HFG Apr_MAy 2025 Digital

Their hay and forage reign supreme

The cropping team at Jasper Hill Farm in northern Vermont know forage quality in pastures and hayfields is the foundation of their grass-fed dairy. The farm’s forage profile is also reflected in the unique flavors of cheese made in their on-site creamery.

MANAGING

EDITOR Amber M. Friedrichsen

SENIOR EDITOR Michael C. Rankin

ART DIRECTOR Todd Garrett

EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Jennifer L. Yurs

ONLINE MANAGER Patti J. Hurtgen

DIRECTOR OF MARKETING John R. Mansavage

ADVERTISING SALES

Kim E. Zilverberg kzilverberg@hayandforage.com

Jenna Zilverberg jzilverberg@hayandforage.com

ADVERTISING COORDINATOR

Patti J. Kressin pkressin@hayandforage.com

W.D. HOARD & SONS

PRESIDENT Brian V. Knox

EDITORIAL OFFICE

28 Milwaukee Ave., West, Fort Atkinson, WI, 53538

WEBSITE www.hayandforage.com

EMAIL info@hayandforage.com PHONE 920-563-5551

16

Flex your adaptive grazing muscles

Intermittently introducing in a flex herd to a grazing system can help maximize forage utilization and offset hay-feeding costs.

Review and implement the top four best practices of haylage harvest and storage to put up a successful crop this spring.

DEPARTMENTS

Richard Gross operates a 300-cow beef operation near Napolean, N.D., in the heart of the Prairie Pothole Region. He was the first in his area to implement a rotational grazing system, which was nearly 20 years ago. Cows rotate through 36 paddocks on 2,300 acres of grass pastures and are moved every two to three days. Read more about Gross and his operation beginning on Page 22. Photo by Mike Rankin

HAY & FORAGE GROWER (ISSN 0891-5946) copyright © 2025 W. D. Hoard & Sons Company. All rights reserved. Published six times annually in January, February, March, April/May, August/September and November by W. D. Hoard & Sons Co., 28 Milwaukee Ave., W., Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin 53538 USA. Tel: 920-563-5551. Fax: 920-563-7298.

Deep breath

MAYBE your spring starts on March 1 according to the meteorological calendar. Or maybe you wait for the vernal equinox to officially welcome spring. Your spring might begin when forage breaks dormancy and plants green up, or with the birth of your first lamb or calf. Personally, my spring starts with a deep breath.

This particular breath fills my lungs with air that feels a little bit lighter and moves a little bit freer than the stale winter air I’ve been breathing since November. I hold onto it for an extra second, and during that pause between my inhale and exhale, I notice the sun is a little closer, the sky is a little brighter, and the atmosphere just feels more alive than it was the day before. From that refreshing breath forward, it’s spring in my book, regardless of the freezing nights, the late-season snowfalls, or the general resurgence of winter weather that is an inevitable part of living in the Midwest.

I recently read “Breath” by James Nestor on the science of breathing. To my surprise, what I thought would be a painfully dull dud that ended up on the bottom of my bookshelf was actually a riveting page-turner. I was taken aback by the statistics on the simple act of breathing and its impact on our health, energy, and mood; the studies on breathing techniques that have been shown to enhance athletic performance and improve chronic disease; and how the shape of our skulls, the structure of our jaws, and even the straightness of our teeth affects our breath quality.

My greatest takeaway from the book was that the exhale — not the inhale — is the critical piece of that deep breath we’re told to take in moments of panic or stress. Yes, the inhale provides oxygen to our cells that fuels their functions. But the exhale clears carbon dioxide out of those gas exchange sites to create space for oxygen to be received. Without a complete breath out, carbon dioxide can build up like trash in a dumpster and be lethal to cells, regardless of how much life-giving oxygen we breathe.

An elongated exhale also sends a calming signal to the parasympathetic nervous system, which is in charge of regulating the body after our fight-or-flight response is triggered. We can suck in as much air as possible in attempt to disarm the scared, agitated, or downright angry feelings that arise during a stressful event, but

it is only through a slow and intentional exhale that makes the merits of a deep breath physically and psychologically effective.

There are many moments on the farm that we could benefit from taking a deep breath, especially in the throes of a busy start to the growing season. But seldom do farmers take a break between hay cutting, raking, and chopping or baling. There’s no time to waste moving livestock through pastures to keep up with the spring flush. And when conditions are right, it’s full steam ahead to plant corn for silage.

On top of the flurry of field activity comes the breakdowns and broken parts that will more than likely take our time and attention away from other tasks. Coordinating family members and field crews requires another layer of forward-thinking and organization. But all the hard work invested in late nights and early mornings can be thrown out the window with a pop-up shower or a forecast of adverse weather, not to mention the whiplash of regulations that threaten the agricultural landscape on the farm level and at large.

When things go awry, a deep breath could make the difference between a level-headed approach to problem solving and an impulsive reaction to unexpected snags. It could be the buffer that separates a safe decision from one that puts you or others in danger.

A deep breath could also be what keeps a situation from reaching its boiling point when frustrations bubble over and words are spoken that cannot be unsaid. Conversely, it might be the first step in resolving a disagreement that would otherwise simmer on low as respect dissolves and resentment grows.

Regardless of the type of equipment you run, the items on your to-do list, or your relationship with Mother Nature this spring, a deep breath is a tool that is always available to help reestablish working order when day-to-day operations get sidetracked. Just one long inhale — and an even longer exhale — has the power to return a frantic mind to the reality of the present moment. And it is in this calm and collected state that we have the best judgment of the circumstances at hand. •

THEIR HAY AND FORAGE REIGN SUPREME

by Amber Friedrichsen, Managing Editor

THE Northeast Kingdom of Vermont stands out from the rest of the state in more ways than one. Geographically, it comprises three counties wedged between the Connecticut River and the Canada border. Visually, it is home to some of Vermont’s most scenic drives, panoramic views, picturesque hikes, and pristine waters.

Notably, the National Geographic Society once named the Northeast Kingdom the most desirable place to visit in the country. Economically, it may not be the most desirable place to operate a grass-fed dairy, but Andy and Mateo Kehler figured out a

way to do so successfully.

In 1998, the brothers bought land near the town of Greensboro that would later become Jasper Hill Farm. At the time, several smallscale dairies in the area were struggling to sell enough milk to make a

profit. Andy and Mateo — whose love for the land was matched only by the love of their 50-cow herd — were seeking a solution to improve razorthin margins for themselves and their neighbors.

The Kehlers built a creamery and set out to use their cow’s milk to make European-style cheeses that boasted the highest prices on the market. They started selling cheese to a few shops and restaurants, but their customer base quickly grew

along with the recognition of their award-winning products. To keep up with demand while expanding cheese selection, the brothers also installed a seven-vault underground aging facility beneath one of their pastures.

Today, Jasper Hill milks about 200 cows and buys milk from five nearby dairies. Those partner farms receive a premium for their product that they wouldn’t otherwise see if their milk was sold as a commodity. Jasper Hill also has over 80 local employees working in their parlors, the creamery, cheese cellars, and crop fields. It’s what the Kehler brothers always intended for their business model — to support small dairies and keep area agriculture a lucrative opportunity.

Forage is king

Jasper Hill encompasses about 1,000 owned and rented acres that are all used for pasture and hayfields. They don’t grow any corn or other annual species.

In addition to working on the food safety team in the cheese cellars, Maddie Calderwood oversees pasture management at the dairy. Her husband, Andy, is a part of the cropping team.

Cows can typically graze from mid-May to mid-October, but in the offseason, hay is the primary component of their rations since the milking herd does not eat any ensiled feed.

Calderwood explained that silage microbes can be problematic for their creamery. Certain associated bacteria can ruin the texture and flavor of the cheese and may include pathogens. What’s more is fermented feeds compromise the farm’s goal to accentuate its “taste of place” by reflecting the profile of their local forages in the flavor profiles of their products.

“The complexity of the milk that we are making is preserved in the cheese,” Calderwood stated. “Whatever is in the milk gets amplified in the cheese process. That means our farm is managed quite differently than a normal dairy.”

All hail the hay dryer

An emphasis on dry hay requires ample investments to combat the humid climate. One of the greatest investments at Jasper Hill is the 11,000-square-foot hay dryer located on their storage site, which is called the Randi Albert Calderwood Cropping Center in honor of Calderwood’s late father-in-law.

In tandem with its European cheesemaking techniques, the farm drew inspiration from a hay drying approach in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, which is famous for Parmigiano Reggiano, or Parmesan, cheese. They worked with AgriCompact Technologies to design a hay dryer like the ones found on those Italian dairies and installed the first machine of its kind in the United States in 2015.

The facility was originally built to dry round bales, with two drying chambers on either side of the dryer. Each chamber had an array of 50, 5-foot circular vents carved out of the cement floor where individual bales were placed face-up for drying. But when the cropping team invested in a large square baler in 2023, the chambers had to be modified.

By retrofitting a grid of rectangular vents, the hay dryer’s total capacity doubled from 100 round bales to 200 large square ones. The crew uses a telehandler to place a single layer of bales on the floor of either chamber, sliding the doors shut to begin the drying process. For the dryer to function, though, the chamber must be completely full.

“The idea is that the bales create a seal over the vent spaces so the forced air has an equal effect on each bale, pushing moisture out of the bales from the bottom, up, and out the top,” said Ellie Searles, another member of the cropping team. “The moisture is evacuated from the chamber through a window of louvers, and we control whether the hot air that has passed through the bales is recycled back into the system or expelled.”

Our hay dryer is an extra tool to get hay that is the quality that we need.

The dryer can operate with hay from 25% to 35% moisture. Although the duration of the drying process depends on the initial dry matter of the bales, it generally takes 72 to 96 hours to go from 25% to 10% moisture. That time frame was one trade-off of doubling the capacity of the dryer when the team reconstructed it to accommodate large square bales.

“Increasing the capacity of the dryer floors extended our drying time because now we are drying twice the volume of feed,” Searles said.

Since there is only a short window of time to ted hay and begin baling after the morning dew dissipates in this part of the Green Mountain State, the dryer essentially brings damp hay down the homestretch. Even on the sunniest of summer days, ambient moisture can run up the relative humidity so that the rate of drying is dismal at best.

“It’s really deceptive that the hottest days are also so humid that the hay does

not get all the way dry,” Calderwood said. “Our hay dryer is an extra tool to get hay that is the quality that we need.”

A bit of baleage

Given that its moisture threshold tops out at 35%, the hay dryer isn’t always a viable tool. The cropping team reserves baleage as a last resort if wet forage needs to be baled immediately. Sometimes, fresh-cut hay must be moved off the field ahead of a string of showers. Other times, it gets rained on unexpectedly. At Jasper Hill, this fermented feed is only fed to dry cows and heifers.

“Plan A is getting hay baled at the right moisture right away. If we can’t do that, we will put it in the dryer. And if that won’t work, making baleage is our backup to make sure hay doesn’t go to waste,” Calderwood stated.

Everyday hay decisions and last-minute baleage calls are ultimately made by the farm’s manager, Nate Hunnewell. “It’s a team effort, but Nate is in charge of the farm, and everyone is usually on the same page,” Calderwood explained. “Everyone knows what field needs to be mowed next, and people generally do the same things: Ellie mows, Gary teds, Andy rakes, and Norm bales.”

All dry hay is sampled and organized according to forage test results, and the farm works with a nutritionist to determine different rations for high-producing cows, less competitive milkers, and those later in lactation.

“Because we are feeding dry hay, our milk production is lower than that of a farm that is able to feed a lot of corn silage and haylage,” Calderwood said. “Having the highest quality possible is really important for hay.”

Grazing gleanings

Forage quality is also important in pastures. Orchardgrass dominates the decades-old mixed stands, which also include various types of clover, plantain, and vetch. Reed canarygrass is prevalent in low-lying areas and poor-drainage soils, although it is less-than-desirable by Calderwood’s standards.

“I don’t like reed canarygrass,” she asserted. “It’s pretty unpalatable for cows, and it indicates really wet pastures, which are a trouble to manage. We don’t like the cows to be in a wet pasture for long because they tend to punch it up.”

The lactating herd is turned out to

grass after each twice-a-day milking. Calderwood estimates an appropriate paddock size and then monitors plant height and animal behavior to maximize forage utilization and determine rotation patterns.

Even after tedding hay, the humid climate of northern Vermont often delays forage drydown to optimal baling moisture. Hence, the need for a bale dryer.

“The cows are not on a set grazing schedule — we just take a stab at how much we think they will eat and watch plant residual until it looks like it’s time to move them,” she explained. “My best indication is that if the cows could not care less to see me, they have plenty of feed.

“If they see me, become alert, and are willing to follow me, it’s time to go to the next pasture,” Calderwood continued. “If they see me and they start mooing and chasing me, then I know they didn’t have enough to eat.”

The biology major started working on dairies after college when her studies spurred an interest in grazing ecology. Since then, she has lived on farms in the Northeast, Missouri, and as far away as New Zealand, knitting together the knowledge she has gleaned at each location.

“The learning curve was great for me. After college, I felt like I had my head in books for so long that to work on a farm I had to start from zero,” Calderwood shared. “We bounced around to a

handful of farms and got to work with a lot of different people, and each person did a few things really well.”

One thing she wants to improve upon in the grazing acres at Jasper Hill is the proportion of clover in pastures and hayfields. Not only would more clover reduce the amount of fertilizer needed to boost grass production in either system, but the natural reseeding of these species should indicate optimal soil pH and healthy soil conditions.

“Especially in our hayfields, we are really trying to encourage more clover over time because it’s an indication that we are doing the right thing,” Calderwood said. “We are trying to minimize our conventional fertilizers as much as we can. We do still use some, but again, there’s a balance between the cost of fertilizer and what we are getting off the field.”

Crown jewel components

Healthy soil and healthy forage translate to healthy cattle. The 200head milking herd comprises a mix of Holsteins, Jerseys, and Brown Swiss cows to ensure adequate milk volume, fat, and protein for making cheese.

“Holsteins can produce an insane amount of milk, but it might not be exactly what we want for our cheese,” Calderwood said. “Our Holsteins add to the tank, but those other breeds are higher in components.”

Higher components are key for the specific fatty acid profile and fat-toprotein ratio the farm has resolved to achieve. Despite a cow’s innate ability to turn fiber into fat and protein, though, the farmers know high-quality milk is derived from high-quality feed.

“It takes a lot of money to make this hay, and this is not the cheapest way we could do it.” Calderwood asserted. “Our company is kind of going along the path of most resistance.”

Traversing this path requires a lot of problem solving and troubleshooting. “I don’t think anyone wakes up in the morning and knows exactly how the day is going to go — we never do the same thing. It’s complicated, but it’s fun, especially when you get things right,” she beamed.

Even so, it’s safe to say that hay and forage reign supreme at Jasper Hill Farm, and their efforts to capture the “taste of place” of the Northeast Kingdom come full circle in the shape of a wheel of aged cheese. •

Where’s the phosphorus?

WE ARE all familiar with the three primary nutrients required by plants: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). This is because the concentrations are printed on the labels of most fertilizer bags found in farm and garden stores.

When your soil is deficient in all three elements, the relative contribution of each element becomes less important than if your soil is deficient in only one or two of the three elements. When you order a truckload of fertilizer from your local supplier, you may have more control on the balance of N, P, and K to purchase since different fertilizer formulations can be mixed or blended.

If you buy a 50-pound bag of fertilizer, the N, P, and K values let you know how much of that total weight is divided into N, phosphorus as P 2 O5, and potassium as K 2 O. A common fertilizer blend is 10-10-10, meaning that 10% of the material contains N, 10% contains P 2 O5, and 10%, contains K 2 O, which would be 5 pounds of each.

Mining for P

Since P can be derived from different sources, the standard fertilizer form of P2O5 has been internationally accepted. Phosphorus is typically sourced as triple super phosphate with N-P-K of 0-45-0; monoammonium phosphate with N-P-K of 11-48-0; diammonium phosphate with N-P-K of 18-46-0; or rock phosphate with 14% to 35% P and relatively low immediate plant availability.

All P fertilizer sources are mined from geologic deposits of mostly apatite, which is a calcium phosphate mineral extracted from sedimentary marine deposits and some igneous sources. Acidificaiton and processing of these minerals produces a readily available P fertilizer source; however, there is a limit to the amount of P mining that can occur globally.

Phosphorus is also recycled from plant residues and animal excreta to soil. Consider that 7 to 13 pounds of P is removed from every 1,000 pounds of beef cattle harvested. A key issue with P cycling is the strong chemical binding

Table 1. Percentage of soils testing very low, low, medium, high, and very high in Mehlich-3 phosphorus across 614 fields under cropland, grassland, and woodland in North Carolina and Virginia.

with soil minerals that sequester P away from plants.

Excess application

Phosphorus is vital to plants so that they can photosynthesize, metabolize sugars, store and transfer energy, divide and enlarge cells, and transfer genetic information. When soil is low in available P, fertilization promotes root growth and winter hardiness, stimulates tillering, and hastens maturity.

Applying P fertilizer indiscriminately without regard to the amount of P readily available in soil is costly; it is not a wise use of limited resources and can be detrimental to the environment. Phosphorus runoff from overloaded soils has caused harmful algal blooms in surface waters. Loading surface waters with N and P leads to rapid and excessive growth of algae that die and decompose. This decomposition consumes oxygen in the water, leading to anaerobic conditions. Of particular

concern are blooms of cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, which thrive in waters with high P levels. These blooms can release toxins into the water, negatively impacting human and animal health and disrupting aquatic ecosystems.

Soil testing for P is the best way to know if fertilizers should be applied to enhance production on your farm. Depending on which state you reside in and which analytical lab you use, the extraction of available P can vary. Some extractants will be more appropriate in your particular soil than others.

Sufficient P levels have typically been determined in each state or within a region from a series of plant-growth response trials. These trials expose a crop of interest such as corn, wheat, or forage to a gradient of P fertilizer levels and yields determined to establish the optimum rate of P fertilization. Following several dozen trials with varying levels of available soil P — which

was based on soil testing prior to the growing season — critical soil-test P levels were identified to divide yield-responsive soils from unresponsive soils. In North Carolina, sufficiency level of P from Mehlich-3 extraction is approximately 60 ppm for many crops.

It varies with depth

In a survey of 56 farms across North Carolina and Virginia, my research team explored the distribution of soiltest P from different soil depths and land uses, resulting in the testing of 614 soil profiles (see table). The figure indicates the median P levels when soils were sorted by fine, medium, and course textures. In general, soil-test P was greatest from 0 to 4 inches and declined dramatically at depths of 4 to 12 inches and 12 to 24 inches. The vast majority of roots able to extract P will be concentrated near the surface in the top foot of soil, so the correspondence

between where nutrients are available and where roots proliferate is fortunate. Clearly, sandier soils tended to have greater P concentrations at all depths. This is because P binds with clay minerals and is not readily available, so soil-test P was lower in fine- and medium-textured soils. On the other hand, sandy soils don’t have as much affinity for binding P to minerals. Clayey subsoil is a key mechanism for binding P and not allowing it to leach below the rooting zone.

When soil-test P data from the 0-to-4inch depth were sorted by land use, only 20% of soils under cropland were deficient in P, while 52% of soils under grassland were deficient. Under woodland, 82% of soils were deficient. These data suggest that a large fraction of soils under cropland and grassland could be considered well-supplied with P and there is little need for immediate and high fertilizer inputs. However, soil testing is the surest

approach to know the level of available soil P on your own farm.

In summary, P is a vital nutrient required in relatively large quantities. Available P in soil is only a fraction of total P present, and this fraction depends on soil texture. Optimizing forage production requires P fertilization when soil-test values are very low, low, or medium. However, there is no economic benefit from P fertilization when soil-test values are high or very high. Environmental health can be compromised when routine fertilization occurs without soil testing to guide application rate and frequency. •

ALAN FRANZLUEBBERS

The author is a soil scientist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Raleigh, N.C.

Shift your particle size priorities

DUE to the emphasis on rising milkfat percent, total milkfat production, and the value of milkfat, many dairy producers are looking for ways to capture better feed margins and greater production efficiency. While diet changes are important in this quest, some new research is compelling our dairy industry to rethink the impact of ration particle size. This is important to forage production as a majority of the desired particles are contributed by silages and hay. Chop length, forage maturity, and forage moisture content are critical factors that need to be considered.

The Penn State Particle Separator has been utilized for a couple of decades to evaluate the particle size of dairy rations. It has been recommended that 2% to 8% of the ration feed particles should be trapped on top of the 19-millimeter (mm) screen. This has been thought to provide enough long particles to stimulate adequate rumination without causing issues with diet sorting.

Feed particles on the top screen should be 1 to 2 inches in length, as longer lengths result in more sorting of the diet. However, new research is showing that the amount of feed particles retained on the second screen (8 mm) is actually more strongly correlated with rumination than the amount of feed particles retained on the top screen. The percentage of particles retained on the top screen is associated with lower intake, less energy-corrected milk, and lower milkfat percent. Therefore, data is showing that herds achieving high milkfat content are being fed diets that have more than 50% of the feed particles retained on the 8-mm screen.

Dairy animals need to spend three to five hours each day consuming the diet. It is critical that the diet particle size is not too fine or too coarse, as diets with a coarse particle size will result in longer feeding time and reduced feed intake. The hours spent ruminating are also critical to enhancing milkfat content. New research on cow behavior has shown that the highest correlation with

better milkfat production is rumination time while lying down. Cows with greater rumination time while lying down have higher rumen pH, consume more feed, and produce milk containing greater concentrations of milkfat and protein. This may be because rumination results in an increase in saliva production, and saliva provides essential buffers to maintain a higher rumen pH, resulting in better fiber digestion, and thus, milkfat production.

Support more milkfat

Today, many of our Holstein herds are producing milk with greater than 4.2% milkfat. This has been a growing trend over the past 10 years, and it is the result of several factors, including fat supplementation, genetics, diet supplements, and careful attention to forage quality and ration particle size. Due to the economic value of milkfat, we will continue to push for higher milkfat production, and thanks to this advancement and new research, we must reevaluate how we utilized the Penn State Particle Separator for a dairy diet compared to the previous recommendations discussed above.

Current recommendations from the Miner Institute would indicate that only 2% to 5% of the diet particles should be retained on the top screen and that the maximum particle length does not exceed 2 inches. Longer particles tend to extend eating time and exacerbate sorting.

The second screen should retain 50% to 60% of the total diet particles. This will have the greatest impact on rumination time and rumen pH, and these factors are positively correlated with milkfat production.

About 10% to 20% of the feed particles should be retained on the third screen (4 mm). However, when feeding diets containing 40% to 50% concentrate, 25% to 30% of the particles will be found in the pan. Diets with significant amounts of fibrous co-products, such as corn gluten feed, may result in higher amounts retained in the pan and less retained on the second screen. This may reduce the rumination time since

the particles in the pan do not stimulate rumination due to their small size. Only the feed particles retained on or above the third screen provide effective fiber to stimulate rumination.

Based on recent research, the amount of particles retained on the second screen is most important to rumination. If you discover that your diets need additional feed particles on the top of the second and third screens, reassess the particle size of your silages and forages. For example, extending the chop length of corn silage to 3/4-inch and adjusting kernel processing can boost the number of particles retained on the second screen.

Other implications

While diet particle size may help set cows up for success, some other items are also required. Animals must have a comfortable resting area that provides adequate space. Diets should be available 24 hours per day with intentional access to water. And during the summer months, providing adequate heat stress abatement is critical to prevent heat-stressed animals from standing rather than lying down. Failure to provide these items will have a negative impact on rumination while lying down, limiting the positive impact that correct diet particle size can have on milkfat production. If you are striving to push milkfat higher in your dairy herd, you might want to meet with your nutritionist and reevaluate how you can use the Penn State Particle Separator to gain some valuable insight into the relationships between particle size, cow behavior, and milk fat production. Having the correct combination of particle sizes in the ration is critical to maximizing the genetic potential of your herd to produce greater amounts of milkfat. •

MIKE BROUK

The author is a professor and extension dairy specialist with Kansas State University.

Equipment leases aren’t what they used to be

THE planting season is off and running. Once the equipment is back in the dirt or hayfield, farmers remember a few things that slowed up their operation last year. You may also be looking across the road at the neighbor’s place, seeing their shiny equipment.

A little over a decade ago, the banks and manufacturers made it easy “to keep up with the Joneses.” You didn’t have to go out and purchase that new tractor, large square baler, or forage harvester. You could just lease it!

This idea was really pushed by major farm equipment manufacturers. Equipment leases were a common practice for about seven to eight years but came to a screeching halt with the next downturn in crop prices. Instead of having a second home for all of the lease returns before the lease ran out, the equipment began piling up on dealers’ lots.

I believe this situation occurred around 2016 to 2018, and I also believe this time period is the main reason we haven’t seen a resurgence in equipment leasing in today’s market. For the most part, the banks and manufacturers were left holding the returned equipment and accruing interest the whole time it was sitting in dealership lots unsold. Some units eventually were retailed to customers at reduced prices while some equipment was just sent to auction.

This scenario eroded equipment values and trust that the farmer had in their investments. When eight forage harvesters hit an auction on the same day — all of the same make and model — it really drove equipment values in the tank. It also reduced the number of people willing to buy new equipment. Farmers didn’t want to invest big in new equipment and then take a hit several years later with a low resale value. It made more sense to wait on a low-hour lease return and purchase it at a drastically reduced price. Personally, I believe the manufacturers don’t want to get put in this position again. There are certainly leases still made every day, but only to a select few customers when the dealership knows the equipment will be taken care of and

returned in good condition. Also, the banks and manufacturers have lowered the residual values on their equipment. For example, they will still lease a tractor to you for 300 hours per year for three years, but you are going to pay for 55% of the value of that tractor over the course of those three years. This makes the payments too much for some people to take the lease. For those who do lease under these conditions, the bank is in better shape for the resale or if it goes to auction.

Low residuals and the drastic price rise of equipment has led the market to not lease as much equipment as it once did. You can still find some leases out there with acceptable residual values, though these leases will have the customer somehow tied to the unit at the end of the term. One example of this is called a PRO (purchase or renew only) lease, and the payments will usually be affordable. The catch is, at the end of the lease, a farmer must purchase (refinance) the unit or renew the lease again. The farmer could trade the tractor back into the dealership if they choose, but can’t just simply hand the keys back and walk away.

Don’t get upside down

With the bank, dealership, and farmer all having a little “skin” in the game, the residual value is more attractive. But be careful — the payment level may look good, but you are eventually doubling the years to pay for the piece of equipment. With today’s interest rates, your total out-of-pocket expense by the time it’s paid for will be quite high.

There may be some farmers who can only get into a big piece of harvest equipment if the term length is stretched out. PRO leases can be done on used equipment, too, but you should always be aware of the “balloon” payment at the end. Do your research to make sure the hours you are planning to put on leased equipment doesn’t put you in an “upside-down” position at the end of the lease. In other words, you owe more than what the equipment is worth. This has

happened on many occasions. I wish manufacturers would again begin to raise the residual values a little because turning over inventory keeps everyone happy. Farmers are in newer, low-hour equipment, dealerships turn inventory, and manufactures can produce new and sell parts for the second-hand units. It’s a good cycle when everyone is pedaling together, but when one stops, the crash is eminent and it can be hard to get back up. •

We’re doing more with less in our pastures

IDON’T go to the town diner for breakfast in the morning — it’s too far of a drive. I would imagine, though, that with beef prices as high as they are for calves, there would be plenty of ranchers horn-tooting about their recent paychecks.

Weaning weights have been and often are the centerpiece of bragging rights, and topping the market with quality calves is another. Of course, it would be foolish to forget that we are paid by the pound or neglect the need to sell quality calves, but too many times we focus on our gross income and not our net income. How much did it cost to produce those pounds? What percent of the cow herd was open?

Over the past decade, I’ve come to appreciate a few important metrics to measure my farm’s success. Pounds of calf weaned per pounds of cow herd exposed is one metric that accounts for fertility, weaning percentage, and animal health. One must understand the costs associated with those pounds, which brings us back to our balance sheet of dollars in and dollars out. Understanding profitable culling tech-

niques and when and how to sell that calf crop can also add considerable value to your field and forage management.

Adaptive grazing

In terms of forages, doing more with less is one way to extract value from good management. Using some form of managed grazing can help protect your forages from being overgrazed and keep them in their optimum growth phase for longer periods, resulting in more pounds of beef produced per acre. This can be as simple as building a fence to divide one large pasture into two, or be as labor intensive as moving cattle to new paddocks multiple times a day.

I like to employ adaptive grazing. By utilizing perimeter hotwire and subdividing pastures with polywire and step-in posts, I can move cattle as often as twice a day or as little as once a week. Water, shade, animal nutritional needs, forage type, and my personal schedule all formulate a plan of action regarding animal movement and paddock size.

The higher the stocking density — or how densely you fence cattle for short periods — the less selective grazing

occurs. Cattle will start taking bites of plants they otherwise might not have tried. They will also trample more forage. We are more likely to utilize higher stocking densities with mature forages and then allow for longer recovery periods. On our perennial pastures during the growing season, we typically move cattle every two to four days in appropriately sized paddocks to allow some residual and a faster recovery. Then, we wait until those pastures are fully recovered before returning.

Redefining “weed”

Chris Hunt

Another way we try and optimize systems here in southern Georgia is by working with weeds. The first step is defining them. Do our cows eat it? If so, then it’s not a weed. Does the plant dominate its environment and outcompete desirable species? If not, then it’s not a weed.

We believe that the complex biological system of the soil microbiome is trying to repair the damage we have done through our management mistakes. If we are constantly using pesticides to disturb soil and plant life, we will always be fighting against nature. Quorum sensing, or cell-to-cell communication, is one fascinating activity that soil microorganisms do to promote a synergistic and collective effect on the health of plant communities. Likewise, seeds in the seedbank germinate based on complex interactions that occur to promote the optimum health of the greater soil organism. The more we dig into the science of soil, the more we uncover how hard the soil is working to repair our mistakes.

We do soil sample, but we do not put commercial fertilizers on our grazing pastures. We are playing the long game, allowing both the sampling and the soils to show us our deficiencies. After over a decade of this practice, we see a multitude of forb, legume, and grass species we did not plant that are thriving in our pastures. These species change throughout the season, and we have learned when and how to graze them.

Little barley, which is high in protein and palatable during the vegetative stage, has about a seven-to-14-day window to utilize before it produces a seedhead and becomes a weed. Pigweed shoots are nibbled on in early growth phases, too, as is smutgrass, which is a cuss-worthy problem most of the year.

Limiting soil disturbances has allowed grasses, legumes, and forbs to naturally reseed and thrive.

In the spring, we try and allow the wild ryegrass and white clover a chance to hit their exponential growth phases before grazing; the same goes for crabgrass in the summer.

We corral our weeds with two mowings per year following a grazing event, using a fully depreciated 1982 John Deere 4240 and a 14-foot mower to keep costs down. Those clipping events keep the broadleaf species from dominating the sward and move the nutrients they mined from the subsoil to the topsoil layer, acting as a fertilizer for the grass species. With adequate moisture, we typically see a fertilizer effect for our bahiagrass- and bermudagrass-dominated pastures.

Eyes on organic matter

Soon, we will be experimenting with vermicompost extracts to add microbial activity to our sandy loam, low-organic matter soils. One thing that is obvious when you pull fertilizer inputs is the difference in production and species in 1% organic matter soils versus 2.5% organic matter soils. The former are usually dominated by the most aggressive weeds and grasses, while the latter tend to have more diversity and produce more season-long biomass and better cow pies. We like to “hay bomb,” or feed hay more densely, on those low-organic matter soils to jump-start biology, improve soil pH, and lay down nutrients to feed the soil critters. We also feed hay and minerals on top of our weedy areas to create disturbance and inspire Mother Nature to shift the plant communities. Sometimes we broadcast seed afterward to see if she likes our ideas. There really isn’t a prescription for

optimizing your operation — it’s just a mindset. How do we find a profitable level of production over the long term? Each manager has to answer this question for themselves, but hopefully some of our practices and ideas might inspire your own solutions so you can brag about your earthworm counts and the amount of taxes you had to pay at the local diner. •

 Please welcome Glenn as one of three new authors of The Pasture Walk column who will offer forage insights from their on-farm perspectives.

GREENWAY’S GRAZING CORN

Graze Yearlings1500 on a 130 Acre Pivot for 30 Days

GREENWAY’S

28 Ton Silage Pasco, WA

GRAZING CORN

3.5 lbs. of Gain Per Day (69% TDN) 5-7 wt. Cattle*

Graze Yearlings1500 on a 130 Acre Pivot for 30 Days

* Jesse Norcutt, Currant, NV

3.5 lbs. of Gain Per Day (69% TDN) 5-7 wt. Cattle*

Greenway Seeds Grazing Corn (GX80) is the No. 1 grazing corn in the nation because it is 5-6 days earlier than the competition. This allows the rancher to plant 5-6 days later and still reach peak sugar content (pre tassel) before the frost shuts you down!

OVERSEED ALFALFA

with Grazing Corn

OVERSEED ALFALFA with

Greenway Seeds Grazing Corn (GX80) is the No. 1 grazing corn in the nation because it is 5-6 days earlier than the competition. This allows the rancher to plant 5-6 days later and still reach peak sugar content (pre tassel) before the frost shuts you down!

Grazing Corn

Plant with a grain drill following second cutting on an older field alfalfa. Ready to graze in early September.

Plant with a grain drill following second cutting on an older field alfalfa. Ready to graze in early September. “We planted GX80 following second cut alfalfa. If we had to do that over we would follow third cut. We grazed 400 head for two weeks on 20 acres,” Cory Veterre - Greenriver, Utah

“We planted GX80 following second cut alfalfa. If we had to do that over we would follow third cut. We grazed 400 head for two weeks on 20 acres” Cory Veterre - Greenriver, Utah

OVERSEED ALFALFA

HERE’S WHAT RANCHERS ARE SAYING

Casey Calvin - Monte Vista, CO

with Grazing Corn

HERE’S WHAT RANCHERS ARE SAYING

We grazed lambs on GX80. They ate it all the way to the ground. Unbelievable! (See website for photos)

Plant with a grain drill following second cutting on an older field alfalfa. Ready to graze in early September.

Crawford Cattle - Winnemucca, NV

Casey Calvin - Monte Vista, CO

Planted mid July, it was way over our heads. We were surprised as to how long we were able to graze. We also baled some of it. We’re buying again.

“We planted GX80 following second cut alfalfa. If we had to do that over we would follow third cut. We grazed 400 head for two weeks on 20 acres” Cory Veterre - Greenriver, Utah

We grazed lambs on GX80. They ate it all the way to the ground. Unbelievable! (See website for photos)

Cory Miller - Grass Valley Farm, Missoula, MT

Crawford Cattle - Winnemucca, NV

We planted our GX80 under wheel lines and watered heavily. This was key as the corn grew 7ft tall!

HERE’S WHAT RANCHERS ARE SAYING

Casey Calvin - Monte Vista, CO

Tom Kerns for Mike Becker Ranch - Baker, OR

We were able to carry 14 A.U.M.’s per acre with our late season grazing of GX80.

We grazed lambs on GX80. They ate it all the way to the ground. Unbelievable! (See website for photos)

Planted mid-July. It was way over our heads. We were surprised as to how long we were able to graze. We also baled some of it. We’re buying again.

Jesse Norcutt - Currant, NV

Crawford Cattle - Winnemucca, NV

Cory Miller - Grass Valley Farm, Missoula, MT

We cut and baled the GX80 at pre-tussel. It was fed to 5-7 wt. cattle, and they gained 31/2 lbs/day

Planted mid July, it was way over our heads. We were surprised as to how long we were able to graze. We also baled some of it. We’re buying again.

We planted our GX80 under wheel lines and watered heavily. This was key as the corn grew 7 ft. tall!

Cory Miller - Grass Valley Farm, Missoula, MT

Tom Kerns for Mike Becker Ranch - Baker, OR

We planted our GX80 under wheel lines and watered heavily. This was key as the corn grew 7ft tall!

Tom Kerns for Mike Becker Ranch - Baker, OR

We were able to carry 14 A.U.M.’s per acre with our late season grazing of GX80.

Jesse Norcutt - Currant, NV

Jesse Norcutt - Currant, NV

We were able to carry 14 A.U.M.’s per acre with our late season grazing of GX80.

We cut and baled the GX80 at pre-tussel. It was fed to 5–7 wt. cattle, and they gained 3 1/2 lbs/day.

We cut and baled the GX80 at pre-tussel. It was fed to 5-7 wt. cattle, and they gained 31/2 lbs/day

Alan Greenway Seedsman Over 50 Years Experience Greenway Seeds Caldwell, ID

Alan Greenway 208-250-0159 (cell) 208-454-8342 (message)

Alan Greenway Seedsman Over 50 Years Experience Greenway Seeds Caldwell, ID

Alan Greenway Seedsman Over 50 Years Experience! 208-250-0159 (cell) 208-454-8342 (message)

Warehouses in Caldwell, ID and Deerfield, WI FREE

FREE SWEET CORN SEED WITH ORDERS!

www.greenwayseed.com

“Modern Forages Sold Nationwide And Canada”

“Modern Forages Sold Nationwide and Canada”

GREENWAY SEEDS www.greenwayseed.com

Alan Greenway 208-250-0159 (cell) 208-454-8342 (message)

Warehouses in Caldwell, ID and Deerfield, WI

Warehouses in Caldwell, ID and Deerfield, WI FREE SWEET CORN SEED WITH ORDERS!

FLEX YOUR ADAPTIVE GRAZING MUSCLES

by Eric Bailey

THE cattle industry is inherently volatile and subject to the unpredictable forces of weather, market prices, and input costs. To navigate these uncertainties, beef producers must adopt resilient strategies that ensure long-term profitability and sustainability. One key approach is diversifying grazing enterprises to reduce dependence on hay feeding.

At the core of a resilient grazing enterprise is the ability to identify overvalued and undervalued feedstuffs. Feed costs constitute a significant portion of beef cattle production expenses and can make or break profitability. The fundamental principle is that value should be based on the energy and protein content of a feed rather than tradition or convenience.

In my opinion, grass hay is consistently overvalued. While it remains a widely used feedstuff, the cost of production, storage, and feeding often outweighs its nutrient profile, especially in systems where farmers seek to maximize yield at the cost of nutrient quality. In Missouri, mixed grass hay cut in May has a greater total digestible nutrient (TDN) concentration (55% to 57% TDN) versus hay cut in July (50% TDN). This slight difference can have significant implications — May-cut hay meets the energy demands of a late-gestation preg-

nant cow, while July-cut hay may lead to an energy deficit, potentially affecting fetal development and cow condition.

For many cattle producers, hay production is a tough habit to break. However, analyzing the true costs of hay relative to grazing paints a stark picture. These values are based on the University of Missouri Mixed Grass Hay Planning Budget and my estimate of cash rental rate across a broad swath of fescue pastures in Missouri.

• Cost of haying: Producing 6,000 pounds of hay per acre involves expenses related to fertilizer, fuel, labor, equipment depreciation, and storage. The cost per acre reported is $323.89, which translates to approximately $53.98 per 1,000-pound bale.

• Cost of grazing: On the other hand, cash rental rate of pasture is $75 per acre with an estimated 3 tons of forage production per acre. Under continuous grazing, cattle utilize only 30% of available forage, yielding 1,800 pounds per acre at a cost of $41.67 per 1,000 pounds of grazed forage.

Grazing pays

Proper grazing management significantly enhances forage utilization, reducing reliance on external feed sources. By boosting harvest efficiency from 30% to 50%, the cost per 1,000 pounds of grazed forage drops to $25, making it an even more attractive

alternative to hay.

Every month of hay feeding that is replaced by management-intensive grazing saves $28.98 per cow per year under the conditions of this example. Moving from a 90-day hay feeding season to a 365-day grazing operation would save $86.94 per cow per year. Note, this value does not incorporate hay lost due to storage and feeding losses. Thus, it is conceivable that replacing haying with grazing will save more than $86.94 per cow per year.

Mike Rankin

While cow-calf operations remain the backbone of many beef enterprises, they are vulnerable to environmental and market fluctuations. One of the fundamental challenges is that cows require feed 365 days per year, yet forage production is seasonal. Second, many grazing systems are functional group monocultures, such as tall fescue-clover pastures in Missouri.

Many operations allocate their entire carrying capacity to cow-calf production, leaving them exposed to drought risks. When forage availability declines, producers must either purchase expensive supplemental feed or reduce herd size. This rigid business model limits adaptability and financial stability. No one wants to “sell low and buy high,” but that is often the harsh reality producers face during a drought. Either buy hay, which has gone up in price due to limited availability, or sell cows in a depressed market.

Hedge your bets

It is common to discuss acres per head, which is referred to as stocking rate. I used the term “carrying capacity” in the paragraph above. Carrying capacity is defined as the maximum stocking rate that can be applied over time without deterioration of the grazing land. The crux of sustainable beef production should be to bring forage demands of your livestock enterprise in alignment with the carrying capacity of your land, rather than rigidly applying a single stocking rate to a single enterprise across your land.

A promising strategy to address forage imbalances and enhance drought resilience is to devote a portion of your carrying capacity to flexible grazing units. This approach involves adjusting stocking rates based on seasonal forage availability rather than maintaining a fixed number of cows year-round.

This is how I envision incorporating flexible grazing units on a Missouri

farm that has historically been stocked with 100 cows at 3 acres per cow. First, the 100-cow herd would be reduced to 50 cows year-round. The farmer has 150 acres available for a flexible grazing operation. In the spring, the farmer purchases 225 head of 500- to 600pound stocker cattle to graze from April 1 to July 1 on a portion of the land. The stockers leave the farm after July 1 as forage growth rate of tall fescue slows during the summer months. Therefore, the farm is stocked at 6 acres per cow year-round, and instead of harvesting the excess spring forage as dry hay, another class of livestock harvests high-quality spring growth not used by cows. Fall forage growth is stockpiled, but the stockpile feeds half the cows as before, which should eliminate the need for winter hay feeding.

My lab’s research has consistently demonstrated the ability of stocker

duce approximately 175 pounds of gain per head in the system described above, or 39,375 pounds total live weight gain. The stocker system raises farm beef production by 14,375 pounds and reduces hay feeding costs by $86.94 per cow per year. The 50 culled cows would have to wean calves weighing 788 pounds to produce the same amount of live weight gain as the stocker system.

Other options exist

Incorporating flexible grazing units improves drought resilience because an operation can change the number of stockers purchased each year. If the fall and winter have below-average precipitation or long-range forecasts during spring are pessimistic, bring fewer stockers onto the farm. Similarly, if below-average precipitation is received in April and May, consider removing the stockers early to preserve forage for

ible grazing units. Replacement heifers, custom grazing cows for another operation, or even an alternative species such as sheep or goats could be utilized to harvest spring forage grown beyond what is needed by the 50-cow herd in the example above. The broader concept is to have a “set” herd that remains on the operation year-round and a “flex” herd that comes and goes with changes in forage availability.

Building resilience in beef cattle enterprises requires a shift in mindset — away from rigid, hay-dependent systems and toward dynamic stocking rate strategies. Do not allocate 100% of your operation’s carrying capacity to a single enterprise. Optimize grazing efficiency by leveraging flexible grazing units through dynamic stocking approaches. •

Forage fiber metabolism differs in dairy cows

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

EVERY choice that affects cow nutrition can have far-reaching impacts on both milk production and environmental sustainability. Researchers are constantly looking for ways to improve the efficiency of feed and digestion to optimize cow health and production. One area that has captured the attention of researchers is the digestion of fiber, particularly from forages like alfalfa and grasses, and how this affects dairy cows’ overall metabolism and performance.

Gonzalo Ferreira of Virginia Tech has spent years investigating how different types of fiber impact the digestive system of high-producing dairy cows. His work, funded through NAFA’s Alfalfa Checkoff, aims to not only optimize milk production but also examine how fiber degradation and passage rate from the rumen affect methane emissions, a crucial aspect of sustainability in dairy farming.

The research began with a common observation among dairy farmers: Alfalfa, despite being a staple forage for dairy cows, behaves differently in the rumen than grasses. From a fiber degradation standpoint, alfalfa fiber — when measured by neutral detergent fiber (NDF) — is considered less digestible than fiber found in grasses like orchardgrass.

We know that the NDF from alfalfa is less digestible, but does that really translate into poorer overall fiber quality? How does that impact things like milk production or methane emissions?

These were the questions Ferreira was asking when he initiated the study and drove him to explore how fiber degradation and passage rate affect fiber metabolism and, ulti-

mately, dairy cow productivity.

Ferreira conducted his study using two types of hay: alfalfa and orchardgrass. He then formulated two distinct diets for the cows, each containing 30% NDF. Both diets included one-third each of concentrate, corn silage, and hay.

Digestion rates differed

One of the most important findings of the study was that fiber from alfalfa hay passed more quickly through the rumen than fiber from orchardgrass hay. Additionally, NDF from alfalfa degraded faster than that from

orchardgrass, pointing to a more efficient fiber degradation process for cows consuming alfalfa-based diets.

For farmers, the implication is clear: Fiber from alfalfa may be more easily digested and utilized by dairy cows than fiber from grasses. This could have important consequences for maximizing dry matter intake and, in turn, improving milk production. “We learned that cows fed alfalfa-based diets could potentially digest fiber faster, which could be beneficial for high-producing cows, especially during hot weather when maximizing intake becomes a

Figure 1. Degradation of forage NDF over time

PROJECT RESULTS

•A s expected, alfalfa hay had a higher concentration of uNDF (NDF basis) than orchardgrass hay (Figure 1). However, the degradation rate of the NDF was greater for alfalfa hay than for orchardgrass hay.

•Cows consumed similar amounts of NDF (17.6 pounds per day), but cows consuming diets containing alfalfa hay digested more NDF than cows consuming diets containing orchardgrass hay (40.4% and 35.9%, respectively).

•Cows consuming diets containing alfalfa hay had a faster rate of passage for uNDF than cows consuming diets containing orchardgrass hay (5.02% and 4.03% per hour, respectively).

challenge,” Ferreira explained.

The Virginia Tech dairy nutritionist plans to expand on these findings in future studies. “This is just the beginning,” Ferreira asserted. “We’ve already started another passage rate study, and plan to continue work into 2025 and 2026. We are committed to exploring how forage quality influences fiber metabolism in high-producing dairy

cows and linking that to methane emissions, which is a key concern for the sustainability of the dairy industry.”

The ultimate goal is to provide farmers with more precise information on how to optimize cow diets for improved productivity and environmental stewardship.

For dairy farmers, these findings offer a valuable perspective on how alfalfa

Alforex Seeds by DLF America’s Alfalfa CROPLAN

Forage First by DLF Innvictis Seed Solutions

may be a more efficient forage option for high-producing cows, especially during periods of heat stress when maximizing feed intake is critical. As Ferreira continues to investigate this area, the future looks promising for improving both the productivity and sustainability of dairy farming.

A full copy of the report can be found at: alfalfa.org. •

Latham Hi-Tech Seeds Legacy Seeds NEXGROW S&W Seed Company

W-L Alfalfas SUPPORT THE ALFALFA CHECKOFF!

Buy your seed from these facilitating marketers:

DON’T SEE YOUR FAVORITE BRAND ON THE LIST? Contact NAFA for information on becoming a participation brand.

The alfalfa checkoff benefits you and the entire industry. Scan the QR code to learn more.

LEGENDARY SINCE 1971

ROZOL GROUND SQUIRREL BAIT

Build your legacy with the legendary Rozol® Ground Squirrel Bait. Brought to you by Liphatech Ag, your Most Valuable Partner for effective rodent control.

Mainstream berry processing score

WHILE nutrient content and digestibility drive energy value to a large extent, particle size and the physical characteristics of your silage are increasingly important to account for in order to unlock forage feeding potential. Focusing upon those physical characteristics, let’s delve into a new benchmark measure: berry processing score (BPS).

Thanks to work done by Dave Mertens at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center and Virginia Tech’s Gonzalo Ferriera to develop corn silage kernel processing score (KPS), the commercial silage measure for grain processing has been vaulted to the forefront in harvesting, agronomy, and dairy nutrition circles. Kernel processing score quickly became a focal point in silage benchmarking evaluations, and decades after the initial research, corn silage KPS continues to be one of the hottest topics in dairy and beef nutrition.

Pivoting from corn silage to another starch-rich silage, sorghum has grown in importance on Southern and Western farms. Extended drought, pivot and well irrigation drying up, expensive water rights, and farmers cropping more dryland acres are some of the factors driving the interest in sorghum, as this crop is far more water-efficient than corn. When harvested after heading, sorghum silage can yield 15% to 20% starch content. In theory, the energy potential in this starch and the sorghum berries is valuable for dairy and beef rations. However, nutritionists often discount the starch value of sorghum to zero in ration balancing efforts due to poor berry processing, which results in starch passing through cattle undigested.

A decade in the making

Fast forward to the present where commercial berry processing capabilities have been unveiled for self-propelled forage harvesters. These implements are having a big impact. Early indications are that the berry and starch energy potential in silage is finally being unleashed with processing. Speculating about this potential evolution back in the mid-2010s, Kansas State University’s Jared Johnson and Mike Brouk and

I had worked together on a conceptual BPS evaluation.

At the time, Johnson’s doctoral research program simulated berry processing in the Kansas State University engineering lab as there were no harvesters outfitted with berry processors capable of breaking the sorghum berries. The laboratory method is similar to KPS in that a sorghum silage sample is dried and sieved in a Ro-Tap shaker for 10 minutes. Then, the relative amount of starch that passes through the 2.36-millimeter sieve is quantified. Luiz Ferraretto with the University of Wisconsin-Madison and colleagues helped refine and advance the laboratory method. But with the laboratory measure developed and tested well ahead of the self-propelled processing engineering developments needed, we sat and waited.

Recently, new berry processing implements have found their way into choppers. Juan Pineiro and his graduate research students at Texas A&M University, alongside Katie Raver at Rock River Laboratory Inc., have picked up the baton in research and field evaluation efforts as these machines have hit the fields in the past year. Pineiro’s research is finding that BPS is related to rumen starch digestibility. Therefore, gains in BPS can be equated to better starch utilization by dairy and beef cattle. As I’m coming back to the topic a decade later, I’m aiming to team up with these groups to bring this concept to the table in

dairy and beef nutrition, harvesting, and management conversations.

Berry benchmarks

Several hundred samples have already been run through commercial BPS analysis, and the early results are compelling. The figure details the distribution in commercial sorghum silage BPS. Zooming in on the 2024 crop year, we’re finding a normal and sizable distribution of results. A 50% BPS threshold is the goal, which seems to correspond to about the top 30% of commercial sorghum silages analyzed by Rock River Laboratory Inc.

With this new BPS metric in hand, it’s time for us to benchmark our sorghum silages. I warmly remember Mike Hutjens from the University of Illinois routinely writing about and discussing fecal starch or KPS, challenging readers and audiences with the question, “Do you know your number?” Now, it’s time to follow suit, but this time, bringing BPS into the mainstream. This new BPS benchmark stands to dramatically enhance our understanding of sorghum silage feeding value and help us achieve better dairy and beef cattle performance. •

Is virtual fencing the future?

LAST year, we started experimenting with virtual fencing at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. As we’ve worked with it, I’ve started seeing more and more potential. While no virtual fencing system is 100% effective when it comes to containment — and therefore shouldn’t replace perimeter fencing — it can offer a lot of possibilities for grazing management.

One of the biggest advantages of virtual fencing is the ability to create “interior” fences anywhere you want within the pasture perimeter. This gives you tremendous grazing flexibility. Are the cattle hitting one area of the pasture too hard and leaving other areas underutilized? With virtual fencing, you can simply exclude livestock from the overgrazed area by creating an interior fence in that paddock. This could be especially valuable for those who rent pasture, since you wouldn’t have to invest in building interior fences to realize the benefits of rotational grazing.

Another opportunity with this technology is the ability to protect riparian areas. With virtual fencing, you can keep cattle out of waterways without having to constantly maintain fences along water gaps — something we all know can be laborious and time-consuming, especially after a flooding event.

There’s also huge potential for using virtual fencing to allow livestock to graze annual forages that are planted on cropland. When annual species are actively growing, rotational grazing can be a game-changing strategy to help manage forage and keep it in vegetative growth stages while promoting better regrowth.

Follow the leader

One of the first questions we asked when experimenting with virtual fence was: Can we keep two groups of cattle within the same pasture separated using just virtual fencing? For example, could you graze heifers or young cows ahead of older cows, allowing the first group to take the best forage and the second group to clean up behind them?

The virtual fencing companies we talked to weren’t optimis tic about our hypothesis. So, we decided to test it ourselves. We ran a trial with two groups of stocker cattle on the same pasture, separated by an 80-foot buffer strip using virtual fencing. Over an eight-week period, the virtual fencing system maintained 99% separation between the groups. By the end of the grazing season, you could actually see the virtually fenced borders in the pasture because of animals’ grazing behavior — the technology was that effective. I think the bottom line is that leader-follower grazing techniques are absolutely in the cards and will be a viable practice with virtual fencing.

Differences exist

One of the opportunities I was most excited about throughout the experiment was using virtual fencing to intensify grazing. The first thing I learned during the trial was that there are significant differences between virtual fencing products — particularly in global positioning system (GPS) accuracy. That becomes especially important if you’re looking to rely on virtual fencing for more intensive and accurate grazing management.

For instance, in our research, we’ve been using the eShepherd collars for strip grazing stockpiled sorghum-sudangrass in the fall and winter. We compared this virtual fence technology to more traditional temporary fencing made with polywire, and it was just as effective. An added bonus was that I didn’t have to drive fence posts into frozen ground or pull them out later as one would need to with polywire. That’s a win in my book.

In our case, we were moving cattle about once a week and were able to get about one extra animal unit month (AUM) per acre while still leaving the same amount of forage residue in the pasture. And because virtual fencing makes moving livestock easier, we’ve also tested more frequent rotations. In a previous trial, moving cattle twice a week gained us 17% more forage available for grazing compared to moving animals once a week.

I believe virtual fencing is going to open a lot of doors for grazing management in the future. Right now, the price tag may seem steep, but there are ways to make it pencil out. •

MARY DREWNOSKI

POT ROAST TO FROM POTHOLES

by Mike Rankin, Senior Editor

NORTH Dakota Highway 34 runs east and west through the middle of the state and carries drivers for a not-so-grand total of about 57 miles, beginning to end. Examining the landscape, you will find the usual rural mixture of crop and grazing land . . . but that’s not all.

A traveler is also offered the opportunity to gaze at a never-ending abundance of moon-like depressions filled with standing water. An aerial satellite image of the region makes it look like the landscape has succumbed to a bad case of chickenpox. This is the epicenter of a geologic oddity called the Prairie Pothole Region, which exists because of glacial activity that occurred nearly 10,000 years ago and

has a footprint from Iowa to Canada. Not counting Hazelton, located at the west terminal of Highway 34, the only town along its traverse is Napoleon. A bit northeast of this county seat borough is a farm that is owned and operated by Richard Gross. He is something of a pioneer in the area, having gone down the road of rotationally grazing his beef cows nearly 20 years ago. Since those early days, he has spent time

refining and adding to his system’s infrastructure that provides forage for his herd of 300 mostly Angus cows and 60 replacement heifers.

The livestock are grazed on about 2,300 acres of pasture. Gross also has 1,500 acres of cropland, raising corn, soybeans, and wheat. Another 250 acres of dedicated hayfields round out the farm’s land base. The full-time labor force on the farm consists of . . . well . . . Gross, although he does pay for his corn to be custom planted and harvested for silage.

Gross and his wife, Sonya, live on the original farm that his father, who had nine brothers, bought in the 1950s. Once out of high school, Gross

attended Bismarck State College and got a degree in farm and ranch management. He’s been on the farm ever since, growing the operation as land became available.

No trailer needed

“The entire ranch is contiguous,” Gross explained from his kitchen table. “Ninety-nine percent of my cows have never been in a trailer.” The pastures consist of primarily meadow bromegrass, western wheatgrass, and in some cases, native grasses and forbs. The cows are moved every two to three days to a new paddock, which range in size from 20 to 80 acres. In total, there are 36 paddocks that the cows rotate through. The replacement heifers have 11 paddocks of their own.

The first time over the pastures in the spring is a more rapid rotation to set plants back and prevent seedheads from emerging too early. Gross provides water using shallow pipelines that run throughout the farm. He mounts trail cameras at the waterers to make sure there are no availability issues. The permanent water tanks are set so they can be used for several different paddocks.

Although there is no set plan for establishing legumes in his pastures, he grazes pastures or hayfields late in the season after the

forage seed is mature. By moving cattle to another pasture, he finds that some legume seed is spread through the manure. “They kind of reseed the legumes themselves, and I tend to find quite a bit of alfalfa and clover in many of my pastures,” Gross explained. “By leaving pastures idle a large part of the year, they get a chance to establish and

not get grazed off right away.” Cows calve in the spring, starting around April 10. “It’s a balancing act between the weather and getting ahead of the grass,” Gross explained. “I try to be done calving before we start moving cows and calves through the paddocks, generally around early May. Utilizing all of the grass is probably my biggest challenge,” he added. Gross feels his rotational grazing system goes a long way in keeping

flies from bothering his cows during the summer. “We keep moving the cows away from the flies, and then supplement that fly-control strategy with a livestock mineral that contains garlic,” he said.

Keeps them grazing

“I don’t baby my cattle,” Gross asserted. “They have to work and drop a calf in my rotation system or they get sold.” Although fall and winter arrive early in North Dakota, Gross likes to keep grazing for as long as possible. He utilizes corn residue or a cover crop planted after winter wheat for grazing in the fall and early winter. “We sometimes don’t have to start feeding cows until January,” he noted. “I try to have a higher nutritional value crop or cover crop late into the fall to graze as long as the calves are still sucking the cows. That way the calves keep growing until I wean.”

If trees aren’t present in a winter pasture, Gross will put up portable windbreaks, although he admits they aren’t as effective as trees. He’s currently trying to get trees planted in locations where they don’t exist. When the amiable beef producer talks about winter feeding, he’s not referring to grain or high-priced supplements. That’s when Gross’s hay supply comes into play. The hay he

makes during the warmer months isn’t mature grass; it’s primarily high-quality alfalfa or alfalfa-meadow bromegrass mixtures. His hayfields usually provide two cuttings annually, but that can range from one to three, depending on the year. First cutting begins about mid-June. Hayfields are kept until the resident pocket gophers make them too rough to easily traverse. This can range from five to 10 years. To supplement the alfalfa hay inventory, some winter wheat is cut for forage and might be followed with millet or sudangrass for baling in the fall.

Gross rolls out about seven to eight bales of hay each day as cows overwinter on cornstalks and adjacent pastures. To expedite the feeding process, he still uses sisal twine on his bales to avoid dealing with the plastic during frozen tundra season. “I try not to have much carryover hay from year to year,” Gross said. “The quality of the hay just deteriorates too much if they have to sit outside for a second year.”

Ninety-nine percent of my cows have never been in a trailer.

Cows aren’t the only animals that need to be fed in the winter. “I like to wait with weaning until average temperatures are a little cooler,” Gross explained. “It seems calves start eating sooner after weaning, and there are less day/night temperature swings, which cuts down on sick calves.”

Gross weans his spring-born

calves around Thanksgiving and then backgrounds them until February, retaining ownership after they are shipped. “I make about 30 acres of corn silage and feed that during the backgrounding stage,” he explained. “They get some additional supplementation as well, but the cows only get alfalfa hay, even in their later stages of gestation.”

Moving forward

Gross is not afraid to try new technologies such as biologicals that are intended to enhance soil microbial life in his pastures and soils. “I continue to look for ways to make my operation more labor efficient,” he said. “I would like to add my own drone to help monitor fields and cattle, but so far I’ve hesitated to make that leap because of the time it takes to learn the new technology.”

Gross and his wife have raised three children on the farm. Their youngest daughter, Megan, has

taken the most interest in the beef herd. She went to graduate school at Oklahoma State University and is currently working locally for a national livestock nutrition company. “She’s my go-to for livestock questions,” Gross said.

Retirement doesn’t appear to be in the near term for this Peace Garden State beef producer. He still loves what he does. “Many of my friends talk about retiring, so I thought about it and decided that I need to work to be able to retire,” Gross chuckled. “It seems I work a few days a month, and the rest of the time I drive tractor, combine, or am messing with the cows. These are things I still really enjoy.”

Apparently, Gross’s positive attitude and grazing system is infectious. He reports that a few of his Prairie Pothole Region neighbors have followed his lead. Of course, that could also be because Gross was the only one left with grazeable grass during some past drought years. •

HIT THESE HAYLAGE HARVEST TARGETS

by Nathan Pokowski

THIS past winter has been notably colder compared to recent years, but as we approach May, warmer weather and the time for haylage harvest will soon be upon us.

Each spring, I hold preharvest meetings with my dairy clients to review and assess the previous year’s haylage harvest and forage quality. During these meetings, we identify areas of success and strategies for improvement. Additionally, we will go through the GPS FeedFIT nine-step process for harvesting high-quality haylage. While I will not discuss all nine steps here, I would like to highlight my top four priorities, which are:

1. Harvest timing

2. Dry matter (DM)

3. Relative forage quality (RFQ)

4. Filling and packing

Harvest timing

When to cut is a frequent query that tends to arise around the first week of May. There are several approaches to addressing this. In some cases, I have taken scissors cuttings across a field and sent them into the forage testing laboratory for analysis to understand where the plant stands in terms of quality. Relative forage quality (RFQ) is used as an index. In other instances, I have considered growing degree day accumulations. What I have found to be the most helpful in making a cutting decision is an evaluation of the height and health of the plant.

I typically target a 24- to 26-inch height for first cutting and 21 to 23 inches for the subsequent cuttings. Conventional alfalfa varieties are targeted for the lower end of the height range and reduced-lignin varieties for the higher end. Metrics may be slightly different among farms or geographies, so I suggest using this approach in combination with past years’ history. Saving pictures with plant height and comparing them to feed-out quality over the years has helped me guide clients. Additionally, considering weather

events and plant health is included in this decision-making process.

Dry matter

Maintaining appropriate dry matter content in haylage is essential to ensure a good fermentation. The cutoff point I follow is 38% DM, as wetter haylage such as 35% DM can pose risks and potentially result in pickled or butyric haylage, which adversely affects cow performance. Ideally, 40% DM is where I like to see most haylage harvested. Exceeding 45% DM can present challenges and boosts the likelihood of plugged choppers or mold development during storage.

Relative forage quality

For high-quality cow haylage, I target 175 to 185 RFQ at feedout. This may mean cutting a standing crop at 15 to 20 points higher than these values to accommodate for harvest and fermentation losses. As stated earlier, a system needs to be put in place to track results from past years, as the target RFQ will likely be different from farm to farm. If possible, I target lower quality haylage (130 to 140 RFQ) for heifers and dry cows. This all depends on a farm’s ability to be able to store this haylage in a separate pile.

Filling and packing

Our goals for filling and packing a bunker or pile are to fill quickly, safely, and efficiently, and then to cover the haylage rapidly to eliminate oxygen to ensure a good fermentation.

Construct a pile so that it has a consistent density, aiming for 18 pounds or more of dry matter per cubic foot. Match the packing tractor capacity and the number of tractors with the tonnage of haylage being delivered. A guideline to follow is: tractor(s) weight divided by 800 equals the number of wet tons per hour that can be adequately packed. During filling, spread the crop in 6- to 8-inch layers. I have found that large windrows of haylage across the bunk indicate that haylage is coming in too fast, and there is insufficient equipment to manage the material being delivered. It is also necessary to maintain bunks with a proper slope of 18% or lower.

Ensuring that all haylage is tightly packed on all sides is crucial for proper fermentation and preventing spoilage.

Have safety in mind

In addition to the technical aspects of putting up an excellent alfalfa haylage crop, don’t forget to prioritize the human aspects and safety measures. Ensure high-visibility vests are worn in high-traffic areas such as feed pads. Make eye contact with equipment operators to confirm they are aware of your presence before entering their workspace, and identify a safe zone where you can relocate during busy periods.

Harvesting quality haylage requires a system. It is essential to establish a procedure for determining the appropriate time to cut, set dry matter and quality targets, and understand processes for filling and packing. Conduct all of these steps while prioritizing safety. •

The author is a dairy nutrition and management consultant in Michigan for GPS Dairy Consulting.

Spreading almond shells on alfalfa has shown some promise for soil health and improved water dynamics.

Amending alfalfa in a nutshell

by Sarah Light

WITH its deep taproots and ability to fix nitrogen in the soil, alfalfa has the potential to be an outlet for high-carbon materials like almond shell by-products. In regions where it is available, applying almond shell mulch to alfalfa stands could be a viable practice to improve soil health and fertility while promoting organic matter recycling.

To test this hypothesis, researchers with University of California’s Cooperative Extension Service in Yolo County applied processed almond shells as a mulch to established alfalfa for two years.

Almond shells were first applied in October 2021 to 3-year-old alfalfa at varying rates between 4 to 8 tons per acre. By spring of 2022, the almond shells had mostly decomposed. Almond shells were applied to the same test plots in November 2022 at a rate of 12.5 tons per acre.

In addition to yield, test plots were evaluated for stand vigor, percent cover (bare soil, alfalfa, weeds), and weed pressure. Soil fertility and soil health measurements were also collected during this trial, including aggregate stability, compaction, soil moisture, and soil cracking. Other field treatments

included gypsum applied at 2 tons per acre and an untreated control.

The almond shell mulch did not reduce stand vigor as measured by the number of alfalfa plants per square foot. Alfalfa yields were likewise not significantly reduced, though they trended lower in almond shell plots during the first spring cutting and then recovered and were slightly higher than control plots in late summer for both years of this study.

Almond shells are high in carbon and low in nitrogen, and amendments with a high C:N ratio can tie up nitrogen as they break down. Therefore, the slight reduction in spring yields might be due to the initial spring tie up of nitrogen for feeder roots as a result of the almond shell application.

For soil health metrics, almond shell applications showed benefits of reduced soil compaction in the top 3 inches of soil as well as a reduction in soil cracking, which is common in clay soils and can tear feeder roots apart in perennial crops like alfalfa.

Soil compaction, a common problem in alfalfa due to equipment traffic during multiple harvests, can lead to yield and stand loss, poor water infiltration, and reduced microbial activity. Our study showed that almond shells can help mitigate surface soil compaction once the alfalfa has been estab -

lished. There were no changes to other soil health metrics like aggregate stability and bulk density after two years of this trial, nor did the almond shell mulch suppress weeds at the rates applied.

Soil fertility comparisons

With the exception of electrical conductivity (EC), which measures salinity levels in soil, other soil measurements were not significantly different by treatment. Gypsum is a highly soluble salt, and the EC was higher in the gypsum plots compared to the almond shell and control plots.

Despite the fact that other differences were not statistically significant, there were some interesting trends in soil measurements. Specifically, almond shells have about 30 pounds of potassium per ton (or 36 pounds of K 2 0 equivalent per ton), which can eventually leach into the root zone with rain or irrigation as almond shells decompose. In this project, there was more potassium present in soils with almond shell mulch compared to gypsum or control plots.

Plots with almond shells also had more total carbon and total organic matter. Soil samples were collected in the top foot of soil where shells were applied to the soil surface. It is likely that the soil sampling depth affected

our ability to measure differences in soil potassium and carbon. Other measurements like cation exchange capacity (CEC), magnesium, calcium, and total nitrogen were not different by treatment.

Soil water assessments

Soil water measurements were also collected in this trial. Infiltration measurements, which gauge water movement into the soil, were taken for the first 4 inches of water applied. Infiltration was fastest in plots with almond shells; however, differences among the treatments were only statistically significant for the fourth inch of water.

In a heavy rain event, rapidly moving water into the soil is advantageous for preventing runoff and retaining water in the fields. Saturated hydraulic conductivity measures the rate that water flows through saturated soil. Though not statistically significant, almond shell plots also had a faster saturated hydraulic conductivity compared to the other treatments.

Almond shells are bulky yet very

lightweight, making them a challenge to spread. Moreover, good soil coverage requires a high volume of shells per acre and multiple truckloads per field will be needed, expediting hauling and spreading costs. However, shells are a dry material and transportation costs are not lost to water weight as with other soil amendments like compost.

In California’s Sacramento Valley where this field trial was conducted, freight costs were $10 per ton within 50 miles and spreading costs were $15 per ton. These costs are relatively high given the lack of measurable differences to soil fertility and yield. Thus, this practice is best suited for established alfalfa fields located near a source of almond shell processing to reduce freight costs.

Mulching is considered a soil conservation practice under both federal and state guidelines. In this case, though, mulch must be applied to a 2-inch depth and at a rate that will achieve 70% soil coverage. At the highest application rate in our study (12.5 tons per acre) the depth of the mulch

was under 1 inch.

Although this project was an initial evaluation and did not quantify the optimum application rate to alfalfa fields, almond shell mulch in established alfalfa showed benefits of reduced soil cracking, reduced soil compaction, and better water infiltration without negatively affecting stand health and forage yields. Since almond shells are not incorporated into the soil, any nitrogen tie up would be slow, and only on the soil surface. With that said, incorporating almond shells to alfalfa stands prior to planting or applying shells to first-year stands is not recommended. •

The author is an agronomy advisor with University of California Cooperative Extension.

 Rachael Long, field crops and pest management farm advisor emeritus, and Taiyu Guan, an assistant specialist with UCCE, were contributing authors of this article.

BALE SPIN-OFF

Efficient hay management tool for moving and feeding round bales.

• Eliminate wasted hay by only unrolling what cattle will clean up in an hour.

• Easy operation from the cab of the tractor or skid steer.

IQ

Kentucky Beginning Grazing School

April 29 and 30, Russellville, Ky.

Details: forages.ca.uky.edu/events

2025 Basic Grazing School

May 13 and 14, Madison, Va.

Details: vaforages.org/events

Four-State Dairy Nutrition and Management Conference

June 5 and 6, Dubuque, Iowa

Details: fourstatedairy.org

International Silage Conference

July 21 to 24, Gainesville, Fla.

Details: conference.ifas.ufl.edu/silage

Wisconsin Farm Technology Days

August 5 to 7, Bear Creek, Wis.

Details: wifarmtechdays.org

Farm Progress Show

August 26 to 28, Decatur, Ill.

Details: farmprogressshow.com

Husker Harvest Days

September 9 to 11, Grand Island, Neb.

Details: huskerharvestdays.com

Kentucky Intermediate Grazing School

September 24, Versailles, Ky.

Details: forages.ca.uky.edu/events

National Hay Association

Convention

September 24 to 27, Frankenmuth, Mich.

Details: nationalhay.org

World Dairy Expo

World Forage Analysis Superbowl

Sept. 30 to Oct. 3, Madison, Wis.

Corn silage entries due July 10

Hay crop entries due August 21

Details: bit.ly/HFG-WFAS

Sunbelt Ag Expo

Southeastern Hay Contest

October 14 to 16, Moultrie, Ga.

Hay contest entries due Aug. 30

Details: bit.ly/HFG-SHC

Kentucky Grazing Conference

East: October 28, Winchester, Ky. West: October 29, Leitchfield, Ky.

Details: forages.ca.uky.edu/events

HAY MARKET UPDATE

H ay prices stuck in a rut

According to USDA data, alfalfa hay prices continue to creep lower, with average prices dipping to their lowest point since February 2018. Grass hay prices continue to inch upward, buttoning up the price gap between the two hay types. Meanwhile, exporters anticipate smaller demand from major export markets as these countries seek other suppliers amidst the reshaping of U.S. trade policy.

The prices below are primarily from USDA hay market reports as of mid-April. Prices are FOB barn/stack unless otherwise noted. •

PUT YOUR FORAGES TO THE TEST

Forage growers across the country are invited to participate in the 2025 World Forage Analysis Superbowl. Awardwinning samples will be displayed during Trade Show hours in the Trade Center at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin, September 30 - October 3. Winners will be announced during the Brevant seeds Forage Superbowl Luncheon on Wednesday, October 1.

Contest rules and entry forms are available at foragesuperbowl.org, by calling Dairyland Laboratories at (920) 336-4521 or by contacting the sponsors listed below.

$26,000+ in cash prizes made possible by these generous sponsors:

Crop/plant/sample specifications

August 212025 Dairy Hay >75% legume; grown by active dairy producers

August 212025 Commercial Hay >75% legume; commercially grown and sold in large lots off the farm

August 212025 Grass Hay >75% grass

Samples analyzed for (expressed on a dry matter basis):

All hay samples: Must be from a bale, any type or size; use of a preservative or desiccant is allowed. Hay, Baleage, Haylage: Dry matter, crude protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), relative forage quality (RFQ) and milk per ton.

August 212025 Baleage Any mixture of grass/legumes Baleage: Must be processed and wrapped as baleage and show signs of fermentation.

August 212025 Alfalfa Haylage ≥75% legume

August 212025 Mix/Grass Hlg <75% legume

July 102024 Standard Corn Silage (non-BMR) Must be whole plant, recommended chopping height 6”-8”. Must contain >75% standard variety.

July 102024 BMR Corn Silage Must be whole plant, recommended chopping height 6”-8”. Must contain >75% BMR variety.

All silage samples: Must be ensiled in a normal preservation process and show signs of fermentation. Use of a preservative is allowed. Additives affecting fiber content or any other adulteration will disqualify the sample.

[RFQ is a ranking of forage quality based on NDFD and should not be confused with or compared to Relative Feed Value (RFV).]

Corn Silage: Dry matter, crude protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD) and milk per ton.

THE MASSEY FERGUSON TRIPLE MOWER

Weather delays, labor shortages and rising costs — they’re all working against you. The Massey Ferguson® triple mower levels the playing field. By pairing rear combination mowers with a front mower, you can cover more acres in fewer passes — saving time and cutting fuel and labor costs. Plus our industry exclusive steel-on-steel roller conditioning system option speeds up the dry down process, getting you in the field to harvest sooner. Get cleaner cuts, faster dry down and higher-quality forage — all while spending less time in the field. When conditions push back, the MF triple mower helps you push ahead.