Grazing Gazette PENN! IW College of Agricultural Sciences ie cooperation with USDA/ARS YEAR-AROUND FORAGE PROGRAMS FOR BEEF CATTLE AND SHEEP Harold Harpsler Department of Dairy and Animal Science Penn State The labor, equipment, and lifes tyle advantages of allowing lives tock to harvest forage directly through grazing versus the usual harvest and feed routine has caused many producers to ask just how far we can push the grazing season toward a year-around practice. With this in mind, as I lode out the window on this January day, I’m reminded of the old line, “When you’re up to your armpits in alligators, it’s hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp.” Or in this case, "When you’re up to your armpits in snow, it’s hard to remember that your original intention was to graze pasture!” Like many areas of Pennsylva nia, we have received more than 75 inches of snow already. In many pastures you can’t see a fence, let alone any grass, at least until the recent thaw. Skeptics of ' expanding the use of pasture would point out that these conditions prove the futility of counting on pasture for more than five or six months of fepd. What it really proves is the need to stay flexible and have several con dngency plans ready for changing conditions. It’s really no different than other farming or feeding sys tems. Those who planned last spring for plentiful com supplies this winter at $2 per bushel have no doubt had to adjust their plans to cope with the current situation of nearly $4 per bushel! While it’s obvious that we can never count on avoiding the use of harvested feed for the entire year, especially during harsh winters, our goal can be to maximize graz ing within the limits of our avail able pasture and the existing weather conditions. Fortunately for cow-calf and brood ewe opera tions, calving and lambing season can be planned so that animal requirements are at a low point when pasture is usually unavail able. The same principal is at work in the “seasonal dairy” approach where essentially all die cows are dried off at once, typical ly during the harshest winter months. The Concept of Extending the Grazing Season Crude calculations may be used to illustrate die concept of extend ing the grazing season. Using average forage yield, seasonal dis tribution of yield, and quality val ues, one may calculate the carry ing capacity of several pastures for lactadng beef cows: FORAGE: RotaUwaNjr Grutd Perennial Rrapu ANIMALS: Lactaltng BmT Cow* Requiring 10 Hm TDN/D«y MAY STOCKING RATE: YIELD: 5400 X lb* DM/Scaaoa COWS REQUIRE: JS May Avail 10 lb TDN/DAY STOCKING RATE: 1477 Using similar calculations for July: JULY (Same Ryegrass Pasture) Herein lies the problem inhe- or silage; b) bring in supplemental rent with traditional forage spe- feed; c) sell animals; d) utilize cies. The July carrying capacity is another forage species which is less than one-third of what it was productive in July; or e) utilize during the lush growth of May. forage grown previously. Using Obviously one must a) set the the same calculations for a spring stocking rate for the low period seeded brassica crop carrying and harvest spring growth as hay capacity is as follows: JULY (Sprint Seeded Brattice) If we «««!■» mother “dump" period, late faDAwly winter: OCTOBER (Same Ryejratt Failure) (NO NOV/DEC FORAGE) OCTOBER (Stockpiled Tall Femme) (PLUS NOV/DEC FORAGE) . Clearly complimentary range species and methods of manage ment can “even out” the normal hills and valleys of pasture supply. Matching Forage and Animal Management Just as the seasonal distribution of forage growth varies widely among species, animal nutrient requirements also fluctuate mark edly depending on the production system employed on a given farm. Using beef cattle as example, requirements can be broadly clas sified into five phases (typical length in days of each phase is listed in parentheses): calving and early lactation (60), breeding sea son (60), post-breeding to wean ing (85), post-weaning to late pre gnancy (100), and late pregnancy (60). A spring calving system tends to match conventional forage pro duction to a greater degree than fall calving. If, however, one were committed to a fall calving sys- Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 10,iNfrCT Balancing Grazing and Hay Since admittedly it’s hard to totally escape the use of some hay in northern climates, it’s interest ing to consider how we should budget our land use to hay and grazing. Such a study was con ducted in West Virginia and com pared four systems, each having the same acreage of native peren nial grasses; 1) HH - two hay cut tings over summer with hay used to winter cows and the excess sold: 2) HG - one hay cutting in summer followed by late fall graz ing; 3) GHH - early spring grazing followed by two cuttings of hay; and 4) GHG - early spring graz ing, one hay cutting, and late fall grazing. Perhaps not surprisingly, system 4 was the most profitable. Grazing time was maximized while still providing hay for wint er feeding during the harshest con ditions. Haymaking was done dur ing the typical “second cutting” time when weather conditions ate more favorable for quality hay harvest 1477 May lb TDN/A 310 Forage TDN « 31 DAYS 310 lb TDN/MO/HD = 4.8 COWS/ACRE 1.3 oowi/icre =8.5 cowi/acie =2.3 cowi/*cre =3.3 cowi/acie tem, one strategy of dealing with the relatively high animal require ments in early winter would be the use of summer-seeded brassica. July-August seedings of several brassica crops like rape, turnip, kale and others have provided three or mote tons of dry matter per acre for November-December grazing in Pennsylvania trials. As a species, the brassica forages are tpiitc versatile, with mid-May seedings providing high yields of forage in July and August Those preferring a perennial grass could Consider stockpiled tall fescue. In Penn State trials we accumulated over a ton of dry matter per acre by allowing fescue to stockpile between mid-August and mid- October. The cool growing condi tions of late summer-early Fall also help produce a low fiber high quality forage that maintains its quality well into late fall-early winter. Sheep Example Readers may be familiar with the work of Hogue and coworkers at Cornell University in the deve lopment of the “STAR" acceler ated lambing program. This pro duction scheme emphasizes “out of-season lambing” and the goal of five lambings per ewe in a three-year period. The system is often criticized as being facility, feed, and labor intensive, basically requiring a high level of animal confinement. Yet if we compare a conventional (January lambing) and STAR lambing scenario it’s obvious that at least three of the five lambings on the STAR sys tem could employ grazed high quality forage. Lambing and Pasture Options For Conventional and Accelerated (STAR) Lambing Programs Conventional Lambing STAR (Accelerated Lambing) Lambing High Quality Lambing High Quality Month Pasture Month Pasture ■lan No Jan No Aug AG. WSG L. SpSB Mar Unlikely Oct SF. SuSB 3 Jan No May Many Options AG = annual grasses, WSG = warm season grasses, L = legumes. SpSB = spring seeded brassiest, SF = stockpiled fescue, SuSB = summer-seede brassicas. Year 1 2 Jan Perennial Grass Systems The discussion above has emphasized the use of annuals to supplement periods of low native pasture availability. Many produc ers resist the annual tilalge required to utilize these species and prefer the use of perennials only. Moving from a conventional Summer Future Winter Public Emergency Stored Peed (Aftermath Grazed) TOTAL Each farm must realistically assess the productivity of its pas ture land to determine the total per cow acreage required. Penn State Study Planned Despite the need for detailed research information on ycar around forage systems, there are very few studies to be found. Such work is expensive and labor intensive if one is really to account for all the forage inputs and out puts on a year-around basis. In addition, several years of date col lection are needed to account for the inevitable variation in weather conditions from year to year. We plan to embark on such a study at Penn State in 1996 with partial support from the Pennsyv lania Department of Agriculture. Briefly, the beef herd will be divided into three groups and assigned to one of three forage systems. Each system will contain an equal number of cow/calf pairs. Each cow unit will be assigned approximately 3 acres of land. Systems are; 1. Conventional—Cool season grass mixtures only. Grazing will be maximized but all forage in excess of cow needs will be harvested. 2. Legume X Grass—perennial forages only but going beyond system 1 with the use of alfalfa X grass mixtures and tall fescue (to be stockpiled for fall/winter grazing). 3. Perennial + Annual Grasses—cool-season grasses as in system 1 will be used as a base with added grazing potential from rape, sudangrass, and com stalks. to an extended growing system need not required the introduction of new or exotic plant species. Often all that is required is a change in management scheme. Work in Ohio has shown that native perennial grasses can come close to providing year-around grazing for a beef cow herd when carefully planned: Forage Type Orchatdgrass Bluegrw Stockpiled Tall Fescue Orchardgraii Acres/Cow 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers