Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of
Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations
Richard Roseberg1, Jim Smith, Brian Charlton, and Steven Norberg2
_____________________________________
1
Associate Professor, Faculty Research Assistant, and Assistant Professor, respectively, Klamath Basin
Research & Extension Center, Klamath Falls, OR
2
Agriculture Extension Regional Specialist, Franklin County, Washington State University
DISCLAIMER: Reference to a product or company is for descriptive information only and does not imply
label registration of any chemical, and does not endorse or recommend that product or company to the
exclusion of others that may be suitable.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 1
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Abstract
Teff is a warm-season annual grass that has been grown for hay, grain, and straw
in Ethiopia for many years. Recently, interest in growing teff for hay in the United States
has increased. However, very little research had been done regarding teff’s response to
irrigation (moisture stress). Teff irrigation trials were conducted near Medford, OR,
Klamath Falls, OR and Ontario, OR, representing a range of summer climate patterns in
southern and eastern Oregon. Treatments included several irrigation regimes (from
clearly deficient to likely excessive). Yield and quality data were measured from two
cutting dates. Teff grew well and the best treatment at each location produced a total
annual dry matter yield (two cuttings) of 3.34, 4.15 and 4.43 tons per acre for Ontario,
Klamath Falls and Medford, respectively. Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) for the highest
yielding treatments measured at first and second cuttings were 104 and 116 for Ontario,
125 and 113 for Klamath Falls, and 86 and 98 for Medford. Optimum teff yields occurred
under moderate irrigation amounts, while high irrigation rates decreased yield in some
cases. In general, it appeared that irrigation rates greater than about 0.5-0.8 of calculated
Kimberly-Penman ET did not improve forage yield or quality, but the exact relationship
between irrigation rate and teff yield and quality varied somewhat with time of year and
crop growth stage. Yield response to irrigation rate was more sensitive for first cutting
than for second.
Introduction
Teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.], Poaceae) is a warm-season (C4) annual grass,
typically having many tillers and a shallow diverse root system (Stallknecht, 1997). Teff
is the traditional grain crop in Ethiopia, where it was first domesticated between 4000–
1000 BC. While teff grain has traditionally been used in Ethiopian cuisine such as injera
bread, and has potential for other uses due to its low gluten content, it has also been
grown for livestock forage on a limited basis in other parts of Africa, India, Australia and
South America (Ketema 1997). Teff germplasm is characterized by a wide variation of
morphological and agronomic traits. While teff is often day-length sensitive, some
landraces have been selected that grow well and produce seed at temperate latitudes.
Very few improved varieties have been selected and released in Ethiopia, South Africa,
and the United States. Most of the teff seed brands available commercially are common
landraces, not released varieties, and thus have varying degrees of uniformity and limited
performance history. In addition, the primary selection emphasis in the past has been on
grain appearance and quality, with little attention given to forage quality or yield
performance (Eckhoff et al., 1997). Until recently, there has been limited research on
teff’s management, yield and quality as a forage crop (Twidwell et al., 2002).
To begin evaluation of teff’s potential as a forage crop in the western US,
unreplicated blocks of teff were grown at the Klamath Basin Research & Extension
Center in 2003 and 2004, using an unnamed cultivar (designated VAT1-Brown), whose
seed had been increased for grain production by a commercial grass seed grower in
Oregon’s Willamette Valley. A number of useful initial observations were made
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 2
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
regarding planting method, seeding rate, growth response to various air temperatures,
harvest method and timing, palatability, yield, and forage quality factors (Roseberg et al.,
2006).
A popular press article was written based on these favorable preliminary results
and observations, initiating an intense national interest in this “new” forage crop (Zenk,
2005). Based on questions received in response to the popular press article, and lack of
published information regarding teff forage response to management practices, we began
a series of experiments to better understand how teff yield and forage quality is affected
by agronomic management practices, such as response to various nitrogen fertilizer rates,
seeding dates, seeding rates, and seed types. Our studies beginning in 2005 showed that
teff responded positively to a moderate level of N fertilizer, but rates greater than about
55 lb/ac N per cutting did not normally lead to additional yield or quality (Roseberg et al.,
2006). A more recent New York study also concluded that applying 50 lb/ac N per
cutting was sufficient to meet teff production needs in that area (Hunter et al., 2009).
Objectives
Since these studies began, the preliminary research in Oregon and New York
resulted in publication of Extension Service bulletins to provide general guidance to
growers (Hunter et al., 2007; Norberg et al., 2009), but many questions remain regarding
teff’s response to various agronomic factors, especially in Pacific Northwest
environments. In particular, very little information regarding teff water use and irrigation
response has been published. Therefore, the objective of the study described in this report
was to measure teff yield and forage quality response to varying levels of irrigation at
three locations representing different climate regimes and potential production areas in
Oregon.
Procedures
Studies were conducted at three locations in Oregon in 2005: the Klamath Basin
Research & Extension Center (KBREC), near Klamath Falls, OR, the Southern Oregon
Research & Extension Center (SOREC), near Medford, OR, and at the Malheur
Experiment Station (MES), near Ontario, OR, all agricultural research facilities operated
by Oregon State University. These sites are all in the drier southern and eastern regions of
Oregon where irrigation is typically required for commercial agriculture, yet they express
a wide range of growing conditions due to their varying elevation. The Klamath Falls site
is at 4100 ft above sea level, and typically only has a 110 day frost-free season, as well as
cooler daytime highs and nighttime lows than the other sites. The Ontario site is
intermediate, at 2260 ft above sea level with a 160 day frost-free season and intermediate
temperatures. The Medford site is at 1340 ft above sea level and typically has a 190 day
frost-free season, with day and night temperatures slightly warmer than Ontario on
average.
Details regarding seeding dates, first and second forage harvest (cutting) dates,
and amounts of irrigation plus precipitation corresponding to the various irrigation
treatments are shown in Table 1. At each location, untreated teff seed (equivalent to the
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 3
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
un-named brand identified as VAT1-Brown) was used. At each location, line source
irrigation (hand line impact sprinklers) was installed so that variable irrigation rates could
be applied during the season. Irrigation rate at various distances from the line source were
measured, and small plots were randomly laid out at prescribed distances from the line
source to measure response to different irrigation rates. Irrigation was begun soon after
seeding date in each location and irrigation events were spaced out during the summer
based on weather patterns and potential evapotranspiration ( ET ) as calculated by the
Agrimet weather station at each site (described below). Effects of irrigation amounts,
rainfall, and weather on teff germination and emergence patterns are discussed in the
“Results” section below. Nitrogen treatments were laid out in a randomized complete
block design so that each nitrogen rate by irrigation rate treatment combination had four
replications. Analysis of teff’s response to added N fertilizer has been described
previously (Roseberg et al., 2006). Although no herbicides were labeled for use on teff,
broadleaf-selective herbicides were applied to the research plot areas as described below.
Weather data at each location was provided by automated weather stations
operated by the US Bureau of Reclamation as part of their Agricultural Meteorological
(AgriMet) automated weather station network in the Pacific Northwest (US Bureau of
Reclamation, 2010). Using this weather data, potential evapotranspiration (ET ) values
were calculated by AgriMet using the 1982 Kimberly-Penman ET model, which uses
well-watered alfalfa as the reference crop (Dockter, 1994).
Klamath Falls
The soil is mapped as Poe fine sandy loam containing 1.5 percent organic matter.
The previous crop in this field in 2004 was a uniform area of teff harvested for forage. In
2005, approximately 2.5 acres of teff was seeded on June 6 using a John Deere grain drill
with a “small seed” attachment, at 6 inch row spacing. Teff was seeded about 1/8 inch
deep at a rate of 6.0 lb/ac. A herbicide tank mix of 2,4-D amine at 0.54 lb/ac a.i. plus
dicamba at 0.19 lb/ac a.i. was applied with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer on July 7 to
control broadleaf weeds. There was no visible phytotoxicity to the teff foliage due to the
herbicide. Weed competition after the herbicide application was minimal due to the
herbicide application and a vigorous teff stand. The first cutting was done on August 8
and the second cutting was done on September 13. At first cutting, seed heads were
almost completely emerged. At second cutting, seed heads were just beginning to emerge
from the boot.
Medford
The soil is mapped as a Central Point sandy loam containing about 5.0 percent
organic matter. The previous crop in this field in 2004 was sugar beets grown for seed. In
2005, approximately 0.5 acre of teff was seeded on May 13 using a John Deere Van
Brunt grain drill with a “small seed” attachment, at 6 inch row spacing. Teff was seeded
about ¼ inch deep, at a rate of 9.2 lb/ac. To control emerged broadleaf weeds, a tank mix
of 2,4-D at 0.70 lb/ac a.i. plus dicamba at 0.25 lb/ac a.i. was applied with a tractormounted boom sprayer on June 23. There was no visible phytotoxicity to the teff foliage
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 4
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
due to the herbicide. Weed competition after the herbicide application was minimal due
to the herbicide application and a vigorous teff stand. The first cutting was done on July
22 and second cutting was done on September 3. In both cases, plots were cut when seed
heads were just beginning to emerge from the boot.
Ontario
The soil is mapped as a Nyssa silt loam soil containing about 1.5 percent organic
matter. The field was fallow the previous year (2004). In 2005, approximately 0.5 acre of
teff was seeded on June 23. Seed was broadcast over the soil surface by hand using an
Earthway Hand Spreader at a uniform rate of 3.0 lb/ac, and incorporated by irrigation
droplet impact on the bare soil after seeding. Shortly after crop and weed emergence,
small broadleaf weeds were controlled with an application of bromoxynil at 0.25 lb/ac a.i.
using a tractor-mounted boom sprayer. There was no visible phytotoxicity to the teff
foliage due to the herbicide. Weed competition after the herbicide application was
minimal due to the herbicide application and a vigorous teff stand. First cutting was done
on August 15 and the second cutting was done on September 12. In both cases the plots
were cut when seed heads were beginning to emerge from the boot.
Harvest and Sample Processing
At the Medford and Klamath Falls locations, forage was harvested using researchscale forage harvesting equipment (tractor-mounted Carter [Carter Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.] flail harvester with a 3.0 ft -wide header), whereas, at Ontario teff was harvested
using a Jari [Year-A-Round Corporation] sickle bar mower. In each case, teff was cut at
approximately 2 inch stubble height. Forage fresh weights were measured immediately in
the field and samples were collected from each plot for drying to correct yields to a dry
weight basis, as well as to perform forage quality analysis. After drying and weighing, all
samples were shipped to KBREC and ground to 2-mm-sieve size in a Wiley Mill (Arthur
H. Thomas Co.) and to 1-mm-sieve size in a Udy Mill (Udy Corp.). After grinding,
samples were analyzed in a near infrared spectrophotometer (NIRS) (NIRSystems, FOSS,
NA, Minneapolis, MN) to determine forage quality using robust equations developed
using multiple grass species by the NIRS Consortium (Madison, Wisconsin). Calculated
forage quality parameters included crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF),
neutral detergent fiber (NDF), relative feed value (RFV) and relative forage quality
(RFQ).
Statistical Analysis
Statistics on yield and quality data were calculated using SAS® for Windows,
Release 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc.) software. The N rate x irrigation rate studies were
analyzed as a split-block design, with irrigation rate as the main plot and N rate as the
subplot. Treatment significance was based on the F test at the P = 0.05 level. If this
analysis indicated significant treatment effects, least significant difference (LSD) values
were calculated based on the student’s t test at the 5 percent level.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 5
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Results
As described previously, analysis of the N response data showed that plant growth
was adversely affected where fertilizer N was not applied (N0 treatment), but there was
little difference in yield or quality between the N2 and N1 treatments overall for the three
locations (Roseberg et al., 2006). For further details on N response, please refer to that
report. For the present study, we calculated the irrigation response statistics using only
the N2 and N1 treatment data to better examine the response of teff to irrigation in
situations where N was not limiting growth.
Klamath Falls
During the 10 days before seeding, only 0.02 inch of rain fell, resulting in a dry
soil at seeding, and only 0.03 inch of rain fell during the first seven days after seeding.
Thus, crop emergence patterns reflected the imposed irrigation rate treatments (teff
germinated more quickly in the high irrigation rate areas). Two weeks after seeding,
germination and emergence were good, except at the farthest reaches from the irrigation
lines, where very slight differences in moisture resulted in obvious differences in stand
density.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 6
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
There was a significant response to irrigation rate for all yield and quality
parameters measured for first cutting (Table 2). The low irrigation treatment had
significantly lower yields than the medium and high treatments. For all quality
parameters, quality tended to decrease as irrigation increased, although not all differences
between irrigation rates were significant.
At second cutting, teff exhibited a significant response to irrigation for CP, ADF,
and RFV, while RFQ response was almost significant at P=0.05 (Table 2). The trends in
quality were not as obvious as they had been for first cutting. Yields tended to increase
with increasing irrigation, but the differences were not significant.
Medford
During the 10 days before seeding, 2.05 inches of rain fell, resulting in a moist
soil surface and subsurface at seeding. An additional 0.56 inch of rain fell during the first
seven days after seeding. The consistently moist soil conditions before and after seeding
resulted in uniform crop emergence across all plots before the irrigation treatments were
imposed. Thus the initial crop stand was more uniform in both emergence time and plant
size at Medford compared to the other locations, but differences in growth rate began to
occur after irrigation treatments were imposed as was observed at the other locations.
There was a significant irrigation effect on all yield and quality parameters at first
cutting (Table 3). The largest difference was between the low irrigation rate and the other
two rates. As was observed in Klamath Falls, there was often a trade-off between yield
and quality as a function of irrigation rate.
At second cutting there was a significant irrigation treatment effect on yield and
all quality parameters, similar to results observed at first cutting (Table 3). Unlike first
cutting, there were significant differences in yield between the high and medium
irrigation rates at second cutting. The quality parameters followed a pattern similar to that
observed at Klamath Falls and Ontario, with increased irrigation rate producing greater
yield, but lower quality.
Ontario
During the 10 days before seeding, 0.41 inches of rain fell, but the hot weather
during four days immediately prior to seeding dried out the soil quickly. Only 0.17 inch
of rain fell during the first seven days after seeding, but the soil dried out very quickly
after these brief rains too. Because of the hot and dry conditions after seeding, a second
irrigation line was temporarily installed to aid stand establishment in plots near the dry
edges. Thus, while crop emergence patterns generally reflected the imposed irrigation
rate treatments (teff germinated more quickly in the high irrigation rate areas as occurred
in Klamath Falls), germination and emergence in the less-irrigated sections of the Ontario
site were delayed compared to the other sites (until the temporary supplemental irrigation
line was added) due to drier subsoil and hotter temperatures after seeding. These areas
eventually had good stands and thus provided a valid test site to compare the irrigation
treatment effects.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 7
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Irrigation treatments did not have a significant effect on first cutting yield or RFQ,
although yield did tend to decrease somewhat under the lowest irrigation rate (Table 4).
The irrigation treatment effect was significant for the other quality parameters. Hay
quality generally increased as irrigation rate decreased, although differences between
irrigation rates were not all significant. RFV and RFQ values were equal to each other at
the lowest irrigation rate, but were quite different from each other at the higher irrigation
rates.
The delayed planting and emergence at Ontario, and thus later first cutting date,
resulted in a much shorter regrowth period between first and second cutting compared to
the other sites (28 days at Ontario compared to 36 days at Klamath Falls and 43 days at
Medford, Table 1). For the second cutting, there was a significant irrigation treatment
effect for all yield and quality parameters except NDF, which was nearly significant at
P=0.05 (Table 4). Although the yields were quite a bit lower than at first cutting due to
the much shorter growth period, the yield clearly was reduced for the two lowest
irrigation rates. The pattern observed at the other sites where higher irrigation rates
resulted in reduced quality, but higher yields, was also observed at Ontario.
Discussion
To further evaluate the moisture requirement for optimum teff forage yield,
regression equations were calculated to plot dry matter yield against a “normalized”
applied moisture value. This normalized value was calculated as the ratio of applied
irrigation water (I) plus precipitation (P), divided by potential evapotranspiration (ET) for
a given time period ([I+P]/ ET), all units in mm (Fig. 1, 2, 3). Quadratic regression of teff
dry matter yield against the amount of applied irrigation plus precipitation (without
dividing by ET), for both cutting dates at all 3 locations resulted in an R2 of 0.59, with
obvious wide scattering (data not shown). However, when regressions of yield for each
cutting date and seasonal yield total at each location were plotted using the [I+P]/ ET
term, a clearer pattern of yield response to irrigation rate emerged.
At all three sites, yield had a more curvilinear response to applied moisture at first
cutting than second cutting (Fig. 1-3). This was especially true at Klamath Falls and
Medford. Thus, due primarily to the first cutting curvilinear response, total yield also
responded to applied moisture in a curvilinear fashion at each site.
At Klamath Falls, maximum first cutting yield was reached when [I+P]/ ET was
about 0.40 (Fig. 1). Due to the relatively flat, nearly linear response to added moisture
between first and second cutting, the total annual yield response was maximum when
[I+P]/ ET was about 0.55.
At Medford, first cutting yield was maximum when [I+P]/ ET was about 0.65
(Fig. 2). Due to the nearly linear response to added moisture between first and second
cutting, the total annual yield response was maximum when [I+P]/ ET was about 0.80.
The slightly higher optimum irrigation values observed at Medford could have been due
to the greater biomass produced at Medford at second cutting. The longer regrowth
period at this site resulted in greater leaf area for a longer duration between first and
second cutting and thus increased total water use when irrigation rate was not limiting.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 8
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
At Ontario, first cutting yield was maximum when [I+P]/ ET was about 0.50 (Fig.
3). The second cutting response was more curvilinear, occurred over a tighter range of
applied moisture than the other two sites, and peaked at a lower [I+P]/ET value. At
Ontario the total annual yield response had a maximum yield when [I+P]/ ET was about
0.50.
It is interesting that each site had a curvilinear yield response to applied moisture
for first cutting, compared to a more linear and less moisture-sensitive yield response at
second cutting. This reduced response to irrigation observed at second cutting may be due
to a combination of two interrelated factors.
First, water use in a forage crop is related to the amount of leaf area produced.
Although we did not measure leaf area per se, total forage biomass is related to total leaf
area. Combining the results from these three locations, total annual biomass yield at the
high irrigation rate was linearly related to applied moisture expressed as [I+P]/ ET (Fig.
4). The yield at second cutting and the regrowth period between first and second cutting
were both greatest at Medford and least at Ontario, even though the second cutting was
done when teff was at virtually identical growth stages at each location. Klamath, Ontario
and Medford yield at second cutting averaged 30%, 42% and 81% of yield at first cutting,
respectively. Thus the lower optimum [I+P]/ ET value at second cutting at Ontario may
have been due in part to the reduced leaf area and thus transpiration during the shorter
regrowth period. Conversely, at Medford the longer regrowth period between first and
second cutting allowed a denser leaf area to develop, resulting in increased water use and
a greater optimum [I+P]/ ET value. Figure 4 also suggests that if teff’s maximum
biological yield potential is greater in other climates or crop production conditions,
increasing yield under those conditions may require increased applied moisture
(expressed as [I+P]/ ET ) than the range described here.
The second contributing factor affecting the reduced response to irrigation
observed at second cutting involves the time of year and degree of root development
corresponding to first and second cutting. Like other warm season (C4) grasses, teff
grows slowly until soil and air temperatures warm up significantly. Thus the root system
is small and not extensive even during the initial periods of rapid growth in early to midsummer (before first cutting), thus rendering it more responsive to moisture in the upper
few inches due to recent irrigation applications. After first cutting, teff has a more
developed root system and presumably is better able to exploit soil moisture remaining
deeper in the profile. In addition, at these locations, much of the period of hot weather
and high water stress occurs in July, prior to or near the time of first cutting. Thus teff
yield may have been less sensitive to changes in moisture by the time of second cutting
due to increased root mass and less severe temperature stress.
However, at all locations it was also observed that yield at second cutting was
almost always lower than yield at first cutting regardless of applied moisture rate. The
regrowth period between first and second cutting mainly occurred during a time of
gradually declining temperatures and day length, both factors that commonly reduce
growth rates in C4 grasses. An unknown, but perhaps more important factor is the effect
of first cutting height. In general, cutting annual grasses too close to the ground can
reduce regrowth rate by removing more meristematic growing points as well as leaving
little photosynthetic leaf area. We have learned over time that regrowth is adversely
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 9
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
affected when teff is cut too close to the ground. Cutting at a 3 or 4 inch height usually
results in rapid regrowth on nearly all plants, while cutting at less than 1 inch height
usually dramatically reduces regrowth rate and density. This study used an intermediate
cutting height (2 inches). This may have had some effect on the rate of regrowth after
first cutting, but we cannot measure this effect from this data.
Conclusions
Teff grew well and produced good forage yield and quality at these three
locations representing a range of summer climate patterns in southern and eastern
Oregon. Although the responses to irrigation varied somewhat at the different locations
and varied between first and second cuttings, in general there were consistent responses.
Teff clearly responded to a moderate level of irrigation, as the lowest rate of irrigation
clearly reduced yields even when nitrogen was adequate. However, the highest rate of
irrigation did not improve yield compared to a more moderate rate of irrigation in most
cases. Based on these three sites, it appears that teff yield does not improve when
irrigation plus precipitation exceeds about 0.5-0.6 of calculated Kimberly-Penman ET,
although yield response to irrigation rate was more obvious for first cutting than for
second. In addition, quality was generally reduced at the highest irrigation rate, further
supporting the lack of benefit of irrigating at high rates.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 10
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
References
Dockter, D. 1994. Computation of the 1982 Kimberly-Penman and the Jensen-Haise
evapotranspiration equations as applied in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Pacific
Northwest AgriMet Program. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region
Water Conservation Center. Revised January, 2008, Peter L. Palmer.
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/agrimet/h2ouse.html , pdf file: EFO792CCd01.
Eckhoff, J.L.A., D.M. Wichman, J. Scheetz, M.Majerus, L.E. Welty, G.F. Stallnecht,
R.L. Ditterline, R.L. Dunn, and D.C. Sands. 1997. Registration of ‘Bridger’ teff. Crop
Sci. 37:1671.
Hunter, M., P. Barney, T. Kilcer, J. Cherney, J. Lawrence, and Q. Ketterings. 2007. Teff
as emergency forage. Cornell Univ. Coop. Extension, Agronomy Fact Sheet 24.
Hunter, M., Q.M. Ketterings, J.H. Cherney, P. Barney, T. Kilcer, and G. Godwin. 2009.
Nitrogen needs of teff managed as forage crop in New York. Online. Forage and
Grazinglands doi: 10.1094/FG-20090612-01-RS
Ketema, S. 1997. Tef. Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter. Promoting the conservation and use
of underutilized and neglected crops. 12. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant
Research, Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Inst., Rome, Italy.
Norberg, S., R.J. Roseberg, B.A. Charlton, and C. Shock. 2009. Teff, a new warm-season
annual grass for Oregon. Oregon St. Univ. Extension Service, EM 8970-E, Corvallis, OR.
Roseberg, R.J., S. Norberg, J.E. Smith, B.A. Charlton, K.A. Rykbost, and C. Shock.
2006. Yield and quality of teff forage as a function of varying rates of applied irrigation
and nitrogen. In: Research in the Klamath Basin 2005 Annual Report. OSU-AES Special
Report 1069:119-136.
Stallknecht, G.F. 1997. Teff. New Crop FactSHEET. Purdue Univ. Center for New
Crops and Plant Products Web page www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop.
Twidwell, E.K., A. Boe, and D.P. Casper. 2002. Teff: A new annual forage grass for
South Dakota? South Dakota St. Univ. Coop Ext. Service Bulletin Extra 8071,
Brookings, SD.
US Bureau of Reclamation, 2005. Agrimet: The Pacific Northwest cooperative
agricultural weather network. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/agrimet/
Zenk, Peg. 2005. Tons of teff. Hay & Forage Grower. February 2005. p.4.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 11
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Tables
Table 1. Seeding dates, harvest dates, and irrigation plus precipitation
treatment amounts for teff forage tests at three Oregon sites, 2005.
Seeding
Date
Location
Klamath Falls
June 6
Medford
May 13
Ontario
June 23
1st Cutting 2nd Cutting Irrigation
Date
Aug 8
July 22
Aug 15
Date
Treatment
Sept 13
Irrigation +
Precipitation
From Seeding
From 1st Cutting
to 1st Cutting
to 2nd Cutting
(inch)
(inch)
High
9.87
8.20
Medium
4.41
3.58
Low
0.19
0.00
High
14.88
15.40
Medium
8.64
8.09
Low
2.93
1.39
Very High
13.25
3.75
Sept 3
Sept 12
Irrigation +
Precipitation
High
10.42
2.96
Medium
7.65
2.19
Low
4.68
1.36
Table 2. Forage yield, crude protein, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent
fiber, relative feed value, and relative forage quality for the 2005 teff
irrigation response trial at the Klamath Falls, Oregon site.
Crude
Irrigation
Treatment
O.D. Yield
Protein
(ton/ac)
(%)
ADF
NDF
RFV
RFQ
First Cutting (Aug 8)
High
3.11
13.9
33.2
59.4
98
124
Medium
2.96
15.8
29.2
54.6
113
140
Low
1.32
16.2
28.0
54.9
114
143
0.007
0.97
0.029
1.6
<0.001
1.3
0.002
2.1
<0.001
5.0
0.038
15
P value
LSD(0.05)
Second Cutting (Sept 13)
High
1.02
17.9
31.0
54.6
110
115
Medium
0.77
19.2
28.2
53.2
117
126
Low
0.45
13.6
31.6
55.6
108
128
0.106
NS
0.007
2.8
0.008
1.7
0.103
NS
0.029
6.0
0.051
NS
P value
LSD(0.05)
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 12
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Table 3. Forage yield, crude protein, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent
fiber, relative feed value, and relative forage quality for the 2005 teff
irrigation response trial at the Medford, Oregon site.
Crude
Irrigation
Treatment
O.D. Yield
Protein
(ton/ac)
(%)
ADF
NDF
RFV
RFQ
First Cutting (July 22)
High
2.28
8.2
40.8
70.3
76
88
Medium
1.97
9.2
37.8
67.6
82
103
Low
0.26
13.4
28.6
55.8
111
163
<0.001
0.65
0.001
2.0
0.0
5.0
<0.001
4.9
<0.001
12
<0.001
19
P value
LSD(0.05)
Second Cutting (Sept 3)
High
2.05
8.8
39.6
67.7
80
98
Medium
1.50
11.3
33.0
61.3
96
126
Low
0.08
14.1
29.9
60.3
101
147
<0.001
0.29
0.006
2.5
0.002
3.7
0.015
4.6
0.010
12
<0.001
14
P value
LSD(0.05)
Table 4. Forage yield, crude protein, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent
fiber, relative feed value, and relative forage quality for the 2005 teff
irrigation response trial at the Ontario, Oregon site.
Crude
Irrigation
Treatment
O.D. Yield
Protein
(ton/ac)
(%)
ADF
NDF
RFV
RFQ
First Cutting (Aug 15)
Very High
1.96
14.0
37.9
62.6
88
102
High
2.18
17.6
34.3
59.3
98
106
Medium
2.22
18.3
32.5
57.8
102
111
Low
1.26
19.7
30.3
55.3
111
111
0.099
NS
0.008
2.8
0.002
3.0
0.003
3.1
0.002
9
0.150
NS
P value
LSD(0.05)
Second Cutting (Sept 12)
Very High
1.1
14.8
34.3
56.8
102
119
High
1.11
18.3
30.9
54.8
110
117
Medium
0.70
18.0
29.4
53.3
115
125
Low
0.33
16.8
28.6
53.6
116
139
0.001
0.33
0.004
1.7
0.001
2.1
0.053
NS
0.010
8
<0.001
6
P value
LSD(0.05)
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 13
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Figures
Figure 1. Forage dry matter yield of teff as a function of the normalized available moisture value
[calculated as the ratio of applied irrigation water plus precipitation divided by potential
evapotranspiration (ET) for a given time period ([I+P]/ ET) ] at Klamath Falls, OR. Note: A line
containing three data points fitted to a quadratic equation will have an R2 = 1.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 14
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Figure 2. Forage dry matter yield of teff as a function of the normalized available moisture value
[calculated as the ratio of applied irrigation water plus precipitation divided by potential
evapotranspiration (ET) for a given time period ([I+P]/ ET) ] at Medford, OR. Note: A line
containing three data points fitted to a quadratic equation will have an R2 = 1.0
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 15
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Figure 3. Forage dry matter yield of teff as a function of the normalized available moisture value
[calculated as the ratio of applied irrigation water plus precipitation divided by potential
evapotranspiration (ET) for a given time period ([I+P]/ ET) ] at Ontario, OR.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 16
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 08 Annual Report
Figure 4. Total annual forage dry matter yield grown under high irrigation rate measured at
Ontario, Klamath Falls, and Medford, OR, as a function of the normalized applied moisture value
[calculated as the ratio of applied irrigation water plus precipitation divided by potential
evapotranspiration (ET) for a given time period ([I+P]/ ET) ] .
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Quality of Teff Forage as a Function of Irrigation Rate at Three Oregon Locations: Page 17