Overview of Silage Management Overview of Silage Management

in Californiain California

Jennifer Heguy – UC Cooperative Extension Stanislaus & San Joaquin Counties

30 Years of California Production

40 000

45,000

30 000

35,000

40,000

lion

lbs)

20 000

25,000

30,000

ctio

n (m

il

10,000

15,000

20,000

k Pr

oduc

0

5,000

10,000

Milk

1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

Year

California #1 Dairy State

40,000

45,000

30,000

35,000

llion

lbs)

20,000

25,000

uctio

n (m

i

10,000

15,000

Milk

Pro

d

0

5,000

1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 20081978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

Year

CA Wis.

Forages in CA

C lif i h th i bilit t d i t hi h

Forages in CA

• California has the unique ability to grow and incorporate high quality forages into dairy rations.

− Climate− Irrigation infrastructure− Irrigation infrastructure− Fertilizer (recycled manure)

• Alfalfa hay & corn silage are the two most common ingredientsAlfalfa hay & corn silage are the two most common ingredients in high string rations.

• Regulatory constraints (air and water) g y ( )impact the way forages are grown, stored & fed in California.

Corn Silage & Milk Production

500 000

600,000

40,000

45,000

400,000

500,000

ed A

cres

30,000

35,000

llion

lbs)

300,000

ge H

arve

st

20,000

25,000

uctio

n (m

il

200,000

Cor

n Si

lag

10,000

15,000

Milk

Pro

du

0

100,000

0

5,000

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006Year

Corn Silage Milk Production

ObjectivesObjectives

1. Describe current silage management practices on California’s Central Valley dairies.

2. Identify regulatory considerations for silage in California.

Snapshot of Silage Management P ti C lif i D i iPractices on California Dairies

In summer 2009, a feed

management survey was mailed

to dairy producers in Tulare,

Stanislaus, and San Joaquin

Counties; the first, third and

seventh largest dairy counties in

C lif iCalifornia.

Methodology – CA SurveyMethodology CA Survey

Producers received an envelope containing:

1) an invitation letter to participate in the study,

2) a double sided one-page survey, and

3) a pre-paid return envelope.

Participating DairiesParticipating Dairies

Response rate was 16.9% (120/710).

Herd size range: 160 to 6,600 lactating cows (median=950).

What forages do you feed?What forages do you feed?

120

s (n

) 80

100D

airie

s

20

40

60

Alfalfa

hay

Corn S

illage

Oat ha

yea

l sila

ges

Whe

at str

awfal

fa Sila

geud

an gr

ass

Rice S

traw

fresh

chop

orn E

arlag

e

0

20

A Co

Cere Wh

Alfa Sud RAlfa

lfa fr Corn

Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the two most common forages fed to dairy cows on California dairies. Cereal hay and silage are also frequently fed.

How is silage stored?How is silage stored?

Silage in California is moreSilage in California is more frequently stored in piles (85.0%)and on concrete (75.0%), than in bunkers or on dirt/gravel. Dairies gutilizing silage bags often did so in conjunction with another type of storage.

Do you use bacterial i l t ?

80

inoculants?< 800 cows

%) 60

80800 – 1600 cows> 1600 cows

Dai

ries

(%

40

1 2

D

0

20

N I l tI l t1 2No InoculantsInoculants

Bacterial inoculants of various types were used by 54 0% of dairiesBacterial inoculants of various types were used by 54.0% of dairies.

How much spoiled forage is t th t f th il ? present on the top of the pile? Is it discarded?

iries

25

30

35

N t Di d d

DiscardedSixty percent of dairies

discarded spoiled forage.

ber o

f Dai

15

20

25 Not Discarded

Num

b

0

5

10

1 2 3 40

Twenty-five percent of dairies reported less than 3 inches of spoiled feed,

> 9 in. 6 -9 in. 6-3 in. <3 in.

53.9 % reported 3 to less than 6 inches, 15.7 % reported 6 to less than 9 inches, and 4.9% reported at least 9 inches of spoiled feed.

What portion of the face width

60

pis removed daily?

%)

40

50

60< 800 cows

800 – 1600 cows> 1600 cows

airie

s (%

20

30

40

Da

0

10

20

1 2 3 40

Entire face removed by 40.2% of dairies; 19.6% removed half the face; 28.9%

100% 50% 33% 25%

removed a third of the face; 11.3% removed a quarter or less of the face.

Other Results of InterestOther Results of Interest

M t iMycotoxins• 25.0% of dairies suspected mycotoxins in 2008. • Top surface spoiled forage was discarded by 70% of dairies suspecting mycotoxinssuspecting mycotoxins.

Dry Matter (DM) Determination• 52.3% of dairies determined DM at least once a month.52.3% of dairies determined DM at least once a month. • Nutrition consultant responsible for determining DM (86.6%).

Face Managementg• 73.4% considered that silage faces were maintained smooth.

Silage Management SummarySilage Management Summary

• Dairy owner and manager responses are subjective• Dairy owner and manager responses are subjective.

• Results indicate areas where silage management can be improved:surface spoilage− surface spoilage

− removal rate

− sizing of silage structuressizing of silage structures

Regulatory Considerations

Regional Water Quality C l B d

Waste Discharge Requirements for Existing Milk

Control Board

Cow Dairies adopted in 2007• All dairies regulated, regardless of size.

• Restricts the amount of nitrogen (N) used• Restricts the amount of nitrogen (N) used

on fields where manure is land applied.

• Goal: protect ground and surface watersGoal: protect ground and surface waters.

TARGET = 1 4 x N removed in plantTARGET = 1.4 x N removed in plant

tissue (crop/field/year)

Waste Discharge Requirements

• Document total weight of nutrients removed from fields where

Waste Discharge Requirements

manure is applied.− Dry matter (DM) content of harvested forage varies greatly.

D t il d t l f li il t ll f ll d t• Detailed protocol for sampling silage not generally followed at dairies.

− Nutrient removal may be under- or overestimated, thus compromising regulatory compliancecompromising regulatory compliance.

Variability in dry matter content of corn for silage

• Objective: − To determine if differences exist in calculating DM removal

based on various intensities of sub-sample and composite collection.

• Procedures: − Weights were obtained and samples collected for eachWeights were obtained and samples collected for each

truckload of forage harvested on a single corn field at three dairies.

− DM was determined. − Actual field DM removal was determined by summing forage

weight*DM for all samples from the field.− Field DM removal totals were calculated using two composite

sampling methods.

Variability in dry matter content of corn for silage

Example of truckload samples taken to create Sequential (top) and Interval (bottom) composites.

532112 4

Sequential Composite

5p3p2p1p12p11a10a8a 9a 4p

I t l C it

Sample taken from a single truckload of forage

Interval Composite

Sampling Silage for Regulatory Purposes

Differences between estimated field DM removal and actual field DM removal based on method of sampling on one cooperator dairy.

Individual Sequential Interval

% difference -21.5 to + 20.4 -5.14% to + 5.15 -2.71% to + 2.40

ff ( ) 13 000 33 000 16 00DM difference (lbs) ± 135,000 ± 33,000 ± 16,500

Through more intense sampling, under- and overestimations g p g,were reduced. Interval samples across all dairies were ± 3%

of actual DM harvested.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Rule 4570 for confined animal facilities adopted in 2006;

• 94% of dairies covered; 500 cows +

Rule 4570 for confined animal facilities adopted in 2006; Amended October, 2010

1,231 Dairies87% MilkCDFA 2009

• Special emphasis on silage.− Most significant source of VOC

emissions on dairies.

CDFA, 2009

emissions on dairies.• Menu based approach; producers choose mitigation measures:

Harvest− Harvest − Storage

− Feed managementeed a age e t

Rule 4570 Mitigation MeasuresRule 4570 Mitigation Measures

• Cover silage surface within 72 hours of last forage delivery.• Achieve minimum bulk density:

− Corn = 44 lb/cu ft− Other = 40 lb/cu ftOther 40 lb/cu ft

• Parameters for harvest:− ≥ 65% moisture for corn≥ 60% other− ≥ 60% other

− Theoretical length of cut and roller opening considerations

Rule 4570 Mitigation MeasuresRule 4570 Mitigation Measures• Exposed silage:

− One pile = < 2,150 square feetOne pile 2,150 square feet− Multiple = < 4,300 square feet

• Face Management:− Shavers/facers− Shavers/facers− Maintain smooth vertical surface

• Silage additives

• Silage bags

Summary

1 C t il t ti id i id tif i

Summary

1. Current silage management practices aid in identifying areas where improvements can be made.

2 Historically silage management considerations focused on a2. Historically, silage management considerations focused on a quality end product. Central Valley dairy producers must consider implementation of management practices to achieve compliance with environmental regulations.compliance with environmental regulations.

In the future, every member of the silage team will be responsible for carrying out best management practices/mitigation measures

to ensure both quality feed and regulatory compliance.q y g y p

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

FEED MANAGEMENT SURVEY

Noelia Silva-Del-Rio

Alfonso Lago

SILAGE SAMPLING PROTOCOL

Deanne Meyer

Betsy Karle

Patricia Price

CALIFORNIA DAIRY PRODUCERSCALIFORNIA DAIRY PRODUCERS

Thank You!