Peas and cereal crops intercropping comparison for forage production in Alberta and Peace Region The project objectives are to demonstrate the effects of intercropping peas with barley, oat and triticale on forage yield and quality in Alberta and communicate information from the project to the producers.

The southeast Peace region trials near High Prairie (2009) and Valleyview (2010). The seeding rate were 250 plants/m2 (cereals only); and 125 plants/m2 cereals and 58 plants/m2 peas (intercrop plots). Fertilizer rates were 38 lb/ac of 11-52-0 and 25 lb/ac of 0-0-60 (side banded) for all treatments; plus 58 lb/ac of 46-0-0 for the cereals only.

Intercropping of 40-10 peas with oats and triticale had no consistent effect on the DM yield. But the DM yield tended to decline (not significant) when 40-10 peas were intercropped with barley and when cooper peas were intercropped with all the 3 tested cereals. Lower amount of nitrogen fertilizer to the intercropped (4 lb N/ac) than the pure cereal stands (31 lb N/ac) may have reduced the DM yield in intercropped plots.

The CP content of forage was increased by intercropping peas with cereal crops, more so for the treatments with oats and triticale. Also, intercropping tended to improve the energy and some mineral contents relative the oats and triticale stands, while it tended to lower the fibre contents and some minerals. Intercropping tended to increase the CP production and lower the TDN production.

Overall, there was a saving of 27 lb N/ac fertilizer in the intercropped compared to pure cereal crops. The results from 2009 and 2010 show potential for improving protein content in forage and total amount of protein produced by intercropping of peas with cereals. (Full report on PP ??)

Peas and cereal crops intercropping comparison for forage production in Alberta and Peace region Kabal S. Gill, SARDA

Background Winter feeding costs are the largest component of an animal production system in Alberta. Farmers in the Peace Region are looking to minimize winter feeding costs by reducing inputs for forage production and replacing some grain with high quality forage. Using higher quality forage can supplement poor quality straw or grass in a mixture or in a rotational feeding/grazing system. This allows more use of lower quality forage and reduces waste with limit-feeding and other feed management practices.

Legumes don’t need nitrogen (N) fertilizer and have higher protein concentration than cereals in forage. Intercropping legumes with cereals may reduce land, inputs and labour costs per unit of forage production, which will improve the beef production efficiency and contribution margin. Work done in southern and central Alberta showed benefits from intercropping of peas with spring barley, oats or triticale, and the advantage depended on the planting density of cereal. Lack of information for the Peace region makes the present project unique from the earlier studies done in other parts of Alberta.

Objectives The project addresses the key issue of decline in profit margins being faced by the cattle producers as follows.

1. To demonstrate the effects of intercropping forage peas with barley, oat and triticale on forage yield and quality in the southeast Peace region. 2. Communicate information from the project to the producers in the Peace region. 3. The results will also be reported in the Alberta Seed Guide (www.seed.ab.ca) and web page (www.sarda.areca.ab.ca) for comparison across the province and access to other producers.

2

Methodology Provincial trials: See the Cereal crop varieties comparison for forage production in Alberta and Peace Region report.

2010 SARDA Trial: The plots were located near Valleyview (SW27-69-22W5) on canola stubble. The treatments were replicated 4 times, using a RCBD to lay out the small plots (8 m long 6 rows at 9 inch spacing). Glyphosate was sprayed on all plots on May 7 (360 g/ac) and May 16 (396 g/ac). A Fabro drill equipped with Atom jet openers was used to seed on May 16. Recommended agronomic practices were followed. The seeding rate for the cereals was 250 plants/m2. In the intercrop plots, the seeding rate was 125 plants/m2 (50%) for the cereals and 58 plants/m2 (75%) for the peas. Fertilizer rates, at seeding, were 38 lb/ac of 11-52-0 (seed placed) and 25 lb/ac of 0-0-60 (side banded) for all treatments. The cereals plots also received 58 lb/ac of 46-0-0 (side banded).

The rows were trimmed to 5 m lengths and assessed to estimate any major part of row without plants to determine the actual harvest area per plot. The above ground parts of plants were harvested using a Mott mower on July 28 (plots with barley) or on Aug. 6 (plots with oats and triticale).

The harvested material was weighed in the field and subsamples were collected and dried to determine moisture content, dry matter (DM) yield and feed quality. The yield data are presented as DM and fresh forage tonnage at 65% moisture content. The discussion of results is based on the DM yields. Feed quality was determined by wet chemistry technique, using 2 composite samples from each treatment (combined replication 1&2 and 3&4 samples). The crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) yields were calculated using the data on forage DM yield (Table 1) and quality (Table 2, 3 and 4).

3

The trial site was toured during the annual tour of SARDA on July 27. Trials map and related information were made available at the sites entrance for self-guided tours by the farmers and others during the July and Aug. 2010. The results will be communicated to the producers in the Peace Region and beyond, using meetings, presentations, reports, newsletters, articles, media, webpage and other means.

Results and Discussion Provincial Trials: The results are presented in the Alberta Seed Guide and on the www.seed.ab.ca.

2010 SARDA Trial: Soil moisture was low at seeding time. Stand establishment of both cereals and peas was good in all plots. Peas population ranged from 5.2 to 6.2 plants/sq. ft and it was not influenced by the cereal type or pea variety (Table 1). Crop development was slow due to drought and cooler than normal weather (see Valleyview weather data). Plots with barley were harvested after 73 days and with both oat and triticales were harvested after 82 days.

A slight decrease in plant height of oats and triticale was observed in the intercropped compared to their pure stands. Probably, application of 27 lb/ac of extra fertilizer nitrogen to the pure stands may have improved plant height.

The DM yield of barley was lower than the oat and triticale (Fig. 1, Table 1). The intercrop treatments also showed lower DM yield for the treatments with barley compared to the treatments with oats and triticale. Differences between the oat and triticale treatments were small and not consistent.

4

2.5

Fig. 1. Dry matter (DM) yield, t/ac

2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Intercropping of 40-10 peas with oats and triticale had no consistent effect on the DM yield. But the DM yield tended to decline (not significant) when 40-10 peas were intercropped with barley and when cooper peas were intercropped with all the 3 tested cereals. Lower amount of nitrogen fertilizer to the intercropped (4 lb N/ac) than the pure cereal stands (31 lb N/ac) may have reduced the DM yield in intercropped plots.

When intercropped with oats and triticale, the treatments with 40-10 peas had more DM yield compared to the cooper peas. Apparently, the 40-10 being a taller variety than cooper was able to grow better in the taller crops of oats and triticale (Table 1).

The CP content of forage was increased by intercropping peas with cereal crops, more so for the treatments with oats and triticale (Table 2). Also, the 3 energy parameters (NE lactation, NE maintenance and NE gain), and concentration of some minerals (calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, iron) tended to be greater for the intercropped than the pure stands of oats and triticale. On the other hand, the fibre contents (ADF, NDF) and concentration of some minerals (copper, potassium, manganese, sodium) contents of the forage tended to decline when peas were intercropped with cereals. Other forage quality parameters did not show a consistent effect of the intercropping.

5

The CP production was greater for the intercropped treatments than the sole crop of oats, while intercropped and pure stands of barley and triticale showed no consistent differences (Fig. 2, Table 1). The TDN production was usually lower in the intercropped than pure cereal stands, except for the 40-10/murphy treatment (Fig. 3, Table 1).

Overall, there was a saving of 27 lb N/ac fertilizer in the intercropped compared to pure cereal crops. Intercropping tended to improve protein and energy contents in the forage while the fibre content in forage tended to be decline. There was no consistent significant decline in the DM yield. The concentration of some minerals in forage tended to increase with intercropping while of some others tended to be reduced. The results from 2009 (SARDA Annual Report 2009) and 2010 show potential for improving protein content in forage and total amount of protein produced by intercropping of peas with cereals. The trial will be repeated in 2011 to collect more data and compile the project report. 250

Fig. 2. Crode protein (CP) yield, kg/ac

200 150 100 50 0

6

2000 1500

Fig. 3. Total digestible nutrients (TDN), kg/ac

1000 500 0

Table 1. Forage yield as dry matter (DM), at 65% moisture (65%M) yield, crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN), moisture content, plant height and peas density for different treatments. Treatment DM, 65%M CP TDN, Moisture Cereals Peas Peas t/ac t/ac kg/ac kg/ac % height, height, Density, cm cm #/Sq. ft Vivar barley 1.74 4.99 200 1164 59.6 48.1 Murphy oats 1.99 5.67 145 1193 57.1 93.3 Pronghorn triticale 2.16 6.18 181 1434 54.4 88.6 40-10/Vivar 1.60 4.57 193 1062 63.9 48.5 53.4 6.2 40-10/Murphy 2.00 5.70 193 1278 59.8 91.7 55.2 5.8 40-10/Pronghorn 2.12 6.05 229 1410 58.7 86.8 58.4 6.2 Cooper/Vivar 1.59 4.53 198 1045 64.4 47.3 27.6 5.7 Cooper/Murphy 1.78 5.04 172 1137 61.4 91.8 26.8 5.2 Cooper/Pronghorn 1.73 4.93 155 1149 58.2 84.4 27.0 6.1 LSD0.05 0.266 0.759 3.80 3.69 6.21 1.65 CV, % 9.8 9.8 4.4 3.3 10.0 18.6 Significance1 ** ** ** ** ** NS 1 ** refers to significant at 99% level. NS refers to not significant.

7

Table 2. Feed quality based on dry matter of the Vivar (T1), Murphy (T2), Pronghorn (T3), Vivar + 4010 (T4), Murphy + 40-10 (T5), Pronghorn + 40-10 (T6), Vivar + Cooper (T7), Murphy + Cooper (T8), and Pronghorn + Cooper (T9) treatments. Parameter T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 LSD95% CV% Signi Protein Crude protein, % 11.5 7.3 8.4 12.1 9.7 10.8 12.5 9.7 9.0 1.71 7.3 ** Soluble CP, % of CP 54.4 56.1 68.8 60.3 55.9 65.3 64.6 57.2 63.4 9.43 6.7 † ADF –CP,% 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.082 15.2 † UIP (Bypass protein) 25.0 26.8 18.7 22.2 23.5 19.6 19.8 23.0 20.4 4.05 8.0 * Fibres ADF, % 28.5 37.0 29.0 28.9 31.9 28.7 29.6 31.9 28.6 2.45 3.5 ** NDF, % 47.9 58.6 47.1 42.9 51.2 42.5 42.9 48.9 44.8 3.58 3.3 ** Energy TDN, % 66.7 60.1 66.3 66.4 64.0 66.6 65.8 64.0 66.6 1.91 1.3 ** NE Lactation, MCal/kg 1.52 1.36 1.51 1.51 1.45 1.52 1.50 1.46 1.52 0.047 1.4 ** NE maintain, MCal/kg 1.65 1.46 1.46 1.64 1.57 1.64 1.62 1.57 1.64 0.052 1.4 ** NE Gain, MCal/kg 0.92 0.74 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.84 0.92 0.060 3.0 ** Minerals Calcium, mg/kg 475 350 245 775 780 675 630 620 540 178 13.6 ** Copper, mg/kg 9.99 9.68 11.52 9.57 7.62 8.38 7.66 7.74 9.59 3.770 18.0 NS Phosphorus, mg/kg 70 50 65 65 105 100 70 75 80 48.9 28.0 NS Potassium, mg/kg 153 1490 1190 1325 1320 1080 1340 1225 104 226.0 7.6 * 0 5 Sulphur, mg/kg 195 150 145 160 160 160 160 180 155 30.6 8.2 † Magnesium, mg/kg 220 170 155 300 285 250 230 210 190 42.4 8.2 ** Zinc, mg/kg 40.4 23.7 31.7 36.9 30.4 31.8 38.5 31.7 34.9 7.17 9.3 * Iron, mg/kg 986 631 466 728 765 657 743 705 523 671.5 42.2 NS Manganese, mg/kg 102 102 92 96 100 92 86 93 90 18.5 8.4 NS Sodium, mg/kg 175 240 55 105 165 45 105 160 40 48.5 17.4 ** Other Relative feed value 130 95 131 144 116 146 143 122 138 12.0 4.0 ** NFC, % 27.6 22.6 33.0 33.6 27.6 35.2 33.1 29.9 34.7 5.33 7.5 ** 1 **, * and † refer to significant at 99%, 955 and 90% levels. NS refers to not significant.

8