  |
|
368 Ag Hall OSU Plant & Soil Sciences Department Stillwater, OK 74078 |
|
| October 1998 | Volume 22 No. 9 |
NEWS |
CONTENTS OF NEWSLETTER
OTHER LINKS |
||
|
We welcome contributions and suggestions. Comments about and
contributions to the NEWS are welcome and can be submitted to any of the directors. |
Producers' Question: What can be done to thicken up erratic alfalfa stands planted this fall? Conditions were not desirable this fall for getting good stands of alfalfa, so most stands are going to need a lot of attention. Some areas did not receive enough rainfall to get good emergence of alfalfa while others got too much, and this resulted in washed out plants. First thing to do is to scout your fallplanted stands now to determine the current status. Some suggested actions are as follows: 1) If standing water killed alfalfa in low areas, then you need to drain these wet areas before planting back to alfalfa. 2) If more than 20-30% of field is washed and has a lot of areas where there are no
plants within one square foot area, then you need to consider saving only a part of the
field, if possible, and drilling wheat into the remainder of the area after leveling. It
is too late to plant alfalfa this fall. Spring planting of alfalfa would be another
option, but spring planting is more risky than fall 3) If less than 20% of field is washed and/or there are some thin areas, then consider leveling these areas and replanting these areas next March. We do not usually recommend thickening stands, but when areas are newly established area, then some success is possible. 4) If alfalfa stand is not a full stand (10 seedling plants /sq. ft.) but fairly uniform over the entire area, then it can still be productive with as few as 5 plants/sq. ft. However, it is critical that alfalfa is protected from insects and weeds are controlled. It is important to not lose any more alfalfa plants. Since these thin stands do not occupy all of the area, first year's production will be reduced by about 20%. However, alfalfa production after the first year is normally comparable to that of full stands. Weed control is more important in these thin stands than in a full stand because weeds will come into the areas not occupied by alfalfa. These weeds compete with small seedling alfalfa for nutrients, water, and light, resulting in reduced growth of alfalfa, and likely some loss of alfalfa plants. Since seedling alfalfa is not highly competitive, any aggressive weeds will result in reduction of alfalfa growth and possible stand loss. See August-September News for WEED-IT TIP Guidelines on scouting for a discussion of weed status and what to do about them. It is critical that fall planted alfalfa fields are scouted and weeds controlled as soon as possible (this fall). There are usually good spray days in October and November when weeds are actively growing and fields can be sprayed. A good spray day is a "shirtsleeve day" when air temperature is warm and soil moisture is adequate for active weed growth so herbicides are taken in and weeds controlled. Spring spraying to control weeds in fallplanted alfalfa is not a viable option for most situations. |
--Jim Stritzke |
Back to Top
| This is the fourth of several brief articles containing information from a study
partially funded by AMSUSDA to examine potential markets for alfalfa hay. The specific
topic covered in this article is the model estimated and its results using data for
1995. Least-Cost Transshipment Model: Several linear programming models were estimated to find the least-cost movement of alfalfa from production to consumption regions given the assumed set of transportation costs. Agronomists were asked to identify common load sizes and transportation rates for alfalfa hay. Truck size varied. Since not all states allow the larger sizes, we chose the 44,000 size load to use in our least cost transportation model. Similarly, a relatively wide range of transportation rates were identified, ranging from $1 per loaded mile to $2.75/mile. We chose a midrange rate of $1.65/loaded mile to use in the transshipment model for lower quality alfalfa and $1/loaded mile for higher quality alfalfa. Two qualities of alfalfa were assumed. Dairy quality alfalfa was defined as alfalfa with a crude protein (CP) of 20 percent or more or a relative feed value (RFV) of 150 or more. Based on a survey of agronomists, we assumed 33 percent of each state's total alfalfa production was dairy quality alfalfa. The model allowed dairy quality alfalfa to satisfy alfalfa demand by dairy cattle with a transportation rate of $1.00/mile. We assumed that dairy quality alfalfa would be harvested in larger bale packages thus enabling lower cost handling and transportation. We also assumed higher valued alfalfa would more likely be transported longer distances, thus reducing the cost per mile. Dairy quality alfalfa also was allowed to satisfy the Japanese demand for alfalfa. Any dairy quality alfalfa remaining after satisfying the demand by dairy cattle and the international demand could be used to satisfy the alfalfa demand by other species and be shipped at the same domestic rate. Lower quality alfalfa was allowed to satisfy only the demand by other livestock species and a transportation rate of $1.65/mile was assumed. Much alfalfa of lower quality is harvested in less efficient bale packages for longdistance transport. Results: Two figures are shown. Figure 1 shows the least-cost movement of alfalfa from production to consumption regions for the ten leading alfalfa production states. Figure 2 shows the least-cost movement of alfalfa from production to consumption regions for the ten leading alfalfa consumption states. An overview look at Figure 1 shows that more higher quality alfalfa moves longer distances (solid lines) than lower quality alfalfa (dotted lines). Nevada and Nebraska are two of several possible examples. Idaho ships higher quality alfalfa to three states (California, Nevada, and Wyoming). Nebraska ships higher quality alfalfa to five states (Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia) in addition to satisfying in-state demand. In addition, it ships lower quality alfalfa to Kansas and Oklahoma to satisfy non-dairy demand, as well as satisfying in-state demand. The model indicates that Oklahoma ships all higher quality alfalfa and a small amount of lower quality alfalfa to Texas. Most lower quality alfalfa remains in Oklahoma. Figure 2 shows where alfalfa originates to satisfy the demand in the ten leading alfalfa consumption states. Note that in Wisconsin, the leading dairy state, all alfalfa imported from other states (from Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, and Wyoming) is higher quality alfalfa for dairy cattle to supplement the instate production of higher quality alfalfa. In contrast, Texas is the leading alfalfa demand state but a sizeable percentage of its demand is for lower quality alfalfa. Therefore, it imports some higher quality alfalfa for its dairy demand (from Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma), some higher quality alfalfa for its non-dairy demand (from Colorado and Kansas), and some lower quality alfalfa for its non-dairy demand (from Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, and Oklahoma). It also supplies some of its in-state demand for lower quality alfalfa from its own production. Information from:. "Domestic and International Markets for Alfalfa Hay." Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Final report to AMSUSDA, January 1998. --Clem Ward, Solomon Kariuki, and Ray Huhnke |
 |
Back to Top
 |
Back to Top
