Hay & Forage Grower – August – September 2024

hayandforage.com

August/September 2024

Soil stability is a sticky situation pg 9 All fescue is not created equal pg 22 A closer look at conventional and BMR corn pg 24 Sprayers are available for every farm size pg 30 Published by W.D. Hoard & Sons Co.

F1 1 Aug_Sep 2024 Cover.indd 1

7/26/24 8:59 AM

When you combine optimism and reality, you get The Power of We. We believe a good partner does more than support you day to day. They offer extra insight to help your operation reach new heights. At Wilbur-Ellis, our agronomists and experts work with you to innovate for a more optimistic, successful future—for all of us.

See where The Power of We® can take you at WilburEllisAgribusiness.com

WILBUR-ELLIS logo and The Power of We are registered trademarks of Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC.

Untitled-7 1

7/22/24 11:39 AM

PUT YOUR FORAGES TO THE TEST Forage growers across the country are invited to participate in the 2024 World Forage Analysis Superbowl. Awardwinning samples will be displayed during Trade Show hours in the Trade Center at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin, October 1 - 4. Winners will be announced during the Brevant seeds Forage Superbowl Luncheon on Wednesday, October 2.

Contest rules and entry forms are available at foragesuperbowl.org, by calling Dairyland Laboratories at (920) 336-4521 or by contacting the sponsors listed below.

Learn more about the six Dairy Forage Seminars hosted at WDE, Wednesday - Friday, by visiting the WFAS website.

Photo Credit: Dusty Boots Photography

$26,000+ in cash prizes made possible by these generous sponsors:

Entries Due

Harvest Year

Category

Crop/plant/sample specifications

August 22

2024

Dairy Hay

>75% legume; grown by active dairy producers

August 22

2024

Commercial Hay

>75% legume; commercially grown and sold in large lots off the farm

August 22

2024

Grass Hay

>75% grass

August 22

2024

Baleage

Any mixture of grass/legumes

August 22

2024

Alfalfa Haylage

≥75% legume

August 22

2024

Mix/Grass Hlg

<75% legume

All hay samples: Must be from a bale, any type or size; use of a preservative or desiccant is allowed.

Samples analyzed for (expressed on a dry matter basis):

Hay, Baleage, Haylage: Dry matter, crude protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), relative forage quality (RFQ) and milk per ton.

Baleage: Must be processed and wrapped as baleage and show signs of fermentation.

[RFQ is a ranking of forage quality based on NDFD and should not be confused with or compared to All silage samples: Must be ensiled Relative Feed Value (RFV).] in a normal preservation process and show signs of fermentation.

Use of a preservative is allowed.

Additives affecting fiber content or any other adulteration will disqualify the sample.

** Brown Midrib corn silage and standard corn silage samples were due on July 10.

World Forage Analysis Superbowl organizing partners: Dairyland Laboratories, Inc., Hay & Forage Grower, University of Wisconsin-Extension, U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, World Dairy Expo

Untitled-1 1

7/17/24 1:41 PM

FIRST CUT

Connecting the dots

I

Amber Friedrichen Managing Editor

HAVE a confession to make.

I am a cartophile. Also known as a person who loves maps. I love road maps, soil maps, and satellite maps. My favorite websites are Google Maps, Web Soil Survey, and Google Earth. I have even printed out, framed, and hung up state maps on my living room wall.

You might wonder what an obsession with maps has to do with hay and forage. Well, in my opinion, a lot.

I’m not so much a fanatic of maps themselves, but rather the notion of travel and sense of place they represent. Looking at a map of the Midwest, I could point to the exact bump on Iowa’s nose where I grew up on a beef, corn, and soybean farm along the Mississippi River. From there, I could give you directions to the city of Ames where I attended Iowa State University and graduated with degrees in agricultural communication and agronomy (take a left, a right, another left, and then drive 180 miles west on Highway 30 until you hit Exit 146).

If you zoom out some more, there is a map dot five hours northeast of Ames in Fort Atkinson, Wis., where I spent two of my college summers as the editorial intern for Hay & Forage Grower. Our publishing company, W.D. Hoard & Sons, also encompasses Hoard’s Dairyman and the Journal of Nutrient Management and is based in the heart of a city with a prominent agricultural history in the southeast corner of America’s Dairyland.

Maps took on a new meaning to me once I started crossing state lines to visit farms as an intern, and then as an associate editor. I quickly learned about different types of forage production associated with various parts of the country.

Since my inaugural journalistic experience on a golf-course-turned-pasture in northwestern Ohio, I’ve seen a range of forage systems and farming businesses, including, but not limited to, irrigated alfalfa in California’s Imperial Valley, organic dairy grazing in southern Georgia, native warm-season grasses and silvopasture in the Piedmont region of Virginia, and the busy inner workings of custom harvesting crews throughout the heartland.

To say the information I’ve picked up on about forage species, hay production, pasture establishment, and harvest equipment over the past few years has been overwhelming would be an understatement. But I am always pleasantly

surprised by the warm welcomes and thoughtful explanations that producers offer when they sit down to share their stories with me.

Other connections I’ve made within the forage world have been extremely helpful in my professional and personal growth, and I would be remiss not to mention the wisdom and guidance I’ve received from Mike Rankin, the previous author of this column, that has steadied me on my path of learning and instilled in me a passion for hay and forage.

Now when I look at a map of the lower 48, I don’t just see the markings of major highways, mountain ranges, and big cities. I see the friendly faces of farmers and their families that I met at a beef farm in Louisiana or on a commercial hay operation in Nevada’s Smith Valley. I think about the extension specialist in South Carolina who is conducting research on summer annual forages or the grazing savant in central Idaho with decades of ranching experience.

Transforming these experiences into magazine articles is like giving readers directions to a destination. Whether that destination is a better understanding of a particular topic, inspiration to adopt a new practice, or a just a bit of entertainment, connecting the map dots of every story is an important skill for an agricultural journalist, and it is one that I have the opportunity to strengthen as I step into the role of managing editor.

Luckily, Mike will continue working as senior editor of the magazine. After spending nearly 10 years as our managing editor and 27 years as a crops and soils agent with the University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service before that, I am grateful that his forage knowledge and expert opinion will continue to enhance our publication.

With that said, I look forward to expanding my own forage knowledge — and deepening my love of maps — by traveling to and representing Hay & Forage Grower on farm visits, pasture walks, and at industry meetings across the country. In the meantime, I invite you to reach out with your own questions, comments, or opinions — expert or otherwise. Any road trip routes or travel recommendations will also be appreciated. •

Write Managing Editor Amber Friedrichen, 28 Milwaukee Ave., P.O. Box 801, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538 call: 920-563-5551 or email: amberf@hayandforage.com

4 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F2 4 Aug_Sep 2024 First Cut.indd 1

7/26/24 7:56 AM

Amber M. Friedrichsen

August/September 2024 · VOL. 39 · No. 5

MANAGING EDITOR Amber M. Friedrichsen SENIOR EDITOR Michael C. Rankin ART DIRECTOR Todd Garrett EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Jennifer L. Yurs ONLINE MANAGER Patti J. Hurtgen DIRECTOR OF MARKETING John R. Mansavage ADVERTISING SALES

Kim E. Zilverberg kzilverberg@hayandforage.com Jenna Zilverberg jzilverberg@hayandforage.com ADVERTISING COORDINATOR

Patti J. Kressin pkressin@hayandforage.com

6

W.D. HOARD & SONS

PRESIDENT Brian V. Knox

EDITORIAL OFFICE

High haylage keeps these Holsteins happy Alfalfa haylage has remained the kingpin forage component in dairy rations at Hyde Park Holsteins near Zumbro Falls, Minn., where Kevin Siewert has expanded the family farm over several years.

28 Milwaukee Ave. West, Fort Atkinson, WI, 53538 WEBSITE www.hayandforage.com EMAIL info@hayandforage.com PHONE 920-563-5551

DEPARTMENTS 4 First Cut 9 Sunrise On Soil 10 Beef Feedbunk 12 Alfalfa Checkoff

16

20

14 Dairy Feedbunk 22 The Pasture Walk

New forage grass maturity index introduced

Growing bahiagrass and beef in the Bayou State

A new protocol for testing grass maturity has been established to offer greater consistency of heading dates across several locations.

Josh and Tara Morris have gained wisdom through the trial and error of establishing pastures and grazing beef cattle in Louisiana.

9

10

12

14

18

22

23

24

26

29

SOIL STABILITY IS A STICKY SITUATION

ALL FESCUE IS NOT CREATED EQUAL

SWATH GRAZE THOSE SUMMER ANNUALS

REFRESH YOUR PARTICLE SIZE PRACTICES

INTERCROP ALFALFA WITH CORN SILAGE

A CLOSER LOOK AT CONVENTIONAL AND BMR CORN

GET THE MOST FROM SMALL GRAIN SILAGES

DOES PARTICLESIZE REDUCTION AFFECT BALAGE FERMENTATION?

SULFUR MAY REDUCE CEREAL FORAGE NITRATE LEVELS

ADDING GRAZING DAYS PAYS

23 Feed Analysis 30 Forage Gearhead 34 Forage IQ 34 Hay Market Update ON THE COVER

Pigtail step-in posts are an asset for rotational graziers like Brad Hodgson of Fountain, Minn., who moves his herd of American Galloway cattle to new paddocks daily. The farmer and his wife, Leslea, aim to restore soil health and mitigate erosion on the once conventionally farmed bluffs of southeast Minnesota by grazing diversified pastures. They sell seedstock and grass-finished beef through their business, Root Prairie Galloways. Photo by Mike Rankin

HAY & FORAGE GROWER (ISSN 0891-5946) copyright © 2024 W. D. Hoard & Sons Company. All rights reserved. Published six times annually in January, February, March, April/May, August/September and November

by W. D. Hoard & Sons Co., 28 Milwaukee Ave., W., Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538 USA. Tel: 920-563-5551. Fax: 920-563-7298. Email: info@hayandforage.com. Website: www.hayandforage.com. Periodicals Postage paid at Fort Atkinson, Wis., and additional mail offices. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Free and controlled circulation to qualified subscribers. Non-qualified subscribers may subscribe at: USA: 1 year $20 U.S.; Outside USA: Canada & Mexico, 1 year $80 U.S.; All other countries, 1 year $120 U.S. For Subscriber Services contact: Hay & Forage Grower, PO Box 801, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538 USA; call: 920-563-5551, email: info@hayandforage.com or visit: www.hayandforage.com. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to HAY & FORAGE GROWER, 28 Milwaukee Ave., W., Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538 USA. Subscribers who have provided a valid email address may receive the Hay & Forage Grower email newsletter eHay Weekly.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 5

F2 5 Aug_Sep 2024 TOC.indd 1

7/26/24 7:57 AM

HIGH HAYLAGE

KEEPS THESE HOLSTEINS HAPPY

by Amber Friedrichsen, Managing Editor

W

ABASHA, Minn., may ring a bell as the setting of the 1993 comedy film “Grumpy Old Men.” The county seat for Wabasha County is wedged between the Mississippi and Zumbro Rivers in the southeast corner of the Gopher State, which contains countless acres of contoured crop fields across the sloping landscape. These include the hayfields, cornfields, and those seeded to small cereal grains that belong to Hyde Park Holsteins, a dairy located 30 miles west of the classic movie set where the farmers — and their cattle — can hardly be described as grumpy.

Kevin Siewert owns and operates Hyde Park Holsteins along with his father, Kerwin, and oldest son, Justin.

Kerwin grew up on the dairy near the small town of Zumbro Falls before earning a doctorate in ruminant nutrition and teaching at the University of Illinois for one year. Then, he returned to the dairy in 1970 and milked 60 cows in a tie stall barn before expanding the herd to 200 head when Siewert came home to farm full time in 1995.

Subsequent expansions in the years to follow led to the approximately 700 milking cows that reside on the dairy today. As cow numbers have climbed, so have the number of alfalfa acres in order to maintain forage levels in the dairy’s rations.

Siewert has always prioritized high-haylage diets because it’s a practice that

not only bolsters greater milk production, better components, and improved animal health, but also promotes good land stewardship on the rolling hills of Minnesota’s Driftless Region.

production consultant with Ag Partners and the dairy’s nutritionist, has found the same metric on similarly sized farms typically ranges from 25% to 33%. While it’s not uncommon for smaller operations to have higher haylage inclusion rates, Flueger noted that’s not always the case for larger farms he works with.

“The larger farms get, it seems like diets go more and more toward higher corn silage levels,” Flueger said. “As Hyde Park Holstiens has grown, they continue to increase their hay acres to keep feeding similar rates of haylage.”

One reason alfalfa is replaced by corn

Alfalfa gets an A+ Haylage comprises roughly 42% of total forage in milking cow rations at Hyde Park Holsteins. Ben Flueger, a dairy

6 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F2 6-8 Aug_Sep 2024 High Haylage.indd 1

7/26/24 8:01 AM

when dairies scale upward is because the latter offers greater yield per acre.

Being an annual crop, corn also only warrants one harvest per year, as opposed to the more intensive management of the perennial legume. With that said, there are other advantages of a high-haylage diet when alfalfa is out of the field and in the feedbunk.

“It seems like higher corn silage diets lend themselves to potentially more digestive health issues,” Flueger said.

“That is one thing Hyde Park is very resilient on. Their forage management is definitely a big part of it, but I would give credit to more alfalfa — and more effective fiber from alfalfa — in the diet.”

More effective fiber from alfalfa may also contribute to the dairy’s high milking performance, which has earned them a long-standing spot at the top of the Minnesota Dairy Herd Improvement Association’s Herd Honor Roll. The award is based on the dollar value of rolling herd averages for pounds of fat, protein, and total milk per cow. For Hyde Park Holsteins, those numbers were 1,590 pounds of fat, 1,098 pounds of protein, and 33,951 pounds of milk per cow in 2023.

Forage philosophy Siewert currently grows about 600 acres of alfalfa and 400 acres of corn

for silage. He exclusively seeds alfalfa varieties with the HarvXtra trait and cuts forage four times per year.

With HarvXtra alfalfa, Siewert could hypothetically lengthen his cutting schedule and capture higher yields without a significant hit to forage quality, but he sticks to a strict 22-day harvest interval for the first three cuttings. He then extends this period to 40 to 44 days before taking a fourth and final cutting in mid-August to let plants restore their root carbohydrates. This lower quality cutting is fed to heifers.

“Before HarvXtra came out, we were always harvesting every 22 to 24 days, but then HarvXtra just made it better,” Siewert said. “We let the roots replenish before the fourth cutting. If you cut the last interval short, then it’s hard for plants to survive the winter.”

After the seeding year, alfalfa stands typically last three years before being rotated to corn for silage. Siewert has also added barley to his crop rotation, planting about 200 acres of the small cereal grain in the spring and chopping it for heifer feed. Then, he spreads manure on these fields before direct seeding alfalfa again.

“We try to let the barley get kind of ripe because we want more fiber out of it; we want it to be more of a filler,” Siewert stated.

“Our goal is to feed heifers a lot of forage and get them to grow. I want them to be

big enough so that when they come into milk, they don’t have to keep growing.”

Equipment and inventory Siewert co-owns a Claas 970 chopper with another farmer located 20 miles southwest of Zumbro Falls near the town of Plainview. The two dairymen conspired the deal more than a decade ago when their mutual custom forage harvester retired. They each pay for the hours they run the chopper every season, and they own the rest of their harvest equipment individually.

Siewert runs two Krone triple mowers plus one Pöttinger model, an Oxbo merger, and has several box trucks and hay wagons to haul forage from the field to the silage pad. All of his haylage is inoculated to conserve forage quality, packed into bunker silos, and protected

by SiloStop oxygen barrier film before the pile is sealed with plastic and covered with tires.

“They do all of the little things right when it comes to forages,” Flueger asserted. “They put a priority on getting alfalfa harvested on time, they do a great job at covering the pile in double layers of plastic, and they have excellent tire coverage.”

Doing the little things right is especially critical for long-term storage.

Siewert always maintains a year’s worth of haylage to ensure forage supplies are sufficient in case of spoilage, drought, or winterkill. It was the latter factor that inspired more inventory when a large percentage of his alfalfa

Hyde Park Holsteins shares this chopper with another nearby dairy to optimize equipment use and expenses.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 7

F2 6-8 Aug_Sep 2024 High Haylage.indd 2

7/26/24 8:02 AM

acres winterkilled in 2013. Since then, forage yields have fluctuated with other inclement weather events and variable moisture levels at harvest, which reinforces the importance of having a backup plan.

“One year, it was 90ºF with no humidity and the wind blew so hard we couldn’t chop fast enough. We had a dry pile that we fed out, but it cost us a lot because it wasn’t any good,” Siewert recalled. “We weren’t going to let that happen the next year, so we chopped a little too wet, and that pile went butyric. That fed the neighbor’s beef cows for a year,” he chuckled.

“In theory, if I have a 100% wipeout, I still have enough haylage to make it to the next year,” Siewert continued.

Another benefit to having a bumper crop of haylage is that when the stars align to expand the herd again, Siewert won’t have to scramble to buy feed for more cows.

Oh, brothers All four of Siewert’s sons want to farm full time. Justin officially became a business partner in 2022 in addition to working for a commodity trading company in the Twin Cities.

Jake, who currently installs software for ParlorBoss, also anticipates ending up on the home farm long term. The same can be said for Blake and Lee, who are currently in high school and college, respectively.

Family ties also extend beyond the Siewert bloodline to encompass

Kevin Siewert (left) attributes the success of his dairy to the hard-working employees at the farm, including his father, Kerwin (right), and four sons.

a 12-person full-time team and a handful of part-time employees. Some specialize in agronomy and lend their skills to forage harvest and storage, whereas others can primarily be found in the barns and the parlor. Siewert noted the care and compassion his employees offer to cows, from focusing on overall cow health and comfort to knowing individual animals by name, ear tag number, and markings.

“I think the thing we are most proud of is that we have good people to take care of the cows every day,” the affable

dairyman affirmed. “We have super people who make it all work; we couldn’t ask for better help.”

It’s this acknowledgement and appreciation that make long hours in the field and on the farm worthwhile.

Forage quality and milk production aside, Siewert said he is happiest with his people and their commitment to show up for his cows — and for each other — day in and day out. With this emphasis on teamwork and expression of gratitude at Hyde Park Holsteins, there is not a grumpy soul in sight. •

Alfalfa offers environmental benefits to the sloping landscape of southeast Minnesota.

8 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F2 6-8 Aug_Sep 2024 High Haylage.indd 3

7/26/24 8:02 AM

SUNRISE ON SOIL

by Alan Franzluebbers

Soil stability is a sticky situation

On-farm research To assess the soil stability index, soil samples from pasture-based livestock farms in Virginia were taken in 2022.

Soil from a total of 187 fields on 31 farms was sampled with half of the fields representing grazed pastures.

The other half was a combination of woodlands, conventionally tilled, and no-till cropland. The pastures were not all managed the same, so the factors that contributed the most to changes in soil stability index were characterized.

On average, soil stability index was lowest under conventionally tilled cropland (52%) and greatest under grazed pastures (89%). No-till cropland (78%) and woodlands (85%) were intermediate. These results support the value of conservation management to keep soil intact and prevent it from eroding away

Figure 1. Factors of cropland management that affect soil stability index

0.9 0.8

Woodland No-till cropland

0,7 0.6

Co nti nu ou s Lea nr ota t Ma i x ro on tat ion

(mmwet mmdry-1)

1.0 Soil stability index

I

N THE February 2023 issue of this column, I introduced the forces binding soil into water-stable aggregates. Small particles like clay and silt are active in forming aggregates because they have an abundance of chemically and physically reactive surfaces, whereas larger sand-sized particles are just not as reactive to form strong bonds.

Water-stable soil aggregates are bound together by microbially produced glues, so having an active soil biology community in your pasture will be essential to build these aggregates and keep soil from washing away. Unless they are well-aggregated, small soil particles will be the first to wash away in heavy rainstorms. Water-stable aggregates, on the other hand, form larger clusters that won’t erode as easily. Even if soil does not wash away, having weak aggregates that disintegrate with pounding rain could lead to surface sealing.

Soil stability index is the fraction of aggregates that remain intact even after exposing them to the erosive energy in moving water. Having a high soil stability index is an important factor when evaluating agricultural sustainability because keeping soil on the farm and out of waterways is a desired conservation outcome.

Conventional-till cropland

0.5

0.4 0 20 40 60 0 1 2 Pasture age Stocking rate (cows/acres -1) (years)

from the farm. Results are similar to those shared in the February 2023 issue of this column from a study on research stations in North Carolina.

Several management variables influenced soil stability index in pastures in the study. Results summarizing the factors of pasture age, stocking rate, stocking method, and nitrogen fertilizer inputs are shown in Figure 1. The first thing to note is that even at the lowest levels of these factors, soil stability index was typically performing as good or better than in other land uses.

More stability over time Soil stability index improved with pasture age, likely because of the occurrence of several important changes, like more glues from roots and decomposing soil microorganisms and more drying and rewetting over time. Simply gaining more grass roots to explore the surface soil over time can be important to stabilize soil as well.

Soil stability index was optimized with a stocking rate of approximately one mature cow per acre. Both lower and higher stocking rates reduced the soil stability index. This suggests some livestock traffic and defoliation of the sward will be beneficial, but too little or too much is detrimental.

Stocking method did not statistically influence soil stability index in this study. It may be that too few fields with continuous stocking were available to provide such a robust comparison. Most

Stocking method

0

50 100 150 Nitrogen fertilizer

(lb. acre -1 year-1)

fields were under some rotational stocking; however, a trending effect was that too much livestock impact at one time could lead to poorer soil stability.

Finally, more nitrogen fertilization led to a decline in soil stability index. This result is likely from greater fertility allowing heavier livestock traffic to consume more of an abundance of forage.

Moderate grazing levels in a system with a somewhat slower regrowth period would appear to be a successful alternative. Overall, older pastures with a moderate stocking rate that rely on as much internal nutrient cycling as possible can be managed with a variety of stocking methods to achieve a high soil stability index so that nutrient-rich surface soil stays on the farm and out of waterways.

Well-managed pastures should certainly be considered a good conservation approach, and finding the right mix of grazing practices and pasture management for your farm will be critical.

If you’re unsure what is the right mix for you, ask your local county extension agent, your state forage specialist, or a qualified adviser for advice. •

ALAN FRANZLUEBBERS The author is a soil scientist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Raleigh, N.C.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 9

F2 9 Aug_Sep 2024 Sunrise Soil.indd 1

7/26/24 8:07 AM

BEEF FEEDBUNK

by Beth Reynolds and Garland Dahlke

Forage utilization can improve in swath grazing systems, even when forage is buried by snow.

P

RODUCERS in the Upper Midwest are looking at the tail-end of the growth period for summer annuals, prompting some final harvest decisions. Some may opt to graze forage, while others will mechanically harvest it. There is another option, however, that combines both of those strategies into one: swath grazing.

Swath grazing for winter feed is common in some Northern regions with drier climates, but it is less practiced in the Midwest. The term “swath grazing” simply refers to mowing and raking forage into a swath and grazing the swath of forage rather than picking up the windrows into a bale or making silage.

The most prevalent advantage to swath grazing is less fuel and associated costs of putting up the forage as a stored feed. However, the adaptation of swath grazing in the Upper Midwest has been hindered by a few presumed challenges. These include grazing livestock through snow or ice — particularly when excess moisture causes mud — and managing the farm ground later for the following crop.

At Iowa State University, research over the last four years on two research farms has sought to identify best practices and solve challenges of utilizing a swath grazing strategy in Iowa. In all trials, cattle performance of spring-calving cows that swath grazed was compared to that

Beth Reynolds

Swath graze those summer annuals ability to maintain forage quality in a swath grazing scenario. For the Iowa State University trials, cattle swath grazed pearl millet and sorghum beginning in mid-December after mowing and raking forage in early December.

The mowing date was targeted to reduce the number of freeze-thaw cycles and moisture events that could occur after harvest. From the first killing frost to the time forage was mowed, it experienced the expected nutrient losses associated with moisture.

In the studies, pearl millet tended to maintain forage quality slightly better than sorghum. For cows in their early third trimester of gestation, forage quality in December was about 11% crude protein (CP), 0.36 net energy for maintenance (NEm), and 84 relative forage quality (RFQ), which was sufficient to meet nutrient demands.

However, by February, the require-

of their confined herdmates.

Based on forage analysis, the cows grazing swaths did not need to be supplemented, indicating forage quality was sufficient to meet their maintenance needs. Even so, these cows were lighter in body weight at the end of the trials compared to the drylot cows (Table 1).

With that said, swath grazing cows were significantly less muddy, and the resulting calf crop between the groups did not differ in calf birth weight, vigor, or dystocia events (Table 1 and 2). Outside of cattle performance, swath grazing was less labor intensive than managing cows in confinement, even when considering fence moves every three days.

Some of the main lessons researchers learned while exploring swath grazing as a forage management strategy include: 1. Forage quality changed. Forage species and whether forage was in a single- or multi-cut system impacts the Table 1. Cow performance measurements Cow weight change (lbs.)

Visual BCS change

12th rib fat change (in.)

Ribeye area change (in.2)

Mud score2

% Open1

Swath grazing

-39

0.0

-0.02

-1.2

1.0

4.7

Confinement

144

0.3

0.01

-0.9

2.7

5.4

Prob. (T<=t)

0.05

0.21

0.13

0.11

0.04

0.86

Percent of cows that did not become pregnant the following breeding season.

2 Mud score “1” = clean hide and hair coat, “4” = dirt completely covers hide and hair matted.

1

10 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F2 10-11 Aug_Sep 2024 Beef Feedbunk.indd 1

7/26/24 8:04 AM

ments of cows closer to calving, coupled with some nutrient loss in the forage, dictated a need for supplementation in order to continue swath grazing.

For future trials, other forage options, including cool-season forages and mixtures, will be utilized.

2. Forage utilization went up.

Cutting as late as possible before the first snow of the season and raking large windrows together improved forage utilization and quality in the wet Midwestern climate by reducing the impact of weathering. Fewer, larger windrows will also allow cows to find feed when snow depth becomes substantial and less material freezes down to the soil surface.

The most efficient forage utilization strategy observed in these studies was to strip graze the swaths, moving the wire perpendicular to the windrows.

Researchers moved the wire about every three days with tumble wheel posts. Weather events like snowfall required some flexibility in strip grazing, although cattle were successful

Table 2. Calf data Calf birth weight (lbs.)

Calf vigor score

% Mortality

% Cows assisted

Swath grazing

78.9

1

2.7

0

Confinement

81.7

1.1

2.7

2.0

Prob. (T<=t)

0.26

0.42

1.0

0.42

at finding swaths under snow and ice.

Over three trials, this grazing strategy achieved a utilization rate of approximately 70%, making swath grazing more cost effective than stockpile grazing, even after including the cost of mowing and raking.

3. Labor demands declined. Aside from less manpower and fewer machine hours needed to harvest forage, there were labor savings associated with swath grazing. The treatment including confined cows required labor to deliver hay and bedding and to manage manure the following spring. Researchers tracked employee hours during the trials, and the daily labor commitment

for swath grazing cattle was 0.27 hours per cow compared to 0.60 hours per cow in confinement. Additionally, confinement cows required 0.57 tractor hours per cow during the trials.

Farmers can tailor swath grazing management strategies to address individual concerns. To learn more, watch the ISU CROPS TV episode that contains a full interview with a leading research scientist and one farm manager at bit.ly/HFG-swath-grazing. • BETH REYNOLDS AND GARLAND DAHLKE

The authors are a program specialist and associate scientist with the Iowa Beef Center, respectively.

TRUSTED TO DELIVER THE

HIGHEST QUALITY FORAGE

LEARN MORE AT

OXBO.COM

Oxbo 2340

Oxbo 2228

POWERMERGE Put PowerMerge technology to work for you.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 11

F2 10-11 Aug_Sep 2024 Beef Feedbunk.indd 2

7/26/24 8:08 AM

YOUR CHECKOFF DOLLARS AT WORK

Intercrop alfalfa with corn silage Hay & Forage Grower is featuring results of research projects funded through the Alfalfa Checkoff, officially named the U.S. Alfalfa Farmer Research Initiative, administered by National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA). The checkoff program facilitates farmer-funded research.

O

Alfalfa Established in Silage Corn vs.

Conventional Production Systems.” In the northern U.S., establishment-year yields of spring-seeded alfalfa are especially low, often being one-half that of subsequent full-production years, and this greatly reduces the profitability of alfalfa-based cropping systems. Planting small grain, grass, or legume companion crops can modestly improve yields during alfalfa establishment, but forage quality is often reduced. Grabber felt one way to bypass the low-yielding establishment year of alfalfa would be to interseed alfalfa into corn silage.

“During establishment, interseeded alfalfa initially serves as a highly effective cover crop for the corn silage

NE key aspect of alfalfa production that has lagged in comparison to many other crops is the lack of steady improvements in yield.

“As a forage agronomist, I’ve been concerned about the ongoing decline in alfalfa-based crop rotations and the greater reliance on continuous cropping of corn silage and other annual row crops on many farms,” said John John Grabber Grabber, a scientist Funding: $75,000 with the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, who served as the principal investigator of the project titled, “Forage Production of

companion crop, and then it is brought into full forage production the following year,” Grabber said. “While many aspects of this intercropping system have been worked out in recent years, one longstanding question from producers needed to be addressed: How does alfalfa establishment and forage production from this intercropping system compare with conventional production systems for alfalfa?”

An experiment designed to answer this question was the primary goal of this USAFRI Alfalfa Checkoff project. The study was a joint effort by USDA scientists at Madison, Wis., and Kimberly, Idaho. The objective of the research was to compare alfalfa establishment and the yield and quality

COMPARISON OF ALFALFA INTERCROPPED YIELDS WITH SOLO-SEEDED ALFALFA Year 1: Corn silage, alfalfa, and barley yield

WISCONSIN

Year 2: Alfalfa

Alfalfa established in corn c

Alfalfa interseeded at corn planting Alfalfa interseeded at corn VE

a b

Conventional alfalfa establishment

ab

e

Spring seeded alfalfa

bc e

a

Corn silage then spring-seeded alfalfa in year 2

c

d

Barley then summer-seeded alfalfa

ab

Corn silage then late summer-seeded alfalfa

0

2

4

6

d

0 8 10 12 Dry matter tons per acre

2

4

6

8

Yields with no common letter are significantly different at a probability of 0.05.

PROJECT RESULTS • During alfalfa establishment, intercropped corn silage had up to a 4.4-fold greater forage yield than spring seeded alfalfa.

• Shifting interseeding from corn planting to the VE stage of corn lowered early season alfalfa growth but improved corn silage yield, with minor effects on alfalfa fall growth, stand

density, and first-cut yield the following year.

• Compared to spring solo-seeded alfalfa, interseeded alfalfa had similar or somewhat lower stand density but similar first-cut yield the following year, provided the corn silage companion crop was harvested near September 1 to allow ample fall regrowth of alfalfa.

• Interseeded and conventional spring seeded alfalfa had similar forage yield during the first through the third full production years.

• O verall, alfalfa-corn intercropping produced higher total yields and forage of comparable quality compared to conventional production systems.

12 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 12-13 Aug_Sep 2024 Alfalfa Checkoff.indd 1

7/26/24 8:15 AM

however, was how strongly the establishment, fall regrowth, and production of alfalfa the following year were improved by an early harvest of corn silage in the intercropping treatments and by early planting of solo-seeded alfalfa in the conventional summer seeded treatments,” he said.

Grabber suggests farmers interested in alfalfa-corn intercropping begin by seeding a small field while closely

CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY

RELIABLE PERFORMANCE.

SUPPORT THE ALFALFA CHECKOFF! Buy your seed from these facilitating marketers: Alfalfa Partners - S&W Alforex Seeds America’s Alfalfa Channel CROPLAN DEKALB Dyna-Gro Fontanelle Hybrids Forage First FS Brand Alfalfa Gold Country Seed Hubner Seed Innvictis Seed Solutions Jung Seed Genetics Kruger Seeds Latham Hi-Tech Seeds Legacy Seeds Lewis Hybrids NEXGROW Pioneer Prairie Creek Seed Rea Hybrids Specialty Stewart Stone Seed W-L Alfalfas

following recommendations developed

by USDA and University of Wisconsin scientists. These can be found online at bit.ly/HFG-alf-corn.

Grabber and his colleagues will continue their work in this area to further refine management practices and to breed alfalfa varieties that are better adapted for intercropping in corn.

A full copy of the final report can be found online at alfalfa.org. •

T-L Irrigation delivers the current time saving, efficiency boosting technology farmers need paired with the reliability and performance they deserve.

Contact T-L, your T-L dealer, or visit www.tlirr.com to learn more.

T-L ... LIKE NO OTHER. www.tlirr.com 151 East Hwy 6 & AB Road · P.O. Box 1047

Phone: 1-800-330-4264

Phone: (402) 462-4128

Hastings, Nebraska 68902-1047 USA

Fax: 1-800-330-4268

Fax: (402) 462-4617 TIF ER IE

ISO 9001

D

sales@tlirr.com · www.tlirr.com

C

of forage produced from alfalfa-corn intercropping systems to conventional production systems for alfalfa.

Grabber’s take-home message from the study is that alfalfa can be successfully established under a corn silage companion crop to produce higher total dry matter yields and forage of comparable quality compared to conventional production systems for alfalfa.

“One thing that did surprise us,

TL-519B.indd 1

F3 12-13 Aug_Sep 2024 Alfalfa Checkoff.indd 2

Y

Q

U A LI T

7/16/24 8:14 AM

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 13

7/26/24 8:15 AM

DAIRY FEEDBUNK

by Gonzalo Ferreira

Mike Rankin

Small grain grasses, like triticale, can offer variable silage yield and quality depending on plant variety and harvest timing.

GET THE MOST FROM SMALL GRAIN SILAGES

B

ARLEY, oats, rye, triticale, and wheat are cool-season annual grasses that have a starchy endosperm within their caryopses, or grains. Given the starchy structure of their grains, this group of cool-season annual grasses is alternatively called small grain grasses or cereal grain grasses.

Small grain grasses are commonly grown on dairy farms for at least two reasons. First, dairy farmers grow small grain grasses as cover crops to protect the soil from erosion or to manage the nutrients in the soil once a warm-season crop, such as corn or sorghum, is harvested in the fall.

Second, the biomass of small grain grasses is utilized as a feed ingredient for dairy cattle rations. Although these species can be grazed in a pasture or harvested for hay, in the case of dairy farming, the forage biomass

is typically harvested and stored as silage.

Variety trials For the last few years in our dairy nutrition laboratory, we have been investigating how to get the most from small grain silages. To evaluate the effect of maturity at harvest, we performed a plot study in which we planted two varieties of barley, two varieties of rye, and four varieties of triticale. For each of these, we planted six plots at three locations for two years (288 plots total), giving us six different environments to evaluate.

Within each environment, we harvested three plots at the boot stage of maturity when the seedhead is still enclosed within the uppermost leaf sheath, and three plots at the soft dough stage of maturity when grain in the emerged seedhead takes on a

semi-solid consistency. One of the most important findings of the study has been that harvesting at the soft dough stage of maturity delayed the harvest by 33 days. This can have a substantial impact on the following crop, especially if it is corn for silage.

Another interesting finding is the variation that exists among varieties.

For example, one variety of rye had not reached the boot stage of maturity before another variety of rye had already reached soft dough. This observation highlights that rye is not always the fastest growing small grain crop and that variation within species should be carefully considered when selecting varieties.

From a nutritional perspective, it has been interesting to observe that differences exist mostly between the two maturity stages but not so much among species. In general terms, harvesting at

14 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 14-15 Aug_Sep 2024 Dairy Feedbunk.indd 1

7/26/24 8:16 AM

the boot stage resulted in forages with higher concentrations of crude protein and lower concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) than harvesting at the soft dough stage. In addition, harvesting at the boot stage of maturity resulted in forages with more digestible NDF than harvesting at the soft dough stage of maturity.

Cost savings explained One of the most important findings of the study has been the difference in biomass yield. While small grain crops harvested at the boot stage of maturity yielded 1.7 to 2.7 tons of dry matter per acre, small grain crops harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity yielded 4.2 to 5.9 tons of dry matter per acre.

Intuitively, the greater biomass yield when harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity should result in a cheaper forage.

Even though this occurred after simulating some budgets, it was interesting to learn that the estimated fixed costs included 20% to less than 50% of the total costs of production.

This means that even though a greater yield results in a cheaper forage, the impact of the yield on the forage cost was less than anticipated, with $115 to $143 per ton of dry matter for the boot stage and $88 to $97 per ton of dry matter for the soft dough stage.

In theory, cheaper forages of better quality should result in cheaper diets. Under this context, we formulated rations simulating different scenarios in which we considered low versus high commodity prices, low versus high forage diets (40% and 60% dietary forage, respectively), and the boot stage versus soft dough stage of maturity. When commodity prices were low, the ration formulation software did not include either of the two small grain silages, and this was true for high-forage and low-forage diets. At least two reasons likely explain this.

First, the quality of corn silage is superior to the quality of small grain silage. Second, corn silage is cheaper than small grain silage. When commodity prices were high, the ration formulation software included small grain silages when the dietary forage was low, but not when the dietary forage was high. Because they contain relatively high concentrations of NDF, small grain silages are good ingredients for providing sufficient fiber, especially when feed prices are high. Therefore, the ration formulation software preferred the small grain silages harvested at the boot stage rather than at the soft dough stage most of the time.

Less milk, more methane Moving forward to the cow level, we conducted two feeding trials in which we fed diets containing triticale silage harvested at either the boot stage of maturity or the soft dough stage of maturity. In one study, the milk production performance of lactating dairy cows was minimally affected, mainly due to the nutritional similarity of both silages.

In the second study, the silages differed more than in the first one. The maturity of the triticale affected milk production in high-forage diets, with milk production being lower for cows consuming triticale harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity.

In addition to cow performance, we also measured methane

emissions in the second study. It was observed that methane emissions per cow rose when we fed triticale harvested at the soft dough stage.

In summary, small grain silages are good ingredients to include in diets for lactating dairy cattle, but the inclusion of these ingredients does not always result in the most practical diets.

Harvesting at the soft dough stage of maturity will guarantee greater yields, although the impact on milk production performance is not as relevant as commonly thought.

From the agronomic perspective, crop rotation seems to be the most important determinant to decide the optimal time to harvest small grain grasses for silage, either at the boot stage or soft dough stage. •

GONZALO FERREIRA The author is an associate professor and dairy management extension specialist with Virginia Tech.

Serious Growers Plant

Experience the power of the most complete lineup of alfalfa.

Learn more about the most complete lineup in the industry at www.alforexseeds.com or call us at 1-877-560-5181 August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 15

F3 14-15 Aug_Sep 2024 Dairy Feedbunk.indd 2

7/26/24 8:16 AM

Mike Rankin

NEW FORAGE GRASS MATURITY INDEX INTRODUCED

by Mike Rankin, Senior Editor

W

ILL it head early? Will it head late?

These two questions follow grass varieties around like a lost puppy. They get asked by grass breeders during development; they get asked by marketing departments; and most importantly, they get asked by farmers when they’re in the market to buy grass seed.

Up until this point, assessing relative grass heading dates across the industry has been akin to the wild, wild West.

Sure, individual companies have their own rating systems within the varieties they market, but there is not often consistency from one company to another.

In 2016, a Forage Grass Maturity Working Group was formed to address

the issue and develop a uniform system for measuring grass variety maturity.

The working group consisted of both university and private seed industry representatives. At last January’s American Forage and Grassland Council’s Annual Meeting, Michigan State University’s Kim Cassida and the University of Kentucky’s Ray Smith reported on the group’s efforts to develop an accepted uniform protocol for accurately assessing the maturity of any cool-season grass variety, regardless of species or environment.

“The grass segment is a little behind in developing a uniform industry rating system for describing and comparing the heading date of forage grasses,” Cassida said. “This contrasts with well-defined and objective maturity rating systems for other major crops

such as fall dormancy rating for alfalfa, relative maturity rating for corn, and maturity group rating for soybeans.”

The forage specialist also noted the high risk level associated with making a poorly informed variety choice. “It makes producers reluctant to invest in improving their grasslands through better plant genetics,” she said. “Lack of an industry standard for maturity also makes it difficult for grass breeders to accomplish meaningful progress in developing varieties with reliable heading dates relative to others on the market.”

More species made sense Cassida said that members of the working group hypothesized it would be better to include multiple species in the maturity rating development because that would allow comparisons across a

16 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 16-17 Aug_Sep 2024 Maturity Index.indd 1

7/26/24 8:17 AM

Proposed cool-season grass maturity rating system Maturity Rating criteria group 1

Earlier or equal to Balin

2

Later than Balin and less than or equal to Benchmark Plus

3

Later than Benchmark Plus and less than or equal to Kora

4

Later than Kora and less than or equal to Bariane

5

Later than Bariane and less than or equal to Barsprinter

6

Later than Barsprinter and less than or equal to Remington

7

Later than Remington and less than or equal to Polim

8

Later than Polim and less than or equal to Barpenta

9

Later than Barpenta

Cool-season grass maturity heading dates across test locations

B R– 22

DL

F–

KY –1 7A GO –I A– 17 A GO –I A– 18 M 8 SU –E L– 21 M A SU –E L– 22 M B SU –C H– 22 M A SU –C H– 23 B

B –O

R– 20 BA

R3

–O R2 BA

R2

–O

R– 19 A

Day of year

188 181 174 167 160 153 146 139 132 125 118 111 104 97 90

BA

wider range of variety maturities than might be possible within a single species.

It makes the comparisons more robust.

“We wanted to determine whether cool-season grass variety heading dates rank in a consistent order across diverse locations and multiple years and identify a subset of consistently ranked varieties to be used as reference standards for a maturity ranking index,” Cassida said of the group’s objectives.

Grass varieties were tested across six locations from Kentucky to Oregon. Test plots were grown from 2017 to 2023, and 70 grass varieties were selected to represent a range of potential heading dates. The species included were tall fescue, orchardgrass, timothy, bromegrass, perennial ryegrass, annual ryegrass, hybrid ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass.

Heading dates were recorded in the first cycle of growth during the first and second years following establishment.

The heading date for each individual plant was recorded as the day of the year when at least three plant heads were completely emerged from the flag leaf collar of the plant. After all the varieties were headed, the plots were periodically mowed to a 4-inch height.

“Our goal to select reference varieties was done by identifying the ones that had the same relative maturity date ranking across years and environments,” Cassida explained. “Over all of the site-years, we ended up with a heading date range of 58 days from

Site-year  Balin (Kentucky bluegrass)  BenchmarkPlus (orchardgrass)  Kora (tall fescue)  Bariane (tall fescue)

earliest to latest.”

Of the 16 site-years completed, 10 met the group’s strict criteria for a complete and representative test. From the reams of data generated, the group identified eight grass varieties with observed heading dates that ranked similarly across each of the site-years (see graph). Cassida noted that the reference varieties in the middle of heading range were more consistent in relative rank across environments, but relative rank drifted slightly at the early and late ends of the range.

A proposed protocol Kentucky’s Smith suggested that the final testing protocol brought forward would look similar to the way the exploratory research was done.

Grasses to be tested, including the eight reference varieties, will initially be established in greenhouse pots, then transferred to the field in a spaced and replicated arrangement after approximately eight to 10 weeks. There will need to be a minimum of 15 plants per variety per replication.

The year following a late summer or fall establishment, plots are checked three times per week after the grass variety begins to head. The heading

 Barsprinter (perennial ryegrass)  Remington (perennial ryegrass)  Polim (perennial ryegrass)  Barpenta (timothy)

dates are recorded as the day of the year (for example, February 1 is 32).

The heading date is noted when there are at least three fully emerged heads per plant. Ratings are made over two growing seasons.

“It is important to note that not all cool-season species have check varieties represented in the standard grass maturity test since many species-variety combinations did not show a consistent maturity ranking over locations and years,” Smith explained.

“The check varieties have simply been selected to differentiate the range of relative maturities for cool-season grasses.” The single set of check varieties is used to designate the proposed grass maturity groups 1 to 9 (see table).

Over the next five years, Smith said that the University of Kentucky, in collaboration with the working group, will ensure that viable seed is maintained of each check variety. A similar arrangement will be set up beyond five years.

“The proposed protocol for grass maturity testing is currently being evaluated by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) and the USDA Plant Variety Protection (PVP) groups for acceptance within their systems,” Smith said of the next steps. • August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 17

F3 16-17 Aug_Sep 2024 Maturity Index.indd 2

7/26/24 9:00 AM

SULFUR MAY REDUCE CEREAL FORAGE NITRATE LEVELS

M

ONTANA livestock producers typically require two to four months of stored feed to overwinter cattle, and this is generally the largest annual variable cost to ranches. As a result, slight improvements to cropping systems can provide significant reductions in feed expenditures. Of Montana’s 2.6 million acres of hay production under rain-fed production, 90% of it is fed back to livestock on the farm or ranch, emphasizing the importance of hay quality.

Of the hay crops suited for a short growing season and rain-fed production, annual cereal forages are a popular choice to stock forage inventories.

These forages, such as barley, wheat, oats, and triticale, are commonly grown as forage while renovating aging perennial stands or as an emergency forage source during drought.

A frequent problem Annual cereal forages are not without challenges, the most common being toxic nitrate accumulation that can cause late-term abortions, reduce conception rates, or cause livestock death.

Sulfur fertilization to cereal hay crops has been proposed as a potential solution to this problem based on unpublished data from two western Montana research stations where variable nitrogen and sulfur fertilizer rates were applied to forage barley (Figure 1).

The issue that still exists for Montana soils is determining a quantifiable relationship between soil test sulfur, subsequent plant uptake, and forage yield response. The correlation between plant tissue sulfur and a yield response is understood, and ratios exist to establish deficiency levels, but they do not provide a proactive approach to managing nitrate accumulation.

Looking for answers Due to the need for a solution to mitigating high levels of nitrate accumulation in annual cereal forages, four sites across Montana were selected to grow “Lavina”

Figure 1. The effect of sulfur fertilization on barley forage nitrate concentrations 0.7 0.6

 Without S  With S Limit forage intake For non-bred animals

0.5

Nitrate (%)

by Amanda Grube and Hayes Goosey

0.4 0.3 0.2

For pregnant animals

0.1 0.0

0

60

120

Nitrogen fertilizer (lb. N/ac) Source: Westcott et al., unpublished data, 2002-2004

forage barley. Nitrogen rates were determined based on Montana State University recommendations and soil test nitrogen for each location. Some of the chosen rates were higher than what might be expected for a typical yield in these areas of Montana; this was to elicit a nitrate accumulation response. Sulfur rates applied were 0, 10, and 20 pounds of sulfur per acre. At this time, the data presented is only from the first season, so scientific conclusions based on these data are not advised.

The four sites of this study vary in soil characteristics. The Bozeman location is a deep, clay loam — silty clay loam soil with organic matter percentages ranging from 3% to 6.9%. In Broadview, the soil is a shallow, shale soil with organic matter percentages of 2.2% to 2.3%. The Moccasin site is a shallow, clay loam soil with organic matter percentages ranging from 1.7% to 5.5%, while the Creston site is a loamy sand soil with organic matter percentages ranging from 0.9% to 2.1%.

At Creston (loamy sand), the data was variable with the 10 and 20 pounds per acre sulfur rates reducing nitrate for the medium (recommended) and high (1.5 times the recommended) nitrogen treatments (Figure 2). Medium nitro-

gen and high sulfur yielded more than high nitrogen and sulfur and had lower forage nitrate concentrations (Figure 3).

Interestingly, at Bozeman, the silty clay loam site with deep soils and high rainfall, forage nitrate was high in several treatments (Figure 2). We achieved a 5 tons per acre yield with only 40 pounds of nitrogen per acre applied at this site (Figure 3). Theoretically, there should not have been high levels of accumulated nitrate. These results suggest that either there was deep soil nitrate unaccounted for in our soil samples, or that the hot, dry conditions before harvest had an influence.

At the clay loam sites of Moccasin and Broadview, forage nitrate levels did not accumulate to levels considered dangerous to livestock health, with all levels less than 1,500 parts per million (ppm), which put these sites in the lowest risk category (Figure 2). One observation is that yields were higher than anticipated at these two sites, so nitrogen fertilization levels were likely below optimum (Figure 3). This may have contributed to low plant accumulation of nitrates at these two sites.

Both Moccasin and Broadview also did not experience drought conditions for the entirety of the growing season, con-

18 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 18-19 Aug_Sep 2024 Sulfur.indd 1

7/26/24 8:18 AM

tributing to the previously mentioned higher yields and less adverse growing conditions than normal.

These results suggest that boosting nitrogen fertilizer to 1.5 times above the recommended rates may increase forage nitrate but not yield, while maintaining the recommended nitrogen rate with the addition of 10 pounds per acre of sulfur may reduce nitrate accumulations to less toxic levels.

It may also be that loamy sand-textured soils might be subject to a more drastic response to additions of sulfur, as much of the soil sulfur has been leached due to its coarse soil texture.

Deeper soils may have some nitrate and sulfate that are not captured during soil sampling, and this may be responsible for the less drastic reductions we found with additions of both sulfur and nitrogen fertilizers.

During the current growing season, nitrogen fertilizer rates were raised to account for the yield potential of our sites as opposed to yield goals.

We hoped for and are experiencing a drier growing season than 2023, which will make nitrate accumulations more likely. Stay tuned. •

Figure 2. Effect of applied nitrogen on forage nitrate concentrations at various soil sulfur levels Medium nitrogen rate

9,000



Forage nitrate (ppm)

8,000 7,000 6,000

Non-bred animals

5,000





4,000



2,000

Pregnant animals

  

1,000 0





3,000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Available S (lbs./acre)  Clay loam  Loamy sand High nitrogen rate

10,000



Forage nitrate (ppm)

9,000

AMANDA GRUBE AND HAYES GOOSEY

 Silty clay loam



8,000





7,000 6,000

Non-bred animals



5,000 4,000 3,000 Pregnant animals

2,000

  

1,000 0

The authors are a master’s degree graduate student (pictured) and extension forage specialist, respectively, at Montana State University.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Available S (lbs./A)  Clay loam  Loamy sand

 Silty clay loam

Available soil sulfur (S) is the sum of soil S present at planting from soil tests and sulfur fertilizer applied.

Moisture, % Figure 3. Barley yield (tons/acre) across all sites and all treatments 6

Yield (tons/acre

 Bozeman

 Creston  Broadview  Moccasin

5 4

abc

ab

abc a

ab

c

bc

c

d c

c

c d c

d c

Low N, Medium S

Low N, High S

a

ab

ab

a c

1

a

abc

3 2

abc a

b

c

bc b

b

b

Medium N, Medium S

Medium N, High S

High N, Low S

ab a

b abc a

High N, Medium S

High N, High S

0 Low N, Low S

Medium N, Low S

Treatments Different letters are indicative of a significant (p < 0.05) treatment effect within site which are grouped by bars with the same color.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 19

F3 18-19 Aug_Sep 2024 Sulfur.indd 2

7/26/24 8:18 AM

AND BEEF IN THE BAYOU STATE

by Amber Friedrichsen, Managing Editor

S

OMETIMES an opportunity presents itself that is too good to pass up. In Tara and Josh Morris’ case, it was a series of several opportunities strung together that made their dreams of grazing cattle in southern Louisiana a reality.

Tara and Josh both got their feet wet in agriculture by working on research farms in college before they rented their first piece of land in 2016. They leased the then conventionally farmed field from a friend under the condition that they fix the fence. Once that was complete, the purchase of one cow led to another until they were running 35 cows, calves, and finishing cattle on 52 acres.

The couple resolved to rotate their cattle through smaller paddocks out of necessity, but it was this shift in management that opened their eyes to regenerative grazing. After four years, they transformed the low-quality field into a lush pasture anchored in soil that was noticeably healthier than when they started. Since then, they have rented several other properties with the same motivation to leave the land better than when they found it.

“We began completely focused on cattle with only a little thought about grass,” Tara said. “I think we started backwards but are flipping our mindset to focus on soil first, then grass, then

lastly, the grazing animals.”

The Morrises currently run cattle on three leases within 15 miles of each other just north of Baton Rouge that Tara, Josh, and his father manage separately to divide and conquer daily chores. Their children, June and Ruben, also help make pasture moves and market meat for the family’s beef business, and it is with sage advice from other farmers, a network of neighbor graziers, resourceful reading material, and the occasional YouTube video that the family continues to make their operation more sustainable and efficient.

Based in bahiagrass On a sunny Saturday morning in midApril, Tara assessed the forage in the “ugly” pasture at the home farm near the town of Slaughter. The sacrifice paddock was established the previous year to avoid overgrazing during the historic drought that seriously compromised plant growth in the Deep South. Despite an abundance of buttercup on display, the ugly pasture was well on its way to recovery thanks to some recent rain.

The yellow flowers of the annual weed were few and far between in front of the farmhouse. Instead, it was prime time for ryegrass growth in the pasture that was divided into paddocks for a small herd of weaned calves. Bahiagrass was

20 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

also starting to pop up.

“Bahiagrass loves Louisiana,” Tara chuckled, pointing out the perennial forage. Even so, she purported not all Louisiana farmers love it back.

“I don’t think people appreciate it as well as they could,” she continued.

“Bahiagrass is a staple here. If you keep it in a vegetative state by grazing it well, we have found you can beat the summer slump.”

To do this, the Morrises rotate their cattle to new bahiagrass paddocks nearly every day. The perennial pastures are also complemented by ball clover in the spring, which readily reseeds itself and thrives in the wetter soils.

By August, they start to stockpile about half of the acres at each leased site and let cattle graze the rest of the forage hard ahead of planting ryegrass, wheat, and oats in mid-October. Then they seed the cool-season species with a Plant-O-Vator drill, which Tara said is a rare piece of equipment that she acquired in a lucky deal.

Cattle graze stockpiled bahiagrass into the winter until the Morrises start to buy and feed hay. December and January are the toughest months to manage animals before they can begin grazing ryegrass, oats, and wheat in the spring, and it’s a time of year the couple must keep in mind when making

Amber Friedrichsen

GROWING BAHIAGRASS

stocking decisions for each herd.

“We figured out that we need a stocking rate for what we can handle when cattle are on the stockpile and hay,” Tara asserted. “The stockpile is only half of our land that is available because the other half is planted and waiting to grow.”

Ryegrass production typically ramps up during the tail-end of February when the weather takes a turn for the better, and the Morrises put cattle out on the annual forage in March. Tara reckons cows make most of their gains on the annual ryegrass from March through May and then maintain body condition by grazing bahiagrass when it resumes growing. This year, the couple also planted a mix of sorghum-sudangrass, sunn hemp, pearl millet, buckwheat, and cowpeas in small plots to boost forage supplies and animal gains through the summer and fall.

less desirable species as integral parts of the entire system by understanding how weeds communicate changes in growing conditions, soil moisture, and soil fertility. She also believes in animals’ intuition to graze weeds that might provide some extra nutrition and trusts their instincts to avoid harmful ones.

“We’ve learned to worry a lot less about weeds,” Tara shrugged. “We believe that all things have a purpose.”

Three Twelve Beef Despite the difficulty of moving cattle through the spring flush fast enough, this rapid growth curve aligns nicely with the Morrises’ grass-fed beef sales. They have about 120 cows and retain steers

A shock to the system Planning pasture moves and planting dates are recurring considerations for the couple, but having flexibility with temporary fencing offers some elbow room in their grazing schedule. Using polywire wasn’t a skill that came naturally to them, though. In fact, dividing pastures and stocking paddocks was the biggest challenge the Morrises faced when they started farming.

“We would come out every day and the polywire would just be drug through the pasture by the untrained calves,” Tara recounted. “We would set it back up only for it to happen again the next day. We wanted to give up rotational grazing; we wanted to quit.”

The problem, they discovered, was that their voltage was too low. With feedback from an area fencing expert and more knowledge on best practices, the couple resolved to train cows to a single line of polywire charged to a higher voltage, which keeps cows contained to the paddock yet allows calves to roam. The latter was simply a matter of picking their battles.

Another battle to pick — or not pick — was weed control. Leveraging their limited working capital for expensive inputs wasn’t in the Morrises’ budget.

Luckily, intensive grazing and quick rotations have allowed for denser forage that suppresses most weeds without herbicide or mechanical control.

Insight from other graziers inspired a shift in perspective on weeds as well.

Tara and Josh have come to embrace

ciently in our system, not just based on breeds or pedigrees,” Tara stated.

It takes roughly two years for an animal to finish out, but the Morrises acquire cull cows and heifers from a nearby cow-calf farmer to market as well. They process about one animal per week to keep up with their directto-consumer sales, which are carried out at farmers markets, via delivery, and at a local pick-up point.

Most customers are repeat buyers who want beef to fill their freezers and feed their families. Tara relies on four parttime employees to manage sales, drop off boxes, and run a Three Twelve Beef booth at farmers markets. One of the key aspects of their business, though, is education. Properly preparing grass-fed beef varies from cooking grain-fed beef, and Tara wants her customers to ease into the best eating experience.

“If you haven’t had grass-fed beef before, start with ground beef or roast.

If you like that, I can show you how to cook a steak,” she smiled.

Rooted in community

Gabby Chapin

The Morris family includes (from left) Ruben, Tara, Josh, and June.

and heifers between the fall and spring calving seasons to sustain their farm-totable business, Three Twelve Beef.

“In April, cattle start to gain weight again and we can finally finish them out,” Tara said. “April through November is the best time for us to market beef because that’s when we can best keep the cattle growing.”

Tweaking herd genetics to enhance this growth has been an ongoing experiment. The herd originally was comprised of Angus cows, but the couple is slowly adding animals with Corriente, Red Devon, Murray Gray, and South Poll influence. They also started raising their own bulls to target specific traits for better meat quality and grazing performance. Red Devon and South Poll sires have become a mainstay in their breeding program, especially for the sake of their superior heat tolerance, which is essential to beat the high temperatures and even higher humidity that can suffocate the Bayou State.

“We select animals that thrive effi-

In addition to educating her customers, Tara also gives guidance to fellow farmers as an education and outreach coordinator with the Louisiana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (LGLCI). The organization facilitates networking opportunities and training programs for landowners focused on sustainable agriculture.

On that same Saturday in mid-April, after checking the herd and rotating cattle to fresh grass, Tara drove five miles down the road to represent LGLCI at a pasture walk hosted by a neighbor. The group included beef and sheep graziers of all ages who gathered under a canopy tent for lunch after the tour. Introductions were made and ideas were exchanged over hearty servings of jambalaya doused in hot sauce and ice-cold cups of sweet tea.

It is connections like these between beginning farmers and veteran graziers that Tara is eager to facilitate through her work, though she is just as grateful to be a part of the community herself.

She attributes the growth of Three Twelve Beef to the insight and wisdom received from forage specialists, beef producers, and fencing experts who have led the way for her family; however, the cattle company would not be what it is without the Morrises’ emphasis on regenerative agriculture and deep-seeded passion to farm. •

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 21

F3 20-21 Aug_Sep 2024 Bahiagrass.indd 2

7/26/24 8:25 AM

THE PASTURE WALK

ALL FESCUE IS NOT CREATED EQUAL

W

ITH the end of summer just around the corner, it’s time to plan which pastures or fields you will target to stockpile for winter grazing. While any pasture can be stockpiled, the species composition of the pasture is an important consideration. Some forages tolerate fall and winter weather much better than other species. Tall fescue is one of the standout species.

It has been said many times over that tall fescue is the best cool-season grass species for stockpiling. Broadly speaking, that is still true, but we need to sort through some of the details. For many years, I have said there are five good reasons for growing tall fescue for stockpiling. Those five reasons are November, December, January, February, and March.

In areas where tall fescue is well adapted to the environment, it will make more fall growth than any other grass species, and the energy and protein content of that forage will be higher than any other grass. Tall fescue yield and quality is also quite durable deep into the winter months. All of this is well established with research throughout fescue-adapted regions over the last 75 years.

It’s a new day The new consideration is that today’s tall fescue is not the same as your grandpa’s tall fescue. For the first 30 to 40 years of tall fescue use, the mainstay of all fescue pastures was the endophyte-infected Kentucky-31 (Ky31) variety. All of the horror stories and bad experiences associated with tall fescue over the early years was due

to the toxin-producing fungus growing within the plant.

These days, we have endophyte-free varieties, novel endophyte (nontoxic) varieties, and soft-leaf varieties with much higher palatability compared to the old Ky31 variety. We also have meadow fescue, a different species from tall fescue, that stockpiles almost as well but has no endophyte issues.

Perennial ryegrass has also been crossed with both tall and meadow fescue to give us festulolium, an equally productive and more palatable alternative to tall fescue.

The unwarranted fear of the word “fescue” in many regions hampers the opportunity for graziers to dramatically extend the length of their grazing season beyond traditional constraints.

As winters have become milder over the last few decades, tall fescue adaptation has been creeping northward.

While many livestock producers and their advisers have been hesitant to accept this new reality, many others have embraced the opportunities for extended grazing seasons provided by the new fescue variants.

Location, location, location I frequently get asked about how the different types of fescues compare for stockpiling. Here is a quick summary.

Most endophyte-free varieties have a hard time persisting south of Interstate 70. North of Interstate 80, survival of endophyte-free varieties has been good all the way up into Ontario and Quebec. Between those two interstates, persistence of endophyte-free fescue depends entirely on the management applied. Persistence is generally better

Mike Rankin

by Jim Gerrish

with time-controlled grazing compared to set stocking. With appropriate grazing and nutrient management, stockpiling characteristics are near identical to old Ky31.

Novel-endophyte varieties persist much better south of I-70 than do the endophyte-free varieties. They stockpile successfully and provide a solid foundation for winter grazing through much of the South and lower parts of the Midwest. Novel-endophyte varieties can be seeded in Northern regions as well, but they may not be necessary since the typically lower cost endophyte-free varieties perform well in the North.

The old Ky31 variety is a stiff-leaf variety and is known to have palatability issues. Soft-leaf varieties are much more palatable than the stiff-leaf types. There are soft-leaf varieties available in both endophyte-free and novel endophyte varieties. For the most part, soft-leaf varieties do not stockpile as well as the stiff-leaf types and are subject to more rapid winter deterioration; however, they are still superior to orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass, or timothy.

Meadow fescue competes Most trials that have done side-byside comparisons of tall fescue and meadow fescue in stockpile situations find them fairly close in most characteristics. Given that both species have a wide range in the cultivars within the species, we could take the very best performing meadow fescue variety and compare it to one of the least desirable tall fescue varieties and make the claim that meadow fescue is actually superior.

The flip side is we could take the worst meadow fescue and compare it to the best tall fescue and make the claim that meadow fescue doesn’t begin to compare to tall fescue for stockpiling.

If we look at the comparison of meadow and tall fescue across the range of environments and varieties, meadow fescue stacks up extremely well. • JIM GERRISH The author is a rancher, author, speaker, and consultant with over 40 years of experience in grazing management research, outreach, and practice.

He has lived and grazed livestock in hot, humid Missouri and cold, dry Idaho.

22 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 22 Aug_Sep 2024 Pasture Walk.indd 1

7/26/24 8:25 AM

FEED ANALYSIS

by John Goeser

Refresh your particle size practices

T

HERE are many different ways to assess dairy and feedlot performance and profitability.

In the dairy industry, milk yield per cow has been the classic performance indicator; however, new age key performance indicators such as feed conversion efficiency (FCE), FCE based upon energy-corrected milk, or income over feed costs are now the preferred performance measures.

Similarly, there are numerous particle size measures relevant to dairy or beef nutrition to help us manage forage and cow diets, and these particle size measures are also evolving with new research and development. The various particle size measures relate largely to fiber and starch, which are important to understand as carbohydrates drive dietary energy in dairy and beef rations.

The breakdown Corn silage and snaplage kernel processing score (KPS) continues to be a leading topic among dairy and beef producers, nutritionists, forage growers, and customer forage harvesters.

Case in point, a forward thinking dairy producer in Florida checked in with me just the other day to get my thoughts on processing and their farm’s measures. They are aiming for complete kernel destruction, understanding that corn silage KPS is positively related to rumen and total tract starch digestion.

Leading harvesters now achieve 75% to 80% KPS when benchmarking fermented silage or snaplage.

Corn silage KPS has been related to fecal starch and corn bypassing through cattle. In years past, with cheaper corn and better margins, 2% to 3% fecal starch in dairy cows had been acceptable. However, when seeking performance gains with razor-thin margins, there is zero room for grain to pass through undigested.

The goal for fecal starch in dairy cows is now less than 1%. For beef cattle, the top 15% of samples analyzed by Rock River Laboratory are less than 3% of dry matter. Beyond corn silage KPS, corn grain mean particle size and surface area are also related to fecal starch and starch digestibility. We’ll

stay focused on forage measures here, although it’s important to understand that particle size in all the grain- and starch-rich ingredients are important if you’re not hitting your fecal starch benchmarks. With this in mind, sorghum silage can also contribute substantial starch to dairy diets in drought-stressed regions or years.

Berries are challenging Sorghum and other berry-producing warm-season grasses are substantially more water efficient, and they are gaining momentum as dairy or beef forage crops. Historically, nutritionists have discounted the starch content in these silages due to poor or zero berry processing. Corn silage kernel processors are mostly ineffective in breaking the much smaller sorghum berries.

Therefore, despite the silage containing 15% to 20% starch, the starch has historically been poorly digested due to unprocessed berries in the silage.

This is now changing as novel berry processors are being developed and tested. My colleagues Mike Brouk, Jared Johnson, Juan Pineiro, Luiz Ferraretto, and Katie Raver, among others, have expected this mechanical engineering development, and they have collectively helped bring forward a research-backed berry processing score. This berry processing score is now the particle size assessment for sorghum and other berry producing silages. We’ll cover this particle size measure more in a future column, but initial studies suggest that berry processing scores at 50% to 60% are achievable with advanced machinery.

Fiber factors Transitioning from starch to fiber, forage fiber particle size is equally important. Penn State particle size analysis, with the Penn State shaker box, continues to be one of the most valuable measures for forages. While kernel or berry processing score and grain particle size affect feed energy value, the fiber particle size affects packing density, forage mixability, and animal eating behavior and health. Structural fiber is necessary for rumen health, but fiber particle size also affects diet pas-

sage rate through the digestive tract and fiber digestibility.

I’m routinely consulted for particle size recommendations with haylage or silage, but my recommendation always sounds academic: “It depends!” While smaller particle size in grain is always better, fiber particle size goals depend on many different factors and considerations, including silo storage structure, forage maturity and fiber digestibility, whether other fibrous feeds are available, forage-to-grain ratio in the diet, feeding practices, feed management, and more. The bottom line is that forage particle size recommendations are situation dependent.

The structural fiber also interacts with fiber digestibility, and nutritionists are beginning to evaluate physically effective undigestible fiber.

Rick Grant with the Miner Agricultural Research Institute in New York and his colleagues have done groundbreaking work with this newer particle size related measure. Goals for dairy diets appear to be in the 3% to 7% of dry matter range; however, this benchmark will also be dependent upon the situation and the individual dairy farm. For more insight on this, reference “The physical side of fiber” published in the April 25, 2024, issue of Hoard’s Dairyman.

In conclusion, advance your forage particle size assessment with the concepts covered here. Particle size is important for dairy and beef performance, but analyzing forage grain or fiber particle size requires the checking of a few different boxes. Much like the different dairy or beef performance benchmarks, there are a variety of particle size measures and benchmarks to ensure your forage fiber and kernel or berry processing is adequate. •

JOHN GOESER The author is the director of nutrition research and innovation with Rock River Lab Inc., and adjunct assistant professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Dairy Science Department.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 23

F3 23 Aug_Sep 2024 Feed Analysis.indd 1

7/26/24 8:26 AM

A CLOSER LOOK AT

CONVENTIONAL AND BMR CORN

by Jerry Cherney, Debbie Cherney, and Matt Digman

D

AIRY farms rely heavily on corn silage as a key feed ingredient in cow rations.

Moisture assessment in the field is essential for harvest timing of corn silage, but visual assessment is problematic, particularly for brown-midrib (BMR) hybrids. Although BMR hybrids have proven higher nutritive value than conventional types, they tend to be more susceptible to disease and lodging compared to nonBMR hybrids (Figure 1). Historically, there has also been a yield drag associated with BMR hybrids, and BMR corn tends to have less starch than conventional hybrids.

BMR corn plants often visually appear dry due to desiccated leaves; however, leaves account for less than 15% of the total plant dry matter and are typically a poor indicator of wholeplant moisture. BMR hybrids are reported to dry down slower or faster than conventional types, depending on the weather. In 2023, we decided to take a closer look at the differences

between BMR and conventional corn hybrids during the harvest period.

Field-to-field variability Past studies have shown that five representative corn plants can adequately represent the overall moisture content of a field. We selected five plants per field from 202 cornfields on seven farms across three counties in central New York during the fall of last year. The seven farms had a total of about 13,000 acres of corn planted.

Planting dates varied from mid-April to early June, with a wide range of soil types and drainage. Fields were sampled from late August to late September, and the moisture content of ear, stover, and whole plant were measured.

A total of 41 different corn hybrids were sampled, with relative maturities (RM) ranging from 84 to 112 days.

Twenty-nine percent of the fields were planted to BMR hybrids. Plant height, ear length, and ear width were also measured. Adequate precipitation across the region during much of the growing season resulted in normal corn development for most of the sampled fields.

Plant height ranged from 5 to 10 feet

and ear length from 4 to 9 inches. Ear length and ear width were positively related to total plant dry matter, with only minor differences between BMR and conventional. There was no relationship between ear length and width.

The ear-to-stover ratio declined with greater plant height and increased with larger ear width.

Stover moisture of individual plants ranged from 85% to 65% while ear moisture ranged from 83% to 38%.

Whole-plant moisture ranged from 84% to 51% from the beginning to end of the sampling period.

We estimated relative rates of wholeplant dry down by comparing sampling date moisture to the number of days from planting to sampling for each cornfield (Figure 2). The drop in wholeplant moisture per day was relatively consistent across RM groups, averaging 0.5 to 0.6 percentage units per day. Drying rate per day of BMR hybrids did not appear to be different from conventional types in upstate New York in 2023.

Some hybrid differences Ear moisture was highly correlated with whole-plant moisture for both

24 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 24-25 Aug_Sep 2024 BMR Corn.indd 1

7/26/24 8:26 AM

Figure 2. Estimated drying rate based on planting and sampling dates for BMR and conventional cornfields Whole plant moisture, %

BMR and conventional hybrids (Figure 3). This is due to a strong relationship between ear moisture and ear-tostover ratio, up until grain fill is completed (Figure 4).

Ear moisture averaged 1 to 2 percentage units lower for BMR compared to conventional over the entire sampling date range. Stover moisture averaged nearly 2 percentage units higher for BMR than conventional prior to reaching harvest moisture.

Besides the differences in moisture content for both ear and stover between BMR and conventional, advancing grain fill results in the dry ratio of ear to stover to be nearly 1:1 when the whole plant reaches 68% moisture. On average, we estimate that BMR fields reached 68% whole-plant moisture about the same day as conventional fields. Of course, the harvest date for a particular hybrid will depend on its RM, the planting date, and the seasonal weather.

85 80 75 70 65 60

0.58% units/day dry down

55 50

90

100

110

120

130

140

Days from planting to sampling

Less starch for BMR, but . . .

Figure 1. Two fields on the same farm, same day

Figure 3. Ear and stover moisture in relation to whole plant moisture Dry ear: stover ratio

2.0 1.5

Conv.

1.0

BMR

0.5 0.0

80

70

60

50

40

Ear moisture, %

Figure 4. Ear moisture is well correlated with ear-tostover ratio 90

Moisture, %

Ear dry matter yield per plant for BMR averaged 7.5% lower than for conventional hybrids at 68% whole-plant moisture. Total dry matter yield for individual BMR plants was similar to conventional hybrids on average. Seed companies recommend that BMR hybrids should be planted at a slightly lower population than conventional, although Cornell University research by Bill Cox found no hybrid by seeding rate interactions for yield or quality, comparing BMR with conventional hybrids.

A 2016 Miner Institute trial found no significant yield differences between BMR and conventional hybrids when planted at the same populations. A 2023 study by Clemson University planted corn at rates from 24,000 to 40,000 plants per acre and also concluded that dry matter yield was not different between BMR and conventional corn hybrids.

As expected, BMR plants had less grain compared to conventional types. Any yield drag for BMR hybrids does appear to be shrinking. Weather in 2023 was not particularly stressful for our study, and it remains likely that BMR hybrids are more susceptible to stress than conventional types. Although BMR plants visually appear to be much drier than conventional hybrids, the difference between them in whole-plant moisture can be relatively small.

On average, BMR hybrids reached 68% whole-plant harvest moisture about the same day as conventional hybrids The excellent relationship between ear moisture and whole-plant moisture should make it possible to estimate whole-plant moisture in the field from an ear moisture estimate. •

80 70 60 50 40 85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

Ear moisture, %

For additional details, see Cherney et al., Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt.

2024;10:e20271. Online: bit.ly/HFG-convBMR JERRY CHERNEY, DEBBIE CHERNEY, AND MATT DIGMAN

BMR, 63% moisture

Conventional, 67% moisture

Jerry and Debbie Cherney are a forage agronomist and animal scientist, respectively, with Cornell University. Digman is an agricultural engineer with the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 25

F3 24-25 Aug_Sep 2024 BMR Corn.indd 2

7/26/24 8:27 AM

MIke Rankin

Does particle-size reduction affect balage fermentation?

by Wayne Coblentz

T

HE concept of preserving forages as baled silage has become more popular throughout many regions of North America, and particularly in areas where weather norms make baling dry hay difficult and frustrating. Over the last several decades, baler design has been improved to accommodate the greater forage moisture and heavier weights of silage bales.

Another improvement in baler design has been the development of cutting mechanisms within the baler. These systems are primarily used to facilitate mixing of dry hay or baled silage into total mixed rations. However, it also has been suggested that cutting mechanisms may increase the amount of forage packaged into each bale, as well as potentially improving silage fermentation.

To address these questions, several experiments were conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Marshfield Agricultural Research Station using a New

Holland Roll-Belt 450 round baler. The baler was configured with 15 equally spaced cutting knives across a 4-foot bale width, which roughly computes to a 3-inch theoretical length of cut. The system could be engaged or disengaged remotely from the tractor cab.

Small density improvement Responses to bale cutting obtained from two experiments are summarized in

Table 1. In these studies, trends always favored heavier, denser bales following bale-cutting engagement, but the magnitude of these differences typically was only modest and not always statistically significant. It should be emphasized that many variables can affect bale density, such as windrow or swath density, bale moisture, forage species, initial or regrowth harvest of perennial grasses, baler ground speed, and other factors.

T able 1. Effects of bale-cutting engagement on wet and dry bale weights and dry matter (DM) Forage

Mean moisture

Treatment

%

Alfalfa-Grass Perennial Grass1

56.5 51.6

Wet bale weight

Dry bale weight

DM density

lbs.

lbs. DM

lbs. DM/ft3

Cut

1,473*

633

11.9

Uncut

1,413

613

11.6

Cut

1,352*

642*

12.0

Uncut

1,299

613

11.7

Bale density for 4x4-foot round bales of mixed alfalfa-grass or perennial grass silages made in two experiments at Marshfield, Wis. *Indicates statistical significance based on bale-cutting engagement.

Adapted from: Appl. Anim. Sci. 35:135-145 (2019); J. Dairy Sci. 103:3219-3233 (2020).

26 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 26-28 Aug_Sep 2024 Balage Fermentation.indd 1

7/26/24 8:27 AM

For studies conducted at Marshfield, a 5.5-mile per hour baler ground speed is normally maintained, except when experimental objectives require an adjustment. It should not be assumed that the responses summarized in Table 1 are reflective of all baling conditions. More definitive responses may be reported elsewhere.

Figure 1. Declining pH for alfalfa-grass silages produced in round-baled or precision-chopped forms at about 61% moisture in Canada 6.0

Baleage is harder to ferment pH

5.5

4.0

0

1

Source: Can J. Anim. Sci. 71: 1167-1180m (1991)

3

9

60

Days of fermentation

Figure 2. Relationships for lactic acid (top) and final silage pH (bottom) as affected by bale moisture for alfalfa-grass silages made with bale-cutting engagement or packaged in long-stem form 4.5 4.0

 Cut  Long Stem

3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5

Modest improvement

0.0

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Moisture, % 6.4 6.2

 Cut  Long Stem

6.0

pH

An experiment conducted in Marshfield, Wis., evaluated alfalfa-orchardgrass forages that were baled over a wide range of moisture concentrations. The bale-cutting mechanism was engaged or disengaged so that forages were either coarsely cut or left uncut in long-stem form, respectively. This experimental design allowed for assessment of silage-fermentation characteristics as they were affected by bale-cutting over a wide range of bale moistures.

Figure 2 summarizes these relationships for the production of lactic acid as well as final silage pH. Production of lactic acid was limited at low bale moistures but increased rapidly as bales entered the normal recommended moisture range for baled silages (45% to 55%). Regression relationships for both cut and long-stem silages were cubic in nature, meaning there were two inflections or bends in the regression line. These complex relationships were created by the limited production of lactic acid in dry silages as well as the formation of some undesirable fermentation products in wet silages, a process that often consumes lactic acid as a substrate.

Across the wide range of bale moistures evaluated, production of lactic acid was consistently greater, albeit modestly,

5.0 4.5

Lactic acid, % of DM

Before discussing the potential effects of bale cutting on silage fermentation, it is worthwhile to compare the fermentation of precision-chopped and baled silages. This is difficult to illustrate because few research studies have compared the two silage types made from the same forage harvested at the same moisture concentration. The fermentation of baled silages typically is restricted. This occurs (in part) because baled silages are normally drier (45% to 55% moisture) and often are less dense than well-packed chopped silages. However, the chopping action itself also improves the availability of plant sugars to critical fermentation bacteria, further improving silage fermentation.

This concept is best illustrated by work conducted several decades ago in Canada (see Figure 1). In this example, alfalfagrass forage was either precision-chopped or baled at about 61% moisture. Silage pH is presented at various time points during fermentation and clearly indicates a more rapid pH decline to a more acidic final endpoint for the chopped silages. This is the result of greater production of fermentation acids, and especially lactic acid, which is the strongest fermentation acid and most capable of lowering silage pH. Based on this work, an obvious question can be asked: Do bale-cutting mechanisms create some of the same benefits as precision chopping with respect to improving silage fermentation? Potentially, this could be accomplished through two mechanisms. One possible mechanism is through any improvement in bale density, which purges air from the silage bale and makes the bale less porous to air. A second possible mechanism may occur through particle-size reduction that could improve the interaction of plant sugar substrates with critical fermentation bacteria that produce fermentation acids.

 Baled  Chopped

5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0

40

45

50

Appl. Anim. Sci. 35:135-145 (2019)

55

60

65

70

75

Moisture, %

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 27

F3 26-28 Aug_Sep 2024 Balage Fermentation.indd 2

7/26/24 8:28 AM

Table 2. Effects of bale-cutting engagement on fermentation characteristics Characteristic

Cut

Uncut

Total fermentation acids, %

3.40

3.03

Lactic acid, %

1.97

1.73

Lactic acid, % of total acids

56.9

55.6

Acetic acid, %

0.81

0.75

Propionic acid, %

0.27

0.30

Butyric acid, %

0.33

0.24

Ammonia-N, % of N

7.08

7.29

Final silage pH

5.54

5.61

4×4-foot round bales of perennial grass silages made at Marshfield, Wis. Perennial grass species include meadow fescue, orchardgrass, and tall fescue. Bales were made at either 58% or 45% moisture.

Data adapted from: J. Dairy Sci. 103:3219-3233 (2020).

with engagement of bale cutting. This resulted in a consistently lower (more acidic) final pH for cut silages. However, the magnitude of this effect was modest in scope, ranging from 0.10 to 0.15 pH units.

Moisture is more important A second trial was conducted at Marshfield with three perennial

cool-season grasses (orchardgrass, meadow fescue, and tall fescue) baled at two moisture concentrations (58% and 45%) and with or without bale-cutting engagement. Predictably, bale moisture had strong effects on silage fermentation. Concentrations of lactic acid were nearly 2.5 times greater in the wetter silages (2.62% versus 1.08%), and the final pH was sharply more acidic (pH

Save the date!

December 10–12, 2024 • Nugget Casino Resort • Sparks, NV

California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium REGISTRATION COMING SOON! Learn more at calhaysymposium.com

was 5.33 versus 5.82).

However, the response to bale-cutting engagement can best be described as minimal (Table 2). The final pH of cut bales was 0.07 pH units lower or more acidic than long-stem bales, but this difference was not statistically relevant.

Numerical advantages for cut silages were observed for total fermentation acids, lactic acid (%), lactic acid (% of total acids), and acetic acid, but only total fermentation acids approached a statistically relevant difference.

The presence of measurable concentrations of butyric acid must be emphasized. This fermentation response is indicative of some undesirable clostridial activity, particularly within the high-moisture bale group (0.52%) compared to the drier silages (0.06%).

However, production of this undesirable fermentation acid was directly linked to bale moisture and was not affected by bale-cutting engagement.

Does bale-cutting engagement increase the amount of forage packed into each bale and/or improve silage fermentation? Based on the results of these studies, the answer to both questions would technically be yes, at least sometimes. However, the magnitude of improvements related to both questions were modest at best, and clear, statistically-based benefits did not occur consistently.

The studies reported here clearly do not cover all possible crops and/or baling conditions. Nevertheless, it would seem the primary justification for including bale-cutting capability in any baler purchase should remain a need to improve processing, often for ease of mixing into total mixed rations (TMR) or other blended feeds.

Precut bales can often be directly added to the TMR without being processed in a tub grinder • Mention of product names is only for informational purposes; it does not imply either recommendation or endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture.

WAYNE COBLENTZ The author is a retired research dairy scientist/ agronomist with the USDA Dairy Forage Research Center in Marshfield, Wis.

28 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F3 26-28 Aug_Sep 2024 Balage Fermentation.indd 3

7/26/24 8:31 AM

ADDING GRAZING DAYS PAYS

by Laura Brenner

Priority shift Four years ago, Noble Research Institute’s Red River Ranch near Burneyville, Okla., was managed conventionally, and the ranch team, including ranch manager Kevin Pierce, spent their summers baling hay to feed cattle through the winter. In 2020, Pierce fed four to five bales of hay per cow each winter season. This past winter, he fed only one bale per cow.

Pierce now manages the ranch with soil health principles in mind, which encourage ranchers to consider the overall health of the land, livestock, and business for better sustainability.

To this end, Pierce is more strategic about the intervals cattle are grazing the pastures, how long forage gets to rest, and pulling the cows off some fields well before winter to stockpile the grass.

Knowing how to manage cover crops and how to manage land to improve soil health and productivity are specialties of Jim Johnson, a senior regenerative ranching advisor at Noble.

“It comes back to how producers answer a few questions,” Johnson said.

“When do I want to use it? When do I need to let it recover? When can I graze it prior to that?” He further explained that recovery periods depend more on weather and time than if the field is

Noble Research Institute

W

HEN margins are tight and time is money, ranchers look for ways to cut costs and boost their bottom line. If the economics of making and feeding hay on your livestock operation no longer make sense, consider leaving that forage on the stem and adding grazing days on your ranch.

Ranchers forgo the need for production equipment, storage facilities, and hours spent hunched in a tractor when they scale back their reliance on making and feeding hay. Instead, they find fringe benefits of better cattle nutrition, soil health, and — in the long term — improved carrying capacity by adaptively grazing, allowing adequate recovery, encouraging diversity, and, in some situations, adding seasonal cover crops.

planted in warm-season, cool-season, or perennial forages.

Carrying capacity, cover crops Johnson teaches ranchers the importance of first addressing stocking rate and carrying capacity when they think about pasture management and extending grazing days.

“Most producers who we’ve worked with are overstocked,” he said. “Getting your stocking right at or below carrying capacity is probably going to get you 90% of the way [to year-round grazing].”

Johnson has helped ranchers who participate in Noble’s educational courses evaluate pasture management options and consider the right time to destock, if necessary. He says now is a good time to sell off some cattle, given the market prices.

In addition to stockpiling forages, Pierce plants cool- and warm-season cover crops to use as standing forage in the winter and early spring. He plants a warm-season mix around June 1, grazes the field in early August, and then leaves it to rest until it’s needed as standing forage in December.

Johnson and Pierce agree there are many benefits to planting cover crops to be grazed in the winter, including the positive influence on soil health.

It’s this priority — more so than improved nutrition for cattle and less investment of time and capital in making hay — that has influenced the management practices at Red River Ranch the most.

“A lot of places we plant these cover crops are old cropland fields,” Pierce explained. “A lot of them we farmed or mowed for hay for the last decade.

Everything we grew was taken off; we

never put anything back into the soil.

Now, we’re trying to keep something growing out there year-round and to build organic matter back in the soil.”

Pierce has also experimented with letting these annual cover crops go to seed for volunteer regrowth the next season.

He says grazing cattle in the pasture offers two-fold benefits: he gets an extra month or so of grazing and the cattle impact stimulates better regrowth.

“I feel I can get a better stand by coming back in with adaptive grazing and 50,000 pounds of stocking density moving across the pasture,” Pierce said.

“The cows stomp the seed back into the ground and plant it.”

Farm values Johnson believes there’s an economic benefit to additional grazing days, too.

“Economics would be a lot better, for one, because you’re not paying to cut, rake, bale, and haul it off, then haul it back and feed it to (the cattle),” Johnson said. “You don’t have the shrink from it decomposing in a field, or the capital expenditure if it’s in a barn for storage.”

Pierce also said he would much rather spend half of a day in his side-by-side setting up fencing and getting a good look at his herds than go back to his summers spent in the cab of a tractor. •

LAURA BRENNER The author is a senior content writer with the Noble Research Institute in Ardmore, Okla.

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 29

F2 29 Aug_Sep 2024 Grazing Days Pays.indd 2

7/26/24 8:37 AM

FORAGE GEARHEAD

by Adam Verner

Bigger and better

Mike Rankin

Sprayers are available for every farm size

W

EEDS seem to persist regardless of the current or extreme weather situation. The primary tool to help control weeds on most farms is a sprayer. These days, sprayer models can fit any budget or farm size, and with many used sprayers hitting the market this year, it may be a good time to think about upgrading your current unit.

Sprayers can vary in price from $1,000 to $400,000. They range from pull types to self-propelled and from boomless to over 120 feet of boom width. Let’s break them down and see which one or two would work best on your operation.

Boomless models are handy for anysized farming operation and useful for spraying ditches, fencerows, and along tree lines where weeds can escape sprayers with booms. I personally have a boomless to spray around my corrals, as a wand-type takes too long. The downside to a boomless is the small tank and lighter duty pumps and components.

A good small-farm option For the smaller operations, threepoint sprayers are still the most versatile and affordable. With all the new spray tips available, you can get great coverage using only 10 to 12 gallons per acre with a 400 gallon, three-point hitch sprayer. However, care must be taken when spraying fertilizer and other micronutrients, as they tend to

require higher application rates and are corrosive on sprayer parts. Also, with the close proximity to the tractor, you need to be vigilant when cleaning up after applying corrosive fertilizers so you don’t damage your tractor. If you heed these few cautions, any threepoint hitch model can be a big asset to a smaller-sized farming operation.

The models that have been the hardest hit in terms of resale value are pull-type sprayers. With the flood of new self-propelled sprayers, many farmers have traded in their pull-type to upgrade to a self-contained unit.

Pull-type sprayers can have all of the benefits of their self-propelled big brothers. Some manufacturers produce pull-type units that have larger tanks and just as much boom width.

Any hay producer or livestock farmer could really benefit from the rate controllers, multi-tip spray nozzle bodies, and chemical educator, which can all be found on pull-type models but with less investment than a self-propelled. If you add a light bar or small guidance system, the pull-type unit becomes an inexpensive, accurate spray rig.

New generation, used pull-type models can be found from $5,000 to $50,000, depending on the boom width, tank size, and model. Pull-type units are the bargain of the sprayer market right now, and they can do everything you ask of them.

The growing trend over the last 10 years has been toward larger, faster, and more accurate self-propelled sprayers. With units out there that can easily cover over 150 acres per hour, they have changed the spraying industry as a whole. These massive high-boy sprayers can have individual nozzle shutoff, see and spray technology, and work accurately at speeds of up to 20 miles per hour. This market segment has exploded in both the total number of units sold and the technology operating them, making it appealing to farmers to upgrade.

With resistant weeds and what seems like new fungi showing up every year in fields, the sprayer is one of the most important tools in a farmer’s shed.

When looking at purchasing a sprayer, there are a number of options to consider. The boom and its integrity should be toward the top of your list, as well as the metering system and valve controls.

With the sheer number of used self-propelled sprayers on the market today, take your time and do your homework. Eventually, you will be able to find the right sprayer with all of the options that you need to make your operation more efficient. Whether you’re in the market for a 600-gallon sprayer with a 60-foot boom to spray a pasture or an 1,100-gallon sprayer with a 100-foot boom and section control to spray a couple thousand acres of alfalfa, the units are readily available. With older models that can be priced as low as $30,000 and larger sprayers costing over $400,000, it is important to know what you are looking for so as to not get something over your budget or need.

The time is right to start looking into upgrading your sprayer. Don’t be afraid to add guidance, section control, or improved rate controllers.

Each of these features can pay for itself in the first year. They will make it easier on the operator, too. Safe spraying this summer! •

ADAM VERNER The author is a managing partner in Elite Ag LLC, Leesburg, Ga. He also is active in the family farm in Rutledge.

30 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F2 30 Aug_Sep 2024 Gearhead.indd 1

7/26/24 8:38 AM

BUYERS MART

Baler-mounted sensor measures in real time during the baling process!

Agreto PFM II Baler Kit • Moisture: 9–70% moisture readings • 5 year warranty!

Visit our website for more products!

Doon, Iowa • 1-712-470-9511 • www.kampertag.com

Equipping your hay business for success Norden provides a full range of bale handling options for passionate producers of quality small square bales.

Best equipment for quality control and ease of handling.

All the way from your field to the horse stable.

Learn how the Norden bale accumulator system can equip nearly every producer of small square bales.

SUCCESS

(877) 296-5851

www.nordenmfg.com

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 31

Aug_Sept_BM_2024.indd 1

7/24/24 9:43 AM

BUYERS MART

NEW!

Sealpro ONE

®

™

SILAGE FACER www.easyrakefacer.com PATENT #7,588,203, #8,011,608, and #8,336,795

Single layer, 6 mil oxygen barrier

Strong, reliable protection in heat and cold More DM recovery, better nutrition Traditional two-layer barrier films also available Flortex® Silage and Bale Cover Reusable, breathable, safe

• #1 Silage Facer • No Moving Parts • No Effect on Particle Length • No Downtime for Repairs Order for 2024 today 559-779-5961 sealprosilage.com

800.THE.SILO HANSONSILO.COM

® SILAGE

BARRIER

FILMS

BY CONNOR AGRISCIENCE

elines

po Theme Guid

Dairy Ex 2024 World

esees in einlg emGeeunGidueidlA ed ThoTehm o p l o x p E x y E G y ir a ir D a e D oroldrld Th 20220424WW fonts colors ht

e e g g A A n n e e d d l l o TThhee GGo ontnsts 6 Hex: ffd14 17, 83, 0 CMYK: 0, 209, 70 RGB: 255,

96 Hex: d63c , 0, 0 90 CMYK: 11, , 60, 150 RGB: 214 d 76 Hex: c13 2 , 93, 36, CMYK: 22 , 109 6 B: 193, 55 14 6 d RG 14 ff : d Hex Hex: ff 17, 83, ,83 0 86 0 , x: 4d2e :0 KY 0, 8, 1 K,: 0, 17 70 He CMCYM YK: 88, 10 46, 134 209, 70CM 5, 9, 2520 RGB: 77, B: 5, RGB: 25

ccoololorrss

RG c96 d63 636 : dc9 Hex H:ex 0, 0 0, 0 : 11 KY 11, ,90, 0 K,: 90 CMCYM , 15 0 60 , 4 21 : B: 214, 60, 15 BG RGR

brig Gisbert

ffeolements

htht brbigrig isbisebretrt GG

eleelmemenetnsts

October 1–4

c1:37 376d , 2 c16d Hex H:ex 93, 36, 36, 2 : 22 KY K: ,22, 93 CMCYM 109 9 3, ,55, 10 : 19 BG 1955 B:3, RGR 86 2e 86 4d : 4d2e 0, 8, 18, 1 Hex H:ex 10 0, : 88 KY K: ,88, 104 CMCYM 46, 6, 134 77 , 413 : BGB: ,77 RGR

Trade Center

Booth 519

Across from the Dairy Forage Seminars.

@TubelineMFG

www.tubeline.ca 1.888.856.6613

32 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

Aug_Sept_BM_2024.indd 2

7/24/24 9:43 AM

BUYERS MART

LIKE NOTHING ELSE

SILO-KING

®

Forage Grain LESS HEATING REDUCE DRY & MATTER LOSS Treatment

SPEED FERMENTATION IMPROVE DIGESTIBILITY ENHANCE NUTRIENT RETENTION

Our plastic baler twine is available in a variety of strengths for big square, small square and round balers.

(800) 552-3295 prettygoodtwine.com

NETWRAP MADE IN THE USA

Keep an eye on your hay!

( 800 ) 552-3295 prettygoodtwine.com

Agreto HFM II Handheld Moisture Testers

Net Wrap ♦ Baler Twine ♦ Hay Tarps ♦ Silage Film Hay Preservative ♦ Grain/Silage Bags

Moisture: 9–70% moisture readings Temp: 32°–212°F range

Net Wrap saves money by repelling moisture to maintain hay quality throughout the feeding season.

SYNTHETIC RESOURCES, INC. • info@syntheticresources.com

Advertise in the Buyer’s Mart Section For more information contact:

5 year warranty!

Made in Austria.

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING $2.50 per word per issue.10 word minimum.

920-563-5551 ext. 125

Kim Zilverberg Kzilverberg@hayandforage.com

FARM EQUIPMENT

Jenna Zilverberg Jzilverberg@hayandforage.com

BALEWAGONS: New Holland self-propelled & pull-type models/ parts/tires/manuals. Can finance/ deliver. 208-880-2889, www. /15 balewagon.com

Visit our website for our complete line of products!

• Net Wrap • Twine • Bale Wrap • Moisture Testers • Silage Bags • Silage Covers • Tire Sidewalls

Doon, Iowa • 1-712-470-9511 • www.kampertag.com

JAWIBA

August/September 2024 | hayandforage.com | 33

Aug_Sept_BM_2024.indd 3

7/24/24 9:43 AM

FORAGE IQ Wisconsin Farm Technology Days August 13 to 15, Cadott, Wis. Details: wifarmtechdays.org Farm Progress Show August 27 to 29, Boone, Iowa Details: farmprogressshow.com Husker Harvest Days Sept. 10 to 12, Grand Island, Neb. Details: huskerharvestdays.com National Hay Assn. Convention Sept. 18 to 21, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Details: nationalhay.org World Dairy Expo World Forage Analysis Superbowl October 1 to 4, Madison, Wis. Hay crop entries due August 22 Details: bit.ly/HFG-WFAS Sunbelt Ag Expo Southeastern Hay Contest October 15 to 17, Moultrie, Ga. Hay contest entries due August 30 Details: bit.ly/HFG-SHC Heart of America Grazing Conference October 15 to 17, Elizabethtown, Ky. Details: forages.ca.uky.edu/events Penn State Dairy Cattle Nutrition Workshop November 6 and 7, Hershey, Pa. Details: bit.ly/HFG-DNW MFGC Annual Conference November 13 and 14, Lake Ozark, Mo. Details: missourifgc.org California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium December 10 to 12, Sparks, Nev. Details: calhaysymposium.com American Forage & Grassland Council Annual Conference January 12 to 15, Kissimmee, Fla. Details: afgc.org

HAY MARKET UPDATE

Average prices up, demand down According to USDA’s June Agricultural Prices report, average alfalfa prices saw the first month-over-month improvement in May in over a year. Supreme and Premium hay made strides in major dairy states despite trailing 2023 trends.

Hay prices are only part of the explanation for weakened export demand. Low foreign milk prices and more restricted spending power is also limiting the amount of U.S. hay shipped to key markets like China and Japan.

The prices below are primarily from USDA hay market reports as of mid-July.

Prices are FOB barn/stack unless otherwise noted. • For weekly updated hay prices, go to “USDA Hay Prices” at hayandforage.com Supreme-quality alfalfa California (north SJV) California (southern) Colorado (northeast) Colorado (southeast) Iowa-ssb Kansas (north central) Kansas (south central) Missouri Nebraska (eastern)-lrb New Mexico (central) New Mexico (northwest)-ssb Oklahoma (central) Oregon (Wasco County) Oregon (Klamath Basin) Texas (central) Texas (Panhandle) Utah (central)-ssb Utah (northern)-ssb Premium-quality alfalfa Arizona (central) California (north SJV) California (Sacremento Valley)-ssb Iowa Kansas (northeast) Kansas (southwest) Missouri Montana Nebraska (Platte Valley)-lrb Nebraska (western) New Mexico (eastern) Oklahoma (northwest) Oregon (Wasco County)-ssb Oregon (Harney County) Pennsylvania (southeast) South Dakota Texas (Panhandle) Utah (central) Utah (northern)-ssb Wisconsin (Lancaster) Wyoming (central) Wyoming (western) Good-quality alfalfa Arizona (central) California (north SJV) Colorado (southeast) Idaho (south central) Kansas (north central) Kansas (southeast) Missouri-lrb Montana-lrb Nebraska (western) New Mexico (northwest) Oklahoma (central)

Price $/ton 310 (d) 225 200 (d) 325 360 280 250-265 250-350 200 265 240 200 200 215 (o) 260-270 350-380 (d) 350 265 Price $/ton 195-250 225 230 200 180-250 220 (d) 200-250 200 120 165-175 200-225 170 360 225 395 225 305-350 (d) 190-200 220 270-275 215 210 Price $/ton 170 195 (d) 160 150 150 130 150-200 125-135 115-135 220 150

Oregon (Wasco County) Oregon (Klamath Basin) Pennsylvania (southeast) South Dakota Texas (Panhandle) Texas (western) Utah (central) Washington Wisconsin (Lancaster) Fair-quality alfalfa California (north SJV) California (southeast) Colordado (northeast) Kansas (northwest) Minnesota (Pipestone)-lrb Missouri-lrb Montana South Dakota (Corsica)-lrb Wisconsin (Lancaster)-lrb Wyoming (eastern) Bermudagrass hay Alabama (southeast)-Prem lrb California (southeast)-Prem ssb Texas (central)-Prem ssb Texas (southern)-Prem ssb Bromegrass hay Kansas (north central)-Good Kansas (southeast)-Good Orchardgrass hay Montana-Prem Oregon (Wasco County)-Prem ssb Oregon (Harney County)- Prem ssb Pennsylvania (southeast)-Good Pennsylvania (southeast)-Fair Timothy hay Montana-Prem ssb Oregon (Wasco County)-Prem Oregon (Lake County)-Prem Utah (northern)-Prem Washington-Fair/Good Wyoming (western)-Prem ssb Prairie/meadow grass hay Iowa (Rock Valley)-Prem lrb Nebraska (central)-Prem Pennsylvania (southeast)-Good Pennsylvania (southeast)-Fair Wheat Straw California (north SJV) Colorado (northeast) Idaho (south central) Iowa Kansas (north central) Pennsylvania South Dakota-lrb

140 215 (o) 275-300 200 270-310 (d) 250-290 (d) 120 185 160-205 Price $/ton 175 110 120 100 (d) 115 125-150 100-120 85-90 60 130-150 Price $/ton 140-200 240-245 240-260 260-330 Price $/ton 130 200 Price $/ton 265 320-350 250 210-250 180 Price $/ton 300 240 350 250 140-150 265 140-150 182 130 205-250 150-190 Price $/ton 70 90-115 65 135-155 130 (d) 135-175 100

Abbreviations: d=delivered, lrb=large round bales, ssb=small square bales, o=organic

34 | Hay & Forage Grower | August/September 2024

F2 34 Aug_Sep 2024 IQ-Markets.indd 1

7/26/24 8:41 AM

COMMERCIAL HAY AND FORAGE EQUIPMENT Save time, money and preserve hay quality with KUHN

FOR CUSTOM OPERATORS AND LARGE FARMS...

EVERY MINUTE COUNTS! You have a lot of acres to cover and time is of the essence. So work output and having a reliable machine are what count, but not at the expense of forage quality.

KUHN’s range of commercial hay and forage tools are designed to meet your needs for: MOWING • CONDITIONING • TEDDING • RAKING • MERGING • BALING • WRAPPING

Invest in Quality ® www.kuhn.com

Untitled-4 1

Visit our website to locate a Dealer near you!

7/17/24 1:56 PM

MEET THE FUTURE OF BALING. Looking for an ultra-productive, hardworking baler that can help you easily convert your crops to high-value bales? The Hesston by Massey Ferguson® LB2200 Series large square baler is the answer. It’s the result of decades of expertise and history in the baling business. And it’s made to help you produce better quality hay.

See the Hesston LB2200 Series Series at masseyferguson.com or visit your dealer today.

©2024 AGCO Corporation. Massey Ferguson is worldwide brand of AGCO Corporation. Hesston is a brand of AGCO. AGCO, Massey Ferguson and Hesston are trademarks of AGCO. All rights reserved. | HS24N001FC