Hay test results??
- Thread starter tom4018
- Start date
novatech
Well-known member
Like it should be in my barn. :lol:tom4018":1icw8oeg said:
Good job :clap:
Jogeephus
Well-known member
You surely don't need to waste money on supplement when your hay is that good.
grannysoo
Well-known member
Good job! Wish we all had hay that good all the time.
bigbull338
Well-known member
thats good test results.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Have "heard" of better but not seen any of it. In my area that would be very very good hay. What caught my eye 1st was the low moisture content. Evidently you "did it right". Way to go. :clap: :clap:
Can someone explain to me what is so great about these results. I see there is pretty good protein content, but otherwise, I'm not sure. I looked at this webpage and according to it this result seems kind of average.
http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/exex8149.pdf
http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/exex8149.pdf
Jogeephus
Well-known member
gberry":tg94m9h8 said:
I think if you can provide your cattle with hay that has a protein content of 12% or better you are doing good in that you don't need to worry about the hidden costs associated with poor hay. I've seen better but I would be happy with these results in my own hay. Around here, if you were to actually test what many claim is good hay I think you'll find this is well above our average quality sold as quality hay. Also, at 12%, I imagine he got maximum tonnage off the field while still producing a very acceptable quality hay. Just my opinion.
Jogeephus":3spmlax3 said:
I personally would call this about average hay by looks. It was a second cutting and had chicken litter put on it after the first cutting. This sample came from a square bale and the field was split between being rolled and squared, averaged around 2 4 x 5 bales per acre on this cutting. This sample was tested by their mobile lab at a field day, they say it is not quite as accurate as a sample sent in to the main lab, they said usually within a percent or so. I thought I baled this a little too heavy and worried about it getting hot or molding.
Kinda makes me want to test all my hay, sure was informative to see how it was.
Hope I didn't offend anyone. I was asking because I genuinely don't know how to interpret these tests. I picked up some info at the Ag Expo in Moultrie, Ga this year that talked about Relative Feed Quality (RFQ). Per my memory, it recommended RFQ of ~110 for lactating cows, 125-135 for stockers, and 145 or higher for dairy. When I was looking for hay this year, I called our extension agent to find out who had been testing their hay. No samples had been sent from our county this year, but after talking with the agent, I decided to buy peanut stover hay which was plentiful this year. He said it would likely have an RFQ of about 125 and should be fine for our weaned calves (our cows, which are dry at this time of year, have to rough it on stockpiled bermuda/bahia until ryegrass comes on).
Since I haven't really seen any hay test results in our area, I was curious how RFV and RFQ are related. According to the article I posted they are supposed to give similar result (100 RFV = 100 RFQ) and they recommend >100 RFQ for a dry cow. So, I was curious as to what exactly on the test made others feel it would be fine as a stand alone feed without supplement.
I was also disappointed (but not surprised) that people here don't test their hay. I'm sure you are right that this would be better than average. As best I can tell most around here cut hay for maximum yield, not quality. I've seen one of the larger hay producers in the area cut bahia in late sept. that had not been cut all year. I don't think there is any way this can be good feed.
I am going to send a couple of samples from the peanut hay I bought as well as some coastal hay to see how they compare. I'll try to post the results when I get them.
Edit: I'll add to this post that I don't see why more don't test, particularly if they feel they make good hay. I for one would pay a little more to make sure I had the quality of feed I expected.
Since I haven't really seen any hay test results in our area, I was curious how RFV and RFQ are related. According to the article I posted they are supposed to give similar result (100 RFV = 100 RFQ) and they recommend >100 RFQ for a dry cow. So, I was curious as to what exactly on the test made others feel it would be fine as a stand alone feed without supplement.
I was also disappointed (but not surprised) that people here don't test their hay. I'm sure you are right that this would be better than average. As best I can tell most around here cut hay for maximum yield, not quality. I've seen one of the larger hay producers in the area cut bahia in late sept. that had not been cut all year. I don't think there is any way this can be good feed.
I am going to send a couple of samples from the peanut hay I bought as well as some coastal hay to see how they compare. I'll try to post the results when I get them.
Edit: I'll add to this post that I don't see why more don't test, particularly if they feel they make good hay. I for one would pay a little more to make sure I had the quality of feed I expected.
LaneFarms
Well-known member
Gberry when you say peanut stover hay are you talking about the vines after they were picked?
Jogeephus
Well-known member
gberry":1qtr26ft said:
This all goes back to the ethics of the producer and wouldn't insure anything as he could use the same piece of paper on his whole crop. Just stating what I've seen. To most, price is the determining factor. Some people just don't get it.
novatech
Well-known member
I see this hay quality as a matter of perspective. Most hay people around here will get the same price for poor quality hay as hay that is of high quality. Therefore, profitability wise they just bale crap. In that perspective you have pretty good hay.
If you are raising the hay for your own needs then only you can determine the needs of your cattle. Who ever wrote that article used a given group of cattle in a given climate and other given circumstances. They may not fit your situation or they may. Experience is the only way to determine what you really need.
What you need is determined by the allowable condition coming out of winter. (Assuming brood cows) Any hay with a higher quality than necessary to meet those requirements means higher input costs into the hay and money out the window. There is another calculation to be made. That is figuring out wither higher quality hay or supplements is the most economical way to go.
If you are raising the hay for your own needs then only you can determine the needs of your cattle. Who ever wrote that article used a given group of cattle in a given climate and other given circumstances. They may not fit your situation or they may. Experience is the only way to determine what you really need.
What you need is determined by the allowable condition coming out of winter. (Assuming brood cows) Any hay with a higher quality than necessary to meet those requirements means higher input costs into the hay and money out the window. There is another calculation to be made. That is figuring out wither higher quality hay or supplements is the most economical way to go.
We must be behind the times. We never have tested hay. We feed it and keep an eye on the cows and adjust from there. It would have to be some pretty crappy hay to supplement with anything other then energy (mix30). And we only do that during really severe cold/icey weather.
novatech":2u169hgu said:
I'm not talking about growing hay. I'm trying to buy hay that is of high enough quality to feed stockers without the need for additional supplements other than mineral. So if I have to pay $90/ton for hay with an RFQ of 90 or $120 for hay with an RFQ of 130. I'll pay for the higher quality hay. Now if I was growing the hay to feed mature dry cows, I might shoot for lower RFQ as I would assume higher yields (tons/acre) at the lower RFQ if the same fertilizer is used. You might also be able to get by with less fertilizer to get the same RFQ if cut at a different stage of growth.
We never have tested our hay, but just feed it no matter what the qaulity, because it is all we got. I have read that if your stored hay is 9% or above, then that is considered very good quality. Yours evidently is up there.
LaneFarms
Well-known member
Gberry I had some vines that I baled tested. They were pretty good vines baled directly behind the combine and stored in a barn. The results were:
8.2% moisture
9.2% protein
38.5% acid detergent fiber
58% TDN
.60 net energy Lactation
.59 net energy main.
.35 net energy gain
8.2% moisture
9.2% protein
38.5% acid detergent fiber
58% TDN
.60 net energy Lactation
.59 net energy main.
.35 net energy gain
LaneFarms":103se62b said:
That's interesting. I sent out a sample on the hay today. I was trying to calculate RFV (much easier than RFQ) on your results. Need neutral detergent fiber to calculate it accurately, but for most legumes the NDF is between 38-42% (much lower than for grasses (50-55%). If your hay had a NDF of 40% then the RFV would be 137 (excellent feed for all but dairy cattle at the start of lactation). If the NDF is the same as most grass hay (55%) the rfv would be 100. I am hoping it's closer to the 40% range for my sake as I already bought the hay.
I think RFQ would be more useful since it considers several other factors including protein in the calculation. The lab I am using calculated RFQ and I hope it is in the 125-140 range.
