Read the first reader reaction here

Hay growers, buyers and forage testing labs have been at odds over the accuracy and consistency of test results for years.

Last fall, two farmer groups, a forage-testing association and two university specialists decided to scientifically do something about it. They sent multiple blind alfalfa hay samples to – and received results back from – 21 forage-analysis laboratories.

The results show that less than half of the labs produced consistent results. The majority gave highly variable results or were in a mid- range in variability, according to the forage specialists who ran the blind tests. If given grade marks, labs with consistent results would get As, mid-range labs would receive Cs and the labs with the most variable results would garner Fs, they add. Originally, the results of the lab comparisons – and lab names – were to be published by this magazine and on several Web sites. But because of miscommunications between the entities testing the labs and some of the labs involved, only general results have been made public here.

Although these results don’t let growers and buyers off the hook on sampling accurately, they show that labs also produce variability. Some labs are, in part, to blame for the problems buyers and sellers have when they use forage-test results to price the crop, the forage specialists add.

When hay buyers and sellers have the same lots of hay analyzed and test results are similar, both parties feel they’re getting what the hay is worth. But when results differ – by just a few points of relative feed value (RFV) or as many as 40 – hay sellers can lose customers or feel forced to sell at lower prices. Or
buyers can lose feed value and also feel cheated.

Buyers and sellers then wonder about the validity of the samples each other sends to forage-analysis laboratories. Or they question the accuracy of results that one party’s lab may provide to the other party.

To add insult to injury, some buy ers and sellers use labs that test lower or higher in order to get better deals. That calls the question of whether labs follow the same forage-analysis procedures.

At the same time, labs complain that growers and/or buyers don’t take and provide samples properly and consistently, and that that leads to the variation in test results. Growers retort that lab results aren’t consistent and vary too much within and among labs.

All of the above happen all too often, say extension forage specialists Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin, and Bruce Anderson, University of Nebraska. They, along with the National Forage Testing Association (NFTA) and members of the National Hay Association (NHA) and Nebraska Alfalfa Marketing Association (N.A.M.A), have grown tired of the three-way battles.

“N.A.M.A. has been investigating this problem for years because members were finding difficulties with testing samples, getting analyses and having their customers’ tests come up with different analyses,” says Anderson. “They did some sampling (in past years), sent the samples to labs, got results back, sent them (the samples) back to labs and didn’t get consistent results. And, quite frankly, the labs didn’t seem too terribly interested in adjusting. They wanted the hay growers to adjust,” he says.

NHA members were also frustrated and elected to work with Undersander and NFTA (a joint effort of NHA, the American Forage and Grassland Council and forage-testing laboratories to improve the accuracy of forage testing and build grower confidence in testing animal feeds).

So, in an NFTA-funded study, NHA and Undersander coordinated one type of blind alfalfa hay sampling test and Anderson, with N.A.M.A. funding and aid, developed a similar one. When the two forage specialists learned of each other’s efforts, they joined forces.

Results from 21 forage-analysis laboratories that received unground hay samples for testing were analyzed. Labs were chosen because growers or customers in NHA or N.A.M.A. frequently use their services, Undersander and Anderson say. All but one are currently NFTA- certified.

Continued on Next Page...

Please Comment!