alfalfa-tin1othy hay for the · dairy farm

..

BULLETIN 538 AUGUST, 1934

Alfalfa-Tin1othy Hay for the · Dairy Farm

Part 1---Growing High-grade Hay in Liberal Amounts

Myron A. Bachtell and Harold Allen

Part 11---Increased Hay Feeding for Dairy Cows

C. F. Monroe and Harold Allen ·

OHIO

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Wooster, Ohio

~II

..

This page intentionally blank.

CONTENTS

PART I. GROWING HIGH-GRADE HAY IN LIBERAL AMOUNTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Discussion • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

A Large Proportion of Farm in Hay ....... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Soybeans ......................................................... 6 Oats and Peas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Clovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Alfalfa-timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seed Mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Seeding with Wheat vs. Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Resulting Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lengthens Hay-making Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A Safeguard if New Seeding Fails ................................ 11 Dependable in Drouth Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Quality of Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Quantity of Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Mixture Surer than Pure Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Limestone Probably the Limiting Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Amount of Limestone Needed .................................... 14 Manure .......................................................... 15 Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Cheapest Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A Method with Greater Cash Outlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Permits Reduction of Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Leisure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Summary •............................................................ 19

Prices Used in this Bulletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

PART II. INCREASED HAY FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Review of Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Object of this Experiment ............................................ 23 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Cows and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Feed Used ....................................................... 24

Results ............................................................... 25 First Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Second Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Third Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Fourth Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Effect of Price on Heavy Hay Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Hay Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Iodine for Home-grown Rations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Summary ............................................................. 37 References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Practical Suggestions for Growing and Feeding Alfalfa-timothy Mixture ... 40 Method of Growing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Method of Feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • 40

(1)

;


ALFALFA-TIMOTHY HAY FOR THE DAIRY FARM

PART I. GROWING HIGH-GRADE HAY IN LIBERAL AMOUNTS

MYRON A. BACHTELL AND HAROLD ALLEN

The data for this bulletin were obtained from the Trumbull County Experiment Farm. Soil and climatic conditions in this part of Ohio are considerably different from those of western Ohio which may be classified as part of the ·corn belt. A study of statistics shows how these conditions have been reflected in crop production during the last three-quarters of a century. Table 1 gives the acreage of grain crops and meadows in Trumbull County, as compared with that in a typical corn-belt county of western Ohio.

TABLE !.-Comparative Acreage of Grain Crops and Meadows

1850 ................................... . 1860 ................................... . 1870 .................................. . 1880 ................................... . 1890 ................................... . 1900 ................................... . 1910 ................................... . 1920 ................................... . 1930 ................................... .

Trumbull County (Eastern Ohio)

Acres devoted to

Corn, oats, and wheat

34,100 25,700 35,800 44,100 47,600 43,700 50,500 56,200 48,700

Meadows

50,100 50,900 54,600 50,700 48,200 52,500 61,800 56,500 54,000

Miami County (Western Ohio)

Acres devoted to

Corn, oats, and wheat

74,400 84,300 96,400

108,000 108,500 115,600 135,900 131,900 121,300

Meadows

8,700 6,900 5,900 6,700 9,700

10,300 27,000 31,500 30,700

In Trumbull County more than half of the total tillable acreage has been "kept in meadows. Individual farmers have had different divisions, some even going so far as to adopt a strict 3-year rotation of corn, oats, clover-a rotation which leaves not a half, but only a third, of the land in meadow. This, obviously, is about as far as a dairyman can go toward corn-belt farming where the acreage of grain has been several times as large as that devoted to meadows.

The question as to how much or how little of the land in eastern Ohio should be devoted to meadows is one to be seriously considered, and the answer to this question may have a vital bearing on the condition of future farming. Much of the land is too hilly for corn and may wash badly even when in small grain. Also, much of the more level soil does not have the potential ability to Jlroduce easily and consistently corn crops that compare favorably with those of the corn belt. The results at the Trumbull County Experiment Farm, therefore, are of wide interest in showing the possibilities of a highly satisfying farming system whereby one-half or more of the land may be kept in meadows, with a proportionately smaller amount in corn and small-grain crops. A

(3)

4 OHIO EXPERIMENT STATION: BULLETIN 538

system of this kind largely eliminates hog production and cattle feeding, but this is not a highly important matter since these two industries are not seriously attempted in many sections of eastern Ohio. Inasmuch as milk cows constitute the only productive livestock at the Trumbull Farm, the system has been tried with the dairy herd. Farmers with sheep and beef breeding herds doubtless can find considerable of value which may apply to their farming conditions.

Fig. 1.-A. Part of the dairy herd at pasture. B. Trumbull County Experiment Farm

On the Trumbull County Experiment Farm roughage for the winter part of the dairy ration is produced almost entirely from the corn crop or one of the hays. For several years five types of hay have been grown regularly on comparative plots as they fitted into various rotations. The yields for the last 3 years in comparison with those for corn silage are given in Table 2. Yields prior to that time are not very significant, as alfalfa was not seriously considered and sufficient limestone had not been applied to make the alfalfa-· timothy combination fully successful.

TABLE 2.-Yield cf Hay Crops and Corn Silage in Rotation

Crops

Alfalfa-timothy-1st year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . ..... . Alfalfa-timothy-2nd year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . Clover 1nixture...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... .. . Timothy .......... . .. . . . ........... ... .. . .. . .. . .... . . .. .. . .. . .. ... .. . .. . ... . .... .... . Soybeans .....•...... . ........ . ............ ... . . . .. . .. ... . .. . .. . ... . . .. ... . . . .. . . Oats and peas ............. . ............... . ..... . ..... . .. .. . . . .. . .. ... .. ... . . . .... .. . . Corn silage from Lancaster Sure Crop .... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . ....... . . Oats (grain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . .

*U sually only one cutting . tManured, 5 tons p er acre. P931 and 1932 only.

1931-1933

6370 Lb. 8235 Lb. 4230* Lb. 5130t Lb. 4670t Lb. 4700t Lb.

9.2T. 50.7 Bu.

The Trumbull County Experiment Farm was started in 1915. Table 3 gives the average yields secured for the first 3 years (1915-1917), which may be compared with the yields given in Table 2 for the 3 years 1931-1933. A comparison between periods over 10 years apart obviously is not very exact~

HAY FOR THE DAIRY FARM 5

due to natural differences in seasonal conditions. The comparison is made, however, to show that an initial liming, manuring, and fertilizing had produced yields (Table 3) of corn silage and oats which compared very favorably with the yields (Table 2) secured after another decade of fairly systematic and good soil treatment. In the case of hay, however, it was possible to more than double the yield of the first 3-year period. This indicates that on this soil the hay crop offers the greatest possibility for realizing returns on a proper fertility program which may be followed through a period of years.

TABLE 3.-Yield of Crops in Rotation-1915-1917

Plot Acre treatment per rotation Corn Oats Wheat Hay

Btt. Btt. Bu. Lb. 28 None ........................................ 10.6 40.6 14.9 1225

26 { 8 T. manure ............................. } 500 Lb. Q-16-0 .............................. 22.1 50.5 29.7 2025

~ 2 T. Limestone ......................... ~ 9 ST. Manure ............................. 37.7 56.0 35.6 3330

500 Lb. Q-16-0 ..............................

The average yield of corn silage from Lemning and Darke County Mammoth com on another limed, manured, and phosphated block was 8.5 tons per acre.

The Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station recently issued Special Circular 44, which is entitled "A Key to the Soils of Ohio". In this publication the Trumbull silty clay loam, which is the predominating soil type on the Experiment Farm, was given the following comparative ratings for natural productivity, with the best soils of the State in each case being rated as 10.

TABLE 4.-Comparative Ratings of Natural Productivity for Trumbull Silty Clay Loam

For corn .......................... . Forwheat. ....................... . For oats .......................... . For potatoes ..................... ..

0 to 3 Oto3 1 to 3 0 to 3

I For clover •......................

I For soybeans ................... . For mixed hay ................ .. For alfalfa ...................... .

Oto4 2 to4 2to5 Oto 2

The ratings given above should not be taken as condemnatory of this soil. Market conditions, as well as soil productivity, have a bearing on the profit in farming, and this and other similar soils are located where there is an easy outlet for dairy products. Nature apparently intended that this soil should produce hay and grass, and the results at the Trumbull County Experiment Farm would seem to indicate that the easiest and most profitable system of dairying should be built around this idea rather than around the corn-belt idea of keeping a large part of the land in corn.

In this connection the following incident is worthy of serious consideration. About 8 years ago two dairymen from this section attended a purebred cattle sale in northwestern Ohio. On the way home the older man-one who had spent many years in dairy farming-said to the other, "Those people eventually will drive us out of the dairy business." In answer to the younger man's "Why?", he replied that he had noticed the mangers were overflowing with alfalfa and in such abundance that it was "being used almost as we use straw"; and he added, "We have to buy all the alfalfa we feed and be very careful not to waste any."


Probably eastern Ohio never will grow alfalfa as luxuriantly as will the western part of the State, but many dairy farmers of eastern Ohio can now look hopefully forward to the time when they can grow a hay that contains alfalfa, one that compares favorably with alfalfa, and one which can be produced in such abundance that it can "be used almost like straw".

A large proportion of farm in hay.-Hay crops of the size and quality shown in Table 2 have certain advantages which must be seriously considered when determining the crop-production program of the dairy farm. Some of these are illustrated in Table 4. Yields are the same as in Table 2.

The man hours and total cost for corn silage, oats, and mixed hay are taken from Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 453, Variations in Crop Production Costs in Medina County. These cost records were collected during the 5 years 1920 to 1924 and include taxes, interest, and all miscellaneous items as well as labor. Man labor was figured at 27 cents per hour and horse labor at 20 cents. Each individual may decide for himself the amount of revision necessary to conform to present day costs. This is not attempted in this bulletin, because in this rapidly changing period the figures might be out of date soon after issuance of the bulletin. The figures for the man hours and cost of producing the alfalfa-timothy meadow are estimates; but it will be noticed that they are considerably higher than the cost of mixed hay, due quite largely to the extra labor of cutting twice and the greater tonnage of hay t<> harvest.

TABLE 5.-Labor Requirements and Cost of Feed Nutrients

Total Total Total Cost per

digestible pound of Crop and yield man hours cost of feed digestible feed

required crop nutrients nutrients

3 acres in rotation: Corn silage .....................•.. 9.2 T. 32.6 $46.13 3,256 Oats ..................•.......•.• 50. 7 Bu. 13.8 23.11 1,142 MixedHay ...•.................•.• 2.1 T. 8.5 15.98 1,940

Total for 3 acres ...............•...... 54.9 85.22 6,338 $0.013

3 acres of alfalfa-timothy meadow @ 3% tons 45.0 per acre ................................... $66.00 10,500 $0.006

From the standpoint of labor involved, acre cost of crops, total pounds, and cost per pound of digestible nutrients, the advantage lies in keeping a relatively large proportion of land in meadows. Naturally, several factors operate to prevent going to the extreme in this method of land utilization: Labor distribution may require that some corn be grown; some small grain crop will be needed to furnish straw; and, each year, perhaps, some meadow will have thinned out to the point where it may seem advisable to plow it up and start back through the rotation which leads to its reseeding. To be satisfactory in this connection, meadows must be composed of legumes or grasses which are capable of remaining productive for more than one year. Herein lies the weakness of clover and soybeans and the strength of alfalfa and timothy. There are other factors involved, however, which bear on the problem of hay production in liberal quantities.

Soybeans.-This legume admittedly has one big advantage not possessed by others, in that it can be grown in an emergency after it becomes apparent that the regular clover seeding has failed. Opposed to this, however, are

I .


several factors which make the crop less attractive as a regular part of the dairy farm's supply of hay. On the Trumbull Farm it has been a relatively €xpensive type of hay due to the fact that the land had to be plowed, the seedbed fitted, and the seed sown at a time when the labor and power resources of the farm were severely taxed. Also, on this heavy soil a poor stand often led to low yields of hay, sometimes badly mixed with ragweed and foxtail. The usual difficulties of curing have been experienced and the end product, on the average, has not weighed any more than an equal area of early-cut timothy. Certainly, it has yielded less than a mixture of timothy and alfalfa even though the alfalfa made up much less than one-half of the mixture.

Oats and peas.-This combination offers many of the disadvantages of soybeans and does not make hay of as high quality.

Clovers.-In pointing out why clover alone does not ideally fit into the scheme of liberal roughage production followed on the Trumbull County Experiment Farm, it is not intended to detract in the least from the great credit due the various clovers which may fit very nicely into many other schemes and eonditions. The fact that they are at their best for only one year makes a rather high seed cost for a single crop. Then, if the failure of the new seeding makes necessary the growing of soybeans a double seed cost results.

When used as the only source of hay, clover alone did not produce sufficient hay on the Trumbull Farm to provide for liberal hay feeding. For 16 years, from 1915 to 1930, feed production on this farm was mostly in a 3-year rotation of corn, oats, clover. There were years when the silage crop was low in yield and years when the oats were disappointing, but the task of securing a sufficient amount of hay for the dairy was the cause of most coneern. In 10 of these 16 years soybeans were grown to the total of approximately 100 acres, and in 7 years hay was purchased in amounts varying from a ton or so of local hay to an entire carload of shipped-in alfalfa. Hay purchases, some of which were made at the peak of prices, totaled about $1300. To this must be added the cost of seed and seedbed preparation for the hundred acres of soybeans. Roughly, this would approximate $700; thus, a total of $2000 in 16 years was spent for hay to supplement the inadequate amount supplied by the 3-year rotation. It is only fair to state that approximately $500 of this amount were spent the first 3 years before the liming program had time to produce fair crops of clover. However, $1500 for 13 years is a bad enough record, but it probably is no more than many dairy farms expended in the same period. Their money may have been spent for grain to supplement a scanty hay supply, but, in any case, it represents a charge for feed which should have been produced by home-grown hay.

Alfalfa-timothy.-This combination has been grown on the Trumbull Farm in a limited way since 1927 and in an extensive way since 1930. In the spring of 1934 this Farm offered the unusual problem of having to plow up a 3-yearold sod, which any practical minded farmer would say should not be plowed but which had to be sacrificed if corn were to be grown even on a limited acreage. Thus, in the last 3 years the alfalfa-timothy meadow has passed out of the experimental stage and has become the most important part of the cropping scheme.

Many have considered alfalfa the ideal permanent meadow. In previous years several attempts were made to grow pure stands of alfalfa on this Farm, but the results generally were not satisfactory. Records show that the land was limed, but it is not known what the pH of the soil was at the various times


these attempts were made. In recent years, when the soil has been raised to a known pH of 6.0 or more, there have been no plots of pure alfalfa seeding to compare with the alfalfa-timothy combination and, thus, it is not known what the relative yield would have been. However, at the Hamilton County Experiment Farm in western Ohio where alfalfa is satisfactorily grown, the addition of timothy in one test increased the yield of hay by approximately a ton per acre. The assumption, therefore, might be made that on the Trumbull Farm where alfalfa is not so much at home the difference in yield would be more than at the Hamilton Farm. Timothy is so well adapted to the Trumbull Farm soil and the results in growing and feeding the combination have been so good that it is not planned to make any further effort to grow alfalfa alone there.

Timothy,, in contrast to alfalfa, has been a much maligned crop, and some critics have gone so far as to say it should not be grown at all. The crop, however, is apparently about to come into its own as investigators learn how to make use of the good qualities of this grass. Much of the criticism of the past should have been directed not so much against the crop as against the methods used in growing, harvesting, and feeding. In giving timothy its just recognition there can be no harm. What this will be, perhaps, is not yet clear, but enough is known at present to say that when properly grown, properly cut, and properly balanced, timothy hay is a good feed, especially when fed as a supplement to a legume.

Scattered through the eastern and southern parts of Ohio are other Experiment Farms on which the alfalfa-timothy combination is being successfully grown. Each one of these Farms is on soil which does not grow pure alfalfa with the success desired for a permanent or semi-permanent meadow. This is mentioned merely to show the wide range of conditions to which the combination may be adapted.

On the hills where erosion is more or less of a menace the combination retards washing more successfully than alfalfa alone. This is especially important. On many hill farms where an attempt has been made to grow corn and small grain in regular rotation with only one year of clover meadow, the soil has eroded faster than it could be remade by the best of fertility methods. Such fields probably will not produce pure alfalfa successfully, but the inclusion of timothy and clover may make a very feasible combination for the more or less unfavorable conditions.

Seed mixture.-Perhaps a better name would be alfalfa-clover-timothy meadows as the three kinds of seed are sown together on the Trumbull and other County Experiment Farms. The various combinations which have been used are given in Table 6.

TABLE 6.-Pounds of Seed Sown per Acre

1. ..................................................... . 2 ..................................................... .. 3 ...................................................... . 4 ...................................................... . 5 ................................................... , .. .

Alsike clover

Red clover

.. .. . ... .. .. .... ··s····· ""2'"" 4

2 2 2 .......... .

Alfalfa Timothy

12 5 4

10 10

2 4 4 6 6

These various mixtures have not been compared in any one year so that any deductions must be drawn from general observation and experience. Number 1 has worked fairly well, but, in general, it has been more satisfactory


to include either alsike or red clover or perhaps both in such amounts as indicated in 3 and 4. It is thought that the inclusion of clover assists the timothy in protecting the alfalfa from heaving. Even though clover comes in "as thick as hair on a dog's back", the alfalfa does not seem to suffer. The stand, however, cannot be correctly estimated until after the clover crop is cut.

The alfalfa part has varied from 4 to 12 pounds, and, strangely enough, 4 :pounds in some cases have given as good stands as 12 pounds in others. In general, the tendency is to standardize at about 6 pounds per acre.

Seedlings on this farm are made with oats, and the timothy, as might be expected, shows no particular consistency. On one field 6 pounds seemed to be too much; nevertheless, this field has produced the heaviest yields of hay on the Farm. Timothy constituted over one-half of the first cutting the second year, but even with this high proportion the hay analyzed 12.6 per cent of protein. Another field which received 4 pounds of timothy made a first cutting in the third year composed of 27 per cent timothy and 73 per cent alfalfa. On a third field 2 pounds gave a satisfactory stand. Apparently, moisture conditions throughout the summer have something to do with this. At the present time 4 pounds per acre are considered standard, and we tend to doubt the advisability of sowing more than this amount.

Seeding with wheat vs. oats.-On the Trumbull County Experiment Farm the results are distinctly in favor of seeding an alfalfa mixture with oats rather than with wheat. Wheat is favored over oats only when clover and timothy are sown, but for some reason alfalfa has not caught readily on this soil type when sown broadcast on wheat. No attempt has been made to drill the seed, although this method has been very satisfactory at the Belmont County Experiment Farm. On the other hand, the practice of broadcast seeding on wheat is quite successful at the Miami County Experiment Farm where the soils tend toward the darker Brookston type. Apparently, some study should be given to local conditions before deciding whether to sow with wheat or oats. Until wheat is proven satisfactory, oats or barley should be the choice where the first consideration is to secure a semi-permanent meadow containing considerable alfalfa. Good stands at this Farm have been secured in full seedings (10 pecks) of oats, but, obviously, it would be somewhat safer to cut the amount of oats sown to 8 pecks. This should not greatly reduce the yield of oats.

The resulting hay.-Perhaps it is easiest to give a word picture of the resulting hay crop by stating results of the past 3 years. Naturally, the exact figures given will vary, depending on how many or what plots, blocks, or fields are used for illustration. For this purpose fields have been chosen since they represent actual practice involving over 30 acres. Yields are given in pounds of field-cured hay and are accurate, as the loads were weighed as they came from the fields. Actual weights out of the mow, of course, would be somewhat less. The figures in Table 7 are for 1931, 1932, and 1933. The last year was distinctly dry and unfavorable for more than one cutting. Possibly, the two other years were more favorable than the average, but, even so, only two cuttings were made each year. Many would have said that a third cutting was justified, but the hay was not needed and the cutting would have come well into September when it might have injured the following year's yield. The soil in all cases had a pH of 6.0 or more.


TABLE 7.-Actual Yield and Estimated Composition of Hay Crops from Field 1A. 1931, 1932, and 1933

First-year meadow-1931: 1st cutting 2nd cutting:::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Second-year meadow-1932: 1st cutting(% alfalfa) 2nd cutting ............ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::.

Third-year meadow-1933: 1st cutting (% alfalfa) ............................ 2nd cutting (unusually dry after 1st cutting) ....

Total for 3 years ............................. ·1 Per cent of total yield. . . . . . . . . . .....................

Total yield per

acre

Lb.

5,310 2,340

5,750 3,300

4,920 1,970

23,590

100

Clover Alfalfa Timothy

Lb. Lb. Lb.

4.000 1,000 310 . . . . . . ' . . . . . 2,340 ············ . .......... 4,320 1,430

3,300 ............

........... 3,690 1,230 .... ..... 1,970 ............

4,000 16,620 2,970

17 70 13

The record for Field 2C is shown in Table 8. The 1932 yield on this field was the largest ever grown on the farm. This field was cut first on June 15. A heavy rain shortly afterwards pushed out a second growth of timothy, and the second cutting contained a rather large amount at about the heading stage. Needless to say, this made very excellent hay. This second growth of timothy is rare, however. In all other cases, the second cutting has been practically pure alfalfa.

TABLE 8.-Actual Yields and Estimated Composition of Hay from Field 2C

First-year meadow-1932: 1st cutting ........................................ 2nd cutting (3/5 alfalfa) •..........................

Second-year meadow-1933: 1st cutting (J-6 alfalfa) ............................ 2nd cutting (unusually dry after 1st cutting) ....

Total for 2 years ..............................

Per cent of total yield .................................

Total yield per

acre

Lb.

6,110 5,560

6,050 1,560

19,280

100

Clover

Lb.

3,500 ............

············ . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,500

18

Alfalfa Timothy

Lb. Lb.

910 1, 700 3,335 2,225

3,025 3,025 1,560 ............ 8,830 6,950

46 36

The second year the first cutting of hay from this field contained over 50 per cent of timothy. It was cut June 7 and analyzed 12.6 per cent of protein.

The above tables should ease the fears of any who have read thus far with a growing apprehension that timothy was receiving undue consideration. Even the most critical can scarcely criticize a hay supply with a variation of from 13 to 36 per cent of "early-cut" timothy. The more liberal minded will appreciate a brief statement of several advantages which many will find in a method of hay production which produces hay of this quantity and quality.

HAY FOR THE DAIRY FARM

Fig. 2.-A. First-year meadow, favorable season of 1933. Nearly 3 tons per acre first cutting with clover predominating. (Photograph from Carbon Limestone Company.) B. Same meadow in 1934. Over 1 Yz tons in spite of the drouth.

11

Lengthens hay-making season.-The first-year meadow, at least for the first cutting, is essentially a clover meadow and, as such, is cut when the clover is ready. The first cutting of the second year is composed of alfalfa and timothy and is cut when the alfalfa is ready. At the Trumbull Farm this date starts June 10 or even a few days earlier if good hay-making weather is in prospect and there is a large acreage to cut. The alfalfa-timothy is thus disposed of before the clover is cut. The later date on which the first cutting of clover is made is more or less reflected in the time of cutting the second crop so that there is somewhat less complication from excessive acreage ready to cut at one time in midsummer. This later harvesting of the first-year meadow practically prevents a third cutting, but second- and third-year meadows may have a third cutting taken from them if conditions permit. The practice at the Trumbull Farm, however, has been to take only two cuttings from any of the fields.

It is a very safe assertion to make that the mow will contain more highgrade hay by reason of having two types of hay and a longer harvesting season, instead of only one type which has to be cut in a rather short period.

Those who have found the first cutting of alfalfa to be rather difficult to cure will appreciate the mixture with timothy which cures without any special difficulty. In 1933 a heavy crop of alfalfa-timothy and one of clover were cut on June 7 and 8, respectively. The former cured easily, but considerable difficulty was experienced with the latter.

A safeguard if new seeding fails.-With this system in full swing, the spectre of new-seeding failure largely has passed out of mind. When a new seeding fails, it no longer is necessary to resort to emergency soybeans. Plans can be switched, an old meadow held over another year, and corn put where the seeding failed. Even two failures in successive years could be met without serious difficulty. This feature is especially valuable as it is in the years of new-seeding failures that purchased hay is likely to be high in price or extra grain must be bought.


Dependable in drouth years.-Also, hay usually is high priced in drouth years. A fair hay crop in poor years may pay more than a bumper crop in good years due to the fact that when everybody has hay the price usually is low. Conversely, when a drouth occurs in May, hay very likely will be unusually high in price. When judged by the crops of 1930 and 1934, the established alfalfa-timothy meadow can be depended on for fair, or even good, yields when first-year meadows are very much of a failure due to dry weather. In 1930, when first-year clover meadows at the Trumbull Farm made scarcely a ton of hay per acre, one block in alfalfa-timothy yielded at three times this rate. In 1934 the comparison was just as striking. First-year clover meadows with a good stand of plants were about as near a failure as they could be but on 20 acres of established alfalfa-timothy meadow the crop stood knee high on the first of June. Yields were not available as this bulletin went to press but the appearance of the crop would bring joy to almost any farm owner in even a good season. Extra yields for this one year alone probably will more than pay for all the limestone used in putting this soil in shape to grow a mixture of alfalfa and timothy. Such mixtures, when once obtained, are dependable in years of drouth and new-seeding failures and, thus, add stability as well as profit to any farming system in which hay is an important factor.

Fig. 3.-1934 drouth meadows A. First year. B. Third year

Quality of hay.-In 1933 a mixture composed of 55 per cent timothy and 45 per cent alfalfa, cut on June 7, analyzed 12.6 per cent protein. This is as high as some of the commercial shipped-in alfalfa contains. The mixture had a nice green color and was pronounced excellent hay by all who saw it. In further consideration of quality it can be pointed out that the quality with the alfalfa-timothy mixture remains high regardless of how large the yield. This is not always true of clover, as big yields often come hand in hand with coarse, stemmy plants which makes for a high waste in feeding. The cows in the dairy herd show considerably more tendency to nose hay out of the manger when eating coarse clover than they do when the hay is alfalfa-timothy. It has been observed frequently that cows eat more of the mixture than of either hay fed alone. Similar reports come from various other sources.


Quantity of hay.-Without sacrificing quality, therefore, it is possible to provide almost any quantity of hay desired on the dairy farm by merely lengthening the rotation and keeping the meadows down for a longer period. One timothy-alfalfa meadow was plowed up after 5 years and it was still in good condition. In 1934 a 3-year-old sod was plowed for corn. This would have cut another excellent hay crop and possibly two or more but it was plowed because it was the most logical place for corn.

Mixture surer than pure alfalfa.-Almost every community has one or more fields or farms endowed by nature with better drainage or less acidity than the average and on these enough alfalfa has been grown to incite rather general interest. Too often, however, attempts by neighbors to grow pure alfalfa have ended in failure with consequent discouragement. Sowing alfalfa in mixtures with clover and timothy rarely results in complete failure, since a good crop of clover very likely is secured the first year. Then, if no alfalfa shows up, the rotation can go on in the normal manner by plowing the clover sod for corn. All that has been lost is the cost of the 4 or 6 pounds of alfalfa seed which were included in the mixture. The loss probably will not be this much, because, if. the soil conditions are anywhere near right, there undoubtedly will be enough alfalfa more than to offset the cost of the seed. Thus, one who is not sure about the lime supply in his soil can use this method without much hesitation whereas he might hesitate to sow alfalfa alone and run the risk of losing out entirely on a hay crop.

Limestone probably the limiting factor.-Unlimed soil on the Trumbull County Experiment Farm has a pH of about 4.6. This is a very acid condition. Results obtained during the first 10 years of the fertility test on this Farm show that limestone is the most effective single material for raising the productivity of this soil. The results are given in Table 9.

TABLE 9.-Average Yields, First 10 Years of Fertility Test

Crops

Plots Treatment Corn Oats Wheat Hay

Bu. Bu. Bu. Lb. ------------------ ------------

28 None .............................. . 15 30 960 ------------------ ------------

27 500 Lb. Q-16-Q ................................... .

1, 4, 7, 10 2 T. Limestone ................................. .

26

34

39

44

15

18

1020

1780 ----[---------------- -------------

26 1 50g rb~rto~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: f 35 43 22 1820

14 { ~ :f: ~i~,::.~-:;,.;~:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::. } 43 46 20 2620

----[---------------- ------------

2 { 50~ £b.L~'l&:iJt.0.~~:::::::::::::: ·::::::::::::::: f 38 51 28 3120

i 8 T. Manure ................................. ( 2 T. Limestone ............................ ..

500 Lb. 0-16-Q ................................. . 9 51 55 28 3460

In 1915, when this Experiment Farm was started, considerable was known about soil acidity, but the peculiarity of this soil as regards its extreme lime requirement was not thoroughly understood. Consequently, the initial appli-


cation of limestone was confined to 2 tons per acre. In following years there were times when this Farm, just like those privately owned, met financial stringencies. The records disclose that during these years the fertilizer program for the fields was adhered to with more exactness than the limestone program. Nevertheless, a reasonable amount of limestone was applied; in fact, the same amount on many soils would have brought about a condition of near neutrality. However, on this heavy soil the pH was not so easily raised and there was a decade when a slight, continuous improvement was noted in crop production-but still a decade when the general results were not sufficiently good to justify a very optimistic feeling that one was getting along as fast as the effort and general expense warranted. Alfalfa showed in increasing amounts after the oats were cut but usually had disappeared by the following spring.

By 1930 one field was limed to bring it to a pH of more than 6.0, and other :fields have followed each year, the last ones receiving their full quota in 1934. The results have been outstanding and the Farm finally has passed from a rather mediocre one to one of outstanding interest. Valuable time would have been gained and considerable money saved if sufficiently heavy applications of limestone had been made several years sooner.

Amount of limestone needed.-Trumbull silty clay loam is a difficult soil to neutralize although not the most difficult to be found in Ohio. Table 10 gives the amount of limestone required to reach a pH of varying degrees as measured one year from the time of application. These results were worked out by E. E. Barnes of the Agronomy Department, of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station.

TABLE 10.-Limestone Required per Acre to Produce Results in One Year

On Trumbull On an On a more To reach a pH of silty clay loam easier soil difficult soil

Tons Tons Tons 5.0 ................................................... . 1.0 None 1.2 6.0 .................................................. . 3.0 1.3 3.2 6.5............. . ........................... . 4.5 2.0 5.0 7.0....... .. .. ................. . 7.2 3.0 10.0

Because of the large amount of limestone required on this soil, some plots were laid out in 1931 to determine how high the pH need be to secure success with the alfalfa-timothy mixture. The results for 1932 are given in Table 11. The soil had received one or more light limings in previous years. Varying amounts of limestone were applied in the spring of 1931 to secure the different pH levels.

TABLE 11.-Yields of Alfalfa-timothy at Various pH Levels

pH value on Sept. 13, 1932

4.6 .................................................................... . 5.2 .................................................................... . 6.0 .................................................................. .. 6.3 .................................................................... . 6.6 ................................................................... .

Saturation with base

Pet. * 34 62 75 94

Yield of hay

Lb. 0

6040 9020 8850 8480

*Not determined. This is from another series of plots. It is unlimed, unfertilized, and unmanured and has ceased producing a hay crop of any value.


Fig. 4.-1934 drouth meadows. A. Unmanured, unfertilized, and unlimed. B. Heavily manured and liberally fertilized but unlimed. C. Adequately limed but unmanured and unfertilized.

15

These plots were not harvested a s such after 1932 due to the fact that a cutting experiment was started crossways on them. The 1932 appearance of the growing crop, however, would lead one to say that the yields were equally good at the 6.0, 6.3, and 6.6 levels. At 5.2 there was not only a smaller yield but also a considerably smaller proportion of alfalfa than at the higher levels. The results in general indicate that there is a chance for some alfalfa to persist in a timothy meadow at a pH somewhat below 6.0, possibly due to the fact that certain spots test higher than the average of the field. Also, it may come a little easier on soils well stocked with plant food from liberal amounts of manure and fertilizer used in past years. If so, it is an encouraging feature as many dairy farms have been well treated in this respect for the last quarter, or even the last half, century. Other factors influencing stand are the degree of inoculation present and the favorableness of the season for a catch. However, for practical purposes, a pH of 6.0 would seem to be about the lowest level for satisfactory catches and yields. In this one test there was no apparent advantage in reaching a higher pH, but it is to be expected that there would be, on the average, greater chances of getting a stand of alfalfa and a larger yield at 6.5 or slightly higher.

Any particular soil can be raised to this pH rapidly by a heavy initial limestone application or more slowly by several lighter applications. Each individual must decide for himself, according to his own finances, which method to take. However, it should be understood that delay means valuable time lost. The problem is less discouraging when it is understood that, after the first heavy expense for limestone has been incurred, the cost of maintaining a soil at the proper pH is not a very heavy burden. With the necessary pH established the more conventional application of one ton per acre every 4 years perhaps will be sufficient.

Manure.-It is the practice on the Trumbull County Experiment Farm to top-dress the new seedings with manure early in the fall or winter after sowing. Afterwards, established meadows are top-dressed every other year. The application of a smaller amount of manure every year has been considered seriously, but this plan has not as yet been put into effect.


Phosphorus.-N o unusual amount of phosphorus-carrying fertilizer has been applied when seeding down. In fact, the amount used has been considerably below average, due to the fact that it has been necessary to operate on a reduced income for the last few years. However, for 15 years previous to this time the practice had been to use superphosphate according to standards recommended to the better farmers of the State. In consequence, a reserve of phosphorus probably had been accumulated.

Drainage.-With the exception of one acre, all the tillable land on the Trumbull County Experiment Farm is tile-drained. Tile, however, is not very effective in this heavy soil. This single, untiled acre has a slight slope although it might be called flat by those who are accustomed to rolling or hilly topography. The first serious attempt to grow alfalfa-timothy on this untiled area will not come until 1935. In the past, the seeding on this acre has been made with wheat and, as reported earlier in this bulletin, wheat is not a particularly good crop with which to sow alfalfa on this soil. In spite of this, considerable alfalfa did grow on this acre in 1933 after the first cutting of hay was made.

In the fields which have been sufficiently well limed it is difficult, if not impossible, to locate the lines of tile by the better alfalfa, at least for the first 2 or 3 years. One field which had been in meadow for 3 years showed better and thicker alfalfa over the tile in the spring of 1934, but there was enough alfalfa between the tile lines to make a fourth excellent hay year and possibly also a fifth one. Several years of observation on this soil, together with reports from individual farmers, indicate strongly that if the limestone requirement is met there are many untiled farms sufficiently well drained to grow alfalfatimothy meadows successfully. Naturally there probably are others too flat and too wet to justify even an attempt.

The cheapest method.-The cheapest application of this principle of hay production is to fix up one field with sufficient limestone to meet the requirements for an alfalfa-timothy meadow. If this is top-dressed with manure every other year and not cut too late in the fall it should be productive for at least 4 or 5 years. The remainder of the tillable area can be run in rotation with a one-year clover meadow. Within the 5 years another field can be prepared and seeded for a second alfalfa-timothy meadow. This will permit the first field, in turn, to pass back into the regular rotation.

A method with greater cash outlay.-A method which will more quickly include the entire tillable area is to bring one field each year up to the desired standard. Then the meadows may be left 2 or more years as desired. This. method is preferable but it may call for more cash outlay than many farmers. are able to supply for 4 or 5 consecutive years. The practice of leaving the· meadow down for 2 years works out very nicely. Even though the second-· year meadow during the first rotation contains only a sprinkle of alfalfa some very good hay can be made by cutting early. During the second and third rotations, with more limestone and better inoculation, the alfalfa should. increase to the desired proportion.

Permits reduction of acres.-With the system of growing and feeding· larger quantities of hay now used on the Trumbull County Experiment Farm the same number of cows can be kept on fewer acres, or, if kept on the same acreage, they can be fed better. In 1933, the season after the middle of June was one of the driest on record. Soon after July 1 the pastures were prac-


tically gone and hay feeding was started. It was continued without interruption through to the beginning of the 1934 pasture season-a period of more than 9 months. An abundance of hay, with a little silage, prevented a serious decline in summer milk production.

Another method of better feeding which this system might encourage would be to take some of the acres no longer needed for winter feed production and devote them to Sudan grass pasture for July and August. In 1933 hay was so plentiful that one silo was filled with a mixture of approximately one part of green wheat to four parts of partially wilted clover and alfalfa. This was fed during July, August, and September, thus helping to keep up milk production during this critical period when pastures were practically useless. Also, with more of the land in hay there is more pasture either from aftermath or from keeping the meadow down an extra year when it may be used entirely for pasture.

Leisure time.-These two words are not mentioned lightly but, rather, are to be taken seriously. Dairy farming at best is hard and confining work. If industry is granted anything that approaches the 30-hour week, it is too much to expect that dairymen will remain satisfied if forced to work long weeks to produce low-priced milk at little profit. The milking machine has taken much of the sweat and drudgery out of the process of milking, electric or other power-driven pumps have simplified the watering of the cows, but feed production is still laborious. The tractor in some cases has helped materially, but there are many farms too small to afford a tractor. For such farms horse power may be more feasible, but milking the cows and cleaning the stables while preparing the seedbed and planting the crops with this source of power is very likely to lead to an April and May composed of weeks from three to four times as long as those which many ask for industry.

Growing more of the feed in the form of hay will ease the spring work. It will tend to make for a somewhat busier June, but the labor problems which go with more hay are probably more easily met than those of a month or two earlier.

Satisfaction.-Dairy farming should provide a certain degree of satisfaction to those engaged in it. A rather complete degree of satisfaction can come only when the returns are sufficient to provide a reasonable amount of leisure time, a comfortable home, and the conveniences which are considered necessary in this modern age. However, economic conditions of the country as a whole may determine the financial return to a greater extent than one's own individual efforts. The satisfaction that comes from good cows well fed, as well as from good crops, is largely due to individual effort. Of all crops on the dairy farm good meadows are productive of the greatest amount of satisfaction because to take land in the condition it happens to be in and bring it up to a condition which will produce good meadows is a crowning achievement.

Feasibility.-For many farms where the limestone requirement is low this is not a serious question. Those who persist in making a serious matter of it have in mind the areas where the 4 to 6 tons of limestone required per acre would entail an acre cost of from 10 to 15 dollars. However, the first serious question about many such areas is whether a farmer wishes to continue to farm there or whether he desires to sever connections and start over where conditions are more favorable. If he decides to stay where he is and his farming system requires the use or the sale of hay, then the really serious question is whether it is feasible to continue to farm for even a decade without adequately liming the soil.


An attitude of doubt, perhaps, has been given too much encouragement. As long as chief reliance is placed on one-year clover meadows one can "get by" with less limestone, but the results of the past 20 years at the Trumbull County Experiment Farm indicate that on these unfavorable, acid soils a prosperous and satisfactory system of dairy farming is not easily secured with one-year meadows which produce an inadequate supply of hay and which depend so largely on the weather caprices of two seasons-that of sowing and that of harvesting.

A more reasonable attitude is to consider the extra 10 or 15 dollars per acre as a part of the initial cost of the farm. Consider the following: Two farms are for sale. They are equal in all respects except that one regularly grows large crops of alfalfa-timothy whereas the other is noted for its small yields of clover interspersed with occasional total failures. One is priced at $50 per acre for 60 acres of tillable land and the other one at $65 or even $70. Some would take the cheaper farm because the spectre of a larger debt would hang heavy over their heads. For them a meager existence is less fearful than a larger debt. However, many others would gladly pay the higher price for the better farm, feeling very sure of their ability to pay off the extra $900 and, while doing it, have more satisfaction and a larger net income. From this standpoint, the cost of sufficient limestone to raise the soil to the desired pH becomes a part of the initial cost of the land and the problem of financing is no more serious than that of financing the land itself.

A study of the tables in the second part of this bulletin discloses that when Holstein cows were fed heavily on such hay as has been described in the first part, and grain was properly used, the value of the milk over feed costs was as high as, or higher than, with the more conventional system of less hay, more silage, and a higher protein grain mixture. In the three trials this varied from $1.23 to $1.92 per month per cow. The average is $1.54. If the feeding period is taken as 7 months, the total would be $10.75 per cow per year, or an amount that would go far toward covering the initial cost of liming one acre on many soils. This fact, in addition to the several other ·good features previously enumerated, adds increased seriousness to the question "Can a dairy farmer who farms under the handicap of acid soil conditions afford not to make the limestone investment that will put his hay production costs more nearly on a par with those of other sections which were more favored by a kindly Nature which gave them limestone soils from the very beginning?"


SUMMARY

1. In contrast to the corn belt where a considerable part of the tillable acreage is kept in corn and small grains, Trumbull County keeps one-half or more of its land in meadows.

2. At the Trumbull County Experiment Farm a satisfactory system has been worked out which permits one-half or more of the tillable area to remain in meadows.

3. The single, most important factor in securing such meadows has been limestone used in sufficient quantity to bring the soil to a pH of at least 6.0.

4. Meadows averaging 3112 tons or more of high-grade dairy hay have been grown in a small way since 1927 and in an extensive way since 1930.

5. Compared with a 3-year rotation of corn, oats, and hay, an equal area in such meadows has required less man labor, has entailed less cost per acre, and has produced more digestible feed nutrients at a lower unit cost.

6. A very satisfactory seed mixture has been composed of alsike 2 pounds, red clover 4 pounds, alfalfa 6 pounds, and timothy 4 pounds. Reduction or even elimination of the red clover apparently has not materially affected the outcome.

7. At the Trumbull Farm wheat has been distinctly less favorable than oats as a companion seeding crop when the seed mixture has been sown broadcast. This difference between wheat and oats is less marked on some other soils of the State.

8. One 8-acre field over a period of 3 years produced a total of nearly 12 tons of hay per acre with an estimated proportion of 17 per cent clover, 70 per cent alfalfa, and 13 per cent early-cut timothy. Another 5-acre field in 2 years produced over 9 tons per acre with 18, 46, and 36 per cent, respectively, of clover, alfalfa, and early-cut timothy.

9. Alfalfa-timothy meadows cut before the middle of June yield heavy crops of hay which may contain approximately as high a percentage of protein as some commercial, shipped-in alfalfa.

10. Meadows, largely clover for the first cutting of the first year, a mixture of alfalfa and timothy for the first cutting of following years, and alfalfa for the second cutting of all years, constitute the basis of this system.

11. Alfalfa-timothy meadows are drouth-resistant. In both 1930 and 1934 they made very creditable yields when first-year meadows were near failures.

12. As measured by laboratory tests it requires 3 tons of limestone per acre to raise this soil to a pH of 6, with another 1% tons needed to reach a pH of 6.5. Excellent hay crops have been grown at the lower pH.

13. Other fertility practices have been normal. The dairy herd has produced manure for top-dressing every second year. Superphosphate has been applied at seeding time, but due to financial conditions this sometimes has been considerably below 200 pounds per acre.

14. The alfalfa probably does somewhat better over the tile, but on welllimed fields it is sufficiently good between the lines to produce excellent hay and often it is impossible to detect any difference.

15. Judging from the results at the Trumbull Farm the question "Can one afford to do it?" becomes "Can one afford not to do it?".


PRICES USED IN THIS BULLETIN

The exact relative prices to use for corn silage and hay in reporting a test of this kind might be dete1·mined differently by different people. The deciding factor might be whether buying price, selling price, or cost of production were taken as the basis for arriving at a fair figure. Obviously, corn silage does not have a true market value because of the difficulty of moving; hence, what one neighbor is willing to pay another in an occasional case of distress buying or selling is quite meaningless in determining market value. Hay has more of a market value, but this value is only fixed for the surplus hay and certainly would not be the same if all dairy-fed hay were placed on the market. Practically all corn silage, therefore, and the great bulk of hay on dairy farms are produced to be fed and dairymen are interested primarily in their unit cost of production. Selling and buying prices become of first importance if a choice is to be made between whether to stay in the dairy business or to put the farmgrown feed on the market in some other form, but, if the choice involves selection of crops of known feeding value, then the unit cost of production affords a more logical basis for reasoning than the more shifting and uncertain selling or buying price.

During the 5-year period 1920-1924 the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station conducted a thorough investigation of the cost of producing crops on 20 Medina County farms. The results for corn silage, clover hay, and timothy hay are given in the accompanying table.

The figures for the average, highest, and lowest ton costs show great variation, but the acre costs are surprisingly close together.

Cost of Producing Crops on 20 Medina County Farms*

Average cost per ton: Cornsilage ............................ Clover hay ............................ Timothy hay ..........................

Lowest cost per ton: Corn silage ............................ Clover hay ........................... Timothy hay ..........................

Highest cost per ton: Cornsilage ............................ Clover hay ............................ Timothy hay ..........................

Total cost per acre

IJol,

46.13 18.42 14.69

36.71 14.86 13.17

45.26 20.80 17.31

Pasture credit

per acre

IJol,

0 1.07 0.17

0 2.46

0

0 0 0

Net cost per acre

IJol,

46.13 17.35 14.52

36.71 12.40 13.17

45.26 20.80 17.31

Yield per acre

Tolls

6.80 1. 76 1.45

6.76 1.98 1.81

4.74 1.28 0.96

Cost per ton

IJol.

6.71 9.86

10.01

5.43 6.26 7.28

9.54 16.25 18.03

*Ohio Experiment Station Bulletin 453-Variations in Crop Producticm Costs in Medina County, Ohio.

With acre costs remaining nearly the same, the size of crop yields largely determines the unit cost. On the Trumbull County Experiment Farm one field of hay in 1931 cut over 5% tons per acre. The largest yield of corn silage has been 14 tons made from quite well matured Lancaster Sure Crop corn. The 3-year average has been somewhat less than 10 tons of silage and 4 tons of hay. With these yields the cost of silage has not been cut much under $5 per ton while the cost of hay, perhaps, has not been more than $7 per ton. Therefore, by using $5 per ton for silage and $8 per ton for hay, the silage is given a relatively more favorable value than the hay.

PART II. INCREASED HAY FEEDING FOR DAIRY COWS

C. F. MONROE AND HAROLD ALLEN

The principle of using farm-grown feeds seems logical, because by this method the farmer is able to furnish a market for his own products and save handling and profit charges on the feeds which his dairy herd consumes. However, too often such feeding means poorly balanced rations lacking in protein and minerals and in palatability. The factor contributing most to this condition is the lack of a good quality legume hay. If such hay could be raised and fed in liberal quantities, the necessity of purchasing high-protein feeds would be reduced to a minimum or possibly eliminated in certain cases.

In feeding dairy cows the farmer has two general choices: first, to feed for maximum production, realizing that feed costs will be high; and, second, to feed as cheaply as possible, realizing that milk production will fall below normal. The first method depends upon the liberal use of a suitable grain mixture with a limited amount of roughage; in the second method farm feeds are used almost exclusively. Both systems have their good and bad features.

To feed for maximum production is wise from an efficiency standpoint, for by this method a greater proportion of feed is used for milk production and the maintenance overhead is lower than when a smaller amount of feed is used. Because of the limited capacity of cows, the increased nutrient intake is effected by increasing the concentrate allowance. However, it is possible to feed beyond the point of profitable returns, especially when milk is low and grain high in price. Heavy grain feeding, when carried to extremes or when not carefully managed, may also be rather disastrous to the health of the cows.

In the second method (the use of farm feeds either exclusively or nearly so), the kind and quality of feeds are important. Because of the too frequent disregard of these factors, this system has fallen into disrepute since milk production has been too greatly reduced and the physical fitness of the cows also lowered. Overcoming these disadvantages of the farm-grown ration is of prime importance to the dairyman.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK

The value of balanced rations has long been known. Fraser and Hayden (5) showed, in 1912, that a lack of balance (lack of protein) not only resulted in a lowered milk production but also in reduced physical fitness of the cows. At least four experiment stations (2, 3, 8, 14) have demonstrated that cows which had been unprofitable under their home conditions could be converted into profitable cows by the feeding of balanced rations in adequate amounts.

In certain sections of the western part of the United States, where alfalfa hay is cheap and grain relatively high, cows are frequently fed on alfalfa hay exclusively. According to a report from the Nevada Station (11), the average Holstein cow is able to eat 37 pounds of alfalfa hay per day and produce a little more than 300 pounds of butterfat annually with this hay as the sole feed. At the California Station (21) the addition of barley to an exclusive, alfalfa hay ration gave only a slight increase in milk production. The authors recommended this grain feeding chiefly because of the favorable effect on the health of the cows and their offspring. At the Nevada Station (10) grain

(21)


feeding with alfalfa gave an increase of 55 pounds of butterfat per year ovPr an exclusive alfalfa ration. The advisability of grain feeding depended on the ratio of milk prices to grain prices and also on the milk-producing ability of the cows.

Metabolism experiments conducted at the Oregon Station (6) showed that milking cows fed entirely on alfalfa hay were usually in positive calcium balance, in negative nitrogen balance when the hay contained less than 2 per cent of nitrogen, and always in negative phosphorus balance. Feeding disodium phosphate changed the negative phosphorus balances to slightly positive balances. In a repetition of this work (7) the addition of bone flour resulted in positive phosphorus balances. The authors of the above work question the biological adequacy of the protein of a ration consisting largely or entirely of alfalfa hay.

The Michigan Station (12) found that the phosphorus intake was too low on a ration composed of alfalfa hay, corn silage, and corn. This was true when the phosphorus content of the hay was below 0.2 per cent. A lack of appetite was apparently the most pronounced symptom of the phosphorus deficiency. A low concentration of inorganic phosphorus in the blood was usually the forerunner of the reduced appetite. The authors give as a phosphorus requirement 0.5 to 0.7 gram of food phosphorus per pound of milk, in addition to a maintenance requirement of 10 grams. The Michigan Station also reports (13) that adding bone meal to rations low in phosphorus resulted in positive balances for this mineral.

At the Huntley Field Station, in Montana, the U. S. Bureau of Dairying (19) has fed 10 Holstein cows, in successive lactation periods, the following rations (generally in this order): first, full grain; second, all roughage; and third, limited grain. The cows were milked three times daily. The roughage ration, like all the others used, included pasture in season, alfalfa hay, corn silage, beets, and beet pulp. The average milk production on this ration was 13,656 pounds a year; on the limited grain ration the production was 16,648 pounds of milk; and on the full grain ration, 17,851 pounds. Returns over feed costs ranked as follows in descending order: limited grain, all roughage, full grain. The authors of the above work state that "where roughages of the right quality are available cows of more than average producing ability have sufficient capacity to consume enough nutrients from roughage alone to meet their requirements".

Fraser (4) reports an average yearly production of 8,318 pounds of milk and 284 pounds of fat when cows were fed roughage only. The average daily feed was 39 pounds of corn silage and 15.3 pounds of alfalfa hay, with a small amount of soiling crops equivalent to one pound of hay per day.

The Wisconsin Station (9) reports that a home-grown ration of alfalfa hay, corn silage, and cereal grains will meet the protein and energy requirements of a Holstein cow producing 40 to 44 pounds of milk per day. But the authors advise using 20 per cent of bran or linseed oilmeal to insure against a possible phosphorus deficiency.

In regions where corn does not yield well, corn silage has been found to be a relatively expensive feed. Experiments at the Connecticut Station (20) have shown that a limited corn silage ration containing 18 pounds of silage per day gave a 14 per cent greater return over feed costs than did a ration containing 36 pounds of silage per day. The price charged for corn silage was $9 per ton.


The succulent value of corn silage in the dairy ration has been questioned by Converse (1). A ration containing an ample quantity of good alfalfa hay with a satisfactory grain mixture gave just as good results as an equivalent ration containing corn silage. However, corn silage gives a variety which may be beneficial.

Meigs and Converse (17), of the U.S. Bureau of Dairying, have shown that rations composed of either alfalfa hay or timothy as the sole roughage became distasteful to cows thus fed, resulting in lowered roughage consumption. Mixing the two hays resulted in an increased roughage consumption, together with an increase in milk production. These same workers (18) also found that mediocre or low-quality timothy hay reduced the milk yield and seriously interfered with normal reproduction. Early indications reported by these authors are to the effect that U. S. No. 1 timothy does not lead to these reproductive troubles.

Experiments at the Massachusetts (15) and the Louisiana (16) Stations showed that full grain rations gave greater yields than rations in which part of the grain was replaced by roughage. It was concluded that the prices of milk and of the various feeds were important factors in deciding which system should be used for greatest profit.

The California Experiment Station (22) concluded that feeding grain at a ratio of 1 pound of grain to 5 pounds of milk yielded within 5 per cent as good results as when the ratio was 1 to 3. Alfalfa hay in liberal amounts and corn silage were the roughages fed.

OBJECT OF THIS EXPERIMENT

The question of utilizing a greater quantity of hay in feeding dairy cows came about in a very practical way. On the Trumbull County Experiment Farm, located in the northeastern section of Ohio, improved cultural practices had given promise of a greatly increased supply of hay suitable for the dairy ration. At about the same time, the decreased income from low milk prices was beginning to be felt. It appeared desirable, if not almost necessary, to feed more hay and less grain, or at least to reduce the purchase of protein concentrates. At the same time a reduction in the amount of corn silage fed seemed desirable from a farm management standpoint. The reasons for this have been explained in the preceding section of this bulletin. There were, then, three objects in view in conducting these experiments: first, to increase the feeding of hay; second, to decrease the amount and protein content of the grain mixture; and, third, to decrease the amount of silage fed. From a feeding standpoint such a combination would appear quite workable. Since a cow's capacity to consume roughage is limited, decreasing the usual amount of corn silage (low in protein) would allow for increasing the amount of hay which is relatively high in protein. This, in turn, would permit a reduction in the quantity of grain and also its protein content, with a consequent saving in purchased feeds.


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

COWS AND MANAGEMENT

The herd of purebred and high-grade Holstein cows at the Trumbull County Farm was used for this work. These cows were kept under conditions which compare with those prevailing on good, average farms. Milking and feeding were performed twice a day. During the winter season the cows were confined to stanchions equipped with watering cups. In summer the herd was allowed to roam in a pasture, which, like most pastures in that section, was ne>t always all that could be desired.

FEED USED

Hay.-As this experiment was conducted on a "farm basis" rather than on a strictly experimental basis, it was necessary to feed the farm hay which varied in kind and quality. It is believed that the results obtained from this "mine-run" of farm hay are comparable to those which may be expected under practical conditions. The chemical analyses of the hays are given in Table 1.

Sample No.

---

192

194

208

223

262

195

209

224 258

TABLE 1.-Chemlcal Analyses of a Portion of the Hay Used in the Experiments

Description Dry Total Crude Crude N-free Ash

Cal-matter protein fat fiber extract cium

--- --- ------ --- ------

Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Pet. Alfalfa-timothy, 1st cut-

ting, 1932 .............. 92.0 10.9 1.3 32.7 41.9 5.2 0. 77 Alfalfa-timothy, 1st cut-

ting, 1932 .............. 92.8 8.8 1.1 32.3 46.5 4.1 0.55 Alfalfa-timothy, 1st cut-

ting, 1932 .............. 92.2 9.2 1.5 32.8 43.4 5.3 0.43

Alfalfa-timothy, early 1st cutting, 1933 ....... 92.2 12.6 1.4 31.3 40.4 6.5 0.53

Alfalfa-timothy, early 1st cutting, 1933 •...... 93.4 14.7 2.1 25.2 45.7 5. 7 1.45

Alfalfa-timothy, 2nd cut-ting, 1932 .............. 92.6 11.0 1.0 34.2 40.5 5.9 0.60

Alfalfa-timothy, 2nd cut-ting, 1933 .............. 91.8 14.1 1.1 37.0 34.2 5.4 0.80

Cloverhay,earlycut,l933 92.1 14.7 2.0 28.3 41.3 5.8 1.16 Clover hay, early cut, 1933 93.0 14.3 1.3 27.2 44.8 5.4 1.43

Phos-phorus

---Pet.

0.22

0.18

0.21

0.29

0.21

0.28

0.24

0.32 0.29

In general, three types of hay were fed: a, a mixed hay aomposed of alfalfa and timothy of the first cutting; b, second-cutting alfalfa, which contained some second-growth timothy; and, c, mixed alsike and medium red clover. The last named comprised only a small portion of the hay fed. The reader is referred to Pages 7 and 8 in the first part of the bulletin for a more complete description of the hay.

The cows showed a decided fondness for the mixed alfalfa-timothy hay, preferring it to good clover. In 1933, the alfalfa-timothy hay was cut on June 6, when the timothy was in the pre-blossom stage. This made an excellent roughage.


Corn silage.-In the years covered by this work a good quality of corn silage was available. Lancaster Sure Crop, an ensilage corn, was generally the variety used for silage. In 1931, some of this corn not needed for the silo husked out 100 bushels of ears per acre. This was an exceptional year for corn in Trumbull County. The following year was also good. In 1933, a hybrid variety of corn was used for the silo. This corn was fairly well eared and had rather light stalks. For a fuller account of the corn yields and quality, see Pages 4 and 5.

Grain mixtures.-Table 2 gives the grain mixtures used in this work.

TABLE 2.-Grain Mixtures

Corn-and-cob meal, lb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... . Oats, lb. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . Bran, lb •............................................................. Soybean oilmeal, lb •................................................. Cottonseed meal, lb. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . Salt, lb ............................................................. . Digestible crude protein, pet ........................................ .

Price per cwt., dol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . • . . . . . . . ...................... . Total digestible nutrients, pet...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I * Av. price of purchased ingredients per cwt., dol. ........... .

Mixture No.1 Mixture No.2

500 300 100 100 100

11 13.2 74.6 1.42 1.57

400 400 200

· · · · · · · io· · · · · · · 8. 7

71.3 1.30 1.40

*Purchased ingredients, as here used, 'vere bran, the oilmea.]s, and salt. Although some corn and oats were purchased, these are not here considered as ''purchased feeds''.

Grain Mixture No. 1 was fed with the light and medium hay rations; No. 2 was fed with the heavy hay rations. The amount of grain fed to the individual cows was regulated by a schedule based on milk production and provided nutrients slightly in excess of the Haecker Standard.

Prices.-An average of the actual prices paid for feeds during the winter of 1933-1934 has been used in computing the feed costs. Hay has been estimated at $8 per ton, a price that covers the cost of production for loose hay in the mow. Corn silage has been estimated at $5 per ton, a figure also based on the cost of production. The reader is referred to Page 20 for the discussion of this price relationship. The average actual price received for milk during the above period has also been used for estimating the returns from the milk sales. The milk was sold under the "pool plan".

RESULTS

FIRST COMPARISON

(LIGHT VERSUS MODERATE HAY FEEDING)

This was a comparison of full lactation periods for each of 11 cows before and after the change in roughage feeding. These changes represented a moderate transition to more hay and less silage. During the winter feeding period, before the change was made, the cows received 10 pounds of hay and 40 pounds of corn silage per day; after the change they received 20 pounds of hay and 30 pounds of silage. They received practically the same amount of pasture in both lactations before the change in roughage feeding. Grain Mixture No. 1, containing 13.2 per cent digestible protein, was fed at the rate of 1 pound to 3.5 pounds of milk produced. In the lactation after the change, five 1>f the cows were fed grain at practically this same rate; the other six received a 30 per cent reduction in their grain allowance.


The production and feed consumption figures for the individual lactations, computed to a 320-day basis, are shown in Table 3. The upper part of the table gives the data for those cows receiving the reduced grain allowance. Without exception, they showed a marked decrease in milk. The lower part of the table shows that the cows not reduced in grain allowance increased in milk production.

Cow No.

57 1 69 {

80 {

61 {

73 i 77 {

Av.{

78 i 87 1 88 1 84 {

82 1 Av.{

TABLE 3.-Production and Feed Consumption of All Cows Before and After Change in Roughage Feeding

Roughage

(320-day lactation basis)

Milk Lb. I Test I

Pet. Fat Lb.

Hay Lb.

Group A-Grain reduced-Second lactation

Light hay ............ 10,943.7 2.92 320.00 2,233 Moderate hay ........ 8,041.9 3.30 265.76 4,285



Light hay ........... 13,867.8 3.34 463.07 2,840 Moderate hay ........ 12,100.8 3.30 399.14 3,441




Group B-Grain not reduced-Second lactation


Light hay ............ 8,339.2 3.35 279.62 2,477 Moderate hay .... ... 10,029.8 3.22 :>22.66 4,275

Light hay ........... 11,013.1 3.68 405.25 1,956 Moderate hay ........ 11,278.7 3.20 360.99 3,625

Lighthay ............ 9,086.7 3.58 325.57 2,427 Moderate hay ........ 10,040.0 3.36 337.41 4,305



Silage Lb.

9,168 5,685

7,597 6,822

7,960 5,705

9,514 5,797

8,780 6,229

8,149 6,017

8,528 6,043

10,178 6,667

7,767 6,032

7,738 5,825

7,396 6,573

8,031 5,727

8,222 6,165

Grain Lb.

3,454 2,059

3,631 2,258

3,520 2,593

4,357 2,926

3,068 2,340

2,690 2,232

3,453 2,401

3,414 3,449

2,402 2,473

3,031 2,935

2,538 2,524

2,878 2,810

2,85~ 2,838

The summaries for Groups A (grain reduced) and B (grain not reduced) are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.

The increased hay allowance given Group A was not sufficient to overcome the 30 per cent reduction in grain, together with a like reduction in silage. As a result, there was a decrease in nutrient intake and a 20 per cent decrease in production. Although the total feed costs and cash outlay for feeds were lower on the reduced grain feeding, the returns over feed costs indicated that this severe reduction was false economy. After deducting the cost of purchased feeds from the milk sales the light hay ration with its more liberal


grain feeding showed a gross income of $26 per cow per lactation greater than the moderate hay feeding with its reduced grain intake. However, with lower priced milk there would not have been this difference. If this milk had been sold at 70 cents per cwt., or 20 cents per pound of butterfat, the two methods of feeding would have yielded the same income.

TABLE 4.-Summary of Production and Feed Consumption Before and After Increase in Hay Feeding. Cows of Group A-Reduced Grain


Light hay Moderate Difference Difference hay

Production: Milk, lb ...................................... .. Butterfat, lb •.................................. Fat test, pet ................................ .. 4o/o milk (F. C. M.),lb ........................ .

Feed consumption: Grain, lb •...................................... Hay,lb ...................................... .. Silage, lb ................................... .. Digestible protein, lb ......................... . Total digestible nutrients, lb ............ .

Feed per 100 lb. 4% milk: Grain,lh •................................. Hay, lb ...................................... .. Corn silage, lb •...... , ....................... .

Milk per pound of grain, lb ....................... . 4% milk per pound of grain, lb ................... .

Feed cost, lactation: Grain, dol •.................................... Hay, dol ...................................... . Corn silage, dol............ . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . Total. ....................................... ..

Value of milk, dol ................................ . Cost of feed, dol. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. Return over feed cost, dol. ........................ . Cost of purchased feed, dol. ...................... . Value of milk less purchased feed, dol •............

*Higher value for moderate hay.

11,699.2 398.88

3.41 10,662.9

3,453 2,318 8,528

718 5,253

32.38 21.74 79.98

3.39 3.09

49.03 9.27

21.32 79.62

147.78 79.62 68.16 14.78

133.00

9,374.3 315.81

3.37 8,486.8

2,401 4,242 6,043

690 4,995

28.29 49.98 71.20

3.90 3.53

34.09 16.97 15.11 66.17

117.27 66.17 51.10 10.28

106.99

Pet. 2,324.9 19.9

83.07 20.8 0.04 .. '26:4' ... 2,176.1

1,052 30.5 1,924* 83.0* 2,4~~ 29.1

3.9 258 4.9

4.09 12.6 28.24* 129.9* 8. 78 11.0

0.51* 15.0* 0.44* 14.2*

14.94 30.5 7. 70* 83.1* 6.21 29.1

13.45 16.9

30.51 20.6 13.45 16.9 17.06 25.0 4.50 30.4

26.01 19.6

The cows in Group B, whose rate of grain feeding was not reduced in the second lactation period, increased about 10 per cent in milk yield. Because of the larger amounts of hay fed there was an increase in nutrients furnished during the second lactation. The total cost of feed was increased slightly but the larger amount of milk more than compensated for this. The experience with these cows illustrates the principle of liberal feeding. However, the increase in nutrients given the cows was obtained by feeding more hay rather than by the customary method of feeding more grain; or, stated differently, none of the increased milk return was paid out for purchased feeds. In round figures the extra ton of hay given each cow paid the farm $11, in addition to saving one ton of corn silage (or a total return of $16). Incidentally, this method of feeding increased the farm market for hay. The average production, which was 10,655 pounds of milk and 350 pounds of butterfat in 320 days, is considered satisfactory.


TABLE 5.-Summary of Production and Feed Consumption Before and After Increase in Hay Feeding. Cows of Group B-Grain Not Reduced


Light hay Moderate Difference Difference hay

Production: Milk, lb .•..................................... Butterfat, lb ................................ . Fat test, pet ................................. . 4o/o milk (F. C. M.), lb ....................... ..

Feed consumption: Grain, lb ••.................................... Hay, lb ...................................... . Silage, lb ..................................... . Digestible protein, lb ........................ . Total digestible nutrients, lb. . . . . . . . . . ... .

Feed per 100 lb. 4% milk: Grain, lb •..••••....•........................... Hay, lb ...................................... . Corn silage, lb •................................

Milk per pound of grain, lb ....................... . 4o/o milk per pound of grain, lb ................... .

Feed cost, lactation: Grain, dol •••.••............................... 1

Hay, dol ...................................... . Corn silage, dol .............................. . Total. ...................................... ..

Value of milk, dol ................................ . Cost of feed, dol. ............................... . Return over feed cost, dol. ................... . Cost of purchased feed, dol. ..................... . Value of milk less purchased feed, dol .... .

*Higher value for moderate hay.

9,486.8 321.86

3.39 8,622.6

2,853 2,219 8,222

628 4,701

33.16 25.73 95.35

3.33 3.02

40.51 8.88

20.56 69.95

119.44 69.95 49.49 12.24

107.20

10,655.9 349.94

3.28 9,511.5

2,838 4,154 6,~f~ 5,298

29.84 43.67 64.81

3. 75 3.35

40.30 16.62 15.41 72.33

130.43 72.33 58.10 12.15

118.28

SECOND COMPARISON

1169.1* 28.08* 0.11

888.9*

15 1935* 2057

116* 597*

3.32 17.94* 30.54

0.42* 0.33*

0.21 7. 74* 5.15 2.38*

10. 99* 2.38* 8.61* 0.09

11.08*

(LIGHT VERSUS HEAVY HAY FEEDING, 3l·DAY REVERSAL)

Pet. 12.3* 8. 7*

""iid*"

0.5 87.2* 25.0 18.5* 12. 7*

10.0 69. 7* 32.0

12.6* 10.9*

0.5 87.2* 25.0 33.4*

9.2* 3.4*

17.4* 0. 7

10.3*

To increase the hay consumption still more and to effect a greater saving in grain bills and in the amount of silage consumed, a more extreme trial was planned. A 31-day, double-reversal trial with six cows approaching the end of their milking periods was conducted preliminary to future work. Each cow was fed daily 30 pounds of hay, 15 pounds of corn silage, and Grain Mixture No. 2 (8.7% protein) according to milk production. The check ration (light hay) consisted of 15 pounds of hay, 45 pounds of corn silage per day, and Grain Mixture No. 1 (13.2% protein) fed according to milk production.

Table 6 gives a summary of this comparison. The production was low, averaging about 20 pounds per day. Production of milk on the heavy hay ration was 5.7 per cent under that of the light hay ration, but the butterfat production was 1 per cent greater. Feed costs were 18 per cent lower but returns over feed costs were higher on the heavy hay ration than on the light hay ration. In fact, milk receipts from the light hay ration did not quite cover the cost of feeds; whereas there was a small margin with the heavy hay ration.


TABLE 6.-Summary of Production and Feed Consumption, Light Versus Heavy Hay Feeding. 31-day Double-reversal Trial

(31-day basis)

Light hay Heavy hay Difference I Difference

Production: Milk, lb ....................................... . Butterfat, lb .................................. . Fat test, pet •.................................. 4% milk (F. C. M.), lb ........................ .

Feed consumption: Grain, lb ...................................... . Hay, lb ....................................... . Corn silage, lb ....... ......................... . Digestible protein, lb ......................... . Total digestible nutrients, lb ................. .

Feed per 100 lb. 4o/o milk: Grain, lb ...................................... . Hay, lb ....................................... . Corn silage, lb . ............................... .

Milk per pound of grain, lb ....................... . 4% milk per pound of grain, lb .................. ..

Feed cost: Grain, dol ............... ..................... . Hay, dol ...................................... . Corn silage, dol . .............................. . Total. ........................................ .

Value of milk, dol. .. .. .. .. ..................... . Cost of feed, dol. ................................. .. Return over feed cost, do!. . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . Cost of purchased grain, dol. ..................... . Value of milk less purchased feeds, dol. ......... ..

*Higher value for heavy hay.

587.4 20.1 3.42

536.4

197 465

1395 84

625

36.63 86.69

260.01

2.98 2. 72

2.80 1.86 3.49 8.15

7.44 8.15

-0.71 0.84 6.60

553.9 20.3 3.66

525.9

136 930 465 104 641

25.86 176.83 88.42

4.07 3.87

1. 77 3. 72 1.16 6.65

7.41 6.65 0. 76 0.38 7.03

Pet. 33.5 5. 7 0.2* 1.0* 0.24* .... 2:o .....

10.5

61 31.0 465* 100.0* 930 66.7 20* 23.8* 16* 2.6*

10.77 29.4 90.14* 104.0

171.59 66.0

1.09* 36.6* 1.15* 42.3*

1.03 36.8 1.86* 100.0* 2.33 33.2 1.50 18.4

0.03 0.4 1.50 18.4 1.47* .. "54:8"'' 0.46 0.43* 6.5

It frequently happens that when a cow approaches the end of her lactation feed is reduced because it is felt that the milk receipts will not pay for the cost of the feed. Although this supposition is generally true, especially when milk prices are low, underfeeding shortens the milking period and too often does not keep the cow in proper flesh. The liberal use of farm grains and especially hay of good quality at such a time will help the situation.

THIRD COMPARISON

(LIGHT VERSUS HEAVY HAY FEEDING, CONTINUOUS WINTER FEEDING)

In this comparison the cows were not reversed but were fed the respective rations for 5 months, from November 1, 1933, to April 1, 1934, or for an interval almost covering the barn-feeding period. The cows were divided into pairs on the basis of stage of lactation and gestation. Seven fairly wellmatched pairs were obtained from the herd. The rations and manner of feeding and care were the same as in the second comparison. It was felt that the results of the preceding trial had been sufficiently encouraging to warrant this repetition.

Although the actual experimental feeding covered a period of 5 months, the comparison of milk production was necessarily restricted by the stage of lactation. The milk production comparisons are as follows: three pairs for 5


months, three pairs for 3 months, and one pair for 2 months. The results have been calculated on the basis of expected yield, using the production of the light hay cows as the basis. All cows were on the same ration in the pre-experimental period.

Fig. I.-Representative cows of those used in the third comparison. · Cows on left from "heavy-hay" group; those on right from

"light-hay" group. Pictures taken April 2, 1934, after 5 months on the respective rations.

It so happened that the cows on the light hay were somewhat better producers in the pre-experimental period, as well as in the experimental, the relative difference being about the same in both cases. Although this method may be criticized on the basis of being calculated, it appeared better than using the uncorrected productions when the preliminary check period had shown that one group outyielded the other. Four cows produced above and three below the expected amounts.

Table 7 gives the summary of this experiment. The :figures are calculated to a 31-day basis for ease in comparison. The average production was not high in either group, due to the fact that the averages of some of the cows in the more advanced stages of lactation and pregnancy are included. On the light hay ration, 3 per cent more milk and 0.2 per cent more butterfat were produced than on the heavy hay ration. The light hay ration contained 40 per cent more grain and 64 per cent more corn silage but only one-half as much hay as did the heavy hay ration. Owing to the fact that the milk tested nigher on the heavy hay ration the selling price of this milk was slightly greater. This, together with a saving in feed costs, gave a difference in return over feed cost of $2 per cow per month, favoring the heavy hay ration.


On the heavy hay ration, after purchased feeds were paid out of the milk returns, there was 95.6 per cent of the money available for farm use, or 7 per cent more than on the light hay ration.

TABLE 7.-Summary of Production and Feed Consumption, Light Heavy Hay Feeding for 5 Months. Trial Cows Not Reversed.

Hay Versus 14 Cows

(31-day basis)

Light hay Heavy hay Difference Difference

Production: Milk, lb ................••.....•.... ,. ......... . Butterfat, lb .................................. . Fat test, pet .................................. . 4o/o milk (F. C. M.), lb ........................ .

Feed consumption: Grain, lb ..................................... . Hay, lb ....................................... . Corn silage, lb . ............................... . Digestible protein, lb ......................... . 'I'otal digestible nutrients, lb •................

Feed per 100 lb. 4o/o milk: Grain,lb ...................................... . Hay, lb ....................................... . Corn silage, lb . ............................... .

3.2o/o milk per pound of grain, lb .............••... 4o/o milk per pound of grain, lb ................... .

Feed cost: Grain, dol . ................................... . Hay, dol ...................................... . Corn silage, dol ............................... . Total, dol ..........................••........

Value of milk, dol ................................ . Cost of feed, dol. .................................. . Return over feed cost, dol. ...•.•.•................. Cost of purchased feed, dol. ••••••..•.............. Value of milk less purchased feed, dol •............


824.00 26.47 3.21

726.7

261 465

1299 91

656

35.92 63.99

178.75

3.16 2. 78

3. 72 1.86 3.25 8.83

9.91 8.83 1.08 1.12 8.79

799.1 26.87 3.36

722.7

156 930 465 105 655

21.59 128.68 64.34

5.12 4.63

2.03 3. 72 1.16 6.91

9.97 6.91 3.06 0.44 9.53

Pet. 24.9 3.02 0.4* 0.2* 0.15* ··o:s····· 4.0

105 40.2 465* 100.0* 834 64.2 14* 15.4* 1 0.1

14.33 39.9 64.69* 101.1*

114.41 64.0

1.96* n2.0* 1.85 66.5

1.69 45.4 1.86* 100.0* 2.09 64.3 1.92 21.7

0.06* 0.6* 1.92 21.7 1.98* 183.0* 0.68 60.7 0.74* 8.4*

The cows consumed these rations nicely and kept in good condition, there being no marked difference between the groups. The average gain in liveweight per cow for the 5-month period was 122 pounds for the light hay cows and 129 pounds for the heavy hay cows. None of the cows showed losses in liveweight. These gains are considered satisfactory.

The small amount of refuse hay has not been deducted from the total weights. This refuse consisted of the coarser material and was not of equal value to that fed; hence, a deduction would not have represented the actual condition. Furthermore, this small amount of waste is incidental to the system and should be charged to it.

One cow that was dry for 3 months on the heavy hay ration without receiving any grain freshened during the experiment and, while still receiving the liberal amount of hay, produced in her first full month 2,312 pounds of milk and 69 pounds of fat. She was milked three times a day and received in the month 615 pounds of grain. This full feeding was tried just to see what she would do following the heavy hay feeding.


PHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT

One of the weak points in this type of feeding is a possible deficiency in phosphorus, as pointed out by Huffman (12). This is likely to be true with the liberal feeding of hay low in phosphorus when no protein or mineral supple~ ments are fed. In this experiment the hay was not low in phosphorus (see Table 1). In feeding large amounts of roughage it is a good precaution to use bran and bone meal or bone flour to insure against such a deficiency. Wheat bran was used because of its phosphorus content but it also gave additional variety and palatability to the grain mixture. On a cost and digestible-nutrient basis the corn-oats-bran mixture was actually cheaper than a corn-oatsbone meal combination.

In this trial a high quality bone flour mixed with an equal quantity of salt was supplied to the cows in salt cups attached to the stalls. The consumption of this mixture averaged 1.4 ounces per day. A greater mineral consumption might have been obtained if the salt had been decreased in the mixture. According to the Huffman standard (12) the cows on the heavy hay ration received about double the amount of phosphorus actually needed.

FOURTH COMPARISON

(MODERATE VERSUS HEAVY HAY FEEDING)

This is a comparison between the moderate hay and heavy hay feeding. Comparable periods for individual cows in successive lactations, under the two different systems have been selected. The moderate hay feeding was similar

TABLE 8.-Summary of Production and Feed Consumption, Moderate Hay Versus Heavy Hay Feeding, 3 to 5 Months Trial

(31-day basis)

Moderate Heavy hay Difference Difference hay

Production: Milk,lb ...................................... .. Butterfat, lb ................................. .. Fat test, pet .................................. . 4o/o milk (F. C. M.), lb ....................... ..

Feed consumption: Grain, lb ...................................... . Hay,lb ...................................... . Corn silage, lb . ............................... . Digestible protein. lb...... .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. Total digestible nutrients, lb ................ .

Feed per 100 lb. 4% milk: Grain, lb ............... ..................... . Hay, lb ...................................... . Corn silage, lb . ............................... .

Milk per pound of grain, lb.. . .. . .. .............. . 4o/o milk per pound of grain, 1 b ................... .

Feed cost: Grain, dol. . ............................... , ... . Hay, dol ...................................... . Corn silage, dol . .............................. . Total, dol ..................................... .

Value of milk, dol. ............................... .. Cost of feed, dol. ................................. . Return over feed cost, dol............ . ....... . Cost of purchased feed, dol .................. . Value of milk less purchased feed, dol ..


985.6 32.82 3.33

886.5

237 547 731

79 581

26.73 61.70 82.45

4.16 3. 74

3.37 2.19 1.83 7.39

12.21 7.39 4.82 1.01

11.20

933.1 31.12 3.34

850.0

190 930 465 108 679

22.35 109.41 54.71

4.91 4.47

2.47 3. 72 1.16 7.35

11.59 7.35 4.24 0.53

11.06

---Pet.

52.5 5.33 1. 70 5.18 0.01* ····.u:i .... 36.5

47 19.83 383* 70.01* 266 36.39 29* 36.7* 98* 16.9*

4.38 16.39 47. 71* 77.33* 27.74 34.06

0.75* 18.0* 0.73* 19.5*

0.90 26.7 1.53* 69.9* 0.67 36.6 0.04 0.5

0.62 5.1 0.04 0.5 0.58 12.0 0.48 47.5 0.14 1.2


to that used in the first comparison, consisting of about 18 pounds of hay, 24 pounds of silage, and grain fed at the rate of 1 pound for each 4.0 pounds of milk produced. The heavy hay feeding was the same as that described for the third comparison.

The summary of this comparison, which includes 10 partial lactations, is given in Table 8. Milk and butterfat p.roductions were about 5 per cent greater on the moderately heavy hay ration than on the heavy hay ration. The butterfat test was approximately the same on each ration, and likewise the feed costs. The returns over feed costs were slightly higher on the moderate hay ration, due to the increased amount of milk. The larger amounts of purchased feeds in the moderate hay ration almost cancel this advantage, so that actually there was not much difference in these two rations. However, by the use of the heavy hay ration, more hay and less grain and silage were fed.

EFFECT OF PRICE ON HEAVY HAY FEEDING

In the foregoing tables the low prices of 1933-1934 have been used, and with one exception the heavy hay rations have shown up well. The one exception occurred when too drastic a cut, which was not sufficiently compensated for by the increase in hay feeding, was made in the grain feeding (Comparison 1, Group A).

It may not be too optimistic to imagine that milk prices will return to a higher level. When this happens, how will the returns from heavy hay feeding be affected? Of course the price of feeds, especially purchased concentrates, will have to be considered.

A set of actual values, as given in Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 424 (Page 18), has been applied to the data here presented. These figures represent a 5-year average for a period ended December 1924. They were obtained in a cost-account survey in Medina County, one of the leading dairy counties in northern Ohio. The results obtained by applying these values are shown in Table 9.

The prices given in Bulletin 424 are not altogether favorable for the method of heavy hay feeding. Hay is priced at $16.17 per ton-just double the price used in the other comparisons; whereas the price of corn silage is only 92 cents per ton higher. The hay price given is probably a market value rather than a cost-of-production value. However, the price of purchased grains is $2.55 per cwt., almost $1 a hundredweight more than the 1933 figures here used. The price of milk is given at $2.67 per cwt. for 3.5% milk, with a 5-cent differential.

The higher value for milk had a marked effect in raising the return over feed cost, even with the increased cost of feeds. The moderate and heavy hay feeding still appear a little better than the light hay feeding. This is true in respect to return over feed costs, as well as in the amount of return available for farm use. One exception to the foregoing statements occurred when too great a reduction was made in grain feeding. Moderate hay feeding returned more over feed costs than heavy hay feeding; however, when purchased feeds are considered, this difference largely disappears. In other words, the feed costs on the heavy hay ration were largely paid to the farm. In general, it appears that the system of liberal hay feeding would have worked very nicely with the higher price level, when dairying was more profitable than at the present time. Of course, if a value lower than $16 per ton had been used for hay, the heavy hay feeding would have appeared to greater advantage.

TABLE 9.-Showing the Effect of Applying Higher Scale of Prices* ---- ---

First comparison Second comparison Third comparison Fourth comparison

320-day lactationt 320-day lactationt Per month Per month Per month

Light Moderate Light Moderate Light Heavy Light Heavy Moderate Heavy hay hay hay hay hay hay hay hay hay hay

-----

Milk, lb ........................................... 11,699 9,374 9,486 10,655 587 553 824 799 985 933

Test, pet .......................................... 3.41 3.37 3.39 3.28 3.42 3.66 3.21 3.36 3.33 3.34

Rate per cwt., dol ................................. 2.625 2.605 2.615 2.560 2.630 2. 750 2.525 2.60 2.585 2.590

Milk return, dol. . .. .. . . .. . . . ..................... 307.10 244.19 248.06 272.77 15.44 15.21 20.81 20.77 25.46 24.16

Total feed cost, dol ............................... 110.98 98.79 97.59 106.95 11.67 11.31 12.64 11.67 11.18 12.28

Return over feed cost, dol. ......................... 196.12 145.40 150.47 165.82 3. 77 3.90 8.17 9.10 14.28 11.88

Purchased feed cost, dol .......................... -~ 24.02 16.70 19.84 19.74 1.38 0.50 1.81 0.57 1.66 o. 70

Value of milk less purchased feed, dol •........... 283.08 227.49 228.22 253.03 14.06 14.71 19.00 20.20 23.80 23.46 -------·- --------

*Prices used (Average prices for period 1920·1924. Milk, $2.67 per cwt. 5¢ differential.

Medina County, Ohio. Taken from Ohio Experiment Station Bulletin 424, Page 18.)

Corn, per cwt. . ......... , .............. . Oats, per cwt. . ........................ . Bran, per cwt. . ........................ . Cottonseed meal, per cwt. . .............. . Linseed oilmeal, per cwt. . ............... . Hay, per cwt. . ............... · ......... . Corn silage, per cwt. . ................... . High-protein mix, per cwt. . ............. . Low-protein mix, per cwt. . .............. . Purchased feeds, per cwt. . .............. .

tGrain reduced. ~Grain not reduced.

$1.58 1.97 1.84 2.83 2.98 0.809 0.292 1.95 1.79 2.55

~ II>-

0 ::q ...... 0 t:r_j

~ t:r_j ~ ...... ::= t:r_j

z ~

rn ~ ~ 0 z 1::0 d ~ t:r_j

~ <:n

"" 00


HAY EQUIVALENTS

In each of the five summary tables are listed the feed requirements for 100 pounds of 4% (F. C. M.) milk. The difference between the rations used in the comparisons has been a partial replacement of the silage and grain by hay. The manner of feeding, of course, is reflected in the amounts of the different feeds required to produce 100 pounds of milk; for instance, on the heavy hay rations, it took more hay and less silage and grain to produce 100 pounds of milk than on the lighter hay feeding schedules.

Table 10 shows the number of pounds of grain and silage that 100 pounds of hay replaced. The amounts of digestible protein and total digestible nutrients contained in these feeds and their monetary values are also shown. The replacement value of the hay varied in the different comparisons. It was low in Comparisons 1A and 4, and high in 1B, 2, and 3. The low value in 1A is a reflection of the lowered production caused by a 30 per cent reduction in grain, representing a lowered plane of feeding. In Comparison 4 there was a low value for hay when added to a ration already containing a moderately large amount of hay. On the other hand, adding hay to a light hay ration gave fair to high values (Comparisons 1B, 2, and 3).

TABLE 10.-Replacement Values of 100 Pounds of Hay, as Derived from the Amounts of Feed Required to Produce 100 Pounds of 4% Milk

Dig. Value Grain Silage C.P. T.D.N. (1933

prices) ---------

Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. Dol. 100 pounds of hay equalled:

First comparison*: Group A ....................... 14.5 31 2.25 16.32 .283 Group B •.............•........ 18.5 170 4.31 43.91 .688

Second comparisont •.............. 11.9 190 3.66 42.52 .644 Third comparisont ................ 22.1 177 4.86 47.80 • 757 Fourth comparisont ............... 9.2 58.1 1.85 17.34 .276

*Light vs. moderate hay feeding. tLight vs. heavy hay feeding. tModerate vs. heavy hay feeding.

A~Grain reduced; B-Grain not reduced.

DISCUSSION

Value (1920

prices)

Dol.

.374

.857 • 783 .948 .348

The success of any system of heavy roughage feeding depends largely on the quality of the roughage used, for the basic requirement in such feeding is palatability. This applies especially to the quality of the hay. In practice, where cows are given about all the hay they want, a common observation has been that when hay containing legumes is put up in good shape the cows will eat it in large amounts and do well. The majority of the hay used in this experiment was a mixed hay containing alfalfa and timothy, approximately one-half or more being alfalfa. This hay was cut early and was fine in texture. The cows ate it as if they enjoyed it. In the light of the Government work (17), the mixed nature of this roughage may have played some part in its liberal consumption.

Timothy hay has not enjoyed a good reputation as a dairy feed. Even hays containing some timothy are regarded with suspicion. The experience on the Trumbull County Farm would lead one to the opinion that timothy in


alfalfa makes a good hay when put up in good time. The growing and feeding of such hay may help some to solve the problem of lowering the cost of milk production.

The question of the amounts of hay to feed for the greatest economy in production is dependent on so many factors that a definite rule is not warranted. The factors that enter into this matter are: first, quality of hay and its protein content; second, cost of producing hay; third, cost of producing corn silage; fourth, producing ability of the cows; fifth, price of milk; and, sixth, cost of grain, especially high-protein grain.

With poor quality hay the liberal feeding of hay is useless, because the cows will not eat large amounts of it. The reduction in corn silage and grain feeding will not be balanced by a like increase in the hay consumption. The food value of such hay will reduce the nutrient intake to a low level. This too often occurs under practical conditions. If the yields of hay are small and, hence, costly, liberal hay feeding may be less economical than some other method of feeding.

Reducing the amount of corn silage in the ration may be a questionable economy in sections where corn does well and gives large yields. Corn silage from well-eared corn balances a high-protein hay. A combination of corn silage and legume hay may prove to be the most economical system of feeding in many sections. A choice will have to be made between raising corn silage and buying protein concentrates or raising more legume hay and reducing the purchases. This is essentially a question of price relations. On many farms the silage facilities are not sufficient to allow for summer feeding of silage. This roughage saved from winter feeding could often be used to good advantage in the late summer, if available.

In liberal roughage feeding production is limited to some extent. This limitation is probably greater with higher producing cows than with lower producers. The liberal roughage feeding probably can be used to the greatest advantage with cows advanced in lactation, when the requirements are not so high as during the flush of the milking period.

Generally speaking, low-priced milk calls for cheaper rations; whereas, with higher priced milk, the dairyman is justified in raising feed costs. The price of milk used in this work, $1.29 per cwt., is higher than the general price of surplus milk, where the base-surplus plan is in operation. Producing milk at 70 to 80 cents per cwt., for instance, demands cheap rations.

When the price of purchased feed is high, the replacement value of the farm feed is raised accordingly. The ratio between purchased feeds and milk prices has some bearing on the problem. In the 1933 prices, 100 pounds of milk at $1.29 per cwt. would purchase 82 pounds of the high-protein mixture at the prevailing price of $1.57 per cwt. According to the 1920-1924 schedule 100 pounds of milk would purchase 105 pounds of the same supplement, even though the mixture was selling for $2.55 per cwt. This is approximately a 28 per cent difference. Whether feed prices are high or low depends on the price received for milk, rather than on the actual costs.

In practical feeding the first object should be to maintain the herd in a good state of health and in a fair degree of flesh. This should insure a production somewhere near normal. Insofar as possible, it is well to avoid radical extremes, because in such cases nutritional and reproductive troubles are too apt to appear.


Heavy grain feeding is considered an extreme method of feeding. Too often heavy grain feeding, with an accompanying heavy milk production, is followed by troubles of various kinds. Underfeeding, of course, is uneconomical. Where the feed supply is short, the feeding of a few animals properly is to be preferred to underfeeding a larger number. This may mean a reduction in the size of the herd. A ration made up entirely of hay or hay and silage may be low in phosphorus and lead to reproductive trouble. Such rations will be greatly benefited by bran or bone meal or preferably both. The moderate use of grain with a liberal roughage ration composed mostly of hay may prove in practice, as in the experiments herein described, a good way to reduce feed costs. The grain mixture may be cheap, consisting of 40 per cent each of corn and oats with 20 per cent of bran, or the bran may be omitted and 2 or 3 per cent of bone meal mixed with the corn and oats. With liberally milking cows and milk prices to warrant it, some additional protein supplement may be added.

IODINE FOR HOME-GROWN RATIONS

Where dependence is placed on home-grown rations in iodine-deficient regions, such as around the Great Lakes, goitrous calves may be produced. Experience with the dairy herd at Wooster would lead to the supposition that moderately enlarged thyroid glands may often be overlooked. In experiments at this Station a few calves have been slaughtered, the thyroid gland removed, weighed, and the iodine content determined. This work has brought out the fact that a very careful examination of the living calf is necessary to detect moderate enlargements. The enlarged thyroid gland of the new-born calf is an indication of a low iodine supply. This deficiency can be cheaply and easily overcome by the use of iodized salt. For greatest efficiency in the ration it is probable that this salt should be fed throughout the year rather than merely for preventing goiter in the new-born by feeding only during the last 90 days of pregnancy.

SUMMARY

1. A study was made of the effect of increasing the rate of hay feeding on the amount and cost of milk production.

2. The hay used consisted mostly of an early-cut, mixed alfalfa and timothy. Some second-cutting alfalfa containing second-growth timothy was also fed. There was, in addition, a small amount of early-cut, high-quality clover hay. The hay represented "mine-run" hay from the farm.

3. An apparent relish was exhibited by the cows for the alfalfa-timothy mixture. They seemed to prefer this to the clover hay of excellent quality.

4. Daily rations containing 30 pounds of hay and 15 pounds of corn silage were compared with those containing 15 pounds of hay and 40 to 45 pounds of corn silage. With the heavy hay ration a grain mixture of 40 per cent each of corn and oats and 20 per cent of wheat bran was used in limited amounts. With the light hay ration a 13.2 per cent digestible protein grain mixture was fed more liberally.

5. The cows on the heavy hay produced a little less milk but almost as much butterfat as did the cows on the light hay ration. Feed costs were lower and returns over feed costs were higher on the heavy hay rations.


6. The light hay ration was compared with a moderate or intermediate hay ration. In lactation comparisons, where grain feeding was reduced, the moderate hay ration gave a lowered production, as well as a lowered net return. With another group of cows whose grain was not reduced, the moderate hay feeding led to an increase in production, as well as increased return over feed costs.

7. Moderate hay feeding gave slightly greater production than did heavy hay feeding. However, when the cost of purchased feeds was considered, there was little difference between the two systems.

8. Feeding the heavy hay ration has meant the retention on the farm of about 95 per cent of the milk check, or 7 per cent more than on the light hay ration. By this method the farm market is developed.

9. When a scale of prices prevailing in a period of dairy prosperity was applied to the data, the heavy hay feeding appeared quite satisfactory on the basis of financial returns.

10. The replacement value of the added hay varied some but, in general, it could be considered satisfactory.

11. Increased hay feeding maintained the cows in a normal state of health. Satisfactory liveweight gains were made.

12. One weakness in a system of liberal hay feeding with a small amount of protein grains is likely to be a low phosphorus supply. The use of bran and free-choice feeding of bone flour was followed to prevent a phosphorus deficiency, although the hays used contained a fair to good percentage of phosphorus.

13. Liberal hay feeding may mean a reduction in the number of cows kept on the individual farm, but the amount of milk receipts retained may even be increased. Culling out the low producers and feeding the remainder of the herd more liberally on farm feeds of the proper quality should prove profitable.

REFERENCES CITED

1. Converse, H. T. 1928. The value of silage in the experimental ration. Jour. Dairy Sci. 11: 179.

2. Crandall, W. T. 1925. Reducing the feed cost of milk production. Cornell Univ. Ext. Bull. 118.

3. Fairchild, L. H. and J. W. Wilbur. 1924. Better feeding for Indiana cows. Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 277.

4. Fraser, Wilbur J. 1930. Dairy farming. p. 130. John Wiley and Sons. New York.

5. Fraser, W. J. and C. C. Hayden. 1912. Balanced vs. unbalanced rations for dairy cows. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 159.

6. Haag, J. R., J. S. Jones, I. R. Jones, and P. M. Brandt. 1929. The physiological effect of rations restricted principally or solely to the alfalfa plant. Jour. Dairy Sci. 12: 445.

7. Haag, J. R., I. R. Jones, and P. M. Brandt. 1932. The physiological effect of rations restricted principally or solely to the alfalfa plant. Jour. Dairy Sci. 15: 23.

8. Hanson, E. A. and 0. G. Shaefer. 1928. Increasing the dairy income. Univ. of Minn. Spec. Bull. 123

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

.. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.


Hart, E. B. and G. C. Humphrey. 1930. Cut the cost of feeding cows. Wise. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 417.

Headley, F. B. 1930. Feeding experiments with dairy cows. Univ. of Nev. Bull. 119.

Headley, F. B. and Cruz Venstron. 1930. Efficiency in dairying. Univ. of Nev. Bull. 118.

Huffman, C. F., C. W. Duncan, C. S. Robinson, and L. W. Lamb. 1933. Phosphorus requirement of dairy cattle when alfalfa furnishes the principal source of protein. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 134.

Lamb, L. W., 0. B. Winter, C. W. Duncan, C. S. Robinson, and C. F. Huffman. 1934. A study of the phosphorus requirement of dairy cattle. Jour. Dairy Sci. 17: 233.

Larson, C. W., F. S. Putney, and H. 0. Henderson. 1928. Dairy cattle feeding and management. (Maryland Exp. Sta. data, p. 126). John Wiley and Sons. New York.

Lindsey, J. B. and J. G. Archibald. 1932. Two systems of feeding dairy cows. Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 291.

Lush, R. H. 1933. Grain as a supplement to pasture and other roughage for milk production. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 241.

Meigs, E. B. and H. T. Converse. 1932. The behavior of cows on alfalfa hay as the sole roughage and an alfalfa and timothy hay combined. Jour. Dairy Sci. 15: 171.

Meigs, E. B. and H. T. Converse. 1933. Some effects of different kinds of hay in the ration on the performance of dairy cows. Jour. Dairy Sci. 16: 317.

Moseley, T. W., Stuart Duncan, and R. R. Graves. 1929. Dairy work at the Huntley Field Station. U. S. Dept. of Agr. Tech. Bull. 116, p. 15.

Pratt, A. D. and G. C. White. 1930. Optimum amount of silage in the dairy ration for most economical production. Jour. Dairy Sci. 13: 291.

True, G. H., F. W. Woll, and E. C. Voorhies. 1915. The value of barley for cows fed alfalfa. Univ. of Calif. Bull. 256.

Woll, F. W., E. C. Voorhies, and C. V. Castle. 1920. Heavy vs. light grain feeding for dairy cows. Univ. of Calif. Bull. 323.

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR GROWING AND FEEDING THE ALFALFA-TIMOTHY MIXTURE

METHOD OF GROWING

Learn the lime requirement of your soil type and apply limestone in sufficient amount to raise the pH to at least 6.0. The addition of alfalfa to the clover and timothy is justified even at a lower pH. With a favorable season a fair catch may be secured. At least, it will help to secure inoculation for the next attempt when the rotation again comes around to the proper point for seeding.

A good mixture to sow is alsike clover 2, red clover 4, alfalfa 6, and timothy 4 pounds per acre. The red clover may be reduced or omitted when experience shows that alfalfa is being secured quite consistently.

Seed with oats rather than wheat, at least until there is local evidence that alfalfa can be seeded satisfactorily on wheat.

Top-dress the new seeding with manure and repeat every 2 years. This treatment, plus a reasonable application of phosphorus at seeding time, should keep meadows productive for 5 or more years.

Cut the first year when clover is ready and other years when alfalfa is ready. The timothy thus classes as early-cut and is good hay.

METHOD OF FEEDING

(USING LIBERAL QUANTITIES OF GOOD HAY WITH REDUCED AMOUNTS OF CORN SILAGE)

For a Holstein cow producing 3.5 per cent milk and weighing 1400 pounds: Hay-Good quality, containing at least 50 per cent alfalfa, fed

free-choice. Silage-Limited to 20 to 30 pounds per day. Minerals-Allow access to mixture of one part salt and two parts

of bone meal or bone flour. In some sections iodized salt should be used.

Feed grain according to milk production, as follows:

Grain per day

4 pounds ............................................................................. . 5 pounds ............................................................................. . 6 pounds ............................................................................. . 7 pounds .......................................................................... . 8 pounds.................................. . ....................................... . 9 pounds ............................................................................ .

10 pounds .......................................................................... .

Milk per day

20 pounds 21-24 pounds 25-28 pounds 29-31 pounds 32-34 pounds 35-37 pounds 38-40 pounds

For a Jersey cow producing 5 per cent milk and weighing 900 pounds:

Hay and minerals-Same as above. Silage-15 to 25 pounds per day.

(40)

•

•

"

t


Feed grain according to milk production, as follows:

Grain per day

3 pounds ............................................................................. . 4 pounds ............................................................................. . 5 pounds •............................................................................. 6 pounds •............................................................................. 7 pounds .............................................................................. . 8 pounds......................................... . .................................. . 9 pounds ............................................................................. .

41

Milk per day

15 pounds 16-19 pounds 20-22 pounds 23-25 pounds 26-27 pounds 28-29 pounds 3Q-31 pounds

When clover hay is fed, a 14 per cent protein grain mixture is recommended, unless the hay is of very excellE'nt quality. The rate of grain feeding should be a little more liberal than in the above schedule.

When mixed clover and timothy hay is fed a 16 per cent protein grain mixture is recommended. Grain feeding with this hay should also be more liberal than in the above schedule.

Suggested Grain Mixtures

12% protein

Corn meal*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 Oats................................................... 400 Bran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Linseed oilmealt....................................... . ....... 1.0 ...... . Salt •..................................................

14% protein

400 300 200 100

10

16% protein

400 200 200 200

10

*Corn meal is preferable to corn-and-cob meal where large amounts of roughage are fed. tOther high-protein feeds may be substituted for part or all of the linseed oilmeal.

With a production above 40 pounds per day for a Holstein, it would be a wise procedure to change the grain mixture to one containing from 14 to 16 per cent of total protein. This is necessary because of the lowered hay consumption and the consequent lowered protein intake with the increased grain feeding. Grain feeding may be continued at the ratio of 1 pound to 3.5 pounds of milk. Feeding grain in excess of 16 to 18 pounds per day should be attempted with caution. Cows on the higher levels of milk production should be milked three times a day.

For Jersey cows this change should be made at approximately 32 pounds of milk per day. Grain may be fed at a ratio of about 1 pound to 3 pounds of milk produced.

These suggestions on feeding are based on the Haecker feeding standard with the assumption that a good quality, palatable hay is available. It has also been assumed that the 10-pound difference made in silage feeding will result in a 3-pounddifference in hay consumption. With liberal consumption of good hay, there is an oversupply of protein, and there is still an excess on the lower hay level. The excess of nutrients is greater at the lower levels of production. There should be an excess at this time and during the dry period to fit the cow for the following lactation. If the cow should become too fat, this feeding may be reduced to 2 pounds of bran per day, which should insure an adequate phosphorus intake. The bone meal and salt mixture should be available at all times.

• I

.•

•

,


alfalfa-tin1othy hay for the · dairy farm

Documents