Results
The barley laid down for 1-3 days after rolling except for the final rolling at the first node stage where the crop laid down for longer. The images below show this for the fourth leaf stage, where two days after the crop was still laying down.
|
|
Image 2 (right) and 3 (left): June 2nd 4 leaf 2 tiller stage and June 4th, respectively.
|
- There was more leaf disease in the first node rolling timing plots, which was statistically significant, but it did not have any effect on plant growth in anyway (Fig. 1).
- No significant difference in plant counts, which indicates rolling shortly after seeding does not impact emergence.
- No negative effects when rolling at the first leaf, indicating that rolling any time after seeding into the first leaf does not cause damage.
- Rolling at the first node stage (trt 7) had statistically significant lower height (average 10 cm), increased incidence of disease, decreased protein content, and lower TKW (Thousand Kernel Weight) (Fig. 2).
|
|
Image 4: Plot 107 ≥ first node timing, difficult to see in the picture but there was a visual stunting of this treatment in all four reps.
The arrow is pointing at plot 205 which was also rolled at first node.
|
Disease Rating
|
| Figure 1: Average disease rating per treatment. P-value = <0.001 and CV = 30% |
Average Height at Maturity
|
| Figure 2: Average height at maturity. Post seed showed significantly shorter stand than at 3 and 4 leaf but no difference between UTC and 1-2 leaf. All treatments were significantly taller than the 1 node timing. P-value = <0.001 and CV = 6.36%. |
Yield between treatments was not statistically significant (Fig. 3 and 4)
Average Silage Yield From Biomass
|
Average Grain Yield
|
|
|
Figure 3: Silage results per treatment. P-value = 0.8569 and CV = 17.95%.
|
Figure 4: Average grain yield per treatment. P-value = 0.3426 and CV = 14.74%. |
- First node rolling had significantly lower protein content compared to all treatments except the 2-leaf stage. The one leaf rolling had significantly higher protein than UTC, post seed, two leaf and first node.
- First node rolling had significantly lower TKW than all treatments. It was a small difference though.
Average Protein Content
|
| Figure 5: Average Protein of seed for each treatment. P-value = < 0.001 and CV = 3% |
Average TKW
|
| Figure 6: Average TKW of seed per treatment. P-value = 0.00195 and CV = 3.1% |
2021
- In 2021, the stalks remained bent in the 4 leaf and first node timings up to harvest (Image 5 and 6).
|
|
| Image 5: Plot photo of height difference between 3 & 4 leaf, first node, and UTC treatments, July 23, 2021. |
Image 6: Bent barley stems in the first node rolling timing, plot 107, Aug. 5, 2021. |
- The 4-leaf timing was conducted in the late four-leaf stage, closer to the first node stage than in 2020.
- There was no difference in disease incidence or severity.
- Plant counts were done later this year, July 9, nine days after the first node rolling timing. Decreased plant stand was visually noticeable and statistically lowered in the first node rolling timing, only numerically reduced in the 4-leaf rolling (Fig. 7). So, rolling in the late 4 leaf stage and in the first node stage caused some plants to die off and led to lower plant stands.
Average Plant Counts
|
| Figure 7: Average plant count data with significance rank. P-value = 0.0012 and CV = 9.5% |
- 4 leaf and first node rolling timings led to later maturing plots, with 4 leaf being 2 days behind and the first node taking 5 days longer to mature than trt's 1-5. These results are statistically significant (Fig. 8).
Average Days to Maturity
|
| Figure 8: Average days to maturity graph. P-value = <0.001 and CV = 2.2% |
- Height showed statistical difference between treatments, with the first node being shorter than all other trt's and trt 6 shorter than trt 5. Numerically trt 6 is shorter than trt 1-5 (Fig. 9).
Average Plant Height
|
| Figure 9: Average plant height per treatment. P-value = <0.001 and CV = 6.6% |
- First node silage yield was statistically lower than trt 1-5. Numerically 4 leaf rolling was lower than trt 1-5. On average a reduction in silage yield of 2.7-4.6 tonnes/acre could occur when rolling in the node stage (Fig. 10). Grain yield follows the same pattern (Fig. 11).
Average Silage Yield
|
Average Grain Yield
|
|
|
Figure 10: Average silage yield per treatment. P-value <0.001 and CV = 9.5%
|
Figure 11: Average grain yield per treatment. P-value <0.001 and CV = 9.5% |
- Protein of the 4-leaf rolling was significantly lower than tr 1-4 and numerically lower than first node rolling. Possibly the rolling hurt the crop at the 4-leaf stage at a critical point reducing the protein content in the seed (Fig. 12). The decrease is less than 0.5% and probably don't impact sale of the seed.
Average Grain Protein Content
|
| Figure 12: Average grain protein content per treatment. P-value = 0.007 and CV = 1.93%. |
- TKW of 4 leaf and first node rolling timings were significantly lower than the other treatments with 4 leaf being numerically lower than the first node (Fig. 13).
Average Thousand Kernel Weight of Grain
|
| Figure 13: Average thousand kernel weight of grain per treatment. P-value <0.001 and CV = 5.33%. |
Average Seed Grade Values
|
| Figure 14: Average seed grade value per treatment. P-value = 0.03271 and CV = 9.5% |
- Feed testing showed numerically 4 leaf and first node protein was higher than the other trt's (Fig. 15). Rolling at the first leaf had significantly greater %ADF than the UTC and trt 2, but no other trt's (using 80% confidence level) (Fig. 16). So, there was little to no difference in feed value due to rolling timing.
Average Silage Feed Protein
|
Average Acid Digestible Fiber
|
|
|
| Figure 15: Average percent protein in silage feed tests per treatment. P-value = 0.4701 and CV = 9.5% |
Figure 16: Average ADF in silage feed tests per treatment. P-value = 0.1537 and CV = 9.5% |
|
