Teff Grass as a Warm Season Forage for Backgrounding Calves

in the Shenandoah Valley

Brian Jones – Agronomy

Jason Carter – Animal Science

Background

• Teff is a warm season C4 annual grass– African origin, used as a grain crop

• Gaining popularity as a summer annual forage– Primarily marketed as high quality horse hay

The Teff plant

Objective

To compare the weight gain and profitability of calves rotationally grazing a

Teff grass forage system to calves continuously grazing a typical

Shenandoah Valley cool season pasture

Establishment

• Seeded following barley (wrapped haylage)• May 23: Turbo-till• May 25: Pasture harrow• May 31: Fertilizer

– 64 lb 0-0-62.5– 83 lb 10-34-0– 52 lb 30% UAN

• May 31: Herbicide– 1.5 qt/A Gramoxone

Establishment

• Seeded June 3

• 7 lbs/A

• “Tiffany” teff– Coated seed– 1.3 million seeds/lb

Establishment

• Brillion seeder

• Must seed no deeper than ¼”

First Cutting July 10

• 37 Days after planting

• Analysis:

CP: 16.5%

TDN: 66%

RFV: 94

Experimental Design

• “Gate cut” two groups of calves– 48 in each group– Calves weaned 30 days prior to study

• Calf data:– Weight– Frame score– Switch length

Experimental Design

• Group A– Rotationally grazing Teff grass pasture– 20 acres

• Group B– Continuous grazing cool season pasture

(fescue/OG/clover)– 40+ acres

• Grazed for 69 days (September 30)

Calf Beginning WeightsTreatment Group Beginning Weight Flesh Score

-----------lbs----------Teff 508.3 2.2Cool-Season 509.6 1.95% LSD 21.94 0.26

Calf In-Weight Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

25

400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Starting Weight (lb)

Nu

mb

er o

f C

alve

s

Teff Group

Control Group

Start Grazing July 27

• 17 Days after cutting

• Teff 20” tall

• Rotational system– 8 2.5A paddocks– Portable water

trough– 3-4 day rotation

Water Consumption

• Water meter to measure calf H2O intake

• Drank 5 gal/hd/day

• Typical intake is 10.2 gal/hd/day

August 3Teff grew 16” in 23 days after cutting!

August 13

August 18

Finished Grazing Sept. 30

• Teff pasture was completely utilized

• Pulled calves, sorted, weighed

Treatment Group End Weight

Teff 571.4 1.0 aCool-Season 556.9 0.7 b5% LSD 24.2 0.1

ADG-------------------lbs-----------------

Efficiency of Gain

Treatment Group

Teff 3.31 aCool-Season 1.22 b5% LSD 0.38

------------lbs-------------Gain Acre-1

QUESTIONS?

Tolerance of Teff (Eragrostis tef) var. “Tiffany” to Several

Selective Herbicides

Brian JonesAgronomy Extension Agent

Objective

• Limited literature exists on selective weed control in teff

• Objective was to examine the effect of several common selective forage herbicides on teff growth and yield

Establishment• Variety: “Tiffany” teff• Planting date: 3 June, 2009• Seeding rate: 7 lb/A• Seeding tool: Brillion seeder• Previous crop: Barley harvested as silage• Site prep:

– Turbo-till vertical tillage (23 May)– Pasture harrow (25 May)

• Fertilizer applied 31 May:– 64 lb 0-0-62.5– 83 lb 10-34-0– 52 lb 30% UAN

• Burndown herbicide applied 31 May– 1.5 qt/A Gamoxone Nteon

Herbicide Treatments

• Treatments applied on 10 August in a randomized complete block design with four replications

Chemical Trade Name

Product

Rate acre-1

aminopyralid Milestone 10 oz

2,4-D + picloram Grazon P+D 4 pt

2,4-D Weedone LV4 2 qt

dicamba Rifle 1 pt

control

Teff on 10 August

• Treatments applied to teff after 17 days of re-growth occurred from hay cutting

Weed Species Composition

• Number of common forage weed species present, including– Canada thistle– Bull thistle– Pigweed spp.– Horsenettle– Broadleaf dock

• Weed composition and cover varied between treatments

• Teff stand was consistent and above 90% ground cover in all treatments

Teff Yield

• Teff harvested on 22 September (6 WAT)

• Sample weight and dry matter determined

Dry Matter Yield of Teff 6 WAT

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

10 oz 4 pt 2 qt 1 pt

Milestone Grazon 2,4-D Ester Rifle Check

Herbicide

DM

Yie

ld (

ton

/ A

)

NS NSNS

NS

NS

P ≤ 0.05

Milestone Grazon P+D

2,4-D Rifle

Control

Summary

• No difference in teff yield observed between treatments

• No visual difference in teff performance noted between treatments

• A more thorough investigation of herbicide application at different teff growth stages should be performed

QUESTIONS?