A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

View this page in: Afrikaans Translate Options ▼

HOME ABOUT LIBRARY EDUCATION OUTREACH CONTACT

January A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and

7th Yield
Select Language
Posted in: ESSAYS

by Asher Wright

Introduction

Soybeans (Glycine max (L.)

Merrill) have a long history of

being cultivated as a forage crop.

Historically soybeans were

popular forage for nutritious hay

and silage and it was not until the

1940’s that soybean production

shifted its focus to the bean.

According to Morse et al. (1950)

this shift (when more acreage was

planted for beans than for forage) occurred first in the Corn Belt in 1935 and later for the entire U.S.A.in 1941.

In 1929, 63 percent of the total acreage for soybeans was planted for forage, in 1943, 21 percent, and in 1948, 10

percent (Morse et al., 1950). This shift was initially due to the need for a high protein feed source for animal
production. As soybean oil prices began to soar in the 1960’s, value as an oilseed and protein crop far out

weighed it’s value as forage. Though soybeans are now cultivated almost exclusively as a high-protein or oilseed
crop their value as forage is being reconsidered and even implemented in certain parts of the world. So why
would a producer plant soybean for a forage?

Grazing soybeans as a forage

For the purpose of this paper all management considerations will be in the context of beef cattle production.
During the finishing phase of beef production (when a yearling calf is taken to a finished beef product), high

protein and high energy feed are paramount for adequate gains, meat quality, and, ultimately, profit. This is
easily achieved when animals are in a feedlot receiving a concentrated diet (a diet higher in energy). However
for producers attempting to finish cattle on forage, the type of forage and time it is grazed can have major
impacts on animal performance and meat quality. Forage production and quality are impacted by the time of
year (Figure 1). For example, alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is considered cool season perennial forage with the

majority of its growth occurring in the spring and fall. With exception to regions with a very cool growing
season year around, alfalfa production and quality (along with all other cool season perennials) declines during
the summer. Soybean and other warm season annuals come into play during summer months. With the

1 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

underlying goal to provide the highest quality forage at all times, mixing perennials and annuals is a perfect
model. In March animals begin grazing alfalfa and continue until late June when they are moved to forage

soybeans. Specific dates will fluctuate based on region, year, and forage type.

Figure 1. Cool season perennial forage vs. warm season annual forage production

Soybeans can be grazed full bloom (R2) until near maturity (R7). The most rapid change in fiber and CP is

during stage R5 to R7 (Hintz et al., 1994). Similar to other forages, research (Hintz et al., 1992; Hintz et al.,
1994; Sheaffer et al., 2001) indicates that forage-tissue fiber increases over time while crude protein (CP)

ultimately decreases over time. This is true with the steam and leaf. The pod has the opposite trend (Hintz et

al., 1994) to decrease fiber and increase CP, especially during R5 to R7. This is what Sheaffer et al. (2001)

meant by “maintain high quality over time”. This gives the producer flexibility with management decisions
regarding soybeans. Should I graze, cut, or both?

Forage soybeans are great for ratoon cropping. They can be grazed and then harvested for hay or silage, or

grazed multiple times. Dr. Atkinson of Southern Illinois University was quoted by Eagle Seed, producers of two

forage soybean varieties, that in the right growing conditions, three grazing’s would not be out of the question.
With a well-designed management-intensive grazing (MIG) system, soybean can be grazed two and possibly

three times depending on climate and growing zone. This can help eliminate the question of, “which plant

growth stage will be the most nutritious”, as cattle will be grazing multiple plant growth stages during the
season. Grazing soybeans gives the producer flexibility and the opportunity to provide animals with premium

forage through the hotter months of the summer.

Harvesting soybeans for hay or silage

Like grazing soybeans, harvesting for hay or silage can occur from full bloom (R2) until near maturity (R7).
However, much of the research (Hintz et al., 1994; Blount et al., 2009) indicates that the best time to cut for

hay or silage, to optimize nutritional quality and dry matter yield is between the R6 and R7 growth stage (Hintz
et al., 1992; Munoz et al., 1983). These stages are characterized as “full seed” (pod containing full size green

beans at one of the four uppermost nodes with completely unrolled leaf) and “beginning maturity” (pods
yellowing; 50% of leaves yellow; physiological maturity) respectively. Optimization vs. maximization is a
common question and will be addressed later in the paper.

If cutting soybean for hay, long curing times are necessary, which is primarily due to the larger stems. In
general, the large fibrous stems are the biggest management issue with regards to soybean hay or silage. Blount
et al. (2009) recommends conditioning the stems in order to cure the hay in a timely manner. As mentioned

earlier, soybean maintains high quality overtime (Sheaffer et al., 2001). Which enables flexibility with hay
harvesting times, a very beneficial characteristic. There is a trade off between DM yield and the speed of curing.
When beans are at R5 (beans beginning to develop at one of the four uppermost nodes, with completely

2 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

unrolled leaf) hay can be conditioned because the beans are small enough to not be pushed out of the pods by
the conditioning process. When the crop reaches R6 and R7 the conditioner may crush or pop the seeds out of

the pod, so conditioning is not recommended. Not conditioning will greatly increase the curing time to 5 or 6

days (Blount et al., 2009). The increase in curing time is a risk, especially in regions with higher chances of late
summer rains. It is common knowledge that when hay is rained on, nutritional quality will be reduced.
Whether to cut at R5 or wait until R6 or R7 is dependent on the producers region and what quality of hay or
silage is desired. If ensiling Blount et al. (2009) suggests adding a soluble carbohydrate (i.e. corn grain or

molasses) at the rate of 10% of DM. Which helps combat high levels of ammonia and butyrate, common
byproducts of soybean silage. Whether to ensile or make hay is a management question depending on cost,
available equipment, climate, and plan for feeding. In general, silage will have a higher feed value (Table 1) in
terms of nutrition.

Nutritional quality and yield

Quality refers to how well the plant can provide for the nutrient demands of a growing animal. So what is

forage quality comprised of and what would be considered good forage quality? Other than vitamins and
minerals, forage quality often refers to fiber content and crude protein. Fiber is broken down into three

fractions, gravimetrically quantified, consisting of Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF),
and Acid Detergent Lignin (ADL). The actual quantities of fiber lie in the differences, with NDF being the entire

cell wall content of the plant and the difference between ADF and NDF representing hemicellulose and pectin.
The difference between ADL and ADF is the quantity of cellulose. NDF is typically considered more when

assessing quality, and as NDF increases, “forage quality” and ultimately animal performance will decrease.
Crude protein takes into account cellular protein and non-protein nitrogen; it is the total N x 6.25. According to
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, finishing steers at 2.5 lbs. of gain per day requires an NDF of 30% or less

and a CP of 12.5 % (NRC, 2000).

Much of the literature forage soybean discusses different maturity groups, which to plant, what row spacing
and seeding rate to plant at and when to harvest. The research reviewed (Seiter et al., 2004; Hintz et al., 1994;
Sheaffer et al., 2011) demonstrated that plant growth stage at harvest is the major factor in quality. The issue of

plant maturity is very important with soybean because unlike other legume crops when soybean is harvested
just prior to leave yellowing and maturity, the pods are high in protein and oil, which adds to the overall

“quality”.

Fiber

As mentioned earlier, plant maturity is the major factor in fiber content and composition as well. Hintz et al.

(1994) found that the greatest change in fiber occurred between R5 and R7. As plants matured NDF and ADF

increased, with the greatest shift during R5 to R7. The opposite is true for the pod, which adds to the overall
quality. The pod decreased in fiber composition
during R5 to R7. During these stages, forage samples

sent to the lab that include the bean, will have a

much better (closer to 30%) NDF and ADF quantity

then stem and leaf alone. According to the research

of Sheaffer (2011), harvesting in R6 or R7 will provide the most optimal NDF and ADF quantities because the

mature beans are in the pods but leaves have not begin to drop yet.

Seiter et al. (2004) also indicated that plant maturity was the primary factor affecting fiber content. However in
one year of their two-year study, row spacing had a significant affect on fiber composition. The wider row
spacing (76 cm) compared to the narrow row spacing (18 cm) resulted in larger stem diameter, a possible cause

of the increased fiber content. In their study, R5 at 76 cm row spacing resulted in 417 g/kg ADF and 487 g/kg
NDF compared to 324 g/kg ADF and 421 g/kg NDF for R5 at 18 cm row spacing. Based on previous research

3 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

(Blount et al., 2009; Seiter et al., 2004; Sheaffer et al., 2001) a more narrow row spacing is recommended.
Though yield is not affected, fiber composition is greater at the larger row spacing, mainly due to increased

fiber in the stems. Based on the research of Lundry et al. (2008) Common NDF and ADF values during ideal

harvest (R5-R7) will be 30% – 38% and 32% – 38%, respectively.

Crude Protein

Other than fiber, crude protein (CP) is a primary indicator of adequate nutrition for growing cattle. As

mentioned earlier, 12.5% CP or slightly greater, is ideal for growing and finishing beef cattle. In general, a
legume crop will have no problem meeting this, and in most cases exceed it (Table 1). Crude protein may
become a metabolic cost to the animal when in too high of a concentration. This is why Blount et al. (2009)
recommend mixing sorghum and soybean or corn and soybean when making silage. Energy is always the

limiting nutrient in the rumen and balancing energy and CP is paramount to efficient gains and preventing

waste.

Like fiber, CP was only affected by forage maturity (Sheaffer et al., 2004). Hintz et al (1992) found that CP was

only affected by maturity as well, but they also concluded that a smaller row spacing resulted in less CP (8 g/kg
less). This is in agreement with the work of Seiter et al. (2004) who found a wide row spacing (76 cm vs. 18 cm)

resulted in lower CP (139 g/kg vs. 155 g/kg) concentrations. This was only true for one of the two years of their

study and they concluded that CP is unpredictable due to high year variability. In general the leaves of soybean

will average 20 to 22% CP (Lundry et al., 2008).

DM Yield

Though nutritional quality is very important, optimum yield is also very important. This is especially true for

the economic side of the equation. Like all crops yield, soybean forage, is affected by precipitation, soil type,
and pest pressure. This was demonstrated by the work of Rao et al. (2005) and Nielsen (2011) who both

concluded that precipitation distribution played a major roll in yield and that yield was positively correlated to

plant water use. When all of these variables are controlled, however, soybean forage yield will follow the same

trend with fiber and CP and will increase with plant maturity (Table 2). All studies reviewed (Hintz et al. 1992;
Sheaffer et al., 2001; Seiter et al., 2004; Bilgili et al., 2005) found this to be true.

The other major factor affecting soybean forage yield, is row spacing. All of the extension papers reviewed

recommended smaller row spacing. Research in Turkey by Acikgoz et al. (2009) found that the narrowest row

spacing, regardless of number of seeds planted, resulted in a higher percentage of plants reaching maturity;
68.3% at 20 cm and 54.4%, 48.5%, and 44.8% with increasing rate of 40 cm, 60 cm, and 80 cm, respectively.

This is in agreement with previous work by Hintz et al. (1992) who determined that a 20 cm row spacing
produced more forage than 76 cm. This contrasts later work by Hintz et al. (1994) who determined row spacing
had little affect on yield. From a management perspective and in general, row spacing has been shown to result

in higher yields. Based on recommendations by state extension services, narrow row spacing should be

implemented to maximize forage yield.

Table 1. Nutrient composition of forage soybean silage and hay, adapted from Dr. Atkinson’s research at
Southern Illinois University, www.eagleseed.com/articles.html.

4 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

Table 2. Effect of harvest date on soybean forage quality and quantity, Blount et al., 2009.

To optimize or maximize

Soybean is a unique forage crop because it not only produces quality forage but also is
an energy and protein dense bean that can be consumed by grazing animals. So the

question becomes, at what point should I graze or harvest? If grazing, graze earlier

when leaf tissue is high in CP and low in fiber. Manage animals in a way that gives rest
to areas that have already been grazed, and another grazing will be easy to achieve. As
stated earlier, forage of soybeans will decrease in quality over time until the beans

begin to develop in the pods. This should mainly be considered if harvesting for hay or
silage. Thus the optimal time to harvest for hay is between R5 and R7. This leads to

the issue of combining the stem with the silage, feed refusal, and an ultimate waste of the high-protein,
high-energy bean as mentioned by Blount et al. (2009). There is the possibility to chop the forage for a more

uniform mixture, but this has been shown to be costly (Blount et al., 2009). Overall optimization vs.
maximization will depend on the producers operation, the needs of the animals, and whether harvesting is even
an option. Optimize for quality and maximize for yield.

Selecting the correct variety

With plant growth stage playing a large role in quality, selected the proper maturity group variety is crucial for

5 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

obtaining the best yield and quality possible. Maturity group is an indicator of photoperiod response and must
be taken into account. Photoperiod response means that the plant will follow a vegetative and reproductive

schedule based on the daylight as opposed to age of plant. For hay production it is important to match highest

optimal quality with the greatest chance of a dry weather window. Blount et al. (2009) suggest growing full
season (Maturity Group 6, 7, and 8) varieties with the long juvenile traits in the Southern U.S.A. In the
Southeast this enables the producer to plant between April and June with little affect on yield. If grazing or
harvesting for silage, matching the driest part of the year with optimal maturity is less important, thus variety

selection is less important. However, if harvesting for hay, it is important to match maturity with harvest date.

Conclusion

Soybeans will outperform other broadleaf forage legumes such as field pea or vetch (Bilgili et al., 2005) as a
forage crop. Soybeans have the potential to provide similar feeding value as ensiled alfalfa, a real opportunity

for producers. Based on research and the work of Acikgoz et al. (2009) soybeans for forage will produce their
highest yield at a similar seeding rate as for grain (about 900,000 seeds/hectare) but with a more narrow

spacing (20 cm or less).

When it comes to yield, forage soybean harvested between R5 and R7 have the real potential to pay off. This is

because dried forage will weigh about 3 times more than the mature seed. Based on the work of Blount et al.

(2009) using current prices (100$/ton forage and 6$ bu/soybeans) and yields from a 3-year trial in Florida, a

3-ton/acre yield would accrue 50% more profit than the bean alone. This assumes a marketing outlet and price

points, but in general, forage soybeans harvested for hay or silage can pay off.

Beyond agronomy and economics, soybeans provide a number of ecological benefits as well. They produce

nitrogen through their symbiosis with Rhizobium, provide an excellent wildlife fodder to encourage on-farm
biodiversity, and give the producer an opportunity to double crop and keep soil covered after a cereal crop is
harvested in early summer. In general, adapted varieties of soybean provide high quality forage for grazing

animals during the hottest months of the year. Soybean silage or hay is on par with alfalfa. With affordable seed
costs forage soybean is a real opportunity for beef cattle producers everywhere.

Literature Cited

Acikgoz E., M. Sincik, A. Karasu, O. Tongel, G. Wietgrefe, U. Bilgili, M. Oz, S.

Albayrak, Z. Turan, A. Goksoy. 2008. Forage soybean production for seed mediterranean environments.

Field Crops Research 110:213-218.

Bilgili, U., M. Sincik, A. Goksoy, Z. Turan, E. Acikgoz. 2005. Forage and grain yield

performances of soybean lines. J. Central European Ag. 3:397-402

Blount, A. D. Wright, R. Sprenkel, T. Hewitt, R. Myer. 2009. Forage soybeans for

grazing, hay and silage. IFAS Extension SS-AGR-180 1-8.

Hintz, R. and K. Albrecht. 1994. Dry matter partitioning and forage nutritive vale of

soybean plant components. Agronomy Journal 86:59-62

Hintz, R., K. Albrecht, E. Oplinger. 1992. Yield and quality of forage as affected by

cultivar and management practices. Agronomy Journal 84:795-798

Lundry, D., W. Ridley, J. Meyer, S. Riordan, M. Nemeth, W. Trujillo, M. Breeze.

6 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

2008. Composition of grain, forage, and processed fractions from second-generation clyphsate-tolerant
soybean, MON 89788, is equivalent to that of conventional soubean (Glycine max L.). J. Agric. Food

Chem. 56, 4611-4622

Morse, W., J. Cartter, E. Hartwig. 1950. Soybean production for hay and beans.

USDA Farmers’ Bulletin 2024:1-15.

Munoz, A. E. Holt, R. Weaver. 1983. Yield and quality of soybean hay as influenced by

stage of growth and plant density. Journal of Agronomy 75, 147-149.

Nielsen, D. 2011. Forage soybean yield and quality response to water use.

Field Crops Research 124:400-407

Rao, S. H. Mayeux, B. Northup. 2005. Performance of forage soybean in southern

great plains. Crop Science 45:1973-1977.

Seiter, S. C. Altemose, M. Davis. 2004. Forage soybean yield and quality response to

plant density and row distance. Agronomy Journal 96, 966-970.

Sheaffer, C., J. Orf, T. Devine, J. Jewett. 2001. Yield and quality of forage soybean.

Agronomy Journal 93:99-106.

Subcommittee on Beef Cattle Nutrition, Committee on Animal Nutrition, National

Research Council. “Front Matter.” Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition:

Update 2000. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

2 Comments

Comment by Sue Brown — April 9, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

Would you be able to give me any brand name varieties of soybeans to plant for hay. We are going to try planting 30 acres

of soybeans for hay. We live in Lower Northern Michigan. Cheboygan, Mich. to be exact. Any info you can provide would

be appreciated. We have a dairy farm.

Comment by garden soil — June 24, 2014 @ 1:19 pm

Fine way of explaining, and good post to obtain data on the topic of my presentation topic, which i am going to convey in

institution of higher education.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

7 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM
A Review of Forage Soybean Production: Quality and Yield | A Growin... http://www.agrowingculture.org/2013/01/a-review-of-forage-soybean-pr...

Website

Submit Comment

RSS

RETURN to the HOMEPAGE

• SUBSCRIBE: Posts | Comments | E-mail | RSS Feeds • Site content © 2011 A Growing Culture. All Rights Reserved. •

8 of 8 1/7/2015 12:03 PM