15 minute read
Dairy cocktail mixes
Cocktail forage mixes may fit in dairy rations
S DAIRY farms utilize more spring-harvested winter cereal forages, cocktail forage mixes are often on the list of options of what to plant next. This is due to their fast growth after planting, the option to apply manure in-season, and the potential for high forage quality. These mixes typically contain a warm-season annual, which is often a brown midrib (BMR) sorghum-sudangrass, Italian ryegrass, and a mix of various legumes, including berseem, crimson, or red clover; hairy vetch; and others.
Advertisement
Most mixes contain a high percentage of the warm-season annual and Italian ryegrass because of their quick emergence, growth, and regrowth potential after cutting. In one 2019 Wisconsin field project, a cocktail forage mix planted after a cereal rye crop yielded a total of nearly 4 tons of dry matter (DM) per acre across four harvests. This included 0.7 tons DM per acre from the rye forage. As more producers consider these forages, additional data is needed to understand yield, quality, and variability across farms. To address this, we conducted a project that was supported by the UW Dairy Innovation Hub to gather forage data from four Wisconsin dairy farms.
Systems differed
Forage yield data were collected from fields at three dairy farms in northeast Wisconsin and from the Marshfield Agricultural Research Station. On the three commercial farms, the cocktail forage mix was planted after a cereal forage harvest in early June. At three of the locations, the mix was seeded at 35 pounds per acre with 60% BMR sorghum-sudangrass, 25% Italian ryegrass, and 15% from a combination of berseem, red clover, and hairy vetch. Farm 4 used a mix seeded at 50 pounds per acre with 59% cowpeas; 17% Italian ryegrass; 6% each of millet, alfalfa, and red clover; 4% timothy; and 2% radish.
The fertilization program varied widely, with Farm 1 applying 9,000 gallons of liquid manure preplant and then 60 pounds of N fertilizer per acre between harvests. Farm 2 applied 66 pounds of N fertilizer per acre preplant and then 6,000 gallons of liquid manure between cuttings. Farm 3 only applied 45 pounds of N fertilizer after each cutting, while Farm 4 applied 20 pounds of N per acre preplant and no subsequent N due to drought.
Farms targeted harvest of high-quality forage, with harvests taken at approximately a 24- to 36-inch canopy height of the sorghum-sudangrass. First harvest occurred about 40 to 50 days after planting, second harvest was 30 to 35 days later, and a third harvest had a longer interval of 45 to 60 days with a harvest in late September to mid-October.
Overall, total-season forage yields averaged 4.6 tons of DM per acre with a range from 3.7 to 6.9 tons of DM per acre. The cereal forage yields were consistent across farms at 1 to 1.5 tons of DM per acre. Yields of cocktail mix across harvests were more variable, with the first harvest being the highest yielding (1.4 to 1.9 tons of DM per acre) on three of the four farms (see Figure 1).
The second and third harvests were lower for the two farms that used synthetic N fertilizer between harvests (0.7 to 1.1 tons of DM per acre), while the farm that applied liquid manure maintained higher yields (1.7 to 1.9 tons of DM per acre). The photos depict areas in the same field that received or did not receive manure at this farm.
It is hard to know exact reasons for
Mike Rankin
MATT AKINS Akins (pictured) is an extension dairy scientist with the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW). Jarek and Ballweg are extension educators with the UW Division of Extension.
Kevin Jarek
Photo 1 (left): Cocktail forage mix without manure applied. Photo 2 (right): Cocktail forage mix with manure applied.
Kevin Jarek
the yield differences, but soil fertility is likely a main factor, especially for the sorghum-sudangrass and Italian ryegrass dominant mixtures. Some producers have indicated significant damage to sorghum-sudangrass stands after applying manure to the crop due to wheel traffic and stem breakage, with some considering a mix based on Italian ryegrass to minimize stand damage. Wisconsin researchers are currently working to evaluate N fertility needs for these mixes to determine more precise recommendations.
The farm with the lowest season yields (Farm 4) was only able to take two harvests due to drought conditions after emergence. This farm used a mix with mostly cowpeas, which had good early emergence but did not perform well during drought conditions. The farms with mixes based on sorghum-sudangrass had stands that were primarily sorghum-sudangrass for the first harvest, then progressively increased in Italian ryegrass for the second and third harvests. Across all farms, the proportion of legumes was very low (less than 10%). Some farmers are indicating that the Italian ryegrass and certain clovers can overwinter and provide a potential spring harvest of high-quality forage, but this would depend on winter conditions.
Cereals shined for quality
The cereal forages were excellent quality with 19% crude protein (CP), 43% neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 67% NDF digestibility at 30 hours (NDFD30), 6.7% undigestible NDF at 240 hours (uNDF240), and 72% total digestible nutrients (TDN). This forage would work very well in lactating cow diets.
For the cocktail mix, overall quality was a bit lower than expected. Energy was between 53% and 68% TDN with most samples 55% to 63% TDN. The highest TDN sample consisted primarily of Italian ryegrass. Crude protein was moderate and ranged from 8.4% to 16.5%. Protein declined with each subsequent harvest, even with N fertilization between harvests.
Fiber content seemed to be consistent across cuttings, ranging from 48% to 56% NDF, except for a third harvest that was 42% NDF and predominantly ryegrass. Fiber digestibility averaged 55% NDFD30 with a range from 41% to 65%. These values were lower than expected considering the species, traits, and harvest targets used.
Undigested NDF (uNDF240) was 5% to 12% of the DM, with the lowest sample being predominantly ryegrass. Meanwhile, most of the cocktail mix samples were between 8% and 12%. These forages still fit in lactating cow diets, but inclusion rates would need to be evaluated to avoid reducing intakes.
In making decisions about using cocktail mixes, consider how the crop fits in your cropping and feeding systems. It’s also apparent that N fertilizer will be considerably more expensive this year, which will boost input costs. Based on the results of this multi-farm demonstration project, cocktail forage mixes can provide good forage yield and quality with adequate soil fertility and good growing conditions. We plan to evaluate lactating cow productivity when fed a cocktail forage mix. •
Figure 1. Forage yield across the harvest season for each farm
2.50
Yield, tons DM/acre 2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50 Cereal forage Cocktail 1st Cocktail 2nd Cocktail 3rd
0.00
1 2
Farm 3 4
Get your forage in condition for drying
IT MAY not seem like it, but first cutting is right around the corner. In fact, we’ve already started down here in the South with winter annuals. Ryegrass, wheat, and oats are the most common annuals chopped and baled during the early spring in our area, and each offers its own unique challenge when it comes to putting up excellent forage.
Our annual forages are not unique with their propensity to dry down slowly. Triticale in the Southwest can be challenging to get harvested at the ideal stage of maturity as it seems to turn to “rope” in just a few days after its optimum harvest date. Alfalfa in the North and West can sometimes offer the challenge of drying down too fast when it is chopped.
The decision every forage producer must make when purchasing a mower is what conditioner is going to be most effective for their situation, or if one is needed at all. I’ve had this discussion dozens of times with different people across the country. Each situation is unique, and there is no cookie-cutter answer that fits every farm. Let’s discuss each type of conditioner and go over the pros and cons for each.
Going cold turkey
across the South with three-point hitch mowers. It’s also becoming more common in the North for producers who only chop their alfalfa. Eliminating the conditioner is a cost-effective way to harvest forage, and with some tedding, it’s still possible to reach a balable moisture content. There are some people who think that not conditioning hay can improve the quality and dry-down speed of the forage.
That might sound good until you get into some young, 6- to 8-ton wet annual forages lying on wet soil. It will take days to lose 5% moisture and will require multiple trips with a tedder to reach baling or chopping moisture. Each pass adds the risk for elevating the ash content of the feed. For dry hay, not having a conditioner might add hours or days to the dry-down time, which can result in more rained-on hay.
Best for grasses
A popular option in the eastern half of the U.S. is the V-tine, flail, or impeller conditioner. These are all basically the same conditioning system. This system uses mostly V-shaped tines and an adjustable baffle hood to increase or decrease the amount of conditioning.
The overall design and cost of this option is reasonable. It works well in grass crops as some are too flexible to be effectively crimped. The flail-type conditioner works by stripping wax from the stem and leaf, which speeds the dry-down time. The downside is that the tine speed and baffle hood need to be adjusted for different crops. If not adjusted properly, the aggressive setting used for ryegrass is likely going to be too aggressive for a legume and will knock off the high-value leaves.
Most popular
Another extremely popular option that can be found in most states is the roller conditioner. Rubber rollers have been around for a long time and are still popular where legumes are harvested. They do an excellent job crimping the stems. Some producers have shifted away from the rubber rolls due to the cost and rapid wearing of the rubber, which lowers the crimping effect.
Steel roller conditioners have taken the place of the rubber ones on many mowers. They come in different shapes and sizes, and Massey Ferguson offers a double roller conditioner. The durability of the steel rolls has been their biggest selling point. Some people say they do not crimp as well as new rubber rolls, but the longevity has seemed to be a strong selling point. As acreage per farm keeps growing, equipment longevity becomes more important.
Steel rolls do an excellent job with legumes, as you would expect. They also perform well with cool-season annuals, as most of them have thicker stems. All roll-type conditioners tend to underperform in our southern perennial grasses.
Deciding on the right conditioner, if any, deserves careful consideration when purchasing a mower-conditioner. In addition to the basic types listed here, there are also some after-market conditioners available. •
ADAM VERNER
The author is a managing partner in Elite Ag LLC, Leesburg, Ga. He also is active in the family farm in Rutledge.
Novel Endophyte Renovation Workshops
March 8, Virtual at 6 to 9 p.m. ET March 23, Springhill, Tenn. March 30, Keedysville, Md. Details: grasslandrenewal.org/ workshops/
Appalachian Grazing Conference
March 10 to 12, Morgantown, W.V. Details: www.wvagc.com
Silage for Beef Cattle Conference
March 17, Ithaca, Neb. Details: bit.ly/HFG-SFBC22
Northeast Pasture Consortium Annual Meeting
Central Plains Dairy Expo March 29 to 31, Sioux Falls, S.D. Details: centralplainsdairy.com
Coastal Plain Beef Cattle Field Day
Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference
April 11 to 13, Fort Wayne, Ind. Details: tristatedairy.org
Grassfed Exchange Conference
May 18 to 20, Fort Worth, Texas Details: grassfedexchange.com
Strong exports in 2021
Hay prices remain above historical levels as winter begins to wane. If cold weather holds on longer than normal, this will further erode hay inventories as we enter the 2022 production season.
The final tally on hay exports during 2021 was extremely positive with several records being set. Once again, over 4 million metric tons of all hay types were exported last year, which bolsters hay prices and demand, especially in the West.
The prices below are primarily from USDA hay market reports as of the beginning of mid-February. Prices are FOB barn/stack unless otherwise noted. •
For weekly updated hay prices, go to “USDA Hay Prices” at hayandforage.com
Supreme-quality alfalfa Price $/ton Nebraska (western) California (central SJV) 332 (d) Oklahoma (central)-lrb
California (southeast) 285-300 Oklahoma (southwest) 210 170 (d) 150 (d)
Colorado (northeast) Idaho (south central) Iowa (Rock Valley) Kansas (north central) 248-280 Oregon (Lake County) 285 Pennsylvania (southeast) 213-220 South Dakota 225 Texas (west)
Kansas (northwest) Kansas (southeast) Minnesota (Sauk Centre) Missouri Nebraska (western) Oklahoma (northeast) Oklahoma (northwest) South Dakota 200-255 Wisconsin (Lancaster) 200-230 Wyoming (western) 225-270 Fair-quality hay 200-250 Colorado (San Luis Valley) 250 Iowa (Rock Valley)-lrb 140 Kansas (north central) 190 (d) Kansas (south central)-lrb 250 Minnesota (Sauk Centre)
Texas (Panhandle) Texas (west)-ssb
280-300(d) Minnesota (Pipestone)-lrb 300-315 Missouri-lrb Premium-quality alfalfa Price $/ton Montana California (northern SJV) 330 Nebraska (central)-lrb
California (southeast)-ssb 280-310 Oklahoma (northwest)-lrb 260 (o) 145-240 200 235-260(d) 100-155 200-250
Price $/ton
210 105-120 120 (d) 135 210-230 150-165 100-125 285 125 148
Colorado (southeast) Idaho (southeast) Iowa (Rock Valley)-lrb Kansas (northwest) Kansas (southwest) Minnesota (Sauk Centre) Minnesota (Pipestone)-ssb Missouri 240-260 Pennsylvania (southeast) 250 South Dakota (Corsica)-lrb 175-188 Texas (Panhandle)-lrb 235 (d) Washington 235-250 Wisconsin (Lancaster)-lrb 210-240 Bermudagrass hay 250 Alabama-Premium lrb 160-200 Alabama-Good lrb
135-160 135-140 175 (d) 230-250 70-85
Price $/ton
133 80
Montana Montana-lrb Oklahoma (northeast)-lrb Oklahoma (western)-lrb Oregon (Crook-Wasco)-ssb Oregon (Lake County) Pennsylvania (southeast) South Dakota (Corsica) 310-350 California (southeast)-Premium ssb 300 Oklahoma (southeast)-Premium lrb 215 (d) Texas (central)-Good/Prem lrb 185 Texas (southern)-Fair/Good ssb 300-350 Bromegrass hay 250 Kansas (south central)-lrb 220-270 Kansas (southeast)-Good 190 Nebraska-Good lrb
Texas (Panhandle) Washington 250-260(d) Orchardgrass hay 265-275(d) Idaho (south central)-Fair/Good
Wisconsin (Lancaster) 180 Oregon (Crook-Wasco)-Premium ssb
Wyoming (western)-ssb
240-260 Pennsylvania (southeast)-Premium ssb Good-quality alfalfa Price $/ton Pennsylvania (southeast)-Good California (central SJV) 315-330(d) Timothy hay
California (southeast)-ssb 265 Montana-Premium ssb
Colorado (southeast) Idaho (south central) Iowa (Rock Valley) Iowa (Rock Valley)-lrb Kansas (northwest) Kansas (southeast) Minnesota (Sauk Centre) Minnesota (Pipestone)-lrb Missouri-lrb Montana Nebraska (eastern)-lrb 200-240 Pennsylvania (southeast)-Good 300 Oat hay 178 California (northern SJV)-Good ssb 150-175 Oklahoma (northwest)-Premium lrb 185-200 Straw 160-180 Iowa 210-230 Iowa (Rock Valley)-lrb 170-185 Kansas 120-160 Minnesota (Sauk Centre) 285-310 Pennsylvania (southeast) 185 (d) South Dakota (Corsica)-lrb 285 145 (d) 120-160 235-265
Price $/ton
70-105 150 (d) 135
Price $/ton
350 (d) 325-400 285-375 120-240
Price $/ton
360 110-210 (d)
Price $/ton
280 130 (d)
Price $/ton
135 (d) 108-123 60-100 95-125 80-125 80-90
PLANT YOUR LEGACY WITH W-L ALFALFAS.
Grow your confi dence season after season with our proven alfalfa seed. W-L Alfalfas® has increased yields and improved forage quality for more than half a century. Our lineup of conventional, Roundup Ready® and HarvXtra® Alfalfa with Roundup Ready Technology can make a di erence in your fi elds. wlalfalfas.com
© 2022 Forage Genetics International. W-L Alfalfas and HarvXtra® are registered trademarks of Forage Genetics International, LLC. Roundup Ready® is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC, used under license by Forage Genetics International, LLC.
sheet with entries for each pasture and consider coding your map. Forecast what your pastures can produce and how many cattle they can handle without using as much hay or substitute feeding to get through the winter.
Grazeable acres: Determine the number of grazeable acres that are in the areas where the selected grazing animal could forage. To do this, use one of the aerial photo websites (preferably Google Earth or Daft Logic) or a phone app to outline these areas. If the grazing animals are cattle, outline the acres not dominated by trees, brush, water, or other nongrazable cover. If goats are used, the entire property minus water and infrastructure is fair game. Once all the areas are drawn, total them for the grazeable acres. Be conservative because overestimating the number of grazeable acres will lead to properties being overgrazed.
Stocking rate: Proper stocking rate is the most important management decision, no matter your goals. Defined as the total number of animals that can use the whole grazeable area for the entire grazing period, typically estimated per year, it impacts not only livestock production but every aspect of the operation — soil and plant health, wildlife, economics, and so forth. Each year is different, so forage production varies considerably from year to year. Therefore, proper stocking rate varies annually and should be adjusted according to forage production, unless very conservatively stocked.
In working with ranchers who are using continuous grazing, we observe there’s a great tendency to stock more livestock than their pastures can handle without feeding hay or doing a lot of substitute feeding. It’s not unusual to be aggressive with stocking rates and less proactive in adjusting rates relative to forage growing conditions.
When overstocking results in overgrazing, the whole system suffers. Overgrazing is a significant cause of poor forage and livestock production, wildlife habitat loss, low rainfall infiltration, soil erosion, weed problems, and lower profitability on millions of acres across the country. It’s simply not conducive to successful regenerative grazing.
Setting the right stocking rate, and adapting it as conditions change, provides flexibility in wildlife habitat management, prescribed fire implementation, preparation for drought or other adverse weather conditions, and allows room for a temporary boost in livestock numbers during years of better-than-average growing conditions. For regenerative grazing, it also allows for the intentional feeding for other organisms near the surface and in the soil, which contributes to their rebuilding.
As you move to higher stocking densities that are often used in regenerative grazing, you’ll likely need more temporary fencing and possibly additional water sources to optimize grazing performance results. •
IN FUTURE ISSUES:
Part 2: Moving cattle, resting grass, and AMPing up Part 3: When to consider and use high stock density grazing
4 Safe practices 4 Educational Resources
silagesafety.org
SAFETY FOUNDATION SEND EVERYONE HOME SAFE
