Category: Forage

Management Tips to Harvest High Quality Winter Forage

Jeff Semler, Principal Agriculture Agent
University of Maryland Extension, Washington County

Article adapted with permission from information provided by Tom Kilcer, certified crop adviser in Kinderhook, N.Y.

In most of our region, the warm temperatures have kick started the winter forage. This crop can give you the earliest and the highest quality forage for your livestock. Now is the time to add nitrogen and sulfur, which can save you on protein supplements by allowing you to harvest high-protein forage.

Yield potential was set last fall, depending on planting date and available nitrogen. These two factors generate the number of fall tillers that help set the yield potential for the following spring.

While planting date is the most important factor, there is still potential for economical yields so long as the stand came through winter.

1. Provide sulfur for more protein. Sulfur has long been an overlooked plant nutrient. Prior to the clean air act, our sulfur came in our rain. Sulfur is critical for protein formation and should be included with any nitrogen application to winter forage. For example, adding extra nitrogen — 115 pounds — without sulfur only provided 12% crude protein. Adding a lesser amount of nitrogen with sulfur provided 17% crude protein. For a field that did not get manure last fall (a major on-farm sulfur source) an effective ratio is roughly 1 pound of sulfur for every 10 pounds of nitrogen. This is good for all cool-season grasses in addition to winter forage grains, such as triticale.Sulfur is also critical for corn and especially sorghum, which can produce much higher protein in the forage.

2. Increase N application. Research has shown that even if you immediately incorporated manure the previous fall before planting, an application of spring nitrogen is still needed.

In one study, spring fertilizer application didn’t increase the spring yield of triticale on manured ground but it did raise the crude protein from 9% to over 19%, which can potentially save money on purchased protein.

Many farms apply between 75 and 100 pounds of nitrogen an acre in spring. Even if you applied manure prior to planting in the fall, it is suggested increase this to 125 pounds an acre to boost forage protein and save on purchased protein. Remember, a 3-ton dry matter yield at flag leaf stage will remove 192 pounds of nitrogen at 20% crude protein. What is not used by the winter forage will still be used by the following crop.

One caution, don’t try this higher rate on rye. Rye has limited tillering and produces a tall but thinner stand. It is very prone to lodging when more than 50 pounds of nitrogen an acre are applied.

Triticale is only two-thirds the height of rye and is resistant to lodging. Several university trials have found that triticale yields 35% higher than rye because of the higher tiller density.

3. Add an antivolatilization agent. It is highly recommended to add an antivolatilization agent in the spring. This will inhibit the urease enzyme from splitting the urea into ammonia that could be lost. Trials have found that urea loss in fields treated with an antivolatilization agent were 63% less than in fields that were untreated. The antivolatilization compound increases the chance of full return on your fertilizer investment.

4. Know when to harvest. For those new to growing winter forage, it is ideal to harvest at the flag leaf stage (stage 9) for optimum quality. Stage 8 does not have higher quality than stage 9, and you can get a substantial yield drag from harvesting too soon.

If temperatures are warmer than normal, push to harvest the forage at the flag leaf stage. Conversely, if it is at stage 8 and there is a week of rain forecasted, get it cut so you have quality forage.

 

UME Forage Needs Assessment Survey

University of Maryland Extension (UME) is conducting a forage/pasture needs assessment. We want to hear from you, the producer, about challenges and resources you’d like to see generated from UME regarding forages.

Please follow this link to complete the survey and please feel free to forward to anyone you know that might be interested: https://ume.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8BUhhmnlVFvFEVL

Spring Weed Control for Pasture and Hayfields

Dr. Amanda Grev, Pasture & Forage Specialist
University of Maryland Extension

As things are greening up this spring, you may notice a few not-so-friendly plants popping up around your fields, especially given the milder weather this past winter. If you haven’t already done so, now is the time to scout your pastures and hayfields in search of winter annual and biennial weeds. When it comes to weed control, timing of herbicide application is critical and it is important to spray when weeds are most susceptible to achieve maximum effectiveness.

Winter annuals typically germinate in the fall, overwinter, and complete their reproductive cycle in the spring or early summer. Common winter annual species include chickweed, purple deadnettle, field pennycress, henbit, horseweed/marestail, shepherd’s purse, and the mustard species.  Annuals are best controlled during the seedling and early vegetative stage when they are young and actively growing. Herbicide applications will be more effective if made at this stage while they are still vegetative and more susceptible and will prevent them from flowering and producing seed.  At this time of year, these winter annuals are growing rapidly and have already or will soon begin to flower and set seed. If the winter annuals in your fields have moved beyond this stage, an application may offer some control but you may also want to take note of those weedy areas now and target them later this year with a late fall application.

Biennials live for two growing seasons, with the first year consisting of only vegetative growth as a seedling and rosette and the second year consisting of vegetative growth and also reproductive growth in the form of an elongated flower stalk. Common biennial species include burdock, bull thistle, musk thistle, and wild carrot. These weeds are best controlled during the seedling and rosette stage, and should be treated now while they are smaller and more susceptible and before they begin to bolt.

There are a number of herbicides available for control of broadleaf weeds. Herbicide selection should be based on the type of forage and weed species present. The most common herbicides used for control of broadleaf weeds in grass hay or pasture are the plant growth regulator herbicides, which includes products containing 2,4-D, dicamba, triclopyr, aminopyralid, picloram, or a mix of these (see the table below for a list of common products). These products are safe if applied to grass forages at the labeled rates but can kill or injure desirable broadleaf forages (i.e. clover) in grass-legume mixed pastures.

If weedy annual grasses such as crabgrass, foxtail, panicum, and Japanese stiltgrass are problematic, pendimethalin (Prowl H2O) now has a supplemental label that allows for its use on established perennial pastures or hayfields grown for grazing, green chop, silage, or hay production. It may be applied to perennial grass stands or alfalfa-grass mixed stands. Prowl H2O may be applied as a single application in the early spring, or for more complete control it can be applied as a split application with the first application in early spring and the second application after first cutting. Keep in mind, this herbicide is a pre-emergent herbicide, meaning it will only control weeds if applied prior to germination. If soil temperatures in your area are already above 50°F it is likely that crabgrass and stiltgrass has already germinated, but a split application of Prowl H2O now and after first cutting can help control foxtail. There are currently no herbicides labeled to control emerged weedy grasses in grass stands or alfalfa/grass mixes.

Note that if forages were recently seeded and are not yet established many of these herbicides can cause severe crop injury. Most herbicide labels for cool-season perennial grasses state that the grasses should be well established with at least 4-5 inches of growth, although some labels are more restrictive than this. In addition, some of these herbicides have haying or grazing restrictions following application. Always read and follow the guidelines listed on the product label for proper rates, timing, residual effects, and any grazing or harvest restrictions following application.

Lastly, remember that while herbicides can be a useful tool for weed management in pastures and hayfields, they are not the only option for weed control. A program that integrates several different control strategies is generally more successful than relying on a single method. For maximum results, include cultural practices such as selecting adapted species and maintaining optimum soil fertility, mechanical practices such as timely mowing or clipping to suppress weed seed production, and biological practices such as utilizing livestock for controlled grazing or browsing. And remember that weeds are opportunistic; the best method for weed control is competition with a healthy, dense stand of desirable forage species.

Product Active Ingredients Application Rate* General/Restricted Use
2,4-D 2,4-D 1 to 2 qt/A General
Banvel/Clarity dicamba 0.5 to 2 pt/A General
Crossbow 2,4-D + triclopyr 1 to 6 qt/A General
GrazonNext HL 2,4-D + aminopyralid 1.2 to 2.1 pt/A General
Grazon P+D 2,4-D + picloram 2 to 8 pt/A Restricted
Milestone aminopyralid 3 to 7 fl. oz/A General
PastureGard HL triclopyr + fluroxypyr 0.75 to 4 pt/A General
Prowl H2O pendimethalin 1.1 to 4.2 qt/A General
Remedy Ultra 4L triclopyr 0.5 to 4 pt/A General
Stinger clopyralid 0.7 to 1.3 pt/A General
Surmount picloram + fluroxypyr 3 to 6 pt/A Restricted
WeedMaster 2,4-D + dicamba 1 to 4 pt/A General

*For use in established grass pasture or hayfields

 

Can Aboveground Pest Pressure Disrupt Nitrogen Fixation in Alfalfa?

Morgan N. Thompson & William O. Lamp
University of Maryland, Department of Entomology

Nitrogen is a critical nutrient for forage crop growth and quality. Typically, farmers need to apply additional nitrogen fertilizers to meet the nitrogen demand of crops. Nitrogen-fixing crops, however, do not require nitrogen fertilizer inputs, providing their own nitrogen supply through symbiotic interactions with soil microbes (rhizobia). Rhizobia induce the formation of root nodules in nitrogen-fixing crops, predominantly legumes, and extract inert nitrogen gas from the atmosphere to produce ammonium. In exchange for ammonium, legumes provide the rhizobia carbohydrates to fuel the microbe’s metabolism. Alfalfa is a leguminous forage crop that relies on symbiotic interactions with rhizobia to obtain nitrogen. As a perennial crop, alfalfa stands can last from 3-7 years and typically require no nitrogen fertilizer inputs, making alfalfa a sustainable and high-quality option for forage growers.

Pest pressure can decrease the economic viability of an alfalfa harvest. One particularly devastating pest of alfalfa in Maryland is the potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae). Potato leafhoppers migrate northward from the southern United States every spring, making the timing of management in the northeast very difficult. Additionally, potato leafhoppers can utilize many alternative host plants, some of which are also of agroeconomic value, such as soybeans and several other fruit and vegetable crops, and leafhoppers can reproduce multiple times during the growing season. To protect alfalfa from potato leafhopper damage (termed ‘hopperburn’), insecticides are often the only option for growers. As a perennial crop, serious pest pressure in one growing season could impact nitrogen fixation in subsequent growing seasons, further accelerating economic losses for growers.

Figure 1. Amount of fixed nitrogen in alfalfa stems and leaves. * represents significant differences between treatments. No Nitrate = No Nitrogen Fertilizer, Moderate Nitrate = Nitrogen Fertilizer Applied; E. fabae- = No Leafhopper Pressure, E. fabae+ = Leafhopper Pressure.

Therefore, in recent field and greenhouse experiments, we sought to determine the effect of potato leafhopper pest pressure on nitrogen fixation in alfalfa. We predicted pest pressure would negatively impact plant growth and carbohydrate production, resulting in reduced nitrogen fixation by rhizobia and uptake of fixed nitrogen by alfalfa. We also predicted losses in nitrogen content of alfalfa due to pest pressure could be offset by nitrogen fertilizer applications. To test our predictions in a field setting, we planted four combinations of small plots: 1) Fixing Cultivar + Nitrogen Fertilizer, 2) Non-Fixing Cultivar + Nitrogen Fertilizer, 3) Fixing Cultivar No Nitrogen Fertilizer, and 4) Non-Fixing Cultivar No Nitrogen Fertilizer. Fixing and non-fixing alfalfa cultivars were utilized to compare plants reliant on both nitrogen fixation and soil nitrogen with plants completely reliant on soil nitrogen. We split each plot in half, applying cages with leafhoppers to one side and cages without leafhoppers to the other. We analyzed the amount of fixed nitrogen in aboveground plant tissue. Results from the field experiment contradicted our predictions, showing nitrogen fertilizer did not increase aboveground nitrogen content of alfalfa under pest pressure. Nitrogen fertilizer (Moderate Nitrate) also decreased aboveground fixed nitrogen content in plants with and without pest pressure (Fig. 1). Unfertilized plants (No Nitrate), in contrast, showed significantly increased amounts of fixed nitrogen content when under pest pressure (Fig. 1). These results contradicted our predictions and suggest alfalfa interactions with rhizobia play a role in helping plants withstand pest damage.

We also examined leafhopper-alfalfa interactions in a greenhouse setting. Here, we analyzed the response of two different cultivars of alfalfa: leafhopper-susceptible (Pioneer 55V50) and leafhopper-resistant (Pioneer 55H94). Nitrogen fertilizer treatments were applied to both cultivars, as well as cages with or without leafhoppers. Results indicate that additional nitrogen fertilizer did not increase the percent nitrogen of plants under pest pressure, regardless of the cultivar (Table 1).

Overall, we conclude leafhopper pest pressure decreases total nitrogen content of alfalfa across all four cultivars tested in both field and greenhouse settings. Amending soils with additional nitrogen fertilizer did not offset losses to leafhopper pressure and we do not recommend this as a management strategy to growers. In our field experiment, however, we found evidence that leafhopper pressure enhances aboveground fixed nitrogen content of alfalfa grown in soils without additional nitrogen. Rhizobia may play an unexamined role in the response of alfalfa to leafhopper pressure. Broader implications of our results highlight how pest damage may increase nitrogen fixation, which may benefit farmers interested in utilizing nitrogen-fixing cover crops.

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to the Western Maryland Research and Education Center staff and greenhouse staff at the University of Maryland aiding in the execution of these experiments, as well as members of the Lamp Lab. This study was funded by Northeastern Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (Award Number GNE18-187-32231) and the Hatch Project MD-ENTM-1802.

Table 1. Systemic (shoots, crowns, roots) percent nitrogen content of susceptible and resistant alfalfa cultivars in the greenhouse. No Nitrogen Added = No Nitrogen Fertilizer, Nitrogen Added = Nitrogen Fertilizer Applied; Healthy = No Leafhopper Pressure, Injured = Leafhopper Pressure.

Stockpiling Pasture for Fall and Winter Grazing

Amanda Grev, Forage Specialist
University of Maryland Extension

It’s August now and whether or not we’re ready cooler temperatures are just around the corner and it’s time to be thinking about winter feeding strategies.  Using harvested forages for winter feed represents a substantial expense for livestock operations.  For many grazing operations, stockpiling can be an effective strategy to extend forage resources further into the fall and winter season, reducing the costs associated with harvesting and storing feed and providing high-quality pasture for fall and winter grazing.

What is stockpiling?

The concept of stockpiling is simple.  Rather than cutting, drying, and storing hay to feed over the winter, existing pastures are allowed to grow and accumulate forage in the field to be grazed by livestock in a later season.  Under this management strategy, grazing animals are removed from pastures in late summer and forages are allowed to accumulate growth through the late summer and fall.  The cool, late-season temperatures make it possible for the accumulation of high-quality forage even after an extended period of growth.  This stockpiled forage is then available for grazing throughout the fall and winter months, reducing the costs associated with feeding stored feeds.

Which forages work best?

Although a number of different forages can be stockpiled, some forage species will hold their nutritional value longer than others in the winter months.  Compared to other cool-season grasses, tall fescue is well adapted for stockpiling, as it has the ability to accumulate a substantial amount of fall growth and tolerate colder temperatures without losing quality.  In addition, the waxy layer or cuticle on the leaves of tall fescue make the plant more resistant to frost damage or deterioration.  Tall fescue also forms a good sod, making it more tolerant to foot traffic and minimizing impacts on its productivity the following season.

How is stockpiling accomplished?

Early August is the time to begin stockpiling for fall and winter grazing.  To prepare for stockpiling, pastures should be grazed (or clipped) down to a 3 to 4 inch stubble height to ensure that the accumulated forage will come from new growth.  After livestock are removed, 40 to 60 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer should be applied to stimulate additional regrowth and optimize forage accumulation and quality.  The grasses should then be allowed to regrow until forage growth dramatically slows or ceases completely.

It should be noted that not all nitrogen fertilizers will be equally efficient when fertilizing pastures in the fall.  In urea or urea-based fertilizers, the ammonia is volatile and a substantial amount of the nitrogen from these sources will be released to the atmosphere via volatilization when applied during the hot and humid days of late summer.  To minimize this volatilization, these nitrogen sources should be applied immediately prior to a significant rainfall event.  Ammonium nitrate is the most efficient source of nitrogen for stockpiling, but it is often more expensive than other sources.

Will yield and quality be good?

Where tall fescue was successfully stockpiled, yields of 1 to over 1.5 tons of dry matter per acre have been documented.  Higher yields will be achieved if nitrogen is applied immediately after the last cutting or grazing compared to pastures that did not receive fertilization or were fertilized later in the fall.

Forage quality of stockpiled tall fescue can be very good.  Depending on how much nitrogen has been applied, fall-grown tall fescue can average 12 to 18% protein and maintain good nutritional value throughout the fall season.  Research has demonstrated that stockpiled tall fescue has sufficient quality to carry dry cows through the winter and could carry lactating beef cows into January without additional supplementation.  However, the forage quality and digestibility of stockpiled forages is variable and will decline as growth accumulates, forages mature, and winter conditions continue.  To confirm nutritional value, forage samples should be taken and analyzed to ensure the pasture is meeting the nutritional requirements of the animals utilizing it.

How to utilize stockpiled forage?

Stockpiled forage can be valuable under a variety of grazing methods, but forage utilization can be increased substantially by using improved grazing practices.  If livestock are allowed to continuously graze the entire pasture with unrestricted access, efficiency will be lower and the potential grazing period will be shortened due to waste and trampling damage.  To minimize waste and get the most from stockpiled forage, pastures should be either rotationally or strip grazed.  Strip grazing is a management system that involves giving livestock a fresh area of pasture every day or every few days by moving a temporary electric fence in the pasture.  This method limits the area available for grazing, helping to increase pasture carrying capacity and maximize forage utilization.

Summary

Removing livestock and fertilizing pastures or hayfields in late summer will allow forage growth to be stockpiled for late fall and winter grazing.  Utilization of stockpiled pasture is an economically-advantageous management strategy that will extend the grazing season, minimize winter hay feeding and stored feed requirements, and provide high-quality forage without negatively impacting the persistence of forage stands.

Summer Grazing Management

Amanda Grev, Forage Specialist
University of Maryland Extension

As we move into the traditionally driest, hottest days of summer, we can expect growth rates of cool-season grass pastures slow dramatically and pasture productivity to decline. However, there are management practices that producers can implement to maximize plant growth during these hot, dry spells.

It takes grass to grow grass.

The key to having productive pastures is optimizing plant photosynthesis. Think of your pasture as a solar panel where green, growing leaves are energy producers. To maximize production, livestock need to be rotated off of a pasture in a timely fashion to ensure an effective “solar panel” or leaf area is left in the paddock following grazing. Most cool-season forages need at least 3 to 4 inches of post-grazing residual to effectively take advantage of photosynthesis for regrowth. In addition to providing a photosynthetic base for plant regrowth, the leaf material that remains after a grazing bout also shades the soil surface, keeping soil temperatures cooler and helping to reduce soil moisture loss.

Removing leaf matter affects the roots as well, as those roots rely on the leaves to supply energy from photosynthesis. The amount of live growth occurring below ground is roughly equivalent to the amount of live growth occurring above ground, and research has shown that the amount of above ground forage mass removed impacts root health. Up to 50 percent of the plant can be removed with little to no impact on root growth. With greater than 50 percent removal, root growth slows dramatically, and removing 70 percent or more of the above ground forage mass stops root growth completely. This is where the old rule of thumb “take half, leave half” comes into play. Leaving half of the leaf area on the plant has minimal impacts to the plant root system, enabling the plant to continue to absorb nutrients and moisture and recover quicker following grazing. If the take half, leave half rule is violated and pastures are grazed too low, plant root growth stops and root reserves are used to regrow leaf tissue, diminishing the vigor of the plant root system and the overall productivity of the plant.

Provide a rest period.

One of the most common mistakes in grazing management is not providing a long enough recovery period for pastures after g razing. Pasture forages require a rest period in order to maintain vigorous production. When a plant is grazed, the loss of leaf material means the plant loses its energy-producing center. The plants’ response is to rebuild that center using stored energy reserves. If the plant is given rest following grazing, new leaves will develop and will replenish this energy supply. Without rest, the plant is not able to replenish its energy supply and will continue to use the remainder of its stored energy to produce new leaves. As energy supplies are depleted, the plant will be unable to maintain production and will eventually die, leading to weak stands, overgrazed pastures, and the invasion of weeds or other non-desirable forages.

Maintaining flexibility in your system will allow you to balance the length of the rest period with the plant growth rate and is fundamental to successful grazing management. How long recovery takes will depend on a number of things, including the plant species, grazing pressure, and the time of year. As we get hotter and drier, grass growth rates will slow down and the days of rest required may be much longer than that required during the spring when rapid growth is occurring. Regardless, the rest period must be long enough to allow the plants to recover and grow back to a practical grazing height before livestock are allowed to graze again; for most grasses, this height falls in the 8 to 10 inch range.

To accommodate for this longer rest period, the rotation speed between paddocks will have to slow down. The basic rule is: when pastures are growing fast, rotate fast; when pastures are growing slowly, rotate slowly. Remember that the goal of the rest is to allow young green leaves to maximize photosynthesis.

Don’t ignore seed heads.

A plant that is producing seed heads is undergoing reproductive growth and not putting energy into leafy growth or tiller production. Clipping seed heads from these grasses will allow the plant to return to leafy or vegetative growth, which will increase forage quality and result in more total forage being produced over the course of the season. Clipping will also serve the added benefit of helping to control weed populations.

Seed heads can also be an indication of uneven grazing patterns in your pasture. If selective grazing is occurring, some plants are likely being overgrazed while others not enough. If this is happening, consider adding more divisions or paddocks into your pasture system. This means you will be grazing your animals on smaller areas, increasing the stocking density. A greater stocking density will reduce the amount of selective grazing that occurs, increasing forage utilization and reducing the need for pasture clipping.

While we can’t control how hot or dry summer will get, we can strategically manage the grass we have to help keep summer paddocks productive and growing.

2019 Corn, Soybean, and Small Grain Fungicide Recommendations

Andrew Kness, Agriculture Agent
University of Maryland Extension, Harford County

As we get into the swing of the 2019 growing season, it can be helpful to have access to a quick reference for fungicide recommendations for if/when diseases become a problem on your farm. As you are aware, there are several products available for disease management and it can be difficult and confusing to select the appropriate product. Also remember that just because a pesticide is labeled for use on a particular crop to manage a specific pest, does not necessarily mean or guarantee that the pesticide will work to manage it. Pest populations are constantly evolving and therefore develop resistance to products over time. A good example of this is the fungicide, propiconazole; once very for managing head scab of wheat, is now ineffective against the pathogen.

To help aid your fungicide selections, the Crop Protection Network has some great resources on fungicide efficacy that they update each year (and soon to come, insecticides and herbicides). The Crop Protection Network is a multi-state and international partnership of university and provincial Extension specialists, and public and private professionals that provides unbiased, research-based information.

These publications list the relative fungicide efficacy for the major diseases of corn, soybeans, and small grains and are linked below. If you have trouble accessing or interpreting the information, contact your local agriculture agent.

Forage Performance of Cereal Cover Crops in Maryland 2017-2018 Cereal Forage Study

Dr. Bob Kratochvil – Extension Agronomist
Mr. Louis Thorne – Agricultural Research Technician Supervisor
Dr. Jason Wight – Field Trials Coordinator
Ms. Jessica Whitaker – Student Assistant
Ms. Sonia Agu – Student Assistant
University of Maryland, College Park

mowing a field of tricialeThe majority of dairy farmers are constantly looking for sources of forage to meet their feed needs.  One source that many of this region’s dairy farmers utilize is the fall planting of cereal grains that are green-chop harvested the following spring.  Among the cereal species used for this purpose are rye, triticale, barley, and wheat.   Per the Maryland Cover Crop Program guidelines, cereal grains planted as a cover crop prior to November 5 and suppressed via green-chop in the spring are eligible for the grant payment for participation in the Cover Crop Program.  In addition, per the Nutrient Management Regulations, a fall application of dairy manure is allowed to a field planted to a cereal cover crop.

Planting a cereal cover crop for green chop harvest fits well into the crop rotation used by many dairy farmers.  The scenario that many follow is to plant the cereal cover crop following harvest of corn silage.  Prior to planting the cover crop, an application of manure is made to the field.  The subsequent planting of the cover crop provides incorporation of the manure into the soil.  The fall and spring growth of the cover crop is supplied nutrients from the manure.  At the same time, the cover crop provides protection to the soil from loss of nutrients via leaching and/or erosion.  The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of 18 triticale varieties submitted by participating companies along with select varieties of four cereal species (3 triticale, 3 rye, 1 barley and 1 wheat) for cover crop performance and forage production and quality.

The location for this study was the Central Maryland Research and Education Center – Clarksville Facility.  Four replications for each entry were planted at the field site using a randomized complete block experimental design.  Planting date was October 3, 2017.  The 3.5’ X 18’ plots were planted with a small plot planter with 6-inch spacing between each of the 7-rows.  Each entry’s germination percentage was used to calculate the seeding rate needed to establish 1.5 M seedlings.  Good stands were observed for all entries by late fall.

In order to compare forage quality among the entries that headed over a period of ten days, the timing of the biomass harvest was when each entry reached the late boot stage of development.  Each harvest sample was collected by cutting the plants just above ground level from two center rows of each plot from an area 2.5 feet in length.  Each sample was placed into a cloth bag and dried using a forced air dryer set at 60o C where they remained until sample water content was zero.  Biomass yield is reported as pounds of dry matter production per acre (Table 1).  Each of the dried samples was ground through a 20-mesh screen using a large plant grinder.   All samples were sent to the Cumberland Valley Analytical Laboratory (Waynesboro, PA; http://www.foragelab.com/) for standard forage quality analysis.  Data for all agronomic and forage quality measurements are found in Table 1.  Table 2 identifies the Company/Source and address/phone number for the participants who supplied the cereal varieties tested in this study.

Producers are always interested in biomass production.  Notable entries for biomass production were BCT15513 (Seed-link, Inc.) and Mercer EXP508 (Eddie Mercer Agri-Services, Inc.).  Cover crop performance is measured by amount of biomass produced and the concentration of nitrogen in the biomass.  These two factors were used to estimate nitrogen uptake (Table 1).   The top two entries for cover crop performance were Cover Crop Rye and the triticale variety, Mercer EXP508 (Table 1).  The only entry to have nitrogen uptake that was significantly less than the mean for the study was the triticale variety, TriCal 813 (37 lb N/a).  This is due to its production of only 2379 lb/a biomass and a low crude protein content (9.8%).

A number of forage quality characteristics for these cereals was measured (Table 1).  The descriptions of the various quality characteristic are described in the footnotes at the bottom of Table 1.  The characteristic that perhaps best captures the overall forage quality performance is Relative Feed Value (RFV).  A RFV of 100 is defined as the forage value that full bloom alfalfa would have.  The barley variety, Nomini, and the triticale variety, TriCal Exp 917 (TriCal Superior Forage) had the best RFV (107).

Though, none of these greenchop cereal forages are considered to be adequate as a stand-alone feed for a dairy operation, they can supply a source of forage used in a total mixed ration (TMR) at the time of year when feed supply may be running short.  When this forage benefit is added to the environmental benefit that is gained, planting winter cereal cover crops on a dairy farm can be a win-win decision.

 

 

Table 1.  Performance of 26 cereal varieties tested for biomass production and forage quality at the Central Maryland Research and Education Center Clarksville Farm during 2017-2018.

Variety Company/Source Species Dry Matter Yield

(lb/a

0% Moisture)

 Height

(in)

 Head

Date

(Days

after April 30)

 Nitrogen

Removal

(lb/a)1

 Crude Protein

%2

 Rumen

Degradable

Protein3

%

 Acid

Detergent Fiber

%4

 Neutral Detergent Fiber

%5

 Total Digestible Nutrients

%6

 Relative Feed

Value7
Arcia Eddie Mercer Agri-Services Inc. Triticale 4145 49 7* 69 10.6 7.1 33.2* 57.9 63.0* 102
BCT15509 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4068 49 11 74* 11.1 7.4 34.4 57.8 62.1 100
BCT15513 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 5603* 57* 12 93* 10.2 7.0 37.1 61.7 59.8 91
BCT17001 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4989* 54 9 87* 10.8 7.5 36.4 59.3 61.5 96
BCT17002 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 3531 56 10 63 11.1 7.5 34.4 58.8 61.2 99
BCT17003 Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4337 54 14 78* 10.9 7.8 39.9 64.8 59.1 83
Brasseto FP Genetics (Canada) Rye 3492 55 6* 63 11.3 7.8 36.6 60.5 62.0 93
Cover Crop Rye Variety Not Stated Rye 4874* 61* 5* 97* 12.2* 8.4* 34.5 58.0 62.1 100
Danko Polish Plant Breeding Institute Rye 3608 63* 6* 68 11.9* 8.1* 33.9 57.9 62.8* 100
HiOctane Seedway Triticale 4030 54 8 70 10.6 7.1 36.0 60.9 60.4 93
HyOctane Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4414 50 10 78* 10.9 7.4 35.3 59.4 61.7 96
Louisa University of Maryland Wheat 3838 48 11 63 10.2 6.7 32.9* 55.9* 63.0* 105*
Mercer EXP508 Eddie Mercer Agri-Services Inc. Triticale 5411* 54 8 97* 11.1 7.5 35.5 58.8 61.9 97
NCT 10318 North Carolina State Univ. Triticale 4452* 52 6* 77* 10.7 7.1 33.5* 56.3* 63.4* 104*
NCT 10888 North Carolina State Univ. Triticale 4951* 50 7* 92* 11.7* 7.9 34.2 56.5* 63.3* 103*
NCT 15928 North Carolina State Univ. Triticale 4222 55 11 74* 11.0 7.4 33.8 55.7* 63.4* 105*
Nomini Virginia Tech Barley 2840 49 7* 56 12.5* 8.7* 32.2* 55.5* 63.6* 107*
Traction Seed-link Inc. Triticale 4337 46 9 72 10.4 6.9 35.4 59.8 62.0 95
Trical 141 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 3761 56 9 63 10.6 7.1 40.4 65.4 58.3 82
Trical 813 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 2379 56 12 37 9.8 6.7 38.5 61.4 60.2 90
Trical Exp 08TF01 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4452* 56 12 72 10.0 6.8 39.7 65.4 58.3 82
Trical Exp 30113 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4414 59* 9 74* 10.5 7.0 36.9 60.4 61.0 93
Trical Exp 917 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4452* 47 9 74* 10.3 6.8 32.6* 55.5* 63.8* 107*
Trical Flex 719 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4721* 49 11 75* 9.9 7.0 40.7 64.5 58.2 83
Trical Gainer 154 TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 3953 49 8 67 10.5 7.2 34.0 57.2* 63.0* 102
Trical Surge TriCal Superior Forage Triticale 4337 53 10 72 10.4 7.0 38.0 62.5 59.7 89
Mean 4216 53 9 73 10.8 7.3 35.8 59.5 61.5 96
Probability > F 0.233 0.04 0.0012 0.51 0.05 0.28 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
LSD(0.20) 1164 6.1 2.6 24 0.95 0.72 1.48 1.82 1.07 4.3

* Indicates the entry was statistically comparable to the best performing variety (in bold) for the measured variable.

1Nitrogen uptake (lb/acre) for each entry was estimated by multiplying the lb DM/a X % nitrogen contained in the DM.  The percent nitrogen for each entry was calculated by dividing crude protein by the conversion factor 6.25,  the average nitrogen content for protein.

2Crude Protein %: represents total nitrogen content of the forage; higher protein is usually associated with better feed quality.

3Rumen Degradable Protein: portion of crude protein that microbes can either digest or degrade to ammonia and amino acids in the rumen.

4Acid Detergent Fiber: represents the least digestible fiber portion of forage; the lower the ADF value the greater the digestibility; an ADF <35% is considered good quality.

5Neutral Detergent Fiber: insoluble fraction of forage used to estimate the total fiber constituents of a feedstock; NDF has a negative correlation with dry matter intake and is used to estimate dry matter consumption; as NDF decreases animals will consume more forage; for grass forages NDF <50% is considered good quality and >60% is considered low quality.

6Total Digestible Nutrients: measure of the energy value of the forage.

7Relative Feed Value: indicates how well an animal will eat and digest a forage if it is fed as the only source of energy; full bloom alfalfa has an RFV of 100.

8Elite triticale breeding lines obtained from North Carolina State University for local testing by University of Maryland.  These are not available for purchase.

 

 

 

Table 2. The company/source for the 26 cereal varieties that were tested in the 2017-2018 Cereal Forage Quality study conducted at Central Maryland Research and Education Center-Clarksville Farm.

Company/Source Address Contact Phone Number Entries
Eddie Mercer Agri-Services Inc. 6900 Linganore Road

Frederick, MD 21701

 Tom Mullineaux 410 409-7538 Arcia; Mercer EXP508; Nomini
Seed-link, Inc. 208 S. David St.

Lindsay, Ontario

K9V 5Z4

Canada

 Peter E. Bonis 705-324-0544 BCT15509; BCT15513; BCT17001; BCT17002; BCT17003; HyOctane; Traction
Seedway 5901 Veracruz Rd.

Emmaus, PA 18099

 Jerry Davis 717-363-0103 HiOctane
TriCal Superior Forage 2355 Rice Pike

Union, KY 41091

 Bill Smith 859-802-2288 TriCal 141; TriCal 813; TriCal Exp 08TF01; TriCal Exp 30113; TriCal Exp 917; TriCal Flex 719; TriCal Gainer 154; TriCal Surge
FP Genetics 426 McDonald Street

Regina, SK

S4N 6E1

Canada

 877-791-1045 Brasseto
Polish Plant Breeding Institute Danko Hodowla Roślin Sp. z o.o.

Choryń 27

64-000 Kościan

Poland

 +48 65 513 48 13 Danko
University of Maryland 4291 FIELDHOUSE DR

2121 Plant Sciences Building

College Park, MD 20742

 Jason Wight 301 405 4558 Louisa

 

Forage Crops and Micronutrients

Jarrod O. Miller, Extension Educator, Somerset County

In many cropping systems micronutrients may be overlooked until a problem arises. These nutrients are needed in such small quantities that it often takes certain soil types (e.g. sandy) or conditions for deficiencies to occur.  There are seven commonly discussed micronutrients for crops, known as boron (B), chloride (Cl), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo) and zinc (Zn). Other important micronutrients in forage systems is cobalt (Co) and selenium (Se). Of those two, Se is important for livestock, but not considered an essential plant nutrient. Continue reading Forage Crops and Micronutrients