BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Tom Braun-President, Reedsville; Stuart Sorenson-Vice President, Bonduel; Dan Undersander-Exec Secretary-Treasurer, Madison; Randy Brunn Marathon, Jerry Clark Chippewa Falls, Lyle Guralski Athens; Matt Hanson Jefferson, Jake Kaderly Monticello, Bob Meyer Marshfield, Randy Nehls Juneau, Joe Tiry Stanley, Richard Vine Granton, Randy Welch Madison, Ron Wiederholt Neillsville.; Ex-officio: Dennis Cosgrove River Falls and Keith Kelling Madison.

Check us out on the Web at: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/wfc.htm

Volume 25, Number 4, December 2001

W

elcome to the Winter 2001 Forager. The writing finds us enjoying mild fall weather, especially compared to last fall. While this make chores more enjoyable, it may have some detrimental effects on alfalfa overwintering. One of the primary ways alfalfa prepares for cold temperatures is by drawing water out of the cells so it can’t freeze there and damage the cells. Water is pulled into the cell walls where it freezes without damaging the cells. This also increases solute concentration within the cell, which lowers the cellular freezing point. Other changes result in more fluid membranes at lower temperatures and proteins, which act like sponges to soak up any free water inside the cell. All of these changes take time. They begin at about 50°F. and accelerate at 40°F. and below. Warm temperatures may delay this process then a rapid drop in temperatures could catch the plants unprepared and damage may result. A gradual cooling from this point on will minimize this damage. Since my time in Wisconsin, there have been two years where what we thought of as winterkill actually occurred due to warm weather the previous fall. Leaving standing material to catch snow and provide “insulation” helps keep soil temperatures above damaging levels. High potassium levels and carbohydrate reserves also help reduce winter injury. Winterkill is unpredictable and hopefully this fall weather will not play a role. We won’t know for sure until next spring.

The board of directors is busy planning an exciting WFC Symposium to be held January 21 and 22 in Appleton. The meeting will be held jointly with the Wisconsin Custom Harvest Operators and the Professional Nutrient Applicators. The addition of the two groups and their interests should make this symposium especially interesting to all Forage Council members. Make plans now to attend.

FROST SEEDING FOR PASTURE IMPROVEMENT

By Dennis Cosgrove, UW – Extension Agronomist, UW-River Falls

Frost seeding is a common method of thickening existing pastures. Frost seeding involves distributing seed onto the soil surface in very early spring when the soil surface is frozen in the morning but thaws during the day. This freeze/thaw cycle helps to incorporate the seed. In addition, the early season moisture and low competition from existing species helps seedlings establish prior to rapid growth of existing plants. Preparation for frost seeding begins in fall of the prior year. At this time, pasture to be seeded should be grazed closely. This helps reduce residue in spring and ensures seeds come in contact with the soil surface. Seed can be distributed in a number of ways including hand seeders, Cyclone type seeders mounted on tractors or 4-wheelers and by grain drills. Grain drills provide the most uniform seed distribution, but can be difficult to use at the time when frost seedings are done. It is important to mix seed thoroughly and often during seeding as seeds of different species can segregate in the hopper resulting in strips of species rather than an even distribution.

Species vary in their ability to establish when frost seeded. West and Undersander examined the ability of several grass species to frost seed. The most vigorous species were orchardgrass and perennial ryegrass, while the least were reed canarygrass and bromegrass. Timothy was intermediate (Table 1). Cosgrove likewise frost seeded three legume species. Red clover was the most vigorous in the trials and alfalfa the least.

Average establishment percentage (number of established plants/number of seeds sown) from frost seeding is significantly lower than for stands established in a prepared seedbed. Average percent establishment from frost seeding is about 10 percent compared to 60 percent or higher in a prepared seedbed. Table 2 shows recommended seeding rates for several forage species and the number of plants expected based on a 10 percent establishment rate. Establishment rates may be higher or lower than this depending on several factors including:

Amount or Plant Residue- The lower the residue the greater the seed/soil contact

Depth and Duration of Freeze/Thaw Cycles- In years when there is little frost and a rapid spring warm-up, frost seeding will be less successful.

Management After Seeding – Pastures should be grazed or clipped regularly following frost seeding. Grazing is a balance between removing competition with new seedlings and not grazing so closely as to remove them. A residual height of 4 inches should be adequate in most cases. Be careful not to graze these newly seeded paddocks when they are wet.

Seeding Rate – Calibrate frost seeding equipment. This can be difficult, but it is the only way to know for sure how much seed is actually being delivered

Seed Distribution – Even distribution of species result in more satisfactory results.

Soil Moisture after Seeding – While usually beyond our control, adequate soil moisture after seeding will increase establishment.

Table 1 FROST SEEDING ESTABLISHMENT
	Seeding Rate (Lbs/Acre)
Species	4	10
	Plants/Ft2
Reed Canarygrass	0.4	0.4
Bromegrass	0.8	1.3
Timothy	3.0	-
Perennial Ryegrass	3.2	10.8
Orchardgrass	5.0	6.9
West and Undersander, 1997

Table 2 RECOMMENDED SEEDING RATES FOR FROST SEEDING INTO AN EXISTING GRAS OR LEGUME SEED
	Rate (lb/acre)		Expected Established Plants*
Species	Seeded Alone	As Part Of Seed Mixture	Plants Established Plants*
Red Clover	4-8	3-4	2-5
Birdsfoot Trefoil	4-6	2-3	6-9 (in 2^nd year)
Alfalfa	5-8	3-4	4-6
Ladino Clover	2-3	1-2	1-2
Alsike Clover	2-4	1-2	2-3
Perennial/Annual Ryegrass	8-15**	2-3	10-12
Orchardgrass	3-4	1-2	4
Smooth Bromegrass	12	8-10	1-2
Reed Canarygrass	Not recommended for frost seeding
Timothy	Not recommended for frost seeding
* Expected plants based on "alone" seeding rates ** Use higher rate in "bare ground" situations and lower rate in existing sods

Hay Prices for the Winter and Spring

By Dan Undersander, Forage Agronomist, UW-Madison

In spite of the generally unfavorable growing conditions this past summer, Wisconsin produced good tonnage of hay. The wet spring made hay and silage making difficult, and in most of the state, it turned dry after the spring rains quit in mid-June. However, most farmers were able to produce alfalfa sufficient to meet their needs, and when coupled with corn silage, will have sufficient forage. However, quality is lacking in much of the alfalfa, especially that from first cutting. High quality hay is always in demand.

However, we are more fortunate than most of the United States. The eastern U.S. was dry and forage production was low. Additionally, forage production was low across the irrigated west. Electric power companies of the West bought back electric contracts that would normally run the irrigation wells. This meant that farms could not pump irrigation water to grow crops. Thus, while hay production was good across the central hay production region (Nebraska, Iowa), hay production was down in the Northwest. Hay prices have already climbed to over $120/ton in that region. Hay prices are also high in California.

I believe that these prices will gradually filter into the Midwest and that hay prices will climb significantly by spring if we have a normal winter. The western regions will continue to draw hay from farther distances gradually causing Midwestern hay prices to rise.

One factor that could keep hay prices from rising is warm weather, which reduces the amount of forage needed. If demand is down, then prices will not rise to the extent that they would in periods of normal use.

HAY STORAGE: GETTING THE MOST FROM YOUR HAY

By Greg Cuomo, Bill Wilcke and Paul Peterson, University of Minnesota

Making hay can be very satisfying if you end up with a high quality product to feed or sell. However, there are many challenges in producing that high quality product. The numbers you often hear regarding potential hay losses are pretty scary. Leaf losses from mowing and conditioning are up to 5%; from raking, up to 20%; from baling, another 20%; storage losses, 5 to 15%. On top of that, one can often encounter 10 to 50 percent losses from rain while making hay (case in point: 1st cutting this year!) and high losses during feeding. In this frightening list of losses, there are some things you can control and some things you cannot. One thing in your control is hay storage practices.

Research around the country has shown that dry matter losses from barn-stored hay range from about 2 to 5 percent. Hay losses of up to 40 percent have been reported from storing hay outside in the hot, humid south. Suppose you store your hay outside, and you have a fairly reasonable storage loss of 10 percent. That may not sound all that bad, but a 10 percent storage loss means that for every 10 bales of hay that you put into storage, you really only have 9 bales worth of hay left to feed. In addition to the dry matter losses, there are decreases in forage quality and increased waste with feeding weathered hay.

In Minnesota, we have seen growing interest in "big square" (large rectangular) balers. Therefore, we decided to do a bale storage study looking at storage characteristics of the newer bale types. Our primary goal was to compare storage losses of 5 x 6 foot round bales to 3 x 4 x 8 foot rectangular bales. We compared storing hay four different ways: 1) in a pole barn with a north wall, 2) outside on gravel and covered with a commercial hay tarp, 3) outside on gravel and uncovered, and 4) directly on the ground (pasture sod) and uncovered. Hay was stored from September until May. The hay used in this study was 3rd cut alfalfa with a relative feed value (RFV) of 135.

Round bales were stored on their sides, pyramid style, in piles of 12 bales. The rectangular bales were stored in piles of 11 bales, all oriented the same direction, and resting on their 4'-wide sides. Nine of the rectangular bales were stacked three wide and three high, and the two bales on top were placed over the cracks between bales in the lower layers.

As expected, we saw differences in dry matter losses as a result of bale storage method. Dry matter losses were 2.3 percent for hay stored in the barn, 4.8 percent for hay stored outside on gravel and covered, and 10.9 and 11.2 percent for hay stored on gravel uncovered and stored on the ground uncovered, respectively.

There were few differences in storage losses or forage quality between round and large rectangular bales. For both round and rectangular bales, the bottom bales stored uncovered on sod were re-wetted from 18 to 32 percent, high enough to cause significant spoilage by mid-June. And spoilage would have been even worse if bales had been left in place through the summer. About 23 percent of the total volume of the bottom bales appeared to be spoiled with both bale types. This compared to an average of 5 percent spoilage of bottom bales stored on gravel or in the barn.

The upper layers of large rectangular bales stored uncovered on sod were rewet slightly to about 22 percent moisture. In contrast, the upper layers of round bales did not show any moisture increase. Even though the average moisture increase was relatively small and evident only with the rectangular bales, the areas where water ran off upper bales onto lower bales did have greater moisture increases and very obvious mold development, particularly in the large rectangular bales.

In addition to losing dry matter, uncovered hay loses forage quality. In our study, the internal parts of bales stored in the shed had a RFV of 133 and the bottom 6" of the bales at the bottom of the pile had a RFV of 106. In contrast, the internal parts of bales stored uncovered outside on sod had a RFV of 114 while external parts had RFVs ranging from 55 to 107

The most eye-opening part of this trial came when we sold the hay. We had purchased about 120 tons of the alfalfa to conduct the trial. About 30 tons of hay was allocated to each treatment. We received $75 per ton for the hay stored in the barn and outside on gravel covered. We received $45 per ton for the hay stored outside on gravel uncovered and the hay stored on the ground uncovered. Therefore, in this study we lost $1800 in income from the hay stored without cover compared to hay that was covered (in the barn or with the tarp). Actually, our losses were even greater. During the study, we lost 6 to 9 percent more dry matter from storing without a cover. This means that we had less tons of hay to sell at the end of the study when it was not covered.

If we extend this example to 200 tons of hay (which in western Minnesota is about average for 60-acre alfalfa field in a year), the numbers get big fast. If we store that 200 tons of hay outside without a cover and take a loss of $30/ton in sale price, this would result in $6000 dollars less income from that hay in a year. If that hay was from a 60-acre field, income losses would be $100/ac. This is just a single example, but a $30 price differential between green appealing hay and weathered hay is not unreasonable.

The cost of a pole barn or storage shed can be high. However, with the losses in value we had in our study, it would not take many acres or many years to pay for a pole barn. We received the same price for hay that was stored on gravel and covered as stored in the barn. This shows that hay storage systems don't have to be fancy to be effective. Building barns or covering all your hay may be a bigger and more expensive task than you want to undertake. And this may be reasonable. A well made, tight round grass bale of average to low quality may not deteriorate a great deal if stored uncovered on a well-drained area. However, if you produce the kind of hay that is suited for the hay market, for a high producing dairy cow, or can support good animal gains, it will pay to minimize your storage losses and keep that hay under some kind of cover.

ALFALFA RESPONSE TO WHEEL TRAFFIC

By Dan Undersander - Forage Agronomist, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

and Jim Moutray - Plant Breeder, Agripro Biosciences Inc., Napier, IA

The effect of wheel traffic during alfalfa harvest on alfalfa growth was especially evident on many fields this year. We have begun examining the impact of wheel traffic in studies at the UW Arlington Research Station as well as at the ABI Research Station (Napier, IA). Twenty alfalfa varieties/experimental lines were seeded in small plots during the spring of 2000. First cutting on all plots within a site were taken on June 18 at Napier, IA and on July 18 at Arlington, WI. Wheel traffic was applied five days after cutting by driving approximately a 100 Hp tractor across the plots covering the entire plots with both wheel tracts. This was repeated three times so that wheel traffic plots received six rear wheel tracks. This was an attempt to simulate driving over the field with tractor, chopper, and wagons, or tractor baler, and wagon. After first cutting, plots were cut every 35 days and traffic applied 5 days later.

Wheel traffic reduced yields to 26.9 to 87.7 percent for single cuttings compared to plots with no wheel traffic depending on the cutting and location. The plots at Napier generally had lower yield, and therefore yield reductions, because of dryer conditions most of the season. We think the yield reduction do to wheel traffic will be greater on wet soils.

The yield of alfalfa varieties with and without wheel traffic is compared in the graph. While all varieties showed some yield reduction due to wheel traffic, some entries were less affected than others. Some varieties yielded over 2 t/a less with wheel traffic while some varieties showed very little yield reduction. The data identifying varieties and yields with and without wheel traffic is presented in a table at the end of this article.

Yield reductions due to wheel traffic can be related to physical damage to the plant and soil. In five days, shoots will have begun to re-grow. If they are broken, this will result in a yield reduction. Physical damage can also occur to the crowns. Such damage may result in cracking or breakage of the crown, which will reduce the shoots produced and may allow entry of disease. Wheel traffic may also cause soil compaction, which reduces plant growth in some cases. Wheel compaction usually only occurs on heavier soils.

Thus the amount of wheel traffic yield reduction is likely going to vary from field to field and cutting-to-cutting depending on plant and soil conditions. In retrospect, it is likely that we increased wheel damage by waiting 5 days to apply it. To the extent that the yield loss is due to damages regrowth, the sooner the wheel traffic occurs after cutting, the less the damage will likely be. Chopping for silage at one day after mowing may cause less yield reduction than baling four to five days after mowing

What can be done? While selection for traffic tolerant varieties is going on and will improve yields of alfalfa over time, there are management practices minimizing field traffic that can likely reduce the impact of wheel traffic now. These are as follows:

1. Avoid unnecessary trips across the field when harvesting

· Mowing and conditioning in a single operation.

· Do full wagons have to be hauled the length of the field?

· If bales are dropped and collected, can this be done with less driving?

· Do not drive on alfalfa fields when harvesting crop of an adjacent field.

2. Consider driving the shortest distance to the edge (or middle) of the field and making a road to the field driveway, rather than driving randomly across the field to the field entrance.

3. Consider using larger equipment (there is some question about this because while less area is affected by wheel traffic, the affected area has greater weight applied to it). This could be another benefit of contract harvesting.

4. Do necessary driving on field as soon after cutting as possible (e.g. make silage from higher yielding fields, hay from lower yielding fields).

Yield Of Alfalfa With And Without Wheel Traffic At Arlington, WI

2-year total 35-day no traffic		2-year total 35-day traffic
5454	11.33	5454	9.84
54Q53	10.96	54Q53	9.41
AFFINITY +Z	11.47	AFFINITY +Z	10.53
AMERISTAND 201+Z	11.35	AMERISTAND 201+Z	10.43
AMERISTAND 403T	12.14	AMERISTAND 403T	11.59
DK 140	12.20	DK 140	9.87
FQ 315	12.26	FQ 315	10.28
GENEVA	12.81	GENEVA	10.98
GH 757	11.04	GH 757	10.01
MAGNUM V	11.65	MAGNUM V	9.58
REBOUND 4.2	11.80	REBOUND 4.2	10.42
WL 323	11.15	WL 323	8.74
ZG 9632	10.62	ZG 9632	10.28
ZG 9641	11.24	ZG 9641	10.19
ZG 9834	10.67	ZG 9834	10.66
ZG 9930	11.66	ZG 9930	10.56
ZG 9931	11.80	ZG 9931	9.87
ZG 9940	11.49	ZG 9940	10.98
ZG 9941	11.81	ZG 9941	10.82
ZN 9833	11.95	ZN 9833	9.88
Mean	11.57	Mean	10.26
LSD 5%	0.95	LSD 5%	1.13
CV	5.8	CV	6.9

2002 - TWENTY SIXTH ANNUAL

WISCONSIN FORAGE COUNCIL, WISCONSIN CUSTOM HARVEST

OPERATORS & PROFESSIONAL NUTRIENT APPLICATORS

FORAGE SYMPOSIUM & MEETING

January 21 & 22, 2002

Radisson Paper Valley Hotel – Appleton, Wisconsin

www.radisson.com/appletonwi -- 920-733-8000 or 1-800-2423499

Monday January 21, 2002

9:00 am Breakout sessions

A. Custom Operators Organizational Meeting

B. Alfalfa Management

Hybrid alfalfa – Paul Sun, Dairyland Seed

Yield and stand – Dan Undersander, UW

Cutting height – Ron Wiederholt, UW

C. Regulatory update

Sue Porter, DATCP

Mike Volrath, Animal Waste Specialist, DNR

Pat Murphy, Asst State Conservationist, NRCS

10:00 am General session - Soil compaction

Effect of tire design on fields– Randy Gorter,

Houle Equipment

Nutrient management – Dick Wolkowski, UW

10:50 am Break

11:15 am Breakout sessions

D. Professional Nutrient Applicators Annual Meeting

E. Drying Alfalfa

How and why of conditioning - Kevin Shinners, UW

Super conditioner in Wisconsin – Matt Hanson, UW

F. Loss of Income to Custom Operators, Scott Wink,

C.I.C., CRW Insurance

12:30 pm Lunch

1:30 pm Breakout sessions

G. Wisconsin Forage Council Annual Meeting

H. Bill Collection and Contracting for Custom Operators

– George W. Twohig J.D., Twohig Law Offices

I. Preserving Roads

Transportation Information Center

Tire design – Randy Gorter

2:30 pm Break

3: 00 pm Breakout sessions

J. Manure on Alfalfa

Nutrient application – Keith Kelling, UW

Disease transmission – Mike Collins, UW Vet School

K. Influencing the Legislative Process at State, County and Town Level - Rick Stadelman, Executive Director, Wisconsin Towns Association.

L. Lessons Learned from the Wet Spring of 2001

Operators speaking

4: 00 pm Social hour

6:00 pm Banquet and Awards

Tuesday January 22, 2002

8:00 are General Session

Licensing farm vehicles– DOT speaker

10:00 am Break

10:30 Operators Panel –Challenges facing Industry

Dairyman

Custom harvest operator

Nutrient applicator –

Dana Cook, Cook’s Trucking

Ernie Sundstrum, Sundstrum’s Pit Pumping

12:00 Lunch

1:00 pm Breakout sessions

M. Biosecurity Issues - Dr. Sheila McGurk, UW Vet School

N. Silage Making

Bunkers – facers, sizing – Bill Kautz

Baleage – Dan Kamps

O. Regulations Regarding Labor – Bob Anderson, Dept of Workforce Development

2:00 pm break

2:30 Breakout sessions

P. Alfalfa Management

What weeds poisonous – Jerry Doll

Pathogens in alfalfa/clover - Dean Malvick

Q. Labor Issues (repeat)

R. Use of Quickbooks and Quicken in Small Business

Operations – Brad Ricker, Manager

3:30 pm program ends