Interpreting Yield Data
Alfalfa Summary:
Weather data summary for the 2005-growing season
Performance summary – Standard trials (insecticide applied)
Regional PLH Trial
Alfalfa Variety Trial - South Charleston, Ohio – 2003 Seeding
Alfalfa Variety Trial – Wooster, Ohio – 2003 Seeding
Alfalfa Variety Trial – North Baltimore, Ohio – 2004 Seeding
Alfalfa Variety Trial – Jackson, Ohio –2004 Seeding
Alfalfa Variety Trial –, South Charleston, Ohio – 2005 Seeding
Potato Leafhopper Resistant Trial – South Charleston, Ohio – 2004 Seeding
Potato Leafhopper Resistant Trial – Jackson, Ohio – 2004 Seeding
Red Clover:
Red Clover Variety Trial - S.
Charleston, Ohio - 2000 Seeding.
Grass
Summary:
Orchardgrass Variety Trial – South Charleston, Ohio – 2003 Seeding
Annual Ryegrass Variety Trial – South Charleston, Ohio – 2004 Seeding
Annual Ryegrass Variety Trial – South Charleston, Ohio – 2005 Fall Seeding
Tall Fescue Variety Trial – Jackson, Ohio – 2004 Seeding
Perennial Ryegrass Variety Trial – South Charleston, Ohio –2005 Seeding
Address of Marketers
Download files of yield data for
2005:
All Yield Trials - PDF for Printing
Alfalfa Yield Trials - Excel
Grass Yield Trial - Excel
Forage Variety Trials in Other States
|
2005 Ohio Forage Performance Trials
Alfalfa
Alfalfa has the
highest combined yield and quality potential of any adapted perennial forage
grown in Ohio. It is the state's largest single hay crop, being grown on about
one-half of the total hay acres. Alfalfa requires well-drained soils with
near-neutral pH (6.5-7.0) for greatest production and persistence. Alfalfa
trials are initiated each year and data is collected for at least four years
unless the stand becomes so depleted that further testing is no longer
worthwhile; variety performance should be evaluated over several sites and
years.
Guidelines for Selecting Alfalfa Varieties
To capitalize on alfalfa's potential, select
high-yielding varieties with resistance to problem diseases. Consider these
factors when selecting alfalfa varieties for Ohio:
1. Yield. Yield is the major factor in determining profitability of an
alfalfa stand. Select varieties with high yields over several locations and
years. Table 3 shows this comparison in percent of the average yield. Varieties
that perform equally well across several locations and years are probably
adapted to a wider range of environmental conditions. Stable yield performance
across several environments is important because soils may vary on your farm and
weather conditions vary from year to year. Conditions on most farms are such
that several varieties may perform equally well.
2. Persistence. Another important consideration beyond yield is how long the
stand will last. Study variety performance by age of stand to get an estimate of
longevity of stand productivity. Some varieties may decline with age more
rapidly than others. This may influence your choice of variety depending on how
long you intend to keep the stand in production. For long-term rotations, choose
varieties with good disease resistance and good performance in the fourth year
of production. If you plan to harvest alfalfa for three years or less, then high
performance during early years of the stand should be given major consideration.
3. Fall dormancy (FD). Alfalfa varieties with fall dormancy ratings of 1
through 5 are considered adequately winter hardy for Ohio conditions while those
of 6 or higher are not considered adapted. Varieties with higher fall dormancy
ratings tend to grow at a lower temperature. Thus they begin to grow earlier in
the spring and later into the fall, extending the growing season. The fall
dormancy rating does not correlate well with winter hardiness within the range
of varieties adapted to the Midwestern USA.
4. Disease resistance. Variety selection based on yield performance alone is
less satisfactory than selections that also consider disease resistance
characteristics. Resistance to specific disease-causing pathogens may be the
most important attribute in an alfalfa variety. Pathogens can dramatically
reduce yield and persistence of susceptible varieties. In a recent evaluation of
older versus newer alfalfa varieties we found that varieties released in the
mid-1990’s yielded more (0.25 ton per acre more each year) and persisted longer
than older varieties, primarily because of improved resistance to diseases that
affected the trial. For more information on alfalfa diseases and varietal
resistance to specific diseases, go to the following websites:
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/varinfo.htm
5. Insect resistance. Alfalfa varieties have been developed for resistance
to potato leafhopper (PLH), which is the most consistently damaging insect pest
of alfalfa in Ohio. This report includes several trials where yield tolerance to
PLH damage is being evaluated. Please note that the PLH resistant varieties are
not resistant to the alfalfa weevil, and they will need to be protected from
that pest like all standard alfalfa varieties when weevil populations exceed the
economic action threshold.
6. Compare to check variety. For comparisons of varieties across several
trials, always compare varieties to the same check planted within the trial. The
variety Vernal is used as a check in all Ohio trials.
7. Use good management. No variety can produce well under poor management.
Good management considers all aspects of alfalfa production: seed bed
preparation, liming and fertilization, seeding, pest control, harvest, storage,
and post harvest treatment. Many newer varieties are better adapted to intensive
management.
Summary of 2005 Alfalfa Crop Conditions
The growing season began
with a warmer than normal average daily temperatures in April, then cooler
temperatures in May, followed again by above normal temperatures for most of the
remainder of the season. Overall, rainfall was below normal. The
rainfall pattern for the year was atypical with periods of drought and spotty
showers.
Most alfalfa varieties began the growing season with good
stands. Forage yields in 2005 were slightly higher than those in 2004. The 2003
seeding at Wooster had the highest yields with near normal rainfall
(except June), and above average temperatures. Alfalfa weevil populations were
low with only a few pockets in the state requiring insecticide application.
Insecticide applications were used to control PLH infestations in the standard
sprayed trials only. Leafhopper activity was low to moderate
at North Baltimore and Wooster, but very high for the second and third harvests
at South Charleston.
No insecticide was applied to control potato leafhopper in
the potato leafhopper resistance trials. Those trials are a
continuing effort to evaluate the new leafhopper resistant alfalfa varieties.
Vernal, 54V54, and DK140 were used as PLH-susceptible check varieties. This year
we established a new regional effort in cooperation with Iowa State University
to test alfalfa varieties for yield tolerance to PLH feeding. Yield tolerance to
PLH will be developed from data collected over two years and two locations (S.
Charleston, OH and Ames, IA). Yield data will be used for those cuttings when
PLH populations exceed the standard economic threshold. The PLH yield index for
each variety will be the percentage of its yield improvement over the yield of
three PLH susceptible varieties (5454, DK140, and Vernal). The PLH yield index tolerance
ratings for the varieties planted in 2005 will be updated next year by using the
2006 yield data collected during cuttings when PLH populations exceed the
economic threshold. The leafhopper resistant varieties are not resistant to
alfalfa weevil, and will need to be rescued if weevil populations exceed
economic thresholds.
Table 1. Weather data summary for the
2005 growing season
|
Wooster |
S.Charleston |
N.Baltimore |
Jackson |
Month |
Total |
DFA* |
Total |
DFA* |
Total |
DFA* |
Total |
DFA* |
|
------------------- Precipitation (inches
of rainfall) ------------------- |
Apr |
4.14 |
0.82 |
3.45 |
-0.40 |
3.17 |
-0.08 |
4.30 |
0.49 |
May |
2.27 |
-1.50 |
2.18 |
-2.21 |
1.73 |
-1.54 |
1.61 |
-2.43 |
June |
1.39 |
-2.55 |
1.64 |
-2.38 |
0.82 |
-2.73 |
1.73 |
-1.99 |
July |
4.03 |
0.60 |
1.55 |
-2.37 |
7.09 |
3.38 |
3.00 |
-1.31 |
Aug |
4.38 |
0.92 |
2.84 |
-0.54 |
0.71 |
-2.11 |
4.97 |
1.46 |
Sept |
2.73 |
-0.41 |
3.15 |
0.16 |
4.86 |
2.15 |
2.14 |
-0.98 |
Oct |
2.93 |
0.67 |
5.52 |
0.27 |
1.22 |
-1.06 |
3.05 |
0.71 |
Total |
21.87 |
-1.45 |
20.33 |
-7.47 |
19.60 |
-1.99 |
20.80 |
-4.05 |
|
------------------- Average daily
temperature (oF)
--------------------- |
Apr |
50.6 |
2.5 |
52.6 |
1.8 |
49.5 |
0.6 |
54.4 |
2.0 |
May |
55.8 |
-2.6 |
57.6 |
-3.4 |
56 |
-3.6 |
57.6 |
-4.0 |
June |
71.9 |
4.3 |
73.0 |
2.9 |
73.7 |
4.2 |
72.8 |
2.9 |
July |
74.0 |
2.4 |
74.6 |
0.8 |
47.2 |
-0.7 |
75.7 |
2.2 |
Aug |
72.5 |
2.5 |
73.7 |
1.7 |
72.9 |
2.3 |
75.1 |
2.9 |
Sept |
66.1 |
2.7 |
67.9 |
2.7 |
67.1 |
3.1 |
67.5 |
2.3 |
Oct |
52.4 |
0.2 |
60.9 |
1.3 |
53.9 |
1.3 |
54.0 |
0.3 |
*DFA = departure from long-term average |
Home
|
|