Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Cooperative Extension Riverside County
Agriculture & Natural Resources
290 N. Broadway, Blythe, CA 92225-1649 Telephone (760) 921-5064; Fax (760) 921-5059
email: [email protected]
S e r v i n g R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R e s i d e n t s S i n c e 1 9 1 7
University of California, County of Riverside and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating
In this October issue of the Postings from the Palo Verde
I cover several topics.
• Ditch-bank Weed Management Using Select Herbicides - Vonny Barlow, Entomology Advisor, UCCE Riverside County, Marco Pena, Research Specialist, University of Arizona, Barry Tickes, Extension Agent, University of Arizona
• Effect of Selected Insecticides for Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci and Lepidoptera Management on Leafy Greens - Vonny Barlow, Entomology Advisor, UCCE Riverside County
• What to look for in an alfalfa variety – Conventional and Roundup Ready - Dan
Putnam, Forage Specialist, UC Davis-Plant Sciences, Craig Giannini, Staff Research Associate, UC Davis-Plant Sciences, Chris DeBen, Staff Research Associate, UC Davis-Plant Sciences, Steve Orloff, UCCE Siskiyou County
Regards:
Vonny M. Barlow, Ph.D.
S e r v i n g R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R e s i d e n t s S i n c e 1 9 1 7
University of California, County of Riverside and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating
Ditch-bank Weed Management Using Select Herbicides
Vonny Barlow, Entomology Advisor, UCCE Riverside County
Marco Pena, Research Specialist, University of Arizona Barry Tickes, Extension Agent, University of Arizona
Introduction
Irrigation canals are an integral part of irrigating fields across the Palo Verde Valley.
Maintenance of irrigation canals not only includes physical maintenance but controlling invasive
weeds in and around irrigation canals. Maintaining a balance in the canals while sustaining crop
success and minimizing maintenance costs can be a challenge. For example, over the long-term, the
inefficiency of a clogged irrigation canal can result in diminished water delivery by reducing the
cross-sectional area of the channel reducing the velocity of water flow. As
a result, vegetation in waterways and alongside irrigation canals may
dramatically increase maintenance compared to clean ditches that allow
free-flow of water.
Local infestations of Telegraph weed, Heterotheca grandiflora
(Sunflower: Asteraceae) was determined to be difficult to manage with
standard applications of glyphosate herbicide along ditch banks.
Telegraph weed is a tall, erect annual to short-lived perennial growing to 6' high with several stout,
hairy stems simple below and branching above. The inflorescence is thickly glandular-pubescent
with alternate leaves, villous-sticky, ovate to oblanceolate, and somewhat serrate-margined. The
lower leaves have petioles and ear-like basal lobes which clasp the stem, and the leaves become less
hairy and more glandular higher on the stem, and the upper leaves are sessile. Telegraph weed
S e r v i n g R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R e s i d e n t s S i n c e 1 9 1 7
University of California, County of Riverside and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating
grows in many plant habitats and communities in sandy soils, disturbed areas and dry coastal
valleys in chaparral, sage scrub and oak woodland, below 3000', and blooming throughout most of
the year.
Materials & Methods
Research plots were established on 8/26/2011 for evaluation of
select herbicides (+ nonionic surfactant (NIS) applied at 0.25 % v/v) for
management of Telegraph weed; Glyphosate + AMS + NIS, Habitat
(imazapyr) + NIS, Milestone (aminopyralid) + NIS, Scythe (pelargonic
acid), and Triclopyr + NIS against un-treated controls. Experimental plots
were established into a ditch bank with a resident infestation of Telegraph
weed. Treatments in each of the weed plots were randomly assigned and
blocked by replication (RCBD) with 3 replications used. Individual treatment plots consisted of 15
ft. x 6 ft. (≈0.002A). Treatments were applied with a CO2 pressurized back-pack sprayer as a 6’
wide band directly over the clusters of Telegraph weed with a back-pack
sprayer fitted with TeeJet 8002 flat fan nozzles delivering 20 gal.
H2O/A/treatment. Plots were visually inspected to determine effectiveness
of herbicides on Sept. 15.
Results & Discussion
Understanding how different herbicides work helps when assessing
herbicide performance. It is important to remember that the rate at which
plants die after the application of herbicide depends on the product and rate applied as well as the
weather conditions following application. Some examples are; paraquat/diquat which shows initial
S e r v i n g R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R e s i d e n t s S i n c e 1 9 1 7
University of California, County of Riverside and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating
effects within hours in bright sunlight, sulfonylureas are slower acting and it may be up to 6 weeks
after application before final assessments of their effectiveness can be made.
The products tested here included several modes of actions for comparison; Contact
herbicide – Scythe, Protein synthesis inhibitor – Glyphosate, Auxinic growth regulator – Habitat,
Triclopyr. All products tested demonstrated initial suppression of growth but failed to maintain
effective suppression over the long term and never exceeded the commercially acceptable level of
control of 70% (Table 1). Reasons for failure of control using the select herbicides tested here are
unknown. A related weed, Mare's tail (Horseweed), Conyza canadensis (Sunflower: Asteraceae)
has a similar sticky glandular-pubescent surface and has also proven a challenge to effectively
manage along ditch banks. Understanding the physical properties of a plant and its influence on
herbicide performance remains an area that needs further study. Additional work evaluating
herbicides for effective management of ditch bank weeds like Telegraph weed needs to be
continued.
Table 1. Evaluation of select herbicides for management of Heterotheca grandiflora, telegraph weed. Visual estimates of percent (%) control or reduction in plant regrowth. Replication
1 2 3 Mean Product Glyphosate 40 30 20 30.0 Habitat 40 40 20 33.3 Milestone 15 40 20 20.3 Scythe 45 40 20 35.0 Triclopyr 40 30 40 36.7 Untreated 0 0 0 0
Effect of Selected Insecticides for Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci and Lepidoptera Management on Leafy Greens
Vonny Barlow
University of California, Agricultural and Natural Resources Blythe, CA
Abstract
The projects completed this past summer sought to evaluate the efficacy of DuPont Coragen® as a 2” band over the top at planting, Bayer CropScience Movento®, Dow AgroSciences Radiant® SC, Bayer CropScience Synapse® WG, and DuPont Avaunt® insecticides against the industry standard use of DuPont Coragen® for the management of the top pests of Southern California lettuce(s); the silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii Bellows & Perring (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and a Lepidoptera complex of armyworms, cabbage loopers and imported cabbageworms (Lepidoptera). Evaluation of Coragen® used as an environmental low risk application via soil application during planting makes it ideal as part of an IPM system for managing insects like the silverleaf whitefly in damage sensitive crops like leafy greens. The lack of differences in treatments and the untreated controls reflects the impact that “light” insect pressure has during the transition from the hottest part of the year to the coolest in the Palo Verde Valley. Adult silverleaf whiteflies populations seemed to plateau between 11/10- 11/18 and were found only in low numbers across all treatments including the un-treated control. Realistically it is difficult to state that the treatments were unsuccessful since pest pressure was relatively light for evaluation of select insecticide formulations. The objective:
Assess the efficacy of insecticide use for whitefly and Lepidoptera management on leafy green lettuce, assess the compatibility of Coragen® as a protectant when incorporated 2” at planting and/or as a 2” band application at planting . Evaluation of Coragen® as a environmental low risk application via soil application during planting makes it ideal as part of an IPM system for managing insects like the silverleaf whitelfy in damage sensitive crops like leafy greens.
Materials & Methods
Research plots were established on University of California controlled land for evaluation of select insecticides for management of silverleaf whitefly (Coragen®, Movento®) and lepidoptera larvae (Avaunt®, Synapse®, Radiant®) (Fig. 1) against un-treated controls. Experimental plots were established into direct seeded double row beds of separately planted head (Iceberg) lettuce cv. ‘Experimental 1221’ and early green (leaf) Romain cv. ‘Del Sol’. Raised beds were 3.33 ft (40”) on center and 300 ft. long with individual treatment rows bordered by untreated rows to minimize spray interactions between treatments (Fig. 2). Treatments in each of the lettuce varieties used were randomly assigned and blocked by replication (RCBD) with 4 replications used. Individual treatment plots consisted of 13.1 ft. x 3.33 ft. (≈0.0010A). Coragen treatments were either applied as a 2 in. “banded” treatment over the top of the seed line or as a sub-surface soil injection (SSI). The SSI Coragen treatment was tractor-applied prior to planting with a total H2O volume of 1 gal./300 ft. of raised bed with a 1 min. 18 sec. application time/row. The surface banded (SB) treatment was applied as a 2 in. wide band directly over the seed line immediately after seed placement with a back-pack sprayer
fitted with a cone nozzle delivering 0.032 gal. H2O/52.4 ft./lettuce variety. Foliar applications were made with a CO2 pressurized back-pack sprayer using a 3-nozzel hand-held spray boom fitted with TXVS-8 ConeJet nozzles. Foliar applications were made ≈7 d for a total of 8 applications on Oct. 18, 25, Nov. 2, 8, 15, 24, 29, Dec. 6. End of season damage assessments to determine treatment efficacy was made on Dec. 21. All marketable lettuce heads were harvested in each of the 13.1 ft. plots and processed separately. Lettuce heads were sampled destructively to detect larval tunnels and live worms. Data was transformed (log + 0.5) prior to analyzing using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a means separation test (P<0.05). Results & Discussion
Whitefly pressure was high in adjacent fields prior to the start of these lettuce efficacy trials and then dropped with the onset of cooler temperatures. Cooler effectively suppressed whitefly populations for the duration of these experiments (Figs. 3 & 4). Whitefly populations remained low and never exceeded an un-treated control mean of (± SD) of 0.28 ± 0.06 whiteflies. As a result, treatment yields were relatively unaffected in the green (leaf) Romain cv. ‘Del Sol’ trials with marketable yields not significantly different (P = 0.062) among treatments including the un-treated controls (Fig. 3). End-of-season yield and weight assessments showed no significant difference similarly among treatments (P = 0.25 and P = 0.15 respectively) (Fig. 5). Lepidoptera counts essentially equaled “0.0” over the course of the season but lepidopteron damaged green leaf heads were detected at the end-of-season assessments (Fig. 6). Yields and weights of lepidopteron damaged green leaf heads were not found significantly different among treatments including the un-treated controls (P = 0.50 and P = 0.58 respectively) (Fig.6). Plots of head (Iceberg) lettuce cv. ‘1221’ had fewer whiteflies with the un-treated control mean of 0.08 ± 0.02 when compared to plots of green (leaf) Romain cv. ‘Del Sol’ (Fig. 4). Whitefly counts over the course of the growing season were not significantly different among treatments and the un-treated controls (P = 0.95) (Table 1). This is reflected similarly in the lack of significant differences in marketable yields and weights among the treatments and the un-treated controls (P = 0.25 and P = 0.15) (Fig. 7). Yields and weights of lepidopteron damaged head (Iceberg) heads were not found significantly different among treatments including the un-treated controls (P = 0.50 and P = 0.56 respectively) (Fig.6). Plant tissue analysis was done to determine potential treatment effects on nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) content. However, the laboratory compiled the samples based on treatment and the ability to analyze the data variation among replications in treatment was lost. I have attached the analysis reports as an appendix to this document to be used as ancillary data.
Summary
The lack of differences in treatments and the untreated controls reflects the impact that “light” insect pressure has during the transition from the hottest part of the year to the coolest in the Palo Verde Valley. Adult silverleaf whiteflies populations seemed to plateau between 11/10- 11/18 and were found only in low numbers across all treatments including the un-treated control. Realistically it is difficult to state that the treatments were unsuccessful since pest pressure was relatively light for evaluation of select insecticide formulations.
Fig. 1. Aerial map of 6th Ave. University of California research plot.
Fig. 2. Plot maps of treated lettuce plots compared to un-treated controls with plot size of 39.3 ft3 (13.1 linear feet x 3 ft./on center) in 2010.
Fig. 3. Mean cumulative weekly whitefly counts on treated Romain lettuce plots compared to un-treated control in 2010
Fig 4. Mean cumulative weekly whitefly counts on treated Iceberg lettuce plots compared to un-treated control in 2010
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Mea
n no
. whi
tefly
adu
lts/l
eaf
Sample date
Fall lettuce whitefly chemical efficacy trial on green ('Del Sol') Romain lettuce in the Palo Verde valley
Untreated Coragen (5 fl. Oz/A) Coragen – 2” band over the top (5 fl. Oz./A) Movento (5 fl. Oz./A)Radiant SC (5 fl. Oz./A)Synapse (3 Oz./A)Avaunt (3.5 fl. Oz./A )
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Mea
n no
. whi
tefly
adu
lts/l
eaf
Sample date
Fall lettuce whitefly chemical efficacy trial on head ('1221') lettuce in the Palo Verde valley
Untreated Coragen (5 fl. Oz/A) Coragen – 2” band over the top (5 fl. Oz./A) Movento (5 fl. Oz./A)Radiant SC (5 fl. Oz./A)Synapse (3 Oz./A)
Fig. 5. End-of-season head lettuce yield data showing treatment yields and weights (Kg) evaluated in the Palo Verde Valley
Fig. 6. End-of-season head lettuce yield data showing lepidopteron damaged heads and weights (Kg) by treatment evaluated in the Palo Verde Valley
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Treatments
Fall Head (cv. '1221') Lettuce End-of-season Lepidoptera Damage Yield and Weights for
Individual Treatments CountWeight (Kg)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Treatments
Fall Head (cv. '1221') Lettuce Eend-of-season Yield and Weights for Individual Treatments
CountWeight (Kg)
a
a
a a
a
a
a
a
a a a a
a a
a
a a a
a a a
a a a
a
a a
a
Fig. 7. End of season early lettuce yield data showing treatment yields and weights (Kg) evaluated in the Palo Verde Valley
Fig. 8. End-of-season early lettuce yield data showing lepidopteron damaged heads and weights (Kg) by treatment evaluated in the Palo Verde Valley
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Treatments
Early (cv. 'Del Sol') Lettuce End-of-season Yield and Weights for Individual Treatments
CountWeight (Kg)
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Treatments
Early (cv. 'Del Sol') Lettuce End-of-season Lepidoptera Damage Yield and Weights for
Individual Treatments CountWeight (Kg)
a a
a
a a
a
a
a a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Table 1. Whitefly insect counts, lettuce(s) yield, weights, lepidopteron damaged lettuce yields and weights. Blythe CA 2010.
Mean whitefly counts ± SE Mean yields (counts) and weights (Kg) ± SE
Cultivar n # Whitefly n # Total yield Total weight # Lepidoptera
damaged Lepidoptera
Damaged weight
Del Sol
1 – Untreated control 320 0.29 ± 0.06a 4 25.25 ± 2.06a 6.38 ± 1.21a 2.75 ± 2.14a 0.58 ± 0.41a 2 – Coragen (5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.25 ± 0.05a 4 22.00 ± 2.38a 4.33 ± 0.82a 4.75 ± 0.75a 1.08 ± 0.30a 3 – Coragen – 2” (5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.26 ± 0.04a 4 22.00 ± 2.86a 4.81 ± 0.58a 3.50 ± 2.18a 0.69 ± 0.42a 4 – Movento (5 fl. Oz./a) 320 0.11 ± 0.02a 4 20.50 ± 3.38a 4.56 ± 1.13a 3.75 ± 2.50a 0.76 ± 0.49a 5 – Radiant SC (5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.22 ± 0.03a 4 23.50 ± 2.84a 6.01 ± 0.93a 2.00 ± 1.35a 0.60 ± 0.47a 6 – Synapse (3 Oz./A) 320 0.21 ± 0.03a 4 28.25 ± 2.29a 7.54 ± 1.08a 0.25 ± 0.25a 0.04 ± 0.04a 7 – Avaunt (3.5 fl. Oz./A) 310 0.25 ± 0.04a 4 27.75 ± 1.25a 7.10 ± 0.72a 1.25 ± 0.63a 0.33 ± 0.17a
Experimental 1221
1 – Untreated control 320 0.08 ± 0.02a 4 25.25 ± 2.01a 6.38 ± 1.21a 2.75 ± 2.14a 0.58 ± 0.41a 2 – Coragen (5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.09 ± 0.02a 4 22.00 ± 2.38a 4.33 ± 0.82a 4.75 ± 0.75a 1.08 ± 0.30a 3 – Coragen – 2” (5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.10 ± 0.02a 4 22.00 ± 2.86a 4.81 ± 0.58a 3.50 ± 2.18a 0.69 ± 0.42a 4 – Movento (5 fl. Oz./a) 320 0.10 ± 0.02a 4 20.50 ± 3.38a 4.56 ± 1.13a 3.75 ± 2.50a 0.76 ± 0.49a 5 – Radiant SC (5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.07 ± 0.02a 4 23.50 ± 2.84a 6.01 ± 0.93a 2.00 ± 1.35a 0.60 ± 0.47a 6 – Synapse (3 Oz./A) 320 0.10 ± 0.02a 4 28.25 ± 2.29a 7.54 ± 1.08a 0.25 ± 0.25a 0.04 ± 0.04a 7 – Avaunt (3.5 fl. Oz./A) 320 0.11 ± 0.03a 4 27.75 ± 1.25a 7.10 ± 0.72a 1.25 ± 0.63a 0.33 ± 0.17a
Appendix
Pictures of early (cv. ‘Del sol’) lettuce in experimental plots just prior to field evaluation harvest
Pictures of head (cv. ‘1221’) lettuce in experimental plots just prior to field evaluation harvest Special Acknowledgments to Compton Ag Services and Wilbur Ellis for providing material support, Mr. Joseph VanDyke for material and physical support. Additional material and financial support came from DuPont and Bayer Crop Science, This work was partially funded by the California Leafy Greens Research Board.
1
UC Davis Alfalfa/Forage Field Day May 11, 2011 WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN AN ALFALFA VARIETY
– Conventional and Roundup Ready Dan Putnam, Craig Giannini, Chris DeBen, Steve Orloff
See: http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu for current variety information
Although there has been much talk about Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) varieties, the principles for choosing a RR variety are not that much different than choosing a conventional variety. The same things count: yield, pest resistance, persistence, forage quality, and price. In the case of RRA, there are weed control and marketing considerations in addition to these factors. The choice of a variety can make a large long-term difference in profitability. Spending a few minutes to carefully consider choice of variety may be beneficial, since 1) cultivars can have a large impact upon yield and quality, 2) Varieties can help cope with diseases or insects, and 3) Growers are ‘stuck’ with their choice for many years. UC Variety Testing Program The University of California provides an independent source of variety information that can be used to judge performance of alfalfa varieties. We have plots from Tulelake and Scott Valley (Intermountain), to Davis and Kearney, and West Side Field Station (Central Valley), Lancaster and El Centro (Desert). It takes less than 1 tenths of 1 ton to justify even a $2 increase in the price of seed, and some varieties can produce yield advantages 10 times this amount. Choosing alfalfa varieties carefully only takes a short time and is worth it! Yields are important, but are not the only criteria for variety selection. Take a look at the fall dormancy, the disease resistance, and the quality characteristics, too, as well as biotech traits. Research is continually underway to improve the performance of alfalfa varieties.
ALMOST LIKE GETTING MARRIED!! You’ll have to live with your decision for a long time-so take a
little time to investigate the potential performance of your alfalfa varieties.
2
Step 1) YIELD - Choose group
of high yielding certified varieties in the proper Fall Dormancy Rating from relevant trials. TABLE 6. 2009-2010 YIELDS. UC DAVIS ALFALFA CULTIVAR TRIAL. TRIAL PLANTED 9/25/08
% ofCUF 101
FD %Released VarietiesHybriForce 620 6 13.0 2) ( 10.5 1) ( 11.7 1) ( A 128.2Magna 801 FQ 8 13.1 1) ( 9.8 13) ( 11.4 2) ( A B 125.0PGI 709 7 12.5 5) ( 10.1 8) ( 11.3 4) ( A B C 123.4WL 530HQ 8 12.7 3) ( 9.8 15) ( 11.2 5) ( A B C D 122.9HybriForce 800 8 12.4 7) ( 10.0 9) ( 11.2 6) ( A B C D E 122.658R51 RR 8 12.1 16) ( 10.3 3) ( 11.2 8) ( A B C D E 122.5Conquistador 8 12.1 19) ( 10.2 4) ( 11.1 9) ( A B C D E F 121.7Integra 8800 8 12.0 20) ( 10.2 5) ( 11.1 10) ( A B C D E F 121.2Arriba II 7 12.3 9) ( 9.4 22) ( 10.9 13) ( A B C D E F G H I 118.556S82 6 12.3 11) ( 9.3 25) ( 10.8 15) ( B C D E F G H I 117.6Pacifico 9 12.1 18) ( 9.3 23) ( 10.7 17) ( B C D E F G H I J 117.0GrandSlam 8 11.3 26) ( 10.1 6) ( 10.7 19) ( B C D E F G H I J 116.7HybriForce 700 7 11.1 31) ( 10.1 7) ( 10.6 20) ( B C D E F G H I J 115.8Magna 788 7 11.4 22) ( 9.7 18) ( 10.6 22) ( B C D E F G H I J 115.48R100 8 12.3 10) ( 8.8 38) ( 10.6 24) ( B C D E F G H I J 115.3Integra 8600 6 11.2 29) ( 9.8 14) ( 10.5 25) ( C D E F G H I J K 114.9PGI 608 6 12.2 13) ( 8.9 37) ( 10.5 26) ( C D E F G H I J K 114.7Tango 6 11.4 23) ( 9.5 19) ( 10.5 27) ( C D E F G H I J K 114.3Archer III 5 11.6 21) ( 9.0 32) ( 10.3 29) ( E F G H I J K L 112.8Artesian Sunrise 7 11.3 27) ( 9.3 24) ( 10.3 30) ( F G H I J K L 112.5Magna 995 9 11.3 24) ( 9.3 27) ( 10.3 31) ( F G H I J K L 112.3Sutter 6 10.9 35) ( 9.2 28) ( 10.1 34) ( I J K L M N 110.0Integra 8801R 8 11.0 33) ( 9.0 34) ( 10.0 35) ( I J K L M N O 109.4Dura 843 8 10.8 36) ( 8.9 35) ( 9.8 36) ( J K L M N O P 107.4Cisco 6 10.4 37) ( 8.9 36) ( 9.6 37) ( K L M N O P Q 105.3TruTest 6 10.1 41) ( 9.0 31) ( 9.5 38) ( L M N O P Q 104.3Lightning IV 4 10.3 38) ( 8.7 40) ( 9.5 39) ( L M N O P Q 103.9DKA 50-18 5 10.3 39) ( 8.4 42) ( 9.3 40) ( M N O P Q R 102.1WL 440HQ 5 9.7 43) ( 8.7 41) ( 9.2 41) ( N O P Q R 100.5Cuf 101 9 9.5 44) ( 8.8 39) ( 9.2 42) ( O P Q R 100.04R200 4 10.2 40) ( 8.0 43) ( 9.1 43) ( P Q R 99.4Integra 8401R 4 9.8 42) ( 7.8 45) ( 8.8 44) ( Q R 96.46R100 6 9.2 45) ( 7.9 44) ( 8.6 45) ( R 93.4
Experimental VarietiesDS 067348 8 12.7 4) ( 10.0 10) ( 11.3 3) ( A B C 123.7SW 9812 9 12.5 6) ( 9.9 11) ( 11.2 7) ( A B C D E 122.5FG 83T048 8 12.4 8) ( 9.8 16) ( 11.1 11) ( A B C D E F G 121.1SW 9813 9 12.2 12) ( 9.8 17) ( 11.0 12) ( A B C D E F G H 120.0DS 071842 6 12.1 17) ( 9.5 20) ( 10.8 14) ( B C D E F G H I 117.7DS 077601 8 12.2 14) ( 9.3 26) ( 10.7 16) ( B C D E F G H I J 117.0DS 067092 8 11.0 34) ( 10.4 2) ( 10.7 18) ( B C D E F G H I J 116.9SW 9803 9 12.1 15) ( 9.0 33) ( 10.6 21) ( B C D E F G H I J 115.4CW 38065 8 11.2 30) ( 9.9 12) ( 10.6 23) ( B C D E F G H I J 115.4SW 9816 9 11.3 25) ( 9.4 21) ( 10.4 28) ( D E F G H I J K L 113.2CW 26089 6 11.3 28) ( 9.1 30) ( 10.2 32) ( G H I J K L M 111.3CW 27092 7 11.1 32) ( 9.1 29) ( 10.1 33) ( H I J K L M N 110.3
MEANCVLSD (0.1)
Trial seeded at 25 lb/acre viable seed on Yolo clay loam soil at the Univ. of California Agronomy Farm, Davis, CA.Entries follow ed by the same letter are not signif icantly different at the 10% probability level according to Fishers (protected) LSFD = Fall Dormancy reported by seed companies.
2009 2010Yield Yield Average
1.24 0.91 0.91
Dry t/a
11.47 9.38 10.429.1 8.1 7.3
3
TABLE 3. 2006-2008 Yields, UC Davis Alfalfa Cultivar Trial (Trial planted Sept. 28, 2005)% of
CUF101FD %
Released VarietiesWildcard 8 12.8 1) ( 13.8 2) ( 9.0 6) ( 11.9 1) ( A 106.8Magna 788 8 12.2 11) ( 14.0 1) ( 9.4 2) ( 11.8 2) ( A B 106.6Saltana(SW9332) 9 12.4 4) ( 13.5 4) ( 8.8 10) ( 11.6 4) ( A B C 104.1WL535HQ 8 11.7 27) ( 13.5 3) ( 9.4 1) ( 11.5 5) ( A B C D 103.8WL530HQ 8 12.2 12) ( 13.1 10) ( 8.7 12) ( 11.3 11) ( A B C D E F G 101.9Conquistador 8 12.5 3) ( 13.0 11) ( 8.4 25) ( 11.3 12) ( A B C D E F G 101.9Yosemite 8 12.2 10) ( 13.2 9) ( 8.4 24) ( 11.3 14) ( A B C D E F G H 101.5Artisian Sunrise 7 12.3 6) ( 12.7 18) ( 8.6 18) ( 11.2 16) ( A B C D E F G H I 100.6CUF101 9 11.8 24) ( 12.9 15) ( 8.6 16) ( 11.1 18) ( A B C D E F G H I J 100.0HybriForce-620 6 12.2 9) ( 12.6 20) ( 8.4 23) ( 11.1 19) ( A B C D E F G H I J 99.956S82 6 12.0 17) ( 12.5 22) ( 8.5 19) ( 11.0 22) ( C D E F G H I J K 99.0DKA84-10RR 8.4 12.0 18) ( 12.7 17) ( 8.0 34) ( 10.9 24) ( C D E F G H I J K L 98.357Q75 7 11.8 25) ( 12.4 23) ( 8.3 29) ( 10.8 25) ( C D E F G H I J K L M 97.3Dura 843 8 11.8 26) ( 12.1 28) ( 8.3 28) ( 10.7 27) ( E F G H I J K L M N O 96.4DKA50-18 5 11.2 33) ( 11.6 36) ( 8.5 21) ( 10.4 31) ( I J K L M N O P Q 93.9Ow yhee 6 11.2 34) ( 11.7 34) ( 8.3 26) ( 10.4 32) ( I J K L M N O P Q R 93.7Mountaineer 2.0 5 11.2 35) ( 11.7 35) ( 8.3 31) ( 10.4 34) ( J K L M N O P Q R S 93.2Sutter 7 11.2 32) ( 11.5 38) ( 7.6 40) ( 10.1 36) ( L M N O P Q R S T 91.2DKA41-18RR 4.1 10.7 37) ( 11.8 31) ( 7.9 35) ( 10.1 37) ( M N O P Q R S T 90.9WL357HQ 5 10.5 40) ( 11.5 39) ( 7.8 37) ( 9.9 38) ( N O P Q R S T 89.4Lahanton 5 10.6 39) ( 11.6 37) ( 7.5 43) ( 9.9 39) ( O P Q R S T 89.3DKA42-15 4 10.4 43) ( 10.9 40) ( 7.9 36) ( 9.7 41) ( Q R S T 87.6Dura 512 5 10.5 42) ( 10.9 41) ( 7.4 44) ( 9.6 42) ( R S T 86.5DKA33-16 3 10.5 41) ( 10.7 43) ( 7.6 41) ( 9.6 43) ( S T 86.2CW95026 5 10.3 44) ( 10.5 44) ( 7.6 42) ( 9.5 44) ( T 85.1DKA34-17RR 3.4 10.1 45) ( 10.4 45) ( 7.8 38) ( 9.4 45) ( T 84.9
Experimental VarietiesDS588-Hyb 8 12.6 2) ( 13.0 13) ( 9.2 3) ( 11.6 3) ( A B C 104.5DS583-Hyb 8 12.1 15) ( 13.4 7) ( 9.0 7) ( 11.5 6) ( A B C D E 103.5DS589-Hyb+Optimize 8 12.3 7) ( 13.4 5) ( 8.8 9) ( 11.5 7) ( A B C D E 103.4DS566-Hyb 6 12.2 13) ( 13.0 12) ( 9.0 5) ( 11.4 8) ( A B C D E F 102.6DS584-Hyb 8 12.1 16) ( 12.9 14) ( 9.1 4) ( 11.4 9) ( A B C D E F 102.3SW9434 9 12.0 19) ( 13.2 8) ( 8.7 11) ( 11.3 10) ( A B C D E F 102.0CW36077 6 12.4 5) ( 12.6 21) ( 9.0 8) ( 11.3 13) ( A B C D E F G 101.8DS566-Hyb+Optimize 6 12.3 8) ( 12.7 19) ( 8.6 15) ( 11.2 15) ( A B C D E F G H I 100.8DS589-Hyb 8 12.0 20) ( 13.4 6) ( 8.1 33) ( 11.1 17) ( A B C D E F G H I J 100.2SW6330 6 12.2 14) ( 12.3 26) ( 8.6 17) ( 11.1 20) ( B C D E F G H I J K 99.4CW17075+Optimize 7 11.9 22) ( 12.7 16) ( 8.5 20) ( 11.0 21) ( B C D E F G H I J K 99.3DS587-Hyb 8 11.9 21) ( 12.3 25) ( 8.7 14) ( 11.0 23) ( C D E F G H I J K 98.8CW17075 7 11.5 28) ( 12.0 30) ( 8.7 13) ( 10.7 26) ( D E F G H I J K L M N 96.6CW25006 5 11.4 30) ( 12.1 27) ( 8.5 22) ( 10.7 28) ( F G H I J K L M N O P 95.8SW5310 5 11.5 29) ( 11.8 32) ( 8.3 30) ( 10.5 29) ( G H I J K L M N O P Q 94.6SW5407 5 11.4 31) ( 12.4 24) ( 7.8 39) ( 10.5 30) ( H I J K L M N O P Q 94.4CW94008+Optimize 4 10.9 36) ( 12.1 29) ( 8.3 27) ( 10.4 33) ( I J K L M N O P Q R 93.7CW25034 5 11.9 23) ( 11.8 33) ( 7.2 45) ( 10.3 35) ( K L M N O P Q R S 92.5CW94008 4 10.6 38) ( 10.8 42) ( 8.2 32) ( 9.9 40) ( P Q R S T 88.7
MEANCVLSD (0.1)
Trial seeded at 25 lb/acre viable seedon Yolo clay loam soil at the Univ. of California Agronomy Farm, Davis, CA.Entries follow ed by the same letter are not signif icantly different at the 10% probability level according to Fisher's (protected) LSD.FD = Fall Dormancy reported by seed companies.
Yield2007Yield
Dry t/a
11.64 12.33 8.38 10.78
2008Yield Average
2006
0.58 1.41 NS 0.814.2 9.6 11.1 6.3
4
Step 2) FALL DORMANCY & PEST RESISTANCE - Make sure you have the right Fall Dormancy Level and a high level of Pest Resistance Fall Dormancy should be in the range adapted to your area. Varietal Pest Resistance is often the only
way to combat specific diseases or insect pests.
Recommendations Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley: Fall Dormancy: 4-8 Rating Spotted Alfalfa Aphid (SAA): R Pea Aphid (PA) HR Blue Alfalfa Aphid (BAA): HR Pythopthora Root Rot (PRR). HR Bacterial Wilt (BW): MR Fusarium Wilt (FW): HR Stem Nematode: HR Root Not Nematode: HR Verticilium Wilt (VW) R Choose the best package for your region, remember: 1. Resistance is not absolute (% of plants in a population) 2. Even highly resistant varieties can be overwhelmed by a severe pest infestation. 3. Pest Resistance is often the only
4. Think of Pest Resistance as you do auto insurance—not important every year, but can be very important
economic measure against some pest problems.
Resistance Abbreviations Percent resistance 1 HR Highly Resistant >51% R Resistant 31-50% MR Moderately Resistant 15-30% LR Low Resistant 6-14% S Susceptible <5%
5
Step 3) CONSIDER BIOTECH TRAITS – Is Roundup-Ready alfalfa right for you? The key Items to consider:
• YOUR CURRENT WEED PRESSURE & CONTROL STRATEGY SUCCESS—You are buying a technology, not just a seed. If you have had considerable problems controlling weeds in your current system, RRA may be something to consider as an option. If you have had good success with current methods, then it may be primarily a question of relative cost vs. benefits. A Roundup system has the advantages of broad spectrum control, flexibility of application, and lack of crop injury. However, Roundup does not have residual weed management effects. RRA has proved to be a useful tool, but it is not a panacea and it’s not for every situation.
• COST—The roundup ready alfalfa technology costs more for the seed, but glyphosate generally cost less to apply than other herbicides, depending upon how much it’s used and what it’s compared with. Sharpen your pencils, and carefully compare current costs of your herbicide program with a glyphosate program + the cost of the seed. Be sure to include rotation of herbicides during the life of the stand for controlling weed shifts or weed resistance to glyphosate.
• SEEDING RATES AND COSTS –Although the RRA seed is more expensive, it has been shown that reduction in seeding rates are highly feasible with alfalfa, producing the same results as high seeding rates. A recent national study across many states has shown lowering seeding rates across a wide range of environments does not reduce yields. There is no reason to apply 30-40 lbs of seed per acre, when 15-20 lbs/acre are highly sufficient with most seeding methods. More importantly: improve soil preparation methods, seed placement (depth), and seed distribution methods.
• YIELD LEVELS—Roundup Ready Alfalfa was developed as an improved weed control method using biotechnology-it was not intended to increase the intrinsic yield potential of the varieties. In our trials RRA varieties have generally yielded in the same range of existing improved varieties within their Fall Dormancy range. There may be some yield advantages of RRA vs. conventional weed control methods due to lack of crop injury for the RRA system which provides (in our trials) some yield advantage during the first year of production due to lack of crop injury.
• ROUNDUP-RESISTANT WEEDS—As with the frequent use of any herbicide, it is important to prevent resistance from developing in a weed population. This has been seen with continual application of Roundup in orchards or with other Roundup-Resistant crops (corn, cotton, soybean). It also occurs with other herbicides, and is not unique to RR crops. With RRA, it’s important to start off with an IPM approach, using cultural methods, tank mixes and other strategies to reduce weed resistance to glyphosate.
• DO YOUR MARKETS ACCEPT RRA? Some markets, particularly export and organic reject RRA. Although this has been a minority of buyers, it’s important to make sure your customers are comfortable with accepting a GMO alfalfa crop.
• COEXISTENCE –If you have neighbors who are growing for ‘sensitive markets, it’s important to discuss with them to make sure that the RRA does not contaminate their crop. Since RRA is the first GMO in alfalfa, it’s important that it does not negatively affect growers who are producing for organic or other sensitive markets.
6
SEE http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu for Variety and Roundup Ready Alfalfa Information.
How do RR Varieties Match up? One of the first questions is whether the performance of RR varieties matches that of conventional varieties with regards to yield, pest resistance, stand persistence, and quality. Since yield and pest resistance and other characteristics are so important to profitability, is generally true that growers should not be willing to sacrifice significant performance in favor of the RR trait. There have been rumors that RR lines exceed yields of conventional lines, and rumors that RR lines have yielded less than conventional lines. The performance of the lines themselves must be separated somehow from the performance linked with the weed control method. The data from UC trials has shown that, in general, RR varieties exhibit many of the performance characteristics similar to traditional varieties. That is: we have not noted unusual growth patterns, plant morphology characteristics or yield characteristics of these varieties to date. The yields of these varieties perform quite similarly to those lines of a similar FD rating, although individual lines may exceed expectations, or fall short. Further testing and on-farm experiences should be helpful in sorting out the variety performance issues with specific RR lines over time. Growers should be aware that with RR varieties, a small proportion of the seed (typically less than 5%) will remain susceptible to glyphosate due to the polyploidy nature of inheritance in alfalfa. This should not normally be a problem if glyphosate is used during stand establishment.
Seeding Rate Conv. RR DifferenceRequired Savings or
increased Valuelb/a seed $/a $/a $/a $/A/year
15 52.5 97.5 45 1520 70 130 60 2025 87.5 162.5 75 2530 105 195 90 3035 122.5 227.5 105 35
Table 1. Seeding rate effects on alfalfa Roundup-Ready seed costs (e.g.$6.50/lb) compared with conventional seed ($3.50/lb). To justify the seed costs, growers must obtain added value or cost savings of the amount shown in the right column
Seed Costs
Note: Seed costs only, does not include other stand establishment costs. Required savings assumes a 3-year stand life. Note that the technology fee does not have to be paid twice in the case of stand failure
7
Kearney Ag. Center 2005-2007 Yields
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
WL6
25HQ
Dese
rtSun
8.1
0RR
CW04
8065
Mag
na99
5In
tegr
a 89
00W
L525
HQ
CW80
158
N57
Mec
caIII
CW04
8069
Crop
lan84
3X5
9N59
FG10
1T40
7DS
385
SW94
34M
agna
788
AA20
2WAD
F01-
701
CG9
SW93
32RR
ALF8
R100
Y58N
88DS
382
WL5
35HQ
DS38
1RR
04BD
-474
DS39
9Pa
cifico
Gran
dSlam
YOSE
MIT
EPe
rshin
gIn
tegr
a 88
01R
RR04
BD-4
35W
L660
RRFG
91M
401
Amer
iSta
nd 8
55TR
RAm
eriS
tand
815
TRR
Alfa
graz
e 60
0RR
DS38
4AA
203W
57Q7
5Im
palo
Arte
sianS
unris
eCo
nquis
tidor
WL7
11DS
383
CUF1
0159
N49
AA20
1WDK
180M
LAm
erile
af 7
21AA
200W
56S8
2Tr
ansit
ion 6
.10R
R
AVE.
YIE
LD (t
/a) P
ER Y
EAR
YIELD OF RR AND CONVENTIONAL VARIETIES-Davis (04-05)
WL325HQ
SutterRR03BD127
PARADERRALF6R100
RR03B189WL525HQ
RR03B115RR03B182
DKA84-10RRCUF101WL550RRRR03BD164 RR03BD176
RR03BD194 RR03BD196REVOLUTION (RR)SW7410
TANGOMagna801FQ
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Fall Dormancy
2 Y
ear
Ave
. Yie
ld (t
/a)
LSD (P<0.05)
8
VarietyGenetic Background
Herbicide Applied 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
5-Year Average
5-Year Sum Total % of Vernal
R54BD14 GT Roundup 4.46 10.60 8.49 7.80 8.52 7.98 39.88 111.9Legendairy Conv. Conventional 4.40 10.75 8.83 7.59 8.26 7.97 39.83 111.7Expedition Conv. Conventional 4.26 10.29 8.51 7.89 8.32 7.86 39.27 110.2R54BD17 GT Roundup 4.41 10.60 8.56 7.24 8.39 7.84 39.20 110.0Rebound Conv. Conventional 4.50 10.24 8.61 7.44 7.91 7.74 38.69 108.5RR405 GT Roundup 4.22 10.28 8.24 7.41 8.48 7.73 38.64 108.4R44BD13 GT Roundup 4.31 10.22 8.61 7.32 8.04 7.70 38.50 108.0R54BD17 GT Conventional 3.94 10.25 8.28 7.72 8.25 7.69 38.43 107.8DKA43-22RR GT Roundup 4.52 10.21 8.36 6.99 8.32 7.68 38.39 107.7RR405 GT Conventional 3.92 10.02 8.23 7.73 8.17 7.61 38.06 106.8WL 357HQ Conv. Conventional 4.13 9.96 8.72 7.52 7.74 7.61 38.06 106.8Boulder Conv. Conventional 4.65 10.03 8.07 7.12 8.00 7.58 37.88 106.2Hybriforce 400 Conv. Conventional 5.26 9.77 7.79 6.75 8.32 7.58 37.89 106.3Ameristand 405T RR GT Conventional 4.21 9.85 7.88 8.06 7.89 7.58 37.88 106.3R54BD14 GT Conventional 4.18 9.82 8.44 7.71 7.69 7.57 37.82 106.1Innovator +Z Conv. Conventional 4.47 10.00 8.13 6.82 8.39 7.56 37.82 106.1R43M625 GT Roundup 4.37 10.12 8.49 6.97 7.86 7.56 37.80 106.0Masterpiece Conv. Conventional 4.82 9.99 7.90 7.05 7.94 7.54 37.69 105.7Ameristand 405T RR GT Roundup 4.33 9.39 8.10 7.48 8.39 7.54 37.69 105.7R44BD06 GT Conventional 3.89 9.91 8.41 7.35 8.12 7.54 37.67 105.7WL355RR GT Roundup 4.65 9.76 8.22 7.08 7.96 7.53 37.68 105.7Mountaineer Conv. Conventional 4.39 10.23 7.97 7.33 7.65 7.51 37.57 105.4R44BD06 GT Roundup 4.26 9.94 8.24 7.03 8.05 7.51 37.52 105.3R44BD09 GT Roundup 4.37 9.98 8.07 7.07 7.97 7.50 37.47 105.154R01 GT Conventional 4.18 10.04 8.13 7.58 7.55 7.49 37.47 105.1Dura 512 Conv. Conventional 4.71 10.15 7.95 6.90 7.74 7.49 37.44 105.0RRALPH 6R100 GT Roundup 4.66 9.50 7.98 7.29 8.02 7.49 37.45 105.0R43M625 GT Conventional 4.29 9.88 8.15 7.54 7.56 7.49 37.41 104.9DKA43-22RR GT Conventional 3.93 9.96 8.14 7.45 7.78 7.45 37.25 104.5WL355RR GT Conventional 4.10 9.84 8.31 7.14 7.84 7.45 37.24 104.554R01 GT Roundup 4.52 9.86 8.00 7.09 7.79 7.45 37.25 104.5RRALPH 6R100 GT Conventional 4.35 9.14 8.34 7.64 7.75 7.44 37.21 104.4R44BD13 GT Conventional 4.03 9.20 8.26 7.74 7.90 7.43 37.13 104.254V54 Conv. Conventional 4.46 9.63 7.90 6.88 7.89 7.35 36.74 103.1R44BD09 GT Conventional 3.84 9.21 8.19 7.52 7.44 7.24 36.19 101.5Ameristand 403T Conv. Conventional 4.53 9.07 7.98 6.57 7.89 7.21 36.04 101.1Vernal Conv. Conventional 4.54 9.20 7.38 6.51 8.01 7.13 35.65 100.0
Mean 4.35 9.92 8.21 7.31 7.99 7.56 37.77LSD (P<0.05) 0.35 0.90 0.48 0.61 0.51 0.33 1.62CV 5.70 6.49 4.15 5.92 4.58 3.07 3.07
Table 2. Yield of Glyphosate Tolerant (GT, or Roundup-Ready) and Conventional (Conv.) varieties grown under conventional and Roundup (glyphosate) treatments at Tulelake, CA, 2005-2009.
9
Combined variety/Herbicide Strategy
VarietyHerbicide Treatment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
5-Year Average
5-Year Sum Total
Treatment tons/acre3 GT-Tolerant Roundup 4.55 9.96 8.28 7.23 8.15 7.63 A 38.16 A1 Conventional Conventional 4.59 9.87 8.2 7.15 8 7.56 A 37.81 A2 GT-Tolerant Conventional 4.04 9.47 8.18 7.6 7.77 7.41 B 37.06 B
Mean 4.39 9.77 8.22 7.33 7.98 7.54 37.68LSD 0.29 ns ns 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.72CV 16.10 12.53 4.99 6.56 5.01 4.74 4.74
Table 1. Influence of Herbicide and Variety strategy on total alfalfa yields, Tulelake, CA, 2005-2009. Each strategy is the average of 12 varieties, within each herbicide treatment. This enables comparison of whole systems (conventional vs. RR Ready), as well as the influence of herbicide alone (Conventional vs. Roundup herbicides on the same GT-tolerant lines). The RR system yielded similarly to the conventional system over 5 years. However, yields of Roundup-treated system were superior to the Conventional herbicide treatment when applied to the same GT-tolerant lines.
6.80
7.00
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00
8.20
Effect of Herbicide Treatment on GT-Tolerant Alfalfa, Tulelake, CA (Ave., 2005-2009)
Roundup
Conventional
Tons/Acre
Herbicide Treatment:
Ave. yield difference: +0.13 t/a for the Roundup treatment (range -0.04 to 0.41)
10
TABLE 8. 2008-2010 YIELDS, UC KEARNEY ALFALFA CULTIVAR TRIAL. Trial planted 09/13/2007% of
CUF 101FD %
Released VarietiesAL 999 9 13.6 8) ( 12.1 1) ( 12.8 2) ( 12.8 2) ( A B 131.1HybriForce-800 8 13.8 5) ( 12.1 2) ( 12.3 5) ( 12.7 3) ( A B C 130.0Pacifico 9 13.1 17) ( 12.1 5) ( 12.4 4) ( 12.5 5) ( A B C D 127.9WL 625HQ 9 13.8 4) ( 11.3 14) ( 12.2 8) ( 12.4 7) ( A B C D E 126.7Daytona 8 13.4 12) ( 11.2 17) ( 11.7 12) ( 12.1 9) ( A B C D E F G 123.8Tripleplay 9 13.1 15) ( 11.8 7) ( 11.3 19) ( 12.1 12) ( A B C D E F G H 123.4SP 806 8 13.5 10) ( 11.2 18) ( 11.2 20) ( 12.0 16) ( A B C D E F G H 122.3Integra 8800 8 12.1 41) ( 11.2 16) ( 11.9 9) ( 11.7 21) ( A B C D E F G H I J K 119.9Integra 8900 9 12.7 24) ( 10.9 28) ( 10.8 26) ( 11.5 24) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M 117.3Magna 995 9 12.7 25) ( 10.9 26) ( 10.8 27) ( 11.5 25) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M 117.2Pinal 9 RR 9 12.3 35) ( 10.5 34) ( 11.6 14) ( 11.5 26) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M 117.1Desert Sun 8.10RR 8 12.7 23) ( 10.6 33) ( 11.0 23) ( 11.4 27) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M 116.7Magna 801FQ 8 12.1 40) ( 11.1 21) ( 10.7 28) ( 11.3 29) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M N 115.7UC Impalo 9 12.5 32) ( 10.6 32) ( 10.2 37) ( 11.1 34) ( D E F G H I J K L M N O 113.6HybriForce-620 6 12.6 29) ( 10.4 37) ( 9.8 44) ( 11.0 36) ( D E F G H I J K L M N O P 112.1WL 535HQ 8 11.9 42) ( 11.0 23) ( 10.0 42) ( 11.0 37) ( D E F G H I J K L M N O P 112.0Grandslam 8 12.4 33) ( 10.5 36) ( 9.7 46) ( 10.9 38) ( E F G H I J K L M N O P Q 111.2Magna 801FQ+Optimize 8 11.6 44) ( 10.8 30) ( 10.2 38) ( 10.9 39) ( E F G H I J K L M N O P Q 111.2AR-21 9 11.7 43) ( 9.8 47) ( 10.5 31) ( 10.7 40) ( F G H I J K L M N O P Q 109.0AR-2 9 11.6 47) ( 9.6 50) ( 10.6 29) ( 10.6 42) ( G H I J K L M N O P Q 108.2DKA84-10 RR 8 11.5 49) ( 10.1 40) ( 10.1 41) ( 10.6 43) ( G H I J K L M N O P Q 108.1CG9 9 12.4 34) ( 9.9 44) ( 9.4 48) ( 10.5 45) ( G H I J K L M N O P Q 107.6RRALF-8R100 8 11.5 48) ( 9.4 52) ( 9.9 43) ( 10.2 48) ( J K L M N O P Q 104.7Ameristand 855 RR 8 12.1 38) ( 9.0 55) ( 9.2 51) ( 10.1 50) ( L M N O P Q 103.1Integra 8801R RR 8 10.7 56) ( 9.8 48) ( 9.7 47) ( 10.0 51) ( M N O P Q 102.6AR-9 9 11.1 52) ( 8.9 56) ( 9.8 45) ( 9.9 52) ( M N O P Q 101.1CUF101 9 11.3 50) ( 9.9 43) ( 8.1 56) ( 9.8 54) ( N O P Q 100.0Revolution RR 8 10.6 57) ( 8.8 57) ( 9.2 50) ( 9.6 55) ( O P Q 97.8Dura 843 8 10.9 53) ( 9.2 53) ( 8.4 55) ( 9.5 56) ( P Q 97.159N59 9 11.3 51) ( 9.0 54) ( 7.8 57) ( 9.4 57) ( Q 95.6
Experimental VarietiesFG-95T284 9 14.7 1) ( 12.1 3) ( 13.0 1) ( 13.3 1) ( A 135.6FG-95T284+Optimize 9 13.9 2) ( 11.3 12) ( 12.4 3) ( 12.5 4) ( A B C D 128.2SW8421 8 13.2 13) ( 12.1 4) ( 12.2 6) ( 12.5 6) ( A B C D 127.9DS736 8 13.1 16) ( 11.5 10) ( 12.2 7) ( 12.2 8) ( A B C D E F 125.19102 9 12.6 28) ( 12.0 6) ( 11.7 13) ( 12.1 10) ( A B C D E F G 123.5PGI 1007 BA 10 13.8 6) ( 11.1 20) ( 11.4 17) ( 12.1 11) ( A B C D E F G 123.5CW 39060 9 13.6 9) ( 10.9 25) ( 11.7 11) ( 12.1 13) ( A B C D E F G H 123.3R96BD105 RR 9 13.7 7) ( 11.0 22) ( 11.4 16) ( 12.0 14) ( A B C D E F G H 123.0CW 39087 9 13.5 11) ( 11.3 13) ( 11.1 21) ( 12.0 15) ( A B C D E F G H 122.3SW9332 9 13.1 18) ( 11.7 8) ( 11.1 22) ( 12.0 17) ( A B C D E F G H 122.1DS732 8 12.6 27) ( 11.2 19) ( 11.8 10) ( 11.9 18) ( A B C D E F G H I 121.3R95BD104 RR 9 13.9 3) ( 11.2 15) ( 10.5 30) ( 11.9 19) ( A B C D E F G H I 121.39101 9 12.5 31) ( 11.4 11) ( 11.5 15) ( 11.8 20) ( A B C D E F G H I J 120.3FG-85M282 8 12.9 20) ( 10.8 29) ( 11.3 18) ( 11.7 22) ( B C D E F G H I J K L 119.1DS733 9 12.5 30) ( 11.0 24) ( 11.0 25) ( 11.5 23) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M 117.3CW 19065 8 13.2 14) ( 10.6 31) ( 10.3 35) ( 11.4 28) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M N 116.1CW 36106 7 12.9 19) ( 10.9 27) ( 10.1 40) ( 11.3 30) ( B C D E F G H I J K L M N 115.5SW115 9 12.2 37) ( 10.5 35) ( 11.0 24) ( 11.2 31) ( C D E F G H I J K L M N 114.6Chema 1 9 12.7 26) ( 11.5 9) ( 9.3 49) ( 11.2 32) ( C D E F G H I J K L M N 114.1DS0571-Optimize 7 12.7 22) ( 10.3 38) ( 10.3 33) ( 11.1 33) ( D E F G H I J K L M N O 113.7FG-85M282+Optimize 8 12.8 21) ( 10.1 41) ( 10.5 32) ( 11.1 35) ( D E F G H I J K L M N O 113.5DS735 7 11.6 45) ( 10.0 42) ( 10.3 34) ( 10.7 41) ( G H I J K L M N O P Q 108.8DS0571 7 11.6 46) ( 9.8 46) ( 10.3 36) ( 10.6 44) ( G H I J K L M N O P Q 107.9R95BD106 RR 9 12.3 36) ( 10.2 39) ( 9.0 53) ( 10.5 46) ( H I J K L M N O P Q 107.2DS734 7 10.9 54) ( 9.9 45) ( 10.2 39) ( 10.3 47) ( I J K L M N O P Q 105.3PGI 801 8 12.1 39) ( 9.5 51) ( 8.8 54) ( 10.2 49) ( K L M N O P Q 103.7SW120 9 10.8 55) ( 9.6 49) ( 9.0 52) ( 9.8 53) ( N O P Q 100.2
MEANCVLSD (0.1)
Trial seeded at 25 lb/acre viable seed on on Hanford f ine sandy loam soil at the Univ. of Calif . Kearney Agricultural Center, Parlier, CA.Entries follow ed by the same letter are not signif icantly different at the 10% probability level according to Fisher's (protected) LSD.FD = Fall Dormancy reported by seed companies.
1.72 1.29 2.44 1.59
Dry t/a
12.49 10.66 10.64
2008 2009 2010Yield
11.6
YieldYield
11.26
Average
10.2 19.4 11.9
11
TABLE 9. 2007-2009 YIELDS, UCD RR and Convential Variety Trial. Trial planted 02/07/2007% of
CUF101FD %
Released VarietiesGrandSlam 8 8.7 2) ( 9.5 2) ( 9.8 4) ( 9.3 1) ( A 124.4CG9 9 8.6 3) ( 8.6 15) ( 9.9 2) ( 9.0 3) ( A B C 120.3Desert Sun 8.10RR 8 9.1 1) ( 8.6 14) ( 9.2 12) ( 8.9 4) ( A B C D 119.3Integra 8800 8 8.4 6) ( 8.9 7) ( 9.4 7) ( 8.9 5) ( A B C D 118.9DKA50-18 5 8.1 13) ( 9.1 6) ( 9.3 9) ( 8.8 7) ( A B C D E F 117.8Magna 801 FQ 8 8.2 11) ( 8.9 8) ( 9.3 8) ( 8.8 8) ( A B C D E F 117.5PGI 801 8 8.1 12) ( 8.8 9) ( 9.4 6) ( 8.8 10) ( A B C D E F 117.4SW 7410 7 8.2 8) ( 8.8 10) ( 9.1 13) ( 8.7 11) ( A B C D E F G 115.9Desert Sun 8.10RR(conv) 8 7.8 19) ( 9.4 4) ( 8.7 25) ( 8.6 12) ( A B C D E F G H 115.3DKA84-10RR 8 8.0 16) ( 8.6 13) ( 9.2 11) ( 8.6 13) ( A B C D E F G H 114.9RRALF 8R100 8.5 8.1 15) ( 9.2 5) ( 8.5 31) ( 8.6 14) ( A B C D E F G H 114.8SW 9720 9 7.3 31) ( 9.5 1) ( 8.9 17) ( 8.6 15) ( A B C D E F G H I 114.3Integra 8801RR 8 7.6 24) ( 8.7 12) ( 9.3 10) ( 8.5 16) ( A B C D E F G H I 113.6AmeriStand 855RR 8 8.1 14) ( 7.6 29) ( 9.0 15) ( 8.2 17) ( B C D E F G H I J 109.8AmeriStand 815TRR 7.5 8.3 7) ( 8.2 19) ( 8.1 33) ( 8.2 18) ( C D E F G H I J 109.5Revolution RR 8 7.6 25) ( 8.2 20) ( 8.8 18) ( 8.2 19) ( C D E F G H I J 109.4PGI 424 4 7.9 18) ( 7.6 30) ( 9.0 16) ( 8.1 20) ( C D E F G H I J K 108.7Tango 6 7.4 30) ( 8.2 17) ( 8.8 23) ( 8.1 21) ( C D E F G H I J K 108.4Dura 843 8 7.7 22) ( 8.1 22) ( 8.6 30) ( 8.1 22) ( C D E F G H I J K 108.3Revolution RR(conv) 8 8.2 10) ( 8.1 21) ( 8.0 34) ( 8.1 23) ( C D E F G H I J K 108.2WL 535HQ 8 7.2 32) ( 7.9 23) ( 8.8 24) ( 8.0 24) ( C D E F G H I J K L 106.3Integra 8401 RR 4 7.4 28) ( 7.6 31) ( 8.7 27) ( 7.9 25) ( D E F G H I J K L 105.3WL 367RR/HQ 5 7.6 23) ( 7.4 34) ( 8.6 29) ( 7.9 26) ( D E F G H I J K L 105.3DKA65-10RR 6 7.6 26) ( 8.2 18) ( 7.8 41) ( 7.9 27) ( D E F G H I J K L 104.8RRALF 4R200 4 7.0 39) ( 7.8 26) ( 8.6 28) ( 7.8 28) ( E F G H I J K L 104.3798 7 8.0 17) ( 7.5 33) ( 8.0 35) ( 7.8 29) ( F G H I J K L 104.2TruTest 6 7.7 21) ( 7.7 28) ( 7.9 38) ( 7.8 30) ( F G H I J K L M 103.7PGI 447RR(conv) 4 7.1 35) ( 7.3 35) ( 8.8 22) ( 7.7 31) ( F G H I J K L M 103.4RRALF 6R100 6 7.0 38) ( 7.2 37) ( 8.8 20) ( 7.7 32) ( G H I J K L M 102.4WL 357HQ 5 6.3 43) ( 7.9 24) ( 8.8 19) ( 7.7 33) ( G H I J K L M 102.1CW 95026 5 7.4 29) ( 7.8 27) ( 7.8 40) ( 7.6 34) ( G H I J K L M 101.9DKA41-18RR 4.1 7.8 20) ( 7.1 38) ( 8.0 37) ( 7.6 35) ( G H I J K L M 101.6WL 550RR 8 6.4 42) ( 7.5 32) ( 8.8 21) ( 7.6 36) ( H I J K L M 101.2CUF101 9 7.1 36) ( 7.2 36) ( 8.1 32) ( 7.5 37) ( I J K L M 100.0RRALF 4R200(conv) 4 7.5 27) ( 7.1 39) ( 7.9 39) ( 7.5 38) ( I J K L M 99.8Integra 8400 4 6.5 41) ( 6.8 42) ( 8.7 26) ( 7.3 40) ( J K L M 98.0RRALF 6R100(conv) 6 7.1 37) ( 7.1 40) ( 7.7 42) ( 7.3 41) ( J K L M 97.3PGI 447RR 4 6.0 44) ( 6.5 44) ( 9.0 14) ( 7.2 42) ( J K L M 95.8DKA65-10RR(conv) 6 6.9 40) ( 7.9 25) ( 6.5 45) ( 7.1 43) ( K L M 94.3GrandStand 4 7.2 33) ( 6.1 45) ( 7.3 44) ( 6.9 44) ( L M 91.9Sutter 7 5.9 45) ( 6.7 43) ( 7.5 43) ( 6.7 45) ( M 89.3
Experimental VarietiesDKA Exp 6 RR 6 8.5 4) ( 9.5 3) ( 9.9 1) ( 9.3 2) ( A B 124.2FG1 601RR 6 8.2 9) ( 8.7 11) ( 9.8 3) ( 8.9 6) ( A B C D E 118.7ADF 05-801 8 8.4 5) ( 8.5 16) ( 9.6 5) ( 8.8 9) ( A B C D E F 117.5FG1 501RR 5 7.1 34) ( 7.0 41) ( 8.0 36) ( 7.4 39) ( J K L M 98.2
MEANCVLSD (0.1)
Trial seeded at 25 lb/acre viable seed on Yolo clay loam soil at the Univ. of California Agronomy Farm, Davis, CA.Entries followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 10% probability level according to Fisher's (protected) LSD.FD = Fall Dormancy reported by seed companies.
2007Yield
2008Yield
2009Yield Average
Dry t/a
7.61 8.01 8.66 8.0915.3 17.8 12.3 11.31.38 1.70 1.27 1.09
12
TABLE 11. 2007-2009 YIELDS, UC WSREC ALFALFA CULTIVAR TRIAL. TRIAL PLANTED 10/13/06% of
CUF101FD %
Released VarietiesWL 535HQ 8 11.9 9) ( 13.0 3) ( 13.6 1) ( 12.8 1) ( A 117.5Desert Sun 8. 10RR 8 11.6 18) ( 13.3 1) ( 13.2 2) ( 12.7 2) ( A B 116.2Grandslam 8 12.1 2) ( 13.1 2) ( 12.6 4) ( 12.6 3) ( A B C 115.7Pacifico 8 12.0 6) ( 12.8 4) ( 12.7 3) ( 12.5 4) ( A B C D 114.4AL 999 9 11.7 15) ( 12.5 5) ( 12.1 7) ( 12.1 5) ( A B C D E 110.6CW 1010 10 11.8 12) ( 12.0 8) ( 12.3 5) ( 12.0 6) ( A B C D E F 110.1INTEGRA 8900 9 11.9 8) ( 12.0 7) ( 11.9 8) ( 11.9 7) ( A B C D E F 109.1WL 660RR 9 12.0 3) ( 11.8 12) ( 11.5 10) ( 11.7 8) ( A B C D E F G 107.5Dura 843 8 10.9 33) ( 11.9 9) ( 12.1 6) ( 11.6 11) ( A B C D E F G H 106.7WL 625HQ 9 12.0 4) ( 11.0 22) ( 11.6 9) ( 11.5 12) ( A B C D E F G H I 105.459N59 9 11.8 11) ( 11.8 11) ( 10.9 16) ( 11.5 13) ( A B C D E F G H I 105.3TriplePlay 9 11.8 10) ( 11.4 14) ( 11.0 12) ( 11.4 14) ( A B C D E F G H I J 104.6AmeriStand 855RR 8 11.7 14) ( 11.7 13) ( 10.8 17) ( 11.4 15) ( A B C D E F G H I J 104.5Revolution 8 11.6 16) ( 11.4 16) ( 10.4 20) ( 11.1 17) ( A B C D E F G H I J K 101.7CW 909 9 11.2 25) ( 11.2 17) ( 10.3 21) ( 10.9 18) ( B C D E F G H I J K L 100.1CUF101 9 11.5 21) ( 11.0 21) ( 10.2 23) ( 10.9 19) ( B C D E F G H I J K L 100.0Magna801FQ 8 11.3 24) ( 10.5 26) ( 10.9 14) ( 10.9 20) ( C D E F G H I J K L 99.9Impalo WF 9 11.6 19) ( 10.3 29) ( 10.4 19) ( 10.8 22) ( D E F G H I J K L 98.6CW 801 8 11.2 28) ( 11.0 20) ( 9.8 27) ( 10.7 23) ( E F G H I J K L M 97.7RRALF 8R100 8.5 11.2 27) ( 11.1 18) ( 9.5 29) ( 10.6 24) ( E F G H I J K L M 97.3798 alfalfa 7 11.6 20) ( 11.0 19) ( 9.2 34) ( 10.6 25) ( E F G H I J K L M 97.1WL 550RR 8 11.0 31) ( 10.6 23) ( 10.0 25) ( 10.5 28) ( E F G H I J K L M N 96.5DKA84-10RR 8.4 10.5 38) ( 10.3 30) ( 10.3 22) ( 10.4 29) ( E F G H I J K L M N 94.9Highline 9 11.2 26) ( 10.5 27) ( 9.3 32) ( 10.4 30) ( E F G H I J K L M N 94.8INTEGRA 8801R 8 10.9 32) ( 10.2 31) ( 9.5 30) ( 10.2 31) ( F G H I J K L M N 93.8Conquistador 8 10.6 36) ( 9.7 34) ( 9.8 26) ( 10.0 32) ( G H I J K L M N 92.0Sequoia 8 11.3 23) ( 9.4 36) ( 8.8 36) ( 9.8 34) ( I J K L M N 90.2INTEGRA 8800 8 10.7 34) ( 9.2 38) ( 9.4 31) ( 9.7 35) ( I J K L M N 89.3DKA65-10RR 6.5 10.5 39) ( 9.7 32) ( 8.8 35) ( 9.7 36) ( J K L M N 88.7Wildcard 8 10.6 35) ( 9.3 37) ( 8.3 37) ( 9.4 37) ( K L M N O 86.4AmeriStand 815TRR 7.5 11.1 30) ( 9.4 35) ( 7.8 38) ( 9.4 38) ( K L M N O 86.3RRALF 6R100 6 10.2 41) ( 9.1 39) ( 7.5 39) ( 8.9 40) ( M N O 81.9Integra 8400R 4 9.4 42) ( 7.1 42) ( 6.7 42) ( 7.7 42) ( O 70.8
Experimental VarietiesCW 39060 9 12.0 5) ( 12.1 6) ( 11.0 11) ( 11.7 9) ( A B C D E F G 107.3CW 048069 8 12.2 1) ( 11.8 10) ( 11.0 13) ( 11.7 10) ( A B C D E F G H 106.8ADF 05-801 8 11.5 22) ( 11.4 15) ( 10.9 15) ( 11.3 16) ( A B C D E F G H I J 103.3SW 8421 8 11.6 17) ( 10.6 24) ( 10.4 18) ( 10.9 21) ( C D E F G H I J K L 99.5FGI 901RR 9 11.1 29) ( 10.5 25) ( 10.0 24) ( 10.6 26) ( E F G H I J K L M 96.8TS-0002 9 12.0 7) ( 10.4 28) ( 9.3 33) ( 10.5 27) ( E F G H I J K L M N 96.6CW 048065 8 10.4 40) ( 9.7 33) ( 9.7 28) ( 9.9 33) ( H I J K L M N 90.9TS-8028 8 11.7 13) ( 8.6 41) ( 7.4 40) ( 9.2 39) ( L M N O 84.5TS-7002 7 10.6 37) ( 8.7 40) ( 7.0 41) ( 8.8 41) ( N O 80.3
MEANCVLSD (0.1)
Trial seeded at 25 lb/acre viable seed at WSREC, Five Points, CA.Entries followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 10% probability level according to Fisher's (protected) LSD.FD = Fall Dormancy reported by seed companies.
0.82 2.32 2.66 1.786.1 18.0 21.8 13.9
Dry t/a
11.32 10.82 10.24 10.79
2009Yield Average
2007Yield
2008Yield
