2001 Annual Report
`
`Agronomy Section
`
`Dickinson Research Extension Center
`1089 State Avenue
`Dickinson, ND 58601
`
`Barley Versus Oat: Which Makes the Superior Forage Crop
`
`Patrick M. Carr, Woodrow W. Poland, and Lee J. Tisor
`North Dakota State University
`Dickinson Research Extension Center
`Dickinson, ND
`
`Summary
`
`Oat (Avena sativa L.) is the most popular, cool-season annual forage grown in North Dakota. Research in
`Minnesota and Wisconsin suggests that barley (Hordeum vu/gare L.) is superior to oat for forage quality and, in
`some instances, comparable in yield. The objective of this study was to determine if barley is equal or superior
`to oat for forage yield and quality in southwestern North Dakota. Oat and barley cultivars were compared for
`forage yield and quality in randomized and replicated plots. Preliminary results indicate that oats produce more
`forage but barley produces higher quality forage under North Dakota conditions. lntercropping peas with either
`barley or oats maintains or increases forage yield and enhances quality compared with growing either cereal
`alone in low nitrogen (N) (<30 lb N/acre) environments.
`
`Introduction
`
`Oat is the most popular, cool-season, annual forage crop grown in North Dakota. Oat comprised approximately
`83% of the small grain acreage devoted to hay production in 1997 (E. Stabenow, North Dakota Agric. Stat.
`Serv., per. comm.). The remaining acreage was comprised of barley (14%) and other (rye, wheat) small grain
`crops (3%).
`
`Research indicates that barley produces higher quality forage compared with oats in semiarid regions. The CP
`concentration of barley and barley-pea forage was superior to the CP concentration of oat and oat-pea forage
`in a study at Dickinson, ND (Carr et al., 1998).
`
`Barley forage yield has been equal or superior to forage yield of oats in sub-humid regions (Cherney et al.,
`1982). The objective of this experiment was to determine if barley is superior to other cool-season, annual
`forage crops and crop combinations for yield and quality in southwestern North Dakota.
`
`Materials and Methods
`
`Six barley cultivars developed for forage (Horsford, Haybet, Westford, and three experimentals) and grain
`(2-rowed = Conlon, Stark, Logan; 6-rowed = Foster, Robust, Stander) were compared with three oat cultivars
`grown for forage (Celsia, Mammoth, Triple Crown) and two for grain (Paul and Whitestone) for forage yield and
`quality in 1999 and 2000. Selected barley and oat cultivars also were grown with field pea so that comparisons
`among barley and oat sole crops and intercrops could be made.
`
`A randomized complete block with four replications was used. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical
`procedures available from SAS. Results from only preliminary analyses were available for this paper, so
`readers are cautioned that interpretations may be changed after thorough analyses of the data are completed.
`
`Results and Discussion
`
`Forage yield averaged 1.5 tons/acre of dry matter across the 2 years of the study (Table 1 ). Nonorthogonal
`contrasts indicated that oat produced more forage than barley varieties but barley forage was higher in quality
`than oat forage (contrasts not provided). Under the low-N conditions that occurred during this study,
`intercropping either oat or barley with peas increased crude protein concentration of forage from 4.0 to 5.9%
`
`

`

`# •
`
`,-,
`
`compared with growing the cereal crop alone, depending on the crop and variety grown. lntercropping peas
`with oat or barley also increased forage yield.
`
`Acknowledgments
`
`The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the North Dakota Agricultural Products
`Commission, and the North Dakota Barley Council, in conducting this study. Thanks also is extended to Mr.
`Glenn Martin for assistance in establishing the experiments.
`
`Literature Cited
`
`Carr, P.M., G.B. Martin, J.S. Caton, and W.W. Poland, 1998. Forage and nitrogen yield of barley-pea and
`oat-pea intercrops. Agron. J. 90:79-84.
`
`Cherney, J.H., and G.C. Marten.1982a. Small grain crop forage potential: I. Biological and chemical
`determinants of quality, and yield. Crop Sci. 22:227-231.
`
`Table 1. Forage yield, crude protein, acid- and neutral concentrations of annual crops grown at Dickinson, ND,
`during 1999 and 2000.
`
`------------------------Dry matter basis
`
`-
`
`Treatment
`
`Conlon barley
`Foster barley
`Haybet barley
`Hay bet/ Arvika
`Horsford barley
`Logan barley
`Robust barley
`Robust/Arvika
`Robust/Trapper
`Stark barley
`Stander barley
`Westford barley
`ND experimental barley
`82 experimental I barley
`82 experimental II barley
`Celsia oat
`Paul oat
`Paul/Arvika
`Paul/Trapper
`Mammoth oat
`Whitestone oat
`Whitestone/Arvika
`Whitestone/Trapper
`
`Trial Mean
`C.V.%
`LSD .05
`
`Yield
`Tons/ac
`1.2
`1.3
`1.6
`1.8
`1.3
`1.2
`1.2
`1.7
`1.5
`1.2
`1.2
`1.5
`1.2
`1.5
`1.3
`1.7
`1.5
`2.0
`2.1
`1.8
`1.8
`1.8
`2.3
`
`1.5
`23.1
`*
`
`ADF
`NDF
`CP
`-------------------- % ----------------------
`8.5
`33.5
`57.0
`34.4
`8.7
`57.9
`35.2
`8.3
`60.9
`35.6
`13.5
`52.8
`8.9
`34.6
`56.7
`8.5
`33.6
`54.6
`8.8
`35.3
`58.4
`34.3
`12.4
`51.7
`14.7
`34.5
`50.0
`10.5
`33.4
`55.6
`9.5
`31.8
`56.2
`9.3
`39.2
`62.3
`29.7
`54.0
`9.4
`8.7
`36.8
`60.4
`8.8
`37.6
`61.8
`5.5
`41.8
`64.6
`36.7
`57.2
`7.5
`12.6
`38.9
`50.0
`36.9
`55.3
`11.7
`38.2
`61.1
`6.0
`39.3
`65.0
`5.5
`36.6
`56.3
`9.5
`36.1
`54.1
`10.6
`
`9.5
`17.7
`*
`
`35.8
`9.7
`*
`
`57.1
`6.7
`*
`
`

`

`..
`
`[ Back to 2001 Annual Report Index] [ Back to Grassland Reports]
`
`[ DREC Home ] [ Contact DREC ] [ Top of Page ]
`
`