Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as
Affected by Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in
the Klamath Basin, 2007
Richard J. Roseberg, Brian A Charlton, and Rachel A Shuck1
Introduction
There are times when forage producers desire a quick-growing, high quality
annual forage in mid summer in situations such as: less-than full season irrigation water
supply; need for an emergency crop due to crop failure; or forage rotation crop between
alfalfa stands. Currently there a few good options in these situations. Teff is a warm
season annual grass that can produce good quality forage during a short, summer time
frame, and thus has the potential to be a viable alternative in such situations. Starting in
2003, we have grown teff in quasi-commercial fields and then in small plot research trials
at the Klamath Basin Research & Extension Center (KBREC). As we study various
management options, it has become clear that ongoing research is needed to understand
the optimum crop production requirements for this new crop.
Teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.], Poaceae) is a C4 annual tropical grass. Teff is
traditionally harvested for grain in Ethiopia, where it was first domesticated between
4000–1000 BC. Teff flour is preferred in the production of enjera, a major food staple in
Ethiopia. Teff is grown on a limited basis for livestock forage in other parts of Africa,
India, Australia and South America. In the US, small acreages of teff are grown for grain
production and sold to Ethiopian restaurants throughout the country. Since the popular
press article describing our early efforts was published (Zenk, 2005), many growers, hay
buyers, seed companies, and research/extension faculty at other universities have begun
studying, growing, or buying this new crop. A recent follow-up article has documented
increased national interest in this crop (Zenk, 2008). While our interest has been
primarily as a forage, teff’s traditional use in food has also received renewed interest due
to its very low levels of gluten. Approximately 1 million Americans suffer from Celiac
(gluten sensitivity) and teff may provide a niche for meeting these dietary requirements
as part of a gluten-free food source.
For a more detailed discussion about teff’s history, characteristics, and uses, as
well as our early experiences and experiments with this new crop, please refer to our
2005 annual report (Roseberg et al., 2006).
Objectives
Much of the teff available in commerce are common landraces, not released
varieties, and thus have varying degrees of uniformity and unknown performance.
Because several brands/varieties have been marketed in recent years, we realized that a
controlled comparison of these commercial seed types was necessary to better understand
the genetic diversity and to better advise growers on seed choices. While it has been
1
Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Research Technician, respectively, Klamath Basin Research
& Extension Center, Klamath Falls, OR.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 30
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
established that teff is not tolerant to killing frosts at any growth stage, the effects of cool
soil and air temperatures during germination and seedling growth is not well understood.
The objective of this study was to evaluate four seed brands or varieties planted on four
dates in the spring to evaluate how growth, yield, and quality are affected by date of
planting and thus early (and late) season soil and air temperatures.
Procedures
The trial was planted at the KBREC research farm on a Poe fine sandy loam soil.
The teff seed brands tested in this experiment were ‘Dessie’ and ‘Pharoah’ from First
Line Seeds (Moses Lake, WA), ‘VAT1’ from Hankins Seed (Bonanza, OR), and
‘Tiffany’ from Target Seeds (Parma, ID). The experiment was laid out as a randomized
complete block with five replications of each seed type within each of four planting date
blocks. Teff was planted on May 16, May 30, June 13, and June 27 using a Kincaid
(Kincaid Equipment Manufacturing) plot planter with a small-seed cone attachment at a
seeding rate of 6 lb/ac. The previous crop was orchardgrass hay in 2006. All plots were
fertilized with 50 lb/acre N, 63 lb/ac P2O5, and 41 lb/ac S banded at planting (applying
16-20-0-13 fertilizer at 310 lb/ac). Weedmaster® herbicide (dicamba + 2,4-D amine,
BASF) was applied at 1.50 pint/ac on June 26 to the first three planting date areas only,
thus applying dicamba at 0.19 lb ai/ac plus 2,4-D at 0.54 lb ae/ac. No crop injury was
apparent at any time after spraying. The fourth planting date areas exhibited vigorous
growth and minimal weed pressure, and thus were not sprayed with herbicide during the
growing season.
Cutting date was chosen based on overall physiological maturity of the four seed
types for a given planting date. Thus for each planting date, the plots were cut when
seedheads were just beginning to emerge. Using this criterion, the May 16 and May 30
planting date area was cut on July 26 and again on September 5. The June 13 planting
date area was cut on August 7 and again on September 12. The June 27 planting date area
was cut on August 15 and again on September 18.
Within a few days after the first harvest of each planting date area, ammonium
sulfate was applied at 300 lb/ac (supplying 63 lb/ac N and 72 lb/ac S). Irrigation was
applied with solid-set handlines. Irrigation and precipitation amounts during the growing
season are shown in Table 1.
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
perform forage quality analysis. After drying and weighing, samples were ground to 2mm-sieve size in a Wiley Mill (Arthur H. Thomas Co.) and to 1-mm-sieve size in an Udy
Mill (UDY Corporation) before being analyzed in a near infrared spectrophotometer
(NIRS) (NIRSystems, FOSS, NA, Minneapolis, MN) to determine forage quality. Quality
testing at KBREC is accomplished using the NIRS and equations developed by the NIRS
Consortium, Madison, WI (NIRS Consortium, 2007). We used NIRS equations
developed for other grasses due to the limited data available for teff. Reported forage
quality parameters included crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral
detergent fiber (NDF), relative feed value (RFV) and relative forage quality (RFQ).
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 31
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Statistical Analysis
Statistics on yield and quality data were calculated using SAS® for Windows,
Release 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc.) software. 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. For this report, the experiment was analyzed as a split-block-in-time
design, with planting date as the main plot and seed brand as sub-plot.
Results and Discussion
Yield Results
Observed differences in yield between teff seed brands were not statistically
significant for first cutting, second cutting, or annual total (Table 2). VAT1 tended to
have higher yield on second cutting for three of the four planting dates, whereas Tiffany
tended to have higher yield at second cutting yield for the earlier two planting dates only.
Dessie and Pharoah did not show a clear trend in first cutting vs. second cutting yields.
Differences in yield between planting dates was statistically significant for first
cutting, second cutting, and annual total yield. There was also a significant planting date
by seed type interaction for yield for first cutting, second cutting, and annual total. This
indicates that seed type did not respond the same relative to each other for the various
planting dates.
The June 13 planting date produced the highest first cutting yield for all entries,
but in some cases either the June 27 or the May 30 planting date yields were not
statistically different from the June 13 planting date yield. For all entries, the May 16
planting date produced the lowest first cutting yields (Table 2, Fig. 1). This reflects teff’s
slower and poorer overall growth during the cool springtime, despite the longer time
period between planting and first cutting compared to the other planting dates (Fig. 1).
For second cutting yield, the results are not as clear-cut, and depended on seed
type. Pharoah and Tiffany produced their highest second cutting yield from the earliest
planting date, opposite of their first cutting results, which were poor from the first
planting date (Table 2, Fig. 2). Thus they rebounded from a low first cutting yield with
vigorous summer growth for the earliest planting date. Pharoah also had a good second
cutting yield from the June 13 planting date, but not the May 30 planting date. Dessie and
VAT1, however, had their best second cutting yield from the latest planting date, and
their poorest second cutting yield was from the earliest planting date. For Dessie, and to a
lesser degree for VAT1, this means that when planted early, they never recovered from
the slow spring growth, and thus had low yields for both first and second cutting when
planted on May 16. The time period between first and second cutting was still greater for
the earlier planting dates, but the differences were not as large as they had been for first
cutting. Even so, the highest second cutting yields occurred for those entries that
produced higher yields from the later planting dates (Dessie and VAT1), even though the
time period between first and second cutting was less for those than those that yielded
well at second cutting form an earlier planting date.
Even with variances between results for first and second cutting for the various
planting dates, the seasonal total yield was highest for the June 13 or June 27 planting
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 32
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
dates for every seed brand, and was lowest for the May 16 planting date (Table 2, Fig. 3).
Thus, the annual total yield data in 2007 demonstrated that waiting to plant teff until mid
June would be beneficial in this region.
Quality Results
There were no statistically significant differences between teff seed brands for
either first or second cutting for CP, ADF, NDF, or RFV (Table 3 & 4). There was a
statistically significant difference between seed brands for RFQ at the first cutting only,
where Dessie’s RFQ was significantly lower than the other three entries.
Differences in yield between planting dates were statistically significant for CP,
ADF, NDF, and RFV for both first cutting and second cutting. However, differences in
RFQ were not statistically significant for either cutting. The planting date by seed type
interaction was significant only in the following cases: CP, NDF and RFV for second
cutting; RFQ for both cuttings. This indicates that seed brands did not respond the same
relative to each other for the various planting dates in those cases, including most of the
quality parameters for the second planting date.
Although plots were harvested at roughly equal physiological maturity, the CP
tended to be low for the first planting date, then to gradually increase at the later planting
dates for first cutting (Table 3). Likewise, ADF and NDF data clearly showed that the
longer the time period between planting and first cutting, the greater the fiber content,
thus the fiber content decreased with the later planting dates for first cutting (Table 3).
Because RFV is calculated using ADF and NDF values, it is not surprising that RFV
values were lowest for the earliest planting date (Table 4). Even though RFQ differences
were not statistically significant between planting dates for first cutting, there was a trend
for increased RFQ as planting date was delayed. The difference in the way RFV and RFQ
are calculated may explain some of the reason why the overall statistical significance, as
well as responses of individual seed brands to different planting dates, may not be the
same for RFV and RFQ. Whereas RFV is a relatively simple calculation derived from
ADF and NDF, RFQ is a more complicated calculation derived from non-fibrous
carbohydrate, crude protein, fatty acids, nitrogen-free NDF, 48-hour in vitro digestibility,
and NDF (Undersander and Moore, 2002). Thus, the RFQ calculation attempts to
estimate animal intake more accurately than RFV by including additional important
nutritive qualities in the equation.
Although the trend was not so clear-cut for the second cutting, the pattern
remained that the earlier plantings produced a crop with generally higher ADF and NDF,
and lower RFV, than those grown from the later planting dates (Tables 3 & 4). Because
the plants were harvested at roughly the same physiological maturity, these results
indicated that plants grown from an earlier planting date, and thus have a longer growth
period between first and second cutting, will produce more fiber by the time seedheads
emerge. The same general trend also occurred for CP, with increasing CP values
associated with the later planting date for second cutting, although as a group the June 13
planting date had higher CP values than either the June 27 or the earlier planting dates.
For second cutting, the effect of planting date on RFQ values was not significant
(Table 4). In fact, one of the top four overall RFQ values occurred for an entry for each of
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 33
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
the four planting dates. These differences in RFQ response and statistical significance
indicate how RFQ values can be used for different purposes than the other quality
parameters.
Conclusion
Teff grew well and produced good yields and quality for all seed brands. In
almost every case, the best yield and quality occurred for either the June 13 or June 27
planting dates. In these cases, total dry weight yields were around 5 ton/ac for two
cuttings, with protein around 19% for first cutting and 14% for second cutting. For these
two planting dates, RFV and RFQ values were typically greater than 110 for first cutting,
and greater than 100 for second cutting. There were slight differences in relative
performance between seed brands at second cutting, but the seed types performed very
similarly overall. This study will be repeated, perhaps using additional seed brands and a
more compact planting window to better determine the best window to maximize
seasonal yield and quality while trying to avoid growth reduction or frost damage due to
cool weather both in the spring and early fall.
References
NIRS Forage and Feed Testing Consortium, June 2007 grass hay calibration, file name:
gh50-2. Parameters used: DM, CP, ADF, dNDF48, NDF, Ca, P, K, Mg, Ash.
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.
Undersander, D. and J.E. Moore. 2002. Relative Forage Quality. Focus on Forage, Vol. 4,
No. 5. University of Wisconsin Extension, 2 pp.
Zenk, Peg. 2005. Tons of teff. Hay & Forage Grower. February 2005. p.4.
Zenk, Peg. 2008. Adaptable and Appealing: Summer annual teff makes great horse hay.
Hay & Forage Grower. January 2008. p.28-29.
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 34
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Table 1. Precipitation and irrigation for teff seed brand x planting date trial, 2007. Klamath
Basin Research and Extension Center, Klamath Falls, OR.
Month
Precipitation
(inch)
Irrigation
(inch)
Irrigation
Applications
May
June
July
August
September
0.24
0.44
0.57
0.18
0.15
2.36
3.07
6.86
1.86
0.86
3
6
7
2
1
Total
1.58
15.01
19
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 35
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Table 2. Yield summary for the teff variety by planting date trial, 2007. Klamath Basin Research and Extension
Center, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Planting Date
Variety
Cut 1
Rank
Cut 2
Rank
Total
Yield
Rank
8230
8541
8700
7697
8530
9241
8823
9571
10272
10563
9469
9749
9911
9035
9671
11212
15
13
12
16
14
9
11
7
3
2
8
5
4
10
6
1
Yield (lb/ac) O.D.
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
May16
May16
May16
May16
May30
May30
May30
May30
June13
June13
June13
June13
June27
June27
June27
June27
Mean
4261
3148
3464
2911
4111
4863
3933
4593
5539
4943
4877
5008
4328
4578
5023
4833
11
15
14
16
12
6
13
8
1
4
5
3
10
9
2
7
3969
5393
5236
4785
4419
4378
4890
4978
4734
5620
4592
4741
5583
4457
4649
6379
16
4
5
8
14
15
7
6
10
2
12
9
3
13
11
1
4401
4925
9326
<0.001
0.099
<0.001
308
482
531
Variety P value
0.398
0.155
0.484
LSD(0.05)
NSD
NSD
NSD
<0.001
0.001
0.003
11.1
15.5
9.0
Plant Date P value
LSD(0.05)
Plant Date X Variety
Interaction P value
CV (%)
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 36
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Table 3. Crude protein, acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber summary for the teff variety by planting date trial, 2007.
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Variety
Planting
Date
Cut 1
Rank
Cut 2
Rank
Cut 1
Rank
Crude Protein
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
May16
May16
May16
May16
May30
May30
May30
May30
June13
June13
June13
June13
June27
June27
June27
June27
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.9
17.2
16.7
16.8
16.3
18.7
17.7
17.9
18.7
19.4
19.3
18.9
18.6
16
15
14
13
9
11
10
12
5
8
7
4
1
2
3
6
12.5
10.9
11.3
11.5
13.9
11.8
13.7
12.4
14.8
14.4
15.4
15.3
13.7
14.8
13.7
13.3
Cut 2
Rank
Cut 1
Rank
ADF
11
16
15
14
6
13
7
12
4
5
1
2
7
3
9
10
39.1
38.6
38.0
37.5
34.8
35.3
34.7
35.4
34.1
33.9
34.7
34.0
32.1
33.1
33.4
32.1
1
2
3
4
7
6
8
5
10
12
9
11
16
14
13
15
Cut 2
NDF
37.5
38.7
37.9
37.2
37.1
37.8
37.0
36.7
35.5
36.1
35.5
35.5
35.3
35.1
35.6
35.8
4
1
2
5
6
3
7
8
12
9
14
13
15
16
11
10
60.0
60.1
59.2
57.5
54.8
54.8
54.7
55.2
53.1
53.6
52.5
51.9
50.8
52.7
52.3
52.6
2
1
3
4
6
7
8
5
10
9
13
15
16
11
14
12
57.9
60.1
59.6
58.3
57.7
58.0
57.3
56.4
56.3
54.3
54.3
54.7
50.6
54.4
54.4
54.0
Mean
16.3
13.3
35.0
36.5
54.7
56.1
Plant
Date P
value
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
1.3
1.0
0.856
0.162
0.591
0.178
0.495
0.131
LSD(0.05)
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
NSD
Plant
Date X
Variety
Interaction
P value
0.927
0.050
0.412
0.474
0.535
0.003
9.7
8.8
3.5
2.6
3.6
2.9
LSD(0.05)
Variety P
value
CV (%)
Rank
5
1
2
3
6
4
7
8
9
14
13
10
16
11
12
15
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 37
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Table 4. Relative feed value and relative forage quality summary for the teff variety by planting date trial, 2007. Klamath
Basin Research and Extension Center, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Planting
Date
Variety
Cut 1
Rank
Cut 2
Rank
Cut 1
Rank
RFV
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
Dessie
Pharoah
Tiffany
VAT1
May16
May16
May16
May16
May30
May30
May30
May30
June13
June13
June13
June13
June27
June27
June27
June27
90.7
91.1
93.3
96.6
104.9
104.4
105.5
103.6
109.2
108.9
109.7
111.9
117.7
111.5
112.1
113.1
16
15
14
13
10
11
9
12
7
8
6
4
1
5
3
2
Cut 2
Rank
100.8
96.6
92.5
105.4
94.7
100.8
105.4
100.5
98.1
100.4
106.4
101.4
102.6
93.8
102.2
102.4
9
13
16
3
14
8
2
10
12
11
1
7
4
15
6
5
RFQ
96.0
90.9
92.9
95.6
96.8
95.3
97.6
99.5
101.2
104.3
104.9
104.3
113.2
105.3
104.6
105.2
12
16
15
13
11
14
10
9
8
7
4
6
1
2
5
3
96.5
105.9
106.3
108.2
99.8
105.2
106.3
107.3
101.9
107.2
107.1
103.4
110.0
104.8
106.0
112.2
16
10
7
3
15
11
8
4
14
5
6
13
2
12
9
1
Mean
105.3
100.5
105.5
100.3
Plant Date P value
<.001
<.001
0.068
0.604
3.5
2.4
NSD
NSD
Variety P value
0.598
0.101
0.007
0.102
LSD(0.05)
NSD
NSD
3.3
NSD
Plant Date X Variety
Interaction P value
0.641
0.015
0.049
0.017
5.2
3.8
4.9
6.4
LSD(0.05)
CV (%)
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 38
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Fig. 1.Teff First Cutting Yield at the Klamath Basin Research & Extension Center, 2007.
6000
80
70
5000
4000
50
3000
40
30
2000
20
Days From Planting to 1st Cutting
Oven Dry Yield (lb/ac)
60
1000
10
0
0
May16
May30
June13
June27
Date of Planting
VAT1
Tiffany
Pharoah
Dessie
Days Since Plant
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 39
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
Fig. 2.Teff Second Cutting Yield at the Klamath Basin Research & Extension Center, 2007.
7000
45
40
6000
Oven Dry Yield (lb/ac)
30
4000
25
20
3000
15
2000
Days From 1st to 2nd Cutting
35
5000
10
1000
5
0
0
May16
May30
June13
June27
Date of Planting
VAT1
Tiffany
Pharoah
Dessie
Days Since 1st Cut
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 40
Research in the Klamath Basin
20 07 Annual Report
12000
120
10000
100
8000
80
6000
60
4000
40
2000
20
0
Days From Planting to 2nd Cutting
Oven Dry Yield (lb/ac)
Fig. 3.Teff Total Seasonal Yield at the Klamath Basin Research & Extension Center, 2007.
0
May16
May30
June13
June27
Date of Planting
VAT1
Tiffany
Pharoah
Dessie
Days Planting to 2nd Cut
______________________________________________________________________________
Klamath Basin Research and Extension Center
Yield and Forage Quality of Four Teff Seed Brands as Affected by
Planting Date and Soil/Air Temperatures in the Klamath Basin, 2007 Page 41