and clay to hold a shape when pressed between thumb and fingers. Medium Fine: When moist sample is pressed between thumb and forefinger, it forms a ribbon, varying from weak (loam and silt loam) to strong (silty clay to clay). When squeezed, the sample takes firm shape. Clay makes the sample feel sticky; silt gives a smooth, floury feel. 1.6 Soil Moisture - Plant Available Water: Not all the water present in the soil is available for plant use. Plant available water is that portion of the moisture contained in the soil that is readily available for plant use. Water holding capacity (WHC) is a measure of the maximum amount of water a soil can hold, and is calculated from soil texture. It differs at every project site just as other soil characteristics do. Consequently, soil samples are taken at each site and dried to determine total soil moisture present. These samples are also analyzed for texture and WHC and from these results, inches of total water contained in the soil is calculated by formula. Plant available water is recorded as inches per depth of sample.

135


136

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 4 Approximate Plant Available Water per Foot of Moist Soil and Depth of Moist Soil Needed for Various Amounts of Available Water*

Texture Class

Texture

Fine sand (fs)

Coarse

loamy sand (ls) Sandy loam (sl)

Moderately Coarse Medium Fine Example:

Inches plantavailable water per foot of moist soil

fine sandy loam (fls) Loam (l), silt loam (sil), clay loam (cl), silty clay loam (sicl), silty clay (sic), clay (c)

Depth of Moist Soil for Available Water 2 In

4 In

6 In

0.8

30

60

90 I

1.5

16

32

48

2.0

12

24

36

There are 3 feet of moist, moderately coarse-textured soil: plant-available water = 3 x 1.5" = 4.5"

Table 5 Estimated Spring Wheat Yields Based on Soil Water & Seasonal Rainfall (bu/A)*

Available soil water to a depth of 4 feet at seeding

Growing Season Precipitation 2"

3"

4"

5"

6"

7"

8"

9"

10"

11"

12"

1"

0

0

9

13

20

22

26

31

35

40

44

2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7"

0 8 12 16 20 24

8 12 16 20 24 28

13 17 21 25 29 33

17 21 25 29 33 37

22 26 30 34 38 42

26 30 34 38 42 46

30 34 38 42 46 50

35 39 43 47 51 55

39 43 47 51 55 59

44 48 52 56 60 64

48 52 56 60 64

8"

28

32

37

41

46

50

54

59

63

With less than 2 " of seasonal rainfall, spring wheat will fail in most years. Yields may exceed estimates because of an abnormally favorable combination of soil and seasonal climatic conditions. Yields may be below estimates because of weeds, disease, low fertility, lodging and adverse climatic extremes. *Tables 4 and 5 were taken from 'Soil Water Guidelines and Precipitation Probabilities in Montana and North Dakota' Cooperative Extension Service, Montana State University, Bulletin 356, March 1981


Boron B

Manganese Mn

Iron Fe

Copper Cu

Zinc Zn

Sulphur S

Potassium K

Phosphorus P

Nitrogen N

Nutrient

60 100

Marg 100 150

Opt 200+

Excess

30 50

50 120 120 +

160 250

250 1000 1000 +

8 32

32 80 80 +

<0.3

<1

<5

< 0.5

< 0.5

1 20 0.8 5 10 5000

2 100

0.5 3.5

* Based on ppm in 6 inches

0.3 0.5

* Based on ppm in 6 inches.

1 2

* Based on ppm in 6 inches

5 10

* Based on ppm in 6 inches

0.5 0.8

* Based on ppm in 6 inches.

0.5 1

3.5 +

100 +

5000 +

5+

20 +

* Based on lbs of SO4 S to a 24 inch equivalent.

<8

* Based on lbs of K to a 6 inch equivalent

< 160

* Based on lbs of P to a 6 inch equivalent.

< 30

* Based on lbs of NO3 N to 24 inches

< 60

Def

Critical Levels

Yellowing (light green) especially of older leaves. Spindly plants.

Deficiency Symptoms

Abnormal growth and potential for reduced seed set. Alfalfa and canola are most susceptible to deficiencies.

Stunted growth and yellowing between the leaf veins. Associated with grey speck on oats.

Yellowing between veins of younger leaves, spreading to older leaves in more severe cases.

Twisting of the leaf tips, delayed maturity and heads may not fill. Often associated with plant disease.

Yellowing between veins. Beans are particularly sensitive to deficiencies.

Yellowing of newer leaves. Oil seeds are most susceptible to deficiencies. Canola may show purplish cupped leaves.

Appears burnt at leaf tips and edges (similar to drought). Tendency for cereals to lodge.

Slow growing, particularly during the first part of the growing season. Delayed maturation/ripening.

Table 6 Nutrient Deficiencies and Critical Levels

Immobile. Deficiencies are most likely to occur on light textured, well drained soils. A high concentration of B is toxic to many plants.

Immobile. Deficiencies are most likely to occur on soils with high organic matter content.

Immobile. Deficiencies are most likely to occur on calcareous soils.

Immobile. Deficiencies most likely on peat land or light textured soil having a high organic matter concentration. Generally appears in patches within a field.

Immobile. Uptake may be limited by excess phosphate or lime.

Potassium is relatively immobile. Availability may be limited by cool or dry conditions. There are potential benefits from the chloride in potash (KCl) fertilizer. Prairie soils, unless they are sandy, generally have near adequate potassium. Sulphate mobility is similar to nitrate. Excess sulphate is associated with naturally salty soil. Concentrations can vary dramatically from upper to lower slopes; deficiencies are most likely on higher parts of a field.

Phosphate is immobile. Seed placed or banded P is about twice as effective as broadcast applications. Available P is generally very low in native soils.

Nitrate N is highly soluble and mobile. Ammonium N is relatively immobile. Nitrogen remaining in the fall is subject to loss. Soil nitrate levels are nearly always deficient.

Notes

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report 137


138

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Definitions of Common Feed Nutrient Terms ADF

Acid Detergent Fibre - consists of lignin and cellulose and is the least digestible portion of roughage. ADF content of forages is used for determination of digestibility and energies.

ADIN

Acid Detergent Insoluble Nitrogen – the portion of total nitrogen bound to the fibre in a feed.

AIP

Available Insoluble Protein – the portion of the total available protein which is not soluble in rumen fluid, but is still available to the cow. Available insoluble protein which escapes degradation in the rumen is almost completely digested in the lower digestive tract (rumen undegraded insoluble protein).

AP

Available Protein (AP = CP – ADIP) – the portion of the total protein which is available to the animal if the animal could completely digest the feed (ie. not bound to the fibre in a feed).

BP

Bypass Protein – ingested protein that is not degraded in the rumen (also referred to as “undegradable” or “escape” protein).

CP

Crude Protein - The total protein contained in feeds as determined by measuring nitrogen content. %CP = %N x 6.25.

DE

Digestible Energy – the amount of energy consumed minus the amount of energy lost in the feces. DE is calculated based on ADF analysis.

FATG

Fat Analysis by Acid Hydrolysis – determines level of fixed fat in expanded or cooked products, milk and milk products.

GE

Gross Energy – measure of total caloric energy of a feedstuff.

IP

Insoluble Protein – the portion of protein which digestive juices or similar solutions cannot dissolve.

ME

Metabolizable Energy – equal to DE minus energy lost in urine, feces and in methane for ruminants.

NDF

Neutral Detergent Fibre – commonly called “cell walls”. NDF measures cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin, silica, tannin and cutin; used as an indicator of feed intake.

NEF

Net Energy for fat production.


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

139

NEG

Net Energy for Gain – based on the ADF; it is used for balancing rations for ruminants.

NEL

Net Energy for Lactation – based on the ADF; it is used for dairy ration balancing.

NEM

Net Energy for Maintenance – amount of energy required to maintain an animal with no change in body weight or composition. It is based on the ADF and is used in ruminant ration balancing.

NFE

Nitrogen Free Extract – estimate for crude starches and carbohydrates.

NPN

Non-Protein Nitrogen - nitrogen from non-protein sources (urea, ammonia, nitrates or amides); NPN is used by rumen microbes to build protein.

NSC

Non-Structural Carbohydrates – content of feedstuffs comprised mainly of starches (in grains) and sugars (in forages). NSC is used in dairy ration formulations and it is suggested the NSC of a diet be 3040% of the DM.

PP

Pepsin Protein – typically used for protein digestion of animal products such as meat meal and fish meal.

RFV

Relative Feed Value – it is an index for assessing quality based on the acid detergent and neutral detergent fibre levels. As the fibre values increase the RFV of forages decreases. RFV = [(88.9 – (0.78 x %ADF)) x (120/%NDF)]/1.29

SP

Soluble Protein – the portion of protein which digestive juices of ruminants (or similar solutions) can dissolve, soluble protein is rapidly attacked by bacteria.

TDN

Total Digestible Nutrients – a term which is estimated from the ADF content and is used to describe the digestible value of a feed.

UIP

Undegradable Intake Protein (also called undegradable protein – UPD or rumen bypass protein) – the portion of consumed protein that is not degraded in the rumen; i.e., it “by-passes” the rumen and is usually degraded in the small intestine.


140

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 7 Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle Daily Gain (lb)

Dry Matter Intake (lb)

600 lb Calves

1.5

950 lb Bred Heifers

Crude Protein

TDN

Ca (%)

P (%)

68.5

0.32

0.21

10.3

54.1

0.27

0.02

6.9

10.1

48.8

0.19

0.19

1.7

7.8

11.8

52.9

0.26

0.21

20.8

2.1

10.2

12.9

61.9

0.31

0.23

-

23.0

2.1

9.3

12.1

55.5

0.27

0.22

0.5

30.9

2.1

7.0

16.1

52.0

0.20

0.20

lb/day

% of DM

lb/day

% of DM

13.8

1.32

9.5

9.4

0.9

19.0

1.5

8.0

1200 lb Cows Mid pregnancy

-

20.8

1.4

1200 lb Cows Late pregnancy

0.9

22.3

1000 lb 2 yr Heifer With calf

0.5

1200 lb Cow Nursing Calf (1st 3 - 4 months) 1800 lb Bull Regain condition & maintenance

Source: NRC.1984. Nutrition Requirements of Beef Cattle (6th Ed.) National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Table 8 Nutrient Requirements for Nursing Cows Nutrient

Recommended Range

Required

Protein %

10 – 12

Digestible Energy Mcal/kg

2.5 – 3.3

-

-

Total Digestible Nutrients %

56 – 63

-

-

0.16 - 1.53

0.27

2

Calcium (Ca) %

-

Maximum -

Phosphorus (P) %

0.17 - 0.59

0.22

1

Sodium (Na) %

0.04 - 0.25

0.08

1.57

0.20

0.25

4

Magnesium (Mg) %

0.05 - 0.25

0.10

0.5

Potassium (K) %

0.50 - 0.70

0.65

3

Sulphur (S) %

0.08 - 0.30

0.10

0.4

Iron (Fe) ppm

Salt %

50 - 100

50

1000

Copper (Cu) ppm

4 - 10

8

100

Cobalt (Co) ppm

0.07 - 0.11

0.10

10

Iodine (I) ppm

0.20 - 2.0

0.5

50

20 - 50

40

1000

N/A

N/A

5

20 - 40 0.05 - 0.30

30 0.20

1000 2

Manganese (Mg) ppm Molybdenum (Mo) ppm Zinc (Zn) ppm Selenium (Se) ppm


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

141

Table 9 Nutrient Composition of Typical Feed Sources Percent of Dry Matter Basis Feedstuff

DM*

CP*

ADF*

Ca**

P**

K**

TDN*

Mg**

Na**

Alfalfa Hay Early

90

18

35

1.41

0.24

2.40

59

0.33

0.14.

Alfalfa Hay Late

89

16

41

1.30

0.22

1.7

54

0.20

0.05

Alfalfa Silage

40

17

37

1.40

0.29

2.6

55

0.33

0.14

Barley Silage

35

12

37

0.41

0.32

2.3

59

0.13

0.01

Barley Straw

90

3

55

0.33

0.08

2.1

46

0.23

0.14

Barley Grain

89

12

7

0.08

0.41

0.6

83

0.20

0.03

Brome Grass Hay

89

10

41

0.33

0.25

1.9

55

0.09

0.02

Sweet Clover

91

16

38

1.27

0.25

1.8

53

0.49

0.09

Corn Grain

88

9

3

0.02

0.30

0.4

87

0.13

0.02

Grain Screenings

90

14

15

0.25

0.34

0.9

65

0.15

0.05

Grass Hay

91

12

40

0.70

0.25

2.0

58

0.18

0.03

Grass Silage

40

12

39

0.70

0.25

2.1

61

0.18

0.03

Oat Hay

90

10

39

0.38

0.28

1.8

59

0.26

0.18

Oat Silage

35

12

39

0.53

0.31

2.8

60

0.20

0.37

Oat Grain

89

13

16

0.09

0.40

0.5

76

0.14

0.08

Oat Straw

90

4

48

0.25

0.08

2.4

48

0.18

0.42

Peas Grain

89

26

10

1.30

0.47

1.4

83

0.03

0.05

Wheat Hay

90

10

36

0.25

0.23

1.6

57

0.12

0.21

Wheat Silage

35

12

37

0.38

0.28

2.0

60

0.20

0.03

Wheat Straw

91

3

58

0.16

0.05

1.3

44

0.12

0.14

Wheat Grain

89

14

4

0.05

0.42

0.5

88

0.16

0.08

Adapted from NRC Nutrient Requirements for Dairy Cattle and Feedstuffs * Refer to Definitions of Common Feed Nutrient Terms ** Refer to Table 8


142

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

Table 10 Agronomic and Tolerance Information for Perennials Grasses

Optimum pH Limits

Acidity Tolerance

Colonial Bentgrass (browntop)

Moderate

Creeping Bentgrass

High

Alkalinity Tolerance

Low

Salt Tolerance

Winter Hardiness

Drought Tolerance

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderatehigh Moderatehigh High-very high

Lowmoderate

Low

Velvet Bentgrass

5.5 - 7.5

Moderate

Kentucky Bluegrass

6.0 - 7.5

Moderate

Moderate

Meadow Bromegrass

6.0 - 7.5

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Reed Canarygrass

High

Moderate

Chewings Fescue

High

Moderate

Moderate

Creeping Red Fescue

High

Moderate

Moderatehigh

Moderatehigh Moderatehigh High-very high High very high

Moderate

Low

Low

Very high

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Smooth Bromegrass

Hard Fescue

Low

Meadow Fescue

Low Lowmoderate Lowmoderate Moderatehigh

Moderate

Low Lowmoderate Moderatehigh Moderatehigh Lowmoderate Moderatehigh Moderate high Moderatehigh

Moderate

Low

Low

Very high

Moderatehigh

High

Moderate

Moderatehigh

Moderate

Moderate

Creeping Foxtail

High

Low

Low

High-very high

Lowmoderate

Meadow Foxtail

Moderate

Low

High

Low

Lowmoderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Sheep Fescue Tall Fescue

Orchardgrass

5.5 - 6.5

6.0 - 7.5

Redtop

Moderate

Low

High

Italian Ryegrass (annual)

5.5 - 7.5

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Perennial Ryegrass

5.5 - 7.5

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

Timothy

5.6 - 7.3

Very high

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

Turf Timothy

5.6 - 7.3

Very high

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Very high

Very high

Moderate

Moderate

Very high

Very high

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Crested Wheatgrass (Fairway) Crested Wheatgrass (Standard) Intermediate Wheatgrass

Low


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

143

Table 10 Agronomic and Tolerance Information continued Acidity Tolerance

Alkalinity Tolerance

Salt Tolerance

Winter Hardiness

Drought Tolerance

Moderate

High

Moderate

Moderate

Very high

Lowmoderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderatehigh

High

Moderatehigh

High

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderatehigh

High

Very high

Very high

Moderate

High

Moderate

Very high

Moderate

Moderatehigh

Altai Wildrye

High

High

Very high

Dahurian Wildrye

High

Moderatehigh

Moderatehigh

Grasses

Optimum pH Limits

Northern (Thickspike) Wheatgrass Pubescent Wheatgrass Slender Wheatgrass Streambank Wheatgrass

Low

Tall Wheatgrass Western Wheatgrass

Moderate

Russian Wildrye

Low

Moderate

High

High

Very high

Moderate

High

Moderate

Moderatehigh

Very high

Low

Moderate

Lowmoderate

Very high High

Legumes Alfalfa

6.0 - 7.8

Cicer Milkvetch Alsike Clover

5.7 - 7.0

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Red Clover

5.5 - 7.5

Low

Moderate

Low

White Clover

5.5 - 7.0

Moderate

Low

Low

Crownvetch

6.0 - 7.0

Sainfain

Moderatehigh Moderatehigh

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

Lowmoderate

Moderate

Sweetclover (white)

6.5 - 7.5

Low

High

Moderate

Moderate

Sweetclover (yellow)

6.5 - 7.5

Low

High

Moderate

Moderate

Birdsfeet Trefoil

6.2 - 6.5

High

Moderate

High

Lowmoderate

Moderatehigh Lowmoderate Lowmoderate Low High Moderate Moderatehigh Moderatehigh Moderate


144

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

The Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta (ARECA) is a not-for-profit, producer-driven organization working to enhance and improve agricultural operations through increased access to field research and new technology. Made up of 15 member Associations, ARECA acts as a strong, united voice for producers by speaking on their behalf to industry leaders and government representatives. Each member Association delivers programs and develops projects that address the concerns and priorities of producers in their specific regions. ARECA’s member Associations include:          

Alberta Conservation Tillage Society II (ACTS II) Battle River Research Group (BRRG) Chinook Applied Research Association (CARA) Foothills Forage and Grazing Association (FFGA) Gateway Research Organization (GRO) Grey Wooded Forage Association (GWFA) Lakeland Agricultural Research Association (LARA) Mackenzie Applied Research Association (MARA) North Peace Applied Research Association (NPARA) Peace Agriculture Research and Demonstration Association (PARDA)  Peace Country Beef and Forage Association (PCBFA)  Smoky Applied Research and Demonstration Association (SARDA)  Southern Alberta Conservation Association (SACA)  Southern Applied Research Association (SARA)  West Central Forage Association (WCFA)

In addition to the work done in each of the regions, ARECA oversees province-wide initiatives including the Sustainable Grazing Mentorship Program, Regional Variety Trials, and the Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Project. ARECA and its member Associations participate in and organize a wide variety of conferences and information sessions for producers. Some of these include:  Western Canadian Grazing Conference  The Alberta Forage Industry Network (AFIN) and the Forage Agronomy Update  Various farm and field tours at locations throughout Alberta



Diagnostic fields schools and workshops on age verification, riparian health assessment, ranching and marketing for women, crop strategy, energy efficiency, vrt and more…

For more information on ARECA, the specific projects taking place in each of the regions or upcoming special events, please go to www.areca.ab.ca or call us at (780) 416-6046


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

145

A year in review... Message from the Executive Director 2011 provided significant challenges for excess moisture but then the tap was turned off for a dry harvest. Marketing of barley and wheat poses uncertainty for Alberta producers but will likely offer opportunities for consideration of a new way of business. There has been change within the ARECA member Associations with the loss of Central Peace Conservation Society as a member of ARECA and merger of Southern Alberta Conservation Society and Southern Applied Research Association into Farming Smarter. For ARECA, a strategic planning workshop in July offered the ARECA Board, Association Managers and ARECA representatives an opportunity to discuss where do we go from here. Four areas were highlighted and they include communication, financial training and administration. The ARECA Board of Directors convened for three Board meetings plus five being conference calls. Discussion has been about dispersement of Association equipment to other Associations, strategic planning, training fund, participation in FarmTech and membership fees. A website Committee under the chair of Laura Gibney provided direction for refreshment of the ARECA website. Those revisions are being implemented with support from the Associations in terms of content and graphics. Our readership has continued to grow especially since it includes important announcements from Associations. Regional Variety Trials are under the coordination of Alex Fedko with Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) who replaced Gayah Sieusahai this spring. Alex works with ARECA and Associations to ensure the delivery of these trials throughout Alberta. This has ensured that producers can access unbiased, agronomic information for different cereal and pulse cultivars. This is the last year for the Regional Silage Variety Trial with six Associations (Meghan Elsen coordinated the project) reporting on the nutritional value of annual crops for feed (silage, greenfeed and swath grazing). Six nutritional categories are reported including Crude Protein and Total Digestible Nutrients for different cereal cultivars – the information is available in the Alberta Seed Guide (seed.ab.ca). The project has been funded by the Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) and a request for continued funding from ABP is in progress. ARECA and WCFA partnered with Canadian Rangeland Bison and Spring Creek Ranch to develop a ‘made in Alberta solution’ by the creation of a branded program that verifies environmental sustainability, animal welfare and food safety using a third party external audit system. With funding from ALMA, this project will review options to develop a system that is an all-encompassing, third party audited system with a consumer recognized brand or seal. This system will provide consumers assurance that issues such as wildlife habitat, rangeland health, riparian habitat, and manure are being managed in a responsible manner and animals are


146

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

treated humanely from birth to slaughter. This system will also assure customers that food safety is paramount at every step of production. The project consists of 3 phases with the first phase to be complete by spring, 2012. The Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency project set out to examine energy use on Alberta grain farms. Two studies examined the relationship of tillage practices and energy consumption. The reports explore Energy Intensity Measures, Energy Output/Energy Input Ratios and Less Tillage Indices. These studies reveal a trend of increasing energy efficiency and related reductions in energy intensity in recent years. These trends are felt to indicate that the economic, environmental and sustainability benefits of energy efficiency are shaping producer decisions. The potential for variable rate technology (VRT) to impact fertilizer use efficiency was studied on 6 farms in 2009 and 2010. The reports include an economic analysis of the impact of this technology on yield and fertilizer applications. Although the short run economic benefits of VRT are challenging, there are opportunities for gaining economic benefits in the long run. These will come from continuously improving knowledge of how fertilizer performance varies across a given field (under different environmental conditions) and continuously developing capabilities to vary crop inputs according to the specific needs of each unique zone. Funding for this project was provided by the Alberta Government. ARECA is hosting the first “PRECISION AG 2.0: The Next Generation” Conference at the Deerfoot Inn & Casino in Calgary, February 22-23 2012. As GPS and GIS is now everywhere, the next level is to understand how we can use this technology to make a profit and grow the industry. Topics covered will include increased profitability and sustainability, protecting the environment, optimizing your use of agricultural inputs, data management, on-farm research and more. The conference will feature... ■2 full days with over 30 speakers & interactive breakout sessions ■Current information on practices and technologies being adopted by progressive farmers in Western Canada and abroad ■Topics for all skill levels and experience ■35 tradeshow booths dedicated to precision agriculture ■Meet with progressive and innovative practitioners of precision agriculture ARECA and Associations were involved in planning workshops such as Cow-Calf Economics, Advanced Agronomy Conference and Forage Agronomy Workshop. Additionally, funding applications were developed for swath grazing, data tools for precision ag and field efficiency and obstructions. With sustainable and effective member associations, ARECA and Associations are respected leaders in applied agriculture research and extension. Our mission is to collaborate with member associations and partners to enhance delivery of reliable and unbiased applied agricultural research and extension. As we go forward in 2012, I wish to thank everyone for their contributions and efforts in 2011 - may we continue to build on our vision.

Ty Faechner, Executive Director


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

147

The Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta (ARECA) is a not-for-profit organization working with producers to enhance and improve their operations through access to field research and new technology. Made up of 16 member associations focused on applied research, demonstrations and extension in the areas of crop and forage production, ARECA acts as a strong united voice for producers by speaking on their behalf to industry leaders and government representatives. Each member association delivers programs and develops projects that address the concerns and priorities of producers in their specific regions. CROPS IN ALBERTA Alberta is a national leader in the production and export of canola, barley and wheat. The production of cereals, oilseeds, specialty crops and forages makes for a very diverse, dynamic industry that can be credited with significant economic impact in the province. Many of the associations belonging to ARECA work directly with those individuals in their communities involved in growing crops. These associations, located throughout the province, conduct variety trials, hold field schools and tours, provide information on the control of insects and weeds, and help producers create and maintain environmentally and economically-sustainable operations. Some crop-specific initiatives in which these organizations are involved include: * Regional Variety Trials * Bio-pesticides Project * Integrated Pest Management Project * GPS Crop Yield Monitoring Project * Stockpiled Forage Project * Wide range of agronomy projects * Pest Monitoring Programs Although the scope of crop-related services offered by ARECA associations varies, there are important benefits to membership. Those who belong to an ARECA association have access to results of leadingedge crop research specific to their growing areas, receive professional assistance for a very nominal fee, and have an opportunity to attend important workshops and demonstrations that improve producersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; returns on investment.


148

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

We invite you to visit the ARECA website (www.areca.ab.ca) for more information on the activities of our member associations. You can also contact any of the crop associations listed below for details about their programs and projects, and find out how membership can benefit you:

BATTLE RIVER RESEARCH GROUP www.brrg.areca.ab.ca Email: brrgmgr@cciwireless.ca Ph: 780-582-7308 Box 339 Forestburg, AB T0B 1N0

CHINOOK APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION www.cara.areca.ab.ca Email: cara-ab@telus.net Ph: 403-664-3777 Box 690 Oyen, AB T0J 2J0

GATEWAY RESEARCH ORGANIZATION www.gro.areca.ab.ca Email: grohome@telus.net Ph: 780-349-4546 Box 5865 Westlock, AB T7P 2P6

LAKELAND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ASSOC. www.lara.areca.ab.ca Email: manager.lara@mcsnet.ca Ph: 780-826-7260 Box 7068 Bonnyville, AB T9N 2H4

MACKENZIE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION www.mara.areca.ab.ca Email: mara3@telus.net Ph: 780-927-3776 Box 646 Fort Vermilion, AB T0H 1N0

NORTH PEACE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOC. www.npara.areca.ab.ca Email: npara1@telus.net Ph: 780-836-3354 Box 750 Manning, AB T0H 2M0

PEACE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ASSOCIATION www.parda.areca.ab.ca Email: peaceagrd@gmail.com Ph: 780-835-5015 Box 1551 Fairview, AB T0H 1L0

SOUTHERN ALBERTA CONSERVATION SOCIETY www.saca.areca.ab.ca Email: ken@farmingsmarter.com Ph: 403-381-5118 #100, 5401 – 1st Ave. South Lethbridge, AB T1J 4V6

SOUTHERN APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION www.sara.areca.ab.ca Email: ken@farmingsmarter.com Ph: 403-328-0059 #100, 5401 – 1st Ave. South Lethbridge, AB T1J 4V6

SMOKY APPLIED RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ASSOCIATION www.sarda.areca.ab.ca Email: sarda@serbernet.com Ph: 780-837-2900 Box 90 Fahler, AB T0H 1M0


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

149

The Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta (ARECA) is a not-for-profit organization working with producers to enhance and improve their operations through access to field research and new technology. Made up of 16 member associations focused on applied research, demonstrations and extension in the areas of crop and forage production, ARECA acts as a strong united voice for producers by speaking on their behalf to industry leaders and government representatives. Each member association delivers programs and develops projects that address the concerns and priorities of producers in their specific regions. FORAGES IN ALBERTA The forage industry in Alberta is significant and includes a wide variety of diverse stakeholders. There are an estimated 30,000 producers in the province managing more than 9 million hectares of seeded forage, managed range and bush pastures. Many of the associations belonging to ARECA work directly with those individuals in their communities involved in the production of forages. These associations, located throughout the province, demonstrate new forage varieties and technologies, assess the effectiveness of specific forage legumes and grasses on livestock, hold grazing schools and field tours, provide information on forage and livestock systems, and help producers involved in forages create environmentally and economically-sustainable operations. Some forage-specific initiatives in which these organizations are involved include: * Sustainable Grazing Mentorship Program * Year-Round Grazing Project * Forage Agronomy Update * Creation of the Alberta Forage Industry Network * Stockpiled Forage Project Although the scope of forage-related services offered by ARECA associations varies, there are important benefits to membership. Those who belong to an ARECA association have access to results of leading-edge forage research, receive professional assistance for a very nominal fee, and have an opportunity to attend important workshops and demonstrations that improve the economic viability of their operation.


150

Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

We invite you to visit the ARECA website (www.areca.ab.ca) for more information on the activities of our member associations. You can also contact any of the forage associations listed below for details about their programs and projects, and find out how membership can benefit you: BATTLE RIVER RESEARCH GROUP www.brrg.areca.ab.ca Email: brrgmgr@cciwireless.ca Ph: 780-582-7308 Box 339 Forestburg, AB T0B 1N0

CHINOOK APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION www.cara.areca.ab.ca Email: cara-dw@telus.net Ph: 403-664-3777 Box 690 Oyen, AB T0J 2J0

FOOTHILLS FORAGE AND GRAZING ASSOC. www.ffga.areca.ab.ca Email: laura@foothillsforage.com Ph: 403-652-4900 Box 5145 High River, AB T1V 1M3

GATEWAY RESEARCH ORGANIZATION www.gro.areca.ab.ca Email: grohome@telus.net Ph: 780-349-4546 Box 5865 Westlock, AB T7P 2P6

GREY WOODED FORAGE ASSOCIATION www.gwfa.areca.ab.ca Email: gwfa2@telus.net Ph: 403-844-2645 Box 1448, 5309-45th St Rocky Mountain House, AB T4T 1B1

LAKELAND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ASSOC. www.lara.areca.ab.ca Email: manager.lara@mcsnet.ca Ph: 780-826-7260 Box 7068 Bonnyville, AB T9N 2H4

MACKENZIE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION www.mara.areca.ab.ca Email: mara3@telus.net Ph: 780-927-3776 Box 646 Fort Vermilion, AB T0H 1N0

NORTH PEACE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOC. www.npara.areca.ab.ca Email: npara1@telus.net Ph: 780-836-3354 Box 750 Manning, AB T0H 2M0

PEACE COUNTRY BEEF AND FORAGE ASSOC. www.pcbfa.areca.ab.ca Email: jborduzak@gprc.ab.ca Ph: 780-523-4033 Box 2803 High Prairie, AB T0G 1E0

SOUTHERN APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION www.sara.areca.ab.ca Email: ken@farmingsmarter.com Ph: 403-328-0059 #100, 5401 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1st Ave. South Lethbridge, AB T1J 4V6

SMOKY APPLIED RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ASSSOCIATION www.sarda.areca.ab.ca Email: sarda@serbernet.com Ph: 780-837-2900 Box 90 Fahler, AB T0H 1M0

WEST CENTRAL FORAGE ASSOCIATION www.wcfa.areca.ab.ca Email: westcentralforage@gmail.com Ph: 780-727-4447 Box 360, #1 5013-50th Ave Evansburg, AB T0E 0T0


Chinook Applied Research Association - 2011 Annual Report

151

CARAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program includes projects located within the Special Areas and the MD of Acadia in east-central Alberta. Although results are drawn from this area, we anticipate many of the projects may be applicable to other areas as well. ARE YOU A CURRENT MEMBER OF CARA? A membership ensures you are on the mailing list to receive all reports, monthly newsletters and admission discounts at CARA workshops/seminars. To become a member or renew a membership, simply complete the form below and send along with the appropriate fee.

Name: ____________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ ___________________________Postal Code_____________ Phone: ______________________________ Fax: _________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________________ Enclosed is: ___$20.00 1 year membership (2012) ___ $80.00 5 year membership ____ Yes I would like a receipt ___ No receipt please Please add me to CARAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s _______ Crop and/or _______ Forage/Livestock email contact list. Make Cheque payable to: CARA Mail to:

CARA, Box 690, Oyen, AB T0J 2J0

Thank You for your support of CARA!

2011 CARA Annual Report  

Crops, Forage and Conservation

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you