First-generation farmers Cooper and Katie Hurst constantly seek ways to improve the vitality of their grazing beef farm in southern Mississippi, starting from the ground up with a focus on soil health.
hay” may help avoid hot hay
Baling and wrapping relatively dry silage may be a solution to sidestep hay spoilage.
North Dakota’s Tyler Clemetson is just starting his hay business in a region where alfalfa fields are few and far between.
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
W.D. HOARD & SONS
PRESIDENT Brian V. Knox
EDITORIAL OFFICE
28 Milwaukee Ave. West, Fort Atkinson, WI, 53538
WEBSITE www.hayandforage.com
EMAIL info@hayandforage.com PHONE 920-563-5551
The University of Minnesota’s organic dairy farm, located in Morris, Minn., is one of only two such programs housed at a land-grant university. The herd at the West Central Research and Outreach Center consists of 110 Holsteins and crossbred cows that graze mixed legume-grass pastures.
Photo by Mike Rankin
KEY CHANGES
WHEN I grew up, I wasn’t going to be an ag journalist. In fact, I wasn’t going to work in agriculture at all. I was going to be the lady at the department store who played the piano.
I started playing piano before my feet could reach the pedals and continued taking lessons into my late teens. In addition to gracing my family with at-home practice, I played at church, accompanied my high school jazz band, and participated in regional music festivals. Then I went to college and took some time off from piano, which turned into a much longer leave of absence than I expected.
After a five-year hiatus from tickling the ivories, I got the itch to invest in a piano of my own. It was a struggle to move the slightly used Facebook Marketplace find down one flight of stairs and up another, but it has since brought me a lot of joy to sit on the bench and learn to play again. I started on a handful of songs that I previously mastered to get reacquainted with reading music and counting time. In doing so, however, I reopened the old wound of my lovehate relationship with key changes.
The thing I love about key changes is that they introduce a new cast of sharps and flats to the page and breathe new life into a piece. A good key change is confident and strong without being bossy or distracting. It has the power to enhance an entire song while maintaining the same musical direction.
Key changes like to make an entrance, but they don’t show up unannounced. In most compositions, there is typically a fermata written above the leading note, telling the musician to hold that chord or rest longer than normal in anticipation. There could also be a ritardando — or a gradual slowing of the tempo — that begins several measures prior, clueing listeners in on the shift. Volume dynamics like crescendo and decrescendo further emphasize key changes as the preceding notes are progressively played louder or softer to build suspense.
All of these embellishments make key changes exciting to hear, but they can be rather challenging to play. This is where the second half of our love-hate relationship comes in.
One of the songs I recently relearned contains a key change from G-major to E-major. That means I go from hitting an occasional F-sharp
to pounding three additional black keys, often simultaneously. Physically, all I need to do is recalibrate my fingers to their new positions. Mentally, though, I must train my ear to accept that what sounds like dissonance in the first few beats is really just a different pitch.
Farmers experience their own versions of key changes, ranging from small to substantial. These may include adding a crop to the rotation, upgrading to new equipment, reassessing a marketing strategy, or entering into a new enterprise. Key changes can also occur with decisions to hire new employees or let go of existing help, form a new partnership or dissolve a nonviable one, or begin the transfer of farm assets from one generation to another.
The principles of musical key changes are not unlike those of a farm. In most cases, there is an impetus for change — a pause in production that requires reorganization, slowing output that signals unsustainability, amplified feedback about a functional issue, or diminishing enthusiasm for farming in general. In theory, the physical steps toward change can be relatively straightforward, like repositioning your fingers on a piano. But the mental — and oftentimes financial — hurdles can make change a more complicated endeavor.
One of the greatest obstacles to a key change is the likes of the phrase “This is the way it’s always been.” It’s a vague argument, yet a common roadblock, especially for young or beginning farmers. When that resistance is met with persistence, though, it can result in more streamlined systems, better profits, and an overall sweeter song. Cooper and Katie Hurst are great examples of beginning farmers who have performed countless key changes on their beef farm in southern Mississippi, which you can read more about on page 6.
Key changes don’t alter the melody or affect the tune — they simply refresh the tone. Playing new notes will be awkward at first, but with the right approach, doing so can make a song — and a farm — more engaging. As I dust off my sheet music and embrace those transitions, I encourage you to do the same. Do you like the sound of your operation, or is it time for a key change? •
Amber Friedrichsen Managing Editor
by Peter Robinson
Opportunities for low-quality alfalfa
LFALFA hay has long been a premier forage for dairy cattle. Even today, when our knowledge of dairy cattle nutritional requirements has never been more complete, most nutritionists and dairy producers like to see some alfalfa hay in their lactating rations.
The high nutritional plane of alfalfa hay grown and fed today has occurred because growers and dairy producers have focused on better hay quality, even at the expense of yield for growers or higher costs for dairy producers. However, last year was a difficult crop year in many parts of the U.S., including the Midwest, and the result has been higher availability of low-quality alfalfa hay. Could this be an advantage to dairies?
Negating key nutrients
Hits to alfalfa hay quality are due to changes in its nutrient levels, and most of them are negative relative to the overall energy value of the hay. The most obvious change is that of energy level defined by total digestible nutrients (TDN) and relative forage quality (RFQ), which decline as levels of acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) go up.
NDF captures all of the structural fiber of forage, unlike ADF, which only captures 70% to 85% of it. Since NDF is the slowest digesting portion of hay, a greater level will impede the hay’s TDN and RFQ levels. As well, as the NDF level goes up, its rumen fiber digestibility goes down, which means that on a unit NDF basis there is less energy, but overall there is similar energy from total NDF because there will be more of it in the diet. Still, this is a double negative on TDN and RFQ as there is more structural fiber that is less digestible in lower quality alfalfa hay.
Therefore, current availability of low-quality alfalfa hay offers opportunities to utilize it in dairy high-cow rations by reducing the need for high ADF-NDF straws with low buffering capacity and safely, relative to acidosis, recover the overall energy level of the diet by feeding greater amounts of high-NFC feeds. • DAIRY
Another negative associated with greater ADF and NDF levels of alfalfa hay is that levels of nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) diminish. As most NFC are rapidly fermented in the rumen, less NFC equals lower energy in the hay. Finally, more ADF and NDF in alfalfa hay is linked to a lower crude protein
(CP) level. CP is required in relatively high quantities by dairy cows and, if not supplied in hay, it must be purchased in high-cost protein meals such as soybean or canola. It is not just that the CP level falls as ADF and NDF climb, but CP digestibility suffers as well. So, on a unit and total fed CP basis, there is less digestible CP in lower quality hay.
However, the uptick in ADF and NDF levels of the hay will encourage ruminative chewing by cows — as well as linked salivation — which buffers rumen fermentation and prevents low rumen pH and acidosis. In addition, ADF and NDF in alfalfa hay has one of the highest buffering capacities of all structural fibers. This is a good thing since high buffering capacity will hold rumen pH higher, thereby reducing the incidence, and extent, of acidosis. So, overall, higher ADF and NDF levels make alfalfa hay more of a forage and less of a concentrate.
What drives intake?
Intake of dairy cows fed any particular ration is influenced by numerous factors, only some of which can be described mathematically. Two key factors that impact intake of a ration are its level of fiber and its level of NFC, which are mainly starches, sugars, and pectins.
Diet fiber limits intake by increasing ration bulk, thereby requiring cows to spend more time eating and ruminating (cud chewing) per unit of ration consumed. Since there is a limit to how much time cows can do this in a day — roughly 14 hours or 35,000 chews — as the ration ADF and NDF levels go up, potential ration intake is progressively limited.
In contrast, NFC provides little ration bulk but does provide carbohydrates that are rapidly fermented in the rumen. If the amount and rate of fermentation of these carbohydrates create fermentation products faster than bacteria in the rumen can use them, or if they are absorbed from the rumen, then they accumulate to drive down rumen pH.
Low rumen pH is a problem in
cows fed rations too high in NFC but, perhaps more importantly, acidosis depresses appetite and total feed intake is limited. Thus, intake of any ration tends to be depressed if the ADF and NDF levels get too high, or if diet NFC level gets too high, or both.
There is an upside
So, how does this impact alfalfa hay use right now? Rations for dairy cows are commonly formulated to meet minimum and maximum levels of ADF, NDF, and NFC. As a result of research and practical experience, nutritionists know that the most effective high-group dairy rations contain between 27% and 32% of dry matter as NDF and 36% and 42% of dry matter as NFC. Rations out of these ranges depress intake and animal performance for the reasons discussed above.
When, as is the current case in some regions, availability of hay with higher levels of ADF and NDF are more prominent than normal, nutritionists often remove high ADF-NDF straws with low buffering capacity from the ration in favor of these lower quality alfalfa hays to attain diets with similar levels of ADF and NDF. This results in lower calculated energy levels, but with higher buffering capacity, more high-NFC feeds, such as grains, can be safely added to the ration in order to bring the calculated energy levels of the diet back to equality with the previous diets that contained high-quality alfalfa hay.
PETER ROBINSON
The author is a retired professor and dairy extension specialist with the University of California, Davis.
by Amber Friedrichsen, Managing Editor
WHEN I was in college, I had an agronomy professor who liked to end lectures with the phrase, “You see what you know.” The slight use of reverse psychology was supposed to encourage students to expand their horizons because, as humans, we tend to look for reinforcement of our existing beliefs instead of seeking new information or experiences.
The way this transpires in agriculture is observed when the same practices are repeated year after year because the routine is familiar and the end product is adequate — even if something better is possible.
Cooper and Katie Hurst saw the potential for something better when they purchased property in Woodville, Miss., in 1990. The dynamic duo of first-generation farmers bought a piece of land that was historically used to grow cotton, soybeans, and cattle centered between what was once the Hunt and Hill plantations. This would become the namesake of Hunt Hill Cattle Company when the couple bought some cows and started a beef herd of their own five years later.
After a few rounds of planting annual ryegrass for spring and summer grazing and feeding hay to fill gaps in forage availability, the Hursts were discouraged by steep production costs and high levels of erosion caused by tillage. The heavy amounts of synthetic inputs that were previously applied to the crop fields had depleted the soil of key nutrients and organic matter, and the couple was afraid that maintaining the status quo would eventually sap their savings.
“We thought there was something flawed about this business model; the use of inputs was a vicious cycle,” Cooper said, wearing his passion on his sleeve. “It seemed like you never had enough time and you never had enough money to do everything the way you were supposed to. We said, ‘Something is not right here,’ and decided to find a better way.”
“We went to every conference, every field day, read every book, and read every article,” said Katie, whose calm composure complements her husband’s zeal. But it wasn’t until they met likeminded beef graziers and forged friendships with a wide web of experts that the Hursts challenged the way things had always been done on their farm.
The couple stopped using tillage to prepare seedbeds, introduced more
diversified forages to pastures, and rotated a higher stocking density of cattle through paddocks faster, also known as adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing. They believed there was nothing to lose by trying new things. Little did they know there would be so much to gain.
It started with soil
One of the first changes the Hursts made to their operation was overseeding annual ryegrass instead of disking up pastures to establish the forage. They took a leap of faith by incorporating it into existing stands and letting the hoof prints of their grazing herd stomp seeds into the soil. Aside from a small delay in germination, the no-till seeding was successful.
“The ryegrass was late by about 30 days, so we just moved our calving season back the next year, which was an easy fix,” Cooper said with a shrug. “When you disk up the ground, you don’t have grass anymore, and you have to find a place to put your cows or feed them hay — or both. We just kept grazing.”
Ryegrass growth in the Deep South seems to explode in the spring, which is when many producers cut it for hay or make baleage. The Hursts, on the other hand, opted to avoid harvesting forage so to not disrupt nutrient cycling in their fields.
This subtle interest in soil health turned into a burning obsession after witnessing an aggregate stability test and a rainfall simulator at a field day hosted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). By understanding how a stronger soil structure could enhance water holding capacity and infiltration, the couple vowed to not use tillage or harvest equipment in their fields again.
“We saw those two visuals and said, ‘By gosh, this is it,’” Cooper said. “It was a light-bulb moment. We were totally infatuated.”
But that wasn’t it. More lightbulb moments ensued as the Hursts
learned more about soil biology. They credit North Dakota’s Gabe Brown for personally showing them how seeding multiple species — not just ryegrass — provides soil microbes with a larger menu of root exudates. This promotes better biodiversity belowground, which enhances processes like mineral decomposition and organic matter formation that subsequently support better forage growth.
“Now we have the biggest bunch of diversity of warm-season perennials that you can imagine,” Cooper proclaimed. “We have crabgrass, bermudagrass, bahiagrass, johnsongrass, and dallisgrass, in addition to every forb and clover known to man.”
The couple drills an intricate mix of winter annuals into existing stands when plants are about knee-high every October, including ryegrass, cereal rye, triticale, oats, vetch, and various brassicas. This wide array of warm-seasons, cool-seasons, grasses, forbs, and legumes runs the gamut of growth patterns, which allows for consistent forage availability throughout the year as the pasture composition changes from spring to summer to fall.
More “aha” moments
The Hursts soon realized there was not a finish line for their farming journey as one breakthrough seemed to snowball into another. They became prudent to the way soil, plant, and livestock dynamics overlap, especially when it comes to animal performance.
Even with heightened soil health and improved pastures, the couple was not seeing significant returns in their cattle. The Angus herd they developed with big premiums in mind wasn’t well-suited to their grazing system or the sometimes
Amber Friedrichsen
The Hursts’ pastures boast a long list of forage species, including several winter annuals they seed for spring grazing.
insufferable southern climate.
“We loved our Angus cattle, and they really performed well in the feedlot. But then our grazing goals changed,” Cooper said. “We looked at each other and said, ‘These forages are great, so why are we supplementing our cows so much?’ That was a gut punch.”
“The cows were too black, too big, and they produced too much milk,” Katie explained. “We backed up our calving season to align with the forages, but by doing that, we were asking them to do something they were not genetically capable of doing by breeding in the summer. They just didn’t fit.”
The Hursts decided they needed cows with smaller frames and deeper bodies that could outlast Mississippi heat and humidity while making gains on grass. They started introducing cows with Red Angus and South Poll influence to their herd, but instead of homing in on purebred genetics, they eventually embraced crossbreeding as the solution to achieve all the traits they desired. Stockmanship has evolved on their farm over time as well. After going all in on AMP grazing, the Hursts quickly subscribed to the Sandhill Calving System to mitigate morbidity and mortality in their young stock. Separating the herd into groups by advancing bred cows to new parts of the pasture each week of the calving season and leaving pairs in paddocks according to calf age significantly reduced the incidence of scours.
“The Sandhill Calving System not only didn’t cost us any money, but it saved us a fortune,” Cooper said. “Before, we were vaccinating and re-vaccinating, and all the antibiotics weren’t really working. They were Band-Aids. Now, we don’t even have to use antibiotics.”
A better understanding of animal welfare has informed better cow management, too. The couple is especially grateful for Dawn Hnatow, a herding expert who trained under Bud Williams, for teaching them about the physical, psychological, and environmental causes of stress and how to control what they can. This includes tweaking the timing of calving season to align with forage production and employing handling tactics that minimize stress while moving cattle.
The bigger picture
Stepping back to assess their pastures, the Hursts have ample evidence
that the mistakes they’ve made and risks they’ve taken have actually been to their benefit. Denser and more diverse forage stands, extended grazing seasons, fitter cows, and healthier calves are the cornerstone components of their regenerative system that have enhanced the environment overall.
One morning when Katie was on her way to check cows, she stopped to admire the sunshine bouncing off a blanket of spider webs that was draped
Forage identification skills come second nature to the couple, who monitor forage growth and rotate cows every day.
across the grass canopy and covered in dew. It was a natural work of art that she had never noticed before, yet one of the many marvels she doesn’t take for granted anymore. A sea of spider webs, countless insects, rabbits, deer, and more than a hundred species of birds frequenting their fields are all testaments to the healing powers their practices have had on the land.
“We never realized how everything in the world was connected,” Katie said. “All of a sudden, we started
seeing butterflies and dragonflies and birds. Everything we are doing with the soil and forage base is affecting our wildlife populations.”
The couple has teamed up with scientists from across the country to quantify these ecosystem services. Researchers have installed solar-powered flux towers in their pastures to collect soil health and forage quality data that has been used for various experiments and ongoing studies. This important work has been captured in several videos, including the documentary “Roots So Deep You Can See The Devil Down There,” which highlights the hallmarks of regenerative grazing.
“We are spending a lot less money, we are growing more grass, we are using fewer inputs, and the cattle are healthier and look much better. If the research confirmed what we are doing isn’t ‘right,’ I didn’t care,” Cooper said. “Luckily, the data shows our system is much better off than a conventional one.”
As deep as their roots have run, the Hursts will tell you they’ve only scratched the surface. They continue to learn from friends, mentors, and acquaintances who come to visit their farm, and every interaction points their needle in a slightly different direction. For this reason, Cooper and Katie say they reserve the right to change their minds about their forage mixes, grazing practices, and cattle genetics down the road. They believe the best part of regenerative agriculture is that there is no end goal because the more they see, the more they know. •
Cooper and Katie have embraced trial and error on their farm because every so-called failure has led them to an even better solution.
Todd Garrett
Todd Garrett
From pats and pee to plants
HAVE you ever wondered how all those cattle dung patties simply disappear from one year to the next? What is the fate of all of that urine being deposited on the pasture where sheep are grazing? Well, it takes an army of organisms feeding on those dung pats and urine spots to consume these deposits and make them useful.
Those organisms might initially be dung beetles, flies, earthworms, and nematodes that feed on the raw feces to feed their broods in and under the pasture party platters. Ultimately, though, it will be the vast array of soil bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes consuming these organic resources that are necessary to keep a pasture healthy. This is not meant to be a story of vulgarity, but one that covers the natural processes of life in the pasture.
A natural process
Excrement from livestock on pastures is an important part of the sustainability of the pasture ecosystem. Ruminants are able to digest large portions of the plants they eat, but there are also portions that are indigestible and not transformed into usable forms of energy and nutrients, and therefore, must be excreted. These “wastes” are then deposited onto the pasture and enter another phase of nutrient recycling.
What is the nutrient content of dung and urine? Typical ranges can be considered for livestock excrement, but know that the quality of the diet can affect these contents. For instance, cattle and sheep dung contain approximately 1% total nitrogen, while cattle urine contains about 0.5% total nitrogen and sheep urine contains about 0.75% total nitrogen. On a daily basis, a mature cow may excrete 0.6 pounds of nitrogen, 0.1 pound of phosphorus, and 0.4 pounds of potassium.
Most of the nitrogen contained in urine is urea, which can be relatively quickly transformed into ammonia (NH3) in the presence of urease enzymes that are typically abundant in soil and plant tissues. Under neutral to alkaline soil conditions, the production of ammonia can lead to gaseous loss of nitrogen from the pasture, or volatiliza-
tion. Under acidic soil conditions and when protected from gaseous loss in and around soil particles, ammonium (NH4) is formed and nitrogen is conserved.
Nitrogen that is released as ammonium and nitrate (NO3) in soil water can then be absorbed by plant roots for new growth. This process of plant growth, livestock consumption, ruminant digestion, excretal deposition, soil microbial transformation, and plant uptake of inorganic nitrogen is the basis of pasture nutrient cycling. It’s a natural process that proceeds whether you understand the chemistry or not; however, the more you understand each step, the more you may be able to manipulate the gains and losses within your pasture ecosystem.
For example, cattle that are allowed to congregate in a corner of the pasture where hay is frequently fed will preferentially excrete nutrients in that part of the pasture and not in others. Alternatively, allocating small portions of the pasture on a daily or weekly basis with temporary fencing will lead to more uniform distributions of excreted nutrients across the entire pasture over the course of the year.
Nitrogen mineralization
The conversion of organic nitrogen present in dung and urine to mineral nitrogen (ammonium and nitrate) that can be absorbed by plant roots is called mineralization. In soil research, nitrogen mineralization can be determined in the field to understand how plant and environmental conditions affect this process. This is laborious and dependent on variable conditions.
Another approach to determine soil nitrogen mineralization entails collecting soil from the field and incubating it in the laboratory under standard conditions of optimum moisture and temperature. This latter approach may be termed “potential nitrogen mineralization” since environmental limitations are not imposed. It can be conducted at a lower cost for many more soil types and conditions than field-based approaches.
Potential nitrogen mineralization of soils can vary from low levels of less than 40 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year to very high levels of greater than
120 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. According to a study across 95 pasture fields in central and western Virginia, potential nitrogen mineralization was 94 to 169 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. These elevated levels indicate that good grazing practices can enrich soil and lead to nitrogen-sufficient conditions for years.
This is not to say that all managed grazing will lead to this outcome, but assessing soil health conditions of your pastures may foster a better understanding of how effectively nutrients are recycled from pats and pee to plants. •
ALAN FRANZLUEBBERS
Corn silage comparisons here and abroad
WITH the elections now in the rearview mirror, we all readily recall the nation’s focus on domestic issues and policy. Foreign policy also made headlines, given the United States’ continued and extensive involvement in global affairs dating back all the way to the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement.
Frankly, it’s virtually impossible to fully separate domestic and foreign policy. I think we should extend this concept to forage quality discussions and interweave global forage quality trends with the U.S. annual crop quality review.
Over the past decade and around this time of the year, we’ve taken a look at the new corn silage and alfalfa crop forage quality. Year-over-year forage hygiene and quality trends drive discussions between growers, feeders, and nutritionists. Our field of view is typically state level or regional; however, the dairy and beef industries are influenced by global supply and demand. Hence, it’s logical to consider global forage quality trends as we take a look at 2024 corn silage crop quality closer to home.
Averages seen stateside
The 2024 growing season continued to follow the script of the past two or three years across the U.S. in that wide-ranging environmental and growing conditions impacted the resulting crops’ yield and quality. Mike Rankin and Mike Hutjens extensively covered the 2024 U.S. crop quality outcome and feed and forage outlook for the year ahead in the November Hoard’s Dairyman monthly webinar, which is available to stream.
Expanding on that content, we’ve noted that the 2024 outcome was like a spotted cow. There were mixed analyses, with Rock River Laboratory Inc. corn silage samples showing Midwestern corn silage fiber digestibility dipping lower but Western corn silage fiber digestibility trending in the opposite direction. Roughly two-thirds of the energy in silage lies in the grain, with both starch content and rumen starch digestibility influencing feed value.
The 2024 corn silage starch digestibility has notably improved relative to this same point in time in prior years. Growers are noting lighter test weights, which corroborates the improved starch digestibility as softer and lighter corn tends to feed better. The net energy value outcome for 2024 corn silage will be average overall.
Thankfully, substantial mycotoxin contamination doesn’t appear to be a great threat in this year’s silage, though there will be pockets of bad corn or silage. In this same vein, I expect wide-ranging quality variation within a farm given the continued tumultuous growing conditions many experienced in 2024. Stepping away from domestic
quality discussions, let’s tap into Spain and Argentina databases for some intercontinental insights.
A mixed bag overseas
Spain and Argentina represent vastly different regions, climates, and hemispheres. To round out this article and give you a global perspective for silage quality, let’s look at the last few years’ trends in silage quality in Europe and South America.
Starch and fiber are the starting points to define silage quality, and the growing conditions abroad affect silage quality just like they do here in the U.S. In Spain, growing conditions have ranged over the past few years similar to what we’ve experienced in the states. During the past few months, extensive rain and flooding in some regions have proved challenging to harvest the new crop; however, Spain’s silage quality and starch content has held up quite well. You can see in Figure 2 that Spanish silage looks much like ours here in the Midwest (Figure 1) or Eastern U.S., with a healthy starch content.
Alternatively, South American growers and regions of Argentina have
Figure 1. Midwestern corn silage starch content
farmed through substantial droughts the past couple of years. The impact is evident, as silage starch content has trended well below 30% for the past two crop years with wide-ranging quality as well (Figure 3).
With a global perspective now in mind, compare and contrast your silage quality with both neighboring farmers and international countries. Remember that starch and fiber content — and thus starch and fiber digestibility — are the four keys to quality on your forage analysis. We can’t control the growing conditions, but we can keep pursuing ideal genetics and the best soil fertility, crop protection, and practices to optimize corn silage in the years to come. •
LEGENDARY SINCE
Build your legacy with the legendary Rozol® Prairie Dog Bait. Brought to you by Liphatech Ag, your Most Valuable Partner for
Figure 2. Spanish corn silage starch content
ROZOL PRAIRIE DOG BAIT
Figure 3. Argentinian corn silage starch content
JOHN GOESER
The author is the director of nutrition research and innovation with Rock River Lab Inc., and an adjunct assistant professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“SWEET HAY” MAY HELP AVOID HOT HAY
by Wayne Coblentz
MAKING dry hay when weather conditions are uncooperative can be extremely frustrating. These frustrations are compounded further in high humidity environments and/or cooler regions of the country, since both of those environments slow the rate at which mowed/conditioned forages dry down. Further, modern large-round or large-rectangular balers produce densely packed bales that are more likely to heat if not sufficiently dried for safe storage. Although affected by many factors, larger hay packages are more sensitive to spontaneous heating, largely because more dry matter (DM) is packaged within each bale and
there is less surface area per unit DM to allow bales to dissipate water and heat.
To visualize this concept, consider data presented in Figure 1. Largeround bales of alfalfa-orchardgrass hay were baled at the University of Wisconsin Marshfield Agricultural Research Station in three bale diameters (3, 4, or 5 feet) and at various moisture concentrations. To simplify the presentation, moisture concentrations have been grouped into three categories, defined as low (≤ 17%), medium (18% to 24%), and high (> 25%). Overall means for these moisture classifications were 14%, 21%, and 37%, respectively.
The high moisture designation is obviously not recommended for dry hay but is included here for illustrative purposes. However, it falls well below
a typical recommended range for baled silages (45% to 55%). In Figure 1, the maximum internal bale temperature rose with bale diameter within each moisture classification. Perhaps more importantly, the inability of these large bales to dissipate heat is also shown graphically as an accumulation of heating degree days > 86°F (HDD) during storage. HDD represents a single number that integrates both the magnitude and duration of heating and can be interpreted for this discussion as simply “heat” or “heating units” incurred during bale storage.
While HDD increased with bale diameter at each moisture classification, this became particularly problematic with the poorly managed high moisture hays. It is also important to note
Mike Rankin
that all bales in this study were stored outdoors, where air movement provides some gradient for heat dissipation that would not exist if the same bales were packed tightly in stacks or in a barn. The type of spontaneous heating illustrated in Figure 1 also has a profound negative effect on forage quality, and in extreme cases, can lead to spontaneous combustion. Forage quality is usually impaired because the most digestible portions of the forage (sugars and other cellular contents) are oxidized in the generation of heat, leaving greater percentages of the less digestible fibrous components that are largely inert.
A possible solution
While various preservatives — most commonly propionic-acid based products — have been used with some success to curb spontaneous heating in hay, they are not a complete remedy for the problems summarized in Figure 1. Some forage producers have identified the concept of making low-moisture baled silage, commonly referred to as “sweet hay,” as an alternative production approach.
To provide some background for the following discussion, consider Figure 2, which shows the relationship between production of lactic acid and initial bale moisture for 440 silage bales obtained from 12 experiments conducted at Marshfield, Wis. As most silage producers are aware, lactic acid is the most desirable fermentation acid because it is the strongest acid produced and most capable of facilitating a low (acidic) final pH in the silage. Figure 2 illustrates that moisture is essential for silage
fermentation. In this summary, it alone explains about 60% of the variability in lactic-acid production across a very wide range of initial bale moistures (about 20% to 75%). This relationship is likely closer than illustrated in Figure 2 because the 12 experiments included multiple forage types and mixtures as well as numerous ill-advised experimental treatments that were included for research purposes. No adjustment was made for any of these factors.
The normally recommended moisture range for baled silages is about 45% to 55%, and baled silages made below that range exhibited limited or restricted production of lactic acid. Within the red circle that includes silages made at less than 35% moisture, lactic-acid production was highly restricted and frequently undetectable. This begs obvious questions, including, “Are these very dry silages well-preserved and suitable for feeding to livestock?”
The answer is “yes.” In fact, all of the
silages summarized in Figure 2 were consumed by livestock, mostly at the research station. However, producers should understand that the acceptable preservation of these silages is not based on normal silage fermentation, but predominantly on the simple exclusion of air. Aside from coping with the frustrating nature of uncooperative weather, there are several reasons why baling dry silages may be attractive. Some of the most prominent are:
• Avoiding problems with undesirable clostridial fermentations that require high moisture concentrations
• Reducing water and weight to be transported
• Acknowledging that drier forages are usually mechanically easier to bale than wet forages
• Realizing that dry silages can be well preserved
It must be emphasized that most of these potential benefits are dependent
Figure 1. Maximum internal bale temperature and accumulated heating degree days above 86°F for round bales
Figure 2. Production of lactic acid from 440 individual silage bales
on exclusion of air (oxygen), proper application of silage plastics, and the continuing integrity of the silage plastics during storage. In truth, the concept of making dry silages can be counterintuitive and often runs contrary to conventional thinking or bias within the silage industry, which often prioritizes formation of desirable fermentation products.
A direct comparison
To investigate the concept of producing dry baled silage or sweet hay, a research trial was recently conducted at Marshfield. Large round (4×5-foot) bales of mixed forages (66% legumes and 31% cool-season grasses) were baled at about 26% moisture, which is considerably below the recommended moisture range for baled silages but clearly still too wet for large bales of dry hay (see Figure 1). Half the bales were wrapped individually with seven layers of stretch plastic film, while the other half remained unwrapped. All bales were positioned outdoors on wooden pallets over a concrete pad and stored for 84 days before terminal sampling. For full disclosure, half of the bales of each type were treated with a propionic-acid-based preservative, but those effects are ignored here for simplicity of presentation.
During storage, the maximum internal bale temperature for unwrapped bales continuously exposed to air was 143°F, while the corresponding temperature within wrapped bales was only 107°F. Note that a mild rise in temperature in wrapped silage bales is expected and is caused by the initial respiration of trapped oxygen within each bale until anaerobic conditions are established.
Figure 3 further illustrates the accumulated heating units (HDD) at 30, 45, and 84 days of bale storage, which were more than 6.5 times greater in unwrapped bales (1,318 versus 200 HDD) after 84 days of storage. Predictably, based on the dry nature of these wrapped silage bales, fermentation was severely restricted. The average concentration of lactic and total fermentation acids was only 0.32% and 0.98%, respectively, and the final pH (5.9) was reduced by only 0.29 pH units from its initial prestorage value.
The “sweet” alternative
From a producer perspective, a priority might be the subsequent effects
Figure 3. Accumulation of heating degree days above 86°F after 30, 45, and 84 days of storage for low-moisture (~26%) round bales that were either wrapped or not wrapped in plastic
Maximum temperature: Wrapped, 107oF No wrap, 143oF
Adapted from Applied Animal Science 37:505-518 (2021)
* Denotes a statistical difference from the prestorage value.
1Abbreviations: NDF, neutral-detergent fiber; ADF, acid-detergent fiber; CP, crude protein; ADICP, acid-detergent-insoluble CP; TDN, total digestible nutrients; and NEL, net energy of lactation.
Adapted from Applied Animal Science 37:505-518 (2021)
of wrapping (excluding air) on the final quality of the forages (see Table 1). The effects of greater heating in unwrapped bales were most evident in significantly elevated concentrations of structural plant fiber (neutral/acid detergent fiber and lignin) as well as heat-damaged protein (ADICP). Concentrations of ADICP (13.9% of crude protein [CP]) more than doubled in unwrapped bales compared to prestorage values and exceeded the commonly used threshold (10% of CP), indicating significant heat damage. Perhaps most importantly, the final calculated energy density (total digestible nutrients [TDN]; net energy of lactation [NEL]) of unwrapped bales was reduced by 5.5 units of TDN (62.4% versus 59.6%) or 0.06 Mcal per pound NEL relative to prestorage values. In contrast, the final energy density of wrapped bales did not differ statistically from prestorage values.
The results of this study indicate that despite minimal evidence of fermentation, spontaneous heating can be minimized by the application of stretch plastic film, thereby preserving the nutritive value of the forage. Although the concept of wrapping relatively dry silage bales appears viable, it should be emphasized that there is limited published research to support this production approach. The use of silage plastics also incurs significant additional expense. The results described here should not be interpreted as a recommendation, but rather as a possible additional option. •
WAYNE COBLENTZ
The author is a retired research dairy scientist/ agronomist with the U.S.
Table 1. Prestorage and poststorage nutritive value for mixed legume-grass forages baled at about 26% moisture (wrapped or unwrapped for 84 days)
BALE GRAZE YOUR WAY THROUGH A DROUGHT
by Greg Halich
DROUGHT can be a debilitating experience for any farmer but is particularly difficult for livestock farmers. Last year was an especially bad drought year in much of the eastern United States, and it was devastating in some areas such as West Virginia and southeast Ohio.
A major challenge during even a moderate drought is keeping your pastures healthy by not overgrazing them and making sure every pasture that is being grazed has had adequate rest. Failing to do this results in an insufficient solar panel and depleted plant energy reserves. These weakened plants struggle to take advantage of good growing conditions once rain returns. This results in reduced forage production and likely an abundance of weeds the following year.
Overgrazing pastures during a drought is probably the biggest mistake I see, even with experienced graziers. They typically respond to the drought by slowing down the rotation to allow more time for the remaining pastures to
recover. However, this strategy will only work for a short period of time as you burn through the forage buffer you built up in the spring and early summer.
After each successive drought rotation, there will be less and less forage accumulation from the combined slowed forage growth and higher removal rate from trying to slow the rotation down. This results in fewer available grazing days in each pasture, and thus, you will start going through the rotation at an accelerated rate as the drought continues. This is what André Voisin coined “untoward acceleration” almost 70 years ago. You are soon completely out of pasture.
Don’t wait too long
Getting through a mild drought in early to mid-summer by slowing down the rotation and making no other management changes works, assuming you have built up an appropriate amount of spring surplus. The problem, of course, is that we never know how long a drought will last and if it will intensify. If the drought doesn’t break, you will quickly run out of options, and it will be too late to make any meaningful adjustments.
I gave a presentation at a field day in late September last year in an area of Kentucky that had been hit particularly hard by drought from mid-summer on. As I drove toward the field day location, the pastures kept looking worse and worse. The main question participants were asking was what could be done at this point that would help them deal with the drought. Unfortunately, it was too late for any meaningful drought planning. Action was needed one to two months earlier.
A lot of the cattle in that area were being fed a diet of 100% hay and other commodity feeds. The pastures were gone. Again, the fundamental problem was that they waited too long before starting to feed hay. Most of these farms reached “untoward acceleration” a month or so into the drought and then grazed their pastures into the ground. Even with rain forecasted the following week, these severely stressed pastures would be slow to come back to life. Why do many farmers delay hay feeding until after their pastures are grazed into the ground?
Part of the answer is psychological:
Feeding hay is difficult for most cattle farmers while they still have available pasture. It can seem like surrender or defeat to do so when they have neighbors who are still grazing burnt up pastures. Part of the answer is practical: Most cattle farmers do not like the idea of penning their cattle up in a dry lot to feed hay, as this is the typical method during a drought.
A better approach
Bale grazing at low densities during a drought is an option to avoid the practical problem of penning cattle up for hay feeding. It also is an effective way to utilize pasture and feed hay at the same time. You don’t have to do one or the other — you can do both simultaneously. This is the beauty of bale grazing, as it allows you to get through most mild to medium-intensity droughts fairly easily. Since the focus of this article is on bale grazing during droughts, the basics of bale grazing won’t be discussed but can be referenced in previous articles I’ve written for Hay & Forage Grower
The concept for effective bale grazing to mitigate drought is simple and incremental. Determine the number bales needed to be fed in the current pasture so that the next pasture has adequately recovered. When you get to the recovered next pasture, determine the number of bales needed to be fed on that pasture to make sure the pasture after that is adequately recovered. The key to making this work is to start bale grazing while you still have reasonably good forage accumulation in the pastures. If done at this time, bale densities should be low and comprise a small percentage of the diet.
Below is an example of how this might work assuming a 30-cow springcalving herd with an appropriate stocking rate. Assume we are moving to an 8-acre pasture.
Step 1: Estimate how much recovery time you need before starting to graze the next pasture (after you finish the 8-acre pasture). You estimate 10 days.
Step 2: Estimate how many grazing days you will get on the 8-acre pasture, assuming no hay was fed. You estimate four grazing days.
Step 3: Calculate the number of hay-feeding days needed to reach the desired recovery time. 10 total days - 4 grazing days = 6 hay-feeding days
Step 4: Estimate how long one bale will last without pasture. You estimate one bale will last 1.5 days
Step 5: Calculate the number of bales
needed on the 8-acre pasture. 6 hay feeding days divided by 1.5 days per bale = 4 bales
In this example, you would set out four bales over the 8-acre pasture. This works out to one-half bale to the acre. In my experience, one-half bale to the acre is a reasonable bale density during a drought, assuming you start bale grazing while you still have a reasonable amount of pasture accumulation. This would be around 0.2 to 0.25 tons per acre, which is a low density compared to the typical 1 to 3 tons per acre that I like to feed during winter bale grazing in my region.
Again, the assumptions here are that you started early and the drought hasn’t gone on for months. Otherwise, the hay density could easily double or triple. Most people are surprised at how little hay needs to be fed in order to not overgraze pastures and get through typical droughts.
For effective bale grazing at any time of year, you need to subdivide pastures and limit access to the bales currently being fed. Since the hay is typically going to provide a small percentage of their diet during a drought, you may be able to get by with only providing one bale at a time for this 30-cow herd (you would not be able to do that in the winter).
Less pasture, frequent moves
During drought feeding, give small strips of pasture so that the cattle don’t have quite enough pasture each day, providing the remainder of their diet with hay. Daily moves are best, but you can get by with moving every couple of days, if needed. The problem going beyond this length of time is that unless you have really good-quality hay, they will eat nothing but pasture for the first few days and then eat nothing but hay after the pasture strip runs out. Ideally, you want to force them to eat a little bit of hay each day.
Some people think that it doesn’t really matter if you start feeding early in a drought or later on because you are still going to feed the same overall amount. This is simplistic thinking that doesn’t account for potential physiological changes to plants caused by drought and overgrazing. The farm that is kept from being overgrazed will grow much better during the drought but, more importantly, will respond much quicker and with resilient forage production once the rains finally arrive. One consideration when bale grazing
during a drought is good hay quality, which is more important than feeding during the winter. As the hay quality declines, cattle will hit the pasture harder and progressively leave less residual in the pasture sward. Forcing the cattle to eat poor-quality hay is counterproductive when pastures are drought challenged and you are trying to retain adequate forage residual.
Additional benefits
The primary reason to bale graze during a drought is to help prevent pastures from being overgrazed. However, other positive outcomes include:
1. Bale grazing during the drought will add nutrients to pasture areas that can use them once the rains come.
2. Since the ground is dry, you can set out bales in places that would be unthinkable during the winter. I especially like to feed around gates and other areas that get beat up, which helps add organic matter and heal these areas.
3. A major benefit of feeding hay on pasture during a drought is that the hay becomes a forage buffer. It is difficult to not push the cattle too hard on pasture during a drought as you are trying to stretch out grazing days, and cattle performance will suffer accordingly. When bale grazing, the cattle will always fill up on hay before going hungry.
4. One of the most difficult aspects of drought is that it can be emotionally and psychologically debilitating. You feel like you are at the mercy of Mother Nature. Bale grazing in the early stages of a drought is a proactive way of taking control of the situation, and it provides comfort in knowing you can make it through the drought and still keep your pastures productive. It is hard to put a value on this benefit, but it may make bale grazing worth doing, even if you didn’t have any of the other benefits.
Early bale grazing as a part of your drought plan is an effective strategy. I’ve been through four mild to moderate droughts since 2019, and I can’t imagine getting through a drought now without it. The key is to start bale grazing while you still have an adequate forage buffer. •
GREG HALICH The
HAY NORTH, YOUNG MAN
by Mike Rankin, Senior Editor
MAKING dry hay is much easier in some regions of the United States than in others. Even so, we can find hay balers methodically rolling in every one of the 49 continental states, even where rain, daylight, and/or a short growing season hinder the most persistent efforts.
It’s possible to go farther north in the U.S. than Grand Forks, N.D., but not much farther. As the shivering crow flies, go another 75 miles toward polar bear habitat and you’ll need a passport to enter Manitoba, Canada. Yet it is on the western stretches of Grand Forks where Tyler Clemetson has decided to make his mark in the commercial hay business . . . despite a growing season that mimics a holiday as much as it does a season.
Clemetson is a fourth-generation farmer who operates with his father, Ron, and an older brother. Prior to jumping into the commercial hay business, the family’s main enterprise has been beef cattle, even though this part of North Dakota is as void of cows as it is alfalfa fields. To feed their nearly 200 brood cows during the winter, the Clemetsons have historically cut and baled nearly 2,000 acres of grassland owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wanted to diversify
It was the 25-year-old Tyler who decided to start the commercial hay
business about four years ago. “We started the hay business to diversify beyond just cows,” he explained. “We already had the equipment, and it’s not that hard to pick up rental ground suitable for alfalfa production because the soils are naturally alkaline around here. Currently, we have a few hundred acres of alfalfa from both owned and rented land, but that acreage continues to grow with demand. Some of the local sugar beet growers are considering alfalfa as a rotation crop because it drastically improves the soil,” he added.
With the shorter growing season, Clemetson only gets two or sometimes three cuttings of alfalfa. He’s been establishing his pure alfalfa stands by drilling about 20 pounds of Dairyland seed per acre while using forage barley as a companion crop. First cutting of established stands is typically made about the third week of June just as the alfalfa is starting to flower. As with a lot of Midwest haymakers in 2024, Clemetson said early haymaking and putting in new seedings was made difficult by unrelenting rain. In fact, no new alfalfa fields were established last year.
Clemetson’s alfalfa is cut with a New Holland 316 Discbine, windrowed using a Vermeer 12-wheel rake, and baled with a Vermeer 605M round baler. All of the round bales are stacked in rows and left outside. “We’ve never had a problem with mold, or at least I’ve never had a customer call and complain,” Clemetson noted. “We try to have all
Tyler Clemetson started his commercial hay business to complement his family's beef operation.
of our production sold and off the farm before the snow starts flying.”
As a relatively young upstart in the hay business, Clemetson said he hasn’t had to rotate out of any previously established fields yet. The young haymaker still isn’t sure how persistent his alfalfa stands will be. “I’m hoping we can get six or seven years out of stands,” Clemetson said. “It gets really cold here, but we also get a lot of snow to help cover the ground. So far, winterkill hasn’t been a problem.”
Developing markets
Most of Clemetson’s alfalfa goes to beef producers and feedlots throughout the Midwest. “In the last few years, much of our hay went to areas that were impacted by drought,” Clemetson said. He uses both a Facebook page and BisManOnline, a North Dakota-based advertising website, to solicit customers. Clemetson’s plans for the future include growing his commercial hay business in an area where such enter-
Clemetson greases his mower-conditioner to prepare for the next cutting.
prises are few and far between. “Like a lot of hay growers, our biggest challenge is the weather and the fact that we have to deal with a short growing season every year,” he explained. “Even so, I think there’s enough demand that I can be successful selling hay.”
At this point, there’s no reason to doubt the young haymaker. •
Mike Rankin
Mike Rankin
by Jim Gerrish
Balance utilization with postgrazing residual
UTILIZATION is the percent of forage production that is used by grazing livestock and wildlife. There are two types of utilization to consider, and it is important for a serious grazier to know the difference. The terms are often used without fully understanding the difference in meaning, and that has led to confusion among pasture and range managers.
Temporal utilization is the percent of standing forage that we plan to harvest in a single grazing event. This is sometimes also referred to as “grazing period utilization.” Seasonal or annual utilization is the term that describes how much of the total forage production over the course of a year is consumed by livestock or wildlife. In set stock situations (continuous grazing), there is no difference in these terms, so we really concern ourselves only with seasonal utilization rate.
It is when we start moving cattle through a series of pastures with the expectation of two or more grazing events annually, as with management-intensive grazing, that our focus shifts to temporal utilization. Temporal utilization can also be thought of as severity of use within a single grazing event. Obviously, the inverse of utilization is postgrazing residual. Managing the balance between utilization and residual is the most important skill of a grazing manager because it largely determines both individual animal performance and the productivity of pasture and rangeland.
When we think about forage quality, most graziers understand that there is greater nutrition in leaves than in stems. The upper part of the pasture plant is mostly leaves, while the lower part of the plant has more stems. If we allow our livestock to only harvest the upper 20% of the canopy, they will perform admirably, as they are harvesting forage with a high percentage of digestible energy. This is also where the highest protein levels, bio-available minerals, vitamins, and other beneficial nutrients are found.
The deeper into the plant canopy we ask our livestock to graze, the lower the overall nutrient density of each bite. With the declining bite size of the second and third bites from a plant, the lower nutrient intake becomes. Because the volume of each bite is determined by the amount of indigestible fiber present in the plant, each successive bite is both smaller in volume and less nutrient dense. Thus, increasing temporal utilization rate results in reduced nutrient intake and declining individual animal performance.
From the land productivity side, green leaves are the main photosynthetic factory of the plant. As we utilize more and more leaves, daily photosynthetic output is reduced. The more days of the year that livestock are actively removing more leaf growth than new growth is occurring, the net productivity of the land is declining. High utilization rates over the course of longer grazing periods
substantially reduces total forage production per acre.
A matter of time
The unfortunate perspective of many livestock producers is they must achieve high temporal utilization to get their “money’s worth” out of their pastures. The opposite is actually true. Lower temporal utilization rates will generally lead to both higher individual animal performance and enhanced forage production per acre. The key to success comes in balancing utilization and postgrazing residual across the continuum of time management.
While we do recognize the relationship between severity of utilization and individual animal performance, we must also understand this is a time relationship as well. If we use the classic “take half, leave half” utilization model, we find that 50% utilization with daily moves yields higher individual animal performance than does managing for 50% utilization over the course of a seven- to 14-day grazing period. The difference comes in the consistency of daily nutrient intake with daily moves compared to the declining pattern of nutrient intake over longer grazing periods. Thus, the same utilization target yields different results, depending on the duration of the grazing period.
If we make a comparison of total forage production between the daily move pasture and a similar pasture managed with seven- to 14-day grazing periods, we find the pasture with daily moves is more productive than the pasture using the longer grazing period because there are more days of actual recovery and growth taking place over the entire growing season when animals are being moved daily.
The bottom line is that we can more effectively manage the balance between temporal utilization, postgrazing residual, and the subsequent effects on both individual animal performance and land productivity when we do it in the context of time management rather than just spatial management. •
JIM GERRISH
Gerrish is a rancher, author, speaker, and consultant with over 40 years of experience in grazing management research, outreach, and practice.
Amber Friedrichsen
TALL FESCUE MYTHS AND TRUTHS
TALL fescue has become entrenched across the middle part of the eastern U.S., creating a region called the Tall Fescue Belt. Many farms were planted to tall fescue in the 1960s, and many of those original stands are still productive today. Unfortunately, the variety that was widely planted, Kentucky 31, is known to host a fungus called an endophyte, which produces toxins.
The incredible agronomic characteristics of tall fescue are also what can make it a wicked problem. Essentially, the toxins that are beneficial for the plant can be detrimental to livestock. There are many things you can do to alleviate toxicosis, including diluting pastures with other forage species, reducing fertilizer application rates, and clipping seedheads. The ultimate solution is to replace the toxic tall fescue with a nontoxic novel-endophyte tall fescue or some other species of forage.
Another conundrum is that some farmers see few fescue toxicosis symp -
toms in their livestock, while others see symptoms with high frequency. In the Northern and high-elevation areas, there are typically fewer problems than in the hotter parts of the Tall Fescue Belt. Also, the symptoms tend to be seasonal, being worst in early summer and minimal at other times of the year.
Your context will determine if you really have a problem with tall fescue or not. If you have high-performing cattle, fescue toxicosis will keep them from realizing their full potential. If you are finishing animals for local beef sales, fescue toxicosis will prolong the days to harvest and reduce meat quality. If you have great stands of tall fescue and few symptoms, then you might not have an issue.
Here are some truths — and some myths — about tall fescue.
“Tall fescue is a great grass.”
I think this one is both a myth and a truth. In the Tall Fescue Belt, there is no other species that can offer all the
benefits of tall fescue. When Kentucky 31 was released, it quickly became the conservation plant of choice. It established quickly and stubbornly persisted year after year on marginal land. It was promoted as the first permanent pasture grass for the South, and it has lived up to that name.
The rise of the summer slump, fescue foot, and other symptoms in grazing cattle led to the discovery of the endophyte and its ergot alkaloid toxins. The impact of the toxins on animal performance causes me to personally downgrade Kentucky 31 tall fescue from a great grass to a fair one. Fortunately, there are many new generations of novel-endophyte tall fescue products on the market that bring tall fescue back to my great grass category.
One benefit of tall fescue is how well it works for winter grazing. Stockpiling forage into the fall and grazing after Christmas is a safe option because this is when the ergot toxin levels start to drop. Also, sugar content
Matt Poore
rises, and this drives improved palatability for livestock. If you have novel-endophyte tall fescue, it can also be stockpiled, and our research shows it holds up as well as toxic fescue. A major benefit of novel-endophyte tall fescue is that it can be grazed at any time during fall and early winter because it does not have toxins.
“Kentucky 31 is the best because you just can’t kill it.”
This one is a myth. Across the Tall Fescue Belt, we are seeing many old stands of tall fescue thinning or disappearing. Most of this is because of heavy grazing, winter treading damage, reduced fertilization, and competition from warm-season annuals and perennials. Undermanagement along with frequent drought over the last two decades has resulted in poor stands of tall fescue where it used to dominate.
“Novel-endophyte tall fescue is too expensive to plant.”
This one is another myth. A farmer with excellent stands of Kentucky 31 tall fescue should carefully evaluate their situation before converting to a novel-endophyte variety. If a pasture needs to be renovated, one thing I can clearly recommend to livestock producers is not to plant Kentucky 31. It may be true that Kentucky 31 could be the least expensive seed you can buy. Today, you can purchase Kentucky 31 for about $1.50 per pound, while novel-endophyte tall fescue seed will cost about $4 per pound. Assuming a planting rate of 15 pounds per acre, that is a difference of $37.50 per acre. If you run a budget and calculate the total cost of pasture renovation, it will come to at least $150 per acre in costs other than seed.
The truth is that renovation is expensive no matter what you plant. My economic calculations show that if you plant novel-endophyte tall fescue, it will pay you back in about four years. If you plant Kentucky 31 in the same situation, it will take eight years to make a return on investment. So, the statement should be, “Pasture renovation is so expensive you can’t afford to plant an inferior product like Kentucky 31.”
Once you renovate a pasture, there are a few practices that will help it prosper: fertilize it, don’t feed hay with toxic fescue seed on renovated acres, and don’t overgraze it. If you follow those principles, you can keep stands for the long run.
“If you have tolerant livestock, you can live with Kentucky 31.”
This one might be a truth, but finding those tolerant animals can be a challenge. Animals with heat tolerant genetics like Brahman cattle and breed composites do better on toxic tall fescue than English cattle breeds in hot environments; however, these animals may have other issues that limit their adaptation.
Early hair coat shedding in Angus cattle has been shown to be a critical trait for cattle on toxic fescue. Some breeds are developing expected progeny differences (EPDs) for tall fescue tolerance. This has been a slow process, though, so some level of fescue intolerance continues to be bred into cattle in the region.
The most powerful fescue tolerance trait described to date is the slick hair gene. This simple dominant mutation produces a high tolerance to heat and parasites. Recent research also shows high tolerance to the effects of ergot alkaloids. Toler-
ant livestock will continue to be an important consideration for tall fescue systems, but we are a long way from reliably purchasing animals with proven tolerance.
In the end, each farmer in the Tall Fescue Belt must decide how to manage their specific problems. Some with relatively tolerant animals, who live in cooler regions, or who simply lack the resources to renovate pastures may stick to the status quo. Other farmers may evaluate pastures and decide to renovate them to provide better nutrition for their animals.
Renovation is costly, so it should be strategically implemented to upgrade a forage system. For example, renovating select acres to native warm-season grasses or novel-endophyte tall fescue will help complement a base of toxic tall fescue. •
Visit grasslandreneual.org to learn more about novel-endophyte tall fescue and upcoming educational events.
The author is an extension beef specialist at North Carolina State University and the director of the Amazing Grazing Program, a pasture-based livestock educational initiative.
MATT POORE
Rhizobia hold a key to alfalfa yield
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.
LFALFA is often referred to as the “Queen of Forages” due to its value as a highly digestible, high-protein feed for dairy cows. It is one of the most environmentally friendly, sustainable crops on the landscape due to its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen, enhancing the following crop in the rotation. However, this valuable trait wouldn’t be possible without rhizobia, which are special bacteria that live in soil or nodules formed on alfalfa roots.
Alfalfa forms root organs called nodules to house rhizobia, which transform inert nitrogen from the atmosphere into useable forms for the plant. This ability is key to the sustainability and yield of alfalfa, often used in farmers’ rotations to fortify the soil with nitrogen and improve soil health.
BARNEY GEDDES
Funding: $74,325
Rhizobium inoculants are applied to alfalfa seeds to ensure they take advantage of this relationship. The best inoculants maximize the amount of nitrogen provided to their legume partner; this trait is called effectiveness. But rhizobia vary substantially in their ability to do this.
Different crop varieties respond differently to various strains of rhizobia. Therefore, as new varieties are developed, Barney Geddes, an assistant professor in the Department of Microbi-
Figure 1. Sampling locations of alfalfa rhizobia collection from North Dakota
To maximize alfalfa yield, rhizobia must be effective in providing nitrogen to the plant and be competitive with other native strains of bacteria.
ological Sciences at North Dakota State University, thought it was important to identify a well-matched rhizobium partner that will maximize yield under nitrogen-replete conditions. Geddes was awarded a NAFA Alfalfa Checkoff grant for his project, “Identification of rhizobium inoculants tailored for performance with new alfalfa varieties and diverse soil types.”
“I have always been passionate about sustainable agriculture,” said Geddes. “Early in my career, I discovered the nitrogen-fixing symbiosis between
legumes and rhizobia as the area I wanted to make an impact. While I studied symbiosis in the lab using alfalfa as a model for years, having grown up on an alfalfa farm I was keen to take on a project more directly tied to the field to help understand what is really going on with the symbiosis.”
The overarching aim of the study was to understand the quality of rhizobia that are nodulating alfalfa in fields across North Dakota. “We think about quality in terms of two traits: effectiveness at providing nitrogen to the plant
PROJECT RESULTS
• Overall, native rhizobia from across N orth Dakota showed a panel of effectiveness and competitiveness phenotypes. Though a few competitive but poor symbionts were found, most competitive rhizobia were generally found to also be effective symbionts of alfalfa, indicating that the rhizobium competition problem is not as concerning for alfalfa as might have been anticipated.
• A library of over 500 rhizobia strains was developed. Of these, a subcollection of 181 were used for identification of elite
strains. Two strains were identified to be highly elite both in their symbiotic effectiveness and in their competitiveness.
• The Plasmid-ID approach to tagging rhizobia strains was successfully adapted to function in S. meliloti (a soil bacterium that fixes atmospheric nitrogen in plant roots). It was deployed to assess competitiveness of S. meliloti strains in different soils and with different alfalfa varieties. The data indicate that variety had little impact on rhizobial competitiveness, while soil played a greater role.
and competitiveness for occupying root nodules against other native rhizobia,” Geddes explained. “Competitiveness is important because there are many reports of native rhizobia being inferior to inoculant strains at providing nitrogen to the plant.
“What we found is the most competitive rhizobia from alfalfa fields across North Dakota are quite effective at
nitrogen fixation. Farmers should feel comfortable utilizing the symbiosis for the nitrogen needs of alfalfa and avoid over-fertilization with nitrogen,” he added.
Geddes plans on continuing his research with interesting lines for follow-up study. “One area for further research is exploring the development of elite strains we developed as
Alforex Seeds by DLF America’s Alfalfa CROPLAN
Forage First by DLF Innvictis Seed Solutions
improved inoculants and finding the genetics in rhizobia that encode elite symbiosis traits,” Geddes said. “We are also very interested in thinking about the host genetics and if the plant can recruit more beneficial rhizobia in the soil over several years of cultivation with the right genes.”
A full copy of the final report can be found at https://alfalfa.org. •
Latham Hi-Tech Seeds Legacy Seeds
NEXGROW
S&W Seed Company
W-L Alfalfas SUPPORT THE ALFALFA CHECKOFF!
Buy your seed from these facilitating marketers:
DON’T SEE YOUR FAVORITE BRAND ON THE LIST?
Contact NAFA for information on becoming a participation brand
The alfalfa checkoff benefits you and the entire industry. Scan the QR code to learn more.
GRAZED COVER CROP GAINS VARY WITH SOIL TEXTURE
by Brett Rushing
NET farm income is predicted to have declined nearly 20.9% since 2022, with substantial losses in crop receipts and continued pressure from rising costs and inflation. During such times of economic downturn, integrating livestock onto traditionally farmed ground may offer a source of revenue that in most other years might not make sense . . . or cents.
Interest in grazing cover crops has climbed over the last decade with greater pressure and awareness of the resiliency of our agroecosystems, and integrated crop-livestock systems have shown the capacity to enhance subsequent crop productivity, diversify agroecosystem form and function, advance soil ecosystem services, and generate more revenue. Combining highly nutritious cover crops as a source of forage for grazing ruminants with traditional crop produc -
tion has the potential to enhance soil structure and biological activity and reduce soil compaction.
Where it fits
In east Mississippi, crop production is limited to remnant prairies with heavier, soils in the north, compared to sandier, soils in the central and southern parts of the state. These sandier soils are typically lower in overall fertility, more prone to drought, and are predominantly used for timber production. However, there remains a significant amount of acreage dedicated to stocker cattle production and the utilization of cool-season pastures in that part of the state.
In the past, I have proposed integrating livestock onto cropland to farmers, which is where the eye rolls tend to begin. More recently, I’ve shifted my focus to encouraging stocker cattle producers, who typically don’t utilize pastures during the warmer months when gains suffer to consider adding
a soybean crop after grazing these cool-season annuals to make better use of their land base and to boost revenues. Also, with reduced market prices for soybeans and corn along with higher inflation and input costs, now may be the time to consider combining cattle and crops to spread out financial risk.
Tried and tested
To evaluate this, researchers conducted field trials across three locations in eastern and central Mississippi over the past several years. These trials included grazing combinations of oats, crimson clover, and radish, followed by soybean; grazing cereal rye, crimson clover, and radish followed by continuous corn; and grazing cereal rye followed by soybean or cotton. The trial location soils have included heavy clay, fine sandy loam, and a silt loam. For this article, we’ll focus on the results from the third mentioned study, where we integrated grazing livestock on cereal rye into traditional soybean production systems.
Mike Rankin
We compared three cropping systems at the Prairie Research Unit in Prairie, Miss., and the Coastal Plain Branch Experiment Station in Newton: conventional soybean (CS); no-till soybean and cereal rye cover crop (CC); and no-till soybean and grazed cereal rye cover crop (GC). At each location, cereal rye was planted in the fall of 2021 through 2023, grazed during the winter and spring for the GC treatment, and terminated in the late spring prior to no-till planting soybeans. Replacement heifers were used at both locations to graze cereal rye cover crops at a target stocking density of 1,500 pounds per acre.
Researchers collected data for animal performance, cover crop production, soybean production, and soil change over time. Also, a complete economic assessment comparing the three systems according to net revenue was generated by location. Let’s concentrate on the forage and grazing and economic assessment.
Grazing results
Cumulative forage mass (FM) was 5,077 and 3,094 pounds of dry matter at Newton and Prairie, respectively. Nutritive values for forage samples collected at Newton were 23.4% and 54.8% for crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN), respectively. At Prairie, mean CP and TDN was 12.6% and 53.3%, respectively.
Animal performance was calculated at each location by assessing animal days, average daily gain, and gain per acre (Tables 1 and 2). At Newton, mean animal days for GC paddocks was 52 days, compared to only 10 days at Prairie. Furthermore, two grazing cycles were accomplished each year at Newton, whereas only one cycle was achieved in 2022 in Prairie when the availability of cover crop biomass was the limiting factor.
Average daily gain was 2.99 pounds per day per head at Newton and 1.16 pounds per day per head at Prairie. Therefore, lower average daily gain at Prairie was a direct result of lower forage biomass and lower nutritive values of cereal rye.
Total gain per acre is the combination of animal days and average daily gain and is directly impacted by forage availability and stocking rate. In the study, total gain was 306 pounds per acre at Newton compared to 78 pounds
per acre at Prairie.
Total costs for each treatment by location are found in Tables 1 and 2. Cover crop costs varied by location and planting method. The cost for no-till drilling cover crop seed was $33.04 per acre compared to broadcast seeding, which was $5.05 per acre. Soybean cost varied by treatment within each location because of grain hauling costs that were incurred based on mean grain yield for each treatment.
Total production costs per acre at Newton were $302.23 for conventional soybeans, $472.41 for cover crop systems, and $474.03 for the grazed cover crop treatments. At Prairie, production costs for the same treatments were $339.32, $480.93, and $477.98 per acre.
Soybean revenue was calculated using the Mississippi Soybean Planning Budget statewide average price of $12.67 per bushel. Mean soybean revenue per acre was $662.64, $615.76, and $691.78 at Newton, and $867.89, $722.19, and $584.08 at Prairie for the CS, CC, and GC treatments, respectively.
Researchers determined cattle revenue was $593.84 and $160.29 per acre for Newton and Prairie, respectively. This value was then divided by gain per acre, resulting in a value of gain of $1.94 and $2.04 per pound for Newton and Prairie, respectively.
Total revenue was determined by adding soybean revenue with cattle revenue. Total revenue per acre at Newton was $662.64, $615.76, and $1,285.62 for the CS, CC, and GC treatments, respectively. At Prairie, total revenue per acre was $867.89, $722.19, and $744.38 for the same respective treatments. Net returns above soybean and cover crop costs — revenue minus costs — were $360.41, $143.35, and $811.59 per acre for CS, CC, and GC treatments at Newton. At Prairie, these same treatment net returns were $528.58, $241.26, and $266.40 per acre.
Soil dictates success
Results from these field trials comparing conventional soybean production with and without a grazed cereal rye cover crop on two distinctly
*Data are means across two years.
Note.
letters
Table 1. Data for Coastal Plain Branch Experiment Station in Newton, Miss.
different soil types indicate that the combination of no-till soybeans and a grazed cereal rye cover crop more than doubled net returns per acre on a fine sandy loam soil. However, as observed at Prairie, the same combination of no-till soybeans and grazed cover crops resulted in substantially lower revenue than conventional soybean production on heavy, poorly drained clay soils.
On coarse-textured, well-drained soils, there are opportunities for greater revenue through the implementation of integrated crop-livestock systems. Our research contributes to the growing precedent of research that demonstrates the economic impact that the diversification of agricultural enterprises, particularly in cattle and row-crop systems, can have in the Coastal Plain region of the Southeast. The utilization of cover crops by cattle has been shown to more than offset the costs of adopting cover crops and can generate additional revenue for the landowner. •
*Data are means across two years.
Note. Lowercase letters denote significant differences at a = 0.05.
Table 2. Data for Prairie Research Unit in Prairie, Miss.
Adam Verner
Unwrapping bale wrappers
FEEDING cattle all winter is why you have to love your job. It’s during this time of year that daylight hours and work hours don’t often jive, as many feeding duties require artificial lighting. Still, as we get into colder weather, there is a little more time spent indoors where we can look back at the previous growing season and evaluate the pluses and minuses. If you are like me, you want to make sure that the time spent hauling feed is not wasted and what is hauled doesn’t get wasted by the cattle. This is one of the reasons we added baleage to our operation over 20 years ago. I know this is not a new concept, but each year I have the same conversation with a rancher wanting to try it for the first time. So, in this column, I want to break down the three main options we have when it comes to wrapping hay. These are individual wrappers, inline wrappers, and baler-wrapper combinations. Individual bale wrappers definitely got the slowest start here in the U.S., although they are by far the most widely used worldwide. Individual wrappers offer great versatility, and you can get started wrapping hay for the least amount of money. You can also keep it simple with a stationary unit that is relatively inexpensive but still gets the job done.
If you need more production from an individual bale wrapper, there are now self-loading units with automation for loading, wrapping, and unloading the bales. The main point besides the cost related to these upgrades is the fact that you can be flexible when moving bales. You do not need as many people on day one to get baleage wrapped in plastic, and you have a day or so to get them moved to your storage point. Bales can be hauled again, if needed, after they finish fermenting. This type of bale wrapper is definitely the way to go if you are selling bales to an end user.
Less plastic, more hauling
Inline wrappers took off and became the most popular in the U.S. mainly due to the amount of area we have to stack bales. There are lots of cases in Europe where livestock are kept in buildings over the winter, and farmers do not have the area available for long rows of baleage. Stacking individual bales in pyramids with telehandlers is the more common practice. At my farm, we have 2 miles of road frontage that we could make one long row, so an inline wrapper fit our operation just fine. Since we were the first in our area to wrap hay, and we had an inline wrapper, that’s what the next two or three farmers bought as well.
It takes quite a bit more work on the day you are baling with an inline wrapper. You have to haul the bales to where you are going to wrap and feed them. Or, if you place the bales at the edge of the field, you have to haul them when you get ready to feed in the winter. Either way, the hauling issue is not as flexible as it is with the individual bales.
You can save some plastic with inline wrappers. Usually, it’s around $2 to $2.50 per bale less in plastic cost when the two types of wrappers are compared, but the inline wrapper is around $20,000 more expensive. That is usually is a major consideration when it comes to which type might be the best option once all of the details are known about each product.
Less labor needed
The least purchased option to wrap bales is the baler-wrapper combo. It’s much more popular overseas than in the U.S. Why would someone spend $120,000 on a baler and wrapper in one unit? Reducing labor is the chief reason because one person can do both all the baling and wrapping.
A new silage baler with knives costs around $70,000, and stand-alone wrappers are from $35,000 to $60,000. So, when you add in the tractor to pull the individual bale wrapper and/or the person to load an inline unit, the price difference doesn’t seem so outlandish. For dry hay, you can simply turn off the wrapper and have an accumulator that can dump two bales together, which makes hauling out of the field easier. The baler-wrapper combination unit has a lot of electronics and hydraulics that are usually self-contained on the baler. You must be a good operator to use one of these machines efficiently, but they can certainly save you some money when it comes to labor cost.
The bottom line is that you can’t go wrong with any of the three bale-wrapping options. As you consider a new bale wrapper, just remember that what might be a good choice for your neighbor may not be the best one for your farm. I hope everyone had a joyous holiday season. •
ADAM VERNER
The author is a managing partner in Elite Ag LLC, Leesburg, Ga. He also is active in the family farm in Rutledge.
Mike Rankin
There are several things to consider before choosing the right bale wrapper for your farm.
GIVE PASTURES MORE HORSE POWER
by Carey Williams
GRAZING is an economical way to feed horses a well-balanced diet, provide animals voluntary exercise, and reduce behavioral and health issues. While grazing systems have been studied extensively for livestock, grazing data extrapolated from these studies may be of limited value in crafting horse grazing recommendations.
The goals of horse producers as well as the digestive anatomy and function, forage preference, and grazing behaviors of horses differ from those observed in other species. Several studies have investigated potential benefits of rotational grazing on horse pasture productivity; however, most of these trials were conducted over a short period of time with no replication of pastures. Therefore, this article will highlight some of the work done at Rutgers University investigating the long-term benefits of rotational grazing for horses.
The first series of studies using Rutgers University’s Ryders Lane Environmental Best Management Practices Demonstra-
tion Horse Farm in New Brunswick, N.J., aimed to determine the effects of rotational grazing on pasture, soil condition, and horse condition, along with integration of novel forage options to maximize the summer grazing season.
The site included approximately 15 acres of pasture that was primarily composed of loam soils. A year prior to the studies, pasture fields were chemically treated to eliminate the existing vegetation, plowed to a depth of approximately 7 inches, disked, and pasture forage was reestablished.
Researchers adjusted soil fertility to optimum levels with lime and fertilizer, and pastures were seeded with novel-endophyte tall fescue at 7 pounds per acre, Kentucky bluegrass at 11.5 pounds per acre, and orchardgrass at 7.4 pounds per acre. The site was divided into two rotationally grazed areas and two continuously grazed areas.
Researchers divided 12 standardbred mares into four fields for a stocking density of roughly 1.3 acres per horse. Overall, the study found that the continuously grazed horses maintained higher body condition and percent -
age of body fat than the rotationally grazed horses.
The effects of the grazing system on pasture condition were substantial, with rotationally grazed pastures showing greater sward heights, herbage mass (Figure 1), and vegetative cover. Forage chemical composition also varied between the treatments, with rotationally grazed pastures having greater digestible energy, acid detergent fiber, and calcium and lower crude protein than continuously grazed pastures.
A companion study also demonstrated that while rotational grazing was effective in improving pasture forage productivity, it had minor influences on soluble carbohydrate content and ultimately had no apparent glycemic or insulinemic implications for the grazing horse. The results from these studies support the recommendation of rotational grazing for purposes of optimizing pasture yield and preventing deterioration of vegetative cover, which has important environmental and ecological implications.
In addition to horse condition and impacts on pasture forage, this study investigated the effects of stocking
method on pasture soil. Continuous grazing damaged soil structure through compression of soil macropores, while rotational grazing promoted greater water infiltration rates at the range of pressure potentials predominantly controlled by macropores.
A greater macropore abundance is likely to contribute to the sustainability of the grazing system by increasing soil water content, decreasing soil temperature, and promoting the recovery of the pasture vegetation from trampling and abiotically induced stresses.
Seasonal Studies
Following the completion of the twoyear rotational grazing study, researchers conducted a follow-up study to assess the ability of pastures to recover after winter rest. This study revealed that the choice of grazing system (continuous or rotational) has clear effects on pasture forage production in a subsequent growing season. In fact, winter rest alone may not be sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of overgrazing continuously grazed pastures.
Differences in sward height and herbage mass between continuously and rotationally grazed pastures persisted throughout much of the growing season following animal exclusion during the winter, and a total of nine months of rest was required for herbage mass in the continuously grazed pastures to reach similar production levels as the rotationally grazed pastures.
Effects on pasture botanical composition remained at the end of the study period, with a greater prevalence of grasses in pastures that had been rotationally grazed. Furthermore, vegetative cover in rotationally
grazed pastures was consistently above the recommended levels for prevention of erosion and nutrient runoff, while low levels of vegetative cover in continuously grazed pastures presented a heightened erosion risk in the early spring.
Traditional pasture forages in temperate regions of the United States are mainly perennial cool-season grasses adapted for survival of cold winters and growth in periods of cooler temperatures during spring, early summer, and fall. However, these species are less tolerant of heat and drought, which leads to a period of low forage productivity often called the summer slump.
The summer slump presents challenges to horse producers, with implications for both the economic and environmental sustainability of equine operations. Supplemental feed is often needed to meet the nutritional needs of horses during the summer slump, resulting in higher feed costs.
In previous studies investigating the effects of stocking methods, horses managed in rotational pastures were restricted to a stress lot during times of low forage availability during the late summer to early fall when hot, dry temperatures led to less vigorous cool-season pasture grasses. Therefore, researchers conducted a subsequent study to determine if the warm-season annual Quick-N-Big crabgrass could be utilized to bridge the summer slump forage gap in cool-season grass equine rotational grazing systems.
The results of this study indicated that implementing an integrated rotational grazing approach by incorporating crabgrass may offer production advantages when compared to traditional
cool-season grass rotational grazing systems. Carrying capacity and herbage mass were greater in crabgrass versus cool-season pasture sections during the critical summer slump period from mid-July to mid-September. However, in this study, integrated grazing resulted in less growth during late-season grazing. Further research is needed to identify strategies to improve season-long production in these systems.
The integrated rotational grazing approach did provide adequate nutrition to meet daily nutrient requirements and maintain body condition in grazing horses. However, the system did not result in marked differences in forage nutritional composition or horse condition in comparison to a traditional cool-season system.
Results from all of these studies taken together indicate that implementing rotational grazing may enhance pasture production and soil health over continuous grazing systems. The findings in the Rutgers grazing studies strengthen recommendations for implementation of rotational grazing systems in equine pasture management. The results will also inform equine grazing decisions by educators and farmers with the goal of improving the environmental sustainability of horse operations. •
CAREY WILLIAMS
The author is an equine extension specialist at Rutgers University.
Continuous grazing system Rotational grazing system
Figure 1. Herbage mass within each treatment
Jennifer Weinert-Nelson, former Rutgers Ph.D. student, now with the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, was a contributing author of this article.
New Holland Forage Cruisers ready to order
The newest model of New Holland’s FR Forage Cruiser includes refined controls, electronics, and the CustomSteer system. These enhancements can be found on the four-model lineup, from the 544-maximum horsepower FR550 to the 911-maximum horsepower FR920. Compared to the previous cab, there is 12.5% more floor space, plus 2.36 inches more seat travel and additional storage space. A larger IntelliView IV PLUS touchscreen display has more processing power and better visibility and legibility in direct sunlight. A second optional display is available and required for mapping, guidance, and IntelliFill automated trailer filling.
The blockage detection and prevention system is based around a spout-mounted radar sensor that monitors the crop flow leaving
the machine. With the updated NutriSense NIR sensor technology, customers can see crop nutrient data. This is now offered as a factory-installed option.
FR Forage Cruisers are also eligible for the Connectivity Included feature at no additional cost, which is compatible with IntelliField. This provides real-time data sharing capabilities for boundaries, guidance lines, and coverage data when multiple machines are operating in the same field.
New Holland is also launching new Pro Series row-independent corn headers. Models range from a six-disc small drum head, designed to cut young, short corn with flexible stems, to a 12-disc big drum head that is ideal for maximum capacity in tall, heavy corn. For more information, go to cnh.com/en-US.
Kuhn’s new rear-mounted mower-conditioner
Kuhn North America recently introduced the FC 13460 D RA for those looking for a mower-conditioner with the added capability of merging forage in a single pass. However, it can also be used as a mowerconditioner with the windrow merger in the raised position.
The FC 13460 D RA works in combination with the FC 3125 DF or FC 3525 DF frontmounted machines, allowing operators to cut and condition up to 44 feet in one pass. Depending on the crop, operators can make
one large, single windrow or raise the belts to create five smaller windrows.
The ISOBUS controls allow farmers to make adjustments from the cab. Automatic headland lifting, belt speed, mowing height, and folding/ unfolding are a few of the ISOBUS controls.
The machine incorporates the Optidisc Elite cutterbar, utilizing a through-bolted design and is lubed for life. The cutterbar has a slim profile, enabling a short cut, while the flat cutterbar angle reduces soil contamination in the crop and prolongs blade life.
The FC 13460 D RA contains the Lift-Control hydropneumatics suspension to accommodate the merger belt on each head. The suspension helps lower ash and soil content by closely following changing terrain, which also leads to less wear on components. For more information, visit kuhn.com.
Vermeer introduces silage balers
Vermeer launched the 504 Pro G4 and 604 Pro G4 balers. These machines offer features that boost productivity and bale quality in crops from dense silage to dry hay.
The 504 Pro G4 produces bales with diameters ranging from 36 to 60 inches, while the 604 Pro G4 extends that range up to 72 inches. Both models maintain a consistent bale width of 48 inches.
The balers are equipped with a two-bank, 17-knife chopping system to adjust cut length for optimal silage fermentation. By selecting eight, nine, or 17 knives, farmers can adjust bale density, silage quality, and digestibility to meet their needs.
The Vermeer Atlas Pro control system features a 7-inch color touchscreen to monitor bale statistics and adjust parameters for consistent bales tailored to specific crop conditions or customer preferences, whether baling wet silage or dry hay.
The net wrap system at the rear of Pro G4 balers enables easy loading and wrapping. Farmers can also adjust net tension from the cab to help maintain bale shape and forage quality during storage and transport.
The balers feature a camless, wide pickup measuring 73 inches with rubber-mounted teeth to handle heavy windrows while minimizing wear. The spring-mounted drop floor flexes during baling to aid crop flow and reduce plugs. Operators can lower the floor hydraulically from the cab, clearing a blockage without leaving the tractor.
Power distribution in the Pro G4 balers is managed by a power-split transmission, which evenly distributes power between the pickup and chamber. The large bearings, shafts, rollers, and chains ensure durability and low maintenance throughout the haying season.
The balers also include four endless belts made from synthetic material and rubber designed for low maintenance and long-term reliability. For more information, visit vermeer.com.
NEED HELP HANDLING LARGE ROUND BALES? WORKSAVER HAS
DBH-6000, 3-pt. Bale Spear
Worksaver’s DBH-6000 is the right attachment for transporting two round bales at once. Its rugged 76” wide square frame design with four bolt-in spears allows the transport of two 6-ft. round bales, reducing trips across the field. Compatible with Cat. II/III Quick Hitches for easy hook-up.
FORAGE IQ
American Forage & Grassland Council Annual Conference
January 12 to 15, Kissimmee, Fla.
Details: afgc.org
Northwest Hay Expo
January 15 and 16, Kennewick, Wash.
Details: wa-hay.org
Southwest Hay Conference
January 22 to 24, Ruidoso, N.M.
Details: nmhay.com
Driftless Region Beef Conference
January 23 and 24, Dubuque, Iowa
Details: bit.ly/HFG-DRBC
GrassWorks Grazing Conference
January 23 to 25, Wisconsin Dells, Wis.
Details: grassworks.org
Western Alfalfa Seed Growers
Assn. Winter Seed Conference
January 26 to 28, Phoenix, Ariz.
Details: wasga.org
Virginia Winter Forage Conferences
January 28 to 31 (four locations)
Details: vaforages.org/events
Equine and Endophytes Workshop
January 29, Lexington, Ky.
Details: grasslandrenewal.org/events/
U.S. Custom Harvesters Convention
January 30 to February 1 Des Moines, Iowa
Details: uschi.com/convention
Cattle Industry Convention and NCBA Trade Show
February 4 to 6, San Antonio, Texas
Details: convention.ncba.org
World Ag Expo
February 11 to 13, Tulare, Calif.
Details: worldagexpo.com
Midwest Forage Assn. Symposium
February 17 to 19, Wisconsin Dells, Wis.
Details: midwestforage.org
Idaho Hay & Forage Conference
February 27, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Details: idahohay.com
HAY MARKET UPDATE
Big inventory, small prices
So far this season, there is little sign of the cyclical rise of hay prices that is typically seen in the winter. Instead, average monthly hay prices have yet to recover from the five-year lows posted last fall, which were largely attributed to abundant supplies.
With that said, December 1 hay stocks will be released by USDA on January 10, along with final 2024 production data.
The prices below are primarily from USDA hay market reports as of the beginning of December. Prices are FOB barn/stack unless otherwise noted. •
For weekly updated hay prices, go to “USDA Hay Prices” at
MEET THE BALER BUILT TO KEEP UP.
Your dairy farm or cow/calf operation needs a baler built to efficiently handle everything you throw its way. That’s where the Massey Ferguson® RB 4100 Series comes in. Its rugged design and innovative features add up to faster production and the highest quality forage possible.
Discover the Massey Ferguson RB 4100 Series round baler at www.masseyferguson.us, or visit your local dealer.
farmed through substantial droughts the past couple of years. The impact is evident, as silage starch content has trended well below 30% for the past two crop years with wide-ranging quality as well (Figure 3).
With a global perspective now in mind, compare and contrast your silage quality with both neighboring farmers and international countries. Remember that starch and fiber content — and thus starch and fiber digestibility — are the four keys to quality on your forage analysis. We can’t control the growing conditions, but we can keep pursuing ideal genetics and the best soil fertility, crop protection, and practices to optimize corn silage in the years to come. •
Figure 2. Spanish corn silage starch content
Figure 3. Argentinian corn silage starch content
JOHN GOESER
The author is the director of nutrition research and innovation with Rock River Lab Inc., and an adjunct assistant professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
GRAZIERS AGREE THAT THIS GRASS ISN’T GREAT
by Amber Friedrichsen, Managing Editor
ONE of the favorite parts of my job is getting to visit farms all over the country. Having boots-on-the-ground experience in hay and pasture systems across the U.S. is the best way to acquire unique perspectives and interesting stories for our readers. On a more selfish note, it also gives me the chance to step outside my comfort zone and broaden my personal understanding of various pockets of the forage industry.
Last season, I made stops in Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Utah, and Kansas, and I rounded out my summer travel with a trip to New England. It’s a region of the country I’ve never ventured to before, and the only piece of advice I received on my way out the door was to avoid eating lobster during months that are spelled without the letter “R.” Needless to say, I had little idea of Northeastern agriculture.
While there, I visited a grazing beef farm in Maine that was in the midst of some pasture renovations, a New Hampshire dairy farm with an emphasis on organic milk and baleage production, and a grazing dairy in Vermont that uses all of its milk to make a wide array of artisanal cheeses on-site.
Every operation was geared toward a different output, and their respective hay and grazing systems reflected those goals. Therefore, our discussions inevitably went in different directions regarding forage production, but there was one common theme that came up in every conversation: reed canarygrass.
Ragging on reed canarygrass
It wasn’t just the mention of reed canarygrass that caught my attention, but rather the growing level of disdain that laced every description of the cool-season perennial. At my first stop, the beef farmers in Maine simply chalked it up to a less-than-desirable species that grows in low-lying areas of
their pastures.
The New Hampshire dairy farmer expressed a more amplified aversion to reed canarygrass, especially when it gets too mature. His cows graze young, short plants at the start of the season, but even then, reed canarygrass is less palatable and lower quality than the other forages in his system. Later in the rotation, the herd selectively grazes around taller stalks.
Walking toward the grazing herd at the dairy in Vermont, I inquired about the pasture base. In addition to orchardgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and a diverse mix of clover, some fields also included plantain, vetch, and various other grasses. To passively stoke the flames of reed canarygrass slander, I asked the farmer if there were any forages that she doesn’t particularly enjoy.
“I don’t like reed canarygrass,” she said without hesitation.
Ding, ding, ding. I was three for three. It wasn’t just the unpalatability of reed canarygrass that this farmer denounced, though. It was also the fact that it thrives in wet spots, indicating problem areas in her pastures. Upon entering a field with an abundance reed canarygrass, she not only assumes cows will struggle to meet their nutritional needs, but she also worries about the damage their hoof traffic will cause in saturated soils.
Alkaloid ailments
Reed canarygrass is a sod-forming grass that spreads via rhizomes. It is, in fact, adapted to low-lying, wet areas, and it is the most flood-tolerant cool-season grass among the major species. Reed canarygrass also tends to have a high tolerance to drought and heat, which lends itself to good regrowth, to many farmers’ dismay.
According to research from the Northeast, reed canarygrass regrowth yield represents a higher percentage of total season yield than other forages like timothy and smooth bromegrass. With that said, reed canarygrass falls behind orchardgrass, timothy, smooth
bromegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and ryegrass in terms of forage quality and palatability.
Indole alkaloids can explain the unpalatability of reed canarygrass, and concentrations of these alkaloids are negatively correlated with animal health and weight gain. The compounds accumulate in leaf blades more so than leaf sheaths and stems, and warmer temperatures expedite alkaloid production, whereas younger spring growth may be less toxic.
Although there are improved cultivars of reed canarygrass that contain lower alkaloid concentrations, it’s not a species that is readily reseeded in perennial pastures — at least not on the farms I visited in New England. These farmers essentially relied on the grass stands to sustain themselves, and for the most part, strategic grazing sufficed as the primary tool for forage management in the decades-old fields I found myself standing in.
Despite being a thorn in the side of each system, reed canarygrass seemed to be a relatively bearable species. Understanding its plant properties and growth characteristics allowed the farmers to tailor their grazing plans around the unwanted forage and ensure their cattle would perform well regardless of an undesirable item on the menu. Other practices — like frost seeding red clover — were also being implemented across the board to add and/or maintain forage quality throughout the growing season for grazing livestock and hay production.
One final note about reed canarygrass is that even though it is very winterhardy, its leaves are extremely susceptible to frost damage. Therefore, reed canarygrass quality can take a significant hit when Northeastern pastures experience freezing temperatures, which was already starting to occur overnight. If there is only one connection between reed canarygrass and New England lobster, perhaps it is to avoid both during months that are spelled without the letter “R.” •
