Spring and winter crop combinations for forage production in the Peace region The objectives were to demonstrate the effects of growing winter cereals and ryegrass in combinations with spring barley and peas on forage yield and quality, and communicate the information to producers. The 2010 trail was located near Valleyview (SW27-69-22W5). First harvest was on July 27. Plots got tilled before the second harvest (by mistake). Barley alone provided more DM, CP and TDN yield compared to the barley intercropped treatments, which produced 75 to 82% DM, 80 to 85% CP and 75 to 83% TDN yields. Similarly, peas alone provided more DM, CP and TDN yield compared to the intercropped treatments of peas, which produced 47 to 77% DM, 65 to 91% CP and 46 to 77% TDN yields. Intercropping tended to improve the CP, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur contents in forage compared to the pure stands of both barley and peas. The treatments with peas usually had higher levels of CP, ADF, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, magnesium and manganese than the treatments with barley. But they had lower levels of TDN, energy, and sodium. There was good growth of the winter cereals and Italian ryegrass after the July harvest, because considerable rain occurred at the site in August and Sept. But the plots got tilled (by mistake) before the harvest in October. Combined data from the July and October harvests in 2009 showed potential for improving the CP and TDN and some quality parameters, relative to barley, by use of peas or intercropping. Spring and winter crop combinations for forage production in the Peace region Kabal S. Gill, SARDA Background Winter feeding costs are the largest component of animal production system in Alberta. Farmers in the Peace Region are looking to minimize winter feeding costs and maximize profits. One potential approach is reducing inputs for forage production and replacing some grain with high quality forage. Growing legumes reduce nitrogen (N) fertilizer use and may improve protein concentration and yield. Using higher quality forage can supplement poor quality straw or grass as mixture or rotational feeding/grazing. Growing winter cereals and ryegrass in combinations with spring barley or peas may allow two forage harvests or combination of a harvest and fall grazing. High quality forage from second harvest can improve body condition on cows, or be ideal for high performance by weaned calves or yearlings. Grazing of regrowth after first harvest in the fall and /or in the early spring of next year can be used to reduce the herd time in winter feeding yards. Preceding strategies may reduce land, inputs and labour costs per unit of forage production, which will improve the beef production efficiency and contribution margin. Extended crop growing period may also reduce soil erosion and increase carbon sequestration in to soil. Benefits of intercropping spring and winter cereals have been observed from the earlier studies in south and central Alberta. Previous research in the Peace region have shown the effects from intercropping spring barley with winter cereals being dependent on the seeding time,

location and year. But the Peace Region trials focused on yield only, and combinations of late seeding followed by delayed harvest of spring cereals probably reduced the probability of 2nd cut of forage from winter cereals and ryegrass. Lack of information for the Peace region makes the present project unique form the studies done in other parts of Alberta. The project addresses the key issue of decline in profit margins being faced by the producers, because input costs have increased dramatically while the prices for beef have tended to decline or remain unchanged. Objectives 1. To demonstrate the effects of growing winter cereals and ryegrass in combinations with spring barley and peas on forage yield and quality under the southeast Peace region growing conditions. 2. Communicate information from the project to the producers of the areas covered by the associations (Peace region) and beyond. Materials and Methods The 2010 trail was located near Valleyview (SW27-69-22W5) on canola stubble. The treatments were replicated 4 times, using a RCBD to lay out the small plots (8 m long 6 rows at 9 inch spacing). A Fabro drill equipped with Atom jet openers was used to seed. Recommended agronomic practices were followed. Pre-seed: Glyphosate (360 g/ac) on May 7 and 16. Seeding: At seeding time on May 16, soil moisture was below normal. Seed rates: The 100% seeding rates were 90 plants/m2 (Cutlas peas), 250 plants/m2 (Xena barley, Prima Fall Rye and Pika winter triticale) and 100 plants/m2 (Fabio Italian Ryegrass). The seeding rate in the intercrop treatments was 75% (Xena barley and Cutlas peas) and 100% (other crops). Fertilization: For all the treatments, 38.5 lb/ac of 11-52-0 was seed placed. Granular inoculants were seed placed for treatments with peas. As side band, all plots received 30.7 lb/ac 0-0-60, and the plots with barley also received 58 lb/ac of 46-0-0. Data collection: Population of peas was determined on June 29 (counted 1 m lengths in 4 rows). Plant height was determined on July 27. The plots were assessed to estimate any major part of rows without plants to determine the actual harvest area. Harvested the above ground part of plants using a Mott mower on July 27. Another harvest was planned in October. However, the plots were tilled before that harvest (by mistake). The harvested material was weighed in the field and subsamples were collected to dry and determine moisture content, dry matter (DM) yield and feed quality. The data were then converted to DM and at 65% moisture content (65%M) yields. Feed quality was determined using wet chemistry technique (composite samples for the replication 1&2 and replication

3&4), The amounts of crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) were calculated using the forage DM yield (Table 1) and forage quality (Table 2 and 3). Extension: Trials map and related information were made available in mail boxes at the sites entrance for self-guided tours in July. The trial site tour, during the annual tour of SARDA, on July 31, 2010 had 28 attendees. Results and Discussion Stand establishment of cereals and Italian ryegrass was good. But stand establishment of peas in the intercrop treatments was below the optimum level, probably due to improper seeding depth (Table 1). Intercropping slightly reduced the plant height of peas while barley was not affected. At harvest, barley was at the soft dough stage while the peas at the full pod stage. Forage had lower moisture for the treatments with barley than peas (Table 1). Table 1 shows the DM and 65%M yields for all the treatments, which as expected are proportional to each other. The 65%M data are shown to indicate the tonnage of fresh forage. The following discussion of results is based on the DM yields, because the forage quality data are also based on the DM yields. Barley alone provided more DM, CP and TDN yield compared to the barley intercropped treatments, which produced 75 to 82% DM, 80 to 85% CP and 75 to 83% TDN yield (Table 1). Like barley, peas alone provided more DM, CP and TDN yield compared to the intercropped treatments of peas, which produced 47 to 77% DM, 65 to 91% CP and 46 to 77% TDN yield (Table 1). Intercropping tended to improve the CP, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur contents in forage for compared to the pure stands of both barley and peas (Table 2). Other quality parameters did not show a consistent effect of the intercropping. The treatments with peas usually had higher levels of CP, ADF, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur, magnesium and manganese than the treatments with barley (Table 2). But they had lower levels of TDN, energy, and sodium. In the absence of data from the October harvest, the 2010 results are incomplete. There was good growth of the winter cereals and Italian ryegrass after the July harvest, because considerable rain occurred at the site in August and Sept. (Fig. 1 and 2)

Figure 1. View of plots on Sept. 16, 2010.

Figure 2. View of plots on Sept. 16, 2010.

Additional DM, CP and TDN produced from the October harvest in 2009 narrowed the gap between the pure stands and intercropped treatment, and produced more yield in some cases (SARDA Annual Report, 2009). The 2009 results showed potential for improving the CP and TDN and some quality parameters, relative to barley, by use of peas or intercropping. Data from more site-years will be collected in 2011 to draw more reliable conclusions. Table 1. The moisture content, dry matter (DM) yield, at 65% moisture (65%M) forage yield, crude protein (CP) yield, total digestible nutrients (TDN) yield, plant height and peas density for different crops in 2010. Treat Moisture DM, 65%M CP yield TDN yield Spring crops Winter crops Peas density % t/ac t/ac kg/ac kg/ac height, cm height, cm #/ Sq. ft B 58.3 2.14 6.11 56.9 212.4 1527 P 70.0 1.54 4.41 43.1 7.52 172.7 1043 B+FR 61.7 1.64 4.68 52.5 25.9 172.7 1163 B+WT 60.6 1.60 4.57 52.4 30.2 170.7 1148 B+IR 60.2 1.75 5.00 56.3 28.7 180.4 1264 P+FR 67.4 0.87 2.48 33.5 38.9 4.55 137.1 578 P+WT 69.0 0.72 2.07 31.3 29.6 4.60 113.0 476 P+IR 70.0 1.19 3.41 39.8 31.5 4.89 158.0 798 LSD0.05 2.02 0.218 0.624 5.14 CV, % 2.1 10.4 10.4 7.6 Signi.1 ** ** ** ** 1 **refers to significant at 95% level. NS refers to not significant at 90% level.

12.50 27.0 NS

1.515 17.2 **

Table 2. Feed quality based on dry matter for the July 27, 2010 harvest. Parameter B P B+FR B+WT B+IR P+FR P+WT P+IR LSD CV Signi1 95% % Protein Crude protein, % 9.94 11.20 10.55 10.67 10.32 15.78 15.60 13.25 1.247 4.3 ** Soluble CP, % of CP 63.2 57.0 62.1 62.0 63.9 62.8 63.8 59.7 10.77 7.4 NS ADF –CP,% 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.45 0.55 0.35 0.148 20.1 ** UIP (Bypass protein) 20.6 23.8 21.4 21.4 20.7 22.4 23.3 23.9 5.94 11.3 NS Fibres ADF, % 22.4 27.3 23.0 22.1 21.3 28.7 29.8 28.2 3.95 6.6 ** NDF, % 37.8 35.7 38.3 38.6 39.7 44.2 41.2 38.5 3.68 4.0 * TDN, % 71.4 67.6 71.0 71.7 72.3 66.5 65.7 66.9 3.08 1.9 ** Energy NE Lactation, MCal/kg 1.64 1.54 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.52 1.50 1.52 0.068 1.8 ** NE maintenance, MCal/kg 1.78 1.67 1.78 1.79 1.81 1.64 1.62 1.66 0.086 2.1 ** NE Gain, MCal/kg 1.06 0.95 1.05 1.07 1.09 0.92 0.90 0.94 0.089 3.8 ** Minerals Calcium, mg/kg 350 1330 305 250 240 985 1345 1395 258.4 14.1 ** Copper, mg/kg 8.89 8.24 8.17 8.94 8.20 8.54 8.44 10.66 4.271 20.6 NS Phosphorus, mg/kg 85 75 105 105 115 125 125 120 32.8 13.0 † Potassium, mg/kg 1240 995 1375 1400 1195 1880 2065 1350 317.3 9.3 ** Sulphur, mg/kg 155 155 165 165 155 190 220 195 40.7 9.8 * Magnesium, mg/kg 180 350 165 160 155 295 370 365 81.4 13.5 ** Zinc, mg/kg 37.1 35.9 34.3 38.2 35.0 39.4 46.5 38.4 4.88 5.4 * Iron, mg/kg 623 506 357 419 344 514 385 666 383.6 34.0 NS Manganese, mg/kg 61.9 60.5 55.7 65.1 53.8 95.6 111.7 73.9 11.00 6.4 ** Sodium, % 90 35 100 100 100 40 35 75 36.8 21.6 ** Other Relative feed value 176 176 173 173 169 140 148 162 19.5 5.0 * NFC, % 40.8 41.6 39.6 39.2 38.5 28.5 31.7 36.7 3.77 4.3 ** 1 **, * and † refers to significant at 99%, 95% and 90% levels, respectively. NS refers to not significant at 90% level.