Warm Season Annual Forage and Hay quality result summary (2019-2024)

Published Aug. 2024|Id: PSS-2609

By Brian Arnall

Jump To:

Key Takeaways
Relevant Fact Sheets

Knowing the quality of your forage and hay is essential for properly managing your livestock. It is also a valuable tool for marketing your hay for sale or identifying areas of improvement needed in hay crop management. The protein, ADF (acid detergent fiber), and NDF (neutral detergent fiber) are all affected by species, environment, nutrient management, cutting timing, and baling practices. Low protein values would suggest that nitrogen (N) availability could be limited or that the crop was harvested at a mature stage. The ADF and NDF values can help deduce the reason for low protein. As described in PSS-2117, ADF values increase and NDF values decrease as the crop matures. Therefore, if your samples have low protein and NDF values, collecting a soil sample and assessing your fertilizer strategy would be recommended. The guide E-1021 should be utilized in making fertilizer recommendations. However, if the protein is low and ADF is high, there is a reasonable probability that the forage was harvested at a very mature stage. The Oklahoma State University Soil, Water, Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL) processes thousands of forage samples annually. Armed with the knowledge of the results of samples sent to SWFAL, producers can make more informed decisions on management and marketing.

The graphs below represent the range of results for samples submitted under the SWFAL crop codes 22 (Sorghum-Sudan) and 28 (Millet). The bar is a heat graph, where red indicates poorer quality and green signifies higher quality. The values shared are the minimum and maximum (the lowest and highest values recorded during the time frame), the average of all the samples, and the percentiles of 25%, 75%, and 90%. These values can help understand the distribution of the results. For example, results above the 90th percentile are better than 90% of submitted samples.

For results such as Millett NDF, there is not enough data to analyze so only the minimum, maximum, and average are presented.

Key Takeaways

If your results are in the range below 25%

Your forage/hay quality has great potential to be improved.
Look at soil fertility, weed control, harvest timing, post-harvest management.

If your results are near the average 50%

Your forage/hay quality is near the state average but has potential to be improved.
Look at soil fertility, weed control, harvest timing, post-harvest management.

If your results are in the range above 90%

Your forage/hay quality has limited potential to be improved.
Look at the opportunity to market hay as being of exceptional quality with potential for added value.

Figure 1a. Protein % distribution of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop code 22 (Sorghum-Sudan), from January 2019 to June 2024.

A bar representing the Figure 1 ADF that is shaded in a red-yellow-green gradient pattern. From the right to left the bar reads as follows: At the very left of end of the bar representing the Max at 63, 25% at 44, the Average in the middle at 37, 75% at 33, 90% at 31, and the minimum capping the green end at 21.

Figure 1b. ADF distribution of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop code 22 (Sorghum-Sudan), from January 2019 to June 2024.

A bar representing the Figure 1 NDF that is shaded in a red-yellow-green gradient pattern. The bar starts with the Max on the left at 79 then proceeds in the following order from left to right; 25% at 59, An Average of 43 in the middle of the bar, 75% at 55, 90% at 53, and a minimum of 43 capping the bar on the right end.

Figure 1c. NDF distribution of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop code 22 (Sorghum-Sudan), from January 2019 to June 2024.

A bar representing the Protein % of Figure 2. that is shaded in a red-yellow-green gradient pattern. The bar starts on the left with a minimum of 3.2 and moves to the right in the following order; 25% at 7.4, An average in the middle at 10.2, 75% at 12.4, 90% at 15.4, and the max at the end of the bar at 21.7.

Figure 2a. Protein % distribution of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop code 28 (Millett), from January 2019 to June 2024.

A bar representing the ADF of Figure 2. that is shaded in a red-yellow-green gradient pattern. The bar starts at the Max on the left at 50 and progresses right in the following manner; 25% at 41, the average in the middle at 38, 75% at 34, 90% at 32, and a Minimum on the right end of 22.

Figure 2b. ADF distribution of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop code 28 (Millett), from January 2019 to June 2024.

A bar representing the NDF of Figure 2. that is shaded in a red-yellow-green gradient pattern. The bar begins on the on the left at a Max of 73 then continues right marking the Average in the center at 61, and the Minimum of 54 at the right end of the bar.

Figure 2c. NDF Distribution of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop code 28 (Millett), from January 2019 to June 2024.

**Table 1.** Full data of the distribution analysis of the quality results of forage samples submitted to SWFAL under the crop codes 22 (Sorghum-Sudan) and 28 (Millett), from January 2019 to June 2024. n = the number of observations. The % (5,10, 25, 75, 90, and 95) is the value at which x % of samples fall below. For example, 95% of the Sorghum-Sudan protein results were below 14.1%.
Crop Code	22 Sorghum-Sudan	22 Sorghum-Sudan	22 Sorghum-Sudan	28 Millett	28 Millett	28 Millett
Analysis	Protein	ADF	NDF	Protein	ADF	NDF
n	2417	1872	359	211	159	15
Average	8.2	37.0	57.0	10.2	37.7	60.5
Minimum	1.6	20.5	43.2	3.2	21.5	53.9
Maximum	22.9	63.2	78.7	21.7	50.3	73.2
95%	14.1	47.1	66.2	17.8	45.7
90%	12.5	44.1	62.8	15.4	43.5
75%	10.1	40.1	58.6	12.4	41.0
25%	6.0	33.3	54.5	7.4	33.8
10%	4.7	30.9	52.6	6.0	31.5
5%	3.9	29.2	50.4	5.5	30.4

Relevant Fact Sheets

Print-friendly PDF

Topics:Hay Pastures & Forage

Was this information helpful?

YES NO

Fact Sheet

The Economic Cost of a Bale of Hay Spreadsheet User’s Manual

By Eric A. DeVuyst and Roger Sahs. Review a spreadsheet developed to evaluate the economic cost of a bale of hay, collect and compute producers' costs and collect information on pesticides applied.

Hay Pastures & Forage

Fact Sheet

What is the Economic Cost of a Bale of Hay?

By Eric A. DeVuyst and Roger Sahs. Learn about the economic cost of putting up a bale of hay, the opportunity cost of nutrients taken up by forages and the opportunity of owned land.

Hay Pastures & Forage

Fact Sheet

Cool Season Forage and Hay Quality Result Summary (2019-2024)

By Brian Arnall. Learn about the range of results for samples submitted under the SWFAL crop codes 1 (Wheat), 9 (Fescue and Cool Season Grasses), and 11 (Rye Grass). Armed with the knowledge of the results of samples sent to SWFAL, make more informed decisions on management and marketing.

Forage Hay Pastures & Forage Soil

Fact Sheet

Minerals for Horses: Calcium and Phosphorus

By Kris Hiney. Learn about the most commonly talked about minerals that are often deficient in equine nutrition, Ca and P.

Hay Horses Livestock Livestock Health, Disease & Nutrition Livestock Nutrition Pastures Pastures & Forage

VIEW ALL