Chinook Applied Research Association 2012 Annual Report

Chinook Applied Research Association — 2012 Annual Report

Chinook Applied Research Association

2012 Annual Report

CARA a member of ARECA


Chinook Applied Research Association

Box 690, Oyen, Alberta, Canada T0J 2J0

Phone: (403) 664-3777 Fax: (403) 664-3007 [email protected]

Visit our Home Page: chinookappliedresearch.ca or

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 33rd edition of our Projects Report. It contains a description and summary of results of projects carried out or monitored by

CARA in 2012.

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.


Table of Contents Introduction Manager’s Message 2012 Board of Directors 2012 CARA Staff Acknowledgements

Crop Trials & Demonstrations Variety Trials ..................................................................................................... 1 Wheat and Durum Variety Trial ......................................................................... 3 Triticale Variety Trial ........................................................................................ 18 Barley Variety Trial .......................................................................................... 22 Oat Variety Trial............................................................................................... 28 Winter Wheat Variety Trial ............................................................................... 32 Field Pea Variety Trial ..................................................................................... 34 Lentil Variety Demonstration and Crop Walk ................................................... 41 Weed Management Options in Lentils ............................................................. 42 2012 Canola Demonstrations & Crop Walks ................................................... 47 Broadcast Urea Fertilizer Compared to Side-Banded Urea at Planting - Custom Project Work .............................................................................. 53 Viterra Variety Performance Trials—Custom Project Work ............................. 57

Forage Trials & Demonstrations Annual Forage Dry Matter Trial ...................................................................... 59 Perennial Forage Trial ..................................................................................... 67 Evaluating Inherent Salinity Tolerance Among Selected, Dormant-type Alfalfa Populations ........................................................... 69 Comparison of Various Fertilizer Applications to Established Perennials ....... 76 Tillage Radish .................................................................................................. 78 Fall Grazing Options ........................................................................................ 79

Conservation

Riparian Health Assessment of Kennedy Creek ............................................ 81 Bio-Control of Canada Thistle with the Stem Mining Weevil .......................... 85 Chickens and Shelterbelts .............................................................................. 88 CARA Shelterbelt Demonstration ................................................................... 91

Extension Program

2012 Extension ................................................................................................ 93

Appendix Guide to Interpretation of Results .................................................................... 99 Crop Nutrient Deficiencies and Critical Levels ............................................. 103 Definitions of Common Feed Nutrient Terms ................................................ 104 Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle ........................................................... 106 Nutrient Composition of Typical Feed Sources ............................................. 107 Agronomic & Tolerance Information for Perennials ....................................... 108 ARECA Map .................................................................................................. 110 ARECA 2012 – A Year in Review .................................................................. 111 ARECA Crops ............................................................................................... 113 ARECA Forages ............................................................................................ 115 Membership Page ......................................................................................... 117


Manager’s Message 2012 could be one of those years which retired farmers will fondly remember with remarks like: “That was the year I sold canola for $14/bu! or “Ya, that was the year we sent more hay to Texas”. It will also be recalled by “Remember the 2 hail storms we got in September after the wheat was swathed?” or “The worst mess the wind ever made around here was back in 2012!” Most farmers in the Special Areas and MD of Acadia enjoyed reasonably good moisture, harvested above average crops and were rewarded in the fall with good prices for all products from barley to beef. There were some extreme weather events to remember as well, however. Localized storms with 6 to 7 inch downpours, golf ball hail and winds of over 100 km/hour significantly hampered yields in some areas. These storms didn’t hurt the hay crops much, though, so even more hay was exported from the area in 2012 than in 2011 as feed yards remained full. Weather events made a small impact on CARA’s projects, with delayed seeding because of rain and hail damaging one site of the cereal crop trials. CARA’s program continues to reflect interests and issues of our local agricultural industry. Extension events included marketing information and training, related to both crops and cattle. Producers responded to crop walks with lots of interest, learning directly from industry specialists and each other. Our program has expanded to include conservation related projects for weed management and environmental health assessments. We were pleased to welcome Conservation Agronomist Lacey Ryan to take the lead on these initiatives. CARA has also moved ahead in the adoption of technology related to sharing information as we joined the world of Facebook and Twitter, and are developing a website. I am very much appreciative of the continued support CARA receives from our local municipalities, Ag Service Boards, Ag Societies, agri-businesses and individual producers. Without these partnerships, our program would not exist. We are also fortunate to work with ARECA member groups, industry partners and provincial and federal specialists in various projects and extension initiatives. Working together allows us all to accomplish more with the limited resources available to us. We look forward to working together in the future as well. Dianne Westerlund Manager


Board Members 2012

2012 Staff

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)

Darryl Conners, Hanna (Executive Director at Large)

Manager/Forage Agronomist: Dianne Westerlund

Crops Agronomist: Audrey Bamber

Conservation/Forage Agronomist: Lacey Ryan

Office Manager: Shelley Norris

Field Manager: Brandon Armstrong

Field Technician: Jerry Pratt

Summer Technicians: Kale Scarff

Brett Bamber

Part time: Roper Gorgichuk

Pam Gorgichuk, Rita Anderson

Richard Bailey,Veteran George Doupe, Oyen Craig Horner, Cessford John Kimber, Youngstown Kirby Laughlin, Youngstown

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

CARA Staff August 2012 Lacey, Kale, Brandon, Brett, Jerry, Audrey

Shelley & Dianne


2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of CARA’s 2012 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) AAFC Agri-Environment Services Branch Agrisoma Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (AARD) & Specialists Alberta Barley Commission Alberta Beef Producers Alberta Canola Producers Commission Alberta Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) Alberta Pulse Growers Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission ATB Financial BASF Canada Becker Underwood Big Country Adult Learning Centre Big Country Agricultural Society Bodycote/Exova Testing Group Brett Young Seeds Buffalo Ag Society Calwest Seeds Canola Council of Canada Donna Scory, Oyen Down to Earth Labs

Ducks Unlimited Farm Credit Corporation G Macs Ag Team Inc. Erica Hadwin Hanna & District Ag Society Hannas Seeds Indian Head Research Farm KAC Agricultural Society Lee Melvill Millet King Seeds of Canada Inc. Municipal District of Acadia Murray Beaumont Mechanical Neutral Hills Ag Society Nigel Seymour Northstar Seeds Parkland Laboratories Proven Seeds Ratepayers of Special Areas and M.D. of Acadia Richardson Pioneer Grain Rocky Mountain Equipment, Oyen Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food SeCan Association Semi-Arid Prairie Agricultural Research Center (SPARC) Special Areas Board Spondin Ag Society University of Alberta University of Saskatchewan Viterra

Wheat Variety Trial near Oyen

Lentil Demo near Sibbald

Winter Wheat Variety Trial near Acadia Valley

Testing seeder in spring

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 dryland 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, if needed, is usually done by the cooperator. In the case of stubble seeding, the plots are seeded directly into standing 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 in 5 paired rows (separated by 4 inches) on 11 inch spacing. Fertilizer is delivered through a chute between the paired rows. Plots are 1.4 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 particular seed lot, 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. 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 15% 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.

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.

Site 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 8.7

2012 7.6 13.0 9.9 7.0

Wheat and Durum Variety Trial

Summary Wheat variety trials were conducted in 2012 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. Several orange blossom wheat midge resistant varieties were included in the hard red spring wheat test. 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 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 NE 28-24-2-W4

Project Description and Precipitation Summary from previous years – see “Variety Trials” report, pages 1 and 2.

Site Information:

Soil Analysis

Oyen Hanna Acadia Valley

Nitrogen (0-24”) 80 lb/A (deficient) 51 lb/A (deficient) 73 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”) 33 lb/A (marginal) 27 lb/A (deficient) 11 lb/A (deficient)

Potassium (0-6”) 792 lb/A (optimum) 1099 lb/A (excess) 1200 lb/A (excess)

Sulfate (0-24”) 29 lb/A (marginal) 54 lb/A (optimum) 1220 lb/A (excess)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) 0.49 (good) 0.68 (good) 1.06 (good)

pH 6.8 (neutral) 6.4 (neutral) 8.0 (slightly alkaline)

Soil Texture Sandy Loam (49% S, 23% Si, 28% C)*

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

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

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

Precipitation 2012

Month Oyen Hanna Acadia Valley

May 2.4 1.5 2.4

June 3.9 4.5 3.9

July 1.3 3.9 0.7

Total 7.6 inches 9.9 inches 7.0 inches

Agronomic Information

Oyen Hanna Acadia Valley

Previous Crop Chem fallow Chem fallow Chem fallow

Seeding Date May 10 May 4 May 15

Seeding Depth 2 inches 2 inches 2 inches

Seedbed Condition Excellent moisture conditions

Seeding Rate 18 plants per square foot

Fertilizer 110 lb/A of 26-18-5-3 placed between the rows

Seeder Henderson 500 drill (5 paired rows on 11” spacing, fertilizer between rows)

Seedbed Preparation Pre-seed glyphosate

Herbicide Achieve Liquid Gold

Fungicide Headline EC applied

Harvest Date Hailed out September 1 August 29 September 7

Results:

Unfortunately, the site at Oyen had severe hail damage on September 1. There is no data to report on the Oyen site.

Table 1 Durum Long Term Yield at Oyen

Ave. Yield No. of Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years as % of Years

Variety Kyle Grown Strongfield GrownAC 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).

Table 2 Durum Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Kyle* 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

Wakooma 87 3 *During the years 1993, 1995-1999. *Kyle long term average yield is 49 bu/A.

Table 3 Durum Long Term Yield at Hanna



Variety Kyle Grown Strongfield Grown

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 4 Durum – Acadia Valley 2012

Bushel

Yield Yield (bu/A Protein Height Weight TKW

Variety (lb/A) @60 lb/bu) (%) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

CDC Desire (DT561) 4172 70 12.1 91 66.3 40.0

Transcend 4078 68 12.0 99 66.3 41.4

DT813 4054 68 12.4 96 67.0 42.5

Enterprise 3979 66 13.1 91 65.8 39.8

CDC Vivid (DT562) 3907 65 12.5 86 67.0 42.0

CDC Verona 3887 65 12.3 92 66.5 42.2

Strongfield 3845 64 12.6 83 67.0 43.2

DT818 3772 63 13.4 87 66.4 45.0

Brigade 3719 62 11.9 95 67.1 44.2

Mean 3935 66 12 91 67 42

LSD (.05) 379 6

C.V.% 10 Comments: The durum varieties had above average yields, ranging from 62 to 70 bu/A. The average protein was 12% and all samples graded number one.

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 5 Durum Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley



Variety Kyle Grown Strongfield Grown

AC Avonlea 105 2 - -

AC Melita 84 6 - -

AC Morse 102 3 - -

AC Navigator 106 2 - -

Brigade - - 105 3

CDC Desire (DT561) - - 109 1

CDC Verona - - 104 3

CDC Vivid (DT562) - - 102 1

DT813 - - 106 1

DT818 - - 98 1

Enterprise - - 101 3

Eurostar - - 108 2

Kyle (check) 100 8 - -

Napoleon 104 1 - -

Plenty 103 8 - -

Strongfield - - 100 3

Transcend - - 109 3

Wakooma 93 6 - - During the years 1991-2000, Kyle average yield was 52 bu/A. During the years 2010-2012, Strongfield average yield was 61 bu/A.In this table, the varieties are compared to Kyle (the check variety from 1991-2000) or Strongfield (the check variety from 2010-2012).

Table 6 Hard Red and White Spring Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield No. of Avg. Yield No. of


Variety Katepwa Grown* Variety Katepwa Grown*

5602HR 122 3 Fieldstar VB 107 3

5603HR 108 3 Glenn 117 3

5604HR CL 107 3 Goodeve VB 108 5

AC Abbey 101 3 Harvest 110 2

AC Barrie 106 12 HW024 84 1

AC Cadillac 104 3 Infinity 110 1

AC Cora 103 7 Kane 106 3

AC Domain 99 6 Katepwa (check) 100 16

AC Eatonia 98 7 Laura 105 8

AC Elsa 100 5 Leader 102 5

AC Intrepid 97 4 Lillian 110 3

AC Majestic 96 6 McKenzie 104 4

AC Minto 99 9 Muchmore 127 3

AC Splendor 99 3 Neepawa 102 8

Alvena 105 3 Pasqua 103 8

BW 433 106 1 Peace 106 1

BW 901 120 1 Prodigy 100 3

Carberry 116 3 Roblin 93 8

CDC Abound 122 4 Shaw VB 125 3

CDC Alsask 107 3 Snowbird (white) 100 1

CDC Go 114 1 Snowstar (white) 103 2

CDC Kernen 111 3 Somerset 106 2

CDC Makwa 101 11 Stettler 120 4

CDC Stanley 124 3 Superb 129 4

CDC Teal 105 8 Unity VB 115 4

CDC Thrive 113 3 Vesper VB 112 2

CDC Utmost VB 121 3 Waskada 109 4

Columbus 103 8 WR859 CL 118 4

Conway 97 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.

Table 7 Hard Red Spring Wheat Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Katepwa* Grown*

AC Abbey 96 2

AC Barrie 98 5

AC Cadillac 98 2

AC Cora 98 5

AC Domain 100 4

AC Eatonia 91 6

AC Elsa 105 4

AC Intrepid 100 3

AC Majestic 94 5

AC Minto 92 5

AC Splendor 96 2

CDC Makwa 97 6

CDC Teal 101 6

Columbus 93 4

Conway 87 5

Katepwa (Check) 100 6

Laura 104 4

Leader 86 2

McKenzie 108 3

Neepawa 95 4

Park 85 2

Pasqua 99 4

Prodigy 95 2

Roblin 96 5 Solid stemmed variety. *During the years 1993, 1995-1999. *Katepwa long term average yield is 47 bu/A.

Table 8 Hard Spring Wheat – Hanna 2012 Yield Bushel

Yield (bu/A Protein Height Weight TKW Variety (lb/A) @60 lb/bu) (%) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

CDC Stanley 3886 65 12.8 96 64.2 32.0

CDC VR Morris 3707 62 14.1 94 64.5 31.0

CDC Kernen 3650 61 12.5 102 64.5 33.4

Vesper VB 3645 61 12.4 99 65.8 33.6

BW931 3628 60 12.7 80 64.9 33.0

BW932 3611 60 12.8 86 65.1 33.0

5603 HR 3399 57 13.4 97 64.0 30.2

WR859 CL 3393 57 13.7 87 63.4 28.2

Glenn 3381 56 13.4 92 67.4 31.0

Goodeve VB 3379 56 13.0 96 63.0 32.8

Cardale 3366 56 13.0 86 63.4 29.4

CDC Plentiful 3351 56 13.3 94 64.1 29.4

SY 433 (BW 433) 3347 56 12.5 99 65.1 33.0

Lillian 3322 55 14.7 100 63.4 34.8

HW021 3319 55 12.3 88 64.0 32.6

Whitehawk (HW024) 3313 55 12.9 97 63.6 27.2

AC Barrie 3296 55 14.3 100 64.5 31.2

AAC Redwater (PT457) 3196 53 13.2 93 63.8 29.0

AAC Bailey (BW 901) 3103 52 12.8 99 64.0 31.6

5604 HR CL 2905 48 12.4 96 63.8 28.4

Katepwa 2853 48 13.8 103 63.1 31.8

Mean 3383 56 13 94 64 31

LSD (.05) 120 2

C.V.% 6 Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. Comments: The hard wheat had above average yields of 48 to 65 bu/A. The average protein was 13% and all samples graded number one.

Table 9 Red and White Hard Spring Wheat Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. of Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years as % of Years Variety Katepwa* Grown* Variety Katepwa* Grown*5500HR 106 1 Columbus 96 6 5600HR 107 2 Conway 91 7 5601HR 95 3 Fieldstar VB 119 2 5602HR 119 5 Glenn 112 3 5603HR 109 4 Goodeve VB 126 5 5604HR CL 112 3 Harvest 106 4 AAC Bailey (BW 901) 118 2 Helios 116 1 AAC Redwater (PT457) 110 1 HW021 115 1 AC Abbey 100 4 Infinity 106 4 AC Barrie 104 17 Journey 106 3 AC Cadillac 102 4 Kanata (white) 92 5 AC Cora 99 6 Kane 119 2 AC Domain 97 4 Katepwa (check) 100 19 AC Eatonia 99 5 Laura 111 6 AC Elsa 103 5 Leader 101 4 AC Intrepid 106 5 Lillian 120 7 AC Majestic 98 5 Lovitt 99 2 AC Minto 95 6 McKenzie 102 6 AC Splendor 100 6 Muchmore 122 2 Alvena 113 4 Neepawa 99 6 BW931 125 1 Park 100 7 BW932 125 1 Pasqua 103 6 Carberry 122 2 Peace 116 3 Cardale 117 1 Prodigy 99 4 CDC Abound 121 4 Roblin 105 7 CDC Alsask 117 5 Shaw VB 120 2 CDC Bounty 109 1 Snowbird (white) 95 4 CDC Go 114 5 Snowstar (white) 112 3 CDC Imagine 108 3 Somerset 118 3 CDC Kernen 110 3 Stettler 132 3 CDC Makwa 105 9 Superb 120 8 CDC Osler 109 4 SY 433 (BW 433) 118 2 CDC Plentiful 117 1 Unity VB 123 3 CDC Stanley 140 3 Vesper VB 124 3 CDC Teal 100 7 Waskada 108 3 CDC Thrive 123 2 Whitehawk (HW024) 116 2 CDC Utmost VB 149 2 WR859 CL 122 4 CDC VR Morris 129 1 Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. *During the years 1991-2008, 2010-2012. *Katepwa long term average yield is 48 bu/A.

Table 10 Hard Spring Wheat – Acadia Valley 2012 Bushel Yield Yield (bu/A Protein Height Weight TKW Variety (lb/A) @60 lb/bu) (%) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

Vesper VB 3838 64 12.2 100 66.1 32.8

HW021 3566 59 13.1 87 65.6 35.6

BW932 3421 57 13.3 80 66.0 34.0

CDC Plentiful 3355 56 14.3 93 66.0 33.8

BW931 3349 56 14.0 83 65.7 33.8

5603 HR 3292 55 13.2 95 65.4 30.8

Whitehawk (HW024) 3277 55 13.8 99 64.9 30.4

Goodeve VB 3234 54 14.1 87 64.1 33.2

Cardale 3229 54 13.4 86 65.2 32.8

CDC VR Morris 3228 54 13.4 88 65.2 31.0

CDC Stanley 3204 53 13.9 93 64.1 30.0

CDC Kernen 3202 53 13.8 97 65.4 34.6

Glenn 3179 53 13.6 90 67.9 32.6

AC Barrie 2973 50 13.7 97 64.9 33.4

5604 HR CL 2907 48 13.6 94 65.6 31.0

AAC Bailey (BW 901) 2900 48 13.6 97 64.9 33.6

AAC Redwater (PT457) 2896 48 14.9 85 65.2 31.6

Katepwa 2765 46 14.2 99 64.9 33.0

WR859 CL 2753 46 13.9 89 65.4 32.6

SY 433 (BW 433) 2633 44 13.6 99 65.0 35.8

Lillian 2424 40 13.7 99 63.9 34.4

Mean 3125 52 14 92 65 33

LSD (.05) 159 3

C.V.% 8 Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. Comments: The hard wheat had above average yields from 40 to 64 bu/A. Protein was high, with an average of 14%. All samples graded number one.

Table 11 Hard Red and White Spring Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Avg. Yield No. of Avg. Yield No. of


Variety Katepwa Grown* Variety Katepwa Grown*

5500 HR 98 2 CDC Thrive 103 2

5600HR 97 2 CDC Utmost VB 118 2

5601HR 77 1 CDC VR Morris 117 1

5603HR 114 3 Columbus 99 2 5604HR CL 109 3 Conway 103 2

AAC Bailey (BW 901) 116 2 Fieldstar VB 113 1

AAC Redwater (PT457) 104 1 Glenn 115 3 AC Abbey 97 3 Goodeve VB 116 3

AC Barrie 103 9 Harvest 115 1

AC Cadillac 97 4 HW021 128 1

AC Cora 99 5 Katepwa 100 12

AC Domain 92 7 Laura 100 8 AC Eatonia 92 6 Leader 102 2

AC Elsa 101 4 Lillian 114 2

AC Intrepid 98 3 McKenzie 104 3

AC Majestic 96 5 Muchmore 133 2

AC Minto 96 5 Neepawa 99 6

AC Splendor 93 4 Park 95 3

Alikat 96 2 Pasqua 99 5

Alvena 108 1 Prodigy 100 3

BW931 122 1 Roblin 95 8

BW932 124 1 Shaw VB 118 2

Carberry 128 2 Snowbird 95 1

Cardale 117 1 Stettler 124 2

CDC Abound 108 1 Superb 119 2

CDC Bounty 105 2 SY 433 (BW 433) 105 2

CDC Go 108 1 Unity VB 114 2

CDC Kernen 116 3 Vesper VB 120 3

CDC Makwa 103 5 Waskada 96 1

CDC Plentiful 122 1 Whitehawk (HW024) 100 2

CDC Stanley 120 3 WR859 CL 113 3

CDC Teal 103 7 Solid stemmed variety. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides *During the years 1991-2000, 2010-2012. *Katepwa long term average yield is 46 bu/A.

Table 12 Utility Wheat Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Type AC Taber Grown*

5702 PR CPS 94 2

AC Andrew Soft white 137 4

AC Crystal CPS 99 6

AC Foremost CPS 110 5

AC Karma CPS 104 5

AC Meena Soft white 136 1

AC Taber (check) CPS 100 12

AC Vista CPS 110 3

CDC NRG003 General purpose 123 2 Conquer VB CPS 123 2

Minnedosa General Purpose 113 3

NRG010 General Purpose 119 3

Sadash Soft white 139 3

SY985 (HY985) CPS 112 2

*During the years 1991-1998, 2008-2011.

*AC Taber long term average yield is 48 bu/A. Wheat midge resistant variety blend.

Table 13 Soft White Wheat Average Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield No. of

Year as % of Years

Variety 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 AC Andrew Grown*

AC Andrew (check) 76 78 71 66 74 100 5

AC Meena 79 69 - - - 97 2

Bhishaj 83 - - - - 110 1

Sadash - 78 76 79 - 109 3

* AC Andrew long term average yield is 73 bu/A. Table 14 Canada Prairie Spring Long Term Yield at Consort Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety AC Taber* Grown*

5702PR 91 1

AC Crystal 93 3

AC Foremost 104 4

AC Karma 104 4

AC Taber (check) 100 6

AC Vista 99 3 *During the years 1993-1998, 2008. *AC Taber long term average yield is 49 bu/A.

Table 15 Utility and Soft White Wheat – Hanna 2012

Yield Bushel

Yield (bu/A Protein Height Weight TKW

Variety Type (lb/A) @60 lb/bu) (%) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

NRG010 General Purpose 4885 81 10.3 91 63.3 35.8

Pasteur General Purpose 4694 78 11.2 84 65.0 36.0

AC Andrew Soft white 4594 77 9.6 83 62.3 35.4

HY1312 CPS 4195 70 11.3 84 62.8 40.2 Conquer VB CPS 4115 69 11.4 86 63.8 34.4

AC Crystal CPS 4062 68 10.9 77 64.3 33.6

CDC NRG003 General Purpose 3856 64 11.8 86 63.4 37.8 Enchant VB CPS 3853 64 11.7 88 64.5 43.8

SY985 CPS 3683 61 12.0 81 63.8 36.8

Mean 4215 70 11 85 64 37

LSD (.05) 360 6

C.V.% 9 Wheat midge resistant variety blend.

Comments: The yield was above average, ranging from 61 to 81 bu/A. All samples were of very good quality. Table 16 Canada Prairie Spring, General Purpose & Soft White Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Class 2007 2011 2012 AC Andrew Grown*

5702 PR CPS Red 63 - - 76 1

AC Andrew (check) Soft White 83 57 77 100 3

AC Crystal CPS Red - - 68 88 1

AC Taber CPS Red 65 - - 79 1

CDC NRG003 General Purpose - 47 64 83 2 Conquer VB CPS Red - 43 69 83 2 Enchant VB CPS Red - - 64 83 1

HY1312 CPS Red - - 70 91 1

Minnedosa General Purpose - 52 - 91 1

NRG010 General Purpose - 50 81 96 2

Pasteur General Purpose - - 78 101 1

SY985 CPS Red - 44 61 78 2 *During the years 2007, 2011-2012. AC Andrew long term average is 72 bu/A. Wheat midge resistant variety blend.

Table 17 Canada Prairie Spring, General Purpose & Soft White Wheat Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Type AC Taber Grown*

5700 PR CPS 98 2

5701 PR CPS 84 1

AC Andrew Soft white 286 1

AC Crystal CPS 94 6

AC Foremost CPS 97 7

AC Karma CPS 96 7

AC Taber (check) CPS 100 10

AC Vista CPS 100 2

CDC NRG003 General Purpose 177 2 Conquer VB CPS 188 2

Cutler CPS 79 7

Katepwa/Neepawa Hard red 90 10

Minnedosa General Purpose 205 2

NRG010 (GP010) General Purpose 190 2

SY985 CPS 172 2 *During the years 1992-2000, 2010-2011 *AC Taber long term average yield is 52 bu/A. Wheat midge resistant variety blend. Resistant to Imazamox herbicides. Table 18 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Katepwa 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

Wildcat 105 5 *During the years 1990-2000, 2010. *Katepwa long term average yield is 40 bu/A.

Table 19 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Consort

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years


AC Corinne 81 1

Amazon 86 2

Bluesky 100 5

Glenlea 102 5

Katepwa (Check) 100 6

Laser 108 3

Wildcat 103 4 *During the years 1993, 1995-1998 *Katepwa long term average yield is 47 bu/A. Table 20 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years


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

Wildcat 107 3 *During the years 1993-1994, 1996-2001, 2003-2006 *Katepwa long term average yield is 51 bu/A.

Table 21 Extra Strong Wheat Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Katepwa/Neepawa 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

Wildcat 98 8 *During the years 1991-2000, 2010. *The long term average yield for Neepawa/Katepwa is 45 bu/A.

Triticale Variety Trial

Summary Triticale variety trials were conducted in 2012 to evaluate the performance of four varieties and their potential in east-central Alberta. They were tested at Consort 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

Consort

Nitrogen (0-24”) 41 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”) 63 lb/A (optimum)

Potassium (0-6”) 849 lb/A (optimum)

Sulfate (0-24”) 758 lb/A (excess)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) 0.32 (good)

pH 6.1 (neutral)



Precipitation 2012

Month Consort

May 2.5

June 7.7

July 2.8

Total 13.0 inches

Precipitation Summary from previous years – see “Variety Trials” report, page 2.


Consort

Previous Crop Chem fallow

Seeding Date May 11

Seeding Depth 1.25 inches







Fungicide None

Harvest Date Sept 19

Results:

Table 1 Triticale Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield No. 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.

Table 2 Triticale – Consort 2012 Yield Bushel

Yield (bu/A Height Weight TKW

Variety (lb/A) @52 lb/bu) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

Brevis 3838 74 93 61.6 42.2

AC Ultima 3723 72 99 58.5 46.4

Taza 3499 67 101 57.5 41.8

Sunray 3022 58 97 56.3 43.8

Mean 3521 68 98 58 44

LSD (.05) N/A N/A

C.V.% N/A Comments: Brevis and AC Ultima had the highest yields at 74 and 72 bu/A. Statistical analysis was not performed on the data because the grain from all 3 reps of each variety was accidentally combined into one sample prior to weighing. Table 3 Triticale Long Term Yield at Consort

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety AC Ultima* Grown*

AC Alta 114 4

AC Certa 101 3

AC Copia 115 4

AC Ultima 100 6

Brevis 110 2

Bumper 96 1

Companion 94 1

Pronghorn 106 5

SANDRO 97 3 Sunray 93 2

Taza 92 2

*During the years 1997-2001, 2003-2004, 2011-2012. *AC Ultima long term average yield is 62 bu/A. *The check variety is now AC Ultima

Table 4 Triticale Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years


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


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 5 Triticale Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years


AC Alta 104 5

AC Certa 102 5

AC Copia 100 5

AC Ultima 101 4

Banjo 95 3

Brevis (T200) 107 1

Bumper 108 2


SANDRO 102 2

Sunray (T204) 92 2

Taza 94 2

Wapiti 108 4

*During the years 1995-2000, 2010, 2011.

*Pronghorn long term average yield is 60 bu/A.

Barley Variety Trial Thanks to the Alberta Barley Commission for their contribution towards this project. Summary: Barley variety trials were conducted in 2012 to evaluate the performance of several varieties and their potential in the brown soil zone. Twelve 2 row and four 6 row varieties were tested at Hanna as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. The site was planted May 4 with excellent germination. Conditions in May and June were relatively wet while July and August were hot and dry. The plots were combined August 29 with yields slightly above average. The 2 row varieties had an average yield of 92 bu/A, while the 6 row varieties averaged 94 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. Cooperator: Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4

Project Description: Please see “Variety Trials” report on page 1. Site Information:

Soil Analysis Hanna

Nitrogen (0-24”) 51 lb/A (deficient) Phosphorus (0-6”) 27 lb/A (deficient)

Potassium (0-6”) 1099 lb/A (excess)

Sulfate (0-24”) 54 lb/A (optimum)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) 0.68 (good) pH 6.4 (neutral) Soil Texture Clay (21% S, 29% Si, 50% C)*


Precipitation 2012

Month Hanna

May 1.5

June 4.5

July 3.9

Total 9.9 inches



Site Hanna


Seeding Date May 4

Seeding Depth 2 inches

Seedbed Condition Moist


Fertilizer 34 lb/A actual N, 23 lb/A actual P2O5 , 7 lb/A actual K2O, 4 lb/A actual S with the seed

Seeder CARA’s Henderson 500 (5 paired rows on 11” spacing)

Seedbed Preparation Glyphosate application


Harvest Date August 29

Table 1 2 Row Barley – Hanna 2012

Yield Yield (bu/A Height

Bushel Weight TKW

Variety Type (lb/A) @48 lb/bu) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

Gadsby Feed 5330 111 91 50.9 52.2

AAC Synergy (TR09208) Malt 4931 103 83 50.9 44.6

XENA Feed 4880 102 80 52.7 48.8

Champion Feed 4650 97 80 52.2 50.0

TR 07728 Feed 4582 95 77 52.1 49.0

Major Malt 4546 95 83 49.7 44.6

CDC Kindersley Malt 4334 90 85 51.5 41.0

CDC PolarStar Malt 4226 88 84 49.7 42.0

Bentley Malt 4151 86 91 48.5 48.8

AC Metcalfe Malt (Check) 3990 83 86 50.1 42.6

CDC Maverick Forage 3979 83 108 53.3 56.0

CDC Clear (HB08304) Hulless Malt 3353 70 96 63.2 43.0

Mean 4413 92 87 52 47

LSD (.05) 157 3

C.V.% 4 Comments: The test average was 92 bu/A which is slightly above average for this site. Gadsby had the highest yield at 111 bu/A. A difference in yield greater than 3 bu/A is significant. Bushel weights are average, with a mean of 52 lb/bu. One hulless variety was included in this test: CDC Clear (HB08304).

Table 2 2 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Hanna

Avg. No. Avg. No. Yield of Yield of as % of Years as % of Years

Variety Type Check Grown* Variety Type Check Grown*

AAC Synergy (TR09208) Malt 124 1 CDC STRATUS Malt 104 5

Abee Feed 108 1 CDC THOMPSON � Feed 93 4

AC Bountiful Malt 101 4 CDC Trey Feed 96 4

AC Metcalfe (check) Malt 100 15 Cerveza Malt 110 2

AC Oxbow Malt 92 3 Champion Feed 110 6

B1215 Malt 104 3 CONLON Feed 86 3

Bentley Malt 109 4 Conrad Malt 89 2

Bridge Feed 101 4 Formosa Feed 95 2

Busby Feed 122 1 Gadsby Feed 124 2

Calder Malt 96 3 Harrington Malt 102 10

CDC Austenson Feed 115 2 Major Malt 114 3 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 111 3 Ponoka Feed 105 6 CDC Landis Malt 87 1 Rivers Feed 107 2

CDC Maverick Forage 94 2 Seebe Feed 102 7 CDC Meredith Malt 104 3 Stein Malt 106 3 CDC Mindon Feed 103 2 TR07728 Feed 110 3 CDC PolarStar Malt 105 2 Winthrop Feed 102 3 CDC Reserve Malt 102 3 XENA Feed 111 11 CDC Select Malt 106 2 Semi-dwarf Check variety is AC Metcalfe *During the years 1995-2000, 2003-2008, 2010-2012. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 89 bu/A.

Table 3 6 Row Barley – Hanna 2012

Yield Yield (bu/A Height

Bushel Weight TKW

Variety Type (lb/A) @48 lb/bu) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

Muskwa Feed 4967 103 83 47.6 43.8

Vivar Semi-Dwarf Feed 4811 100 74 48.6 38.8

Breton (BT589) Feed 4357 91 95 48.9 45.8

AC Metcalfe 2 Row Malt (Check) 4174 87 92 50.9 43.8

CDC Anderson Malt 4145 86 89 46.6 38.0

Mean 4491 94 87 49 42

LSD (.05) 300 6

C.V.% 5 Comments: Muskwa was the highest yielder with 103 bu/A. A difference in yield greater than 6 bu/A is significant. The average yield for all varieties in this test was 94 bu/A. Summary: Barley varieties have been tested annually at this site near Hanna for 17 years. It has been a great site, producing data that is statistically sound (low coefficient of variation) in most years. Yield data from the years 2001 and 2002 is missing due to high grasshopper populations, severe crop injury and drought in those years. The Barley Variety Trials are a very popular project. Many producers call the CARA office when making their varietal selections for the coming crop year.

Barley Variety Trial site in early July

Table 4 6 Row Barley Long Term Yield at Hanna

Avg. Yield

No. of

Avg. Yield

No. of


Variety Type Check Grown* Variety Type Check Grown*

AC Albright Feed 100 2 Chigwell Feed 97 3 AC Harper Feed 105 6 Duel Feed 107 3 AC Lacombe Feed 108 8 Foster Malt 101 3 AC Metcalfe Malt 100 15 Johnston Feed 102 3 AC Ranger Forage 103 1 Kasota Feed 106 6 AC Rosser Feed 112 7 Lacey Malt 114 3 Alston Feed 102 3 Leduc Feed 114 3 B 1602 Malt 102 4 LEGACY Malt 105 5

Breton (BT589) Feed 105 1 Mahigan Feed 94 1 Brier Feed 117 3 Manny Feed 122 4 Bronco Feed 103 4 Muskwa Feed 103 2 CDC Anderson Malt 86 2 Niska Feed 97 1 CDC Battleford Malt 108 5 Robust Malt 102 3 CDC Clyde Malt 107 4 Stander Feed 96 5 CDC EARL Feed 100 3 Stellar-ND Malt 88 3 CDC Kamsack Malt 92 2 Sundre Feed 111 3 CDC Mayfair Malt 80 3 Tankard Malt 110 3 CDC Sisler Malt 102 7 Tradition Malt 103 5 CDC Springside Malt 117 2 Trochu Feed 119 4 CDC Tisdale Malt 92 2 Tukwa Feed 107 3 CDC YORKTON Feed 97 2 Virden Feed 111 2 Celebration Malt 89 3 Vivar Feed 118 8 *During the years 1995-2000, 2003-2008, 2010-2012. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 89 bu/A. Semi-dwarf Check variety is AC Metcalfe (2 row)

Table 5 Hulless Barley Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety 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 Clear (HB08304) (2r) 80 1

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

Jaeger (6r) 80 3

Merlin (2r) 75 1

Millhouse (2r) 85 2 Peregrine (6r) 72 1

Phoenix (2r) 82 4

Tercel (2r) 83 3

Tyto (6r) 77 3 Semi-dwarf

*During the years 1995-2000, 2003-4, 2006-7, 2010-2012. *AC Metcalfe long term average is 88 bu/A.

Henderson 500 Planter

Oat Variety Trial Summary: Eight oat varieties were planted at the Consort site in 2012 to evaluate their potential in east central Alberta, as part of the Alberta Regional Variety Testing Program. 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: Barry Redel, Consort NW 12-35-7-W4 (2012)

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 Consort 2012

Nitrogen (0-24”) 41 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”) 63 lb/A (optimum)

Potassium (0-6”) 849 lb/A (optimum)

Sulfate (0-24”) 758 lb/A (excess)


pH 6.1 (neutral)



Precipitation 2012

Month Consort

May 2.5

June 7.7

July 2.8

Total 13.0 inches



Consort

Previous Crop Wheat

Seeding Date May 11







Herbicide Buctril M

Fungicide None

Harvest Date Sept 19

Results: Table 1 Oats – Consort 2012 Yield Bushel

Yield (bu/A Height Weight TKW

Variety (lb/A) @34 lb/bu) (cm) (lb/bu) (grams)

CDC Nasser 4141 80 106 39.5 39

OT3054 4139 80 99 41.9 42.2

OT3056 4066 78 103 42.4 46.4

CDC Dancer 3902 75 110 N/A N/A

CDC Seabiscuit 3902 75 102 N/A N/A

Stride 3872 74 108 44.2 37

CDC Minstrel 3806 73 100 41.5 41

Souris 3749 72 99 42.1 30.4

Mean 3947 76 103 42 39

LSD (.05) N/A

C.V.% N/A Comments: The oats performed well at Consort, with a mean yield of 76 bu/A. Statistical analysis was not performed on the data because the grain from all 3 reps of each variety was accidentally combined into one sample before weighing. This is the first year that oats have been grown at Consort since 2000, so it will take a few years to form a long term yield table.

Table 2 Oat Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. 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.

Table 3 Oat Long Term Yield at Acadia Valley

Variety

Avg. Yield # of Years

Grown* as % of

Cascade*

AC Assiniboia 98 6

AC Belmont (hulless) 78 8

AC Ernie (hulless) 73 2

AC Gwen (hulless) 55 2

AC Juniper 96 7

AC Medallion 101 4

AC Morgan 105 3

AC Mustang 110 10

AC Preakness 106 7

AC Rebel 101 5

Boudrias (hulless) 82 1

Bullion (hulless) 59 3

Calibre 109 5

Cascade (Check) 100 10

CDC Boyer 104 8

CDC Dancer 83 2

CDC Pacer 102 4

Derby 105 9

Jasper 99 8

Kaufmann 79 2

Lu 87 1

Pinnacle 103 3

Ronald 89 2

SW EXACTOR 95 3

Triple Crown 98 3

Waldern 113 5 *During the years 1991-1996, 1998-2001. *The long term yield for Cascade is 89 bu/A.

Winter Wheat Variety Trial

Thanks to the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission for their support of this project.

Summary: A trial was initiated in 2011/2012 to evaluate the performance and potential of winter wheat varieties in the brown soil zone. Seeder problems in the fall of 2011 resulted in uneven seed distribution. The yields measured in the fall of 2012 were highly variable and will not be reported. A new trial was seeded in September of 2012. Twenty varieties of winter wheat were seeded at a site near Acadia Valley under the direction of Dr. Robert Graf of Agriculture Canada and funded by the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission.

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 2011 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. 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

Precipitation Month Acadia Valley 2012

May 2.4 June 3.9

July 0.7

Total 7.0 inches


Site Acadia Valley 2011/2012


Seeding Date September 1, 2011


Seedbed Condition Very good


Fertilizer 28 lb/A actual N, 22 lb/A actual P2O5, 3 lb/A actual K2O side, 3 lb/A actual S side banded

Seeder Henderson 500 drill (5 rows on 12” spacing)

Seedbed Preparation Glyphosate applied on chem fallow

Herbicide Spring 2012 - none used

Harvest Date September 20, 2012

Results: The yield from the 2011/2012 winter wheat trial was highly variable and will not be reported. Table 1 Winter Wheat Long Term Yield Acadia Valley/Oyen Yield bu/A* Avg. Yield No. of

AV AV AV Oyen as % of Years Variety Class 2003 2004 2005 2011 CDC OSPREY* Grown

AC Bellatrix Select 35 62 45 40 103 4

AC Readymade Select 31 58 38 - 94 3

AC Tempest Select 34 58 39 - 98 3

Accipiter Gen Purp - - - 38 84 1

Broadview Gen Purp - - - 40 89 1

CDC Buteo Select 33 60 37 40 95 4

CDC CLAIR Generic 38 69 42 - 111 3

CDC Falcon Generic 34 54 38 42 95 4

CDC Harrier Generic 32 62 41 - 100 3

CDC Kestrel Generic 33 62 42 - 103 3

CDC OSPREY Select 34 61 39 45 100 4

CDC Ptarmigan Gen Purp - - - 51 113 1

CDC Raptor Generic 29 54 47 - 99 3

Flourish Select - - - 42 93 1

McClintock Select 25 55 33 - 83 3

Moats Select - - - 36 80 1

Norstar Select 30 - - - 88 1

Peregrine Gen Purp - - - 46 102 1 Radiant Select 37 66 39 41 102 4

Sunrise Gen Purp - - - 42 93 1 *CDC OSPREY average yield is 45 bu/A. *Average based on yield at Acadia Valley (AV 2003-2005) and Oyen (2011). The 2012 yield from Acadia Valley is not included, due to high variability. 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.

Field Pea Variety Trial Summary: Seven green and six 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 10 and May 11. Fungicide applications of Headline EC were made at both sites in an attempt to reduce the incidence and spread of Ascochyta disease. In spite of the fungicide application, the disease caused the peas to lodge at both sites. The peas were harvested in late August. The peas had average yields at Oyen, with an average of 32 bu/A for the green peas and 33 bu/A for the yellow peas. Yield at the Consort site was below average, with 27 bu/A for the green peas and 24 bu/A for the yellow peas. 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

Nitrogen (0-24”) 80 lb/A (deficient) 41 lb/A (deficient)

Phosphorus (0-6”) 33 lb/A (marginal) 63 lb/A (optimum)

Potassium (0-6”) 792 lb/A (optimum) 849 lb/A (optimum)

Sulfate (0-24”) 29 lb/A (marginal) 758 lb/A (excess)

Soil Salinity (E.C.) 0.49 (good) 0.32 (good)

pH 6.8 (neutral) 6.1 (neutral)


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


Precipitation 2012

Month Oyen Consort

May 2.4 2.5

June 3.9 7.7

July 1.3 2.8

Total 7.6 inches 13.0 inches



Oyen Consort

Previous Crop Chem fallow Wheat

Seeding Date May 10 May 11

Seeding Depth 2 inches 2 inches

Seedbed Condition Excellent moisture Excellent moisture


Fertilizer 50 lb/A of 11-52-0 placed between the rows


Seedbed Preparation Pre-seed glyphosate Pre-seed glyphosate

Fungicide Headline EC applied Headline EC applied

Herbicide Odyssey

Harvest Date August 21 August 30

Results:

Table 1 Green Peas – Oyen 2012

Yield

Yield bu/A Height Standability TKW

Variety (lb/A) (60 lb/bu) (cm) (1=erect, 9=flat) (grams)

CDC Raezer 2177 36 71 6 185

Cooper 2130 35 66 6 213

CDC Limerick (CDC 2336-1) 2050 34 71 4 175

Mendel 1833 31 70 7 152

CDC Patrick 1785 30 71 8 135

CDC Tetris 1734 29 77 8 163

CDC Pluto 1712 29 70 8 121

Mean 1917 32 71 7 164

LSD (.05) 213 4

C.V.% 10

Comments: The green pea yield ranged from 29 to 36 bu/A with an average of 32 bu/A.

Table 2 Green Field Pea Long Term Yield at Oyen

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety COOPER* Grown*

Camry 112 2

CDC Limerick (CDC 2336-1) 96 1

CDC Patrick 104 5

CDC Pluto 87 2

CDC Raezer 91 2

CDC Sage 100 1

CDC Striker 107 1

CDC Tetris 84 2

COOPER (check) 100 7

Mendel 88 2

Nessie 117 1

Nitouche 104 4

Stratus 102 1

TAMORA 89 2

Vortex 111 1

*During the years 2004, 2007-2012.

*The long term yield for COOPER is 41 bu/A.

Table 3 Yellow Peas – Oyen 2012 Yield

Yield (bu/A Height Standability TKW Variety (lb/A) @60 lb/bu) (cm) (1=erect, 9=flat) (grams)

Abarth 2351 39 67 7 161

CDC Saffron 2254 38 69 7 180

Amarillo (CDC 2462-30) 2093 35 77 5 188

CDC Meadow (check) 2054 34 70 7 150

Hugo 1635 27 58 9 144

Stella 1622 27 80 5 166

Mean 2002 33 70 7 165

LSD (.05) 270 5

C.V.% 11 Comments: The yellow pea yield ranged from 27 to 39 bu/A with an average of 33 bu/A.

Table 4 Yellow Field Pea Long Term Yield at Oyen Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Cutlass* Grown*

Abarth 114 1

Agassiz 115 1

Amarillo (CDC 2462-30) 102 1

Argus 89 2

Canstar 94 3

CDC Centennial 92 1

CDC Hornet 99 2

CDC Meadow (check) 100 4

CDC Prosper 94 1

CDC Saffron 105 2

CDC Treasure 93 1

Cutlass (former check) 97 3

Eclipse 101 1

Hugo 92 3

Noble 75 1

Polstead 112 1

Reward 69 1

Stella 79 3

SW Marquee 62 1

SW MIDAS 89 1

Thunderbird 89 1

Tudor 77 1

*During the years 2007, 2010-2012.

*The long term yield for CDC Meadow is 51 bu/A.

Table 5 Green Peas – Consort 2012 Yield

Yield (bu/A Standability TKW Variety (lb/A) @60 lb/bu) (1=erect, 9=flat) (grams)

CDC Limerick (CDC 2336-1) 1970 33 4 137

Mendel 1766 29 4 155

CDC Tetris 1725 29 3 136

CDC Pluto 1654 28 5 153

Cooper 1567 26 4 138

CDC Patrick 1481 25 5 127

CDC Raezer 1382 23 6 150

Mean 1649 27 4 142

LSD (.05) 286 5

C.V.% 15

Comments: The yield ranged from 23 to 33 bu/A, which is below average for the area. Height was not measured, due to severe lodging. Yellow Peas – Consort: Average yield of the yellow peas at Consort was 24 bu/A. Unfortunately, the data was highly variable (C.V. value of 27%). This means that the data is not reliable and will not be reported. Height was not measured, due to severe lodging.

Table 6 Green Field Pea Long Term Yield at Provost

Variety

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

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 2

Vortex 103 2 *During the years 2003-2004. *The two year average yield for Nitouche is 38 bu/A.

Table 7 Yellow Field Pea Long Term Yield at Provost

Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Carrera* 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

Tudor 92 1 *During the years 2003-2004. *The two year average yield for Carrera is 41 bu/A.

Table 8 Green Field Pea Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. of

as % of Years

Variety Nitouche* Grown*

Camry 105 1

CDC Striker 91 2

COOPER 104 1

Madoc 84 1

Millennium 84 1

Nessie 92 2

Nitouche (check) 100 2

Stratus 98 2

Vortex 96 2 *During the years 2003-2004. *The two year average yield for Nitouche is 31 bu/A. Table 9 Yellow Field Pea Long Term Yield at Hanna Avg. Yield No. 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.

Lentil Variety Demonstration and Crop Walk Objectives:

To demonstrate several varieties of Clearfield® lentils grown side by side To host a crop walk at the site

Project Description: The site was prepared by applying glyphosate for pre-seed weed control. The variety strips were planted side by side into moist barley stubble with CARA’s Henderson 500 plot drill on May 8. Fertilizer was side banded at seeding. Odyssey was applied for weed control on June 21. The site was marked with project signs and the treatments were identified for the crop walk and self-guided tours. A crop walk was held at the site on July 19, as part of CARA’s annual crop tour. Cooperator: David Eaton, Sibbald NE 33-28-02-W4

Agronomic Summary

Previous crop Barley

Seeding date May 8

Seeding depth 1 inch (2.5 cm)

Seedbed condition Excellent moisture

Seeding rate 12 plants/square foot

Planter Henderson 500 with Morris contour openers

Fertilizer 60 lb/A of 11-52-0

Harvest date August 31

Table 1 Clearfield® Lentil Variety Yield and Characteristics 2012

Clearfield® Height TKW Relative Standability

Variety (cm) (grams) Maturity (1=erect, 9=flat)

CDC Maxim CL 30 34.4 Early-Medium 1

CDC Imax 38 38.6 Med-Late 2

CDC Dazil CL 36 33.6 Medium 2

CDC Imvincible 33 30.2 Early 2

CDC Impress 28 48.0 Late 6

CDC Impower CL 36 61.6 Very Late 7

CDC Imperial 33 23.6 Early 1 Comments: This project was established for demonstration purposes. Individual variety yields will not be reported as there is only one measurement per variety.

Crop Walk July 19, 2012 On July 19, a crop walk was held at the site, as part of the CARA Crop Tour. Duane Ransome, APG Member Relations Coordinator was present to answer questions on lentil production.

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 and as a result, weed control has historically been one of the biggest issues in lentil production. They are a plant that has minimal spread or canopy formation and weeds can emerge through the open canopy during the growing season. This can result in more dockage at harvest and in some cases cause problems at harvest. The development of Clearfield resistant lentils has improved weed 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. 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 height, plant stand and maturity under different weed

management options. Cooperator: David Eaton, Sibbald NE 33-28-02-W4 Project Description A field was staked out in April according to a plan for herbicide applications. On April 22, Edge herbicide was broadcast to treatment strips using CARA’s Fabro plot seeder. The Edge was delivered through the hoses onto flat cardboard that fanned out the dry product. On May 8, CDC Maxim lentils were planted with a plot seeder to the entire treatment area, a block 60 by 30 meters in size. The applications of Roundup and Heat were applied May 15. 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 on June 21 with CARA’s 7 m wide plot sprayer. Weed counts were taken May 17, May 31, June 12, July 6 and July 25. Photographs of the treatment strips were taken regularly. At harvest, yield on the treatment strips was measured with a plot combine.

Agronomic Summary

Previous crop Barley

Seeding date May 8, 2012

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 August 31, 2012

Treatment Dates Herbicide Date Applied

Edge April 22

Roundup + Heat May 15

Odyssey, Solo, Poast Ultra June 21

Treatment List

1. (a) Pre-seed Roundup (at 0.5 L/A) + Heat (at 10.5 g/A) tank mix, plus (b) In crop grassy herbicide Poast Ultra (at 190 ml/A) + Merge at 0.4 L/A

2. Untreated Check

3. (a) Pre-seed Roundup (at 0.5 L/A) + Heat (at 10.5 g/A) tank mix

4. (a) Pre-seed Roundup (at 0.5 L/Acre) plus (b) In crop Odyssey (at 17 g/A) + Merge (at 230 ml/A)

5. (a) Pre-seed Roundup (at 0.5 L/A) plus (b) In crop Solo (at 11.7 g/A) + Merge (at 230 ml/A)

6. Pre-plant Edge (at 6.9 kg/A rate and not incorporated)

7. Pre-plant Edge (at 6.9 kg/A rate and not incorporated) then pre-seed Roundup (at 0.5 L/A)

8. (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)

Observations: Weed counts were taken May 17, May 31, June 12, July 6 and July 25. Due to the relatively cool weather in May, weed populations were very low until the count on June 12. The predominant weed was green foxtail. Volunteer wheat was present, but at very low numbers, making it difficult to determine herbicide effectiveness. Weeds present at extremely low levels were redroot pigweed, foxtail barley, sow thistle, wild oats, wild mustard and kochia. Based on weed counts, all treatments containing Edge had the lowest population of green foxtail. On August 14, the various treatments were given a visual rating, based on overall weed presence. The cleanest strips were the Roundup plus Odyssey and Edge plus Odyssey treatments. The next cleanest strips were Edge, Edge plus Roundup and Roundup plus Solo. The weediest strips were the Untreated check, Roundup + Heat plus Poast Ultra and Roundup + Heat treatments. This project was established for demonstration purposes so individual treatment yield will not be reported. Average yield of the strips ranged between 31 and 37 bu/A. The height of the various treatments ranged from 31 to 35 cm and there were no differences in maturity between the treatments. Crop Walk A crop walk at the Lentil Herbicide Demo site was held on July 19, as part of CARA’s annual crop tour. Duane Ransome, APG Member Relations Coordinator, discussed herbicide options for lentils. (See photo at right.) Summary 2012: Weed populations were low until the count on June 12, due to the cool spring weather. The treatments containing Roundup were applied May 15, before most of the weeds were actively growing. Based on weed counts, all treatments containing Edge had the lowest population of green foxtail. Volunteer wheat, redroot pigweed, foxtail barley and kochia were present at very low numbers, making it difficult to determine herbicide effectiveness based on weed counts. On August 14, the various treatments were given a visual rating, based on overall weed population of the treatment strip. The cleanest strips were from the Roundup plus Odyssey and Edge plus Odyssey treatments. The next cleanest strips were the Edge, Edge plus Roundup and Roundup plus Solo. The weediest strips were the Untreated check , the Roundup + Heat plus Poast Ultra and Roundup + Heat treatments. The cleanest strips included Odyssey, Solo and Edge.

2011: At a similar demonstration conducted 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. Results from the 2011 and 2012 demonstrations illustrate the year to year challenges in obtaining acceptable levels of weed control in lentils. Differences in weed spectrums between sites, in combination with growing conditions, can produce variable results. Lentil producers should select herbicides based on the weed spectrum in the field. 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. The combination of Edge and Odyssey has a higher cost, but results in excellent weed control.

June 12 - Lentils 5 weeks after planting.

CARA Crop Tour July 19 visits Lentil site

Untreated Check Strip rated Very Poor for weed control (taken August 14)

Roundup plus Odyssey rated Excellent for weed control (taken August 14)

Edge plus Odyssey rated Excellent for weed control (taken August 14)

2012 Canola Demonstrations and Crop Walks

Thanks to the Alberta Canola Producers Commission for project funding! A partnership between

Alberta Canola Producers Commission Canola Council of Canada Chinook Applied Research Association Land Owners Barry Redel of Consort

and Blake Robinson of Hanna

Objectives: To demonstrate recommended practices for successful establishment of a canola crop To host canola crop walks to view seeding and fertilizer treatments and discuss canola

establishment, crop management and harvest To demonstrate pest scouting practices

Project Description: The sites were prepared by applying glyphosate for pre-seed weed control. The treatment strips were planted side by side into moist wheat stubble with CARA’s Henderson 500 plot drill on May 9 and May 11, 2012. The drill delivers seed in five split rows on 11 inch spacing, with Morris contour openers. Fertilizer is placed one inch below the seed row. All treatments, other than the “too deep” treatment, were planted ½ inch deep. A fertilizer blend of 26-18-5-3 at 160 lb/A was applied to all plots except the various fertilizer treatments. The canola variety planted was 5020 Canola (Liberty Link) with a thousand seed weight of 5.0 grams. The seeding rate was adjusted for the germination of 89%. On June 12, nitrogen fertilizer was top dressed in a band 7 meters wide perpendicular across the strips. SJ3-02 streaming nozzles were used to apply 28-0-0 at 17 gal/A, delivering 54 lb/A of actual nitrogen. Liberty was applied at 1.35 L/A for weed control on June 21, 2012. The sites were marked with project signs and the treatments were identified for the crop walks and self-guided tours.

Locations: Site 1: Blake Robinson, Hanna Land location: SE 17-31-15-W4 Site 2: Barry Redel, Consort Land Location: SE 14-35-07-W4

Treatments (21 meters long x 2.8 m wide)

Regular rate of speed (3.5 mph) High rate of speed (7.0 mph) Seed regular depth (1/2 inch) Seed too deep (2.5 inches) Not fertilized Fertilized at 100 lb/A 26-18-5-3 Fertilized at 200 lb/A 26-18-5-3 Fertilized at 250 lb/A 26-18-5-3 Very low seeding rate (4 plants/sq.ft.) Low seeding rate (7 plants/sq.ft.) Target seeding rate (14 plants/sq.ft.) Liquid fertilizer was top dressed in a 7 meter width band across all strips June 12. The

rate was 17 gal/A of 28-0-0, delivering 54 lb/A actual nitrogen.

Henderson 500 Drill used to plant treatment strips

Photos of the Treatment Strips June 20, 2012

Planted ½ inch deep

Planted 2.5 inches deep

Side banded fertilizer at 250 lb/A of 26-18-5-3

Not fertilized

Crop Walks Crop Walk June 20, 2012 On June 20, a crop walk was held at both Canola Agronomic Demonstration sites, one at the Hanna site in the morning and at Consort in the afternoon. The sites are located 165 km apart. Canola Council of Canada Agronomists Troy Prosofsky and Clint Jurke led the discussion on canola establishment. There was a thorough discussion on seeding rates and canola’s fertilizer needs. Evidence of the top dressing liquid fertilizer that was applied in a band perpendicular to the demo strips only 8 days earlier could be seen. The discussion was especially interesting at the Hanna site, where the producer Blake Robinson had planted his first crop of canola next to the demo site. The groups of 9 producers at Hanna and 12 producers at Consort were very interested in looking at the various seeding treatments and discussed revisiting the sites in August. Young Canola Enthusiast

Crop Walk August 15, 2012 Canola Council of Canada Agronomists Troy Prosofsky and Dan Orchard led a group of 9 producers at Hanna and 24 producers at Consort on a walk through the various canola treatments. They talked about pest scouting, fertilizer application, swathing and combining. The effects of the top dressed liquid fertilizer that was applied in June were evident in the canola crop. The producers had many questions regarding canola production. CCC Agronomist Dan Orchard Summary The canola agronomic demonstration and crop walks were successful in extending important information to canola producers. They learned about the finer points of canola establishment, fertilizer use, pest scouting, timing of swathing and harvesting considerations. Canola acreage has more than doubled in this area over the last five years. (See the table below.) More than ever, there is a demand by both new and experienced canola growers for hands-on information delivered in the field.

Insured Canola Acres Area 2007 2012 MD of Acadia 3,067 7,042

Special Area 2 4,616 18,194

Special Area 3 6,579 24,168

Special Area 4 18,529 34,320

Total 32,791 83,724 Source: AFSC 2012

Canola Crop Walk at Consort June 20

Crop Walk August 15

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. This is the second year of the project. The fertilizer applications were made in October 2011 and spring 2012. 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 NE 28-24-2-W4

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

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

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 broadcast spring

17 Urea regular 70 side-banded at planting spring

18 Urea treated with Agrotain regular 70 side-banded at planting spring

19 Untreated Check N/A 0 N/A N/A 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.

Results: The 2011/2012 project year is the second year of a three year project. A report will be available once data from all years of the project has been summarized.

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 side-banding N, or so-called “double-shooting” during the planting operation of spring-seeded 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 spring-seeded 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” air-drills. 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;

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 side-banding 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.

Viterra Variety Performance Trials – Custom Project Work

Objective: The objective of these trials is to determine the performance of selected varieties of hard red spring, durum, Dakota pasta durum, Italian durum and 2 row barley in east central Alberta.

Summary: These variety performance trials were initiated by Jim Anderson and Tim Ferguson of Viterra. The seed was pre-weighed by Viterra in Calgary and delivered to CARA in Oyen. The variety trials were established, maintained and harvested by CARA and the results submitted to Viterra. All plots were successful except for the Oyen site which received hail damage September 1. The data from these variety comparisons is the property of Viterra.

Cooperators and Trials: Vince Grudecki, Acadia Valley NE 28-24-2-W4 Hard red spring wheat (25 varieties) Durum (11 varieties) Dakota Pasta Durum (8 varieties) Italian Durum (14 varieties)

Dwayne Smigelski, Oyen SE 16-28-3-W4 Durum (11 varieties) Dakota Pasta Durum (8 varieties)

Blake Robinson, Hanna SE 17-31-15-W4 2 row Barley (18 varieties)

Variety trial site near Acadia Valley

Spreading fertilizer on perennial forages near Youngstown

Radish mix Stanmore site

Annual forage site near Stanmore Stanmore annual forage

pea combination

Annual Forage Dry Matter Trial

Note: Supported by Alberta’s Agriculture Initiative Program in 2012 and the Alberta Beef Producers in 2009 – 2011.

Background: 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. 2012 is the fourth year of this project which includes sites at 10 locations in the province. CARA’s sites in the Special Areas represent the brown soil zone in east central Alberta. A decision was made to cut back to one site 2012 due to reduced funding. Drought conditions in 2009 resulted in no data. This report includes a summary of the results from 2010, 2011 and 2012 as well as data 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) (2010-2012) Barry Redel, Consort NW 12-37-07-W4 (Special Area 4) (2010-2011) 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: Chem-fallow Seedbed Preparation: Glyphosate was applied prior to seeding Seeding Depth: 2 - 2 ½ inches Seeding Date: May 28 Plot Size: 1.52 m by 5 m, replicated 4 times in randomized block design Fertilizer: 30 lb/A of 11-52-0 was placed between the paired seed rows Herbicides: MCPA Sodium on June 22 Harvest: The target harvest stage for all crops was soft dough. Site Information: Table 1 Soil Analysis

Nutrient Madge Site Fall 2011

Nitrogen (0-24) 219 lb/A (optimum)

Phosphorus (0-6) 84 lb/A (optimum)

Potassium (0-6) 1113 lb/A (excess)

Sulfate (0-24) 1243 lb/A (excess)


pH 7.7 (neutral)

Crops Seeded in 2012:

Barley: Busby (TR0663) CDC Austenson CDC Coalition CDC Cowboy Chigwell Gadsby Ponoka Seebe Sundre Trochu Vivar Xena

Oats:

AC Morgan AC Mustang AC Juniper CDC Baler CDC SOI Everleaf Foothill Jordan Murphy Waldern

Peas: 40-10 CDC Horizon

Triticale: AC Ultima Bunker Companion Pronghorn Taza (T198) Tyndal

Combinations:

40-10 + Murphy 40-10 + Pronghorn 40-10 + Vivar CDC Horizon + Murphy CDC Horizon + Pronghorn CDC Horizon + Vivar Murphy/CDC Cowboy Murphy/Pronghorn

Results:

Table 2 Summary of Dry Matter Forage Yield Stanmore Consort (2010-2011)

2012 Yield (lb/A)

2012 Yield as % Check

Average Yield

Average Yield as % Check


Oats AC Mustang 8324 115 7500 108 98 AC Juniper 9368 129 9368 129* n/a CDC Baler 8742 121 8571 125 102 CDC SOI 8292 115 8292 115* 95 Derby n/a n/a n/a n/a 101 Everleaf 6629 92 6491 94 99 Foothill 7510 104 6916 100 112 Jordan 8241 114 6981 101 103 Morgan 8557 118 7587 110 104 Murphy (check) 7242 100 6888 100 100 CDC Nasser (was OT 3039)

n/a n/a n/a n/a 119

Waldern 8145 113 7192 104 104 Murphy/CDC Cowboy

8037 111 8037 111* n/a

Murphy/ Pronghorn

8640 119 8640 119* n/a

Mean 8145

LSD (.05) 1568

CV (%) 13.37

Barley AC Lacombe n/a n/a 4244 121* 94 AC Ranger n/a n/a 4662 133* 97 Busby (TR0663) 11287 101 8060 120 109 CDC Austenson 11137 100 8037 120 97 CDC Coalition 10926 98 10926 98* CDC Cowboy 11393 102 8145 121 106 Chigwell 10237 92 7263 107 104 Gadsby 10693 96 10693 96* Ponoka 11923 107 8604 129 98 Seebe 10693 96 7601 112 98 Sundre 10167 91 7329 110 96 Trochu 11421 102 7877 113 96 Vivar (check) 11172 100 7337 100 100 Xena 9889 89 7012 103 92 Mean 11019 LSD (.05) 1973 CV (%) 12.44

2010 & 2012 data combined * One year data only 2010 & 2011 data combined

Table 2 con’t Summary of Dry Matter Forage Yield Stanmore Consort (2010-2011)

2012 Yield (lb/A)

2012 Yield as % Check

Average Yield



Triticale AC Ultima 9672 88 7688 102 94 Bunker 9531 87 6900 92 108 Companion 9454 86 7470 99 90 Pronghorn (check)

11019 100 7732 100 100

Taza (T198) 9886 90 6659 87 87 Tyndal 9506 86 7113 94 94 Mean 9844 LSD (.05) 1852 CV (%) 10.34

Late-Seeded Murphy n/a n/a 6815 122 117 Pronghorn n/a n/a 5479 97 118 Vivar (check) n/a n/a 7425 100 100 Crown Millet n/a n/a 5417 63 61 German Millet n/a n/a 3027 46 51 Proso Millet n/a n/a 5090 61 63 Siberian Millet n/a n/a 4997 51 54

2010 – 2012 data combined * One year data only 2010 & 2011 data combined

Table 3 Feed Quality Analysis 2012 – Stanmore SIte

Feed Quality (as % of Check*)

Crude Protein ADF TDN Ca P Mg K

Pulse Crop Block

Vivar (check) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Murphy 98 118 93 63 81 94 109

Pronghorn 101 106 98 74 81 76 96

40-10 Peas n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

CDC Horizon Peas n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

40-10/Vivar 127 97 101 221 88 135 72

40-10/Murphy 116 112 95 124 96 112 88

40-10/Pronghorn 104 107 97 105 92 106 81

CDC Horizon/Murphy 97 118 93 150 81 141 100 CDC Horizon/ Pronghorn

112 116 94 192 81 129 86

CDC Horizon/Vivar 139 79 109 187 119 124 81

603-1 Chickpea 140 79 108 297 85 247 86

ICC-8923 Chickpea 138 84 196 263 81 194 99

*Vivar (check) 13.15% 32.54% 63.55% 0.38% 0.26% 0.17% 2.35%

Table 3 con’t Feed Quality Analysis 2012 – Stanmore SIte Feed Quality (as % of Check*) Crude Protein ADF TDN Ca P Mg K

Oats

AC Morgan 87 90 104 91 93 78 88

AC Mustang 103 99 100 105 76 94 89

AC Juniper 91 95 102 91 59 100 111

CDC Baler 126 106 97 118 83 100 103

CDC SOI 97 85 107 82 86 94 86

Derby

Everleaf 125 103 99 109 90 100 121

Foothill 99 92 104 64 100 83 72

Jordan 91 95 102 86 93 117 88

Murphy (check) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Waldern 91 102 99 127 79 102 89 Murphy/CDC Cowboy

98 105 98 118 79 89 104

Murphy/Pronghorn 87 108 96 109 86 94 101

*Murphy (Check) 13.22% 35.15% 61.52% 0.22% 0.20% 0.18% 2.27%

Barley

Busby (TR0663) 103 127 92 166 95 92 134

CDC Austenson 118 130 91 128 95 117 130

CDC Coalition 101 110 97 93 86 92 116

CDC Cowboy 101 131 91 155 95 117 149

Chigwell 103 145 86 121 86 100 166

Ponoka 95 137 92 155 86 92 126

Gadsby 116 110 97 117 105 117 107

Seebe 117 127 92 114 105 100 128

Sundre 115 111 97 103 105 108 130

Trochu 100 115 96 145 100 117 130

Vivar (check) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Xena 88 130 91 93 95 83 138

*Vivar (Check) 11.25% 26.1% 68.57% 0.29% 0.22% 0.12% 1.52%

Triticale

AC Ultima 87 107 97 88 71 185 106

Bunker 90 105 98 100 81 100 102

Companion 96 98 101 88 90 92 92

Pronghorn (check) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Taza (T198) 80 93 103 96 86 85 102

Tyndal 88 99 100 80 90 92 100 *Pronghorn (Check)

11.9% 36.35% 60.58% 0.25% 0.21% .13% 2.26%

Table 4 Historical Data Special Area 3 Sites Special Area 4 Sites Average

(lb/A) Average Yield as % Foothill

Average (lb/A)

Average Yield as % Foothill

Oats Lu 3447 (2) 88 6867 (4) 91 AC Mustang 3350 (4) 100 5770 (6) 95 Cascade - - 5511 (2) 86 CDC Baler 3398 (4) 89 7592 (5) 112 CDC Bell 3448 (5) 94 6499 (7) 118 Derby 4095 (7) 104 5755 (9) 102 Everleaf - - 4570 (1) 91 Foothill (check) 3928 (7) 100 5907 (11) 100 Murphy 3971 (2) 101 5538 (6) 85 Waldern 3767 (6) 101 5820 (9) 103 Barley AC Harper 3678 (5) 103 5431 (5) 90 AC Lacombe - - 6022 (2) 105 AC Ranger 3365 (3) 103 5530 (5) 87 AC Rosser - - 4802 (1) 68 Brier 4012 (6) 110 5782 (7) 97 CDC Cowboy 5184 (1) 111 6612 (3) 94 CDC Dolly - - 5069 (2) 86 CDC Helgason - - 4713 (2) 80 Conlon - - 5693 (1) 80 Dillon 3700 (2) 92 5720 (4) 78 Haybet 4143 (2) 106 6047 (4) 83 Johnston 3671 (6) 99 5611 (9) 97 Manny 4789 (1) 102 5019 (3) 73 McLeod - - 5485 (1) 109 Niobe - - 4853 (1) 81 Ponoka 4070 (2) 104 6033 (4) 80 Seebe 3850 (4) 117 5050 (6) 90 Sommerville 4150 (2) 106 6160 (3) 71 Stockford - - 6167 (1) 123 Sundre - - 5875 (2) 101 Trochu - - 5057 (1) 101 Vivar - - 5350 (1) 107 Westford 3548 (6) 95 5581 (9) 95 Xena - - 3717 (1) 74 Triticale AC Alta 3352 (4) 98 5409 (8) 86 AC Certa 4295 (4) 114 5130 (4) 96 AC Copia 3881 (5) 105 5740 (6) 91 AC Ultima 3657 (4) 108 5274 (5) 91 Bunker - - 4308 (1) 86 Companion 5608 (1) 120 7110 (3) 98 Pronghorn 3719 (5) 101 6202 (8) 101 Sandro 3349 (3) 97 5039 (3) 96 Tyndal - - 2380 (1) 47 1995-2006: Average Yield (# years grown at site) Percent of Foothill in years grown 1995-2007: Average Yield (# years grown at site)

Table 4 con’t Historical Data

Special Area 3 Sites Special Area 4 Sites

Average (lb/A)

Avg Yield as % Foothill

Average (lb/A)

Avg Yield as % Foothill

Others AC Taber CPS 3269 (4) 85 4130 (5) 73 Gazelle Spring Rye 3447 (4) 104 4323 (4) 82 Glenlea ESW 3095 (5) 84 5198 (6) 86 AC Commander Durum - - 4274 (1) 85 AC Strongfield Durum - - 4440 (2) 69 Kyle Durum 4389 (1) 94 5286 (1) 76 Plenty Durum 2864 (4) 85 5459 (5) 94 Hybrid Sorghum 3922 (1) 94 3401 (2) 46 Crown Millet 6496 (1) 139 3647 (1) 51 Golden German Millet 4792 (1) 102 2656 (1) 30 Proso Millet 5298 (1) 113 3389 (2) 45 Siberian Millet 4389 (1) 94 3079 (2) 40 Barley Blends Brier + Companion 5604 (1) 120 7701 (1) 88 Brier + Derby 4031 (6) 109 5884 (7) 99 Brier + Foothill 3778 (6) 100 5983 (7) 100 Brier + Waldern 3993 (6) 110 5474 (7) 91 Sommerville + Foothill 4329 (2) 112 7161 (2) 78 Triticale Blends AC Alta + Brier 3652 (5) 103 5273 (5) 86 AC Alta + Foothill 6507 (5) 97 5702 (5) 92 Companion + Foothill 5286 (1) 113 7246 (1) 82 Peas 4010 6084 (4) 70 4661 (3) 76 AC Greenfield 2289 (3) 65 3749 (3) 62 AC Nugget 2504 (2) 73 5549 (2) 70 Carneval 2659 (3) 72 4149 (3) 74 CDC Sonata 7927 (1) - 7427 (1) 104 MP1106 9633 (1) - 5316 (1) 75 Journey - - - - SW Salute 6561 (1) 140 5007 (1) 57 Pea Combinations AC Greenfield +AC Alta 3746 (4) 97 3979 (3) 68 CDC Sonata + Companion 4888 (1) 85 4742 (2) 63 AC Greenfield + Brier 3741 (4) 98 4825 (4) 78 CDC Sonata + CDC Cowboy 4533 (1) 64 AC Greenfield + Foothill 3436 (4) 86 4887 (5) 75 CDC Sonata + CDC Baler - - - - C Greenfield + Glenlea 3453 (4) 91 4161 (4) 67 AC Greenfield + Kyle 3428 (4) 91 4361 (4) 71 AC Greenfield + Sommerville 3962 (1) 85 4006 (2) 51 Carneval + AC Taber 2957(3) 78 3443 (3) - CDC Sonata + AC Strongfield - - 2740 (1) 39 1995-2006: Average Yield (# years grown at site) Percent of Foothill in years grown 1995-2007: Average Yield (# years grown at site)

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. Only the Madge site at Stanmore was seeded in 2012. The site received above average growing season precipitation, including a downpour in July which flooded a portion of Rep 1. Due to the flooding, yield data for the pulse crops and pulse/cereal mixes was too variable to be considered reliable so is not reported. A summary of 2012 and 2010-2012 average yields is presented in Table 2. As the average yields may include only 2 crop years of data, caution should be exercised in interpreting the numbers. 2012 yields did not differ significantly from the mean within any of the crop blocks. Feed quality analysis for each variety appears in Table 3. Protein levels of all samples are more than adequate to maintain a beef cow from fall through calving. Supplementation of minerals may be recommended with some of the crops, so review of the analysis with a ration specialist or with the Cowbytes program is advisable. Table 4 contains data generated in past projects evaluating annual crops for forage yield in Special Areas 3 and 4. Multiple years of 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 Pronghorn, AC Certa and Sandro triticales.

Perennial Forage Trial Thank you to SeCan, Hannas, Viterra and Brett Young for providing seed for this trial

Overview: A number of alfalfa and grasses were planted for yield evaluation in early July of 2012. Three replications of each variety were seeded into chem fallow at recommended rates for dryland production. Weed control included a pre-seed application of glyphosate plus mowing of the entire site in early August. An evaluation of establishment will be made in June of 2013. Samples will be collected with a forage plot harvestor for yield determination in early July. Yield will be monitored for approximately 5 years. Objective: To evaluate the yield potential of a number of alfalfa and grass varieties when grown under dryland conditions in east central Alberta. Cooperator: Aaron Rude, Sedalia SW 14-31-06-W4 Project Details: Seeder: Fabro double disc plot drill Previous Crop: Chem fallow Seedbed Preparation: Glyphosate prior to seeding Moisture conditions at seeding were excellent Seeding Date: July 5, 2012 Seeding Depth: ½ - ¾ inch Row Spacing: 14 inches Plot Size: 7 feet by 15 feet Fertilizer: 30 lb/A 11-52-0 Species and Varieties Included in the Trial: Seeding Rate Alfalfa: Able Heinrichs All alfalfas were seeded at 7 lb/A

AC Blue J Rambler AC Grazeland Rangelander Beaver Spredor 4 Halo Spyder Hannas HiTech Survivor Magnum 38801 Wet Yellowhead Other Legumes: Oxley Cicer Milk Vetch 14 lb/A AC Oxley II Cicer Milk Vetch 14 lb/A Sainfoin 30 lb/A Bull Birds Foot Trefoil 10 lb/A

Grasses: Seeding Rate

Fairway Crested Wheatgrass 7 lb/A Kirk Crested Wheatgrass 7 lb/A AC Saltlander Green Wheatgrass 8 lb/A Greenleaf Pubescent Wheatgrass 10 lb/A Canada Wild Rye 12 lb/A

Medallion Perennial Rye Grass 10 lb/A Russian Wildrye Grass 8 lb/A Dahurian Wildrye Grass 10 lb/A AC Admiral Meadow Brome 12 lb/A AC Armada Meadow Brome 12 lb/A Fleet Meadow Brome 12 lb/A Carlton Smooth Brome 10 lb/A

Kootenay Orchard Grass 6 lb/A Killarney Orchard Grass 6 lb/A Sheep Fescue 8 lb/A Boreal Creeping Red Fescue 5 lb/A Common Kentucky Bluegrass 5 lb/A Western Wheatgrass 16 lb/A AC SharpTail Needle and Thread Grass 10 lb/A Tall Wheatgrass 20 lb/A AC Polar Northern Wheatgrass 10 lb/A

Evaluating Inherent Salinity Tolerance Among Selected, Dormant-type Alfalfa Populations

* Condensed from Dr. Harold Steppuhn’s Fall 2010 Progress Report and Final Report for Phase II: “Field Extension and Verification for Evaluating Inherent Salinity Tolerance among

Selected, Dormant-type Alfalfa Populations” December 31st, 2012. This project is supported by Cal/West Seeds, Northstar Seed, Viterra (Proven Seed) and the South West Forage

Association of Saskatchewan

Project Team Leader: Dr. Harold Steppuhn, Research Scientist, Semi-arid Prairie Agricultural Research Center, AAFC, Swift Current CARA Project Cooperator: Red Wing Farms (The Chiliaks), Sibbald 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 = Bridgeview (L4039 SC Salt) D = Halo (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 mixed-grass pastures and native rangelands, it has also provided excellent hay within pure stands in rain-fed environments.

C = Bridgeview (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. The cultivar was approved for registry in May 2011 by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. D = Halo (CW34024) This variety is registered in the United States and its seed is marketed as PGI 427 by Producer’s Choice Seed, a subsidiary of Cal/West Seeds. It is marketed in Canada as Halo by Viterra, following registration by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in 2010. PGI 427 was 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 was approved by the American National Alfalfa and Miscellaneous Legumes Variety Review Board (ANA& MLVRB) of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) approval for registration and license in 2011.

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. Two field sites, one in Alberta and one in Saskatchewan, were selected for the field phase. 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.

Figure 1. Seeding plan showing blocks and plots for six dormant alfalfa test populations at two field

sites: (1) Chiliak Site, Chinook Applied Research Association near Sibbald, Alberta, and (2) Field 18, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre at Swift Current, Saskatchewan; plot dimensions: 6 feet by 80 feet (1.83 m by 24.4 m).

Six sampling units were identified along the length of each plot. Each sampling unit was 2 square meters. It was assumed the salinity within each sampling unit was consistent – a technique used to overcome the variability of the salinity within the site. Splitting each ‘sampling unit’ provides a ‘split-plot’: one half of the unit in one alfalfa plot and the other half in the adjacent alfalfa plot. 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 verified 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 covered three growing seasons: the 2010 establishment year and the 2011 & 2012 forage production years. Split-plot sampling of the above ground (shoot) biomass followed selection of three sampling units along each of the 35 plot borders along the two 80 foot lengths on both edges of each plot. An effort was made to locate the sampling units for each alfalfa pair across as wide a range of salinity as possible. A minimum of six sampling units per line resulted. Two depths of soil samples (15-30 cm and 46-61 cm) were taken in October of the establishment year (2010). EM-38 measurements were also taken in 2010 and again when shoot biomass samples were collected. 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 0.5 inches deep. Wet weather in May of 2010 delayed seeding until June 30 at the Chiliak site and July 2nd at the Swift Current site.

D D D D D D G GGGGG A AAAAA C CCCCC F FF FFF J JJJJJ

Block 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

PlotA = RangelanderF = CW 064027

C = L4039 SC (Bridgeview)G = Rugged

D = CW 34024 (Halo)J = TS4002

Post seeding weed control included 0.2 L/A Assure II plus 0.5 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.

Alfalfa at the Chiliak Site on July 29, 2010. (Site was seeded June 30) Plant emergence, height and spacing of the alfalfa lines were measured six weeks following seeding. Soil salinity was measured by core samples taken in October of 2010 followed by readings with an EM38. Biomass was measured in 2011 by hand clipping four one meter long sections of row along plot edges within each line. Neighboring plots were clipped in the same manner, providing a side-by-side comparison of lines. Target plant stage for clipping was between 10 and 20% bloom. Biomass measurements in 2012 were taken with a Mott Harvester, cutting three sections of the middle two rows of each plot. All samples were weighed, dried and re-weighed to establish dry matter yield.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS Plant Establishment Generally, the first-year emergence data indicated that the alfalfa plants representing each of the six Phase II alfalfa populations (the six best out of the nine tested in the SaltLab in Phase I) all successfully established as crops at the Chiliak and Field 18 Sites. Plant establishment, six weeks after the late June seedings, benefited from ample 2010 late winter, spring, and early summer snowmelt and rainfall at both field sites. Ninety-two percent of the seedling plants emerged within 100 mm of each other at both sites, although the Field 18 Site had to be reseeded because too much rain caused the seedbed topsoil to erode and collect in the seed rows. Both sites recorded very even plant spacing. No statistical differences (Pα 0.05) were observed in emergence or spacing percentages among the six alfalfa test populations at either site. Success in seeding alfalfa crops in semiarid, non-irrigated environments requires a measure of soil water for seed germination. Rainwater falling near the time of seeding on saline seedbeds also dilutes salt concentrations in substrate solutions. The excellent emergence in all the alfalfa test populations at both sites resulted, at least in part, due to the rainfalls occurring at these sites before and just after seeding in 2010. Although not measured, reductions in near-surface salt concentrations most likely contributed to the successful plant emergence observed at both sites. The establishment year observations of the seedlings included a measurement of plant height. CW064027 consistently ranked as the tallest population on August 18, 2010 at both sites. It visually maintained height dominance over the other populations well into September of 2010 at both sites. This same population, CW064027, also expressed a height advantage over the other populations in the Phase I, Salt Lab screening. In the Lab, plants of this population measured the tallest under all salt concentrations in the 1st and 2nd harvest cuts, but showed little or no advantage in the 3rd cut. Its height dominance in the field also disappeared in the 2nd and 3rd years of growth. Salinity Soil cores were extracted from 108 locations across the plots at both sites in October of the establishment year, 2010. At that time, forage production comparisons were planned for only one year, 2011. This plan limited soil core depths to the upper 61 cm (two feet) of the soil profile. The soil samples were ground and evaluated for electrical conductivity of saturated paste extracts, ECe, during the winter of 2010-11. The ECe results respectively placed the Field 18 and the Chiliak Sites into the moderate and severe salinity categories based on the U.S. Salinity Lab’s soil salinity classification system, where an ECe of 8 dS m-1 separates moderately saline soils from those considered severely saline. No further soil sampling was planned or funded because of the short life of Phase II. EM 38 soil surveys taken in October 2010 and again at the time of the 2011 forage harvest would suffice in evaluating the soil salinity. The original research plan for Phase II covered two years, that is, an establishment (2010) and a forage production (2011) year. Fortunately, the South West Forage Association and the Chinook Applied Research Association covered the costs of a

second production year (2012). Both production years (2011 & 2012) received less snow and rain at both sites than during the establishment (2010) year. The 2011 growing season at the Chiliak Site was especially dry. Carryover soil water from 2010 was utilized at both sites during 2011. Precipitation early in 2012 up to the middle of July accumulated in normal quantities at both sites, after which dry weather set in until November. Contour ECa salinity maps derived from the EM38 surveys revealed changes in salt concentrations in soil solutions from year-to-year at each site. Root-zone salinity increased from October 2010 to July 2012 at both sites according to the EM38 surveys, classifying both sites as severely saline in 2012. The surveys further indicated that these increases in root-zone salinity resulted from soil solution salts moving upward within the soil profiles at both sites. Within the life of Phase II, the response in shoot growth of the alfalfa plants was typical of root-zone salinity in a semiarid prairie environment. Dry Shoot Biomass (Forage Production) Differences in the production of the dry shoot biomass measured in this field trial related to site and to year more than to the growth of the alfalfa populations under comparisons. There was no significant difference between yields within either site in either or 2011 and 2012. Mean yield of the alfalfa lines ranged from 2507 to 2900 lb/A at the Chiliak site and between 8021 and 8717 lb/A at the Field 18 site in 2011. 2012 biomass yield figures were less for each site. Differences between the two production years measured almost 2 to 1 from 2011 to 2012. 2012 biomass at the Chiliak site ranged from 598 lb/a to 1106 lb.A and between 3462 and 3872 at the Field 18 site. With these wide ranges in variability for site and year, yield differences among the alfalfa populations were difficult to detect; such is typically the challenge for field trials. Large sample numbers counter variability in field trials, which led to seeding six replicate blocks at each site. This allowed the field comparisons necessary to verify the Phase I SaltLab results. Root-zone salinity during the 2011 growing season reflected salt concentrations classed as moderately saline. In 2011, shoot biomass yields at the Field 18 Site favored Halo as the most productive in dry matter shoot yield among all the test alfalfa populations except for Rugged, which equaled it statistically (Table 12). This agreed with the SaltLab results which also favored Halo over the other populations in shoot biomass productivity when the test plants were grown under moderate sulfate-dominated salinity. Based on the 2011 shoot biomass yields from the moderately saline Field 18 Site, the trend in salinity tolerance for the test alfalfa populations was: Halo≤Rugged≤ Rangelander=CW064027≤TS4002=Bridgeview. In 2012, the root-zone at both sites contained dissolved salts in sufficient concentrations to rate the sites as severely saline. The resulting shoot biomass yields failed statistically to differ among the test alfalfa populations, similar to the results previously obtained in the Phase I Salt Lab screening. Halo’s statistical dominance in shoot yield in the field under severe salinity, as had occurred in the SaltLab results, disappeared.

Conclusions In conclusion, this field trial verified the results obtained in the 2009 SaltLab screening for the six alfalfa field-trial populations, namely:

(1) that when plants of Halo alfalfa are grown in soils classed as moderately saline (and likely in slightly saline soils as well), shoot biomass production could be expected to out-yield the first-cut hay crops of the other populations except perhaps yields from Rugged alfalfa;

(2) that in severely saline soils none of the alfalfa populations tested could be expected to yield more shoot biomass than those from any of the other populations;

(3) that alfalfa canopy openings caused by increases in root-zone salinity to a severe state could allow weeds (e.g. foxtail barley) to invade the alfalfa stand and

(4) that the mean yield in alfalfa shoot biomass from the six populations tested in severely saline soils, regardless of “salinity tolerant” designations appropriate for moderately-saline soils, may fail to also apply to these same plant populations grown in severely-saline root zones. The main reason for this fourth conclusion rests with the excess variability associated with alfalfa production from severely-saline soils.

A final conclusion from this study identifies a need to compare shoot biomass yields in field-simulating lab-environments (such as in the SaltLab) in order to explain the varied results often generated from field trials. The natural variability of root-zone salinity in semiarid, non-irrigated agricultural environments makes it almost impossible to detect true differences in the salinity tolerances of alfalfa populations in field trials. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge and thank the seed companies supporting this research: Cal/West Seeds, Viterra and Northstar Seed. Special thanks also go to the South West Forage Association and the Chinook Applied Research Association for supporting a second production year of data collection. We also thank our colleagues at our respective research centers for their efforts and contributions, especially Mr. Ken Deobald, Mr. Matt Evjen, Ms. Raelyn Cochrane, and many others. Note: Please contact the CARA Center for the complete, detailed report of this project.

Comparison of Various Fertilizer Applications to Established Perennials Thanks to Dr. Tom Jensen, International Plant Nutrition Institute,

for coordinating this project Background: Production on re-seeded perennial forage sites within the brown soil zone tends to decline with the age of the stand. One reason for the decline in production is limited soil nutrients. Application challenges, the cost and risk of volatilization and/or drought deter most producers from applying chemical fertilizer. The use of slow release nitrogen products may address some of these concerns. A project was initiated in the fall of 2011 to evaluate response to various forms of nitrogen when applied to an aged hay stand (crested wheatgrass, brome grass and alfalfa). Initial applications were made in the fall of 2011 with additional treatments made in the spring of 2012. Forage yield was evaluated in July 2012. Objective: To compare yield response to various forms of urea fertilizer, with and without loss inhibitors in both fall and spring timing of application. Cooperator: Ron Rude, Youngstown NW 5-30-08-W4 Treatments: 4 replications of 19 treatments were applied to an aged hay stand in the fall of 2011 and spring of 2012. The stand included crested wheatgrass, brome grass and a limited amount of alfalfa. All plots received 25 lb/A P205, 10 lb/A K20 and 5 lb/A sulphur. Samples were collected with a flail type forage harvestor July 10 2012. Applying spring 2012 treatments

Treatments:

Nitrogen Form Size Placement Time

Urea Regular Broadcast Fall

Large Urea Large Broadcast Fall

Urea Regular Broadcast Spring

Large Urea Large Broadcast Spring

Urea treated with Agrotain Regular Broadcast Fall

Large Urea treated with Agrotain Large Broadcast Fall

Urea treated with Agrotain Regular Broadcast Spring

Large Urea treated with Agrotain Large Broadcast Spring

Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve Regular Broadcast Fall

Large Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve Large Broadcast Fall

Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve Regular Broadcast Spring

Large Urea treated with Agrotain + N-Serve Large Broadcast Spring

Super U Regular Broadcast Fall

Super U Regular Broadcast Spring

Large Urea plus Agrotain Plus Large Broadcast Fall

Large Urea plus Agrotain Plus Large Broadcast Spring

Urea Regular Banded Spring

Urea treated with Agrotain Regular Banded Spring

Untreated Check N/A N/A N/A Regular – Regular size granule urea (1/8 inch in diameter) Large – Large granule urea usually called “Forestry Grade Urea” (½ inch in diameter) 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

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. Agrotain Plus – contains both a urease inhibitor (N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide),to control volatilization and an additional nitrogen stabilizer (dicyandiamide) that works to control denitrification and leaching. Results: The response to nitrogen fertilizer from all treatments was significant, resulting in dry matter yield from 2.4 to 3.6 times the yield of the untreated check (302 lb/A). Average yield of the nitrogen treatments was 1015 lb/A with no statistical difference between them. When granular size was analyzed separately, there was a greater forage yield from the large granules. There was also a slight advantage to applying the nitrogen in the spring over the fall. There was no real effect from the different release inhibitors, which is understandable as the dry fall, winter and early spring at the site are not typically conditions for nitrification losses. Response to the fertilizer treatments will be monitored for 3 to 5 years.

Tillage Radish Summary Tillage radish has been promoted as a soil amendment tool – i.e. having the ability to open and loosen soil where machinery cannot reach and the root provides a nutritional source of organic matter for future crops. Seeding is recommended 30 – 60 days prior to a killing frost. It is compatable with other annual crops so it can be under-seeded to winter wheat or annual crops used for forages. The top portion of the plant can be grazed after a few week’s growth and again when re-growth is adequate. The root is also palatable, but may be hard for cattle to pull out of the ground. It provides a valuable source of nutrients once it breaks down in the soil. Cooperator: Madge Farms, Stanmore NW 21-30-11-W4 Description: Four replications of tillage radish plots were seeded July 27 with CARA’s Henderson 500 seed drill. The site had been sprayed with glyphosate for weed control prior to seeding. All plots were seeded at 6 lb/A. No in-crop herbicide was used. Samples of top and root growth were collected in mid October to evaluate top growth yield and nutritional qualities. Dry matter yield of the top growth was 1730 lb/A. Roots were as large as 1.5 inches in diameter and up to 8 inches long. Soil qualities will be monitored in 2013. Feed Analysis – Dry Matter Basis Radish Top Radish Root Protein 12.0 % 13.4 Acid Detergent Fibre 15.71 11.71 Calcium 1.27 0.17 Phosphorus 0.23 0.21 Magnesium 0.35 0.15 Potassium 1.37 1.67 Sodium 2.12 0.82 Total Digestible Nutrients

74.69 n/a

Digestible Energy 3.29 n/a Digestible energy of radish root is not available as the lab has no calculation for energy

Fall Grazing Options Summary Many cattle producers are extending their fall grazing season by swath grazing annual crops, bale grazing annuals or perennials or grazing stockpiled perennials. Preserving the nutritional qualities of spring seeded annual crops can be a challenge under adverse weather conditions. Delayed seeding of annuals is one method of providing a better quality forage for fall grazing, although potential yield is often less than from a crop seeded in May. Producers have found mixing different annuals in a late seeded ‘crop cocktail’ can also enhance nitrogen fixation while providing a very palatable forage of excellent quality. To demonstrate this potential, a mixture of Proso and German millets, field peas, oats and tillage radish were seeded in a 2 acre demonstration at Madge Farms, Stanmore. Producer Don Vincent also seeded a cocktail on his winter feeding ground to help reduce compaction while providing fall grazing. Tillage radish has been promoted as a crop which can improve soil compaction and provide nutrients for subsequent crops. See Tillage Radish Trial report. A field tour of both sites was held in November 15. Sites: Madge Farms, Stanmore NW 21-30-11-W4 Don Vincent, Hanna SW 30-29-12-W4 Madge Demo: Crop Mix: Proso Millet 3 lb/A German Millet 3 Peas 10 Oats 10 Tillage Radish 3

Seeded: July 27 Herbicides: Glyphosate applied pre-seeding Estimated Yield: 2543 lb/A Grazing Info: Grazing days were not measured on the demo site

Vincent Site: 40 lb/A of triticale, peas and Baler oats plus 2 lb/A tillage radish Seeded: mid July Herbicides: Glyphosate applied pre-seeding Estimated Yield: 2713 lb/A Grazing Info: 90 pairs on 45 acres for 14 days plus 25 heifers for 7 days (31.9 cow days per acre).

Feed Quality – Dry Matter Basis

The quality of forage at both sites was more than adequate for a beef cow. The forage material at the Madge site was less mature than that of the Vincent site at time of sampling. The millet and pea components would have also contributed to the high protein level. Approximately 32 cow grazing days per acre was achieved at the Vincent site. Although the cows consumed the radish leaves they were not observed pulling the roots up and eating them at the Vincent site. The primary objective of including the tillage radish was not for the grazing potential, however, but for the potential of the root in loosening up the soil and providing nutrients for next year’s crop. The urine and manure from the cows will also have a positive impact on the soil. Samples will be taken at both sites in the spring of 2013 to measure soil qualities.

Nutrient Madge Demo Vincent Demo

Protein 21.07 % 12.22 %

Acid Detergent Fibre 19.94 24.87

Calcium 0.75 1.25

Phosphorus 0.18 0.15

Magnesium 0.37 0.28

Potassium 1.99 1.99

Sodium 1.21 0.88

TDN 71.06 65.13

Digestible Energy 3.13 2.87

Kennedy Creek Riparian Health Assessment

Weevil for Canada Thistle control

CARA Shelterbelt

Weed control in shelterbelt with chickens

Browning of evergreens

Riparian Health Assessment of Kennedy Creek Background Riparian health is critical to water quality, quantity, stream stability and habitat for fish and wildlife. A Riparian Zone is the interface between the upland area and the aquatic zone. Riparian communities usually include or border water in the form of a river, wet meadows, creeks or springs. The Riparian community includes a vast and productive diversity of plants and fungi which are sought out by livestock and wildlife. The structure, function and management of these areas are not well understood compared to other types of land area. Many agricultural and industrial practises can and have drastically altered these zones. A healthy Riparian Zone, in terms of plant species, plant vigor and bank stabilization, will have enhanced filtering ability and thus less risk of water contamination from outside sources. The constant need for consumable water for ourselves, our pets, our livestock and the fish and wildlife that surround us, requires us to focus on what is needed to keep that water clean and flowing. There are many benefits to a healthy riparian zone such as sediment filtering, stream bank building, water storage, aquifer re-charging, fish and wildlife habitat and dissipating stream energy, evaluating the health of water systems requires a hands-on assessment. Lacey Ryan, CARA’s Environmental Conservation Agronomist, got knee deep into the wet meadows and plant life surrounding Kennedy Creek located in the MD of Acadia. Various environmentally aware producers allowed her to investigate the plant life, stream susceptibility and general quality of the Riparian zone of their part of the Creek. Objective: To determine the general state of riparian health along sections of the Kennedy Creek in the MD of Acadia. To provide producers with information about their riparian zones.

Description and Observations: Some of parameters looked at when investigating Kennedy Creek riparian health:

1) Potential and existence of woody species on site – Not all riparian zones can support trees and/or shrub; however on those sites where woody species belong, they play an important role in the system. Their root systems are very good bank stabilizers and their spread provides protection to soil, wildlife and livestock. Plains Cottonwood, choke cherry, silverberry and sandbar willow are some of the woody species that could survive at various points along the creek.

2) Invasive Plant species – Invasive plants are alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm. Presence of these species in riparian zones reduces the overall health of the site. Invasive plant species found in the Kennedy Creek riparian zones include perennial sow-thistle, scentless chamomile and Canada thistle.

3) Total vegetative cover – Vegetative cover helps stabilize banks, control nutrient cycling, reduce water velocity, trap sediments, reduce erosion and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Each site on the Kennedy creek varied with its vegetation cover depending on the disturbance it has had. Over grazing decreases vegetative cover as do some cropping and industrial practices.

4) Disturbance-increaser undesirable herbaceous plant species existence – A large cover of disturbance-increaser undesirable herbaceous species, native or exotic, indicates misplacement from the potential natural community and reduction in riparian health. They generally are less productive, have shallow roots and poorly perform in most riparian functions. Undesirable species found in the Kennedy Creek riparian zone were dandelions, foxtail barley, brome grass, Kentucky blue grass and sweet clover.

5) Woody shrub utilization – Evidence was found that both wildlife and livestock have had an impact on the woody species in the riparian zone of Kennedy Creek

6) Stream bank stability – Stream banks can be altered by human activity which impair the structural integrity of the bank. Stream banks which have been altered due to livestock and wildlife hoof shear and concentrated trampling, vehicle or ATV tracks are more susceptible to cracking and/or slumping. Stream bank stability is also hindered when there is an increase in undesirable species and when the number of natural trees has declined. Root mass along the Kennedy Creek was dependent on whether or not livestock had access to the Creek or at which point they crossed it.

7) Human-caused bare ground – Bare ground is soil that is not covered by plants, litter, downed wood or rocks larger than 6 cm in size. Bare ground caused by livestock grazing, human activity such as recreation, roads or industrial activities indicate a deterioration of riparian health. Human-caused bare ground was found on the Kennedy Creek riparian zone.

8) Trend of the riparian zone, if its improving, degrading or static – Trend here, refers to general apparent health of the zone. This changes from year to year, by weather, human activity and plant species present. Currently the Kennedy Creek shows degrading aspects in some areas and improving aspects in others, based

on location and activity. Going back to the same area every 3-5 years will give a better indication of the Trend.

The Kennedy Creek encompasses several plant community types. The MD of Acadia as well as the Special Areas fall within the Natural Grassland region of Alberta, and the sub region of dry mixed grass land characterized by Brown Chernozemic soil. On our investigation of the Kennedy Creek riparian areas that is just what we found: lots of various mix grass and shrub species. The project also investigates various human impacts on Riparian zones, such as impeding or bordering crop land, grazing of livestock grazing, industrial activity and damming or other alteration of the stream.

Human activity Livestock access Cropland disturbance

Plant Community Dynamics Succession is the process of change in which biotic communities replace each other and the alteration of the physical environment over a period of time. This was observed in the plant communities of the Kennedy Creek. Most areas are in a secondary succession stage which occurs when the primary plant community, which has provided an appropriate environment, has been disturbed (for example by a fire, flood, human alteration or livestock activity). The primary plant species have been removed, allowing secondary plant species to grow.

Secondary succession can move toward or away from the climax community, or mature phase, of the natural community. For example, Manitoba maple seedlings under an overstory of cottonwoods would represent progressive succession towards the natural Manitoba maple/choke cherry habitat type. Regressive succession would be a failure to have Manitoba maple seedlings establishment, or a dormancy stage in the seedlings, due to overgrazing. Regressive succession is seen quite frequently when unmanaged grazing of riparian zones is allowed as it can drastically affect the growth of preferred species. Increasers (plant species which increase with disturbance) and invasive plant species (undesirable species or weeds) become abundant in areas where preferred specie seedlings are in a dormant phase.

Examples of some plant community types found in the riparian zones surrounding the Kennedy Creek:

1) Creeping Spiked Rush in its secondary phase with abundance of increaser and invasive species.

2) Silverberry/Creeping Spiked Rush with high amounts of buck brush (snowberry) and rose in its secondary phase.

3) Spiked Rush in its primary phase with increased invasive species 4) Sandbar Willow/Plains Cottonwood (highly adaptive to disturbance) 5) Plains cottonwood/Buck Brush – which originates from a disturbed plains

cottonwood/red-osier dogwood habitat type in its secondary phase (regression succession example).

6) Choke Cherry Community type

Understanding which stage a riparian zone is in will help identify steps which can be taken to improve the health of the zone and thus ultimately increase water quality. Contact CARA if you are interested in knowing the health score of your riparian area and what you can do to improve its quality.

Bio-Control of Canada Thistle with the Stem Mining Weevil

Background Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a competitive noxious weed that is widespread across Alberta and much of North America. This perennial herb can grow up to 4 feet tall, has prickly leaves and urn-shaped purple flowers. It causes intensive crop losses from its extensive, horizontal creeping root system. Canada thistle is attracted to sites that have had disturbance and moisture, either by overgrazing, tillage and/or earthmoving. It is listed under the Alberta Weed Control Act as noxious. Canada thistle has a high tolerance to many different environmental conditions and is highly competitive with other vegetation. It is prevalent in many locations such as riparian areas that do not allow for chemical or mechanical control methods. Biological control agents, such as the stem-mining weevil are of interest in controlling Canada thistle in sensitive areas. There are 4 beetles that are considered as potential biocontrol agents for Canada thistle including the Stem-mining weevil, scientifically known as Hadropontus litura (formerly Ceutorhynchus litura. H.litera has one generation per year with 3 distinct stages of life: larva, pupa and adult. The adult lifespan is approximately 10 months as they overwinter in the soil and leaf litter, emerging in the spring to feed on rosette leaf foliage and stem tissue. Eggs are laid in May and June in the mid vein of the leaf and hatch 9 days later. The larva tunnel down the stem into the root collar consuming plant tissue and when several larva are present the stem turns black from tunneling and dies several days later. Early summer, once fully fed, the larva will emerge from the thistle shoot. This is the where the main damage happens to the thistle because it opens up holes to where secondary invaders, such as nematodes, parasite and fungi enter and further damage the stems. They then enter the soil, and the papal stage begins, in which they transform into adults. A few weeks later (late June and July) these new adults emerge from the soil and feed on the thistle foliage until heavy frost occurs in fall. Reported success of the weevils varies depending on geographic location. Research in the Eastern States, California and British Columbia have indicated that h.litura provides poor to moderate control when used alone; however, integrating additional tactics may enhance its efficacy. Research carried out in the mid-western states (i.e. Idaho and Montana) and Alberta indicate higher incidences of impact on Canada thistle populations. This could be open to a number of different interpretations but conjecture on the part of some researchers is that stronger winter conditions could be a factor in the geographic locations where Canada thistle are being negatively impacted by the stem mining weevil. Other biological factors, such as rust, might also be more readily apparent in these regions and so add to Canada thistle decline when the stem mining weevil is introduced. The stem-mining weevils are imported from Montana in dishes of 105 individuals at $125 (US). The weevils do procreate every year and while some documentation indicates that they will migrate, as long as they have a food source they remain rather sedentary and populations expand within a thistle stand. As they reproduce and feed

on Canada thistle, an absence of this habitat will eliminate their existence. Adults can fly very well and are active on warm summer days, however they are content to stay among the thistle patch. Weevils are not ‘a be all and end all’ for the eradication of Canada thistle but may have a place in controlling the weed in sensitive areas of the environment. CARA is working with other ARECA member groups to evaluate establishment, survival and impact of the h.litera at several locations in Alberta. Hadroplontus litura DESCRIPTION: Weevil - 2 to 3 mm mottled-grey color with white cross marking on back

BACKGROUND LIFE CYCLE

Habitat Adult

Emergence Egg Laying

Larva Development

F1 Adult Life

Span

Over Winters

Dense stands 5 to 10

plants/m2 surrounded by

bare soil

Coincides with rosette stage

May to June eggs laid in mid

vein of leaf (generally in

clusters of 2-5, up to 120 eggs

are laid)

Eggs hatch between 5-9 days,

they then mine down the stem to

root collar

Late June to

early July

10 months

Adult in leaf litter

ATTACK COLLECTION NOTES

Stage Damage Life Stage Method

Adults can withstand some spring flooding

Larvae

Stem and root miner

Adults on warm sunny August days

Sweep net, aspirator

Adult

Minor rosette and leaf damage

Objective: To evaluate establishment, survival and affect of the Stem mining weevil on Canada thistle. To decrease and control Canada thistle populations in sensitive areas such as riparian zones, organic farms and native pasture. To reduce the use of chemicals to control weeds in sensitive areas. Project Description: CARA along with other ARECA member groups introduced the Stem-Mining Weevil as a bio-control agent to help control Canada thistle populations at various points in Alberta. The h.litera were imported from Montana and introduced to two sites in September of 2012, one in the MD of Acadia and the second in Special Area 4. Weather conditions and thistle stand qualities were recorded. Winter started early in the Special areas and the MD of Acadia and there is concern that this may impact the survivability of the weevils. Survival will be assessed in the spring of 2013 by live insect counts and observations of weevil damage on the Canada thistle plants. A count and damage assessment will also be made in the fall of 2013 to monitor the impact on the Canada stands. Observations will continue for a 5 year period to monitor overall control of Canada thistle population. Follow our newsletters for updates on this project.

Chickens and Shelterbelts Background Shelterbelts are used on almost 90% of homesteads to reduce wind, reduce erosion and for aesthetic purposes. Most of the time weeds will appear in shelterbelts due to the disturbance of the ground when planning the trees. These weeds can flourish and can be difficult to control because the trees are sensitive to herbicide applications and rototilling between them can just provide a good seedbed for more weeds. There are many animals which find weeds desirable and chickens are one of these. Many weeds such as Canada thistle have high protein, but are unpalatable for many animals. Chickens, on the other hand, seem to have a higher tolerance for many weed species, similar to goats. Objectives: To determine if chickens are successful at weeding shelterbelts To determine the long term effects of chickens weeding shelterbelts, including weed reduction, grass quality, health of chickens and trees within the shelterbelt. Cooperator: Gould Ranching Ltd, Consort Project Description: CARA along with cooperator Gould Ranching Ltd introduced a new environmental project in the spring of 2012 to demonstrate a biological method of weed control within shelterbelts. 64 chickens were confined in an established shelterbelt consisting of two rows of spruce and one row of caraganas, in order to monitor their impact on weed and grass control. Initially an electric poultry fence was placed around the home coop and the chickens had a trial test of the fence – this was called our training period. Our poultry fence stood 42 inches tall with built in spiked-posts every 12 feet for easy moving, it has a netting feature with 3 inch squares.

Our training period lasted 2 weeks and we had good response from the chickens towards the electric fence.

2-week training Period

Following the training period, the chickens were introduced to the shelter belt on July 20th. They were moved to various portions of the shelterbelt with periodic movement (approximately 2 weeks apart) of the fencing and portable coop. A total of six different pens were used as illustrated below.

Spruce

Spruce

Caragana

Pen 1: spruce and caraganas with coop on the caragana side.

Pen 2: spruce only and coop on the far spruce side.

Pen 3: new spruce and caraganas and old (already grazed)

caraganas.

Pen 4: all caraganas.

Pen 5 & 6: all new but coop placed on spruce side of shelterbelt

1

2

3

4

5 6

Observations indicate an overall positive control of weeds and grass. The chickens significantly reduced various weed regrowth without harming the trees, although they did show interest in the caragana in late July. It was found that placement of the coop, water and supplements on the spruce side of the shelterbelt eliminated intake of caragana leaves. Pigweed seemed to be the most undesirable weed; however slight consumption and a lot of trampling reduced the overall weed production. Established sweet clover and Canada thistle seemed undesirable, though at different stages of development the weeds were appetizing to the chickens, so timing seemed to be a factor in whether there was consumption of these two plants. Various other weeds such as sow thistle, dandelion, Hawkweed, Cinquefoil were consumed and trampled by the chickens. The chickens remained in the shelterbelt until September 9th. The electric mesh fence used to contain the chickens in various pens throughout the shelterbelt also provided protection from predation. No chickens were lost to predation or died during the trial. Placement of the chicken coop, water and supplements determined the chickens behaviour; as they would remain near these necessities. Burrowing nests and dust bathing were evident under the trees indicating the trees being a secure area for the chickens. Dust Bathing

The grass production appears to have surpassed the weed production in the areas of the shelterbelt that have been grazed. The shelterbelt will be monitored to see whether there is hindered production of weed in the years to come. Both the chickens and the trees have been positively impacted with this experiment thus far.

Grass regrowth after chickens grazed weeds and grass

CARA Shelterbelt Demonstration 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. 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.

In 2012, the trees were not watered until just prior to freeze-up due to adequate rain during spring, summer and fall. The rows were weeded during the summer and grass between the rows was mowed periodically. The Green Ash were pruned in early fall.

Wildlife damage has been observed in the pines located in the outer rows of the nursery, indicating some sort of barrier or buffer may be needed to protect the trees. 2013 plans include planting of a multi-species weaving shelterbelt demonstration as well as new trees to replace trees that have died. The site will be marked for self-guided tours.

Nose pumps at Fall Grazing Tour Tree pruning workshop near Consort

Ultrasound demo at Cattlemen Clinic Oyen

Grain Marketing Outlook in Oyen

Working Water Well Workshop at Consort

Carinata Ethiopian Mustard Field Tour

2012 Extension Newsletters Seven editions of CARA’s ‘Grain, Grass and Growth’ newsletter were mass-mailed to 1625 producers. The publications included research results, timely agricultural topics and coming events. Cooperator Appreciation Evening – January 11, Cereal CARA hosted project cooperators, local funders and other supporters to a banquet and entertainment to show appreciation for contributions to our program during the past year. Attendees enjoyed a delicious roast beef meal catered by the East Sounding Creek 4-H Beef Club and then traveled to Brazil as Laura Gibney of the Foothills Forage and Grazing Association shared highlights of an agricultural tour she and a number of producers had enjoyed. Feeding and Marketing Seminar – January 31, Spondin Beef Specialist Barry Yaremcio reviewed winter feeding systems and Consultant Debbie McMillin discussed the beef market outlook with 29 producers in Spondin.

CARA’s Annual Meeting and Projects Review February 28, Cereal In addition to annual business, CARA staff reviewed results of CARA’s 2011 program. Earl Hawthorn discussed future marketing with the Canadian Wheat Board and Dale Kaliel, ARD, discussed various business management programs available from ARD.

Grain Market Outlook – March 14, Oyen Approximately 80 producers heard Marketing Specialist Lee Melvill discuss future grain marketing options. Canadian Wheat Board, Paterson Grain and ICE Futures also shared marketing opportunities available with their companies.

Cropping Strategy Seminar – March 20, Oyen Producers gathered to hear information on soil fertility and interpreting soil test from Dr. Tom Jensen, IPNI; seedling diseases with Barry Little, 20/20 Seed Labs; Carinata with Trevor Anderson, Agrisoma and pulses from Duane Ransome, Alberta Pulse Growers. Water Well Workshop – March 21, Consort

This workshop was presented by the Working Well Program, with expertise provided by Water Specialist Ken Williamson and representatives from Alberta Well Drillers and Alberta Environment. They discussed tips for establishment and maintenance of rural water wells.

Multi-species Management and Direct Marketing Seminar – March 22, Coronation CARA partnered with the Battle River Research Group and ARECA to bring Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms in Virginia to our area to share how his family operation produces and markets several commodities directly to urban consumers. Classroom Ag Program – April Lacey Ryan and Dianne Westerlund delivered presentations to elementary students at Prairie View Colony, Oyen Assumption and Youngstown Schools. Presentations included the importance of safety, care of the environment and the diversity of agricultural production in Alberta. Green Certificate Testing – March, May & December CARA hosted testing days for the Green Certificate Program at the CARA Center. Southern Alberta Women’s Grazing School – July 25 & 26, Delia Lacey Ryan represented CARA on the planning committee for the SAWGS hosted by Starland County in Delia. Presentations at the 2 day school included rangeland and riparian health, herd health, plant ID, electric fencing and principles of grazing management. Canola Crop Walks – June 20 & August 15; Consort and Hanna Canola Agronomists Troy Prosofsky, Clint Jurke and Dan Orchard joined ARD Specialist Murray Hartman to meet with crop producers at 2 field demo sites to discuss various seeding, crop scouting and harvesting practices for optimum canola production.

Crop Tour – July 19, Special Area 3 and MD of Acadia Producers spent a day with CARA’s Crop Agronomist Audrey Bamber, Pulse Specialist Duane Ransome (Alberta Pulse Growers), Winter Wheat Specialist Autumn Holmes-Saltzman (Ducks Unlimited) and Crop Specialist Robyn Bowness (ARD) while visiting CARA’s Regional Variety Trial Sites, Lentil Variety and Weed Control Demonstration and producer’s winter wheat fields.

Carinata Tour – August 3, Special Area 3 A number of producers toured carinata fields of Curtis Hoffmann and Sheldon Kroker along with Agrisoma representatives Trevor Anderson and Daryl Males. Eric Johnson, Crop Scientist from Scott also took part in the discussions. Shelterbelt Pruning Workshop – Consort, September 12

Consultant Nigel Seymour provided information on managing shelterbelts and pruning techniques in a hands-on workshop at Erica Hadwin’s farm shelterbelt.

Fall Grazing Field Day – Stanmore area, November 15 Several producers visited Madge Farms and Don Vincent’s to see fall grazing and energy efficient winter watering options. Crop Marketing Course – November/December, Oyen Crop Marketing Specialist Lee Melvill led 14 producers through a 6 day course on Marketing Strategies for Wheat, Barley and Canola.

Cattlemen Clinic – Oyen, November 20 Cattlemen were able to take part in several interesting discussions at the Crossroads Center in Oyen at CARA’s 3rd annual Cattlemen Clinic. Dr. John Basarb addressed the Feed Efficient Cow, Lacey Ryan discussed ration development, Dianne Westerlund made everyone familiar with the Wintering Site Assessment Tool and Body Condition Scoring. A demonstration of assessing body condition, backfat and rib eye by ultrasound was made by Doug Ralph of Windy Ridge Ultrasound. Cattle for the demonstration were provided by Acadia Colony. Displays and sponsorship was provided by AFSC and UFA. Cowbytes Workshop – Oyen, December 5 Individual instruction was provided to producers for use of the Cowbytes program in ration development. The computer lab at the Adult Learning Center in Oyen was used for the instruction. Water Systems Inventory CARA staff continue to develop information on various innovative and energy efficient watering systems. Environmental Farm Plan CARA staff provided a number of EFP binders to producers and assisted individuals with completion of their plans. Growing Forward CARA’s Conservation Agronomist Lacey Ryan assisted 20 producers with applications to various Growing Forward programs, including Grazing and Winter Feeding, Water Management, Crop, Manure, Energy and Animal Welfare. General Inquiries CARA responded to inquiries from producers on a wide range of topics including crop varieties, diseases, fertility, forage establishment, tree problems, horticulture, feed and water quality. If the information was not available from CARA’s project results, staff sought out answers from other sources. Feed, Seed and Soil Analysis CARA provided 55 producers with information, use of bale sampling probes and/or facilitated analysis of over 150 feed, seed, plant, soil and water samples in 2012.

Traceability Program Staff assisted 43 producers with age verification of over 4000 calves in 2012. Information Updates by Email CARA maintains email contact lists of over 225 members for regular information and coming event updates. Website, Facebook and Twitter CARA has established a new website: www.chinookappliedresearch.ca with assistance from Sarah Hagens of Homespun Webs. Watch the site for information on CARA’s applied research and demonstration projects; our newsletters and reports as well as links to other important agricultural information. Check out our information on Facebook and Twitter as well.

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, long-term 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.

Nitrogen Phosphate Potassium Sulfur Zinc Copper Manganese

Top 6 Inches:

Deficient 0-16 0-30 0-150 0-8 <1 <1.6 <2

Marginal 16-30 30-80 150-300 8-16 1-2 1.6-3

Adequate 30-54+ 80+ 300+ 16+ 2+ 3+ 2+

Top 2 Feet:

Deficient 0-30 0-16

Marginal 30-60 16-30

Adequate 60+ 30+

Table 1 Soil Test (lb/A)

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

1.2 Soil Salinity & Conductivity: Conductivity (tabulated in mmhos) is a measure of the total soluble salt concentration in a soil. 0 - 2 mmhos negligible salt effects 3 - 4 very sensitive crops affected 5 - 10 yield of most crops reduced 11 - 16 only tolerant crops will not be affected 16+ very high

Tolerance Electrical Conductivity (EC)

(dS/cm) Crops Forages

High 16

Altai Wild Ryegrass Tall Wheatgrass

Slender Wheatgrass Russian Wild Ryegrass

Medium

Low

8 4 0

6 Row Barley Sunflower

2 Row Barley Oats

Fall Rye Wheat

Yellow Mustard Oats

Canola

Flax Corn

Potatoes Peas

Field Beans

Sweet Clover

Alfalfa

Brome Grass

Crest Wheatgrass Intermediate Wheatgrass

Meadow Fescue Reed Canary grass

Timothy

White Dutch Clover Red Top

Alsike Red Clover

Table 2 Crop Tolerance to Salinity

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

Extremely Acid

Strongly Acid

Medium Acid

Slightly Acid

Neutral Neutral Mildly

Alkaline Moderately

Alkaline Strongly Alkaline

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

Best Range for Most Crops

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.

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

Inches plant-available water

per foot of moist soil

2 In 4 In 6 In

Coarse Fine sand (fs)

0.8 30 60 90 I loamy sand (ls)

Moderately Coarse

Sandy loam (sl) 1.5 16 32 48

fine sandy loam (fls)

Medium Fine

Loam (l), silt loam (sil), clay loam (cl), silty clay loam (sicl), silty

clay (sic), clay (c) 2.0 12 24 36

Depth of Moist Soil for Available Water

Example: 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 wa-ter 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 " 0 8 13 17 22 26 30 35 39 44 48

3 " 8 12 17 21 26 30 34 39 43 48 52 4 " 12 16 21 25 30 34 38 43 47 52 56

5 " 16 20 25 29 34 38 42 47 51 56 60

6 " 20 24 29 33 38 42 46 51 55 60 64

7 " 24 28 33 37 42 46 50 55 59 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

Tab

le 6

N

utr

ien

t D

efic

ien

cies

an

d C

riti

cal

Lev

els

Nu

trie

nt

Cri

tica

l Lev

els

Def

icie

nc

y S

ymp

tom

s N

ote

s

Def

M

arg

O

pt

Exc

ess

Y

ello

win

g (l

ight

gre

en)

espe

cial

ly o

f ol

der

leav

es.

Spi

ndl

y pl

ants

.

N

itrat

e N

is h

ighl

y so

lub

le a

nd

mob

ile.

Am

mon

ium

N is

rel

ativ

ely

imm

obile

. N

itrog

en

rem

ain

ing

in th

e fa

ll is

sub

ject

to lo

ss.

Soi

l nitr

ate

leve

ls a

re n

ear

ly a

lwa

ys d

efic

ient

. <

60

60

100

10

0

150

20

0+

* B

ased

on

lbs

of N

O3

N to

24

inch

es

Pho

spho

rus

P

< 3

0 30

50

50

12

0

120

+

Slo

w g

row

ing,

par

ticu

larl

y d

urin

g th

e fir

st

part

of t

he g

row

ing

seas

on.

D

ela

yed

mat

urat

ion/

ripen

ing.

Pho

spha

te is

imm

obile

. S

eed

plac

ed o

r b

and

ed

P is

abo

ut t

wic

e as

effe

ctiv

e a

s br

oadc

ast

app

licat

ions

. A

vaila

ble

P is

ge

nera

lly v

ery

low

in

nativ

e so

ils.

* B

ased

on

lbs

of P

to a

6 in

ch e

quiv

ale

nt.

Pot

assi

um

K

< 1

60

160

25

0

250

10

00

10

00

+

App

ear

s bu

rnt a

t lea

f tip

s an

d ed

ges

(s

imila

r to

dro

ugh

t).

Ten

denc

y fo

r ce

real

s to

lodg

e.

Pot

assi

um is

rel

ativ

ely

imm

obi

le.

Ava

ilab

ility

ma

y be

lim

ited

by

cool

or

dry

cond

ition

s.

The

re a

re

pote

ntia

l ben

efits

from

the

chlo

ride

in p

otas

h

(KC

l) fe

rtili

zer.

P

rairi

e so

ils, u

nles

s th

ey

are

sand

y, g

ene

rally

hav

e ne

ar a

deq

uat

e po

tass

ium

. *

Bas

ed o

n lb

s of

K to

a 6

inch

equ

ival

ent

Sul

phu

r S

<8

8 32

32

80

80 +

Y

ello

win

g of

ne

we

r le

aves

. O

il se

eds

are

mos

t sus

cept

ible

to d

efic

ienc

ies.

C

anol

a m

ay

sho

w p

urpl

ish

cupp

ed

leav

es.

Sul

pha

te m

obi

lity

is s

imila

r to

nitr

ate.

E

xces

s su

lpha

te is

ass

ocia

ted

with

na

tura

lly s

alty

so

il.

Con

cent

ratio

ns c

an v

ary

dram

atic

ally

from

up

per

to lo

wer

slo

pes;

def

icie

ncie

s a

re m

ost l

ikel

y o

n hi

ghe

r pa

rts

of a

fiel

d.

* B

ased

on

lbs

of S

O4

S to

a 2

4 in

ch

equ

ival

ent.

Zin

c Z

n <

0.5

0.

5

1 1 20

20

+

Yel

low

ing

bet

wee

n ve

ins.

B

ean

s ar

e pa

rtic

ula

rly

sen

sitiv

e to

def

icie

ncie

s.

Imm

obile

. U

ptak

e m

ay

be li

mite

d b

y e

xces

s ph

osph

ate

or li

me.

*

Bas

ed o

n pp

m in

6 in

ches

.

Cop

per

Cu

< 0

.5

0.5

0.

8

0.8

5

5+

Tw

istin

g of

the

leaf

tips

, del

aye

d m

atur

ity a

nd h

eads

may

not

fill

. O

ften

asso

ciat

ed w

ith p

lant

dis

eas

e.

Imm

obile

. D

efic

ienc

ies

mos

t lik

ely

on p

eat l

and

or

lig

ht te

xtur

ed

soil

hav

ing

a hi

gh

orga

nic

mat

ter

conc

ent

ratio

n.

Gen

eral

ly a

pp

ears

in p

atch

es

with

in a

fiel

d.

* B

ased

on

ppm

in 6

inch

es

Iron

F

e

<5

5 10

10

500

0

500

0 +

Y

ello

win

g b

etw

een

vein

s of

yo

ung

er

leav

es, s

prea

ding

to o

lder

lea

ves

in

mor

e se

vere

cas

es.

Imm

obile

. D

efic

ienc

ies

are

mos

t lik

ely

to o

ccur

on

cal

care

ous

soi

ls.

* B

ased

on

ppm

in 6

inch

es

Man

gan

ese

M

n

<1

1 2 2

100

10

0 +

S

tunt

ed g

row

th a

nd y

ello

win

g be

twe

en

the

leaf

vei

ns.

Ass

ocia

ted

with

gre

y sp

eck

on o

ats.

Imm

obile

. D

efic

ienc

ies

are

mos

t lik

ely

to o

ccur

on

soi

ls w

ith h

igh

org

anic

mat

ter

cont

ent.

* B

ased

on

ppm

in 6

inch

es.

Bor

on

B

<0.

3 0.

3

0.5

0.

5

3.5

3.

5 +

A

bnor

mal

gro

wth

and

pot

entia

l for

re

duce

d se

ed s

et.

Alfa

lfa a

nd c

ano

la

are

mos

t sus

cept

ible

to d

efic

ienc

ies.

Imm

obile

. D

efic

ienc

ies

are

mos

t lik

ely

to o

ccur

on

ligh

t tex

ture

d, w

ell

drai

ned

soi

ls.

A h

igh

conc

ent

ratio

n of

B is

toxi

c to

man

y pl

ants

. *

Bas

ed o

n pp

m in

6 in

ches

N

itrog

en

N

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.

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 30-40% 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.

Daily Gain (lb)

Dry Matter Intake

(lb)

Crude Protein TDN Ca (%)

P (%) lb/day

% of DM

lb/day % of DM

600 lb Calves 1.5 13.8 1.32 9.4 68.5 0.32 0.21

950 lb Bred Heifers 0.9 19.0 1.5 8.0 10.3 54.1 0.27 0.02

1200 lb Cows Mid pregnancy

- 20.8 1.4 6.9 10.1 48.8 0.19 0.19

1200 lb Cows Late pregnancy

0.9 22.3 1.7 7.8 11.8 52.9 0.26 0.21

1000 lb 2 yr Heifer With calf

0.5 20.8 2.1 10.2 12.9 61.9 0.31 0.23

1200 lb Cow Nursing Calf (1st 3 - 4 months)

- 23.0 2.1 9.3 12.1 55.5 0.27 0.22

1800 lb Bull Regain condition &

maintenance 0.5 30.9 2.1 7.0 16.1 52.0 0.20 0.20

9.5

Table 7 Nutrient Requirements for Beef Cattle

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

Nutrient Recommended

Range Required Maximum

Protein % 10 – 12 - -

Digestible Energy Mcal/kg 2.5 – 3.3 - -

Total Digestible Nutrients % 56 – 63 - -

Calcium (Ca) % 0.16 - 1.53 0.27 2

Phosphorus (P) % 0.17 - 0.59 0.22 1

Sodium (Na) % 0.04 - 0.25 0.08 1.57

Salt % 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 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

Manganese (Mg) ppm 20 - 50 40 1000

Molybdenum (Mo) ppm N/A N/A 5

Zinc (Zn) ppm 20 - 40 30 1000

Selenium (Se) ppm 0.05 - 0.30 0.20 2

Table 8 Nutrient Requirements for Nursing Cows

Feedstuff

Percent of Dry Matter Basis

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

Table 9 Nutrient Composition of Typical Feed Sources

Grasses

Optimum pH Limits

Acidity Tolerance

Alkalinity Tolerance

Salt Tolerance

Winter Hardiness

Drought Tolerance

Colonial Bentgrass (browntop)

Moderate Low Moderate Low

Creeping Bentgrass High Low Low Moderate-

high Low-

moderate

Velvet Bentgrass 5.5 - 7.5 Moderate Low Moderate-

high Low

Kentucky Bluegrass 6.0 - 7.5 Moderate Moderate Low High-very

high Low-

moderate

Meadow Bromegrass 6.0 - 7.5 Moderate Moderate Low-

moderate Moderate

Moderate-high

Smooth Bromegrass Moderate Moderate Low-

moderate Moderate-

high Moderate-

high

Reed Canarygrass High Moderate Moderate-

high Moderate-

high Low-

moderate

Chewings Fescue High Moderate Moderate High-very

high Moderate-

high

Creeping Red Fescue High Moderate Moderate-

high High very

high Moderate

high

Hard Fescue Moderate Low Low Very high Moderate-

high

Meadow Fescue Moderate Moderate Low

Sheep Fescue Moderate Low Low Very high Moderate-

high

Tall Fescue 5.5 - 6.5 High Moderate Moderate-

high Moderate Moderate

Creeping Foxtail High Low Low High-very

high Low-

moderate

Meadow Foxtail Moderate Low High Low

Orchardgrass 6.0 - 7.5 Moderate Low Low-

moderate Moderate Moderate

Redtop High Low Moderate

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

Crested Wheatgrass (Fairway)

Moderate Moderate Very high Very high

Crested Wheatgrass (Standard)

Moderate Moderate Very high Very high

Intermediate Wheatgrass

Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Table 10 Agronomic and Tolerance Information for Perennials

Grasses Optimum pH Limits

Acidity Tolerance

Alkalinity Tolerance

Salt Tolerance

Winter Hardiness

Drought Tolerance

Northern (Thickspike) Wheatgrass

Moderate High Moderate Moderate Very high

Pubescent Wheatgrass

Low-

moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Moderate-high

Slender Wheatgrass High Moderate-

high High Moderate

Streambank Wheatgrass

Low Moderate Moderate Moderate-

high High

Tall Wheatgrass Very high Very high Moderate High

Western Wheatgrass Moderate Moderate Very high Moderate Moderate-

high

Altai Wildrye High High Very high

Dahurian Wildrye High Moderate-

high Moderate-

high

Russian Wildrye Low Moderate High High Very high

Legumes

Alfalfa 6.0 - 7.8 Moderate High Moderate Moderate-

high Very high

Cicer Milkvetch Low Moderate Low-

moderate Very high

Moderate-high

Alsike Clover 5.7 - 7.0 Moderate Moderate Low High Low-

moderate

Red Clover 5.5 - 7.5 Low Moderate Low Moderate-

high Low-

moderate

White Clover 5.5 - 7.0 Moderate Low Low Moderate-

high Low

Crownvetch 6.0 - 7.0 Moderate Moderate High

Sainfain Low Low Low-

moderate Moderate Moderate

Sweetclover (white) 6.5 - 7.5 Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate-

high

Sweetclover (yellow) 6.5 - 7.5 Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate-

high

Birdsfeet Trefoil 6.2 - 6.5 High Moderate High Low-

moderate Moderate

Table 10 Agronomic and Tolerance Information continued

A year in review...

Message from the Executive Director

2012 provided significant challenges for timely moisture and weather events such as hail but a long, dry harvest was welcome news. There were many personnel changes with our Associa-tions hiring new Managers at GRO, LARA, MARA and SARDA and staff changes at BRRG, CARA, FS, NPARA, PCBFA and WCFA. This has been a challenge for our Association Boards and ARECA to mentor and support Associations who have been focused on recruiting well qualified personnel and orienting them to the administration and management of an Associa-tion. Through this change, we have welcomed very competent Managers and Staff who have stepped in to learn how an Association is managed. Interestingly, we have 70% of Associations managed by women and our thirty-two professional staff includes four PhD, three MSc and twenty five BSc who have a combined agricultural experience of 250 years. Of course, each Association has land and complementary equipment to deliver world class applied research on behalf of Alberta’s farmers. Well done!! For ARECA, we reviewed our strategic plan in July with the ARECA Board, Association Man-agers and ARECA representatives. From this review, a plan of action was developed in No-vember. Three areas were highlighted including securing alternative funding, creating aware-ness (external communications) and capacity building (training and internal communications). The ARECA Board of Directors convened for five Board meetings plus seven conference calls. Discussion has been about policy and governance, advocacy, strategic planning, training, par-ticipation in FarmTech and membership fees. Of particular interest is the work being done by our Advocacy Committee under the chair of Dianne Westerlund with CARA. We also respect-fully acknowledge the contributions of JP Pettyjohn with SARDA who chaired the Policy Com-mittee and our Team Chairs, Kabal Gill with SARDA, Laura Gibney with FFGA and Torsten Flyng with WCFA (Crops, Forage/Livestock, Environmental). The ARECA Board experienced change with the resignations of Manfred Gross, Richard Fritzler and Vance Yaremko while Her-man Wyering was appointed to the Board.

The ARECA website continues to about 5000 page views per month while the e-newsletter has about 55% reader-ship. The Twitter (@ARECAResearch) account became functional in August and currently, we have about 140 fol-lowers. Please make sure to follow us on @ARECAResearch and get the word out.

Data for crop varieties in Alberta is generated through the Regional Variety Testing trials by a partnership of ARECA Associations, government and industry. RVT’s compare different crop varieties side by side in actual field and weather conditions. They allow farmers to decide which variety will perform best in their soil zone, climate and management style. Regional Variety Tri-als are under the coordination of Alex Fedko with Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) and have continued to be financially supported by industry. This was the final year of the Regional Silage Variety Trial with six Associations reporting on the nutritional value of annual crops for feed (silage, greenfeed and swath

grazing). The project grazing). The project has been funded by the Alberta Beef Producers (ABP) and a request for continued funding from ABP was denied. The Precision Tools for On Farm Research project involved six Associations and fourteen farmers working to learn about field scale research. In 2009, there were thirteen fields, seven-teen fields in 2010 and ten fields in 2011 committed to the study. What have we learned? The response of canola to increasing rates of nitrogen fertilizer over several years, while significant, was small. Given current fertilizer costs, this limited response would not justify the additional fertilizer expense. For field peas, the TagTeam treatment out-yielded both the innoculant plus phosphorus and innoc-ulant treatments by eight bus/ac. Variation of crop yield oc-curred between locations in the field as well as from year to year. It is easier to manage spatial compared to temporal variation provided the scale of the variation is sufficiently large to be accommodated by today’s equipment since it can be predictable from year to year. Funding for this pro-ject was provided by the Alberta Government, Alberta Pulse Growers Commission, Alberta Canola Producers Commis-sion and Novzymes. ARECA hosted the first “PRECISION AG 2.0: The Next Generation” Conference at the Deer-foot Inn & Casino in Calgary, February 2012. This two-day conference attracted 320 attendees,

with approximately 30% producers and 52% industry/consultants. Over 55% of the attendees were from Central/Southern Alberta and 23% from Saskatchewan. The majority of attendees have farm operations in dry land (82%) and cereals/pulses (67%) and over 50% farm/consult/influence on areas of 10,000 acres or more. The educational program consisted of consecutive keynote speakers or industry panels each morning, and ten breakout ses-sions in the afternoon. The tradeshow was sold out, bringing 37 exhibitors and 23 sponsors. Sponsors were provided with cover-age on our website, advertisements, and onsite at the event. AR-

ECA and a committee of Association members organized the event. Just over 300 participants came from across western Canada to attend the Western Canadian Grazing Conference and Tradeshow in Red Deer, Alberta in November. Unique to this confer-ence, we started with a field tour of Dr. Vern Baron’s swath grazing project site, followed by an excellent presentation by Dr. Baron and a question period that lasted 45 minutes. About 90 people attended the tour and expressed their appreciation for the value they received. The tradeshow opened up on the evening of November 27th with over forty exhibitors showing what they contribute to the forage, livestock and grazing industry. The members of the planning team would like to express a huge thank-you to the agri-businesses and other industry groups who sponsored the event. Co-chairs of the Conference, Vicki Heidt and Albert Kuipers did a great job. ARECA and Associations are valued leaders in applied agriculture research and extension. Our mission is to collaborate with member associations and partners to support applied agricultural research and extension in Alberta. As we go forward in 2013, I wish to thank everyone for their contributions and efforts in 2012. Ty Faechner, Executive Director, ARECA

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 of 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 Projects * 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 leading-edge 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 producers’ returns on investment.

BATTLE RIVER RESEARCH GROUP Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-582-7308 Box 339 Forestburg AB T0B 1N0 FARMING SMARTER (Formerly SARA & SACA) Email [email protected] Ph: 403-328-5118 #100, 5401 – 1st Ave. South Lethbridge AB T1J 4V6 LAKELAND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-826-7260 Box 7068 Bonnyville AB T9N 2H4 NORTH PEACE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-836-3354 Box 750 Manning AB T0H 2M0 SMOKY APPLIED RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-837-2900 Box 90 Falher AB T0H 1M0

CHINOOK APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. Email: [email protected] Ph: 403-664-3777 Box 690 Oyen AB T0J 2J0 GATEWAY RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-349-4546 Box 5865 Westlock AB T7P 2P6 MACKENZIE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-927-3776 Box 646 Ft. Vermilion AB T0H 1N0 PEACE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & DEMONSTRATION ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-835-5015 Box 1551 Fairview AB T0H 1L0

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 associations listed below for details about their programs and projects, and to find out how membership can benefit you.

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 both applied research and forages, 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 develop 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 stake-holders. There are an estimated 30,000 producers in the province managing more than nine million hectares of forage, and managed range and bush. The forage 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 grasses on livestock, hold grazing schools and field tours, and help producers involved in forages to 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 Program Although the scope of services offered by ARECA’s forage associations varies, there are important benefits to membership. Those who belong to a forage association have access to results of leading-edge forage research, receive professional assistance and advice for a very nominal fee, and have an opportunity to attend important workshops and demonstrations that improve the economic viability of their operations.

BATTLE RIVER RESEARCH GROUP Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-582-7308 Box 339 Forestburg AB T0B 1N0 FARMING SMARTER (Formerly SARA & SACA) Email: [email protected] Ph: 403-328-5118 #100, 5401—1st Ave.South Lethbridge AB T1J 4V6 GATEWAY RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-349-4546 Box 5865 Westlock AB T7P 2P6 LAKELAND FORAGE ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-826-7260 Box 7068 Bonnyville AB T9N 2H4 NORTH PEACE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-836-3354 Box 750 Manning AB T0H 2M0 SMOKY APPLIED RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-837-2900 Box 90 Falher AB T0H 1M0

CHINOOK APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 403-664-3777 Box 690 Oyen AB T0J 2J0 FOOTHILLS FORAGE ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 403-541-0911 Suite 200, #6 Crowfoot Circle NW Calgary AB T3G 2T3 GREY WOODED FORAGE ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 403-844-2645 Box 1448, 5039 - 45 Street Rocky Mountain House AB T4T 1B1 MACKENZIE APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-927-3776 Box 646 Fort Vermilion AB T0H 1N0 PEACE COUNTRY BEEF & FORAGE ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-523-4033 PO Box 2803 High Prairie AB T0G 1E0 WEST CENTRAL FORAGE ASSOCIATION Email: [email protected] Ph: 780-727-4447 Box 360 Evansburg AB T0E 0T0

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.

CARA’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 (2013) ___ $80.00 5 year membership Would you like to receive the annual report on a computer memory stick ____ Yes ____ No—Send me a paper copy ____ Yes I would like a receipt ___ No receipt please Please add me to CARA’s _______ Crop and/or _______ Forage/Livestock email contact list.

Make Cheque payable to: CARA

Date post:	12-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lythuan
View:	220 times
Download:	3 times

Chinook Applied Research Association 2012 Annual Report

Documents