Hay Sampling Protocol-Why it’s important

Dan Putnam Department of Plant Sciences University of California-Davis http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu [email protected]

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Prediction for US Milk Production, Output Per Cow and Number of Dairy Cows (predicted in 2001 at the Western Alfalfa & Forage Conf.)

U.S Milk Production Output/Cow # Cows (Bil. Lbs.) (Lbs.) (000 head) 2001 165.3 18,139 9,115 2005 172.0 19,534 22% 8,806 increase 2010 180.8 21,430 8,436 2015 190.0 206.0 23,510 22,258 8,082 9,224 2020 199.7 25,792 7,743 2025 209.9 28,296 7,418

Source: 2001 USDA, Forecast by Keough Ledman Associates (Western Alfalfa Symposium, 2001) Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Phenomenal increase in Production/cow

Forage quality-one important factor

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Need for Quality Testing:

THE key method of translation between Forages and Animal Production – economic and biological

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 USDA Hay Quality Guidelines

Range of Hay Quality Analysis for Alfalfa Quality Groups Supreme Good Fair NDF% <33 35 39 >42 NDFD% >48 42 38 <35 CP >22 20 18 <16 ADF% <27 29 32 >35 Calculated Values: RFV >180 150 125 100 TDN (90%) 55.9 54.5 52.5 50.5

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 The pressure on Price

Prices, Tulare/Hanford Dairies (November, 2017) Analysis Tons 2017 2016 Alfalfa $$/ton Supreme <27 ADF 250 $290-300 245-250 Premium 27-29 1000 $258-270 220-235 Good 29-32 780 $215-250 180-195 Fair 32-35 150 $190-200 140-150 Penalty/Reward ~$100 ~$100 Sources: The Hoyt Report, November 17, 2017

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 What is Hay Testing Worth? ■ A large percentage of value (30-50%) ■ In the CA markets, likely 30-50% of the value of the hay is determined by quality attributes, or about $320-500 million/year. ■ Not counting productivity issues (dairy production or alfalfa production)

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Do we still need to examine hay?

■ Yes! Visual Analysis should be used in combination with lab analysis

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Relative Reliability of Visual Vs. Lab Analysis QUALITY FACTOR VISUAL LAB Stage of Maturity Poor Excellent Leafiness Good Excellent Fiber Poor Excellent Protein Poor Excellent Digestibility Poor Excellent Noxious Weeds Excellent Poor Texture/Odor Excellent Poor

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 NDF Digestibility

NDF Digestibitity and ADF Values - Western Hays in Relationship to hay Marketing Categories 65.0 Supreme Premium Good Fair Utility 60.0

55.0

50.0

NDF30 45.0 NDFdigestibility (%)

40.0

35.0 Let’s not ignore digestibility in hay!! 30.0 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 ADF Concentration (%)

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 PURPOSES OF HAY TESTING:

■Formulate Rations –Predict Animal Performance ■Determine Economic Worth –Markets, Management

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay analysis process: Grower/Marketer Sampling 1

(Transportation & Handling) 2 ‘FIELD’ DRY SAMPLE PREP MATTER 4 (Grinding) 3 5 ANALYSIS Lab Analysis (Subsampling) ADF,NDF,CP, ANALYTICAL Lab 7 Digestibility DRY MATTER 6 ANALYSIS

Calculations: 8 TDN, NEL Quality/Energy Nutritionist/ Dairy Producer/ Price Hay 9 Marketer TDN, RFV, RFQ Balance Ration Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Efforts to Standardize Forage Testing

■ Within Lab Standardization (QC, QA) ■ Between Lab Standardization (NFTA program) ■ Sampling Standardization – Sampling Protocol (Consensus of states) ■ On-Line Sampling Quiz and Certification ■ Certified Samplers: Currently >3200 (since 2002)

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Certification

Http:://foragetesting.org

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Sampling Protocols must:

■ Fully Represent Leaf-Stem Ratio ■ Represent Cross-Field Sources of Variation (soil) ■ Weed/Crop Mix

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 A tiny ½ to 1 gram sample must represent tons!

CUTTING SCHEDULE HARVEST MANAGEMENT VARIETY WEEDS PESTS SOIL TYPE, FERTILITY IRRIGATION

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Commonly- Observed Variation in Hay Testing

Sampling Between Labs Within Labs Variation Probe-Probe Lab-Lab Run-Run ADF 3.0 - 8.0 0.7 - 3.0 0.3 - 1.6 NDF 4.0 – 9.0 1.0 – 4.0 0.4 – 2.0 CP 2.0 – 6.0 0.5 – 2.0 0.2 – 1.0 TDN 2.0 – 6.0 0.3 – 2.0 0.2 – 1.5 RFV 5-30 5-8 3-10

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 In Practice:

Sampling Variation is the MOST IMPORTANT cause of errors in forage quality evaluation

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Solution:

■ Adapt a disciplined hay sampling protocol that controls variation!

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

1. Identify a single ‘lot’ of hay (single cut, single field, baled within 48 hrs) – maxium of 200 tons. ■ Do not mix fields, cuts

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 The Process….

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

2. Sample close to /feeding ■ Dry matter % can change! ■ ‘As received DM’ – only for tonnage, not for quality ■ Forage quality is generally stable (but not if high moisture)

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

3. Choose Sharp, well designed probe (Sharp tip, 90o from shaft, 3/8”-3/4”) ■ Never take ‘grab samples’ ■ 14’-20” Long (35-50 cm) – not too long. ■ Very sharp tip (ability to be sharpened) ■ No slanted tip (pushes stems aside) ■ Not to narrow, not to wide – Too small-does not represent leaf/stem ratio – Too wide-gives too big a sample ■ 3/8” to3/4” diameter

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

4. Take Enough Cores – Minimum of 20 cores per lot – More for variable or larger lots – >30 cores for GMO detection

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 A question of variation

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 A question of Variation

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Variation – Definitely in hay bales

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 How many stems/core? ■ Average of 270/core (one lot)

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Variation in CP

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Variation in RFV

6 samples 20 samples 64% 130 to 147 64% 135 to 145 Worse case: 124-157 Worse case: 132-147

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Variation in NDF

Worse case 41.8 mean Range 40.6-42.9

2 samples

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

5. Sample at Random ■ Do not eliminate bales (unless they are discarded from lot) ■ Walk around and sample systematically ■ Access may be limited – still sample 20 cores, 20 different bales

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Probe-Probe/Bale-Bale (CP)

Bale #1 Bale #2

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

6 Use Proper Technique ■ 90o from butt-end of bale (large or small) ■ Between ties ■ 12”-18” deep ■ Center of butt ends

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

7. Take the right amount ■ Not too big, not too small, ■ About ½ lb. (250 g) ■ Bigger samples are good for sampling, but…. ■ Labs will not often grind large samples, defeating the purpose! – Make sure your lab grinds the whole sample – But don’t make it hard for them

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Variation in Sampling ■ Cannot eliminate variation ■ But we can reduce variation to a reasonable level ■ Be realistic: – Arguing over a few points RFV or .5% TDN or 1 point NDF is ridiculous. – Reduce sample variation to a low number – Accept a +/- surrounding each number

■ Sampling Variation

■ Lab Variation

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

8. Handle Samples Correctly ■ Seal (double seal) samples in zip-loc or similar container. ■ Keep cool, away from excess heat ■ Get to the lab as quickly as possible ■ Samples are stable but….

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Hay Sampling Protocol

9. Choose a Qualified Lab ■ Start with Certification: www.foragetesting.org ■ Ask important questions such as – What is your internal QC? – Do you grind the entire sample? ■ Ask for samples back to help check lab performance – Good labs will work with you to understand lab performance ■ Do your own split-sample testing – Use NFTA samples

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Split Sample Checks on Labs

10. Never split samples without grinding. ■ Ask for ground samples back from labs ■ Don’t compare unground samples when checking labs

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Long Distance Trade: Exports

■ Long-distance purchases increase the value of testing ■ Increased sophistication, demand for quality ■ Evolution of demand: – “Green” – Minimum 17% CP (ignore fiber) – Fiber Analysis – Digestibility….?

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 US Hay Exports

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Different Packages

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Double Compression for Export

■ Bales from the field are cut apart, re- assembled and re-compressed ■ Possibility of change in leaf-stem ratio

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Double-Compressed Bales

■ The Questions: – Are quality measurements before compression approximately equal to those after compression? – Can Double-compressed hay be sampled? What changes are needed to physically sample double compressed bales?

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Results (Site 1)

Table 1. Effect of Double Compression on two Hay Bales (Site 1, HayDay Farms) Lot 1 (Higher Quality Lot) Crude Protein ADF aNDF RFV TDN % % % % % Compressed (20 cores separately) 22.4 26.9 32.5 194.6 55.9 Non-compressed (20 Core Separately) 22.0 27.5 33.4 188.1 55.5

Compressed (20 cores Composite) 22.0 27.1 33.0 191.2 55.8 Non-compressed (20 Core Composite) 22.8 26.4 32.2 197.9 56.3 Significance: ns ns ns ns ns Lot 2 (Lower Quality Lot) Compressed (20 cores separately) 18.8 32.4 40.9 145.7 52.3 Non-compressed (20 Core Separately) 18.3 34.4 43.0 134.6 50.9

Compressed (20 cores Composite) 18.7 32.6 41.2 143.4 52.1 Non-compressed (20 Core Composite) 19.3 32.2 40.4 147.0 52.4 Significance: ns ns ns ns ns

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Conclusions

■ After-compression results were generally close to before-compression analysis (within acceptable range of variation) ■ Unless significant mixing/processing is a component of compression ■ Could be loss of leaf material in some cases (some systems have lots of slicing and dicing)

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Sampling for Detection of GMO:

■ Principle is to detect small percentage of stems (not ‘average’ quality) at low level of detection (e.g. 0.1% or 0.9%) ■ Evenly distributed, Not ‘occasional’ sources of LLP

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 What percentage of the mass is represented by 1 stem?

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Steps for Proper Sampling for GMO

■ Generally same as for forage quality – Identification of Lots – Random Process – Use of coring device ■ Additional Cores (take 30 cores) ■ At least 12-14” into bale (>250 stems) ■ Detects evenly-distributed presence of GMO

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Sampling Summary:

■ Imposing a proscribed protocol for sampling is very important to standardize hay testing. ■ Important factors are – ID hay lots, don’t mix – Use Proper probe and technique – Composite adequate numbers of probes – Handle samples correctly – Choose a top quality lab ■ Understand the influence of variation and manage it!

Hay Quality Workshop, Reno 2017 Whooo has questions?

Hay QualityThanks Workshop, Reno 2017(http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu)