Table of Contents
Putnam, D.H. 1993. An interdisciplinary approach to the
development of lupin as an alternative crop. p. 266-277. In: J. Janick and
J.E. Simon (eds.), New crops. Wiley, New York.
Interdisciplinary Approach to the Development of Lupin as an Alternative Crop
- CROP DESCRIPTION
- HISTORY OF LUPIN
- THE IMPETUS
- THE APPROACH
- LIMITING FACTOR RESEARCH
- AGRONOMY RESEARCH
- Planting Date
- Row Spacing
- Weed Control
- IRRIGATION RESEARCH
- PLANT PATHOLOGY RESEARCH
- ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH
- UTILIZATION RESEARCH
- ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
- ON-FARM RESEARCH
- EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS AND OUTREACH
- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
- Table 1
- Table 2
- Table 3
- Table 4
- Table 5
- Table 6
- Table 7
- Fig. 1
- Fig. 2
- Fig. 3
From the ashen wasteland of Mount St. Helens to the barren frozen Arctic, from
the heights of the Andes to the cool Mediterranean or Texas plains, over 300
Lupinus species have found their place in the natural world. Although
its agricultural history is also thousands of years old, in many regions of the
world lupin is still a "new" crop plant. Lupins are high in protein, do not
contain antinutritional factors, are high N-fixers, have value in a rotation
and have an upright, non-shattering habit. However, other factors such as
economics and competition from established crops are important to the success
of a new crop and it is not yet clear the place lupins will occupy in modern
agricultural systems. This paper describes how a group of researchers
approached the problem of using lupin (Lupinus albus) as an alternative
source of protein for dairy or other livestock farmers in central Minnesota.
Our experience with this crop during a collaborative project conducted between
1988 and 1991 might be of use to others who are exploring the application of
lupin or similar species in different parts of the world.
Cultivated lupins are cool-season grain legumes or forage crops (Fig. 1).
There are five species cultivated worldwide (L. albus, L.
augustifolius, L. luteus, L. mutabalis, and L.
cosentenii), in climates ranging from northern Europe and Russia, to the
arid Australian plains and the Andean highlands. Both spring-sown and
fall-sown types are grown, but only the spring types are adapted to the
northern Midwest, Northeast, and Canada. Agricultural production of lupin
represents a fraction of a percent of the grain legumes grown worldwide,
largely because of its historically bitter seed (Williams 1986). However,
lupin is one of the few grain legumes that come close to soybean in protein
content of the seed (Hymowitz 1990). The large seed and lack of
antinutritional factors make lupin a potential crop for many animal feed
formulations, for direct feeding, and as a human food.
Lupin as a crop species was important to many of the Mediterranean
civilizations, and was apparently independently domesticated in both the Old
and New World (Gross 1986). The crop is mentioned as commonplace by the poet
Virgil (70 BC), and by Greek and Persian writers (1500 AD) (Hondelmann 1984).
The large seed was reportedly used as play money during Roman times. In their
exploration of the New World, Spaniards noted that the Andean civilizations had
lupins (Tarwi, or Lupinus mutabilis) "as we have in Spain" (Hondelmann
In the case of lupin, the crop introduction process seems to have occurred many
times. Arab conquests spread lupin across northern Africa and into the Iberian
peninsula. Frederick the Great was responsible for introducing lupin from
Italy to northern Prussia. In most of these cultures, lupin was traditionally
used either for grazing, or the bitter seed was soaked before use by man or
animal. Shortly after WWI, the German Botanical Society held a "lupin dinner"
to generate interest in the crop, featuring lupin steaks, liquor, coffee,
tablecloths, napkins, and other items made from the crop (Hondelmann 1984).
This sparked subsequent breeding efforts, resulting in "sweet" or low-alkaloid
lupin types developed in the 1920s, essentially creating a new crop from the
old, bitter types. This represents one of the first applications of Mendelian
genetics to crop plants.
The process of introduction of the newer "sweet" lupins, as distinct from the
older "bitter" types is still occurring. For example, Chilean researchers have
introduced sweet Lupinus albus varieties to southern Chile, and have
also developed low alkaloid Lupinus mutabalis varieties which may have
applications in the high mountain areas where the traditional bitter Lupinus
mutabalis (tarwi) types are grown (Von Baer 1991). Soviet, Polish, German,
and South African efforts following World War II led to the development of
significant, though erratic hectarage in those regions. Perhaps the largest
success story for the modern development of lupin as an introduced species is
in Australia, where the blue or narrow-leaf lupin (Lupinus angustifolius
L., a more drought resistant species) was introduced in the 1960s and 1970s as
a legume to rotate with wheat. In spite of early difficulties, strong
cooperation between researchers (especially J. Gladstones, plant breeder),
advisers, marketers, and farmers in the Geraldton area resulted in increases in
planted area to currently over 900,000 ha in Western Australia. Although some
of the crop is used for grazing, a large quantity of this seed is exported to
the EEC or Pacific rim countries for use as a high protein animal feed.
The first experimental plantings of lupin in the United States were probably
made in the 1930s by USDA researchers, primarily as a green manure or cover
crop in the southern cotton belt. Area increased by 1950 to over one million
hectares in the "lupin belt," the coastal plain stretching across the
southeastern United States. The crop had essentially disappeared by the 1960s,
largely because of availability of cheap N fertilizers and lack of government
support (Reeves 1991). In the North, Fred Elliott worked for many years in
Michigan developing improved white lupin lines, and later introduced several
new cultivars to Minnesota and Canada in the early 1980s (Putnam 1991).
Efforts by plant breeder Gene Aksland (Resource Seeds, Gilroy, CA), and
experimental work in the Pacific Northwest and Canada were important in
introducing the crop to those regions in the 1980s.
The American dairy industry in the 1980s experienced increased production
costs, lower milk prices, and higher debt which forced many farmers to look
seriously at cutting costs, especially the possibility of reducing purchased
protein inputs. In spite of the fact that Minnesota is a major soybean
(Glycine max) producer, the purchase of soybean meal by Minnesota dairy
producers is a significant expense, similar to the costs experienced by
producers in protein-poor regions, such as the northeastern United States,
eastern Canada, and parts of Europe. The large seed of white lupin is high in
protein and oil, and has been fed directly to a wide range of livestock.
Hence, it was an excellent candidate for farmers who desired to increase
on-farm production of protein. In addition, there are many regions where the
temperatures are too cold and the soils too sandy for soybean. There were
several farmers in central Minnesota who had worked with lupin, in addition to
early work at the University of Minnesota and by the Tennessee Valley
Authority. A Minnesota company later developed lupin pasta and other products
from white lupin (Putnam 1991). However, there was much that was not known
about many aspects of production and utilization of the crop.
Several brainstorming sessions were held in 1987 with university researchers,
private businesses, and others to examine the validity of lupin as a crop.
These were sponsored by the Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products,
University of Minnesota. Subjects within the areas of agronomy, weed science,
plant pathology, entomology, soil science, agricultural engineering, animal
science, and agricultural economics were identified as important research
areas, and an interdisciplinary research team was assembled from the
appropriate university departments and extension. Staples Irrigation Center
personnel provided technical support, and cooperating farmers in central
Minnesota were identified and contacted by county extension agents.
The Central Minnesota Initiative Fund, Bremer Foundation, and the Agricultural
Utilization Research Institute (all Minnesota-based foundations) provided
funding. These agencies were primarily interested in developing the economy of
rural Minnesota, which has been depressed for much of the 1980s despite
economic growth in urban Minnesota. In addition, lupin had the potential to
reduce energy and financial input costs associated with protein production, a
goal in line with a more environmentally-friendly agriculture.
The objective was to focus intensive interdisciplinary efforts over a
three-year period (1988-1991) to: (1) enhance probability of success by
conducting research on limiting factors, (2) educate farmers and the public on
the possibilities for production and utilization of lupin, and (3) assess the
risk of producing lupin as an alternative protein source.
A number of studies were undertaken in different departments to address factors
which might affect the success of growing or utilizing lupin. These were
conducted at the University of Minnesota Experiment Stations at Staples,
Becker, Grand Rapids, Rosemount, and St. Paul. The yield potential of white
lupin at some sites was relatively high (3,000 to 4,000 kg/ha), but a large
yield variation from site to site and year to year was observed. The overall
objectives of this research were to understand the factors which contributed to
this wide yield variation, in order to enable farmers to optimize management
practices for this crop.
We evaluated a number of white lupin (Lupinus albus) lines, as well as
several L. angustifolius and L. luteus cultivars obtained from
the USSR, Poland, and Australia. Both replicated yield trials and germplasm
screening were conducted. White lupin was much more productive than other
lupin species on the irrigated sands of central Minnesota and a number of white
lupin varieties showed acceptable productivity in the north central states
(Table 1). Yield differences between white lupin cultivars were highly
environment-specific, and were generally non-significant when averaged over
years and sites. The earlier spring-type lines were generally more productive.
Factors other than cultivar selection for yield, such as seed quality, seed
size, alkaloid content, or time to maturity may be more important when
considering seed source for white lupin. Smaller seed size potentially allows
more reliable imbibition and stand establishment in the spring, and reduces
cost of seed, a major economic factor with white lupin.
Date of planting had a large influence on lupin performance. Mid-April
planting resulted in maximum seed yield over five years of trials. Yield
declined linearly about 53 kg/ha per day in plantings sown after the optimum
date (11 year/location mean, Fig. 2). However, very early plantings sometimes
vernalized the plants, reducing height, node number, and yield due largely to
early cold effects on the seedling. Studies of yield formation on vernalized
vs. non-vernalized plants indicated that pod number was dramatically altered by
planting date or vernalization. Plants which had one primary branch
inflorescence contributed most to yield, compared to plants which only set
mainstem pods. Thermosensitivity in white lupin remains an important agronomic
factor in the spring-sown crop, and the window for optimum seeding date is
Bradyrhizobium sp. (Lupinus) inoculation resulted in a 1.5, 2,
and 5-fold increase in yield in 1988, 1989, and 1990, respectively, compared to
non-inoculated controls (Table 2). Seed protein was significantly impacted by
nitrogen source, and increased 28 to 45% due to inoculation (Ayisi et al.
1992b). This was a large difference, and may explain the large variation in
seed protein that is sometimes observed in lupin seed lots. White lupins were
shown to fix 157 to 196 kg N/ha (1989 and 1990, respectively) from the
atmosphere. Bradyrhizobium sp. (Lupinus) persisted on these
soils, but populations were low with only one year of inoculation (Ayisi et al.
1992a). These results emphasized the importance of regular inoculation for
white lupin yield and quality.
Narrow rows (15 cm) produced 34% higher yield than wider rows (76 cm) (average
of two trials). However, due to weed problems in lupin production, wider rows
with cultivation should be considered in situations where chemical weed control
is unavailable, unreliable, undesirable, or not economic (Putnam et al. 1991).
Weeds are one of the biggest problems in producing lupins in this region. The
lupin canopy develops and expands slowly, therefore, weeds have the opportunity
to germinate and compete with the lupin crop. In Minnesota, the broadleaf
weeds common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and common ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia) were especially troublesome. The EPA-approved
chemical control measures Dual (metolachlor), Prowl (pendimethalin), and Poast
(sethoxydim) provide some control against some annual grassy and broadleaf
weeds, but do not help in controlling these problem broadleaf weeds (especially
the late-germinating weeds).
In a two-year study, the herbicide imazethapyr (Pursuit) was applied at two
rates and two post-emergence dates, and provided excellent control of common
lambsquarters and common ragweed. However, the lupin crop was severely injured
in both years causing large yield reductions. In Wisconsin,
imazethopyr-induced injury was not observed and this product is currently
labeled in several states for use on heavier soils. At this point, the crop
injury potential outweighs the benefits of this measure in Minnesota (Gunsolus
and Wiens 1991).
Mechanical cultivation in wide rows, early seeding in narrow rows, rotary
hoeing, intercropping, or other measures may improve the weed control options,
but reliable weed control for production of white lupin remains a problem.
Lupin interplanted with peas (Pisum sativum L.) is an experimental
practice, but has shown some promise over two years of trials. The lupins
prevent lodging in the peas, and the pea provides an earlier canopy closure for
weed control in the lupin. Since both crops are grown for a high protein seed,
the products are compatible. Land Equivalent Ratios for this mixture have been
shown to be above one for some density combinations of the two crops. In this
system, peas appear to benefit more than lupins, largely because they are more
competitive. Further research is needed to determine whether complementation
occurs in this mixture (Putnam et al. 1991).
Irrigation increased lupin seed yields 553, 229, and 52% in 1988, 1989, 1990,
respectively, primarily through increased pod number (Fig. 3). Optimum
irrigation rates for maximizing water-use efficiency and economic returns were
described. Seed crude protein concentration declined at high irrigation rates.
Irrigation was cost-effective in most years on sandy soils (Putnam et al. 1992).
Lupin pathogens common in Minnesota were identified. A number of pathogenic
fungi were isolated from lupin throughout the 1989 and 1990 growing season
(Table 3). Fusarium sp. and Rhizoctonia were most commonly
isolated. Fusarium was associated with root rot and wilt symptoms and
Ascochyta was found to cause a stem canker and pod lesions.
Ascochyta infected seeds were found to have lower germination and
emergence than healthy seed (Table 4). Pleiocheata setosa was found
associated with a foliar and pod spot and caused plant defoliation when
infections were severe. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides caused
anthracnose on several species of Lupinus and appeared as a purple to
pink stem lesion with resulting epinasty. This disease has the potential to
cause substantial crop loss in severely infected fields and did so in the 1991
Seed treatments of lupin were generally ineffective in improving stand
establishment in our trials. Reduced stand has been a problem in many areas of
the region and damping off and root rot organisms have been associated with
these reduced stands. Seed treatments used on seeds of other crops (e.g.,
field bean) did not improve lupin stands in seed treatment trials.
Most of the diseases were found on a limited basis in production fields in
Minnesota during the survey years of 1989 and 1990. The use of proper cultural
control practices such as rotation and the use of clean seed must be continued
to reduce the chances of crop failure due to disease.
Results of experiments indicate that most of the commonly observed insects on
lupin appear to be of little economic importance. The seedcorn maggot
(Delia platura Meigen) has caused stand losses to the extent that yields
have sometimes been decreased, but in two years of trials, insecticide
treatments do not appear to be justified. The foliar insects, potato
leafhopper Empoasca fabae (Harris), and plant bugs (Lygus sp. and
Adelphocoris sp.) have been observed feeding on lupin foliage, but do
not appear to be economically important. Blossom feeders, such as blister
beetles and scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae sp.) are generally not
important in Minnesota, but have been a problem in drier environments (e.g., in
North Dakota trials). No insecticides are currently labeled for use on lupin,
but this does not seem to be a severe limitation at this time.
White lupins are high in protein (32 to 38%) and oil (10 to 11%) and do not
contain anti-nutritional compounds, such as trypsin inhibitors. They have been
fed directly to a wide variety of livestock. Lupin fed to livestock should
have an alkaloid content of less than 0.02%. Palatability may still be an
important factor with swine, even with seemingly "sweet" lupin types. It is
possible that environment significantly impacts alkaloid level of seedlots.
Several-fold variation in alkaloid content due to environment has been observed
with L. augustifolius in Australia (J. Gladstone pers. commun.).
Studies were conducted on the effect of feeding lupins to dairy cows and
Conducted in Minnesota, swine trials using defatted, dehulled meal have
indicated a decline in swine performance when fed this product. Results
reported in the literature on swine performance with lupins have been mixed
(Hill 1991). Feed intake was significantly affected in growing-finishing
swine. University of Minnesota studies indicate that lupins should not be
included at levels greater than 8 to 10% of dietary dry matter for swine. It
appears that pigs are much more susceptible than other animals to either the
alkaloid levels or the manganese content of lupins, thus it is imperative that
lupins for swine be examined carefully for alkaloid level.
Dairy feeding trials indicated that cows producing less than 9,000 kg of milk
per year should perform as well on lupins as on soybean meal. In addition,
there was a 3.5% increase in fat-corrected milk yield when lupins supplied 75%
of the supplemental protein in the diet, compared with soybean meal, possibly
due to higher fat content of the lupin (Table 5). Lupins are approximately 35%
protein compared with 44% for soybean meal. Because lupins are more degradable
than soybean meal, they should not be the only source of supplemental protein
for herds with higher production. Our trials have shown that coarse grinding
of lupin seed improves protein utilization. Milk production from roasted
lupins was found to be similar to that from soybean meal in trials from other
regions (Singh et al. 1991). Several dairy and livestock producers in central
Minnesota and Wisconsin have successfully incorporated lupin in their feeding
Farm enterprise budgets for lupin were developed (Table 6). Costs of
production for lupin and soybean were similar with the exception of seed costs,
which were higher for lupin. Since the value of lupin is currently primarily
in the protein, lupin prices were determined as a percentage of soybean meal,
and we calculated returns based upon several cost/price assumptions (Table 6).
It is clear from this analysis that either the costs of production must
decrease or the value of the product of lupin must increase to improve the
economic viability of lupin as a cash crop in central Minnesota. Current cash
value of lupin is about $4.00 to $4.70/bu ($147/t to $173/t) and soybean $5.50
to $5.70/bu ($202 to $209/t), and the (low) price of other protein sources
(primarily soybean) is a major disincentive to lupin expansion at this time,
both in Minnesota and worldwide. However, the value of lupin as an on-farm
source of protein is significantly different from a cash crop, and should be
assigned differently. For example, many producers place a value on the idea of
self-sufficiency in producing their own feed, reducing cash requirements of
such practices, and thus reduced probability of negative cash flow. Further
analysis is required to estimate this value.
On-Farm trials were conducted from 1988-1990 to understand the problems
encountered in production systems and to compare lupin productivity with other
crops. Non-irrigated plots were severely affected by weeds and drought in 1988
and 1989, making the data collected less useful. In 1990, a replicated on-farm
comparison between lupin and soybean gave a fair comparison between the crops,
and showed that lupin was similar to soybean at more southerly locations, but
superior at northerly Minnesota locations (Table 7). These experiences were
largely anecdotal, but were valuable in indicating where lupins would fit in
Minnesota, and in describing the problems encountered by producers. A
`case-study' about the introduction of lupin as a new crop, used as a teaching
tool to illustrate the problem of new crop introduction, was developed from
these experiences (Simmons et al. 1992).
The issue of competition from currently-used crops is important when
considering any new crop alternative, and our on-farm studies indicated that
there are regions in southern and central Minnesota where soybeans are more
viable and regions in the north where lupin is more viable as a grain legume.
There has also been a move in some quarters towards greater use of whole
roasted soybean as an on-farm source of protein, a use which was also furthered
by this research.
Research field days, winter meetings, and farm tours were conducted, and fact
sheets were developed (Putnam et al. 1989). A Lupin Production Guide was
produced which contains color photographs and a description of agronomic
practices, diseases, insects, and feeding of lupin (Meronuck et al. 1991).
A symposium was held at St. Paul, MN, 21-22 March 1991 to present results of
our studies with lupin and to discuss the prospects of the crop with scientists
from other regions. This symposium enabled us to broaden our consideration of
lupin to include those who had worked with the crop in other regions. Research
results and farmers' experiences with lupins (positive and negative) were
reported and published in a proceedings which serves as a record of the status
of lupins in North America at the time (CAPAP 1991). This symposium and
earlier contacts between researchers, resulted in the formation of the North
American Lupin Association, which now publishes a newsletter (contact Dr. Paul
Mask, Extension Hall, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849 for information). This
has as its goal facilitation of communication between those working on this
crop in either research or industry.
An interesting spin-off of the lupin project was the development of a joint
US-Soviet database on lupin. In 1989, J. Orf (soybean breeder), R.A. Meronuck
(plant pathologist), and D.H. Putnam (agronomist) traveled to Moscow, Kiev, and
Poland to investigate the lupin work being conducted there. The contacts made
during that trip resulted in the creation of a database containing over 4,500
entries from the former eastern block countries, the former USSR, and
English-speaking sources. It is hoped that this database will be of use to
lupin researchers and industry in years to come.
Our educational and outreach efforts with lupin underscores the importance of
sharing of experiences and information networking with minor crops. There are
very few individuals who have in-depth knowledge of minor crops worldwide, and
still fewer who have extensive knowledge of any individual crop. In situations
such as these, symposia, newsletters, and other information-sharing mechanisms
become vital to the future development of that crop. This type of outreach has
already yielded valuable interactions in the area of research and extension in
the case of lupin.
We analyzed the lupin crop from a production-utilization-marketing perspective,
with many disciplines within the University of Minnesota, farmers and outside
agencies contributing to a cooperative effort. Unlike many alternative crops,
utilization pathways for lupin are broad and numerous (primarily as a dairy
feed, but also for poultry and human food), and production constraints are of
primary importance. Weed control, sensitivity to soil or climatic variations,
diseases, and stand establishment are the primary concerns at this time.
Farmers in many cases have overcome these obstacles, and some of the data we
have generated may help in controlling the fluctuation in yield levels.
However, further work, especially on weed control, is needed to create a
reliable production management system.
It is neither likely nor necessarily desirable that lupin replace soybean or
other grain legumes in areas where those crops are well adapted. However,
there are many regions where lupin could make a valuable contribution to
cropping systems and to farmers' economic options due to its high nutritional
value and adaptation to poor sandy soils. Significant changes in the
value of the harvested product or reduction in the costs of
production (primarily seed costs) would give producers incentives to improve
the production systems for lupin. The current use patterns for lupin have
valued the crop essentially as a replacement for protein commodities traded on
the world market, a comparison made in central Minnesota as well as in central
Europe. Interesting ideas for the improvement in the value of lupins have been
the potential for reducing saturated fats of milk or meat products from
lupin-fed animals (M. McNiven pers. commun.), or the utilization of lupin
alkaloids for pharmaceutical-use or plant protection (Binsack 1991).
Multiple-use models have been critical to the development of other crops (e.g.,
We found an interdisciplinary approach to lupin research and development to be
beneficial towards a more complete understanding of the new crop development
problem from a production-utilization-marketing perspective. The new-crop
development process is often described as long-term, and lupin is no exception.
Each piece of information and each step may move us slightly in the direction
of producing a more viable new crop. It is clear, however, that cooperation
between disciplines is essential to this process.
- Ayisi, K.K., D.H. Putnam, C.P. Vance, and P.H. Graham. 1992a. Dinitrogen
fixation, nitrogen and dry matter accumulation, and nodulation in white lupin.
Crop Sci. (in press).
- Ayisi, K.K., D.H. Putnam, C.P. Vance, and P.H. Graham. 1992b.
Bradyrhizobum inoculation and nitrogen effects on seed yield and protein
of white lupin. Agron. J. (in press).
- Binsack, R. 1991. Lupin research and development programs supported by
GTZ-Germany, p. 7-12. In: Proc. Sixth Int. Lupin Conf. Nov. 25-30, 1990.
Temuco-Pucon, Chile. Int. Lupin Assoc.
- Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products (CAPAP). 1991. Prospects for
lupins in North America. Proc. Symp. March 21-22, 1991, St. Paul, MN.
- Gross, R. 1986. Lupins in the old and new world--a biological-cultural
co-evolution, p. 244-277. In: Proc. Fourth Int. Lupin Conf. Aug. 15-22, 1986.
Geraldton, W. Australia. Int. Lupin Assoc.
- Gunsolus, J. and M. Wiens. 1991. Postemergence weed control studies in lupin
with Pursuit herbicide, p. 163-164. In: Prospects for lupins in North America.
Proc. Symp. March 21-22, 1991. St. Paul, MN. Center for Alternative Plant
and Animal Products, St. Paul, MN.
- Harvey, R.G. 1991. Results of three years of lupin weed control research, p.
157-161. In: Prospects for lupins in North America. Proc. Symp. March 21-22,
1991. St. Paul, MN. Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products, St.
- Hill, G.D. 1991. The utilization of lupins in animal nutrition, p. 68-91.
In: Proc. 6th Int. Lupin Conf., Temuco-Pucon, Chile. Nov. 25-30, 1990, Int.
- Hondelmann, W. 1984. The lupin: Ancient and modern crop plant. Theor. Appl.
- Hymowitz, T. 1990. Grain legumes, p. 154-158. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon
(eds.). Advances in new crops. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
- Meronuck, R.A., H. Meredith, and D.H. Putnam. 1991. Lupin production and
utilization guide. Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products, Univ. of
Minnesota, St. Paul.
- Putnam, D.H. 1991. History and prospects for lupins in the upper Midwest, p.
33-40. In: Prospects for lupins in North America. Proc. Symp. March 21-22,
1991. St. Paul, MN. Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products.
- Putnam, D.H., E.S. Oplinger, L.L. Hardman, and J.D. Doll. 1989. Lupin. In:
Alternative field crops manual. Center for Alternative Plant and Animal
Products, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.
- Putnam, D.H., L.A. Field, L.L. Hardman, and S.R. Simmons. 1991. Agronomic
studies on white lupins in Minnesota, p. 53-70. In: Prospects for lupins in
North America. Proc. Symp. March 21-22, 1991. St. Paul, MN. Center for
Alternative Plant and Animal Products.
- Putnam, D.H., J. Wright, and L.A. Field. 1992. White lupin seed yield and
water-use efficiency as influenced by irrigation, row spacing, and weeds.
Agron J. (in press).
- Reeves, D.W. 1991. Experiences and prospects for lupins in the south and
southeast, p. 23-30. In: Prospects for lupins in North America. Proc. Symp.
March 21-22, 1991. St. Paul, MN. Center for Alternative Plant and Animal
Products, St. Paul.
- Simmons, S.R., D.H. Putnam, and D. Otterby. 1992. Mueller Farm: Lupin as an
alternative crop for on-farm protein production. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci.
- Singh, C.K., P.H. Robinson, and M.A. McNiven. 1991. In: Prospects for lupins
in North America. Proc. Symp. March 21-22, 1991. St. Paul, MN. Center for
Alternative Plant and Animal Products, St. Paul.
- Von Baer, E. 1991. New varieties of lupin, p. 376-381. In: Proc. Sixth Int.
Lupin Conf. Nov. 25-30, 1990. Temuco-Pucon, Chile, Int. Lupin Assoc.
- Williams, W. 1986. Current status of the crop lupins, p. 1-13. In: Proc.
Fourth Int. Lupin Conf. Aug. 15-22, 1986. Geraldton, W. Australia. Int.
*I acknowledge the following cooperators: R.A. Meronuck, D. Otterby, K.K.
Ayisi, L.A. Field, J.L. Gunsolus, L.L. Hardman, D.G. Johnson, R. Kalis-Kusnia,
N. Krause, M. May, L. McCann, D. Noetzel, K. Olson, J. Orf, S.R. Simmons, E.L.
Stewart, M. Wiens, and J. Wright.
Table 1. Performance of lupin cultivars at Minnesota Experiment
zBecker and Rosemount 1987-1990, Grand Rapids and Staples
| ||Seed yield (kg/ha)|
| ||Becker ||Grand Rapids ||Rosemount ||Staples|
|Variety ||1990 ||1987-1990 ||1990 ||1988-1990 ||1990 ||1987-1990 ||1990 ||1988-1990 ||Overall
|Blanca 101 ||3033 ||1945 ||4225 ||2547 ||4264 ||2078 ||2688 ||2576 ||2222|
|Gela x 243 ||2509 ||1895 ||4107 ||2406 ||3960 ||2116 ||2656 ||2312 ||2157|
|Horizont ||3223 ||2057 ||4010 ||2220 ||4240 ||2084 ||3203 ||2412 ||2176|
|Kiev ||--- ||1262 ||--- ||921 ||--- ||1258 ||2791 ||2398 ||---|
|L2019 N ||2766 ||--- ||4172 ||--- ||3734 ||--- ||2640 ||--- ||---|
|L2085 N ||2862 ||--- ||4301 ||--- ||3924 ||--- ||2859 ||--- ||---|
|Primorski ||2989 ||1828 ||4220 ||2330 ||3907 ||2084 ||2630 ||2160 ||2075|
|Strain 21 ||2791 ||1877 ||3994 ||2369 ||3917 ||2013 ||3017 ||2529 ||2160|
|Ultra ||2848 ||1841 ||4172 ||2257 ||4316 ||1869 ||3559 ||2507 ||2081|
|46-10 ||2992 ||1866 ||4064 ||2311 ||4340 ||2026 ||3083 ||2421 ||2126|
|47-5 ||2821 ||2012 ||3661 ||2009 ||3895 ||1973 ||3320 ||2463 ||2097|
|LSD 5% ||449 ||482 ||573 ||577 ||678 ||450 ||582 ||590 ||519|
Table 2. Inoculation and N fertilizer effects on lupin yield and
protein (Becker, MN). In our trials, N fertilizer was not required to maximize
yield and inoculation significantly improved seed protein compared with
non-inoculated plots, even when N fertilizer was applied.
z+ = inoculated with Bradyrhizobium sp. (Lupinus); - =
|Treatments ||Seed yield (kg/ha) ||Seed proteiny (%)|
|N Fertilizer ||Inoculumz ||1988 ||1989 ||1990 ||1988 ||1989 ||1990|
|0 ||+ ||1002 ||2943 ||2850 ||39.1 ||36.1 ||32.3|
|56 ||+ ||1187 ||3155 ||2709 ||40.1 ||32.0 ||31.3|
|112 ||+ ||1184 ||3260 ||2723 ||40.6 ||33.0 ||32.5|
|168 ||+ ||1251 ||3468 ||2161 ||40.7 ||33.8 ||31.4|
|0 ||- ||657 ||1509 ||575 ||30.7 ||25.7 ||22.4|
|56 ||- ||963 ||2180 ||1571 ||28.7 ||26.1 ||23.7|
|112 ||- ||1008 ||2668 ||2483 ||30.5 ||30.2 ||24.8|
|168 ||- ||949 ||2959 ||2346 ||32.5 ||30.7 ||26.5|
yDry matter basis.
Table 3. Fungi isolated from Lupinus spp. during the 1988 and
1990 growing seasons.
zR (roots), H (hypocotyl), L (leaves), S (stem), P (pod), and B
(bean or seed).
|Fungus ||Plant partz ||No. of|
|Fusarium Link:Fr. ||HRLS ||109y|
|Rhizoctonia solani Kühn AG-4v ||HR ||46|
|Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc.v ||SR ||46|
|Pleiochaeta setosa (Kirchn.) S.J. Hughesv ||RLP ||29|
|Trichoderma Pers.:Fr. ||R ||17y|
|Rhizoctonia solani Kühn ||HR ||17w|
|Ascochyta Lib.v ||RSPLB ||17y|
|Fusarium oxysporum Schlechtend.:Fr.v ||RS ||16|
|Fusarium acuminatum Ellis & Everh.v ||R ||15|
|Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl. ||RSLB ||15|
|Fusarium avenaceum (Fr.:Fr.) Sacc.v ||SL || 14|
|Fusarium subglutinans (Wollenweb. & Reinking) P.E. Nelson, T.A.
Toussoun, & Marasasv ||R ||10|
|Pythium Pringsh. ||RH ||4y|
|Pythium rostratum E.J. Butler ||R ||3|
|Epicoccum purpurascans Ehrenb. ex Schlechtend. ||SL ||2|
|Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Pens.) Pens. & Sacc. in Penz. ||S ||1|
|Curvularia protuberata R.R. Nelson & C.S. Hodges ||B ||1|
|Fusarium moniliforme J. Sheld. ||R ||1x|
|Nigrospora sphaerica (Sacc.) E. Mason ||S ||1|
|Phoma glomerata (Corda) Wollenweb. & Hochapfel ||L ||1|
|Pythium ultimum Trow ||R ||1|
|Sclerotinia Fuckel ||P ||1y|
yNot identified to species.
xIsolated from plants in growth chamber only.
wNot identified to AG group.
vPathogenticity tests were conducted on fungus.
Table 4. Effect of Ascochyta infection on germination and
emergence of Lupinus albus seed.
z1 = no discoloration, 2 = each seed slightly discolored, 3 = half of each seed discolored, and 4 = most of each seed discolored with ruptured seed coat.
| ||Distribution (%)|
|Event ||1 ||2 ||3 ||4|
|Germination ||100.0 ||90.0 ||63.0 ||3.0|
|Emergencey ||89.0 ||84.0 ||36.0 ||8.0|
y100 seeds from each category were planted in sterilized soil and
emergence counts taken after 14 days.
Table 5. Response of dairy cows fed sweet white lupins (day 22 to 140 post-partum).
All means are covariately adjusted.
| || ||Milk yield (kg/day) ||Fat yield ||Protein yield|
|Treatmentz ||No. cows ||uncorrected ||3.5% fat corrected ||(%) ||(kg/day) ||(%) ||(kg/day) ||Dry matter|
|SSSS ||11 ||27.3 ||27.5by ||3.7 ||0.97 ||3.0 ||0.82 ||19.9|
|SSSL ||11 ||28.9 ||29.1ab ||3.7 ||1.03 ||3.0 ||0.86 ||20.8|
|SSLL ||10 ||28.4 ||28.6ab ||3.6 ||1.01 ||2.9 ||0.81 ||20.6|
|SLLL ||12 ||30.0 ||30.3a ||3.7 || 1.08 ||2.9 ||0.86 ||21.0|
|LLLL ||10 ||28.3 ||28.8ab ||3.8 ||1.02 ||2.9 ||0.82 ||20.4|
|SE || ||0.84 ||0.68 ||0.1 ||0.03 ||0.1 ||0.02 ||0.49|
zSSSS = 100% of supplemental protein as soybean meal. Each 'L'
represents 25% of this protein being replaced by lupin protein.
yTreatment means with different subscripts are significantly
different (P < .06).
Table 6. Simplified sample enterprise budget for irrigated lupin and soybean for Staples, MN (1991). Seed costs are a major component of production costs for lupin, but value of the product is also important. Lupin has been valued at 72 to 85% the value of soybean meal in markets in the upper Midwest. Allocated overhead costs have been estimated to be $444.53/ha for lupin and $458.25/ha for soybean (Olson and Putnam 1991).
|Item ||Lupin ||Soybean|
| ||Yield (kg/ha)|
|Average yield (6-year mean, Staples, MN) ||3158 ||2755|
|Variable costs per acre ||Budget ($/ha)|
|Seed ||96.37 ||27.18|
|Fertilizer ||--- ||30.15|
|Pesticides ||44.50 ||44.48|
|Irrigation costs ||61.16 ||61.16|
|Fuel and lubrication ||27.38 ||30.29|
|Repairs and maintenance ||16.38 ||17.79|
|Interest on cash expense ||8.97 ||10.55|
|Total variable costs ||254.74 ||221.60|
|Returns over variable costs for various lupin/soybean value/cost ratios|
|($147.04/t lupin, $207.41/t soybean) ||210.75 ||349.81|
|($172.54/t lupin, $207.41/t soybean) ||290.14 ||349.81|
|($172.54/t lupin, $207.41/t soybean, lupin seed costs decreased by half) ||338.33 ||349.81|
|($207.41/t lupin, $207.41/t soybean) ||400.26 ||349.81|
|($207.41/t lupin, $207.41/t soybean, lupin seed costs decreased by half) ||448.45 ||349.81|
Table 7. Performance of lupin and soybean on six Minnesota farms, 1990, in counties ranging from south to north.
zAverage of 16 observations per crop per farm.
|Seed yieldz (kg/ha) ||Crude protein (%)|
|Countyy ||Lupin ||Soybean ||Lupin ||Soybean|
|Benton ||1674 ||1769NSx ||35 ||36NS|
|Stearnsw ||3039 ||3040NS ||37 ||38NS|
|Stearns ||2613 ||2508NS ||37 ||38NS|
|Todd ||1962 ||839** ||38 ||37NS|
|Wadenaw ||2497 ||2025** ||37 ||38NS|
|Aitkin ||151 ||93* ||39 ||36**|
yCounties are listed North to South.
xNS, *, and ** indicate nonsignificant, significant at P=0.05, and
significant at P=0.01, respectively.
Fig. 1. Growth stages of spring-sown white lupin (Lupinus
albus). The relatively large seed and upright habit makes lupin an
attractive grain legume crop.
Fig. 2. Date of seeding has a strong influence on lupin performance.
This graph shows the yield penalty for late planting past an optimum in central
Minnesota, usually mid-April (11 year/location mean).
Fig. 3. Lupin response to irrigation on sandy soils has been large.
White lupin is not particularly drought resistant, although narrow-leaf lupin
is grown on large acreages in Australia under low moisture conditions.
Last update April 10, 1997