Morning or evening pasture moves?

Mike Rankin

HOPEFULLY, most of our Hay & Forage Grower readers in the West are aware of the nutritional advantages of cutting hay in the afternoon rather than in the early morning hours. Over the nighttime hours, plants metabolize the sugars formed during photosynthesis during the previous afternoon. The measurable digestible energy of a standing hay crop will peak in the afternoon and be lowest in the morning hours.

I think I first read about this research at least 40 years ago. Numerous studies have shown that animals can differentiate between high energy hay cut in the afternoon and low energy hay cut in the morning. Lactation trials have clearly shown a boost in milk production for cows being fed afternoon cut hay. This basic relationship between timing of hay harvest and improved individual animal performance is indisputable.

Years of experience on a mowing machine also taught me hay mows easier in the afternoon than in the morning. Hay cures more quickly when mown dry compared to being mown wet. We can mow a week’s worth of hay down in a matter of a few hours in the afternoon. It’s going to take a grazing animal all week to make that harvest.

Still open for debate

What is open to conversation is whether moving livestock to fresh pasture in the afternoon is advantageous over moving them to a fresh paddock first thing in the morning. It has long been known that cattle do the majority of their day’s grazing within three to four hours of daylight beginning. Research over the years suggests somewhere between 50% to over 70% of daily grazing consumption occurs in this brief morning window of time. In other words, most of their daily intake occurs before the daily accumulation of photosynthetic sugars.

A grass-based dairy is about the only enterprise that has the capacity to measure immediate production response to some change in grazing practice. Most dairies move twice daily following each milking event. One of those events will most likely be in low forage-energy hours and one may occur during higher energy hours. Over the course of 24 hours, milk yield has not been consistently tied to timing of the move. Volume of the allocation and increase in total intake seem to be the driving factors for milk production.

I have a separate motivation for moving livestock first thing in the morning that is completely independent of energy content of the forage. It is simply a question of animal contentment. We have been doing daily rotation as our normal daily grazing management since 1988. I know that makes me sound like an old stick-in-the-mud who doesn’t change for anything, but there is also the old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Sometimes we have had water available in every paddock so that the stock never need to cross back over previously grazed area. That is the ideal situation in my view. Other times we have had to go three to five days across a previously grazed area to access a stationary watering point.

In these larger paddocks where the stock are returning to a tank, by moving the animals first thing in the morning, I can observe them throughout the day. If by late afternoon 80% of the cattle are still on the strip I gave them in the morning, they are telling me that it’s still the best bite of feed in the paddock. If, however, 30% or more are scattered back over the previously grazed area, they are telling me I did not give them enough feed that morning. I can either give them an additional strip at that time or plan to offer a larger allocation the next morning.

The animal’s grazing day is a sequential event, unlike a mowing machine. I can make adjustments in feed allocation as necessary based on observation through the day as long as I have left the animal’s day intact. •

Grazing animals consume a majority of their forage intake in the early morning hours.

JIM GERRISH

The author is a rancher, author, speaker, and consultant with over 40 years of experience in grazing management research, outreach, and practice. He has lived and grazed livestock in hot, humid Missouri and cold, dry Idaho.

REMOISTURIZING ALFALFA WINDROWS MAY PAY

by Earl Creech and Ryan Larsen

PERHAPS no other issue garners more attention from alfalfa growers than the moisture level of the crop in the windrow. Having the correct moisture in alfalfa at the time of baling is critical for maximizing economic return. Alfalfa baled too wet can be subject to spoilage, discoloration, and, in extreme cases, combustion. When baled too dry, shattered leaves, brittle stems, and dust are undesirable. Regardless of whether the hay is to be used to feed livestock on the farm or sold, it is worthless if baled outside of the proper moisture window.

Dew has long been relied on to provide needed moisture to the windrow for reducing leaf and stem shatter during baling. The challenge with natural dew is that it can be unpredictable, both in terms of timing and amount. As a result, producers typically work their baling schedules around Mother Nature and often experience a wide range of windrow moisture levels over the course of a baling event.

To work around the need for dew, attempts have been made over the years to develop systems that artificially introduce moisture to the windrow. Early attempts consisted of a producer loading a sprayer with water and applying it over the top of the windrow. More recently, specialized equipment that injects moisture into the windrow during the baling process has been developed. The claim of manufacturers is that these systems widen the window of time for baling to occur, thus allowing a single baler to cover more acres per day and also produce bales at a consistent moisture level.

There has been much interest in these technologies among hay growers in recent years, but little to no university data on how these systems compare. Over the past two years, Utah State University has studied the impacts of moisturization technologies to determine their effects on yield, quality, and economic return.

What we did

Studies were conducted during second and third cuttings in 2020 and second cutting in 2021 on a large, pivot-irrigated farm near Milford, Utah. For the experiment, alfalfa was windrowed and raked according to normal practice on the farm. Treatments included four different remoisturizing methods: 1. Steamer (Staheli West Dew Point) 2. Treat and bale (Harvest Tec Dew Simulator) 3. Treat and wait (Harvest Tec Dew Simulator) 4. No treatment (dry)

Treat and bale consisted of baling approximately five seconds after treating with the Dew Simulator. Treat and wait consisted of baling approximately 10 minutes after treating.

Baling for all three harvests occurred between the hours of 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. with a 3x4 baler operated at 45 to 50 flakes per bale at an average speed of 8 miles per hour. The four treatments were replicated and randomly assigned to windrows within two pivot spans.

EARL CREECH

Creech (pictured) is an extension forage specialist with Utah State University. Larsen is an extension agricultural economist with Utah State University.

What we found

Bale moisture and weight: In all cuttings, moisture was higher in treated bales (12.3% moisture on average) than those baled dry (9.2% moisture). Differences in moisture between those windrows that received the moisture treatments were rare and inconsistent. As expected, the weights of moisture-treated bales (1,448 pounds per bale) were generally higher than those baled dry (1,347 pounds). Bales from the steamer were often, but not always, heavier (1,483 pounds) than those produced using the Dew Simulator (1,431 pounds on average).

Yield: When not adjusted for moisture, two of the cuttings in the experiment recorded higher yields from moisture treatments on a per acre basis compared to those baled dry (0.16 ton per acre per cutting, on average), while the third cutting had no effect on yield. No statistical yield differences were detected between the steamer or the Dew Simulator in any of the cuttings.

When adjusted for moisture and expressed on a dry matter basis, only one of the three cuttings had statistical yield differences between treatments. The 2021 cutting resulted in a dry matter yield gain from 1.11 tons per acre baled dry to an average of 1.34 tons per acre with the moisture treatment.

The lack of yield difference in two of the three cuttings was surprising based on the potential dry matter loss due to leaf and stem shatter by baling alfalfa at around 9% moisture. More study is needed to understand why the dry matter yield of alfalfa baled dry was not consistently lower than those baled with moisture.

Quality: Adding moisture did not negatively affect quality. It also did not improve quality. Although numerically, the dry bales trended toward lower quality, having lower crude protein and relative feed value with higher neutral detergent fiber, but the differences were not statistically significant. The fact that the lack of moisture during baling did not adversely impact forage quality is surprising. This suggests that, although shattered and unattached, the leaves in the dry bales were mostly captured during the baling and core sampling process.

Storage in the stack: Bales produced in 2021 were re-evaluated after three months of storage in a stack to determine if differences in bale characteristics would persist. After storage, bale moisture content declined 1.2 to 1.5 percentage units across all treatments, and bale weight dropped by about 30 pounds. Each of the forage quality measures also trended a little worse. Statistically, no new treatment differences emerged after storage.

Visual appearance: After stack storage, two hay brokers evaluated the visual appearance of the bales to provide an assessment of how those produced using moisturizing systems may influence marketing. The brokers did not know which treatment was applied to any of the bales to avoid any potential bias.

Moisture-treated bales using different technologies did not differ from each other and were always more appealing to buyers than those baled dry. Bales produced with both the Dew Point and Dew Simulator, having the leaves intact and attached, had a much better appearance than the dry bales with shattered leaves and stems. In terms of market value, the moisture-treated bales were priced at $280 to 285 per ton for the 2021 season, while the dry bales had a value of $270 per ton.

Earl Creech

Without knowing treatments, hay brokers assessed the market value of the hay.

A look at the dollars

Partial budgeting is a decision tool to help analyze the financial impacts of changes to an operation. Partial bud-

continued on following page >>>

Table 1. Partial budget categories

Added income:

Increased bale weights from incorporating steam technology

Steamer: Additional 258 pounds per acre Steamer: Annual ownership cost + Operating cost = Total cost

Dew Simulator: Additional 217 pounds per acre Dew Simulator: Annual ownership cost + Operating cost = Total cost

Additional income = Additional pounds per acre times hay price

Added costs:

Increased costs are associated with including the steam technology

Table 2. Economic analysis summary table

Category

Annualized cost of ownership

Steamer

$44,170.59

Total operating cost $12,600.00

Total baling cost $39,040.00

Total cost $56,770.59

Benefits per acre

Steamer costs per acre $25.78

$14.19

Dew stimulator

$14,608.49

$7,066.67

$39,040.00

$21,675.15

$21.70

$5.42

geting only includes resources that will change, such as adding remoisturizing technology in an alfalfa operation. The cost of baling will remain fixed and the financial impact of including remoisturizing technology will be analyzed.

The four key components to a partial budget are increased income, reduction or elimination of costs, additional costs, and reduction or elimination of income. The net impact will be the positive changes minus the negative changes. Table 1 helps to identify these changes.

Annual ownership cost is estimated by utilizing the capital recovery method. The capital recovery method uses the purchase price, salvage value, useful life, and a discount rate to estimate the annual ownership cost. The discount rate represents the opportunity cost of capital and accounts for owning the piece of equipment over multiple future periods. The operating cost is estimated by utilizing the fuel used per hour, labor cost, and repair costs on an annual basis. Using the information from Table 2, we can analyze the net financial impact assuming 1,000 acres of alfalfa, a fuel price of $2.50 per gallon, and an alfalfa price of $200 per ton.

These numbers are based on one certain scenario, so caution must be used when drawing specific conclusions from them. The steamer has a higher ownership cost, which drives the cost per acre up. The financial benefits of utilizing the steamer improve as the number of acres increases.

Conversely, the same can be said for utilizing the Dew Simulator. The lower ownership costs of the Dew Simulator make it more economical with fewer acres compared to the steamer. These results also assume that both steam technologies are utilized over 100% of the acres. Lowering the usage will impact the results for both technologies. A producer should utilize the partial budgeting methodology to analyze the results for their specific operation. •

Using the Dew Simulator (pictured) or Dew Point resulted in bales having fewer shattered leaves and stems.

Bryant Henningfeld

WE LEAD. OTHERS FOLLOW.

5 MODELS RANGING FROM 12 TO 40-FEET.

2112 & 2114

NEW 2340 2330 & 2334

No matter the size of your operation, there is an Oxbo designed to fit your needs.

Accepting 2022 orders now.

See your local dealer TODAY! OXBO.COM 800.628.6196

It takes the right equipment

MINING for precious metals or diamonds requires tried and true equipment and techniques. Simply walking around aimlessly with a metal detector or sifting the dirt won’t often prove successful. Instead, miners use experience and science-backed techniques and equipment for uncovering precious materials.

Determining the mineral content in forages is very similar. The right equipment and techniques must be used in a forage and feed analysis laboratory to reliably determine the true mineral content.

Grasses and legumes are adept at absorbing minerals from the soil, assuming the growing environment and soil contains both adequate moisture and plant-available minerals in the root zone. For multi-cut forages like alfalfa, sorghum, or grass, we take advantage of this biological phenomena for nutrient management and planning purposes.

Forage mineral content varies substantially. As an example, Figure 1 details the concentrations of calcium and potassium for hay and haylage crops over the past five years in samples analyzed by Rock River Laboratory. The range in forage content with these minerals spans from near zero to almost 1% of dry matter. If these forage minerals are to provide value in dairy and beef diets, their content must be accounted for accurately. Macro- and trace minerals in forages are measured in concentrations of parts per hundred to parts per million (ppm). Parts per hundred is another way to express the percent of dry matter.

Most nutritionists are concerned with the macro-mineral concentrations for beef nutrition and dry cow, prefresh, or lactating dairy cattle diet formulation and mineral balancing purposes. The trace mineral content in forages is less understood but warrants further exploration and discussion in the future.

Go wet or go home

Coming back to macro-mineral measures, accurately determining forage mineral concentration is no simple task. Routine forage analysis is conducted using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) technology. This technology is utilized in many different industries, including the pharmaceutical and other industries that rely upon organic compound measurements in samples. In agriculture, John Shenk Sr. adapted this technology and demonstrated that NIRS can accurately and reliably measure organic compounds like protein, fiber, and starch.

While NIRS technology is fantastic for routine, rapid, and low-cost nutrient analyses, the technology comes with limits. Inorganic compounds such as minerals and metals are not directly measured by NIRS. Instead, these compounds are more reliably measured with wet chemistry techniques and equipment. This is just like the case for needing the right techniques and equipment to mine for gold or silver.

Detecting minerals in forages requires equipment and methods that directly identify the individual minerals. There are numerous wet chemistry techniques to separate and identify forage minerals, ranging from an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) technique to an X-ray instrument-based approach. In both cases, the minerals are assessed directly, and the resulting measures are robust.

In past years, these instruments and techniques required several additional days for laboratory technicians to complete the analyses. However, thanks to technology and technique advancements, the turnaround time has dramatically improved to the point that wet chemistry mineral measures can be made in nearly the same amount of time as the routine and rapid NIRS-based measures.

Commercial forage analysis laboratories have developed NIRS-based models to predict the mineral content. These measures are helpful to gain a general understanding of the forage mineral concentration; however, they are merely directional in terms of accuracy, much like a compass points you in a general direction. Wet chemistry easily gives us the most precise and accurate answer.

I recommend NIRS mineral measures for day-to-day monitoring and to identify substantial changes. Use wet chemistry mineral measures with forages prior to making supplementation decisions in your dairy or beef diets to avoid a costly mistake.

In precious mineral or metal mining, miners use advanced techniques and technology to their advantage to efficiently and more accurately find valuable compounds. Determining forage mineral concentration for diet balancing purposes can be thought of in the same way. The right instruments and technology should be applied at the forage laboratory to get the right answer and efficiently build your ration’s mineral supplementation around those minerals contributed by your forages. •

Figure 1: Calcium and potassium content in hay and haylage crops analyzed by wet chemistry

CA K

Frequency

Small grain silage

Haylage

Hay

0.0 0.4 0.8

Rock River Laboratory from 2017 to 2020 Small grain silage

Haylage

Hay

0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2

JOHN GOESER

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

Mike Rankin

Begin with a new mindset and plan

by Hugh Aljoe and Steve Smith

IN THIS three-part series, we’ll be discussing specific steps you can take to use regenerative grazing to achieve certain goals. Regenerative grazing is a set of practices, guided by ecological principles, that uses the benefits of grazing livestock to rebuild soil health and can help diversify the enterprises and income a farm or ranch produces.

As we make the transition to regenerative grazing on our ranches at Noble Research Institute and talk to producers who have switched their thinking and tactics from conventional to regenerative, the word “mindset” comes up as the biggest first step. It’s a mindset that looks at the operation as a whole system — made up of the soil, water, air, plants, animals, and themselves — and makes decisions for the whole, not just one part of the enterprise. It is a “holistic” mindset.

It means managing for life in the soil as well as above it by keeping the ground covered with a diversity of plants and animals; minimizing disturbances, such as tillage; and keeping living roots in the ground to feed and exchange nutrients with soil microbes. It may mean reducing the size of a herd to better match the forage production (carrying capacity) of the available grazing area and allowing the land to heal. It may also mean cutting back on inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides for the good of insects, pollinators, soil microbes, and plant diversity.

A regenerative mindset means you must be flexible, adaptive, eager to learn new things, willing to ask for help, and not afraid to fail by embracing trial-and-error. It helps to be curious, observant, humble, and most of all, open and willing to change. Spend time with other producers who practice regenerative ranching to gain ideas and see what your success can look like.

Lastly, it’s important to start small in an easy-to-manage area, using your existing pastures and grouping your cattle into a single herd (as few as can be managed) to facilitate a good grazing rotation. This greatly enhances the odds of success when adopting regenerative practices for the first time.

Have a plan

A regenerative grazing management plan helps you map your existing resources, determine potential stocking rates, and identify future infrastructure needs. A comprehensive plan includes: 1. Goals 2. Maps (aerial and soil) 3. Existing infrastructure (fences, corrals, pond, and so forth) 4. Existing forage types and production 5. Grazeable acres 6. Potential stocking rates 7. Any additional equipment or infrastructure needs

Establish goals: Think about why you want to try regenerative grazing and discuss what you want to achieve with all involved parties in your operation. Common grazing goals include improving soil and animal health, increasing plant cover and diversity, reducing brush encroachment, improving livestock production, and enhancing profitability.

In our August 2021 Hay & Forage Grower article, “Start with these soil health principles,” we discussed the six soil health principles, beginning with “Know your context.” As we set goals to restore degraded land, it’s valuable to look back at what your land was like in presettlement days so you know how much potential it has.

Develop and write down your goals to guide your steps and inform what you will measure and record to track your progress. You’ll likely be tracking many new metrics.

Map the big picture: Aerial maps help to view your property as a whole, and can be retrieved online from websites such as Google Maps, Google Earth, or Daft Logic, as well as from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil maps help determine the different soil types and estimate the forage productivity of an area. Soil differences typically explain why some areas of a property are more productive than others. The USDA Web Soil Survey is an excellent source for soil maps.

Infrastructure in place: Once you have developed maps for your property, draw in any existing infrastructure such as fences, corrals, water sources (pond and plumbed), roads, pastures, forage types, and structures. Knowing these locations helps identify areas that may need infrastructure development to improve the use of the entire property to meet your regenerative grazing goals. It will also guide pasture and eventually paddock plans if you move into full adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) and/or high stock density grazing.

Forage inventory: Take stock of your own history of forage production and the types and health of your soil. Inventory the species of forages in your pastures and know the growing seasons of each species to help develop your grazing plan and stocking rates. Make a spread-

HUGH ALJOE

Hugh Aljoe (pictured) is the director of producer relations at Noble Research Institute (NRI), Ardmore, Okla. Steve Smith is a wildlife and fisheries consultant at NRI.

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

Rozol Rockin’ Rebate

Liphatech.com/Rozol50

Decades of killer hits like...

• Rozol Ground Squirrel Bait* • Rozol Prairie Dog Bait* • Rozol Burrow Builder* • Rozol Pocket Gopher Bait • Rozol Vole Bait* • Rozol Pellets

Our fanbase uses Rozol for rodent challenges because we’ve been listening and collaborating with them for 50 years. We help clean up farms and ranches with the most knowledgeable agricultural rodent control team in the industry and a catalogue of products that are as forward-thinking today as when they fi rst hit the scene. Hard-hitting classics endure when you get it right the fi rst time.

SOUTH DAKOTA FARM FINDS A SMALL BALE NICHE

by Sydney Meyer

REALIZING a need for small square bales caused Curtis McGuigan to shift gears on more than just his tractor, and as a result, business is booming. McGuigan was making big square bales and shipping them to Texas until he decided to try something new and started making small square bales that he packaged in bundles of 21.

Now he is selling most of the hay bundles in his community as fast as he can make them.

McGuigan is the fifth generation working on his family’s farm located just outside of Spearfish, S.D., where he and his dad, Mike, operate around 2,000 acres of owned and leased land. About half of the land is hay ground where they grow a mix of alfalfa, orchardgrass, and timothy that is made into small square bales. The remaining acres are rented out as pasture.

Hay demand boomed

The farm was homesteaded in 1909 and the family milked dairy cattle until selling the herd in 2001. McGuigan and his dad then raised beef cattle for several years until converting to hay production in 2012.

“In 2011, I bought a big square baler because I foresaw a high demand for hay in Texas due to the drought,” McGuigan said. “I shipped a lot of alfalfa to Texas that year. Then we decided to sell the beef herd the next year and went strictly into hay production because the demand for hay really took off.”

After sending his hay to Texas for several years, he decided it was time to try something new. In 2016, he purchased a Massey Ferguson 1840 small square baler and a Bale Baron bundler. He started making 50 to 60-pound alfalfa small square bales and packaging them in bundles of 21 that he shipped to racehorse owners in Kentucky. Within the last couple years, the demand for small square bales in his own community grew drastically, and he started selling more and more bundles locally as well.

“Now, the local demand for our hay is so high that we sell most of it around here rather than shipping it across the country,” McGuigan said. “When I have the supply, I will send hay to Kentucky, Texas, and Florida, but the local demand has been growing so much that I just don’t typically have enough to send to other states.”

Shift with the market

has become a profitable enterprise. He has found success using a business Facebook page to market his hay and grow a strong customer base. Most of the hay is sold to local hobby farmers and horse owners who get one or two bundles about every other week.

“When I brought home the bundler, I think many of our neighbors thought I was crazy, but I like to keep people laughing at me because I’m always

Mike and Curtis McGuigan make small square bales that are mostly sold to local hobby farmers. They bundle and sell their hay in Bale Baron packages of 21.

The McGuigan family started the McGuigan Farm Experience last spring to educate local consumers on agricultural production. The experiences range from farm tours to campfire talks.

trying something new and doing something different than everyone else,” McGuigan said. “Being willing to adapt and try new things has really paid off for us.”

According to McGuigan, his local customers prefer grass hay over alfalfa. As a result, he is in the process of transitioning fields to grass by interseeding timothy and orchardgrass into existing alfalfa stands. The goal is to extend the productive stand life by interseeding the grass. Prior to beginning this transition, the fields were on a six-year rotation with corn or wheat.

About 300 hay acres are irrigated using both a pivot and pipe irrigation. Due to drought last year, he only harvested hay from his irrigated acres, which cut his normal annual production by about 25%. Typically, he gets four cuttings from his hayfields. The first cutting is made in the first week of June, and the latest the hay is cut in the fall is the first week of September. A neighbor cuts the hay for him, but McGuigan does the raking, baling, and bundling.

His ideal baling time is between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. “I strive to bale at 16% moisture,” McGuigan said. “I check the stems, and when those feel right, I have several moisture probes that I use to check the bales.”

He sends in samples of the hay to be tested and aims for a relative feed value (RFV) of 180 on the second and third cuttings. If the hay becomes too bleached or is too dry, he will make it into big square and round bales and sell them in the beef cattle market.

Fertilizer is applied in the spring, and McGuigan takes soil samples each fall to determine what is needed the following year. The primary pest issue is alfalfa weevil, so he makes the first cutting early in June with the goal of getting the forage off before damage becomes too severe. If needed, he sprays to control any pest or weed pressure.

McGuigan converted his family’s old dairy barn to hay storage when he started making small square bales. “The shed will hold about 1,000 bundles, and I try to fill it each year,” McGuigan said. “Having shed space for storing the bales is key to the success of our operation.”

One of his biggest challenges is making hay that his customers want. “Everyone’s opinion on good hay is different,” McGuigan said. “Growing up in the dairy business and making hay for ourselves, I always knew the quality of our hay based off the test results. The tests tell you the right answer about quality. However, for our customers to buy our hay, it also needs to be visually appealing.”

Farm campfires and more

The family recently added a new enterprise to their operation that is focused on helping consumers learn more about agriculture. This spring, the family started an educational agricultural experience on the farm, called the McGuigan Farm Experience.

“There are a lot of people who are now several generations removed from the farm, so we are trying to give people a first-hand look at where their food comes from,” McGuigan said.

They kicked off the new venture by hosting four campfires on their farm throughout the summer, which included educational talks by local producers. The campfire talks covered beekeeping, the farm-to-table process, the irrigation system in the valley, and canning and preserving food. They also have a farmyard with a variety of animals for visitors to interact with.

Farm tours are another experience they offer. People ride around the farm on a bus and get a firsthand look at what is being done in the field, whether it is irrigating, cutting, baling, or some other activity. They also offer the opportunity for people to spend the day working alongside the farm team to get a hands-on experience of what’s involved in making hay.

McGuigan continues to demonstrate that being willing to change and adapt to markets is a characteristic needed for long-term farming survival. When others were trading in their small square balers for larger package units, the McGuigans saw an opportunity to do the opposite. That decision has paid them bundles of dividends. •

SYDNEY MEYER

The author is a freelance writer who lives in Brookings, S.D. She was raised on a cattle ranch near Spearfish, S.D., and earned an agricultural communications degree from South Dakota State University.

PARTS AND SERVICE SUPPORT

Made in the USA 97 YEARS of unmatched performance, proven longevity and customer service. Call today to learn more!

Alfalfa-bermudagrass growers get new guide

Hay & Forage Grower is featuring results of farmer-funded research projects through the Alfalfa Checkoff, officially named the U.S. Alfalfa Farmer Research Initiative, administered by National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA).

PERTINENT information on establishing alfalfa into bermudagrass, as well as answers to common pest problems, can be found in a dashboard-sized publication recently available through Alfalfa Checkoff funding.

The 6- by 9-inch publication, Alfalfa Bermudagrass Management Guide, is the brainchild of Jennifer Tucker, University of Georgia animal scientist, and Kim Mullenix, Auburn University extension beef systems specialist. Southern farmers newly integrating alfalfa into their bermudagrass systems were continually asking for a detailed “getting started” reference guide, Tucker said. Only one-page factsheets and articles on the dual-crop system existed.

“We knew this alfalfa-bermudagrass mixture was going to work for several states, so we wrote a grant with the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance to create a national publication,” Tucker said. “We saw a hole and decided to try and fill it.”

In 2020, they hired Liliane Silva, then a post-doctorate scholar, to oversee the project. Silva is now Clemson University’s forage specialist, and South Carolina collaborates with Georgia and Alabama on current alfalfa-bermudagrass systems research.

The 26-page publication begins with a definition of what the authors call the “Bermudagrass Belt.” Within this belt, an estimated 28 million acres of the warm-season perennial grass grows coast-to-coast, encompassing the entire southern part of the U.S. as well as much of the transition zone. Although the grass, which is used for both hay and pasture, is persistent, dependable, widely adapted, and high yielding, interseeding alfalfa can improve a field’s forage production and quality. Nitrogen-fixing alfalfa plants also can keep fertilizer costs manageable.

Tucker and Mullenix developed research projects showing the benefits of the dual-crop system, and farmers have been slowly integrating the legume with bermudagrass. Most of the research and education has been in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, but momentum is also building in South Carolina and Mississippi.

“I have been here the last six to seven years and am now seeing more of an increase in adoption,” Tucker said. “More people are watching the work and saying, ‘Now I am ready to do it (integrate alfalfa).’ The other big factor coming into play are these astronomical

prices of fertilizer inputs,” Tucker said. “While you do have to put fertilizer into the system, you don’t have to add nitrogen. Fertilizer prices are frustrating, but knowing we have potential alternatives is pretty exciting for us.” The guide offers growers the basics in planting and establishing alfalfa-bermudagrass mixtures, as well as information on soil and fertility recommendations, common nutrient deficiencies, and insect, disease, and weed control. The last chapter discusses the economics involved in incorporating alfalfa into a bermudagrass system. “We hit the high points with this,” Tucker said. Its small size lets farmers keep the guide where they need it. “We also JENNIFER TUCKER Funding: $20,500 added a fold-out management calendar that has tips for each month. For

PROJECT RESULTS

Developed a publication and a quick-resource pocket calendar on the management and production of alfalfa-bermudagrass mixtures.

example, if I look at August, what do I need to be considering? Stockpiling? Scouting for diseases?”

The guide is being handed out at conferences, cattlemen’s meetings, and extension training sessions. An online version can be downloaded at www. alfalfa.org. Print copies can also be ordered from the website.

The researchers, using National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) funding, are now comparing different harvesting methods, including baleage, grazing, and what they call a dual-use cut-and-graze system. “We cut it a couple of times, we graze it a bit, let it rest, and then stockpile graze it because October, November, and December are when we need grazing acres,” Tucker explained.

A follow-up NIFA grant will give the researchers a total of five years to examine the system, collect data, and look at nutrient cycling within the soil as well as within animals. They hope to measure the impact of alfalfa on the system, Tucker said. “We’re trying to answer more in-depth what the practice is really offering from a whole-system perspective while also developing best management practices for it.” •

SUPPORT THE ALFALFA CHECKOFF!

Buy your seed from these facilitating marketers:

Alfalfa Partners - S&W Alforex Seeds America’s Alfalfa Channel CROPLAN DEKALB Dyna-Gro Fontanelle Hybrids Forage First FS Brand Alfalfa Gold Country Seed Hubner Seed Innvictis Seed Solutions Jung Seed Genetics Kruger Seeds Latham Hi-Tech Seeds Legacy Seeds Lewis Hybrids NEXGROW Pioneer Prairie Creek Seed Rea Hybrids Specialty Stewart Stone Seed W-L Alfalfas