1. A Discussion of Forage Quality Dennis Hancock Extension Forage Agronomist The University of Georgia Dennis Hancock Extension Forage Agronomist The University of Georgia

2. What is quality?

3. The Plant Cell Pectins Hemicellulose Cellulose Lignin Silica Protein Oil Minerals Sugars Organic Acids Easily Digestible Neutral Detergent Fiber

4. The Relationship between Fiber (NDF) and Dry Matter Intake (DMI) Fiber (NDF) Level Intake Intake to Meet Needs Intake is Physically Limited Dry Matter Intake (DMI) Dig. Energy Intake

5. Differences in the Major Types of Forage Species

7. What is high quality forage? Forage that is highly digestible (i.e., high TDN) and large amounts of the forage can be consumed (i.e., high DMI). = High Quality Forage Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) = TDN * DMI/1.23 Forage that is highly digestible (i.e., high TDN) and large amounts of the forage can be consumed (i.e., high DMI). = High Quality Forage Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) = TDN * DMI/1.23

8. Crude Protein and Hay Quality Crude Protein is the most overrated measure of quality! Tells you very little about energy content Tells you nothing about the form nitrogen is in  Protein (AA), Bound Protein, Nitrates etc. Protein requirements are (typically) easily met Somewhat related to maturity Important- just overemphasized Crude Protein is the most overrated measure of quality! Tells you very little about energy content Tells you nothing about the form nitrogen is in  Protein (AA), Bound Protein, Nitrates etc. Protein requirements are (typically) easily met Somewhat related to maturity Important- just overemphasized

9. So… How should we evaluate hay? “Quantitatively, energy is the most important item in an animals diet, and all feeding standards and ration formulation are based on some measure of energy with additional inputs on protein…” (Church, 1991) Problem: Energy is difficult to measure accurately “Quantitatively, energy is the most important item in an animals diet, and all feeding standards and ration formulation are based on some measure of energy with additional inputs on protein…” (Church, 1991) Problem: Energy is difficult to measure accurately

10. Where are we now? A broad overview of GA hay marketing Presently, hay is marketed predominantly on a per bale basis  Weight and quality are rarely accounted for Occasionally hay marketed by the ton (usually out-of-state hay imported for horse market) Producers who price based on quality – rare!  Quality-based pricing is the rule, instead of the exception, in the Midwest and West Presently, hay is marketed predominantly on a per bale basis  Weight and quality are rarely accounted for Occasionally hay marketed by the ton (usually out-of-state hay imported for horse market) Producers who price based on quality – rare!  Quality-based pricing is the rule, instead of the exception, in the Midwest and West

11. Why should we be concerned about quality-based marketing? “Typical” $3.50 square bale  $3.50 for 45 lb bale  $183 per dry ton  $3.50 for 60 lb bale  $137 per dry ton “Typical” $50 round bale  $50 for 850 lb bales  $138 per dry ton  $50 for 1000 lb bales  $118 per ton “Typical” $3.50 square bale  $3.50 for 45 lb bale  $183 per dry ton  $3.50 for 60 lb bale  $137 per dry ton “Typical” $50 round bale  $50 for 850 lb bales  $138 per dry ton  $50 for 1000 lb bales  $118 per ton 52% TDN 62% TDN

12. Importance of pricing hay based on quality Flat rate ($50 for 850 lbs)  $138 per ton and 52% TDN  $0.133 per lb of TDN Flat rate ($50 for 1000 lbs)  $118 per ton and 62% TDN  $0.095 per lb of TDN BUYER unknowingly paid a 40% Markup per lb of TDN OR SELLER priced hay at a 29% discount Flat rate ($50 for 850 lbs)  $138 per ton and 52% TDN  $0.133 per lb of TDN Flat rate ($50 for 1000 lbs)  $118 per ton and 62% TDN  $0.095 per lb of TDN BUYER unknowingly paid a 40% Markup per lb of TDN OR SELLER priced hay at a 29% discount 442 lbs 620 lbs

13. A 1000 lb round bale with 15% crude protein  $10.80 per bale N  $1.15 per bale P2O5  $4.08 per bale K2O  Total fertility exported = $16.03 per bale (no lime included) A 1000 lb round bale with 15% crude protein  $10.80 per bale N  $1.15 per bale P2O5  $4.08 per bale K2O  Total fertility exported = $16.03 per bale (no lime included) What are we removing?

14. Cost Per Ton Of Hay Breakeven Cost: $60.38 $20.17 $1.33 $7.50 $2.17 $18.81 $10.40 Fertilizer and LimeHerbicide MachineryLabor InterestFixed Cost

15. Why haven’t we adapted quality- based marketing? 1.The present system is easy Decreases need to educate customers Eliminates need to keep hay lots separate Eliminates need to sample and test hay lots 2.Consumers currently don’t appear to care Is it possible to get a premium? Most beef producers look for cheapest bales Most horse customers want “high-quality” hay green, weed-free and fine-stems 3.Past hay quality definitions have been difficult to understand, relatively inaccurate, and therefore difficult to price 1.The present system is easy Decreases need to educate customers Eliminates need to keep hay lots separate Eliminates need to sample and test hay lots 2.Consumers currently don’t appear to care Is it possible to get a premium? Most beef producers look for cheapest bales Most horse customers want “high-quality” hay green, weed-free and fine-stems 3.Past hay quality definitions have been difficult to understand, relatively inaccurate, and therefore difficult to price

16. The Ultimate Hay Quality Test

17. Not all fiber is created equal… Not all fiber is equally digestible.  Legumes > Cool season grasses > Warm season grasses We need some way to segregate different fiber types and digestibility. Researchers needed to look at each species and variety within species to calibrate current methods John Andrae, Paul Vendrell, and Ann Blount (UF) began looking at this for southern forages Not all fiber is equally digestible.  Legumes > Cool season grasses > Warm season grasses We need some way to segregate different fiber types and digestibility. Researchers needed to look at each species and variety within species to calibrate current methods John Andrae, Paul Vendrell, and Ann Blount (UF) began looking at this for southern forages

20. Current Commercial Lab Equations Developed in the 1970’s and based on cool season species Rely heavily on fiber concentration  As fiber concentration increases, hay energy content decreases  Fiber is constructed differently in cool season forages Absolutely no consideration given to fiber quality What about Tifton 85?? Developed in the 1970’s and based on cool season species Rely heavily on fiber concentration  As fiber concentration increases, hay energy content decreases  Fiber is constructed differently in cool season forages Absolutely no consideration given to fiber quality What about Tifton 85??

21. Fiber content and digestibility of bermudagrass (Hill et al., 2000) VarietyNDF %Predicted Digestibility* Actual Digestibility % Coastal66.460.257.3 Tifton 8569.258.461.1 Had to use fiber in past- rapid, cheap, and relatively accurate. NO PRACTICAL WAY TO MEASURE DIGESTIBILITY *Eq. 10 from Moore et al. 1998

22. Quality Assurance Developed calibrations using forages grown in Georgia Continually update these calibrations Daily check samples and standards are run internally Externally, our lab is certified by the National Forage Testing Association (NFTA) and we have passed a quality review by the NIR Consortium Developed calibrations using forages grown in Georgia Continually update these calibrations Daily check samples and standards are run internally Externally, our lab is certified by the National Forage Testing Association (NFTA) and we have passed a quality review by the NIR Consortium

23. RFQ Simplifies Comparisons Relative Forage Quality  Predicts energy based on fiber quality and intake  Combined into a single number  RFQ of 100 is roughly equal to full-bloom alfalfa  Could simplify marketing  Allows hay to be easily assigned to appropriate physiological stage  Relative Forage Quality should allow comparisons to be made across forage species Now included on all UGA reports Relative Forage Quality  Predicts energy based on fiber quality and intake  Combined into a single number  RFQ of 100 is roughly equal to full-bloom alfalfa  Could simplify marketing  Allows hay to be easily assigned to appropriate physiological stage  Relative Forage Quality should allow comparisons to be made across forage species Now included on all UGA reports

24. Forage Quality Needs of Cattle by RFQ Cattle TypeRelative Forage Quality 18-24 mo heifer Dry cow 100 12-18 mo heifer Beef cow-calf pair 115-130 Dairy, last 200 days lact 3-12 mo heifers Stocker cattle 125-150 Dairy, 1 st 3 mo lactation140-160 Source: D. Undersander

25. Can we expect premiums? We have tried to PUSH quality based hay pricing for years with no success. How do we get consumers to realize the value of (and pay for) quality hay? Encouraging pricing using this system will likely depend on the consumer (i.e., demand driven).  Hopefully can educate hay consumers to ask for nutrient analysis We have tried to PUSH quality based hay pricing for years with no success. How do we get consumers to realize the value of (and pay for) quality hay? Encouraging pricing using this system will likely depend on the consumer (i.e., demand driven).  Hopefully can educate hay consumers to ask for nutrient analysis

26. Will ‘branded’ categories be effective? EXAMPLE: Could allow hay to be sold in categories dependent upon RFQ analysis  RFQ >120 = Supreme or Prime  RFQ 100-120 = Excellent  RFQ 80-100 = Good May decrease education needed for consumers and speed adoption Free market would determine premiums for quality EXAMPLE: Could allow hay to be sold in categories dependent upon RFQ analysis  RFQ >120 = Supreme or Prime  RFQ 100-120 = Excellent  RFQ 80-100 = Good May decrease education needed for consumers and speed adoption Free market would determine premiums for quality

27. How much premium is possible? Premiums in Midwest US range from $0.83 to $0.91 per RFQ point per ton of hay (large bales) Based on these dairy premiums  $17.40 per ton premium  $8.70 per 1000 lb bale  6 ton bermudagrass yield x 20 point RFQ increase = $104 per acre potential premium Premiums in Midwest US range from $0.83 to $0.91 per RFQ point per ton of hay (large bales) Based on these dairy premiums  $17.40 per ton premium  $8.70 per 1000 lb bale  6 ton bermudagrass yield x 20 point RFQ increase = $104 per acre potential premium

28. What’s this going to cost me?

29. Cost Comparison MeasurementNIRWet Chemistry CP, NDF, RFQ, TDN, NE m, NE g, NE L, Moisture $8$21 NO RFQ + Nitrate$10$23 + Minerals$20$28 + ADFNo charge$38 + LigninNo charge$53

30. RFQ will become the standard hay quality measure nationwide Used to judge hay quality contests  Tri-state contest (FL, AL, GA) at Moultrie Sunbelt Expo  American Forage and Grassland Council National Hay Contest  Piedmont Quality Hay Contest  Many others Used to judge hay quality contests  Tri-state contest (FL, AL, GA) at Moultrie Sunbelt Expo  American Forage and Grassland Council National Hay Contest  Piedmont Quality Hay Contest  Many others

31. For more information: www.georgiaforages.com