WISCONSIN ALFALFA YIELD AND PERSISTENCE (WAYP) PROGRAM
2012 SUMMARY REPORT
Program Objectives:
1. To verify the yield and quality of alfalfa harvested from production fields over the life of the stand beginning with the
first production year (year after seeding).
2. To quantify decreases in stand productivity of alfalfa fields as they age.
2012 Overview:
The year 2012 marked the sixth year of this project. Once again, UW-Extension agents were asked to identify forage
producers who would be willing to weigh and sample forage from a 2011-seeded field and continue to do so for the life
of the stand. Eight such fields were identified on four separate farms. Also included in this summary are the data for the
second, third, and fourth production years from fields entered into the program in 2007 (2006 seedings) through 2011
(2010 seedings). As is always the case in these types of studies, there is some attrition of fields over time. This is usually the
result of not being able to obtain critical yield or forage quality data for a cutting or multiple cuttings. This year there
were 14 fields dropped from the project that participated in 2011. Most of these stands were terminated for productivity
reasons. In total, production data was collected for 16 fields in 2012 with a total of nearly 5000 dry matter tons of
forage harvested. A summary of all fields is presented in Table 1.
2012 Weather
The year was one of the earliest and driest growing seasons on record for much of the state. Extreme drought conditions
persisted in the southern half of the state from mid-May through late-July. September was also extremely dry, which
impacted fall forage production in many areas. Growing degree units were also well above the 30-year average with a
number of days exceeding the 90 degree mark. While some areas in southern Wisconsin suffered with drought, other
areas in the north received adequate rainfall and recorded record high crop yields.
2011 Weather
April through June was extremely cool resulting in slow early season alfalfa growth. Growing degree units (GDU’s) were
below the 30-year normal for the entire growing season, but much of the reason was because of exceptionally cool
conditions in May and September. July was above average for GDU’s. Precipitation was below average for much of
southern Wisconsin, while northern Wisconsin had above average precipitation.
2010 Weather
The 2010 growing season was one of the best in recent memory with a relatively warm and dry spring allowing for early
alfalfa growth. Growing degree units were above average across the state. Above average rainfall in June and July
made for difficult and sometimes delayed harvests for the second and/or third cuttings, decreasing the overall quality of
the harvested crop. Nevertheless, alfalfa yields were the highest measured since 2007.
2009 Weather
Cool and dry were predominant weather patterns across most of the state in 2009. In fact, it was a record cool growing
season in many regions. Extended stretches of dry weather made it easy to schedule alfalfa harvest but yield potential
was reduced in many areas, especially for cuttings taken in late-July and early-August. A wet and cool October did not
lend itself to any late-fall harvests.
2008 Weather
May was extremely dry across much of the state. Heavy and frequent rains during early June were the predominant
weather anomalies in 2008. In some cases this caused a delay in first-cut harvest date and in one case resulted in the
forage being chopped back onto the field. Dry weather returned later in the summer. Overall, the growing season was
below normal for growing degree units.
2007 Weather
Weather conditions varied across locations. A frost in early April delayed initial spring growth at several locations. All sites
experienced some degree of dry conditions during the growing season. Drought was especially severe in western
Wisconsin.
Table 1. Field background information
Field #
107
207
307
407
507
607
707
807
108
208
308
408
508
608
708
808
908
1008
109
209
309
409
509
609
709
809
110
210
310
410
510
610
111
211
311
411
112
212
312
412
512
612
712
812
1st Production
Year
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
County
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
St. Croix
Waupaca
Fond du Lac
Fond du Lac
Chippewa
Marathon
Winnebago
Winnebago
Winnebago
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
St. Croix
Winnebago
Winnebago
Brown
Chippewa
Calumet
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Fond du Lac
Fond du Lac
Fond du Lac
Brown
Outagamie
Outagamie
St. Croix
Kewaunee
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Dodge
Seeding Mo/Yr.
05/06
04/06
04/06
04/06
08/06
04/06
04/06
04/06
04/07
04/07
05/07
08/07
05/07
05/07
04/07
04/07
05/07
08/07
08/08
04/08
08/08
08/08
04/08
04/08
05/08
05/08
05/09
05/09
05/09
05/09
04/09
04/09
04/10
04/10
05/10
05/10
08/11
05/11
05/11
05/11
05/11
05/11
05/11
05/11
Seeding Rate
(lb/ac)
15
16
16
16
NA
15
17
17
15
15
15
15
15
20
16
16
15
15
NA
15
15
18
15
12
20
20
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
20/+4 TF
20/+4 TF
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
Field Size
(ac)
103.7
79.3
37.0
156.7
51.0
24.1
15.7
39.7
18.8
5.2
115
36.0
22.0
83.7
147.8
53.0
50.3
194.8
41
67
78
75
16.2
15
74.8
63
48
110.2
61.7
111
50.3
19.3
10
35.7
75.8
72
73.9
73.5
143.6
75
189
45.9
38.7
59.6
Notes
dropped in 2010
dropped in 2010
no ’08 1st-cut data
dropped in 2010
dropped in 2010
dropped in 2008
dropped in 2008
dropped in 2011
dropped in 2010
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2009
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2010
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2011
dropped in 2011
dropped in 2011
dropped in 2012
dropped in 2012
Data Collection:
Project fields were identified and an accurate measure of field size was determined (if not previously calculated). Forage
yield from an entire project field was weighed (usually this was done with an on-farm drive over scale). Both empty and
full weights for all trucks/wagons used were recorded. Beginning in 2008, two forage samples from each harvest were
taken and submitted to the Marshfield Soil and Forage Analysis Laboratory (only one sample was submitted per harvest in
2007) for NIR analysis. Data from the two forage samples was averaged and recorded by the local coordinator.
Information was inputted into a spreadsheet and shared with the producer following each harvest. At the end of the season,
all data was collected and summarized for this report.
2
Harvest Schedules:
Mean cutting dates by year are presented in Table 2 and cutting dates for all project fields harvested in 2012 are
presented in Table 3. Average first-cut date has ranged from May 16 in 2012 to June 3 in 2008. Regardless of first-cut
date, the average fourth-cut date is generally close to September 1, with 2012 being the lone exception. The large
majority of fields in this study were cut four times, though that wasn’t the case in 2012 where a 5-cut system was more
common. Across years and sites, 10 fields were cut three times, 75 fields were cut four times (generally prior to or soon
after September 1), and 20 fields were cut five times (generally four times before September 1 with a final cut in
October).
Table 2. Mean cutting dates by year
Year
2007
1st Cut
Date
22-May
2nd Cut
Date
24-June
3rd Cut
Date
25-July
4th Cut*
Date
30-Aug
5th Cut
Date
21-Oct
2008
3-Jun
3-Jul
3-Aug
29-Aug
29-Oct
2009
2010
2011
31-May
22-May
31-May
1-Jul
28-Jun
1-Jul
4-Aug
2-Aug
31-Jul
5-Sep
29-Aug
31-Aug
12-Oct
2012
16-May
14-Jun
14-Jul
10-Aug
21-Sep**
th
*average excludes data where a 4 -cut was taken in October
** average includes 2 fields with 5th-cuts taken in late-August and 2 taken in early September
The 2012 growing season was unlike any to date with harvest being a full one to two weeks ahead of normal (Table 3).
Two fields were harvested on May 9th and four fields had harvested a 5th cutting by early-September. There was a wide
range of cutting strategies employed by program participants for these fields. Twelve of the 16 fields were harvested five
times during the season; the other four were harvested four times with the highest yielding field being among them. Nothing
was normal about the season from a cutting schedule standpoint.
Table 3. Summary of 2012 Cutting Dates
Field ID#
209
210
310
410
510
610
111
211
112
212
312
412
512
612
712
812
MEAN
EARLIEST
LATEST
County
Winnebago
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Fond du Lac
Fond du Lac
Fond du Lac
Brown
St. Croix
Kewaunee
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Outagamie
Dodge
1st Cut
Date
15-May
17-May
17-May
17-May
13-May
3-Jun
16-May
14-May
9-May
18-May
17-May
18-May
18-May
17-May
17-May
9-May
16-May
9-May
3-Jun
2nd Cut
Date
11-Jun
14-Jun
15-Jun
15-Jun
13-Jun
8-Jul
14-Jun
10-Jun
4-Jun
13-Jun
15-Jun
15-Jun
14-Jun
15-Jun
14-Jun
6-Jun
14-Jun
4-Jun
8-Jul
3rd Cut
Date
9-Jul
16-Jul
17-Jul
17-Jul
8-Jul
5-Aug
13-Jul
4-Jul
2-Jul
10-Jul
16-Jul
16-Jul
16-Jul
16-Jul
17-Jul
15-Jul
14-Jul
2-Jul
5-Aug
4th Cut
Date
6-Aug
10-Aug
11-Aug
10-Aug
6-Aug
4-Sep
21-Aug
1-Aug
30-Jul
10-Aug
10-Aug
10-Aug
11-Aug
11-Aug
10-Aug
8-Aug
10-Aug
30-Jul
4-Sep
5th Cut
Date
1-Oct
2-Oct
3-Oct
4-Sep
27-Aug
26-Aug
3-Oct
2-Oct
3-Oct
2-Oct
1-Oct
4-Sep
21-Sep
26-Aug
3-Oct
3
Forage Dry Matter at Harvest:
Alfalfa was harvested as haylage for all but 11 individual cuttings over the six years. Harvest dry matter data from the
11 dry hay harvests was not included in the forage dry matter data means. Average harvested forage dry matter content
in 2012 was 47%, 2 points higher than 2011(Figure 1). The range between fields was somewhat smaller than has been
seen in previous years (40.2 – 51.1%).
Although project participants are not asked about storage structure, there is good reason to believe most of the farms are
storing this forage in bunker or pile silos. For most years, dry matter percentage has consistently been near 50 percent
throughout the project. This is well above that recommended by ag engineers to obtain optimum fermentation and silage
porosity.
Total Season Range for
individual fields:
2007 (n=8):
41.6% - 54.2% DM
2008 (n=16):
37.0% - 54.4% DM
2009 (n=23):
37.9% - 59.2% DM
2010 (n=23):
37.4% - 54.9% DM
2011 (n=21):
35.3% - 52.1% DM
2012 (n=16):
40.2% - 51.1% DM
Figure 1. Average dry matter of harvested forage by cutting and as a weighted
average for the total season (2007-2012).
Forage Dry Matter Yield:
Average yield by cutting and for the season in each project year are presented in Figure 2. Surprisingly, the final average
total season dry matter yield for project fields was 4.5 tons per acre, which was higher than 2008, 2009, and 2011. In
fact, the highest yield ever achieved for a project field was achieved in 2012 at 6.55 tons per acre. This field was cut four
times. Part of the reason for the overall higher than expected average yield was that 12 of the 16 fields were cut five
times during the season. Further, most of the project fields were out of the areas with extreme drought. The most southern
field in Dodge County was under irrigation. Average yields for each cutting were similar to previous years (Figure 2). Yield
ranges for 2012 were 3.36 to 6.55 tons per acre. This was only the second year when at least one field didn’t yield less
than 3.0 tons per acre. Detailed yield data for each field by year are presented in Table 4.
Figure 2. Average dry matter yield by cutting and for the total season. Data is segregated by
calendar year. (2007-12)
4
Table 4. Dry matter yield by field, harvest year, cutting, and for the total season.
Harvest
1st Cut
2nd Cut
3rd Cut
4th Cut
Field ID#
Year
DM Yld
DM Yld
DM Yld
DM Yld
107
2007
1.57
1.53
0.95
0.59
207
2007
1.52
1.33
1.00
0.70
307
2007
1.54
1.51
1.30
0.90
407
2007
1.41
1.57
1.11
0.80
507
2007
1.00
1.02
0.37
607
2007
1.79
1.77
1.20
1.14
707
2007
1.75
1.23
0.81
0.63
807
2007
1.79
1.19
1.42
1.10
Mean
2007
1.55
1.39
1.02
0.84
Low
2007
1.00
1.02
0.37
0.59
High
2007
1.79
1.77
1.42
1.14
107
207
307
407
507
807
108
208
308
408
508
608
708
808
908
1008
Mean
Low
High
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
1.28
1.34
NA
NA
1.95
2.23
1.38
2.08
1.46
0.86
2.01
1.39
1.28
1.81
0.73
NA
1.52
0.73
2.23
1.11
1.08
0.86
1.14
1.08
1.73
0.74
1.54
0.83
0.49
0.72
1.78
1.05
1.20
0.94
1.06
1.08
0.49
1.78
1.07
1.14
0.91
1.09
0.76
1.31
1.15
0.84
1.27
0.85
1.20
1.54
1.18
1.27
0.89
0.97
1.09
0.76
1.54
0.43
0.68
0.78
0.68
107
207
307
407
507
807
108
208
308
408
508
608
708
808
908
109
209
309
409
509
609
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
0.95
1.28
1.02
1.59
1.38
1.56
1.52
1.77
1.24
1.80
1.74
2.19
1.40
2.07
1.88
0.57
1.92
1.14
1.45
2.05
2.36
1.06
1.23
1.23
1.02
0.90
0.99
0.83
1.18
0.94
0.80
1.00
1.23
1.34
1.16
0.99
0.55
1.60
0.84
1.24
0.88
0.58
0.30
0.53
0.69
0.53
0.49
0.98
0.80
1.33
0.56
0.20
0.59
0.88
0.63
0.59
0.30
1.09
0.69
0.43
0.35
0.57
0.20
0.99
1.00
0.93
0.85
0.76
0.62
5th Cut
DM Yld
0.34
0.73
0.88
0.71
0.67
0.34
0.88
0.82
0.93
0.50
0.98
0.92
0.89
0.79
1.12
0.83
0.80
0.43
1.12
1.15
0.64
0.98
0.78
0.98
0.55
0.95
1.06
1.05
0.32
0.95
0.45
0.37
0.41
0.37
0.45
Tot Sea
DM Yld
4.98
5.27
6.12
5.59
2.39
5.90
4.41
5.51
5.02
2.39
6.12
3.89
4.23
----3.79
6.08
3.27
4.46
4.95
2.70
5.29
5.63
4.40
5.07
3.68
--4.42
2.70
6.08
3.31
4.04
3.87
3.99
3.53
4.15
3.15
4.28
3.89
3.43
4.32
5.07
4.35
4.37
4.13
2.21
5.27
3.46
3.37
3.49
4.10
5
Harvest
Year
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
1st Cut
DM Yld
2.27
2.08
1.62
0.57
2.36
2nd Cut
DM Yld
1.25
1.03
1.04
0.55
1.60
3rd Cut
DM Yld
0.82
0.85
0.63
0.20
1.33
4th Cut
DM Yld
0.92
0.72
0.85
0.32
1.15
307
807
208
308
408
508
608
708
808
908
109
209
309
409
609
709
809
110
210
310
410
510
610
Mean
Low
High
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
1.16
1.38
1.99
1.65
1.85
1.88
2.09
1.45
1.66
1.83
1.57
1.91
2.16
1.43
2.34
2.32
1.86
1.46
2.07
1.59
2.00
1.87
2.08
1.81
1.16
2.34
1.24
1.32
1.65
1.66
1.46
1.81
1.79
1.33
1.77
0.84
1.42
1.80
1.85
0.96
1.78
0.94
1.67
1.65
1.76
1.21
1.26
1.69
1.40
1.49
0.84
1.85
1.24
1.22
1.26
0.85
0.76
0.69
1.46
1.39
1.57
1.27
0.90
1.09
0.91
0.55
1.05
1.08
1.07
1.40
0.94
0.97
0.94
1.05
1.09
1.08
0.55
1.57
0.52
0.81
0.62
0.41
0.51
0.48
0.82
0.67
0.90
0.51
1.33
0.91
0.70
0.39
1.00
0.57
0.47
0.54
0.51
0.57
0.41
0.62
0.46
0.64
0.39
1.33
208
308
408
508
608
708
808
908
109
209
309
409
609
210
310
410
510
610
111
211
311
411
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
0.78
1.31
1.19
1.25
1.10
1.50
1.07
0.92
1.29
1.59
1.53
1.27
1.76
1.13
1.25
1.33
1.47
1.41
2.45
1.39
2.30
1.70
0.90
1.12
0.72
0.85
0.83
0.75
0.65
0.52
0.97
1.02
1.15
0.81
0.90
0.72
0.63
0.60
1.08
0.92
1.29
0.85
0.94
NA
1.05
0.85
0.67
0.65
1.16
1.37
1.15
0.87
1.03
0.92
1.14
0.47
1.68
1.04
0.97
1.08
1.07
0.88
1.32
1.20
1.66
1.68
0.45
0.79
0.51
0.69
0.45
0.78
0.90
0.49
0.76
0.92
0.95
0.48
0.78
0.80
0.78
0.57
0.73
0.83
1.19
1.10
1.00
0.64
Field ID#
709
809
Mean
Low
High
5th Cut
DM Yld
0.39
0.34
0.37
0.34
0.39
Tot Sea
DM Yld
5.26
4.68
3.99
2.21
5.27
4.17
4.74
5.52
4.57
4.58
4.86
6.16
4.84
5.91
4.45
5.23
5.71
5.61
3.33
6.17
4.90
5.07
5.05
5.28
4.33
4.61
5.62
5.37
5.05
3.33
6.17
3.18
4.06
3.09
3.44
3.54
4.41
3.77
2.80
4.05
4.45
4.77
3.03
5.12
3.69
3.63
3.58
4.35
4.04
6.26
4.55
5.90
NA
6
Field ID#
Mean
Low
High
209
210
310
410
510
610
111
211
112
212
312
412
Mean
Low
High
Harvest
Year
2011
2011
2011
1st Cut
DM Yld
1.41
0.78
2.45
2nd Cut
DM Yld
0.87
0.52
1.29
3rd Cut
DM Yld
1.09
0.47
1.68
4th Cut
DM Yld
0.75
0.45
1.19
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
1.47
1.46
1.22
1.14
1.20
2.33
2.03
1.11
1.46
1.74
1.65
2.06
1.33
0.84
1.30
1.01
0.75
0.67
0.62
1.13
1.18
1.79
1.10
0.85
1.21
0.78
0.81
0.88
0.63
0.94
0.97
0.43
0.45
0.38
0.74
1.12
1.55
0.78
1.11
1.32
0.59
0.64
0.66
0.88
0.65
0.40
0.80
0.69
0.66
0.63
0.66
1.18
0.79
0.85
1.27
0.70
0.86
0.55
0.93
0.69
5th Cut
DM Yld
0.76
0.45
0.56
0.73
0.48
0.63
0.68
0.64
0.34
0.58
0.72
Tot Sea
DM Yld
4.08
2.80
6.26
3.85
4.20
3.48
3.36
4.44
5.30
6.55
4.26
4.90
5.55
4.40
5.00
3.76
3.86
4.31
A comparison of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th production year fields cut four times in 2010 through 2012 shows the highest average
yield occurred with the 1st production year fields (5.2 tons d.m./A), followed by the 2nd and 3rd production year fields (4.9
and 4.8 tons d.m./A, respectively) (Figure 3). Production drops significantly in the fourth production year (3.8 tons d.m./A)
to 73% of the 1st production year average yield. As is always the case, there is extreme yield variability between fields
that can be attributed to cutting schedule and environment (Table 4). This data helps to confirm that growers should
generally anticipate near maximum production from alfalfa stands for three production years after seeding, but then
expect a near 25% decline in production in the fourth year.
Figure 3. Average dry matter yield by cutting and total season for fields
cut four times during 2010 through 2012. Data is segregated by stand
production year.
Alfalfa Persistence:
In-season
An analysis was done to determine the percent of total season yield for each cutting (Table 5). Data was summarized for
3-, 4-, and 5-cut systems for all project years. Five-cut fields were also included in the 4-cut summary with the final fall
harvest not included in the total season yield. It’s significant to note the wide variation in percent yield for an individual
7
Table 5. Average percent of total season yield by cutting for 3, 4 and 5 cut
harvest systems* (2007-12)
3-cut system (N=9 site years)
1st cut
2nd cut
3rd cut
Mean
43
30
26
Low
26
23
16
High
59
43
50
4-cut system (N=82 site years)
Mean
Low
High
1st cut
2nd cut
3rd cut
4th cut
36
20
58
26
14
37
21
5
33
17
9
30
5-cut system (4+1 fall)
(N=8 site years)
1st cut
2nd cut
3rd cut
4th cut
5th cut
Mean
31
23
18
16
12
Low
21
14
10
9
6
High
41
39
26
24
18
* high and low figures are for individual cuttings and will not add to 100%
cutting. In some cases this is the result of environmental conditions (e.g. drought) previous to the harvest while in other
situations it’s simply a function of cutting date (Tables 2 and 3).
Between years
Being six years into the project, it’s still difficult to draw any firm conclusions on stand persistence across years. Persistence
is influenced over time by the age of the stand, cutting schedule, and environment. For this project, persistence is being
measured as a percent of 1st production year dry matter yield. Persistence data in Table 6 consists of 2006 through 2010seeded fields and is averaged over all cutting schedules. Although ranges indicate a wide variation, average forage yield
in the 2nd and 3rd production year have been slightly higher than the 1st production year. The yield for 4th-year stands
dropped off to 78 percent of their 1st-year production. Time will tell if these trends continues, but to date it appears that
keeping stands for at least three production years seems to be the prudent decision.
Table 6. Percent of 1st production year yield by cutting and total season for
2nd and 3rd production year stands.
2nd Production Year Stands (N=29 site years)
1st cut
2nd cut
3rd cut
Mean
117
113
113
Low
55
41
23
High
275
291
491
4th cut
101
61
180
Tot Sea
105
70
236
3rd Production Year Stands (N=24 site years)
Mean
Low
High
1st cut
2nd cut
3rd cut
4th cut
Tot Sea
110
57
250
112
43
299
123
32
786
103
23
169
101
63
183
4th cut
Tot Sea
70
23
114
78
59
115
4th Production Year Stands (N=11 site years)
1st cut
2nd cut
3rd cut
Mean
Low
High
85
38
138
86
47
147
93
54
141
8
Forage Quality:
Harvested forage quality in 2012 was the second highest of any project year. Total season mean RFQ was 178. Fourth-cut
was the lowest forage quality of the season (160 RFQ). Forage quality, although extremely important, is not the primary
focus of this project. However, it is impossible to evaluate changes in management to maximize yield and persistence
without considering the impact on forage quality. In 2012 the highest yielding field was also the one with the lowest overall
forage quality (144 RFQ). Figures 5 through 9 summarize the forage quality obtained in the project for 2007-2012.
CP% Ranges (2012):
High
1st cut
24.6
Low
18.1
2nd cut
25.0
20.4
3rd cut
26.7
20.3
4th cut
27.0
20.9
5th cut
Total
26.4
24.8
21.2
20.7
Figure 5. Average crude protein percent by cutting and weighted average for the total
season (2007-2012).
NDF% Ranges (2012):
1st cut
High
40.8
Low
33.1
2nd cut
49.7
32.2
3rd cut
41.6
30.9
4th cut
44.9
31.2
5th cut
Total
39.4
40.6
29.5
33.6
Figure 6. Average NDF percent by cutting and weighted average for the total season
(2007-2012).
NDFD% Ranges (2012):
High
Low
1st cut
56.5
38.5
2nd cut
49.4
40.4
3rd cut
50.2
37.7
4th cut
46.0
38.6
5th cut
Total
46.6
48.8
42.3
40.4
Figure 7. Average NDFD percent by cutting and weighted average for the total season
(2007-2012).
9
RFQ Ranges (2012):
1st cut
High
209
Low
137
2nd cut
208
156
3rd cut
204
137
4th cut
215
118
5th cut
Total
233
198
140
144
Figure 8. Average Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) by cutting and weighted average for
the total season (2007-2012).
Milk/Ton Ranges (2012):
1st cut
High
3403
Low
2595
2nd cut
3269
2802
3rd cut
3075
2540
4th cut
3209
2309
5th cut
Total
3316
3131
2368
2670
Figure 9. Average Milk per Ton by cutting and weighted average for the total season
(2007-2012).
Summary:
The Wisconsin Alfalfa Yield and Persistence Program is designed to provide forage growers and agricultural professionals
a unique look at what is happening at the farm level. As more fields are entered and years pass, the reliability of
information will increase. It’s important to keep in mind that only six years of data have been collected. Environmental
conditions have a profound influence on both yield and quality and during the course of the past six years there have been
no two exactly alike. Nevertheless, the information presented here can be contrasted and there certainly is enough
information to begin to formulate possible trends and topics for discussion.
Acknowledgements:
First and foremost, UW-Extension Team Forage wishes to thank the producers who took the extra time and effort to obtain
weights and forage samples for the project fields at each cutting.
UW coordinators for this project:
Aerica Bjurstrom, Kewaunee County
Mike Bertram, Marathon County
Greg Blonde, Waupaca County
Jerry Clark, Chippewa County
Mark Hagedorn, Brown County
Kevin Jarek, Outagamie County
David Laatsch, Dodge County
Bryce Larson, Calumet County
Mike Rankin, Fond du Lac County
Nick Schneider, Winnebago County
Ryan Sterry, St. Croix County
Funding for this project provided by UW Extension Team Forage and the Midwest Forage Association (MFA).
This report written and data compiled by Mike Rankin, Crops and Soils Agent, Fond du Lac Co. Questions may be directed
to: michael.rankin@uwex.edu
10