Evaluation of Teff (Eragrostis Tef Zucc. Trotter) as an Annual Forage Crop in Michigan
Stephanie Peck, Richard Leep, and Timothy Dietz
Michigan State University
Introduction
Michigan usually experiences a summer slump in both pasture and hay crops in July and August due to lack of moisture and high temperatures. Most cool season grass and legume crops do not perform well in these conditions. This creates a summer forage deficit problem for many livestock producers. Teff is a warm-season, annual grass that is native to Ethiopia. It has high dry matter yields and good forage quality. It can be used as either a pasture grass or a hay crop. Initial research has shown Teff could potentially be a good summer annual crop because it has been advertised to have the following qualities: • Rapid seed germination • Fast seedling development • Dry weather tolerance • Good yields • Fast drying time To test these qualities of Teff, we will be comparing Teff with other warm season forage crops; Siberian millet (SM), Golden German millet (GGM), Hybrid Pearl millet (HPM), and Sudangrass (BMRS) to determine comparative dry matter yield, growth patterns, and forage quality. If Teff is found to be well adapted to the region, it will provide a good alternative to other warm season annual forages.
Methods & Materials
Teff will be evaluated and compared with Golden German Millet, Hybrid Pearl Millet, Siberian millet, and Brown midrib Sudangrass in a split plot design at the Lake City Experiment Station and in East Lansing at Michigan State University. There will be four different planting dates in determining optimal planting date for teff to be grown in Michigan. •June 1st •June 15th •July 1st •July 15th Harvest timing, dry matter yields and samples for forage quality will be collected during the growing season. Nitrogen (ammonium sulfate) will be applied when seeded at 50lbs N/acre (Hunter, 2007). Forage quality will be analyzed in the laboratory by means of wet chemistry and Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) analysis.
Results and Discussion
Teff yields were lower than HPM, GGM and BMRS in both East Lansing and Lake City combined with all the cuts taken (Figures 1 and 2). Teff had three cuts in East Lansing whereas HPM, GGM, and BMRS only had two cuts and SM had one cut (Table 2). In Lake City, the first planting date was not as successful because of a heavy rain washing away the seed. The last planting data also did not get established in Lake City due to being behind in the establishment dates due to weather. Lake City had three total planting dates (Table 1) and East Lansing had four planting dates (Table 2). Comparing the different cuts with the yields to the crude protein content we used a weighted average. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the weighted yield crude protein in Lake City and East Lansing in the different planting dates amongst species.
Conclusions
Teff was significantly lower yielding than BMRS, GGM, and HPM (Figures 1 and 2) yet had significantly higher protein content in East Lansing but not Lake City. The highest teff yield was from the June 12th planting date in Lake City and June 16th planting date in East Lansing. The June 24th date in East Lansing and the June 30th date in Lake City produced the greatest total yield for all the species.
Table 1. Lake City , Michigan (Missaukee Co.) harvest dates in 2008.
1st planting block cut 1 cut 2 5-Aug 15-Aug 9-Oct 15-Aug 9-Oct 15-Aug 9-Oct 15-Aug 9-Oct 2nd planting block cut 1 cut 2 15-Aug 26-Aug 18-Sep 26-Aug 9-Oct 26-Aug 9-Oct 26-Aug 9-Oct 3rd planting block cut 1 26-Aug 18-Sep 18-Sep 18-Sep 18-Sep
SM Teff HPM GGM BMRS
Objectives:
•Evaluate teff for dry matter production compared to other annual warm season forages. •Determine optimal planting and harvest dates in Michigan. •Determine forage quality of teff.
The dry matter and yields were harvested by using a rotary flail harvester (Carter Mfg) with a subsample obtained for DM determination and forage quality analysis.
Table 2. East Lansing Michigan (Ingham Co.) harvest dates in 2008.
1st planting block cut 2 27-Aug 22-Sep 21-Sep 22-Sep 2nd planting block cut 2 cut3 10-Oct 3-Sep 10-Oct 10-Oct 10-Oct 10-Oct 3rd planting block cut 1 cut 2 11-Aug 10-Oct 27-Aug 10-Oct 27-Aug 10-Oct 27-Aug 10-Oct 27-Aug 10-Oct 4th planting block cut 1 27-Aug 22-Sep 22-Sep 22-Sep 22-Sep
SM Teff HPM GGM BMRS
cut 1 17-July 17-July 29-July 29-July 29-July
cut 3 10-Oct 10-Oct 10-Oct 10-Oct 10-Oct
cut 1 1-Aug 1-Aug 11-Aug 11-Aug 11-Aug
Literature Cited
C D D
SM
HPM
BMRS
Teff
GGM
A
B
Hunter, Mike, Pete Barney, Tom Kilcer, Jerry Cherney, Joe Lawrence and Quirine Ketterings. 2007. Teff as Emergency Forage. Agronomy Fact Sheet Series. Fact Sheet 24. Cornell University Cooperative Extension. http://nmsp.css.cornell.edu/publications/factsheets/factsheet24.pdf
Figure 3. The weighted crude protein based upon yield for Lake City. LSD (0.05). Figure 1. Lake City, Michigan yield means. Means followed by a different letters are different by LSD (0.05). Standard Error is 0.1852.
All data was tested for normality and unequal variances by using PROC UNIVARIATE and the analysis of variances on all data was preformed by using PROC MIXED and the Fisher’s LSD (0.05) in SAS v9.1
A
B
C
C
D
Special thanks and Acknowledgements
Figure 4. The weighted crude protein based upon yield for East Lansing. LSD (0.05)
Figure 2. East Lansing, Michigan yield means. Means followed by a different letters are different by LSD (0.05). Standard Error is 0.18906.
Lake City Experiment Station and CCS farm for all the help they have provided. Timothy Dietz- Technician and Elysia Berry- Graduate student Richard Leep- Major Professor Rood Trust Fund