IMPROVING THE VIABILITY OF DAIRY THROUGH HAY CROP HARVEST AND SILAGE MANAGEMENT

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: HATCH
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1006687
• Project Start Date: Jun 30, 2015
• Project End Date: Sep 30, 2018
• Program Code: [(N/A)]- (N/A)

Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT
(N/A)
BURLINGTON,VT 05405

Performing Department
Plant & Soil Science

Non Technical Summary
Dairy farms continue to struggle with high grain prices and are interested in feeding high forage rations to improve herd health and reduce feed costs. In addition, there is increased interest from consumers for dairy and meat products produced without grain. This project proposes to focus on several areas outlined by the DCE, USDA NIFA as well as local farms that will increase farm viability through animal nutrition and health maintenance, and forage research. The long-term goal of this project is to improve the economic sustainability of Vermont dairy producers by reducing their reliance on purchased concentrates accomplished through the integration of harvest management techniques such as swath and wilting management and harvest timing. The objectives of this project are to:Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of drying and forage quality.Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of fermentation and fermentation end products.Determine the impact of wide versus narrow swath forage management on animal dry matter intake, milk production, and milk quality.Document the cost benefits of implementing swath and wilting management and harvest timing strategies.A replicated field based research trial will be initiated at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT to investigate forage yield and quality of various stored forages harvested in narrow and wide swath at morning and afternoon harvest times. A field and feeding trial will be initiated at Beidler Family Farm in Randolph Center, VT to evaluate forage quality, livestock dry matter intake, milk production, and milk quality from animals fed round bale silage (baleage) made from wide and narrow swaths. A robust outreach program will deliver the information to the dairy farming community in Vermont and beyond.

Animal Health Component

80%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

20%

Applied

80%

Developmental

0%

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
307	1621	1060	30%
205	3410	1010	40%
302	3410	1010	20%
601	3499	3100	10%

Knowledge Area
601 - Economics of Agricultural Production and Farm Management; 302 - Nutrient Utilization in Animals; 205 - Plant Management Systems; 307 - Animal Management Systems;

Subject Of Investigation
3499 - Dairy cattle, general/other; 1621 - Cool season perennial grasses; 3410 - Dairy cattle, live animal;

Field Of Science
1060 - Biology (whole systems); 1010 - Nutrition and metabolism; 3100 - Management;

Keywords

fatty acids

wide swath

harvest management

hay

perennial forage

Goals / Objectives
The long-term goal of this project is to improve the economic sustainability of Vermont dairy producers by reducing their reliance on purchased concentrates accomplished through the integration of harvest management techniques such as swath and wilting management and harvest timing. The objectives of this project are to:Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of drying and forage quality.Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of fermentation and fermentation end products.Determine the impact of wide versus narrow swath forage management on animal dry matter intake, milk production, and milk quality.Document the cost benefits of implementing swath and wilting management and harvest timing strategies.

Project Methods
Two trials will be initiated as part of this project. A replicated field based research trial will be initiated at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT. This trial will investigate forage yield and quality of various stored forages harvested in narrow and wide swath at morning and afternoon harvest times. A second feeding trial will be initiated at Beidler Family Farm in Randolph Center, VT. This feeding trial will evaluate dry matter intake, milk production, and milk quality from animals fed round bale silage made from wide and narrow swaths.On-Farm Forage TrialTime of forage mowing (AM verses PM) and width of swath (over 75% verses under 50%) will be compared to determine impact on forage and milk production and quality at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT. The experiment will be imposed within an existing grass/legume mix field at the research farm. The experimental design will be a randomized complete block design with split plots and 4 replications. Main plots will be morning or afternoon mowing, sub plots will be swath size (wide or narrow). The main plots will be 50' x 100' (am/pm mowing) and subplots will be 25' x 100, subplot subplots will be 25' x 50'. Data collection will include rate of drying to reach 35% DM (haylage), 45% DM (baleage) and 88% DM (dry hay). At each of the three forage stages, forage will be sampled for yield, dry matter, and quality. These samples (referred to as "Field") will be immediately placed in a walk in drying room (set at 600C) and dried for 24 to 48 hours. Additional samples collected at the haylage and baleage stages, will be chopped and placed in small, experimental silos according to type and treatment. After 28 days, the fermented samples will be dried and tested for pH, lactic acetic and butyric acid content. Quality parameters will be determined for Field, Haylage and Baleage samples (and their respective treatments) for crude protein, fiber concentration, digestibility, fiber digestibility, net energy of lactation, soluble protein and fatty acid content (methods described below with Biedler Trial).On-Farm Feeding TrialThe feeding trial will take place at a to be determined farm. Working with the farm we will approximate the forage needs for the feeding trial period. Based on these needs we will identify fields to produce forage for the feeding trials. These fields will be split at each harvest with half being harvested in wide swath and the remaining with narrow swath. All feed will be stored as baleage and marked to identify each treatment. All production costs will be calculated per swath width and harvesting method at the field level.The feeding trial will begin once the cows have been removed from pasture for the season (October). At this time the animals to be included in the trial will be selected. We estimate approximately 20 cows meeting the requirements for the feeding trials. These cows will be blocked by breed and days in milk, and randomly allocated to one of two treatments (narrow or wide swath) within block. A double crossover design will be utilized with 10 cows per treatment. Each feeding period will be 4 weeks with the first week of each period used as a washout period with a total of 12 weeks to conduct the project.Diets will be fed ad libitum (12-17% orts) throughout the experiment. Once the project begins milk sampling will be done 3 days per week each week. Milk samples will be pooled weekly within cow according to production data and the pooled samples will be submitted to DHIA for milk fat, protein, lactose and somatic cell count determination.Samples of both the fed forage and refusals will be collected, weighed, and dried in an oven at 60 oC for 48 hours to determine the dry matter content of the feed and refusals. Individual animal dry matter intakes will then be determined by applying the dry matter percentage to the as-fed forage offered and refused (dry matter fed - dry matter refused).All forage analysis will be conducted as follows. A 500 g sample of harvested material from each plot will be collected and used for determining dry matter content and forage quality analysis. Samples will be analyzed for forage quality using Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS), housed in the Plant and Soil Science Department at the University of Vermont. Forage components included in wet chemistry calibrations will include CP (combustion), water soluble carbohydrate (Dubois et al., 1956), neutral and acid detergent fiber (NDF, ADF, Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY), digestible NDF (Daisy Digester, Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY), ether extract, and ash (AOAC, 1990).Fatty acid content and profile of the feed and milk samples will be analyzed using a modified version of the direct transesterification method developed by Sukhija and Palmquist (1988) and methods established by Kraft et al., 2003. Milk sample: Milk weights and samples will be taken during the last four days of each period; an aliquot will be preserved with 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol and analyzed for fat, protein, lactose, solids, MUN, and SCC by mid-infrared spectroscopy by Lancaster DHIA Labs Another aliquot will be analyzed for fatty acid content and profile using established methods (Kraft et al. 2003). Briefly, cream is separated from milk composite samples by centrifugation. After extraction of total lipids from the cream using a mixture of n-hexane/isopropanol (3:2 v/v), fatty acid methyl esters are prepared with 0.5 M NaOCH3/methanol (5 min at room temperature). Total fatty acid profile, covering circa 80 fatty acids in the range of C4:0 to C26:0, are determined by GLC?FID as described above. The short chain FAME are corrected for mass discrepancy using the correction factors published by Wolff et al. (1995). Fatty acid yield (g/d) is determined by multiplying the percentage of each fatty acid by milk fat yield and by 0.86, a value corresponding approximately to the percentage of fatty acids in triacylglycerides.Cost Benefit Analysis:Bob Parsons will coordinate the data collection for the cost benefit analysis with research field staff to assure data collection of labor, equipment use, types of equipment, and variable costs such as fertilizer, fuel, labor, and other inputs. Operator labor, depreciation, and opportunity costs of labor, land, and equipment will be included to derive total costs related to crop production by swath width and production method (haylage, balelage, dry hay) ,While production economics will be primarily costs, the benefits will extend to the value of milk production as comparable to the feed value, production costs, and milk response to the feed by the dairy cows. Milk production and value of components will be calculated and compared to the costs of each swath width/harvest method on an annual basis to determine comparable cost/benefit to the farming system. The economic analysis will also include collaboration with the research staff to estimate the environmental impact through any changes in imported nutrient values and other measured environmental changes. The adoption rate of proven forage strategies will be analyzed through on-farm workshops, workshop surveys, and a post project evaluation 12 months after the educational events.

Progress 06/30/15 to 09/30/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Over the last several years conventional dairy farms have been struggling to stay afloat because of severely depressed milk prices and increasing input costs. Currently grain, fuel, and fertilizer prices are almost double what they were a year ago. Although organic producers have a higher and more stable milk price the economic downturn has also caused a significant decline in demand for their product. This has caused organic milk purchasers to lower quota, drop prices, and even drop farms from their membership. In addition, even though organic producers have a more stable price this does not change the fact that they are also experiencing high input costs of grain and fuel. Organic grain prices are often 300% that of conventional. For most farms grain purchases make up over 40% of their operating costs. Visits with local dairy farms almost always lead to a conversation about how best to reduce their grain bill. Farm produced forages are the backbone of all Vermont dairy farms. Therefore the primary target audience of this grant are the 700 conventional and organic dairy farms located throughout the state of Vermont. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Project results were shared with over 540 farmers as well as other stakeholders in the dairy industry at conferences, workshops, and field days. 1. Annual Crops & Soils Field Day. July 26th, 2018 Borderview Farm, Alburgh, VT. 225 attending the event including 2. Vermont Organic Dairy Producers Conference. March 8, 2018. Randolph, VT. 115 attending including farmers and related industry. 3. New York Organic Dairy Conference. February 9, 2018. Geneva, NY. 65 attending including farmers and related industry. 4. Organic Dairy Summer Series. July, August, and September, 2018. Whiting, Westfield, and Addison, VT. 135 farmers and related industry. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on yield and quality of perennial forage. The study utilized a split-split-plot experimental design with four replications on an established mixed hayfield that was predominantly reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). The whole plot treatment was time of mowing (AM vs. PM) and the split-plot treatment was swath width (narrow, 40% of mower width vs. wide, 70% of mower width). The split-split-plot was harvest stage (wilt stages 1 and 2, representing silage and hay). AM harvests always followed PM harvests. Mown forage was allowed to wilt and was sampled at two target dry matter (DM) content periods: Wilting Stage 1 (WS1) - target of 35% to 45% DM approximating a dry matter content typical of ensiled forage harvest Wilting Stage 2 (WS2) - target of ≥60% DM when respiration has ceased and enzymatic activity has been minimized, approximating a hay harvest. Wilt stage 2 samples were collected after windrows had been tedded and raked. Forage quality characteristics were analyzed using mixed model analysis using the mixed procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 1999). Replications within trials were treated as random effects, and cropping system and/or treatments within cropping systems were treated as fixed. Overall differences between wide and narrow swaths, and AM- and PM-mown harvests were small, and not always consistent between cuttings.The primary expected result of either PM mowing or wide swathing, relative to AM mowing and narrow swathing, is an increased measure of sugars and water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) on a dry matter (DM) content basis. Higher sugars or WSC content were not found in WS1 samples, and only found in wide swathed WS2 samples, which were higher in WSC in the second cutting of 2015, and higher in both sugars and WSC in the first cutting of 2016. Higher contents of fermentable sugars and WSC might contribute to higher amounts of lactic acid and therefore higher overall total volatile fatty acids (VFA), higher lactic/acetic acid ratio, and subsequently a lower pH when grass silage is fermented. We found greater lactic acid content, and total VFA in ensiled WS1 samples from PM-mown plots in the first cutting of 2015, and from wide-swathed plots in the second cutting of 2015 and the first cutting of 2016. This led to a lower pH in PM-mown samples in the first cutting of 2015, and wide swathed samples in the first cutting of 2016, but not the second cutting of 2015. The wide swath treatment produced higher lactic acid and total volatile fatty acid content than the narrow swath treatment in only two of the six total harvests, and the swath width difference was only present in PM mown samples in one of those harvests. Similarly, the PM mowing produced higher lactic acid and total volatile fatty acid content than the AM mowing in only one of the six total harvests. Higher content of sugars and WSC in PM-mown forages have been shown to dilute the content of fiber (ADF and NDF), and it would be expected that higher sugars or WSC in wide swathed forages would similarly dilute measures of ADF and/or NDF. Surprisingly, the only time of mowing effects we found in fiber content were lower values of NDF in AM-mown samples in the first cutting of 2016, which also corresponded to a higher "in vitro True Dry Matter Digestibility" (IVTDMD) in unensiled samples. Ensiled WS1 samples from the same cutting had a higher NDF digestibility (NDFD) in PM-mown samples, however. Wide swathed WS1 samples had a lower NDF in the third cutting of 2015, and wide-swathed WS2 samples had lower ADF, NDF, and higher NDFD, and IVTDMD at the same cutting. Unexpectedly, ensiled WS1 samples showed higher NDFD in narrow swathed samples in the same cutting, and had lower ADF and NDF in narrow swathed samples in the first cutting of 2015. Determine the impact of wide versus narrow swath forage management on animal dry matter intake, milk production, milk quality, and cost of production. In 2016, a forage systems feeding trial was initiated at LeDuc Farm in Alburgh, VT.Two fields of mixed white clover (Trifolium repens L.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) totaling approximately 16 acres were split evenly into "wide" and "narrow" treatments, with wide treatments consisting of mown swath widths approximately 70% of mower width and narrow treatments consisting of mown swath widths approximately 40% of mower width. Second cutting forage was used for this study, with harvest initiated on July 26 at 11 AM, beginning with wide swath treatments until 1 PM. Narrow swath treatments were mowed between 2:30 PM and 4:30 PM. The wide swath treatment was raked that same evening at 8 PM. Wide swaths were chopped and blown into an eight foot diameter bag silo midday through early afternoon July 27 and the exterior of the bag was marked where the wide swath material ended. Narrow swaths were chopped and blown into the same bag silo in the evening of July 27 and morning of July 28. Twenty multiparous cows were divided into two groups of ten, and blocked by days in milk. The feeding trial began with treatment diets applied to their corresponding group of cows March 27 and milk was sampled at each milking (twice daily) April 9 through April 12, 2017. The comparison diets consisted of the wide and narrow silages, top-dressed with one 3 quart scoop of the same grain mix, offered immediately preceding milking. Silage and grain mix composition are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Milk weights were recorded at each milking, and samples were sent to Dairy One Labs for analysis of milk components. Weights of prior refusals were recorded every morning, and silage feed-out was recorded for each trial animal at each milking. Forage quality characteristics were analyzed using analysis of variance using the general linear model procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 1999). Results of feed intake, milk production and milk quality characteristics were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance using the mixed model procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 1999) with date as a repeat measure, individual cow as subject, and assuming an autoregressive covariance matrix. Analyzing the samples taken at the time of ensiling with near-infrared reflectance (NIR) spectroscopy found that wide and narrow swathed treatments were similar in measures of crude protein, ADF, NDF, and dry matter digestibility. Narrow swathed treatments were higher in sugar content and overall water soluble carbohydrates as well as NDF digestibility. Forage dry matter intake was not different between the two treatment groups, averaging forty three pounds of dry matter per head per day. Milk yield and protein content were the same between the two treatment groups, but milk fat content and milk fat percentage were higher in the wide swath group, and milk protein percentage was marginally higher in the narrow swath group. Wide swath wilting of the harvested forage required an extra step of raking into windrows before chopping. The 2016 Pennsylvania statewide average custom operator rate for raking is $9.45 per acre, and at that rate raking all 16 acres of the experimental field to accommodate wide swath harvesting would have cost $151.20 at this cutting. The difference in milk fat produced between the two treatment diets was 0.22 lb per head per day. Had all twenty cows in the experiment received the wide swath feed for the entirety of the experimental period the farm could have produced 4.4 lb of milk fat more per day relative to feeding exclusively with the narrow swath feed. The feed produced for this experiment lasted 17 days, or a total potential difference of 74.8 pounds of milk fat. Thereby, an estimated cost of producing extra milk fat by means of wide swath management is $2.02 per pound of milk fat.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Goosen, Caleb, S. Bosworth, H. Darby, and J. Kraft. 2018. Microwave pretreatment allows accurate fatty acid analysis of small fresh weight (100?g) dried alfalfa, ryegrass, and winter rye samples. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 239(1), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.02.014
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Goossen, C., S. Bosworth, H. Darby, and J. Kraft. 2016. Maturity is a Larger Driver of Fatty Acid Content in Summer Annuals than Nitrogen Fertility. In 2016 ADSA-ASAS-CSAS Joint Annual Meeting. ASAS, Salt Lake City, UT. July 19-23, 2016.
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Goossen,C. 2018. Management Factors Influence On The Fatty Acid Content And Composition Of Forages.University of Vermont. ScholarWorks @ UVM ISSN: 2576-7550

Progress 10/01/15 to 09/30/16

Outputs
Target Audience:Over the last several years conventional dairy farms have been struggling to stay afloat because of severely depressed milk prices and increasing input costs. Currently grain, fuel, and fertilizer prices are almost double what they were a year ago. Although organic producers have a higher and more stable milk price the economic downturn has also caused a significant decline in demand for their product. This has caused organic milk purchasers to lower quota, drop prices, and even drop farms from their membership. In addition, even though organic producers have a more stable price this does not change the fact that they are also experiencing high input costs of grain and fuel. Organic grain prices are often 300% that of conventional. For most farms grain purchases make up over 40% of their operating costs. Visits with local dairy farms almost always lead to a conversation about how best to reduce their grain bill. Farm produced forages are the backbone of all Vermont dairy farms. Therefore the primary target audience of this grant are the 800 conventional and organic dairy farms located throughout the state of Vermont. Changes/Problems:The feeding trial was not initiated in year one as proposed in the original project proposal. The feeding trial will be completed in the final year of the project. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?An overview of the project, as well as initial results was included in the following presentations: Annual Crops & Soils Field Day. July 28th, 2016 Borderview Farm, Alburgh, VT.185 attending Goossen, C.P., M. Bainbridge. Evaluating Summer Annuals Forages for their Contributions to Milk Fatty Acids. Presented at the Vermont Organic Dairy Producers Conference. March 10, 2016. Randolph, VT. 125 attending The effects of different management choices on stored forage fatty acid content were also discussed at: Goossen, C.P., M. Bainbridge. Fatty Acids - From Forage to Milk. December 2015. Webinar found at: http://articles.extension.org/pages/73358/bovine-fatty-acids:-from-forage-to-milk-webinar-by-eorganic 39 in live online attendance, consisting of 23% farmers, 18% government agency personnel, 28% Extension faculty/staff, and 31% "other" including industry/non-profit/consultants. There have been a subsequent 395 views on YouTube.com as of December 2016. Goossen, C.P. Fatty Acids in Forages. University of Maine cooperative extension in-service training for agricultural service providers (CCA). February 3, 2016. Portsmouth, NH. Approximately 40 attending. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?This is the final year of the project. Data from the replicated trials will be completed, analyzed, and manuscripts submitted for publication. The on-farm feeding trial will be completed over the winter of 2017, data analyzed, and outreach materials created for distribution. The cost benefit analysis will be completed in the summer of 2017 and outreach materials created for distribution to the farming community.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? During year two of the project the primary focus was on initiating research trials to meet objective 1 and 2 and have started on objective 3. 1. Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of drying and forage quality. 2. Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of fermentation and fermentation end products. 3. Determine the impact of wide versus narrow swath forage management on animal dry matter intake, milk production, and milk quality. Methods In the second year of a two year study, main plot effects of time of forage mowing (AM verses PM) and subplot effects of swath width (greater than 75% of mower width versus less than 50%) were compared to determine impacts on forage quality at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT. Forage samples were collected at the time of cutting ("fresh"), at approximately 35% DM ("haylage"), and at approximately 85% DM ("dry hay") and dried for later forage quality analysis by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) and fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis. Yield of haylage and dry hay plots was also recorded. Further haylage samples were collected and ensiled for 40 days in vacuum sealed plastic bags. A subsample of the ensiled samples was frozen for volatile fatty acid analysis (VFA) and another subsample was dried for NIRS and FAME analysis. VFA and FAME analysis is ongoing. Results In 2016 we continued and concluded sampling from the field trial as described for 2015. Fatty acid sample analysis was finished for 2015 samples, and is currently ongoing for 2016 samples. In 2015 unensiled samples, total fatty acid (FA) content (g/kg forage DM) trended higher in AM samples (21.2 vs 19.7 in PM samples, P=0.09), and decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh 23.3; haylage 20.4; dry hay 17.7). Total FA content was greatest in the 3rd cutting (21.6 vs 19.8 and 19.9 in the 1st and 2nd cuttings respectively). Similarly, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) content (g/kg forage DM) trended higher in AM samples (11.7 vs 10.7 in PM samples, P=0.05) and decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh 13.4; haylage 11.0; dry hay 9.3). ALA content was greatest in the 3rd cutting (12.2 vs 10.4 and 11.0 in the 1st and 2nd cuttings, respectively). ALA content expressed as a proportion of total FA (g/100g total FA) decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh 57.4; haylage 53.6; dry hay 52.4). ALA content increased in later cuttings (1st 52.5; 2nd 54.6; 3rd 56.3). Overall polyunsaturated fatty acid proportion (PUFA, g/100g total FA) was highest in AM samples (74.4 vs 73.7 in PM samples) though that difference was only significant in the 1st cutting (74.6 vs 72.6). PUFA proportion decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh 76.5; haylage 73.5; dry hay 72.2). PUFA proportion was highest in the 3rd cutting (75.1 vs 73.6 and 73.5 in the 1st and 2nd cuttings, respectively). In 2015 ensiled samples, total FA content (g/kg forage DM) was greatest in AM samples (21.3 vs 19.9 in PM samples) and lowest in the 3rd cutting (19.8 vs 20.9 and 21.1 in the 1st and 2nd cuttings, respectively). Both effects however appear to be driven by a low measured total FA in 3rd cutting PM samples (18.3 vs 20.5-21.4 for all other total FA measurements). ALA content (g/kg forage DM) was greatest in the AM samples (11.1 vs 10.1 in PM samples) and differed by cutting (1st 10.6; 2nd 11.3; 3rd 9.8). ALA content expressed as a proportion of total FA (g/100g total FA) trended higher in the AM samples (51.9 vs 50.7, P=0.09) and was greatest in the 2nd cutting (53.7 vs 50.6 and 49.7 in the 1st and 3rd cuttings, respectively). Overall polyunsaturated fatty acid proportion (PUFA, g/100g total FA) was highest in AM samples (71.9 vs 70.8 in PM samples) and differed by cutting (1st 71.8; 2nd 72.8; 3rd 69.5). Over 3 cuttings in both the 2015 and 2016 seasons, time of cutting and swath width had no effect on dry matter yield, crude protein content, ADF content, NDF content, digestible NDF content, NDF digestibility or NIR determined fat content. In 2016 over all 3 cuttings, NDF digestibility (48 hr) and therefore digestible NDF (48hr) trended higher in PM cut ensiled samples (36.7 in PM vs 34.8 in AM samples, P=0.08; 67.2 in PM vs 65.6 in AM samples, P=0.07; respectively). In 2015, sugars decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh vs haylage vs dry hay) but were not affected by time of cut or swath width in the first and second cuttings. Sugars were significantly higher in PM cut fresh samples in the third cutting, though any difference from increased sugar content had been respired away by the time haylage and dry hay samples were collected the next day. Water soluble carbohydrate results were similar. In 2016 time of cutting had no effect on sugars or water soluble carbohydrate content. Wide swath samples were trending higher than narrow swath samples in sugars content (7.6 vs 7.3, P=0.08) and water soluble carbohydrate content (9.9 vs 9.4, P=0.08) across all 3 cuttings. A new partner farm for the feeding trial was also identified in 2016, and legume-grass mixed hay from wide and narrow swaths was conserved to produce the two treatment diets for the feeding trial which is now planned to begin in the first half of 2017.

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Accepted Year Published: 2016 Citation: Goossen, C.P., S.C. Bosworth, H.M. Darby, J. Kraft. Microwave pretreatment allows accurate fatty acid analysis of dried forage samples. Presented at the University of Vermont Student Research Conference. April 28, 2016. Burlington, VT.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2017 Citation: Goossen, C.P., Bosworth, S.C., Darby, H.M., Kraft, J. Microwave pretreatment allows accurate fatty acid analysis of dried forage samples. Animal Feed Science and Technology. Submission anticipated late December 2016 - January 2017.

Progress 06/30/15 to 09/30/15

Outputs
Target Audience:Over the last several years conventional dairy farms have been struggling to stay afloat because of severely depressed milk prices and increasing input costs. Currently grain, fuel, and fertilizer prices are almost double what they were a year ago. Although organic producers have a higher and more stable milk price the economic downturn has also caused a significant decline in demand for their product. This has caused organic milk purchasers to lower quota, drop prices, and even drop farms from their membership. In addition, even though organic producers have a more stable price this does not change the fact that they are also experiencing high input costs of grain and fuel. Organic grain prices are often 300% that of conventional. For most farms grain purchases make up over 40% of their operating costs. Visits with local dairy farms almost always lead to a conversation about how best to reduce their grain bill. Farm produced forages are the backbone of all Vermont dairy farms. Therefore the primary target audience of this grant are the 800 conventional and organic dairy farms located throughout the state of Vermont. Changes/Problems:The feeding trial was not initiated in year one as proposed in the original project proposal. The feeding trial was delayed due to harvesting issues in year 1. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The research project was highlighted at one outreach event during 2015. On July 23, 2015 The Annual Crops and Soils Field Day was held at Borderview Research Farm, Aburgh, VT. Participants were able to tour the research experiment and get updates on our latest research results. There were 236 in attendance. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The replicated field based research trial will be continued at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT. This trial will investigate forage yield and quality of various stored forages harvested in narrow and wide swath at morning and afternoon harvest times. A feeding trial will be initiated at Leduc Family Farm inAlburg, VT. This feeding trial will evaluate dry matter intake, milk production, and milk quality from animals fed baleage made from wide and narrow swaths. We will begin conducting the cost benefit analysis the costs and revenues for various swath management strategies. Costs will include variable costs such as fertilizer, fuel, and other inputs. We will also calculate opportunity costs, depreciation of equipment, and owner labor to accurately project the actual costs to farmers (opportunity cost of land or other feed if land is taken out of production). The same process will be used to calculate all benefits resulting from the project. Benefits will include lower grain costs from conserved nutrients. After compiling the annual costs and benefits, all the cash flows will be discounted at a rate of 6% to determine the estimated Net Present Value of the project. The compilation of costs and returns will also enable calculation of an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to estimate the owners return on their investment. This cost benefit analysis will enable farmers to see both the economic as well as the environmental benefits of wide swath management. This project will also be highlighted at the annual UVM Extension Crops and Soils field day hosted by Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT. This field day is geared towards farmers and other agricultural professionals and draws over 200 people each year. Presentation of project results will be delivered at the Organic Dairy Producers Conference.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? During year one of the project the primary focus was on initiating research trials to meet objective 1 and 2. 1. Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of drying and forage quality. 2. Determine the influence of morning versus afternoon forage harvest in wide and narrow swaths on rate of fermentation and fermentation end products. Methods In the first year of a two year study, main plot effects of time of forage mowing (AM verses PM) and subplot effects of swath width (greater than 75% of mower width versus less than 50%) were compared to determine impacts on forage quality at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT. Forage samples were collected at the time of cutting ("fresh"), at approximately 35% DM ("haylage"), and at approximately 85% DM ("dry hay") and dried for later forage quality analysis by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) and fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis. Yield of haylage and dry hay plots was also recorded. Further haylage samples were collected and ensiled for 40 days in vacuum sealed plastic bags. A subsample of the ensiled samples was frozen for volatile fatty acid analysis (VFA) and another subsample was dried for NIRS and FAME analysis. VFA and FAME analysis is ongoing. NIRS results: Unensiled samples Time of cutting and swath width had no effect on dry matter yield per acre. In the 2nd cutting crude protein content of samples decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh vs haylage vs dry hay) but was not affected by time of cut or swath width, or significantly different in the other cuttings. In the 1st and 2nd cutting ADF content increased with advancing harvest stage (fresh 32.5 vs haylage 33.7 vs dry hay 35.0) but was not affected by time of cut or swath width. In 3rd cutting, ADF content lower in PM cutting (31.1 vs 32.5), almost significantly lower in wide swath (31.2 vs 32.5, p = 0.06) NDF content increased with advancing harvest stage (ranging from 52.8 in 1st & 2nd cutting fresh samples and 54.6 in 3rd cutting fresh samples to 55.5 in 1st cutting dry hay samples, 58.8 in 2nd cutting dry hay samples and 56.7 in 3rd cutting dry hay samples) but was not affected by time of cut or swath width. This increase was likely a result of the proportional loss of labile substrates as the forage dried down. NDF digestibility (NDFD48) declined with advancing harvest stage in the 2nd cutting (59.6 for fresh samples to 58 for dry hay samples) and in the 3rd cutting was higher in wide swath samples (60 vs 57.4) and higher in PM cut samples (59.9 vs 57.5). Sugars decreased with advancing harvest stage (fresh vs haylage vs dry hay) but were not affected by time of cut or swath width in the first and second cuttings. Sugars were significantly higher in PM cut fresh samples in the third cutting, though any difference from increased sugar content had been respired away by the time haylage and dry hay samples were collected the next day. Water soluble carbohydrate results were similar. NIRS determined fat content was lower in dry hay samples than fresh samples in the 1st and 2nd cuttings (0.2 and 0.3 percentage points less, respectively) but not significantly different in the 3rd cutting. In the 1st cutting PM cut samples were 0.1 percentage points lower in fat content. Ensiled samples Wide swathing yielded a higher DM in the first cutting only (1815 lb/acre vs 1269 lb/acre). No other yield differences were seen. No crude protein, ADF, aNDF, or NDFD48 differences were seen. Digestible NDF (dNDF48) content was higher in 3rd cutting narrow swath samples (34.6 vs 33.1), as was NIRS determined fat content (3.2 vs 3.0).

Publications