1. INTRODUCTION The dairy industry is undergoing rapid change within Wisconsin (CIAS 2005; PATS 2005). In addition to the trend of increasing animal concentration and custom feed production, other producers are looking to alternative markets such as grass-fed and organic labels to increase their profitability. Each strategy implies a somewhat different forage production approach. In this study we are looking at the productivity and quality of conventionally produced forage and comparing it to an organic forage rotation and a grazing system. MATERIALS AND METHODS The three forage-based cropping systems of WICST (Photo 1) include the industry standard - an intensively managed alfalfa system (a-a-a-c), an organic forage rotation including a companion seeding of alfalfa with oats and peas (o/p/a-a-c) and a cool-season grass-legume pasture rotationally grazed by dairy heifers. The conventional and organic forage systems receive dairy manure before and after the corn phase and pasture receives the droppings by the heifers and, depending on moisture, 50 lbs N/a was top-dressed. Beginning in 2004, an exclosure strip in the pasture allowed for haying all three systems. First-year established forage production of conventional and organic forage system and continuous production of the pasture were evaluated between 2004-2006. The target was to harvest the conventional system 4-5 times during the first hay year while the organic forage and pasture exclosure were harvested 3-4 times/year depending on regrowth. Plot size is 0.7a and field-sized equipment is used for field operations. Proc mixed (SAS 2003) with repeated measures was used to test systems. All effects in the model are fixed except replicate, which is random. Alpha=0.05. Forage yields were measured and grab samples taken on each plot at each harvest for forage quality analysis. Milk2000 (Shaver et al. 2000) was used as a measure of feed value and is expressed as pounds milk per ton DM of forage. EVALUATION OF FORAGE-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS: DATA FROM WICST. Janet Hedtcke 1, Joshua Posner 1, Jon Baldock 2 1=Univ. of Wisc. Madison, WI, 2 = AGSTAT, Verona, WI) RESULTS Surprisingly, mean yields during the three-year study were equal among the three systems (4.6 ton DM/a). However the year by system interaction was highly significant (Fig. 1). The conventional and organic forage systems, primarily based on alfalfa, were comparable in yield two of the three years. But in the dry year of 2005, the organic system produced less than the conventional and the pasture system produced poorly (Fig. 1). In 2004 and 2006, April-September rainfall was 24 and 28 in. respectively, slightly above the 30-yr norm of 23 in., but 2005 only received 18 in. and nearly a third came after the final cutting (August 19 th ). The cool-season grasses in the pasture with their relatively shallow root systems restricted production in dry conditions. Patchy winterkill in January of 2005 impacted the established alfalfa stands reducing yields from the previous year. Machinery traffic may also impact alfalfa yields more so compared to pasture which only has the weight of the animals. Milk per ton across years was highest for pasture at 3318 lbs (p<0.0001) and there was also a year effect (p<0.0001). Milk per ton was generally higher in the dry year of 2005 (Table 1). Crude protein, weighted on yield, was consistently highest for conventional but all systems were above the 17% level recommended for lactating dairy cows (NRC, 2001). CONCLUSION WICST data has shown that alternative forage production systems are competitive with the conventional approach. Both organic forage production and rotationally grazed pasture are productive systems with suitable quality forage for many classes of livestock but are more risky in drought years. The combination of good productivity and quality with reduced inputs make these alternative systems competitive with the high input alfalfa system. REFERENCES CIAS. 2005. Wisconsin’s grazing success: Grazing dairy farms show profit and promise. UW-Madison, CALS. National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 2001. National Academy Press. Washington D.C. PATS. 2005. Expansion, Modernization, and Specialization in the Wisconsin Dairy Industry. Research Summary #7. SAS V.9. Copyright © 2003 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. Shaver R., D. Undersander, E. Schwab, P. Hoffman, J. Lauer, D. Combs, and J. Coors. 2000. MILK2000: Combining Yield and Quality into a Single Term. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/pubs/milk2000.htm Photo 1. Aerial view of WICST at the Arlington Agricultural Research Station Figure 1. Yield comparison among systems from 2004-2006. Table 1. Milk production among systems from 2004-2006. year*system p<0.0001 200420052006 -----------lbs milk/ton DM------------ Convent. Alfalfa 3,064c3,250b2,866d Organic Alfalfa2,785d3,226b3,128c Pasture (exclosure) 3,054c3,440a3,461a