Forage-based approaches for improving profitability and ecosystem services of dairy farms in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania

Forage-based approaches for improving profitability and ecosystem services of dairy farms in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania

Summary

University of New Hampshire (UNH) site:

Agronomic Research Component:

We completed the second year of the annual forage crop (AFC) field experiment at the UNH Kingman Research Farm in Madbury, NH (UNH Experiment 1). The field experiment involves planting monocultures and mixtures of annual forage crops (AFC) that are intended to be available for grazing or harvest during one of three target periods during the forage growing season: early spring, summer, and fall. The spring-available treatments were established in fall 2014 and included monocultures of winter wheat, winter triticale, barley, cereal rye, hairy vetch, and a mixture containing all five spring-available species, each planted at 1/5 rate. The summer-available treatments were established in May 2015 and included monocultures of BMR sorghum, buckwheat, teff, millet, oats, chickling vetch, and a mixture containing all six summer-available species, each planted at 1/6 rate. The fall-available treatments were established in July 2015 and included monocultures of forage radish, oats, rape, wheat, triticale, sunn hemp, and a mixture containing all six fall-available species, each planted at 1/6 rate. In October 2015, we also established the final round of the spring-available treatments. These treatments will be harvested in spring 2016. All treatments were assigned randomly within four blocks and established with a plot drill. Each target period also included a “super mixture” which contained all of the 14 AFC species used in the experiment as well as a fallow treatment which was not planted with AFC in order to assess the relative level of weed suppression associated with each AFC treatment. This experiment at UNH Kingman Research Farm is ongoing and will be completed in 2016-2017 with our third year of data and samples collection, which include biomass production measurements, forage nutrient profile, and soil analyses.

Animal Research Component:

Two short-term grazing studies (21 days each) were established at the UNH Burley-Demeritt Organic Dairy Research Farm located in Lee, NH (UNH Experiment 2). The objective of this experiment was to determine the impact of AFC on milk yield and composition in grazing dairy cows during the spring (AFC-SP experiment), summer (AFC-SU experiment), and fall (AFC-FALL) seasons. Even though we were able to plant the AFC-FALL species (brassicas, rye, etc.), the fall species did not establish well due to a drought and, as a result, the trial was not conducted. However, all three grazing studies will be repeated in 2016.

Outreach/Education Component:

We conducted two focus group interviews with organic dairy farmers in the Northeast (ME and NY) to better understand farmers’ perspectives about high-forage dairy diets and the inclusion of AFC in their forage cropping systems. Our team also presented project results in scientific and farmer-oriented events, and set up an on-farm AFC demonstration site.

Pennsylvania State University (PSU) site:

Agronomic Research Component:

We continued our on station research trial and completed the second year of data collection (PSU Experiment 1). A field experiment was established in the fall of 2013 to examine the impact of fall cover crops on forage yield, forage quality and soil health. Fall treatments include no cover, spring oats, spring oats/triticale, rye, two triticale treatments, and winter barley. Oats are harvested in the fall, rye and one triticale treatment is harvested at the flag leaf stage and one triticale and barley treatment will be harvested at the soft dough stage. Corn has been planted following the no cover, oats, triticale, and rye treatments. Forage sorghums have been planted following the later soft dough harvest treatments. In the fall of 2014, the small grain alternative forage treatments have been planted again. These data will provide some background for outreach activities in the winter and spring. In addition, we have established a small forage sorghum study to evaluate two varieties, seeding rates and nitrogen levels.

Animal Research Component:

For the animal part of the project, silages (60 to 100 t each) were prepared from the following whole-crop forages: BMR sorghum, oats, triticale, and barley (PSU Experiment 2). However, the barley silage was of undesirable quality and was not used in the animal experiments. Instead, wheat silage was prepared. Two trials were conducted to evaluate the effect of inclusion of AFC in dairy diets on animal productivity, digestibility, enteric methane emissions, and income over feed costs (IOFC) in lactating dairy cows. Both trials were replicated 3 x 3 Latin square designs (balanced for residual effects) with 12 cows each.

Outreach/Education Component:

Two farmers are working with our team and we have set up demonstration trials to investigate the potential of AFC as dairy forage for dairy cows. Data from these farms were collected and are being analyzed. In addition, our team participate in several events to deliver project results and produce a video.

Objectives/Performance Targets

The project outreach and research components are advancing as planned. Surveys, focus group interviews, and outreach activities such as presentations, videos, and popular-press articles have been delivered. Demonstration research sites in commercial farms have been set up in PA and NH. Winter, spring, and summer outreach events were conducted. Agronomic and animal research experiments are ongoing in both sites (i.e., UNH and PSU) and preliminary results are being reported (see Accomplishments/Milestones section for details).

Performance target: Compared to the previous year, 60 farmers milking 5,000 cows enhance IOFC by $0.50/cow/day after replacing expensive grain with AFC, generating cumulative profit of approximately $5,000 per farm as a result of 120-days worth of forage surplus.

Accomplishments/Milestones

The forage production season in the Northeast is relatively short due to the region’s long winters and short growing season. Here, and in other northern regions, the short grazing season is often further constrained by a “summer slump” period when hot and dry weather conditions reduce the productivity of perennial cool-season grasses. Critical periods of low forage productivity and availability—early spring, mid-summer, and late fall—represent potential niches that could be filled by annual forage crops grown as monocultures or mixtures. Such crops could supplement forage availability during periods of deficiency, effectively extending the forage production and grazing seasons and thereby reducing the need for purchasing off-farm feeds. Mixtures are included in the study to determine whether there may be benefits, in terms of productivity, stability, quality, or weed suppression compared to the same species grown as monocultures. Specific information about the outreach and research components of the project are presented below:

UNH Site:

Agronomic Research Component:

Overview: We completed the second year of the AFC field experiment at the UNH Kingman Research Farm located in Madbury, NH (UNH Experiment 1). The field experiment involves planting monocultures and mixtures of annual forage crops (AFC) that are intended to be available for grazing or harvest during one of three target periods during the forage growing season: early spring, summer, and fall. The spring-available treatments were established in fall 2014 and included monocultures of winter wheat, winter triticale, barley, cereal rye, hairy vetch, and a mixture containing all five spring-available species, each planted at 1/5 rate. The summer-available treatments were established in May 2015 and included monocultures of BMR sorghum, buckwheat, teff, millet, oats, chickling vetch, and a mixture containing all six summer-available species, each planted at 1/6 rate. The fall-available treatments were established in July 2015 and included monocultures of forage radish, oats, rape, wheat, triticale, sunn hemp, and a mixture containing all six fall-available species, each planted at 1/6 rate. In October 2015, we also established the final round of the spring-available treatments. These treatments will be harvested in spring 2016. All treatments were assigned randomly within four blocks and established with a plot drill. Each target period also included a “super mixture” which contained all of the 14 AFC species used in the experiment as well as a fallow treatment which was not planted with AFC in order to assess the relative level of weed suppression associated with each AFC treatment.

Methods: Data collected from each set of treatments consist of AFC dry biomass and weed dry biomass. Data are collected by clipping to a height of 5 cm all aboveground plant material from multiple 0.25 m² quadrats placed within the inner portion of each plot. Clipped material was sorted to species and dried to constant biomass at 60^oC and then weighed. Starting with this year’s summer-available treatments (treatments planted in May 2015), we assessed AFC biomass at three time periods spaced approximately two-weeks apart. The rationale for this sampling approach was to better quantify potential tradeoffs in forage dry matter and nutritional quality that may occur over the growing season across the different AFC treatments and to better assess the season extension potential of the treatments (particularly for the spring- and fall-available treatments). This sampling methodology will be carried out for the remainder of the study. After weighing, forage samples were ground and will be analyzed for nutritional quality. For the summer-available treatments, we also quantified forage regrowth in the clipped areas of each plot approximately three weeks after each initial harvest period. These data will provide insight into which AFC may provide opportunities for additional forage production following an initial harvest or grazing event and the degree to which time of initial harvest/grazing affects regrowth potential. This component study, conducted as an undergraduate independent research project (Shenandoah Crook), will be repeated next summer and provides valuable data beyond what we originally proposed.

Preliminary results: The spring-available AFC, which were planted in the fall of 2014, produced relatively low levels of dry matter by the time of harvest on May 14, 2015. Treatments with the highest dry matter production were the triticale, wheat, and cereal rye monocultures, which together averaged approximately 22 g dry matter m^-2 (Figure 1). The spring mixture treatment also produced dry matter at levels comparable to the highest yielding monocultures. The hairy vetch and barley monoculture treatments produced intermediate and lowest levels of dry matter, respectively. Low overall production in the spring-available treatments may have been due, in part, to the extreme snowfall that impacted our area during the winter.

The summer-available AFC, which were planted in May of 2015, overall produced higher levels of dry matter compared with the spring-available AFC. The buckwheat monoculture produced the highest dry matter at each of the three harvest periods, followed by the oat monoculture, the summer mixture, the millet monoculture, and the “super mix” (Figure 2). The chickling vetch, sorghum, and teff monocultures produced relatively lower levels of dry matter. In general, dry matter production was over twice as high when AFC were harvested on July 30 compared to when harvest occurred on July 16, resulting in as much as 410 g dry matter m^-2 (buckwheat harvested on June 30). The regrowth study indicates that the individual summer-available AFC treatments differ in their ability to supply additional forage after an initial harvest and that regrowth potential is dependent on the timing of initial harvest. While buckwheat produced high levels of dry matter at initial harvest (Figure 2), it did not regrow and therefore has little subsequent summer forage value. In contrast, millet, which also produced relatively high levels of dry matter at initial harvest, had relatively high subsequent regrowth (as much as 225 g dry matter m^-2 in three weeks following the initial harvest on July 16) (Figure 3). In addition to millet, regrowth in the oats and sorghum monocultures and summer mixture treatments was also dependent on the timing of initial harvest, with regrowth potential being as much as twice as high following an early compared with later initial harvest (Figure 3). Regrowth in other treatments, including the chickling vetch and teff monocultures and “super mixture”, did not appear to be affected by the timing of initial harvest.

Weed suppression also varied among the summer-available treatments and was highest (lowest weed biomass) in the buckwheat, oats, and millet monocultures and the summer and super mixture treatments, where weed biomass ranged from near zero to less than 20 g m^-2 across the three harvest periods. In contrast, treatments such as the chickling vetch, sorghum, and teff monocultures had weed biomass levels that ranged from 10 to as much as 120 g m^-2 over the three harvest periods. Weed biomass in the fallow treatment ranged from 30 to 140 g m^-2 over the three harvest periods. 

Data from the fall-available treatments are still being processed.

Soil Research Component:

Overview: We are assessing the effects of AFC in monocultures and mixes on soil health by measuring bulk density, aggregates, microbial biomass, nitrogen pool, carbon dioxide respiration, and dissolved nitrogen at plots established at UNH Kingman Research Farm (UNH Experiment-1; see above).

Methods: Core soil samples (n = three per plot) were collected from the spring available AFC plots on May 14, 2015 (after snow melt) and composited by plot. For the summer available AFC plots, the soil sampling strategy was modified so the soil cores were collected at three time points starting at the beginning of the season at June 13, the middle of the season at July 16, and at July 31 where the growth stage of the AFC species were at heights recommended for grazing. For each plot, three soil cores were collected at each time point and composited for later analyses. For the fall available AFC plots, a sampling strategy similar to that described to the summer available AFC plots was adopted with soil cores taken at the beginning (August 22), middle (September 25), and at recommended grazing heights (October 23).

All soil cores were sealed in airtight bags, placed in a cooler, transported immediately after sampling to Grandy’s lab at UNH for later analyses. Samples were then sieved to pass through an 8 mm screen and analyzed for soil bunk density using the dimension of the sampler (soil bulk density = dry weight/πr2) and soil aggregates using rotary sieve shaker and seven sieves to obtain seven aggregate size fractions: > 4 mm, 2 to 4 mm, 1 to 2 mm, 0.500 to 1 mm, 0.250 to 0.5 mm, 0.125 to 0.25 mm, and < 0.125 mm.

Subsamples of soil were sieved through a 2 mm screen, refrigerated at 4°C, and analyzed for microbial biomass within 5 days of removal from the field. One set of soil samples was designated fumigated samples and the second set was designated as non-fumigated. Subsamples of air dried soils were grounded to a fine powder and then used for determination of total soil carbon and nitrogen on an elemental analyzer (Costech ECS 4010). Subsamples of soil were sieved to 2 mm, air dried, placed into jars with water, and followed by measurements of carbon dioxide respiration for 3 weeks. Total organic carbon, total organic nitrogen, and nitrogen pool fractions (ammonia and nitrates) will be also analyzed.

Preliminary results: Samples and data are being currently analyzed.

Animal Research Component:

Overview: Two short-term grazing studies (21 days each) were established at the UNH Burley-Demeritt Organic Dairy Research Farm located in Lee, NH (UNH Experiment 2). The objective of this experiment was to determine the impact of AFC on milk yield and composition in grazing dairy cows during the spring (AFC-SP trial), summer (AFC-SU trial), and fall (AFC-FALL trial) seasons. Even though we were able to plant the AFC-FALL species (brassicas, rye, etc.), the fall species did not establish well due to a drought and, as a result, the trial was not conducted. However, all three grazing studies will be repeated in 2016.

Methods: AFC can provide resilience and supplemental forage during times of limited herbage biomass production, including early spring, mid-summer, and late fall in Northeast US. For the AFC-SP experiment, 16 lactating organic Jersey cows (14 multiparous and 2 primiparous) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: traditional mixed legume-grass pasture (control; n = 8 cows) or AFC-SP (n = 8 cows). The AFC-SP treatment consisted of 5 plant species (wheat, triticale, barley, cereal rye, and hairy vetch) strip-tilled into a traditional pasture. Cows used averaged 433 ± 48 kg of body weight (BW) and 83 ± 50 days in milk (DIM) for the control treatment, and 416 ± 46 kg of BW and 86 ± 43 DIM for the AFC-SP treatment. For the AFC-SU experiment, 20 lactating organic Jersey cows (16 multiparous and 4 primiparous) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: traditional mixed legume-grass pasture (control; n = 10 cows) or AFC-SU (n = 10 cows). The AFC-SU treatment consisted of 5 plant species (millet, teff, buckwheat, oats, and chickling vetch) strip-tilled into a traditional pasture. Cows used averaged 434 ± 46 of BW and 146 ± 61 DIM for the control treatment, and 449 ± 53 kg of BW and 140 ± 57 DIM for the AFC-SU treatment. A 14-day adaptation period was followed by a 7-day sampling period in both experiments.

Preliminary results: For the AFC-SP experiment, herbage biomass averaged 3,038 and 4,052 kg of dry matter (DM)/ha for the control and AFC-SP treatments, respectively. Pasture intake averaged 5.74 and 6.01 kg of DM/day for the control and AFC-SP treatments, respectively. There was no significant difference in total mixed ration intake (10.9 vs. 10.7 kg/d) and milk yield (25.2 vs. 23.1 kg/d). Similarly, contents and yields of milk fat, protein, and lactose did not differ significantly between treatments. A trend (P = 0.06) for greater milk urea nitrogen (14.7 to 13.1 mg/dL) in cows fed the AFC-SP vs. control treatment was observed. For the AFC-SU experiment, herbage biomass averaged, 2,774 and 2,588 kg of DM/ha for the control and AFC-SU treatments, respectively. Pasture intake averaged 5.39 and 6.07 kg of DM/day for the control and AFC-SU treatments, respectively. There was no significant difference in total mixed ration intake (11.2 vs. 11.6 kg/d) and milk yield (18.5 vs. 17.6 kg/d). Contents and yields of milk protein and lactose, along with milk fat yield, did not differ significantly between treatments. Trends for greater milk fat content (4.85 vs. 4.32%; P = 0.07) and lower milk urea nitrogen (10.7 to 11.7 mg/dL; P = 0.08) in cows fed AFC-SU vs. control treatment were observed. Our results showed that under the conditions of these two short-term AFC-SP and AFC-SU grazing studies, strip-tilling AFC into established traditional pasture did not improve milk yield or consistently increase herbage biomass production.

Outreach/Education Component:

Focus group interviews: Two focus group meetings were conducted with organic dairy farmers from NY and ME. The focus group meeting in NY was held in Oriskany (December 2, 2015) with 8 farmer participants. The focus group meeting in ME was held in Waterville (December 9, 2015) with 12 farmer participants. A third focus group with organic dairy farmers from NH and VT will be conducted in January 2016. The focus groups were conducted to better understand farmers’ perspectives about high-forage dairy diets and the inclusion of AFC in their forage cropping systems. Results from the focus groups are being currently analyzed, and will be used to design surveys and workshops.

Project results presented in field days and UNH Organic Dairy Research Farm Tours: 1) “A Diversity of Forage Crops”, UNH Woodman Research Field Day, Durham, NH, June 2015 (approximately 30 attendees), 2) “Pastureland Ecology II”, UNH Organic Dairy Research Farm, Lee, NH, July 2015 (approximately 50 attendees), 3) “Summer Organic Dairy Series”, UNH Organic Dairy Research Farm, Lee, NH, October 2015 (approximately 30 attendees), 4) “2015 NH Risk Management Workshop for Agricultural Professionals”, UNH Organic Dairy Research Farm, Lee, NH, October 2015 (approximately 30 attendees), 5) “Tour of the UNH Organic Dairy Research Farm for students of Great Bay Community College (Portsmouth, NH), Organic Dairy Research Farm, Lee, NH, October 2015 (16 students), 6) “UNH Organic Dairy Research Farm Field Day”, Organic Dairy Research Farm, Lee, NH, November 2015 (approximately 35 attendees)

Workshop: Our group collaborated with the NH Granite State Graziers to organize a workshop entitled “Integrating forage crops and grazing”. The meeting was held in Concord, NH (March, 2015) with 25 attendees including farmers and state Extension personnel.

Project results presented in scientific and farmer-oriented meetings: 1) “Production of Organic Milk”, Zootec, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil (May 2015; presented by PI Brito), 2) “Nutrition and Performance of Lactating Dairy Cows in Organic Herds”, 2015 ADSA-ASAS Joint Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL (July 2015; presented by PI Brito), 3) “Annual Crops as Alternative Forage Sources for Grazing Dairy Cows”, UNH Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Seminar Series, Durham, NH (September 2015; presented by PI Brito).

On farm demonstration site: We overseeded a couple paddocks at John’s Luther farm with either Japanese millet or forage radish at the end of July using a no-till drill after John clipped the paddocks with a rotary mower. We visited the farm in mid-late August, and at that time there were a few millet or radish seedlings popping up in their respective paddocks, but they tended to show up mostly in areas where grass growth wasn’t as strong rather than across the entire paddock. W attributed this to competition from the existing forage stand. Forages might have established better if we tried to suppress the sod a little more aggressively with closer mowing or maybe herbicides.

According to John, it seems like there was a less than satisfactory ‘catch’ of seedlings. He did not notice much millet growing past late September or early October, but he did think that the radishes became more noticeable into the fall. He rotated cattle through the paddocks a couple of times now, and he’s noted that the cows have been feeding on the top growth of the radishes, and that it appears to be growing back. He was impressed by the size of some of the radishes – he reports that some grew over 8” long and maybe 2” in diameter. Cows managed to uproot some of them, but they did not seem to feed on the roots as much. He did not notice any response in milk production, most likely because there hasn’t been enough forage from radishes to make much of a difference. We will continue to work with John and another NH farmer next year.

PSU Site:

Agronomic Research Component:

Overview: We continued our on station research trial and completed the second year of data collection (PSU Experiment 1). A field experiment was established in the fall of 2013 to examine the impact of fall cover crops on forage yield, forage quality and soil health.

Methods: Fall treatments include no cover, spring oats, spring oats/triticale, rye, two triticale treatments, and winter barley. Oats are harvested in the fall, rye and one triticale treatment is harvested at the flag leaf stage and one triticale and barley treatment will be harvested at the soft dough stage. Corn has been planted following the no cover, oats, triticale, and rye treatments. Forage sorghums have been planted following the later soft dough harvest treatments. In the fall of 2014, the small grain alternative forage treatments have been planted again. These data will provide some background for outreach activities in the winter and spring. In addition, we have established a small forage sorghum study to evaluate two varieties, seeding rates and nitrogen levels.

Preliminary results: Our yield results from the AFC are shown in Table 1. These data have shown that some of the double cropping alternatives have resulted in higher annual yields, while providing winter soil cover at the same time.

Animal Research Component:

Overview: For the animal part of the project, silages (60 to 100 t each) were prepared from the following whole-crop forages: BMR sorghum, oats, triticale, and barley (PSU Experiment 2). However, the barley silage was of undesirable quality and was not used in the animal experiments. Instead, wheat silage was prepared. Two trials were conducted to evaluate the effect of inclusion of AFC in dairy diets on animal productivity, digestibility, enteric methane emissions, and income over feed costs (IOFC) in lactating dairy cows. Both trials were replicated 3 x 3 Latin square designs (balanced for residual effects) with 12 cows each, three experimental periods, and each period with 28 days in duration. Of these 28 days, 21 days were for adaptation and seven days for sampling. Cows were fed ad libitum to about 5 to 10% refusals.

Methods: In trial 1, the following treatments were tested: (1) Control diet based on corn silage and alfalfa haylage; (2) BMR Sorghum diet, 10% (DM basis inclusion of BMR sorghum silage replacing corn silage); (3) Oats silage diet, 10% (DM basis inclusion of oats silage replacing corn silage). In addition to feed intake and milk production and composition data, we collected fecal and urine samples for digestibility and urinary nitrogen losses, blood for analysis of glucose and urea nitrogen, and rumen gas emissions (methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen). Rumen degradability of the forages used in the trial was evaluated using the in situ technique.

The design of Trial 2 was identical to that used for Trial 1. Treatments are as follows: (1) Control diet based on corn silage and alfalfa haylage; (2) Triticale silage diet, 10% (DM basis inclusion of triticale silage replacing corn silage); (3) Wheat silage diet, 10% (DM basis inclusion of wheat silage replacing corn silage.

Preliminary results: For Trial 1, the sorghum silage was 29.7% DM and (DM basis) 8.8% crude protein, 51.5% neutral-detergent fiber, and 11.8% ethanol soluble carbohydrates (sugars). The oats silage was 31.0% DM and (DM basis) 11.6% crude protein, 50.8% neutral detergent fiber, and 2.3% ethanol soluble carbohydrates (sugars). Data from the experiment are currently being analyzed. Based on preliminary analysis of the production data, feed DM intake was slightly lower (P = 0.05) for the BMR sorghum silage diet compared with the control and the oat silage diets (25.6 vs. 26.4 and 26.6 kg/d, respectively). Milk production was increased (P = 0.02) by the oats silage diet, compared with the control and the sorghum silage diets (40.2 vs. 39.2 and 38.7 kg/d, respectively).

For Trial 2, the study is currently being completed and there are no data to report yet.

Outreach/Education Component:

On-farm demonstration trials: Two farms in PA have been set up to demonstrate the potential of AFC production. On each farm, forage production and quality are being tracked along with production practices to develop case studies of effective management tactics. On-farm data will be summarized and will be used as part of our winter educational meetings and spring field days.

Meetings: 1) Lebanon County Crops Day, January 19, 2015, Alternatives to Ryelage: Case Study (20 attendees); 2) York County Crops Day, January 30, 2015, Secrets of successful corn/triticale double cropping systems (100 attendees), 3) Perry County Crops Day, January 30, 2015, Secrets of successful corn/triticale double cropping systems (225 attendees), 4) Clearfield County Crops Day, Feb, 11, 2015, Secrets of successful corn/triticale double cropping systems (55 attendees), 5) Blair County Crops Day, Feb, 19, 2015, Secrets of successful corn/triticale double cropping systems (40 attendees), 6) Timac Grower Meeting, Lancaster, Feb. 3, 2015, Secrets of successful corn/triticale double cropping systems (234 attendees).

Webinar: Crop Management Webinar, March 23, 2015 (35 attendees).

Publications: Forage crop article published in Lancaster Farming (approximately 49,000 circulation). See http://www.lancasterfarming.com/assets/11641904/A01LFWE-032815_1.pdf. We also published an article on corn silage cropping systems: Roth, Greg and Eric Rosenbaum. 2015. Corn silage based cropping systems in the mid-Atlantic. Crops and Soils Magazine, May/June 2105 pp. 10-13.

Field days: We collaborated with Kings Agriseeds to conduct a Cover Crop Field Day, June 19, 2015, 40 attendees.

Videos: Triticale video posted on Kings AgriSeeds site: http://www.kingsagriseeds.com/cool-season-annuals/, and a Triticale video posted on Blair County Conservation District: http://www.blairconservationdistrict.org/.

• Figure 3
• Table 1
• Figure 2
• Figure 1

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

Our team are engaging dairy farmers in NH, PA, and other northeastern states in a research and educational program to enhance the utilization of AFC in their dairy enterprises. We actively participated in several outreach efforts presenting project results in farmer- and scientific-oriented venues, while conducting workshops and focus group interviews, developing on-farm demonstration sites in three dairy farms in NH and PA, and production videos. The agronomic research component has completed the second year of forage crops data collection in NH and PA, while the animal research component has started in both sites. We also added a soil health component, in collaboration with Dr. Stuart Grandy, which will enhance and complement the agronomic and animal research components. As a result of our integrated research and educational approach, farmers are able to make informed decisions about how to incorporate AFC in their forage cropping systems, while changing management practices to improve farm profitability.

Collaborators: