Texas, USA 2010 - International Herbage Seed Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

swath; (iii) combine pick-up - the loss as the swath is lifted onto the combine draper front; and(iv) offal trail - seed not separated from the straw and lost over the back riddles.<strong>Seed</strong> maturity assessed by measuring seed moisture content (SMC) has also been shown to affectseed yield, presumed in part to be associated with reduced seed loss (Simon et al. 1997). Harvestloss in ryegrass seed crops in New Zealand has not been previously studied. In this paper wereport on harvest loss assessments made with collection trays.MethodThe seed losses were studied in 13 fields managed by seed growers in the Canterbury region ofNew Zealand and covers a 3 years (Table 1). Harvest loss was assessed with oblong aluminumfoil trays either 16x20 cm for crops sown in 30 cm rows; or 10x18 cm in crops sown in 15 cmrows. In sites 1-4 on the day of cutting 6 trays were placed with the upper lip at the soil surfacein a line at 3m intervals in the direction of machinery travel. An 8 cm staple was used to anchorthe tray and a hole to allow rain water to drain. At sites 5 to 13, 15 trays were used, and onaverage 13 trays were recovered. Where components of loss were assessed (4 sites), these trayswere replaced after each step carefully removing trays to avoid shaking extra seed into them. Thecollected trays were placed into paper bags, dried and the seed cleaned using screens and air toproduce a saleable seed sample that was weighed and the loss per ha calculated. Loss figureswere adjusted down to account for the “drawing-in” of the crop during cutting by 20% and 35%respectively for disc mowing and windrowing respectively. The yield of the field was based onthe machine dressed yield provided by the seed company contracting the seed.ResultsHarvest losses were large, averaging 570 kg/ha with a range from 190 to 1300 kg/ha (Table 1).The largest loss was in a field that the grower was late in cutting; while the lowest loss was in awindrowed crop, swathed in damp conditions. When the loss is expressed as a percentage of thesaleable seed available for harvest, an average loss of 24% (range 6 to 43%) was recorded (Table1). If the worst loss (43%) is excluded because of known late cutting, the average loss was 22%.Despite these losses the average seed yield was 1920 kg/ha (Table 1).When cutting method was compared the average harvest loss was 29% versus 16% for discmowing (n=8) and windrowing (n=5) respectively and significantly different (P=0.02 for a onewayANOVA).A breakdown of loss by harvest stages undertaken with four trial sites identified that losses atcutting and losses during drying in the swath accounted for 49 and 43% of the losses respectively(Table 2). The large loss during swath drying in Trial 3 was associated with a 25 mm rain eventthe day before the crop was due to be combined (Table 2).Discussion65
Larger than expected harvest losses were recorded in these assessments. Growers have controlover some of these losses, especially losses associated with cutting. Weather-related losses, e.g.from rain after cutting, cannot be controlled. The data strongly suggests that seed losses are lesswhen crops are windrowed compared to mowing, and when the 2009/10 data is available thenumber of data sets that can be compared will double.Table 1. Site number, year of assessment, method of cutting, harvest loss, field seed yield and losscalculated as percentage of total saleable seed available for harvest.Site year Method Loss SY % loss1 2005/06 mow 660 2400 222 2007/08 mow 1300 2500 343 2007/08 windrow 560 2500 184 2007/08 windrow 190 3100 65 2008/09 mow 350 950 276 2008/09 mow 430 2000 187 2008/09 windrow 370 1660 188 2008/09 mow 600 1700 269 2008/09 windrow 510 2670 1610 2008/09 mow 640 1290 3311 2008/09 windrow 560 2200 2012 2008/09 mow 940 1230 4313 2008/09 mow 270 790 25Average 570 1920 24Table 2. Percent of harvest loss attributed to each step of harvest process.Site 1 2 3 4 AverageStep% losscutting 32 60 32 74 49drying 50 32 75 15 43combine 12 7 12 12 11offal 6 2 6 x 1 51 not measuredThe lowest loss recorded, 6%, is probably an unrealistic goal for all growers to reach. However ifgrowers could reduce average harvest losses by 50% of the levels reported, average seed yieldswould increase by 265 kg/ha and improve crop profitability significantly. A greaterunderstanding of how to manage losses is needed, including cutting methods (especiallywindrowing versus mowing), speed of cutting, effect of crop dividers, seed moisture andenvironment (temperature, humidity and dew) interactions, degree of lodging. A combination ofharvest timing, machine options and agri-chemicals may be required to reduce harvest loss. Apreliminary evaluation of a harvest aid “Pod-Lock” in 2008/09 did not improve seed yields.66
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the 7th Internationa
Page 3 and 4:
Table of ContentsORAL PRESENTATIONS
Page 5 and 6:
Seed yield components and yield per
Page 7 and 8:
International Herbage Seed Conferen
Page 9 and 10:
16:15 - 16:30 Reliability of salini
Page 11 and 12:
Hotel expense is covered for night
Page 13 and 14:
40,000 were slaves (McDonald, 2007)
Page 15 and 16:
Fig. 1. Texas AgriLife Research and
Page 17 and 18:
$7 billion for cattle, $3 billion f
Page 19 and 20:
principle and encourages both AgriL
Page 21 and 22:
eceived by growers, the above perce
Page 23 and 24:
seed conditioning plants are locate
Page 25 and 26: Table 4.Hectares of open-field burn
Page 27 and 28: system, a seed crop is produced fro
Page 29 and 30: Fig. 1. Land resource areas of Texa
Page 31 and 32: y land owners. Seed yields are low
Page 33 and 34: The influence of planting density o
Page 35 and 36: Simple correlation and regression a
Page 37 and 38: Variation in seed shattering in a g
Page 39 and 40: Seed retention (SR) was calculated
Page 41 and 42: mm160120Precipitation8040020Km h -1
Page 43 and 44: Young, B. A. (1986). A Source of Re
Page 45 and 46: Several methods are commonly used f
Page 47 and 48: Table 3. Effect of the length of ha
Page 49 and 50: Alfalfa seed production in semi-hum
Page 51 and 52: Rather near the meteorological stat
Page 53 and 54: ReferencesBolaños-Aguilar E.D., Hu
Page 55 and 56: ased bioenergy conversion plants wa
Page 57 and 58: Table 1. Average distances required
Page 59 and 60: Figure 1. Optimized locations for 1
Page 61 and 62: Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne
Page 63 and 64: Relative Seed Yieldsingle composite
Page 65 and 66: Flowers, M.D.; Hart, J.M.; Young II
Page 67 and 68: Thus, similar to tissue tests, remo
Page 69 and 70: Conclusion:Perhaps our most importa
Page 71 and 72: Modelling critical NDVI curves in p
Page 73 and 74: The five spectral reflectance measu
Page 75: Harvest loss in ryegrass seed crops
Page 79 and 80: Rolston, P.; Trethewey, J.; McCloy,
Page 81 and 82: Optical sensors have the potential
Page 83 and 84: Figure 2. Seed yield response to ap
Page 85 and 86: Flowers, M. D., Hart, J.M., Young I
Page 87 and 88: In 2010, France has launched the fo
Page 89 and 90: Yield (% maximum)ConclusionThe resu
Page 91 and 92: Plant N uptakeN unavailableSoil nit
Page 93 and 94: Stresses associated with germinatio
Page 95 and 96: correspond to electrical conductivi
Page 97 and 98: applied later in the fall was more
Page 99 and 100: Figure 2. Establishment of five ove
Page 101 and 102: The seed vigour testing was perform
Page 103 and 104: Table 1. Germination index (GI) for
Page 105 and 106: Reliability of salinity screening L
Page 107 and 108: AcknowledgmentThis research was sup
Page 109 and 110: Table 2. Greenhouse salinity screen
Page 111 and 112: The seeds were collected from the A
Page 113 and 114: increases germination to its potent
Page 115 and 116: Light, lodging and flag leaves-what
Page 117 and 118: Relative seed yieldSeed yield (kg/h
Page 119 and 120: Hampton, J.G.; Clemence, T.G.A.; He
Page 121 and 122: The seed set is of major importance
Page 123 and 124: In grass species with poor seed ret
Page 125 and 126: support system to optimize fungicid
Page 127 and 128:
weather stations in grass seed fiel
Page 129 and 130:
ust resistance loci in Lolium peren
Page 131 and 132:
Seed yield variation in a red clove
Page 133 and 134:
100Seed yield plant -1 (g)806040200
Page 135 and 136:
Marden, J. H. 1984. Remote percepti
Page 137 and 138:
Crimson clover seed production in t
Page 139 and 140:
Piper, C.V. 1935. Forage plants and
Page 141 and 142:
deal of investigation into the caus
Page 143 and 144:
genes and subsequent ability to pro
Page 145 and 146:
Gatenby, W.A., S.C. Munday-Finch, A
Page 147 and 148:
Control of Vulpia myuros in red fes
Page 149 and 150:
The strip design provides an opport
Page 151 and 152:
The pot experiments did not reveale
Page 153 and 154:
CharacterWeed abundance1 A few plan
Page 155 and 156:
Jensen, P. K. (2010) Longevity of s
Page 157 and 158:
Effects of intraspecific competitio
Page 159 and 160:
flowering, Gangi accumulated a high
Page 161 and 162:
The seed yield of Gangi was, on ave
Page 163 and 164:
Seed yield components and yield per
Page 165 and 166:
ResultsVariation among populations
Page 167 and 168:
Table 2. Means of total seeds per p
Page 169 and 170:
Ryle, G. J. (1970). Partition of As
Page 171 and 172:
Control of Apion trifolii in red cl
Page 173 and 174:
Number of seeds /inflorescencesimil
Page 175 and 176:
population. However, in spite of th
Page 177 and 178:
Corvallis where they were debearded
Page 179 and 180:
Table 1. Effect of Palisade growth
Page 181 and 182:
Variations on potential and harvest
Page 183 and 184:
Determination of optimum desiccatio
Page 185 and 186:
Relative seed yield (%)Flowers/m225
Page 187 and 188:
Harvesting too soon after peak flow
Page 189 and 190:
Annual ryegrass seed production in
Page 191 and 192:
seed yield, kg/haExtractable Al, mg
Page 193 and 194:
ReferencesHaby, V.A. (1995). Soil m
Page 195 and 196:
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L
Page 197 and 198:
urn residue management (Fig. 1 and
Page 199 and 200:
Comparing herbicide selectivity in
Page 201 and 202:
Development of new tetraploid Chlor
Page 203 and 204:
Following 4 (or 5) cycles of select
Page 205 and 206:
Loch, D.S., Rethman, N.F.G. & van N
Page 207 and 208:
KBGcocksfootHykorLofatimothymeadowf
Page 209 and 210:
Figure 2 Relative seed yield (%) se
Page 211 and 212:
and GA 4 . In consequence this inac
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1 The effect of trinexapac-et
Page 215 and 216:
Silberstein, T.B., Young, W.C. III,
Page 217 and 218:
inflorescece number and seed yield
Page 219 and 220:
Germination of Lolium multiflorum g
Page 221 and 222:
Effect of sowing density on seed yi
Page 223 and 224:
y-products of this grass seed crop
Page 225 and 226:
Table 2. Effect of PGR on seed yiel
Page 227 and 228:
Further culm length measurements ga
Page 229 and 230:
chlorophyllometer. Measurements wer
Page 231 and 232:
Table 2. Photosynthesis rate of fla
Page 233 and 234:
Organization of grass seed research
Page 235 and 236:
Path Coefficient and Ridge Regressi
Page 237 and 238:
through y4 (0.133). Increasing y 1
Page 239 and 240:
Newell G.J., Lee B. (1981)Ridge reg
Page 241 and 242:
Relative humidity, seed moisture co
Page 243 and 244:
Ergovaline contents in grasses from
Page 245 and 246:
11.8 % (Central East) to 40.0% (Nor
Page 247 and 248:
ReferencesBony, S. & Delatour, P. (
Page 249 and 250:
Long-term Evaluation of Annual Ryeg
Page 251 and 252:
seed yield. All systems of establis
Page 253 and 254:
Preliminary results after four year
Page 255 and 256:
Casals, Marie-LaureFNAMSImpasse du
Page 257 and 258:
Mao, PeishengForage Seed LabChina A
Page 259 and 260:
Vanasche, DavidVanasche Farm36130 N
show all

Texas, USA 2010 - International Herbage Seed Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?