Malt Barley Following Sugarbeet
J. Eckhoff1 and C. Flynn1
This study was conducted under sprinkler and flood irrigation. It evaluated performance of malt barley that followed sugarbeets which had six applied N rates. Previous crops were sugarbeet in 2003, malt barley in 2002, and potatoes in 2001. In 2003, residual soil N to 4 feet was 30 lb/ac under the flood site and 56 lb/ac under the sprinkler site. Residual soil P to 6 inches was 28 ppm under the flood site and 27 ppm under the sprinkler site. Residual soil K to 6 inches was 458 ppm under the flood site and 500 ppm under the sprinkler site. Five rates of liquid 28-0-0 were applied on Oct 4, 2002. A check treatment with no applied N was included. Sugarbeets were planted to stand with the variety AC927 on Apr 28, 2003 and harvested Sep 18 (flood) and Sep 19 (sprinkler). No fertilizer was applied following sugarbeets.
Drummond barley was planted with a commercial planter on Apr 20, 2004. Barley plots in 2004 were the same as the sugarbeet plots in 2003. All plots were sprinkle irrigated on Apr 28 to insure emergence. Sprinkle irrigated plots were irrigated on May 22 and Jun 29. Flood irrigated plots were irrigated on Jun 25. Barley was harvested on Aug 19.
Table 1. Performance of sprinkler and flood irrigated malt barley that followed sugarbeets which had six rates of N.
|
sprinkler |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N available to sugarbeet crop* |
Height, cm |
Lodging |
Test wt, lb/bu |
% plump |
% regular |
grain protein |
Yield, bu/ac |
|
|
187 |
106.3 |
1.8 |
47.8 |
97.5 |
2.3 |
11.34 |
87.2 |
b |
|
166 |
104.2 |
1.5 |
47.8 |
97.3 |
2.7 |
11.32 |
85.3 |
b |
|
145 |
102.7 |
1.3 |
48.0 |
97.3 |
2.7 |
11.38 |
78.2 |
ab |
|
124 |
100.7 |
1.2 |
47.4 |
97.5 |
2.5 |
11.11 |
78.9 |
ab |
|
103 |
98.0 |
0.7 |
47.5 |
97.2 |
2.8 |
11.78 |
73.7 |
a |
|
56 |
102.5 |
0.8 |
47.1 |
97.7 |
2.3 |
10.63 |
80.1 |
ab |
|
Average |
102.4 |
1.2 |
47.6 |
97.4 |
2.6 |
11.26 |
80.6 |
|
|
Probability |
0.826 |
0.287 |
0.142 |
0.761 |
0.655 |
0.376 |
0.051 |
|
|
CV (S/MEAN) |
10.0 |
75.2 |
1.3 |
0.6 |
23.2 |
7.7 |
9.5 |
|
|
LSD (0.05) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
9.1 |
|
|
flood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N available to sugarbeet crop* |
Height, cm |
Lodging |
Test wt, lb/bu |
% plump |
% regular |
grain protein |
Yield, bu/ac |
|
|
187 |
112.5 |
2.3 |
47.4 |
96.3 |
3.7 |
10.38 |
76.3 |
b |
|
166 |
114.7 |
2.5 |
47.5 |
95.3 |
4.5 |
10.98 |
77.2 |
b |
|
145 |
112.2 |
1.7 |
47.3 |
96.3 |
3.7 |
10.61 |
75.9 |
b |
|
124 |
115.2 |
2.2 |
47.6 |
95.3 |
4.5 |
10.98 |
79.6 |
b |
|
103 |
112.0 |
1.5 |
47.3 |
95.7 |
4.2 |
10.19 |
72.8 |
ab |
|
30 |
107.5 |
1.2 |
47.2 |
96.0 |
4.0 |
11.04 |
63.8 |
a |
|
Average |
112.3 |
1.9 |
47.4 |
95.8 |
4.1 |
10.69 |
74.3 |
|
|
Probability |
0.059 |
0.237 |
0.745 |
0.315 |
0.398 |
0.352 |
0.014 |
|
|
CV (S/MEAN) |
3.8 |
56.5 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
21.7 |
7.6 |
10.0 |
|
|
LSD (0.05) |
5.1 |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
8.9 |
|
* residual soil N to 4 feet + applied N for sugarbeet crop produced in 2003
1Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center, Sidney, MT
|
|