Location: Plant Science ResearchTitle: Wisconsin and Minnesota - a preliminary update on 2013 evaluation of Headline fungidice use on alfalfa
|HALFMAN, BILL - University Of Wisconsin|
|BLONDE, GREG - University Of Wisconsin|
|SMITH, DAMON - University Of Wisconsin|
|JENSEN, BRYAN - University Of Wisconsin|
|Samac, Deborah - Debby|
|BEHNKEN, LISA - University Of Minnesota|
|BREITENBACH, FRITZ - University Of Minnesota|
Submitted to: Forage Focus
Publication Type: Trade Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 11/27/2013
Publication Date: 12/1/2013
Citation: Halfman, B., Blonde, G., Smith, D., Jensen, B., Samac, D.A., Behnken, L., Breitenbach, F. 2013. Wisconsin and Minnesota - a preliminary update on 2013 evaluation of Headline fungidice use on alfalfa. Forage Focus. December 2013. p. 22..
Technical Abstract: Alfalfa producers need information on methods to increase yields while minimizing expenses. For three years, experiments to determine the effect of Headline fungicide on alfalfa diseases, yield, and forage quality were conducted in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Experiments were done both in commercial production fields and University experiment stations. In 2013 the experiment compared the effect of Headline combined with the insecticide Warrior II to Warrior II alone. In Wisconsin the trials were managed for dairy quality hay and in Minnesota the trial was managed for dairy quality and good quality beef cattle forage. A positive yield response (a=0.10) was observed in five out of 12 observations when evaluating the addition of Headline to an application of Warrior II. Of those five observations with an observed yield response, they ranged from 0.07 to 0.28 tons of dry matter per acre and averaged less than 0.2 tons of dry matter per acre. Forage quality analysis indicated the Headline application had a significant negative influence on crude protein in three of 12 comparisons. The Headline application had a significant positive influence on net energy of lactation in one of 12 comparisons, however, no difference was noted in the other comparisons. Forage yield and quality are not consistent with disease control across harvests, locations, and years.