Spring Management Reminders for Maximizing Nutritive Value of Ryelage

Lauren Geiss, Graduate Research Associate, and Dr. Emma Matcham, Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University

Rye is a popular winter annual forage due to its hardiness and biomass production. Spring management decisions can have big impacts on the feed value of your rye.

One common struggle with harvesting rye for forage is maintaining its quality. Because of rye’s quick growth in the spring, it matures sooner than other small grain forages. Small grain forages are typically harvested at boot stage to balance forage quality and biomass, but for fast-maturing rye, this can be a fairly short harvest window. Crude protein in rye, wheat, and triticale declines rapidly after the flag-leaf stage, with a reduction of 2% from flag-leaf to boot, and 2.7% from boot to early head. Research indicates that spring nitrogen management may increase protein and digestibility at later maturity to extend this window of sufficient forage quality, especially with increasing weather variability reducing the number of days suitable for fieldwork.

Recent spring weather patterns have made it difficult to harvest rye before it heads out, increasing our interest in other management practices that can help retain nutritive value for ryelage that gets cut late. In late 2024, we initiated a rye fertilization and harvest timing study, and the results provide an interesting look into how rye biomass and forage quality can be maximized with low fertilizer inputs. The experiment tested four low nitrogen (N) rates (0, 30, 60, and 90 lb./acre) across three harvest stages (joint, boot, and early head) at South Charleston and Wooster. Rye was planted on October 16^th at both sites, and harvest dates can be found in Table 1. Nitrogen (urea) was applied in the spring on March 27^th and April 11^th at Wooster and South Charleston, respectively.

Table 1. Rye harvest dates at Wooster and South Charleston in 2025.

Figure 1 shows rye biomass across N rate and harvest timing treatments at the two sites. At Wooster, the 30 lb./acre N rate performed similarly to the 60 and 90 lb./acre rates at boot and early head stages. Interestingly, harvesting at early heading did not differ in biomass to boot stage, although lodging reduced the amount of biomass the hay harvester could pick up (Figure 2). At South Charleston, wet weather delayed urea application, and so N rate effects were not as prevalent at this site, while 60 and 90 lb./acre rates were significantly different from the control. All harvest stages produced significantly different amounts of biomass. 

Figure 1. Rye biomass as affected by nitrogen rate and harvest stage (J=joint, B=boot, E=early head) at Wooster (A) and South Charleston (B). Boxes indicate first and third quartiles, with solid lines indicating the median. The lines above and below the boxes indicate the ranges of data falling within 1.5 times the quartile range; points outside of this range are outliers for the given treatment. N rate was significant at Wooster (P<0.001) and South Charleston (P<0.05). Harvest timing was significant at Wooster (P<0.001) and South Charleston (P<0.001).

Figure 2. Lodging in the early head stage harvest plots at Wooster limited the amount of biomass that could be harvested.

Figure 3 shows crude protein (CP) across N rate and harvest timing treatments. At Wooster, the 30 and 60 lb/acre N rates resulted in similar CP; the 90 lb/acre rate was the only treatment to cross the “goal” CP threshold at 12% in the early head stage harvest. At South Charleston, 30 and 60 lb/acre N rates also performed similarly in terms of CP; 60 and 90 lb/acre rates showed promise to maintain protein above 12% in the early head stage harvest.
Figure 3. Crude protein (%) as affected by N rate and harvest stage (J = joint, B = boot, E = early head) at Wooster (A) and South Charleston (B). Boxes indicate first and third quartiles, with solid lines indicating the median. The lines above and below the boxes indicate the ranges of data falling within 1.5 times the quartile range; points outside of this range are outliers for the given treatment. The red dashed line indicates a crude protein standard of 12% for lactating dairy cows. N rate was significant at both Wooster (P < 0.001) and South Charleston (P < 0.001). Harvest timing was significant at both Wooster (P<0.001) and South Charleston (P<0.001).

For those including grain crops along with forages in their systems, it’s important to evaluate how rye management may impact your summer crop. In this study, soybean yield was measured across the rye forage treatments, as well as a no-rye and rye-as-cover control (terminated with herbicide) as well. No effects of any rye management combination on soybean yields were found. In the cover crop plots, where rye residue was left to decompose, soybean plant populations were low, but this did not affect yields due to branching. Rye residue can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Soybean plants growing through unharvested rye cover crop (left) and harvested rye forage residue (right).

Rye is a popular forage crop for its high biomass production, but sometimes its window of desired quality comes and goes quickly. Results from year one of this study indicate that low rates of N in spring can help maintain desirable forage quality as rye grows quickly in the spring. This aligns with results from other rye-producing states, and we are continuing this trial in 2027 to observe any differences across seasons and collect additional samples on soil and plant nitrogen contents. Keep an eye out for additional articles later in the year to follow along with results, or feel free to email Emma (matcham.3@osu.edu) with questions or observations from your own small grain silage production systems.  

References

Huber, I., Wang, L., Hatfield, J.L., Hanna, H.M., and S.V. Archontoulis. 2023. Modeling days suitable for fieldwork using machine learning, process-based, and rule-based models. Agricultural Systems, 206, 103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103603

Landry, E., Janovicek, K., Lee, E.A., and W. Deen. 2019. Winter cereal cover crops for spring forage in temperate climates. Agronomy Journal, 111(1), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.03.0214

Sulc, M., and S. Smith. 2007. Planting small grains in late summer and autumn for supplemental forage. Ohio Dairy Industry Resources Center. Buckeye Dairy News, 14(4). Retrieved March 25, 2026, from https://dairy.osu.edu/newsletter/buckeye-dairy-news/volume-14-issue-4/planting-small-grains-late-summer-and-autumn