2009 Forage Production and Quality Report for Pennsylvania

Transcription

1 2009 Forage Production and for Pennsylvania Prepared and Presented by the Penn State Cooperative Extension (Brian Kelly, Phil Wagner, Rodger Keith, Craig Williams, Gary Hennip, and Ken Griswold) Penn State is committed to affirmative action, equal opportunity, and the diversity of its workforce. Points to remember 1. Cows are designed to eat forage. 2. Feed costs currently represent 55 65% of the total cost of making milk. 3. Home-grown forages should be the lowest cost feeds fed to cows. 4. Forage yield and quality should be evaluated on an individual farm basis. Differences in agronomic, harvest, storage, and feeding conditions or practices makes comparison across farms difficult.

2 Purpose of forages in the diet Important in rations for several reasons: Large proportion of diet Excellent sources of energy, protein, minerals & vitamins Low cost High Value Have a Slow rate of digestion Greatest impact on intake, and therefore, milk produced Promote rumen health Forage Analysis terminology important to quality evaluation DM = dry matter Carbohydrate Terms ADF = acid detergent fiber NDF = neutral detergent fiber Lignin NFC = non-fiber carbohydrates (starch( starch,, sugar, pectin) NSC = non-structural carbohydrates Protein Terms CP = Crude protein RDP = Rumen degradable protein RUP = Rumen undegradable protein ADIN = Acid Detergent Insoluble Nitrogen Energy Terms NE L = Net energy for lactation

3 Other important nutrition-related related terminology RFV = Relative Feed Value RFQ = Relative Forage Quality DMI = Dry matter intake Feed efficiency = lbs. 3.5% Fat-corrected milk/lb. DMI IOFC = Income over feed cost (Gross milk price) x (Daily average milk production/100) Daily Feed Cost For more information on determining and monitoring IOFC, please visit the following website: alliance/resources/income-over-feed-cost-tooltool Forage Quality Forage quality is centered on the digestibility of the economically important nutrients within the feedstuff. Economic value of a hay crop forage is dependent on two components. Fiber = ADF & NDF Protein Economic value of corn silage is dependent on two components Fiber = ADF & NDF Starch (i.e. the major source of energy)

4 Changes in dry matter yield of legumes & grasses with advancing maturity Jones et al., 2004 Changes in legumes & grasses with advancing maturity Jones et al., 2004

5 2008 Hay Crop Yield Data from USDA/NASS Acres Yield Total Tons County Harvested per Acre Produced Armstrong 39, ,500 Bedford 54, ,900 Berks 48, ,500 Blair 23, ,600 Bradford 100, ,500 Butler 40, ,700 Cambria 20, ,800 Centre 33, ,600 Chester 43, ,600 Clarion 37, ,000 Clearfield 20, ,700 Crawford 63, ,100 Cumberland 37, ,300 Dauphin 22, ,300 Franklin 65, ,800 Indiana 35, ,700 Jefferson 29, ,300 Juniata 20, ,400 Lancaster 81, ,000 Lebanon 26, ,000 Lycoming 36, ,700 Mercer 40, ,100 Perry 37, ,500 Snyder 21, ,300 Somerset 55, ,500 Washington 75, ,000 Westmoreland 43, ,800 York 46, ,000 State Total 1,915, ,015, Legume & Grass Nutrient Composition FEED TYPE # of Samples DM CP ADFPRO ADF NDF LIGNIN STARCH SUGAR NSC NEL Legume Hay Legume Haylage MML Hay MML Haylage Mixed Hay Mixed Haylage MMG Hay MMG Haylage Grass Hay Grass Haylage Data from samples submitted from Pennsylvania farms and analyzed from June 1, 2009 through September 30, Data provided by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services MML = Mixed Mostly Legume MMG = Mixed Mostly Grass

6 NDF digestibility of 2009 hay crop forage FEED TYPE # of Samples NDF24 # of Samples NDF30 # of Samples NDF48 Legume Hay Legume Haylage MML Hay MML Haylage Mixed Hay Mixed Haylage MMG Hay MMG Haylage Grass Hay Grass Haylage Data from samples submitted from Pennsylvania farms and analyzed from June 1, 2009 through September 30, Data provided by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services MML = Mixed Mostly Legume MMG = Mixed Mostly Grass Ranges of 48 hr NDF digestibility for common forages Hoffman et al., 2004

7 2008 Corn Silage Yield Data from USDA/NASS Acres Yield Total Tons County Harvested per Acre Produced Adams 11, ,000 Bedford 13, ,000 Berks 21, ,000 Blair 16, ,000 Bradford 18, ,000 Bucks 2, ,000 Chester 13, ,500 Clinton 4, ,500 Crawford 9, ,000 Cumberland 14, ,000 Dauphin 5, ,000 Franklin 39, ,000 Greene ,300 Huntingdon 10, ,000 Indiana 5, ,000 Jefferson 2, ,000 Juniata 6, ,000 Lackawanna 1, ,000 Lancaster 63, ,470,000 Lebanon 16, ,000 Mifflin 6, ,000 Snyder 5, ,000 Somerset 13, ,200 Union 5, ,000 State Total 450, ,325,000 Factors that affect the forage quality (i.e. digestibility) of corn silage Hybrid Agronomic practices (soil fertility, etc.) Harvest at proper maturity and moisture Kernel processing Chop length Chop height Length of time in storage Proper fermentation Use of silage inoculants

8 Changes in nutrient composition of corn silage with advancing maturity Increase in NE L (i.e. energy) and decreases in CP, NDF, and ADF content from Immature to Normal corn silage is result of increasing starch content. Jones et al., Corn Silage Nutrient Composition Mean SD Median Mode Minimum Maximum Top 25% Bottom 25% DM CP ADF NDF LIGNIN STARCH SUGAR NSC NEL ASH PH Data from 479 samples submitted from Pennsylvania farms and analyzed in August and September Data provided by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, Cargill Animal Nutrition, and Hoober Feeds, Inc.

9 NDF digestibility of 2009 corn silage NDF24 NDF30 Mean Standard Deviation Median Mode Minimum Maximum Top 25% Bottom 25% Data from 139 samples submitted from Pennsylvania farms and analyzed in August and September Data provided by Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, Cargill Animal Nutrition, and Hoober Feeds, Inc. Summary Evaluation of home-grown forages should be done within a farm as across farm comparisons are difficult. There is a wide range of nutrient composition and digestibility of both hay crop and corn silage on Pennsylvania dairy farms. More information on forage nutrient composition in Pennsylvania can be found at: