2025 Intrastate Spring Cereal Forage Variety Trial
Marilyn Dalen, Emily McGarvey, McKenna Volkman, Jessica Torrion, and Patrick Carr
Objective
The purpose of this study is to test forage yield, and quality of twelve spring cereal forages.
Summary
Twelve cereal forage entries (eight barley, three oats, and one triticale) were tested in a randomized complete block trial replicated four times (for detailed management information, see Table 1).
Forage quality is presented in Table 2. Forage yield ranged from 5.9 t/A (MT20_F099_05) to 8.0 t/A (Oats, Haymaker, and MT20_F109_08). Haymaker, SD Titan and Goliath averaged the highest forage yields values, however they were not statistically different from each other. MT20_F099_05 had the lowest forage yield value (Figure 1).
Plant height ranged from 36 in. (MT Double Barrel) to 58 in. (SD Momentum) (Figure 2). Lodging was only observed for the barley entries where Lavina had the lowest percentage, and the rest were greater than 50% (Figure 3).
Table 1. Management Information |
|||
|
Seeding date: |
4/28/2025 (118 Julian) |
Field Location: |
R9 |
|
Seeding rate: |
20 plants/ft2 |
Harvest date: |
Forage harvest 7/28/25 (209 Julian) |
|
Previous crop: |
Fallow (2023 Canola) |
Soil type: |
Flathead Fine Sandy Loam |
|
Herbicide: |
Cleansweep |
Tillage: |
Conventional |
|
Soil residual nutrient (N, P, K, S lb/A): |
142.5-18-448-68 (Fall 2024) |
||
|
Insecticide: |
N/A |
||
|
Nutrient fertilizer applied (N, P, K, S lb/A): |
100-35-10-5 (Spring 2025) |
||
|
Fungicide: |
N/A |
||
Table 2. Agronomic Performance, NWARC, Kalispell, MT |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cultivar |
Crop |
PLNT HT (in) |
HD Date (Julian) |
LOD (%) |
Forage MC (%) |
Forage YLD (tons/ac) |
Crude PRO (%) |
ADF (%) |
NDF (%) |
DDM (%) |
RFV (%) |
|
Lavina |
Barley |
38.6 |
180.8 |
26.3 |
31.9 |
6.3 |
11.6 |
41.0 |
68.7 |
56.9 |
77.3 |
|
Haymaker |
Barley |
36.5 |
181.5 |
78.8 |
32.8 |
8.7 |
11.0 |
41.8 |
68.8 |
56.3 |
77.5 |
|
MT Cowgirl |
Barley |
38.4 |
180.0 |
66.3 |
31.4 |
6.4 |
11.2 |
41.4 |
68.9 |
56.7 |
78.0 |
|
MT Double Barrel |
Barley |
36.9 |
184.8 |
55.0 |
32.1 |
7.8 |
11.9 |
39.6 |
65.7* |
58.1 |
82.2* |
|
MT20_F099_05 |
Barley |
38.1 |
180.0 |
83.8 |
33.7 |
5.9 |
10.8 |
41.4 |
67.7 |
56.7 |
76.9 |
|
MT20_F108_13 |
Barley |
37.8 |
188.0 |
62.5 |
30.9 |
7.2 |
11.9* |
40.9 |
68.0 |
57.1 |
77.5 |
|
MT20_F109_08 |
Barley |
38.1 |
180.5 |
81.3 |
31.4 |
8.0 |
10.9 |
42.0 |
70.2 |
56.2 |
74.0 |
|
MT20_F109_22 |
Barley |
37.4 |
180.5 |
80.0 |
36.8* |
7.9 |
11.4 |
39.8 |
66.1 |
57.9 |
79.8 |
|
SD Titan |
Oat |
52.4 |
180.0* |
0.0* |
25.3 |
8.8 |
7.2 |
43.6 |
69.9 |
54.9 |
73.8 |
|
SD Momentum |
Oat |
58.4* |
182.8 |
0.0* |
24.0 |
8.0 |
5.8 |
49.4 |
75.4 |
50.4 |
62.4 |
|
Goliath |
Oat |
53.8 |
182.0 |
0.0* |
25.1 |
8.7 |
8.7 |
42.9 |
69.9 |
55.5 |
74.6 |
|
Tyndal |
Triticale |
48.9 |
180.5 |
0.0* |
29.2 |
7.3 |
10.4 |
39.2* |
67.3 |
58.4* |
81.5 |
|
Mean |
|
42.9 |
181.8 |
44.5 |
30.4 |
7.6 |
10.2 |
41.9 |
68.9 |
56.2 |
76.3 |
|
CV% |
|
4.6 |
0.5 |
42.4 |
7.2 |
18.5 |
8.0 |
3.9 |
3.4 |
2.2 |
5.4 |
|
LSD (0.05)1 |
|
2.8 |
1.3 |
27.1 |
3.2 |
NS |
1.2 |
2.3 |
3.4 |
1.8 |
6.0 |
|
P-value |
|
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.07 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
PLT HT: Plant Height; HD: Heading; LOD: Lodging; MC: Moisture Content; YLD: Yield; PRO: Protein; ADF: Acid Detergent Fiber; NDF: Neutral Detergent Fiber; DDM: Digestible Dry Matter; RFV: Relative Feed Value
Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column
1Fisher's protected LSD not significant when P-Value > 0.05

Figure 1 A & B. Forage yield and plant height by entry with barley, oat, and triticale color-coated from left to right respectively. The same letter assignment denotes an insignificant difference at α =0.05.

Figure 2. Plant lodging by entry with barley. The same letter assignment denotes an insignificant difference at α =0.05.
Acknowledgements
We thank farm operations staff J. Penney and A. Goodman, without whom this research couldnot be successful. We also acknowledge J. Cain, A. Mathison, and E. Schreifels for theirassistance with field operations, data collection, and sample processing.
