THESiS

IUIIIHilHHllillllillllllll11ililllllllllllllllllililllilll

31293 01712 9051

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

EVALUATIONS OF ALFALFA, BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL, AND SMOOTH
BROMEGRASS FOR WINTER STOCKPILED FORAGE

presented by

John M. Gingras _

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Crop & Soil Sciences

 

 

\-uyV//4(

/ Major professor

Date [’2//é/;;

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

! LIBRARY

. Michigan State
1 University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 clown-WM“

EVALUATIONS OF ALFALFA, BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL, AND SMOOTH
BROMEGRASS FOR WINTER STOCKPILED FORAGE

By

John M. Gingras

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

1997

ABSTRACT

EVALUATIONS OF ALFALFA, BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL, AND SMOOTH
BROMEGRASS FOR WINTER STOCKPILED F ORAGE

By

John M. Gingras

Fall stockpiling may serve as an alternative to stored feeds for winter use by
ruminants. This study evaluated birdsfoot trefoil, alfalfa, and smooth bromegrass by
stockpiling growth from late August until sampling in early November, December, and
January at three locations. Plots were subjected to three summer cutting treatments at
East Lansing and KBS, and rotational grazing at Lake City. Samples were taken in
early November, early December, and late December in 1994 and 1995 at East Lansing
and Lake City, and in 1995 at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) in Southwest
Michigan. Samples were analyzed for ADP, NDF, and crude protein. In 1994 alfalfa
fall stockpiled DM yields remained nearly unchanged from November through January
in previously unharvested plots, two summer-harvest alfalfa yields decreased by
approximately 75% and one summer-harvest alfalfa yields decreased by 50%. Birdsfoot
trefoil plots showed similar but greater yield decreases during the same period.
Stockpiled forage quality was lowest in summer-unharvested alfalfa at East Lansing in
late December 1994. The highest forage quality was found in November 1 samples of two
summer-harvest alfalfa at East Lansing in 1995. At the Lake City site in 1994 smooth
bromegrass maintained a higher percentage of forage yield and quality longer into winter

than legumes in mixed smooth bromegrass-alfalfa and smooth bromegrass- trefoil plots.

DEDICATION

To my wife Maggie, for her encouragement, love, trust and advice during the
research, classwork, and especially writing of this thesis. She gave up three years of her
beloved farm so we could move to East Lansing and learn more about the mysteries of
farming. She helped me with all aspects of my research from forage sampling to dissuading
me from destroying my computer during times of stress. Finally for creating an
atmosphere of quiet peace and intellectual challenge, for paying the bills, and taking care

of our family, our border collies, Monty , Jess, Beth, and Bolt.

0..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Wally Moline and Dr. Rich Leep for the
opportunity to continue my education in the Masters program at Michigan State
University. Their support, guidance, and confidence in my abilities made my masters
research experience one of the most positive and enjoyable learning times of my life. I am
also grateful to Dr. Wally Moline, Dr. Richard Leep, and Dr. Herbert Bucholtz for
serving on my graduate committee. Thanks also to Dana Barclay and Mike Metzger for
their assistance in this and other related forage research. A special thanks to Ryan Hand
and Susan Krawczyk for helping sort and grind endless forage samples. Grateful thanks
to Brian Graff and Tom Galecka at the MSU Campus Teaching and Reseaerch Farm and
the managers and crews of the Lake City Research Station and the Kellogg Biological
Station Dairy Research Center. And finally to Chapbooks Cafe at Schulers Books in

Okemos for helping me write on the days when I could not write anywhere else.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................... Vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................... viii
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF HYPOTI-IESES ............................................. 13
MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................... 14
RESULTS and DISCUSSION ................................................... 22
EAST LANSING ....................................................................... 22
LAKE CITY ............................................................................... 38
KELLOGG BIOLOGICAL STATION ........................................ 47
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 50
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................. 52
APPENDIX 1 .............................................................................. 56

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

LIST OF TABLES

Total digestible nutrient content (TDN) of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil at three
maturity stages. (Three year average).

Alfalfa dry matter yield in kg/ha for summer harvests and fall samples. East
Lansing. 1994.

Percent Cp, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM of alfalfa plots. East
Lansing. 1994.

Birdsfoot trefoil dry matter yield for summer harvests and fall stockpiled
samples. East Lansing. 1994. Yields in kg/ha.

Alfalfa dry matter yield for summer harvests and fall stockpiled samples.
East Lansing. 1995. Yields in kg/ha.

Percent CP, NDF, ADF, DDM and DDM kg/ha yield of stockpiled alfalfa.
East Lansing. 1995.

Dry matter yield in kg/ha for separated samples from birdsfoot trefoil-
smooth bromegrass and alfalfa-smooth bromegrass pastures for all sample
dates. Lake City. 1994.

Digestible dry matter (DDM) yield in kg/ha for separated samples from
birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass and alfalfa-smooth bromegrass
pastures. Lake City. 1994.

Average percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM for
stockpiled alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot trefoil-smooth
bromegrass paddocks for combined sample dates. Separated samples. Lake
City. 1994.

Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM for stockpiled

vi

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass
paddocks at Lake City. 1994. By sample date. Separated samples.

Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM for stockpiled
alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass
paddocks. Lake City. 1994. Combined samples.

Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM for stockpiled
alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass
paddocks at Lake City, MI - 1994. Combined samples. Combined dates.

Dry matter and DDM yields ( kg/ha), percent crude protein, NDF and
ADF for mechanically summer cut alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil plots.
Combined sample dates. KBS. 1995.

Dry matter and DDM yields (kg/ha), percent crude protein, NDF and
ADF for mechanically summer cut alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil plots. By
sample date. KBS. 1995.

Dry matter and DDM yields (kg/ha), percent crude protein, NDF, and
ADF for mechanically summer cut combined alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil
plots. By sample date. KBS. 1995.

Dry matter and DDM yields (kg/ha), percent crude protein, NDF, and
ADF for grazed alfalfa plots. By sample date. KBS. 1995.

vii

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

LIST OF FIGURES
Distribution of grth for alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and smooth bromegrass
Source: Matches and Burns, 1985.

Field Map. Evaluation of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil for fall-winter stockpiled
forage in Michigan. East Lansing. 1994 & 1995.

Summer harvest and fall sample timetable for East Lansing. 1994 & 1995.

Determination of forage quality of combined samples from component part
tests.

Birdsfoot trefoil yields for summer harvests and fall samples. East Lansing.
1994.

Alfalfa dry matter for fall stockpiled samples at East Lansing. 1994. LSD
.05=580.

viii

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Stockpiling herbage is the practice of allowing forage to accumulate in the field
until it is needed for grazing. (Forage and Grazing Terminology Committee, 1992). With
the expanded use of grazing as a forage management tool the use of stockpiling as a part
of a grazing strategy is likely to increase. Mays and Washko, 1960 said; ”Ifstockpiling
is to assume an important place in the forage management programs of dairy and livestock
farms it must supply total digestible nutrients to livestock as cheaply as they can be
supplied by rotation pasturage supplemented with harvested forage. Furthermore
stockpiled pasturage must be palatable enough to be readily consumed by livestock.”

Previous research on stockpiling concentrated on two main areas: 1) Stockpiling of

 

 

alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.),

birdsfoottfefOil (Lotus Figure 1. Distribution of growth foralfalfa, birdsfoot
. trefoil, and smooth bromegrass. Source: Matches and

comrculatus L.), red clover Burns 1995.

(T nfolium pratense L.) sanfoin mo G'mm’d “M ”m

(Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.)

 

and other legumes for summer

 

use. Some legumes maintained

 

their quality during the summer

 

slump, when the combination of

 

 

 

heat, moisture W055, 0‘ bOth April May June July Aug Sept. Oct Nov

 

”afoot trotol — - Altalta
------- Brennan»

caused decreased growth in

 

 

 

2

many cool season forages (Figure 1). The shortage of forage was filled by stockpiling
early summer growth for use during midsummer. 2) Stockpiling late summer and early fall
growth of grasses for winter use. Tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea L.)was the most
commonly stockpiled grass for winter grazing. This was practiced primarily in the “fescue
belt,” an area from Missouri east and south to the Carolinas where extensive winter
grazing of fescue is common.

Summer stockpiling has concentrated on alfalfa and other legumes because they
have less tendency for summer dormancy in hot weather ( Collins, 1982). Alfalfa and
birdsfoot trefoil have deep tap roots, alfalfa being deeper rooted than birdsfoot trefoil.
Alfalfa was better able to recover from cutting in hot dry weather, perhaps because of
greater root carbohydrate reserves (Cowett and Sprague, 1962).

Birdsfoot trefoil compared very favorably to alfalfa and other legumes because of
its ability to retain high forage quality into later flowering stages (Table 1). Birdsfoot
trefoil both retains high quality leaves on mature growth and continually produces new
high quality shoots from axillary buds as the stems mature (Grant and Marten, 1985).

Table 1. Total digestible nutrient content (TDN) of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil at three
maturity stages (Three-year average).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maturity Stage -
Bud I 10% Bloom I 50% bloom
Species Percent TDN 7
Alfalfa 62.5 I 54.1 I 52.1
Birdsfoot trefoil 65.8 I 58.2 I 62.6
Sourcezflall and Chemey, 1991.

 

 

Mays and Washko, 1960 found birdsfoot trefoil to be suitable for stockpiling until mid-
July under Pennsylvania conditions. Empire birdsfoot trefoil appeared to be superior to
other the other species in the study, ladino clover (Trifolium repens L.), common
orchardgrass (Dactflis glomerata L.), 8-37 orchardgrass, timothy (Phleum pratense L),
and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). By mid July the grass portions of the
trefoil - grass pasture was largely refirsed by cattle and it was suggested that it would be
advisable to harvest it much earlier than birdsfoot trefoil. Because of this, pure stands of
birdsfoot trefoil may be more efl‘ectively managed for summer stockpiling.

Birdsfoot trefoil has been successfully summer stockpiled in clear and binary mixtures in a
number of states by several researchers (C00per, 1973; Taylor, et al., 1973; Marten and
Jordan, 1979; Mays and Washko, 1960).

Research on stockpiling forages for fall and winter use has almost exclusively
involved grasses and researchers concluded that where it was adapted, tall fescue was
superior to other grasses for fall and winter grazing (Wedin et a1, 1970; Bryan et al, 1970;
Vanme 1972; Reynolds, 1975; Templeton et al, 1967). The primary basis for this
conclusion was that tall fescue leaves have a tendency to accumulate soluble
carbohydrates during the fall, making it very palatable to livestock. Tall fescue is also
able to resist frost and continue grth later in the fall than other cool-season grasses.
However much of this research was done in the beef grazing areas of the mid to upper
south from Missouri to North Carolina and may not be relevant for Michigan and the

Great Lakes region.

4

In research done at Michigan State University’s Lake City Experiment Station
and Upper Peninsula Experiment Station most cultivars of endophyte—free tall fescue in
binary plantings with birdsfoot trefoil showed a high refusal rate by grazing beef cattle in
summer but much lower refirsal rate in October (Moline and Leep, 1996).

While no references on field research of legumes stockpiled for fall and winter
use were available, Matches and Burns, 1995 concluded, “Few legumes can be fall
stockpiled mainly because most lose their leaves more easily than grasses either fi'om
disease or maturation in summer or from frost in f ”. In other references on fall and
winter grazing of stockpiled forages, legumes were not mentioned.

No replicated studies on stockpiling grass or legumes in Michigan were found in
doing this literature search. Anecdotal information was available from commercial gazers
successfully utilizing various combinations of grass, legumes and mixed pastures in
Michigan.

Selection of species for forage production in Michigan is not limited by lack of
suitable grasses and legumes adapted to Michigan. There were many available grasses and
legumes alternatives including orchard grass, smooth bromegrass, timothy, perennial
ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. ), tall fescue, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), and reed
canarygrass. Grown throughout Michigan, well adapted legume species are alfalfa, red
clover, white clover, alsike clover (T rifolium hybridum L.), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa
Roth.) and birdsfoot trefoil.

Alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil and smooth bromegrass, were chosen for this experiment

because they embodied some of the most important qualities needed in a pasture forage in

5

Michigan. All were able to persist under grazing conditions in Michigan's climate,
although there were considerable differences in length of persistence, depending on local
climate, management, and soil fertility, pH, and soil drainage (Moline et al., 1991).
Each forage was able to generate acceptable dry matter yields under both preserved or
controlled grazing harvest conditions, ranging in Michigan from 2-5 tons/acre for
birdsfoot trefoil, 2-8 tons/acre for alfalfa, and 2-7 tons/acre for smooth bromegrass
(Christenson et al., 1992). All were also able to continue production through the hot and
sometimes dry Michigan summers, longer than other forage species tested because of
deep root systems. Of the three, alfalfa rates highest in heat and drought tolerance
followed by birdsfoot trefoil and smooth bromegrass.
Birdsfoot Trefoil

Birdsfoot trefoil has been especially successful for early summer-growth
stockpiling. Little was known of stockpiling trefoil for use during the fall or winter.
Birdsfoot trefoil is a day - long legume requiring a 16-18 hours of daylight for flowering
(Grant and Marten, 1985). Day length of less than 16 hours begins in mid- to late summer
depending on latitude. Regrowth from cuttings made when there were less than 16 hours
of sunlight might be of a vegetative nature. Therefore stockpiled birdsfoot trefoil may
have a higher protein and lower fiber content than other forages harvested after
midsummer.

There were several other qualities of birdsfoot trefoil which made it a good subject
for stockpiled forage research. There were no documented cases of frothy bloat among

animals grazing birdsfoot trefoil. In addition, the nutritional quality of birdsfoot trefoil

6

was similar to but slightly superior to alfalfa, under general conditions (Grant and Marten,
1985). Its nutritional quality was also higher than that of smooth bromegrass at similar
maturity dates. It also maintained these important feed qualities in mature grth better
than either alfalfa or bromegrass (Table l).

Birdsfoot trefoil was able to tolerate poorly drained and acidic soils than alfalfa.
It was also generally less susceptible to frost damage. Birdsfoot trefoil was generally a
shorter lived plant than alfalfa on an individual basis. However, unlike alfalfa it can be
managed for natural re-seeding by allowing stands to go to seed at least once every 1 or 2
years. (Grant & Marten, 1985)

According to the Hall and Chemey (1991), birdsfoot trefoil was well adapted to
winter stockpiling. It maintained its leaves at maturity and after frosts, maintained a
relatively high level of forage quality. This was contradictory to the previous noted study
by Matches and Burns in 1995, where legumes were said to be poorly adapted to fall and
winter stockpiling because they tended to lose their leaves during cool weather. F all
stockpiling may also improve winter survival if the forage is allowed to accumulate
carbohydrates during late summer and early fall (Grant and Marten, 1985).

Alfalfa

Michigan farmers harvested an estimated 5 million tons tons of hay in 1995 of
which 4.3 million tons were alfalfa and alfalfa mix hay, ranking eighth in alfalfa hay
production in the US. (Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 1995-1996). Alfalfa hay and
silage were a major component of feeds for dairy cattle, beef cattle, sheep, other

ruminants and other forage eating livestock such as horses. There were no new

7

published statistics on acreage of alfalfa being grazed, but it appeared that an increasing
number of dairy farmers were grazing alfalfa and alfalfa-grass mixtures (Kole, 1992).
When used in grazing systems alfalfa was efl‘ectively used in both clear seeding and mixed
stands. However, in monocultures it may not be as suited to grazing systems as in
conventional stored forage systems because of the danger of frothy bloat (Howar'th,
1988)

Alfalfa produced an average of 40% higher yields than birdsfoot trefoil in pure
stands (Christenson et al., 1992). Because of its yield advantage, alfalfa even with lower
CP and DDM than birdsfoot trefoil, may still provide greater net production of DDM
and protein per hectare than birdsfoot trefoil. Alfalfa has vigorous seedling development
and is generally considered faster and easier to establish in new seedings than is birdsfoot
trefoil (Moline et al., 1991). Alfalfa can be an excellent pasture forage, especially in mixed
alfalfa -grass pastures. Alfalfa was generally more competitive than birdsfoot trefoil in
mixed seedings. In alfalfa-grass. pastures, with 50% grass component, there is
considerably reduced incidence of frothy bloat, though inclusion of grasses may not
totally eliminate this serious and often condition in ruminant livestock (Casler,1988).

Research has produced grazing tolerant alfalfa cultivars with most seed companies
offering grazing varieties. Research to produce less bloating cultivars of alfalfa has
produced strains with lowered incidences of frothy bloat but completely bloat-flee
cultivars still elude researchers (Moutray, 1996). Potato leaf hopper resistant alfalfa
could have significant impact on stockpiling. Alfalfa forage quality can be significantly

lowered by potato leaf hopper damage (Eldin and Elgin, 1989). Timely cutting of alfalfa

8

was found to be an effective technique for nrinirnizing leafhopper damage (Roda and
Landis, 1996) but may not be an option if alfalfa is to left in the field for stockpiled forage.
Smooth Bromegrass

Smooth bromegrass has a number of characteristics that make it widely used for
hay and pasture forage in Michigan. It is very cold tolerant, grown successfully as far
north as Alaska (Irwin, 1945; Laughlin et al., 1945). Smooth bromegrass is well adapted
to many soil types (Rumbaugh et al., 1965). It does best in well drained soils including
dry sandy loams, where its deep and extensive root and rhizome system helps it survive
and be productive. Smooth bromegrass is deeper rooted and less drought prone than
most cool season grasses. It is very winter hardy, has high livestock feed qualities and is
well adapted to M6. Bromegrass was sown for hay, pasture and conservation as early as
the late 1800's in the United States and Canada (Carlson and Newell, 1985 ). Smooth
bromegrass became a more prominent grass species when it was found to be one of the
primary survivors of the 1930's drought period in North America.

Smooth bromegrass can be very productive, yielding similarly to orchardgrass ,
tall fescue, and reed canarygrass. Carlson and Wedirr, 1974, stated that the forage quality
of smooth bromegrass was similar to or better than other cool season grasses. They also
found bromegrass to be free of anti-quality agents such as alkaloids and endophytes which
can reduce animal performance. Research in Iowa, Minnesota, and West Virginia found
smooth bromegrass produced higher average daily gains of cattle and sheep compared to
cultivars of orchardgrass, tall fescue, reed canarygrass, and perennial ryegrass (Wedin et

al., 1970; Marten and Jordan, 1979).

9

Smooth bromegrass was often seeded with legumes for pasture use. Inclusion of
smooth bromegrass reduced the risk of frothy bloat from legumes such as alfalfa and white
clover (Casler, 1988). Smooth bromegrass was characterized by slow regrowth, low
carbohydrate levels, and fewer new tillers if most or all shoot apices were removed during
the stem elongation growth stage. In this reference management for productive stands of
smooth bromegrass was most enhanced by short duration rotational grazing or other
grazing strategies leaving sumcient residual plant material for regrowth.

Smooth bromegrass was least compatible with alfalfa in a high quality hay regime
where frequent severe harvests were likely to occur at the critical stem elongation stage
(Marten and Hovin, 1980). Smooth bromegrass was very compatible with legumes in
pastures (Carlson and Newell, 198 5). Bromegrass was competitive with strong growing
legumes such as alfalfa but not so aggressive as to completely crowd out less competitive
species such as birdsfoot trefoil. In a rotational grazing study at the MSU Lake City
Experiment Station (Barclay et al., 1996) smooth bromegrass was seeded in
approximately 50/ 50 ratio with alfalfa or birdsfoot trefoil. Smooth bromegrass maintained
a 45% stand in the alfalfa and a 40 % stand in the birdsfoot trefoil pastures.

In another study at Lake City 26 cultivars of five species of forage grasses
including smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, timothy, endophyte free tall fescue, perennial
ryegrass, and reed canarygrass were seeded with Noreen birdsfoot trefoil in August 1994,
1995, and 1996 (Moline and Leep, 1996). In this spatially replicated study grass-trefoil
plots were sampled and then grazed approximately every 35-40 days, depending on

regrowth For the 1995 growing season of the 1994 seeding, common and Badger

10

cultivars of smooth brome maintained a mean 55 to 40% grass to trefoil ratio of total plot
yield. (grass & birdsfoot trefoil - percentage totals less than 100 represent plants other
than grass planted or birdsfoot trefoil). This compares to a 79 to 18% ratio for all
orchardgrass , 82 to 14% for tall fescue, 46 to 47% for timothy, and 84 to 14% for
perennial ryegrass cultivars. A wide range of grass to birdsfoot trefoil component ratios
was found among seven orchard grass cultivars. Seasonal yield total for combined Badger
smooth brome-birdsfoot trefoil was 9.32 t/ha compared to 11.0 t/ha for all orchardgrass
cultivars, tall fescue 12.2 t/ha, and perennial ryegrass 9.9 t/ha. Beef cattle grazing the
plots at each sample date were found to prefer smooth bromegrass and timothy cultivars
over other grass species as measured by residue samples following grazing.

Forage Quality:

The variables of plant species, cultivar, and maturity and their interactions make
absolute conclusions of quality difficult (Van Soest, 1982). The addition of interactions
of forage digestion in the rumen firrther complicates the situation. Difi'erent classes of
livestock ( lactating dairy cow, beef cattle, sheep etc.) can react differently to variances in
forage quality. The use of nutrition standards relevant to the livestock being grazed can
reduce the problem of determining the effect of forage quality. The performance of
ruminants relative to the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) acid detergent fiber (ADF) and
crude protein (CP) percentages are well documented in many articles in the literature
Marten et al., 1988; Hesterman et al., 1988; Burns et al., 1991). The exact composition
of the plant is not well defined by these procedures but their relationship to animal

weight gains and lactation is well documented.

11

The NDF percentage is estimated to be the total volume of cell wall components in
the feed (Van Soest et al., 1991). While ruminants are capable of digesting a variable
percentage of cell wall or fiber, the digestibility of a plant as well as the amount of intake
by grazing animals is negatively related to NDF percentage. Because the NDF represents
the more slowly digested and indigestible plant material, higher NDF rates in a forage can
result in gut fills that limit intake and result in less net energy for gain or lactation.

Grasses and legumes vary in the type and quantity of cellulose, a cell wall
component, with grasses generally having a higher cellulose content but also have a higher
percentage of digestibility in their cellulose. Thus a grass having a NDF test the same as a
legume will have a digestibility and energy content equal to or better than a legume
(Burns et al., 1991). Van Soest (1991) found that a sequential NDF-ADF testing would
yield a more accurate representation of the true levels of cellulose and herrricellulose
without the possible interference of pectin .

Another major factor that influences the productive potential of ruminants on
pasture is total non-structural carbohydrates or TNC (Jung et al., 1976 ). This was the
amount of quickly fermentable cell contents and included a wide variety of constituents
including sugars and starches. The amount of TNC in a feed was a good indicator of its
energy content. TNC were also quickly digested, giving the feed a high intake potential
because of increased rate of passage. TNC were good sources of energy for rumen
microbes, which were then able to increase the potential protein available to the ruminant
in the form of microbial protein. This was a low cost form of protein for the animal

because it was fed in the form of a carbohydrate and utilized the rumen to good advantage

12

(Van Soest, 1982 ).

Jung, et al., 1976 in a study in Pennsylvania and West Virginia found that Pennfine
a turf type perennial rye, and a forage type perennial ryegrass (cultivar Norlea) were the
highest in TNC concentrations at all stages of their growth from vegetative to full bloom
when compared to cultivars of timothy, orchard grass, smooth bromegrass), tall fescue,
Kentucky bluegrass, redtop (Agrostis alba L.), and reed canarygrass. They also produced
the highest two year average of TNC per hectare at 50% flower head stage at 934 kg/ha

with Sac smooth bromegrass second at 926 kg/ha.

Statement of Hypotheses

Birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa have shown potential as early summer stockpiled
forages. However late summer, and fall are not typified by normal growing conditions and
difl‘erences in plant physiological maturation were expected. The ability of birdsfoot
trefoil to maintain high quality into mid summer may be based on response to long
daylight and high temperatures, conditions that will not be present when stockpiling for
winter use.

Matua bromegrass (Bromus willdenowii),smooth bromegrass, tall fescue,
orchardgrass, and other grasses have shown potential and usability in stockpiling for fall
and winter use in other states. Research on stockpiling smooth bromegrass in Michigan
was lacking and it was believed to be important to test stockpiled performance in our
climate. The purpose of this study was to provide replicated field evaluations on winter
stockpiling of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis L.) for use in
Michigan.

Therefore:

1). Alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil would differ in yield and quality when stockpiled for winter
use when subjected to difl‘erent summer cutting schemes.

2). Alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and smooth bromegrass in binary mixtures will differ in yield
and quality when stockpiled for winter use when subjected to management intensive

rotational grazing during the previous growth season.

13

METHODS and MATERIALS

East Lansing

Michigan State University Teaching and Research Farm (East Lansing) was the
experimental site for part of this study. Clear stands planted in August 1992 of birdsfoot
trefoil, (cultivar Noreen) and alfalfa, (cultivar Big Ten) were used. The soil type was
Capac loam (fine-loamy mixed mesic Areic Ochraqualfs). Soil samples were taken in early
spring of 1994. Potash fertilizer (0-0-60) was applied at a rate of 114kg/ha in April 1994.
Quackgrass(Elytrig1‘a repens (L) Nevski) was controlled with a spot mix strength of
Fusilade® herbicide. Most of the quackgrass was killed or severely browned by this
treatment. Broadleaf weeds in the birdsfoot trefoil were controlled where possible by
wiping with Roundup® herbicide.

Two main plots 13.7 X 47.6m (one each for birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa) were
marked out within the existing stands (Figure 2). Main plots were further divided into
subplots 13.7 X 11.9m using four replications. Each replication contained three
randomized summer harvest treatments 4.6 X 11.9m (HZ,H 1,HO). Summer treatment
plots were further subdivided into randomized fall/winter harvest sample subplots 4.6 X
4m (S3,S2,Sl).

H2 summer harvests were taken June 14 and August 4, 1994, and June 12 and
August 19, 1995. H1 summer harvests were taken August 4, 1994 and August 19, 1995.

All no-summer (HO) treatments were left unharvested until the fall/winter sampling dates

14

(Figure 3). Each subplot was sampled before harvesting. The 12 samples for each forage

15

resulted in 24 samples for each harvest date. One meter square (m2) quadrat samples

were harvested with hand clippers from all plots. The m2 samples were placed in paper

bags, dried at 150 degrees F for 24-48 hours, weighed and then ground for quality testing.

Cutting treatments were completed the day of sampling using a BCS sickle bar mower.

All summer harvests were representative of hay harvests, taken at 5 cm.

Figure 2. East Lansing. 1994 & 1995. Field Map. Evaluation of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil

for winter stockpiled forage in Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALF ALFA BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL

Block 1 H082 H181 H281 H081 H181 H283
H083 H182 H282 H082 H183 H282
H081 H183 H283 H083 H182 H281
H283 H183 H081 H082 H281 H181

Block 2 H282 H181 H082 H083 H283 H183
H281 H182 H083 H081 HZSZ H182
H083 H282 H182 H181 H282 H081

Block 3 H081 H281 H183 H182 H281 H083
H082 H283 H181 H183 H283 H082
H081 H283 H182 H281 H083 H182

Block 4 H082 H282 H183 H282 H082 H183
H083 HZSl H181 H283 H081 H181

Legend:

H0 = No Summer Harvest 81 = Sampled November 1

H1 = One Summer Harvest (August) 82 = Sampled December 1

H2 = Two Summer Harvest (June & August) 83 = Sampled December 31

 

 

16

Figure 3. East Lansing, 1994 & 1995. Summer harvesting and fall sampling timetable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Harvest or Sample Date

June August Nov. 1 Dec. 1 Dec.3 1
H081 81
H082 82
H083 S3
H181 H1 81
H182 H1 82
H183 H1 83
H281 H H2 81
HZSZ H H2 82
H283 H H2 83
LEGEND: Harvest = H Sample = S

 

1994 - Summer Cuttings and Winter Samples

The first 1994 harvest (June 14, 1994) of alfalfa had to be taken at 1/ 10th bloom stage

due to an exceptionally cool spring. Birdsfoot trefoil was at approximately 1/2 bloom.

Harvested material was then removed from the plots.

August 4, 1994 was the first and only summer harvest for the H1 plots and the

second summer harvest for the H2 plots. All spacial replications of H1 and H2 (24

within each legume for a total of 48 samples) were taken in m2 quadrats to a height of 5

 

17

em using hand shears. Non-legume plant material was separated from the legume
samples. Legurne samples were placed in paper bags, dried, weighed and ground twice in
preparation for forage quality testing. For the August harvest the H2 alfalfa plot were at
1/2 bloom and the H2 birdsfoot trefoil at 1/10 - 1/2 bloom. All H1 plots of both forage
species were in firll bloom and setting seed. In addition, the H0 and H1 alfalfa averaged a
height of 95 cm and suffered fiom lodging. Considerable leaf yellowing and spotting (50-
80%) had occurred in all H0 and H1 alfalfa plots beginning mid-July. The H0 and H1
birdsfoot trefoil plots also showed leaf yellowing and spotting, but to a lesser extent (20-
30%).
1995 - Summer Cuttings and Winter Samples

Sample and harvest procedures for 1995 was identical in form to 1994 with the
following exceptions: 1) No harvesting or sampling was done on the birdsfoot trefoil plots
because a combination of winter kill and red clover infestation left little or no birdsfoot
trefoil in most plots. Summer harvests were done on different dates and at a more
advanced stage of development (1/2 to full bloom ) because wet weather delayed harvests.

Lake City

Lake City Experiment Station facilities were used for evaluation of winter
stockpiled plant material on previously grazed plots of either alfalfa-smooth bromegrass
or birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass. Cultivars of Webfoot alfalfa, Badger smooth
bromegrass and Noreen birdsfoot trefoil were used. The experimental area was seeded in
1992, cut for hay or silage in 1993 and grazed beginning in 1994. Soil type was Nester

sandy loam (fine mixed type Eutoboralfs) The grazing experiment involved 108 Holstein

18

heifer on 18 paddocks covering 29.2 ha (Barclay et al., 1996).

Forage samples were taken on November 1, December 1 and December 30 in
1994 and on October 31 in 1995. The pastures at Lake City had snow and frozen rain in
1995 eliminating the second and third samples.

The pastures had been grazed during the previous spring, summer and early fall by
six Holstein heifers per 3.1ha paddock. All samples were taken fi'om intensively grazed
paddocks, which had been grazed for 3-5 days and rested for 33-45 days. Grazing ended
on the sampling paddocks on September 12 in 1994 and September 28 in 1995. Four
random m2 samples were taken from the same paddocks in 1994 and 1995. Plant material
was cut with hand shears to 5 cm above ground level. Samples were taken to the
laboratory for hand separation into alfalfa, smooth bromegrass and other plants, or
birdsfoot trefoil, smooth bromegrass and other plants. Separated samples of smooth
bromegrass and legumes were dried, weighed, ground and tested for forage quality.

To determine the yield and forage quality of the combined grass-legume samples,
DM weights were combined and the percent of each component calculated. The

percentage was used to calculate the forage quality of the combined sample. (Example in

figure 4).

19

Figure 4. An example of determination of forage quality of combined samples from
component part tests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example: Component Weight % of total %CP Component
Effect
Grass 20 g 40 18 7.2
Legume 30 g 60 14 8.4
Combined 50 g 100 15.6 15.6
Kellogg Biological Station

Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) was used for evaluation of winter stockpiled
alfalfa (cultivar Alfalfagraze) and birdsfoot trefoil (cultivar Noreen) on previously grazed

or mechanically clipped fields. The experimental area was seeded in August 1994 and

grazed beginning in 1995.

Sampling Procedure

Samples were taken from previously mechanically harvested and grazed areas of
the site on the same dates as at East Lansing and Lake City. Forage samples were taken
on November 1, December 1, and December 29 in 1995. Paddocks had been grazed
during the previous spring, summer and early fall by 12 Holstein steers per 3.1 ha
paddock. All samples were taken within paddocks which had been grazed for 3 days and
rested for 33 days. Grazing ended on the sampled areas on August 21 in 1995. Four
random m2 samples were taken from two paddocks.

Plant material in an area directly adjacent to the grazing areas was cut with hand

shears to 5 cm above ground level. Samples were taken to the lab for hand separation of

20

alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil and other plants Separated samples of legumes were dried,

weighed , ground and tested for forage quality.

Laboratory Analysis Procedures

All samples were hand separated, dried, weighed, and ground through a 2mm
screen using a Wiley mill and filrther processed through a 1 mm screen on a UD cyclone
mill (Udy Corp. Ft. Collins CO). Forage quality analysis consisted of : Near infrared
reflectance (Pacific Scientific, #6250 Forage System NIR, Silver Spring, MD) analysis for
sample grouping (Buxton and Mertens, 1991) combined with wet chemistry for
determination of crude protein, sequential neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber
(Van Soest et al., 1991). Crude protein was determined utilizing a Hach micro-Kjeldahl
sulfuric acid , hydrogen peroxide digestion followed by spectrophotometric analysis using
a Hach DR/3000 spectrophotometer (Hach Co., 1988).

Fiber level testing has undergone a number of variations since its origination.
Standardization and improvements recommended by Van Soest et al., 1991 were used in

the forage analysis.

Statistical Analysis:
The experiment was analyzed using SAS statistical software (SAS, 1987).
Analysis of variance(AN OVA) for all sites was performed for DM yield, percent CP,
ADF, NDF, and DDM yield. DDM yield was determined by multiplying DM yield by

percent DDM, which was calculated using the formula: % DDM: 88.9—(0.779 x %ADF).

21

Means were separated by Fischer’s protected least significance difference (LSD) at the 5
or 1% level of significance. Combined year analysis was not performed.

East Lansing: The statistical design was a randomized complete block, split plot
design with three factors and four replications (SAS, 1987). Main plots were legume
(alfalfa or birdsfoot trefoil), sub-plots were summer harvests (0,1 or 2 cuttings), with three
winter sample dates (November 1, December 1, and December 31).

Lake City: Experimental design was a randomized complete block with two
treatments and four replications (SAS, 1987). The main treatments were legume-grass
mixture components. These were alfalfa, smooth bromegrass growing with alfalfa,
birdsfoot trefoil and smooth bromegrass growing with birdsfoot trefoil. The sub-plots
were winter sampling dates, November 1, December 1, and December 31. Combined
analysis was a mathematical treatment of mixtures representing alfalfa+smooth
bromegrass and birdsfoot trefoil+smooth bromegrass.

Kellogg Biological Station: A hay harvest area and grazed pastures were both
used to evaluate winter stockpiled alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil. For the alfalfa and
birdsfoot trefoil stockpiled sample following hay harvest the analysis was a randomized
complete block with two main treatments, three sampling dates using four replications
(SAS, 1987). The nrain treatments were legume species (birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa) and
winter sampling date (November 1, December 1, and December 31). For the grazed
alfalfa pastures that were stockpiled, samples were taken November 1, December 1, and

December31.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The objective of stockpiling is to provide forage to livestock at times when plant
production is minimal. Two factors are believed to be most important for successful
stockpiling :

(1) Regrowth following late summer or early fall cutting or grazing in order to supply
stockpiled forage in early November. (In this study, the usage period was November 1
through December 31, of 1994 and 1995.)
(2) Forage quality at the beginning of usage period better than needed for the livestock
class to which it is offered because forage quality generally declined over the grazing
period.

East Lansing

For both birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa, all no summer harvest treatments (HO-
Sl,2,3), winter stockpiled DM totals were significantly greater at P<.05 than for any of
the treatments that were previously summer harvested (HZ and H1)(Table 2 & Table 4).
However, in general, forage quality of stockpiled plant material in the H0 treatment was
lower than in the summer harvested treatments (Table 3).

1994 Harvest Year
Alfalfa: DM Production
For alfalfa in the H0 plots the stockpiled dry matter was significantly (P< .05)
higher on November 1, 1994 (2104 kg/ha) then on December 1,1994 (1946 kg/ha) or

December 31,1994 (1770 kg/haXTable 2 ).

22

23

Table 2. East Lansing. 1994. Alfalfa dry matter yield (kg/ha) for summer harvests and fall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

samples.
Prior Summer Stockpile Sample Winter Mean 1994
Treatment Harvest Stock Winter Total
pile Stockpile Yield
6-14 8-3 11-1 12-1 12-31 Total Total (H+S)
81 82 83
NO 2104 2104a 2104
SUMMER
HARVEST 1946 1946 ab 1940 a 1946
H0
1770 1770 ab 1770
ONE 1925 980 980 c 2905
SUMMER
HARVEST 1918 676 676 ed 714 b 2594
H1
2000 486 486 cd 2486
TWO 3545 2152 810 810 cd 6507
SUMMER
HARVEST 2872 1362 465 464 ed 517 b 4699
H2
2927 1560 276 276 d 4633
Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not significantly
different at P<.05.

 

 

The relative loss of harvestable dry matter between the November 1 sampling date and
the December 31 sampling date was lower for alfalfa in the H0 plots than for the H1 and
H2 plots (high durability of yield). The durability of yield is defined as percent of
harvestable DM present in the plot on Dec. 31(83) relative to the amount present on
Nov. 1(81): Durability of Yle1d= (83/81x100). However all of the alfalfa plants in the H0
plots were leafless with woody stems and branches on the November 1 sampling date and

changed little in dry matter (Table 2) and forage quality (Table 3) between November 1

24

and December 31, 1994.

Alfalfa with one-summer harvest (Hl) plots had a greater total yield in 1994 than
the no-summer harvest H0 plots, due primarily to the additions from one extra harvest.
The H1 fall-winter stockpiled DM was significantly less than the H0 stockpiled DM
(P<.05). This was expected because with no summer harvests in the H0 plots all of the
summer and fall growth (less any losses due to leaf drop, animal or insect harvest, or
disease) was available as fall stockpiled DM yield.

Figure 5. East Lansing. 1994. Alfalfa dry matter yields (kg/ha) for summer harvests and
winter stockpiled samples. L8D@ .05=580.

 

 

 

.HO.H1[[DH2

 

 

3500 m

 

3114

 

3000 n
2104

 

 

2500 4 1770

.1047

 

 

‘5' 2000 — ”0,1

 

31500 ‘ poo
rooo — ' m m 486

\\\\\

408

500‘ 21s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 r "it "'1 ".1 4']
Juna‘lOAug.18 Nov.1 Dac.1 Dec.31
Sample date

 

 

Alfalfa in the two summer harvest plots (HZ), had a greater total yield in 1994 than the
the H1 and H0 plots primarily due to the second summer harvest (Table 2, Figure 5). In

summer-only yields it produced an average of 2403 kg/ha for each of two harvests, while

25

the H1 treatments averaged 1947 kg/ha for the only summer harvest. This may be due to
the loss of leaf material from disease and maturity in the H1 plots, and slow plant grth
in the H1 plots from early July to the August 3 harvest. The exceptionally wet June and
July weather (Appendix 1) may have both promoted rapid regrowth in the H2 plots after
the June 14 harvest and accelerated disease in the H0 and H1 plots. Alfalfa plants in the
H0 and H1 plots suffered lodging, fimgal and bacterial leaf disease, and potato leaf hopper
damage during late June and July.

In 1994 the stockpiled standing alfalfa was significantly (P<.05) greater in the H1
plots (980 kg/ha) for the November 1 harvest than for the H2 plots (828 kg/haXFigure 5).
This was a difference of 152 kg/ha, with H1 alfalfa plots yielding 118 % of the H2 plots.
On Dec. 1, 1994 the stockpiled DM in the H1 and H2 treatment plots dropped to 676
kg/ha and 465 kg/ha, respectively, with the H1 alfalfa yielding 145% of the H2 treatment
alfalfa. On Dec. 31,1994 stockpiled DM in the H1 and HZ treatment plots lmd dropped to
486 kg/ha and 276 kg/ha, respectively, with alfalfa in the H1 plots yielding 176 % of
alfalfa in the H2 plots.

No summer harvest alfalfa (HO) supplied the highest quantity of stockpiled dry
matter in 1994. Unharvested during the growing season, by Nov.l the plants had a woody
appearance and virtually no leaves. HO plants had some basal sheets that began growing

in late summer and early fall.

Z6
Alfalfa Forage Quality
The two-summer harvest HZ plots had higher overall forage quality on each fall sample
dates than did the H1 treatment (Table 3). The difl‘erenees in the interaction of summer
harvest and fall sample date between H2 and H1 were not significant for all quality
parameters. The H2 plot DDM yields dropped by a greater percentage than the H1 plots
between November] and December 31,1994. This is due to the H2 alfalfa plants

increasing in ADF and thus a lower DDM percentage.

Table 3. East Lansing. 1994. Alfalfa percent CP, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM.

 

 

SUMMER Fall Percent Percent Percent Percent Kg DDM

HARVEST Sample CP ADF NDF DDM per
Date Ha

NO Nov.l 10.9 de 55.4 gh 74.0 ghi 45.8a 796 ed

 

SUMMER Dec.l 12.1 ed 59.3 11 79.7 gh 42.7a 1122 ab
HARVEST Dec.3] 10.2

 

c 59.8 h 80.2 i 42.421 749 ads

 

Nov.1 17.3 ab 34.3 b 46.7 c 62.2a 609 def

 

ONE

SUMMER
HARVEST Dec.3] 11.3 de 53.8fg 71.4 gh 47.0a 228 gh

Dec.1 12.4 ed 47.3 de 64.6 ef 52.03 352 fgh

 

 

TWO Nov.l 19.0 a 31.2 be 47.1 c 64.63 535 efg

 

SUMMER Dec.l 13.1 c 47.0 de 64.0 of 52.381 213 ghi
HARVEST Dec.31 12.6 cd 50.3 of 68.7 fg 49.7a 116 hi
LSD @05 1.75 4.5 6.1 285
CV % 8.9 7.4 7.3 45.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not
significantly different at P<.05.

 

 

 

27

Figure 6. East Lansing. 1994. Winter stockpiled DDM yield (kg/ha) for alfalfa. By Summer
harvest treatment.

 

DDM Yield (kg/ha)

 

1200f”

 

1000 r

800 —

600 r

400 ‘

 

200 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nov.1 Doc.1 Dec.31 D H2

 

The H0 treatment had the lowest measured quality for all factors except kg/ha of
DDM, where the amount of dry matter balanced out the low quality. In 1994 the H1 and
H2 treatments were very similar in all quality. The two summer harvest (HZ) plots were
slightly higher in percent CP on November 1 and December 1 and slightly lower on
December 31.

Even though the percent DDM was not significantly different for the H1 and H2
alfalfa plots for all harvests, the yield of digestible dry matter in the H2 treatment was less due
to greater yield loss between November 1 and December 31, 1994.(Table 3, Figure 6)

Overall, in 1994, the H2 alfalfa plots supplied the higher forage quality than H0 or H1

plots over the fall sampling period. The H1 plants were only slightly lower in forage quality

28

and maintained a greateramount ofplant material through the November 1 to December 31,
1994 period. The HO alfalfa treatments supplied the highest quantity of DDM over the fall
sampling period. The H0 plots changed vay little in forage quality, but with a DDM of 42.4
to 45.8 percent the digestibility might be too low for many classes of livestock, especially

if used as the only feed (Blaser, 1986).

Birdsfoot Trefoil: DM Production

August 3 birdsfoot trefoil harvest yield for H1 plots averaged 627 kg/ha. This is
slightly less than the 586 kg/ha yield on the H2 plots that were previously harvested on 6-14-
94. The combined average birdsfoot trefoil summer yield for the H2 plots was 3943 kg/ha or
approximately 5.6 times that of the total summer H1 yield of 627 kg/ha. The average single
cutting yield for the H2 plots at 1971 kg/ha was significantly higher than the H1 yield of 627
kg/ha.

For birdsfoot trefoil all of the no surmner harvested (HO, 81,2,3), plots fall DM totals
were significantly greater than for any of the treatments that were summer harvested (HZ,
H1). This is however, the only annual DM production and was of considerably lower forage
quality than any of the summer harvested plots (Table 4 and Figure 5).

H0 birdsfoot trefoil had a significantly higher Nov.1 yield than alfalfa. H0 alfalfa
plots maintained nearly the same amount of standing vegetation throughout the Nov.1 to
Dec.31 period and had greater DM production for the Dec] and Dec.3] harvest than

birdsfoot trefoil plots. Available birdsfoot trefoil DM dropped sharply during the same

29

period. H0 birdsfoot trefoil plots were of higher original forage quality, less lignified than
the alfalfa, and suffered more breakdown during the warm, wet fall of 1994 than the

stockpiled alfalfa.

Table 4. East Lansing. 1994. Birdsfoot trefoil dry matter yield for surrrrner harvests and
fall stockpiled samples. Yields in kg/ha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRIOR SUMMER SAMPLE DATE STOCK MEAN 1994
TREAT HARVEST PILE STOCK TOTAL
MENT TOTAL PILE YIELD
6-14 8-3 11-1 12-1 12-31 (31 2 3)
(SI) (52) (S3) ’ ’

N0 2334 2334 ab 2334 a
SUMMER L—
010) 1073 1073 d 1073 a
ONE 692 211 211 gh 903a
SUMMER ‘—
0‘") 620 76 76 h 696 a
Two 3348 583 179 179 gh 4110 3
SUMMER —‘
(Hz) 2718 585 51 51 h 3354 a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not significantly
different at P<.05.

 

 

 

30

Figure 7. East Lansing 1994. Birdsfoot trefoil dry matter yields (kg/ha) for summer harvests
and winter stockpiled samples. L8D@.05=580

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 1141
moo/m .W
2:34 1+2
2500.../. toss
ZOOOn/I
a 1073
$1500n/
I
1000—K m
sac
4 ' ~‘~ m .
.' . gas .391
0 l l ‘ l ‘ 1 ‘ r
Juna14Aug.3 Nov.1 Dac.1 Jan.1
Harvest Data

 

 

 

Birdsfoot trefoil regrowth was slow in both the H1 and H2 plots after the August 3
harvests. Regrowth of birdsfoot trefoil was highest in early October and then reduced to a
dense green but very low growing rosette by Nov.1 sample date. The H1 birdsfoot trefoil
plotshad stockpiledyieldsof 211kg/haonNov.1, 107 kg/ha on Dec], and 76 kg/ha on 12-
3-1994 respectively.

Thetwo surmnerharvesta-IZ)hadasimilarsignificantefl‘ect onthe stockpiled DM for
the first fall harvest on Nov.1 and showed a decline in stockpiled material similar to alfalfa
during the paiod fiom Nov.1 through Dec.3 1. The H2 plots stockpiled plant material yield
averaged 179 kg/ba on Nov.1, 33 kg/ha on Dec. 1, and 51 Kg/ha on Dec.3],1994.

However, since the yields were so small for all of the treatments on all of the fall dates and

31

were so short as to be not harvestable, the percentage differences are not very meaningfirl in

terms of differences in available, useable forage.

1995 Harvest Year

Alfalfa: DM Production

The 1994 alfalfa plot sampling procedure was continued in 1995. Summer 1995
weather was dryer and warmer in than in 1994 (W eather-Appendix 1). Fall weather
was very different 1111995 than in 1994: In 1994 there was extended fall growth / non-
dormant period that extended through mid December. A hard fi'eeze in early
November, 1995 ended all above ground growth in the alfalfa plants. This fi'eeze
immediately preceded the first fall harvest on Nov.5, 1995. The plants were not only
frozen but seemed desiccated as well. The alfalfa leaves and stems remained a dark
great for approximately one month following the November 4 freeze then gradually
turned part yellow. The alfalfa leaves did not turn brown nor did they develop the leaf
blotches as they had in 1994. Standing dry matter decreased through the fall
sampling period in all summer-cut treatments but showed much smaller kg/ha
decreases between sample dates in 1995 than in 1994. In the alfalfa H1 plots the
standing DM decreased from a high of 960 kg/ha on Nov. 1,1995 to 895 kg/ha on
Dec.3], 1995, a decline of 7% of the Nov. 1,1995 DM, compared to a decline of
50% in the same plots in 1994.

The 1994 alfalfa HZ had a significantly higher decrease in standing DM than the

32

alfalfa H1 in 1995. The standing dry matter was 935 kg/ha for the Nov. 1,1995 fall sample
date and ended with 705 kg/ha on Dec.3 1,1995. The standing DM in the alfalfa HZ plots
in 1995 decreased by an average of 24% compared to a decrease of 73% for the during the
same period in 1994 HZ alfalfa.

In 1995 H0 alfalfa averaged a standing dry matter of 23 89 kg/ha on Nov.1 declining
to 1815 kg/ha standing dry matter by Dec.3l,l995, a decrease of 24%. During the same

period in 1994 the alfalfa H0 plots showed no decrease in standing dry matter.

Table 5. East Lansing. 1995. Alfalfa dry matter yield (kg/ha)for summer harvests and
winter samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Summer Stockpile Sample Stockpile Mean 1995
Treatment Harvest Total StOCkPile Total
(51,233) Yield
6-12 8-18 11-1 12-1 12-31
81 82 S3
23 89 2389 a 23 89
No
Summer 2309 2309 a 2037 a 2309
Harvest
(HO) 1815 1815a 1815
One 2304 960 960 a 3264
Summer
Harvest 2249 905 905 a 923 b 3154
(HI
2299 895 895 a 3194
Two 2370 1825 935 935 a 5130
Summer
Harvest 2373 1818 780 780 a 806 b 4976
(HZ) 2855 1919 705 705 a 5479
Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not significantly
different at P<.05.

 

 

33

In 1995 the two summer harvest (HZ), summer—only yields were lower on a per-
harvest basis but higher on a total yield basis than one summer harvest alfalfa (Hl). In
summer-only yields HZ alfalfa produced an average of 2194 kg/ha for each of two harvests,
and a total summer yield of 43 88 kg/ha. The H1 alfalfa averaged 2284 kg/ha for the only
harvest. Therewasalossoflwfmaterialfiomdiseaseandnmturity inthe and very little plant
growth in the Hlalfalfa fiom early July to the August 18 harvest. The late June, July, and
August weather was drier than in 1994. Alfalfa plants in the H0 and H1 plots suffered less
lodging, filngal, bacterial growth, and potato leaf hopper damage during late June and July
and early August than in 1994.

For 1995 the there were significant differences in total yield between the H0, H1 and
H2 treatments as would be expected with the great difl'erences in type of treatment, but the
weight differences as well as percentage differences were reduced when compared to 1994.

The pattern of alfalfa forage quality at East Lansing in 1995 was very difl‘erent than
in the same plots in 1994. This was reflected in the effect of the summer cutting treatments
on forage quality for the fall sampling dates (Table 6). In 1995 the alfalfa in the no summer
harvest (HO) plots was higher in crude protein, lower in ADF and NDF, and higher in percent
DDM for the Nov. 1-1995 sample than for the same treatment on the same date in 1994.
The average crude protein of the alfalfa H0 treatment plots dropped significantly fiom 12.1%
on Nov.1-1995 to 8.3% on Deal-1995 and 6.9% by the 12-31-1995 sample date. In 1994
alfalfa H0 plots showed no significant difi‘erences in percent crude protein between the
sampling dates. This may be the result of alfalfa in the HO plots being less lignified at the

beginning of fall sampling period: the ADF percentage was 46.3 in 1995 for the H0

34

treatments on the Nov.1 sampling date, compared to 55.4 for the same sampling date in 1994.

Table 6. East Lansing 1995. Percent CP, NDF, ADF, DDM and kg/ha DDM Of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stockpiled alfalfa.

SUMMER Fall Sample Percent Percent Percent Percent Kg DDM

HARVEST Date Crude ADF NDF DDM per
Protein Ha

NO 11-1-95 (81) 12.1 d 46.3 f 62.3 d 52.8 f 653 a

SUMMER

HARVEST 12-1-95 (52) 8.3 e 59.5 g 79.9 e 42.6 g 983 a

(HO) 12-31-95(S3) 6.9 e 59.4 g 79.8 e 42.6 g 773 3

ONE 11-1-95 (81) 25.9 abc 15.7 ab 23.2 a 76.6 ab 735 3

SUMMER

HARVEST 12-1-95 (82) 24.5 c 18.5 be 29.0 b 74.6 be 674 3

(H1) 12-31-95(S3) 27.5 a 23.0 e 37.3 c 70.9 e 635 3

TWO 11-1-95 (81) 25.3 be 13.8 a 20.7 a 78.2 a 731 3

SUMMER

HARVEST 12-1-95 (82) 25.8 abc 19.6 cd 30.5 b 73.6 ed 574 3

(H2) 12-31-95(S3) 26.5 ab 22.8 de 37.9 c 71.1 de 501 a

Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not significantly

different at P<.05.

 

 

Alfalfa H0 treatments showed a significant increase in NDF and ADF levels between
the Nov. 1,1995 and Dec.1,1995 samples but no significant fiber level differences between
the Dec] and Dec.3] samples of 1995. The H1 alfalfa showed a significant increase in
percent ADF and percent NDF between Nov. 1, the Dec. 1, and the Dec. 31 sample dates.

NDF levels were below optimum nrminant levels (Blaser, 1986) for most classes of livestock

35

at 23% on the Nov.1 sample date increasing to 29% by Dec. 1, and a near optimum 37% by
Dec.31.1995. H1 alfalfa ADF levels showed a very similar curve for the same time period.

There were no significant differences between the H1 and H2 plots for all harvest
dates for NDF, ADF, crude protein, and percent DDM. In the only significant difi‘erences
between the H1 and H2 plots, H1 plots were higher in kg/ha DDM means for all fall sample
dates and for sampling date by summer harvest interactions. As they did in 1994, in 1995 the
H1 plots showed an ability to maintain the forage yield over the Nov.1 to Dec.3] period
better than the H2 plots. This, rather than differences in forage quality, was the factor that
gave the H1 plots a higher DDM yield.

Again, as in 1994, both the H1 and H2 plots were significantly higher in forage quality
than the H0 plots for all sample dates. Overall in 1995 the forage quality of all summer
harvest treatments (HO, H1, and H2) were much higher than in 1994 for all fall sample dates
and for. means of all fall sample dates. The forage quality of the H1 and HZ plots was
extremely high: the DDM for all fall sample dates did not drop below 70 percent.

Because of the loss of the birdsfoot trefoil stand at East Lansing there was no yield
data for birdsfoot trefoil in 1995. The only plots that had plants remaining in each replication
in 1995 were the 1994 H0 treatment. This was surprising, since research has shown that
suMer stockpiling can lead to stand losses fiom diseases. (Beuselink, 1984). The H0
treatments would be catalogued as a form of summer stockpiling since they are unharvested
during the early summer as are traditional summer stockpiled forages. In this case it appears
that the possrble disease problems of leaving birdsfoot trefoil standing throughout the warm

humid summer months was less damaging than the quick regrowth volunteer red clover in

 

36

the plots. The red clover plants virtually covered the H1 and H2 birdsfoot trefoil plants afier
the June and August cuttings.

Weather conditions affected the summer and fall growth, dormancy, and forage
quality greatly during this experiment. Weather differences between 1994 and 1995 were
those of fall temperatures, rainfall, and time of first killing frost. A number of other weather
factors can affect fall growth and dormancy but minimum temperatures, rainfall, and mean

temperatures are among the most important (Turner and Begg, 1978. Wilson, 1981).

Weather

The mean temperatures in September, October, November, and December was higher
than normal in 1994 and much higher then normal in 1995 (MDA, 1994&1995) (Data-
Appendix 1). The first killing frost in 1994 was much later than normal and, depending on
location, was not until mid December. Even when temperatures were low enough to be
considered killing in 1994, some combination of weather or plant physiology combined to
keep plants from dying and/or going dormant. In 1995 after a short but very warm and humid
summer, September was cool and dry. During October temperatures dropped to a low of
9° F on November 4 at East Lansing. This ended all growth. Similar temperatures at KBS
and Lake City appeared to have had the same effect.

In 1994 when the weather allowed the plants to remain green and growing, the forage
on the plants suffered from a slow but definite decay while in 1995 the very quick and cold
snap in early November seemed to have the effect of preserving the plant material especially

the alfalfa in a green desiccated state. In effect it had the appearance of a high quality hay. As

37

will be obvious in the comparison of results, this “freeze dried” alfalfa acted very much like
it had been made into hay maintaining a high percentage of its DM and quality evident on
Nov.1, 1995 through Jan. 1,1996.

In testing at Michigan State University (Allen and Oba, 1996) found there was a poor
relation ship between NDF and ligrrin levels in fourth cutting alfalfa. Lignin is the major
corrrponent of fiber that limits digestion (Jung and Allen 1995). This may mean that grazers
will need to test stockpiled forages for ligrrin levels when using stockpiled alfalfa for classes

of livestock particularly sensitive to fiber digestibility levels such as dairy cattle.

Lake City

1994

Dry matter yield and forage quality at the Lake City Experiment Station at Lake City,
Michigan were statistically analyzed separately from those at East Lansing and KBS. The
summer treatments for all of the paddocks( plots) sampled had previously been under
management intensive rotatiorml grazing from May 10 until September 12 in 1994. In 1995
the same gazing treatments were again applied and paddocks were grazed from May 16 until
October 12, 1995. Early snowfalls in 1995 covered the experimental area with approximately
60cm of snow and frozen rain making sampling impossrble for the second and third samples
planned for Dec] and Dec. 31 in 1995.

Separated Samples

The samples of binary plantings of birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass or alfalfa-
smooth bromegrass were hand separated into legume, smooth bromegrass and other plant
fi'actions and dried, weighed, and ground forage quality testing. There were four components
of the separated samples from the Lake City pastures:

1) Alfalfa from alfalfa -smooth bromegass pasture.

2) Smooth bromegrass fiom alfalfa-smooth bromegrass pasture.

3) Birdsfoot trefoil from the birdsfoot trefoil- smooth bromegass pasture.

4) Smooth bromegrass from birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass pasture.

For the main treatment, plant component, each of the average dry matter yields, were
sigrificantly different at P<.01 (Table 7). Smooth bromegrass growing with birdsfoot trefoil

was the highest yielding component for all sample dates and for the average yield. Plant

38

39

component yield by sampling date interactions were not significantly different.

Table 7. Lake City. 1994. Dry matter yield (kg/ha) for separated samples fi'om birdsfoot
trefoil-smooth bromegrass and alfalfa-smooth bromegrass pastures for all sample dates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component Average Sample Date Durability of
Yield Yield
11-1 (81) 12-1 (82) 12-31 (83) (511/51le
Alfalfa
570b 718 a 556a 435 a 61%
Smooth Brome
(growingwith 319c 5153 251a 190a 36%
alfalfa)
Birdsfoot Trefoil
160 d 270 a 108 a 104 a 38%
Smooth Brome
(gowing with 784 a 808 a 808 a 746 a 92%
birdsfoot trefoil)
LSD @05 116.4 NS NS NS Not Calculated
CV % 30.6 NA
Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not significantly diflerent
at P<.05.

 

 

 

The ability to hold or increase the available dry matter over the winter sample period
(Nov. 1 to Dec. 31) is defined here as durability of yield ((S3/Sl)x100). Smooth bromegrass
growing with birdsfoot trefoil (trefoil smooth bromegrass) had the highest percentage of
durability of yield. Alfalfa was close in yield to trefoil smooth bromegrass on the November
1 sample date but because of the difl‘erence in the durability of yield alfalfa ofl‘ered much

lower available dry matter by December 31, 1994. The durability of yield for smooth

40

bromegrass growing with birdsfoot trefoil (trefoil smooth bromegrass) was highest at 92
percent, higher than all other components, alfalfa at 61 percent, was higher than both
birdsfoot trefoil and smooth bromegrass growing with alfalfa (alfalfa smooth bromegrass).

It might be expected that trefoil smooth bromegrass would compare less favorably
to alfalfa in this measurement since normally smooth bromegrass has a lower forage quality
(higher %ADF) than either alfalfa or birdsfoot trefoil.

During this sampling period however trefoil smooth bromegrass ADF percentage
declined and consequently DDM percentage increased (Table 10). This was the only instance
of increasing forage quality over the sample period at any of the three sites. Trefoil smooth
bromegrass had the highest average DDM yield, the highest DDM yield for each sampling
date, and higher durability of yield of DDM than any other plant component. Durability of
DDM yield for alfalfa smooth bromegrass was similar to alfalfa, with both higher than
birdsfoot trefoil (Table 8).

Significant differences in forage quality were found between averages of all winter
sample dates for alfalfa , smooth bromegrass growing with alfalfa (alfalfa bromegass),
birdsfoot trefoil, and smooth bromegrass growing with birdsfoot trefoil (birdsfoot
bromegrass). Alfalfa had the highest level of CP, then birdsfoot trefoil, alfalfa bromegrass
and birdsfoot bromegrass lowest (Table 9). In level of CP alfalfa bromegrass was
significantly higher than birdsfoot bromegrass and in levels of ADF and NDF alfalfa
bromegrass was sigrificantly lower than birdsfoot bromegrass. Birdsfoot trefoil had

significantly lower levels of ADF and NDF than alfalfa.

41

Table 8. Lake City 1994. Digestible dry matter (DDM) yield (kg/ha) for separated
samples from birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass and alfalfa-smooth bromegrass
pastures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component Average Sample Date Durability of
Yield Yield
11-1(Sl) 12-1 (82) 12-31 (83) (33/51)x100
Alfalfa
386b 514a 382a 262a 51%b
Smooth Brome
(BTW/1118 With 222 c 369 a 172 a 125 a 56% b
alfalfa)
Birdsfoot Trefoil
117d 201 a 74a 76a 38%c
Smooth Brome
(growing With 511 a 555 a 478 a 478 a 86% a
birdsfoot trefoil)
CV % 30.6 NA

 

 

 

Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not sigrificantly
difl‘erent at P<.05.

 

 

 

42

Table 9. Lake City. 1994. Average percent CP, NDF, ADF, DDM and DDM yield
(kg/ha) for separated samples from stockpiled alfalfa-smooth bromegass and birdsfoot
trefoil-smooth bromegrass paddocks. Combined sample dates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Component Percent CP Percent ADF Percent NDF
Alfalfa 22.3 a 28.0 be 43.6 b
Smooth Bromegrass w alfalfa‘ 16.9 c 25.8 b 50.1 c
Birdsfoot Trefoil 20.9 b 22.0 a 34.6 a
Smooth Bromegrass w trefoil 2 14.8 d 30.6 ed 56.0 d
LSD @ .05 1.2 3.2 3.9

CV % 8.2 14.3 10.3

 

different at P<.05.

Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not sigrificantly

 

 

1Smooth bromegrass from alfalfa+ smooth bromegass pasture.
2Smooth bromegrass fi'om birdsfoot trefoil+ smooth bromegrass pasture.

 

Forage quality interactions between winter sample date and forage component were
sigrifieant differences for levels of ADF, NDF and DDM but not for levels of CP (Table 10).
For the first winter sample date on Nov. 1,1995 birdsfoot trefoil had the lowest ADF and
NDF levels but was not sigrificantly lower than alfalfa Both birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa ADF
and NDF levels were sigrificarrtly lower than either alfalfa bromeg'ass or trefoil bromegrass.
For alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil bromegrass, and birdsfoot trefoil fiber levels were lowest on the
first sample date and increased during the sampling period and were highest on the third
sample date. Alfalfa bromegass did not follow this pattern; NDF levels for alfalfa bromeg'ass

followed the pattern and increased during the sample period but ADF levels decreased during

the sample period and were lowest for the final sample date.

 

43

Table 10. Lake City 1994. Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and DDM yield
(kg/ha) for separated samples from stockpiled alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot
trefoil-smooth bromegrass paddocks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Fall Percent Percent Percent Percent Kg DDM
Component Sample Crude ADF NDF DDM per
Date Protein Ha
Alfalfa 11-1-94 22.6 22.3 ab 34.3 ab 71.5 ab 513 a
12-1-94 23.1 26.2 be 42.3 be 68.5 be 381 a
12-3194 21.1 35.7 f 54.1efg 61.1 f 266 a
Smooth 11-1-94 16.3 29.7 cd 42.4 ed 65.8 ed 338 a
Bromegrass 12-1-94 17.7 25.9 be 50.9 cf 68.7 be 173 a
12-3194 16.7 21.8 ab 57.1 fgh 71.9 ab 137
Birdsfoot 11-1-94 21.0 19.0 a 28.6 a 74.1 a 200 a
Trefoil 12-1-94 20.0 26.1 be 40.4 be 68.5 be 41 a
12-31-94 21.7 21.0 ab 34.8 ab 72.6 ab 76 a
Smooth 11-1-94 15.9 26.0 be 48.1 dc 68.7 be 504 a
Bromegrass 12-1-94 15.5 33.9 de 61.2 h 62.5 de 499 a
12-31-94 13.0 32.0 de 58.8 gh 64.0 de 477 a
LSD @ .05 NS 5.45 6.8 5.4 NS
CV % 8.2 14.3 10.3 16.4 31
Legend: All means in same cohmm followed by the same letters were not sigrificantly
different at P<.05.

 

The yield, durability of yield, and forage quality of smooth bromegrass growing with

birdsfoot trefoil was very different than the bromegrass growing with alfalfa. The same

Combined Samples

 

44

smooth bromegass cultivar, ‘Barton’, seeding rate, establishment method, and gazing
protocol was used in both test paddocks. Smooth bromegrass yields with birdsfoot trefoil
were significantly higher and forage quality sigrificantly lower (P <.01) than with alfalfa.

(Table 11 ).

TABLE 11. Lake City. 1994. Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and DDM yield
(kg/ha) combined samples from stockpiled alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot

trefoil-smooth bromegrass paddocks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Fall Percent Percent Percent DM DDM
Sample Crude ADF NDF kg/ha kg/Ha
Date Protein
Alfalfa 11-1 (81) 20.1 a 21.9 a 37.7 a 1233 a 882 a
Smooth
Bromegrass 12-1 (82) 21.5 a 26.1 ab 45.0 a 807 a 555 c
12-31 (83) 19.6 a 34.0 c 55.2 a 624 a 387 d
birdsfoot 11-1 (81) 14.8 a 24.2 a 43.3 a 1077 a 755 ab
trefoil-
smooth 12-1 (82) 16.3 a 31.7 c 56.3 a 969 a 623 be
bromegrass 12.31 (83) 14.4 a 30.1 be 55.0 a 849 a 553 c
LSD @ .05 NS 4.8 NS NS 152.9
CV % 7.9 11.4 8.8 16.9 16.2
Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not siglificantly
different at P<.05.

 

The yield for the mean of all three sample dates was sigrificantly higher for combined
alfalfa-smooth bromegass than for birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegass paddocks. This is
primarily due to alfalfa yielding higher than birdsfoot trefoil since the yield of the smooth

bromegrass in the birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass paddocks was higher than was much

45

higher than smooth bromegrass in the alfalfa-smooth bromegrass paddocks.

The mean percent crude protein of the three sample dates of the alfalfa-smooth
bromegrass paddocks was significantly higher than the birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass
paddocks. Yield by sample date interactions were not Siglificant. The percent crude protein
of both the alfalfa and smooth bromegrass components were higher than their respective
legume and grass components in the birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass paddocks.

The average ADF levels of the three sample dates of the alfalfa-smooth bromegrass
paddocks was higher but not siglificantly higher than the birdsfoot trefoil-smooth
bromeg'ass paddocks. Sigrificant ( P<.01) differences in ADF levels between sample dates
were found. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) levels increased in a quite linear manner fi'om
sample date 1 through 3. The paddock legume (alfalfa-smooth bromegrass vs birdsfoot
trefoil smooth bromegrass) by sample date interaction were sigrificant at P<.05. alfalfa-
smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot trefoil-smooth bromegrass on Nov. 1, 1994 were similar
and lowest with alfalfa-smooth bromegrass on Dec.3] and birdsfoot trefoil-smooth
bromegrass on Dec. 1 similar and highest.

Yreld differences between legume treatment (alfalfa-smooth bromegass vs birdsfoot
trefoil smooth bromegass) by sample date interactions were not sigrificant. Yield differences
between means for all sample dates for legume treatment (alfalfa-smooth bromegrass vs
birdsfoot trefoil smooth bromegrass) were also not significant. However yield differences
between sample dates for means of legume treatments (alfalfa-smooth bromegrass p
birdsfoot trefoil smooth bromegrass) were sigrifieantly different for all sample dates. Yields

decreased in a linear manner between the 11-1 and 12-31 sample dates. (Table 12)

46

TABLE 12. Lake City. 1994. Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, DDM and DDM yield
(kg/ha) for combined samples from stockpiled alfalfa-smooth bromegrass and birdsfoot
trefoil-smooth bromegrass paddocks.

 

 

 

Sample Sample Percent Percent Percent DM DDM

Component Date Crude ADF NDF kg/ha kg/ha
Protein

alfalfa-sm. 11-1(81) 17.4 23.0 a 40.4 a 1156 a 818 a

bromegrass

and birdsfoot 12-1(S2) 18.9 28.9 b 50.7 b 888 b 855 b

trefoil-sm.
bromegrass 12-31(S3) 17.0 32.0 b 55.1 b 737 c 470 c

 

 

LSD @ .05 NS 3.4 4.57 111.3 28.4
CV % 7.9 11.4 8.8 16.9 16.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend: All means with different letters following were siglificantly different at P<.05.
Means with no letters- treatment was not sigrificant.

 

 

 

Yield differences between sample dates of digestrble dry matter (DDM kg/ha)were sigrificant

at P< .01. The interaction of pasture legume by sample date was also sigrificarrt.

Kellogg Biological Station

1995

The experimental areas at KBS were planted in summer 1994. Paddocks were
grazed for 135 days in 1995 beginning on May 15 and ending on Sept. 21. Samples were
taken from the previously grazed area and in adjacent hay cut areas. In the grazed areas
the birdsfoot trefoil plants lost their leaves and had little remaining dry matter by the end
of October (less than 50 kg/ha of brown stems). Because there was insuficient birdsfoot
trefoil material for analysis only the alfalfa samples were used in the forage analysis and
statistical evaluations. These previously grazed samples were analyzed statistically as
were samples from the mechanically harvested area. In contrast the birdsfoot trefoil in
the areas subjected to two mechanical summer cuttings on the same dates as at East
Lansing in 1995 was healthy and had substantial amounts of DM

Percent CP, kg/ha DM yield and kg/ha DDM yield of the average for all sample
dates (81, 2, 3 were taken on Nov. 1, Dec.1, and Dec. 31 in 1995) were sigrificantly
(P<.05) higher for a birdsfoot trefoil than for alfalfa (Table 13). Differences in percent
ADF and NDF were not sigrificant (P<.05) for combined sample dates. All legume by

sample date interactions were not sigrificant (P<.05)(Table 14).

47

48

Table 13.KBS. 1995. Combined sample dates. Percent CP, NDF and ADF, dry matter
and DDM yields (kg/ha) for mechanically summer cut alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil plots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume %CP % ADF %NDF DM Yield DDM Yield
kg/ha kg/ha
Alfalfa 13.4 b 44.8 62.5 1515 b 805 b
Birdsfoot Trefoil 16.2 a 43.8 59.6 2233 a 1223 a
CV% 12.8 7.3 5.9 14.7 15.2

 

 

Legend: All means in same column followed by same letter were not siglificantly
different at P<.Ol except DDM yield which was sigrifieant at P< .05.

 

Table 14. KBS. 1995. Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, dry matter and DDM yield
(kg/ha) for mechanically summer cut alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil plots. By sample date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume Sample %Crude % ADF %NDF DM Yield DDM Yield
Date Protein kg/ha kg/ha
Alfalfa 11-1 (81) 14.7 a 39.9 a 53.9 a 1573 a 909 a
12-1 (82) 13.1 a 47.1 a 64.5 a 1473 a 768 a
12-31 (83) 12.4 a 50.6 a 68.9 a 1500 a 738 a
Birdsfoot 11-1 (81) 18.2 a 35.7 a 49.7 a 2275 a 1374 a
Trefoil
12-1 (82) 16.7 a 46.2 a 62.0 a 2265 a 1207 a
12-31(83) 13.8 a 49.6 a 67.1 a 2160 a 1087 a
LSD @ NS NS NS NS NS
.05
CV% 12.8 7.3 5.9 14.7 15.2
Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not sigrificantly
different at P<.05.

 

 

 

49

For grazed plots alfalfa appeared to have definite sample date effects, however only fiber

levels Showed significant differences (Table 15).

Table 15. KBS. 1995. Percent crude protein, NDF, ADF, dry matter and DDM yields
(kg/ha) for grazed alfalfa plots By sample date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legume Sample %Crude % ADF %NDF DM Yield DDM Yield
Date Protein kg/ha kg/ha
Alfalfa 11-1 (81) 20.2 32.6 a 46.6 a 1760 1116
12-1 (82) 17.6 44.5 b 63.7 b 1645 877
12-31 (83) 18.0 46.1 b 66.0 b 1480 787
LSD @ .05 NS 5.4 8.8 NS Ns
CV % 12.7 7.6 5.1 34.4 30.4

 

 

Legend: All means in same column followed by the same letters were not sigrificantly
different at P<.05.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

Alfalfa in clear seedings at East Lansing, Michigan was able to supply a greater
total annual yield and fall-winter stockpiled yield than birdsfoot trefoil. However the
original alfalfa stand before treatments had a greater plant density than the birdsfoot
trefoil. With only one exception, alfalfa produced more fall/winter stockpiled dry matter
and DDM per hectare than birdsfoot trefoil at all sites and both years. Birdsfoot trefoil
was able to produce higher yields of dry matter and DDM at KBS in 1995 in mechanically
summer-cut fields.

Durability of stockpiled forage was greater in 1995 than 1994 at the East Lansing
location. Observations of plant reactions plus dry matter yields supported the conclusion
that early frost is less damaging than warm wet fall weather on durability of stockpiled
forage during fall and early winter.

At Lake City smooth bromegrass in birdsfoot trefoil-bromegrass produced higher
fall-winter stockpiled yields than it did in alfalfa-bromegrass pastures. However because
birdsfoot trefoil yields were lower than alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil-bromegrass pastures
produced less total dry matter and DDM yields for the first winter sample date. Smooth
bromegrass in both birdsfoot trefoil+bromegrass and alfalfa+bromegrass pastures had
greater yield durability than either alfalfa or birdsfoot trefoil over the sarnping period.

Summer-harvest treatments had similar effects on winter stockpiled dry matter
yields of both alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil at East Lansing. No-summer harvest plots

produced the highest stockpiled yield of the lowest quality forage. Two-summer harvest

50

51

treatments had the lowest yield but highest forage quality in the winter sample period.
One-summer harvest treatment was intermediate to two summer harvest and no summer
harvest in both yield and forage quality. Of the summer cut treatments, one-summer
harvest treatments had greater durability of yield over the winter sample period resulting
in much greater DM by the end of the sampling period.

The results at KBS showed the dimculty of evaluating birdsfoot trefoil for
fall/winter stockpiling. Birdsfoot trefoil yielded greater DM and DDM yield than alfalfa in

mechanically- cut fields and much less than alfalfa in previously grazed pastures.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allen, M.S.and M. Oba. Fiber digestibility of forages. 1996. Presented at the 1996
Minnesota Nutrition Conference, Bloornington MN, September Z4-25, 1996.

Barclay, D.G., W.J. Moline, and H.D. Ritchie. 1996. Two grazing systems and three forage
systems for rotational grazing in Northern Michigan. P. 100. In In Proc. Am. For. And
Grassl. Conf. Vancouver, BC. Canada. AF GC, Georgetown TX.

Beusilinck, P. R., E. J. Peters, and R. L. McGraw. 1984. Cultivar and management effects
on stand persistence of birdsfoot trefoil. Agron. J. 76: 490-492.

Blaser, RE. 1986. Forage—Animal management systems. Virginia Agicultural Experiment
Station Bulletin 86-7. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ, Blacksburg, VA.

Bryan, W.B., W.F. Wedin, and RL. Vetter. 1970. Evaluation of Reed canarygass and tall
fescue as spring-summer and fall saved pasture. Agron. J. 62: 75-80.

Burns, J.C., K.R. Pond, and D8. Fisher. 1991. Effects of grass species on grazing steers:
H Dry matter intake and digesta kinetics. J Arrim. Sci. 69: 1199

Buxton, D. R., J. S. Homsteirr, W. F. Wedin and G. C. Marten 1985. Forage quality in
stratified canopies of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover. Crop. Sci. 23: 669.

Buxton, D. R. and D. R. Mertens. 1991. Errors in forage-quality data predicted by near
infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Science 31:212-218

Carlson, IT, and LC. Newell, 1985. In M. E. Heath et al. (ed.) Forages: the science of
grassland farming. Iowa State University Press, Ames IA.

Carlson, IT, and W.F. Wedin. 1974. Iowa State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. AG90.

Casler, MD. 1988. Performance of orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass, and ryegrass in binary
mixtures with alfalfa. Agon. J. 80(3): 509-514

52

53

Christensen, D.R., D.D. Warnke, M.L. Vitosh,L. W. Jacobs, J. G. Dahl. 1992. Fertilizer
recommendations for field crops in Michigan. Michigan State University Ext. Bull. E-5 50.

Collins, M. 1982. Yield and quality of birdsfoot trefoil stockpiled for summer utilization.
Agron. J. 74: 1036-1041

Cooper, CS. 1973. Sanfoin-birdsfoot trefoil mixtures for pasture, hay-pasture and hay-
stockpile management regimes Agon. J. 65: 752-754

Cowett, E. R, and M. A. Sprague. 1962. Factors afl‘ecting tillering in alfalfa. Agron. J.
54:294

Eldin, TC, and J .H. Elgirr, Jr. 1989. Registration ofB16-PLH alfalfa germplasm resistant
to the potato leafllopper. Crop. Sci. 29: 1577-1578

Forage and Grazing Terminology Committee 1992. Terminology for grazing lands and
grazing animals. J. Prod. Agric. 5:191

Grant, W. F ., and G. C. Marten. 1985. Birdsfoot Trefoil. p.98-108. In M. E. Heath et al.
(ed.) Forages: the science of grassland farnring. Iowa State University Press, Ames IA.

Hach. Co., 1988. Plant tissue and sap analysis manual. 3118.

Hall, M.H. and J .H. Chemey. 1991. Birdsfoot Trefoil. Agronomy Facts 20. The Pennsylvania
State University Press. State College PA

Hesterman, O.B., H.F. Bucholtz, and MS. Allen. 1988. Forage Quality: What is it ? Mich.
St. Univ. Ext. Serv. Bull. E2292. East Lansing, MI.

Howarth, R.E.,1988. Antiquality factors and nonnutritive chemical components. p. 493 in
Hanson, A A, D.K Barnes and R R Hill Jr. (ed.) Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement. Amer.
Soc. Of Agonomy, Inc., Madison, WI.

Irwin, BL, 1945 Alaska Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 12.

Joost, RE., and RE. Mattas. The evaluation of cool season grasses for fall stockpiling. p.
141-143. In Proc. Am For. And Grassl. Conf. Vancouver, BC. Canada. AFGC, Georgetown
TX.

Jung, H.G. and MS. Allen. 1995. Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and
digestibility of forages by ruminants. J. Animal Sci. 73: 2774

54

Jung, GA, J.A Schafl‘er, and JR Everhart. 1976. nonstructural carbohydrate in the in the
spring herbage of temperate grasses. Crop Science, 16:353-3 59.

Kole, G. 1992. Utilizing controlled grazing on dairy farms in Northern Michigan. p. 142 in
Amer. Forage and Grassl. Conf. Proc.

Laughlin, W. M. P. F. Martin, and G. R Smith. 1973. Agron. J. 65:85-87

Marten, G.C., DR Buxton, and RF. Barnes. 1988. Feeding value (forage quality). p. 463
in Hansen, AA, D.K. Barnes, and RR Hill Jr. (ed) Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement. Amer.
Soc. Of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI.

Marten, GO, and AW. Hovin. 1980. Agron. J. 721378-387

Marten, GO and RM. Jordan. 1979. Substitution value of birdsfoot trefoil for alfalfa-grass
in pasture systems. Agron. J. 71: 55-59.

Matches, A. G. and J. C. Burns, 1995. Systems of grazing management. p 179-192. in R
F. Barnes et al ( ed) Forages Volume II: the science of grassland farming. Iowa State
University Press, Ames IA.

Mays, D. A and J. B. Washko. 1960. The feasibility of stockpiling legume-grass pasturage.
Agron. J. 52: 190-192.

Michigan Agiculture Statistics. 1995. 1996.

Michigan Department of Agiculture- Weather Service. 1994. 1995. Michigan Weather
Statistics. M.D.A. Lansing, MI

Moline, W.J., and RH. Leep. 1996. Evaluations of26 grass varieties in birdsfoot trefoil-grass
mixtures for grazing. Michigan Hay and Grazier Vol.1] No.11

Moline, W.J., J. M. Middleton, and R. Plummer. 1991. Grasses and Legumes for intensive
grazing in Michigan. Mich. St. Univ. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-2307. East Lansing, MI.

Moutray, J., 1996. Alfalfa Breeding efforts - challenges for 2000 and beyond. p. 12-15. In
Proc. 26" National Alfalfa Symposium. East Lansing MI.

Reynolds, J .H. 1975. Yield and chemical composition of stockpiled tall fescue and
orchardgrass. Tenn. Farm Home Sci. 94:127-129.

55

Roda, AL., D.A Landis. 1996. Effect ofgowing alfalfa with perennial gasses upon potato
leaf hoppers and alfalfa weevils. p.26-27. In Proc. 26th National Alfalfa Symposium. East
Lansing MI.

Rurnbaugh, M.D.,G. Semeniuk, R. Moore, and J .D. Colbum. 1965. 8. Dak. Ag. Exp. Sta.
Bull. 525.

SAS Institute. 1987. SAS Applications Guide. Edition. MS 5661. SAS Institute, Cary NC,
USA.

Taylor, T. H., W.C. Templeton, Jr., and J.W. Wyles. 1973. Management efl‘ects on
persistence and productivity of birdsfoot trefoil. Agon. J. 65:646-648

Templeton, W. C., Jr., OF. Buck, and D.W. Wattenberger. 1967. Persistence Ofbirdsfoot
trefoil under pasture conditions. Agon. J. 59:385-3 86

VanKeuren, RW. 1972. All-season forage systems for beef cow herds. In
proc. 27" Annual Meet. Soil Conserv. Soc. Am., 39-44

Van Soest, P.J., J .B. Robertson and BA. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral
detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.
74:3583-3597

Van Soest, P.J. 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O & B Books, Corvallis OR.

Wright , M.J., G.A. Jung, C.S. Brown, AM. Decker, K.E. Varney, and RC. Wakefield.
1967. Northeast Reg. Res. Publ., W. Va. Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. 554T.

Wedin, W.F., RL. Vetter and D.T. Carlson. 1966. The potential of tall gasses as saved
forage under heavy nitrogen fertilization and intensive gazing management. N.Z. Grassl.
Assoc. Proc. 32:160-167.

Appendix 1

East LansinLWeather Data 1994 & 1995

 

East Lansing. 1994 & 1995. Average monthly temperatures and departure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from normal
1994 1995
Month Temperature Departure Temperature Departure From
From Normal Normal

Jan. 13.7 -6.4 25.2 +5.1
Feb. 18.8 -3.0 21.6 -O.6
March 33.4 +6 35.6 +2.8
April 47.8 +2.5 41.3 -4.0
May 54.9 -1.9 54.7 -2.1
June 67.7 +1.6 67.6 +1.5
July 69.7 -0.8 70.5 0.0
Aug. 65.5 -2.7 73.7 +5.5
Sept. 62.1 +1.0 58.3 -2.8
Oct. 51.2 +1.9 52.1 +2.8
Nov. 42.2 +4.2 30.7 -7.3
Dec. 31.6 +5.8 22.8 -3.0
Avg. 46.2 +0.2 46.1 +0.1

East Lansing. 1994 & 1995. Average monthly precipitation and departure

from normal
1994 1995
Month Precipitation Departure Precipitation Departure From
in inches From Normal in inches Normal

Jan. 13.7 -6.4 25.2 +5.1
Feb. 18.8 -3.0 21.6 -0.6

 

 

 

 

 

56

 

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 33.4 +6 35.6 +2.8
April 47.8 +2.5 41.3 -4.0
May 54.9 -1.9 54.7 -2.1
June 67.7 +1.6 67.6 +1.5
July 69.7 -0.8 70.5 0.0
Aug. 65.5 -2.7 73.7 +5.5
Sept. 62.1 +1.0 58.3 -2.8
Oct. 51.2 +1.9 52.1 +2.8
Nov. 42.2 +4.2 30.7 -7.3
Dec. 31.6 +5.8 22.8 -3.0
46.2 +0.2 46.1 +0.1