The nutrient dense study was initiated at two locations in Vermont to test the efficacy of amending forages with foliar sprays. The nutrient spray program was developed by Advancing Eco-Agriculture and consisted of five foliar sprays for the Vermont farms in this study. The recommended spray program included applications of Rejuvenate in the early spring and late fall, and a combination of PhotoMag, Phosphorus, Potassium and MicroPak applied in the spring and after each cut of hay or graze (Table 1). This study was conducted based on farmer interest in enhancing nutrient density of forages through foliar sprays and was funded by the Lattner Foundation. Any reference to commercial products, trade names or brand names is for information only, and no endorsement or approval is intended

Cummings, Erica

Darby, Heather

Harwood, Hannah

Madden, Rosalie

Monahan, Susan

English

UVM ScholarWorks

University of VermontScholarWorks @ UVMNorthwest Crops & Soils Program UVM Extension2012Enhancing Forages with Nutrient Dense Sprays2012 TrialsHeather DarbyUniversity of Vermont, heather.darby@uvm.eduSusan MonahanUniversity of VermontErica CummingsUniversity of VermontHannah HarwoodUniversity of VermontRosalie MaddenUniversity of VermontFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/nwcspPart of the Agricultural Economics CommonsThis Report is brought to you for free and open access by the UVM Extension at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion inNorthwest Crops & Soils Program by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contactdonna.omalley@uvm.edu.Recommended CitationDarby, Heather; Monahan, Susan; Cummings, Erica; Harwood, Hannah; and Madden, Rosalie, "Enhancing Forages with NutrientDense Sprays 2012 Trials" (2012). Northwest Crops & Soils Program. 247.https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/nwcsp/247  © March 2013, University of Vermont Extension Enhancing Forages with Nutrient Dense Sprays 2012 Trials   Dr. Heather Darby, UVM Extension Agronomist  Susan Monahan, Erica Cummings, Hannah Harwood and Rosalie Madden UVM Extension Crops and Soils Technicians 802-524-6501 Visit us on the web: http://www.uvm.edu/extension/cropsoil       ENHANCING FORAGES WITH NUTRIENT DENSE SPRAYS, 2012 TRIALS Dr. Heather Darby, University of Vermont Extension Heather.Darby[at]uvm.edu  INTRODUCTION  The nutrient dense study was initiated at two locations in Vermont to test the efficacy of amending forages with foliar sprays.  The nutrient spray program was developed by Advancing Eco-Agriculture and consisted of five foliar sprays for the Vermont farms in this study. The recommended spray program included applications of Rejuvenate in the early spring and late fall, and a combination of PhotoMag, Phosphorus, Potassium and MicroPak applied in the spring and after each cut of hay or graze (Table 1). This study was conducted based on farmer interest in enhancing nutrient density of forages through foliar sprays and was funded by the Lattner Foundation.  Any reference to commercial products, trade names or brand names is for information only, and no endorsement or approval is intended.  Table 1. Information on Advancing Eco-Agriculture nutrient dense sprays.1 Spray What is it? What does it do? Rejuvenate   humic substance, carbohydrates, sea minerals stimulates soil microbial life PhotoMag magnesium, sulfur, boron, cobalt  promotes chlorophyll and sugar production Phosphorus mined phosphate improves photosynthesis and plant root vigor Potassium mined potassium sulfate improves storability MicroPak boron, zinc, manganese, copper, cobalt, molybdenum, sulfur     enhances sugar translocation, root strength, and plant immunity 1Information gathered from the Advancing Eco-Agriculture website: growbetterfood.com.    MATERIALS AND METHODS  In 2012, forages were amended with nutrient dense sprays at two locations: Shelburne Farms in Shelburne, VT and Butterworks Farm in Westfield, VT.  Both hayfields had been in native grass/legume mixture for many years.  The nutrient recommendations from Advancing Eco-Agriculture are listed in Table 2.  In order to understand what may cause a response, if any, we compared the recommended spray regime (‘All’) to individual components, as well as a control of water.  The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications.   Table 2. Timing and amount of Nutrient Dense Sprays used. Timing Recommendations (per acre) Early Spring 3 tons compost, 20 lb. Borate (10%), and 5 lbs. Zinc sulfate, 2 gallons Rejuvenate After Each Cut 1 gallon PhotoMag, 1 gallon Phosphorus, 1 quart Potassium, 2 quarts MicroPak Fall, post harvest 6 quarts Rejuvenate, 2-3 tons compost  Six by ten foot plots were established in existing hay fields. Harvest and spray dates for each location are presented in Table 3.  Plots were harvested with a BCS sickle bar mower (Portland, OR), raked by hand, gathered and weighed on a platform scale. A subsample was dried at 40o C and weighed to determine dry matter.  Oven dry samples were coarsely ground with a Wiley mill (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) and sent to Cumberland Valley Analytical Services, Inc. (Hagerstown, MD) for quality analysis.  Results were analyzed with an analysis of variance in SAS (Cary, NC).    Table 3. Harvest and spray dates at each location.  Treatment Butterworks Farm Shelburne Farms Spray Rejuvenate 18-Apr 19-Apr Spray All Treatments 16-May 24-Apr (B, Zn only) 1st Cut 31-May 17-May Spray All Treatments 12-Jun 29-May 2nd Cut 9-Jul 21-Jun Spray All Treatments 18-Jul 5-Jul 3rd Cut 21-Aug 27-Jul Spray All Treatments 28-Aug 7-Aug Spray Rejuvenate 9-Oct 9-Oct  SILAGE QUALITY  Silage quality was analyzed by Cumberland Valley Analytical Forage Laboratory in Hagerstown, Maryland. Plot samples were dried, ground and analyzed for crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and various other nutrients. The Nonstructural Carbohydrates (NSC) and Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) were calculated from forage analysis data. Performance indices such as Net Energy for Lactation (NEL) were calculated to determine forage value.  Mixtures of true proteins, composed of amino acids and nonprotein nitrogen make up the crude protein (CP) content of forages. The bulky characteristics of forage come from fiber. Forage feeding values are negatively associated with fiber since the less digestible portions of the plant are contained in the fiber fraction. The detergent fiber analysis system separates forages into two parts: cell contents, which include sugars, starches, proteins, non-protein nitrogen, fats and other highly digestible compounds; and the less digestible components found in the fiber fraction. The total fiber content of forage is contained in the neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Chemically, this fraction includes cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Recently, forage testing laboratories have begun to evaluate forages for NDF digestibility. Evaluation of forages and other feedstuffs for NDF digestibility is being conducted to aid prediction of feed energy content and animal performance. Research has demonstrated that lactating dairy cows will eat more dry matter and produce more milk when fed forages with optimum NDF digestibility. Forages with increased NDF digestibility (dNDF) will result in higher energy values, and perhaps more importantly, increased forage intakes. Forage NDF digestibility can range from 20 – 80%.  The NSC or non-fiber carbohydrates (NFC) include starch, sugars and pectins.   LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE (LSD)  Variations in yield and quality can occur because of variations in genetics, soil, weather and other growing conditions.  Statistical analysis makes it possible to determine whether a difference among varieties is real, or whether it might have occurred due to other variations in the field.  At the bottom of each table, a LSD value is presented for each variable (i.e. yield).  Least Significant differences (LSD’s) at the 10% level of probability are shown. Where the difference between two treatments within a column is equal to or greater than the LSD value at the bottom of the column, you can be sure in 9 out of 10 chances that there is a real difference between the two varieties. Treatments that were not significantly lower in performance than the highest value in a particular column are  indicated with an asterisk.  In the example below, A is significantly different from C but not from B. The difference between A and B is equal to 1.5 which is less than the LSD value of 2.0. This means that these varieties did not differ in yield. The difference between A and C is equal to 3.0 which is greater than the LSD value Variety Yield A 6.0 B 7.5* C 9.0*  of 2.0. This means that the yields of these varieties were significantly different from one    another.  The asterisk indicates that B was not significantly lower than the top yielding variety.     RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  Seasonal precipitation and temperature recorded at weather stations in close proximity to Westfield and Shelburne, VT are reported in Table 4.  The temperature and precipitation in Westfield was close to the 30-year average.  There were a total of 5530 GDD (growing degree days), 134 GDD above average. May, August and October were warmer than average in Westfield, with less rain in July and August. In Shelburne, monthly temperatures were above the 30-year average every month of the growing season.  There were a total of 6488 GDD, 639 GDD above average.  Warmer temperatures in Shelburne contribute to the earlier harvests of 2nd and 3rd cut hay.   Table 4. Seasonal weather data collected near Westfield and Shelburne, VT. Westfield* April May June July August Sept Oct Average Temperature (F) 41.8 56.7 63.0 67.9 68.1 56.9 48.8 Departure from Normal -0.9 1.9 -0.8 -0.1 2.0 -0.6 4.0               Precipitation (inches) 3.2 3.6 4.0 3.6 2.8 6.4 4.2 Departure from Normal 0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.7 -1.8 2.9 0.2               Growing Degree Days (base 32) 336 769 928 1112 1119 747 519 Departure from Normal 4 64 -25 -4 63 -41 73  Shelburne* April May June July August Sept Oct Average Temperature (F) 46.1 61.6 67.8 73.0 72.0 61.9 52.9 Departure from Normal 1.3 5.2 2.0 2.4 3.2 1.4 4.8               Precipitation (inches) 2.8 4.4 3.2 3.8 2.9 5.36 5.04 Departure from Normal 0.0 0.9 -0.5 -0.4 -1.0 1.72 1.44               Growing Degree Days (base 32) 435 917 1072 1271 1241 925 627 Departure from Normal 51 161 58 73 102 68 126 *Data compiled from Northeast Regional Climate Center data from weather stations in Newport, VT and Burlington, VT. Historical averages for 30 years of NOAA data (1981-2010).  At Butterworks Farm, there was no statistical difference in yield among the nutrient dense sprays for first, second or third cut hay (Tables 5-7).  However, second cut yields of the treatments ‘All’ and PhotoMag were higher than first cut (Figure 1), whereas yields of the other treatments decreased with each cut, as more typical in Vermont.  First cut crude protein of the ‘All’ treatment was 18.1% compared to the control of 15.1% (Table 5).  Crude protein generally increased with each cut (Figure 2), except for the ‘All’ and PhotoMag treatments, where first cut CP was slightly higher than second cut. ‘All’, PhotoMag and the Phosphorus treatments had the most favorable forage quality characteristics including the lowest fiber, highest starch, total digestible nutrients, net energy for lactation and relative feed value. Starch levels for second cut hay were highest for PhotoMag and Rejuvenate treatments (Table 6). There were no significant differences between the treatments for third cut (Table 7).       LSD 2.0      Table 5. First cut hay yield and quality, Westfield, VT, 31-May 2012. Treatment Height DM Yield DM CP ADF NDF Starch TDN NEL RFV  in. lbs. acre-1 % % % % % % Mcal/lb % All 20.7* 2234 17.9 18.1* 29.1* 49.2* 3.4* 64.5* 0.643* 126* Control 20.2* 2828 18.6 15.1 33.3 56.2 2.9 62.8 0.595 105 MicroPak 19.4* 2547 18.5 17.3* 31.1 52.7 3.1* 63.3 0.618 114 Phosphorus 19.3* 2520 17.7 17.1* 29.5* 49.7* 3.4* 65.3* 0.648* 124* PhotoMag 17.3 2140 17.7 18.1* 29.8* 48.7* 3.7* 64.5* 0.645* 126* Potassium 18.3 2433 18.1 16.2 32.0 53.0 2.7 62.8 0.613 113 Rejuvenate 20.6* 2523 17.4 17.1* 30.5* 52.4 3.1 64.3* 0.628* 116* Trial Mean 19.4 2461 18.0 17.0 30.7 51.7 3.2 63.9 0.627 118 LSD  1.8302 NS NS 1.7923 1.7188 3.4669 0.5812 1.122 0.0219 10.46 *Varieties with an asterisk indicate that it was not significantly different than the top performer in column (in bold).    NS - None of the varieties were significantly different from one another.  Table 6. Second cut hay yield and quality, Westfield, VT, 9-Jul 2012. Treatment DM Yield DM CP ADF NDF dNDF Starch TDN NEL NSC  lbs. acre-1 % % % % % % % Mcal/lb % All 2288 25.3 17.8 29.3 42.8 27.8 3.35 64.3 0.665 15.7 Control 2191 26.2 17.7 28.3 42.9 28.8 3.43 65.1 0.675 15.6 MicroPak 2255 25.8 18.3 28.4 42.3 26.8 3.45 65.1 0.675 16.2* Phosphorus 2177 25.0 17.5 29.2 43.9 28.2 3.38 64.4 0.668 15.7 PhotoMag 2391 25.5 18.1 27.9 40.8 25.6 3.83* 65.2 0.675 16.7* Potassium 2215 26.4 17.0 29.3 44.2 27.8 3.40 64.8 0.670 15.9 Rejuvenate 1996 24.4 18.6 27.6 40.2 25.3 3.63* 65.4 0.678 16.9* Trial Mean 2216 25.5 17.8 28.5 42.4 27.2 3.49 64.9 0.672 16.1 LSD  NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.2529 NS NS 0.8494 *Varieties with an asterisk indicate that it was not significantly different than the top performer in column (in bold).    NS - None of the varieties were significantly different from one another.   Table 7. Third cut hay yield and quality, Westfield, VT, 21-Aug 2012. Treatment DM Yield DM CP ADF NDF dNDF Starch TDN NEL NSC  lbs. acre-1 % % % % % % % Mcal/lb % All 1525 19.6 20.1 29.6 42.0 62.5 3.3 63.2 0.653 13.6 Control 1453 18.8 21.1 28.3 39.4 65.6 3.6 63.5 0.655 14.0 MicroPak 1166 17.3 21.2 28.4 40.2 64.8 3.3 63.6 0.658 13.7 Phosphorus 1297 19.6 19.8 29.3 42.2 64.6 3.2 63.4 0.658 13.6 PhotoMag 1477 18.6 20.8 29.0 40.6 64.4 3.5 63.3 0.653 13.7 Potassium 1253 19.3 20.6 29.3 41.4 63.8 3.5 63.0 0.650 13.5 Rejuvenate 1614 21.7 19.9 28.8 41.5 63.7 3.4 63.7 0.660 14.1 Trial Mean 1398 19.3 20.5 28.9 41.0 64.2 3.4 63.4 0.655 13.7 LSD  NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS *Varieties with an asterisk indicate that it was not significantly different than the top performer in column (in bold).    NS - None of the varieties were significantly different from one another.    Figure 1. First, second and third cut dry matter yields, Westfield, VT.    Figure 2. First, second and third cut crude protein, Westfield, VT, 2012.                                                                      Treatments with the same letter did not differ significantly from one another.   050010001500200025003000All Control MicroPak Phosphorus PhotoMag Potassium RejuvenateDry Matter Yield (lbs. acre-1) Nutrient Dense Sprays 1st cut2nd cut3rd cuta c ab ab ab bc ab 0.05.010.015.020.025.0All Control MicroPak Phosphorus PhotoMag Potassium RejuvenateCrude Protein (% of DM) Nutrient Dense Sprays 1st cut2nd cut3rd cut At Shelburne Farms, there were no significant differences for yield or quality between the nutrient dense spray treatments for first, second or third cut hay (Tables 8-10). The only exception to this was second cut starch levels; the Control and Phosphorus treatments had higher starch levels than the other treatments (Table 9).  Dry matter yields were very high for first cut, averaging 3097 lbs acre-1, and they decreased with each subsequent cut (Figure 3).  Crude protein levels were also high for first cut, averaging 17.5% (Figure 4).  High yield and protein levels may be attributed to the early harvest on 17-May. Above average temperatures in March, April and May provided good conditions for plant growth and soil drying to allow for the early harvest.     Table 8. First cut hay yield and quality, Shelburne, VT, 17-May 2012.  Treatment Height DM Yield DM CP ADF NDF Starch TDN NEL  in. lbs. acre-1 % % % % % % Mcal/lb All 27.9 2977 18.0 17.6 31.8 57.7 2.0 63.0 0.588 Control 33.1 3137 18.4 17.4 30.7 56.3 1.2 62.3 0.588 MicroPak 28.2 3193 17.8 16.3 32.0 57.6 1.6 62.3 0.583 Phosphorus 31.2 3030 17.0 17.4 30.8 55.4 1.3 62.3 0.595 PhotoMag 33.5 3377 16.5 17.9 32.2 58.1 1.2 61.3 0.568 Potassium 27.6 3057 17.5 17.7 31.4 55.9 1.9 62.5 0.590 Rejuvenate 32.8 2906 17.9 18.3 31.2 58.1 1.8 62.0 0.575 Trial Mean 30.6 3097 17.6 17.5 31.4 57.0 1.6 62.2 0.584 LSD NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS - None of the varieties were significantly different from one another.  Table 9. Second cut hay yield and quality, Shelburne, VT, 21-Jun 2012.  Treatment Height DM Yield DM CP ADF NDF dNDF Starch TDN NEL NSC  in. lbs. acre-1 % % % % % % % Mcal/lb % All 17.2 2369 27.8 14.9 35.9 55.4 63.8 3.0 59.8 0.615 10.0 Control 15.8 2379 25.2 15.1 35.3 53.8 65.2 3.3* 59.9 0.618 8.4 MicroPak 17.6 2209 26.0 14.8 36.0 56.1 64.8 3.0 59.7 0.613 9.7 Phosphorus 16.9 2253 27.0 14.6 35.8 56.0 64.8 3.1* 59.7 0.613 9.8 PhotoMag 17.3 2663 26.5 14.9 36.4 55.7 63.0 2.9 59.0 0.605 9.5 Potassium 17.6 2322 27.7 14.2 36.2 56.7 64.9 3.0 59.6 0.613 9.8 Rejuvenate 16.3 2309 28.1 14.8 36.2 55.8 64.7 2.9 59.3 0.608 9.4 Trial Mean 16.9 2358 26.9 14.7 36.0 55.6 64.5 3.0 59.5 0.612 9.5 LSD NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.1978 NS NS NS *Varieties with an asterisk indicate that it was not significantly different than the top performer in column (in bold).    NS - None of the varieties were significantly different from one another.  Table 10. Third cut hay yield and quality, Shelburne, VT, 27-Jul 2012.  Treatment DM Yield DM CP ADF NDF dNDF Starch TDN NEL NSC  lbs. acre-1 % % % % % % % Mcal/lb % All 1366.3 27.7 18.6 28.7 48.2 59.2 2.4 62.8 0.650 9.8 Control 1246.4 26.7 18.9 28.0 46.9 58.9 2.5 63.1 0.653 9.9 MicroPak 1365.6 27.1 18.2 29.2 49.1 60.3 2.3 62.5 0.650 9.5 Phosphorus 1297.4 27.0 18.1 29.2 49.5 60.1 2.3 62.3 0.645 9.8 PhotoMag 1518.5 25.9 19.1 28.4 47.8 60.4 2.3 62.6 0.648 9.5 Potassium 1300.6 25.9 18.7 29.2 48.5 59.5 2.0 62.3 0.645 9.6 Rejuvenate 1286.2 27.3 18.6 28.4 48.3 59.7 2.3 63.0 0.650 9.4 Trial Mean 1340.1 26.8 18.6 28.7 48.3 59.7 2.3 62.7 0.649 9.6 LSD NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS - None of the varieties were significantly different from one another.    Figure 3. First, second and third cut dry matter yields, Shelburne, VT, 2012.   Figure 4. First, second and third cut crude protein, Shelburne, VT, 2012.  In addition, there was no significant difference among the treatments in calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium or sulfur at either location (data not shown).    05001000150020002500300035004000All Control MicroPak Phosphorus PhotoMag Potassium RejuvenateDM Yield (lbs acre-1) Nutrient Dense Sprays 1st cut2nd cut3rd cut0.05.010.015.020.025.0All Control MicroPak Phosphorus PhotoMag Potassium RejuvenateCrude Protein (% of DM) Nutrient Dense Sprays 1st cut2nd cut3rd cut ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS   The UVM Extension Northwest Crops and Soils team would like to thank Butterworks Farm and Shelburne Farms for hosting these trials, and the Lattner Foundation for funding this research.   UVM Extension helps individuals and communities put research-based knowledge to work.  Any reference to commercial products, trade names, or brand names is for information only, and no endorsement or approval is intended.   Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. University of Vermont Extension, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, cooperating, offer education and employment to everyone without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status.  

Enhancing Forages with Nutrient Dense Sprays 2012 Trials

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1272&amp;context=nwcsp

Enhancing Forages with Nutrient Dense Sprays 2012 Trials

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UVM ScholarWorks