The author is a professor and extension forage specialist with the University of Kentucky in Lexington.

Jimmy Henning enjoyed interacting with farmers.

It does not seem possible that it has been over 38 years since I started my first professional job in forages at the University of Missouri. Forages have come a long way since 1986, yet in some ways, things have not changed at all.

Fescue frenzy

In 1986, we were in the honeymoon days of the endophyte. Forage workers in Alabama and Georgia had conclusively proven the cause of fescue toxicosis to be an endophytic fungus, and grass breeders worked at a frenetic pace to release endophyte-free tall fescues. As a graduate student at the University of Kentucky (UK) in the early 1980s, I remember the excitement surrounding the release of Johnstone tall fescue. In the rush to bring seed to market, some of the first batches were lower than premium quality and had greater than desired levels of annual ryegrass.

Lower seed quality coupled with several years of summer drought, especially in Missouri where I was working after graduate school, made for a rocky start for endophyte-free tall fescues. Clearly, science had provided a solution to the fescue toxicosis problem that was ill-timed and possibly oversold. The novel or friendly endophyte tall fescue varieties of today look to be that long-term solution as a replacement for toxic tall fescue where needed.

NIRS goes mainstream

Another technology that tracks with my career is the advent and refinement of using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) to estimate forage quality. The University of Missouri implemented a mobile hay testing program modeled after the Penn State and University of Minnesota programs. I ran the Missouri hay testing program, which meant I took the van to events, processed and tested samples, and then conducted educational programs promoting forage quality.

The NIRS technology has advanced significantly since those mid-1980’s instruments, but the need for education about forage testing and forage quality still remains. I can never forget that in 1986, a survey of Missouri producers found that most beef producers did not test hay because there is no reason to — talk about an uphill battle for a forage extension specialist. Outside of the dairy industry, forage testing is still underutilized, at least in Kentucky. On the positive side, forage quality contests in the Southeast are providing an enhanced emphasis on forage testing.

Grazing is a new ballgame

Rotational grazing was not new in 1986 when I started, but there was a new push for “intensive” grazing. The popular press was full of writings about the benefits of this new technique. I remember — not fondly — a national columnist who wrote that “intensive grazing would let you double your stocking rate.” Adding fence does not grow grass. I remember thinking those kinds of columns were irresponsible, as anyone who tried it would figure out after one season.

In the 1980s, I was able to watch and learn from Jim Gerrish, who ran the University of Missouri’s Forage Systems Research Center in North Central Missouri. Seeing Jim at work taught me that a motivated and talented forage scientist can have impacts that are almost incomprehensible in scope. In less than 10 years, Jim’s grazing school had brought people from all over the county to that little station, which was not even on a paved road.

Now there is a renewed emphasis on rotational grazing, driven partially by the regenerative agriculture movement. Still, I cringe when I see some of the over-the-top claims emerging on social media and other outlets about grazing and regenerative agriculture. Rather than the “fence will grow grass” of the 1980s, I think a lot of people are hearing the message that rotational grazing will “fix” every issue with a farm, even severely infertile soils. Given enough time and the right management, farms can be fixed. I worry that not much discussion is given to the timeline required.

Seed genetics

Another area of great change over my career has been the seed industry and forage genetics. Some advances are easy to recognize, like Roundup Ready or HarvXtra technology in alfalfa. Less apparent has been the almost total shift from university or public to proprietary varietal releases.

Farmers can still find good products to plant, relying on data from university trials wherever possible. But producers will need to cultivate a high trust relationship with their seed suppliers (and vice versa) and learn to read seed tags to ensure they are getting high-quality seed.

Machinery mania

In the humid eastern U.S. during the 1980s, your bale package options were two: small square or large round, both tied with twine. Over the years, manufacturers have added net wrap, solid plastic, and breathable wrap binding, all of which reduce storage losses.

Balers have grown in size and sophistication. Now we have mid-size (36 by 32 inches) and large (36 by 48 inches) rectangular balers that bale more tons per hour but require larger tractors. Their rectangular size and greater density allow trucks to trailer maximum legal weights, and they lend themselves well to mechanization. Although the equine sector still prefers the smaller rectangular package, these larger bales are making their way onto horse farms in Kentucky.

Manufacturers have also added labor-saving innovations, especially for small square bales. Bale accumulators, grapples, self-propelled bale wagons, and bale bundlers have allowed the cash hay producer to adapt to the shortage of farm labor and speed up haying operations.

Balers now can be electronically controlled from within the cab. Bale size, density, type, and amount of twine or wrap can be changed from a monitor linked to the baler. Balers are commonly equipped with sensors to continuously monitor moisture. These can be electronically linked to certain hay preservative applicators that will alter the rate of treatment based on changes in bale moisture readings. When I started my career, moisture and forage yield per hour had to be determined manually, which was a slow and inexact process.

No-till seeders were available in the 1980s, but they are now more complex and effective. Even the lowly spinner seeder has been upgraded. Seeders now can be quickly and accurately calibrated and will deliver seed by air or using the traditional spinner/spreader.

Wrapped bales

Arguably, the largest change in making high-quality stored forage was the ability to make round-bale silage. I remember a demonstration of individually bagged high-moisture bales at UK in 1984. High-moisture round bales were sized to fit into individual bags. Oxygen exclusion was attempted by using a shop vacuum to draw most of the air out of the bag, which was then sealed with a zip tie. This silage method was a slow, labor-intensive process and bales were prone to excessive molding.

Advances in bale wrapping equipment and UV-resistant stretch wrap plastic has made this process much more efficient, with less risk of failure because of better oxygen exclusion. Making round-bale silage allows farmers to more nearly cut on time, and forage quality of baleage will often exceed that of all but the best hays. Wrapping equipment is available for rent, making the technology generally available.

Information gathering

One of the most dramatic areas of change has been that of information and communication technology. In 1986, a powerful computer had two 5.25-inch floppy drives, 640 kilobytes of RAM, and cost $6,000! According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, this is the same as $17,430 in November 2024. At the time, email was new. To see them, my secretary would have to print them out. There was no Google, and the internet was just beginning to develop.

For information, I relied on my textbooks and a well-stocked filing cabinet from my predecessor. We also had hard-copy journals. In the 1980s, newsletters were hard copy, and information moved slowly. The most high-tech communication method we had was a conference call. I had to go door to door in my building to look for answers, often while producers were on hold! Thinking back, those were stressful days for a fresh-out-of-school forage specialist.

Today’s pace and scope of information flow makes the 1980s seem like the Stone Age. We are in the time of instant everything. I can access and send all of the publications from any land grant university from my phone. Even though COVID-19 was difficult to work through, it actually accelerated the adoption of technology like Zoom and YouTube to conduct meetings and even larger conferences. Now, farmers have access to information 24 hours a day and seven days a week if they want. There are literally hundreds of hours of instructional video on our UK Forages YouTube site alone.

From a university perspective, forage work has gotten more complex and faster paced, with a much greater reliance on external funding. The availability of technology might lead one to conclude that a forage program can be carried out without ever leaving the office, but effective university forage programs must still have a significant relational component — we have to stay in touch with the clientele. This need is more than just the wistful longing for the “good old days.” I can prove that some of the most valuable and impactful work done by our forage team has come as a direct result of in-the-field farmer discussions. Not every problem is what it seems in an email, and not every answer is ready for implementation.

There are fewer people overall at agricultural colleges, and that goes for those working in forages as well. One-hundred percent extension appointments were common when I started and almost nonexistent now. These days, extension hires are expected to carry a research appointment and often a teaching appointment. This “multiple-masters” system is often a necessary evil because of fewer people.

When we lost one of our forage faculty at UK, I took on a formal teaching appointment — something I felt was detrimental in the past. Early in my career, I felt like having to be tied down to the classroom was harmful to a forage extension specialist who needed the freedom to be in the field. However, teaching the forages class over the past five years has helped me discover a synergistic relationship between teaching and extension. Teaching made me a better extension specialist. Also, I realize now that I was training the next generation of farmers, county agents, and industry professionals. The new generation of forage workers are some of the brightest and most motivated people I know and are themselves finding the synergy between all three parts of the land grant mission — teaching, research, and extension.

Looking back, we have come a very long way since 1986. Just about the only thing that has not gotten better for the producer is time. For much of the eastern U.S., many forage producers are part time, making it hard to get it all done. In the latter stage of my career, I felt like my job was less about helping a farmer find the right variety, herbicide, or answer, and more about helping to prioritize among tasks.

The land grant system has more ways than ever to stay in touch with clientele and implement good science to solve problems. These are still among our core principles. Thankfully, that has not changed in four decades. Happy foraging.