LiBRARY Michigan State E University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU lo An Affirmative ActiorVEquol Opportunity Institution ammo-oi TEE EFFECT OF 3, 4, AND 5 CUTTINGS ON ALFALPA YIELD, PERSISTENCE, PORAGE QUALITY, AND ESTIMATED MILK PRODUCTION BY Joseph John Paling A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 1992 277 / ~ A 70/” "/ ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF 3, 4, AND S CUTTINGS ON ALFALFA YIELD, PERSISTENCE, FORAGE QUALITY, AND ESTIMATED MILK PRODUCTION BY Joseph John Paling Recent emphasis on improving quality of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) has stimulated interest in cutting five rather than four times per year. This study was conducted to determine effects of cutting management on the yield, persistence, quality, and estimated milk production of alfalfa. Two experiments seeded in 1986 were harvested 5, 4, and 3 times per year in 1987 and 1988 and uniformly for residual yield in 1989. Two-year yields of 4 cuts with the last in mid to late October were 7% higher than with 3 cuts and 20% higher than with 5 cuts. Stand persistence was higher and weed invasion lower with 3 outs and 4 cuts after mid October than 5 cuts or 4 cuts by late September. Forage quality increased as cutting frequency increased. Four cuts with the last cut in mid to late October resulted in the highest yields of high quality alfalfa and highest estimated milk production per hectare with good persistence and few weeds. The higher quality alfalfa produced with 5 cuts was not enough to compensate for the lower yields and persistence associated with the five-cut system. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Milo B. Tesar, for his encouragement, guidance, understanding, and patience during the period of this study and especially during the preparation of the thesis. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. James J. Kells and Dr. Joseph M. Vargas who were members of my graduate committee. My thanks go to Dr. Oran Hesterman for the use of the NIR 6250 and the wet lab facilities for the forage quality work and to Dr. Tim Griffin for helping me to correctly use the lab equipment. A very special thanks go to Brian Graff, good friend and farm manager, for his help during harvests and to those who assisted with the data collection and sample preparation: Greg Messing, Steve Good, Ahmed Marouani, Brian Knoper, Mike Lynch, and Doug Pennington. Finally, I want to express my loving thanks to my parents, John and Joan, and to my brothers and sisters — Steve, Laura, Mark, Mary, and Tom. Their support and confidence were invaluable during the past few years. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ..... ....... .......... ....... ........... v LIST OF APPENDICES ........ ..... ...... ........ ......... Vii LIST OF FIGURES ....... .... ...... ....... ..... .......... x INTRODUCTION .................................. ........ 1 MATERIALS AND METHODS ..... ..... .. .......... ... ........ 6 Experiment 1 ..................... ......... . ....... . 6 Experiment 2 ....................................... 16 RESULTS ............................................... 20 Experiment 1 .... ...... ............................. 20 Experiment 2 .... ..... .............................. 30 DISCUSSION ............. ........... ........ ......... ... 40 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .. ............ ................. 50 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 52 LITERATURE CITED ...................................... 53 APPENDIX OO.........OOOOOOO........OOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.... 56 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Rainfall and irrigation by month and day in 1987 for Experiments 1 and 2 at the MSU Research farm, East Lansing, Michigan. Rainfall and irrigation by month and day in 1988 for Experiments 1 and 2 at the MSU Research farm, East Lansing, Michigan. Fall dormancy and disease resistance ratings for the 27 alfalfa varieties in Experiment 1. Cutting dates and stages of maturity (1987, 1988, and 1989) for the four- and five-cut systems, Experiment 1. NIRS calibration and validation statistics for the equations used to predict the nutrient concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for Experiments 1 and 2. Cutting dates of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988, Experiment 2. Yields of pure alfalfa for 27 varieties (1987 and 1988) out four and five times per year in the first two harvest years, and residual yields of alfalfa (and weeds in the five-cut system) in 1989, the third harvest year, Experiment 1. Stand persistence of the 27 alfalfa varieties in April of 1988 after the first year (1987) of four and five cuttings and in April of 1989 after the second year (1988), Experiment 1. Forage quality as weighted averages of percent crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for varieties in the three fall dormancy groups cut four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. Page 8 9 10 14 17 21 24 26 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. One-year (1987) average kg milk production per Mg of alfalfa DM yield as an estimate of forage quality and estimated total milk production from total DM yield and forage quality for the 27 alfalfa varieties out four and five times per year, Experiment 1. Yields for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988 and total residual yield with three cuttings in 1989, Experiment 2. Stand persistence in April of 1988 after three, four, and five cuttings in the first harvest year (1987), and in April of 1989 after the second year (1988), Experiment 2. Forage quality (1987 and 1988), two-year weighted averages of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF), for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. Average kg milk produced per Mg of alfalfa DM yield and total milk production from total DM yield and forage quality for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988, Experiment 2. vi 31 35 36 38 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Table I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. Forage quality as weighted averages of percent crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the 27 alfalfa varieties cut four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. Forage quality (1987) as weighted averages of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. Forage quality (1988) as weighted averages of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. Estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa DM yield as calculated from forage quality for the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting date of the four-, and five-cut systems, 1987, Experiment 1. Estimated total milk production for each cutting date and a yearly total for the 27 alfalfa varieties cut four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. Estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa DM yield for each cutting of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa DM yield for each cutting of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. Estimated total milk production for each cutting and a yearly total for alfalfa out three, four, and five times per year in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. vii Page 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 IX. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. Estimated total milk production for each cutting and a yearly total for alfalfa out three, four, and five times per year in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. Yields of the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the four- and five-cut systems in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 1. Yields of the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the four- and five-cut systems in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 1. Residual yields of pure alfalfa for the 27 alfalfa varieties after two years of four and five cuttings, and yields of weeds after five cuttings, 1989, Experiment 1. Nutrient concentrations (1987) of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the four-cut system, Experiment 1. Nutrient concentrations (1987) of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the five-cut system, Experiment 1. Yields and nutrient concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for each cutting date of alfalfa out three, four, and five times per year in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Yields and nutrient concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for each cutting date of alfalfa cut three, four, and five times per year in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. Residual yields of alfalfa for three cuttings in 1989 after two years of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems. Relative feed value (1987) for each cutting and a weighted average for the four- and five-cut systems, Experiment 1. viii 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 XIX. XX. Relative feed value (RFV) for each cutting in the three-, four-, and five-cut systems and a seasonal weighted average in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Relative feed value (RFV) for each cutting in the three—, four-, and five-cut systems and a seasonal weighted average in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. ix 74 75 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Page First-cut alfalfa in 1989 after two years of five 46 cuttings (center) was thinner, less vigorous, and had much more weed contamination (dandelion) than with four cuttings (left and right). INTRODUCTION Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cutting management once emphasized forage dry matter yield and long stand life. The emphasis has shifted over the past several years from dry matter yield alone to total nutrient yield and high nutrient concentrations. But persistence is still important since establishment costs are high. In general, alfalfa produces higher nutrient concentrations when harvested at immature stages. It is well documented that alfalfa quality declines with advancing maturity (Smith, 1972). The maximum nutrient yield is produced when alfalfa is out between first and 50% flower. Cutting at the late-bud or early-flower stage will lead to more harvests per year than when out at full bloom. One negative aspect of cutting alfalfa too frequently is the increased winter injury caused by the depletion of carbohydrate root reserves (Smith 1960, 1972). This results in decreased yield and a shorter stand life. Winterhardy varieties with multiple-pest resistance are more adapted to frequent cutting than less winterhardy varieties. High yields of high quality alfalfa are dependent on a well drained soil with pH 6.5 or over, selection of an adapted variety of appropriate winterhardiness, adequate fertility primarily with Potassium, and proper cutting management for 1 2 the given environmental conditions. The improvement of varieties through the development of multiple-pest resistance is one of the most important factors in improving alfalfa forage yield and stand life. Research reported by Silkett et a1. (1937) and Rather and Harrison (1938) recommended that alfalfa in Michigan be out two times per year at full bloom. This was based on varieties susceptible to bacterial wilt [Corynebacterium insidiosum (McCull) H.L. Jens] and low fertility. The development of bacterial wilt resistant varieties allowed for greater flexibility in cutting management. In the early 19605 researchers in the NC states began reporting on a three-cut system. The three-cutting dates divided the growing season into equal periods usually starting on 1 June, 15 July, and 1 September. Three cuttings per year increased forage yield and forage quality over that of two cuttings (Tesar et al., 1963; Feuss and Tesar, 1968; and Smith, 1972). Early recommendations were for no fall cutting four to six weeks prior to the first killing frost. Yager and Tesar (1968) in Michigan found that the third cutting could be taken anytime in the fall if the alfalfa was well fertilized with K and the variety was bacterial wilt resistant. Smith (1960, 1972) noted the importance of flowering in order to provide for adequate root carbohydrate reserves for winter survival. Marten (1980) in Minnesota reported that alfalfa could be cut in September or October without severely limiting stand life. Tesar and Yager (1985) 3 concluded that under good management conditions winter survival is more dependent on the time interval between the second and third cutting than on the calendar date of the final cutting. The success of the three-cut system and the possibility of fall cutting brought on interest of harvesting four times per year. ‘Vernal' and ‘Saranac' varieties were harvested under variable cutting treatments and different dates of fall cutting for three years (Tesar, 1970): Four cuttings with the last cut on 15 October resulted in higher yields and slightly poorer stands than three cuts, but slightly higher stands than when the fourth cutting was earlier on 15 or 30 September. Later, Tesar (1973) reported that cutting Vernal and Saranac alfalfa four times per year with the last cut on 1 September yielded less in three years than when out three times per year. A similar four-cut system in southern Minnesota (Brink and Marten, 1983) resulted in significantly less plant vigor the following spring. Four cuttings with the last out after 15 October in Michigan, evaluated with a computer model for actual weather conditions, was more profitable 90% of the time than three cuttings in a 26-year period (Savoie et al., 1985). Much of the research on cutting management in the late 1960s and early 1970s was based on varieties with resistance to bacterial wilt. In the early 19705 resistance to Phytopthora root rot [Phytopthora megasperma (Drechs.)] and anthracnose [Colletotrichum trifolii (Bain)] began to be 4 incorporated into new varieties. The addition of resistance to Fusarium wilt [Fusarium oxysporium Schl. f. sp. medicaginis (Weimer) Sny. and Hans.] and Verticillium wilt [Verticillium albo-atrum (Reinke and Berth.)] was added to breeding programs in the early 19803. Varieties with moderate to high resistance to Fusarium wilt and anthracnose (Hill and Baylor, 1983) when out at different stages of development had greater long-term yields than less resistant varieties. Alfalfa variety trials with new disease-resistant varieties were conducted between 1970 and 1979 in southern Michigan. These trials used the new four-cut system with the last cut after 15 October as first reported in the USA by Tesar (1970). The highest yielding variety with four cuttings (early June to after 15 October) averaged 15.7 Mg ha‘1 from 1970 to 1979 (Tesar, 1981) in a 10-year variety trial and another variety averaged 17.4 Mg ha'1 from 1974 to 1979 in six years of another trial. Four cuts per year averaged 10 percent higher yields with higher forage quality than three cuttings. Sheaffer et a1. (1986) in southern Minnesota reported higher quality forage-— higher crude protein, lower acid detergent fiber, and lower neutral detergent fiber concentrations — when alfalfa was cut four times per year at earlier maturity than when cut three times per year at later maturity. He concluded that four-cut systems produced higher quality forage than three-cut systems. A four-cut system similar to that reported by Tesar 5 (1970) with the date of fourth cutting on 15 October produced the highest yield of top-grade alfalfa in southern Minnesota (Brink and Marten, 1983). Dairy producers in southern Michigan have had success with the four-cut system in harvesting yields of high quality alfalfa (Tesar, 1973; Tesar and Leep, 1986). Interest has increased in the possibility of harvesting alfalfa five times per year with even higher forage quality than with four cuttings. Tesar (unpublished data, Michigan State University, 1978-1982) found that five cuts yielded almost as much in five years as four cuttings, but stands were poorer and with more weeds than four cuts with the last out on 15 October. Since there is no published research in the northern USA on the yield, persistence, and forage quality of a five-cut system (Sheaffer et al., 1988), this research was conducted to determine: 1) the effects of cutting four and five times per year on yield, stand persistence, forage quality, and estimated milk production with 27 varieties of varying winterhardiness and disease resistance; 2) the effects of three-, four-, and five-cut systems on yield, persistence, forage quality, and the estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa and per hectare; and 3) the effects of two different dates of the third cutting with different dates of the fourth cutting on yield, stand persistence, and forage quality in a four-cut system. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two alfalfa management experiments were conducted at the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station research farm at East Lansing, Michigan. Both trials were seeded in 1986. Yields were obtained from 1987 through 1989. Experiment 1: Yields, persistence, and forage quality of 27 alfalfa varieties. Two harvest years with four and five cuttings in 1987 and 1988, and residual yield with two cuttings in 1989. Alfalfa yield and persistence Experiment 1 was seeded on 14 July 1986 as part of a variety trial in a randomized complete block design. The soil was a well drained, fertile (120 P and 330 K kg ha“), Conover loam (Ochraqualfs, fine loamy, mixed, mesic) with pH 7.0. The varieties were seeded with a five-row nursery seeder at 18 kg ha'1 viable seed in plots 0.91 by 7.6 meters in size. Fertilizer in kg ha'1 was broadcast at 69 P and 390 K prior to seeding. All plots were topdressed with 69 P and 558 K in 1987, and with 332 K plus 1.3 boron in 1988 and 1989. Plots were sprayed with malathion [0,0-diethyl phosphorodithioate of diethylmercaptosuccinate] to control alfalfa weevil [Hypera postica (Gyllenhal)] in cut one and 7 carbaryl (1-naphthyl N—methylcarbamate) to control potato leafhopper [Empoasca fabae (Harris)] as needed in 1987, 1988, and 1989. The experiment was irrigated with 144 mm in 1987 and 249 mm in 1988 during dry periods to maintain yields at a normal level (Tables 1 and 2). Twenty-seven varieties with different ratings of fall dormancy and disease resistance were used in the experiment (Table 3). The experiment was conducted as a split plot with two factors: Factor A was the cutting system (four- or five- cuttings) and factor B was the alfalfa variety split on factor A. Total yields of the varieties under the two management systems were obtained in 1987 and 1988. Yields from the first two cuts in 1989 were used to determine the residual effect of the four- and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988 on the following years production. Cutting dates in 1987 and 1988 for the four-cut system were as recommended by Michigan State University (Tesar and Leep, 1986) for southern Michigan: 1. Cut 1 - late May to 5 June (late bud to early bloom) 2. Cut 2 - 5 to 10 July (early to one-tenth bloom) 3. Cut 3 - 15 to 25 August (early to one-tenth bloom) 4. Cut 4 - 15 to 31 October (no regrowth after cutting). Actual cutting dates and the corresponding stage of maturity are summarized in Table 4. Cutting dates for the five-cut system were scheduled nearly one month apart with the first cutting on the same date as in the four-cut system. Cut five was taken on or 8 Table 1. Rainfall and irrigation by month and day in 1987 for Experiments 1 and 2 at the MSU Research farm, East Lansing, Michigan. Month ‘ 1987 Dav April Mav June Julv Aug Sept Oct Total ........................... mm -__-____--_------__---_ 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 8 6 16 4 2 5 11 4 g); 6 3 12 25 1 7 121,2; 2: 8 1 _2_5 9 1 25 15 11 10 22 l 31 11 4 4 12 6 13 2 g g; 22 14 15 5 3 10 9 16 9 7 17 8 4 18 2 19 5 3 2 5 20 7 13 21 ‘ 59 3 4 9 22 5 54 23 Q 7 5 24 25 10 26 1 8 35 27 1 20 28 1 3 1 29 17 30 9 7 10 31 g 4 Totals 43 36 103 59 141 117 56 555 Average 1962 - 1986 82 75 106 72 80 89 58 562 Tfiingie underline irrigation, Experiment 1: total = 144 mm 1Dogbie underline irrigation, Experiment 2: total = 143 mm 9 Table 2. Rainfall and irrigation by month and day in 1988 for Experiments 1 and 2 at the MSU Research farm, East Lansing, Michigan. Month 1988 Dav April Mav June Julv Auq Sept Oct Total ---------------------------- mm ----------—------------ 1 1 2 3 24 3 18 1 Q1: 10 1 4 14 6 5 25 2 6 22 7 57 8 35f 25 9 1 1 2 16 10 7 2_ 2__§ 2; 6 1 11 1 12 5; 6 13 6 7 14 2_ 25 15 1 25 26 16 7 1 17 2 41 15 18 30 26 19 8 6 8 4 20 32 21 6 22 2 6 23 21 25 16 52 24 25 3 14 25 10 6 26 1 4 27 1 2 28 4 1 7 29 30 31 Totals 127 17 6 62 124 117 120 573 Average 1962 - 1987 83 75 106 72 84 93 58 571 T§ingle underline iggigggion, Experiment 1: total 249 mm 1Double underline irrigation, Experiment 2: total = 125 mm 10 Table 3. Fall dormancy and disease resistance ratings for the 27 alfalfa varieties in Experiment 1. Variety Diseases number BWT PRR AN VW FW Fall Dormancv Group 2 - Vernal 1 R1 R MR R - 2 HR R MR R R 3 HR LR - - MR 4 HR - - - - 5 HR HR - - R 6 R R LR - MR 7 Vernal R - - - MR Fall Dormancv Group 3 - Ranger 8 HR R R R R 9 HR HR MR R HR 10 R MR - MR R 11 R R HR R R 12 HR R HR R R 13 R MR MR MR - 14 R R R - - 15 HR R R MR - 16 HR R LR - R 17 HR R R - HR Fall Dormancy Group 4 - Saranac 18 HR HR LR - HR 19 HR R HR R R 20 HR MR R LR HR 21 R R MR - MR 22 R MR MR MR - 23 HR R HR R HR 24 R R MR LR R 25 HR MR - R HR 26 R R - - MR 27 R R MR MR HR 18H 8 Bacterial Uilt toisease resistance ratings PRR I Phytopthora Root Rot X plants resistant Ratigg an 8 Antracnose 0 to 5 .............. Susceptible (S) V" = Verticillium wilt 6 to 14 ............. Low resistance (LR) FU = Fusarium Hilt 15 to 30 ............ Moderate resistance (HR) 31 to 50 ............ Resistant (R) > 50 ................ High resistance (HR) ................... Not tested 11 Table 4. Cutting dates and stages of maturity (1987, 1988, and 1989) for the four- and five-cut systems, Experiment 1. Cutting Cutting number System 1 2 3 4 5 1987 Four 21 May 1 July 13 Aug 30 Oct None LBdf LBd FBl LVeg Five 21 May 1 July 4 Aug 1 Sept 15 Oct LBd LBd 60% MBd Veg 1988 Four 25 May 6 July 8 Aug 18 Oct None LBd FBl FBI LVeg Five 24 May 2 July 31 July 3 Sept 16 Oct LBd 10% 10% LBd Veg 1989 Residual - 2 cuts onlv Four 5 June 18 July 10% FBl Five 30 May 17 July LVeg FBl TStages of Maturity: Veg = Vegetative LVeg = Late-vegetative MBd = Mid-bud LBd = Late-bud 10% = 10% Bloom 60% = 60% Bloom FBl = Full-bloom 12 after 15 October (15 October 1987 and 16 October 1988) (Table 4). Yields for the four-cut system were obtained using a Carter flail harvester (Carter Manufacturing Co. Inc., Brookston, IN). An approximate 1,000-gram subsample of green material was sampled from random plots and dried at 60°C for 72 hours for dry matter determinations. Quality samples were hand clipped from the plots prior to cutting. Yields for the five-cut system were obtained by cutting an area 0.86 by 0.91 m at one end of the seeded plot with a Jari sickle-bar mower (Jari Division of Year-A-Round Cab Corp, Mankato, MN). Green samples were dried at 60%:for 72 hours and weighed for yield determination and saved for forage quality analysis. All yields are reported in dry matter Mg ha'1 of pure alfalfa. Stand density was determined in the early spring of 1988 and 1989 by counting the roots of live and dead plants in 0.762 m of row spaced 0.152 m apart for an area of 0.12 m2. Plants were counted as living if buds or green shoots were present. The plants were counted from the same section of row in both years to reduce variation in sampling. Stand persistence is reported as percent live plants. Fora e alit and est ted milk roductio Forage quality was determined using Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) calibration equations developed from pure alfalfa samples grown in alfalfa variety 13 trials between 1987 and 1989 at East Lansing, Michigan. Each sample was ground through a 2-mm Wiley mill. A subsample was then ground through a 1-mm UDY cyclone mill. NIRS spectra were obtained for each sample with a Pacific Scientific model 6250 scanning monochromonator (NIR Systems, Silver Springs, MD). Fifty-one samples (7 percent of the population) were selected at random and by using software purchased from Infrasoft International (State College, Pennsylvania) for traditional laboratory analysis. The NIRS calibration and validation information is in Table 5. Percent crude protein (CP) was determined by a modified Kjeldahl (N * 6.25) procedure using hydrogen peroxide (Watkins et al., 1987). Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) were determined on an organic matter basis using techniques described by Goering and Van Soest (1970). Forage quality as weighted averages of percent CP, ADF, and NDF are reported in Appendix I. Yields of alfalfa and the quality components (ADF and NDF) were used to estimate the amount of milk that would be produced from the alfalfa when fed to a dairy cow. Acid detergent fiber is used to predict digestible dry matter (DDM) and NDF is an indicator of dry matter intake (DMI). Estimated milk production was calculated using a computer spreadsheet developed at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. (Howard, Undersander,‘and Shaver, 1990, MILK90. Version 2.2). The calculations were based on the assumption that the alfalfa was fed as part of a balanced ration to a 14 Table 5. NIRS calibration and validation statistics for the equations used to predict the nutrient concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for Experiments 1 and 2. Calibration Prediction Nuprient Numberi Mean; $05 5801 R21! ssprcnt raiL ---g--- Experiment 1 CP 145 21.7 2.20 .71 0.93 .84 0.91 ADF 169 32.5 5.92 1.25 0.96 1.49 0.94 NDF 169 40.6 6.22 1.43 0.95 1.81 0.92 Experiment 2 CP 215 21.8 2.72 .94 0.92 1.17 0.90 ADF 216 31.1 6.45 1.46 0.95 1.63 0.94 NDF 214 39.3 6.74 1.41 0.96 1.61 0.95 1 Number of samples used in the calibration set. 1 Mean of the samples used in the calibration set. 5 Standard deviations of calibration samples. 1 Standard errors of the calibration samples. # Squared coefficient of determination from least squared regression of laboratory values on NIRS spectra. ff Standards errors of the predictions by NIRS. it Squared simple correlation of NIRS predicted values to known quality values. 15 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. Forage quality was used to calculate the estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa dry matter (DM) for each cutting. This was multiplied by the DM yield to determine the estimated total milk production per hectare for the cutting. Estimated total milk production for the harvest year was determined by adding the milk production from each cutting for each variety in each cutting system. Milk production data are reported as weighted averages of milk in kg Mg'1 (kg milk per Mg of alfalfa DM yield) and as estimated total milk production in kg ha”. Yield, persistence, forage quality, and estimated milk production data were subjected to analysis of variance with significance reported at the 5 and 1% levels. Correlations were determined between yield and estimated total milk production and between forage quality and estimated total milk production. 16 Experiment 2: Yield, persistence, and forage quality of ‘Oneida' alfalfa. Two harvest years with three, four, and five cuttings in 1987 and 1988, and residual yield with three cuttings in 1989. Yield and Persistence The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with four replications. The soil was a well drained, fertile (110 P and 380 K kg ha4), Conover loam (Ochraqualfs, fine loamy, mixed, mesic) with pH 7.0. Oneida alfalfa was seeded on 14 June 1986 at 18 kg ha'1 viable seed using a commercial towed drill with 12 openers for a width of 2.44 m. Fertilizer in kg ha'1 was topdressed at 69 P, 390 K, and 1.3 boron in 1987 and 1988. Malathion and carbaryl were sprayed as needed to control alfalfa weevil and potato leafhopper in 1987, 1988, and 1989 as in Experiment 1. Irrigation was applied during dry periods in 1987 (143 mm) and 1988 (125 mm) to bring seasonal moisture to near normal levels (Tables 1 and 2). Plot size was 1.4 by 4.8 m. Actual harvest was from the center with a Carter flail harvester in an area 0.91 by 3.96 m in size. Harvests were taken for yield and forage quality under 15 different cutting treatments in 1987 and 1988. Treatments 1 to 12 were out four times, treatment 13 was out three times, and treatments 14 and 15 were cut five times per year (Table 6). First cut was the same date in all treatments in all three years. Actual cutting dates may differ two days each way from the target dates in cuts 2, 3, 17 Table 6. Cutting dates of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988, Experiment 2. Treatment Cuttinq number number 1 2 3 4 5 1987 Four cuttings with the third cutting on 13 August 1 3 June 10 July 13 Aug 15 Sept 2 n u u 25 Sept 3 II II II 5 Oct 4 II II II 15 Oct 5 II II II 26 OCt 6 II II II 4 Nov Four cuttings with the third cutting on 25 August 7 3 June 10 July 25 Aug 25 Sept 8 II II II 5 Oct 9 II II II 15 OCt 10 " " " 26 Oct 11 II II II 4 NOV 12 " " " 16 Nov Three cuttinqg 13 3 June 10 July 2 Sept none Five cuttinqg 14 3 June 1 July 4 Aug 1 Sept 15 Oct 15 II II II II 29 OCt 1988 Four cuttinggiwith the third cutting on 17 August 1 1 June 15 July 17 Aug 15 Sept 2 II II II 25 Sept 3 II II II 5 Oct 4 II II II 15 Oct 5 II II II 27 Get 6 II II II 7 Nov Four cuttings with the third cgtting on 26 Angus; 7 1 June 15 July 26 Aug 25 Sept 8 II II II 5 Oct 9 " ” " 15 Oct 10 " " " 27 Oct 11 II II II 7 Nov 12 " " " 17 Nov Three cuttin s 13 1 June 21 July 2 Sept none Five cuppings 14 1 June 8 July 17 Aug 9 Sept 15 Oct II II 30 Oct l8 4, and 5 for the different management treatments in 1987 and 1988 because of rain or other harvest limitations (Table 6). Three cuttings were taken in 1989, the third harvest year, to determine the residual effect of the three-, four—, and five-cut systems in the previous two years on the third year's production. Yields are reported in dry matter Mg ha”. Green weights were obtained and a representative approximate 1000-gram subsample was collected from each plot, dried at 60°C for 72 hours for dry matter determination and saved for forage quality analysis. Stand densities were determined by counting individual roots in.a 0.155 n? area of each plot in April 1988, and 1989. Both live and dead plants were counted in 1988; only live plants were counted in 1989. Persistence is reported as a percent of live plants and as live plants mi. Fora e alit and estimated milk rod ct o Forage quality was determined using NIRS as in Experiment 1. Samples were ground through a 2-mm Wiley and a 1-mm UDY cyclone mill. Spectra were obtained for each sample. Sixty samples (15 percent of the population) were selected and added to a subset of the samples used for Experiment 1. Laboratory procedures were the same for Experiment 2 as in Experiment 1. Table 5 contains the calibration and validation information for the prediction equations. Forage quality data as weighted averages of percent CP, 19 ADF, and NDF are listed in Appendix II (1987) and III (1988). Yield and forage quality were used to calculate the weighted averages of estimated milk production in kg Mg'1 and estimated total milk production in kg ha'1 as in Experiment 1 (MILK90. Version 2.2). Yield, persistence, forage quality, and estimated milk production data were subjected to analysis of variance with significance reported at the 5 and 1% levels. RESULTS Experiment 1: Yields, persistence, and forage quality of 27 alfalfa varieties. Two harvest years with four and five cuttings in 1987 and 1988, and residual yield with two cuttings in 1989. Yields in 1987. 1988, and residual yield in 1989 Yields were determined in all treatments in 1987 and 1988. Residual yield was determined in 1989 with two cuttings to evaluate the effect of the four- and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988. There was no cutting system by variety interaction in 1987, 1988, or 1989. Yields: 2-year averages, year 1 in 1987, and year 2 in 1988 Two-year average yields in Mg ha'1 were 19% higher with four cuttings (15.1) with the last out in mid to late October than with five cuttings (12.7) (Table 7). All 27 varieties yielded higher with four than with five cuttings in the two-year period. Yields in 1987, the first harvest year, were nearly identical in the two cutting systems (Table 7). Average yields for the three fall dormancy groups were also similar. Variety differences were observed within each cutting 20 221 Table 7. Yields of pure alfalfa for 27 varieties (1987 and 1988) cut four and five times per year in the first two harvest years, and residual yields of alfalfa (and weeds in the five-cut system) in 1989, the third harvest year, Experiment 1. Cuttinggpper year 1987 1988 Two- ear avera e Residqgl yield. 19891 Variety weeds number 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 -------------------------------------------- Mg ha.1 --------------------------------------- Fall dormancy group 2 - Vernal 1 15.1 14.4 15.3 10.5 15.2 12.5 10.3 4.4 0.69 2 15.1 14.8 17.0 12.0 16.1 13.4 10.7 5.8 0.45 3 13.4 13.5 15.9 11.3 14.7 12.4 10.4 5.2 0.47 4 13.4 12.6 14.9 8.9 14.2 10.8 8.9 2.8 1.10 5 15.3 15.2 16.2 11.6 15.8 13.4 10.2 4.4 0.87 6 14.7 14.3 16.1 10.2 15.4 12.3 9.3 3.5 0.92 7 Vernal 12.3 12.3 14.1 10 4 13.2 11.4 8.9 3.9 0.69 Average 14.2 13.9 15.6 10.7 14.9 12.3 9.8 4.3 0.74 Fall dormancy group 3 - Ranger 8 15.7 15.2 16.2 11.9 16.0 13.6 10.6 4.6 0.60 9 15.1 14.7 16.5 11.2 15.8 13.0 11.0 5.1 0.56 10 15.3 14.9 17.0 12.1 16.2 13.5 10.7 5.0 0.49 11 14.8 14.3 15.8 10.0 15.3 12.2 9.3 2.8 0.83 12 15.1 14.6 14.7 10.8 14.9 12.7 10.1 3.4 0.81 13 15.5 15.5 16.6 12.0 16.1 13.8 11.2 4.1 0.72 14 14.7 14.8 17.1 13.4 15.9 14.1 11.1 5.0 0.69 15 15.9 15.7 17.1 12.0 16.5 13.9 11.0 5.2 0.49 16 12.5 12.9 14.6 10.0 13.6 11.5 10.2 3.1 0.76 17 14.3 13.7 15.3 10.4 14.8 12.1 9.7 3.2 0.96 Average 14.8 14.6 16.1 11.4 15.5 13.0 10.5 4.2 0.69 Fall dogpgncy group 4 - Saranac 18 14.5 13.8 14.7 10.8 14.6 12.3 9.9 4.3 0.65 19 15.5 15.1 15.2 10.6 15.4 12.9 10.2 2.4 1.16 20 13.2 13.3 14.7 9.8 14.0 11.6 8.7 2.6 0.96 21 15.4 14.6 15.8 9.6 15.6 12.1 9.3 2.4 1.23 22 12.3 13.4 13.8 11.5 13.1 12.5 10.1 3.6 0.69 23 15.6 14.7 17.6 12.3 16.6 13.5 11.0 4.9 0.54 24 14.4 14.2 15.6 11.1 15.0 12.7 9.5 1.8 1.12 25 13.8 13.9 14.9 11.9 14.4 12.9 10.2 4.6 0.52 26 13.5 13.7 15.2 11.6 14.4 12.7 10.0 3.8 0.87 27 14.3 14.8 14.8 11.8 14.6 13.3 10.2 4.2 0.67 Average 14.2 14.1 15.3 11.1 14.8 12.6 9.9 3.4 0.84 Grand Average 14.4 14.2 15.7 11.1 15.1 12.7 10.1 3.9 0.76 1987 19§§ 19§g_ LSD (0.05) between: cutting systems (27 variety average) 0.22 0.74 0.48 (0.01) 0.40 1.35 0.88 (0.05) between: varieties within cutting systems 1.81 1.80 1.57 1 First and second cuts only in 1989. 22 system. Vernal (check variety) was significantly the lowest yielding variety in both the four- and five-cut systems. In contrast to the similar yields in 1987 between four and five cuttings, the average total yield of the 27 varieties was 41% higher in the four-cut system (15.7) than in the five-cut system (11.1) in the second harvest year (Table 7). Total average yields in the three fall dormancy groups were significantly higher with four cuttings than with five cuttings. Yields of the varieties ranged from 13.8 to 17.6 with four cuttings and from 8.9 to 13.4 with five cuttings. Residual yields, 1989, after 2 years of 4 and 5 outs Cuts 1 and 2 in 1989 were combined to determine the residual effect of the two harvest years of the two cutting systems in 1987 and 1988 (Table 7). Total residual yields in Mg ha'1 of pure alfalfa for the 27 varieties after two harvest years of five cuttings (3.9) were significantly lower (P<0.01) and only 39% of the residual yields after four cuttings (10.1). Residual yields for each of the three fall dormancy groups were also significantly greater (P<0.01) after four cuts than after five cuts. Weed contgpinatiop with five cuts Weeds were present in the third harvest year after two years of five cuttings but not with four cuttings. Weed yields with the 27 varieties in the five-cut system ranged 23 from 0.5 to 1.2 Mg ha'1 and comprised an average of 16% of the total forage yield (Table 7). The predominant weeds were dandelion (Taraxacum officinale Weber), shepherds purse [Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic], and white cockle (Lychnis alba Mill.). Stand persistence after the lst and 2nd harvest year Alfalfa density in 1986 in the year of establishment was about 200 plants In“2 (data not shown). Roots of live and dead plants were counted in April of 1988 and 1989 to determine the effects of the four- and five-cut systems in the first two harvest years on stand persistence. Stand persistence as a percent of live plants in 1988 after one harvest year was higher (P<0.01) with four (94%) than five cuttings (76%) (Table 8). Persistence dropped between 1988 (86%) and 1989 (55%). In 1989, after the second harvest year, four cuttings still had a higher percent survival (66%) than five cuttings (44%). Each of the 27 varieties had a higher percent survival after four than five cuttings in both years. In 1989, Vernal had one of the highest survival rates of the 27 varieties after two years of four (78%) and five cuttings (57%) (Table 8). Percent survival was similar among the fall dormancy groups within each cutting system after the first harvest year. Stand persistence in 1989 after the second year of four cuttings was 16% higher in the dormancy group 2 (71%) than in group 4 (61%). Percent survival after the second 24 Table 8. Stand persistence of the 27 alfalfa varieties in April of 1988 after the first year (1987) of four and five cuttings and in April of 1989 after the second year (1988), Experiment 1. Cuttings pgr year Variety 1988 1989 pggper 4 5 4 5 -------------------------- X live plants? -------------------------- Fall Dorggncy Group 2 - Verna; 1 80 70 76 37 2 97 81 74 52 3 100 91 67 59 4 92 64 67 49 5 96 75 72 41 6 97 76 64 37 7 Vernal 100 82 78 57 Average 94 77 71 47 Fall Dormgncy Group 3 . Ranger 8 87 77 56 39 9 92 84 82 43 10 98 75 62 48 11 94 72 55 42 12 93 79 63 34 13 97 83 70 44 14 90 70 66 55 15 93 78 65 45 16 94 65 79 48 17 92 79 73 55 Average 94 76 68 47 Fall Dorggncy Group 4 - Saranac 18 95 72 63 54 19 98 72 71 38 20 91 76 44 39 21 90 77 43 27 22 97 75 69 38 23 97 81 54 43 24 88 73 58 34 25 99 77 63 54 26 98 80 67 39 27 98 87 72 40 Average 95 77 61 42 27 Var avg. 94 77 66 44 Grand avg. 86 55 1987 1988 LSD (0.05) between: cutting systems (27 variety average) 7.9 6.4 (0.01) 14.5 11.7 (0.05) between: varieties within cutting systems 13.3 23.9 1 Determined by counting the number of live and dead plants from the same section of row in 1988 and 1989. 25 harvest year of five cuttings, however, was similar (42 to 47%) among the fall dormancy groups. Forage gpality and estimated milk production Five cuttings produced significantly higher quality forage than four cuttings for all 27 varieties with a higher percentage of CP, and lower of ADF and NDF. Weighted averages for the four- and five-cut systems, respectively, were: CP - 21.0 and 23.0; ADF - 31.0 and 29.0; and NDF - 39.5 and 36.8 (Table 9). There was no difference in forage quality among the three fall dormancy groups in percent CP, ADF, and NDF (Table 9). Weighted averages of percent CP, ADF, and NDF for all 27 varieties cut four and five times in 1987 are listed in Appendix I. Percentages of ADF and NDF listed in Appendix XIII (four cuts) and XIV (five cuts) were used to calculate estimated milk production in kg per Mg of alfalfa DM yield for each variety on each cutting date. This was multiplied by the alfalfa DM yield for the cutting date and used to determine a seasonal weighted average for each variety in the two cutting systems (Table 10). The weighted averages are a reflection of forage quality for the 27 varieties out four and five times per year. Estimated milk production based on forage quality The weighted average of milk production in kg per Mg DM alfalfa for the 27 varieties (Table 10) was 11% higher 26 Table 9. Forage quality as weighted averages of percent crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for varieties in the three fall dormancy groups out four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. Nutrient concentrations per cutting SVStem CP ADF NDF Fall dormancy group 2 - VernalL,7 varieties Average 21.0 23.0 31.3 29.2 39.8 36.9 Fall dormancy group 3 - RangerI 10 varieties Average 21.2 23.1 30.9 29.0 39.3 36.7 Fall dormancy group 4 - Saranac. 10 varieties Average 21.0 23.0 31.1 29.0 39.7 36.8 27 Variety Average 21.0 23.0 31.0 29.0 39.5 36.8 CF ADF NDF LSD (0.05) between: cutting system means 0.5 0.6 0.9 (0.01) 1.0 1.2 1.6 (0.05) between: varieties within cutting systems 0.5 1.4 1.4 27 Table 10. One-year (1987) average kg milk production per Hg of alfalfa on yield as an estimate of forage quality and estimated total milk production from total on yield and forage quality for the 27 alfalfa varieties cut four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. 1987 Estimated milk production per cutting systegf Variety Avergge Total ggmper 4 5 4 5 Fall dormancy group 2 - Vernal 1 114 125 1720 1793 2 111 122 1669 1810 3 110 123 1477 1661 4 111 126 1486 1582 5 109 120 1661 1821 6 107 120 1579 1716 7 Vernal 104 117 1285 1437 Average 109 122 1554 1689 Fall dormgncy group 3 - Ranger 8 113 122 1779 1851 9 118 128 1786 1883 10 105 119 1612 1771 11 110 122 1627 1749 12 115 128 1729 ' 1861 13 115 121 1787 1874 14 114 124 1681 1834 15 108 121 1710 1899 16 111 121 1391 1556 17 111 126 1588 1731 Average 112 123 1669 1801 Fall dormancy group 4 - Saranac 18 109 125 1587 1721 19 109 117 1683 1761 20 111 124 1471 1649 21 102 119 1569 1735 22 115 122 1414 1633 23 116 128 1803 1877 24 110 124 1586 1761 25 107 123 1481 1704 26 110 122 1483 1673 27 114 122 1633 1799 Average 110 122 1571 1731 Grand average 111 123 1603 1746 kg ng“ kg ha" LSD (0.05) between: cutting systems (27 variety average) 3.7 56.0 (0.01) 6.8 102.9 9.9 (0.05) between: varietjgg within cutting systems 171.5 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 28 (P<0.01) in the five-cut system (1230) than in the four-cut system (1110). Each of the 27 varieties had a higher weighted average milk production with five than with four cuttings. The weighted average milk production was similar among the three fall dormancy groups for both four and five cuttings. Varieties varied in average milk production as a reflection of forage quality with both four and five cuttings. This indicates that some varieties produce higher quality forage than other varieties. Vernal, a variety released almost 40 years ago, was one of the lowest in average milk production in the four- and five-cut systems. Estimated total milk production based on yield and quality Alfalfa yield and quality were combined for each cutting to determine the estimated milk production for each variety in each of the two cutting systems in 1987. Estimated total milk production in kg ha‘1 was 9% higher in the five-cut system (17460) than in the four-cut system (16030) (Table 10). Since the alfalfa yield in the first harvest year was similar in the four- and five-cut systems (Table 7) and average milk production was 11% higher with five cuttings (Table 10), all 27 varieties were capable of producing more milk with five than with four cuttings. Co relation of old and alit to estimated otal milk In the first harvest year there were significant 29 differences among varieties within each cutting system for both weighted average estimated milk production (kg milk per Mg alfalfa DM yield), a reflection of forage quality, and estimated total milk production (kg milk per ha), the product of both yield and forage quality (Table 10). Varieties with the highest yield and forage quality produced the highest estimated total milk per hectare. There was a high correlation (data not shown) between alfalfa DM yield and estimated total milk production. This correlation was higher in both the four- (1'2 = 0.91) and five-cut systems (r2 = 0.92) than the correlation between forage quality (weighted average estimated milk production) and estimated total milk production in the four- (r2 = 0.47) and five-cut systems (r2 = 0.34). This indicates that differences between varieties in estimated total milk production are more highly associated with yield than with forage quality. 30 Experiment 2: Yield, persistence, and forage quality of Oneida alfalfa. Two harvest years with three, four, and five cuttings in 1987 and 1988, and residual yield with three cuttings in 1989. Yields in 1987, 1988, and residual yields in 1989 Yields were obtained in all three-, four-, and five-cut treatments in 1987 and 1988, the first two harvest years. Three cuttings were taken in 1989, the third harvest year, to evaluate the effect of three, four, or five cuttings in 1987 and 1988 on residual yields in 1989. Yields: 2-year averages, year 1 in 1987, and year 2 in 1988 Two-year average yields were similar among the four-cut treatments when at least six weeks separated the dates of third and fourth cutting (Table 11). The two lowest yields with four cuttings were obtained when cut four was on 15 or 25 September, only four weeks after out three. The highest two—year average yields with four cuttings were 7% higher “than with three cuttings and 20% higher than with five cuttings (Table 11) . The highest two-year average yield (15.2 Mg ha”) was obtained with a four-cut treatment when the third cutting ‘was on 25 August and the fourth on 25 October, nine weeks later (Table 11). The yield was almost as high when the ‘third cut was on 15 August and fourth cut was on 15 or 25 (October, nine weeks later. The data support the Michigan :State University recommendation of taking the fourth cut 31 Table 11. Yields for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988 and total residual yield with three cuttings in 1989, Experiment 2. Residual Treatment Date of Yield totals Two-year yield number last out 1987 1988 average 1989 --------------- Mg ha'1 --------------- Four cuttings with the third on 15 August 1 15 Sept 13.8 12.2 13.0 7.7 2 25 Sept 14.9 14.2 14.6 7.6 3 5 Oct 14.2 13.9 14.1 8.6 4 15 Oct 14.8 14.8 14.8 0.4 5 25 Oct 14.4 14.8 14.6 0.6 6 5 Nov 13.8 14.7 14.3 0.5 Four cuttings with the third on 25 7 25 Sept 15.1 12.3 13.7 8.7 8 5 Oct 14.8 13.7 14.3 9.1 9 15 Oct 14.7 13.9 14.3 9.6 10 25 Oct 15.5 14.8 15.2 0.0 11 5 Nov 14.9 15.3 15.1 0.4 12 15 Nov 14.8 14.2 14.5 0.7 Three cuttings from 1 June to 2 September 13 2 Sept 13.3 14.8 14.1 12.9 Five cuttings from 1 June to 30 October 14 15 Oct 14.1 11.7 12.9 6.3 15 30 Oct 12.7 11.0 11.9 5.8 Average 14.4 13.8 9.3 LSD (0.05) 1.37 1.93 1.43 (0.01) 1.86 2.62 1.94 32 after mid October with little or no regrowth (Tesar and Leep, 1986) In the first harvest year (1987), alfalfa yields in Mg ha'1 were 9% higher for the 12 four-cut systems (14.6) than the two five-cut systems (13.4) and 10% higher than with three cuttings (13.3) (Table 11). Yields of the four-cut systems increased from the earliest dates of fourth cutting up to mid October and then decreased with the cooler temperatures as plants started dormancy. The highest yield was 15.5 Mg ha'1 when the third and fourth cuts were on 25 August and 25 October. The lowest four-cut yield was with the two earliest dates of third (15 August) and fourth cutting (15 September). In the same year (1987), the highest alfalfa yields were produced with four cuttings. When the date of third cutting was on 15 August, the highest yields were attained when fourth cut was between 15 October and 5 November. When the date of third cutting was later (25 August), however, yields were highest when fourth cut was on 25 October or 5 November. The highest yield in the second harvest year (1988) was produced with four cuttings (15.3 Mg ha”) when the dates of third and fourth cuttings were 25 August and 5 November, 10 weeks later (Table 11). Three cuttings yielded 29% more than five cuttings and were similar to the highest yields with four cuttings when the fourth cutting was in mid to late October. Yields of the two lowest yielding four-cut 33 treatments (12.2 and 12.3 Mg haq) were similar to the two five-cut treatments. They occurred when the fourth cut was taken early on 15 or 25 September and there were only four weeks between the date of third and fourth cuttings (treatments 1 and 7). Residual yields in 1989 after two harvest years Three cuttings were combined in 1989 to determine the residual effect of the three cutting systems of the first two harvest years in 1987 and 1988 (Table 11). The best four-cut treatments (last out on or after 15 October) had significantly higher (69%) residual yield than the five-cut treatments. Residual yields of each of the 12 four-cut treatments increased significantly (P<0.05) from the earliest to the latest date of the fourth cutting. The residual yield after three cuttings was 117% greater than after five cuttings and 25% greater than after four cuttings when the fourth cut was on or after 15 October, but was 48% greater than when the fourth cut was in September or early October. gtang pggsispencp aftp; the ist gpd gpg hggygpp yep; Based on a stand density of 225 plantsm'2 in the seeding year (data not shown), stand persistence in April of 1989 after two years of the different cutting systems was highest after three cuttings (43%), intermediate with the best of the four-cut systems (33%), and lowest with five 34 cuttings (15%) (Table 12). When the third cutting date was delayed until 25 August, the two early dates (25 Sept and 5 Oct) of the fourth cutting gave lower plant survival than the later dates of the fourth cutting or any of the four-cut systems when the third cutting was on 15 August. Percent survival in 1988 after one harvest year of five cuttings was 21% lower than three cuttings and 19% lower than four cuttings when the last out was on or after 15 October (Table 12). This shows that even after one year, alfalfa out five times per year has significantly less persistence than when out four times if the fourth cut is on or after 15 October as recommended. Forage gpality Nutrient concentrations as two-year weighted averages of percent CP were significantly higher, and percent ADF and NDF were lower with five than four or, especially, three cuttings in both 1987 and 1988 (Table 13). In general, forage quality decreased from the earliest to the latest date of the fourth cutting. The two-year averages for five, four, and three cuttings, respectively, were: CP - 23.2, 20.6, and 19.1; ADF - 27.0, 31.0, and 32.2; and NDF - 36.1, 39.8, and 41.7 (Table 13). Estimated milk production based on forage quality The ADF and NDF concentrations and DM yield for each 35 Table 12. Stand persistence in April of 1988 after three, four, and five cuttings in the first harvest year (1987), and in April of 1989 after the second harvest year (1988), Experiment 2. Treatment Date of Live plants? number last out 1988 1989 Four cuttings with the third on 15 August 1 15 Sept 236 92 48 20 2 25 Sept 208 96 32 15 3 5 Oct 232 97 37 16 4 15 Oct 208 95 64 31 5 25 Oct 228 97 72 32 6 5 Nov 234 98 50 21 Four cuttings with the third on 25 August 7 25 Sept 161 85 34 21 8 5 Oct 190 86 36 19 9 15 Oct 187 88 50 27 10 25 Oct 223 95 47 21 11 5 Nov 216 96 77 36 12 15 Nov 213 97 73 34 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 Seppember 13 2 Sept 213 99 92 43 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 Octobe; 14 15 Oct 165 80 30 18 15 30 Oct 189 77 23 12 Average 207 92 51 24 LSD (0.05) 50.4 7.7 23.0 13.5 (0.01) 67.3 10.2 30.5 18.1 f Determined by counting the number of live and dead plants in 1988 and the number of live plants in 1989 36 Table 13. Forage quality (1987 and 1988), two-year weighted averages of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF), for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. Treatment Date of Nutrient concentrations number last out CP ADF NDF Four cuttings with the third on 15 August 1 15 Sept 21.9 30.4 39.5 2 25 Sept 21.4 30.5 39.8 3 5 Oct 21.1 30.2 39.5 4 15 Oct 20.5 31.1 39.8 5 25 Oct 20.6 30.3 39.4 6 5 Nov 20.2 31.7 41.0 Four cuttings with the third on 25 August 7 25 Sept 21.3 30.5 39.2 8 5 Oct 20.7 30.4 39.3 9 15 Oct 20.4 31.0 39.2 10 25 Oct 20.0 30.9 39.9 11 5 Nov 19.9 31.4 40.1 12 15 Nov 19.6 32.2 40.6 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 19.1 32.2 41.7 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 October 14 15 Oct 23.3 26.9 35.9 15 30 Oct 23.1 27.1 36.2 Average 20.9 30.4 39.4 37 cutting date in 1987 (Appendix XV) and 1988 (Appendix XVI) were used to calculate the average milk production per Mg of DM for the alfalfa produced under the 15 different management systems (Table 14). As a reflection of forage quality, the estimated two-year average milk production per Mg alfalfa DM was 17% higher for five than four cuttings when the last out was on 15 October, and 25% higher than for three cuttings (Table 14). In 1987, five cuttings produced 24% more milk per Mg of alfalfa DM yield than the four-cut treatments and 31% more than three cuttings (Table 14). In 1988, five cuttings produced 10% more milk per Mg than four cuttings and 20% more than three cuttings (Table 14). Estimated total milk production based on yield and quality Estimated total milk production per hectare was determined by multiplying the estimated milk production per kg of alfalfa by the DM yield per hectare for each cutting. Two-year averages for estimated total milk production in kg per hectare were similar for five cuttings (16000) and four cuttings (16130) when the fourth cut was near 15 October (Table 14). Two-year averages of total milk production among the four-cut treatments increased from the earliest date of fourth cutting to mid to late October and then decreased. Estimated total milk production with three cuttings during the two years was 9% lower than with five cuttings and 10% lower than with four cuttings when the 38 Table 14. Average kg milk produced per Mg of alfalfa DM yield and total milk production from total DM yield and forage quality for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987 and 1988, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of no. lest cut Eetimated Milk Production? Average Total 2-year 2-year 1987 1988 average 1987 1988 average ---- 10 kg ng ---- ------ 10 kg ha'1 ----- Four cuts with the third cut on 15 August 1 15 Sept 110 116 113 1518 1413 1466 2 25 Sept 108 116 112 1605 1647 1626 3 5 Oct 108 119 114 1531 1648 1590 4 15 Oct 107 114 111 1579 1674 1627 5 25 Oct 106 121 114 1521 1794 1658 6 5 Nov 99 113 106 1369 1655 1512 Four cuts with the third cut on 25 August 7 25 Sept 106 121 114 1606 1481 1544 8 5 Oct 106 121 114 1571 1643 1607 9 15 Oct 107 118 113 1567 1630 1599 10 25 Oct 107 115 111 1659 1685 1672 11 5 Nov 101 117 109 1506 1795 1651 12 15 NOV 100 112 106 1478 1585 1532 Three cuttings between 1 Juneiand 2 September 13 2 Sept 100 107 104 1323 1585 1454 Five cuttings between 1 June end 30 October 14 15 Oct 130 131 131 1816 1529 1672 15 30 Oct 131 126 129 1673 1382 1528 Average 109 118 1555 1610 LSD (0.05) 3.0 7.4 150.4 211.7 (0.01) 4.1 9.9 201.0 283.0 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 39 fourth cut was on or near 15 October. Estimated total milk production with five cuttings was 10% higher (Table 14) in 1987 but in 1988 it was 14% lower than with the best four-cut treatments (last out on or near 15 October). The lowest estimated total milk production in 1988 was obtained with five cuttings or with four cuttings when the fourth cut was only four weeks after third cutting (Table 14). DISCUSSION This is the first published research comparing the yield, persistence, forage quality, and estimated milk production of alfalfa out five times per year to alfalfa out less frequently. Yield In each of the two experiments, the 19% higher two-year yields with the best four-cut system than with five cuttings confirm the recommendations of Tesar and Leep (1986). They stated that the four-cut system with out four from 15 to 31 October is the best system for high yields of high quality alfalfa under intensive management in southern Michigan. Their recommendation was based on Michigan State University research at the Kellogg Biological Station, Hickory Corners, Michigan (Tesar, 1978-1982, MSU unpublished data) which showed the five-cut system was lower yielding and less persistent than four cuttings with out four after 15 October. Two-year yields with three cuttings in Experiment 2 were 7% lower than with the best four-cut system (last out in mid to late October), but 14% higher than five cuttings. These data are consistent with previous work by Tesar (1981) in 40 41 southern Michigan and Brink and Marten (1983) in southern Minnesota where four cuttings with the last cutting on 15 October produced 10% higher yields than three cuttings. Similarly, four cuttings evaluated with a computer model in Michigan were more profitable 90% of the time with higher yields and forage quality than three cuttings in 26 years under actual weather conditions (Savoie et al., 1985). After two years of five cuttings in this study, third- year yields were only 60% of the best four-cut treatments. This further confirmed the recommendations of Tesar and Leep (1986) that alfalfa out five times per year was not as persistent or productive as a four-cut system under the climatic conditions in Michigan and in other northern states. The reduced stand and severe weed invasion in the five-cut system indicated the stand would need to be reseeded after only two years of cutting five times per year. In contrast, weeds did not invade with three or four cuts when the last cut was on or after 15 October. Weed contamination was present, however, in several of the four- cut treatments in Experiment 2 when cut four was in September or early October. This is probably because the interval between the third and fourth cut was too short to develop adequate root carbohydrate reserves for winter survival and stand density and vigor are reduced (Smith 1960, 1972). The productivity in 1989 of four cuttings using the cutting schedules recommended by Michigan State University 42 for southern Michigan warrants the continued use of the four-cut system with the last out on or after 15 October in southern Michigan and the northern USA. A similar four-cut system with the last out in mid October has also been used in southern Minnesota (Brink and Marten, 1983; Barnes et al., 1984, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials; Brink and Marten, 1989). The alfalfa varieties tested in the four-cut system of Experiment 1 were part of an alfalfa variety trial and were out four times in 1989, the third harvest year. The average total yield for the 27 varieties cut four times in Experiment 1 was 15.7 Mg ha'1 in 1989 and averaged 15.3 Mg ha'1 for the three-year period (Hesterman, Leep, and Paling, 1989, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials). Visual stand evaluation in April of 1990 after two years of four and five cuttings and four cuttings in the third year (1989) of that trial indicated that the four-cut system with the last out after mid October could have continued well beyond the three years required for an alfalfa variety trial. The stand in the five-cut system, however, was too weedy to have warranted its continued use in a variety trial. This is supported by results from Michigan State University in a 10-year alfalfa variety trial out four times per year for nine of ten years. The highest yielding variety averaged 15.7 Mg ha’1 (6.99 tons/acre) per year during the ten years and produced 19.0 Mg ha'1 (8.52 tons/acre) in the tenth year with only 20 plantsm‘2 (1.9 43 plants ftQ) (Tesar, 1979, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials). The data corroborated the first report of a successful four-cut system (last out on 15 October) in Michigan reported by Tesar (1970). Stand persistence Stand persistence and density were higher in the recommended four-cut than in the five-cut systems in both studies. Under the four-cut system, varieties in fall dormancy group 2 (Vernal) were only slightly more persistent (with Vernal outstanding of all 27 varieties) than the less winterhardy varieties in groups 3 (Ranger) and 4 (Saranac). Similar results have been reported with four cuttings in a five-year variety trial in southern Minnesota where winterhardy varieties were significantly more persistent in the fifth year after the severe 1989-1990 winter (Barnes et al., 1990, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials). Winterhardiness, best indicated by varieties in fall dormancy group 2 (Smith, 1960), did not increase stand persistence with five cuttings probably because the stand was cut for only two years. If it had been cut for a longer period, e.g., four to six years, or after a severe winter as in Minnesota, winterhardiness would likely have been more important (Barnes et al., 1990, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials). Less hardy varieties in fall dormancy groups 3 and, especially, 4 would probably have 44 suffered more injury than varieties in fall dormancy group 2 (Smith, 1960, 1972; Barnes et al., 1990, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials). Five cuttings do not allow enough time between cutting dates for the alfalfa to replenish carbohydrate reserves (Smith, 1972). Alfalfa out three times per year was much more vigorous than when out five times or four times when the early dates of the fourth cutting were only four weeks after the third cutting (15 and 25 September). Poorest persistence with four cuttings was when only four weeks separated the third and fourth cuts with the fourth cut in September. The four-week interval between cuts three and four probably did not permit adequate time for satisfactory increase in carbohydrate reserves for winter survival (Smith, 1972; Tesar and Yager, 1985). Persistence was higher with four cuttings when the third cutting was earlier (15 August) than with the later date of the third cutting (25 August) when cut four was in early October. The data indicate that the fourth cutting should be delayed until late October if the date of third cutting is delayed until late August as frequently happens because of weather conditions. The lower plant populations and vigor associated with five cuttings and four cuttings with the last out in September resulted in weed invasion. Weed invasion was minimal, however, with three cuttings and four cuttings with the last cut in October. This was probably because the stand density and regrowth as observed in the spring were heavier 45 and more competitive with three and four cuttings when the last cut was in October than under the five-cut system (see photo, Figure 1). Five cuttings probably did not permit an adequate replenishment of root carbohydrate reserves necessary for winter survival (Smith, 1972). Forage gpality and estimated milk production This is the first published research to show a comparison of forage quality in four- and five-cut alfalfa. Forage quality of alfalfa is considered high when the percent CP is greater than 19, ADF is lower than 31, and NDF is lower than 40 (Hesterman, Allen, and Bucholtz, 1991). Forage quality was higher with five cuttings than four or three cuttings in 1987 and 1988. The higher quality with five cuttings may be attributed to cutting less mature alfalfa (vegetative to mid-bloom) than in the four-cut systems (late bud to full bloom). This is consistent with considerable research which has shown that alfalfa quality is usually highest when harvested at immature stages (Smith, 1972; Kalu and Fick, 1981; Brink and Marten, 1983). Forage quality with the four-cut system decreased with the later dates of the fourth cutting in November as plants started dormancy and leaves dropped. The average forage quality for the three- and four-cut systems in both experiments was similar to the forage quality obtained by Brink and Marten (1983) and Sheaffer et al. (1986) using similar three— and four-cut systems (fourth cut after 15 46 .iunmaa can sumac macauuso usou cues can» Acceauccmov coaumcflasucou poo: whoa none can can .msonomw> mnua .nuccflcu mes Auuusuuv mocfiuusu o>flu no mums» o3» uuuum mama cw meuuHm uppiumuwm .H ousmwm 47 October) in Minnesota. Recent research has shown differences in forage quality and animal performance between alfalfa varieties (Miller et al., 1987). Data from Experiment 1 indicated that the 27 alfalfa varieties differed in forage quality as well as in estimated total milk production with Vernal being one of the lowest. Quality differences among varieties have recently been reported in Michigan but Vernal was not consistently the lowest in forage quality (Hesterman et al., 1988, 1989, and 1990, Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference Variety Trials). Estimated milk production as an indicator of forage guelity Estimated milk production per Mg of forage DM yield is a direct reflection of alfalfa quality based on percent ADF and NDF. It was consistently higher for the five-cut system because percent ADF and NDF were lower than with four cuttings in both experiments. Estimated milk production (Experiment 2) per Mg of DM yield for five cuttings was similar in 1987 and 1988 and slightly higher in 1988 than in 1987 for the four- and three-cut treatments. Since forage quality was not determined in 1988 for Experiment 1, an assumption may be made based on the results from Experiment 2, that estimated milk production per Mg of DM yield in Experiment 1 would have been similar in the two years. 48 _§timated milk production per hectare Estimated total milk production per hectare is dependent on both forage yield and quality. Five cuttings is capable of producing more milk per Mg of alfalfa DM than four cuttings (Table 14). The alfalfa yield with five cuttings was lower in the second year and resulted in less estimated total milk production than with the recommended four cuttings with the fourth out between 15 and 31 October. This experiment showed that cutting with the recommended four-cut system had slightly greater estimated milk production than five cuttings in a two-year period. In Experiment 1 in 1987, similar alfalfa yields with four and five cuttings resulted in higher estimated milk production with five cuttings. Given the logical assumption that forage quality in Experiment 1 would be similar in 1987 and 1988, as it was in Experiment 2, estimated total milk production for the 27 varieties with four cuttings in 1988 would probably have been about one-fourth higher than with five cuttings since the four-cut system was higher yielding. In addition, the two-year average estimated total milk production would have been about 8% higher with four than with five cuttings. Estimated total milk production in both experiments in the five-cut system decreased from the first to the second year. Less estimated total milk production was associated with a decrease in alfalfa yield since forage quality was similar in both years. Forage quality would likely have decreased markedly after two years due to the increased weed 49 invasion. If a third full year of production had been obtained, estimated total milk production with five cuttings would probably have been only about one-half that of four cuttings . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Two-year yields of four cuttings with the last out in mid to late October were 7% higher than with three cuttings and 20% higher than with five cuttings. 2. Four and five cuttings produced about the same yield in the first year and both were slightly higher than three cuttings. 3. The four-cut system with the last out in mid to late October yielded more than three cuttings in the second year and both yielded substantially more than five cuttings. 4. Yields of pure alfalfa in the third year after two years of five cuttings were only about one-half of four cuttings with the last out after 15 October or three cuttings. 5. Stand persistence was higher after two years of four cuttings with the last out on or after 15 October than after five cuttings. 6. Severe weed invasion occurred after two years of five cuttings but was minimal with three cuttings and four cuttings with the last out after mid October. 7. Estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa dry matter, an indication of forage quality, increased as the number of cuttings increased. 50 51 8. Estimated milk production per hectare, a product of both yield and forage quality, was slightly higher in a two- year period for the recommended four-cut system than with five cuttings and considerably higher than with three cuttings. 9. Forage quality and estimated total milk production was different among alfalfa varieties. Estimated total milk production was more highly correlated with dry matter yield than with forage quality for the 27 varieties. 10. The correlation was higher between dry matter yield and estimated total milk production than it was between forage quality and estimated total milk production in both the four- and five-cut systems. This indicates that the overall productivity of an alfalfa variety is more dependent on yield than on forage quality. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The five-cut system will provide the highest quality alfalfa for two-year periods in southern Michigan or similar areas but will likely require reseeding after two years because of lack of persistence and weed invasion. It is better suited to provide high quality forage for alfalfa meal rather than for a dairy operation. 2. The current recommendation of four cuttings with the last cut in mid to late October is the best option for high yields of high quality alfalfa with good persistence for several years under the environmental conditions in southern Michigan and under similar conditions in the northern USA. 3. The three-cut system is a recommended and widely used conservative system which provides good long-term yields of good quality alfalfa and high persistence for all of Michigan and similar areas. It is the preferred system in northern Michigan and in the northern USA where winterhardiness is more important than in southern Michigan or at similar latitudes in the USA. 52 LITERATURE CITED Brink, G.E., and G.C. Marten. 1983. The effect of selected cutting management systems on grade one alfalfa yield, total nutrient yield, and stand persistence in alfalfa. p.31-36. In Proceedings of the 1983 Forage and Grasslands Conference American Forage and Grasslands Council, Lexington, KY. Brink, G.E., and G.C. Marten. 1989. Harvest management of alfalfa--nutrient yield vs. forage quality, and relationship to persistence. J. of Prod. Ag. 1:32-36. Goering, H.K., and P.J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fiber analyses. USDA Handb. No. 379. ARS, USDA, Washington D.C. Hill, R.R., and J.E. Baylor. 1983. Genotype X environment interaction analysis for yield in alfalfa. Crop Sci. 23:811-815. Hesterman, O.B., H.F. Bucholtz, and M.S. Allen. 1991. Forage quality: What is it? Michigan State University Coop. Ext. Bull. E-2292. Howard, W.T., D.J. Undersander, and R.D. Shaver. 1990. MILK90: Calculating forage milk per ton of dry matter and per acre, Version 2.2. Dept of Dairy Science and Agronomy. Univ. of Wis. Ext. Madison, WI. Marten, G.C., D.R. Buxton, and R.F. Barnes. 1988. Feeding value (Forage quality). p. 463-491. In A.A. Hanson (ed.) Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Miller L., D.A. Rohweder, and R.A. Porter. 1987. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) varieties vary in quality and animal performance. Agron. Abstr. p. 117. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Rather, H.C., and C.M. Harrison. 1938. Alfalfa management with special reference to fall treatment. Michigan Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Bull. 292. Savoie, P., L.D. Parsch, C.A. Rotz, R.C. Brook, and J.R. Black. 1985. Simulation of forage harvest and conservation on dairy farms. Agric. Systems 17:117-131. 53 54 Sheaffer, C.C., J.V. Wiersma, D.D. Warnes, D.L. Rabas, W.E. Lueschen, and J.H. Ford. 1986. Fall harvesting and alfalfa yield, persistence and quality. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 66:329-338. , G.D. Lacefield, and V.L. Marble. 1988. Cutting schedules and stands. p. 411-437. In A.A. Hanson (ed.) Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Silkett, V.W., C.R. Megee, and H.C. Rather. 1937. The effect of late summer and early fall cutting on crown bud formation and winterhardiness of alfalfa. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 29:53-62. Smith, D. 1960. Association of fall growth habit and winter survival in alfalfa. Can. J. Plant Sci. 41:244-251. . 1972. Cutting schedules and maintaining pure stands. p. 481-493. In C.H. Hansen (ed.) Alfalfa science and technology. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Tesar, M.B., E.C. Doll, and K. Lawton. 1963. Effect of P and K on alfalfa cut two and three times annually. Agron. Abstr. p. 112-113. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. . 1970. Response of alfalfa to frequent cutting and var1able dates of fall cutting. Agron. Abstr. p. 57. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. . 1973. Harvest schedules to maintain alfalfa stands. p. 20-28. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Alfalfa Symposium, OARDC, Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio. . 1979. Alfalfa variety trials p. 49-56. In Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference, 1979 Rep. Lincoln, NE. . 1981. Fall cutting of alfalfa under 3- and 4- cutting systems in Michigan. p. 14-16. In Proceedings of the 17th Central Alfalfa Improvement Conference, East Lansing, MI. . 1983. Clear seeding of alfalfa. Mich. State Univ. Coop. Ext. Bull. E-961. . 1985. Fertilization and management for a yield of ten tons of alfalfa without irrigation. p. 326-332. In Proc. American Forage and Grassl. Counc., Hershey, PA. 3-6 March. American Forage and Grassland Council, Lexington, KY. 55 , and J.L. Yager. 1985. Fall cutting of alfalfa in the North Central USA. Agron. J. 77:774-778. , and R.H. Leep. 1986. Alfalfa variety recommendations for Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Coop. Ext. Bull. E-1098. Watkins, K.L., T.L. Veum, and G.F. Krause. 1987. Total nitrogen determinations of various sample types: a comparison of the Hach, Kjeltec, and Kjeldahl methods. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 70:410-412. Yager, J., and M.B. Tesar. 1968. Effect of fall cutting on subsequent production and carbohydrate reserves of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Agron. Abstr. p. 53. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. APPENDIX 56 Appendix Table I. Forage quality as weighted averages of percent crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the 27 alfalfa varieties cut four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. Nutrient concegtratione per cutting system Variety CP ADF NDF number 4 5 4 5 4 5 Fall dormancy grggp 2 - Vernal 1 21.3 23.1 30.5 28.6 38.9 36.4 2 21.4 23.3 31.2 29.2 39.7 36.9 3 21.1 23.1 31.1 28.9 39.6 36.6 4 21.0 23.1 31.0 28.4 39.5 36.2 5 21.1 23.1 31.5 29.5 39.9 37.2 6 20.9 22.9 31.5 29.3 40.2 37.2 7 Vernal 20.4 22.5 32.3 30.2 40.9 38.1 Average 21.0 23.0 31.3 29.2 39.8 36.9 Fall dormancy grogp 3 - Ranger 8 21.5 23.2 30.6 29.3 39.0 37.0 9 21.6 23.4 29.6 27.9 38.0 35.5 10 21.0 23.1 32.0 29.8 40.7 37.5 11 21.2 23.2 31.3 29.0 39.8 36.8 12 21.3 23.4 30.3 28.0 38.9 35.9 13 21.4 23.0 30.2 29.4 38.5 37.2 14 21.2 22.9 30.4 28.7 38.8 36.4 15 20.8 22.8 31.8 29.4 40.3 37.1 16 21.1 22.8 30.8 29.4 39.4 37.2 17 21.2 23.4 31.2 28.5 39.6 36.2 Average 21.2 23.1 30.9 29.0 39.3 36.7 Fall dormancy grggp 4 - Saranac 18 21.0 23.1 31.2 28.5 39.8 36.2 19 20.6 22.5 31.4 30.1 40.1 38.0 20 20.8 22.8 30.9 28.8 39.4 36.6 21 20.5 22.9 32.5 29.6 41.4 37.5 22 21.1 22.7 30.2 29.2 38.7 36.9 23 21.2 23.4 30.0 28.1 38.5 35.7 24 20.8 22.8 31.1 28.6 39.7 36.5 25 20.5 22.8 31.6 29.0 40.4 36.8 26 21.0 23.2 31.3 29.2 39.9 36.8 27 21.4 23.2 30.5 29.3 38.9 36.9 Average 21.0 23.0 31.1 29.0 39.7 36.8 Grand average 21.0 23.0 31.0 29.0 39.5 36.8 CP ADF 59F LS!) (0.05) between: cutting systems (27 variety average) 0.5 0.6 0.9 (0.01) 1.0 1.2 1.6 (0.05) between: varieties within cutting systems 0.5 1.4 1.4 57 Appendix Table II. Forage quality (1987) as weighted averages of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF), for the thr four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. ee-, Treatment Date of Nutrient concentratione number laet cut CP ADF NDF ................ % -------------_—- Four cuttings with the third on 15 Auggst l 15 Sept 21.4 30.8 40.3 2 25 Sept 21.0 31.1 40.7 3 5 Oct 20.7 31.2 40.6 4 15 Oct 20.1 31.5 40.9 5 25 Oct 19.9 31.5 41.3 6 5 Nov 19.5 32.6 42.7 Four cuttings with the third on 25 August 7 25 Sept 20.0 31.6 41.1 8 5 Oct 19.9 31.6 40.9 9 15 Oct 19.6 31.6 40.7 10 25 Oct 19.5 31.3 41.0 11 5 Nov 18.9 32.7 42.0 12 15 Nov 18.7 32.9 42.3 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 §eptember 13 2 Sept 18.7 32.5 42.9 Five cuttings between 1 June end 30 October 14 15 Oct 22.3 27.1 35.8 15 30 Oct 22.3 26.6 35.5 Average 20.2 31.1 40.6 LSD (0.05) 0.44 0.71 0.59 (0.01) 0.59 0.96 0.79 58 Appendix Table III. Forage quality (1988) as weighted averages of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the three-, four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. Treatment Date of Nutrient concentrations number laet cut CP ADF NDF Four cuttings with the third on 15 Auguep 1 15 Sept 22.5 29.9 38.7 2 25 Sept 21.8 29.9 38.8 3 5 Oct 21.5 29.1 38.4 4 15 Oct 20.8 30.7 38.7 5 25 Oct 21.3 29.0 37.5 6 5 Nov 20.8 30.7 39.3 Four cuttings with the third on 25 August 7 25 Sept 22.6 29.3 37.3 8 5 Oct 21.4 29.2 37.6 9 15 Oct 21.2 30.3 37.6 10 25 Oct 20.4 30.4 38.8 11 5 Nov 20.8 30.0 38.1 12 15 Nov 20.4 31.5 38.8 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 19.5 31.8 40.5 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 Octobe; 14 15 Oct 24.2 26.6 35.9 15 30 Oct 23.9 27.6 36.8 Average 21.5 29.7 38.2 LSD (0.05) 0.99 1.54 1.58 (0.01) 1.33 2.05 2.11 559 Appendix Table IV. Estimated milk production per Hg of alfalfa on yield as calculated from forage quality for the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting date of the four and five-cut systems, 1987, Experiment 1. Four cuttipgg Five cuttinge Variety Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Cut 5 number 21 May 1 July 13 Aug 30 Oct 21 Hey 1 July 4 Aug 1 Sept 15 Oct ------------------------------------ kg "9-1 --------------------------------------- Fall dorgepcy group 2 - Verngi 1 11901 1580 870 1080 1190 1580 890 1240 1680 2 1060 1620 940 980 1060 1620 930 1300 1650 3 1150 1600 860 1030 1150 1600 940 1160 1680 4 1150 1600 860 980 1150 1600 940 1240 1680 5 1060 1530 920 950 1060 1530 870 1270 1660 6 1100 1570 870 940 1100 1570 850 1220 1670 7 Vernal 1010 1540 950 820 1010 1540 820 1250 1700 Average 1100 1580 890 970 1100 1580 890 1240 1670 Fall dormancyygroup 3 - Ranger 8 1120 1590 940 1010 1120 1590 830 1230 1650 9 1160 1640 1000 1080 1160 1640 1020 1240 1630 10 1060 1530 880 900 1060 1530 880 1260 1670 11 1170 1620 820 940 1170 1620 850 1210 1670 12 1210 1650 900 930 1210 1650 870 1290 1660 13 1120 1570 980 1040 1120 1570 770 1290 1620 14 1140 1640 950 960 1140 1640 870 1300 1610 15 1100 1480 900 900 1100 1480 910 1260 1640 16 1100 1530 1020 990 1100 1530 930 1190 1630 17 1170 1590 840 990 1170 1590 900 1270 1660 Average 1140 1580 920 970 1140 1580 880 1250 1640 Fall dormancy grogp 4 - Saranac 18 1130 1570 910 930 1130 1570 990 1240 1680 19 1100 1520 900 930 1100 1520 810 1160 1640 20 1130 1610 860 1030 1130 1610 940 1180 1630 21 1100 1550 750 850 1100 1550 870 1200 1650 22 1150 1570 940 1080 1150 1570 840 1190 1540 23 1170 1660 910 1070 1170 1660 890 1270 1690 24 1170 1570 860 970 1170 1570 940 1170 1650 25 1160 1570 860 860 1160 1570 870 1230 1610 26 1060 1550 970 950 1060 1550 990 1170 1670 27 1120 1470 980 1070 1120 1470 930 1210 1630 Average 1130 1560 890 970 1130 1560 910 1200 1640 Grand Average 1120 1570 910 970 1120 1570 870 1230 1650 1 Calculated from HILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614- kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 60 Appendix Table V. Estimated total milk production for each cutting and the yearly totals for the 27 alfalfa varieties cut four and five times per year, 1987, Experiment 1. Four cutting§ Five cuttings Var Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 1987 Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Cut 5 1987 no. 21 Hey 1 July 13 Aug 30 Oct Total 21 figy 1 July 4 Aug 1 Sept 15 Oct Total Fall dormency group 2 -Vernal 1 50101 4480 3950 3760 17200 5010 4480 3170 2690 2580 17930 2 5280 4190 4000 3230 16690 5280 4190 3260 2950 2430 18100 3 4410 3890 3510 2970 14770 4410 3890 3000 2760 2560 16610 4 4480 4170 3330 2880 14860 4480 4170 2670 2590 1900 15820 5 4960 4780 3870 3000 16610 4960 4780 2930 2850 2700 18210 6 4800 4280 3840 2960 15790 4800 4280 2860 2740 2630 17160 71 3800 3560 3400 2090 12850 3800 3560 2470 2590 1950 14370 Avg. 4680 4190 3700 2980 15540 4680 4190 2910 2740 2390 16890 Fall dormency group 3 - Ranger 8 5190 4860 4200 3540 17790 5190 4860 3060 2790 2610 18510 9 5350 4620 4310 3590 17860 5350 4620 3350 2900 2610 18830 10 4990 4400 3750 2970 16120 4990 4400 3120 2670 2520 17710 11 4990 4540 3670 3080 16270 4990 4540 3050 2610 2310 17490 12 5210 4950 4010 3120 17290 5210 4950 3120 2910 2430 18610 13 5130 5240 4370 3140 17870 5130 5240 2820 2790 2760 18740 14 4980 4710 4170 2960 16810 4980 4710 2960 3060 2640 18340 15 5390 4750 4080 2870 17100 5390 4750 3250 2930 2670 18990 16 3970 3520 3590 2840 13910 3970 3520 2890 2750 2430 15560 17 4640 4330 3660 3160 15880 4640 4330 3020 2810 2360 17310 Avg. 4980 4590 3980 3130 16690 4980 4590 3060 2820 2530 18010 Fall dormancy grogp 4 - Saranac 18 5090 4180 3750 2850 15870 5090 4180 2970 2660 2300 17210 19 5030 4530 4010 3260 16830 5030 4530 3060 2520 2470 17610 20 4200 4000 3260 3250 14710 4200 4000 3240 2510 2530 16490 21 5070 4580 3440 2600 15690 5070 4580 2960 2380 2370 17350 22 4010 3750 3500 2880 14140 4010 3750 2660 2790 3130 16330 23 5270 4850 4040 3890 18030 5270 4850 2950 3010 2690 18700 24 4910 4280 3620 3040 15860 4910 4280 3120 2750 2550 17610 25 4670 4050 3610 2480 14810 4670 4050 2770 2870 2680 17040 26 4440 3820 3670 2900 14830 4440 3820 2970 2890 2610 16730 27 4670 4340 3860 3470 16330 4670 4340 3360 2680 2940 17990 Avg. 4740 4240 3680 3060 15710 4740 4240 3010 2710 2630 17310 Grand Avg. 4810 4360 3790 3070 16030 4810 4360 3000 2760 2530 17460 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614- kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 2 Variety number 7 is Vernal 61 Appendix Table VI. Estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa DM yield for each cutting of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of Cutting number no. laet cut 1 2 3 4 5 ------------------ kg Mg'1 ------------------ Four cuttings with the third cut on 15 Auggst 1 15 Sept 8401 1390 1000 1410 0 2 25 Sept 840 1390 1000 1270 0 3 5 Oct 840 1390 1000 1300 0 4 15 Oct 840 1390 1000 1230 0 5 25 Oct 840 1390 1000 1220 0 6 5 Nov 840 1390 1000 880 0 Four cuttings with the third cut on 25 August 7 25 Sept 840 1390 920 1470 0 8 5 Oct 840 1390 920 1430 0 9 15 Oct 840 1390 920 1420 0 10 25 Oct 840 1390 920 1500 0 11 5 Nov 840 1390 920 1170 0 12 15 Nov 840 1390 920 1160 0 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 840 1390 940 0 0 Five cuttings between 1 Jupe end 39 October 14 15 Oct 840 1680 1470 1420 1720 15 30 Oct 840 1680 1470 1420 1740 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 62 Appendix Table VII. Estimated milk production per Mg of alfalfa DM yield for each cutting of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of Cutting number no. last out 1 2 3 4 5 ------------------- kg Mg'1 ------------------ Eour cuttings with the third cut on 15 Angnsp 1 15 Sept 9401 1340 1170 1590 0 2 25 Sept 1000 1260 1110 1520 0 3 5 Oct 950 1350 1130 1640 0 4 15 Oct 900 1280 1090 1630 0 5 25 Oct 1050 1420 1130 1530 0 6 5 Nov 910 1330 1130 1380 0 Four cuttings with the third cut on 25 August 7 25 Sept 1060 1400 1130 1570 0 8 5 Oct 1030 1330 1120 1640 0 9 15 Oct 960 1260 1110 1700 0 10 25 Oct 960 1340 1040 1610 0 11 5 Nov 1020 1380 1110 1460 0 12 15 Nov 1030 1230 1080 1370 0 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 990 1240 1040 0 0 Five cuttings between 1 June and 39 Octgpe; 14 15 Oct 1140 1310 1240 1640 1790 15 30 Oct 1050 1330 1180 1610 1830 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 63 Appendix Table VIII. Estimated total milk production for each cutting and a yearly total for alfalfa out three, four, and five times per year in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of no. laet cut 1 15 Sept 2 25 Sept 3 5 Oct 4 15 Oct 5 25 Oct 6 5 Nov 7 25 Sept 8 5 Oct 9 15 Oct 10 25 Oct 11 5 Nov 12 15 Nov 13 2 Sept 14 15 Oct 15 30 Oct Average LSD (0.05) (0.01) 1 2 3 Cutting number 4 5 1987 Total ------------------- kg ha'1 ------------------ 4030T 4170 3920 4300 4190 3960 4630 4240 3930 4600 4440 4560 4830 4280 3460 3220 3850 3390 3560 3450 3510 3500 3600 3330 3810 3620 3390 4010 3090 2440 3760 3850 3760 3620 3920 3960 4210 4060 4240 4270 4310 4390 4170 4190 4240 4320 3650 2260 3730 3810 4170 3920 2690 2450 4390 4150 4030 0 3760 4110 000000 000000 0 2880 2700 Four cuttings with the third cut on 15 Auguep 15180 16050 15310 15790 15210 13690 Four cuttings with the third cut on 25 August 16060 15710 15670 16590 15060 14780 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 Septemper 13230 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 October 18160 16730 15550 1504 2010 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. 64 Appendix Table IX. Estimated total milk production for each cutting and a yearly total for alfalfa out three, four, and five times per year in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of Cutting number 1988 no. last out 1 2 3 4 5 Total ------------------- kg ha“ —-------—---------- Four cuttings with the third cut on 15 August 1 15 Sept 4570? 2530 4230 2800 0 14130 2 25 Sept 5870 3520 3800 3290 0 16470 3 5 Oct 5250 3100 3950 4190 0 16480 4 15 Oct 5190 3500 3910 4140 0 16740 5 25 Oct 6320 3550 4320 3750 0 17940 6 5 Nov 5240 3490 4310 3500 0 16550 Four cuttingspwith the third cut onp25 August 7 25 Sept 4790 2500 4820 2700 0 14810 8 5 Oct 4980 3140 4740 3570 0 16430 9 15 Oct 4740 2800 4810 3950 0 16300 10 25 Oct 5520 3220 4580 3530 0 16850 11 5 Nov 6270 3660 5020 3000 0 17950 12 15 Nov 5920 2960 4850 2120 0 15850 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 6360 4910 4580 0 0 15850 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 October 14 15 Oct 4950 2070 4030 3570 680 15290 15 30 Oct 4040 1730 3950 3500 590 13820 Average 16100 LSD (0.05) 2117 (0.01) 2830 1 Calculated from MILK90. Version 2.2, University of Wisconsin Extension. Ration balanced for a 614-kg dairy cow in mid lactation producing 36 kg of 3.8% butterfat milk per day. Cut 5 15 Oct 1.4 cit. 1 Sept 2.2 3332333 Cut 3 3.3 Five-cut system 4 Aug 8666273 1 July Cut 2 2.7 -1 4.3 Cut 1 21 May 65 ’ Fall dormaney groupn3 - Ranger Fall dormancy group 2 - Vernal 30 Oct 3.1 Cut 4 em Cut 3 13 Aug 4.2 Four-cut syst Cut 2 1 July 2.7 ------------------------------------------ kg ha 21 May systems in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 1. Average 4.3 Appendix Table x. Yields of the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the four- and five-cut Variety Cut 1 number 6656576656 .......... 1111111111 3312326332 2222222222 J366675613 1333333333 0808069237 3232332322 6673366060 6666666536 5333601292 3333333323 5335656566 6666666636 0808069237 3232332322 6673366060 4.4 2.9 3.5 2.3 1.5 4 - Saranac [‘0 Fall dormanc 3.2 4.3 2.9 Average 4.4 AssmeSJss 1111211111 121036.1J352 222222117"; 0.86h523630.6. «Ll-53333133 J0506976.50. 2323222223 5676552022 6636366666 0575176130.). 3333233133 3 O O I 6636366636 7050497J50. 2323222’m7m3 S67.o6.5520.22 661636616.th 18 19 26 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.6 1.5 2.3 2.2 3.4 3.4 2.7 2.8 4.2 4.3 3.1 3.2 4.2 4.2 2.7 2.8 Average 4.2 Grand average 4.3 feut 1 is the same for both cutting systems :Cut 2 is the same for both cutting systems 66 Appendix Table XI. Yields of the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the four- and five-cut systems in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 1. ; Five-cut system Cut 5 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 4 Cut 1 Four-cut system Cut 2 Cut 4 Cut 3 8 Aug Variety Cut 1 2 July 31 July 3 Se t 15 Oct 18 Oct 24 May 6 July 25 Hgy number -1 ------------------------------------------ Mg ha Fall dormancyggroup 2 - Vernal 2222222 39.I6.1n9.27m 2222222 lflnuoulu757.7. 23?“).322 6632630 1.2 1 4.4 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.6 Average 5.3 Fall dormancy group 3 - Ranger 6323366636 a o o a o o a o a 9 1111111111 3388791380” ..... 1011111210101. 0.3969060.66 3222233325.“ 9603670039 2232223321 89.0.0.50.l6.8.?..5 2232233222 6566636666 2122222222 5385260637 I6.6I%l6.665666 $130.369719 31%/6.16.363632 2A~A~886..5.39.1 555/6.16.555/m5 2.6 2.9 1.9 1.4 2.7 2.5 4.5 3.9 Average 5.2 anac Fall dormancy group 4 - Sar 2331566336 0 o o c o o a o o o 1111111111 887981878.7 1111121111 68.I6.I6.1.280.6.9. 2222332327“ 553256.6.8.~I.o. 2222222221 8219605108 0 o a o a o o a o n 2221232332 253218336I6. 2222222222 262-5126sz 6666656]6.I6.I6. 267299Im326 3336233333 JonsanANZZJg. 5]6.l6.516.55.5.5l6. 23 26 27 20 21 22 24 25 2.6 2.8 1.8 1.3 2.6 4.4 2.4 3.5 Average 5.0 Grand 2.6 2.8 1.8 1.3 2.7 4.4 2.4 3.7 average 5.2 67 Appendix Table XII. Residual yields of pure alfalfa for the 27 alfalfa varieties after two years of four and five cuttings, and yields of weeds after five cuttings, 1989, Experiment 1. Five-cut system e 9 8 r O F t U C mVS aw Te H 8 f l a f a m e 2" t U8 C..- l a f l a em Four-cut syst Cut 1 alfalfa weeds Two-cut Cut 2 alfalfa 18 July 1 total total 17 July 3Q4§§v total Cut Variety number 5 June --------------------------------------- Hg ha°1 ---------------~-------------------------- Fall dormancy group 2 - Vernal n3¢3346 5653544 0.69 0 65 0.47 1.10 0.87 0.92 0.69 4552433 4328464 31.234.32 0008018 111 J0.5Aw~l.3~/. 4543443 0.74 5.0 4.3 0.4 2.1 0.3 2.2 9.8 4.6 Average 5.6 Fall dormancyggroup 3 - Ranger 264.0.287781 5553445534 6: 9964 0.0.nw°.nU.o.nwo.o.o. 6108410212 0 I I O O O I O O 0 4552345533 5414.A~c°.45346 "m0.0.0.0.00000 8896006258. 222122231h1. 1212232233 0000000000 9.2fi2‘1lfifloo.‘ al.221ual..7hZZ1-.al. 6073121917 0109011009 111 11111 0195721346 0 O O O O O O O O 0 5544455544 58.8.84nwnwAw82 55545.0.6.555 6.2 0.69 4.8 0.5 2.3 0.2 1.8 10.5 4.9 Average 5.6 rou 4 - Saranac Fall dormanc 0557340..|7.9 I O O I O O O 0 5333453544 m:wunswa 0..|.01001000 smamasmaaz 4222341434 4J8.~I..°.3614.J5 O.nu.o.nU.o.nU.0.o.0.nU. 4..l.330.8.°n4flw3 2.|.1..1u220.2.l.2 JIMZSJZSJJZ o.0.0.0.o.0.0.nwnu.o. OHJZZSJAJZANO. .|.¢|.1|.1|1|.20.222 9.1|.—I.34|.0.520.2 mam.B.9.mw.”.9.o.nU.0. 111 c o O n O O o I 4444454444 I I I O I O O 0 5564555555 18 19 20 22 23 26 27 21 24 25 0.3 1.8 0.6 3.5 0.84 6.3 1.6 9.9 4.7 Average 5.2 Grand 0.5 3.9 0.76 4.7 0.2 2.1 1.8 10.1 6.7 average 5.4 Appendix Table XIII. Nutrient concentrations (1987) of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the four-cut system, Experiment 1. 68 Nutrient concentrationggper cutting dgte Variety Cut 1 - 21 May Cut 2 - 1 July Cut 3 - 13 Aug Cut 4 - 30 Oct Mber CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF ............................................ x ------------------------------------------- Fall dormanc! grogg 2 - Vernal 1 22.6 29.6 37.7 23.4 21.8 29.7 20.0 35.9 44.5 19.9 31.6 40.3 2 22.8 32.4 40.2 23.9 21.0 28.9 19.6 34.1 43.4 19.5 33.5 42.5 3 22.2 30.6 38.6 24.1 21.4 29.4 19.5 36.0 45.1 19.4 32.6 41.4 4 22.6 30.6 38.4 23.3 21.2 29.4 19.3 35.8 45.0 19.3 33.5 42.3 5 22.3 32.4 40.2 22.8 22.8 30.7 20.2 34.7 43.6 19.0 34.1 43.2 6 22.2 31.3 39.5 23.5 21.9 29.9 19.4 35.6 44.7 18.9 34.3 43.4 7 Vernal 21.7 33.2 41.5 22.2 22.6 30.7 19.7 34.2 43.1 18.1 36.6 45.7 Average 22.3 31.4 39.4 23.3 21.8 29.8 19.7 35.2 44.2 19.2 33.7 42.7 Fall dormancy group 3 - Ranger 8 22.4 31.0 39.0 24.0 21.5 29.5 20.4 34.4 43.2 19.4 33.0 41.9 9 22.6 30.3 38.2 24.2 20.4 28.4 20.1 33.1 42.2 20.0 31.5 40.4 10 22.6 32.4 40.3 22.9 22.7 31.0 19.6 35.4 44.5 19.0 35.0 44.2 11 22.9 30.2 38.0 24.0 20.9 29.1 19.3 36.6 45.7 19.1 34.3 43.4 12 23.0 29.1 37.3 23.9 20.1 28.5 19.6 35.0 44.1 19.1 34.6 43.5 13 22.3 31.1 39.1 23.9 21.9 29.8 19.8 33.7 42.4 19.6 32.5 41.1 14 21.7 30.8 38.7 24.0 20.5 28.5 20.3 34.2 42.9 19.1 33.8 42.8 15 22.4 31.7 39.4 22.4 23.8 32.0 19.3 35.0 44.1 18.7 35.0 44.0 16 21.9 31.5 39.7 23.1 22.8 30.8 20.4 32.7 41.8 19.6 33.3 42.3 17 22.8 30.2 38.0 23.9 21.4 29.4 19.3 36.5 45.4 19.7 33.5 42.3 Average 22.5 30.8 38.8 23.6 21.6 29.7 19.8 34.7 43.6 19.3 33.7 42.6 Fall dormancx group 4 - Saranac 18 22.6 31.1 38.9 22.8 21.9 30.0 19.8 34.7 43.9 18.9 34.3 43.5 19 22.0 31.5 39.6 23.1 22.8 31.0 19.2 34.8 44.2 18.7 34.4 43.4 20 22.3 31.1 38.8 23.3 20.9 29.3 18.9 35.8 45.0 19.5 32.7 41.4 21 22.2 31.4 39.5 23.5 22.3 30.5 18.1 37.7 47.6 18.5 36.0 45.3 22 22.2 30.5 38.4 23.6 22.1 29.7 19.3 34.1 43.4 19.9 31.6 40.2 23 22.6 30.1 38.0 23.3 20.1 28.0 19.4 34.7 44.1 20.2 31.9 40.4 24 22.2 30.0 38.1 23.4 21.9 29.9 19.1 35.8 45.2 19.0 33.8 42.5 25 22.2 30.3 38.4 22.9 21.8 30.0 19.3 35.8 45.1 18.1 35.7 45.3 26 22.0 32.3 40.4 23.5 22.4 30.2 19.8 33.6 43.0 19.0 34.1 43.0 27 23.1 31.3 39.1 22.9 23.9 31.9 19.6 33.4 42.4 20.1 31.8 40.4 Average 22.3 31.0 38.9 23.2 22.0 30.1 19.3 35.0 44.4 19.2 33.6 42.5 Grand average 22.4 31.0 39.0 23.4 21.8 29.8 19.6 34.9 44.1 19.2 33.7 42.6 69 Appendix Table XIV. Nutrient concentrations (1987) of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of the 27 alfalfa varieties for each cutting in the five- cut system, Experiment 1. Var Cut 1 - 21 May Nutrignt concgptrationgiper cutting date Cut 3 - 4 Aug Cut 2 - 1 July Cut 4 - 1 Sept Cut 5 - 15 Oct no. CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF CP ADF NDF ................................................ % --------------------------------..-.--------- Fall dormancy group 2 - Vernal ‘ 1 22.6 29.6 37.7 23.4 21.8 29.7 19.8 35.2 44.3 27.6 29.9 35.4 25.3 20.3 27.2 2 22.8 32.4 40.2 23.9 21.0 28.9 19.9 34.3 43.5 28.0 28.7 34.2 25.3 20.7 27.7 3 22.2 30.6 38.6 24.1 21.4 29.4 19.3 34.4 43.4 27.2 31.4 37.2 25.1 20.4 27.0 4 22.6 30.6 38.4 23.3 21.2 29.4 19.6 34.1 43.5 27.5 29.9 35.6 25.6 20.3 27.2 5 22.3 32.4 40.2 22.8 22.8 30.7 19.9 35.8 44.8 27.9 29.3 34.9 25.6 20.6 27.6 6 22.2 31.3 39.5 23.5 21.9 29.9 19.4 36.0 45.4 27.1 30.3 36.0 25.2 20.5 27.3 7? 21.7 33.2 41.5 22.2 22.6 30.7 19.1 36.6 45.8 27.3 29.6 35.4 25.8 19.7 26.8 Average 22.3 31.4 39.4 23.3 21.8 29.8 19.6 35.2 44.4 27.5 29.9 35.5 25.4 20.4 27.3 Fall dormgncy group 3 - Ranger 8 22.4 31.0 39.0 24.0 21.5 29.5 19.9 36.5 45.4 27.5 30.2 35.5 25.6 20.9 27.8 9 22.6 30.3 38.2 24.2 20.4 28.4 20.1 32.9 41.6 27.6 29.9 35.4 24.7 21.1 28.2 10 22.6 32.4 40.3 22.9 22.7 31.0 20.2 35.8 44.4 28.0 29.4 34.9 25.4 20.4 27.2 11 22.9 30.2 38.0 24.0 20.9 29.1 19.2 36.1 45.4 27.5 30.5 35.9 26.0 20.4 27.2 12 23.0 29.1 37.3 23.9 20.1 28.5 19.6 35.5 44.8 27.8 28.9 34.4 25.9 20.5 27.5 13 22.3 31.1 39.1 23.9 21.9 29.8 19.7 37.8 46.8 27.5 28.7 34.4 25.0 21.4 28.4 14 21.7 30.8 38.7 24.0 20.5 28.5 19.6 35.9 44.8 27.4 28.7 34.2 24.9 21.5 28.6 15 22.4 31.7 39.4 22.4 23.8 32.0 19.9 34.8 43.8 27.5 29.4 35.0 25.0 21.0 28.1 16 21.9 31.5 39.7 23.1 22.8 30.8 19.0 34.5 43.6 27.3 30.8 36.5 25.1 21.1 28.2 17 22.8 30.2 38.0 23.9 21.4 29.4 19.7 35.1 44.1 28.4 29.3 34.6 25.5 20.7 27.5 Average 22.5 30.8 38.8 23.6 21.6 29.7 19.7 35.5 44.5 27.7 29.6 35.1 25.3 20.9 27.9 Fall dormancy group 4 - Saranac 18 22.6 31.1 38.9 22.8 21.9 30.0 19.8 33.2 42.3 27.8 29.8 35.3 25.6 20.1 27.2 19 22.0 31.5 39.6 23.1 22.8 31.0 19.2 36.9 46.2 26.5 31.5 37.1 25.3 21.1 27.9 20 22.3 31.1 38.8 23.3 20.9 29.3 19.5 34.3 43.3 26.8 30.7 37.1 25.0 21.3 28.2 21 22.2 31.4 39.5 23.5 22.3 30.5 20.1 35.8 44.7 27.0 30.6 36.3 25.3 20.9 27.8 22 22.2 30.5 38.4 23.6 22.1 29.7 18.7 36.2 45.4 26.7 30.7 36.4 24.1 22.9 30.1 23 22.6 30.1 38.0 23.3 20.1 28.0 19.9 35.3 44.3 28.2 29.4 34.6 26.3 20.0 27.0 24 22.2 30.0 38.1 23.4 21.9 29.9 19.3 34.1 43.4 26.8 31.1 37.0 25.1 20.7 27.7 25 22.2 30.3 38.4 22.9 21.8 30.0 19.6 35.8 44.7 27.1 30.0 35.7 24.4 21.4 28.6 26 22.0 32.3 40.4 23.5 22.4 30.2 19.8 33.3 42.2 27.4 31.2 36.8 25.6 20.5 27.4 27 23.1 31.3 39.1 22.9 23.9 31.9 20.3 34.6 43.3 27.1 30.4 36.2 25.2 21.3 28.1 Average 22.3 31.0 38.9 23.2 22.0 30.1 19.6 35.0 44.0 27.1 30.5 36.3 25.2 21.0 28.0 Grand average 22.4 31.0 39.0 23.4 21.8 29.8 19.6 35.2 44.3 27.4 30.0 35.6 25.3 20.8 27.8 fVariety number 7 is Vernal Appendix Table XV. Yields and nutrient concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for each cutting date of alfalfa out three, four, and five times per year in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Cut 5 CP Cut 4 CP Cut 3 CP Cut 2 CP Cut 1 CP Treatment ADF NDF Yield NDF ADF NDF Yield ADF Yield DF Yield ADF NDF Yield ADF l‘ Hg/ha --- X ---- Mg/ha --- X ---- Mg/ha --- X ---- Ng/ha --- x --- Ng/ha --- x ..----- Date of 13 Au ust 10 Jul 3 June last cut OOOOOO OOODOO 000000 000000 mmmNmm M nfinfifi QmeON QNNQQQ NNNNNM ONMM‘ON QMNOSO NNNN OMMmOVO MMMMMN 999999 3%3333 eeeeee QQQQQQ NNNNNN e-u-e-e-u—a- I I I I I I NNNNNN NNNNNN MQQOm NNNNNN I-I-I-I-e-v- I I I I I I 00 0 0 I I I I mmmmmm MMMMMM QQQQQQ tNKNNN PPI-v- OONc-ON I I I I I I QIflQIflIflQ 25 Au ust 10 Jul 3 June 70 000000 OOOOOQ OOOOOO OOOOOO woco~tq FNNF NN MMMMMM OQQQNGD MIDLANOO NNNNMM NQQNNN I I I I I I mQNNOQ NNNNI-F mNOOMP I I I I I I NNNNNN NNNNNN “MMMMM QQQQQQ eeeeea QQQQQ MMMMM NNNNNN QQQQQfl PPI—I-‘I-I— 999959 QQQQQQ menace fi$$3fim 999999 QQQQQQ NNNNNN I-I-I-I-I-I- I I I I I I NNNNNN NNNNNN IDOQQOQ I I I I I I NNNNNN I—I—I-I-I-P I I I I 00 O «3433 Ifllfllfllfllfllfl I I I I I I inmmmu'un MMMMMM isssss NNNNNN 2 Se tember 10 Jul 3 June 4.7 18.3 33.6 44.0 24.5 34.8 5.8 17.4 35.5 46.1 2.9 22.1 2 Sept 13 4 Au ust 1 Se tember 1 Jul 3 June 18.8 24.4 17.6 25.4 1.7 25.6 1.5 23.3 2.6 25.4 25.7 32.1 25.4 25.7 32.1 2.9 2.8 24.0 23.3 32.5 2.8 24.0 23.3 32.5 15 Oct 30 Oct 14 15 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. imes per year in Appendix Table XVI. Yields and nutrient concentrations of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) for each cutting date of alfalfa cut three, four, and five t Cut 5 Yield CP Cut 4 Yield CP Cut 3 Yield CP Cut 2 Yield CP Cut 1 Yield CP Treatment NDF ADF NDF ADF NDF ADF NDF ADF gpr ADF l‘ Ng/ha --- x ---- Hg/ha --- x ---- Hg/ha --- x ---- Ng/ha --- x ---- Mg/ha --- x .--.-.- Date of 17 Au ust 15 Jul 1 June last cut 000000 000000 000000 000000 000070 MNNMM ”999952": FMOOMU‘ NNv-NNN QInONOF 00mN00 NNNNNN QNOmmm FNNNNN FQ0‘OON 000000 MQMQMM MNONNP I I I I I I 000000 NMMMMM ONmOMm I I I I I I mmemm NNNNNN 26 Au ust 15 Jul 1 June 71 000000 000000 000000 000000 Non—cu- OQOOPM NNNNMM mOQU-NO I I I I I I NOOPQN NPNNNN QMMU‘MN NNNNNF QOmmv-Q QmOmmN MMMMMM MPF‘OMN 90¢)me NNNNNN MNOOu-lh I I I I I I 000060 NPFPNP I I I I FNNNNN 2 S tember 21 Jul 1 June 41.4 4.4 20.5 32.1 18.4 28.3 37.3 4.0 19.5 33.7 41.8 2 Sept 6.4 13 17 Au ust 9 Se tember 8 Jul 1 June 15 Oct 30 Oct 14 15 72 Appendix Table XVII. Residual yields of alfalfa for three cuttings in 1989 after two years of the three-, four-, and five-cut systems, Experiment 2. Treatment Date of Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Residual number last cut 14 June 1 Aug 2 Oct Total --------------- Mg ha'1 ------------- Four cuts with the third cut on 15 August 1 15 Sept 3.4 7.7 2 25 Sept 3.4 7.6 3 5 Oct 3.6 8.6 4 15 Oct 4.6 10.3 5 25 Oct 4.8 10.6 6 5 Nov 5.1 10.5 Four cuts with the third cut on 25 Augugt 7 25 Sept 3.9 3 O 1 8 8.7 8 5 Oct 4.2 3 0 1 8 9.1 9 15 Oct 4.2 3 3 2 1 9.6 10 25 Oct 4.6 3 3 2 1 10.0 11 5 Nov 5.0 3 2 2 3 10.4 12 15 Nov 5.0 3.6 2.1 10.7 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 6.2 4.0 2.8 12.9 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 October 14 15 Oct 3.0 2.0 1.3 6.2 15 30 Oct 2.7 1.9 1.1 5.7 Average 9.3 LSD (0.05) 1.43 (0.01) 1.94 73 Appendix Table XVIII. Relative feed value (1987) for each cutting and a weighted average for the four- and five-cut systems, Experiment 1. Ueighted Variety Cutting numbergper cutting systag, averages pamper 11 21 3 of 4 3 of 5 4 of 4 4 of S 5 of 5 4 5 ------------------------------------------ RFVt ----------------------------------'---- Fall dormancy group 2 - Vernal 1 163 228 128 129 149 173 250 161 178 2 148 236 134 133 138 182 244 157 174 3 157 229 126 134 143 161 252 157 176 4 158 230 127 134 138 172 250 158 178 5 148 217 133 127 135 176 246 154 172 6 152 224 128 125 133 169 248 154 172 7 Vernal 142 217 135 123 123 173 256 150 167 Fall dormancyagroup 3 - Ranger 8 155 228 134 124 141 171 243 160 173 9 160 240 140 142 149 173 240 166 182 10 147 216 129 129 130 176 250 151 170 11 160 233 123 125 134 169 251 157 175 12 165 240 130 128 133 180 247 163 182 13 154 226 138 119 144 180 237 163 173 14 156 239 135 128 137 182 235 162 178 15 152 205 130 131 131 176 240 152 171 16 151 216 143 133 139 166 239 157 170 17 160 229 124 130 138 178 247 157 178 Fall dormancyagroup 4 - Sarapaa 18 155 223 132 139 133 173 251 155 177 19 151 214 130 121 133 162 242 153 167 20 155 231 126 134 143 164 239 158 175 21 152 221 117 127 125 167 243 149 170 22 159 225 135 125 149 166 220 162 173 23 160 245 132 129 148 178 253 165 183 24 161 225 128 135 137 163 245 158 176 25 158 225 128 128 127 172 235 154 174 26 147 221 137 139 135 164 248 155 173 27 154 207 139 133 148 168 240 158 172 Average 155 225 131 130 138 172 244 157 174 tFour- and five-cut systems are the same for cuts 1 and 2. tRFV = relative feed value = (DON * DMI)/1.29, DOM digestible dry matter = 88.9 - (0.779 * ADF) DHI dry matter intake = 120/NDF 74 Appendix Table XIX. Relative feed value (RFV) for each cutting in the three-, four-, and five-cut systems and a seasonal weighted average in 1987, the first harvest year, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of Cutting number no. la§t cut 1 2 3 4 5 avg Four cuts with the third cut on 15 August 1 15 Sept 124 187 140 193 0 154 2 25 Sept 124 187 140 172 0 150 3 5 Oct 124 187 140 177 0 151 4 15 Oct 124 187 140 169 0 149 5 25 Oct 124 187 140 163 O 148 6 5 NOV 124 187 140 127 0 140 Four cuts with the third cut on 25 August 7 25 Sept 124 187 132 206 O 151 8 5 Oct 124 187 132 201 O 151 9 15 Oct 124 187 132 200 O 151 10 25 Oct 124 187 132 208 O 152 11 5 Nov 124 187 132 162 0 143 12 15 Nov 124 187 132 160 O 143 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 124 187 133 O O 140 Five cuttings between 1 June and 30 October 14 15 Oct 124 242 203 200 284 188 15 30 Oct 124 242 203 200 275 186 Average 153 LSD (0.05) 3.0 (0.01) 3.9 TRFV = relative feed value = (DDM * DMI)/1.29 DDM DMI digestible dry matter = 88.9 - (0.779 * ADF) dry matter intake = 120/NDF 75 Appendix Table XX. Relative feed value (RFV) for each cutting in the three-, four-, and five—cut systems and a seasonal weighted average in 1988, the second harvest year, Experiment 2. Tmt Date of Cutting number no. last cut 1 2 3 4 5 avg ------------------- RFVT ------------------- Four cut§ with the third cut on 15 August 1 15 Sept 134 182 158 228 O 162 2 25 Sept 140 170 151 216 0 160 3 5 Oct 135 181 153 233 O 165 4 15 Oct 132 173 150 239 0 162 5 25 Oct 147 190 154 217 O 168 6 5 Nov 132 181 154 190 O 157 Four cuts with the third cut on 26 August 7 25 Sept 148 190 157 228 O 169 8 5 Oct 145 180 154 237 0 168 9 15 Oct 138 171 153 259 O 168 10 25 Oct 136 182 146 232 O 161 11 5 Nov 144 185 154 207 O 162 12 15 Nov 145 166 150 192 0 155 Three cuttings between 1 June and 2 September 13 2 Sept 140 167 145 0 0 148 Five cuttin s between 1 June and 30 October 14 15 Oct 156 175 165 240 335 182 15 30 Oct 146 175 160 231 314 176 Average 164 LSD (0.05) 9.4 (0.01) 12.6 fRFV = relative feed value = (DDM * DMI)/1.29 DDM DMI digestible dry matter = 88.9 - (0.779 * ADF) dry matter intake = 120/NDF "741111111llllllli