NPARA Projects

Search projects

|

AAC Brandon wheat yields were observed under the influence of different R.A. West Int. proprietary amendments including humic acid.

As per being a demo with only one replicate, there is not enough data to bring forth a statistically proven conclusion.  Looking at the results of each respective plot, Calpak Foliar treatment yielded highest at 35 bushels per acre and exhibited the lowest test weight at 42 lb/bu. The test weights of all other treated plots ranged from 61-64 lb/bu. Protein content ranged from 10.6% to 14.5%, with Humik Blend 2 representing the former, and Humik Blend 1, the latter.

|

Six of the eight intercrops were shown to yield more as an intercrop than as monocrops sown separately across an equivalent area of land. These mixes included faba bean and wheat, barley and peas, oats and peas, oats and crimson clover, wheat and red clover, and barley and red lentils. As seen from the yield graph below, peas did not emerge in this year’s intercrop trial, nor did canola due to excess moisture. The C.V. value corresponding with the yield analysis is 60.3, thus results should not be considered reliable.

|

This year’s faba bean trial consisted of seven varieties. Unlike peas, this pulse crop was relatively resilient to the high moisture environment that defined the 2020 growing season.

Though production ranged from 40 bu/acre to a high of nearly 64 bu/acre, the analysis could not define a significant difference between the output yields (P=0.05). The lack of statistical confidence in this experiment is due to a high C.V. value of 20.5, which indicates there was a large amount of variability in the experiment.

|

Differences in yield were not significant among the green pea varieties. All ranged between 6-10 bu/acre (P=0.09). The green peas did not fair well this season, nor did the yellow peas due to the stressful weather. On a “normal” year, green pea and yellow pea yields at NPARA range 30-40 bu/acre. The coefficient of variation coinciding with the yield analysis was 17.4, thus the results do not indicate a variety’s true yield potential.

|

Eight cover crop blends were subject to a nutritive analysis.  There were significant differences in many of the nutritive indicators measured including dry matter (P=0.002), crude protein (P=0.001), TDN (P=0.02), and phosphorus content (P=0.03). ADF (P=0.18) and calcium (P=0.06) were statistically similar between treatments. NPARA Blend #6 produced 2.6 tonnes/acre of dry matter, the highest of any treatment. NPARA blends #4 and #1 had the highest level of crude protein at 33.4% and 31.5%, respectively. NPARA Blend #1, 75.1%, and Pinpoint Blend, 74.7%, exhibited the highest TDN. C.V. values were high for all except ADF and TDN.

|

The annual forage trials are performed every year to report yield and forage quality of several varieties at each trial type (alternative, oat varieties, and mixes such as spring and cereal and pulse and cereal). This is a project performed with sister associations such as Battle River Research Group (BRRG), Chinook Applied Research Association (CARA), Gateway Research Organization (GRO), Lakeland Agricultural Research Association (LARA), Mackenzie Agricultural Research Association (MARA), Peace Country Beef and Forage Association (PCBFA), and West Central Forage Association (WCFA).

|

Feed Barley

CDC Austenson and Claymore displayed the highest of yields, ranging 24-26 bu/acre. These were particularly high when compared to the four least yielding varieties: Gadsby, Amisk, Trochu, and CDC Carter (P=0.001). CDC Carter had the highest test weight among the treatments at 52.5 lbs/bu, while Amisk had lowest at just over 40 lbs/bu (P=0.003). The C.V. in the yield analysis was 24.6, thus the results may not be a proper indicator of true varietal yielding potential. Such lack of confidence was likely due to 2020’s adverse growing conditions.

Malt Barley

Yield ranged from 19-31 bushels per acre; test weight ranged from 44-60 lbs per bushel. CDC Fraser and CDC Kindersley yields of 30.5 bu/acre and 29 bu/acre, respectively, exceeded that of the other varieties (P=0.003). For test weight, CDC Clear and CDC Ascent produced significantly higher values than the subsequent 8 varieties (P<0.0001). As with feed barley, a high C.V. value in the yield analysis indicates high levels of variability in the experiment. Thus, yield results can not be considered reliable.

|

Canada Western Hard Red Spring (CWRS) Wheat

All varieties falling between SY Torach and AAC Connery produced similar yields, 11-16 bu/acre (P=0.03); Likewise, test weights were not significantly different among varieties aside from the lowest values exhibited in AAC Connery and Ellerslie (P=0.04). Ranging 13-13.2%, CS Jake, CDC Landmark, and Parata displayed the highest protein contents (P<0.0001). The yield analysis C.V. was 18.1, thus yield results can not be considered reliable.

Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) Wheat

AAC Foray VB alongside CS Accelerate produced the highest yields (P=0.01). No variety produced significantly different test weight values from another (P=0.07). In 2020, mean yield ranged from 25 to 40 bushels per acre, whereas last year’s NPARA yields spanned 50 to 80 bushels per acre. Test weight values ranged from 60-65 lbs/bushel. AAC Penhold and SY Rowyn had the highest protein content, at 12.94% and 12.70%, respectively, whereas AAC Foray VB had the lowest at 10.94% (P=0.02). Often, yield and protein content have an inverse relationship, AAC Foray displays this principle here as expected.

|

Feed Barley

Number of plants per square foot was greater in AC Maverick, and KWS Kellie varieties in contrast to AB Advantage, CDC Cowboy and Canmore varieties (P=0.0197). Percentage of moisture content was lower in AB Advantage, Amisk and AB Cattlelac feed barley varieties; higher moisture content was found in CDC Maverick, Esma, KWS Coralie, CDC Austenson and CDC Cowboy varieties (P=0.0014).

Test weight was highest in CDC Austenson, CDC Maverick, Esma, Gadsby and Canmore varieties whereas Amisk and AB Advantage possessed the lowest (P=0.0011). Varieties that produced the greatest yield were CDC Austenson and AB Advantage, whereas Amisk and Canmore were the least yielding (P=0.0167).

Overall, CDC Austenson is the highest yielding variety with the heaviest test weight despite having a low number of plants per square foot compared to other varieties. The variety Amisk, on the other hand, was low yielding and test weight, moisture content and emergence were less than other varieties.

Malt Barley

Similar to feed barley, emergence varied across treatments (P=0.0130). As such, CDC Copeland had a greater number of plants per square foot compared to CDC Anderson. Moisture content was higher in CDC Bow and smaller in CDC Anderson and AAC Connect (P≤0.001).

Malt barley varieties such as CDC Anderson and AAC Connect had lower test weights compared to the higher test weights found in CDC Bow (P=0.0007). There was no difference in yield among malt barley varieties (P=0.2048).

In summary, CDC Bow exhibited a heavier test weight and higher moisture content with comparable emergence to CDC Cropland. These two varieties showed values above those obtained from the CDC Anderson variety. CDC Anderson overall was lower yielding, and showed lower values of test weight, moisture content and number of plants per square foot.

|

The annual forage trials are performed every year to report yield and forage quality of several varieties in each trial type (alternative, oat, barley, triticale and wheat varieties as well as mixes such as spring and cereal and pulse and cereal). This is a project performed with sister associations such as Battle River Research Group (BRRG), Chinook Applied Research Association (CARA), Gateway Research Organization (GRO), Lakeland Agricultural Research Association (LARA), Mackenzie Applied Research Association (MARA), Peace Country Beef and Forage Association (PCBFA), and West Central Forage Association (WCFA).

|

In the previous year (2020), cover crops were also seeded, but C and N contents obtained through decomposition were not sufficient to show significant differences across cover crop blends. The impact of cover crop seeding on nitrogen and carbon content can take several years for differences to be observed. Furthermore, the use of cover crops for soil quality improvement is a process that requires steady and uninterrupted contributions.