Site and Study Information (Rates are on a per acre basis)

Cooperator: Dale Beery and Family
Planted: October 19, 2005
Harvested: May 16, 2006
Pesticide: 1 qt glyphosate October 21; 0.6 oz Harmony Extra February 10
Fertilizer: 50 lb N February 10; 50 lb N March 28
Plot Size: Seven 7” wide rows X 20’ long
Soil Type: Monongahela Fine Sandy Loam

Growing Season Information

The 2005-06 small-grain crop began with acceptable soil moisture and cool temperatures. Late fall and early winter were very cool. Average temperatures in January were more than seven degrees above the long-term average for that time of year and resulted in a boost in small-grain growth (Figure 1). February was more like winter for the Commonwealth of Virginia than the previous month. Most areas experienced dry conditions in spite of the occasional snow and ice. In fact, precipitation was only 54% of the average annual accumulation for February (Figure 2). The small-grain crop was rated 80% fair to good. In early spring, dry conditions continued across the commonwealth. Most areas received only light to moderate rain and temperatures were one to three degrees above normal. Continued dry weather resulted in tiller loss in many areas. The average temperature during the month of May was more than four degrees below the long-term average, resulting in very favorable grain filling conditions.

Results

A long-term forage production trial of commercial barley, oat, rye, triticale and wheat cultivars has been conducted yearly from 1994 at the Northern Piedmont AREC in Orange, VA. However, growing conditions, soil types, and cropping sequences differ considerably between Orange and the Shenandoah Valley.

This report presents the results from a small grain forage performance trial for wheat and barley cultivars commonly grown in the Shenandoah Valley. Seven wheat cultivars and five barley cultivars were tested in 2006. Of these, six wheat cultivars are commercially available, and one was experimental. Likewise, four barley cultivars are commercially available and one was experimental. Two of the five barley cultivars, “Doyce” and “VA01H-68” were hullless cultivars.

Both wheat and barley plots were harvested on May 16, 2006. Barley cultivars were in soft dough (GS 85) stages, while wheat cultivars were in the boot (GS 45) stages. The plots were harvested with a walk-behind sickle bar mower that gathered and weighed harvested plant material with on-board scales. Sub-samples were then collected to determine moisture and nutrient content.

Experimental plots vary in yield and other measurements due to their location in the field and other factors with cannot be controlled. Statistics presented in the tables are intended to assist in making valid comparisons between cultivars. The magnitude of differences due to uncontrollable variation has been computed for the data and listed at the bottom of columns as the LSD (.05) (the least significant difference with 95% confidence). Differences less than the LSD are assumed to be real differences with 95% confidence.

Table 1. Yield and nutrient information for barley silage cultivars in 2006.
Cultivar	Species	DM at Harvest	35% DM Yield (tons/ac)	Crude Protein %	ADF %	NDF %	TDN %
Nomini	Barley	24.75	15.00	9.93§	39.98	63.78	59.43
Price	Barley	22.55	15.92	11.03	38.98	63.78	61.05
Thoroughbred	Barley	24.13	18.64	11.15	36.58	59.88	62.33
Doyce	Barley*	24.75	15.17	9.50	40.30	64.45	59.30
VA01H-68	Barley*	25.25	14.74	11.15	36.88	59.38	63.10
Average:			15.89	10.55	38.54	62.25	61.04
LSD 0.05:			4.61	1.15	4.94	6.60	3.88
* Hull-less Barley § Numbers in italics are significantly less than the highest value in that column. Plots planted October 19, Harvested May 16.