Increased Teff Seeding Rates in the Northeast Region of the United States Increases Forage Yield

Hall, M. H.; Cherney, J. H.

doi:10.1094/fg-2010-0802-01-br

Cited by 3 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither irrigation (2.75 and 2.60 tons/acre for the full and limited irrigation treatments, respectively, P > 0.78) nor nitrogen treatment had any effect on total DM yield (2.52, 2.66, and 2.85 tons/acre for Single60, Single90, and Split20 nitrogen treatments, respectively, P > 0.44) and there were no interactions. Teff dry matter yields measured in this study were similar to or slightly lower than those measured elsewhere on a per‐harvest basis (7,8,9).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

“…In 2008, 5 lb uncoated seed/acre were planted. These seeding rates are consistent to those used elsewhere to maximize teff forage yield (7,18). Additional fertilizer (100 lb P 2 O 5 and 90 lb K 2 0/acre) was applied pre‐planting and incorporated in 2007, based on soil test recommendations.…”

Section: Comparing Teff Performance By Irrigation and N Treatmentsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Teff yields in South Dakota were similar to German millet ( Setaria italica L.), but anywhere from one‐half to one‐sixth that of sorghum‐sudangrass without irrigation (20). In the northeastern USA under rainfed conditions, highest teff yields were similar to sorghum‐sudangrass, but it ranged from <1 to nearly 5 tons/acre, depending on the number of harvests (7,9), which is consistent to forage yields in Oklahoma (6). Under irrigation, teff yielded from 4 to 6 tons/acre when cut twice in the northwestern USA (16), but when teff was irrigated to supplement precipitation in the southeastern USA, yields were less than 2.13 tons/acre for a single‐cut, being 30 to 50% that of other summer annuals grown in that region (8).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…At 83 and 84 DAP in 2007 and 2008, respectively, the time from planting to the first harvest took considerably longer than the 50 to 60 days mentioned by others and yields were somewhat lower (7,9,18). This longer initial growing period also necessitated an additional irrigation between planting and harvest.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Timing of the first harvest was based on the initiation of heading by the teff, which has been identified as a preferred stage of maturity by horses (19) and had been approximately 50 to 60 days after planting (DAP) in other studies, with subsequent harvests taken at 30‐ to 35‐day intervals (7,9,18). Standing forage of each entire plot (4.67 × 20 ft) was harvested 16 August, 18 September, and 22 October 2007 and 13 August, 15 September, and 20 October 2008 using a John Deere Model 10 forage chopper, leaving 3‐inch stubble (16,18).…”

Section: Comparing Teff Performance By Irrigation and N Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Irrigation and Nitrogen Treatments Slightly Affected Teff Yield and Quality in the Southwestern USA

Lauriault

VanLeeuwen

Turner

2013

Forage & Grazinglands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest exists in using teff [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] for horse hay in the southwestern USA. Randomized complete block studies in 2007 and 2008 at New Mexico State University's Agricultural Science Center at Tucumcari compared teff forage yield and quality when all or alternate furrows were irrigated (full or limited irrigation, respectively) after the first harvest, with nitrogen treatments [60 or 90 lb N/acre preplant (Single60 and Single90, respectively) and 30 lb N/acre preplant and after the first two harvests (Split30)]. Neither irrigation nor nitrogen treatment affected yield (2.75 vs. 2.60 tons/acre for full and limited irrigation, respectively). Split30 had greater forage crude protein (P < 0.05) compared to Single60 (14.05b, 15.67ab, and 16.61a% crude protein for Single60, Single90, and Split30, respectively). Teff nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) were higher than reported elsewhere with Single60 being lower than Single90 and Split30 (17.65b, 19.56a, and 18.82a% for Single60, Single90, and Split30, respectively). Teff yield and quality may be optimized with a preplant application of 90 lb N/acre and approximately half the irrigation typically applied to alfalfa in the southwestern USA. Due to inconsistencies among studies, teff NFC should be analyzed before feeding to obese horses or those with metabolic disorders.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Comparing Teff Performance By Irrigation and N Treatmentsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Comparing Teff Performance By Irrigation and N Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Irrigation and Nitrogen Treatments Slightly Affected Teff Yield and Quality in the Southwestern USA

Lauriault

VanLeeuwen

Turner

2013

Forage & Grazinglands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Teff grass increases summer forage availability in the Rolling Plains of Texas

Kimura,

Ramirez

2024

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teff [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] grass has gained popularity in the United States as an emergency summer forage for livestock due to its drought tolerance and rapid growth habit. An alternative forage would benefit Texas Rolling Plains growers due to the summer forage shortage caused by drought conditions. However, among the teff research conducted in the United States, there is great variability in the forage yields and nutritive values depending on the amount of nitrogen and available water. The objective of the study was to evaluate forage productivity and nutritive value of teff in the Texas Rolling Plains under irrigated and dryland conditions with two nitrogen rates and application timings. Nitrogen fertilizer treatments included single applications of either 50 or 100 lb a−1 applied at planting and a split application of either 50 or 100 lb a−1 applied both at planting and after the first harvest. No differences were observed among nitrogen rates and application methods in the irrigated trial (5286 lb a−1). The split application of 100 lb a−1 produced the greatest total yield in the dryland trial (3096 lb a−1) with no yield advantage of 100 lb N a−1 over 50 lb N a−1 at the first cutting. Forage nutritive values were similar to the warm‐season forage species utilized in the region. This study showed that teff can be an alternative forage species in the region. Future research will include planting dates, nitrogen application timing, cutting height, and the interaction of these factors on yield and nutritive values of teff.

show abstract

Evaluating warm‐season annual forages to fill summer forage gaps in short‐season climates

Billman¹,

Souza

Smith

et al. 2022

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annual warm‐season forages have been used to fill productivity and nutritional gaps during summer months throughout the southeastern United States. However, their performance and nutritive value in cooler, short‐season temperate climates above 40 °N has been less well studied. This study evaluated the forage mass and nutritive value of four warm‐season annual forages {brown midrib [BMR] sudangrass [Sorghum bicolor ssp. Drummondii (L.) Moench], buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench), Japanese millet [Echniochloa esculenta (A. Braun) H. Scholz], and teff [Eragrostis tef (Zuccagni) Trotter]} compared with a cool‐season small grain forage, oat (Avena sativa L.), and a cool‐season annual forage legume, chickling vetch (Lathyrus sativus L.). Monocultures of the six annual forage species, along with a mixture of all six species, were evaluated over 2 years in southeastern New Hampshire. Forage mass and nutritive value were assessed at weekly intervals over 3 weeks in July–August, approximately 4‐to‐5 weeks post‐germination. Across all three harvests, buckwheat, Japanese millet, and the summer mix produced greater forage mass than oat, while chickling vetch and teff produced the least. Conversely, chickling vetch had greater crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber compared with oat, while buckwheat had the lowest CP, in vitro true dry matter digestibility, and in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility of all the species assessed. Japanese millet produced greater forage mass while providing similar nutritive value as oat, making it a good alternative warm‐season annual forage for use under cool, short growing seasons.

show abstract

Increased Teff Seeding Rates in the Northeast Region of the United States Increases Forage Yield

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Irrigation and Nitrogen Treatments Slightly Affected Teff Yield and Quality in the Southwestern USA

Irrigation and Nitrogen Treatments Slightly Affected Teff Yield and Quality in the Southwestern USA

Teff grass increases summer forage availability in the Rolling Plains of Texas

Evaluating warm‐season annual forages to fill summer forage gaps in short‐season climates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About