2025 Winter Cereal Forage Variety Trial
Marilyn Dalen, Emily McGarvey, McKenna Volkman, Jessica Torrion, and Patrick Carr
Objective
The purpose of this study was totest forage yield, grain yield,and quality ofthirteen winter cereal forages.
Summary
Thirteen cereal forage entries were tested in a randomized complete block trial replicated four times for 2025. These forages were primarily wheat entries as well as rye and triticale. For detailed management information, see Table 1.
Forage yield average was 4.91 tons/A; the highest performer was Rye KWS Aviator2 at 6.92 tons/A.
Plant height ranged from 33.1 in. (Ray) to 59.3 in. (KWS Aviator). Grain protein averaged 11.9%; the highest value was Willow Creek wheat at 13.5%. The highest value for test weight was MT Cash at 65.1 lb/bu (Table 2). MTF24435 had the highest grain yield (157.8 bu/A). Willow Creek had the lowest (79.2 bu/A).
Table 1. Management Information |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Seeding date: |
10/10/2024 (284 Julian) |
Field Location: | X5 |
| Seeding rate: | 20 plants/ft2 | Harvest dates: |
Forage— 6/19/2025 (170 Julian) Grain — 8/6/2025 (218 Julian) |
| Previous crop : | Canola | Soil type: | Creston Silt Loam |
| Herbicide: |
Axial Bold Cleansweep Beyond |
Tillage: | Conventional |
| Insecticide: | N/A | Soil residual nutrient: (N, P, K lb/A): | 107.5-16-278 (Fall 2024) |
| Fungicide: | N/A | Nutrient fertilizer applied: ( N, P, K, S lb/A): | 10-50-80-10 (Fall, 2024) |
Table 2. Agronomic Data, NWARC, Kalispell, MT
|
Entries |
Crop |
Plant HT (in) |
HD Date (Julian) |
Forage Moisture (%) |
Forage Yield (tons/A) |
Crude PRO (%) |
ADF (%) |
NDF (%) |
DDM (%) |
RFV (%) |
Grain Moisture (%) |
Grain Yield (bu/A) |
Grain PRO (%) |
Grain TWT (lbs/bu) |
LOD %, if present |
Rust %, if present |
||
|
Willow Creek |
Wheat |
48.3 |
167.0 |
71.8 |
4.35 |
10.4 |
42.9 |
72.1 |
55.5 |
72.1 |
6.6 |
79.2 |
13.5* |
63.8 |
91 |
15 |
||
|
Ray |
Wheat |
33.1 |
161.5 |
72.2 |
4.31 |
12.4 |
37.1* |
65.1 |
60.0* |
85.0 |
7.2 |
140.3 |
11.3 |
63.5 |
0 |
25 |
||
|
MT Cash |
Wheat |
41.4 |
160.0 |
71.0 |
5.60 |
10.7 |
40.3 |
68.3 | 57.5 | 78.0 |
6.9 |
128.1 |
13.0 |
65.1* |
3 |
0 |
||
|
MTF22136 |
Wheat |
37.2 |
160.0 |
67.4 |
4.46 |
10.7 |
37.4 |
64.8 |
59.8 |
85.7* |
7.0 |
141.8 |
12.5 |
63.1 |
19 |
0 |
||
|
MTF23410 |
Wheat |
41.3 |
163.0 |
72.9 |
4.78 |
10.1 |
41.3 |
69.4 |
56.8 |
75.9 |
7.0 |
133.5 |
11.3 |
64.1 |
65 |
0 |
||
|
MTF24401 |
Wheat |
39.2 |
163.0 |
72.8 |
4.64 |
11.9 |
39.8 |
68.9 |
57.9 |
78.6 |
7.0 |
135.3 |
10.3 |
62.3 |
78 |
63 |
||
|
MTF24403 |
Wheat |
48.1 |
167.0 |
75.4* |
4.48 |
10.7 |
41.8 |
70.8 |
56.4 |
74.3 |
6.9 |
86.5 |
12.2 |
62.6 |
89 |
26 |
||
|
MTF24426 |
Wheat |
41.4 |
163.3 |
73.8 |
4.81 |
13.3* |
38.1 |
66.0 |
59.2 |
83.8 |
7.0 |
119.6 |
10.6 |
62.0 |
88 |
100 |
||
|
MTF24435 |
Wheat |
33.2 |
162.5 |
73.8 |
4.00 |
12.3 |
37.6 |
65.9 |
59.6 |
84.4 |
7.3* |
157.8* |
11.1 |
63.1 |
8 |
0 |
||
|
KWS Aviator2 |
Rye |
59.3* |
147.0* |
66.4 |
6.92* |
9.2 |
39.3 |
66.4 |
58.3 |
81.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
0 |
||
|
KWS Progas2 |
Rye |
53.5 |
147.0* |
65.1 |
5.25 |
10.9 |
37.9 |
64.6* |
59.4 |
85.2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
0 |
||
|
FX1001 |
Triticale |
50.0 |
160.0 |
70.3 |
5.31 |
11.9 |
39.8 |
70.0 |
58.0 |
76.4 |
6.3 |
102.7 |
13.0 |
60.3 |
79 |
0 |
||
|
Mean |
|
43.8 |
160.0 |
71.1 |
4.91 |
11.2 |
39.4 |
67.7 |
58.2 |
80.1 |
6.9 |
122.5 |
11.9 |
63.0 |
|
|
||
|
CV% |
|
5.9 |
0.9 |
1.4 |
14.3 |
12.1 |
3.9 |
2.8 |
2.1 |
5.1 |
3.2 |
8.6 |
4.9 |
1.0 |
|
|
||
|
LSD (0.05)1 |
|
3.7 |
2.0 |
1.4 |
1.01 |
1.9 |
2.2 |
2.7 |
1.7 |
5.8 |
0.32 |
15.4 |
0.84 |
0.88 |
|
|
||
|
P-value |
|
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
|
||
HT- Height; HD- Heading; PRO- Protein; ADF – Acid Detergent Fiber; NDF – Neutral Detergent Fiber; DDM- Digestible Dry Matter; RFV – Relative Feed Value; TWT- Test weight; LOD- Lodging
Bold* = top performer within a column; Bold = equivalent to top performer within a column
1 Fisher's protected LSD not significant when P-Value > 0.05
2 Grain not harvested for these lines at the request of industry supplier
Acknowledgements
We thank farm operations staff J. Penney and A. Goodman, without whom this research
could
not be successful. We also acknowledge J. Cain, A. Mathison, and E. Schreifels for
their
assistance with field operations, data collection, and sample processing.