, , , J , . , v . ‘ , .. a.” . . V. u ‘ ~ rut. «xx . . ;-,‘..,..‘.,..,;“.3.20....“. 1 . n." x I, ‘ ' ‘ , ‘ , ' ’ ' ‘ V .- I ~ ‘ ‘ ‘ , ' , ‘ ‘ r; . ' V . -, ‘ .. :w ' ' ' , : , ‘ a? 7517QQO/ IllllllllllllllHJlHIH‘llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll L’— 31293 00763 4714 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT-DRILL ESTABLISHMENT OF ALFALFA 0N PLANT DENSITY, FORAGE YIELD AND FORAGE QUALITY presented by BARRY AMMON BROTHERS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. degree in Crop and Soil Sciences Mm Major professor Date November 21, 1991 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or betore due due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE =1“ l MSU In An Alfirmdlve Action/Equal Opportunity Initiation omens-9.1 THE EFFECT OF CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT-DRILL ESTABLISHMENT OF ALFALFA ON PLANT DENSITY, FORAGE YIELD AND FORAGE QUALITY By Barry Ammon Brothers A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 1991 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT-DRILL ESTABLISHMENT OF ALFALFA ON PLANT DENSITY, FORAGE YIELD AND FORAGE QUALITY By Barry Ammon Brothers Alfalfa (m m L.) was spring seeded by conventional and direct- drill (no-till) methods using three herbicide programs with each method. Forage yield and quality were not affected by establishment method. Plots without herbicide had greater forage yield and lower forage quality in the first harvest. Herbicide effects were seen primarily in the first harvest of the establishment year. Pure stands of direct-drill alfalfa were compared to stands of direct-drill alfalfa seeded with either smooth bromegrass (m M Leyss.), orehardgrass (23.91111: Mum L.) or timothy (ELM 213191159. L.) or with an oat (Avena sativa L.) companion crop. First harvest forage yield was greater and forage quality lower in alfalfa-grass mixtures than in stands of pure alfalfa. Harvesting the oat companion crop as silage increased forage dry matter yield in the first harvest but lowered forage quality compared to alfalfa treated with herbicide. Harvesting the oat companion crop for grain reduced forage dry matter and alfalfa yield into the second production season. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to express my appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Oran Hestcrman, and my guidance committee, Drs. Jim Kells, Doug Landis and Mike Allen, for their input and guidance on my project. I owe much to the members of the forage project, Glen Harris, Tim Griffin and Joe Paling, and to all the undergraduate workers, Andy, Aaron, Mike, Chris and Leon, for all their help in carrying bags and in the lab. Thanks to Dave Main and Dewey Longuski for showing me all the finer points-of doing in vitro’s. I appreciate the help I received from the farm managers, Brain Graff at East Lansing and Jim Bronson at KBS. This project could not have been completed without the assistance of Jay Schmidt. A big thank you goes to my parents, sister and grandparents for all of their support and encouragement in the good times and bad times. To Mary, thanks for making the last two and one-half years of my life complete. I could not have finished without all of you. PREFACE Chapters one and two of this thesis are written in the style required for publication in the Agronomy Journal. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER ONE: BENEFITS OF ESTABLISHMENT HERBICIDES FOR ALFALFA SEEDED BY CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT-DRILL METHODS ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIAL AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Conventional vs. direct-drill establishment Herbicide effects on forage yield in conventional establishment Herbicide effects on forage yield in direct-drill establishment Herbicide effects on forage quality in conventional establishment Herbicide effects on forage quality in direct-drill establishment Economics CONCLUSION REFERENCES PAGE vii xiv 25 28 3O 35 38 4O CHAPTER TWO: FORAGE YIELD, COMPOSITION AND QUALITY 42 OF DIRECT-DRILLED ALFALFA SEEDED ALONE AND WITH A GRASS ABSTRACT 42 INTRODUCTION 43 MATERIALS AND METHODS 48 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 54 Plant density 54 Establishment year forage yield - alfalfa seeded alone 58 Establishment year forage yield - alfalfa seeded with a 62 grass Establishment year forage quality - alfalfa seeded alone 65 Establishment year forage quality - alfalfa seeded with 71 a grass Forage yields - year after establishment 72 Forage quality - year after establishment 74 CONCLUSION 77 REFERENCES 79 APPENDIX A 82 APPENDIX B 86 APPENDIX C 92 APPENDIX D 103 APPENDIX E 106 vi TABLE 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 LIST OF TABLES TITLE Weather and soil analysis for alfalfa establishment experiments in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS). Dates of field operations for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at KBS. Calibration statistics for NIRS forage quality predictions. Validation data for NIRS forage quality prediction equations. Alfalfa plant density at three sampling dates for alfalfa established by conventional and direct- drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates for alfalfa established by conventional and direct- drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Second-year forage dry matter (DM) yields, alfalfa percentage and pure alfalfa yields in four harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for four harvests of alfalfa in the year after seeding, established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in four harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa, in the year after seeding, established by conventional and direct- drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. vii PAGE 12 12 17 18 20 21 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Percentage of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) in three seeding year harvests of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Percentage of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) in three seeding year harvests of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) yields in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) yields in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Relative feed values for the first and second harvests of 1989 and 1990 of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods at KBS. Value of alfalfa hay (based on relative feed value (RFV)), establishment herbicide costs, and net return to herbicide used for alfalfa establishment with conventional and direct-drill methods at KBS. Weather and soil analysis data for alfalfa established by direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS). Dates of field operations for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at KBS. Calibration statistics for NIRS forage quality predictions. Validation data for NIRS forage quality prediction equations. Alfalfa plant density at three sampling dates for viii 29 31 32 33 36 37 49 50 53 53 57 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. First year forage dry matter (DM) and alfalfa yields, percent alfalfa and percent grass in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. First year forage dry matter (DM) and alfalfa yields, percent alfalfa and percent grass in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for three first year harvests for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. First year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in three harvests and seasonal totals for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for three first year harvests for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. First year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Second year forage dry matter (DM) and alfalfa yield, percent alfalfa and percent grass in four harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Second year percentages of crude protein (CP), ix 59 60 61 66 68 69 70 73 75 2.15 A.l A.2 A.3 A.4 B.1 B.2 neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for four harvests of direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Second year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) for four harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Forage dry matter (DM) yields, pure alfalfa yields and alfalfa percentage in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Forage dry matter (DM) yields, pure alfalfa yields and alfalfa percentage in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Second year forage dry matter (DM) yields, alfalfa percentage and pure alfalfa yields in four harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the springof 1989 at KBS. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for four harvests of alfalfa in the year after seeding, established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Forage dry matter (DM) yields, pure alfalfa yields and alfalfa percentage in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) in three seeding year harvests of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. 76 82 83 84 85 86 87 8.3 8.4 B.5 8.6 CI C.2 C3 C4 C.5 Crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) yields in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Forage dry matter (DM) yields, pure alfalfa yields and alfalfa percentage in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) in three seeding year harvests of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) yields in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Alfalfa plant density at three sampling dates for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1990 at KBS. First year f oragc dry matter (DM) and alfalfa yields and percent alfalfa in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. First year forage dry matter (DM) and alfalfa yields and percent alfalfa in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1990 at KBS. - Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for xi 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 C6 C7 C8 C9 C.10 C.“ D] D.2 three first year harvests for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. First year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in three harvests and seasonal totals for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for three first year harvests for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1990 at KBS. First year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Second year forage dry matter (DM) and alfalfa yield and percent alfalfa in four harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Second year percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) for four harvests of direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoated or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Second year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) for four harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates and first harvest dry matter (DM) yield for alfalfa, averaged over four herbicide treatments, established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the summer of 1989 at KBS. First harvest percentage of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the xii 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 D.3 El E2 summer of 1989 at KBS. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates, first harvest forage dry matter (DM) yield and percentages of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoatcd or coated seed or with a grass in the summer of 1989 at KBS. Percentage of in vitro cell wall digestibility in three seeding year harvests and four harvests in the year after seeding of alfalfa seeded with a grass by direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Percentage of in vitro cell wall digestibility in three seeding year harvests of alfalfa seeded with a grass by direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. xiii 105 106 107 FIGURE 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 LIST OF FIGURES TITLE Known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. Residuals of known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. Forage dry matter and alfalfa yield for three harvests of alfalfa established by conventional methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. (Bars with the same letter are not different at 0.05. Capital letters denote differences in forage dry matter yield; small letters denote differences in alfalfa yield). Forage dry matter and alfalfa yield for three harvests of alfalfa established by conventional methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. (Bars with the same letter are not different at 0.05. Capital letters denote differences in f oragc dry matter yield; small letters denote differences in alfalfa yield). Forage dry matter and alfalfa yield for three harvests of alfalfa established by direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. (Bars with the same letter are not different at 0.05. Capital letters denote differences in forage dry matter yield; small letters denote differences in alfalfa yield). Forage dry matter and alfalfa yield for three harvests of alfalfa established by direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. (Bars with the same letter are not different at 0.05. Capital letters denote differences in forage dry matter yield; small letters denote differences in alfalfa yield). Known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. xiv PAGE 13 14 23 24 26 27 2.2 Residuals of known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. XV 56 CHAPTER ONE BENEFITS OF ESTABLISHMENT HERBICIDES FOR ALFALFA SEEDED BY CONVENTIONAL AND DIRECT-DRILL METHODS ABSTRACT Alfalfa (Medicagg sativa L.) was springoseeded in both 1989 and 1990 by conventional and direct-drill (no-till) methods using four herbicide programs with .each method. In 1989, alfalfa plant density 45 days after planting was significantly higher for the conventional seeding while in 1990, alfalfa plant density 47 days after planting was greater for the direct-drill seeding. No differences were observed in plant density in the fall of either year. No difference was observed in forage yield at any harvest due to establishment method, but differences were observed among herbicide treatments. Plots without herbicide had the greatest total forage yield, lower percentages of alfalfa, crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD), and higher percentages of neutral (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF). Herbicide effects were apparent primarily in the first harvest of the establishment year. INTRODUCTION Conventional seeding (CT) of alfalfa (Mgdicagg s_a_t_i_v_a_ L.) includes preparing a seedbed by moldboard or chisel plowing, disking, packing, and planting (Turner, 1983). Direct-drilling (DD), or no-till, involves placing the seed into the soil without prior tillage (Metcalfe and Elkins, 1980). The amount of pasture and hay established in Michigan by DD has increased from 1,215 hectares in 1980 to 9,315 hectares in 1989 (Quisenberry, 1989). According to Turner (1983), advantages of DD compared to CT seeding of alfalfa include: 1) saving time and fuel because direct drilling requires fewer passes over a field, 2) reducing soil erosion, and 3) conserving soil moisture. Sprague and Triplett (1986) reported disadvantages of DD, including: 1) increased requirement for a higher level of management, 2) increased dependency on chemicals for weed and insect control, 3) increased loss of fertilizer, herbicide and insecticide with water runoff and 4) increased requirement for specialized planting equipment. Establishment of alfalfa by DD has been shown in some cases to produce plant densities and forage yields similar to CT alfalfa (Buhler and Proost, 1987, Rechcigl et a1., 1988, Rechcigl et a1., 1985, Wolf and Edmisten, 1989, Wolf et a1., 1985, Wolf and White, 1984). In other cases, plant densities in DD alfalfa were actually higher than in CT seedings. In Virginia, Wolf and White (1984) found that plant densities increased from 334 plants m’2 in CT plots to 366 plants m‘2 in DD seeded plots in an early April seeding. When alfalfa was seeded in late April, alfalfa plant densities increased from 323 plants m"2 in CT plots to 463 plants rn‘2 in DD plots. -1 All plots in these studies were planted at a seeding rate of 16.8 kg ha . In another study in Virginia, fall DD establishment was associated with increased stands of alfalfa by an average of 33 percent when compared to CT (Wolf and Edmisten, 1989). This response was seen consistantly over planting dates at ten day intervals from September 1 to October 10 in fields that had either German millet (Setaria italigg L.) or orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) as previous crops. Wolf and White (1984) reported DD alfalfa yields of 6451 and 7011 kg ha‘1 compared to CT yields of 5690 and 4771 kg ha‘1 for early and late April seedings, respectively, in Virginia. Compared to CT, DD alfalfa established in the fall yielded an average of 25 percent more forage in studies conducted from 1982 to 1985 in Virginia (Wolf and Edmisten, 1989). In Wisconsin, establishment-year yield of alfalfa direct-drilled into corn (Lea may; L.) stubble was 4 to 10 percent higher than yield of CT alfalfa (Buhler and Proost, 1987). Studies from 1976 to 1982 in New York showed no difference in yield between DD and CT alfalfa seeded into stubble of corn harvested for grain or silage, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) or oats (AA—veg satjya L.) (Linscott, 1983). Studies by Roth et a1. (1985) in Virginia compared CT establishment to DD establishment into sod. Average first harvest forage dry matter yield for three seeding years for early April seedings were 1.63 and 0.62 Mg ha'1 for CT and DD establishment, respectively. Establishment year seasonal forage dry matter yields were 6.28 Mg ha‘1 for CT and 1.49 Mg ha'1 for DD establishment. First harvest forage dry matter yields for a late April seeding were 1.19 and 1.81 Mg ha'1 for CT and DD establishment, respectively. Seasonal forage dry matter yields for the establshment year were 4.76 Mg ha'1 for CT and 5.99 Mg ha‘1 for DD establishment. Conventional establishment forage dry matter yield was greater than DD in the early .April seeding because oflimited sod suppression by chemicals early in the season. Use of a herbicide when establishing alfalfa by CT methods has been shown 4 to decrease total forage dry matter yield but increase pure alfalfa yield (Dutt et a1., 1979; Fawcett and Harvey, 1978; Fawcett et a1., 1978; Mazzoni and Scholl, 1964; Temme et al., 1978). Fawcett and Harvey (1978) screened seven different herbicides for use in CT alfalfa. Significant herbicide effects were observed only for the first harvest. Forage dry matter yield (alfalfa + weeds) for the first harvest was lower for alfalfa which had a herbicide applied compared to alfalfa with no herbicide applied. However, using a herbicide significantly increased the percent alfalfa in the first harvest. Temme et a1. (1979) compared alfalfa establishment without herbicide to establishment using EPTC (S-ethyl dipropylcarbamothionate) applied preplant with a postemergence application of 2,4-DB (4-(2,4-dichlor0phenoxy) butyric acid). Using no herbicide resulted in a forage yield of 1320 kg ha'1 dry matter containing 43 percent alfalfa. Alfalfa treated with EPTC plus 2,4-DB produced a forage dry matter yield of 760 kg ha‘1 containing 100 percent alfalfa. There were no differences in either forage dry matter yield or percent of forage that was alfalfa in the second or third harvest. Fawcett et a1. (1978) found that when an alfalfa-quackgrass [Elytrigia m (L.) Nevski] mixture was not treated with herbicide, forage dry matter yield was 5370 kg ha'l. However, when quackgrass was controlled by using pronamide (3,5- dichloro(N-l,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl) benzamide), forage dry matter yield decreased to 3340 kg ha'1 and pure alfalfa yield increased from 1430 to 2260 kg ha“. In the second harvest of the same study, plots with no herbicide applied had lower forage and alfalfa dry matter yields than did plots treated with herbicide. No differences were seen in total forage or alfalfa yield in the third harvest. Results from a similar study in Wisconsin using pronamide for quackgrass control showed that forage dry matter yield for plots recieving no herbicide was 5623 kg ha“1 compared to 4716 kg ha'1 for plots using pronamide (Dutt, et a1., 1979). 5 When alfalfa was not treated with herbicide, first harvest forage contained 22 percent alfalfa. The percent of forage that was alfalfa increased to 65 percent if quackgrass was controlled with pronamide. In the second and third harvests, plots with no herbicide applied had lower forage dry matter yield and percent alfalfa than did plots treated with herbicide. Mazzoni and Scholl (1964) found that, compared to mowing, chemical weed control increased alfalfa yield. Alfalfa treated with 2,4-DB produced 4290 kg ha‘1 of forageidry matter (55 percent of which was alfalfa) in the seeding year compared to 5533 kg ha“1 of forage dry matter (18 percent of which was alfalfa) when weeds were controlled by mowing. It is well documented that controlling weeds with herbicides benefits forage quality in CT alfalfa establishment in the first harvest of the seeding year (Cords, 1973; Dutt et a1., 1979; Fawcett et a1., 1978; Temme et a1., 1979). In five different studies, Cords (1973) found highly negative correlations (r = -0.735, -0.946, -0.956, - 0.850 and -0.482) between the proportion of winter annual weeds and the percentage of protein in the harvested forage. Dutt et a1. (1979) found that crude protein (CP) and in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) concentrations in alfalfa established with no herbicide were 12.4 and 57.1 percent, respectively. When quackgrass was controlled with pronamide, CP and IVDDM concentrations increased to 17.2 and 61.4 percent, respectively. Fawcett et a1. (1978) also found that CP and IVDDM concentrations increased in the first harvest if pronamide was used to control quackgrass. Alfalfa with no herbicide applied had CP and IVDDM concentrations of 13 and 51 percent, respectively. Using pronamide increased the concentrations of CP and IVDDM to 18 and 58 percent, respectively. In one Wisconsin study, alfalfa with no herbicide applied had CP and IVDDM values of 16.5 and 67.4 percent, respectively, and alfalfa treated with EPTC preplant incorporated and 2,4-DB 6 applied postemergence had CP and IVDDM values of 19.5 and 79.3 percent, respectively, in the first harvest. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) values were 36.7 and 24.0 percent in alfalfa with no herbicide applied and 30.8 and 21.2 percent in alfalfa treated with EPTC and 2,4-DB (Temme, et a1., 1979). _ Researchers in Minnesota and Wisconsin have directly compared the nutritive quality of alfalfa to that of weeds. The effect that weeds have on forage quality depends on weed species and maturity (Marten et a1., 1987). Studies in Minnes0ta E ._ _._.- 1 --... showed that three common annual weeds in alfalfa, redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retrgflexgs L.), common lambsquarters (Chentmodium mm L.) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artisiifglia L.) had CP, IVDDM, NDF and'ADF concentrations similar to alfalfa when harvested at the same time (Marten and Anderson, 1975). The perennial weeds dandelion (Targxacum foicinalg Weber), white campion [Siege alga (Mill.) E.H.L. Krause], Canada thistle [Cirsium grvgnsg (L.) Scop.], Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) and perennial sowthistle (Songhus grvgnsis L.) all had nutritive values equal to or greater than alfalfa (Marten et a1., 1987). In Wisconsin, first harvest alfalfa infested with three perennial broadleaf weeds, yellow rocket [Barbarga vulgaris (R.) Br.], white cockle (Lyghnis al_bg Mill.) and dandelion had CP concentration of 14 percent while weed free alfalfa had a CP concentration of 15.8 percent. In one study, no difference in IVDDM concentration was observed between weedy and weed free alfalfa (Dutt et a1., 1982). Previous studies have shown that DD establishment is a viable alternative to CT establishment for alfalfa producers. Little information exists, however, on the effect of DD establishment on forage quality or the impact of herbicide use in DD establishment as it relates to forage yield and quality. The objectives of this research were: 1) to determine the effect of alfalfa establishment method (CT vs. 7 DD) on plant density, forage yield and quality and 2) to determine the effect of various establishment herbicides on plant density, forage yield and quality, and net economic return above unallocated costs in CT and DD systems. MATERIALS and METHODS Field experiments were established in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS), Hickory Corners, Michigan, on an Oshtemo sandy loam (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalf) soil. The study was established at a different site in each of the two years. Weather and soil analysis data are shown in Table 1.1. To adjust an initial pH of 6.1, 2240 kg ha‘1 of lime was applied prior to the 1989 seeding, increasing pH to 6.3 (Table 1.2). In the fall of 1988, 4032 kg ha'1 of lime were applied to the area for the 1990 study to adjust a pH of 5.8. The pH was increased to 5.9 by the spring of 1990. No fertilizer was required for the 1989 seeding but 34 kg ha‘1 of K20 was applied prior to establishing the 1990 study. Prior to establishment, study areas were treated with glyphosate, (N- (phosphonomethyl glycine», at 2.3 kg a.i. ha‘l to kill existing quackgrass. Alfalfa was established by CT and DD methods in a field that had corn removed as silage the previous fall. Conventionally established treatments were plowed and disked in late April. Direct-drill treatments were established by making one pass with a no-till drill. Studies were seeded the first week of May with a John Deere 1500 Power-Till drill in 1989 and a Tye Stubble Drill in 1990. Herbicide treatments in both tillage systems were: 1) no herbicide 2) paraquat, (1,l’-dimethyl-4-4’-bipyridinium ion), prior to planting (0.6 kg a.i. ha'l) 3) paraquat prior to planting and 2,4-DB postemergence (1.2 kg Table 1.1. Heather and soil analysis data for alfalfa establishment experiments in the Spring of 1989 and 1990 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS). 1989 stggx 1990 stggy 30 year meanl Mean precipitation (mm) April 50 76 89 May 152 120 80 June 137 116 107 July 73 64 86 August 110 88 90 September 174 85 76 October 33 167 73 November 105 193 69 Mean air temperature ('C) April 8 9 9 May 14 13 15 June 20 20 20 July 23 22 22 August 21 21 21 September 17 18 18 October 12 11 11 November 3 7 4 Soil analysis; Fall, 1988 P: 309 371 K 517 369 Ca 1971 1971 M9 395 403 pH 6.1 5.8 Soil analysis; Spring, 1990 P 314 475 K 380 248 Ca 1971 1707 Mg 385 358 pH 6.3 5.9 'T Long term (1951-1980) mean from National Heather Service Station at Hickory Corners, M1. 3 P, K, Ca, and Hg levels expressed as kg ha'l. Table 1.2. Dates of field operations for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at KBS. Operation 1989 study 1990 study Fall lime application November 3, 1988 November 3, 1988 Fertilizer application ------- April 23, 1990 Broadcast application of glyphosate September 27, 1988 September 27,1988 Glyphosate spot treatment application ------- September 29, 1989 Tillage operations ‘ April 24, 1989 April 25, 1990 Preplant herbicide application May 3, 1989 May 1, 1990 Seeding date May 5, 1989 May 2, 1990 2,4-08 application June 6, 1989 June 7, 1990 Spring plant density measurements June 19, 1989 June 18, 1990 Fall plant density measurements November 20, 1989 November 9, 1990 Post establishment year plant density April 25, 1990 ------- 10 a.i. ha'l) 4) paraquat followed by EPTC (3.4 kg a.i. ha’l) prior to planting and 2,4-DB postemergence. Paraquat was applied with a nonionic surfactant at 0.25 % v/v. After tillage, all preplant herbicide treatments were applied and incorporated in CT. 2,4-DB treatments were applied the first week of June. Paraquat was applied in CT and EPTC in DD to complete the factorial design even though these treatments are not realistic alternatives for farmers because it would be redundant to use paraquat in combination with tillage and EPTC, which needs to be incorporated, would not be effective in DD establishment. All plots were seeded with ‘Big Ten’ alfalfa at 17 kg ha'l. Insecticides were applied as needed to control potato leafhopper (Empgasca f_am_e, Harris). Plot size was 2.4 x 9.1 m. Plant densities were measured 45 days after planting (DAP) in the 1989 seeding, 47 DAP in the 1990 seeding, and after fall harvest each year by counting the number of alfalfa plants per square meter from three random locations within each plot. The 1989 study also had plant density measurements taken in the spring of 1990. Forage dry matter was determined by harvesting a 1.2 x 9.1 m strip from each plot, recording the fresh weight, then drying a subsample of approximately 500 g from the yield strip at 65 C for five days for dry matter determination. Subsamples were ground to 1 mm with a Wiley mill for subsequent forage quality analyses. Harvest dates for the 1989 study were: 14 July, 23 August, and 27 October in 1989 and 30 May, 5 July, 14 August, and 23 October in 1990. All harvests were taken at 1/10 bloom, except the last harvest of each year which was taken after 15 October, when‘little regrowth would occur (Tesar, 1981.). Harvest dates for the 1990 study were: 25 July, 4 September, and 23 October. First harvest was taken at full bloom, second harvest at 1/10 bloom and final harvest after 15 October. Alfalfa and ll weeds were separated by hand from a subsample of each treatment. All samples were subjected to NIRS (near-infrared reflectance spectrosc0py) for spectral analysis using a Pacific Scientific 6250 scanning monochromator (Pacific Scientific, Silver Springs, MD.) interfaced with an IBM XT personal computer. From a subset of all treatment samples, NDF and ADF were determined by the methods of Goering and Van Soest (1970) as modified by Robertson and Van Soest (1977). Values for NDF and ADF are expressed on an organic matter basis. A ‘modified Kjeldahl procedure was used for crude protein determinations (Watkins ct al., 1987). Dry matter was determined after drying samples at 100 C. Samples were ignited at 500 C for 6 hours to determine ash content. The subset of analyzed samples was used to generate and validate equations using the Unical version 1.0 software program by Infrasoft International (Infrasoft International Analytical Services, State College, PA) (Tables 1.3 and 1.4). All subset samples were recombined and a NIRS equation based on all subset samples was created. In vitro true digestibility (IVTD) analysis was performed for 30 hours on 32 samples by the methods of Goering and Van Soest (1970). The equation: IVTD =- 68.384 + (.721 x %CP) - (.224 x %ADF) [l] was developed from the 32 samples to predict IVTD for all other samples. The multiple correlation coefficient for equation [1] was 0.88. For the 32 samples analyzed, known vs. predicted IVTD values are shown in Fig. 1.1 and residuals in Fig. 1.2. Economic comparisons were completed to determine the net economic return above unallocated costs. Equation [2], from Hesterman et a1. (1991), was used to calculate relative feed value (RFV) for all treatments: RFV =- ((88.9 - (.779 x %ADF)) x (120/%NDF))/l.29 [2]. The following equations were used to assign a dollar value to each treatment: 12 Table 1.3. Calibration statistics for N1RS forage quality predictions. No. of Procedure N gfiegp sgct' R21, Havelegghts ------ 9 k9‘1 ------ CP 88 228.8 0.86 0.95 6 ADF 88 252.0 1.63 0.86 7 NDF 73 357.9 1.85 0.88 7 T Standard error of calibration. t Squared coefficient of multiple determination from least squares regression of laboratory values on NIRS spectra. Table 1.4. Validation data for NlRS forage quality prediction equations. Mean Procggure u Actugl ' NlRS ngT R21 ................. 9 kg-1 ..--..---------.--. CP 21 224.4 226.6 1.13 0.93 ADF 21 257.0 253.8 1.81 0.81 war 36 375.6 365.9 2.57 0.80 T Standard error of prediction of actual values by NIRS. t Squared simple correlation of NlRS predicted values vs. known quality values. PREDICTED 13 86 a y 8 17.3986 + 0.78X R a 0.88 IVTD Figure 1.1. Known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. 90 El PREDICTED RESIDUALS 14 4 D B 2" B a £15 1 a 0" g a a ta 1:1 13 B 3 a a a .2-1 a a u 3 a .4 I 70 80 90 IVTD Figure 1.2. Residual of known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. 3 RESIDUALS 15 Hay value - (tons forage produced @ 12 % moisture) x [ $66 + ((RFV-IOO) x $99)] [3] Net economic return a (Hay value) - (Herbicide cost, including application). [4] For this evaluation, alfalfa hay with RFV of 100 was assumed to have a value of $66.00 Mg'1 and for each unit of RFV above 100, value increased by $0.99 Mg'l. This assumption was based on the experience of Wisconsin quality-tested hay auctions over the past several years. The range of RFV values at the quality-tested hay actions ranged from 60 to 250 (D. Undersander, personal communication). Herbicide costs for paraquat, 2,4-DB and EPTC were $29, $32, and $17 be“, respectively. These prices repesent the average of several retailers. Cost for herbicide application and EPTC incorporation were $9 and $15 ha'l, respectively (Schwab and Norgaard, 1988). Herbicide and application cost for paraquat were not included in CT establishment since paraquat did not have an effect on forage dry matter yield or quality. Experimental design was a split-plot with four replications. Whole plots were tillage (CT and DD) and split-plots were herbicide treatments. Data were analyzed by Analysis of Variance and means were separated by least significant difference. RESULTS and DISCUSSION Three of the four herbicide treatments within each tillage system will be discussed because the fourth treatments (Paraquat in CT and EPTC in DD), although included to complete the factorial design, are not realistic alternatives for a forage producer for the reasons stated previously. Herbicide treatments to be discussed in CT (treatments 2, 3 and 4) all received a broadcast application of Paraquat. Herbicides applied to these treatments after tillage were: treatment 2) no herbicide, treatment 3) 2,4-DB postemergence and treatment 4) EPTC preplant incorporated 16 followed by 2,4-DB postemergence. Herbicide treatments that will be discussed in DD are herbicide treatments 1 (no herbicide), 2 (Paraquat) and 3 (Paraquat followed by 2,4-DB), which are the herbicide options most frequently used in DD. Conventional vs. direct-drill establishment, Alfalfa plant density 45 DAP in 1989 was significantly greater in CT than in DD establishment (Table 1.5). Plant densities for CT and DD were not different following fall harvest of the establishment year or in the spring of the year following seeding. Alfalfa plant density in the 1990 seeding was greater, although not significantly, in DD than in CT establishment 47 DAP (Table 1.6). Plant densities for CT and DD were not different following fall harvest of the establishment year. Initial alfalfa plant densities in both seeding years were not significantly correlated to first harvest forage dry matter yield (r=0.12 in 1989; r=-0.05 in 1990). No significant treatment effect due to tillage was observed in 1989 or 1990 for forage dry matter (alfalfa + weeds) yield or quality at any harvest in the year of establishment (Appendix Tables B.1, B.2, 8.3, B4, B5 and B.6). In the year following establishment of the 1989 study, forage dry matter and alfalfa yield were lower in DD than in CT in the second harvest (Table 1.7). Seasonal forage dry matter yield, however, was not different between CT and DD establishment. Seasonal alfalfa yield was lower in DD than in CT establishment. No appreciable differences were observed between tillage systems in the percentages of CP, NDF, ADF and IVTD (Table 1.8). Although yields of CP and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) were lower in DD than in CT in the second harvest, no differences in seasonal CP or ITVDDM yield were observed (Table 1.9). Herbigig; effects 9n forage yield in conventional establishment, Significant tillage x herbicide interactions for forage dry matter yield ocurred only in the first and second harvests of the 1989 seeding and in the first harvest of the 1990 seeding. 17 Table 1.5. Alfalfa plant density at three sampling dates for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. Sampling date Establishment method 6119/89 (45 DAP) 11/20/89 4/24/90 ------------------------- plants 111'2 ------------------------ Conventional 205 141 95 Direct-drill 129 109 85 CV(%) 28 21 15 18 Table 1.6. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Values are averages of four herbicide treatments. SamplinQAdgte Establishment method 61191904147 DAB) 11/9/90 ------------------- plants m' ------------------ Conventional 187 103 Direct-drill 258 110 CV(X) 15 10 l9 u o o N 0 ~— n m MP 0 NF 0 o o Axv>u m5 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 mg no 2. no .5 m2 a: $9883 «.mp m.«— m.~ no m.~ ~.~ co o.~ ~.m mo ¢.n ~.m ~o K.m .._cp-uuoc_o ~.qp ~.m— m.~ co o.~ o.~ no c.n m.m no o.m m.m no o.m .mco_uco>cou ........................ .--.-..----.----.------------- F-og m: ---.-----------.-------------..----.-.------..---.---- u.> o.> p.» e.e p.> p.> eda u.> p.> wda u.» u.) e.m p.» nocumal *.< to w.< x to ~.< N to ~.< a .11 to ».< x to uc055m_.nnumm .6u0u .mmwmmom e umo>coz n umo>cox ~ umo>coz — umo>ca= .mucoeuaocu ou_u_ocog anew we monoco>a oco moodo> .mmg um owop eo ac_com ecu c_ moocuoe .dmcp-uuoc_u new .oeo_uco>cou >9 pocm__neumo medmedm cow m.mu6u Locomauw new mumo>cac Lace c_ mp.o_> ow.m+.a mead pea omaucoueoo aw.aw.o .mu.o_> “toy eouuoe_>eu omeeow ceo>.ucouom .5." 0.96» 20 . m m A P e k a N a a m N a k m xxe>u mz ex ea m2 m2 m2 m: m: m: ma n: as m2 m: m: e.o A8.88.. «.mk ~.o~ o._e n.mp o.o~ o.m~ o.em m.- o..o F.e~ o.~n o.e~ k.—n e.k~ «.mn o.- .dmee-uuoe_o s.mh o.o~ o.ov ~.op o.m~ «.mN n.vn «.mw 0.?» o.o~ o.~n m.o~ o.~o w.m~ —.on o.- .93 m uco>COu trot-11111111111trot-1111111111111 tttttttt out-oattttttotto N tutoro1atIt1atttttottootnotttrtttotttttrtttltttlottttotttr S: and 321 .5 at: 29. Log 8 at: and 31: 8 at: 2.3.. .91 8 858 c umo>coz m umo>cez ~ umo>mmr P umu>cox acoszmmdnoumm .mucosuaocu ou_u_neog Looe .o moueeo>a oca moada> .mmx no omo— mo oc_cam ozu c_ moccuoe .._cu.uuoc_u new .aco_uco>cou xn nogm_.noumo .mc_uoom coueo Loo> «ea c_ o*.em.o we aumo>coc Lace gov “up>_v >u_._n_umommp oacu ocu_> c_ new auo .532. .63 omega» 5 maggots 39.03 9.33. 3333 .36 on 23333 go: 0.3 .533 Sam 65 :3: $33 69. us one we 9.2% 05 5 3858. 398552.00 ,5 305333 5.33 mo 3832. 09.5 .30 go; wrote one .832. to ounce; .m.— 0.53“. malVNlmI 0205.5: OZINI 0 ~30 N ~30 _. ~30 VI OI NI VI NI NI VI NI NI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O A2323 22> 8:22 to 24 430; store 5 383635 3on3 «.333 :95 "Be; .538. to 03.3.. 5 305335 30:03 «.533 .333 .36 3 3:20:30 no: can .533 8.3 05 :3: .953 .mS. we 98.. we maria 05 5 89305 3:03:35... 3 365333 @333 we 3929. 09:3 c3 33> store one .532. to ounce“. J... 0.5m: leV.N + ObaleI mo-e.m-m: 2a 6663' 55 83sz 6263.5; 62-3.. m.:o «Lao 33:0 e: m... a: a: m: «I 3.. m: «I _ _ _ r _ L _ _ _ _, _ O - r_. w I ,, .. .- . <1... 1 V 359): 22> .2222 to 25 from both years confirm that the benefit of using an establishment herbicide with alfalfa is primarily in the first and second harvest of the establishment year. This agrees with previous research on CT establishment of alfalfa (Fawcett et al., 1978; Dutt et al., 1979). Herbicide effects on forage yield in direct-drill establishmgnt, Using a herbicide for weed control in DD in the 1989 seeding reduced forage dry matter yield and increased alfalfa yield in the first harvest (Fig. 1.5). The treatment with no herbicide applied yielded 4.8 Mg ha'1 of forage dry matter while treatments of paraquat and paraquat plus 2,4-DB had dry matter yields of 3.1 and 2.8 Mg ha‘l, respectively. Treatments with paraquat and paraquat plus 2,4-DB were not different from one another in alfalfa yield. Alfalfa yield was greater in treatments in which herbicide was applied than in the treatment with no herbicide applied. The percentage of alfalfa in the first harvest was significantly lower in the treatment with no herbicide applied (18 percent) compared to the treatments of paraquat (57 percent) and paraquat plus 2,4-DB (92 percent) (Appendix Table A.l). Using 2,4-DB after paraquat caused a significant increase in percent alfalfa from 57 percent without 2,4-DB to 92 percent when 2,4-DB was applied. Both paraquat and paraquat plus 2,4-DB treatments had greater forage dry matter yields in the second harvest compared to the treatment without herbicide (Fig. 1.5). The treatment of paraquat plus 2,4-DB also had a significantly greater alfalfa yield compared to the treatment with no herbicide applied. Percent alfalfa in the second and third harvests did not differ among herbicide treatments. In the 1990 DD seeding, the treatment with no herbicide applied had greater first harvest forage dry matter yield (3.7 Mg ha‘l) although it was not significantly greater than the treatment with only paraquat applied (3.4 Mg ha‘l) (Fig 1.6). Alfalfa yield was not different among herbicide treatments in the first harvest. 26 .3303 02030 E «00:30.30 03:03 2030. :0...» “30; 0030.: to 0033 E «00:00:... 03:0“. 3030. .338 .35 3 30.035 3: 0.3 .030. 0.50 05 5:. 0.33 .32 3 one. 3 05.5w 05 E 0350... 376300.50 >9 00503300 0:030 06 30020: 00...: .50 30; 03030 poo .032. to 000.3“. .m.— 0.50: more N + .maomcmalmI .20 300>> I .20 0:32 D 30:920le1 0203.0: 02;: m 30 N 30 P 30 NI NI PI NI NI I m: NI FI _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 _ _ _ _ - O n m ; an L , n 22:25 29> eases. >5 27 ., .232. Be; 8:22 to .330; 3.3.0 c. 30:30:30 039.00 9.030. 30...» 6.0.» .032. to 0933 c. 0030.03... 039.00 3030. .333 .36 3 2.00035 uoc 0.0 0030. 053 05 5.... 9.03 .32 um coop 06 3.0% 05 c. moo—30... 376-300.... B 005.3030 033.0 E 30022. 00....» .3» 3.0; 3.3.0 ecu .030... to 090.3. .04 0.53.. maria .. 3389.8... Nausea... 55 86.5 I so «:32 D 8265.9. 62...: m So u 30 P So a... N... :1 m: «I .1 m... m: E _ _ _ _ b _ _ h . — _ o - - . 28 Lower weed pressure in the 1990 seeding than in the 1989 seeding may explain why no difference in alfalfa yield was observed (Schmidt, 1991). Fifty-five percent of the 3.7 Mg ha'1 forage dry matter yield was pure alfalfa in the treatment with no herbicide applied (Appendix Table A.2). Using paraquat or paraquat plus 2.4-DB increased the percentage of alfalfa in the first harvest to 86 and 97 percent, respectively. No differences in forage dry matter or alfalfa yield were observed among herbicide treatments in the second or third harvests (Fig. 1.6). Percent alfalfa in the seCond and third harvest were likewise not different among herbicide treatments (Appendix Table A.2). Results from the two years of data show that DD establishment follows the same trends as does CT establishment. In DD, as in CT, the benefit of using an establishment herbicide was observed in the first and second harvest of the establishment year. Both Fawcett et al. (1978) and Dutt et al. (1979) reported in CT studies that, in the first harvest, treatments with no herbicide applied had greater forage dry matter and alfalfa yields than did treatments with herbicide applied. Second'harvest forage dry matter yield was lower in the treatment with no herbicide applied than in treatments with herbicide applied. Dutt et al. (1979) also observed that alfalfa with no herbicide applied had lower third harvest alfalfa yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide due to moisture conservation by weed control prior to first harvest. flerbieige effects en ferege Quality in eenventienel establishment, Significant tillage x herbicide interactions for forage quality occurred only in the first and second harvests of the 1989 seeding and in the first harvest of the 1990 seeding. No difference in percent C? was observed among treatments in the first harvest of CT in the 1989 seeding (Table 1.10). However, the treatment with no herbicide applied had greater percent NDF and ADF and lower percent IVTD in the .29 .50.m>m one...“ a c_;u_: 0u_u_n.03 uc_.onsou .05 cm. # .ao-0.~ + 05am - 0 .ao-0.~ - n .ou.u.n.og a: - N “pc055m..naumo .aco..co>cou "mucaeuuoeu ou_u_n.0= h .mo-0.~ + uoaoaeaa . n .uaaoa.oa . ~ .0v_o_n.0g oc . — uucoezm_.naumo .._eu.u00..o . 5 o m ~ .. P. 5 _ m m 5 Axo>u m2 mz m2 m2 m2 m2 m: m: 5.. 5.o m.~ ~.~ «.mo.o.om. 0.05 m.¢~ c.0n «.MN o.oo o.o~ o.on ~.0~ 0.05 ~..~ o.~n 0.- m m.oo ~.n~ o.nm o.0~ ..oo ..5~ o.oq 5.q~ n.cn o..~ o.~m 0.m~ ~ m..o ..- ¢.~n 5.0m c.on 5.m~ 0.5m —.e~ n.05 0.o~ m.c¢ m.o. . ....u-.uo..o o.oc o.n~ ¢.nm m.¢~ m.~n o.q~ o.mm ~.5~ 0.00 _.o~ o.om m.n~ 0 m.ou n.e~ c.0n m.e~ o.~o ~.n~ 5.~m ~.5~ o.oo 5.o~ o.o~ o.m~ n 5.oo ..m~ ~.~n ~.0~ «.mn a.0~ m.on n.m~ p.05 5.m~ «.mm ~.- #~ .oco_uc0>cou sartorititricitontiirrioooriiiiirrittttiinirooo N not-..traitor-nicottooirrliitoocurreruosoritrtii 5>. .mc am. no o.>. .mc .mm .0 o.>. .o< .mm no ou.o.n.0= noguoe m emo>u0m ~ .mmsumm. . .mu>.o= “casza_.nnumm Ao5>.. >u_._n_um0m_v one» o.u_> c_ new Auocou >9 vocm_.naum0 «5.05.0 50 mumo>eag eaox mc_voom 00.:u c_ .op.— o.no~ 30 first harvest. No differences in percent CP, NDF, ADF and IVTD were observed in the second or third harvests. In the 1990 seeding, conventionally established plots with no herbicide applied had lower percent CP and IVTD in the first harvest (Table 1.11). Percent NDF was greater in the treatment with no herbicide applied than in the treatment with EPTC plus 2.4-DB in the first harvest. Percent ADF was not different among herbicide treatments at any harvest. Concentrations of CP, NDF and IVTD were not different among herbicide treatments in the second and third harvests. Dutt et al., (1979), Fawcett et al. (1979) and Temme et al. (1979) all showed in CT studies that first harvest percent CP and IVDDM were lower in treatments with no herbicide applied than in treatments that had herbicide applied. Temme et al. (1979) reported that percent NDF and ADF were greater in the first harvest when alfalfa was established without herbicide. Yields of CP and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in the first harvest of the I989 CT seeding were greater in the treatment with no herbicide applied due to greater first harvest forage dry matter yield (Table 1.12). In the second harvest, CP and IVTDDM yields were lower in untreated plots due to lower forage dry matter yields. No differences in CP and IVTDDM yield were observed for the third harvest or for the seasonal total. In the 1990 seeding, CP yield was not different among herbicide treatments at any harvest in CT (Table 1.13). In the first harvest, the treatment with 2,4-DB applied had lower IVTDDM yield due toclower first harvest forage dry matter yield. IVTDDM yields were not different among herbicide treatments in the second and third harvests or for the seasonal total. WW Direct-drill plots with no herbicide applied in the 1989 seeding had lower CP and IVTD percentages and greater NDF and ADF percentages in the first harvest (Table 1.10). 3l .2000>0 000...» a c030.) 0000.000; uc_.0aeou 000 00. « .00-0.~ + 00000... . 0 .00-0.~ + 0000 - 0 .00360000 - ~ .00-c.~ . n .00.u.0.00 0: . 0 .000000000 0: - ~ uucoagm_.nauu0 .._0u.000._o 00:05:00.90000 .ocomuc0>cou "00:0500000 00.00000: h ~ 00 0 0 0 5 0 0 ~ 0 5 0 Au.>0 02 00 02 02 02 02 02 02 0.~ 02 0.0 ~.~ 0.00.0000. 0.~0 0.0~ 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.0~ 0.50 0.0~ 5.05 0.0~ 0.00 ~.50 0 0.00 0.c~ ~.0m o.q~ n.95 0.¢~ o.mn ~.- 0.00 «.mm 0.0n 0.00 N ~.00 0.0N 0.~0 0.0~ 5.05 0.00 ~.00 ~.- 0.05 0.0~ 5.50 0.00 0 ....0-000..0 —.no m.- —.mm 0.- 0.00 —.- 0.0m —.m~ 0.00 ¢.m~ 0.0m ~.0— 0 5.00 0.0~ 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.0~ 0.00 0.- 5.05 0.0~ 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.- 0.~0 0.5~ 0.05 0.0~ 0.00 0.- 0.~5 0.0~ ~.~0 0.00 h~ .0co_uc0>cou iiiii noa-..innotin-noaotutti-irritiuuuuiooononi N ooiotiilluionliinioiiounonunniiouuoioounioIIUIu 00>. .mfil, mum, 00 00>. .000 .mm 00 00>. 00c 0mm mml. .mw_u.000= 000005 n 000>0 : ~ um0>0mz P 000>002 0coeca_.naumm .002 00 000— 00 oc_0am 0:0 c_ 0000005 .._0u-000.mu new .0co_0c0>cou >9 u0sm_.noum0 00.0».0 00 0000>0ac 000> acmuoom 000;» c. 000>.. 000.09.00000u 03.0 0000> c. new .00<. .0900 uc0ma0u0u 0.00 .0002. 000.0 0:0000006 .00030c .0000 c.0uoea unago 0o «0000:00000 .00., 0.300 32 Table 1.12. Crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) yields in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Estab Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Seasonel total meghod Herbicide CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM -------------------------------- kg ha'1 -----.---------------------- Conventional 21‘ 934 3354 560 1642 410 1368 1901. 6364 3 707 2401 687 2083 412 1354 1806 5838 4 651 2236 706 2143 461 1526 1818 S905 Direct-drill 1 793 3574 446 1409 268 885 1507 5868 2 744 2508 587 1903 300 1004 1631 5415 3 632 2199 677 2196 369 1251 1678 5646 CV(%) 16 16 12 13 13 14 9 7 T Herbicide treatments: Conventional establishment: 2 - no herbicide. 3 - 2.4-DB. 4 - EPTC + 2.4-DB. t LSD for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. Direct-drill establishment: 1 - no herbicide 2 ~ Paraquat 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08 33 Table 1.13. Crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) yields in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Estab Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Seasonal total Eggnog Herbigigg CP IVTDDM GP [YTDQH CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM -..., ---------------------- kg ha'1 ------------------------------- Conventional 21’ 515 2648 575 1988 1.33 1330 1523 5965 3 504 2071 668 2320 408 1227 1580 5617 4 582 2420 661 2267 465 1411 1708 6097 Direct-drill 1 577 2753 542 1924 402 1243 1521 5918 2 527 2496 561 1962 369 1214 1457 5670 3 513 2259 630 2313 459 1439 1602 6010 CV(X) 12 9 12 13 9 10 9 8, T Herbicide treatments: Conventional establishment: Direct-drill establishment: 2 - no herbicide. 1 - no herbicide. 3 - 2.4-DB. 2 - Paraquat. 4 - EPTC + 2.4-DB. 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08. 3 L30 for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. 34 No differences were seen among treatments for forage quality in the second and third harvests. The percentages of CP, NDF, ADF, and IVTD were not different among herbicide treatments at any harvest in the 1990 DD seeding (Table 1.11). Crude protein and IVDDM data reported by Dutt ct al. (1979) and Fawcett et al. (1978) and CP, IVDDM, NDF and ADF data reported by Temme et al. (1979) on CT seedings agree with our findings for DD alfalfa in the 1989 seeding. In the 1989 seeding, the _treatment with no herbicide applied had lower percentages of CP and IVTD compared to treatments with herbicide applied. When plots had no herbicide applied, the percentages of NDF and ADF were increased compared to plots with herbicide applied. No differences in forage quality were observed after the first harvest No difference was observed in CF yield in the first harvest of the 1989 DD seeding (Table 1.12). Although the treatment without herbicide had a lower CP percentage in the first harvest (Table 1.10), forage dry matter yield was significantly greater than forage dry matter yield in herbicide treated plots. The treatment with no herbicide applied had greater IVTDDM yield in the first harvest because of increased forage dry matter yield in that harvest. Crude protein and IVTDDM yields were lower in the treatment with no herbicide applied in the second harvest because of lower f oragc dry matter yield in that harvest. The yield of CP and IVTDDM were not different among herbicide treatments in the third harvest or for the seasonal total. In DD establishment in the 1990 seeding, CP yield was not different among herbicide treatments at any harvest (Table 1.13). Although first harvest IVTDDM yield was greater in the treatment with no herbicide applied, it was not significantly greater than IVTDDM yield in plots with 2,4-DB applied. Second and third harvest 35 and seasonal IVTDDM yield did not differ among herbicide treatments. All treatments in the 1989 seeding were harvested for a second year in 1990. Forage dry matter and alfalfa yield and forage quality in both CT and DD establishment were not affected at any of the four harvests by establishment herbicide (Appendix Tables A.3, A.4). These data give further support to results reported by Dutt et al. (1979) and Fawcett et al. (1978) that the benefit of using an establishment herbicide is observed only in the year of establishment. Economies, Relative feed values (RFV) were calculated for the first and second harvests of each establishment year to determine the net economic benefit of using an establishment herbicide based on results of this study (Table 1.14). Third harvests were not included in this evaluation because no differences in forage dry matter yield or forage quality were detected among treatments. The treatment with no herbicide applied in CT establishment in 1989 had a greater forage dry matter yield than did treatments with herbicide applied, but the amount of alfalfa was not different among herbicide treatments, resulting in the greatest forage value and net return for the treatment with no herbicide applied (Table 1.15). The greatest hay value and net return were achieved in CT in 1990 when EPTC + 2,4-DB were used. Treatments with EPTC + 2,4-DB and treatments with no herbicide applied were not different in forage dry matter yield but treatments of EPTC + 2,4-DB had greater alfalfa yield, increasing forage quality which in turn increased hay value. In both 1989 and 1990 in DD establishment, the greatest hay value was achieved when paraquat + 2,4-DB was applied, due to greater alfalfa yield in that treatment. The increase in alfalfa yield and resulting increase in forage quality and value did not, however, exceed the cost of herbicide. In both years, therefore, the greatest net return was achieved with treatments in which no herbicide was applied. 36 Table 1.14. Relative feed values for the first and second harvests of 1989 and 1990 of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods at KBS. Estab 19§9 1990 th Her i ide Harve t 1 Harvest g Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Conventional 21 198 211. 150 149 3 230 203 163 153 4 226 200 177 167 Direct-Drill 1 157 171 173 170 2 204 161 181 183 3 211 164 186 173 LSD(O.05)1 20 NS NS NS CV(X) 7 13 9 9 T Herbicide treatments: Conventional establishment: Direct-drill establishment: 2 . no herbicide 1 - no herbicide. 3 - 2.4-DB 2 - Paraquat. 4 - EPTC + 2.4-DB 3 - Paraquat + 2.4-08 1 L80 for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. 37 Table 1.15. Value of alfalfa hay (based on relative feed value (RFV)) establishment herbicide costs, and net return to herbicide used for alfalfa establishment with conventional and direct-drill methods at KBS. Estab 19§9 1990 mgghod Herbicide Hg! vglgg Herb cgst Het return Hex value Herb cost Net return ................................ s ha-l .-...----------.-------....-.-.- Conventional 21 1186 o 1186 807 o 807 3 1134 41 1093 793 41 752 4 1069 90 979 945 90 855 Direct-Drill 1 937 0 937 960 0 960 2 928 38 890 967 38 929 3 951 79 872 978 79 899 LSD(0.05)* NS NS NS NS CV(%) 11 12 13 13 T Herbicide treatments: Conventional establishment: Direct-drill establishment: 2 - no herbicide 1 - no herbicide. 3 - 2.4-DB 2 - Paraquat. 4 - EPTC + 2.4-08 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08 t LSD for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. 38 CONCLUSION Although initial alfalfa plant densities varied in both the 1989 and 1990 seedings, establishment method (CT vs. DD) had no permanant effect on alfalfa plant density, forage dry matter yield or forage quality. In both CT and DD establishment, the benefits from using an establishment herbicide were observed only in the first and second harvests of the establishment year. Benefits included increases in the amount of pure alfalfa harvested and thus improved forage quality. But in our studies, use of an establishment herbicide increased hay value by an amount greater than thecost of the herbicide only in CT in 1990 when EPTC plus 2,4-DB were used. Results from both the 1989 and 1990 seedings show that alfalfa plant density had no effect on forage dry matter yield. Literature comparing alfalfa plant density to forage dry matter yield is sparse and variable. Alfalfa plant densities in these studies would be considered low based on current recommendations of 217 plants in‘2 in Wisconsin (Cosgrove et al. 1991), but forage dry matter production was excellent, averaging 7.4 Mg ha'1 in the seeding year. This brings into question whether alfalfa plant density measurements need to be included in future studies and current recommendations about alfalfa plant density requirements. These studies show that alfalfa can be sucessfully established without the use of an establishment herbicide, a practice which would not have been recommended in Michigan prior to these studies. By the third harvest of the establishment year, no differences in forage dry matter and alfalfa yield or forage quality were observed among the different herbicide treatments. Although the treatment with no herbicide applied had a lower percentage of alfalfa in the first harvest, by the third harvest, forage dry matter yield among all herbicide treatments was nearly 100 percent 39 alfalfa. Only the 1989 seeding was harvested for a second year. Further research needs to be conducted on the long term effect of establishing alfalfa without herbicide. If establishing alfalfa without herbicide would reduce the expected length of the stand, that information would aid farmers in making this important management decision. 40 References Buhler, D.A. and RT. Proost. 1987. Alfalfa establishment using reduced tillage methods. Forage Producers Handbook, Wisconsin Forage council. pg. 26-33. Cords, HP. 1973. Weeds and alfalfa hay quality. Weed Sci. 21:400-401. Cosgrove, D.R., P.E. Daley, L.G. Koening and TJ. Rittcr. 1991. Effect of coated seed on alfalfa stand density and yield in reduced tillage systems. In Proc. 1991 American Forage and Grassland Conf. Columbia, MO. Dutt, T.E., R.G. Harvey and RS. Fawcett. 1982. Feed quality of hay containing perennial broadleaf weeds. Agron. J. 74:673-676. ----- , R.G. Harvey, R.S. Fawcett, N.A. Jorgensen. H.J. Larsen and D.A. Schlough. 1979. Forage quality and animal performance as influenced by quackgrass (Agrgpyrgn regens) control in alfalfa (Medicagg sativa) with pronamide. Weed Sci. 27:127-132. Fawcett, RS. and R.G. Harvey. 1978. Field comparison of seven dinitroaniline herbicides for alfalfa (Medicagg sativa) seedling establishment. Weed Sci. 26:123-127. Fawcett, R.S., R.G. Harvey, D.A Schlough and LR. Block. 1978 Quackgrass (Agrgpyron repens) control in established alfalfa (Mggigggg sativa) with pronamide. Weed Sci. 26: 193-198. Goering H.K. and R]. Van Soest. 1970. USDA Handbook #379. Hesterman, 08., HF. Bucholtz and MS. Allen. 1991. Forage quality: what is it? Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Ser. Bull. E-2292. Linscott, Dean L. 1983. Forage crop establishment with limited-tillage systems. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. Suppl. 37:68-72. ----- , R.O. Hagin and A.A. Akhavein. 1967. Weed control during establishment of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 21:270-277. Marten, GO and RN. Anderson. 1975. Forage nutritive value and palatability of 12 common annual weeds. Crop Sci. 15:821-827. ----- , C.C. Sheaffer and D.L. Wyse. I987. Forage nutritive value and palatability of perennial weeds. Agron. J. 79:980-986. Mazzoni, LE. and J.M. Scholl. 1964. Effect of chemical and mechanical weed control in spring-seeded legumes in establishment of interseeded grasses. Agron. J. 56:403-405. Metcalfe, D.S. and D.M. Elkins. 1980.CLQQ Mm: mm and W. Macmillan Pub. Co., N.Y. 41 Peters, EJ. 1964. Pro-emergence, preplanting and postemergence herbicides for alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil. Agron. J. 56:415-419. Quisenberry, D.L. 1989. Michigan no-till survey. U.S.D.A., S.C.S. Robertson J.B. and P.J. Van Soest. 1977. Dietary fiber estimation in concentrate feedstuffs. J. Animal Sci. 45 (Suppl. l):254. Roth, G.W., D.D. Wolf and ES. Hagood, Jr. 1985. Alfalfa establishment without tillage as influenced by insecticide and vegetation suppression. Grass Forage Sci. 40:473-478. Rechcigl, J.E., K.L. Edmisten, D.D. Wolf and RB. Reneau, Jr. 1988. Response to alfalfa grown on an acid soil to different chemical amendments. Agron. J. 80:515- 518. ----- , D.D. Wolf, R.B. Reneau, Jr. and W. Kroontje. 1985b. Influence of surface ! liming on the yield and nutrient concentration of alfalfa established with no-tillage techniques. Agron. J. 77:956-958. Schmidt, LR. 1991. Alternative methods of alfalfa establishment. MS. Thesis. Michigan State University. Schwab, G.D. and K. Norgaard. 1988. Custom work rates in Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Ser. Bull. E-2131. Sprague, MA. and GB. Triplett. 1986. big-tillage 8331 sgrfage-tillage: m tillage 82mm. Wiley. N .Y. Temme, D.G., R.G. Harvey, R.S. Fawcett and A.W. Young. 1979. Effect of annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron. J. 71:51-54. Tesar, MB. 1981. Fall cutting of alfalfa under 3- and 4-cutting systems in Michigan. p.14-l6. In Proc. 17th Central Alfalfa Improve. Conf., East Lansing, MI. Turner, J.H. 1983. W Qfi 1193111 farming. American Association Vocational Instructional Materials, Driftmeir Engineering Center, Athens, GA. Watkins, K.L., T.L. Veum and G.F. Krause. 1987. Total nitrogen determinations of various sample types: a comparison of the Hack, Kjeltec, and K jeldahl methods..J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 70:410:412. Wolf, DD. and K.L. Edmisten. 1989. Late season alfalfa plantings: conventional vs. no-till methods. Crop Sci. 29:170-175. . ----- , E.S. Hagood, Jr. and M. Lentner. 1985. No-till alfalafa establishment as influenced by previous cover crop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:609-613. ----- , and HE White. 1984. No-till alfalfa establishment. Forage Systems: leading U.S. agriculture into the future. Pub.: American Forage & Grassland Council; Lexington, KY. CHAPTER TWO FORAGE YIELD, COMPOSITION AND QUALITY OF DIRECT-DRILLED ALFALFA SEEDED ALONE AND WITH A GRASS ABSTRACT Alfalfa (Medicagg sa_ti_va; L.) was seeded alone, in a mixture with either smooth bromegrass (Brgmus ingrmis Leyss.), orchardgrass (Dagtylis glgmerata L.) or timothy (Phlegm pragense L.) or with an oat (A1908. SAM L.) companion crop in the spring of 1989 and 1990 by direct-drill (no-till) methods . Alfalfa seeded alone was subjected to two herbicide programs (and a no herbicide control). The treatment without herbicide had greater first harvest forage dry matter yield in 1989. Alfalfa treated with paraquat (l,1’-dimethyl-4-4’-bipyridinium ion) had greater first-harvest forage dry matter yield in 1990. In the first harvest of both years, plots without herbicide had lower pure alfalfa yield and forage quality compared to those treated with herbicide. First harvest forage dry matter yield was greater and forage quality lower in alfalfa-grass mixtures than in stands of pure alfalfa. Harvesting the oat companion crop as silage increased forage dry matter yield in the first harvest but lowered forage quality compared to alfalfa treated with herbicide. Harvesting the oat companion crop for grain reduced forage dry matter and alfalfa yield into the second production season. INTRODUCTION Alfalfa (Medicago satifl L.) can be successfully established using direct-drill (DD), or no-till, seeding methods (Buhler and Proost, 1987, Linscott, 1983, Rechcigl et al., 1988, Rechcigl et al., 1985, Wolf and Edmisten, 1989, Wolf et al., 1985, Wolf and White, 1984). This has led to an increase in the number of hectares of forage and pastureland established by direct-drill in Michigan from 1,215 in 1980 to 9,315 in 1989 (Quisenberry, 1989). Alternatives to using herbicides for weed control when establishing alfalfa are to either seed alfalfa with a forage grass or to seed alfalfa with a small grain companion crop. According to the Census of Agriculture (1987), in 1982, 384,819 hectares in Michigan were seeded to alfalfa, while 11,404 hectares were seeded to alfalfa-small grain hay and 88,484 hectares were seeded to alfalfa- grass hay. By 1987, the area seeded to alfalfa, alfalfa-small grain hay and alfalfa- grass hay had increased to 393,289; 13,387 and 363,073 hectares, respectively. It is well documented that in conventional alfalfa establishment, herbicides will reduce the percentage of weeds in the first harvest (Brothers and Hesterman, 1991; Dutt et al., 1979; Fawcett ct al., 1978; Temme et al., 1979). Lowering the percentage of weeds decreases forage (alfalfa + weed) dry matter yield but increases pure alfalfa yield in the first harvest, thus increasing forage quality. Fawcett et al. (1978) observed that when quackgrass [Elytrigia m (L.) Nevski] was controlled in alfalfa, forage dry matter yield decreased by 38 percent but alfalfa yield increased by 63 percent. In this same study, first harvest percent crude protein (CP) and in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) increased from 13 and 51 percent, respectively, in untreated plots to 18 and 58 percent, respectively, in plots receiving herbicide. In 43 44 studies in Wisconsin, first harvest forage dry matter yield was 5.6 Mg ha'1 containing 22 percent alfalfa when quackgrass was not controlled and 4.7 Mg ha'1 containing 65 percent alfalfa when quackgrass was controlled with pronamide (3,5-dichloro(N-l,l- dimethyl-Z-propynyl) benzamide), (Dutt et a1., 1979). The increased percentage of alfalfa was associated with an increase in CP from 12.4 to 17.2 percent and IVDDM from 57.1 to 67.4. Temme ct al. (1979) reported forage dry matter yields of 1.3 and 0.8 Mg ha"1 for treatments receiving either no herbicide or a combination of EPTC (S-ethyl dipropylcarbamothionate) applied preplant incorporated with 2,4-DB (4-(2,4- dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid) applied postemergence. In this study, treatments with no herbicide applied had 43 percent alfalfa in the forage compared to 100 percent alfalfa in the forage from herbicide-treated plots. First harvest values for CP and IVDDM were 16.5 and 67.4 percent, respectively, for treatments with no herbicide applied and 19.5 and 79.3, respectively, for treatments with herbicide appfied. An alternative to using herbicides for weed control when establishing alfalfa is to seed alfalfa with a forage grass. One advantage to seeding alfalfa with a grass is that as the alfalfa stand begins to age and thin, the grass invades the thin areas, controlling weeds, maintaining forage yield and prolonging the stand. (Tesar and Marble, 1988). Another advantage of alfalfa-grass mixtures is the elimination of the need for nitrogen fertilizer. When alfalfa was seeded into tall fescue (fem argndinacea Shrcb), dry matter yields of the mixture were equivalent to yields of pure stands of tall fescue fertilized with 200 kg N ha'1 (Tesar, 1974). Other advantages of alfalfa-grass mixtures include (i) reducing soil erosion that may occur in pure alfalfa stands (Drolson et al., 1976), (ii) faster curing of hay (Smith, 1960), and (iii) reducing the threat of bloat when used as pasture or green chop (Johnson et al., 1965; Wheeler, 1950). 45 Mixtures can produce up to 25% more forage dry matter than grasses alone (Johnson et al., 1965). Casler and Drolson (1984) observed seasonal forage dry matter yields of 6.9, 7.3 and 7.3 Mg ha’1 for pure stands of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), smooth bromegrass (Brgmus inermis Leyss.) and timothy (Phlegm mg; L.), respectively. When alfalfa was grown with the grasses, forage dry matter yields increased to 7.9 Mg ha'1 for alfalfa-orchardgrass, 8.6 Mg ha'1 for alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and 7.6 Mg ha'1 for alfalfa-timothy mixtures. An alfalfa-grass mixture also tends to be higher in forage quality than a grass alone. Taylor et al. (1983) sod-seeded alfalfa into either orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass or timothy. Crude protein yields in the second year of the study were 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7 Mg ha'1 for orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass and timothy, respectively. Crude protein yields increased to 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6 Mg ha‘1 when alfalfa was seeded into the orchardgrass, sm00th bromegrass and timothy, respectively. Yields of IVDDM in the second year of the study were 2.2 Mg ha'1 for orchardgrass, 2.2 Mg ha'1 for smooth bromegrass and 2.9 Mg ha‘1 for timothy. Growing alfalfa with orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass and timothy increased IVDDM yields to 4.4, 5.2 and 6.0 Mg ha‘l, respectively. Similiar increases in CP and IVDDM yields were observed in the third year of the study when alfalfa was seeded into orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass and timothy as opossed to growing the grasses alone. Previous research has found that in most cases, little differences in forage dry matter yield and quality exists among stands of pure alfalfa and stands of alfalfa seeded with a forage grass. Wilsie (1941) observed that four year total forage dry matter yield of pure alfalfa stands (8.3 Mg ha'l) was not different than yield of alfalfa in a mixture with Canadian bromegrass (8.6 Mg ha‘l), orchardgrass (8.7 Mg M“), or timothy (8.2 Mg ha'l). In one study, an alfalfa-bromegrass mix and an alfalfa-timothy mix yielded 25 and 12 percent more dry matter, respectively, than a 46 stand of pure alfalfa (Smith, 1960). Comstock and Law (1948) compared the performance of conventionally established stands of pure alfalfa to alfalfa established in a mixture with either smooth bromegrass or orchardgrass. All stands were harvested once a year. Total forage dry matter yield for the three years of the study were 5.6, 5.5 and 5.4 Mg ha‘1 for pure alfalfa, alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and "I alfalfa-orchardgrass, respectively. Pure alfalfa had a slightly higher CP concentration (13.5 percent) than alfalfa-smooth bromegrass (11.6 percent) or alfalfa- orchardgrass (12.2 percent). Early research in Michigan reported a mixture of r_ . .— ’~ We...“ alfalfa-smooth bromegrass with greater forage dry matter yield (6.3 Mg ha'l) than pure alfalfa (5.2 Mg ha'l). Treatments were harvested twice a year (Churchill, 1947). Schults and Stubbendicck (1982) observed no difference in forage dry matter yield between stands of pure alfalfa and alfalfa-smooth bromegrass in Nebraska. Pure alfalfa, however, had a greater percentage of CP (18.9) than the mixture (16.3) in the first harvest (Schultz and Stubbendicck, 1983). Crude protein in the second and subsequent harvests was not different between treatments. In vitro digestible dry matter percentages in the first and second harvests were also not different between stands of pure alfalfa and alfalfa-smooth bromegrass. Sollenburger et al. (1984a) observed no difference in total forage dry matter yield over three years between stands of pure alfalfa (7.4 Mg ha") and alfalfa-orchardgrass (7.1 Mg ha"). Pure alfalfa stands, however, had a greater average CP percentage (21.9) over the three year study than did alfalfa-orchardgrass (14.6) (Sollenburger ct al., 1984b). In Maryland, Hart et al. (1981) found no difference in total forage dry matter yield between stands of pure alfalfa and alfalfa-orchardgrass. Total forage dry matter 'yields were 4.9 and 4.8 Mg ha'1 in 1974, 15.8 and 16.4 Mg ha‘1 in 1975 and 14.8 and 15.2 Mg ha'1 in 1976 for pure alfalfa and alfalfa-orchardgrass, respectively. In Canada, Ta and Paris (1987) also found that first year forage dry matter yield for an 47 alfalfa-timothy mixture was not different from yield of a pure alfalfa stand. In the second year, the alfalfa-timothy mixture had a greater forage dry matter yield (6.2 Mg ha'l) than pure alfalfa (5.2 Mg ha'l). Another grass often seeded with alfalfa is oat (Alena sati_va_ L.) used as a companion crop. A companion crop isa crop sown with another crop, usually a small grain sown with a forage crop (Miller, 1984). Oats are one of the best choices for a companion crop because they are harvested early and are not as competitive as a crop such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Tesar, 1984). An oat companion crop provides an excellent source of weed control. Numerous studies have shown that an oat companion crop provides weed control by outcompeting weeds, thus eliminating the need to use an establishment herbicide (Klebesadel and Smith, 1960, Peters, 1961, Tesar, 1984). A reduction in alfalfa yield is often seen in the year of establishment however, if the oat companion crop is not removed by the late dough stage (chbesadel and Smith, 1960, Smith, 1960). Recent studies in California by Lanini et a1. (1991) showed that when oats, seeded at 36 kg M“, were seeded with alfalfa, first harvest dry matter yields were 7.6, 8.5 and 11.5 Mg ha‘1 at three different locations. Alfalfa seeded alone had first harvest yields of 3.7, 3.7 and 2.8 Mg ha‘1 at the same three Sites. Second and third harvest alfalfa dry matter yields were lower in plots seeded with oats than in plots seeded alone. Seasonal alfalfa yield, not including the first harvest, was lower in plots seeded with oats (7.9 Mg ha'l) than in plots seeded without oats (9.8 Mg ha“), when yields were averaged over the three locations. Alfalfa dry matter yield was not different among treatments in the second year. The success of DD establishment of alfalfa is well documented and the advantages of an alfalfa-grass mixture are well known. Little research has been conducted, however, addressing necessary components for successful alfalfa-grass mixture establishment by DD. Differences in forage dry matter yield and quality 48 between stands of pure alfalfa and alfalfa-grass mixtures have not been fully explored. Also, productivity of alternative alfalfa establishment methods, especially related to herbicide use, needs further exploration. The specific objectives of this research were: 1) to determine the effect of DD seeding of grasses with alfalfa on alfalfa plant density, forage yield and quality and 2) to compare performance of DD stands of pure alfalfa established with herbicide to both stands of alfalfa established with a forage grass without herbicide and stands of alfalfa established with an oat companion cr0p without herbicide. MATERIALS and METHODS Field experiments were established in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS), Hickory Corners, Michigan, on an Oshtemo sandy loam (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalf) soil. The study was established at a different site in each of the two years. Weather and soil analysis data are shown in Table 2.1. To adjust an initial pH of 6.1, 2240 kg ha'1 of lime was applied prior to the 1989 seeding, increasing pH to 6.3. In the fall of 1988, 4032 kg ha‘1 of lime were applied to the area for the 1990 study to adjust a pH of 5.8. The pH was increased to 5.9 by the spring of 1990. No fertilizer was required for the 1989 seeding but 34 kg ha'1 of K20 were applied prior to establishing the 1990 seeding. Dates of all field operations, including lime and fertilizer applications, are listed in Table 2.2. Prior to establishment, the entire study sites were treated with glyphosate, (N- (phosphonomethyl glycinc)), at 2.3 kg a.i. ha'l to kill existing quackgrass [Elytrigia m (L.) Nevski]. Species seeded to compare the performance of pure alfalfa to alfalfa-grass mixtures were: 1) alfalfa alone 2) alfalfa + smooth bromegrass 49 Table 2.1. Heather and soil analysis data for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS). 19 s 1990 stay 30 year meanL Mean precipitation (mm) April 50 76 89 May 152 120 80 June 137 116 107 July 73 64 86 August 110 88 90 September 174 85 76 October 33 167 73 November 105 193 69 Mean air temperature ('C) April 8 9 9 May 14 13 15 June 20 20 20 July 23 22 22 August 21 21 21 September 17 18 18 October 12 11 11 November 3 7 4 Soil analysis; Fall, 1988 P3 309 371 K 517 369 Ca 1971 1971 H9 395 403 pH 6.1 5.8 Soil analysis; Spring, 1990 P 314 475 K 380 248 Ca 1971 1707 Hg 385 358 pH 6.3 5.9 T Long term (1951-1980) mean from Hational Heather Service Station at Hickory Corners, HI. 3 P, K, Ca, and Hg levels expressed as kg ha'l. 50 Table 2.2. Dates of field operations for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 and 1990 at KBS. ngrgtion 1 st Fall lime application Fertilizer application ...... November 3, 1988 Broadcast application of glyphosate September 27, 1988 Glyphosate spot treatment application ...... Paraquat application Nay 3, Seeding date Nay 5, 2,4-08 and sethoxydim applications June 6, Oat grain harvest 1989‘ August 14, 1989 Spring plant density measurements June 19, 1989 Fallplant density measurements November 20, 1989 Post establishment year plant density April 25, 1990 1990 study November 3, 1988 April 23, 1990 September 27,1988 September 29, 1989 Hey 1, 1990 Nay 2, 1990 June 7, 1990 August 25, 1990 June 18, 1990 November 9, 1990 .71“ I'i'_'-£ q 51 3) alfalfa + orchardgrass 4) alfalfa + timothy 5) alfalfa + oat companion crop. Herbicide treatments for pure alfalfa were: 1) no herbicide; 2) paraquat, (l,1’- dimethyl-4-4’-bipyridinium ion), at 0.6 kg a.i. ha'l plus a nonionic surfactant at 0.25 % v/v, prior to planting; and 3) paraquat prior to planting with 2,4-DB, (4-(2,4- dichlorophenoxy) butanoic acid), at 1.2 kg a.i. ha'l, applied post emergence. Alfalfa- grass mixture and alfalfa-oat companion crop plots were treated with Paraquat prior to establishment. Oat companion crops were either: 1) harvested as grain, 2) _ harvested as silage at the early dough stage, or 3) treated with sethoxydim, (2-[1- (ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexcn-1-one), at 0.3 kg a.i. ha'1 plus crop oil concentrate at 2.3 L ha‘l, when oats were 7.5 to 10.2 cm tall. ‘Big Ten’ alfalfa was seeded at 17 kg ha'1 in all treatments except with oats, where the rate was reduced to 15 kg ha'l. Smooth bromegrass, ‘Potomac’ orchardgrass and ‘Climax’ timothy were seeded at 6, 2 and 3 kg M“, respectively. ‘Heritage’ oats, used as a companion crop, were seeded at 54 kg ha". Plot size was 2.4 x 9.1 m. Paraquat treatments were applied the first week of May. All treatments were established by DD into a field that had corn (Leg may; L.) removed as silage the previous fall. A John Deere 1500 Power-Till drill was used to seed the 1989 study and a Tye Stubble Drill was used to seed the 1990 study. Post emergence herbicide treatments were applied the first week of June. Insecticides were applied as needed to control potato leafhopper, (W £_a_b_g_e_, Harris). Plant density measurements were taken 45 days after planting (DAP) in the 1989 seeding, 47 DAP in the 1990 seeding, and after fall harvest each year by counting the number of plants per square meter from three random locations within each plot. The 1989 study also had plant densities measured in the spring of 1990. 52 Forage dry matter was determined by harvesting a 1.2 x 9.1 m strip from each plot, recording the fresh weight, then drying a subsample of approximately 500 g from the yield strip at 65 C for five days for dry matter determination. Subsamples were ground to 1 mm with a Wiley mill for subsequent quality analyses. Harvest dates for the 1989 study were: 14 July, 23 August and 27 October in 1989 and 30 May, 5 July, 14 August and 23 October in 1990. All harvests were taken at 1/10 bloom except the last harvest of each year which was taken after 15 October, when little regrowth would occur (Tesar, 1981). Harvest dates for the 1990 study were: 25 July, 4 September and 23 October. First harvest was taken at full bloom, second harvest at 1/10 bloom and final harvest after 15 October. Alfalfa and weeds were separated by hand from a subsample of each treatment. All samples were subjected to NIRS (near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy) for spectral analysis using a Pacific Scientific 6250 scanning monochromator (Pacific Scientific, Silver Springs, MD.) interfaced with an IBM XT personal computer. From a subset of all treatment samples, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined by the methods of Goering and Van Soest (1970) as modified by Robertson and Van Soest (1977). Values for NDF and ADF are expressed on an organic matter basis. A modified Kjeldahl procedure was used for crude protein determinations (Watkins et a1., 1987). Dry matter was . determined after drying samples at 100 C. Samples were ignited at 500 C for 6 hours to determine ash content. The subset of analyzed samples was used to generate and validate NIRS equations using the Unical version 1.0 software program by Infrasoft International (Infrasoft International Analytical Services, State College, PA) (Table 2.3 and 2.4). All subset samples were recombined and a NIRS equation based on all subset samples was created. In vitro true digestibility (IVTD) analyses were performed for 30 hours on 32 53 Table 2.3. Calibration statistics for NIRS forage quality predictions. No. of Procedure N Hggg _gCI R21 wavelengthg ------ 9 k0‘1 ------ CP 86 230.5 1.23 0.93 6 ADF 86 248.0 1.62 0.88 7 NDF 97 361.4 1.68 0.91 6 T Standard error of calibration. t Squared coefficient of multiple determination from least squares regression of laboratory values on NIRS spectra. Table 2.4. Validation data for NIRS forage quality prediction equations. procedure a Actugl NIRS scat R’s ................. 9 kg-l .--...--..--..--.-. or 43 231.2 228.4 1.98 0.90 ADF 43 253.7 247.7 2.02 0.87 nor 32 359.5 366.7 2.61 0.84 T Standard error of prediction of actual values by NIRS. t Squared simple correlation of NIRS predicted values vs. known quality values. 54 pure alfalfa samples and all alfalfa-grass samples by the methods of Goering and Van Soest (1970). The equation: IVTD a 68.384 + (.721 x %CP) - (.224 x %ADF) [l] was developed from the 32 pure alfalfa samples to predict IVTD for all other pure alfalfa samples. The multiple correlation coefficient for equation [1] was 0.88. For the 32 pure alfalfa samples analyzed, known vs. predicted IVTD values are shown in Fig. 2.1 and residuals in Fig. 2.2. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Treatments were analyzed by analysis of variance. Treatment means were separated by least significant difference and single degree of freedom comparisons. RESULTS and DISCUSSION Pl n n i Alfalfa plant density in the 1989 seeding, 45 DAP, ranged from 72 to 161 plants m'2 (Table 2.5). Initial plant density of alfalfa with no herbicide applied was lower than plant density of alfalfa treated with herbicide. The alfalfa-oat companion crop treatment harvested for grain (A-OG) had a lower plant density than did alfalfa treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB. Alfalfa-oat companion crop treatments are compared to alfalfa treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB because paraquat plus 2,4-DB was the herbicide treatment which had the lowest percentage of weeds. After fall harvest in 1989 and in the spring of 1990, the treatment in which oats were harvested for grain (A-OG) had lower alfalfa plant density than did alfalfa established by any other method. Alfalfa plant densities in the 1990 seeding, 47 DAP, ranged from 166 to 318 PREDICTED 55 y 3 17.3986 + 0.78:: R e 0.88 IVTD Figure 2.1 Known vs. predicted in vitro digestibility (IVTD) values. true 90 la PREDICTED RESIDUALS 56 4 a a 2-1 a a a a El EH a a 0‘ 9 r9 ,3 8 a a a a 1 a a 15 B -2-1 a 13 a a .4 r I ' 7O 80 90 IVTD Figure 2.2. Residuals of known vs. predicted in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values. E1 RESIDUALS 57 Table 2.5. Alfalfa plant density at three sampling dates for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Sggpligg date Species seeded Herbicidg, 6/19/89(45 DAP) 11120l§9 4/24/90 ---------------- plants 111'2 ---------------- 1. A-NT No herbicide 100 105 107 2. A-Hl Paraquat 161 120 115 3. A-Hz Paraquat + 2,4-08 108 96 111 4. A-B Paraquat 102 106 113 5. A-O Paraquat 108 89 112 6. A-T Paraquat 145 93 112 7. A-OG Paraquat 72 73 86 8. A-OS Paraquat 113 100 119 9. A-OH Paraquat 74 85 118 Contrasts ------------------- PR>F ------------------- 1 VS. 2+3 ** NS NS 2+3 VS. 4+5+6 NS NS NS 3 VS. 7 * * * 3 VS. 8 NS NS NS CV(%) 28 24 17 *,** Significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = Not significant at 0.05 level. TSpecies seeded: A - Alfalfa. A-B - Alfalfa-smooth bromegrass. A-O - Alfalfa-orchardgrass. A-T - Alfalfa-timothy. A-OG - Alfalfa-oat companion crop, oats harvested for grain. A-OS - Alfalfa-oat companion crop, oats harvested as silage. A-OH - Alfalfa-oat companion crop, oats treated early with Poast. 58 plants m‘2 (Table 2.6). Alfalfa with no herbicide applied had a lower initial plant density than did alfalfa treated with herbicide. Alfalfa-grass mixtures also had lower alfalfa plant densities than did alfalfa treated with herbicide. Alfalfa-oat companion crop treatments harvested for grain or silage had lower alfalfa plant densities than did alfalfa treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB. No difference was observed among treatments for alfalfa plant density after fall harvest. Initial alfalfa plant density was not correlated to first harvest forage dry matter yield in 1989 (r=0.25) or 1990 (r=-O.l9). Establishment year fgragg yield - alfalfa seeded algng, When seeded alone in 1989, alfalfa with no herbicide applied had a greater forage dry matter yield in the first harvest and lower percentage of alfalfa and alfalfa yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide (Table 2.7). In the second harvest, forage dry matter yield for alfalfa seeded alone with no herbicide was lower than yields of alfalfa treated with herbicide. The percent of forage that was alfalfa and pure alfalfa yield in the second harvest were not different among treatments in which alfalfa was seeded alone. In the third harvest, alfalfa with no herbicide applied had a lower forage dry matter and alfalfa yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide. Alfalfa seeded alone with no herbicide had a greater seasonal forage dry matter yield but lower seasonal alfalfa yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide. Forage dry matter yield did not differ between alfalfa with no herbicide applied and alfalfa treated with herbicide in the first and second harvests of the 1990 seeding (Table 2.8). Alfalfa treated with herbicide had greater forage dry matter yield in the third harvest than did alfalfa with no herbicide applied. The treatment with no herbicide applied had lower alfalfa yield than did alfalfa treated 59 Table 2.6. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Sgggligg date Species . seeded Herbicidg 6119/89(47 DAP) 11/9/89 ------------- plants in"2 --------------- 1. A-NT NO herbicide 220 113 2. A-H1 Paraquat 318 126 3. A-Hz Paraquat + 2,4-08 260 122 4. A-B Paraquat 223 128 5. A-O Paraquat 202 103 6. A-T Paraquat 248 112 7. A-OG Paraquat 195 130 8. A-OS Paraquat 166 104 9. A-OH Paraquat 189 111 Contrasts -------------- PR>F --------------- 1 vs. 2+3- ** NS 2+3 vs. 4+5+6 e NS 3 VS. 7 * NS 3 VS. 8 * NS CV(%) 16 16 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = not significant at 0.05 level. T Species seeded: A - alfalfa. A-B - Alfalfa + smooth bromegrass. A-O - Alfalfa + orchardgrass. A-T - Alfalfa + timothy. A-OG - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as grain. A-OS - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as silage. A-OH - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats treated early with Poast. N... .umddd 0..: >.eao bounce» muse .aocu co_censoo ace 4 e..e..< - xo-< .oma._d me ooumu>cez «use .oocu co_caaaoo «no + s..e..< - mo-< .c_e20 we oeude>ceg «use .oocu ce_ceafiou use + a..e..< - 00-< .>suos_u + o..e..< . .-< .maecooceguco + e00e00< - 0.< .mmecuoEOcn swooEa + a..e..< . 0-< .e..e..e - < ”paused 00.0000 h .do>o. 00.0 as aceu_._c0_w no: n ma .>.o>_uuoamoc ..0.0 use no.0 um acne...c0_m a... - 0. s. 0 0. on 0~ .. ~0 0n n. .x0>u as as I ma m2 es m: as as at as w .m) m an as as as as as m: as r- r- .1 h .m) n as m2 m: as m3 m2 m2 m: as as s o+m+¢ .m> M+N as as as m: as as m: as s... as as M+~ .m) P ----..--.-.......-.......--.--.-..-.-...-.....-..... “and ....--.. ....... ----.-...-....-.--.-..-.. ..... .-- mumecucou 0.0 0.0 0 0.. 00 0.. 0 0.. 00 0.~ 0 0.. 0m 0.~ assuage; :o-< .0 nu m.n 0.. 0 0.. 00 5.. 0 0.. 50 ~.. 00 m.0 0 ..0 unseeded mo-< .0 6 o.~ 0.“... o 0.0 no 0.. 0 ~.. 00 0.. 5628 8... .K ~.m 0.0 m 5.. .0 0.~ n 0.. n0 m.~ ~ 5.. m0 0.~ addendum .-< .0 0.0 ..~ 0. m.. .0 0.. . ~.. .5 m.~ n 0.. 00 0.~ «encoded . o-< .m m.q 0.0 .. 0.. 00 0.. m 0.. ~0 n.~ m 0.. m0 m.~ unseeded 0-< .0 0.0 0.0 0.. 00 0.. ~.~ 00 m.~ 0.~ N0 0.~ 00-0.~ + ~ 8322 .:.< .n ~.m 5.0 0.. 00 ~.. 0.. on n.~ ..~ 05 ..~ unseeded =.< .m 0.m 0.. 0.. 00 0.. 0.. m0 0.. 0.0 .~ m.0 ou_o.ncoc 0: ha- .. ..... --------------------------.--------------- .-e; a: ..----------------------------------.-------------- u.> a.» mmeem a.» .de u.xii. madam o.> 0.e u0> macaw a.» 0.0 u.> mv.u_ncoz noose» ..< :0 x ..< x :0 a ..< a :0 x ..< 1m: :0 mo_ooam .ouou .ecOmmom m amo>ce= ~ umo>ce= . umo>ce= .002 as 000. .o 0:.cam on. c_ «moan e gu_x co oco.e nausea e0.a..a 00_cu-uooe_p co. .euou .ecomeom ace mume>cac omega c_ mmecm acceded ace a..e..e acoucod .mo.o.> a..e..e ace .200 canoes xcu sauce. ceo> umc.u .~.~ odes. .umeod gu_: >.cee nausea. muse .aocu co_ceasou .00 + a..e..< - zo-< .0000.» an usumo>ceg mane .ooco co.cadeoo use + a..e._< . mo-< .c.e.0 we poumo>cez muse .QOLu co_ceasou use + e..m..< - oo-< ..eaoe.6 . a..e..< . .-< .mmeLQULecuco + e..e..< - o-< .mmeedoeoee £66626 . o..e..< . a-< .e..e..e - < "nausea «0.6000 # ..e>e. “6.6 .6 6:66...e6.6 .6: - 62 ...6>.6666602 ..6.6 nee mo.6 .6 6:66.._e6_a .... - e. a. e - e~ ~. 0. a. 6. a. .u.>u as w: m2 m2 m: as as s as as m: o .m) m as as m: se 9. m: as m: -1 n- r- b .m) M 62 m: m: .. 6: ma .. m: m: .. . 6.m.e .66 n.~ as as as m: as m: m2 m: s... as m: M+N .m) _. -------.------------------.------------- ...... ------ exam ..-- ........ --- ..... ----------.----------------- muwmgucou .1 ..6 0.6 6 6.. 66 6.. 6 ..~ 66 ..~ 6 ..~ .6 ..~ 6666626. zo.< .6 20 3.. 6.6 6 m.. 66 m.. ~. ... m. ..~ 66 ~.6 e m.n 66366266 mo-< .0 ..m 6.« o 0.. ~6 6.. mm 6.. m0 ..n o --- .-- -.- 66:66.6. do-< .. ~.. 6.0 6 ... ~6 0.. m 6.. n6 6.~ ~ 6.. .0 0.. 66:66.66 .-< .6 6.0 6.. m~ 3.. m. 6.. .N 6.. ~. ..~ 6 6.. 6. m.n 66:66.66 o-< .m m.o 6.6 m 6.. 66 6.. 6 6.. 66 o.m e ..m on m.e 66:66.6. ¢-< .e 8.. m.. 6.. 66. 6.. m.~ .6 0.. 6.. 66. 6.. 66.e.~ . ~ 63026.. .2... .n 6.. 6.0 6.. 66. 6.. 0.~ o6 o.~ ..n an ..n 66:66.6. =-< .~ o.m 6.6 e.. .6 m.. ~.~ e6 m.~ ~.~ m. 6.. 66.6.0.6; 6: .z-< .. ...... -.----------------.-------.-.-...--.---.- .-ez 0: ......-.--.-.-.-.-----...--..r..-..-.----.-.----... 6.. a.» mwwdu 6.. 0mm 6.. ammuu, 6.. ..m u.» wanna a.» ..m 6.. «0.6.6.6: 666666 ..< so a ..< x :6 a ..< a :6 s ..< a :6 no.666m .euo. .ecommom n umo>cez ~ umo>cez . umo>cez .mmx an 000. .o 0c_cam as. e. «no.0 e 0..: co oco.e baboon e..e..o .._cu-uuoc_o co. .auOu deceased nee mumo>cez 00.5. c. «no.0 uceocoa pee o..e..e panacea .mp.o.> e..e..e nee .x00 coupes >cv ounce. ceo> a»... .0.~ o.ne. 62 with herbicide in the first and third harvests. The percentage of alfalfa in the first harvest was lower in the treatment with no herbicide applied. Percent alfalfa did not differ among treatments in the second and third harvest. Alfalfa treated with herbicide had greater seasonal forage dry matter and alfalfa yield than did the treatment with no herbicide applied. First harvest forage dry matter yield in the 1989 seeding was greater and - alfalfa percentage and yield lower in plots with no herbicide applied than in plots treated with herbicide. This agrees with results reported by Dutt et al. (1979), I Fawcett et al. (1978) and Temme et al. (1979) on conventional alfalfa establishment. 11. Treatments with no herbicide applied had lower forage dry matter and alfalfa yield in the second and third harvest, which agrees with findings by Dutt et a1. (1979). They reported lower forage dry matter and alfalfa yield in the second and third harvest in treatments with no herbicide applied in conventional alfalfa seedings. This was due to moisture conservation by controlling weeds prior to the first harvest. In contrast to these results, alfalfa treated with herbicide in this study had a greater forage dry matter yield in the first harvest of the 1990 seeding. The treatment with no herbicide applied had a lower percentage of alfalfa and alfalfa yield in the first harvest and lower forage dry matter and alfalfa yield in the second and third harvests, which agrees with the 1989 seeding and previous research (Dutt et al., 1979, Fawcett et al., 1978 and Temme et al. 1979). E l'h n rfr ild-lff wi r Alfalfa-grass mixtures seeded in 1989 had greater forage dry matter yield but .lower alfalfa percentage and yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide in the first harvest (Table 2.7). In the second harvest, forage dry matter yield, alfalfa percentage and pure alfalfa yield were not different for alfalfa whether seeded 63 alone with herbicide or seeded with a grass. Alfalfa-grass mixtures had lower alfalfa percentage but forage dry matter and alfalfa yield were not different from alfalfa treated with herbicide in the third harvest. The reducton in percent alfalfa could be due to an increase in the percentage of grass in the third harvest. In the first and second harvests, the percentages of grass in the stands was minimal, but this increased in the third harvest. Seasonal forage dry matter yield was not different between alfalfa seeded alone and alfalfa-grass mixtures but alfalfa-grass mixtures were lower in seasonal alfalfa yield. Alfalfa-grass mixtures had greater first harvest forage dry matter yield but *. lower percentage of alfalfa than did alfalfa treated with herbicide in 1990 (Table 2.8). In the second and third harvests, alfalfa-grass mixtures had lower alfalfa percentage than did alfalfa treated with herbicide. The percentage of grass in the first harvest was minimal, but increased in the second and third harvests. This was especially noticeable with orchardgrass, which could be the reason for the decrease in the percentage of alfalfa in the second and third harvests. The alfalfa-oat companion crop treatment harvested as silage (A-OS) had a greater first harvest forage dry matter yield due to oat dry matter, but the percent of alfalfa and alfalfa yield was significantly lower than alfalfa established with paraquat plus 2,4-DB in the 1989 seeding (Table 2.7). The A-OS and A-OG treatments were lower in forage dry matter and alfalfa yield than was alfalfa treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB in the second harvest. The A-OG treatment had lower forage dry matter yield, percent alfalfa and alfalfa yield compared to alfalfa treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB in the third harvest. The A-OS treatment had a lower alfalfa yield than did alfalfa established with paraquat plus 2,4-DB. The A-OS treatment had greater seasonal forage dry matter yield but lower seasonal pure alfalfa yield than did alfalfa seeded alone. Harvesting the companion crop for grain 64 reduced seasonal forage dry matter and alfalfa yield. Although first harvest forage dry matter yield did not differ between alfalfa treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB and the A-OS treatment, alfalfa seeded alone had a greater percentage of alfalfa and alfalfa yield (Table 2.8). The percentage of alfalfa in the second harvest of 1990 was greater in the treatment of alfalfa seeded alone and treated with pararquat plus 2,4-DB than were the A-OS and A-OG treatments. By the third harvest, neither A-OS or A-OG treatments were different in forage dry matter yield from alfalfa seeded alone. Harvesting the companion crop for grain lowered seasonal forage dry matter and alfafa yield. The A-OS treatment had lower seasonal alfalfa yield than did alfalfa seeded alone treated with paraquat plus 2,4-DB. First harvest forage dry matter yields of the alfalfa-grass mixtures, in both the 1989 and 1990 seedings, were greater than alfalfa seeded alone because of weed dry matter. The percentage of alfalfa in the alfalfa-grass mixtures was less than 65 percent in 1989 and 87 percent in 1990. The percentage of grass among the three grasses seeded was not greater than 5 percent in the 1989 seeding and not greater than 9 percent in the 1990 seeding. The treatment of alfalfa seeded alone and the alfalfa-grass mixtures did not differ in seasonal forage dry matter yield in either the 1989 or 1990 seeding, which supports previous research comparing individual alfalfa-grass mixtures to pure alfalfa (Hart et al., 1981; Schultz and Stubbendicck, 1982; Wilsie, 1949). Alfalfa-grass mixtures had a lower seasonal alfalfa yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide, due to the presence of grass. In the 1989 seeding, first harvest forage dry matter yield was greater in the A-OS treatment than in the treatment of alfalfa seeded alone. In both 1989 and 1990, treatment A-OS was associated with a reduction in forage dry matter yield in the second harvest. Harvesting the companion crop as silage increased seasonal 65 forage dry matter yield in the 1989 seeding due to the increase in dry matter yield in the first harvest. Peters (1961), Klebesadel and Smith (1960), and Lanini (1991) reported similar results in conventional seedings of alfalfa with oat. When the companion cr0p was harvested for grain in the 1989 seeding, a reduction in forage dry matter and alfalfa yield was observed throughout the seeding year, which supports previous research by Klebesadel and Smith (1960) and Schmid and Behrens (1972). The 1990 seeding did not follow the same trends observed in the 1989 seeding. The A-OS treatment was not associated with increased first-harvest forage dry matter yield and the A-OG treatment was not associated with a reduction in subsequent forage dry matter and alfalfa yield. This could be due to a reduced stand of oat in 1990. Oat grain yield in the 1989 seeding was 1370 kg ha'l, whereas oat grain yield in 1990 was only 39 kg ha'l. This significant reduction in grain yield in 1990 could have reduced competition between the oat crop and alfalfa, resulting in fewer yield differences. Establishment yaar farags Quality - alfalfa sssgsg alana, Alfalfa with no herbicide applied had lower crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) and higher neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) than did alfalfa treated with either paraquat or paraquat plus 2,4-DB in the first harvest of 1989 (Table 2.9). Forage quality did not differ among treatments in the second harvest. In the third harvest, the treatment of alfalfa with no herbicide applied had greater CP and lower NDF and ADF values than did alfalfa treated with herbicide. Although the percentages of CP and IVTD were lower in the first harvest for the treatment with no herbicide applied, yields of CP and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) were greater for alfalfa with no herbicide applied than for ..mmoa gum: >..eo vowed.» mueo .do.o co.cedeoo use + awde0d< - :0- .ome..m ms voumo>.eg mueo .Qo.u co.ceaeou ago + a..e..< . mo- .c.a.0 we neume>.e; muse .do.u co_cedeou .00 + m..e..< - 00- .>guoe.u + a..o..< . .. .mma.0u.ocu.o + e..e..< - o- .mmm.0ueo.n 5.0050 + e..a..< - 0. .m..o..e - "noooom mo.uoam h 1(1(1<1(1<1¢1( ..e>o. 00.0 .0 aceu_0_cm_m be: n ma .>.o>_uueamo. ..0.0 new 00.0 as uceu.._c0_m a... m . 0 0 m 0 0 0. n 0 0 . Axv>u m: a as m2 m2 m2 m: w: as as as as O .0) M e. as as as as as as ea. .1 1r .1 r. h .0) m e m: 02 02 m: 02 0: ma as as as 02 o+m+0 .0) m+~ m: s s as m2 m2 m2 m: as he as as n+~ ..0.) F ---- ....... ---.----------------------------------. .Axd ---.------------- ..... ------------------------------ 0.60.0000 “w 0..0 ..n~ 0.mn ..m~ 0.00 0.- 0..n 0.00 m..0 m.- 0.00 m.n~ uaaue.ea =0-< .0 0.00 0.- n.~n 0.0~ 0.00 ..0~ 0.50 0.m~ 0.~. 0.- 0.00 ..0. neaoe.ea mo-< .0 0.~0 m.0~ 0..n 0.m~ 0.~. 0.nn 0.00 ..0. .... --.. ...- .... ueaoe.ea 00.< .. ..0. 0..~ 0.nn ..0~ 0.n0 ~.0~ 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.0m 0.0m ..0~ unnoe.ea ..< .0 ~... ..- 0.00 ..m~ ..00 n.0~ 0.0m ..0~ ~.0. 0.0~ 0.~n ~.0~ venue.ea 0.< .m 0.0. m.m~ 0..n m.n~ ..00 0.0~ 0.0m ~.0m ~.0. 0.n~ 0.0m ..n~ unace.ed 0.< .0 0.0L ..0~ 0.0m 0.n~ ..n0 0.m~ n.0n m.0~ ..N0 0.0. ...n ..0~ 00-0.~ + uenwe.ea m:.< .n 0.00 0.n~ 0.00 0.0~ ..~0 0.0~ 0.0m ~..~ ..00 0.- 0.0» 0.n~ weave.ea :.< .~ 0..0 0.- 0.~m 0.m~ ~.00 0.0~ 0.mm ~.0~ 0.0. ..m~ ~.0n 0... ou_o_n.eg oz h2-< .. 11111-111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 N 111111111111111111111o1111111111111111180-10111111use: 6:: Ma... .61.. ..di 6:: .3 a. .6 6:: .3 .9. 8 8.6.0.6.. _ I none...” 0 ame>mmm ~ umw>.e= . ume>.ez mo.ueam .003 we 000. we 0c..dm 0:. c. mme.0 e gu.: .o oco.e nausea a..e..e ....p.uoo..u..o. auue>.ez .eo>-um._. «0.x. .0. .0.>_0 >u_._n_umom.o 03.. o.u_> c. ace ..0<0 .00.. uc00.ouou o_ue ...020 .00.. uc00.ouoo .e.u:ec ..00. cmouoca 003.0 .0 momeuceu.ea .0.~ 0.00. 67 alfalfa treated with paraquat or paraquat plus 2,4-DB (Table 2.10). This was due to greater forage dry matter yield in the treatment with no herbicide applied. Yields of CP and IVTDDM in the treatment with no herbicide applied were lower than in the treatments with herbicide applied in the second and third harvests. This was due to lower forage dry matter yields in the second and third harvests in the treatment with no herbicide applied. Seasonal CP and IVTDDM yields were not different among treatments. No appreciable differences in the percentages of CP, NDF, ADF and IVTD occurred among treatments of alfalfa with no herbicide applied and alfalfa with herbicide applied at any harvest in the 1990 seeding (Table 2.11). In the first harvest of the 1990 seeding, yields of CP and IVTDDM were lower in the treatment without herbicide applied (Table 2.12), due to the lower forage dry matter yields. The treatment with no herbicide applied had lower IVTDDM yield in the third harvest and lower seasonal CP and IVTDDM yield than did alfalfa treated with herbicide, which follows 1990 trends in forage dry matter yields. Dutt et al. (1979), Fawcett et al. (1978) and Temme ct a1. (1979) reported that in conventional seedings, establishment herbicides affected forage quality only in the first harvest. In the 1989 study, forage quality was lower in treatments with no herbicide applied in the first harvest of the 1989 seeding. Forage quality was not different among herbicide treatments in the second harvest. In contrast to the results reported by Dutt et al. (1979), Fawcett et al. (1978) and Temme et a1. (1979), differences in forage quality were observed among treatments in the third harvest of i the 1989 seeding and no differences were observed among treatments at all harvests in the 1990 seeding. 68 Table 2.10. First-year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVTDDM) in three harvests and seasonal totals for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. - Species Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Seasonal total saagag Herbicide CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTODH CP IVTDDM -------------------------------- kg ha'1 ---------------------------- 1. “11‘ 1: 751 3258 467 1351 363 1145 1581 5754 2. A-Hl 2 632 2145 626 1896 415 1396 1673 5410 3. A-Hz 3 529 1678 736 2066 452 1488 1717 5232 4. A-B 2 537 1775 695 1964 443 1491 1675 5230 5. A-O 2 679 2189 703 1957 416 1413 1798 5559 6. A-T 2 646 2006 704 1915 482 1527 1832 5448 7. A-OG 2 --- ---- 300 1275 259 847 559 2122 8. A-OS 2 654 2939 435 1364 422 1333 1511 5636 9. A-OH 2 565 1975 606 1668 411 1287 1582 4930 Contrasts -------------------------------- 93>; -------------------------------- 1 V8. 2.3 at at at ea en ee NS NS 2+3 vs. 4+5+6 * NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 3 V8. 7 .- -- it it it it it it 3 vs. 8 ** ** ** ** NS NS NS NS CV(X) 15 14 18 16 14 15 10 9 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = not significant at 0.05 level. T Species seeded: A - alfalfa. A-B - Alfalfa + smooth bromegrass. A-O - Alfalfa + orchardgrass. A-T - Alfalfa * timothy. A-OG - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as grain. A-OS - Alfalfa 9 oat companion crop, oats harvested as silage. A-OH - Alfalfa 9 oat companion crop, oats treated early with Poast. t Herbicide treatment: 1 - No herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat + 2.4-08. .umaod cu.) >..ee usuao.u «use .ao.u co.ceanu ueo + a..u..< - zo1< .ome..m we ueumo>.ez muse .ao.o co.ceoeou woo + a..e..< 1 «01¢ .c.0.0 ma uoumo>.u; mueo .ao.u ce.ceaeou use + e..e..< - oo-< $52... + a .mme.0u.ezo.o + e .mmm.0eeo.n guooEm + a ..0..< 1 .-< ..0..< 1 o1< ..0..< 1 0-< .0..m..m 1 < uuouoom mo.uonm h ..e>o. no.0 an weed...c0.a no: u 02 .>.o>.uuoamo. ..0.0 uce 00.0 .e been...c0.m a... m N o 0 N m h o 0 o. h o. Axv>u m: m: m2 m2 mz wz m: as as as as se a ..0.) M m: m: as m: as as so as 11 11 -1 11 N 10) n m: 02 ea 02 m: 0: M: 02 as m: as as 0+m+0 10> M+N mz m: 02 s m: wz m: M: m: M: wz m2 n+~ .0) p 1111-1111-11- ......... --1--1-1--11- 111111 -1111 .Ama -11-1111- ------ 11-11-- ------ 1 111111 1 1111111 ---1-1 mama.ucou 9 Au 01.0 0.0. n10~ 010~ m-mh 0.0N 01Nm ..0N o.mh ..NN ~1nm o-NN umavm.aa =o1< 1o 0..0 0.0. 010~ o-0N ~10N N1h~ ~.0m 01- 5.00 0..n 0.m0 01h. umaom.ma wO-< .0 h..o o.o~ o1.m 010~ 01.5 M.~m ..m0 0.0. 1-1- 11-1 1111 1111 umaum.ma oo-< .N m1.0 0.0. o.on m-mN m.mh ~10~ 51hn ~.m~ -.h 0.0N 0.0m 0.0. 00:00.00 .1< .0 ~10. 0.o~ 01nm 0.- 01m. m10~ n.0n 01m~ 5.00 01mm o1bn o10. umavm.00 O1< 1m 0..0 0.0m ~1~m N-0N 0.m~ 0.0m o10m 0.0m m100 0.0m o-om m10. u0360.00 01¢ .0 0.00 0.0. n.0N ..mN 0.0» ..0N 0.5m 01m~ 01nh o.0~ 01nn h..~ 0010.~ + umaum.mm mz1< 1n m1.o N-om 010~ s10~ h1mb ~.o~ n.0m 0.m~ o1- 010~ 01mm ~10. u0300.00 :-< .N o1~o N10. o10~ 01m~ ~105 n.0w m10m .10~ ..Mh 010~ 0.0m n.o~ ov.u.n.0: 0: hz1< 1. IIIIIIOIIIIOIltllrrlllllto llllllllllllll 1.11.1 1111111 x 11111 closest: IIIIII teller-110.10IOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6.: .61.. .61.. a... 6:: .3 .on A. 6.2 .9. .fi .16 61263.6: Wild.” 0 umo>.e: ~ ame>.0: . um¢>0mz . 06.0000 .002 an 000. .o 0c..am on. c. «00.0 e 0..: .o 0:0.0 uouoom e..a..e ....u1uuo..u .o. mumo>.ms .mox-uu.... oo.:» .o. .0.>.v >u...n.umom.u 03.. o...> c. uco ..0<. .00.. uc00.oueu.u.oe ...02. .00.. uc00.oueu .e.u:oc ..00. c.ouo.d ou:.u .o mooauceu.oa ....~ 0.00. Table 2.12. First-year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVYDDH) in three harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1990 at KBS. 7O Species Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Seasonal total seeded Herbicide CP lVTDDN CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM -------------------------------- kg ha"1 -----------.--------------°- 1. A-NT 1: 603 2076 600 1770 381 1203 1584 5048 2. A-Hl 2 710 2723 711 2143 494 1620 1915 6484 3. A-Hz 3 651 2224 660 1975 477 1530 1788 5728 4. A-B 2 877 2976 732 2276 494 1663 2103 6914 5. A-O 2 594 2291 637 2064 426 1408 1657 5762 6. A-T 2 629 2405 731 2103 459 1482 1819 5988 7. A-OG 2 --- ---- 589 2232 464 1572 1053 3803 8. A-os 2 591 2250 470 1573 360 1238 1421 5059 9. A-OH 2 462 1597 651 2065 473 1571 1586 5232 Contrasts -------------------------------- PR>F -.----------.-.--..---.------..- 1 vs. 2+3 ** ** NS NS NS *‘ ** '* 2+3 vs. 4+5+6 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 3 vs. 7 °- -- NS NS NS NS “ ** 3 vs. 8 NS NS ** * NS NS NS NS CV(%) 16 16 21 17 25 22 18 15 .u, ',** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, T Species seeded: A - alfalfa. A-B - Alfalfa + smooth bromegrass. A-O - Alfalfa + orchardgrass. A-T - Alfalfa + timothy. A-OG - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as grain. A-OS - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as silage. respectively. NS 8 not significant at 0.05 level. A-OH - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats treated early with Poast. t Herbicide treatment: 1 - No herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat o 2,4-08. 71 Establishment year fgragg Quality - alfalfa seeded with a grass. Alfalfa-grass mixtures had greater NDF and ADF and lower IVTD concentration than did alfalfa treated with herbicide in the first harvest of the 1989 seeding (Table 2.9). No appreciable differences in CP, NDF, ADF and IVTD were observed among pure alfalfa and alfalfa-grass mixtures in the second and third harvests. The A-OS treatment had lower CP and IVTD and greater NDF and ADF concentrations than did alfalfa seeded alone. No differences in forage quality were observed among treatments in the second harvest but the A-OS treatment was pm — lower in NDF and ADF concentration in the third harvest. Harvesting the companion crop for grain reduced CP and IVTD concentrations and increased NDF and ADF concentrations in the second harvest. In the third harvest, the A-OG treatment had greater CP and IVTD concentrations and lower NDF and ADF concentrations than did alfalfa seeded alone. The yield of C? was greater in alfalfa-grass mixtures than in alfalfa seeded alone and treated with herbicide in the first harvest of the 1989 seeding because alfalfa-grass mixtures had greater forage dry matter yield than did the treatments of alfalfa seeded alone and treated with herbicide (Table 2.10). Yields of CP in alfalfa-grass mixtures were not different from alfalfa seeded alone at any other harvest and the yields of IVTDDM were not different from alfalfa seeded alone at any harvest. The A-OS treatment had greater CP and IVTDDM yield than did alfalfa seeded alone in the first harvest due to greater forage dry matter yield. The A-OS treatment had lower yields of CP and IVTDDM than did alfalfa seeded alone in the second harvest because of lower forage dry matter yield. Harvesting the companion crop for grain reduced CP and IVTDDM yields throughout the seeding year. Alfalfa-grass mixtures and the A-OS treatment in the 1990 seeding had lower 72 CP and IVTD concentrations and greater NDF and ADF concentrations than did alfalfa seeded alone in the first harvest (Table 2.11). The first harvest of the A-OG treatment had lower CP and IVTD concentrations and greater NDF and ADF concentrations than did alfalfa seeded alone. No appreciable differences in forage quality were observed among alfalfa-grass mixtures, A-05 and A-OG treatments and alfalfa seeded alone in subsequent harvests. h Yields of CP and IVTDDM were not different between alfalfa-grass mixtures and alfalfa seeded alone at any harvest of the I990 seeding (Table 2.12). The A-OS treatment had lower CP and IVTDDM yields than did alfalfa seeded alone in the It; second harvest. The A-OG treatment was lower in seasonal CP and IVTDDM yields than were the treatments of alfalfa seeded alone only because of one less harvest during the seeding year. Fgragg yields - year after establishment, All treatments established in 1989 were harvested for a second year in 1990. Only occasional differences in forage dry matter yield, percent alfalfa and alfalfa yield were observed among treatments of alfalfa seeded alone with no herbicide applied and alfalfa seeded alone and treated with herbicide (Table 2.13). This data further support the results of Dutt et al. (1979) and Fawcett et al. (1978) that the benefits of using an establishment herbicide are observed only in the year of establishment. Alfalfa-grass mixtures had a greater forage dry matter yield and lower alfalfa percentage than did alfalfa seeded alone in the first harvest, due to grass 'content (Table 2.13). Other differences in forage yield were observed in the second and third harvests between alfalfa-grass mixtures and alfalfa seeded alone, but no clear trends were observed. After the first harvest, the percentage of grass declined ..0>0. no.0 .0 .00u_._ca_0 .oc ..00o. g._: >..00 00.00.. 0.00 .ao.o comeoaeou .00 + 0..0..< 1 =0-< .000..0 00 00.00>.0; 0.00 .ao.o comc0oeoo .06 + 0..0..< - mo-< .c_0.0 00 00.00>.0; 0.00 .ao.u co.cooaou .0o + 0..0..< - uo-< ..g.oe_. . 0.00.00 - .-< .000.00.0;u.o + 0.00..< - 0-< .000.0oeo.n ;.o050 + 0..0..< 1 01< 10.00..0 1 < "000000 00.00am h u m: .>00>_.o0a00. ..0.0 0:0 00.0 .0 .c0u_..c0_0 u... axv>u 0 .0> n s 10> m 0+m+¢ .0) n+~ n+~ .0> . .0300... zo-< .0 .0300.0. 06-< .0 .0:ca.0. 00-< .. 0 m 0 .0:U.0.0. .-< . .0:00.0. 01< . .0300.0. 0-< 1 00.0.~ . .0:0.a.a. ~:-< .0 .0:00.0. .:-< .0 on_u_a.og oz .z-< .— . 0 p. e 0 ~. 0 F. . 0 . o 0 . 02 02 0; 0: 02 02 0: 0: 02 02 02 0: 02 02 00 as m: 02 m: m: 02 m: 00 m: 00 00 00 «a 02 m: 0: ma ma «2 00 ea 00 at 02 m: 00 00 02 0; 02 .. 02 02 0: 0: 0: 02 . 0; 02 02 ---1---.---------------------------------------------- .00. 1-1-----1----1--11--1------1.----1-1-- 0.00..cou 3 .1 0.0. 0.0. o 0.0 00. 0.~ o 0.0 00. 0.0 o 0.0 00 0.0 0 0.0 00 ..0 0.0. o... o 0.~ 0o 0.~ o ~.n 00 0.0 o ~.0 00 0.0 o 0.0 00 ..0 0.~— 0.0. o 0.~ .0 0.0 o 0.0 .0 ..0 0 0.0 0. ..0 0 ~.0 00 0.0 0... ~.0. o ..N o. ..N o ~.0 00 0.0 . ~.0 00 0.0 o 0.0 .0 0.0 0.~_ 0.0. a. o.~ .. 0.~ o~ 0.~ o. ..0 0 0.0 .0 0.0 0. ..0 ~0 ~.0 ..0. 0.0. o 0.0 00 0.~ N ..n .0 ~.0 N ..0 00 0.0 0. 0.0 .0 ~.0 m... o... m.~ 00 0.~ 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0 ..0 00 0.0 ..0. 0.0. n.~ 00 0.0 0.~ ~o 0.~ 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 ..0. 0.0. 0.~ 0o 0.~ 0.0 00 0.0 ~.0 00 0.0 0.0 .0 ..0 -1---1-1 ----- -----------------------------1-1------ .10: a: 1-1-1.11--1---1--1-11-111---111111-1-1-11-1- 3.. m; 82.0 B» :0 B» 000.0- 0; :0. . a... ..10.0_...0 B» :0 EH 03......0.JB 1...... 3% ..< :0 a ..< a :0 x ..< a :0 a ..< a so a .00 x to 0.0.o. .0co000m 0 .00>.0x m .00>.0: ~ .00>.0= . .00>.0: 00.0.0.0: 000000 00.0000 .002 .0 000. .o 0:..00 0;. 0. 000.0 0 0..: .0 000.0 000000 0.00.00 00_.0-.00._0 .o. 00.6. 00:00000 0:0 0.00>.0; .06. c. 000.0 .c0o.0a 0:0 0.00.00 .cou.00 .0.0_> 0.00.00 0:0 “:00 .0..0e ..0 000.o. .00> 0coo0m .m..~ 0.00. 74 in all treaments except alfalfa-orchardgrass, in which the percentage of grass remained constant. The A-OG treatment had lower forage dry matter and alfalfa yield than did alfalfa seeded alone in the first harvest, second harvest, and seasonal total. Schmid and Behrens (1972) reported that forage dry matter yield was reduced in the second harvest season when alfalfa was seeded with an oat companion crop harvested for grain. Harvesting the companion crop as silage did not affect forage F dry matter yield, percent alfalfa or alfalfa yield in the year after seeding. F r ali - e r after est blishment. k Forage quality (CP, NDF, ADF and IVTD) was not different among the treatments of alfalfa with no herbicide applied and alfalfa with herbicide applied in the first, second and third harvests (Table 2.14). Slight differences were observed among treatments in NDF and ADF concentration in the fourth harvest. Yields of CP and IVTDDM were not different in the first harvest or for seasonal total between alfalfa with no herbicide applied and alfalfa treated with herbicide (Table 2.15). These data further support research by Dutt et. al. (I979) and Fawcettet. al. (1978) that using herbicides when establishing alfalfa benefits the stand only in the establishment year. Alfalfa-grass mixtures had greater NDF concentration than did alfalfa seeded alone in the first harvest (Table 2.14). No other appreciable differences in forage quality were observed between alfalfa seeded alone and alfalfa seeded with a forage grass. Although the A-OG treatment lowered forage dry matter yield, no differences in forage quality were observed between the A-OG treatment and alfalfa seeded alone. The only difference in forage quality between the A-OS treatment and alfalfa seeded alone was in the first harvest where greater NDF and ADF and lower IVTD values were observed. .00-0.0 + .0360... - m ..0:U0.0. - ~ .00.....0. oz - F ".:05.00.. 00.6.0.0: » ..006. 0..: >0.00 00.00.. 0.06 .06.6 06.:00266 .06 + 0.00.0< - :0-< .000..0 00 00.00>.00 0.06 .06.6 :o.:00566 .06 + 0.00..< 1 00-< .:.0.0 00 00.00>.0z 0.06 .06.6 :6.:00566 .06 + 0..0..< - 00-< ..0>0. no.0 .0 .:06...:0.0 .6: ..0..... . 0.00.00 1 .10 .000.00.006.o + 0..0..< 1 01¢ .000.00&6.0 0.6650 + 0.00.0< 1 01¢ .0.00..0 1 < "000000 00.6000 h 02 .>.0>..60000. ..0.0 0:0 00.0 .0 .c06...:0.0 a... 0 m 0 0 n o 0 0 n . 0 0 0 0. 0 0 Aav>6 0: 02 02 0: 0: 02 02 02 0: 0: 02 02 .. . . 0; 0 .0) 0 02 0: 02 02 02 02 0: 02 02 0: 0: 0x 02 02 02 0: . .0> 0 0: 02 0: 02 .. 0: 0: .. 02 0: 0: 0: 02 02 .. 02 0.0.0 .0> 0.0 02 .. .. 02 02 02 02 0: 02 02 02 0: 0: 02 0: 0: 0.0 .0) — ------------- ------1-----------------------------.--------- ..0. ..-------------------------------.----1...--------------------- NN 0.00..:60 0.0. 0.00 0..0 0... ..0. o..0 0..m 0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 ..00 0..0 0.00 0.00 0 06-0 .0 ..0. 0.00 0.00 0... 0.0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00 0 06-0 .0 ..0. 0.00 0... .... ..0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00 0.00 ..00 0.00 0..» 0..0 0 06-0 .. 0.0. 0.00 0.00 n... 0... 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 ..00 ..00 ..00 0.00 0 .-0 .0 0.0. 0.00 0.00 0... 0.0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..0 ..00 0..0 0.00 ..00 0..n 0..0 0 6-0 .0 0.0. ..00 ..00 0... o... 0.00 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..—n 0.00 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 .0 ..0. 0.00 ..00 0... n... 0.00 ..00 ..00 0.00 0..0 0.00 ..00 ..00 0.00 ..00 0.00 0 m=-< .0 0.0. 0.00 0..0 0... 0... 0..0 ..00 0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00 0 2.0 .0 0.0. ...~ 0..0 F... ..0. 0.00 0..0 0.00 .._0 o..0 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..0 0. .2-< .. 1|:utuonIlatnltotonoon-Intoon---ooconuuooouonoanututuuou1no- N uncouooncclnoou|00ouuattractor.-outnoosoolocunnooullooouoo ..>_ .001 .0: .0 ..>_ .00 .00. .6 ..>_ .00 .00. .6 0.>_ .00 .00 .6 00.6.0.0: 000000 0 .00>.0: m .00>.0: ~ .00>.0= . .00>.0: 00.6000 .002 .0 000. .6 0:..00 00. :. 000.0 0 0..: .6 0:6.0 000000 0.00.00 .0..01.60..0 .6 0.00>.00 .36. .6. .0.>_0 >....0..000.0 0a.. o...> :. 0:0 ..0<0 .00.. .:00.0.00 0.60 ..uoz0 .00.. .:00.0.00 00..:0: ..00. :.0.o.o 003.6 .6 0000.:06.0o .00>-0:6600 10.10 0000. 76 Table 2.15. Second year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (IVYDDM) for four harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone or with a grass in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Species Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Harvest 4 Seasonal total seeded Herbicide CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDN CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM ------------------------------------ kg ha'1 --------------------"-------------- 1. A-NT 1t 1550 4682 933 2680 726 2376 429 1880 3638 11618 2 A-Hl 2 1549 4784 1001 2936 714 2215 455 1970 3719 11905 3. A-Hz 3 1641 4860 983 2807 771 2408 455 1939 3850 12014 4. A-B 2 1649 5208 974 2752 787 2516 447 1950 3857 12424 5. A-O 2 1724 5199 935 2815 753 2413 465 1985 3877 12412 6. A-T 2 1590 5039 954 2734 809 2555 467 1990 3820 12318 7. A-OG 2 1333 4038 896 2547 760 2403 460 1925 3449 10913 8. A-OS 2 1533 4654 959 2777 792 2563 458 1923 3742 11917 9. A-OH 2 1732 5109 1026 2928 759 2377 418 1795 3935 12209 Contrasts ---------------------------------------- pn>r --.---.-..------.-.---.------.-...--- 1 vs. 2+3 NS NS * ** NS NS NS NS NS NS 2+3 vs. 4+5+6 NS "’ NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 3 V8. 7 ti it it it NS "S ”s us it fit 3 vs. 8 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS CV(X) 7 7 7 6 9 11 10 8 7 5 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = not significant at 0.05 level. T Species seeded: A - alfalfa. A-B - Alfalfa + smooth bromegrass. A-O - Alfalfa + orchardgrass. A-T - Alfalfa + timothy. A-OG - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as grain. A-OS . Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats harvested as silage. A-OH - Alfalfa + oat companion crop, oats treated early with Poast. t Herbicide treatment: 1 - No herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat + 2.4-DB. 77 Yields of CP and IVTDDM for alfalfa-grass mixtures and the A-OS treatment were not different from alfalfa seeded alone in the year after seeding (Table 2.15). The A-OG treatment was lower in CF and IVTDDM yields in the first harvest, second harvest and seasonal total because of lower dry matter yields. CONCLUSION In both seeding years, initial alfalfa plant density had little correlation to first harvest forage dry matter yield. Cosgrove et. al. (1991) states that in Wisconsin, current recommendations are for 217 plants m'2 for optimal yield in the seeding year. Recent studies by Cosgrove et al. (1991) reported plant densities ranging from 173 to 292 plants m", and Undersander and Cosgrove (1991) reported plant densities of 82 to 87 plants m". In both studies, these differences in plant density were not associated with differences in forage dry matter yield. Too much emphasis may be placed on plant density, and this emphasis may not be warranted as plant density does not have a great effect on forage dry matter yield. Establishment herbicides used in DD alfalfa establishment, just as establishment herbicides used in conventional alfalfa establishment, affect forage yield and quality in the establishment year, primarily in the first and second harvest. This was observed in the 1989 seeding. Although alfalfa can be established without the use of herbicide, using a herbicide can have an advantage, as the I990 seeding showed. Alfalfa-grass mixtures can be established by DD methods. This establishment . practice could greatly reduce the need for herbicides in alfalfa seedings. More work should be done looking at establishing alfalfa-grass mixtures by DD methods. The percentage of grass in these studies was low, and as the growing season progressed, the percentage of grass declined, except in the case of orchardgrass. Growing the 78 grass with alfalfa did not have an effect on forge quality, but this could be because the grass content was so low. Oat companion crops can be established with alfalfa by DD methods. In the 1989 seeding, if the oat companion crop was not removed early, a reduction in forage dry matter and alfalfa yield was observed into the second harvest year. This reduction in yield was not observed in the 1990 seeding due a reduced oat stand. These results support previous research in conventional seedings, that demonstrated if alfalfa is going to be seeded with an oat companion crop, the oat crop needs to be removed as early as possible. If it is not removed early, forage dry matter yield will be reduced into the second harvest year. 79 References Brothers, B.A. and CB. Hesterman. 1991. Are herbicides necessary for alfalfa establishment?: results from studies with conventional and no-till alfalfa. In Pro. 1991 American Forage and Grassland Conf. Columbia, MO. Buhler, D.A. and R.T. Proost. 1987. Alfalfa establishment using reduced F tillage methods. Forage Producers Handbook, Wisconsin Forage council. pg. 26-33. Casler, MD. and P.N. Drolsom. 1984. Yield testing cool-season forage grasses in pure stands vs. binary mixtures with alfalfa. Crop Science. 24:453-456. Census of Agriculture. 1987. Vol. 1, Part 22:36-37. : 1‘ Churchill, BR. 1947. Productiveness of bromegrass strains from different regions when grown in pure stands and in mixture with alfalfa in Michigan. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39:750-761. . Comstock, V.E. and A.G. Law. 1948. The effect of clipping on the yield, botanical composition and protein content of alfalfa-grass mixtures. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 40:1074-1083. Cosgrove, D.R., P.E. Daley, L.G. Keonig and T.J. Ritten. 1991. Effect of coated seed on alfalfa stand density and yield in reduced tillage systems. In Pro. 1991 American Forage and Grassland Conf. Columbia, MO. Dutt, R.G. Harvey, R.S. Fawcett, N.A. Jorgensen. H.J. Larsen and D.A. Schlough. 1979. Forage quality and animal performance as influenced by quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with pronamide. Weed Sci. 27:127-132. Drolsom, RN. and D. Smith. 1976. Adapting species for forage mixtures. p. 223-232. In R.I. Papendick et al.(ed.) Multiple cropping. ASA, Madison WI. Fawcett, R.S., R.G. Harvey, D.A Schlough and LR. Block. 1978 Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with pronamide. Weed Sci. 26:193-198. Goering H.K. and P.J. Van Soest. 1970. USDA Handbook #379. Hart, R.H., A.J. Thompson, 111, J.H. Elgin, Jr., and J.E. McMurtrey, III. 1981. Forage yield and quality of quacker comfrey, alfalfa, and orchardgrass. Agron. J. 73:737-743. Johnson, JR. and J.T. Nichols. 1965. Production, crude protein, and use of irrigated grasses and alfalfa-grass combinations on clay soils in western South Dakata. South Dakota Ag. Exp. Stn. Bull. 555. Klebesadel, LJ. and D. Smith. 1960. Effects of harvesting an oat companion crop at four stages of maturity on the yield of oats, on the light near the soil surface, 80 on soil moisture, and on the establishment of alfalfa. Agron. J. 52:627-630. Lanini, W.T., S.B. Orloff, R.N. Vargas, J.P. Orr, V.L. Marble and S.R. Grattan. 1991. Cat companion crop seeding rate on alfalfa establishment, yield and weed control. Agron. J. 83:330-333. Linscott, Dean L. 1983. Forage crop establishment with limited-tillage systems. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. Suppl. 37:68-72. Miller, D.A. 1984. Forage Crops. McGraw-Hill, Inc. N.Y., N.Y. Peters, R.A. 1961. Legume establishment as related to the presence or absence of an oat companion crop. Agron. J. 53:195-198. Quisenberry, D.L. 1989. Michigan no-till survey. U.S.D.A., S.C.S. Robertson J.B. and P.J. Van Soest. 1977. Dietary fiber estimation in concentrate feedstuffs. J. Animal Sci. 45 (Suppl. l):254. Rechcigl, J.E., K.L. Edmisten, D.D. Wolf and RB. Reneau, Jr. 1988. Response to alfalfa grown on an acid soil to different chemical amendments. Agron. J. 80:515- 518. ----- , D.D. Wolf, R.B. Reneau, Jr. and W. Kroontje. 1985b. Influence of surface liming on the yield and nutrient concentration of alfalfa established with no-tillage techniques. Agron. J. 77:956-958. Schultz, RD. and J. Stubbendicck. 1982. Herbage yield of fertilized cool- season grass-legume mixtures in western Nebraska. J. of Range Manage. 35:473-476. ----- , and -----. 1983. Herbage quality of fertilized cool-season grass-legume mixtures in western Nebraska. J. of Range Manage. 36:571-575. Smith, D. 1960. The establishment and management of alfalfa. Wis. Ag. Exp. Stn. Bull. 542. ----- . 1960. Yield and chemical composition of oats for forage with advance in maturity. Agron. J. 52:637-639. Sollenburger, L.E., W.C. Templeton, Jr., and RR. Hill, Jr. 1984a. Orchardgrass and perennial ryegrass with applied nitrogen and in mixtures with legumes. 1. Total dry matter and nitrogen yields. Grass Forage Sci. 39:255-262. ---------- , and -----. 1984b. Orchardgrass and perennial ryegrass with applied nitrogen and in mixtures with legumes. 2. Component contributions to dry matter and nitrogen harvest. Grass Forage Sci. 39. 263- 270. Ta, TC. and MA. Paris. 1987. Effect of alfalfa proportion and clipping frequencies on timothy-alfalfa mixtures. 1. Competition and yield advantage. Agron. J. 79:817-820. Temme, D.G., R.G. Harvey, R.S. Fawcett and A.W. Young. 1979. Effect of 81 annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron. J. 71:51-54. Tesar, MB. 1981. Fall cutting of alfalfa under 3- and 4-cutting systems in Michigan. Proc. 17th Central Alfalfa Improve. Conf., East Lansing, MI. ----- . 1984. Good stands for top alfalfa production in Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Ser. Bull. E-1017. ----- . 1974. Nitrogen on grasses compared to alfalfa-grass mixtures in northern Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Ag. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 256. ----- . and V.L. Marble. 1988. Alfalfa establishment. A.A. Hanson, D.K. Barnes and RR. Hill, Jr. (ed.). Alfalfa and Alfalfa Improvement. Agronomy 29:303-332. Taylor, R.W. and D.W. Allinson. 1983. Legume establishment in grass sod using minimum-tillage seeding techniques without herbicide application: forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 75:167-172. Undersander D. and D. Cosgrove. 1991. Effect of stand density on alfalfa yield. In Proc. 1991 American Forage and Grassland Conf. Columbia, MO. Watkins, K.L., T.L. Veum and G.F. Krause. 1987. Total nitrogen determinations of various sample types: a comparison of the Hack, Kjeltec, and Kjeldahl methods. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 70:410:412. Wheeler, W.A. 1950. Forage and pasture crops. D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc. New York. pg. 65-67. Wilsie, GP. 1949. Evaluation of grass-legume associations, with emphasis on the yields of bromegrass varieties. Agron. J. 41:412-420. Wolf, DD. and KL. Edmisten. 1989. Late season alfalfa plantings: conventional vs. no-till methods. Crop Sci. 29:170-175. ----- , E.S. Hagood, Jr. and M. Lentner. 1985. No-till alfalafa establishment as influenced by previous cover crop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:609-613. ----- , and HE. White. 1984. No-till alfalfa establishment. Forage Systems: leading U.S. agriculture into the future. Pub.: American Forage & Grassland Council; Lexington, KY. W APPENDIX A 82 table A.1. Forage dry matter (DH) yields, pure alfalfa yields and alfalfa percentage in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Seasonal totals Estab DH 1 Alf on X Alf on X Alf DH Alf method Herbicide yld alf vld yld glf vld yld 91f vld vld yld ---------------------------------- Mg ha'1 -------------------------------- Conventional 2T 1. 3 a9 3.0 2.0 at. 1.6 1 7 100 1.7 7 9 6 3 3 3 0 95 2.8 2.5 87 2.2 1 7 99 1.7 7 2 6 7 4 2 8 98 2.7 2.6 98 2.6 1 9 100 1.9 7 3 7 2 Direct-drill 1 4.8 18 0.8 1.7 65 1.3 1.1 94 1.0 7.6 3.0 2 3.1 57 1.9 2.4 70 1.7 1.3 92 1.3 6.7 4.7 3 2.8 92 2.5 2.7 62 1.8 1.6 97 1.5 7.0 5.8 L$D(0.05)1 0.8 2’0 0.9 0.5 NS 0.4 NS NS 0.3 0.8 1.2 CV(%) 16 22 28 14 14 13 14 4 15 8 14 T Herbicide treatments: Conventional establishment: Direct-drill establishment: 2 - no herbicide. 1 - no herbicide. 3 - 2.4-08. 2 - Paraquat. 4 - EPTC +2,4°DB. 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08. t LSD for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. is. 83 Table A.2. Forage dry matter (DH) yields, pure alfalfa yields and alfalfa percentage in three seeding year harvests and seasonal totals for alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Harvest 1 Harvest g Harvest 3 Seasgggl totals Estab 014 X Alf DH X Alf DH 2 Alf DH Alf _mgthod Herbicidggflyld alf yld xld alf yld yld alf yld yld .xld -------------------------------- Mg ha'1 ----------------------------------- Conventional 2T 3.7 1.7 1.7 2.6 9:. 2.4 1.6 96 1.5 7.8 5.7 3 2.7 90 2.5 3.0 86 2.6 1.5 99 1.5 7.2 6.5 4 3.2 97 3.1 2.9 99 2.9 1.7 100 1.7 7.8 7.6 Direct-drill 1 3 7 57 2.2 2 5 94 2.3 1.5 96 1.4 7 6 5.9 2 3 4 86 2.9 2.5 99 2.4 1.5 99 1.5 7 3 6.8 3 3 0 97 3.0 3.0 96 2.9 1.7 100 1.7 7 7 7.5 Lsom'os): 0.5 15 0.8 NS 7 NS NS NS NS NS 1.2 CV(%) 9 13 22 14 5 13 11 3 12 8 . 12 T Herbicide treatments: Conventional establishment: Direct-drill establishment: 2 - no herbicide. 1 - no herbicide. 3 - 2.4-DB. 2 - Paraquat. 4 - EPTC + 2.4-DB. 3 - Paraquat + 2.4-DB. 3 L80 for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. 841 .Eoum>m one.._u a c_:u_: ou_u_ncoc mc_amaeoo Law om; ” .mo-a.~ + bosomaaa . m .mo-e.~+ upaw - a .umacmcma - ~ .mo-e.~ - n .uu_u_na~; o: . . .ou_u_ntog oc - ~ "acme:m_.nmumo .._Lu.uuoe_o uucoEzmm.nmumo .mco_uco>cou "mucaeuaoau ou_u_neoz h s o o m 0 NF h a MP 0 NF 5 o a Axv>u m2 m2 m2 m2 m: M: M: m2 m2 m2 mz m: M: m: flamo.ovow4 o.mp n.«- n.~ co v.~ m.~ no o.~ n.n no ¢.n ¢.m no o.m m o.mp m.cp n.~ p0 o.~ o.~ no c.~ —.m we m.m o.¢ on m.m ~ u.~F c.m— n.~ no ¢.~ ~.~ 00 o.~ o.~ Po ~.m o.¢ No n.m F .._ao-uuoa_o o.aF m.s. m ~ so m ~ . n co. . n m.m co. o.m a.m co. a.m a o.sp a.m_ m.~ co o.~ a.~ mo o.~ o.n no o.a ~.m as o.m m ..mp “.m. m.~ no m.~ o.n no o.m o.m no ..a ~.m No o.m h~ .nco_uco>cou ............. ..-.-.--------.--------.----.-.---------- p-a; m: ..-..------------------------.-.---..--...-.-.-.-.---- u.> a.» a.» a.“ a.» v.> c.a a.» a.» c.a a.» a.» a.» a.» nogaman a.< xa ..< xiii. to a.< x so a.< a 11: so e.< a so acuEga_.nauaw .muou .acomaom e umo>enx m umo>aaz ~ umo>eaz p umo>goz .mmx an and, we mcmadm ogu cm «pagans .._eu.uuoe_u new .aco_uco>cou >5 uozm_.noumo ow.aw.a Low m.a»o» decomnom new mumo>enc Lace c_ av.o_> ow.nv.u menu new omaucooeoa nedoe.a .av.o_> Azav LouuaE.>Lu ounces enu>.ucouom .n.< 0.0a» 85» .mo-q.~ + umaomumd - .umaaacad - .ou_o_nuoz 0: - uucoEcmmdnaumo .Eoum>m umn_._a a c_su_3 on_u_ncog nc_umdsoo Lo» cm; # .._ev-uuo._o .mo-s.~+ aha” - a .mo.a.~ - m .ou_u_nao; o: . ~ 3:353 33mm .25 m 2968 "mucaauooau ov_u_neoz # . m m a P o k a ~ a a m N a s a Axa>u m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 mg m2 m2 m: m: m: m: wamo.oaam3 m.m~ ..on ~.~a ~.o. n.0s o.a~ o.nm o.- ~._o ~.n~ «.mn m.o~ o.~a n.n~ o.mn o.- m m.m~ o.m~ ~.Pv m.ow o.m~ ~.o~ m.om m.- o.Po «.mN o.~n ~.o~ c.Fn m.m~ P.¢m o.o~ ~ «.ms ~.o~ o..e m.n— ~.os o.m~ n.0n m.n~ o.~m ~.a~ o..n ~.- m..m n.o~ n.~n o.a~ _ .d_au-uuoa_o o.m~ m.o~ a.oa e.o_ o.o~ a.a~ ..nm m.- ~.~o a.m~ a.~m o.- 0..» o.om ~.~n o.- a m.m~ ~.o~ o._e ~.o. m.o~ o.e~ n.nm o.- o..o o.- o.~n o.m~ o..o ~.- 5.4» e.- n ~.a~ o.m~ o.oa o.o. o.m~ a.m~ a.em a.- P.~o o.a~ m.pn o.a~ o.Fm ..o~ 0.0m n.- hm .o:o_ucu>cou op>_ ao< do: no o~>_ .mc no: no o~>_ mac emu au o»>_ amm. “mm au nogmmau e umo>aaz m umo>umz ~ umomum: P umo>mmz noumm .mmx no and. we uc_cam ogu c_ muesuus .._eu.uuou_u new .oco_uco>cou >9 noga_.nauao .uc_uoom Loueo aao> on» c_ ewdowdn *o mumo>can use» no» Ao»>_v >u_._n_umom_n one» oLu_> cm can Auou m2 wz mz M: M: M: M: m2 m2 m2 mz w: Amo.0voma e.ow m.n~ o.mm o.e~ 0.0m o.m~ o.~m o.e~ s.o~ e.- e.nm n.P~ .._Lv-uuoe_o e.om a.e~ ~.mm n.q~ o.mw o.e~ ~.~n w.u~ o.o~ o.- —.~m w.- Emco_uco>cou ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 8 InsultrrlutIoncoonirritant:oIIIIIIaIIIIIIUuIOIU o~>~ uo< we: do oh>_ uo< no: no o»>_ uo< moz mu Dazuoe m umo>amz m umo>cmz P umo>emz ucossm_dnmumm .mucueuaoeu au_o_neoz anew yo momaau>a can moadm> .mmx an owop *o oc_cdm on» c_ avenues .._Lu-uuoa_u ace deco_uco>cou >9 nogm_.nnumo awdow.a we mumo>enz eno> mc_uoom omega c. Aop>_v >u_._n_amom_u one» oLu_> c_ new AmQu m2 m2 m2 m2 mz m2 m2 m: m: m: m: m: “mo.c.om3 a.~m a.o~ 0..» o.m~ o.m~ m.m~ n.~n o.- c.a~ o.a~ c.an n.o. .._.u-uuou_a m.mm o._~ m.~m ~.- m.m~ m.m~ o.oa ~.- o.a~ ~.- ..os n.0— .mco_uco>cou iiiiii our-irioroiucuouiiionu-.-niiiouoiooooinn N nunoniiiouuuo-nuiiuunuurtoorununooroiinintro.-- oa>_ uo< no: au oh>_ uo< Caz au o»>_ Lam. dam, a6 eczema: m uom>umx ~ umo>cmx P umo>caz acne:m__nmumm .mucnsuoouu uu_u_ncog Lace «0 momauo>a can meado> .mmx an coop so mc_adm any c_ «vegans .._cu-uuoc_u new _aco_uco>cou >n uncmm.nnumu awdnwda so mumo>cag cao> mc_uoom conga c_ no»>_v >u_._n_umom_u one» cuu_> c_ new AmoF ------------------- 2 vs. 4 NS NS NS CV(X) 28 24 17 *,** Significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = Not significant at 0.05 level. 93 Table C.2. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoated or coated seed in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Sampling date Species seeded Herbicidg 6119199147 DAP) 11/9/89 ------------- plants m’2 --------------- 1. A-N Ho herbicide 220 113 2. A-Hl Paraquat 318 126 3. A-H2 Paraquat + 2,4-DB 260 122 4. A-H1 Paraquat 236 116 (coated) Contrasts -------------- PR>F --------------- 2 vs. 4 ** NS CVCX) 16 16 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. HS 8 not significant at 0.05 level. ..o>o. mo.o um venomwmcm_m no: u m2 .>_o>_uuoamoa ..o.o new mo.o um acmu_»_cm_m a... - 2 t a 3 an x. t S on m. 335 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m: m: m2 m: m: m: S .9 ~ .................................................... axed -------------------------------.---------------- mumnuucou 80486 ~.m no a; no 5; ..~ on .3 m... 8 ad 58...... z-.. ..c 90 .3 a; 8 o; ~.~ 8 m.~ o.~ k o.~ 84.“... + ~ 04. 3.83.. _=-< .m fim no a; 8 a; o; as m.~ ..N 2 fi~ 58...... .3. .~ 6.... mg .1 so .2 .3 8 a; o... .N mé 883.2. 2. .3 .. ------------.----------------------------.----- F-e; a: --.-------------------------.------.----------.---- a; a; a; :m a; .3» :a a; a: :o .3» 83322. 888 :< .3 :< x .3 :< a .3 3.. a .3 «£83 .muOu decennom n umo>um= ~ umo>uo= — umo>uaz .mmx an 006. so acmaaa ecu c_ noon teamed up payment: c_ ocoda pounce o».n».a .._Lp-uuou_u 20w .auou .mcowaem new mumo>umz omega c_ n».a~.o acouaoa new mudo_> awdam.u ace “toy Loaves >Lu ounce» Loo> «mum; .n.u 0.90» ..o>o. mo.o um ucmu_*_cmmm no: u m: .>.o>_uuodmou .Fo.o new mo.o an acmo_w_cm_m «s.s - 2 SN .. - ..~ N. 3 mm 2 2 . 325 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m: e .m> m ......... ------.-------------.----------.----------- maze ------------------------------------------------ mummuucou Seamed we no a; no a; .3. 8 m.~ 5.0. No fin 3628 .3. ..c .2 2 8.. 8. o; m.~ k o.~ 9n 8F 9... 2.-.}. ~ % $32.... a: .n o.“ 3. c.~ 8. o.~ o.~ 8 n.~ C». no fin 58...... =-<.~ a.“ 8.... .3 3 w... ~.~ a n.~ ~.~ E o.~ 88322. 2. .3 ._ ------.--.--.-...----------.-------.-----.-.--- p-o: a: ---.....-------------------..-..-----.------------- a; 3., 3., :a B» u; :m a; B» :a 3 8838.. 888 :< .8 :< x .3 3 a .3 :< a .3 838m .auOu decomnom n umo>cnz ~ umo>m|r F umo>cuz .mnx an 906- we uc_uaa ogu cm noon nausea ace nounouc: cm «coda nausea audawda .._Lu-uuoa_u so» .auou docoanou ace mumo>uns noun“ c_ o*.o*.a acoucon nee au.o_> a».om.e uco Asa. Louuau >uu accede ceo> naemu .e.u o.nap ..o>u. mo.o an acau_w_ca_a ya: n m: .>.o>_uuoamou .pc.o new mo.o an «cou_»_co_m a... m h o o m o a or n o o h Aav>u mz m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 mz m: a. « mz e .m> ~ ........... .------------------------------.------- exam ------------.----.--.------------------------------- mumacucou x8486 m.oo h.m~ N.mn m.m~ ~.mw «.mN c.0m e.o~ o.—m n.0— o.~m e.e~ unnamed; :.< .e Au m.o~ p.¢~ o.¢m n.n~ P.nw ¢.m~ n.0m m.o~ u.~m 0.09 P.wn p.o~ mo-¢.~ + anaconda m=.< .n n7 o.oo o.m~ o.mn ¢.e~ —.~o o.e~ c.0n ~.n~ p.oo o.- m.em o.m~ uoaoauma =-< .~ «.9» o.- o.~m o.m~ ~.«w o.e~ o.mm ~.o~ v.05 p.m~ ~.om o.np ou_o_nuo: oz z-< .— oooooooooo IolnnnlotttIIOIIIIIioorrrirurouuunuuotttt N oust-oa..00orItn..-IItltouotttoootOIIOOIlantistatic-III! at: 21% an 8 at: a? 32 8 22 a? 2% 8 883.3: 888 m wmm>anz ~ umo>cax F umo>cnz . mo_uoam .mmu an oao— *o mc_uam ecu c_ poem unumou co oeueouc: c_ oco.n vacuum nwdomdn .._cu.uuoc_u no» mumo>ung cao>-umu_w omega cos th>—v >u_._nmumom_u ozcu oLu_> cm ucn Amar -------------------------------- 2 vs. 4 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS CV(X) 15 14 18 16 14 15 10 9 '*,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = not significant at 0.05 level. T Herbicide treatment: 1 - No herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat + 2.4-08. ..o>e. no.9 an ucau_*mcm_m no: n ma .>.o>_uuoamou .Po.o new mo.o an acou_wmcm_m as.s m e. o a N a u o a 2 s S 385 m: m2 m2 2. m2 m... m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m: a .9, ~ ............. .-----..------.-----.-..-------..---. “was ------.-.-.----------.---..------------------------- mumncucou AuoquUV 95 ~.o~ NS 0.3 oak 58 E». 9%. ~.- 0.3 can 3: 58...... =.< ..e 8 0.8 92 n.o~ fin... SE flow. HR in». «an o..c~ 9...... fix 2-...~ + $322 mzé .n 9 .08 ~.o~ o.o~ EH NH ~.o~ mam sunk. ads o..e~ ad». ~.2 3322 ..-< .~ 9.3 5.2 o.o~ «.3 ~.£ man. «.5... ..8 ..E «.8. 4...». 92... 8833.. 0: z-< .— Itt|0IIIIOIIItooIlIIOIIIOIIto aaaaaaa oIIIIaIIII lllll N 0010010 lllll .. IIIIIIIII 000:0:IIIIlIIIIIIcttsllollltllIt S: 219. am 8 at: ems 32 3 at: 2% Q .6 883.3: 868.. m umo>cmz ~ umo>uaz F umo>umr mo_uoam .mmx no coop so mc_udm ecu c_ poem pounce Co panacea: c_ oco.n apnoea owdowda .._cu-uuoe_u cow mumo>ang Loo>-umc_w omega Lew “op>_v >u_._n_umom_u asap ocum> c_ ace anr -------------------------------- 2 vs. 4 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS CV(X) 16 16 21 17 25 22 18 15 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = not significant at 0.05 level. T Herbicide treatment: 1 - No herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08. 7 ..o>o. mo.o «a acou_._cm_m no: u 6... 52.288. .8... 2a 8... e. 28:23.... 2.... n o P— a o m. pp h n s o m u Auv>u m: M: M: a... m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m: m: m: q .92 N ................... 1------------.-.-..---------.-----. axed -------.-. -------...------------------...-------------.- mummcucou 83....8. 0.3. ~.m— o.~ no e.~ o.~ so o.m o.n no ~.n ~.m no v.0 uaaoncma :.< .e nu m.q— o.ep m.~ 06 o.~ o.n oo o.» n.m so q.n ~.m oo c.m mo-e.~ + nu announced ~=-< .n n.mp n.6, m.~ on o.~ o.~ ~o m.~ e.n no o.m a.m co n.m 66:70.66 P:.< .N —.e— m.e. m.~ no m.~ o.n oo o.n ~.m no m.n m.m no ~.m ou_u_neo; oz z-< .— ....... .-....----.-.--.---...---........ .----- v-6; a: ...-.----------.----..-..-.---.--.-.--.--.------.----- p.) a.» pm» v.6 b.>. um» w.n n.> n.> w_a u.» p.> v.6 u.» oo_u_nuoz cocoon .2 .3 .2 x .3 :< a .3 2.. x .3 3.. a .3 8.68.... m.au66 .ncOmaom e umosumm m umo>ca= ~ umo>cmz — umo>cnz .mnx an one. so oc_cdm ogu c. noon pounce co nounouc: c_ «coda cocoon a..a..a .._cu-uuoe_u co. .aHOu .ncomnom new mumo>umc .36» c. a».ae.a ucoouoa ace u.o_> 66.6».o ace «gov coupes >cv amoeow Lao» vacuum .o.u 0.96» ..3-«.~ + “38...... . n .uoacacnd - N .ovmumncoz 0: u p "unusunocu ou_omncozh ..o>o. mo.o an ucoo_w_cm_m ya: u m: .>.o>_uuoamou .Fo.o new mo.c an acnu.._eu_m a... m N m a o m o m a n 8 n m ~ 2 a « 33.6 m... 2. 2. m2 2. m... .6... m2 «2 m: m... 2. 3.. 3.. 2. m2 « :6.) ~ ........................................................... mama ------1-----------------------1------------------------1-1-1--- mummaucou Got—.8. 98 8.8 o.c« «.8 8.2. 3.8 m8 «.8 8.8 m8 «.8 6.8 98 8.8 6.8 88 ~ .3. .« 6.8 98 8.3 . «.t v.8 88 6.9.. 8.8 n.~o 3.8 «.8. 3.8 ..«w «.8 o.«n n.8 n mg... .m 88 ~18 o..« 3.: 3.8 «.8 ..«m . m8 ~.~o «.8 6.8 ..8 6.8 «.8 88 8.8 N .3. .~ 3.8 8.8 6.8 ..t .28 8.8 98 ~.«~ 6.8 6.8 6..»... n8 m.~.. o8 n8 ~.8 .7 a... .. 11111011 11111111111 ..11 11111111 11111111011 11111111 r... 111111111 8 11111011111111111119111i1..ittinnitus-0101111010011.-119111.. 3:: 31< a... 8 E... 8.. .8 8 3;. .9. .|.. 8 2.: w? 34 8 8.83.2. 886... e umo>cmz m umo>ca= m umo>mmm F umo>cox mumuoqm .mmx an coop we mc_cam any c_ poem noueoo Lo neunouca c. oco.m cocoon 6*.a*.o .._cu.uuoc.0 we mumo>cag uses no. th>_u >u_._n_umom_p oacu a.._> c_ new Auo-tcouom .o—.u edge» 102 . Table C.11. Second year yield of crude protein (CP) and in vitro true digestible dry matter (lVTDDM) for four harvests and seasonal total for direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoated or coated seed in the spring of 1989 at KBS. Species Harvest 1 Harvest 2 Harvest 3 Harvest 4 Seasonal total seeded Herbicide CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM CP IVTDDM ------------------------------------ kg ha'1 ------------------------------------ 1. A-N 1T 1550 4682 933 2680 726 2376 429 1880 3638 11618 2. A- 1 2 1549 4784 1001 2936 714 2215 455 1970 3719 11905 3. A-Hz 3 1641 4860 983 2807 771 2408 455 1939 3850 12014 4. A-Hl 2 1665 5071 1032 3016 732 2376 442 1826 3871 12289 (coated) Contrasts ---------------------------------------- pa>r ------------------------------------- 2 vs. 4 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS CV(%) 7 7 7 6 9 11 10 8 7 5 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS = not significant at 0.05 level. T Herbicide treatment: 1 - Ho herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08. APPENDIX D 103 Table 0.1. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates and first harvest forage dry matter (DH) yield for alfalfa, averaged over four herbicide treatments, established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the summer of 1989 at KBS. ' Establishment Alfalfa plant density mgthod 9128189 4125190 on yield ----- plants 111'2 ---- Hg ha'l Conventional 222 141 4.6 Direct-drill 62 55 2.9 CV(%) 43 43 17 104 Table 0.2. First harvest percentage of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of alfalfa established by conventional and direct-drill methods in the summer of 1989 at KBS. Establishment Cut 1 mgthod Herbicide CP NDF ADF ........ x --------. Conventional No herbicide 24.2 42.0 33.3 Paraquat 25.5 36.8 29.2 Paraquat + 2,4-08 27.8 34.2 28.8 Parquet + EPTC + 2,4-08 26.2 35.7 29.5 Direct-drill No herbicide 25.3 33.9 26.7 Paraquat 24.9 35.4 29.0 Paraquat + 2,4-08 29.8 29.3 26.9 Paraquat + EPTC + 2.4-08 28.2 31.3 27.2 Lsomflsfl' 2.1 4.3 us LSD(0.05)* NS 5.6 NS CV(%) - 5 8 7 T LSD for comparing herbicide within a tillage system. t LSD for comparing tillage within a herbicide treatment. 105 Table 0.3. Alfalfa plant density at two sampling dates, first harvest forage dry matter (0H) yield and percentage of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) of direct-drill alfalfa seeded alone in uncoated or coated seed or with a grass in the summer of 1989 at KBS. Species Alflfa plgpt density First harvest seeded Herbicidg 9128/89 4124/90 0H yield CP NDF ADF ------- plants 10'2 ------ Hg ha'l ------ X ----- 1. A-NT 1: '3 2 1.5 27.0 30.7 23 2 2. A-H1 2 165 48 2.6 25.9 31.3 27 2 3. A-Hz 3 83 41 1 5 25.7 28.2 23 8 4. A-8 2 74 47 2.5 27.1 30.6 25.9 5. A-D 2 49 34 3.0 27.7 29.7 24.4 6. A-T 2 85 28 3.0 26.8 32.5 26.7 7. A-Hl 2 47 40 2.7 27.0 29.6 25.8 (coated) Contrasts ------------------------------ PR>F ------------------------------ 1 vs. 2 ** ** * NS NS f* 1 vs. 3 ** ** NS NS NS NS 2,3 vs. 4,5,6 * NS ** NS NS NS 2 vs. 7 ** NS NS NS NS NS CV(X) 63 58 33 13 12 10 *,** significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. NS 2 not significant at 0.05 level. T Species seeded: A - Alfalfa. A-8 - Alfalfa + smooth bromegrass. A-O - Alfalfa + orchardgrass. A-T - Alfalfa + timothy. t Herbicide treatment: 1 - No herbicide. 2 - Paraquat. 3 - Paraquat + 2,4-08. APPENDIX E >59...» .83 6.3 «.3 9.8 8...... o._.m mfin 328...... + 3.3; .n Au nu «mocupaogoco l «.3 6.5 ~.c« mém 8mm 85 8mm ans—8...... + 3.3: .~ mmaaaoeocn «.on 6.9 0.3 0.9.. m.~« m.«m mfin 3.62: 53.5 + .33: .P I100......000000000.000000000000101elitists-000100000000 a 0000000101111or-orestaurant-00000000000000100000000000 n umo>mmz o «66>Loz m umo>umm a» nomuoaa .mau an mac, *6 newcaa as» c. «pagan. ...uu-uuoa_u >3 mango a :u_a condom o~.ow.a so oc_poom Louwo aoo> on» c. mumo>aog 230. new aumo>aag aoo> acmpooa noes» c. >u_.mnmuuoumu ..e: ..00 caa_> c. *6 coaucouuoa .-.u e.na» 107 Table 5.2. Percentage of in vitro cell wall digestibility in three seeding year harvests of alfalfa seeded with a grass by direct-drill methods in the spring of 1990 at KBS. Species gggggg, Herbicide Harvest 1 Harvest 2, Harvest 3 V ...................... x ...................... 1. Alfalfa + Smooth Paraquat 33.9 37.5 64.2 bromegrass 2. Alfalfa + Pararquat 19.9 39.6 35.9 Orchardgrass 3. Alfalfa + Paraquat 29.4 34.6 45.1 Timothy "Tilllllljlllllfllillllll