By Dennis Cash, Lisa Surber and Dave Wichman
Introduction
Annual forages are widely grown in the U.S. during periods of drought. Many different crop choices are available in the northern Great Plains, however they vary depending on latitude, elevation and specific climatic events during the season they are grown. For most low elevation valleys in eastern Montana and Wyoming, and much of North and South Dakota, warm-season dryland crops (sudangrass, sorghum-sudangrass hybrids, millet, etc.) are well-adapted and have high production potentials. In contrast, the annual crop choices for higher elevation, cooler areas in most of Montana are limited to cereals and other cool-season crops. The key strategy for all producers who periodically need emergency forages is “drought anticipation” with proper planning and execution of an annual forage program.
Acreage and Production of Annual Dryland Forages
Acreage of dry hay from annual crops now considered as “alternative forages” in most states declined sharply after the introduction of tractors and mechanized field machinery. In Montana, the acreage has maintained at around 200,000 acres (Fig. 1). Due to persistent droughty conditions since the late 1990’s, about 309,000 acres of cereal hay were harvested for 477,000 tons of hay annually.
Winter wheat, spring wheat and barley crops growing during drought conditions are frequently salvaged as emergency forages. However, cereal crops are also purposefully grown for hay production during the rotation of old stands of alfalfa or perennial pastures. For alfalfa, rotation to a small grain is effective for controlling persistent weed problems, reducing pathogen loads of crown and root rot diseases, and allowing sod decomposition. In northern areas and high elevations, annual forage options and the window for decision making are limited. In these environments, winter or early-planted spring forages are the most suitable options for emergency forage planting.
At lower elevations in the four-state region (eastern Montana and Wyoming, and most of North and South Dakota) where corn is grown, the best options for annual forages are the warm-season crops. Dryland corn, sudangrass, sorghum-sudangrass hybrids, millet, teff and a number of other warm season grasses are available. With “normal” summer precipitation levels, these crops have the potential for much higher production than cereal forages. In contrast, in summers with deficit precipitation, the warm-season forages are inferior to early-planted spring cereals, particularly in northern higher-elevation environments. Statistical reporting of warm-season alternative forages is not available for most western states, but the acreage is very limited in Montana. A majority of the acreage where annual forages are grown in Montana are best suited for cereal forage production, which is emphasized in this paper.
Cereal Forages During Drought
Cereal forages have consistently been important to Montana’s overall crop and livestock production systems. Across many northern dryland regions, the predominating system of cereal grain production is crop-fallow. Specifically in Montana, there are 10.3 million acres of non-irrigated grain production - 6.3 million acres in wheat or barley and 4 million acres are summer-fallowed annually. Many early winter wheat and spring wheat varieties in the northern Great Plains were bred to be awnless, allowing them to be dual-purpose – they could be hayed or harvested for grain. Hooded cultivars of barley have also been developed, and these had only marginal use as hay, despite the superiority of barley forage compared to other cereals. For all of these cereals, limited plant breeding has occurred other than selection for head characteristics and biomass production.
The use of cereal forages in Montana increased sharply since 1998 due to widespread and persistent drought. During this period, many acres of drought-stricken winter wheat and spring grains were harvested as emergency forage. However, many growers began planting cereals for hay. ‘Haybet’ barley, a two-rowed hooded forage variety, is now our second-most planted barley variety behind ‘Harrington’. Additionally, several awnless or awnletted winter triticale forage varieties were shipped into the state. A small cereal forage testing effort has been maintained at several of the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) centers since the 1990’s. Funding has generally limited the program to forage yield testing of adapted cereals at two or three stations annually, and very few forage quality analyses have been completed. However, during persistent drought conditions in 1998 through 2001, we were able to document some important advantages of cereal forages.
A dataset for dryland alfalfa and perennial grass compared to winter or spring cereal forages was compiled from the MAES Central Agricultural Research Center (CARC) near Moccasin, MT (Table 1). This region contains many mixed operations with cattle and dryland pasture, winter wheat, barley and hay production. At the CARC site, soils are Danvers and Judith clay loams with a significant proportion of cobble and small rocks. The site has long-term averages of 110 frost-free days and 15.4 inches of precipitation annually. Perennial forages, winter and spring cereals, pulse and oilseed crops are routinely planted on the station each year, and daily weather records are recorded on AgriMet. For winter and perennial crops, precipitation from September (of the previous year) through May is crucial, whereas April through July precipitation is key for spring crops and alfalfa regrowth.
From 1998 through 2002, persistent drought effects occurred in some crops, despite “normal” annual precipitation in 1999 and 2002. In all years except 2000, all winter or spring cereals (continuous recrop or fallow) had higher forage yields than alfalfa or meadow bromegrass (Table 1). In 2000, a severe hailstorm (common in this region) destroyed all of the spring cereal, pulse and oilseed crops. Interestingly, both new and older stands of alfalfa or perennial grass did not recover their forage yield potentials after consecutive years of drought.
Table 1. A case study of cereal forages compared to perennial forages during prolonged drought at the Central Montana Agricultural Research Center near Moccasin, 1998-2002.
| Crop Year | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Climate | 1909-2002 Mean | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Frost-free days (>32°F) | 110 | 125 | 36 | 130 | 101 | 120 |
| Precipitation | Inches (% of Long-Term Average | |||||
| Annual | 15.42 |
13.76 (89)
|
15.63 (101) |
11.12 (72) |
10.60 (69) |
15.7 (102) |
| Sept-May (winter crops) | 8.85 |
5.21 (59) |
8.61 (97) |
6.47 (73) |
4.02 (45) |
5.58 (63) |
| Apr.-July (spring crops) | 8.62 |
9.35 (108) |
6.58 (76) |
7.33 (85) |
7.34 (85) |
7.49 (87) |
| Crops (year seeded) | Forage Yield, DM Tons/Acre |
|||||
| Alfalfa (1997) | 1.20 |
0.90 |
0.46 |
0.37 |
0.67 |
|
| Meadow bromegrass (1997) | 1.57 |
0.62 |
0.36 |
0.55 |
1.06 |
|
| Winter triticale (1997, recrop) | 2.88 |
|||||
| Hay barley (1998, recrop) | 2.80 |
|||||
| Alfalfa (1998) | 0.71 |
0.85 |
0.41 |
0.34 |
0.94 |
|
| Winter triticale (1998, fallow) | 3.83 |
|||||
| Winter triticale (1998, recrop) | 2.99 |
|||||
| Hay barley (1999, recrop) | 1.55 |
|||||
| Alfalfa (1999) | 0.47 |
0.74 |
1.22 |
|||
| Meadow bromegrass (1999) | 0.51 |
0.56 |
1.12 |
|||
| Winter triticale (1999, fallow) | 3.35 | |||||
| Winter triticale (1999, recrop) | 2.23 | |||||
| Hay barley (2000, recrop) | Hail* | |||||
| Alfalfa (2000) | 0.48 |
0.42 |
0.72 |
|||
| Winter triticale (2000, fallow) | 1.89 | |||||
| Winter triticale (2000, recrop) | 1.47 | |||||
| Hay barley (2001, fallow) | 2.56 | |||||
| Hay barley (2001, recrop) | 1.78 | |||||
| Alfalfa (2001) | 0.45 |
0.84 |
||||
| Meadow bromegrass (2001) | 0.20 |
1.43 |
||||
| Winter triticale (2001, fallow) | 3.29 |
|||||
| Winter triticale (2001, recrop) | 2.25 |
|||||
| Hay barley (2002, recrop) | 1.84 |
|||||
Cereals harvested for grain or forage have higher yields following summerfallow compared to continuous recropping. Generally, winter cereals have consistently higher forage production potential than spring cereals due to better water used patterns. One exception occurred in 2001 (45% of normal September through April precipitation) where spring hay barley forage yields exceeded those of winter triticale. Very little published or historical record would have indicated the superiority of annual cereal forages over alfalfa and perennial grass during persistent drought. No thorough economic comparisons were made (seed, planting, fertilizer costs, etc), however hay prices spiked by 11 to 46% during this period. Since 2000, cereal forage acreage continues to increase, and these crops are being incorporated as “rotation crops” into traditional crop-fallow rotations. Growing cereal forage during crop alfalfa rotation is also increasing.
Growing Cereal Forages
A major advantage for cereal forage production is that no special equipment is needed. Few recent agronomic studies have been conducted with the crops, but growers have been successful adapting their practices for grain production. Seed should be planted as early as possible to capitalize on moisture conditions, and seed treatments are recommended. No thorough fertilizer recommendations have been made, but pre-plant incorporated levels used for grain production are suggested: 60-70% nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, boron, etc. as indicated from a recent soil test. In Montana, very few herbicides are applied to cereal forages other than pre-plant burndown. For irrigated production, we recommend seeding at 50 to 70% higher planting rates than grain, however on dryland the yield advantage is inconsistent. For most cereals, 1 to 1.3 bushel per acre provides an adequate forage stand under dryland conditions. Early planting ensures a competitive crop, and allows for timely harvest prior to most weed seed production. Seeding can be accomplished with conventional drills or airseeders. Many producers have used spring cereal-pea mixes for annual hay, however the inconsistent results during drought, cost and inconvenience often preclude this option. If in-crop herbicides are applied, be sure to follow re-entry and harvest intervals which vary among products. Very few pests impact cereal forages during growth, but in some years aphids, cereal leaf beetle, head smut and ergot are prevalent.
Cereal Forage Harvest and Quality
Cereal forages should be harvested at the water to milk stage of grain development which achieves optimum forage yield and quality. For livestock producers harvesting cereal hay, the rule of thumb analogy is to bale a “nice grass hay rather than straw and grain”. Silage is an excellent option for preservation and higher forage utilization, however this is a limited practice on most dryland ranches. As demonstrated in Tables 1-3, dryland yields range from 1 to over 5 tons of dry forage per acre, depending on the cropping system, year and crop. Winter cereals typically yield more than spring cereals, and reach the ideal harvest stage 10 to 21 days ahead of spring-planted cereals at the same location. Many cultivars have been evaluated, however most trials focus on awnless (such as ‘Willow Creek’ winter wheat) or hooded barley (for example ‘Haybet’ and ‘Hays’). Within a cereal species, very few cultivars are significantly higher-yielding than other cultivars; the major differences are among species, years and cropping systems.
Forage quality of cereal hay has been evaluated in a number of trials, however a majority of the data were obtained under irrigated or high rainfall conditions. Most of the adapted varieties of forage, feed and malt barley, oat, spelt, emmer, triticale, winter wheat and winter triticale available have been evaluated for forage performance. Under irrigated conditions, barley harvested at the water to milk stage has 11.2 to 13.4% crude protein, and over 60% total digestible nutrients (Table 4). From these and other trials (data not shown), harvest prior to the soft dough stage is critical to maintain the crude protein levels. Yield and energy levels do not decline, however protein levels can drop 1 point per 2 to 3 days. Hay barley with these quality characteristics is an excellent roughage source for overwintering beef cattle. For silage, any high-yielding malt or feed variety would provide good quality.
Table 2. Forage yield performance (tons DM/A) of spring cereal cultivars in 2005.
| Cultivar | Bozeman, MT | Corvallis, MT | Kalispell, MT | Moccasin, MT | Dickinson, ND | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exp. MT981427 2-row hooded barley | 3.47 |
3.54 |
3.25 |
2.19 |
2.49 |
2.99 |
| exp. MT981384 2-row awned barley | 3.46 |
3.52 |
3.27 |
2.19 |
2.27 |
2.94 |
| Hays barley | 3.43 |
3.61 |
3.01 |
2.07 |
2.32 |
2.89 |
| Red 1 triticale | 2.83 |
2.57 |
3.51 |
2.42 |
2.59 |
2.78 |
| Bestford barley | 2.89 |
3.16 |
3.48 |
2.17 |
2.14 |
2.77 |
| exp. MT981397 2-row awned barley | 3.53 |
3.12 |
3.04 |
2.10 |
1.65 |
2.69 |
| exp. SW7 awnless triticale | 2.80 |
3.50 |
2.77 |
1.70 |
2.56 |
2.67 |
| Haybet barley | 3.20 |
3.21 |
2.93 |
2.07 |
1.91 |
2.66 |
| Westford barley | 2.88 |
2.78 |
2.79 |
2.08 |
2.36 |
2.58 |
| Lucile emmer | 2.49 |
3.38 |
2.55 |
1.78 |
2.65 |
2.57 |
| 91002005 triticale | 2.62 |
2.76 |
2.87 |
2.06 |
2.27 |
2.52 |
| Stockford barley | 3.14 |
3.02 |
2.83 |
2.01 |
1.51 |
2.50 |
| Horsford barley | 2.81 |
2.24 |
3.23 |
2.20 |
1.89 |
2.47 |
| exp. Kntz1094 triticale | 2.83 |
2.41 |
2.92 |
1.68 |
2.39 |
2.44 |
| exp. SK3P Select emmer | 3.00 |
2.82 |
2.35 |
1.65 |
1.82 |
2.33 |
| exp. MTCF 30 SW7 triticale | 2.85 |
2.90 |
2.67 |
1.31 |
1.86 |
2.32 |
| 92L012020 triticale | 2.43 |
2.79 |
2.36 |
1.85 |
2.10 |
2.31 |
| Mondak emmer | 2.15 |
2.89 |
1.85 |
0.98 |
1.83 |
1.94 |
Table 3. Forage yield performance of winter cereal cultivars in 2005.
| Cultivar | Bozeman, MT | Moccasin Fallow | Moccasin Recrop | Winifred Fallow | Sheridan, WY | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trical 102 triticale | 6.66 |
3.75 |
3.20 |
3.83 |
1.30 |
3.75 |
| exp. 91T113-C12-5 triticale | 4.33 |
4.38 |
2.69 |
5.25 |
1.31 |
3.60 |
| Frostat triticale | 5.46 |
3.43 |
2.70 |
4.58 |
1.37 |
3.51 |
| exp. KW941531-6005 triticale | 4.90 |
3.50 |
2.55 |
5.12 |
1.42 |
3.50 |
| exp. KT98SRT30 tritical | 5.08 |
3.41 |
2.62 |
4.64 |
1.62 |
3.47 |
| exp. KT941864-5002 triticale | 4.37 |
3.86 |
2.56 |
4.82 |
1.65 |
3.45 |
| Windrift triticale | 4.34 |
3.81 |
2.49 |
4.83 |
1.49 |
3.39 |
| exp. M96-3182-7001triticale | 4.38 |
3.96 |
2.78 |
4.33 |
1.07 |
3.30 |
| exp. D98DRT99-2 triticale | 4.21 |
3.16 |
2.78 |
4.47 |
1.40 |
3.20 |
| exp. SR94719triticale | 3.78 |
3.11 |
2.49 |
5.04 |
1.41 |
3.17 |
| exp. KT940608p9029 triticale | 3.00 |
3.59 |
2.96 |
4.45 |
1.67 |
3.14 |
| exp. KT941289 triticale | 4.22 |
3.40 |
2.20 |
4.71 |
1.12 |
3.13 |
| exp. KT940874p8012 triticale | 3.66 |
3.27 |
2.28 |
5.02 |
1.36 |
3.12 |
| exp. KT940608p9003 tritical | 3.73 |
3.03 |
2.47 |
4.72 |
1.42 |
3.07 |
| exp. KT990174(white) triticale | 4.21 |
3.09 |
2.51 |
3.99 |
1.06 |
2.97 |
| exp. KT982022 triticale | 3.89 |
3.24 |
2.27 |
3.46 |
1.27 |
2.82 |
| exp. KT943112 tritical | 2.98 |
3.69 |
2.21 |
3.84 |
1.34 |
2.81 |
| Willow Creek winter wheat | 3.17 |
2.65 |
1.66 |
4.27 |
1.64 |
2.68 |
| Frank spelt | 3.08 |
1.93 |
1.78 |
3.02 |
1.77 |
2.32 |
| exp WW0301 winter wheat | 2.90 |
1.60 |
1.14 |
3.07 |
1.95 |
2.13 |
| Mean | 4.12 | 3.29 | 2.42 | 4.37 | 1.43 | 3.13 |
Table 4. Forage yield, quality and nitrate levels of irrigated forage barley tested under irrigation near Bozeman, MT. Values are averages at the water to late milk grain stage (all harvested on the same day) for 2000-2002. Forage analyses were by standard wet-lab procedures.
| Cultivar: | Baronesse | Lewis | Valier | Haybet | Hays | Bestford | Westford |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type: | Two-row feed | Two-row feed | Two-row feed | Two-row forage | Two-row forage | Six-row forage | Six-row forage |
| Plant Height (in.) | 32.3 | 33.0 | 32.1 | 34.4 | 33.1 | 40.9 | 38.1 |
| Forage Yield (air dry tons/acre) | 3.26 | 3.42 | 3.28 | 3.36 | 3.33 | 3.27 | 3.07 |
| Forage % Crude Protein | 12.0 | 11.2 | 12.5 | 12.0 | 12.6 | 13.4 | 12.9 |
| Forage % Acid Detergent Fiber | 31.4 | 32.2 | 31.7 | 30.5 | 33.3 | 34.1 | 35.4 |
| Forage % Neutral Detergent Fiber | 58.9 | 56.3 | 57.0 | 57.0 | 60.5 | 62.8 | 64.4 |
| Forage % NO3-N | 0.162 | 0.120 | 0.163 | 0.108 | 0.173 | 0.281 | 0.282 |
Source: http://www.animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/forage/Annual/forage_yield.htm
Several recent trials have been conducted to evaluate cereal forages in backgrounding rations. In these trials, 600 to 680-pound steers are fed an ad libidum diet consisting of chopped cereal hay, plus 4 to 8 pounds of rolled barley, and 1 pound of a concentrate containing minerals and Rumensin. Feed consumption, intake, digestibility, and liveweight gains are measured. By varying the forage source, we have documented average daily gains (ADG) ranging from 2 to 3.4 pounds per day over 60 days (Table 3). Across these trials, barley appears to be a superior forage to other cereals. However, based on higher forage production potentials and operator flexibility, the awnless winter cereals such as ‘Willow’ Creek winter wheat and triticale appear to be better suited for dryland hay production across most of Montana. Further, with these levels of gain, we are confident that cereal forages can provide a reliable maintenance diet for overwintering pregnant beef cattle.
Table 5. Summary of steer performance in recent cereal forage backgrounding trials.
| Trial | Cereal tested, ADG in 60 d (lb/head/day) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002, MSU Bozeman, MT | Haybet barley hay 2.73b | Hays barley hay 3.28a | Valier barley hay 3.30a | Westford barley hay 2.75b | |
| 2003, MSU Bozeman, MT | Haybet barley hay 2.42b | Hays barley hay 2.68a | Valier barley hay 2.42b | Westford barley hay 2.71a | |
| 2005, NDSU Hettinger, ND | Robust barley hay 2.78b | Robust barley silage 3.22a | Loyal oat hay 2.63b | Willow Creek WW hay 2.51b | |
| 2005, MSU Bozeman, MT | Haybet barley hay 2.84a | Hays barley hay 2.81a | Willow Creek WW silage 2.38b | Willow Creek WW hay 2.54b | |
| 2005, Producer Judith Gap, MT | Koldtana triticale hay 2.33 | Windrift triticale hay 2.02 | Frostat triticale silage 1.94 | Willow Creek WW hay 2.57 | |
| 2006, MSU Bozeman, MT | Hays barley hay 3.44a | Alfalfa/grass hay 2.89b | Trical 102 triticale hay 2.71b | Willow Creek WW hay 3.32a | |
a,b Replicated trials (r = 4 pens); means within a row followed by different superscripts are different, P=0.05.
A major drawback for cereal forages is the potential for accumulating toxic levels of nitrate. In Montana, we have noted high nitrate levels in cereals, corn, millet, most warm-season crops, fall alfalfa regrowth, pigweed, lambsquarters, kochia, wild oat, and other crops and weeds. For many plants grown under stressful conditions such as drought or frost, nitrate can be present at levels that can cause abortions and death in cattle and sheep. In Montana, a high forage nitrate level was a widespread problem during the drought of 1998-2001. Thousands of samples were analyzed for nitrate during this period. From lab records and Extension agent involvement we estimated that about 40% of the Montana cereal hay (worth $12 million annually) harvested had nitrate levels too high to feed to pregnant beef cattle (Cash et al. 2005).
Nitrate (NO3) concentrations above 0.5% or 5000 ppm (or 0.11 = 1130 ppm nitrate-N [NO3-N]) should not be fed to pregnant ruminants, and should be limited to half or less of the ration for other livestock (Cash et al. 2002). These nitrate tolerances that we have adopted for prepartum beef cattle in Montana are fairly conservative compared to other recommendations. These are based on the known feeding practices of the majority of cattle producers to extend fall and winter grazing on fairly low-quality dry grasses until heavy snowpack, followed by feeding hay. High and uncontrolled hay intake of high-nitrate hay by pregnant beef cows during the winter is a significant risk.
Significant differences in nitrate concentrations among cereal species and cultivars have been detected. Under irrigated conditions, six-row forage barley had significantly higher forage NO3-N than the other varieties tested (Table 2). Based on recommended nitrate tolerances, only Haybet had a level that would have been considered as safe for this period.
Nitrate concentrations are typically high in crops or weeds during early vegetative growth, and usually diminish under normal maturation conditions. Under irrigated conditions, we have found that oat consistently has higher nitrate levels than other cereal forages (Fig. 2). Nitrate concentrations in cereals following a terminated alfalfa stand are risky, and many growers using oat have noted a significant nitrate problem. For these reasons, the MAES is recommending that oat not be used as a forage unless it is ensiled.
Fig. 2. Nitrate concentrations of spring cereal forages grown near Bozeman, MT under irrigation in 2002. Source: http://animalrangeextension.montana.edu/articles/forage/Annual/nitrate.htm
Summary
Cereal forages play a key role for producers with integrated crop-livestock operations. Many annual crops can be harvested as emergency forage. During consecutive years of drought, we have documented that cereal forage yields were 72 to 533% higher than yields of existing alfalfa stands. Cereals are widely adapted and amenable for routine production during alfalfa crop rotation or used as a “rotation crop” in a grain production system. Winter cereals have a higher production capability than spring cereals, however producers would have to anticipate a forage deficit or drought in the preceding fall. In preliminary trials winter cereals tend to have slightly lower animal performance, and lower nitrate hazard than hay barley. Ongoing agronomic, feeding and grazing trials are underway to determine extended uses of cereal forages in Montana
References
Cash, S.D., R. Funston, M. King and D.M. Wichman. 2002. Nitrate toxicity of Montana forages. Montana State University Extension Service Montguide 200205. Available: http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt200205.pdf (Accessed 15 Apr. 2007).
Cash, S.D., J. Hager, L. Keddington and R Carlstrom. 2005. Nitrate QuikTest for Rapid Detection of High Nitrate Levels in Forages. Journal of Extension 43(1): Article Number 1IAW6. Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/iw6.shtml (Accessed 15 Apr. 2007).
Stamm, M.M., C.S. Schauer, L.M.M. Surber, S.D. Cash, and A.L. Todd. 2006. Profitable calf backgrounding integrating annual forage crops. Proc. West. Sec. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 57.
Todd, A.L., L.M.M. Surber, S.D. Cash, M.M. Stamm, C.S. Shauer, A. Hafla and M.M. Thompson. 2007. Backgrounding calves with cereal forage crops. Montana Livestock Forum and Nutrition Conference, 10-11 Apr. 2007. Bozeman, MT.
Acknowledgements
Funding sources for these research results were grants from the Four-State Ruminant Consortium and a USDA special grant for feed barley for rangeland cattle, and from the Agricultural Experiment Stations in Montana and North Dakota.