# Presentation: 167811

## Oat Variety Comparisons 

**On Fields Managed Organically **
**In Minnesota and North Dakota**

**Patrick M. Carr*, Herman J. Kandel, Paul M. Porter, Richard D. Horsley, and Steve F. Zwinger **

- University of Minnesota

## Small-grain cultivar adaptation studies typically are located in environments where synthetic fertilizers and biocides are used.

**Small-grain cultivar adaptation studies typically are located in environments where synthetic fertilizers and biocides are used.**

## Many organic growers want cultivar adaptation studies to be located in environments managed organically.

**Many organic growers want cultivar adaptation studies to be located in environments managed organically.**

- D. Podoll, personal communication, 2005

## Objectives

**Objectives**

**Identify modern oat cultivars that were adapted to growing conditions in certified organic fields.**** **
**Identify growth characteristics that were correlated to yield performance.**

## Materials and Methods

**Materials and Methods**

## Slide 6

## Agronomic data collected

**Plant height (PM), lodging, grain yield, test weight, and kernel weight  **
**Plant stand density, seedling vigor and height, canopy closure, and panicle density**

**Agronomic data collected**

## Slide 8

## Cultivars were arranged in a randomized complete block with treatments replicated four times at each location in both yr.    

**Cultivars were arranged in a randomized complete block with treatments replicated four times at each location in both yr.    **

## Results and Discussion

**Results and Discussion**

## Slide 11

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

**Cultivars with computed stability values ( ) were: Sesqui (23), HiFi (40), Leonard (56), Richard (77), Wabasha (81), Ebeltoft (86), Morton (114), Youngs (140), Hytest (428), and Buff (516).  **

## Slide 15

## Slide 16

## Slide 17

## Slide 18

## Slide 19

## There was an interaction between environment and cultivar treatments for grain yield, test weight, and kernel weight.   

**There was an interaction between environment and cultivar treatments for grain yield, test weight, and kernel weight.   **

## Several cultivars ranked high consistently for grain yield, test weight, and kernel weight.

**Several cultivars ranked high consistently for grain yield, test weight, and kernel weight.**

_**Grain yield**_**: Sesqui, HiFi, Leonard**** **
_**Grain test weight**_**: Buff (hull-less), Hytest (hulled) **** **
_**Kernel weight**_**: Youngs**

## Growth traits collectively explained only as much as 40% of the variation in grain yield, and in most instances considerably less. 

**Growth traits collectively explained only as much as 40% of the variation in grain yield, and in most instances considerably less. **

**A majority of the variation still was unexplained.  **

## Conclusions

**Conclusions**

**Sesqui (along with HiFi and Leonard)  seem to be adapted to production in certified organic fields if grain yield is an important selection criterion. **

## Conclusions (continued)

**Conclusions (continued)**

**This investigation failed to identify plant growth and development traits that explained consistently the variation in grain yield between cultivars.  **

## Conclusions (continued)

**Conclusions (continued)**

**Beyond the scope of this investigation was responding to the belief that a need exist to develop and select cultivars in organic environments.   **

## Conclusions (continued)

**Conclusions (continued)**

**Beyond the scope of this investigation was responding to the belief that old cultivars are better adapted to organic environments than modern cultivars.   **

## We are grateful for the NCR-SARE research and education grant program for providing the funds to support this study.

**We are grateful for the NCR-SARE research and education grant program for providing the funds to support this study.**