Alfalfa Harvest And Storage Losses

Yield and quality of alfalfa hay can be improved by adopting management practices that minimize harvest and storage losses.

Numerous field operations occur during the haymaking process and harvest losses can be associated with any of these operations (Table 1). Considerable variation in loss exists for any particular haymaking operation, and both yield and quality can be reduced. Harvest losses are generally small for some operations, such as swathing and hauling, but when all losses are accounted for over a harvesting period, they can be substantial.

Hay losses can be minimized by endeavoring to perform each operation under conditions that are as ideal as possible. For example, swathers should be well-maintained, well-adjusted, and operated properly. When alfalfa is swathed at high ground speeds, many plants will be stripped of leaves before the stem can be cut at the base. Swather ground speeds that are too high do not allow enough time for the cutter bar to make precise cuts, leaving plants uncut and fields with a ragged appearance. Cutting blades should also be sharp, riveted tight, and free of nicks and breaks.

Windrow manipulation (e.g., raking or swath inversion) is done for two main reasons, to promote hay drying or to combine small windrows into larger ones to increase baling and hauling efficiencies. Windrow manipulation can be an effective management practice, but it must be done when alfalfa is at the proper moisture content. Done improperly, windrow manipulation, particularly raking, can be a source of substantial harvest loss (Table 1). The preferred moisture for windrow manipulation is 30 to 40%. Manipulating hay in this moisture range will significantly benefit the drying process without causing substantial leaf loss. If windrow manipulation is done at higher moisture contents, the windrow can become twisted. Some people refer to this twisting as “roping” the windrow. Manipulating windrows at moisture contents below 30% causes progressive increases in leaf loss. Manipulating windrows just prior to baling when the hay is dry can cause severe leaf loss, reducing both hay yield and quality. The type of equipment used for windrow manipulation and how it is operated can also affect harvest losses. Some windrow manipulation equipment handles hay quite gently and losses can be rather small, while side delivery rakes, used improperly, can wreak havoc on alfalfa hay.

Losses can occur during baling for several reasons. Windrows not configured properly or too wide for baling equipment can cause harvest losses. Hay will be left in the field if the windrow is wider than the baler pickup. If the width between windrows is too small to accommodate baling equipment, bales may be run over when baling adjacent windrows. Considerable harvest losses can occur during baling if the hay is too dry -- below 12% moisture. Moisture content of alfalfa at the time of baling should be less than 20% for small, two-tie bales, less than 17% for the larger and denser three-tie bales, and less than 14% for the large 1-ton bales. Baling alfalfa hay that is too dry causes extensive leaf shattering, increasing dry matter losses and lowering hay quality. The problem of baling alfalfa that is too dry has been a difficult problem for many growers to overcome.

Hauling and storage losses can be affected by bale length and density. Bales with a uniform length and density are more suited for mechanized handling. Bales that are loose and do not have a uniform length can be difficult to handle, resulting in increased bale damage, breakage, and loss. Equipment used for picking up and transporting bales should be in good repair. Equipment that is not in good repair can also increase bale damage, breakage, and loss. Additionally, equipment in poor operating condition, such as stack wagons, may result in stacks that are not even and tight. Loose stacks can collapse, again causing significant hay loss. Loose stacks are also subject to increased weather damage.

Adopting management practices that minimize alfalfa harvest losses will translate into more and better quality hay. Using good management to minimize harvest losses can increase yields and promote high quality hay, resulting in increased profits and satisfied buyers. A satisfied buyer will often be a repeat customer. As you begin swathing your first alfalfa field this year, implement ways to decrease harvest losses in all of your harvest operations, and with a “little” help from Mother Nature, you will have a productive and profitable haying season.

Table 1. Alfalfa losses that can occur during harvest and storage.

Field Operations	Harvest loss ($ of total)
Swather with conditioner	1-5
Flail mower	6-11
Tedding	1-3
Swath inversion	0-2
Raking	1-20
Baling	2-5
Hauling	1-5
Storage	5-10
Average loss per cutting	24-30

by Dr. Calvin H. Pearson
Professor/Research Agronomist
Agricultural Experiment Station
Western Colorado Research Center

Windrow Grazing: An Alternative To Feeding Hay

Ranchers from the Tri-River Area of Colorado save money by adopting this practice.

Windrow grazing has been used successfully in Canada, Utah, and Wyoming as well as the San Luis Valley and Gunnison areas of Colorado. This practice involves cutting forage when it is at optimal nutrition and raking it into windrows. Animals are allowed to graze the windrows at a later point. Windrow grazing has proven successful in climates where there is consistent snow cover, and it can significantly reduce the cost of harvesting and feeding hay (Brummer and Haugen 1997). Before 1998, windrow grazing had not been tried in the Tri-River Area (Montrose, Delta, Ouray and Mesa counties) of Colorado where snow cover is less consistent and fall rains are more prevalent.

A trial was set up in the fall of 1998 near Hotchkiss, Colorado on the Campbell Ranch (Elevation is listed at 6,500 feet.) The test area was a tall fescue grass hay field that had traditionally been harvested in June and August with an additional fall grazing. For purposes of this study, ten acres that would normally have been cut a second time for hay in late August was windrowed with a 12-foot swather on December 1, 1998. Two days later, three windrows were raked into one, which was approximately 3 feet in diameter. The weather in the fall and winter of 1998 was above average for temperature and rainfall (Colorado Climate Center 1998). Due to the significant amount of fall rain, the hay was not harvested as early as desired. Ideally, the hay would have been harvested earlier than December 1 to capture more of the forage quality.

Forage samples were taken from windrows and adjacent standing pasture. The standing forage had been harvested twice and had a stubble height of approximately 10 inches. Forage samples were taken every two weeks until harvested by cows. Samples were analyzed for crude protein, digestible protein, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, energy, and macronutrients.

A total of 112 cows started grazing the windrows on December 31, 1998. The cows were in the last trimester of pregnancy and had a frame score of 5.5 and body condition score (BCS) of 6.5. At the start of the trial, the cows were given access to two windrows at a time. The remaining windrows were restricted using electric fence. When it was time to move the fence, the cows were moved to an adjoining field. Once the fence was moved, the cows were let back in. During the time the cows were on the windrows, they also had access to standing pasture.

A heavy wet snow fell two days after the cows were put on trial. The cows did break through the ice and snow that was on top of the windrows, however, they were not efficiently using the feed. The cow’s saliva produced additional ice on the windrows. To alleviate this problem, the cows were restricted to one windrow every other day. Once this adjustment was made, the cows increased utilization of the windrowed feed. Similar results have been observed in Gunnison.

The grass underneath the windrows was insulated and stayed green until harvested by the cows. This provided additional high quality forage. The cows utilized the windrows efficiently. BCS did not change during the trial. The 112 cows stayed on the 10 acres from December 31, 1998 to January 19, 1999. This equates to 2,128 animal days.

Traditionally, these cows would have been fed harvested round bales every day. The producer estimates that this type of feeding costs $25 per day including time and equipment (Table 2.)

Traditionally, these 10 acres yielded 35 tons of hay per year. The second cutting, which was windrowed for this study, normally yielded about 1.5 tons per acre which would have fed the same 112 cows for only 9.5 days compared to the 20 days that were achieved by windrow grazing.

The cows were on a higher level of protein when utilizing the windrows versus the standing or harvested forage. Table 3 shows the nutritional values of the windrows, standing, and harvested forages.

Forage samples indicated that protein supplementation was not needed when the cows were grazing the windrowed forage. Traditionally, the cows were supplemented with protein at a cost of $.26/head/day. This equates to cost savings of $582.40 for the 20 days of grazing.

The protein in the windrows did not change significantly from the time of harvest till the cows were turned in. The protein tested 8.0% at the time of cutting and 7.8% at the time of grazing. Neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber stayed at constant levels throughout the trial. There was no mold detected in the windrows at any time during the trial.

Initial findings indicated that windrow grazing would work in the Tri-River Area. Additional trials need to experiment with cutting the hay earlier, grazing the spring forage to delay maturity, and further defining forage quality.

Total cost savings for windrow grazing includes:

This equates to cost savings of $13.50 per cow.

The windrow grazing trial was funded by a grant from the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI). Thanks to the GLCI board, Campbell Ranches, and the Delta and Shavano Soil Conservation Districts.

by Robbie Baird-LeValley
Area Livestock and Range Extension Agent
Tri-River Area
Colorado State University Cooperative Extension