The Value of Growing Quality Forage Fraser Stewart, Manitoba Forage Council Presented at the Manitoba Forage Symposium April 2004 Importance of forage in Manitoba Of the total farmland in Manitoba, 39% is devoted to production of forage as a grazed or stored feed crop or forage grown for seed production. This makes forages as a crop, a very important aspect of Manitoba agriculture. One of the limitations of recognizing forages, as an important crop is it that it only has a face value ($) if it is sold as a cash hay product or for seed. The majority of forage produced in Manitoba is as a value added crop that is used for feed by livestock either as grazed or stored forage. Forages are the foundation for the ruminant sector of our livestock in Manitoba. The high quality of the forage that can be produced in Manitoba is one of the major competitive advantages we have with other production areas. Recognition of this fact should help increase the attention that should be placed on the management of this crop either as stored or grazed forage. Manitoba Farm Land 18.7 M acres Crop land 11.4 M acres 61% Forage land Unimproved pasture 3.9 M acres Tame hay land 2.3 M acres Improved pasture Forage seed Fodder corn (silage) 0.95 M acres 0.116 M acres 0.045 M acres Total: 7.311 M acres 39% Ref: MAFRI Forage Sector Profile Forage adds value to other sectors: Beef cow/calf sector $ 510 M Dairy industry - $164 M Sheep & Goat industry $6.7 M Bison industry $2.5 M Forage seed and hay $48.5M Total $731.7 M (Ref: 2002 Industry profiles MAFRI) What is forage quality? Forage quality can simply be described as forage harvested as pasture or as stored forage that can produce a desired livestock response. Different levels of forage quality are required for different classes of livestock, seasons and conditions. This can range from high quality alfalfa grass mixtures or annual forages for growing animals or use of crop residues for low maintenance cows and ewes. In Manitoba, forage quality is critical for winter diets of bred or lactating livestock, during spring and summer for fast gains and breeding, and in the fall for continuous gains of replacement females. Slight adjustments in grazing or hay management can be very effective in improving forage quality and animal performance Factors that influence or affect forage Quality Palatability: is influenced by the texture, leafiness, and taste high quality forages are highly palatable. Intake: how much can they eat will determine performance. Digestibility: this varies with the types of plants, leaf to stem ratio 80% of the leaves may be digested whereas only 50% of a mature stemmy material. Nutrient content: the forage must provide adequate nutrition for the animal Anti-Quality Factors : can include aspects such as nitrates, alkaloids, mycotoxins that will reduce animal performance. High quality forages must be low in these factors. Animal performance: this is the ultimate test, however, it is a combination of factors, which include, not only the quality of the forage but also factors associated with the animal as well. Forage species, stage of maturity at harvest and storage methods are the primary factors that affect quality. 1
Legumes vs. grasses Legumes generally have less fiber and have a higher intake levels than grasses. Lower levels of NDF and higher rates of cell wall digestion results in a higher forage intake and utilization as indicated by alfalfa compared to timothy. Higher protein levels are possible with grasses with nitrogen fertilization, but it usually does not affect the fiber levels. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Forage Quality of Alfalfa & Timothy Alfalfa Timothy Temperature Forages grown at higher temperatures will 0% Protein NDF ADF Cell Digestion rate/hour produce lower quality forage than those grown under cooler conditions. This is often the reason why Manitoba forage is more highly favored in the more southern USA markets. In one study, annual rye grass grown at 15 deg.c. had 59% leaf material compared to only 36% leaf material when grown at 25 deg.c. Forage maturity: The maturity of the forage is perhaps the major factor in the quality of any forage plant. As the plant develops a seed head the digestibility of the plant decreases even though the dry matter yield will increase. Harvesting at the optimum stage for the highest quality may be the major concern for the dairy farmer interested in high quality hay for milking cows or for those raising growing animals for replacements or for market. But the higher yield may be the major concern for the beef farmers looking for a maintenance feed for wintering the beef herd. Cool season grasses can have very high digestibility early in the spring when in the vegetative stage. However, digestibility declines at a rate of ½ percentage units daily until dropping below 50%. Intake potential (% daily intake of body weight) also decreases. Effect of maturity of cool season grass hay on intake and digestibility by dairy cows Cutting date Growth stage Daily intake Hay Digestibility June 3 Veg. 2.64% 63.1% June 11 Early boot 2.36% 65.7% June 14 Late boot 2.45% 62.6% June 18 Late head 2.28% 58.5% July 1 Bloom 2.30% 52.7% July 5 Bloom 2.13% 52.2% July 7 Bloom 2.05% 52.2% July 10 Late bloom 1.95% 51.5% Ref: Trimberger et el. 1960 2
Alfalfa has a similar rapid drop in quality as it matures as indicated by the results of the Green Gold program. Monitoring Manitoba alfalfa fields indicated that the RFV dropped an average of five points daily. For those farmers targeting a RFV of 150 for their livestock or for cash hay sales, they usually would want to cut when the RFV reached 170 as approximately 20 RFV points can be lost in the harvesting process. Although taking field samples twice weekly early in the season has been the practice to determine the rate of RFV decline, the use of forage quality sticks, which are used to measure the height of the plant, the maturity is estimated and this information provides an estimate of the RFV of the plant. This system has been working reasonably well to predict RFV. Leaf to Stem Ratio Reduction in the leaf to stem ratio is one of the major reasons for quality loss. This not only occurs with advancing maturity but also due to losses at harvest from leaf loss. As grasses produce a seed head early in the season, the quality of the forage is much lower that what is possible from the regrowth of that same plant. Regrowth usually has a higher leaf to stem ratio and so a higher quality. Plant % of Crude NDF ADF % component plant protein % Alfalfa Upper leaf 30.7% 23.9% 27.7% 18.5% Lower leaf 12.8% 21.8% 25.9% 16.6% Upper 6.5% 13.4% 52.6% 38.6% stem Lower stem 50% 9.6% 67.8% 52.8% Timothy Leaf 29.6% 18.3% 49.1% 25.5% Stem 70.4% 5.8% 72.5% 42.6% Ref: Collins 1988 Fertilization The addition of nitrogen fertilizer to grass will increase both yield and protein content. There are some indications that it may not increase forage digestibility of a grass and could even reduce quality if growth is too rapid. Additions of nitrogen to pure stands of alfalfa or other legumes are not recommended. Nitrogen may be added to some grass legume mixtures at a rate in proportion to the mixture of the grass and legume. Daily fluctuations in forage quality The carbohydrate levels in the alfalfa plant have also been linked to daily fluctuations. Soluble sugars are lowest in the morning and highest after a day of sunshine. The objective was to cut in the afternoon for the highest forage quality when the carbohydrates were high. In some lower rainfall areas (irrigation regions) cutting in the latter part of the day has resulted in higher quality forage. At these locations, with good crimping and swath management, rapid dry down of the forage is possible. However in the higher rainfall regions regions, such as in Manitoba, where every good drying day is a bonus, the opinion is that cutting in the morning to obtain a full drying day is preferable. 3
Matching forage quality to Animal performance Many farmers, particularly dairy producers are using RFV plus the protein value to assess the potential performance of forage for their livestock. Of particular interest in Manitoba, is the potential of high quality forage for back grounding of weaned beef calves and the potential economic advantage compared to other feeding rations or options. If a single feed could be used for back grounding, this reduces the need for higher cost for equipment, feeding and housing systems and for labor. Any time that additional feeds such as grain must be offered, feeding equipment and labor increase production costs. On most beef farms in Manitoba, (average 50 cows or less), back grounding calves to higher weights and perhaps to a finished market, could be accomplished with very minimal capital expenditures using high quality forage. Several trials have been held over the past several years in Manitoba to determine the production potential of weaned beef animals on various quality levels of forage. At the Glenlea research station at the University of Manitoba, in the winter of 1997, a short trial was carried out using forage that had been harvested as high moisture round bales, chopped and fed in replicated trials to steers. Unfortunately, the Flood of the Century cut the trial short. But this trial still provided an indication of the production potential of high quality forage. These trials were in pens where there was no feed wastage and good weather protection. The full potential of the forage could be determined which would not necessarily reflect the results expected on a practical farm situation. Forage Quality (Relative Feed Value) Low (78) Medium (112) High (155) Inital Weight (lbs.) 729 727 727 Final Weight (lbs.) 828 864 898 Gain/Day (lbs.) 1.96 2.81 3.63 Feed/Lb. Gain (lbs.) 8.53 6.80 5.39 Note: The trial was conducted by the University of Manitoba for 49 days, beginning April 1997. All baled silage was fed in a chopped form; no grain supplement was used. Ref: Dr Karen Wittenberg, Animal Science, University of Manitoba, 1997 4
Baled Silage Feed Trial Beausejour MB In 2000, another trial was initiated by the University of Manitoba, Manitoba Agriculture and Food in cooperation with Beausejour farmers, Les and Brian Kurbis. In this trial, eighty-eight crossbred steers were fed four levels of quality of baled silage using the traditional round bale feeders. The animals were separated into replicated pens and the feed utilization and animal performance measured. Feed Analysis of Baled Silage - Kurbis Feed Trial, Beausejour - 2000 Nutrient Diet #1 Diet#1 Diet #3 Diet #4 Relative Feed Value (RFV) 101 125 127 142 Dry Matter 56.0% 58.1% 69.0% 61.2% Crude Protein 12.2% 16.8% 18.0% 19.9% Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) 42.5% 34.3% 34.6% 34.0% Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) 51.9% 46.2% 45.5% 40.7% Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) 51.8% 60.6% 60.3% 59.6% Kurbis - Baled Silage Feeding Trial 2000, Animal Performance Diet #1 Diet #2 Diet #3 Diet #4 Initial Weight (lbs) 669 667 666 668 Final Weight (lbs) 757 870 941 885 Avg. Daily Gain (lbs) 0.88 2.13 2.74 2.17 Feed:Gain 18.2 11.6 10.5 11.1 Ref: Dr Kim Ominski, Animal Science, University of Manitoba, 2002 This trial provided some more practical indications of the potential of the profitability of forage only rations. The alfalfa/grass bales used in this trial were selected on the basis of their RFV with the expectation that could be used as an accurate indication of animal performance. If they had been selected on the basis of RFQ, which includes a TDN value, the results might have been more accurate in reflecting performance. The bales used in diet#3, contained more grass than in trial#4. which was pure alfalfa. If we considered the economic benefits possible from this information, the current (2004) MAFRI budget estimates a cost of production for Alfalfa Hay as $55.52 ton.($0.027/lb). This is on the basis of a six-year alfalfa hay average of 2.37 tons per acre or an annual production cost of $127.69 per acre for the six years. This is, however, is only an estimate; an individual al COP can be determined using this as a guide. However, from this cost ($0.027/lb) and with a feed: gain ratio of 10.5:1, this is equates to a feed cost of $28 per cwt of animal gain. Considering these feed efficiencies, a producer who only has lower quality forage on the farm (cow maintenance feed) might consider buying in higher quality forage to add value to weaned calves that are Feed cost for back grounding calves on higher quality forage (RFV 125 150) @ Feed:Gain of 10.5 Feed source Feed Cost per lb Cost per Gain Own Feed $0.027 $28.35/cwt Purchased $60/ton $0.030 $31.50/cwt Purchased $80/ton $0.040 $42.00/cwt Purchased $100/ton $0.050 $52.50/cwt to be back grounded as compared to trying to supplement a lower quality hay with additional grain and other supplements. This could be a more profitable option. 5
New market opportunities Forage Fed Beef There is a potential market for forage fed beef in North American markets. With the aging population in North America, such as the baby boomers now retiring, there is more interest in healthy eating in a population that is relatively well off financially. For example, the interest in low carb diets is an indication of the interest in losing weight and one estimate recently quoted in a local paper was that 3.6% of the adults in USA are either on the Atkins or low carb diets or have tried them (ref: Western Producer Jan.29 th /04). One of the essentials of these types of diets is the increased consumption of red meats, which is a switch from previous healthy eating programs where red meats were discouraged. Also medical research information is now showing that the fat from the Omega 3 (short chain fatty acids) has the potential to reduce strokes, heart diseases and even some cancers. This type of fat is found in grass fed meats as well as in other products such as fish and flax seed. This was initially considered as a small niche beef market, usually labeled as Natural Beef, however it appears to be expanding rapidly. Currently there is interest in Manitoba to investigate this potential. Value of Quality Hay in the Cash Hay market In recent years, due to the auction marketing system in the northern USA states, the market value of hay has been established on the Hay Prices ($/ton) in Wisconsin as Affected by RFV basis of a feed test and a market price established using 1984-2001 the RFV and protein content of the feed. This marketing system has $120 been driven by the dairy $110 industry, which have found $100 that the cows milk better on $90 higher quality forage and it is $80 profitable to pay a higher price $70 for this high quality forage. $60 The upper level of the Relative Feed Value (RFV) has been 150 for most markets, only few sales top that figure unless the supply of quality hay is very limited. $50 $40 $30 $20 >150 125-150 103-124 87-102 75-86 Relative Feed Value Last Updated on 1/14/02By Kevin G. Silveira - Email: kgsilvei@facstaff.wisc.edu This table provides an indication of the different grades of hay established by USDA and the different RFV for each grade. Any sales where a grade designation will be used, means that the hay, by feed analysis was able to fit the category. Table 1: Alfalfa guidelines (for domestic livestock use and not more than 10% grass) Quality ADF NDF *RFV **TDN-100% **TDN-90% CP Supreme <27 <34 >185 >62 >55.9 >22 Premium 27-29 34-36 170-185 60.5-62 54.5-55.9 20-22 Good 29-32 36-40 150-170 58-60 52.5-54.5 18-20 Fair 32-35 40-44 130-150 56-58 50.5-52.5 16-18 Utility >35 >44 <130 <56 <50.5 <16 *RFV calculated using the Wis/Minn formula. **TDN calculated using the western formula. Quantitative factors are approximate, and many factors can affect feeding value. Values based on 100 % dry matter (TDN showing both 100% & 90%). Guidelines are to be used with visual appearance and intent of sale(usage). 6
This chart is an indication of what the value of RFV or RFQ is worth to the dairy farmer. This data is from hay auctions over a 15-year period in Minnesota and Wisconsin and averages out to $0.90 (US) per point of RFV. So, for the higher quality forage, this averaged out at almost $200 per ton more than the lower quality forage. Dollars per ton Value of milk from forage quality $250 $200 y = 3.7819x - 384.73 $150 $100 $50 $0 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 UWEX Relative Feed Value From Kawas et al. 1989 The following chart is an indication of the volatility of hay prices in the USA Dairy States. Currently, there apparently is a good market for grinding hay (lower quality hay for use in TMR mixers) and also for straw. In many of the dairy states, corn is king and there is limited production of cereal crops. As a result, straw is in good demand for bedding. Hay Prices over Time, Wisconsin $180.00 $160.00 Dollars per Ton $140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 >150 125-150 103-124 87-102 75-86 7
Upper Midwest Hay Price Summary - Feb. 27 th 2004 ----------Price ($/ton)---------- Hay Grade Bale type Average Minimum Maximum Prime (> 151 RFV/RFQ) Small Square 116.11 65.00 130.00 Large Square 111.09 65.00 140.00 Large Round 80.16 40.00 115.00 Grade 1 (125 to 150 RFV/RFQ) Small Square 67.50 67.50 67.50 Large Square 72.50 60.00 85.00 Large Round 55.79 35.00 82.25 Grade 2 (103 to 124 RFV/RFQ) No Reported Sales Last Updated on 1/14/02 By Kevin G. Silveira Email: kgsilvei@facstaff.wisc.edu References: Manitoba Agriculture, Food & Rural Initiative Forage Sector Profile 2002 Manitoba Agriculture, Food & Rural Initiative Livestock Industry Sector Profiles 2002 Understanding Forage Quality Don Ball et al Wisconsin Extension (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/fq.pdf) Upper Midwest Hay report Ken Barnett Feb.2004 http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/hay_market_report.htm Wisconsin Test Hay Auctions Summary - Kevin G. Silveira http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/auction.htm Manitoba Green Gold Program - http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/news/greengold/ggintro.html Manitoba Baled Silage Production - http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/forages/bjb00s25.html Dr Kim Ominski, University of Manitoba unpublished data from Manitoba trials USDA NE Dept of Ag Market News, Kearney, NE - http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/sc_gr310.txt Dr Dan Undersander, Proceedings, Manitoba Forage Symposium, April 2003 8