BOARD
OF DIRECTORS: Greg
Kerr-President, Fiver Falls; Mike
Costello-Vice President, Malone; Dan
Undersander-Exec Secretary-Treasurer, Madison; Ken Barnett Wausau; Doug Bastian Madison, Darell Christensen
Brownsville, Robert Eder New London; Joe
Holschbach Manitowoc; Bill Kautz
Milwaukee; Randy Knapp Chippewa Falls, Bryce Larson Cleveland, Ken Risler
Mondovi, Scott Schultz Loyal, Paul
Sedlacek Cadott; Ex-officio:
Dennis Cosgrove River Falls
and Keith Kelling Madison.
Volume
22, Number 1, March 1998
|
W |
elcome to the Spring 1998 Forager. We are just
finishing a remarkable winter with record warm temperatures. What this will
mean to the alfalfa fields remains to be seen as of this writing, but it was
certainly enjoyable in terms of chores and other outside activities. A possibility exists that the warm
temperatures may damage alfalfa fields that begin to green-up too early. See
the two articles concerning this in this issue.
The WFC Symposium in Eau Claire was a great
success. It was an excellent meeting
with many informative presentations.
Council members who did not attend should be getting their copy of the
proceedings by way of their local council representative. If you have not received your proceedings,
please contact your local council, or if you are not affiliated with a local
council, contact the WFC Office at 608-846-1825.
|
1ST Place |
Our Fourth Annual Forage Spokesperson Contest was
held at the Symposium, and as usual, featured some excellent
presentations. Our 1998 winner was Alan Henning, our second place winner
was Jerry and Shirley Wagner from
Black River Falls and the third place winner was Dave and Joyce Berning from Mineral Point.
Alan will represent us at the American Forage and
Grassland Council Forage Spokesperson Contest in Indianapolis March 8-10. Thanks to all our contestants, and a special
thank you to Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Cenex/Land O’ Lakes for
their sponsorship of this event.
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
Page
2 |
Freezing,
Thawing Of Alfalfa May Cause Heaving |
|
Page
3 |
Effect
Of Warm Winter Weather On Alfalfa Winter Survival? |
|
Pages
4-6 |
Custom
Harvesting Charges in Wisconsin |
|
Page
6 |
Fifteen
Trifolium Conference in Madison in June |
|
Page
6 |
Upcoming
Events |
|
Pages
7-11 |
Pricing
Standing Corn For Silage |
We would like to thank Dairyland Seed Co., Inc. for sponsoring this
issue of The Forager.
FREEZING, THAWING OF ALFALFA MAY CAUSE HEAVING
by Dan
Undersander, Extension and Research Forage Agronomist
Wetter than average soils and little snow cover this
winter could spell trouble for the state's alfalfa crop. The repetition of wet soil freezing and
thawing this winter and early spring may push the alfalfa plants out of the
soil. This heaving damages alfalfa plants because it raises the crown and
causes greater damage to the plants from harvesting machinery. Soils were generally dry going into winter,
but due to the lack of frost, most moisture from melted snow has been absorbed
by the soils. The potential for heaving is greatest on wet soils with high clay
content because they expand and shrink most with freezing and thawing.
There is little management that can avoid the
problem, except to leave residue in the fall.
Fields that were not harvested last fall will have more ground cover and
not change temperature as greatly as exposed soil. Less freezing and thawing
means less heaving. If soil does not freeze overnight and thaw during the day,
heaving may not be a problem. Most farmers have
little carryover forage and will need to watch the alfalfa fields carefully to
make alternate forage plans if heaving occurs to the extent that fields are
lost.
If plants have heaved less than one inch out of the
soil, there is a good chance these plants will reseat themselves. If heaving is
over one inch, the tap root of the alfalfa will be stretched beyond its
breaking point. These plants will have sufficient taproot to green-up, but then
die later this spring or summer. Growers sometimes ask about taking some action
such as driving over fields to attempt to reseat plants. If plants are heaved
less than one inch, this is most likely unnecessary. If they are over one inch,
this practice will not improve survival and will most likely break off plants
and further reduce yield potential.
THERE’S STILL TIME TO JOIN!
If
you haven’t paid your membership dues for 1998, it’s not too late. All you have to do is fill out the form
below and send it with your membership dues to the address listed on the form.
$-------------------------------------------------------$-----------------------------------------------------------$
Wisconsin Forage Council Membership Form
Name__________________________________________
Make check payable to: Wisconsin
Forage Council 813
W. Lexington Pkwy DeForest,
WI 53532-3055
Farm/Company
Name_____________________________
Address________________________________________
City__________________State_______Zip___________
Local
Council/County_____________________________
(Check
One) Farmer/producer_____ Educational_____ Industry_____
|
Wisconsin Forage Council |
$20.00 |
$__________ |
|
(you
will receive a forage Newsletter, coupon book & local mailings) |
|
|
|
American Forage and
Grassland Council |
$7.00 |
$__________ |
|
(join
national organization and receive AFGC Newsletter) |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL ENCLOSED |
$__________ |
Effect of Warm Winter Weather on Alfalfa Winter Survival?
By Dan
Undersander, Extension and Research Forage Agronomist
This winter’s unusually warm weather brought several
questions concerning how alfalfa would respond in terms of winter injury. While
much of this issue will be settled by the time you receive this, it is valuable
to review these events.
First, let's consider the basic biology of alfalfa
overwintering. The shorter days in the
fall initiate hardening (the development of cold tolerance) in cold tolerant
varieties. Temperature is also a factor
as hardening begins when mean air temperatures are near 50°F. and appear to accelerate when temperatures
approach 40°F. Think of hardening as a matter of degree, not a yes or no
situation. (In other words, how much did the plant harden?) The degree of hardening will depend on two
primary factors: the genetics of the plant (which sets the maximum hardening
limit), and the fall weather (which determines how much of the potential
hardening was realized). Maximum cold
hardiness is normally attained by the time the soil becomes permanently frozen,
but cold hardening can continue under snow.
Freezing temperatures are necessary to attain maximum cold hardiness.
Generally, we had a good fall with a long period of cool and fluctuating
temperatures and near maximal winter hardening developed. Other factors such as adequate plant food
reserves, unsaturated soils, adequate potassium level and lack of rapid fall
growth are necessary for hardening.
Hardening involves an increase in cell sugars and
soluble protein. The plant cell also
increases fatty acid content, especially of polyunsaturated types, that have
lower melting points than the saturated fatty acids of the same length.
Unhardened alfalfa plants can be injured by temperatures below 40°F. while hardened plants can withstand
temperatures down to 15°F. Lower temperatures will normally kill most plants. Note that these are temperatures at the
plant crown and root, so that plants insulated by residue, soil and snow can
withstand much colder air temperatures.
Cold air temperatures are important in the retention
of cold tolerance. Dehardening may occur if temperatures rise above 50°F. for a few days. In fall or winter, less winterhardy types deharden more rapidly
and initiate growth faster than more winter hardy types. Rehardening can occur under cold
temperatures provided that no growth has occurred and that sufficient food
reserves are available as an energy source.
There are three concerns with the type of warm
weather we experienced this year:
1.
Warm
weather will cause a loss of cold hardening, and then the alfalfa will be
killed by a sudden cold snap.
2.
Warm
weather will cause periodic freezing and thawing and heave the plants out of
the ground. Alfalfa can tolerate some
of this, but if the plants are heaved over one inch, the likelihood is that the
taproots are broken and the plant will die later this summer.
3.
Warm
weather will cause the alfalfa to break dormancy and then the shoots will be
frozen back. Generally, three to four
days of 50 degree weather will cause this to happen (may occur at slightly
lower temperatures on south slopes with bright sunshine and no plant
residue). Begin counting after the snow
has gone from the field. Breaking
dormancy this early will likely mean that another frost will occur and freeze
the alfalfa shoots. Most alfalfa can
withstand this once, and sometimes twice, but if it happens too often, the
plants simply run out of stored energy to regenerate new shoots and die. This
type of injury may delay green-up as new buds must form in the spring to
replace the frozen ones. Watch fields carefully and dig a few plants before
deciding to plow up a stand. These fields should be allowed to go to at least
first flower once during the season to help the plant accumulate stored
reserves and recover from the injury .
Custom
Harvesting Charges in Wisconsin
by Dennis
Cosgrove, UW-River Falls and Dan
Undersander, Extension Forage Agronomist
Custom forage harvesting is rapidly increasing in
popularity for Wisconsin dairy producers.
Custom harvesting has several advantages over more conventional systems
including:
Cost
savings.
While most farmers are aware of variable costs of production such as seed,
fertilizer and pest control, many do not take into account the equipment and
labor costs associated with producing
alfalfa. Table 1. shows production costs and allocated overhead charges
for producing an acre of alfalfa.
Assuming a 4 ton yield, total cost per ton $66.25. Of this $22.83 or 34%, is attributable to
equipment expenses, interest and depreciation. If one considers labor, which is
primarily associated with harvesting, this figure increases to $37.38 or 56% of
the total cost of production.
Production costs for corn silage based on 1995 Green Gold Program
participants averaged $45.00/ton. Of this, 67% or $30.15 were equipment and
labor charges.

These figures point out the high cost of producing
forage when equipment and labor charges are considered, and that, in many
instances, custom harvesting may be an economic option to owning expensive
equipment. These values will vary considerably on individual farms. It is
important to do these calculations to determine your own costs.
Consistent
Forage. Quality may vary a great
deal throughout a silo. Research has shown that ADF may vary up to 10 points,
and moisture content up to 15 percent depending on where in the silo it was
taken from. This variability would make it very difficult to accurately balance
rations over time. Much of this variation is attributable to the length of time
needed to harvest haylage or corn silage. Moisture content, quality and many
other factors will change as harvest time increases. Many custom harvesters are
capable of harvesting an enter farms haylage acres in a single day, making for
a very consistent product.
Less Labor
Problems.
One of the biggest complaints heard form those undergoing expansion is the
difficulty in securing and managing labor. While custom harvesting does not
eliminate the need for hired labor, it is greatly reduced as forage handling is
a major use of labor on dairy farms.
Time
Savings.
Removing the burden of harvesting provides producers with extra time to better
manage the other aspects of the farming operation or perhaps spend time with
family.
Charge
Comparisons
In order to compare the cost of custom harvesting
with conventional systems, I contacted five custom harvesters and discussed
rate schedules, time and other aspects or their service. The charges were
fairly uniform from one operator to the next.
Most differences were attributable to the size of the equipment and how
many acres could be harvested per hour. For instance, a pull -type chopper with
forage wagons was generally cheaper on a per hour basis than a self propelled
unit with trucks due to the increased acreage the latter units could harvest
per hour. I have summarized the results of these conversations below.
Most operators said they arrived at these prices
based mainly on what others were charging.
Most also said that, based now on experience, they did not believe they
were charging enough to cover costs, and that their prices would likely rise
next year. Here it is important to note
that most farmers do not charge the true cost of operations (including labor,
depreciation, etc.) when doing custom work.
This means that most published custom rates are below what the cost
would be if the custom work was done as a business. Table 2. shows cost per ton for each operator for chopping and
hauling costs (two trucks or wagons). These charges are based on the average
number of acres/hour they said they could chop. This varied from 10 to 40
acres. In all cases, the costs for
custom harvesting were well below that of conventional harvesting if one
considers the depreciation and overhead allocated to equipment. Table 3. shows
these costs on a per acre basis for comparison. These figures assume the mowing
would still be done by the grower. If that was also custom done, then these
figures would increase.
|
Table 2. Custom Chopping & Hauling Charges for Haylage & Corn
Silage |
Table 3. Custom Chopping & Hauling Charges for Haylage & Corn
Silage |
||||||||||
|
|
OPERATOR |
|
OPERATOR |
||||||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
$/Ton |
|
$/Acre |
||||||||
|
SILAGE |
9 |
-- |
7.60 |
-- |
9 |
SILAGE |
54 |
-- |
46 |
-- |
54 |
|
HAYLAGE |
6.75 |
9 |
11.50 |
-- |
12 |
HAYLAGE |
13.50 |
18 |
23 |
-- |
24 |
Custom harvesting is an option for both large and
small farms. As this is a relatively new practice, it is important to have a
clear understanding with your custom harvester prior to the harvesting season.
Questions to ask when considering this option include pricing (per acre or per
hour), services provided, size of equipment, your responsibilities and payment
options.
OPERATOR 1
CHOPPING (CORN OR HAYLAGE) - $180.00/HR
TRUCKS - $45/HR
WAGONS - $10/HR/WAGON
20-40 ACRES/HR
OPERATOR 2
TRACTOR AND CHOPPER (PULL TYPE) - $75.00/HR
DUMP WAGONS OR TRUCKS - $30.00/HR
MOW - $12.00/HR
RAKE - $30.00/HR
OPERATOR 3
PULL TYPE CHOPPER - $105/HR
SELF PROPELLED - $160/HR
WAGONS - $50.00/DAY
TRUCKS - $35.00/DAY
PACKING - $50.00/HR
MOWING - $9.00/ACRE (1ST CROP)
$7.50/ACRE (2ND AND 3RD CROP)
ROUND BALES - $7.00/BALE
SMALL SQUARE BALES - 0.40/BALE
OPERATOR 4
PULL TYPE CHOPPER, TWO WAGONS
$85.00/HR - CORN
$80.00/ACRE - HAYLAGE
MOWING - $9.00/ACRE (1ST CROP)
- $7.00/ACRE (2ND - 4TH CROP)
ROUND BALES - $7.00/BALE
SMALL SQUARES - $0.35/BALE
OPERATOR 5
HAYLAGE
CUTTING - $8.00/ACRE
RAKING AND CHOPPING - $14.00/ACRE*
HAULING - $9.00/ACRE
*estimated 15 acres/hr
CORN SILAGE
CHOPPING AND PROCESSING - $180.00/HR
HAULING - $45.00/HR
PACKING - $50.00/HR
Fifteenth Trifolium Conference in Madison in June
The fifteenth Trifolium Conference will be
held at the Radisson Inn in Madison June 10-12, 1998. The conference will
include discussions on the taxonomy, pathology, molecular biology, management
and grazing of Trifolium species (clovers).
There will be oral and poster presentations, a field tour and a
barbecue. Registration information can
be obtained by calling 608-263-1672 or 608-262-5088.
|
UPCOMING EVENTS |
|
|
July 1, 1998 |
1998 Forage Expo Arlington, WI |
|
January 26 & 27, 1999 |
WFC Annual Symposium & Meeting Appleton, WI |
PRICING STANDING CORN FOR SILAGE
A renewed interest by dairy and livestock producers in feeding corn silage along with the ability to efficiently harvest and transport corn silage have made pricing standing corn for silage an important issue for many producers. It is often difficult to establish a price for corn silage because there is no market information available for the value of corn silage as there is for commodities such as grains or hay. The agreed upon price must be affordable for the dairy or livestock producer and cover the costs of production for the grower. Prices should also reflect the best estimates of overall price expectations for the season, and not wild short-term markets.
Following, it will be discussed how buyers and
sellers can arrive at a price for standing corn to be harvested for silage that
is fair and equitable for both parties.
Three methods of arriving at the economic value of corn silage as a
feedstuff will be discussed. Adjusting
the price of standing corn for harvesting costs and yield will also be
considered.
The dry matter content of corn silage should be
taken into account when trying to establish a price because all of the
nutrients in silage are in the dry matter portion. This prevents anyone from getting short changed. A buyer may be paying a high price for water
if the corn silage is very wet, or a seller may be under-pricing his product if
the corn silage is especially dry. For
example, corn silage at 30% dry matter (DM) is worth only 86% as much as corn
silage at 35% DM (30 divided by 35 = .86) when priced on an as fed basis. Therefore, moisture needs to be taken into
account if pricing is on a dry matter basis.
Take several samples during harvest to determine the dry matter content.
When pricing corn silage, it is also important to
consider the nutritive value of the silage as a feedstuff. Hlubik and Adams, Dairy Specialists at Penn
State University have developed a method for valuing corn silage based on the
energy and protein content relative to the prices for dry shelled corn and 44%
soybean meal. See Table 1. These values assume 15% of the ensiled
material is lost as a result of fermentation and feeding losses.
These prices do not necessarily reflect what silage
market prices will be. In a typical
year, corn silage in the country often sells for less than its feed value. Values in the table are indicative of the
maximum worth rather than as a means of setting prices.
Table 1. Economic Value of Corn Silage Compared to
Shelled Corn and Soybean Meal. 1
|
$/bushel Shelled Corn |
$/cwt. Soybean Meal (44%) |
Corn silage Value/ton Dry Matter |
Corn silage Value/ton 35% DM 2 |
|
$2.50 |
$12.00 |
$71.40 |
$24.99 |
|
|
$14.00 |
$72.76 |
$25.47 |
|
|
$16.00 |
$74.12 |
$25.94 |
|
|
$18.00 |
$75.31 |
$26.36 |
|
$3.00 |
$12.00 |
$84.32 |
$28.51 |
|
|
$14.00 |
$85.51 |
$29.93 |
|
|
$16.00 |
$86.87 |
$30.40 |
|
|
$18.00 |
$88.06 |
$30.82 |
|
$3.50 |
$12.00 |
$97.07 |
$33.97 |
|
|
$14.00 |
$98.26 |
$34.39 |
|
|
$16.00 |
$99.62 |
$34.87 |
|
|
$18.00 |
$100.81 |
$35.28 |
|
$4.00 |
$12.00 |
$109.82 |
$38.43 |
|
|
$14.00 |
$111.01 |
$38.85 |
|
|
$16.00 |
$112.37 |
$39.33 |
|
|
$18.00 |
$113.56 |
$39.75 |
1 J.G. Hlubik
and R.S. Adams, Penn State University, Estimating the Economic Feeding Value of
Corn Silage, 1993.
2 If prices are based on settled silage depth in tower
silos, values in this table should be adjusted upward 5-10%.
Another method of establishing a price for corn
silage is to use the number of bushels of grain in one ton of silage. This “quick and dirty” method uses a factor
of 8 to 10 times the price of a bushel of corn grain to obtain the price per
ton of silage. A factor of 8 to 9 best
fits for an in the field price, where as a factor of 9 to 10 fits best for
silage in storage.
Example 1. Assume the corn silage contains 9 bushels of corn grain per
ton of silage
$2.50/bu. corn
X 9 bu./ton of silage = $22.50/ton of corn silage
Table 2. illustrates a possible shortcoming of the
“quick and dirty” method of pricing corn silage based upon grain content. Using 8 to 10 bushels of grain per ton of
corn silage may be over estimating the grain content of the silage. This research is based on 1984 data, and
with advances in corn breeding, it can be assumed that the amount of grain in
corn silage is increasing. However,
there is no current research available to substantiate this assumption.
Table 2. Estimated Grain Content of Corn Silage.1
Corn
yield
Bushel/acre |
Silage2 Tons/acre
|
Corn grain % of DM |
Corn grain3 Bushel/ton
|
|
50-60 |
9.0 |
40 |
5.9 |
|
61-70 |
10.5 |
42 |
6.2 |
|
71-80 |
11.5 |
44 |
6.5 |
|
81-90 |
12.5 |
46 |
6.8 |
|
91-100 |
13.7 |
47 |
7.0 |
|
101-110 |
15.0 |
48 |
7.1 |
|
111-120 |
16.0 |
49 |
7.2 |
|
121-130 |
17.0 |
49 |
7.2 |
|
131-140 |
18.5 |
49 |
7.2 |
1Iowa State University, 1984, Steve Barhnart,
Extension Agronomist
2Silage at 35 percent dry matter.
3Corn grain at 15.5 percent moisture.
Grain Plus Dry Matter Value
Another method of valuing corn silage based upon its grain content takes into account moisture content of the silage in addition to the price of corn grain. This method assumes that the dry matter of whole plant corn silage contains 50% grain. This can be adjusted if necessary. Table 2 demonstrates that as grain yield increases, so does the percent grain content of the silage dry matter.
To illustrate how to use dry matter content in
combination with grain content to value corn silage, we will assume the
moisture content of silage to be 65%.
To arrive at the amount of dry matter in a ton of this silage, multiply
2000 pounds times .35. Next, multiply
the dry matter content of the silage by .50 because we assume the corn silage
contains 50 percent grain on a dry matter basis. To determine the number of bushels of grain in the grain portion
of the corn silage dry matter, divide the grain dry matter by .845 because a
bushel of corn grain typically contains 15.5 percent moisture (100% DM – 15.5%
moisture content = 84.5 % DM). Now
multiply the number of bushels of grain by the market value of shelled corn.
When using this method of valuing corn silage, it is
important to obtain accurate moisture levels for the silage being priced. This method yields a lower price than some
other procedures described previously.
This can be attributed to the correction for moisture content in the formula.
To this point,we have considered only the economic value of the standing corn that is to be harvested for silage. The cost of harvesting the standing corn needs to be subtracted from the price of the silage in order to arrive at an equitable value for both buyer and seller.
The buyer of the standing corn who owns his own
harvesting equipment must consider the ownership costs of that equipment as
well as the operating costs. The
ownership costs include depreciation, interest, and insurance. These costs are present regardless of the
number of acres harvested. Operating
costs such as fuel, repairs, and labor depend upon the number of acres covered. Once calculated, the ownership costs may be
assessed per acre or per ton.
The “Minnesota Farm Machinery Economic Cost
Estimates” is a publication that is helpful in calculating harvest costs. Based upon this guide the estimated cost to
operate a two-row forage harvester with tractor and operator is $52.63 per
hour, or $31.81 per acre at 1.65 acres per hour and 100 hours per year. Forage wagons will be needed to transport
the corn silage to the storage unit.
The estimated cost to operator two forage wagons is $27.02 per
acre. This brings the total estimated
harvest cost to $58.83 per acre. If the
anticipated silage yield is 17 tons per acre, the harvest cost per ton would be
$3.46 per ton delivered to the silo or bunker.
Packing, and storage costs are other expenses that need to be considered
as a part of harvesting. These items
vary greatly from farm-to-farm because of distance involved and type of storage
units.
Estimating
Yield of Standing Corn
Standing corn sold for silage is often priced per
acre. Once a value is established per
ton for the corn silage, an estimate of yield per acre is necessary to
determine a price per acre. The
following procedure can be used as a yield check to quickly establish an
estimate of corn silage yield. This
method provides only an estimate of anticipated yield and does not account for
field loss during harvest. Where
available, electronic weigh pads or other scales can be used to measure yield
more accurately.
|
Row Width |
Length of Row to
Cut |
|
20 |
52 ½ ft. |
|
30 |
32 ½ ft. |
|
36 |
28 ¾ ft. |
|
38 |
27 ½ ft. |
|
40 |
26 ¼ ft. |
|
42 |
25 ft. |
This method of estimating corn silage yield is most
effective when the crop is near physiological maturity. Price discounts will need to be made for
wet, immature corn and dry overly mature corn.
After the corn silage yield has been estimated,
multiply the price per ton times the number tons per acre anticipated to arrive
at a price for standing corn per acre.
A summary of the process of pricing standing corn is illustrated in
Example 3.
|
Example 3. |
|
|
|
|
Value of Corn Silage per Ton |
$25.00 |
|
|
Harvesting Costs per Ton |
-3.50 |
|
|
Net Value per Ton |
$21.50 |
|
|
Estimated Tons per Acre |
X 17 |
|
|
Net Value per Acre |
$365.50 |
To
effectively price standing corn harvested for silage, the buyer and seller must
agree upon a method for arriving at its value. The method selected should
consider three key variables: economic feed value of the corn silage, harvest
and transportation costs and yield potential.
These variables should be applied based upon local market conditions
that cover an entire growing season and not a particular day within the growing
season.
A Note from Your President:
Welcome, and hello to
our new members and returning members.
A reminder for membership – be sure to use your coupon books when
planning spring inputs. There are
discounts available in it that more than pay for the cost of membership. Also, as indicated earlier in the
newsletter, if you have not received your Proceedings from the January 1998
Annual Meeting (which are free of charge with a paid membership in 1998),
please contact your local council.
These Proceedings discuss many topics happening in forages, and are a
good reference and thought provoking source.
The state Wisconsin
Forage Council Board encourages any local council or individual to submit
articles for The Forager. We are especially interested in local demo
projects, production and utilization tips and marketing ideas you can share
with other members.
The local councils are
in the process of setting up this year’s demonstration projects. Dan Undersander has sent out suggested
projects, and the board hopes all can share in these demonstrations. As individuals and local councils, it is
important we participate and share data from all of Wisconsin, so as members,
we can learn and advance forages in our state.
We look forward to putting the data together before the Appleton meeting
next year, and also have the local councils publish their results in The Forager.
The state board needs
your input on direction, projects, ideas, etc. you may have. We are always open to input. We are also looking to increase membership,
so if you have a neighbor or business associate that may be interested, TELL
THEM about the Forage Council.
Thank you for your
time, and see you this summer at the Expo at the UW-Arlington Experimental
Station.
Greg Kerr --- Board
President