ISSUE FOCUS 54 FEED & ADDITIVE MAGAZINE March 2026 Components Hay A As Sampled As Sampled Dry matter Dry matter Hay B % Moisture % Dry Matter % Crude Protein % Acid Detergent Fiber % Neutral Detergent Fiber % Nonfiber Carbohydrates % Total Digestible Nutrients Metabolizable Energy, Mcal/lb % Calcium % Phosphorus % Magnesium % Potassium % Sodium Iron, parts per million Zinc, parts per million Copper, parts per million Manganese, parts per million Molybdenum, parts per million 9.0 91.0 12.1 32.3 46.5 24.0 56 0.92 0.46 0.23 0.17 2.58 0.013 97 20 8 65 1.6 -------- -------- 13.3 35.5 51.1 26.4 62 1.02 0.51 0.25 0.19 2.84 0.014 107 22 9 71 1.8 8.9 91.1 6.3 34.0 52.8 23.7 55 0.90 0.32 0.15 0.14 1.53 0.021 95 19 11 36 0.9 -------- -------- 6.9 37.3 58.0 26.0 60 0.98 0.35 0.16 0.15 1.68 0.025 104 21 12 40 1.0 Table 2. Determined nutrient content of the two hay forages shown in Figure 1. The two forages are visually very similar in leaf structure and maturity. Hay A is not as green as Hay B. The crude protein content of Hay A is nearly twice that of Hay B, thus limiting its usefulness in feeding more productive animals. Hay B would not meet the maintenance protein requirement for most herbivores. A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO INTERPRETING FEED ANALYSIS REPORTS A feed analysis report can be extremely overwhelming with all the abbreviations and numbers presented. Each laboratory has its own reporting format, which makes it more difficult if you use more than one laboratory for testing. Here is a systematic approach to reviewing a feed analysis report for determining forage quality: 1. Check moisture content of hay if below 15% (>85% dry matter). Ensiled forage will have higher moisture, and its amount will depend upon the storage method
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUxNjkxNQ==