Want to help me read my hay results?

[StaceyA]

Hi everyone,

I recently looked into getting a new hay supplier (find my respiratory issues post for the back story) and found a place south of me that I’ve given a try. I sent samples of hay from my old supplier, sample 1, and new supplier, sample 2, to our agricultural university to get an understanding on the difference, if any.

I have the results, and have spent hours reading, comparing, and googling, trying to figure out which is the better product.

Can someone help me? Maybe if you don’t feel like typing, an answer of sample 1 or 2 with a coles notes as to why, would probably teach me more then when I’ve been doing all afternoon.

Thanks!

[JB]

Something doesn’t look right. I don’t see how even a poor cutting of an OG/alfalfa mix could be only 5% protein, and only about 700 cal/lb. That’s very low quality. ADF and NDF are in reasonable ranges for both, which kind of negates the idea that these are overly-mature cuttings. So it has to be about poor growing conditions.

the fe/cu/zn/mn numbers are all pretty typical - plenty of fe, not nearly enough cu or zn, plenty of mn.

[Texarkana]

@JB

I don’t see how even a poor cutting of an OG/alfalfa mix could be only 5% protein, and only about 700 cal/lb

I would bet money it’s not truly “orchard/alfalfa,” but rather a mix of native pasture grasses just coded that way.

It looks pretty typical for a sample of unfertilized mixed grasses. A lot of people, hay sellers included, incorrectly call that “orchard grass.”

Seeing as how the two samples are very similar, I’d go for the higher protein hay.

ETA: rereading your OP, I realize I did that thing where I don’t read for comprehension. You might find it beneficial to supplement your horse with a little extra protein while eating hay #2.

[StaceyA]

Hey! Thanks for the replies so far!

@JB if you’re up for it, can you elaborate? Something not quite right… do you think the hay isn’t orchard/alfalfa because the numbers don’t add up? Or should a sample again and see if I get the same result? Educate me!

@Texarkana wonderful! I’m currently feeding hay #2 with supplemented protein sources.

I got these tests done because I’ve been wanting Good Hay for a while. I’ve had half a dozen people tell me to go to “their guy” because the “hay is excellent.” When I prompt them why, they ALL say because it looks good but there’s so much more to it!

Hay #1 looks grassy, it’s dusty, and smells odd. $5/.

Hay # 2 is gorgeous, smells great, no dust. $6/

I thought it’d be a blow out. What other factors (besides dust) should I consider? Does the test look at mold or anything?

[Texarkana]

Not to be rude, I wouldn’t call this “excellent” hay by the numbers. It’s a bit high for fiber. Protein is very low and sugars are on the higher side. Calories are low. It’s not the type of hay that you would want to feed alone without anything else.

But what matters most is that it’s clean and the horses eat it. You can always supplement protein, vitamins/minerals, and calories with other sources.

[WavyRider]

Commenting only on the things I know:

Ca:P ratio is good, ideal is 2:1.
Zn:Cu ratio is also good, ideal is 4:1.
Sugar content (Ethanol soluble carbohydrate + Starch) is reasonable. (For an EMS or metabolic horse, ESC+starch should be under 10)

[StaceyA]

@WavyRider was that for both samples?

@Texarkana not rude at all! This wasn’t a “tell me my hay is awesome” post, but a “tell me if I should keep shopping” post.

What should I be looking at in these analytics ? What are the heavy hitters? I’ll be getting more tests in the future, so I need to learn this stuff.

Also, what do you think is a reasonable ask from me to the farmers?

Sample # 1 - Farmer just says it’s good hay. Sells strictly locally.

Sample # 2 - I asked if they knew their % protein and they said no, but it’s orchard grass/alfalfa. They sell exclusively to horse people, and Florida folks take about 1/2 of his crop in transports. *this is why I went to him, I think I’m an easy sell * sigh…

[Scribbler]

The hay tests do not test for quality per se. They test for nutrient levels. They don’t test for dust or mold or age. You need to evaluate this yourself. Just like packaged food has a nutrient label but you have to evaluate if it’s stale.

Every hay seller tells you they have excellent hay. Even if it looks like straw and is full of flat dead rabbits thistle and roadside rubbish.

If it’s alfalfa you should be able to see the alfalfa stems and leaves. Orchard grass and Timothy both have very characteristic inflorescence or seed heads.

[BayMoose]

Where approx. are you located? This looks typical for good hay on the Canadian prairies if it’s a mix of orchard and a little alfalfa, cut later in the summer.

[StaceyA]

Hi! That’s interesting… always good to get an opinion on what typical is… It might save me chasing my tail in the long run.

I’m in Ontario and:

Sample # 1 - Muskoka
Sample # 2 - Oro-Medonte

[goodhors]

I used the information in the University of Minnesota Extension site for reading my hay test results. I Googled them with horse added on behind Extension, then put hay test on their search box. I laid my test results beside their hay analysis to interpret what I was looking at, because I am rather ignorant on all the letter abbreviation meanings.

Sorry I can’t seem to do website cut and paste onto my tablet.

Our hay fell within their horse hay parameters. Being grass hay it was high in sugar, but we have to cut later in the day when grass is finally dry. Sugar has risen in the stems and leaves by then. This is acceptable since none of our horses have any health issues and are not obese.

[foggybok]

As mentioned, those are surprising numbers for an orchard/alfalfa combination, even in a non-fertilized field. Protein is really low. Not a lot of calories in that hay, which would be good for easy keepers, but you don’t want easy keepers eating 15% NSC, so this isn’t really a hay I would feed unless you are supplementing the diet quite a bit. (that goes for either version).

[Texarkana]

@StaceyA

What should I be looking at in these analytics ? What are the heavy hitters? I’ll be getting more tests in the future, so I need to learn this stuff.

Heavy hitters:

Protein (total protein or crude protein/CP): above 8% is usually considered pretty good, depending on what you are feeding. If you are dealing with growing, breeding, or heavily working animals, ideally you want something in the double digits. A lot of unfertilized hay will be below 8%. All those other protein numbers you see are comparing the amount of protein to the amount of fiber and looking at different fractions of protein.

ADF and NDF: these are your fiber components. ADF is acid detergent fiber; this is basically the non-nutritious part of the hay. You want it below 45%. NDF is neutral detergent fiber, mainly the cell walls of the plant. The insoluble “bulk” if you will. Below 65% is generally your target. Both these numbers climb when hay is over mature or in “stemmy” hay.

NSC: if you don’t have seriously metabolic horses, NSC or nonstructural carbohydrates is enough of a snapshot of the sugars and starches. Most horse hay is somewhere in the teens. 20% and up is notably high (but not uncommon). If you have metabolic or easy keeping horses, you want it to be around 10%.

Ca:P ratio: This compares the amount of calcium to phosphorus. You absolutely want to see a number over 1; if it’s below 1 you need to develop a plan for supplemental ca. If it’s between 1-3, you are generally good. Sometimes it’s very high, like 4 or up, in which case you may need supplemental P or to remove other Ca sources.

Other stuff is good to know, but if you look at the protein, fibers, and know the sugars and Ca:P ratios aren’t funky, you get a fair assessment.

A few other points:

Hay analyses don’t tell you how it was baled or handled; the only clue you might get is moisture, which should be in the teens. A high moisture indicates it wasn’t cured properly, BUT, mold can still grow on pretty much any hay.

Most people don’t do hay analyses and their horses survive just fine, because horse hays fall into these ranges frequently (but not always).

Horses don’t read hay analyses. So above all, it’s more important that they are eating it readily. (The one exception would be metabolic horses who need that low NSC).

[JB]

was this grass growing in drought conditions? I asked a friend who has dealt with drought in the mid-west and resulting craptastic hay, and her analysis is very similar to this, including containing some amount of alfalfa.

The dry conditions resulted in generally poor nutritional status, but also caused a lot of leaf shatter during the baling process, hence the low protein.

No, horses don’t read the analysis, they might love hay that the ADF and NDF and sugar say they’ll hate, and might hate the hay those things say they should inhale.

But the nutrients are what they are, so a pretty substantial fortification is needed.

Start here
Nutrient Requirements of Horses - Working Doc (nationalacademies.org)

Plug in the age/weight/work of the horse, plug in the total numbers from the hay based on a good 2% of their body weight, and then see how deficient you are in what. Then, plug in the totals provided by whatever hard feed you add, whether a ration balancer or regular feed, and see where you are at tha point.

[JB]

@Texarkana

Hay analyses don’t tell you how it was baled or handled; the only clue you might get is moisture, which should be in the teens.

For clarification, max you want is 15%, and that’s pushing it. You really want 12-14% or so

[jvanrens]

Ontario is nowhere near the mid-west, and while there were a couple of dry weeks, droughts weren’t a problem anywhere in the province that I can recall, though the OP can correct me if I’m wrong. The farm owner of the farm I kept my dearly departed boy at was almost cursing the amount of hay he took off this year, he has hundreds of round bales stacked around the place. After the previous years rotten hay season, people are almost giving hay away this year.

[StaceyA]

Thanks so much everyone, this has been so helpful. For now and future!

@jvanrens is right, most of the farmer I know had a ton of hay this year, good hay too, so they said.

Which is part of the reason I’m so disappointed with my crummy hay results.

I guess it’s back to the drawing board for me, searching for great hay at an affordable rate. Sigh….

[JB]

@jvanrens

Ontario is nowhere near the mid-west

Obviously Proximity wasn’t the question, it was about whether there was a drought, as that’s all I could find/think of that could cause this low quality of hay

@StaceyA I’ll do some more digging around with my ag agent/farmer friends to see if they have any idea what might cause this low quality hay. Do you know if these farmers have past years’ analyses? It might be interesting to start comparing, because if these are typical of their hays, and weather conditions don’t explain it, then it may be indicative of their management of the hay fields.

It’s not that you can’t use this hay. You just need to do some leg work to make sure you balance the diet. The NRC link I provided is a really good start.

[jvanrens]

@JB

Obviously Proximity wasn’t the question, it was about whether there was a drought, as that’s all I could find/think of that could cause this low quality of hay

I’m just never sure which Americans have a clue where different parts of Canada are, I forgot you aren’t one of them. Ontario had a good growing season this year, thank the powers that be.

My first thought is lack of proper fertilizer for the crop to be up to par nutrition wise. Hard to say from this side of the keyboard though.

[JB]

So that’s extra weird that it was a “good growing season”

I would still be really curious to see how past years’ cuttings stack up. I just can’t believe that a one-time poor fertilization would cause these numbers from these (alleged) types of forages.