l4 forage mixtures
TRANSCRIPT
Forage mixtures, species and extended grazing
ACORN Conference 2016John Duynisveld
AAFC Nappan/Holdanca Farms
Beef Nutrition and Pasture Management Research Program
John Duynisveld
• Focus:- Sustainable beef production systems for Eastern Canada
• Current Research Interests:– Forage mixtures for long-term pasture productivity.– Management strategies to lower beef production costs by
extending the grazing season. – The role of forage bio-active components in livestock
production.
Forage Breeding and AgronomyYousef A. Papadopoulos
• Focus:- The role of forage species & their varieties in modern cropping systems
• Current Study Areas:– Exploiting genetic variability to enhance forage
productivity and resiliency.– Productive forage legume cultivars for the long-term
sustainability under pasture management.– Forage mixtures and nutrient cycling.
New Alfalfa Cultivar CRS 1001
Few Members of Research Team
Holdanca Farms
• Grass based farm in Wallace Bay, NS
• Direct market variety of grass-fed meat products
• Integrated multi-species pasture management key to our production system
• Eighty percent of product marketed direct to consumers
Holdanca FarmsWallace, NS500 acres – half pasture, half woodland
Market 20 to 30 grass-fed beefCows are pastured year-round
Custom graze cattleMay to October
Laying Hens
Poultry and Pasture
Raise, process and market 5000 pastured chickensApril to October
Free range TurkeysRaise, process and market 850 turkeysMay to OctoberMoved daily to fresh pasture
Pigs
Pasture for livestock production
• Needs to be low cost– Often animals are not productive for much of year
• Lower input/labour – Often part-time farmers or only part of enterprise
• Productive
= Perennial pasture
Why raise animals on pasture?
• Environmental benefits
• Natural diet for ruminants, part of mono-gastric diets
• Healthier for us
• Better taste!
Health benefits of grass-fed meat and eggs
• Higher in vitamin E and A
• Lower saturated fats
• Higher levels of “good” fats including omega-3 fats and conjugated linoleic acid
• Fewer pathogenic bacteria
Environmental benefits of well managed perennial pasture (partial list)
• Resilient to climate change (weather extremes)
• Builds soil (opposite of erosion)
• Biodiversity (plants, soil life, wildlife)
• Reduce GHG emissions, consume methane
• Carbon sequestration!!!!
21
Diverse forage mixtures yield better than simple mixtures
• Papadopoulos et al. (2011) research over 5 years on forage mixtures:
– Increasing complexity of mixtures (more grass types) increased yield of forage
– Timothy and bluegrass in mixtures can enhance yield of forage
Why do mixtures grow more feed?
• Different grasses grow in different ways, times of year– Both leaf structure and roots
• Increases use of available sunlight
• Increases use of available fertility and water
• May be synergies with some combinations
• Resilience for weather differences from year to year
22
Value of legumes in pastures
• Nitrogen fixation
• Forage quality – protein
• Maintain digestibility in summer
• Cattle like most legumes (very palatable)– Will seek them when grazing
23
Why do we expect to see differences in animal performance between mixtures?
• All well managed pastures have good feed value and can be reasonably productive
• Cattle will digest some grasses better than others despite what forage testing tells us
• Cattle will prefer some forages over other
25
26
Beef grazing mixtures project designCanadian Cattlemen’s Beef Cluster
• Experiment 1: identify the best simple forage mixtures and grass cultivar (Nappan) for each environment. Combinations of one grass grown with either white clover, alfalfa or trefoil.
• forage yield, seasonality, persistence and forage quality under rotational grazing by cattle (Nappan and Kapuskasing) or simulated grazing (Quebec City).
27
Beef grazing mixtures project design
• Experiment 2: Four grass mixtures seeded with either alfalfa or birdsfoot trefoil (Complex mixtures)
• forage yield, seasonality, persistence and forage quality
• Animal weight gain, grazing days, animal gain per acre
• 4 core animals per treatment group for data collection
Pâturage
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Coupes fréquentes
Rendement en M
S (t/ha)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ResultsForage yield (t/ha)
P < 0.05
Frequent clipping (Normandin and Lévis)
Cattle grazing (Nappan)
DM
Yie
ld (t
/ha)
Meadow fescue
Orchardgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Tall fescue
Timothy
Meadow bromegrass
Birdsfoot trefoil Alfalfa White clover
Meadow fescue
Orchardgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Tall fescue
Timothy
Meadow bromegrass
Meadow fescue
Orchardgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Tall fescue
Timothy
Meadow bromegrass
Binary mixtures performed differently under
frequent clipping and cattle grazing.
Pâturage
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Coupe fréquente
Production estimée de lait (t lait/ha)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Brome des prés
Fléole des prés
Fétuque élevée
Pâturin des prés
Fétuque des prés
Dactyle pelotonné
Brome des prés
Fléole des prés
Fétuque élevée
Pâturin des prés
Fétuque des prés
Dactyle pelotonné
Brome des prés
Fléole des prés
Fétuque élevée
Pâturin des prés
Fétuque des prés
Dactyle pelotonné
LuzerneLotier corniculé Trèfle blanc
Prod
uctio
n es
timée
de
lait
(t la
it/ha
)
ResultsEstimated milk production (t milk/ha)
Frequent clipping
Meadow fescue
Orchardgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Tall fescue
Timothy
Meadow bromegrass
Birdsfoot trefoil Alfalfa White clover
Meadow fescue
Orchardgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Tall fescue
Timothy
Meadow bromegrass
Meadow fescue
Orchardgrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Tall fescue
Timothy
Meadow bromegrassestim
ated
milk
pro
duct
ion
(t m
ilk/h
a)
11.7 t/ha
9.4 t/ha8.8 t/ha
11.1 t/ha 12.1 t/ha
12.4 t/ha Grazing
Under grazing,
White clover + meadow bromegrass or tall
fescue
had greater estimated milk production.
Establishment estimate of plants˖m-2 of 3 legumes and 6 grass species seeded in 2010
2012
Persistence estimate of plants˖m-2 of 3 legumes and 6 grass species seeded in 2010
2013 2014
Cultivar results
• Most valuable players based on mid and late season yield and energy:– Kokanee Tall Fescue with alfalfa or trefoil– Ginger Bluegrass with white clover– Bg3 Bluegrass with alfalfa
Long-term agronomic performance ofgrass-legume pasture mixtures
• Re-seed legumes (sod or frost seed) every 2-3 years to sustain mixtures productivity.
• Choose compatible grass cultivar to sustain seasonal dry matter production.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Aver
age
anim
al g
ain,
Kg/d
Legume effect on animal gain over years of research
TrefoilAlfalfa
35
36
Year
2011 2012 2013 2014
Gain / Forage, kg / t
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Bt TiMfRcKb Bt TfMbOrKb Bt TiMfKb Bt TfMbRcKb gAf TiMfRcKb gAf TfMbOrKb gAf TiMfKb gAf TfMbRcKb
37
Body weight change by mixture and legume, lb per steer, 2013
38
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
May June July Aug Sept Oct
Alfalfa
Af - KbTfOgMbAf - MfTmKbAf - RgKbTfMbAf - TmMfRgKb
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
May June July Aug Sept Oct
Trefoil
Bt - KbTfOgMbBt - MfTmKbBt - RgKbTfMbBt - TmMfRgKb
20 second summary of beef cluster research to date
• Cattle had better daily gain on Timothy/meadow fescue/bluegrass pasture BUT
• More gain per acre on mixtures with Tall fescue in them• Cultivar of grass matters for forage yield and quality
under animal grazing• Meadow fescue with any legume provides optimum
balance of sugars, energy, and protein• Cattle gain better on trefoil pastures than alfalfa pastures
– We need to reseed legumes every 2 to 3 years to maintain them in sward
39
Can pasture species affect carcass quality?Red
CloverTall
fescue SEM P. Values
Final wt kg 497 499 14 0.708
ADG kg/day 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.988
Carcass wt kg 281 272 8 0.048
Dressing % 54.7 52.4 0.7 0.002 Back fat mm 6.3 5.1 0.6 0.049
Dry Matter Intake kg/d 11.2 12.5 0.5 0.036
Goals of Extending the Grazing Season
• Reducing Feeding Costs• Reducing Hauling Costs• Reducing Harvesting Costs• Reducing Manure Removal Costs
65 to 75 % of costs of calf production come from feed, pasture and bedding.
Ranking of beef cattle best suited to winter grazing
1. Fat dry cow2. Late lactation bred cow3. Bred heifer4. Yearling to background5. Early lactation cow6. Weaned calf – not recommended without
supplementation
Environmental effects on animal energy needs
• Temperature - each species has a lower critical temperature below which maintenance energy skyrockets
• Rain/snow – affect body temperature• Wind – wind chill increases effect of cooler temp.
– In combination with wet weather can significantly raise energy needs
• Mud – an important consideration in Eastern Canada
• Distance to walk to water, feed, shelter
What can we do to cope with environment?
• Make sure animals are in good body condition going into fall – fat and hair are great insulators
• Plan extended grazing areas to be in sheltered places
• Provide artificial shelter• Plan to fall/winter graze close to barns
45
January 2013, AAFC NappanPortable shelter in snowstorm
46
January 2013, AAFC NappanNote hair coat, body condition
Corn Grazing Nappan NS, early DecemberGround not frozen
How to avoid mud in the Maritimes
• Have as much available pasture as possible– “snowshoe” effect, more root mass
• Move cattle to new ground as often as possible– Minimizes damage, spreads manure
• Graze cautiously ESPECIALLY when frost coming out of the ground
• Fields that have been rotationally grazed previous season have stronger sod
Overgrazed, no recovery Well recovered
Grazing management affects the entire grazing ecosystem
Which will handle wet soil better?
Late November bale grazing, no frost, after heavy rain
52
Dec 24, 2015Stockpiled naturalized pasture2 acre paddock after 5 days grazing by 40 head beef35 mm rainfall in last 3 days; Queens soil, no tile drains
53
January 2013, AAFC NappanNote bare ground around bales
54
January 2013, AAFC Nappan
Bale grazing late March 2015 in 4 feet of snow
Bale grazing late March 2015 in 4 feet of snow
Bale grazing late March 2015 in 4 feet of snow
Bale grazing late March 2015 in 4 feet of snow
Corn and tall fescue for fall grazing:Animal results
Fall Feeding:October to Christmas In Barn January to May
weight change
lbBCS
change
Feed intake after
calvinglb
BCS change
after calving
Cow wt change
lb
calf birth
wtlb
calf weight
at turnout
lb
Barn 126 -0.5 29 0.0 -41 88 379
Corn -41 -1.4 30 0.0 -6 90 349
Fescue 106 -0.9 29 0.3 -6 94 385
1 2 3 40
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
dmi cp
tdn
Day in paddock
CP (%
) and
dai
ly in
take
(kg)
TDN
(%)
Changes in daily intake and feed quality for winter swath grazing, Lacombe
1 2 3 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
tdn intake
cp intake
Day in paddock
TDN
inta
ke (k
g/da
y)
CP in
take
(kg/
day)
Changes in daily nutrient intake for winter swath grazing, Lacombe compared to needs!
Results of clover/fescue fall grazing
AssumptionsRed clover
Tall fescue
forage yield, kg/ha 4726 4614total DM available (4 ha
land) kg 4 ha per group 18906 18455amount available (percent
used*DM available) 65 % grazed 12289 11996feed/day (DM avail/# of
days) 60 days grazed 205 200
average cow wt, kg 650average cow intake (3%
body weight) kg/day 0.03% body weight
eaten 19.5 19.5
number of cows to feed 11 10
• Atlantic Canada challenges– Variable fall weather, frozen ground not reliable– Winter can has frequent freeze/thaw turning snow cover
into ice
• However, we can have a lot of fall grass growth with right forage species (fescues, bluegrass)
• To minimize risks, Stockpiled pasture through to freeze-up, bale graze through to spring
64
Economics study winter grazing in Maritimes
• Compared 200 days barn feeding (typical winter season) to 75 days stockpiled feed, 125 days bale graze (some successful use of this on farms)
• 80 cow-calf herd, spring calving
• $183 saving per cow with winter grazing
65
Conclusion
• When seeding pastures, some grass and legume species (and cultivars!) are more suitable than others for pasture– Some mixtures may be better for finishing
livestock, some for mature animals• Consider winter grazing to control costs
• Let your animals graze!
Sheep on pastureQuestions?