A NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT
OF METHODS OF HARVESTING
UMMER FORAGE FOR DAIRY COWS

K. E. Harshbarger, E. E. Ormiston, J. R. Staubus, R. V. Johnson

BULLETIN 709

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

CONTENTS

Review of Literature......% ....0.45¢00 sss 0 een 4
Comparison of Pasture and Soiling...°........... 1... eee 8
Experimental. Results)... 5. 6 ec. sone seo os wo oe 9
Comparison of Soilage and Silage... ........-. 2... 5 11
Experimental Results .......40. 2. pc ne ce + 6 ose ee 13

Comparison of Soilage and Silage With and Without

Supplemental Hay ........6....0. 55% «oe 16
Experimental Results ..... 2.4.0... 4.» dem oo tl ee 18
DISCUSSION 2.0.62 ..c ee eee bk we we © oie ene ee 20
SUMMATLY 2. 6 oe ee ec ee te o bn ee ons cee eee 22
Bibliography . ..7. 2... ccc 26 os oo ols alee ae 23
Appendix Tables... 2... 5) sie 6 6 oo 2 se eet 25

This bulletin was prepared by K. E. Harshbarger, Profes-
sor of Nutrition, E. E. Ormiston, Professor of Dairy Hus-
bandry, and R. V. Johnson, Associate Professor, all in the
Department of Dairy Science, University of Illinois, and
by J. R. Staubus, Extension Specialist, Department of Dairy
Science, Ohio State University.

Urbana, Illinois April, 1965

Publications in the bulletin series report the results of investigations made or sponsored
by the Experiment Station

UNIVERSITY OF ILLING$g
AGRICULTURE LiBRaRy

A NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF METHODS
OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE

By K. E. Harsuparcer, E. E. Ormiston, J. R. Stausus,
and R. V. JOHNSON

IN OBTAINED BY COWS grazing good pastures have been con-
sidered to be of high quality and relatively inexpensive. There-
fore less effort has been made to improve the yields of forage plants
than has been made with grain crops (13'). However, two alternatives
to grazing have become established that have increased forage yields
because they are more effective methods of harvesting than is grazing.
One of these methods, called soiling, consists of harvesting green
forage and transporting it to a barn lot where it is fed to cows. This
procedure is not new but has become economically feasible in Illinois
only since the development of the forage harvester, which has greatly
reduced the high labor requirement and drudgery that were inherent
in the system previously used.

The use of a soiling system may have one or more of the following
advantages over grazing:

e Yields of forage from tali-growing crops are increased.
‘ @ Tsolated fields may be used for the production of green forages.
e 7 ess fencing is necced:
¢ A drinking water supply does not have to be available for all fields.
© More extensive use is made of machinery and facilities.

These advantages may be offset, however, by the following dis-
advantages:

¢ Forage should be harvested once or twice each day to prevent exces-
sive heating because cows eat less of the green material after it
has begun to heat. Such a harvesting schedule is inconvenient
and often conflicts with other farm work.

© If the proper lots and machinery are not available on the farm, a
considerable outlay of capital is required.

® Additional sources of forage must be on hand to feed the cows dur-
ing periods when the fields are too soft to carry the harvesting
machinery.

® Manure removal becomes a year-round job and must be well man-
aged or flies and odor become a serious problem.

“Number refers to biblography.

4 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

The other method is year-round silage feeding. It has been used
for some time in western states but has not been established in Illinois
as long as soiling. Year-round silage feeding has most of the advan-
tages of soiling plus the following advantages of its own:

© Double use is made of existing silos.

¢ Forage plants can be harvested at the optimum state of nutrient
production.

© Forage is harvested only three or four times a season. Daily harvests
are thus eliminated and intervening rainy spells do not interfere
with daily feeding procedures. However, this system also requires
an additional outlay of capital if additional storage space for
silage must be provided.

This bulletin reports data on three sets of summer feeding experi-
ments. The first compared soilage with rotational grazing. Data on
forage yield, feed consumption, liveweight, and milk production were
recorded and analyzed. The second compared soilage with silage with
respect to the same variables. The importance of hay as a roughage
supplement to grazing during the “summer slump” has suggested that
hay may also be needed as a supplement to soilage and to silage. The
third experiment therefore compared soilage with silage, with and
without supplemental hay, with respect to feed consumption and milk
production.

Review of Literature

A study of the literature indicates that there have been three
periods of active interest in soiling in the United States. The first
period occurred about the turn of the century, the second in the 1920’s,
and the third followed the introduction of the mechanical forage
harvester in the 1950’s (14).

Early tests of soiling versus pasture demonstrated that higher
yields of forage could be obtained by using soiling procedures, but the
large amount of hand labor involved made this process too expensive.
Otis (20) reported in 1900 that dairy cows that were fed a series of
forage crops harvested by soiling yielded over four times as much
milk as dairy cows fed ordinary Kansas pasture. The increase in yield
was measured as increased carrying capacity of the forage land rather
than increased yield per cow. Woll et al. (27) tested the response of
dairy cows to a series of soiling crops and to carried-over corn silage
through three summer seasons. They observed that similar production
was obtained from both feeding regimens but stated that there was an
advantage in feeding corn silage because less labor was required and all

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 5

of the crop was harvested at the optimum time with a minimum of
waste.

During the 1920’s, workers at Iowa (7, 16, 18) and Nebraska (6)
continued to test soilage versus corn silage as a supplement to summer
pasture. Both groups came to the conclusion that partial soiling was
much more desirable than continuous soiling in those states because of
the high labor costs involved and the availability of pasture. However,
they also observed that carried-over corn silage was equally capable
of providing supplemental roughage when pastures were dormant and
that production could be maintained at less cost with silage than
with soilage.

Graves et al. (8) and Tretsven (26) were the first to compare
similar crops from similar fields. Graves et al. observed that the
total yields of dry matter and of milk per acre were each amazingly
similar whether the crop (grasses) was grazed, made into hay, cut and
hauled to the cows, or ensiled. The critical factor involved was that of
harvesting as much of the crop as possible at its optimum stage of
maturity. Labor economy, however, was in favor of grazing and
against soiling. Tretsven observed no material increase in milk produc-
tion when soilage was substituted for good irrigated pasture. He felt
that too much labor was involved in soiling to allow it to be practical
except in special cases.

The substitution of mechanical forage harvesters and self-feeding
or self-unloading wagons for the large amount of hand labor formerly
required in a soiling regimen has caused renewed interest in soiling.

Mechanical forage harvesters and self-unloading wagons have reduced the
amount of hand labor required for soiling operations.

6 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

Smith and Keyes (25) compared 10-day rotational grazing, 1-day
rotational grazing, and soiling on irrigated grass pastures. They ob-
served that calculated total digestible nutrients (TDN) and milk yields
per acre were very similar under their management conditions. How-
ever, labor costs in harvesting the grass and moving the fence each day
were such that the feed cost per 100 pounds of fat-corrected milk
(FCM )* were $1.19, $1.29, and $1.55 for 10-day rotational grazing,
1-day rotational grazing, and soiling, respectively.

Henderson et al. (9) observed no difference in production of FCM
per cow by cows grazed or fed soilage. However, the carrying capacity
and FCM production per acre were considerably increased by soiling.
Owens et al. (21) observed similar results when grazing and soiling
Sudangrass pastures. Porter and Skaggs (22) reported that the addi-
tional forage obtained under a soiling regimen was not great enough to
cover the labor and machinery cost when used on irrigated pasture land.

Kennedy, Reid, and Anderson (15) compared six-paddock grazing,
three-paddock grazing, and strip-grazing with soiling. They observed
that milk production per acre was as high or higher for the three-pad-
dock system than for any of the other grazing systems. Larger quantities
of excess forage were harvested from the soilage plots, but the authors
doubted that this additional forage (approximately 1,400 pounds of
dry matter per acre) would pay for the extra cost of the operation.
It must also be remembered that milk production per acre is dependent
both upon production per cow and upon the number of cows per acre.
In the Kennedy, Reid, and Anderson study, in which the strip-grazed
cows were the pace-setters, the three-paddock group appeared to be
short of feed about 25 percent of the time, but the records of milk pro-
duction failed so show that such a deficiency existed. Therefore, Ken-
nedy et al. cautioned against understocking and thereby introducing
bias in grazing experiments in which milk production per acre is the
criterion of comparison.

The renewed interest in soiling that followed the development of
mechanical forage harvesters again drew attention to the disadvantages
of this system and again led to a comparison of soilage with silage.

Eichers and Engene (4) reported that milk production per cow
and per acre were similar when soilage or silage was fed as the sole
roughage. Their carefully kept records of labor requirements indi-
cated that, considering the experimental period as a whole, the average
daily labor requirement was slightly higher for silage feeding when

*FCM is used in this bulletin to mean fat-corrected milk. It is equivalent to

milk containing 4 percent fat and is calculated by Gaines’ formula (FCM = 0.4
X milk yield in pounds +15 X milk-fat yield in pounds).

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 7

silo-filling time was prorated across the whole period. However, the
time required for daily silage feeding was only about half that required
for soilage feeding. Therefore, silage may still have had the advantage
in overall farm operations because a major portion of the labor load
occurred in a period of a few days and the labor requirement for feed-
ing roughage was lower during the peak labor periods of other opera-
tions.

Foreman et al. (5) reported significantly higher production of
FCM on second- and third-cutting soilage than from first-cutting silage
from the same field. However, more FCM per pound of calculated
TDN was produced from silage than from soilage. They postulated
that this difference was due to higher estrogenic activity in the first-
cutting forage, even after ensiling, than in subsequent cuttings.

Since many commercial dairy farmers adopted full or partial soil-
ing regimens before research results were available from experiment
stations, a considerable portion of the literature has been compiled by
surveys of such farmers. Hoglund (11, 12) published the results of
several such surveys. Michigan farmers reported an increase of about
20 percent in carrying capacity of pastures due to soiling, but the in-
creased production was very nearly balanced by increased costs.
Therefore, Hoglund felt that the proper time to use a soiling system
would be when labor was available and land limited. Thus the size
of the dairy operation could be increased without an increase in farm
size. In visiting these farms, he observed that soiling required a higher
level of managerial ability and that the increase in milk production
per cow that was observed in some cases occurred because farmers
saw exactly what the yield of their forage fields was, and thus began
supplemental feeding at the proper time instead of waiting for the
reduced forage production to show up as lowered daily milk produc-
tion.

Cash and Fryman (3) reported similar results from a survey of
Illinois farmers who were using soiling systems. They concluded that
the real problem involved was the availability of land versus the
availability of capital (equipment) and labor.

H. J. Larsen (17), in reviewing pasture work from several Mid-
west experiment stations, presented one of the strongest cases in favor
of year-round stored feeding and soiling. He is of the opinion that
the cow as a forage harvester is definitely on the way out and that
the pressure for larger and more efficient dairy farms will bring about
the exclusive use of mechanical forage harvesters, either for soiling
or summer silage feeding. He is confident that the management and

8 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

capital problems will be solved under the impetus of higher production
per acre of tillable land, thus leaving the untillable land for livestock
with less demanding requirements for energy and protein.

Comparison of Pasture and Soiling

Grazing is a widely used method of harvesting forage crops for
summer feeding on Illinois dairy farms. Because of the importance
of grazing, the first trial compared soiling with grazing. Four adjacent
grass-legume pasture fields were used in the trial. Plots 1 and 4 were
soiled (the forage was chopped with a mechanical forage harvester
and hauled to the cows) and plots 2 and 3 were grazed. The fields
were not irrigated, but rainfall was above normal.

The forage consisted of alfalfa, timothy, sparse Ladino, and vol-
unteer bromegrass on plots 1 and 2, and alfalfa, timothy, and abundant
Ladino on plots 3 and 4. Plots 2 and 3 were subdivided by con-
structing a temporary fence on the center line of each plot. This pro-
vided four subplots for alternate grazing, each containing 2.25 acres.
Each subplot was grazed by 15 cows (7 Holsteins, 4 Brown Swiss,
2 Guernseys, and 2 Ayrshires) one week within each four-week period.
The experimental period was 12 weeks long. After each subplot was
grazed, it was clipped to control weeds and to eliminate mature forage.
Plots 1 and 4, each containing 4.5 acres, were used together to feed 15
cows. The forage was chopped twice daily and each plot was used for
a period of two weeks for each cutting. Any forage that remained at
the end of the two-week period was removed.

The forage available from each system of harvesting provided the
only source of roughage for each group of cows. Although each
group included individuals from four dairy breeds, the groups were
balanced for initial production, calving dates, breed, and age. Thus
direct comparisons could be made of the milk produced and of the
changes in body weight. The cows received an 11-percent crude pro-
tein grain mixture which was fed at the rate of 1 pound of grain to
4 pounds of FCM. The forage was harvested from the soilage plots
twice a day and the loads of chopped forage were weighed. The
amount harvested each day was slightly more than needed for feeding.
The surplus was fed to animals not on this experiment. At feeding
time the soilage was weighed out for each cow individually and fed in
individual mangers in a stanchion barn. Records kept of the amounts
fed provided exact data on the yield of soilage per acre but provided
no forage yield data for those plots that were grazed. Body-weight

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 9

Feeding roughage to cows on an individual basis provides research workers
with accurate information about consumption. This procedure is not neces-
sary under farm conditions.

measurements were made on the first three days of the trial, on the
final three days of the trial, and on one day at the midpoint.

Experimental Results

Under conditions imposed in this trial, the average daily milk
(FCM) production of the cows consuming soilage declined 7.8 pounds,
and that of the grazing animals declined 8.1 pounds. The difference of
0.3 pound between groups was not significant because such a small
difference may represent a randomly distributed (normal) biological
difference. The initial average daily milk production (FCM) was
38.3 pounds for the pasture group and 36.9 pounds for the soilage
group.

Body weight changes during the 12-week experimental period were
also non-significant, being + 18 pounds for the average grazed animal
and +43 pounds for the average soilage-fed animal. Initial body
weights averaged 1,221 pounds for cows in the pasture group and
1,224 pounds for cows in the soiling group. Final body weights
averaged 1,239 pounds and 1,267 pounds, respectively.

10 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

Table 1.— Comparison of Pasture and Soilage: Average Daily
Feed Consumption

Group I Group II
(Pasture) (Soilage)
All cows

Pasture-9acresy?. 2. ee ad ib. Pieec
Greéen-feed..9 acrés. ¢ Sian eee ee ae eee eae 1312 the
Drycmiatter yrs eek kee eh oe 25. BAL:
Grains sc. she ts s Sieee Bee eee ee Sut lps 8.4 Ib.
Highest individual intake of green feed............... idee 166.9 Ib

The consumption of soilage varied considerably between cows and
days. On a per-head basis, the average soilage intake varied from a
high of 166.9 pounds to a low of 98.9 pounds a day. However, when
forage consumption was related to body size (100 pounds body
weight), individual cow and breed differences disappeared (Tables 1
and 2). Soilage consumption tended to decline as the forage ap-
proached maturity and to increase again following a change to less
mature forage. Such reductions in consumption were reflected as re-
duced milk production and pointed up the necessity for good man-
agement of crops to be used as soilage.

Table 3 shows that the 15 cows receiving soilage consumed less
than 75 percent of the green forage harvested in plots 1 and 4. This
surplus forage would have been enough to have fed five more cows
throughout the period and would have increased the apparent carrying
capacity of the plots by one-third. Some research workers, on the
basis of similar data, have suggested that surplus forage can be con-
sidered as return on the additional capital and labor invested in the
soiling system. In this experiment, the production of the cows grazing
plots 2 and 3 was equal to that of the soilage group, and any excess for-
age left on these plots was clipped and left in the field. That means that

Table 2.— Comparison of Pasture and Soilage: Green Feed
Consumed per Day

Fresh Dry matter

Average
Breed : green per 100 lb.
weight feed liveweight
lb. lb. Lb.
Holsteins 5c. os aneek tee ee eet ee ee 1302 144 2.09
BYOWrtD Wiss. scot ean ere ee 1259 129 1.94
Ayrshire «350 Bae eee ee eee 969 109 Tie
Guernsey. saci, weld ee ne ae eee HSS) 116 1.90

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 11

Table 3.— Comparison of Pasture and Soilage:
Green Feed Produced

Period Plot 1 Plot 4 Total
lb. lb. lb.

No. on 2 38,495 41,995 80,490
Uo rc 15,380 36,795 ee ts
love cs oe a 523150 47 ,300 99 ,450
POE WTOUUCED 6. le ee nes 106,025 126,090 PAB Na)
OM Us ch | ota att 165 ,336
PEE gg ek bbs ewe on. ee 66,779

the maximum carrying capacity of the grazed plots was not measured.
Some caution must therefore be observed in projecting results to
practical situations from experiments in which predetermined stocking
rates are used and in attempting to determine the response of pasture
crops to mechanical harvesting.

The evidence of this experiment indicates that milk cows are de-
pendent upon a proper supply of nutrients for milk production. The
method of harvesting the forage is independent of the need for nu-
trients.

Comparison of Soilage and Silage

A year-round silage feeding program has been advanced as a pos-
sible means of overcoming the need for the high level of management
and the twice-a-day harvesting necessary for a successful soiling pro-
gram while at the same time retaining the advantages of mechanical
harvesting over grazing.

Whether these advantages make silage preferable to soilage de-
pends on two other factors. The first is that conditions vary from
one farm to another, and these advantages may not be as important
in some cases as they are in others. The second is that a management
choice between the two methods should be based on a knowledge of the
nutritional value, as well as of the convenience, of each. The following
experiment was designed to compare the nutritional value of the two
methods, both with respect to forage yield per acre and with respect
to the weight and milk production of the cows.

A field was divided into 2 equal plots. Equal areas of nearly pure
Stamesmoreedch of three varieties of alfalfa (DuPuits, Vernal, and
Ranger) were grown on each plot. One of the plots was harvested
as silage and the other as soilage. Harvesting dates were scheduled
so that first-crop silage was fed concurrently with first-crop soilage

12 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

Table 4. — Comparison of Soilage and Silage: Description
of Animals in Experiment

Soilage Silage
Average weight (May 16, 17, and 18)........... 1,254 lb. 1,238 Ib.
Average age at previous freshening............. 4 yr. 4 mo. 4 yr. 8 mo.
Averace, days memilke i.e ee on ie eee eee 107 107
Average PCM per cow per:daya. . 2 )52 40) ee 41.1 Ib. 44.6 lb.

and second-crop silage was fed concurrently with second- and third-
cutting soilage. Such a schedule provided the best test of the various
cuttings, both as silage and soilage.

Two groups of 13 milking cows each were used in this experiment.
Each group was made up of 8 Holstein, 3 Brown Swiss, and 2 Ayr-
shire cows (Table 4). These groups were balanced according to milk
production, body weight, age, and days in milk since previous calving.
Both groups were fed soilage from May 15 to 31. This was done to
provide a preliminary green forage feeding period for both groups
while the first-cutting silage was undergoing fermentation in the silo.

The silage group was then fed silage for one week and the test
period began on June 8.

All of the cows were fed individually in the barn during the experi-
mental period so that feed consumption could be measured precisely.
Each cow was fed all the forage she would consume without undue
waste and the orts were assessed accurately against each day’s feeding.

An 11-percent crude protein concentrate mixture was fed to each
cow according to the amount of FCM that she produced. Milk pro-
duction was calculated each week from daily milk weights, and the
weekly fat percentage was obtained from a three-day composite sample.
Concentrates were then fed at a ratio of 1 pound of concentrate to
4 pounds of FCM based on the previous week’s production.

Each load of chopped forage was sampled, whether it was fed as
soilage or stored as silage. Silage samples were taken at each feeding.
All samples were stored in airtight containers at 5° C. until their dry-
matter content could be determined by drying to constant weight at
85° C. Crude protein analyses were run according to the A.O.A.C.
method.

Heavy rainfall that caused the fields to become too soft to carry
the harvesting machinery made it impossible to harvest soilage on ten
different occasions. At these times the soilage-fed cows were turned
out to pastures that had a similar plant population to that of the soiling

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 13

plot, and consumption was estimated to be the same as when the cows
were fed soilage in the barn.

Body weight measurements were made on 2 or 3 consecutive days
at the beginning and end of the preliminary period, when a change
was made from first- to second- and from second- to third-cutting
forage, and at the end of the experimental period.

Experimental Results

The forage yields of the two plots were weighed before being fed
or ensiled. The yield of dry matter per acre was exactly the same for
both plots (Table 5), and the yield of crude protein varied only slightly
when expressed on the basis of soilage versus green material ensiled.
Such close agreement is a measure of the quality of the plots and an
indication that the three mechanical cuttings yielded approximately the
same amount of total forage. However, it must be stated that under
the conditions of this experiment, the area that was harvested for
silage showed considerable recovery and had a uniform stand of forage
that could have been grazed at the end of the experiment, whereas the
plot that had been soiled showed only a very slight recovery.

The conventional silos that were used for storing the harvested
forage were not adapted for use in obtaining precise measurements of
run-off, gaseous losses due to various oxidative processes during
fermentation, and top spoilage. Comparisons of the input-output data

Table 5. — Comparison of Soilage and Silage: Yields of
Forage and Dry Matter

Fresh Percent Dry
weight, dry matter,
pounds matter pounds

Soilage (9.65 acres)

Sh is kp ee RR KY Os 129,185 20.38 20-GoL
RMT ob ne ce ee ed ee eee eee 90,825 24.46 223218
OMI o,f ee eae ee es 51825 2A De o21
Se ee aie os iv es sye ale wie te ee 2 LU e OS eee 61,470
CIRM PICO fy sole sek ole Ss ee SP AN UG. 6.370
Silage* (9.8 acres)
OOO CUTS TS 4 2 ne i 93 ,960 20.02 18,811
ero me CNG WItEd) oc... ns es eee ee See ea 37.54 24 ,482
Mrmeee times Wilted) 6.0... oe ce ee eee ee 55,090 34.74 19 M137
Eh cy a desde a ere Sig a 21 el Ol ee ae 62 ,430
Us l 6) 8 So gies nr 213035 ee 6,370

a Green forage before ensiling.

14 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

would indicate approximately a 15-percent loss in dry matter due to
ensiling. This agrees with similar data from other stations. The crop
was wilted before ensiling, and no preservative was used.

Feed consumption data obtained during the 84-day experimental
period indicate that the cows on soilage consumed 314 more pounds
of dry matter per day than those fed silage (Table 6). However,
concentrate consumption and protein intake were similar. The major
difference between the two groups apparently was the smaller con-
sumption of dry matter by the silage-fed group.

This difference in dry-matter consumption did not appear as a
difference in body weights. Both groups showed an increase in body
weight during the experimental period. However, it is interesting to
note that the silage-fed cows lost weight when fed first-cutting silage
and gained weight on second-cutting silage. This response was probably
due to a higher palatability of the second-cutting silage because it was
harvested at a somewhat more desirable stage of maturity and in a
period of good drying weather that allowed proper wilting. The first-
cutting silage was stored too wet because of its early stage of maturity
and the poor drying weather when it was cut. The response to these
variables can be seen in the graph below.

SOILAGE GROUP

Ist Cutting
Soilage

2nd Cutting
™ Soilage 3rd Cutting
Soilage

‘
‘
J /—SILAGE GROUP
Ist Cutting /
Silage ‘ 4

2nd Cutting
Silage

Forage Dry Matter Consumed per Cow per Day, Ib.

6/l¢ G/ei 6/28 7/5 T/l2 WIS 726 8/2 8/9 8/I6RG/e5ee ae
WEEKS

Throughout the experimental period the cows in the soilage group consumed
an average of 3.4 pounds more dry matter per day than did those in the
silage group. ;

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE i)

Table 6.— Comparison of Soilage and Silage: Feed Consumption
and Milk Production (84-day Period)

Soilage Silage
group group
Feed consumption (pounds)
Oe Sd) a ee i ree ee ne nee 126,154.4 ve
Soave wonsumed per cow per day®..... 2.6.6. 05. 00+ toy) Pe hte
CSR UC), ot SE SS ne ee ee eds 87,597 .4
eilece cotcuined per cow per day............5.00.00. 80.2
Forage dry matter consumed per cow per day........ 27.6 24.2
Concentrate consumed per cow per day.............. eZ 91
Milk production (pounds)

RO RCC eo yep hak ie hee A a en iw we 50, 50181 308/10
even esr (2 Vl per cow per day. oi .e2 cha we eens 3o 7o 3320
Preliminary week, FCM per cow per day............ 40.4 40.1
Pinaliweek, PCM per cow per day: .............04.- 30.9 SO.
Meemmenn ) CN per COW... 6... ee ee wes oo 9.9

® Includes estimate of forage consumed from pasture when soilage could not be harvested.

Milk production, as shown in Table 6, was similar between groups.
The soilage-fed cows declined 9.5 pounds and the silage-fed cows 9.9
pounds in average daily FCM production per cow. Such a difference is
too small to be significant. Thus we are confronted with similar milk
production on a reduced intake of dry matter. This response has been
observed at other experiment stations, but no concrete evidence has
been obtained to explain it. Foreman et al. (5) have postulated a dif-
ference in estrogenic activity between first-cutting silage and second-
cutting soilage from the same field. In order to use that explanation
for this experiment, it would be necessary to postulate a difference in
estrogenic activity with the stage of maturity of the forage.

It is possible that a portion of this difference can be explained by
a production during the ensiling process of volatile products that
were lost during the dry matter determination. However, checks run
at different drying temperatures and toluene distillations failed to
support this possibility.

Another postulation is that some product was formed during en-
siling that was capable of increasing the efficiency with which other
nutrients were used. Such a product could be lactic acid, the major
acid formed. It is logical to assume that the lactic acid in silage would
be converted by the rumen bacteria to propionic acid. Armstrong and
Blaxter (1) have shown that under certain conditions the addition of
propionate to an infusion of acetate reduces the heat increment ob-

16 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

served when acetate is infused alone. Although their evidence did not
bear directly upon dairy cattle, similar studies with cows might ex-
plain the difference in utilization of dry matter by dairy cows.

This experiment again showed that milk production depends on
the quality and quantity of the nutrients fed and that the method of
supplying nutrients affects milk production only as it affects these
factors. The quality of the soilage and silage used in this experiment
was practically the same. The forage for both came from plots that
yielded the same amount of dry matter per acre. No analysis was
made of the differences in labor and other costs.

Comparison of Soilage and Silage
With and Without Supplemental Hay

Before a dairy farmer decides to convert his grazing regimen to

one that uses soiling techniques or that calls for year-round silage
feeding, he needs to know if supplemental hay feeding would increase

Wagons with drop-down sides are used both to haul and feed soilage. Green
forage is thus fed with a minimum of manual labor. Such wagons can be
parked in numerous places in the feeding lot and reduce the mud hazard in
wet weather.

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 17

the amount of milk produced by the cows. Some barn-feeding trials
(2, 19) have indicated that cows consume more dry matter per day
when provided with some hay and produce more milk than when fed
silage as the sole source of roughage, whereas other tests (10, 24)
have shown similar responses or slight advantages in favor of silage
as the sole roughage. Unfortunately, the palatability, or acceptability,
of each individual batch of silage may play a very significant role in
this response, and measurements of such differences are extremely
diffcult or impossible to make at the present time.

An experiment was designed to measure the effect of supplemental
hay feeding in Illinois. Four groups of 11 cows (2 Ayrshires, 3 Brown
Swiss, and 6 Holsteins in each group) were balanced in such a man-
ner that production, age, breed, body weight, and date at last calving
were similar between groups. Group I received silage as the sole
source of roughage, group II received silage plus hay, group III re-
ceived soilage, and group IV received soilage plus hay. Hay was fed
to groups II and IV at a rate that provided 5 pounds a day for each
Ayrshire and 6 pounds a day for each Brown Swiss and Holstein.
Periods I and II were 28 days long. Period I covered the time when

Self-unloading wagons provide a convenient method for unloading soilage
into stationary feed bunks. One such wagon can be used to haul forage for
cattle in several lots, whereas a self-feeding wagon is needed for each lot.

18 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

the first-cutting forage was fed, and period II covered the feeding of
second-cutting forage. Period III was only 13 days long, due to a
shortage of third-cutting soilage. The entire daily allowance of hay
was fed in a single feeding during the morning. All cows were fed
a mixture of 11-percent crude protein concentrate at the rate of 1 potind
for each 4 pounds of FCM on the basis of the previous week’s produc-
tion. During periods of inclement weather or periods of machinery
breakdown, the soilage-fed cows were fed silage because this provided
forage of similar composition and allowed precise measurement of
intake. All cows were fed individually in a stanchion barn to facilitate
measuring feed consumption and orts. All groups were allowed to
exercise daily in a drylot.

Twenty acres of second-year alfalfa forage were divided into two
ten-acre plots to provide the forage for the cows. Silage was first cut
from May 25 to 27, and soilage harvesting began on May 28. The
first growth of the soilage plot was rank, and daily harvesting pro-
ceeded at a slow rate that allowed some second-growth forage to be
harvested with the first-cutting soilage. This simultaneous harvesting
of mature first-crop forage and immature second-crop forage severely
limited the recovery observed on this plot and pointed up one of the
major management problems of a soiling system. The second cutting
of silage was made on July 2 and 3 and the third cutting on August 4.
The silage crop was cut, allowed to wilt in the field for about two
hours, chopped, hauled to the farmstead, and blown into the silo with-
out any additive being applied. Some of the soilage fed during the
second and third cutting periods was of necessity harvested from
the silage plot because of the slow recovery of the soilage plot after the
first cutting. Though this difficulty made it impossible to estimate pre-
cisely the yield of forage under each system, it would have little if any
effect upon the assessment of the nutritional response of the dairy cows
to the forage harvested by the two different methods.

The hay fed during the experiment was average- to good-quality
alfalfa containing a small percentage of grass and 13.3 to 14.5 percent
crude protein on a dry-matter basis.

Experimental Results

Table 7 shows the quantities of the various feeds consumed by
each group of cows. The inclusion of hay in the ration increased the
rate of roughage dry-matter intake on both silage and soilage. Group
I, the group receiving silage as the sole roughage, consumed the least
dry matter from roughage, and the intake of roughage dry matter

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 19

Table 7.— Comparison of Soilage and Silage With and Without
Supplemental Hay: Dry Matter Intake and FCM
Production per Cow per Day

Group [| Group II Group III Group IV
(Silage (Silage (Soilage (Soilage

without with without with
hay) hay) hay) hay)
Dry-matter intake per cow per day (pounds)
Period I

PsP aOIeSOUAVE, <4.) os aNd od ons a 2de9 20.1 29.0 Deh os
A ob eke vos ook ws eel ee 4.7 ane 4.3
SM re iki 11.4 10.7 10.7
TEA Gi se 3220 3682 SET 40.3

Period II
MEMES, VS COOL rr PAD) fOr 28.8 24.8
ER ae Leben a 4.9 ee 4.5
JECUI I oo oac8 De LOet 10.6 9.7 9.7
TOME Ok kt, et oT aa! Seiad) SToh) 39.0

Period III
PC etOl SOMBIE. cease ees a 24.0 2159 29.4 26.4
EAD oo 5 he er aoe 4.7 bs 4.2
(STENTS Go hc ae a 9.4 9.6 9.4 Om
OE a 3 33.4 SO eZ 38.8 39.9

Average
Silave or soilage.. .y.hion Mind ries ve» Ze DOM? 29,2 25
(REAR a 5 ie ee ee yee 4.8 ee 4.3
Bere errs Bin tees der ial. « « LOZ 10.8 10.0 TORE
IG, G38 Be ieee 92 etd S271 Shots) 3922 39.7
FCM production per cow per day (pounds)

Lic Oli, o5 yah ee ee ene nn 49.1 516 49.2 48.5
[STNG ee, 2 aa ne, fa 44.1 46.8 41.6 42.8
Pee OO EL ners, 2 aA lee Ss. 40.4 41.9 40.5 40.5
LC ke EN cae ORR cn oe S052 Ji8 3 fea SH te)
BT AO Ce en alas Loashetdet Muliterw bo 8 40.6 43 1 40.4 40.8

increased per group in each of the other groups from II to IV. How-
ever, supplemental hay feeding increased the dry-matter intake of the
soilage fed group only slightly. The major reason for the difference
in the rate of dry-matter intake between periods by the silage-fed
cows was the dry-matter content of the silage. The harvesting pro-
cedures were similar for each harvest, but variations in the drying
conditions caused the second cutting to be the dampest and the third
cutting the driest. Since the feeding guide was based on pounds of
silage, dry-matter consumption tended to follow dry-matter content.
Concentrate feeding was nearly equal between groups with groups I,
II, III, and IV consuming concentrates in a ratio of 1 pound of con-
femtatesto 3:52, 3.47, 3.64, and 3.55 pounds of FCM, respectively.

20 BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

Since neither groups II nor IV consumed all of the hay that they
were offered, there apparently was no compelling dry-roughage hunger
in these groups.

The cows in all groups gained relatively little weight. The average
gains were 14 pounds, 34 pounds, 21 pounds, and 15 pounds for groups
I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Therefore, the rations appeared equal
as indicated by body-weight changes.

The initial FCM production of group II was higher than the others
and remained so throughout the period (Table 7). However, when an
analysis of covariance was performed to mathematically adjust for
the initial difference, the observed differences were not significant.
Therefore, under the conditions imposed in this experiment, the sup-
plemental feeding of dry roughage and the concurrent increase in
dry-matter intake from roughage did not increase the amount of FCM
produced.

The reason for similar production of fat-corrected milk by the
soilage-fed cows on smaller intake of dry matter is unexplained in
this experiment.

Discussion

In all the comparisons, milk production appeared to be quite inde-
pendent of the form of the roughage and of the method used in pro-
viding it. The important factor appeared to be the providing of enough
nutrients from a palatable source regardless of form or method.
Therefore, the summer feeding of dairy cows is a problem in availa-
bility of land, capital, and labor, any of which may differ from farm
‘to farm,

Properly managed grazing must still be considered to be the best
method of forage harvesting when an abundance of grazing land, part
of which is not suitable for mechanical harvesting, is available and
when labor and capital are limited.

Mechanical harvesting of forage is preferable when land is a limit-
ing factor and when capital and labor are plentiful. This technique
makes it possible to harvest the entire amount of green matter pro-
duced without wastage due to selective grazing, trampling, or fouling
of the forage. These wastes are most severe on tall-growing plants.
Mechanical harvesting also permits the number of cows to increase
beyond the point where the distance to pasture becomes a limiting fac-

tor and allows the harvesting of green forage on distant or isolated
fields.

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE |

Field damage of this type is the result of harvesting soilage when the field
was soft. The use of supplemental roughage sources prevents such damage.

Rainy weather and heavy traffic around bunks in an unpaved lot soon cause
the feeding area to become muddy. A concrete apron around the bunk will
correct this situation.

Ze BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

Soiling has the drawback that the level of management required
to harvest crops at peak value, to provide supplemental feed for periods
of adverse weather and of machinery breakdown, and to handle cows
in drylot is more exacting than for conventional grazing systems.
Daily harvesting, preferably twice a day, is time consuming and is
likely to interfere with other farm operations during periods of peak
labor demands. Capital investments for equipment are usually in-
creased. Soiling does have the advantage of eliminating the loss of
dry matter that normally occurs in silage, and in the long run, as
Eichers and Engene (4) showed by prorating the labor time spent on
silo filling, soilage does not require more labor than silage. In many
cases, however, these advantages do not offset the disadvantages just
mentioned.

Year-round feeding of silage can be used to retain many of the
advantages of soiling without the operation of harvesting forage daily
and without its being so much at the mercy of the weather. The capital
investments in silos may be increased, but year-round use and two
fillings a year provide more efficient use of the capital invested in silos
and in silo-filling equipment.

Therefore, a single method of harvesting forage cannot be recom-
mended. Each farmer should select the method of harvesting sum-
mer forage which he feels is appropriate to his resources, basing his
decision on such factors as forage requirements, labor supply, facilities
at hand, topography of his farm, and availability of capital.

Summary

Three sets of summer feeding experiments were run studying the
feeding value of soilage or green chop. The first compared soilage
with rotational grazing using two groups of 15 milking cows each.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in milk
production, feed consumption, or body weight changes. The second
compared soilage with silage using two groups of 13 milking cows
each. Forage yields were the same from both plots on a dry-matter
basis; however, the silage plot showed better recovery at the end of
the experiment, offsetting the normal loss of dry matter that occurs
in silage. The soilage-fed group consumed nearly 314 more pounds
of dry matter per day, but there were no significant differences in milk
production or in body-weight changes. The third experiment compared
soilage and silage both with and without supplemental hay using four
groups of 11 milking cows each. Feeding supplemental hay increased

1965] METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE 23

dry-matter consumption slightly on both the soilage and silage diets
but caused no significant increase in milk production. No analysis of
differences in labor or other costs was made in these experiments.

bo

14.

15,

Bibliography

. ARMSTRONG, D. G., and BLaxter, K. L. The heat increment of steam-volatile

fatty acids in fasting sheep. Brit. Jour. Nutrition 11:247-271. 1957.

mero bee elie PORTER. G. W., LintorrT, Rk. E., SHaw, Ay ©. and Asn-

worTtH, U. S. The use of large amounts of silage in the dairy ration.
VWiacheever, Expt. ota, Cir. 202. 1952.

ec Acu,)J2 G, and FrymAn, L. R. Report on soiling study made in 1955.

Pie Ll Dairy Sci. Dept. Mimes., Feb. 9, 1956.

. EtcHers, T. R., and Encene, S. A. Labor requirements for soilage and

silage. Minn. Farm Bus. Notes 381. 1957.

. ForEMAN, C. F. Atten, R. S., Porter, A. R., and Homeyer, P. G. Com-

parison of alfalfa fed as soilage or silage and the only forage for
lactating dairy cows. Jour. Dairy Sci. 41:1730-1737. 1958.

DERANDSEN, |. —H., HEeENpRICKSON, J. W., Waite, G. C., Nortu, A. C., and

Woopwarp, E. G. Soiling versus silage for dairy cows under Nebraska
Conditions, four. Dairy Sci. 4:124-157. 1921.

Mteeeite so. >., ViCGAnDnIcn. A. C., and Kitprr, H. H. Soiling crops for

milk production. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 187, pp. 29-59. 1919.

. Graves, R. R., Dawson, J. R., KopLtanp, D. V., and MoseLry, T. W. Feed-

ing value for milk production of pasture grasses when grazed, when
fed green, and when fed as hay or silage. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul.
pole 1933;

. HeNverson, B. W., Cossir, J. W., and Coox, H. J. Soilage feeding of dairy

cattle. Khode Island Agra Exp. Sta. Bul. 336. 17p. 1957.

mre WALKIE eb s)|eeand Lunpouist, N. S. Grass silage as the only

source of nutrients for milking cows. (Abstract) Jour. Animal Sci.

13 :1008-1009. 1954.

. Hociunp, C. R., Green-chopping versus grazing of forages on Michigan dairy

farms. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 37 :550-564. 1955.

. Hoctunp, C. R. Economics of hauling versus grazing of forages on Mich-

igan dairy farms. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 38 :628-643. 1956.

. Hurrman, C. F. Nutritional evaluation of silage. Michigan State Univ.

Silage Conference. Sept. 14-15, 1959.

HurrMan, C. F. Summer feeding of dairy cattle. A review. Jour. Dairy Sci.
42 1495-1551. 1959.

Krennepy, W. K., Rerp, J. T., and Anperson, M. J. Evaluation of animal
production under different systems of grazing. Jour. Dairy Sci. 42 :679-
Geol 959:

. Kinpez, H. H., Weaver, Eart, SHaw, J. M., and Exy, Forpycre. Succulent

feeds for dairy cows in summer. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 231, pp. 73-96.
1925.

. Larsen, H. J. Methods of forage utilization in the Midwest. Jour. Dairy

Sci. 42 :574-578. 1959.

Zoe

24.

oo:

26.

Zt:

BULLETIN NO. 709 [April,

. McCanp.isH, A. C. A comparison of silage and soiling crops for summer

milk production. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 201, pp. 1-8. 1921.

. NicHoLson, J. W. G., and Parent, R. C. Various combinations of grass

silage and hay for dairy cattle. Can. Jour. Animal Sci. 37 :64-67. 1957.

. Otis, D. H. Experience in soiling and pasturing cows, 1899. Kansas Agr.

Exp. Sta, Bulj119)-pp. 1-3.41903- 2 Press Bula] alvu0:

. Owen, J. R., Mires, J. T., and Cowsert, W. C. A comparison of systems

of grazing a summer annual crop. (Abstract) Jour. Dairy Sci. 40:1392.
1957.

. Porter, R. M., and Sxacoas, S. R. Forage and milk yields from alfalfa under

three different harvesting systems. N. Mex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 421.
Op. 1958.

Pratt, A. D., Conran, H. R., Davis, R. R., and VANDERSATINS |p etl
and silage for milk production. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 871. 22p.
1961.

SHEPARD, J. B., WiseMAN, H. G., Ety, R. E., Metin, C. G., Sweetman, W. J.,
Gorpon, C. H., ScHoELEBER, L. G., Wacner, RR) E.) CAMPeaeieeeee
Roane, G. D., and HostermMan, W. H. Experiments in harvesting and
preserving alfalfa for dairy cattle. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 1079. 1954.

SmiTH, E. P., and Keyes, E. A. A comparison of three pasture plans with
grasses for dairy cows. Jour. Dairy Sci. 42:137-143. 1959.

TRETSVEN, J. O. Feeds for dairy cattle. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 282. 20p.
1933.

WoLtL, F. W., Humpurey, G. C., and OostTerHuts, A. C. Soiling crops versus

silage for dairy cows in summer. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 235. 16p.
1914.

1965]

METHODS OF HARVESTING SUMMER FORAGE

25

APPENDIX TABLE 1.— Comparison of Soilage and Pasture

Milk production

Feed consumption,
lb.

Cow er Weight, lb. (FCM), Ib. Soi

avi 5 Olla
No. eee nical erinal Gain tal Final . =

Pet, Total Pele tall ee reshma ry.

day day

Group I — Pasture
Mimsy 10118 1,072 —46. 31-7 2,408.9 15.0 574 ...... .....
1,294 Br. Swiss 1,540 1,546 6 SIR4 O89 5 ee 41775 O24 Nera ost eae
Me ee 027. «1,061 «34 «31.7 1,786.1 13.6 553 ...... .....
iPsO2eeor.sowiss 1,381 1,437 56 or Ae me 211359 eo 2 0 (AUNT a? lc Selene
1,396 Holstein Ue WRN = “aerete ars) DDR o N24 IPO 625.0 Ll Aaeitese <. GsA ee
Paitweeeraowiss 1,295 1,333 38 OA One C9 eee S529 (Ey ex, een ees
Pe oomeioleiin 1,348 1,320-—28 44.9 2509.5 26.3 714 ...... .....
1,432 Holstein 1,306 1,290 —16 Aeon OS Lol ere 20s S only San at eae:
eect tcree 1.370. 1,358 —12 57.0 4,242.5 46.7 1,050 ...........
1,475 Holstein tee (Oe (ty 25c40 2206/5" (2273 TLS eae tie ee
1,503 Ayrshire 852 890 = 38 DROME DOO pee 0 ae 700 eee Sree
1,504 Holstein 1 (9 eel 20030 48.8 3,454.9 43.4 OA ee ee eee A
1,506 Holstein 1TROS 3s OF eee 24 S5n0) 2461490" 3188 900 Baek ee tebe ete
imovimemorvowiss 1,118 1,149 31 O50 662, 00985) §3274 0/2 ae eee
1,509 Ayrshire 9935 10552 02 Sor ees 42022. * 2081 ON Mer. fot a ae
Average (eee omECT= 838.3 2 741.6 30.2 733 ...... .....
Group II — Soiling

1,233 Holstein 1,446 1,555 109 40.6 2,610.7 29.1 728 13,946 2,540
MeAmeer Swiss) 1,319 1,308 949 45.8 3,417.0 40.6 924 12,520 2.280
Meo eolten 91,429 1.4859 °56 35.3 2,203.2 23.5 630 11.399 2.076
Meo emiriowics 1,521 1,508 47 27.1 1,954.1 21.5 605 10,882 1.981
eoseeAychire 1,001 1,060 —1 41.5 2,798.6 28.1 672 9.927 1.808
MeO ncey 1.207 91,2220 25 38.0 2,625.2 31.8 714 9,452 1.721
Meese 1,195 1,222 27 41.5 2,641.7 29.6 812 9.750 1.775
1,442 Holstein ee le OOS O kel Al And Seber 28 0 Wayans 808 10,665 1,942
1,454 Holstein 1,318 1,419 101 BSEOM BOR OO See Em Oo ae 987 14,020 2,553
1,482 Ayrshire 870 Sap 1 OR I EG) Gi Seti - ie Se
peer iowics 1,237 1,241 4 32.4 2,262.1 25.6 588 10,128 1.844
ao0eerolstein 1,158 1,230 72 27.7 2,029.9 23.1 595 10.767 1.961
iovteeecuermsey 1,071 1,107 36 Nar” ee Tala as Bie! Sil 9,992 1,820
Meomeetolstein 1.243 1.277 34 47.1 3,053.8 32.4 804 12.810 2,333
1,510 Holstein 999 1,033 34 SA ea OA Open e) 707 =6.10,774 1,962
Average te 24e i267" 743 SORY mee Sin One eo eal LO tee 023062, O07

26

Cow
No.

1,292
1,396
1,412
1,486
1,499
1,502
1,554
1,555
1,294
1,414
1,469
1,476
1,553

Average

12933
1,320
1,332
1,426
1,506
1,550
1,552
Tey
1,249
1,392
1,487
1,549
1,560

Average

BULLETIN NO. 709

APPENDIX TABLE 2. — Comparison of Soilage and Silage

Breed

Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Br. Swiss
Br. Swiss
Br. Swiss
Ayrshire
Ayrshire

Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Holstein
Br. Swiss
Br. Swiss
Br. Swiss
Ayrshire
Ayrshire

Weight, Ib.

Initial

1,338
1,500
1,412
1,245
T2438
15978
1,000

946
1,368
1,224
1,348
{O74

883

1,235

1,405
1,435
1,510
1,329
1,105
1,011
1,050
1,146
1,323
1,408
1,376

994
1,030

1,240

Final

1,370
1,488
1,556
(9335
1,260
1,315
1,055

996
1,568
17s
1,348
pon

940

1,282

1,499
1,535
1,534
1,401
19928
tet
1,165
1,203
1,367
1,399
1,397
1,038
1,094

1,306

Gain

Milk production

Initial
per
day

(FCM), lb.

Total

Group I — Soiling

a) 4056.0 -3-0018
—12 SSUOR ees i ver
144 33) 5 emeanOse
90 2973.5 Fe hO0r
17 °3557 Sees
oy 5055) eon
55 38.0 ~ 22066 te
50 4323/5 amie
200 2453 aso
—6 47 59ee os
0 A3°2 anton
—52 40 6 sgomeios
57 32.0 2,046.
47 40.4 2,837.
Group II — Silage
94 50.9" 3570s
100 S081 2,945.
23. 55,1 eerie
72 (40.9 2628
123 24.2 1 aDos
110.0 30h ro en
115 S208) Lee loe
Bi ALP Sie
44 52201) oebios
Opens 4 Sed eos O 7
Zi 3300. Pars Oo7
Mig | EPL Ye OMT Aa,
64 34,0 ° 25309.
66 ADM: I2, 828%

ON FOO TWWANN LUN O

nm OMnMRETREREAANFH COO

Final
per
day

ww
ns
O FP OORWDAK PAW SW

bo
wn
TOL OUMUWBNADARFUOMUAWM

SS)
—)
bo

Feed consumption,
lb.

Grain

770
1,008
735
511
636
920
749
854
637
903
868
892
574

774

980
791
1,092
756
441
602
602
763
1,015
952
721
616
645

108

Forage

Fresh

10,506
11,921
10,251
10,533
9.182
12511
9120
7,905
11,702
9525
9161
7,807
6,030

9,704

8,821
7 234
7,748
7,354
6,978
6 964
6,257
6,394
6,685
6,387
6,710

5,000 -

5 066
6,738

Dry

2,511
2,854
2,450
2,520
Dols
2,991
2.181
1,893
2,789
2,280
2,193
1,365
1,437

2,318

2,656
2,161
2,345
2,232
2,100
2,077
1,900
1,953
2,012
1,921
e023
1,546
1,520

2,034

APPENDIX TABLE 3.— Comparison of Soiling and Silage

With and Without Supplemental Hay

ae Breed
1,553 Ayrshire
1,549 Ayrshire
1,620 Br. Swiss
1,294 Br. Swiss
1,590 Br. Swiss
1,233 Holstein
1,528 Holstein
1,548 Holstein
15502 Holstein
1,555 Holstein
ieo15) eHolstein
Average

1,521 Ayrshire
1,560 Ayrshire
1,249 Br. Swiss
1,487 Br. Swiss
1,617. Br. Swiss
1,332 Holstein
1,493 Holstein
1,533 Holstein
1,594 Holstein
1,607 Holstein
1,593 + Holstein
Average

1,415 Ayrshire
1,615 Ayrshire
1,611 Br. Swiss
1,404 Br. Swiss
1,600 Br. Swiss
i528 se tlolstein
1,455 Holstein
1,491 Holstein
1,540 Holstein
1,554 Holstein
1,606 Holstein
Average

1,542 Ayrshire
1,602 Ayrshire
1,414 Br. Swiss
ifs02 Br, Swiss
1,619 Br. Swiss
1,320 Holstein
1,514 Holstein
1,557 Holstein
1,588 Holstein
1,612 Holstein
1,310 Holstein
Average

Weight, Ib.

Initial

Final

Gain

Milk production

per
day

Total

(FCM), lb.

Initial

Final

per
day

Group I — Silage without supplemental hay

DO0mme 103 1a 05 3938" ©2),3960:45 "2725
1,072 1,063 —9 AGT4s 2 823425 2903
fmOSSeel. 1587. 70 ASA eee 4 Oe Om geo 0
1,645 1,605 —40 oy 63, COMVERSE CWA
il (ogee 21 5 ens Spe 0 me LO SO ame Ony
1,496 1,455 —41 Soll - SiAUR AY Sy
170m 470 6" 44598 1984.6 1876
hoo 205. 67 Siege, aA oA oe
ieee 18-93 he 77 69 4711330) 49 57
1,030 1,026 —4 OStiamees (Soe ogee eee
i Soe, 200) 9 1S AS ee 2 3 (Ooo L
2508 15250 (14 ADO eZ S302 OO ee

Group II — Silage with supplemental hay
1,168 1,209 41 46.3 Amey i eae 26st
lee 230mm 205s 29 ADR Oe O08 a2 1a
poly 1,334 ch 59.1 4,026.8 45°35
1,482 1,462 —20 46.6 2,807.9 S2pe
MeO 5emeson 6 33.6 2,014.8 27.7
1,442 1,470 28 TORO mas Shi 56
1,234 1,264 30 63.6 Sine eyeiee) 46.9
scout io t 65.3 3,960.0 46.8
jet Omen (sovemmseme 43.7 2,944.9 25.4
sae ome 48.0: 2,601.7 27.4
Heres eee see 37.6 1,985.1 22.3
1,264 1,298 34 SUEIL ~ Paar Bl bene)

Group III — Soilage without supplemental hay
OOCMmEINtommmi4e 41.0 2,365.3 27.7
et Ogee omg 41.5 2,291.4. 26.9
(tse ioe 56.0 3,205.4 43.0
feo seimooiN-=14 36.3 2,346.3 26.4
1,104 1138 34 40.1 Tooled Ole
(32 Omer. 323, 3 5950 es 25 le jaeet0'55
1,487 1,478 —9 S/O ae O3UL Om a2
1S 16 1,478 102 40.2 AGO Na) 2 2e3
M20 mee 83589 10m] a2. 1-35 706sl 4744
Waite 45 96 640 816207 993,465.39 40.9
ie Ome 430 es Oe? 1 21 me 5
fel Oeil, 297) 221 SOE AR heted) eel)

Group IV — Soilage with supplemental hay
e002 ee. -O167) 14 Ai Ome OCU O mou ao
e103 1,136 56. 3 Dark 1,980.7 Aes
Noe Re) 1ei3 ie! 6 69.1 3 22 40.9
oa SEARS SG I DRL, Pay
i GAS ARS PAU © Toi AVES, ye AWN) 2S
e165) wel 2473 9 69.8 3,473.4 35.8
1,258 1,214 —44 O5bs wary Of) Cleon
[10st 21008 = One 62 00m 3 2408¢9) 3901
ie 103 15a 40252 4617) 2986
1,091 1 el OSI0) 39 48.3 De ites Je) Sy een |
te, Ley, Ol samt OL Bonu IS oe VAL S|
| OR eS TE EU Da ee

Feed consumption,
lb.

Grain Hay
622
153
718
1,071
628
940
671
567
1,189
1,014
698
807
705 = 333
747° 334
(0369 8411
768 412
608 379
1,308 378
1,098 410
1,105 402
727 ~=404
691 362
635 386
S5LooS
649
602
959
608
697
904
918
595
1,140
1,016
615
791
Sle OUS
Bey 8h!)
1,084 392
120m ea lD
581 402
1,010 340
NAOMI
962 264
OL in OLS
766 320
581 395
(iw pe

Silage
or
soilage

4,943
5,401
5 365
6,557
6,275
7,574
6,068
6,395
7,248
5,355
6,321

6, 136

4,948
4,859
6,144
6, 140
5,447
6,687
4982
6, 202
4960
6, 265
5409

5,640

9139
9,140
9,156
11,174
8,674
114076
13,055
11,116
10,483
10,941
9,548

10,400

8,627
7,501
oui
8,678
8 830
10,294
10,033
8.416
9.473
8,568
10,880

9,020

VLAN

3 0112 099150481