1

MARKETING AND PRODUCING GRASS FINISHED BEEFGary Davis

PRODUCING GRASS FED BEEF

What is Grass Fed Beef?

As the name implies “Grass Fed” beef is just that; an animal that spends it’s entire lifeon a forage diet with NO grain as a substitute. From birth to processing, the dietconsists entirely of grass and forage typical of what an animal would consume in anatural free range setting. This was the way of grazing animals were raised historicallyand the feeding of grain is a relatively new phenomenon in the livestock industry.

In our situation, animals selected for grass finishing are also chemical free. Noparaciticides, antibiotics, hormones etc. etc. Animals fatten naturally (and slowly) andare processed at the desired level of development. In our case this requires approx. 26to 28 months of age. Any of the selected animals that receive any of the abovechemicals are sold as regular beef.

Why Do We Produce Grass Fed Beef?

In our case, the production of grass fed beef was for the tremendous health benefitsthat accompany this type of production. A goal of our family farm was to produce thevery best food product that we were capable of producing and one of those food itemswas grass fed beef.

Some of the health benefits are:

- increased Omega 3 fatty acids (decreases the chances of heart disease and cancer)- decreased Omega 6 fatty acid (linked with several ailments including heart disease

and cancer)- increased Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) stimulates the immune system with a host

of benefits

These are only the more commonly known attributes of grass fed beef. The full scopeof health benefits of grass fed beef are only becoming known and the information isgrowing daily. (See recommended reading.)

We also grow grass fed beef for the following reasons;

- the use of livestock as a tool to improve our land , water and base resources- to grow livestock in a free range setting- to grow a crop that we could sell for profit

2

How Do We Produce Grass Fed Beef?

- cattle are selected for efficient growth in a free range, forage only setting- planned grazing, including extended spring and fall grazing on high quality pasture- May/June calving on pasture- heifers from the proper breeds make good candidates- animals are kept for at least 26 to 28 months, (in our case to achieve the desired

condition AAA grade if possible)- animals are processed after a minimum 90 days on a rising plane of nutrition- animals are dry aged 21 days prior to packaging

MARKETING

This is a high quality product and in our opinion there are no shortcuts. Honesty in theproduction of this product is paramount and the best result for marketing at this point intime, in my opinion, is the development of trust through “relationship marketing”.Relationship marketing is a relatively long process and develops slowly.

- we market the whole farm including; resource management, chemical free, quality oflife, low stress livestock handling, planned grazing, etc.

- know your product, are you developing a premium product that people will beprepared to pay a premium for?

- understand consumer needs;- not everyone wants a half a beef- not everyone has freezer storage (especially urban) for large quantities of beef- many people prefer “variety packs” of perhaps 50 lbs., can you supply storage for

the remainder?

Consumers to a large degree are not aware of what this product is or how beneficial it isfor them, therefore market demand at present is low. Few individual producers don’thave the time or financial resources to mount an educational campaign to address thisissue.

Is There A Profit?

At this stage, profit and marketing of large numbers of animals (several thousand)probably does not exist, especially when you consider the time required to develop theproduct and the current price of livestock, especially long yearlings.

Every producer has his own ideas of what this product should be, hence there istremendous variation in the actual product produced.

Relationship marketing which is the current trend in marketing develops only onecustomer at a time and is a tremendous drain on resources (especially human)

3

A small percentage of consumers are prepared to pay a premium but what’s thedemand for 10,000 or 20,000 head?

IN CLOSING . . .

Take time to know your product whatever it is and think outside the box; pasturedpoultry, pastured dairy, pastured pork etc. etc. The development of the industrydepends on the knowledge, ability and honesty of the producer. You can’t rush mothernature, but if you do your home work you probably won’t have too!

Recommended Reading:

Why Grass Fed is Best - Author, Jo RobinsonThe Stockman Grass Farmer magazine - Editor, Allan NationHolistic Management - Author, Allan SavoryNourishing Traditions - Author, Sally Fallon

4

PRACTICAL PASTURE FACILITIES THAT WORKLarry Fischer

Since the demise of the Crow Rate, many farmers are expanding their livestockoperations. Because of the dry spell out west, we also have some Alberta andSaskatchewan cattlemen moving into our province. In Manitoba, we are able to growan abundance of forage - some is being sold as hay and some is being fenced andpastured. Farmers are looking for cattle to graze this abundance of forage.

With more intensive grazing systems, water is being piped to the cattle. PFRA have acouple of plows that will bury your water line 18 inches underground. This works verywell for piping water to the paddocks of a grazing system. More and more, producersare also using reels and turbo wire to temporarily sub-divide paddocks or to make newones.

Manitoba is a diversified province with landscape and soil types that can change every10 – 20 miles. There are many different types of pasture systems and many differenttypes of livestock being pastured. Some of them are cow/calf, yearling cattle, dairycows, sheep, goats, elk, bison, and even chickens.

There are as many different pasture systems as you can imagine. In my presentation, Iam going to use pictures and diagrams to describe some of the different systems. I willbe looking at some very intense systems where the cattle are moved every day andsometimes twice a day. Some of these systems have the water piped out to thepaddocks. Most of these intense systems are yearlings on pasture and it is a full-timejob just moving cattle. The “not-so-intense” ones are systems where the cattle aremoved every other day or every 2 – 3 days. These can be yearlings or cow/calf. Fromthere on, cattle are moved once a week or once every 2 – 3 weeks.

All of these systems are very effective and it depends a lot on how much time you haveor want to spend with your cattle. Distance from home can be a problem, too! If theyare right at home, it is not hard to open another gate each day.

There are many different types of systems that all work very well for the circumstancessurrounding that particular farm. One system I will be looking at has a stocking rate of 2head per acre and the cattle are moved twice a day. Another system is 500 steers on 6quarters of land which is divided into 28 paddocks. The cattle are moved every day.Another ½ section (stocking rate of 1 head per acre) is divided into 20 – 10 acrepaddocks. These paddocks are sub-divided into 40 – 5 acre paddocks in May and Junewith cattle moved every day. After June, paddocks are back to 10 acres.

I will show a sheep grazing system that has 4 paddocks with another to be added thisyear. I will also show a goat grazing system where the goats are grazing 10 acre bushpaddocks.

5

There are as many grazing systems out there as there are farms. As long as you aresatisfied with the production of the grass and the performance of the cattle, then I guesswe could say your grazing system is working for you.

6

USING MULTIPLE SPECIES GRAZING TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITYBrian Greaves

I. Pasturing sheep and cattle together helps improve pasture quality.

1) Sheep will eat a lot of weeds that cattle will not eat2) More evenly grazed pastures provide better control of less palatable grasses

II. Pasturing sheep and cattle together provides economic benefits.

1) Production can be increased with less capital input2) Sheep are cheaper than cattle to buy and the annual input costs are less than

cattle3) Most producers should be able to add one sheep for every cow without

affecting their cattle production4) Running two species improves cash flow and reduces reliance on one market

III. Benefits of rotational grazing of sheep and cattle.

1) While sheep and cattle can be pastures using set stocking, rotational grazingresults in better pasture re-growth and cleaner pastures

2) Rotational grazing allows the worm reproduction cycle to be broken resultingin less internal worm burden

3) Better weight gains

IV. Disadvantages of pasturing sheep and cattle together.

1) Increased need for predator control2) There are start up costs because of the need for added fencing

V. The risk of disease transfer from sheep to cattle is very slight.

7

GROCERY LIST FOR YOUR GRAZING CATTLE ANIMALSRoger D.H. Cohen

INTRODUCTION

The grazing ecosystem is the most complex of all the agricultural ecosystems. Themodern cropping system is a monoculture. Care is taken to eliminate all competitionwith the use of herbicides. Any nutrient deficiencies in the soil are corrected with theapplication of fertilizer according soil test recommendations that are backed byextensive research. The plants are managed according to agronomic principlesdeveloped for the particular crop being grown following extensive research. The onlyunreliable factor is climate. Intensively housed animals (pigs, poultry, dairy cows andfeedlot beef cattle) are also raised as a monoculture. They are not dependent on thesoil type or fertility. They are largely independent of the climate other than short-termextremes of temperature. They are presented with a constant supply of feed that hasbeen carefully balanced for all known nutrient requirements in a form and amount thatextensive research has indicated is optimal for a required level of productivity. They aremanaged using standard husbandry practices recommended for a single product: pork,chicken, eggs, milk, beef. The grazing ecosystem, however, requires that two, or morefrequently several, plants with very different agronomic characteristics must bemanaged as a single unit, dependent on the soil, the climate and the defoliation habitsof sometimes more than one species of herbivore. The feed source is not constant inquantity or quality, changing frequently and subtly, even from day to day, depending onthe soil type, plant type(s), climate and species and class of herbivore. Furthermore,there is an astonishing lack of documented Canadian research on grazing managementand the nutrition and management of grazing herbivores, specifically cattle.

Energy intake in grazing cattle

Fibre, digestibility and passage rateThe amount of feed that grazing cattle will consume is controlled largely by rumen filland energy demand. Rumen fill is influenced by the herbage digestibility and the rate ofpassage of the indigestible portion of the diet. These two are closely related. Thegreater the digestibility, the greater the removal of fibre through the digestion processand the greater the absorption of the products of digestion. The faster the rate ofpassage, the greater the rate of removal of the indigestible fibre from the rumen to theintestines and the greater the desire for the ruminant animal to re-fill the rumen byeating more. The end result is an increase in the flow of energy to the animal.

Forage yield and availabilityThe greater the yield and availability of forage the greater the ability of the herbivore toselect a diet of high nutrient content. Also, the greater the bite size, the fewer thenumber of bites per unit of time, the shorter the time spent grazing and the greater thetime spent resting and ruminating. All these factors result in an increase in the flow ofenergy to the animal.

8

Plant acceptabilityA decrease in the number and degree of acceptable plants in the pasture will reduce thebite size, increase the bite rate and increase the time spent grazing in order to maintaina constant intake. The end result is that the energy cost of grazing is increased and netenergy flow to the animal is reduced.

Physiological state of the animalThe grazing animal will eat to satisfy its energy requirements for a particular level ofproduction. A lactating cow will eat more than a non-lactating cow of the same breed,weight and body condition until rumen fill or distension reaches a level that restrictsfurther intake. One research report suggested that a cow in late pregnancy increased itsrate of consumption by 27% by increasing bite size. Selection is less discriminate butenergy flow is ultimately increased. The consumption rate was further increased by 20%during early lactation and the time spent grazing increased by 7-12% in response toenergy demand. Sick or diseased animals will reduce their grazing intake by reducingthe time spent grazing, the rate of consumption and bite size.

Environmental factorsCold temperatures will increase rumen motility. This, in turn will increase the rate ofclearance of bulk from the rumen, stimulating and increase in intake. The reverseoccurs during periods of high temperature. Both these responses to temperature will beameliorated by behavioural responses of seeking shelter or shade. The ensuing effecton energy flow will depend greatly on the amount and quality of the available herbage.

Energy expenditure by grazing cattle

Laboratory studies have required cattle to walk on elevated treadmills while energyexpenditure was measured. The results indicated that cattle walking in a horizontalplane expended energy at a rate of 2J/kg/m while the extrapolated vertical componentwas 26J/kg/m. Clearly then, cattle required to forage in hilly country will expend moreenergy than cattle grazing pastures on level country.It has been estimated that energy is expended at a rate of 3-4kJ/h by grazing cattleduring eating and chewing. Similarly, energy expended during ruminating has beenestimated at 1-2kJ/h. Based on this information, the increase in metabolic rate abovemaintenance (energy expenditure) for cattle in pens or on open range can be calculated(Table 1).

Table 1. Increase in metabolic rate above resting for cattle in pens and on range whileperforming certain functions.________________________________________________Function Pens Range______________________________________________________Walking 6% 45%Grazing/eating 12% 30%Ruminating 4% 9%_______________________________________________

9

These increases are associated with the greater distance required for cattle to walk toobtain their feed and water on range compared with cattle in pens. They also spendmore time prehending their feed and more time spent ruminating because of the morefibrous nature of range forage compared with hay, silage and grains fed to pennedcattle. These, and other factors, result in cattle on seeded pasture and rangeland havingmaintenance energy requirements that are almost twice those of cattle in pens (Table2). The result is that less energy is available for production unless intake increases. Thisis difficult to achieve on forage diets unless rate of passage of the digesta through therumen is increased.

Table 2. The maintenance energy requirements of cattle at pasture and in pens.________________________________________________________

Maintenance Energy Requirements(KJ/W0.75/day)

________________________________________________________Pens 480Seeded pasture 740-830Rangeland 740-990________________________________________________________

Energy utilization

Carbohydrates make-up the largest proportion of substances present in plant matter.The digestible carbohydrates are fermented by the rumen microflora and microfaunaand the end products of this fermentation are the volatile fatty acids (VFA). The mostimportant VFAs are acetic, butyric and propionic acids. The greater the amount ofpropionic acid produced during the fermentation the more efficient is the transfer ofenergy from plants to the animal This is shown in the following diagram:

The VFA are a major source of energy for the ruminant animal. They are absorbed intothe blood stream and converted to glucose, glycogen and fat. The efficiency ofconversion of the energy in Pyruvic acid (CH3 - C0 - C00H) to these 3 VFA is not equal.Conversion of:

10

Acetic acid (CH3 - C00H) is 62% because CO2 and CH4 are lostPropionic acid (CH3 - CH2 - C00H) is 109% because 2 atoms of H are addedButyric acid (CH3 - CH2 - CH2 - C00H) is 48% because additional O2 is lost.

The amounts and proportions of the volatile fatty acids depend on the type of feed andthe populations of rumen micro-flora and –fauna providing the fermentation. Highcellulose diets, such as those consumed by range animals, lead to high proportions ofacetic acid in the fermentation products. The addition of more soluble carbohydrates,such as starch in grains, increases the amount of propionic acid produced and theefficiency of the transfer of energy from plant to animal. Thus the transfer of energy fromforage diets is less efficient than from diets containing concentrates (Table 3).

Table 3. Typical fermentation patterns of VFA from hay, grain and pasture by cattle. Acetic (%) Butyric (%) Propionic (%)

Good quality hay 60 9 25Hay + Grain 52 8 38Range/seeded pastureYoung green 65-70 10 20-25Mature dry 75-80 10 10-15

The partitioning of feed energy into energy retained in the tissues is therefore lessefficient in ruminants than in monogastric animals such as pigs and chickens and is lessin grazing cattle than in feedlot cattle. Figure 1 illustrates this flow of energy and theplaces in which energy is lost.

Figure 1. The partitioning of feed energy in ruminant animals. (aEnergy used in activityand obtaining nutrients is substantial in grazing cattle).

11

Protein intake of grazing cattle

Figure 2 describes the pathways between dietary N intake and protein synthesis in theruminant animal. This diagram is more complicated than Figure 1 because, unlikeenergy that passes through the system only once, nitrogen re-cycles within the ruminantjust as it recycles in soil-plant systems. Several noteworthy points arise from Figure 2:

1. Ruminants are unique among animals. They can utilize non-protein nitrogen (NPN)as a source of protein because of the ability of the rumen microbial population toconvert NPN into microbial protein that is digested in the small intestine andbecomes a very important source of amino acids for the ruminant.

2. Ruminants can partially offset a dietary protein deficiency by conserving ureaexcretion in the urine and diverting it back to the rumen via the saliva. Urea has avery high concentration of nitrogen.

NH2Feed grade (0 = C ) urea is 45% N or 281% CP equivalents. NH2

Once in the rumen, urea is rapidly hydrolyzed to NH3, which is rapidly absorbed throughthe rumen wall, and CO2, which is eructated to the atmosphere.

Figure 2. The pathways between dietary protein intake and protein metabolism in the ruminant.

12

Urea therefore provides no carbon skeleton for microbial protein synthesis. Therefore areadily available source of energy, such as molasses or processed grain, must beprovided simultaneously to provide the required carbon skeleton if the animal is toreceive maximum benefit from the urea. Keto acids (C=O) are a by-product ofcarbohydrate fermentation in the rumen and these provide the necessary carbonskeleton. These keto acids must be released rapidly before the NH3 is absorbedthrough the rumen wall.

The conversion of urea to protein is outlined below.

Microbial urease(i) Urea C02 + NH3

Microbial enzymes(ii) CH0 VFA + keto acids

Microbial enzymes(iii) Keto acids + NH3 Amino Acids

Microbial enzymes(iv) Amino acids microbial protein

Enzymes in abomasum& S.I.(v) Microbial protein Free amino acids

(vi) Free amino acids are absorbed.

Reactions (i) and (ii) must occur simultaneously.

3. Note also that protein can be used as an energy source by the conversion ofamino acids to glucose.

Distinguishing between deficiencies protein and energy in grazing cattle

It is difficult to distinguish between deficiencies of energy and protein in grazing animals.This is because the two are closely correlated. For example:

1. Low protein herbage also has a low digestibility.2. Protein deficiency in herbage leads to a protein deficit in the rumen. This reduces

microbial activity and herbage digestibility is reduced. This in turn reduces thetransfer of energy from the plant to the animal but it also reduces the rate of passageof the digesta and herbage intake is decreased, further reducing the energyavailable for transfer to the animal. Thus, a protein deficiency may indirectly causean energy deficiency.

3. Apart from the influence of protein intake on rumen function, the amount of proteinreaching the small intestine also influences the amount of herbage consumed. Thiswas demonstrated nearly 40 years ago by the infusion of casein (milk protein)

13

directly into the duodenum via a cannula. Casein infused animals consumed moreherbage than animals infused with the same volume of liquid as water. Thus theimportance of the non-microbial protein ('by-pass' or non-degradable rumen protein)entering the rumen was established.

It is often claimed that energy is the first limiting factor to animal productivity on pasture.This has been based on studies which have indicated that the amount of nitrogenpresent as NH3 in the rumens of animals consuming low quality herbage was always inexcess of the amount of N required by the rumen micro-organisms to sustain the levelof fermentation (VFA production) taking place. Thus it has been assumed that herbageintake, and subsequent productivity has been limited by the digestibility of the herbageconsumed or the ability of the microorganisms to digest the herbage and liberate itsenergy to the ruminant animal in the form of VFA. This is also supported by the generallack of response to urea supplements given to cattle at pasture compared with thepositive response when urea supplements are fed to cattle consuming high grain diets,such as in a feedlot.

While this is true at the rumen level it is not the whole story. This was first demonstratedin a series of experiments with cattle on winter range in Australia. Cattle were givensupplements of \sorghum grain (high energy/low protein) and by-pass protein (proteinwhich was poorly degraded in the rumen but which was digested and absorbed in thesmall intestine). The supplements were given in factorial combinations such that theenergy concentration in rghum and protein was the same. The pasture was dormantgrass pasture in winter with an organic matter digestibility of 40% and crude proteincontent of 3.6%. The protein supplement was a mixture of 70% cottonseed meal, 20%meatmeal and 10% fishmeal and with a non-degradable rumen fraction of 73%. Theresults of those experiments are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The effect of feeding an energy (sorghum) or protein (cottonseed, fish and meat-meals)on herbage intake of grazing beef cattle.

For every unit of metabolizable energy (ME) provided in the sorghum supplement therewas a reduction in ME intake from the herbage (i.e. the sorghum energy became a

14

substitute for herbage energy). The corresponding increase in liveweight gain wassmall, indicating that the energy limitations of the range herbage were only small. Onthe other hand, there was a substantial increase in ME intake from the herbage withincreasing levels of protein supplement and a correspondingly large increase inliveweight gain. Production data from that experiment are shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6.

Table 4. The effect of protein and energy supplements on weight gains of steers grazing winterrange in Australia from 6 to 15 months of age._________________________________________________

ADG(kg/day)

No supplement -0.04560 g sorghum/daya +0.10

600 g by-pass protein/daya +0.35a Supplements formulated to provide the same amount of gross energy

Table 5. The effects of a protein supplement on weight gain and pregnancy rate of heifersgrazing winter range in Australia from 0 to 15 months of age.________________________________________________________

ADG Pregnancy (kg/day) (%)

No supplement -0.08 0800 g by-pass protein/day +0.5 92

______

Table 6. The effects of protein supplements on herbage intake and liveweight change of cows45-90 days post partum and on milk yield measured on day 71.________________________________________________________________

Amount of Protein Supplement (g/kg W0.75) 0 5.3 10.6 15.9 21.2

Herbage Intake (kg DOM/day) 4.41 5.41 6.63 7.97 7.44Liveweight Change (kg/day) -2.40 -2.37 -0.99 -0.06 +0.08Milk Yield Day 71 (kg)† 2.3 2.8 3.6 4.4 4.5 † Calves were creep fed during the experiment so that their production data are not related to cowsupplementation and are not included.

Similar data have been reported from USA and Canada (Tables 7 and 8)

15

Table 7. The effect of cottonseed cake supplement on intake and weight change of steers grazingblue grama grass in New Mexico from January to May.

Control CottonseedCake

Intake (g/kg BW) 10.8 12.9Weight Change (kg/d) -0.03 0.24

Table 8. The effect of canola meal supplements on cow weight changes when grazing roughfescue pasture in Alberta from December 1993 to January 1994.

Canola Supplement(kg/d)

Weight Change(kg)

Back Fat(mm)

0 -35.1 -1.050.4 -46.1 -0.940.8 -25.1 -0.561.2 -19.5 -0.44

It is immediately apparent from data in Tables 4-8 that there is a gradation in responsesto protein supplementation in Australia, USA and Alberta. This is probably associatedwith the protein supplement fed. In Australia, the combination protein was 27% rumendegradable. The degradability of the protein used in USA and Alberta was not reported.However, the average degradability of cottonseed cake is 34% and of canola meal is55%. Canola meal is the cheapest and most readily available protein supplement on thePrairies but it is more readily degraded in the rumen than the protein supplements usedin Australia and USA. The small response to canola supplementation is not likely to beeconomically viable.

Pasture characteristics and their influence on the nutrition of grazing cattle

The challenge in managing a grazed pasture system is to balance the nutrientrequirements of the animal with the nutrient supply from the pasture. Pasture growthstarts in early to mid-spring and is rapid until early summer then begins to slowlydepending on the temperature and soil moisture as it enters the reproductive phase. Bylate summer there is very little growth and the pasture is beginning to move into asenescent phase. As the temperature begins to fall and provided adequate soil moistureis present, grazed plants will begin to produce tillers (new shoots) and re-growth willoccur. The extent of the re-growth will vary with the species of plant, temperature, soilmoisture and the severity of grazing defoliation (Figure 4). Concurrently, the nutrientrequirements of grazing steers will continue to increase as they gain weight and bodycondition (Figure 4). During spring and early summer these nutrients can be obtainedentirely from new growth but as the season progresses, an increasing amount of thesenutrients will come from old growth which is now entering the reproductive phase andeventually senescing and becoming mature (Figure 4).

16

May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Figure 4. Relationship between pasture growth and the requirements of grazing steers.

A similar situation applies when pasture is grazed by cows and calves (Figure 5). In thiscase the requirements of the cow increase rapidly during early lactation and thengradually decrease as lactation declines. However, the requirements of energy�fromthe pasture for the calf continue to increase as forage becomes more important thanmilk as the source of nutrients. Thus at the end of the grazing season the total energyrequired by the cow and calf from the pasture is at its highest level.

Figure 5. Theoretical energy requirements of a cow and calf grazing pasture.

However, as can be seen in Figure 6, the quality and palatability of the pasturedecreases as the plants move from the vegetative phase to the mature and finally thedormant phases. At the same time, the fibre and lignin contents of the plants increase.

Pasture

Steer

Growth >

Growth <

17

Figure 6. The effect of plant phenology on forage quality

Thus, as steer or calf nutrient requirements are increasing, nutrient supply isdecreasing. This means that the rate of gain declines and eventually, if the steer or calfis not supplemented or removed from the pasture they will begin to lose weight andcondition (Figure 7).

ADG

Spring Summer Fall

Figure 7. The average daily gain (ADG) of a calf or yearling steer or heifer grazingpasture from spring to fall.

There are a number of ways to alleviate these problems:

1. Use a complementary grazing system. Rather than graze a single pasture all season(continuous grazing) provide the cattle with 2 or 3 pastures. These pastures shouldcomplement each other. For example provide one pasture of early growing speciessuch as crested wheatgrass. This pasture will commence growth early in the springand provide ample good quality pasture until the end of June or early July and isbest utilized during this period. By early to mid-summer crested wheatgrass will be at

18

the peak of its reproductive phase, growth will cease, its palatability will be reducedand its quality will rapidly decline. This will signal that it is time to move the cattle toanother pasture. The second pasture should consist of later growing species withpeak production and good quality during the summer months. Examples may bemeadow bromegrass or orchard grass. By late summer or early fall this pasture willhave passed its prime and cattle should be moved to a pasture which holds itsquality better into the fall months. An example would be Russian wild ryegrass.Although this grass is an early grower it can provide reasonable quality feed into thefall. However, it is slow to establish and requires patience during the establishmentstage.

2. Seed a legume with the grass. The most common legume used on the prairies isalfalfa. There are 2 concerns with the use of alfalfa. The first is the fear of bloat andthe second is its suspect persistence in a pasture with an aggressive grass.However, there are several advantages. Legumes add nitrogen to the soil. Legumesmaintain good nutritional value (high protein and digestibility) throughout their annualcycle of growth. Legumes are preferred and actively selected by cattle in a mixedgrass/legume pasture. Legumes increase the rate of passage of digesta through therumen which increases herbage intake, and hence energy and protein intake.

3. Consider using a rotational grazing system. There is a lot of variation in the researchliterature concerning the value of rotational grazing. There are probably as manyreports that indicate no difference between continuous and rotation grazing as thereare reports indicating a worthwhile difference. This is often associated with thenumber of paddocks used in the rotation and the species of plants in the pasture.Rotation grazing should provide more uniform utilization of the pasture but it isimportant to allow sufficient time for a grazed pasture to recover before being re-grazed. If used correctly, a rotation system can delay the start of the reproductivephase in grasses and stimulate the growth of new vegetative tillers. This helps tomaintain the nutritional value of the pasture. Recovery will depend on soil moistureand fertility and the severity of grazing.

4. The application of nitrogen fertilizer will increase the growth of a grass pasture andallow an increase in the stocking rate. It may also increase the length of the grazingseason. The response to fertilizer will depend on the availability of moisture, thereliability of precipitation, soil type and species of pasture. Research has consistentlyindicated that fertilizer can illicit a powerful response in both pasture and animalproduction. However it is most important to use sufficient fertilizer to illicit theresponse and to apply it before the grass starts to grow.

5. Provide an appropriate supplement. It is more efficient to creep feed calves than tosupplement the cows in order to maintain milk production. The energy cost oflactation is high and it is more efficient to feed the energy directly to the calf.Supplementary feeding of cows at pasture should only be considered in order tomaintain body weight and condition. The feeding of a barley supplement to steers atpasture can make the difference between turning off a backgrounded or a finishedsteer.

To illustrate this last point, I will refer to the research of Drs. Popp and McCaughey andothers at Brandon. This is the most comprehensive grazing study yet undertaken in

19

Canada. They studied the effects of two grazing systems (continuous vs a 10 paddockrotation) and 2 stocking rates (1.1 and 2.2 steers/ha or approximately 2 or 1 acres/steer)The steers grazed the alfalfa/meadow brome/Russian wild rye pastures for 4 years.Measurements included: botanical composition, pasture yield and quality, steerliveweight gain, herbage intake and the digestibility and protein content of the herbageeaten. In the third year, they sent 1/3 of the steers to slaughter directly off pasture, fed 1/3for 33 days and the remaining 1/3 for 75 days in a feedlot. I have simulated theirexperiment on a computer using the GrassGro decision support tool. The observed andsimulated average daily gains of the steers are shown in Figure 8. There was nostatistical difference between the real data and the simulated data.

Figure 8. Comparison of observed and predicted ADG of steers grazing alfalfa/grasspastures continuously (C) or rotationally (R) at stocking rates of 1.1/ha (L) and 2.2/ha(H) at Brandon 1991-1994.

In the third year of the experiment, 31% of the steers slaughtered directly off pasturefailed to meet the standards for Canada Grade A because of insufficient marbling.Feeding a 50:50 barley:hay ration in a feedlot for 33-d resulted in all steers having atleast the minimum requirement of marbling for Canada Grade A, while feeding for 75-dresulted only in an increase in liveweight and meat color. The final liveweight of thesteers fed for 33-d and 75-d was 619 and 660 kg respectively. GrassGro predictedliveweights of 616 and 670 kg and condition scores of 3.6 and 4.0 on d-33 and 75respectively when the feedlot phase was simulated.

20

The pasture trial was then simulated again but this time GrassGro was instructed tosupplement barley to the steers at pasture so that they would reach a target weight of620 kg at the end of each pasture season. In this case the first year was omittedbecause there was a delay in purchasing the steers and a hay cut was taken in Junebefore the steers entered the pastures. The results of the second simulation are shownin Table 9. The predicted end liveweights were at or close to 620 kg except during 1992,which was a low rainfall year. However the body condition scores always exceeded 4.4on a scale of 1 to 5 suggesting that the steers would have been finished at the end ofeach pasture season, negating any need for further feeding in a feedlot.

Table 9. Predicted final liveweight (Lwt) and body condition score (BCS) of steersgrazing alfalfa/grass pastures at stocking rates of 1.1 (L) and 2.2 (H) steers/ha incontinuous (C) and rotational (R) grazing systems at Brandon Manitoba 1992-1994 withand without a barley supplement fed so that the steers would reach a final targetliveweight of 620 kg and the total amount of barley required to reach that target.

CL CH RL RHFinal Lwt (kg) - no barley199219931994

473563521

460524455

506563515

450534488

Final Lwt (kg) - with barley199219931994

605620618

601614619

616620620

582620617

Final BCS - no barley199219931994

3.03.73.4

3.03.33.0

3.23.73.2

3.03.33.0

Final BCS - with barley199219931994

4.74.44.7

4.74.54.8

4.74.44.5

4.54.44.6

Total barley supplemented (t/head)199219931994

0.5950.2930.455

0.6100.4160.674

0.5040.2870.483

0.5770.4130.565

GrassGro uses the net energy system to calculate energy flow and therefore predictsmethane emissions. In the fourth year of the Brandon experiment, methane emissionsfrom the steers were measured during two 3-d periods. Observed and predictedmethane emissions for 1994 are shown in Table 10. Table 10 also presents thepredicted methane emissions for the three years 1992-1994 using the target finishedweight of 620 kg whether the steers were finished in the feedlot or at pasture with abarley supplement.

21

Table 10. Observed and predicted methane emissions of steers grazing alfalfa/grasspastures at stocking rates of 1.1 (L) and 2.2 (H) steers/ha in continuous (C) androtational (R) grazing systems at Brandon Manitoba in 1994 and predicted emissions ifsteers were finished in a feedlot or at pasture with a barley supplement 1992-1994.

CL CH RL RHCH4 (g/d) 1994ObservedPredicted

219.8282.8

173.6255.9

200.8281.8

189.1274.3

Total CH4 (kg) Pasture + Feedlot199219931994Mean

52.856.254.354.4

53.054.558.055.2

58.457.059.358.2

45.954.148.949.6

CH4 (kg) Pasture + barley199219931994Mean

31.047.938.339.1

29.840.935.035.2

36.049.143.142.7

27.147.139.137.8

Predicted methane emissions were significantly greater than those measured in thefield. However, field measurement of methane emissions from grazing cattle is verydifficult and there was no guarantee that all the methane emitted was collected. Inaddition, methane was measured during only 2 short 3-d periods and collections weremade for only 8 hours on each day. Although the technique used was the best availableand there is no doubt that great care was taken with the experimental methods, these,like all field techniques for estimation of nutritional parameters in animals, arenevertheless subject to error. GrassGro makes all its predictions on a daily time step for24 hours each day. However, no claim can be made for the accuracy of either theobserved or predicted data. Nevertheless, the increasing order of methane emissionwas CH, RH, RL, CL for both observed and predicted estimates. It can be concludedfrom the predictions in Tables 9 and 10 that the steers could have been finished forslaughter directly off pasture if given a barley supplement with a significant reduction inCH4 emissions.

Further reading

G.C. Fahey, Jr. (ed). 1994. Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. American Societyof Agronomy, Crop Science and Soil Science Societies of America, Inc., Madison, WI.

R.K. Heitschmidt and J.W. Stuth. 1991. Grazing management. An ecologicalperspective. Timber Press Inc. Portland, OR.

D.J. Minson. 1990. Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, Inc. Toronto.J.F. Valentine, 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, Inc. Toronto.

22

EMERGING DISEASES OF GRAZING ANIMALSDr. Terry Whiting

INTRODUCTION

A disease is normally thought of as some condition, usually transmissible to other cattlewhich makes the animal uncomfortable (death the ultimate discomfort). Disease almostalways costs money by production loss or increased input costs to treat or prevent.Probably the most important malady affecting beef producers is lack of income. Somediseases are easy to recognize such as pink eye and some are almost invisible such asinternal parasites. In general everyone should spendone dollar to make two and that is the principal behindgood management.

Animal Health Management

Animal health management includes managing yourbreeding season and calving areas, vaccinations,deworming, and use of veterinarians as resources.Vaccines can generally be grouped as respiratory,reproductive, clostridia and BVD. BVD or bovine virusdiarrhea virus is a pathogen that interacts with manyother infectious agents causing ill health in cow-calfherds.

An evaluation of how important preventable disease is in your herd should be used as aguide to development of a preventative health program. If spending $1 on a vaccinationprogram will prevent $2 in disease impact then it is money well spent. Animal healthprograms include management practices such as having special calving areas,observation of their cows and heifers for calving problems, and assisting when suchproblems occur. Producers having a special calving area, such as barns, calving lots, orcalving pastures, are more likely to show a profit than producers who do not managecalving in this way.

Vaccinating calves for clostridia and breeding cattle for BVD are extremely costeffective. BVD is probably the most important infectious disease of beef cattle inwestern Canada. All producers should have a farm biosecurity plan to prevent thecycling of BVD within their herd.

Cull Cow Management

Cull cows make up 15 to 20 percent of the beef cow-calf herd income. They alsorepresent lost production potential if genetically superior cows are being culled beforethey reach the end of their productive life. Heifers that do not breed back after their firstcalf are particularly important source of lost revenue because they have the best genetic

Respiratory vaccinations forpreweaned calves included IBR,BVD, PI3, BRSV, and Hemophilussomnus.Reproductve vaccinations forbreeding stock included IBR, BVD,camplyobacter, and Hemophilussomnus.Clostridial vaccinations for bothpreweaned calves and breedingstock included C. chauvoei, C.septicum, C. perfringens C and D,and other clostridial vaccinations.

23

and production potential. If producers can minimize forced culls (those due to non-pregnancy, disease, etc.), they will retain eligible females in the herd longer andpotentially be more profitable. Genetics can also be improved by culling older animalsinstead of the younger females that represent the best genetics.Good reasons to cull cows include, proven poor production due to genetics, like an earlyborn calf which is small in the fall, or because the cow does not fit the managementstyle of the herd because of size or temperament. Unfortunately few cows actually areculled for these reasons. Most cows are culled because they wore out (poor productiondue to age), they failed to get in calf or because the producer needs money to meet acash flow pinch (Fig. 1).

Comparing Profitable and Unprofitable Cow-Calf Operations

An historical approach to improving farm income is to adopt production practices usedby profitable farmers. Operations with positive returns show a general trend towardoptimum production rather than maximum production. For example, in a 1995 NAHMSstudy profitable operations weaned slightly fewer pounds per exposed cow thannegative-return operations (422 lbs. vs. 428 lbs.). This implies that the negative-returnproducers were spending more to obtain a few extra pounds than what those poundswere worth in the market place. With no advantage in productivity, positive-returnoperations achieved their high returns through increased efficiency, cost containment,and receiving better market prices. An example of better efficiency is average age offirst calving for replacement heifers. Three-quarters of the positive-return operations hadtheir replacement heifers calving at 24 months compared to one-half of the negative-return operations.

The cost of veterinary medicine is actually a minor production cost in cow-calfproduction. There may be a perception that we can save money by not calling theveterinarian, where there is no option to not feed the cows. In fact the biggest singledeterminant of profitability is debt load. In the NAHMS study the investment value for

Temperment1%

Poor Production

6%

Open

Age/Teeth

Need$

Need$

Temperment

Udder

Respiratory

Bad Eye

Lame

Age/Teeth

Poor Production

Reproductive

Open

Other

Figure 1. Actual reasons forbeef producers culling cowsin the USA.Source: USDA's NationalAnimal Health MonitoringSystem (NAHMS) Beef '97Study included 2,713producers from 23 of theleading cow-calf states. Thisstudy represented 85.7percent of all U.S. beef cowson January 1, 1997, and77.6 percent of all U.S.operations with beef cows.No comparable study hasbeen completed in Canada.

24

Investment Per Beef Cow

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cur

rent

Ass

ets

Live

stoc

k

Mac

hine

ry

Rea

lE

stat

e

Oth

er

Deb

t Per

Cow

1992

US

$

Negative ReturnPositive Return

Figure 2: In terms of debt percow, negative-return producersowed $530, $255 more thanpositive-return producers. At 10percent interest, this debtdifferential would have resulted in$6.42/cwt less revenue in thepockets of negative-returnproducers.

About 80% of the difference ininvestment cost was related to thedifferential cost of land.

negative-return operations was $1841 more per cow ($3,870 vs. $2,029) than forpositive return operations. This additional investment at a relatively low capital charge of6 percent would result in an extra cost of weaned calves of almost $26.00/cwt. Eightypercent of the difference in investment was attributable to real estate value. Given themarket value of their land and buildings, negative-return producers were not producingenough beef per acre to make the land pay for itself (Fig. 2).

Animal Disease - Risk Management

The production costs related to animal disease are calculated both at the input and theoutput side of the ledger. If you have a production disease problem you have to inputmore medications, feed and effort per pound ofproduct. On the output end, the pounds ofproduct you produce may be of less averagevalue related to needle injuries, drug residue orgrading demerits of the carcass.

Manitoba has Canada's third largest beef cowherd, after Alberta and Saskatchewan, with 12.4percent of the nation's beef cows and more than1.4 percent of total North American beef cows in2000. In 2000, Manitoba's 10,295 beef cattleproducers marketed almost 475,000 head forslaughter or sale out of the province. Marketings were down by 62,000 head from the1999 level, mainly due to more animals being kept on farms for further feeding and salein early 2001. The value of 535,000 cattle produced in 2000 (including an increase ininventory of 60,000 head) was close to $500 million, about one-sixth of the total value ofagricultural production in the province. Over 97% of commercial beef cattle operationswere cow-calf with many producers retaining and/or buying calves for further feeding tobe sold as "stockers", "short-keeps" or for slaughter. The remaining 3 percent of

Emerging Diseases In Cow-Calf

• Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD)• Trichomonas fetus• Johne’s Disease• Neospora caninum• Anthrax• M. bovis (bovine tuberculosis)• Agri-terrorism - Foreign Animal Disease

(FAD)

25

commercial operations were feedlots, the largest of which had a capacity of 10,500head.

Manitoba has the potential to significantly increase the number of cattle fed to slaughterweight in the province. Less than one third of the calves produced are fed to slaughterweight, the remainder being sold as calves, as stockers or as heavy feeders. As withthe swine industry Manitoba calf producers sell live animals out of the province. Anydisease that may impact our market accessibility for live cattle sales could be verydetrimental to profitability. In one way diseases can be seen to be either primarily"production limiting" or "trade limiting". BVD is a classic production limiting disease as itis endemic and we either vaccinate, and live with mild disease or cross our fingers andhope for the death angel to pass over. Foot and mouth disease is the archetypal tradelimiting disease. For all disease, we as producers need to manage the risk.

Risk can be seen as the probability (P) that something bad will happen times the impact(I) of the occurrence. Or R = P X I. The risk (or cost) of a BVD outbreak in your herd isconsiderable as the probability of field exposure to pregnant heifers is pretty high,especially in large or mixed herds. Also, the impact of heifer abortions and the birth ofpersistently infected calves causing diarrhea (also Pasture pneumonia) outbreaks inyoung calves in the next season is also considerable. In the case of foot and mouthdisease, the risk can also be considered as high, in spite of the fact the probability isvery small. If an outbreak were to occur, there is a reasonable probability that the tradeembargoes and delays in eradication could bankrupt a significant portion of producers;therefore, "risk" is considerable.

Anthrax

Anthrax is a great disease to use as an example of risk management. Anthrax gets a lotof headlines because the Impact half of the equation is so prominent. The disease iscaused by Clostridium anthracis a close relative of the clostridia that cause blackleg.Death in the animal is caused by a toxin production and the bacteria can survive forlong periods of time in the soil. The reason that Anthtax rates a near zero on a "risk"scale is that the probability of having an animal die of anthrax is near zero (Fig.3).

Emerging Diseases

AnthraxRisk = Probability X Impact

1. Probability of infection?• About 25 cases documented in 30 years of cattle production

in Manitoba2. Cattle years risk

(30 years X 500,000 cattle/year) = 15 million cattle years ofrisk

Risk = 25/15 million X $850.00 (Value of a dead cow)= $0.00136

3. Risk CalculationFor a vaccine that protected 80% of the time, to be costeffective it would have to cost less than .13 cents to purchaseand vaccinate a cow.

Figure 3. A simplemathematical model toassist in decidingwhether to vaccinateyour herd for Anthrax. Itis clear from thisexample that somediseases are so rare thatit is unwise to take anystep to prevent them asany step costs financialinput for which there isno return.

Risk = Probability of occurring X Impact of occurrence

26

Trichomonas fetus

T. fetus is a protozoan parasite which survives onlyin the reproductive tract of cattle. There are nocurrent trade implications of this disease. It occurssporadically in western Canada. The PFRA pastureshave taken various risk management approaches tokeep the impact of this disease to a minimum. Theagent generally over winters in the prepuce of bullsmore than 4 years old and there are occasionalcarrier cows. It is rated as a low risk as theprobability is low and the impact moderate, on theaverage herd. Economical risk mitigation is to testold bulls especially if you have loaned them out.

Johne's DiseasePronounced "Yo-knees" disease, it is a bacterial cause ofdiarrhea in mature cattle. There is a credible weakconnection between the bacteria Mycobacteriumparatuberculosis and Crohn's disease a severe chronicdiarrhea in people. Current level of disease in Manitoba beefcattle is very low (MCPA Beef Project); however, the "Risk"is moderate as there is a potential trade restrictionsdeveloping as US implements control programs. Also, the

impact on productivity in infected herds can be considerable. If the human infection isever documented the impact on the beef industry will be large. Public concerns aboutthe human health threat of this disease are one of the most common concernsexpressed to the MCPA.

Neospora caninum

Neospora is a newly recognized infective agent that was first identified as aToxoplasma-like protozoa in dogs with infection of the brain and muscle. Neospora hasbeen reported in various species of livestock, including cattle, sheep, goats, and horses.Recently neosporosis has emerged as an important reproductive disease in bovine.Neospora abortion was diagnosed in 24% of the dairy cattle abortion (California). Thedog has recently been identified as the definitivehost.

It is now recognized that N. caninum oocysts areshed transiently in the feces of acutely infecteddogs can be infective to cattle by the ingestion.However; the primary route of cattle diseasetransmission is transplacentally where infectedcows and heifers give birth to congenitallyinfected calves.

Neospora• Seropositive means the cow is infected• In a herd outbreak in Canada seropositive

cows were 6.2X as likely to be open in thefall than seronegative cows.

• Seropositive cows are at increased risk toabort, have a stillbirth and to be culled forother reasons (around 6X).

• In a study in Texas infected feedlot calvesunder performed at a cost of about $16.00US per calf.

27

Bio Violence

The impact of Neospora in beef cattle is incompletely documented. In 8 beef herds inAlberta seropositive cows were at increased risk of abortion, stillbirth, and being culledfor any reason than seronegative cows. Point source outbreaks of Neospora abortion inbeef herds has also been reported, and have resulted in losses of up to 40% of theexpected calf crop. In addition to reproductive impacts, individual calves seropositive attime of entry to the feedlot have been shown to be at risk of poor growth performance,increased morbidity and decreased economic return. The MCPA survey indicated thatthere was a low level of Neospora in the provincial cattle herd with probably about 25%of herds having an infection rate above 5%.

Agri-Terrorism

In all previous planning for outbreaks offoreign animal disease (FAD) in NorthAmerica, there was only consideration ofaccidental introduction. The events of 01-09-11 in New York and Washington havechanged the perception of risk related toFAD.For industries that depend heavily onforeign market access, the impact of even alimited introduction of FAD would beimmense. If a FAD is intentionallyintroduced the resultant outbreak probablywould not be limited.

References

Antony A, Williamson NB. Recent advances in the epidemiology of Neospora caninumin cattle. New Zeal Vet J 2001; 49:42-47

Tucker, JB Historical Trends Related to Bioterrorism: An Empirical Analysis. EmergInfect Dis Vol 5 (1999) 498-504

Horst HS, DeVos CJ, Tomassen FHM, Stelwahen J. The economic evaluation of controland eradication of epidemic livestock diseases. Rev Sci Tech 1999. 18(2):367-379Krystynak RHE, Charlebois PA. The potential economic impact of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth-disease in Canada. 1987. Can Vet J 28:8 523-527

Brown CC, Slenning BD. Impact and risk of foreign animal disease. J Amer Vet MedAssn 1996. 208:1038-1040

Whittington RJ, Sergeant ES. Progress towards understanding the spread, detectionand control of Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis in animal populations. AustVet J 2001 Apr;79(4):267-78

Bio-terrorism"the risk caused bypotential deliberateacts to destabilisethe health status of apopulation throughdisease or otherhealth threats".

Bio-security“health plan ormeasuresdesigned toprotect apopulation fromtransmissibleinfectiousdiseases”

Includingresponse

28

Chamberlin W, Graham DY, Hulten K, El-Zimaity HMT, Schwartz MR, Naser S,Shafran I, El-Zaatari FAK Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis as one causeof Crohn’s disease Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 15 (3), 337-346

Stabel JR. Johne's disease and milk: do consumers need to worry? J Dairy Sci 2000Jul;83(7):1659-63

29

INTEGRATED CROP GRAZING SYSTEMSM.H. Entz

SUMMARY

Cultivated forage crops are grown on almost 12 million hectares on the Northern GreatPlains. This paper reviews the benefits of diversifying annual crop rotations with foragecrops, and highlights innovations in forage systems. Agronomic benefits of rotatingforage crops with annual grain crops include higher grain crop yields following forages(up to 13 years in one study); shifts in the weed population away from arable cropweeds, and improved soil quality. Perennial legumes in rotation also reduce energyrequirements by adding significant amounts of N to the soil. Soil water availability maylimit the extent to which forages benefit following crops. Under semi-arid conditions,forages can actually reduce yields of the following crops, and as such, soil waterconserving tillage practices have been developed to partially address this problem.Forages in rotation provide environmental benefits, such as C sequestration, criticalhabitat for wildlife, and reduced nitrate leaching. A wider range of annual plant speciesare now used in forage systems in an effort to extend the grazing season, and tomaximize use of water resources. Intensive pasture management using cultivatedforages is on the increase, as is the use of alfalfa in grazing systems; in some casesusing bloat-reduced alfalfa cultivars. Pasture-based systems appear to provide benefitsfor both animal and human health, and arguably the health of the environment. Pasturesystems are less nutrient exhausting than hay systems. As a result, nutrientmanagement strategies will differ in the following crop. Additional research is required tooptimize the role of cultivated pastures in grain-based cropping systems.

Objectives

Objectives of this paper are: 1) to review agronomic, economic, and environmentalbenefits and risks of diversifying cropping systems with forage crops; 2) identify meansto enhance the positive attributes of forages in NGP cropping systems, and to makeforages a more important component of the cropping system; and 3) to highlightresearch challenges for the future.

Rotational Benefits of Forages in Northern Great Plains Cropping Systems

Forage benefits have received less attention in the NGP than elsewhere, such as thehumid U.S. midwest, where alfalfa has traditionally been rotated with grain crops, orareas of Australia, where unique self-regenerating forage species are grown in grain-based cropping systems (Grace et al., 1995). The short growing season and relativelydry conditions (i.e., low precipitation and high evaporative demand for water) in the NGPwill modify rotational benefits of forages relative to wetter areas.

Some of the best information on forage rotational benefits in the NGP have come fromlong-term crop rotation studies, many of which were established soon after Europeansettlement in the U.S. (Stoa and Zubriski, 1969) and Canada (Campbell et al., 1990).

30

Rotational Yield Benefits

Many NGP researchers have reported rotational yield benefits from perennial forages.In a long-term (1912 to 1956) study in Fargo, ND, Stoa and Zubriski (1969) reportedthat wheat yields were 50% higher from land previously cropped to alfalfa for threeyears than from non-legumes such as corn (Zea mays L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)or flax (Linum usitatissimum L.). Similar results continue to be reported from twoongoing classical long-term crop rotation studies in western Canada; The University ofAlberta’s Breton Plots (initiated in 1930) (Ellert, 1995) and the Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada’s long-term study at Indian Head, SK (initiated in 1958) (Campbell et al., 1990),as well as studies at Melfort, SK (Campbell et al., 1990), Winnipeg, MB (Poyser et al.,1957), and Lethbridge, AB (Ellert, 1995).

In a survey of Manitoba and Saskatchewan forage producers, 71% of respondentsindicated higher grain yields after forages than in annual crop rotations (Entz et al.,1995). Rotational yield benefits were greatest in eastern and northern zones and lowestin drier, western and southern zones. In one of the best studies ever published on thelong-term residual yield benefits of including forage in a cropping system (McLennan,AB), Hoyt (1990) reported that for the first eight years after forage termination, wheatyields were 66 to 114% greater after forage relative to continuous wheat. Yielddifferences started to decline after eight years, although wheat yields in the alfalfasystems were still higher (P<0.05) than the control in the 10th and 13th year after swardbreaking.

In areas of the NGP where water seriously limits crop productivity, inclusion of perennialforages can reduce crop yield in following crops due to forage-induced drought. Workingin west-central Saskatchewan, Brandt and Keys (1982) determined that available soilwater in spring was lower after a 2-yr alfalfa crop than in a continuous grain rotation. Afull year of fallow was insufficient to fully replenish the soil profile with water in the alfalfarelative to the grain system. In central Saskatchewan, Austenson et al. (1970) reportedthat alfalfa in rotation depressed wheat yield in the first crop after breaking even after afull year of summerfallow. Interestingly, they observed that alfalfa with bromegrass(Bromus inermis Leyss.) or bromegrass alone did not affect wheat yields significantly.Others (e.g., C.A. Campbell, 2000, personal communication) have suggested that lowcereal yields after alfalfa could be due to allelopathic effects from alfalfa, and sucheffects are greatest under dry soil conditions. However, no studies have beenconducted to substantiate this suggestion.

In wetter areas of the NGP, these water depleting characteristics of alfalfa and otherperennial forages are often viewed as desirable. For example, de-wateringcharacteristics of perennial forages play an important role in soil salinity management.Soil salinization is a threat to the long-term sustainability of crop production onapproximately 25% of NGP cropland (Morrison and Kraft, 1994). Examples ofsuccessful salinity control with alfalfa (Eilers, p. 78 as cited in Morrison and Kraft, 1994)and perennial grasses (D. Wentz, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development,

31

1996, personal communication) have been documented. Hoyt and Leitch (1983)reported that the subsoil (60 to 135 cm) de-watering effect with perennial legumeslasted for at least two years after stand termination, and that alfalfa provided greater de-watering benefits than red clover. De-watering benefits with alfalfa on a clay soil inManitoba resulted in higher wheat yields in alfalfa-based vs. annual grain-basedrotations (Forster, 1998).

Grazing management and plant species impact soil water availability and potentialevapotranspiration. Perennials begin to de-water soil as soon as growth begins in thespring (April), whereas annuals only begin to reduce soil available water when groundcover has been achieved (mid June) (Twerdorff et al., 1999a). In research in centralAlberta, greater evapotranspiration by perennials reduced surface (0 to 7.5 cm) soilwater more than annuals until mid July, after which annuals and perennials had similarsurface soil water contents. Generally, surface soil water was higher under heavycompared with light grazing intensities for perennial grasses (Twerdoff et al., 1999a).Seasonal evapotranspiration was generally greater for perennials than annuals. Wateruse efficiency for perennials (16.6 kg DM ha-1 mm-1 ) was 1.4 times greater thanannuals (11.6 kg DM ha-1 mm-1 ). However, heavy grazing intensities reduced wateruse efficiency from 14.9 kg DM ha-1 mm-1 (five cycles of grazing) to 13.0 kg DM ha-1

mm-1 (three cycles of grazing) (Twerdoff et al., 1999a).

Soil Nutrient Status

The N benefits of forage legumes grown in the NGP have been documented by manyworkers over the past 75 years (e.g., Badaruddin and Meyer, 1989; Hoyt and Leitch,1983). Working in dry sub-humid, southern Manitoba, Kelner et al. (1997) determinedthat net N additions of an alfalfa hay crop were 84, 148, and 137 kg ha-1 in the first,second, and third years of the stand, respectively. This suggests that relatively short-term alfalfa stands could maximize N input. Ferguson and Gorby (1971), on the otherhand, recorded a slightly higher long-term N benefit between an 8-yr and a 4-yr alfalfastand. No similar study has been conducted in drier areas of the NGP. Ferguson and Gorby (1971) reported that most N benefits from alfalfa oralfalfa/bromegrass stands to following grain crops occurred in the first two years afterforage termination. Hoyt and Leitch (1983) reported that N benefits from a number ofdifferent forage legumes occurred in the second and third year after forage termination.Both reported significant N-benefits up to seven years after forage termination. Hoytand Leitch (1983) determined that rotational N benefits to following grain crops weregreatest for alfalfa>alsike clover>bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.).

Forster (1998) attempted to separate N and non-N yield benefits from an alfalfa haycrop in Manitoba. He reported increased wheat yields (over the control) of 1100, 500,200, 250, and 400 kg ha-1, due to N for the first five wheat crops after alfalfa,respectively, vs. yield increases of 200, 450, 400, 200, and 200 kg ha-1, due to non-Nfactors, for the first five wheat crops after alfalfa, respectively. Therefore, after thesecond grain crop, rotational yield benefits from alfalfa were similar for N and non-Nfactors.

32

Several NGP researchers evaluated N benefits of single year “dual purpose” - hay andlate-season forage regrowth plowdown systems. Badaruddin and Meyer (1989) reporteda fertilizer replacement value of legume (cut for hay and regrowth fall incorporated)equivalent to the addition of up to 150 kg N ha-1 on continuous wheat. Kelner andVessey (1995) reported a net soil N contribution of 121 kg N ha-1 for ‘Nitro’ alfalfa inManitoba. Working in Montana, Westcott et al. (1995) compared N contributions ofsingle year Nitro alfalfa and ‘Bigbee’ Berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinun L.). Theyconcluded that “if the goal in managing annual forage legume in a fall plowdown systemis primarily for forage yield, then berseem clover in a two-harvest system may bepreferable. If plowdown N-benefits are of greater priority, then Nitro alfalfa in a zero- orone-harvest system should be considered”.

By adding N to the soil system, forages in rotation also decrease energy requirementsfor crop production. Effects of including alfalfa on energy use (Rice and Biederbeck,1983, as cited in Campbell et al., 1990) and energy use efficiency (Hoeppner et al.,1999) have been documented for NGP cropping systems.

Forage legumes, especially in hay systems, remove large amounts of minerals from thesoil (Woodhouse and Griffith, as cited in Heath et al., 1973). For example, in the long-term study (1958 to present) at Indian Head, SK, inorganic soil P levels were 37 kg ha-1

in continuous fertilized wheat, 27 kg ha-1 in continuous unfertilized wheat, and 21 kg ha-1

in the unfertilized forage-containing rotation (Campbell et al., 1993). In a southernAlberta study, including alfalfa-crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum [L.] Gaertn.) ina 6-yr forage-wheat rotation reduced the rate of soil N depletion, but increased slightly,the decline in exchangeable K levels (Pittman, 1977, as cited in Campbell et al., 1990).Forage legumes also affect soil chemical properties. For example, at the Breton plots,long-term use of forage legumes (1930 to present) has decreased the soil pH to thepoint where liming is critical to maintain crop production (Robertson, 1992).

Forage-based rotations that include pasture systems, where nutrients are recycled tothe soil, are less nutrient exhausting that hay systems. This may be particularly so in themoister, northern area of the NGP. In a short-term rotational pasture study over fouryears in the Alberta parkland, where annual and perennial species were compared atthree grazing intensities, soil-C in the surface 0-5 cm (Typic Haplustall silt loam)increased for perennial grasses, but decreased for annuals and was unaffected bygrazing intensity; total-N and C:N ratio were unaffected by species or grazing intensity(Mapfumo et al., 2000). However, the mineral-N fraction was much more dynamic andresponsive to grazing intensity. Very intensive grazing (five cycles of grazing) resulted insoil mineral-N levels exceeding 200 kg N ha-1 compared to 95 kg N ha-1 (0 to 60 cmdepth) for less intensive grazing (three cycles of grazing) averaged over annual andperennial species (Baron et al., 2001). Nuttall et al. (1980) reported that economicreturns from fertilizing mixed alfalfa-grass pastures was maximized at 90 kg N ha-1 and20 kg P ha-1 when the stocking rate was 3.7 head ha-1. In the same study, herbageyields increased with N applications up to 185 kg N ha-1, but nitrate-N accumulated inthe 30 to 60 cm depth of the soil profile. In the drier areas, and perhaps on long-termgrassland, little mineral-N remains in the soil solution at any time. Soil micro-organisms

33

are much less active when soil available water content is low (Biederbeck et al., 1984),and even in moist periods, immobilization of mineralized-N by soil microflorapredominates mineralization of organic matter (Woodmansee et al., 1981). In the drierareas, little fertilizer-N is applied to pastures and grazing is mostly of an extensivenature. Because differences for nutrient dynamics exist between short-term and long-term sequences, moist and dry, and intensive vs. extensive grazing regimes, moreresearch is needed on impacts of nutrient cycling as well as fertilizer requirements forpastures in the NGP.

Soil Quality

Many non-N benefits of forage in a crop rotation are attributed to improved soil quality.This is especially important given that NGP soils have undergone serious degradationsince the early part of the 20th century (McGill et al., 1981). Many soil physical conditionimprovements by forage have been attributed to greater soil-C in forage-basedcompared with annual crop systems (e.g., Spratt, 1966). Pavlychenko (1942) reporteda much higher proportion of large soil aggregates for various introduced and nativeperennial grass species than for a wheat-oat (Avena sativa L.) rotation, but “at depthsexceeding 10 cm, none of the cultivated grasses had an appreciable effect upon the soilstructure”. Native grass species such as Porcupine grass (Stipa spartea Trin.) and bluegrama (Bouteloua gracilis [H.B.K.] lag.exStead) improved soil structure between 10 and60 cm soil depth more than the very popular crested wheatgrass (Pavlychenko, 1942).

From a management perspective, perennial pastures provide a large litter base and rootsystem that promotes greater storage of C in the soil compared to annuals. In short-term pasture sequences in the moister NGP, Baron et al. (2001) estimated total Ccontribution (roots and litter) for perennials was 2.7 times more than annuals;contribution of roots and litter was 1.5 times greater with light compared to heavygrazing.

McGill et al. (1986) studied the dynamics of soil microbial C and N in two systems in theBreton plots: wheat-fallow, and wheat-oat-barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)-forage-forage.They found that the 5-yr rotation contained 38% more N and 117% more microbial Nthan did the wheat-fallow system. In addition to increasing long-term soil biologicalfertility, N additions to NGP soils are also known to increase soil aggregation(Biederbeck et al., 1984). Therefore, both the C and N additions from forages reducesoil erosion potential of NGP soils. Working in the semi-arid zone of the NGP, Naeth etal. (1991) reported that high soil microbial populations associated with pasture grassrhizospheres produce polysaccharide mucigels that promote aggregation in the shortterm, while in the long term, the build-up of humic materials will stabilize aggregates. Ona sandy soil in southern Manitoba, Banjeree et al. (2000) observed a reduction in soilmicrobial biomass-C when predominantly alfalfa pastures were grazed at heavycompared to light stocking rates (i.e., 2.2 vs. 1.1 steers ha-1). Cultivation of long-termprairie reduces soil biomass-C, as well as concentrations of soluble sugars and amino-N (Deluca and Keeney, 1994).

34

Cavers (1996) reported that a 4-yr alfalfa hay crop resulted in saturated soil hydraulicconductivity 10 times higher than in a small grain rotation on a clay soil in Manitoba; thisdifference was measured at 25-, 50- and 75-cm soil depths. Wheat root activity on thesesame plots was found to be significantly deeper after alfalfa compared with an annualcrop rotation (Forster, 1998).

Some suggest that intensive rotational grazing may increase water infiltration (e.g.,Savory, 1978). Mapfumo et al. (1999) questioned this assertion since soil pressuresfrom animal hooves can be as much as 200 kPa, which is considerably greater than thepressure exerted on the soil by a tractor (30 to 50 kPa) (Profitt et al., 1993). However,in an Alberta study comparing intensive vs. extensive grazing of annual and perennialforages, Mapfuno et al. (1999) found only a few negative effects of intensive grazing onsoil physical properties, and suggested that “natural processes such as freeze-thawaction, wet-dry cycles, and earthworm activity likely reduced the effects of animaltrampling”. In fact, their evidence suggests that extensive grazing causes soilcompaction and restricts soil water movement. On this excellent loamy soil, bulk densityincreased in a curvilinear fashion with increasing exposure to animal traffic, butincreased faster for annual than perennial pastures (Twerdoff et al., 1999b). However, itwas concluded that intensive rotational grazing systems may not cause seriouscompaction problems for soils of this type.

Pests

Weed suppression with forages, especially perennial hay crops, has been documentedin various NGP studies over the past 50 years. Siemens (1963) described results of along-term crop rotation study at Brandon, MB where wild oat (Avena fatua L.) “dockage”(i.e., percent yield consisting of wild oat seeds) in grain crops averaged less than 1% inforage-containing rotations and 15% in continuous grain or fallow-grain systems. In asurvey of Canadian prairie farmers, 83% of respondents reported fewer weeds afteralfalfa vs. grain rotations, with good suppression of wild oat, green foxtail (Setaria viridisL. [Beauv.].) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense [L.] Scop.) (Entz et al., 1995).Ominski et al. (1999) reported that wheat after perennial alfalfa or alfalfa/grass haycrops had significantly fewer problem weeds than wheat in annual grain rotations, andthat forage in the rotation shifted the weed community composition away from wild oat,green foxtail and Canada thistle. Alfalfa did, however, select for dandelion (Traxacumofficianale Weber in Wiggers).

Even single year forage crops have been found to provide significant weed controlbenefits (Schoofs and Entz, 2000). These workers concluded that “the ideal annualforage system for weed management should combine the early season vigour of abiennial crop, the continuous competition of a long-season crop, and the intense mid-summer competition of a C4 crop. Therefore, a combination of two, or possibly morecrops grown together, may be required.” Harker et al. (2000) studied the impact ofgrazing intensity on weed populations in perennial and annual pastures. They foundthat dandelion increased with increasing grazing intensity and years of grazing inperennial grass pastures at a rate of 4 plants m-2 for every unit increase in intensity

35

(three to five cycles of grazing); annual weeds, mostly shepard’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris [L.] Medikus), increased at a rate of 51 plants m-2 for each unit increase ingrazing intensity. However in annual pastures, where tillage was a factor, shepard’spurse was higher at low vs. high grazing intensities; high grazing intensity served toreduce annual weed populations.

Fewer studies have considered forage effects of plant diseases or insects. It isimportant to recognize that perennial forages are sometimes continuous monoculture,and therefore pathogen or insect pest populations can build up in the crop (e.g.,Sclerotinia sclerotiorum - both alfalfa and canola [Brassica spp.] are suceptible). By thesame token, a perennial forage stand provides a long period for pathogens to decline,thereby reducing damage to a following susceptible crop. Both Penning and Orr (1988)and Tinline (as cited in Campbell et al., 1990) reported that the only rotation toeffectively reduce inoculum of common root rot (Cochiablus sativus) was a 3-yr foragehay stand.

Economic Benefits

The most comprehensive economic analysis of forage-based cropping systems hasbeen conducted by Zentner and coworkers (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semi-arid Prairie Agriculture Research Centre). Using information from long-term croprotation studies at Indian Head, Scott, and Melfort, SK, they determined input costs, netreturns, and income variability associated with forage-based and annual grain crop-based rotations (Zentner et al., 1986). Cost of production for forage-based systems waslower than continuous grain production, but higher than a wheat-fallow system. Netreturns tended to be more stable across a range of crop prices for the forage-basedsystems than annual systems. Including 2- or 3-yr forage crops in a 6-yr rotation wasfound to significantly reduce income variability or risk. At both locations, adding a 2-yr or3-yr forage phase into the 6-yr crop rotation decreased income variability significantlymore than crop insurance. Therefore, in order to reduce risk, a biological solutionappeared to be superior to a government program.

Agronomists and farmers are interested in knowing the minimum economic optimallength of a forage hay crop. This question was partially addressed by Zentner et al.(1986), who reported that 2- or 3-yr forage stands in a 6-yr rotation are economical.Other NGP research suggests that alfalfa and other forage legume monocultures shouldbe terminated after four or five years for maximum economic efficiency of the rotation(Jeffrey et al., 1993). Most forage stands in dryland regions are currently maintained forat least seven years (Entz et al., 1995).

Environmental Benefits

Reduced Nitrate Leaching Perennial forages can scavenge nutrients from greater soildepths than annual crops because of their deep root systems (Pavlychenko, 1942). Inthe long-term study at Indian Head, SK, Campbell et al. (1994) found that a 3-yralfalfa/bromegrass crop in a 6-yr crop rotation reduced buildup of subsoil (to 240 cm)

36

nitrates. Entz et al. (2001b) observed nitrate extraction to depths of 90, 180, 210 and270 cm in the first four years of an alfalfa stand, respectively. Working on the sametrial, Kelner et al. (1997) determined that these high subsoil nitrates did not reduce Nfixation of alfalfa in years one, two, or three of the stand.

Campbell et al. (1994) reported significant nitrate leaching from alfalfa in the IndianHead rotation. They attributed this observation to the fact that, in the Indian Head study,alfalfa is followed by a year of fallow. Under these conditions, legumes increased soil Nsupply, but the net downward movement of water during the fallow year resulted innitrate leaching. Using no-till vs. tillage methods to terminate alfalfa crops improves thesynchrony of N release from alfalfa and uptake by following cereal grain crops, therebyreducing the risk of nitrate leaching from perennial alfalfa (Mohr et al., 1999). The roleof perennial forages to extract deep-leached nitrates is becoming more important aslarge-scale livestock production increases in the NGP region.

Provide Critical Wildlife Habitat Forage crops play an increasingly important role inproviding critical habitat for many species, including migrating waterfowl. Theseprograms have increased in sophistication over time; they have evolved from simplyestablishing perennial forage crops to use of locally adapted native grass species, oftenin a sculpted seeding system (Jacobson et al., 1994). Development of native plantmaterials and ecotypes for multiple land use systems has been in place in the U.S. forsome time (e.g., USDA at Mandan, ND, John Berdahl, 2000, personal communication).In Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada in cooperation with Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada and University scientists have recently initiated a program to develop ecologicalvarieties of approximately 20 native grass species, 7 forbs and 4 shrubs (Wark, 1998,Ducks Unlimited Canada, Brandon, MB, personal communication).

C Sequestration in Soils The potential to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide as soilorganic C in forage-based cropping systems is well recognized (Spratt, 1966). Carbonsequestration in cropland seeded to perennial grasses averaged 1.1 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 overa 5-yr period in a survey of land under the Conservation Reserve Program in the U.S.(Gebhardt et al., 1994) . Because of their deeper root systems, perennial forage plantscan place C deeper into the soil system than annual plants, resulting in better long-termC storage. Some previous studies in the NGP region have focused on long-term effectsof fertilization on long-term carbon storage (e.g., Nyborg et al., 1999; Cihacek andMeyer, 2000). As Baron et al. (2001) pointed out, perennial forage systems result ingreater soil C accumulation than annual forage systems.

New Opportunties to Diversity Crop Rotations with Forages

Intensification of forage-based crop rotations

Cultivated forages are sown on 5 to 15% of the arable landbase in the NGP region.Hence, only a small percentage of the landbase can receive the benefits of forages atany one time. Since the total forage acreage (especially perennial forages) is not likelyto increase dramatically in the future, the best approach for increasing exposure of

37

arable lands to forage benefits is to cycle forages through the crop rotation morequickly.

While the minimum alfalfa stand lengths to achieve weed control (Ominski et al., 1999),N (Kelner et al., 1997), subsoil nitrate extraction (Entz et al., 2001b), and economic(Jeffrey et al., 1993) benefits are five years or less, forage stand length is currently overseven years in the region (Entz et al., 1995). Therefore, the potential exists to use theexisting forage hectarage more efficiently by shortening forage stand length and movingforages from field to field more rapidly. However, farmers are reluctant to terminateforage stands for two main reasons: difficulties encountered when establishing andterminating forage stands (Entz et al., 1995).

No-till to enhance cycling forages in a rotation

Forage seedlings are especially vulnerable to soil moisture deficits because the smallseeds are sown near the soil surface. Conventional seedbed preparation techniquesresult in dry seedbeds and increase the risk of soil erosion. No-till forage establishmentincreases soil water available to germinating forage seeds, and increases establishmentsuccess, especially when post-seeding precipitation is absent (Allen and Entz, 1994).The long-term crop rotation study at Indian Head, SK is now conducted under no-till,and since this change, alfalfa/bromegrass establishment has improved greatly (Lafond,1999, personal communication).

Most forages in the NGP are seeded with a companion crop (Entz et al., 1995).Companion crops tend to reduce forage establishment and reduce first and sometimeseven second year forage yields (Smith et al., 1997). However, despite the loss in forageyield potential from companion crops, most workers agree that use of companion cropsis economical. For example, working in Alberta, Smith et al. (1997) concluded thatcompanion crops for alfalfa establishment significantly enhanced economicperformance over three years, compared to where no companion crop was used;especially when the companion crop was removed early (as silage). Jefferson andZentner (1994) concluded that forage yield would have to be negatively affected bycompanion crops for two years after forage establishment to be less profitable thanestablishment without a companion crop.

It is useful to note that many of the establishment year benefits of companion crops canbe achieved with no-till forage seeding (i.e., reduced blowing soil damage; shading andlower soil temperatures) without the competition for resources, especially water (Allenand Entz, 1994). Smith et al. (1997) concluded that herbicides are not economicallyfeasible during the forage establishment year.

Most producers currently use some tillage to terminate forage stands (Entz et al., 1995).This represents a significant investment of time and machinery. Use of herbicidesinstead of tillage to terminate alfalfa is feasible (Bullied et al., 1999) and has beenshown to increase soil water conservation and grain yields in following crops (Bulliedand Entz, 1999). No-till seeding winter cereals into herbicide-killed forages (Entz and

38

Bamford, 2000, unpublished data) has the advantage that winter cereals use the limitedwater supply more efficiently than spring cereals (Gan et al., 2000). Other benefits ofno-till alfalfa termination include fewer weeds in subsequent crops due to less soildisturbance (Ominski and Entz, 2001).

Expanded role for annual forages

Annual forages play an important role in the feed supply. In addition to supplying winterfeed (e.g., silage), annual forages are being promoted as a means to extending thelength of the grazing season; a very important goal for livestock producers.

Traditional annual forage species in the NGP region include barley, oat, fall rye (Secalecereale L.) and wheat (Kilcher and Heinrichs, 1961). For example, barley for silage isthe choice of the feedlot industry in southern Alberta (MacAlpine et al., 1997). Triticale(x Triticosecale Wittmack) is a newer cereal that has outperformed traditional cereals inthe semiarid regions of western Canada (McLeod et al., 1998) and Montana(Stallknecht and Wichman, 1998). Other novel annual species such as sunflower(Helianthus annuus L.), canola, corn and pulses have been tested for forage potentialpreviously (Berkenkamp and Meeres, 1987). Annual forage mixtures, while typically notenhancing yield (Baron et al., 1992) can enhance quality (Carr et al., 1998), and cangreatly improve seasonal dry matter distribution (Baron et al., 1992; Carr et al., 1998;Manske and Nelson, 1995).

It is generally accepted that perennial pastures are the least expensive feed sources forthe beef cow herd. However, novel annual forage systems can fill a void at specificpoints in the livestock enterprise, resulting in significant savings for the entire enterprise.Motivation for novel pasture systems are: 1) conventional pasture system, while lowcost, cannot keep up to with the demands of cows, calves or stocker cattle, all of whichare gaining in size and weight; 2) it is less expensive to overwinter beef cowsconventionally if they enter the winter feeding period in good body condition (Willms etal., 1993); and 3) it is cheapest to feed some classes of livestock (e.g., beef cattle) onpasture than in dry lots (Adams et al., 1994). Manske and Nelson (1995), working inwestern ND, reported that oat-pea (Pisum sativum L.) intercrops, millet (Panicum spp.)and fall rye worked well in annual grazing systems. Novel systems aimed at improvingseasonal forage dry matter distribution have also been developed. Mixtures of springand winter cereals, for example, provide earlier grazing than winter cereals alone, butcontinue producing dry matter later in the season than spring cereals planted alone(Baron et al., 1993a, 1993b). Mixtures of winter cereals and Italian ryegrass (Loliummultiflorum L.) respond similarly to winter-spring cereal mixtures (Thompson et al.,1992). A novel system for late-season and winter grazing is swath grazing. Cereals areswathed from heading until dough stage and animals graze the swaths. A wide range ofC3 and C 4 cereal crops are being tested for use in swath grazing (McCaughey, 1999,unpublished data). Cereals for swath grazing are sown later in spring - a proven tacticto reduce wild oat populations (Schoofs and Entz, 2000).

Low cost cereal straw and chaff represent a vast potential feed source for gestating

39

beef cows across the NGP (Coxworth et al., 1981). In Alberta, MacAlpine et al. (1997)estimated 1.2 t of straw or 2.2 t of chaff are required to winter (200 days) a 450 kg cow.Oat and barley straw are generally considered to have a higher feeding value thantriticale and wheat straw (Coxworth et al., 1981; Wedin and Klopfenstein, 1995).

Coxworth et al. (1981) reviewed straw and chaff management for the dry part of theCanadian NGP. They observed that stage of maturity and N fertilizer application couldhave significant effects on nutritive value of wheat straw, but location could have agreater effect. They noted differences among wheat cultivars for feeding value, thatchaff had greater feeding value than straw, and that ammonia application could havesubstantial positive impacts on straw and chaff nutritive value. Whether ammoniation ofstraw and chaff is economical depends on relative costs of anhydrous ammonia andalternative feedstuffs, such as cereal grains.

Agronomic benefits of chaff collection include residue management and weed andvolunteer crop control. High chaff yields in moist areas pose a limitation to direct-seeding. Weed control benefits of chaff collection were identified by Shirtliffe (1999) whodetermined that wild oat and green foxtail patch dispersal was virtually eliminated whenchaff was collected. This is another example of how integrating livestock and grainproduction provides important synergy within the farming system.

Adding value to beef and dairy products

Besides representing over 90% of the beef cow ration, additional benefits may bederived from increasing forage content in rations of higher performing ruminants. Thesebenefits may be economical, as in low cost rations for beef production, and in newhealth related markets for beef and dairy products. Ultimately, new ways to divert landout of grain production may result. The extent to which this impacts beef and dairyindustries, beyond niche markets, remains to be seen. Backgrounding beef onpredominately forage rations, often pasture, prior to entry into the feedlot system, bygrowing animals at relatively low rates of gain is a means of providing a low-cost animalto the feedlot system. This part of the beef system is predicated on forage or pasturebeing a low-cost feedstuff (Mathison, 1993). It is also a means for placing beef animalsinto a specific temporal market in the feedlot-packing system. Profitability depends onsupply and demand characteristics of both beef and grain markets.

Pasture finishing of beef cattle may be a viable option to some producers. Theimmediate advantage of pasture finishing is the potential of relatively low cost of beefproduction, although this must be weighed against cost of grain during times of lowgrain prices and certain supply - demand relationships for beef markets as inbackgrounding. Research in Canada and the U.S. since the 1950's has shown thatpasture finished beef is feasible, although results from research has been mixed(Aalhus and Mandell, 1999). Problems with meat quality and consumer acceptance ofpasture finished beef such as off-flavor (Mandell et al., 1998) and discoloured fat(Aalhus and Mandell, 1999) have occurred. However, some traits are confounded withrespect to age of cattle and fat cover when forage vs. grain finished beef is compared

40

(Mandell et al., 1998). McCaughey and Cliplef (1995) demonstrated that about 70% ofcattle finished on high quality pasture would meet standards for finished beef on theCanadian grading system. This appears typical. The remaining 30% finished afterrelatively short periods (30 to 75 d) on a high grain ration. Pasture finished beef in thistrial met standards for fat color and were acceptable in taste panel studies fortenderness and flavor. The challenge for pasture finished beef is to produce aconsistent as well as economical meat product. A window of opportunity is available tothose producers who can market a specialized product.

Other niche markets may develop for forage or predominately forage finished beef onthe basis of enhanced human health. Forage-based rations are linked with relativelyhigh concentrations of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fatty acids in meat(Aalhus and Mandell, 1999) and dairy products (Jiang et al., 1996). Meat and dairyproducts may contain from 1-2% CLA. Health benefits derived from CLA include anti-carcinogenic, anti-cachexic and anti-atherosclerotic properties (Aalhus and Mandell,1999). Omega-3 fatty acids, also found in fish meal (Mandell et al., 1997), includinglinolenic, eicosapentaeoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid are enriched in meat fromforage finished rations (Aalhus and Mandell, 1999). While omega-3 fatty acids appear tohave a role in prevention of many age-related diseases, their role in mitigation ofcoronary heart disease has been most extensively studied and verified (Addis andRomans, 1989). In the future, forage fed dairy and pasture finished beef may have arole in niche markets for a health conscious and aging society in North America. Moreresearch is required to further elucidate these relationships.

Alfalfa in grazing systems

Although NGP producers have long included alfalfa as a minor component (e.g., 5 to15%) of cultivated pastures, over the last 10 years there has been a three-fold increasein pasture hectarage where alfalfa is the primary component (Smith and Singh, 2000).Twelve to 15% of alfalfa stands are currently grazed on a regular basis or at some pointin the life of the stand (W. Thompson and G.D. Lacefield, 1998, personalcommunication).

Alfalfa provides the perfect combination of high forage digestibility and protein forpasture-based finishing systems. Popp et al. (2000) reviewed animal performance ofalfalfa-based and grass pasture systems. With proper grazing management, yearlingsteers can gain as much as 1.5 kg head-1 day-1. Reported daily steer gains in pureorchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea L.) rangefrom 0.69 to 0.79 kg head-1. Animal rate of gain is improved in alfalfa/grass pastureswhen alfalfa contributes as little as 35% to the sward.

Although alfalfa offers tremendous productivity benefits, there are two reasons that ithas not been traditionally used for pasture; poor persistence (Smith et al., 2000) andbloat (Popp et al., 2000). Progress is being made in controlling bloat by developingbloat-reducing cultivars (Coulman et al., 2000) and through management strategies,chemical feed additives and other treatments (Berg et al., 2000). Tremendous progress

41

has also been made in breeding cultivars that are grazing persistent (Smith et al.,2000). Cultivars with a high percentage of the alfalfa subspecies falcata offer potentialto combine excellent winter survival and grazing survival (Berdahl et al., 1986; Smith etal., 2000).

Any efforts to increase the portion of beef cattle diet from pasturing would increase theamount of forage grown in rotation, thereby increasing rotational benefits from foragedescribed earlier.

Novel grain-forage-livestock systems

A novel forage-based cropping system has been used successfully for decades inAustralia (Grace et al., 1995). Here, self-regenerating subterranean clover (Trifoliumsubterraneum L.) and annual medic (Medicago spp.) are grown in pasture-grainsystems. There has been considerable interest in adapted these systems to the NGPregion. Sims and Slinkard (1991) concluded that black medic (Medicago lupulina L.) hadpotential for replacing summerfallow in a wheat-fallow cropping system in Montana.Long-term field trials demonstrated that ‘George’ black medic (Sims et al., 1985)successfully re-seeded itself and boosted wheat yields by 1300 kg ha-1 compare withwheat on summerfallow. In this system, black medic can be grazed during the fallowyear.

Self-regenerating annual medics can also be integrated into continuous grain productionsystems. Three annual medic species were established on 40 ha. on a North Dakotafarm in 1991. The medics have been regenerating successfully in a continuous croppingsystem for the past 8 years (K. Aldridge, NDSU extension agent, Sheridan county, ND,1998, personal communication, 1998). The medics provide significant forage for late-season grazing, as well as weed suppression, plus they produce enough seed tosuccessfully re-establish themselves each year. Thiessen-Martens and Entz (2001)determined that a large area of the NGP has sufficient heat and water resources forlate-season growth, including seed production of several medic and subclover species.Selection of suitable medic species, and management practices is currently underway(Entz and Carr, 2000, unpublished data).

Forages in Organic Systems

Organic farmers are well aware of the importance of forages in organic croppingsystems. A survey of organic farms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and North Dakotashowed that 30 to 40% of the landbase on organic farms was seeded to alfalfa or otherperennial forages at any one time (Entz et al., 2001a). Interestingly, forage hay yieldson organic farms were higher, on average, than on area conventional farms, suggestingthat organic farmers pay close attention to forage management.

Three long-term crop rotation studies have been established in the past decade toevaluate the role of forages in organic crop production systems. The Glenlea long-termcrop rotation study at the University of Manitoba; and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

42

studies at Scott, SK and Lethbridge, AB. Results of the longest running of these studies(Glenlea, established in 1992) indicate that inclusion of a 2-yr alfalfa hay crop in a 4-yrrotation is critical to successful organic flax production. For example, in a 4-yr wheat-pea-wheat-flax rotation, after two full rotation cycles, the flax yielded 1691 kg ha-1 withfull inputs (herbicides and fertilizers) and 777 kg ha-1 under organic conditions. In the 4-yr wheat-alfalfa-alfalfa-flax rotation, flax yielded 1577 kg ha-1 with full inputs and 1371kg ha-1 under organic conditions (Entz, 1999, unpublished data). These data underscorethe importance of integrated (i.e., forage-grain) cropping systems for successful organiccrop production.

Future Research Challenges

Almost all aspects of forage production require further research. One challenge is cropdevelopment. Because there are so many different plant species involved in NGPforage systems, maintaining breeding and selection programs for all of them is difficult.In the past, the majority of breeding efforts have involved alfalfa, with grasses receivingmuch less attention. Also, annual crops that fill feed gaps at critical periods during thegrazing season need attention from both plant breeders and agronomists. Research toadapt novel forage systems like the self-regenerating annual legumes to the NGP alsodeserves more attention.

Few cropping systems trials currently underway in the NGP include forages. In westernCanada alone, dozens of short-, medium- and long-term cropping system studies wereestablished in the past decade to consider interactions between tillage system, croprotation, and pest management. The vast majority of these studies include only graincrops. At the same time, many of the long-term “classical” trials which include forages inthe system, are being discontinued due to budget constraints. Without properdocumentation of forage benefits in contemporary cropping systems, it will becomeincreasingly difficult for agronomists to visualize the potential of forages to diversifyNGP cropping systems.

Nutrient cycling is very different in pasture vs. hay systems. However, little attention hasbeen paid to this area of study. Also, the impacts of nutrient cycling on intensive pasturein moist areas is different than for dry areas, just as long-term vs. short-term grasslandsdiffer, and legumes and grasses differ. Fortunately, several new forage-based croppingsystems which include pasturing livestock in the system have recently been initiated insemi-arid (Dickinson and Mandan, ND) and sub-humid (Lacombe, AB and Brandon,MB) regions of the NGP.

There is a great need to investigate the role of forages at the systems level, where all,or at least several components of the soil-crop-livestock system are consideredtogether. When recommendations are made at the systems level, optimization of thewhole system is emphasized, not necessarily maximization of all parts. Taken alone, theforage component is often less valuable, however, its presence in a cropping systemprovides great stability and profitability to the whole system.

43

Finally, because the benefits of forages in cropping systems are sometimes subtle, anddo not manifest themselves immediately, forage-based cropping systems researchneeds to be conducted over the long-term. From literature cited in this review, it is clearthat without long-term, field-based research, we would know much less about thepotential to diversify NGP cropping systems with forages. Perhaps the greatestresearch need, therefore, is to maintain long-term, field-based forage researchprograms, and establish new programs that address new questions.

Acknowledgements

The authors pay special tribute to those scientists and technicians involved inestablishing and maintaining the long-term crop rotation studies, which have provedinvaluable in defining the role of forage crops in NGP cropping systems. This paper isdedicated to the memory of Dr. Hermann M. Austenson, University of Saskatchewan,who inspired many students to consider, or reconsider, the value of forages in prairiecropping and farming systems.

References- Aalhus, J., and I. Mandell. 1999. Nutritional effects of beef quality. p. 48-59. In D.Korver and J. Morrison (eds.) Proc. of the 20th Western Nutrition Conference, Sept. 16and 17, Calgary, AB.- Adams, D.C., R.T. Clark, S.A. Coady, J.B. Lamb, and M.K. Nielsen. 1994. Extendedgrazing systems for improving economic returns from Nebraska sandhills cow/calfoperations. J. Range Manage. 47:258-263.- Addis, P.B. and J. Romans. 1989. The omega-3 fatty acid story. Reciprocal MeatConf. Proc. 42: 41-47. American Meat Science Association.- Allen, C.L., and M.H. Entz. 1994. Zero-tillage establishment of alfalfa and meadowbromegrass as influenced by previous annual grain crop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:521-529.- Anonymous. 2000. Cost and return profiles for cow-calf operations in Alberta, 1999AgriProfit$ Benchmarks for Alberta Cattlemen. Economics and CompetitivenessDivision. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, AB.- Austenson, H.M., A. Wenhardt, and W.J. White. 1970. Effect of summerfallowingand rotation on yield of wheat, barley and flax. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50:659-666.- Badaruddin, M. and D.W. Meyer. 1989. Forage legume effects on soil nitrogen andgrain yield, and nitrogen nutrition of wheat. Agron. J. 81:419-424.- Banerjee, M.R., D.L. Burton, W.P. McCaughey, and C.A. Grant. 2000. Influence ofpasture management on soil biology quality. J. Range Manage. 53:127-133.- Baron, V.S., H.G. Najda, D.F. Salmon, and A.C. Dick. 1992. Post-flowering foragepotential of spring and winter cereal mixtures. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:137-145.- Baron, V.S., H.G. Najda, D.F. Salmon, and A.C. Dick. 1993a. Cropping systems forspring and winter cereals under simulated pasture: Yield and yield distribution. Can. J.Plant Sci. 73:703-712.- Baron, V.S., H.G. Najda, D.F. Salmon, J.R. Pearen, and A.C. Dick. 1993b. Croppingsystems for spring and winter cereals under simulated pasture: Sward structure. Can. J.Plant Sci. 73:747-959.

44

- Baron, V.S., E. Mapfumo, M.E. Naeth, A.C. Dick, and D.S. Chanasyk. 2001. Grazingimpacts on litter and root mass carbon, and nitrogen pools. J. Range. Manage. 54: (InPress).- Berg. B.P., W. Majak, T.A. McAllister, J.A. Hall, D. McCartney, B.E. Coulman, B.P.Goplen, S.N. Acharya, R.M. Tait, and K.J. Cheng. 2000. Bloat in cattle grazing alfalfacultivars selected for a low initial rate of digestion. A review. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:493-502.- Berdahl, J.D., A.C. Wilson, and A.B. Frank. 1986. Survival and agronomicperformance of 25 alfalfa cultivars and strains interseeded into rangeland. J. RangeManage. 42:312-316.- Berkenkamp, B. and J. Meeres. 1987. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in centralAlberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:175-183.- Biederbeck, V.O., C.A. Campbell, and R.P. Zentner. 1984. Effect of crop rotationand fertilization on some biological properties of a loam in southwestern Saskatchewan.Can. J. Soil Sci. 64:355-367.- Brandt, S.A. and C.H. Keys. 1982. Effect of crop rotations on soil moisture levels. p.38-48. In Proc. Soils and Crops Workshop. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.- Bullied, W.J. and M.H. Entz. 1999. Soil water dynamics after alfalfa as influenced bycrop termination technique. Agron. J. 91:294-305.- Bullied, W.J., M.H. Entz, and S.R. Smith, Jr. 1999. No-till alfalfa stand terminationstrategies: Alfalfa control and wheat and barley production. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:71-83.- Campbell, C.A., R.P. Zentner, H.H. Janzen, and K.E. Bowren. 1990. Crop rotationstudies on the Canadian prairies. Publ. 1841. Canadian Government Publishing Centre,Ottawa, ON, K1A 0S9. ISBN 0-660-13422-5.- Campbell, C.A., G.P. Lafond, and R.P. Zentner. 1993. Spring wheat yield trends asinfluenced by fertilizer and legumes. J. Prod. Agric. 6:564-568.- Campbell, C.A., G.P. Lafond, R.P. Zentner, and Y.W. Yame. 1994. Nitrate leachingin a Udic Haploboroll as influenced by fertilization and legumes. J. Environ. Qual.23:195-201.- Carr, P.M., G.B. Martin, J.S. Caton, and W.W. Poland. 1998. Forage and nitrogenyield of barley-pea and oat-pea intercrops. Agron. J. 90:79-84.- Cavers, C.G. 1996. Characteristics of Red River clays pertaining to vertisolic criteriaand macropore flow. Msc thesis, Department of Soil Science, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2.- Cihacek, L.J. and D.W. Meyer. 2000. Influence of N fertility management on profilesoil C storage under long-term bromegrass production. Dept. of Plant Science, NorthDakota State Univerisity, Research Report. P. 10.- Coulman, B.E., B. Goplen, W. Majak, T. McAllister, K.J. Cheng, B. Berg, J.W. Hall,D. McCartney, and S.N. Archarya. 2000. A review of the development of a bloat-reduced alfalfa cultivar. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:487-491.- Coxworth, E., J. Kernan, J. Knipfel, O. Thorlacius, and L. Crowle. 1981. Review:Crop residues and forages in western Canada; potential for feed use either with orwithout chemical or physical processing. Agriculture and Environment. 6:245-256.- DeLuca, T.H. and D.R. Keeney. 1994. Soluble carbon and nitrogen pools of prairieand cultivated soils: seasonal variation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:835-840.- Ellert, K.M. 1995. Cropping systems for a sustainable future: Long-term studies in

45

Alberta. Research report, Agriculture and Agriculture Canada, Lethbridge ResearchCentre, Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1J 4B1.- Entz, M.H., W.J. Bullied, and F. Katepa-Mupondwa. 1995. Rotational benefits offorage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. J. Prod. Agric. 8:521-529.- Entz, M.H., R. Guilford, and R. Gulden. 2001a. Crop yield and soil nutrient status on14 organic farms in the eastern portion of the Northern Great Plains. Can. J. Plant Sci.81:351-354.- Entz, M.H., W.J. Bullied, D.A. Forster, R. Gulden, and J.K. Vessey. 2001b.Extraction of subsoil nitrogen by alfalfa, alfalfa-wheat and perennial grass systems.Agron. J. 93:495-503.- Ferguson, W.S. and B.J. Gorby. 1971. The effect of various periods of seed-down toalfalfa and bromegrass on soil nitrogen. Can. J. Soil Sci. 51:65-73.- Forster, D.A. 1998. Rotational benefits associated with alfalfa. Msc thesis.Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2.- Gan, Y.T., G.P. Lafond, and W.E. May. 2000. Grain yield and water use. Relativeperformance of winter vs. spring cereals in east-central Saskatchewan. Can. J. PlantSci. 80:533-541.- Gebhart, D.L., H.B. Johnson, H.S. Mayeux, and H.W. Polley. 1994. The CRPincreases soil organic carbon. J. Soil and Water Cons. 49:488-492.- Grace, P.R., J.M. Oades, H. Keith, and T.W. Hancock. 1995. Trends in yields andsoil organic carbon in the Permanent Rotation Trial at the Waite Agricultural Institute,South Australia. Austr. J. of Exper. Agric. 35:857-864.- Harker, K.N., V.S. Baron, D.S. Chanasyk, M.A. Naeth, and F.C. Stevenson. 2000.Grazing intensity effects on weed populations in annual and perennial pasture systems.Weed Science. 48: 231-238.- Heath, M.E., D.S. Metcalfe, and R.F. Barnes. 1973. Forages: The science ofgrassland agriculture. 3rd Edition, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.- Hoeppner, J.W., M.H. Entz, B.G. McConkey, and G.P. Lafond. 1999. The role offorage legumes in reducing on-farm non-renewable energy use. p. 61. Agron. Abs.- Hoyt, P.B. 1990. Residual effects of alfalfa and bromegrass cropping on yields ofwheat grown for 15 subsequent years. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:109-113.- Hoyt, P.B. and R.H. Leitch. 1983. Effects of forage legume species on soil moisture,nitrogen, and yield of succeeding barley crops. Can. J. Soil Sci. 63:125-136.- Jacobson, E.T., D.B. Wark, R.G. Arnot, R.J. Haas, and D.A. Tober. 1994. Sculpturedseeding: An ecological approach to revegetation. Restoration and Manage. Notes12:46-50.- Jeffery, S.R., S. Mooney, and M.H. Entz. 1993. An economical analysis of includingalfalfa in Manitoba cereal-legume rotations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:216.- Jefferson, P.G. and R.P. Zentner. 1994. Effect of oat companion crop on irrigatedalfalfa yield and economic returns in south-western Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci.74:465-470.- Jiang, J., L. Bjoerck, R. Fonden, and M. Emanuelson. 1996. Occurrence ofconjugated cis-9, trans 11-octadecadonic acid in bovine milk: effects of feed and dietaryregimen. J. Dairy Sci. 79: 438-445.- Kelner, D.J. and J.K. Vessey. 1995. Nitrogen fixation and growth of one-year standsof non-dormant alfalfa. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:655-665.

46

- Kelner, D.J., J.K. Vessey, and M.H. Entz. 1997. The nitrogen dynamics of 1-, 2-, and3-year stands of alfalfa in a cropping system. Agric., Ecosys., and Enviro. 64:1-10.- Kilcher, M.R. and D.H. Heinrichs. 1961. A grass-alfalfa mixture compared with cerealgrains for fodder production under semi-arid conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 41:799-804.- MacAlpine, N.D., D.F. Engstrom, J. Kirtz, and S. Cooke. 1997. Resources for beefindustry expansion in Alberta. Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development,Edmonton, AB.- Mandell, I.B., J.G. Buchanan-Smith, B.J. Holub, and C.P. Campbell. 1997. Effects offish meal in beef cattle diets on growth performance carcass characteristics, and fattyacid composition of longissimum muscle. J. Anim. Sci. 75:910-919.- Mandell, I.B., J.G. Buchanan-Smith, and C.P. Campbell. 1998. Effects of forage vs.grain feeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition and beef quality inLimousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2619-2630.- Manske, L.L. and J.L. Nelson. 1995. Grazing annual forages on cropland in westernNorth Dakota. NDSU, Dickinson Research Extension Centre, Range Research ReportDREC 95-1010.- Mapfumo, E., D.S. Chanasyk, M.A. Naeth, and V.S. Baron. 1999. Soil compactionunder grazing of annual and perennial forages. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79:191-199.- Mapfumo, E., D.S. Chanasyk, V.S. Baron, and M.A. Naeth. 2000. Grazing impactson selected soil parameters under short-term forage sequences. J. Range Manage.53:466-470.- Mathison, G.W. 1993. The beef industry p. 34-75. In J. Martin et al (eds.) AnimalProduction in Canada. University Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, Edmonton,AB. ISBN 0-55091-019-1.- McCaughey, W.P. and R.L. Cliplef. 1995. Carcass and organoleptic characteristicsof meat from steers grazed alfalfa/grass pastures and finished on grain. Can. J. Anim.Sci. 76:149-152.- McGill, W.B., K.R. Cannon, J.A. Robertson, and F.D. Cook. 1986. Dynamics of soilmicrobial biomass and water-soluble organic C in Breton after 50 years of cropping totwo rotations. Can. J Soil Sci 66:1-19.- McGill, W.B., C.A. Campbell, J.F. Dormaar, E.A. Paul, and D.W. Anderson. 1981.Soil organic matter losses. p. 72-133. In Agricultural land: Our disappearing heritage - Asymposium. Proc. 18th Annual Alberta Soil Science Workshop, Edmonton, Alberta.- McLeod, J.G., Y.T. Gan, D.F. Salmon, and V.S. Baron. 1998. Triticale? Biomasspotential and quality on the Canadian prairies. p. 264-267. In P.E. Juskiw (ed.) 4th

International Triticale Symposium Proc. Vol. 2. July 26-31, 1998, Red Deer, AB.- Mohr, R.M., M.H. Entz, H.H. Janzen, and W.J. Bullied. 1999. Plant-availablenitrogen supply as affected by method and timing of alfalfa termination. Agron. J.91:622-630.- Morrison, I.N. and D. Kraft. 1994. Sustainability of Canada’s AgriFood system: APrairie Perspective. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 161 PortageAve., Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 0Y4. ISBN 1-895536-22-7.- Naeth, M.A., A.W. Bailey, D.J. Pluth, D.S. Chanasyk, and R.T. Hardin. 1991.Grazing impacts on litter and soil organic matter in mixed prairie and fescue grasslandecosystems of Alberta. J. Range Manage. 44:7-12.- Nuttall, W.F., D.A. Cooke, J. Waddington, and J.A. Robertson. 1980. Effect of

47

nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on a bromegrass and alfalfa mixture grown undertwo systems of pasture management. I. Yield, percentage legume in sward, and soiltests. Agron. J. 72:289-298.- Nyborg, M.., S.S. Mahli, E.D. Solberg, and R.C. Izuarralde. 1999. Carbon storageand light fraction C in a grassland Dark Gray Chernozem soil as influenced by N and Sfertilization. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79:317-320.- Ominski, P.D. and M.H. Entz. 2001. Eliminating soil disturbance reduces post-alfalfasummer annual weed populations. Can. J Plant Sci. 81: (in press).- Ominski, P.D., M.H. Entz, and N. Kenkel. 1999. Weed suppression by Medicagosativa in subsequent cereal crops: A comparative survey. Weed Sci. 47:282-290.- Pavlychenko, T. 1942. Root systems of certain forage crops in relation tomanagement of agricultural soils. National Research Council Publication No. 1088.Ottawa, Ontario.- Penning, L.J., and D. Orr. 1988. Effects of crop rotation on common root rot ofbarley. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 10:61-65.- Popp, J.D., W.P. McCaughey, R.D.H. Cohen, T.A. McAllister, and W. Majak. 2000.Enhancing pasture productivity with alfalfa: A review. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:513-519.- Poyser, E.A., R.A. Hedlin, and A.G. Ridley. 1957. The effect of farm and greenmanures on the fertility of blackearth-meadow clay soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 37:48-56.- Profitt, A.P., S. Bendotti, M.R. Howell, and J. Eastham. 1993. The effect of sheeptrampling and grazing on soil physical properties and pasture growth for red-brownearth. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 44:317-331.- Provincial Government statistics. 1999. www.gov.ab.ca/economics/stats/facts/crop;www.agr.gov.sk.ca/; www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/statistics/.- Robertson, J.A. 1992. Long-term results from the Breton plots. 61st Annual BretonPlot Field Day, July 5, 1991. University of Alberta, Department of Soil Science. (P. 47).- Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press, Covelo, California.- Schoofs, A. and M.H. Entz. 2000. Influence of forages on weed dynamics in acropping system. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:187-198.- Shirtliffe, S.J. 1999. The effect of chaff collection on the combine harvester dispersalof wild oat (Avena fatua L.) PhD thesis. Department of Plant Science, University ofManitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2.- Siemens, L.B. 1963. Cropping systems: An evaluative review of literature. Faculty ofAgriculture, University of Manitoba. Tech. Bull. 1. (p.89).- Sims, J.R. and A.E. Slinkard. 1991. Development and evaluation of germplasm andcultivars of cover crops. p. 121-129. In W.L. Hargrove (ed.) Cover crops for clean water.Published by the Soil and Water Conservation Society.- Sims, J.R., S. Koala, R.L. Ditterline, and E.L. Weisner. 1985. Registration of“George” black medic. Crop Sci. 25:709-710.- Small, J.A. and W.P. McCaughey. 1999. Beef cattle management in Manitoba. Can.J. Animal Sci. 79.- Smith, E.G., J.M. Barbieri, J.R. Moyer, and D.E. Cole. 1997. The effect ofcompanion crops and herbicides on economic returns of alfalfa-bromegrassestablishment. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77:231-235.- Smith, S.R., Jr. and A. Singh. 2000. Future of alfalfa as a grazing crop in NorthAmerica. Proc. Amer. Forage and Grassland Council. Vol. 9. Madison, WI. 16-19 July

48

2000. Amer. Forage and Grassland Council, Georgetown, Texas.- Smith, S.R., Jr., J.H. Bouton, A. Singh, and W.P. McCaughey. 2000. Developmentand evaluation of grazing-tolerant alfalfa cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:503-512.- Spratt, E.D. 1966. Fertility of a Chernozemic clay soil after 50 years of cropping withand without forage crops in the rotation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 46:207-212.- Stallknecht, G.F. and D.M. Wichman. 1998. The evaluation of winter and springtriticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) for grain and forage production under drylandcropping in Montana, USA. p. 272-278. In P.E. Juskiw (ed.) 4th International TriticaleSymposium. Proc. Vol. 2. July 26-31, 1998, Red Deer, AB.- Stoa, T.E. and J.C. Zubriski. 1969. Crop rotation, crop management and soil fertilitystudies on Fargo clay. North Dakota Research Report 20, Agricultural ExperimentStation, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102.- Thiessen-Martens, J. and M.H. Entz. 2001. Availability of late-season heat and waterresources for relay and double cropping with winter wheat in Prairie Canada. Can. J.Plant Sci. 81: (in press).- Thompson, D.J., D.G. Stout,T. Moore, and Z. Mir. 1992. Yield and quality of foragefrom intercrops of barley and annual ryegrass. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:163-172.- Twerdoff, D.A., D.S. Chanasyk, M.A. Naeth, V.S. Baron, and E. Mapfumo. 1999a.Soil water regimes of rotationally grazed perennial and annual forages. Can. J. Soil Sci.79:627-637.- Twerdoff, D.A., D.S. Chansyk, E. Mapfumo, M.A. Naeth, and V.S. Baron. 1999b.Impacts of forage grazing and cultivation on near-surface realtive compaction. Can. J.Soil Sci. 79:465-471.- USDA, 1999. www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/- Wedin, W.F., and T.J. Klopfenstin. 1995. Cropland pasture and crop residues. p.193-206 In R.F. Barnes et al. (ed.) Forages:II. The science of grassland agriculture 5th

ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.- Westcott, M.P., L.E. Welty, M.L. Knox, and L.S. Prestbye. 1995. Managing alfalfaand beseem clover for forage and plowdown nitrogen in barley rotations. Agron. J.87:1176-1181.- Willms, W.D., L.M. Rode, and B.S. Freeze. 1993. Winter performance of herefordcows on fescue prairie and in drylot as influenced by fall grazing. Can. J. Anim. Sci.73:881-889.- Woodmansee, R.G., I. Vallis, and J.J. Mott. 1981. Grassland nitrogen. Ecol. Bull.(Stockholm) 33:443-462.- Zentner, R.P., C.A. Campbell, S.A. Brandt, K.E. Bowren, and E.D. Spratt. 1986.Economics of crop rotations in western Canada. p. 254-317. In A.E. Slinkard and D.B.Fowler (eds.) Wheat production in Canada - A review. Proc. Canadian WheatProduction Symposium. 3-5 March, 1986, Saskatoon, SK.

49

PROFITABILITY OF FORAGE/LIVESTOCK SYSTEMSPaul McCaughey

SUMMARY

Calving date is a critical factor in determining the financial success of cow-calfoperations. This paper discusses some important factors, which must be consideredwhen determining which calving date is best for you as a beef producer. Based on ouranalysis, January/February calving will generate the greatest gross margin butMay/June calving will generate the greatest net income and return on investment.Factors such as the competing time requirements of other enterprises should beconsidered when selecting the best strategy for your operation. Fall purchasing andbackgrounding of grass cattle will be the most profitable strategy for stocker operatorsplanning to place cattle on summer pasture. This is because stockers can bebackgrounded properly to perform on grass. One of the best options producers mightwant to consider may be a combination of both strategies where your own calves canbe backgrounded and grazed for sale as long yearlings.

INTRODUCTION

Since the elimination of grain transportation subsidies in Western Canada there hasbeen a rush to diversify agriculture. This has resulted in a rapid expansion of the hogindustry in Manitoba, but it has also created conditions that favour expansion of the beefindustry. In the short term, these changes will be difficult because producers must learnnew skills to adjust. However, in the long term, the agricultural industry in Manitoba willbecome stronger and more sustainable once further diversification occurs.

There are many forage/beef strategies that are possible to implement in Manitoba. Thispaper will focus on a few commonly used cow-calf and stocker strategies. We willexamine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of each system and willconduct a detailed economic analysis. The intent is to provide readers with the facts tomake an informed decision regarding which strategy to use in their own specificsituations.

The strategies examined in this paper are: A) winter (January/February), early spring(March/April), late spring (May/June) and fall (August/September) calving cow-calfsystems; B) fall purchased and spring purchased stockers to be placed on summerpasture; and C) a combination of May/June calving and retention of calves as stockers.

A. Comparison of 4 cow-calf calving strategies:

I. January/February calving

Mixed farmers who want to finish calving before they get busy with spring seedingfavour this system. Good calving facilities are needed because of the cold

50

temperatures at this time of year. This can be a labour intensive system as somebodymust be on hand on a 24-hour basis to move cows into the calving barn as they calve.Since cows are lactating through the winter, feeding costs tend to be high. Producersusing this system generally invest a lot of effort to produce good quality hay. Thisstrategy will generally result in the biggest calves in the fall and provide the greatestreturns over variable costs (gross margin). This system is based on average qualitypasture and high quality conserved feed. Strengths of this strategy are that labour isusually available for calving in mid-winter and high weaning weights are obtained in fall.Also there are no flies to bother the calves and it is easier to keep records of calvingthan with pasture based calving systems. Weaknesses of this system are that the herdsize is limited by the physical size of expensive facilities necessary for calving and alsothat the cow is lactating while consuming the most expensive feed of the year. Thereare few possibilities to take advantage of opportunity feeds due to the higher nutrientrequirements of lactating animals and it is difficult to reduce costs much by extendingthe grazing season. This system is threatened by factors such as nutrient build-up inwintering areas, greater potential for neonatal diseases, and reduced flexibility as calvesare often large enough at weaning that they must be sold directly to the feedlot forfinishing. Because this is a high-cost system, producers may be more exposed to riskduring the trough of the cattle cycle when returns are lowest.

II. March/April calving

Producers who want to have calving completed by the time the cows go to pasture forthe summer also use this system. Decent calving facilities are still needed becausecold weather is still possible in March. This system is somewhat less labour intensivethan the winter calving system because the weather is less inhospitable than in Januaryand February. Feed requirements are lower than for winter calving as the cow is onlylactating for a few months before turnout to pasture. Producers using this system needsome good hay but can use more lower quality (lower price) feeds over the winter thanis possible with January/February calving. This system is a compromise between theJanuary/February calving and May/June calving and calf weaning weights will beintermediate between those of the two other strategies. Therefore, gross returns fromsale of weaned calves will be intermediate. This strategy is based on average qualitypastures and a mix of high and low quality conserved feed. Strengths of this strategyare that it is lower cost than winter calving, weather conditions are generally morefavourable, there are no flies to bother new-born calves, and calving is finished beforecows go to pasture. This makes it easier to keep calving records compared to pasturecalving systems. A weakness is that the cow is still lactating while consumingexpensive feed (but for less time than the winter calving system). This system providesgreater possibilities to use opportunity feeds during the early winter period. With thissystem, it is also possible to graze or out-winter cows until mid-February. This type ofproduction system is also threatened by nutrient build-up around facilities and can bethreatened by neonatal calf diseases such as scours.

51

III. May/June calving

Because calving occurs on spring pasture, minimal facilities are required and cows canbe out-wintered in sheltered pastures. This is the least labour intensive strategy as thecows do most of the work. This system avoids feeding a lactating animal expensivehigh quality conserved feed and allows producers to focus on low-cost productionstrategies such as extended grazing instead of feeding conserved forages. This systemis based on good pastures and low quality conserved feeds. Strengths of this strategyare that it is low cost, works with natural cycles and removes physical limitations toexpansion related to facility size except for carrying capacity of the land. The mainweakness of this strategy is that calving occurs at the same time as spring seeding formixed farmers and it may be more difficult to assist cows with calving problems. Also,the strategy is less controllable and will result in lighter calves in the fall thanJanuary/February calving which will often lead to lower returns over variable costs thanJanuary/February calving. However, this is the strategy that is likely to provide thegreatest net income and return on investment. Also, this strategy offers manypossibilities to make use of opportunity feeds, to maximise the use of swath grazing andto calve on pasture. Thus, there is more opportunity to improve the economics of beefproduction further with this strategy. Also, this strategy presents the producer with anumber of marketing options, such as sale of weaned calves, backgrounded calves,long yearlings or finished animals. Threats to this system are primarily related to badweather conditions (rain, mud) at calving time.

IV. August/September calving

Calving generally occurs on fall pasture, which reduces the labour needed at calvingtime. This strategy results in animals being fed expensive conserved foragesthroughout the winter and prevents the producer from being able to take advantage oflow-cost feeding strategies such as swath grazing. This strategy may have lowerweaning weights and may have lower a gross margin, net income and return oninvestment. This strategy is based on good quality conserved feeds and low qualitypastures as the cow is dry through the summer pasture season. The main strength ofthis strategy is that cows calve on clean pasture, which minimises the risk of neonataldisease. The major weakness of this strategy is that it is relatively inflexible in terms ofmanagement and record keeping at calving may be more difficult than with barn basedcalving systems. This strategy may have some marketing advantages since calves willbe the ideal weight to sell in high priced grass cattle markets in the spring or as feedercattle in August and September of the following year. The strategy also producescalves that are well suited for grass in the spring. The major threat to this strategy is itslack of flexibility and high costs during the winter.

B. Comparison of two stocker purchase strategies:

I. Stockers - spring purchase

52

Producers using this strategy have minimal need for facilities other than corrals.Generally, these cattle are purchased in March and April at between 600 and 700 lb.They will be fed good quality hay until turnout on pasture in mid-May. Pasture quality isthe primary focus of this system. Skill in buying and selling cattle and minimising costper pound of gain is the key to success in this business. This strategy is based onquality pasture with minimal requirements for conserved feed. Strengths of this strategyare that minimal facilities are needed, minimal winter feed is required, and the system isvery flexible. Weaknesses are that usually calves being purchased for grass becomemore expensive as pasture turnout approaches. There is a narrower selection of calvesthan in the fall and the cattle lots offered for sale are often less uniform. Finally, it isgenerally more difficult to buy calves that have been backgrounded properly to go tograss. This strategy has opportunities for contracting the delivery of calves in springand some opportunities may be presented in the pasture finishing area. Threats to thissystem are related to buying cattle at unfavourable prices in some years. Also, yearlingoperators can have considerable exposure to market and currency risk, but this can bemanaged through use of forward contracts and use of futures and options contracts.

II. Stockers - Fall purchase

Producers using this system must have facilities for over-wintering calves. Usuallysome sort of feedlot will be required. Stockers being backgrounded for feedlots (at ~2.5 lb/day) are generally not suitable for pasture as they will lose weight when firstturned out. It is best to over-winter cattle destined for pasture on good quality forage togain not more than 1 - 1.5 lbs/day. Ideally, stockers will be purchased at approximately400 -500 lb and will weigh no more than 700 lbs at turnout. This strategy is based onquality hay and quality pasture. The primary strength of this strategy is that a widerselection of cattle is available for purchase during the fall run at competitive prices.Compared to spring purchasing, there is a better selection of calves available in moreuniform lots. The weakness of this system is that wintering facilities and winter-feed areneeded. There may be some opportunity to use some form of extended grazing toreduce costs. Also, due to the long period of cattle ownership there may be severalopportunities to market these cattle profitably. Threats to this system are related todifficulties involved in buying cattle at favourable prices in some years. Also, yearlingoperators can have considerable exposure to market and currency risk, but this can bemanaged.

C. Combination cow-calf and stocker system:

I. Cow-calf and stocker system

This is a strategy that incorporates many of the good aspects of both cow-calf andstocker systems. The real benefit of this strategy is that it reduces risk. This is becausestocking rates can be reduced easily in the event of drought as stockers can be sold orcustom fed, if necessary. As a result, stocking rates are much more flexible than a cow-calf strategy without stockers. The strength of this strategy is that it is more diversified.The main weakness of this strategy is that it is less specialised. The strategy creates

53

opportunities to retain calves, improve replacement heifer selection programs andimplementation of leader-follower grazing systems.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

An important part of the strategy selection process is to examine the economic impactof each alternative. In the following sections, an attempt is made to study the relativeeconomic costs and returns involved with these different strategies. It is important tonote at the outset that every producer has their own cost structure, meaning that theresults of this comparison could vary from farm to farm due to cost structure, naturaladvantages, cattle genetics, cattle cycles and markets. This being said, this exercise isan attempt to examine the relative economic efficiencies of each strategy and it will beup to each producer to use knowledge of their own operation in the analysis todetermine their own best strategy.

A generalised economic analysis of both cow-calf (Table 1) and stocker cattle (Table 2)production strategies follows. Producers conducting this analysis are advised to followa similar procedure and to use their own figures in the analysis. Copies of thespreadsheets are available on request.

54

Cow-calf Budgets

Table 1. An economic comparison of four cow-calf calvingstrategies (150 cows)

Jan/FebCalving

Mar/Aprcalving

May/Juncalving

Aug/Sepcalving

A. Operating costsFeed costsGrain $40.80 $20.40 $0.00 $18.00Hay/Feed straw $258.13 $240.00 $205.00 $248.75Salt and minerals $17.85 $17.85 $17.85 $17.85Total feed costs $316.78 $278.25 $222.85 $284.60

Other operating costsBedding straw $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $22.00Vet. Medicine & supplies $19.37 $19.37 $19.37 $19.37Breeding costs $26.84 $26.84 $26.84 $26.84Fuel, maintenance & repairs $26.67 $26.67 $26.67 $26.67Utilities $14.00 $10.00 $6.00 $14.00Marketing & transportation $25.68 $24.84 $24.00 $24.26Death loss $14.00 $14.00 $14.00 $14.00Manure removal $10.00 $7.14 $4.29 $11.00Insurance $11.27 $11.27 $10.55 $10.55Herd replacement $39.00 $39.00 $39.00 $39.00Miscellaneous $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00Sub-total operating costs $528.60 $477.37 $408.56 $497.29Operating interest $27.47 $24.56 $20.52 $25.41

Total operating costs $556.08 $501.93 $429.09 $522.70

B. Fixed costsDepreciationBuildings $12.72 $12.72 $6.76 $7.93Machinery & Equipment $39.47 $39.47 $39.47 $39.47Fence & Water system $6.81 $6.81 $6.81 $6.81

Taxes $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50Total fixed costs $61.50 $61.50 $55.54 $56.71

Total operating and fixed costs $617.57 $563.43 $484.63 $579.41

C. Labour $90.00 $64.29 $38.57 $51.43

Total cost of production $707.57 $627.71 $523.20 $630.84Revenue $792.06 $726.33 $651.03 $652.75Capital invested ($/cow) $2,194.37 $2,194.37 $2,075.23 $2,098.56Gross margin ($/cow) $235.99 $224.40 $221.94 $130.06Net income ($/cow) $84.49 $98.62 $127.83 $21.92Return on investment (%) 3.85% 4.49% 6.16% 1.04%

55

Stocker Budgets

Table 2. An economic comparison of two stockercattle strategies

Spring purchase Fall purchaseA. Operating costsFeed costsHay $ 35.51 $ 117.20Salt vitamins & minerals $ 2.10 $ 4.20Total feed costs $ 37.61 $ 121.40

Other operating costsFeeder cost $ 921.84 $ 774.62Yardage $ 18.00 $ 67.50Vet. Medicine & Supplies $ 11.05 $ 15.15Insurance $ 4.09 $ 3.44Marketing and transportation $ 31.06 $ 31.06Death loss $ 15.06 $ 13.95Sub-total operating costs $ 1,001.10 $ 905.73Operating interest $ 28.80 $ 52.94Total operating costs $ 1,029.90 $ 958.67

B. Fixed costsOwn pasture costs $ 42.00 $ 42.00

Total operating and fixed costs $ 1,071.90 $ 1,000.67

C. Pasture labour $ 2.50 $ 2.50

Total cost of production $ 1,074.40 $ 1,003.17

Revenue $ 1,086.00 $ 1,086.00

Gross Margin ($/head) $ 56.10 $ 127.33

Net Income ($/head) $ 11.60 $ 82.83

56

CONCLUSIONS

1. It is important to carefully choose the time you calve your cows. Many factors mustbe considered when making this decision, including the labour requirements of otherenterprises. In the analysis conducted above, January/February calving had thegreatest returns over variable costs (gross margin), but May/June calving had thehighest net income and return on investment.

2. When you purchase stocker cattle is an important decision. In the analysisconducted above, purchasing stocker calves in the fall was the most profitablestrategy for calves destined for grass. This is because they can be backgroundedproperly so that they perform well on grass.

3. A combination of spring calving cow-calf and retention of weaned calves as stockersmay be the best alternative for cow-calf producers. This is because stocking ratescan be easily reduced in the event of drought.

4. Each producer should conduct their own analysis to determine the best time forcalving or calf purchase given their own situation.

57

Grazing Class 2 Soils….Is It Profitable?Glen Crawley

This is a question that is often asked by producers who have traditionally grown annualcrops and are interested in riding through downturns in the grain industry by diversifyingtheir operations to include livestock. As such, the presentation will explore novelgrain/cattle systems that may be employed during a downturn in either the grain sectoror the cattle cycle. Options that will be discussed include:

- strategies for risk protection- custom grazing options- utilizing grain to finish retained calves- sale of perennial forages as hay- strategies to improved efficiency through reduced winter feeding costs- crop rotation strategies

The presentation will also examine the profitability of growing tame forage on class 2land compared to native grass on poorer soil types using the Cost of ProductionGuidelines for Estimating Pasture Costs developed by Manitoba Agriculture and Food.Further, the profitability of yearling cattle vs cow-calf production on class 2 lands will beexamined.

58

IMPROVING YOUR LAND & PROFITABILITY WITH GRASS!Mike and Myna Cryderman

Twelve years ago my husband, Michael, and myself decided that we wanted our qualityof life to include living and working on a farm. Neither of us were from farmbackgrounds but we both enjoyed being outdoors and working with animals so we soldour acreage and I quit my job. Michael continued to work to support us and I dedicatedmy time to the farm. Some people said and still say we were crazy to take on such aventure with no experience or family history in farming. But we feel we were actually atan advantage. We didn't have any preconceived ideas (paradigms) about how thingsshould be done so we tried any new ideas that we thought might work. We did a lot ofreading and attending seminars and courses. Hopefully we are and will continue tolearn. We find it very exciting adapting new ideas and practices to our farm and seeingthe landscape improve with every passing year. We have now paid for our farm, cattleand equipment and Michael is now "retired" to the farm.

Our goals included making a profit from cattle while improving our landscape. I believewe have very little control over what we receive for our products but we have a greatdeal of control over the cost of our inputs. I can only speak from the perspective of acattle producer.

The first practice we adopted was rotational grazing which has evolved intomanagement intensive grazing. We worked with nature and our landscape to divide oursection of land. When we purchased our farm it consisted of 430 acres of cultivated landthe rest in bush and native pasture. It is now totally seeded down to pasture and hayland. We seeded it down over a period of 5 years with a very diverse variety of speciesof grass and legumes.

Michael is the fencing expert and he has become very proficient at running hi-tensileelectric fences. This fencing lends itself to following the natural lay of the land. Ourland is 6 miles from the US border in the Turtle Mountains so it is quite hilly with twocreeks running through it. We have divided up our section into about 20 paddocks andwe have plans of splitting some of the larger ones further. Fencing has evolved as wellover the years from a 3 strand barbed wire cross fence with posts every 16 feet to asingle strand hi-tensile wire with posts every 60 to 100 feet, depending on terrain. Thisof course is a great cost and labour saving. We also incorporate the use of temporaryreeled electric fences to further sub-divide pastures for maximum utilization.

We have been practicing managed rotational grazing for 12 years now and the pasturescontinue to improve every year. We are in the business of harvesting solar energy andbare ground doesn't do it. We have seen, especially in the last few years, a tremendousincrease in plant density and much quicker recoveries after grazing. I don't think wehave anywhere near reached the true potential of grass productivity yet. We have alsoseen an improvement in the soil condition, much more organic material both above andbelow the soil surface. There is little bare ground now and the plant spacing is verydense. There is an increasing abundance of decomposing litter. There has been a

59

remarkable increase in species and number of birds and other wildlife on our farm. Wethink is an indicator of a healthy environment.

At a recent pasture school held on our farm one of the instructors identified about adozen species of native grasses that have naturally re-introduced themselves into ourlandscape. Because the land is totally covered in healthy forage at all times there islittle or no runoff in this hilly and highly erodible land. There was a slough that was fullof water when we purchased the land in the dry year of 1989. Since it was surroundedwith cultivated hilly land it quickly filled with run-off. Even in the recent wet years theslough does not fill with water anymore because the rain infiltrates the soil where it falls.It never gets a chance to run off the land.

Not only do we make the cattle work for their feed but we also make them work atclearing brush. We have over 200 acres of brush pasture which has a good deal ofhazelnut scrub. Of course no grass grows in these areas. We have used the cattle toclear these areas. We drop bales in the brush moving farther in with each bale. Thecattle not only trample the scrub but actually browse on it too. After a year the grass willstart to come in and it becomes much more productive land without the use of heavyequipment or chemicals. This method also leaves the big trees for shelter and beautyof the landscape.

The biggest single change we have made that improved our bottom line, by decreasingcosts, was changing our calving season to late May and June. It was also the toughestdecision we had to make. I know all the arguments against it because I made thosesame arguments myself. We were weaning 700 lbs calves in late September and whocould argue with that! But at what cost! Once the decision was made we have neverregretted it. By changing to summer calving we could adopt many low cost practices towinter our cows. Our cattle's nutritional needs are now more in tune with what isproduced by the land at that time of year. The cattle do their own harvesting of growingforage in summer and stockpiled forage in the spring, fall and early winter. We have cutour feeding of expensive harvested forage to about 90 days from nearly 200 days. Thecattle are kept on the land 365 days of the year eliminating the expense associated withfeedlot cleaning. The manure is spread on the land by the cattle. We never feed a balein the same place twice. We try to place bales where the land is most in need offertilization.

Some of the low cost winter feeding methods we have tried are:

1. Stockpiled grazing:We are still grazing this year on stockpiled paddocks.

2. Swath grazing: We sowed down 23 acres of land to smooth awned barley aroundJune 25 and swathed it at the soft dough stage around Aug 25. We then rationed itout to the cows with an electric wire reel using re-bar as temporary posts. Thisextends the grazing season another 3 weeks to a month. We have actually quitdoing this since we found that the cost of seeding a cereal crop did not pay for theamount of grazing we got. We could see some benefit if the producer was a grain

60

farmer but since we aren't and had to have everything custom worked the costswere just too high.

3. Swath Grazing Perennial Forage: Last year we tried swathing a mature hay field latein the season. We rationed it out the same as we would with swath grazing annuals.The weather didn't cooperate and we had early heavy snows and high winds. Soutilization was not very good.

4. Bale Grazing: This year we have baled late harvested hay with a light wrap of sisaltwine and plan on rationing that out with an electric wire the same as swath grazing.This should eliminate the problems with early snow.

There are many advantages to these extended grazing practices. You don't have thecosts of harvesting the feed or feeding the feed. You keep the cows out of the corralsso we don't have a corral cleaning bill. Our cows never come in our corrals any more.

We still have two stockpiled paddocks left for early spring grazing as soon as the snowis gone. We find by turning the cows out onto standing stockpiled forage at the sametime as the grass is starting to grow we introduce the new green forage gradually andwe have eliminated the problem of founder. Of course since the cows are close tocalving at this time with higher nutritional needs we do supplement with hay.

We also have a stockpiled paddock adjacent to the yard to calve on. This paddock isonly used for calving in May and June and then a few horses graze on it later in theyear. We have found with summer calving that there are significantly fewer calvingproblems and no sickness in the calves.

Summer calving is wonderful. It is such a non-event. You go out a few times a day andtag, castrate and dehorn. No night checking. Any problems and we walk the cow upinto the yard. We haven't had any scours on pasture. We do move out the mothered uppairs about once a week to make checking easier.

Our conception rate is higher in a shorter breeding season (45 days)with summercalving. Of course we are breeding in tune with nature. The highest nutritional needs ofthe cows are matched with the highest production of grass. We aren't paying to harvestthe forage to feed her for Jan/Feb calving. We're letting the cow do her own harvesting.

Of course your calves are smaller in the fall. This year was our third crop of Junecalves. We had intended to winter them and either sell as grassers or grass themourselves depending on prices . But the prices were so good this fall that we sold themat an average of $670 for June calves. There seems to be more market option withJune calves. The cost of wintering a June calf is significantly less than wintering a cowin the last trimester of pregnancy. Of course we don't have 700 pound calves but wemarket just as many pounds of calves just more of them off the same land base. Thelighter calves usually bring a significantly higher price per pound as well.

61

We have cut our winter feeding days from the traditional 200 to less than 90 days. Wedo grow all the feed required for our cattle. We do not feed grain.

We have seen a vast improvement in the quality of our landscape and our lifestyle.When rain falls on our land now it stays there to do us good. It doesn't run off to causeproblems of flooding and erosion downstream. Sunlight that shines on our land findsplants to utilize it throughout the growing season. Manure from our cattle stays out inthe field to fertilize new growth without the use of machinery. We feel we are not onlysustainable but we see continuing improvement in the grass and soil. And we work lessand less to attain better results. I feel that we are working with and for nature and notfighting against it.

62

Strategies to Improve Pasture ProductivityGarry Bowes

In Saskatchewan, the aspen parkland is a mosaic of grasslands, small shrubs andgroves of mostly aspen with some balsam trees on wet sites. Since the reduction inprairie fires and buffalo grazing in the 1800's, aspen groves have expanded intoneighbouring grassland communities.

In the 1950's and 1960's, pasture managers in the southern part of the aspen parklandbecame alarmed at the rate of aspen invasion into grasslands. Pastures that were oncegrasslands were becoming an aspen forest. Crawler tractors cleared trees off the land,broke the land and seeded tame forage species. Aspen and to a lesser extent balsamsuckering was prolific and soon there was a forest.

A series of experiments were started near Ituna, Saskatchewan to find the best way tocontrol suckers and keep a grassland type of vegetation in a pasture. According to theelderly living around Ituna, the aspen dominated sites that were selected for theexperiments, were once grasslands.

After mostly aspen and some balsam trees were cleared and piled during the winter of1973-74, Roundup TM (Monsanto Canada Inc.) was applied on 2- to 4-year old suckers.Roundup killed most of the suckers. Time of treatment; applying Roundup on 2- to 4-year old suckers, was the most important factor. The few suckers that survivedRoundup are a threat because they will grow into groves of trees, which will expand intoa forest. Six years after the Roundup treatment, part of the treated area was rototilledand seeded to alfalfa and smooth brome. Both forage species established. Theseexperiments showed the value of a good forage stand after a non-residual herbicidecontrolled sucker growth.

Sod-seeding can be used to seed forages into grasslands and land on which suckergrowth is controlled. From 1980 to 1983, experiments were started to identify factorsthat could be important when alfalfa and smooth brome are sod-seeded after aRoundup application of 2.8 L/ac. The forages were sod-seeded into a bluegrass pasturethat had been moderately grazed. Alfalfa was included in the sod-seeded foragemixture because many producers want to graze the legume, despite the fear of bloat.More alfalfa established when spring moisture was wetter then normal. Moisture wasthe important factor. Some smooth brome was successfully established when sod-seeded with alfalfa. Compared to alfalfa, grasses are more difficult to establish. ARoundup treatment for sod-seeding must be applied earlier in the growing season thanwhen the herbicide is used for sucker control.

In 1996, experiments at Hafford, Saskatchewan were started to compare sod-seedingfor the establishment of tame forage and native species. Roundup applied at 3 L/acsufficiently controlled the resident vegetation on a bluegrass, brome or crestedwheatgrass pastures, allowing sod-seeded meadow brome and alfalfa to successfullyestablish. All three pastures were heavily grazed for an unknown number of years, prior

63

to a Roundup-sod-seeding treatment. Roundup did not control all of the existingvegetation. Growth from grasses that were treated with Roundup is called 'residualgrowth'. The residual growth was 6, 5, or 2% of the three-year average yield for thebluegrass, brome or crested wheatgrass pasture, respectively.

Native species can be successfully sod-seeded. After Roundup and sod-seeding,northern, slender and western wheatgrass, and green needle grass established butthere was always more residual growth after sod-seeding native than tame foragespecies. The amount of residual growth on the bluegrass, brome or crested wheatgrasspasture was 13, 18 or 8% of the three-year average yield, respectively.

Pastures sod-seeded to tame forage or native species should not be grazed during theyear of seedling establishment.

It is not known if sod-seeded pastures will eventually revert back to the residual foragespecies or if the newly sod-seeded species will dominate for a long time. Users of sod-seeding should contact their local forage-range management specialist to obtain thenewest grazing recommendation for maintaining the desired species in a pasture.

After successful sod-seeding, aspen and balsam suckers can appear or be present andif not controlled, these suckers can start a new forest. In 1994, different types of barkscrapers and Roundup applied with a carpet wiper were evaluated for sucker control.The bark scrapers or wiper-applied Roundup successfully controlled small suckers.Time of treatment, when sucker shoots are <1.5 cm in diameter or the shoots are 2- to4-years old, was the important factor. Always control small suckers to prevent the buildup of wood on a pasture. Repeat these treatments as required to prevent aspen andbalsam establishment, particularly the use of bark scrapers because a treatment mayonly control 75% of the suckers

The above research was completed with Roundup. The rates for Roundup used in theabove experiments may vary from rates that are registered for new glyphosate basedproducts. Always use the herbicide rates that are registered when sod-seeding orcontrolling sucker growth.

The above research was completed when Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada employedthe author.

64

FEEDING COWS ON SNOWBALLS AND PROMISESJanice Bruynooghe

Beef producers on the Prairies are very aware that winter feeding costs account for alarge proportion of the total cost of production for the average cow-calf operation.Traditional management systems have centered on the idea that once the snow fell,cows were moved into the corrals and the tractor was fired up daily, 40oC below or not.However, as producers begin to sharpen their pencils and look for alternatives, manyhave found ways to make their cows start working for them rather than the oppositebeing true. It’s not as simple as just snowballs and promises but there are a number ofoptions available to reduce winter feeding costs.

Balancing demand and supply

Before turning your cows out with a couple of bales of straw and a block a salt, it iscritical to understand cow nutrient requirements and how they change throughout theproduction cycle. Feeding cows, at any time of the year, is an exercise in balancingsupply and demand. No winter ration or grazing plan should be developed withoutknowledge of feed quality. It is critical to submit a sample of all feedstuffs, whetherscreening pellets, straw, grazed forage or baled hay, to a feed testing lab for analysis.The cost of a feed test (currently about $40 per sample) will quickly be recovered by abalanced ration if you have been oversupplying expensive nutrients or selling youranimals short, likely resulting in reduced animal productivity.

Remember that the demand side of the equation is determined by the animals you arefeeding. Are you feeding mature cows or replacement heifers? What is the bodycondition score of the animals you are feeding? Are you feeding for early or latepregnancy? Have you considered environmental conditions such as temperature andwind? Weather conditions can drastically change an animal’s daily requirements forenergy. An understanding of animal nutrient requirements will ensure that feed can besupplied to meet demand.

Once you have a clear picture of both animal demand and feed supply, the trickbecomes finding a way to balance the two as cheaply as possible. You will need to takean unbiased look at your current situation and then possibly consider some newoptions.

Winter grazing plans

Winter feeding strategies that include grazing alternatives are one way producers canreduce the costs of feeding cattle during the winter months. Through the elimination ofbaling, feed hauling, transportation and storage, reduced labour, equipment, fuel costsand manure handling, wintering costs can be dramatically reduced. Extending thegrazing season, whether with annual crops or perennial forages, is not a newmanagement idea, however, more and more producers are including this alternative intheir cattle feeding plans. As with any new management practice, careful planning is

65

critical to the success of a winter grazing program. Some important factors to evaluateand consider include:

• Location of grazed paddock – Where will the animals be grazing in relationto other feeding alternatives? Consider protection from the wind andsevere snow drifting. Will the animals be grazing in an area where you canmonitor their condition? Also consider the fact that you may want tosupplement animals on cold, windy days or if snow conditions dictate.Snow availability will also determine whether access to water, at certaintimes or throughout the grazing period, is needed.

• Forage source – Both forage quantity and quality are importantconsiderations in a winter grazing scenario. Annual cereals, includingbarley and oats, are commonly used for swath grazing purposes whilesome producers are including spring seeded winter cereals such as wintertriticale or fall rye into mixtures. Grazing corn is another alternative thathas been put to the test in recent years. Perennial forages can bestockpiled and grazed, provided that species are selected which maintaintheir feed quality and can be managed for this type of grazing.

• Grazing management – Controlling cattle access to forage in a wintergrazing situation can improve feed utilization, prevent snow from packing,minimize waste and regulate the quantity of feed being consumed. Electricfence is the most commonly used way to control cattle access during thegrazing period. The area provided to animals will depend on the foragebeing grazed, snow conditions and the number of animals, with the maingoal being to achieve the desired level of forage utilization. Movement offences in order to control grazing utilization is often a more economicalalternative and less labour intensive than feeding conserved forage.

• Animal Selection – Selecting appropriate animals for a winter grazingprogram is an important consideration when aiming to balance animaldemand with feed supply. Most producers select dry, mature cows in goodbody condition. These animals are prepared to perform under winterconditions. Caution is advised if grazing young or thin animals as theymay require higher quality feed that will need to be provided throughsupplementation. All animals should be monitored closely during wintergrazing periods to ensure that animal health and welfare is not beingcompromised.

Some winter grazing options

Recent research and demonstration projects across western Canada have providedsome insight into winter grazing alternatives. The Western Beef Development Centre(WBDC) at Lanigan, SK has implemented swath grazing and grazing corn projects fortheir cow herd over the last three years (1999 to 2001) (Western Beef Development

66

Centre Inc. 2001). Crops grown have included Triple Crown oats, Excel barley and ninedifferent corn varieties. In all years, animal performance, forage production and quality,along with input costs for each crop were evaluated.

In barley and oat swath grazing projects at the WBDC, mature, dry cows maintained abody condition score of three (scale of 1 –5). Forage quality analysis indicated thatswaths adequately supplied required nutrients, including energy and crude protein.Inputs, including all fieldwork, fertilizer, herbicide, seed and fencing costs, averaged$77.64 per acre. Forage production averaged 2.4 tonnes dry matter per acre, resultingin 69.5 grazing days per acre. Costs for this swath grazing project were equal to $1.13per animal unit per day.

In comparison, a summary of on-farm winter swath grazing in west central andnorthwest Saskatchewan across three winter feeding periods (1996-97 to 1998-99)reported an average of 75 grazing days per acre. Average input cost for swath grazingon these operations was calculated at $50.93 per acre. The result was an average costof $0.76 per cow per day (Kowalenko 1999).

Corn grazing under dryland conditions is another winter grazing option being evaluatedacross the Prairies. Grazing demonstrations at the Western Beef Development Centrehave shown input costs for corn varieties to vary from $165.45 to $111.30 per acredepending on variety, herbicide and fertilizer application. In 2000, weed pressure andavailable heat units limited corn forage production. Yields ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 tonnesper acre (dry matter basis). As a result, cow grazing days varied from 48 to 145 daysper acre and cost per cow per day ranged from $1.01 to as high as $3.45. In the fall of2001, corn forage production for nine different varieties averaged from 4.1 to 8.8 wettonnes per acre (1.2 to 2.6 tonnes dry matter per acre). Grazing results for this projectwill be available following the current winter grazing period.

Work has also been conducted in Alberta evaluating the performance of grazing cornvarieties under dryland conditions. Western Forage Beef Group researchers at theLacombe Research Centre have reported that feed quality of corn varieties wasadequate for grazing gestating cows through December and January with yieldsaveraging 3.0 and 3.8 tonnes per acre during two study years (Western Forage BeefGroup 2000). Researchers warn that growing corn requires a steep learning curve, withattention to weed control and fertility being critical. Comparisons of corn to otheralternatives such as swath grazed barley, oats and triticale indicated that cereals wereable to compete with corn in terms of forage yield. Because cereals are often cheaper togrow than corn, the economics of growing corn for grazing purposes may still be alimiting factor in some cases.

For all winter feeding alternatives, it is important to recognize that each operation willhave very different management strengths as well as varied input costs. Thesevariables will need to be assessed and evaluated before implementing new wintergrazing strategies.

67

Selecting profitable alternatives

All producers have their own philosophy on the most productive and profitable way tofeed cattle. What is a realistic alternative for one producer is likely very different thanthat of their neighbours. Along with the difference in feeding strategies comes aseparate price tag – it is this number that producers need to get a handle on in order todetermine whether their current wintering program makes sense economically and whatalternatives would be profitable.

Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food recently conducted a study that included 52 cow-calf operations across the province in an attempt to identify input costs and provide awhole farm economic analysis. One part of the resulting analysis outlined an averagecost of feeding a cow through the winter months. The average beef cow wintering costsin 1999, based on 52 herds, was $1.32 per day for a 1300 lb cow. This value includedfeed and bedding costs. When yardage was incorporated, including vet and medicinecosts, the total cost per cow per day was $2.37 (Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food1999.)

Comparing your operation’s wintering costs to average values will be useful as youevaluate your current management practices and possibly look for new cost effectivefeeding options. However, it is extremely important to calculate your own cost ofproduction for your specific situation. Only then can you begin to look at alternativewintering strategies that will allow you to work toward cutting winter feed costs.

References

Kowalenko, B. 1999. Grazing and Pasture Technology Program. Economic andagronomic analysis of swath grazing vs. baled greenfeed.

Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. 1999. 1999 Summary Report: SaskatchewanCow-Calf Costs and Returns Program.

Western Beef Development Centre Inc. 2001. Swath grazing and corn grazing projectresults.

Western Forage Beef Group. 2000. Are You Interested in Grazing Corn?

68

KEEPING THE GRASS “GREENER” ON YOUR SIDE OF THE FENCE -UNDERSTANDING PASTURE FERTILITY

Don Green

Introduction:

Sometimes it may seem that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Thatbeing said, in the livestock grazing business, our objective should be focussed on ourside of the fence and keeping the grass green on our own side of the fence. The funnything is, although the expression is often used in other contexts, keeping the grassgreen on your own side of the fence is peace of mind in knowing that you have done agood job. Fertility is one of the key tools that pasture managers have at their disposal toensure that the grass is greener on your side of the fence.

Soil Fertility

Soils may well be the most important resource used for agricultural production in theworld. Soils provide a rooting medium for plants that provide the air, water and nutrientsthat plants need to grow and be healthy. While this is true, understanding soil fertilityand soil nutrition in pastures can be looked at in several different methods. Themethods we will look at are nutrient cycling, nutrient budgets, and pasture response tofertilization.

SOIL NUTRIENT CYCLING

Nutrients in soils are typically broken down into the macronutrients and themicronutrients. The line between the two is based upon the relative amounts of eachnutrient taken up from the soil. The macronutrients usually listed as those constituentsin plants present at levels higher than 0.1% and the micronutrients are those present atlevels lower than 0.1%. The macronutrients are nitrogen, potassium, calcium,magnesium, phosphorus, and sulphur. The micronutrients most often discussed arechloride, iron, boron, manganese, zinc, copper and molybdenum. Since micronutrientdeficiencies are really quite rare, most interest is placed on the macronutrients.

First and foremost when understanding soil fertility, it will be important to understand theparent material that the soil is formed upon. In Manitoba, the majority of soils have beenformed from calcareous parent material, specifically limestone (CaCO3) or dolomite(MgCO3), both of which contain calcium and magnesium. This is also important to notesince this characteristic will result in relatively high soil pH, eliminating the need for limeas is sometimes applied in other geographic regions and supplying significant amountsof both calcium and magnesium to crops. Soil pH is also important in understandingnutrient cycling since high soil pH contribute to reducing the availability of nutrients suchas copper and phosphorus.

Parent material is also important to understand since the texture or relative ratio of sandsized particles to clay sized particles affect potassium availability. Typically, heavier

69

textured soil or soils with high clay content will have higher potassium availability whilesandy textured soils will have lower potassium content.

In terms of measuring the availability of soil nutrients in pastures, the best tool that wehave to use is the commercial soil test. In 1999 a pasture survey was conducted toestimate the soil nutrient status of Manitoba pastures. While the survey surveyed only arelatively small number of pastures (n=50), some interesting observations can be drawnfrom this data (Figure 1). The two nutrients most often testing in the marginal ordeficient range (those likely to have a response to applied fertilizer) are nitrogen andphosphorus in that order. Grasslands are typically nitrogen limiting production systems,meaning that nitrogen is the primary limitation to pasture production. This data must beused with caution however for at least two reasons. Firstly, since the standard nitrogentest used by commercial labs to analyze for nitrogen availability some cautions areimportant to consider from the nitrogen perspective. While the nitrate test only tests fornitrate and there can be large quantities of the soil nitrogen pool present in the organicor unavailable forms in grasslands, and because these soils also have highmineralization potential, the nitrate test may not be the best indicator soil nitrogen statuson pasture soils. Other factors to consider are the pasture condition, trash and litteravailability, and the relative health and productivity of legumes in the pasture ascompared with the grasses in the pasture. Secondly, while this data is useful todetermine where programming should be focussed, it contains next to no usefulinformation for assessing the fertility status of an individual pasture.

Figure 1: Soil fertility status of Manitoba pastures. (Soils and Crops, 1999)

Diagrams such as Figure 2 are often used to describe the movements andtransformations of nutrients in the soil. These diagrams are useful to understand thefate of nitrogen and help develop good land practices on certain soil types andlandscape positions. An example of this type of usefulness is that if one knows that aparticular field is likely to be flooded in the spring for an extended period of time and thatthese conditions contribute to denitrification, then this field is not well suited to fall

48

2

28

14

71

10

10

23

7

5

28

17

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NO3 PO4 K SO4

ExcessiveOptimumMarginalDeficient

70

nitrogen application. Likewise if a field is freshly broken out of alfalfa, then one canexpect nitrogen to be mineralized from the decomposing legume crowns and supplied tosubsequent crops.

One final comment on nutrient cycling approaches in assessing soil fertility is onbiological nitrogen fixation. This is probably the cheapest method of adding nitrogen intothe soil that exists since the rhizobium bacteria fix nitrogen gas form the atmosphereinto a plant useable form. Although this nitrogen is tied up in the roots and crowns of thelegume species, it can be transferred to the grass component of the sward throughbypass nitrogen that is transferred through the animal and then made available in theexcrement of the animal. Nitrogen can also be made available to other plant speciesthrough the thinning of the legume stand that typically occurs over time. As these plantsdie and decompose, the plants mineralize nitrogen into the soil that can be used byother plants in the sward. Sod-seeding legumes into an existing pasture is anothermethod that can be used to introduce legumes (and nitrogen) into an existing pasturesward. Table 1 shows some of the typical rates of nitrogen fixation that three sod-seeded legumes can produce with good establishment.

Figure 2: General components of the pasture nutrient cycle.

71

Table 1: Measured nitrogen fixation in nitrogen deficient grassland contributed bydifferent forage legumes.

Legume Species Establishment Year Subsequent Yearslbs N/acre lbs N/acre

Alfalfa 80 - 90 150 - 275Birdsfoot Trefoil 50 - 60 120 - 175Red Clover 60 - 70 160 - 250

Adapted from "Nutrient Cycling in Forage Systems"

Soil Nutrient Budgets

In their most basic form, soil nutrient budgets are similar to a bank account with removalbeing like withdrawals and inputs being like deposits. Inputs to the soil fertility bankcome from applied manure, biological nitrogen fixation from bacteria in association withlegumes, fertilizer and atmospheric deposition. Withdrawals of nutrients occur with plantuptake and removal, leaching, fixation, denitrification and volatilization.

This is a useful method for the big picture view of what is happening to the plantnutrients that exist in forage production systems. It is also a useful method to determinelong term sustainability since in the long run, deposits need to equal withdrawals inorder for the system to be truly sustainable.

As an example, consider the four following nutrient budgets (Figure 3). The firstdescribes the uptake and removal for a 4 ton alfalfa hay crop, a 3 ton grass hay crop, a30 bushel wheat crop (grain only removed) and a 30 bushel wheat crop (both straw andgrain removed) of nitrogen, phosphate (P205), potash (K20), and sulphur. For theseexamples, the crop nutrient budgeting process is a relatively simple one where removalof nutrients is equal to the amount of nutrients contained in the harvested portion of thecrop.

Figure 3: Crop removal of nitrogen, phosphate, potash, and sulphur for alfalfa,grass hay, wheat (grain only), and wheat (grain and straw). (Canadian FertilizerInstitute, 1998)

220

52

220

20

113

35

125

1260

24 18 5

8033

72

100

50100150200250

Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Sulphur

Alfalfa Hay (4 tons/acre) Grass Hay (3 tons/acre) W heat Grain (30 bushels) W heat S&G (30 bushels)

72

Pasture is a somewhat of a different story. Grass grows and nutrients are taken up bythe plants and accumulated in the plant tissues quite similar to what happens in theexamples above of alfalfa and grass hay. The harvest method however is quite differentin a pasture system as compared with the hay removal as indicated above. Rather thanremoving all of the above ground material as is the case with a hay harvest, animalsonly remove a portion of the grass that is produced and some of the nutrients are thenexcreted back onto the land in the form of livestock waste. This has been measured inthe case of nitrogen at Lacombe, AB at three different stocking rates (Figure 4). Clearlyif the nitrogen that is retained in the animals in the form of animal protein is the onlyremoval of nitrogen from the land, then removal rates are less than for a hay harvestsystem as a rule.

Figure 4: Rates of nitrogen consumed, excreted and retained from pasture atthree stocking rates at Lacombe, AB (V.S. Baron, unpublished).

The reality is that with losses from ammonia volatilization and denitrifcation will result insomewhat more loss of nitrogen than figure 2 represents. On the other hand, if apasture has a significant legume component and one considers atmospheric depositionof nitrogen it is probably a fair to good representation of what actually goes on in termsof nitrogen cycling in pastures.

Overall, in terms of nitrogen, calves and yearlings will retain 5 – 15% of the nitrogentaken up by plants, and cows with calves will retain 20 – 25% of the nitrogen containedin plants. Phosphorus and potassium are both typically retained in the range of 10% ofconsumed levels of both nutrients on a per acre basis.

PASTURE RESPONSE TO FERTILIZATION

Another method that some are interested in for pasture production is yield response.Pasture yields can be somewhat difficult to estimate, since intake is production isrelated to intake and grazing distribution, which affect utilization rates by livestock.

HeavyMedium

Light

Retained

ExcretedConsumed

165144

120145

127106

20 17 140

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Stocking Rate

73

However, if we assume that the grazing system allows for and promotes uniformgrazing distribution and consistent intake, then dry matter yield is a good indication ofcarrying capacity and pasture utilization.

The pasture fertility and managed project that involved five sites across Manitoba overthe last two years was established to determine the costs and benefits of improvingmanagement of bluegrass dominated pastures. These pastures were bluegrass-dominated grasslands that had largely been under continuous grazing. One acre wasfenced out at each site to allow control of the grazing animals and implement a restrotational grazing system that would allow benefits of fertilization to be measured. Thetreatment list for the pasture fertility and managed grazing project is contained in Table2.

Table 2: Treatments for the pasture fertility and managed grazing project in 2000 and2001.Fertilizer treatments described as (lbs N – lbs P205 – lbs K20 – lbs S); Sp indicatessplit applied nitrogen. Treatments 1 through 7 were rested in both years; treatment 8rested in 2001 only and measured as yield contained within a grazing cage.

Treatment Number 2000 20011 0 02 50-0-0 50-0-03 100-0-0 100-0-04 100Sp-0-0 100Sp-0-05 50-30-60-20 50-30-60-206 100-30-60-20 100-30-60-207 100Sp-30-60-20 100Sp-30-60-208 0 and Continuously Grazed 0 and Rested

Fertilization and grazing systems are not mutually exclusive from the perspective ofmanagement. Rest in rotational grazing systems allows pasture plants the time requiredto build up a critical mass of dry matter that allows continued growth and production. Inorder for fertilizer application to be effective, rest must be a component of the grazingsystem. The impact of the rest periods in 2000 on dry matter yields in 2001 is shown infigure 5. This rest period allows for the grass to reach more of its full yield potential bycomparing the check plot yield within the fenced out area to the area within the grazingcages that was continuously grazed in 2001.

Figure 6 shows the impact of nitrogen fertilizer alone on pasture yields and Figure 7shows the impact of adding P, K, and S along with the same nitrogen treatments asshown in Figure 6. Figure 8 shows a comparison of total DM pasture yields in 2000 and2001 under rotational grazing. A key point to emphasize here is that while bluegrasspastures can be expected to show similar results under a similar grazing system(grazed mid June and late August), it can also be expected that yield responses will bedifferent under a different grazing system.

74

Does Fertilizer on Pasture Pay?

The simple answer is that if the soil is deficient in nutrients and plant response is highenough to yield more grass and lower the cost of production, then yes fertilization doespay. The important part in the decision making process is to assess the costs andbenefits on a localized basis since land availability and costs of alternative pasturesources will also play a role in making the right decision as well as fertilizer prices. Becautious about where data is developed. In the western prairies, the answer is no inmany areas due to drier conditions and lower yields resulting from fertilizer application.In Manitoba on the other hand with our higher rainfall and yield potential, in manyinstances fertilization under rotational grazing will pay dividends and increasingly so astime goes on.

To demonstrate here are some calculations for determining the cost of production andcomparing the results of the pasture fertility project using the following economicassumptions. In this example, nitrogen is budgeted at 35 cents, phosphate and potashat 25 cents and sulphur at 16 cents. An application cost of $4.00 per acre is used forsingle application treatments and $8.00 per acre for split applied treatments. A flat peracre cost of $50 per acre is then assessed as the costs of land ownership, taxes,fencing, water maintenance, and forage stand maintenance. Costs of production per lbof pasture DM and AUM are shown in Figures 8 and 9 in 2000 and 2001.

Figure 5. The Effect of Rotational Grazing on Total Pasture Yield

943

2462

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Continuous Grazing Rotational GrazingPas

ture

Yie

ld (l

bs D

M/a

cre)

Figure 6. The Effect Nitrogen Fertilizer Application under Rotational Grazing Compared to Continuous and Rotational

Grazing Without Fertilizer on Total Pasture Yield, 2001

943

2462

40294545 4485

01000200030004000500060007000

ContinuousGrazing

RotationalGrazing

50 lbsNitrogen

100 lbsNitrogen

100 lbs NSplit

Pas

ture

Yie

ld (l

bs D

M/a

cre)

Figure 7. The Effect of PKS (0-35-60-20) with Nitrogen Under Rotational Grazing in 2001

4029 4545 44854362 5123 5414

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

50 lbsNitrogen

100 lbsNitrogen

100 lbs NSplit

Nitrogen Rate

Pas

ture

Yie

ld (l

bs

DM

/acr

e) N Only

N + PKS

Figure 8. Ef fect of Rotational Grazing and Fertilzation on Yield of Bluegrass Pastures (lbs DM/acre) at 5

Sites in Manitoba

02000400060008000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Treamtent

Tota

l Pas

ture

Yie

ld(lb

s D

M/a

cre)

2000

2001

75

Figure 8. Effect of Rotational Grazing and Fertilization on the Cost of Pasture Production ($/lb DM)

$0.000$0.010$0.020$0.030$0.040$0.050$0.060$0.070

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cos

t per

Pou

nd o

f DM

($)

2000

2001

Figure 9. Effect of Rotational Grazing and Fertilization on the Cost of Pasture Production ($/AUM)

$0.00$10.00$20.00$30.00$40.00$50.00$60.00$70.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cos

t per

AU

M ($

)2000

2001

From these charts, it can be shown that the biggest benefit (reduction in cost) to pastureproduction is through the implementation of rotational grazing. From there areincremental benefits due to fertilization. Clearly the first step is to go to rotationalgrazing and then look at a fertilization program. Another key distinction is that from acost of production perspective, the continuously grazed pasture is the most expensivepasture that is produced. A final obvious point to address is that cost of productiondeclined in the second year for the same treatments. This indicates that the rotationalgrazing and fertilizer benefits accrued and paid dividends at increasing rates as timewent on under this management system.

Take home message

Don’t take my word for it, because all of the economic calculations are wrong for yourown operation. If they are not wrong, let me assure you that is by sheer coincidenceonly. Sit down some evening this winter in between calves with a sharp pencil, acalculator, and a big pad of paper and pencil out where your next increment of pasturewill come from and how you can keep the grass greener on your side of the fence.

76

SUMMARY OF POSTER PRESENTATIONS

A New Tool for Estimating Forage Intake and Digestibility: n-Alkanes

H. M. Froebe, K. M. Wittenberg, and S. A. Moshtaghi Nia. Department of AnimalScience, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Abstract

Grazing lactating dairy cows is gaining popularity in an attempt to reduce labour

requirements and costs, and improve animal well-being. Major deterrents to grazing

include variability of forage quality and the inability to formulate a well-balanced

supplement to compliment the forage consumed on pasture. Well-balanced

supplements can be provided, if individual animal forage intake, digestibility and

selection are known. The use of n-alkanes can provide this information. n-Alkanes are

compounds that are naturally found in plant wax and each plant species has a unique n-

alkane profile. Pasture samples and fecal samples can be tested for their n-alkane

content. With this information, forage intake, digestibility and selection can be

determined, thereby assisting in the formulation of well-balanced supplements, suited to

each animal. The n-alkane technique will give the dairy sector increased confidence in

the use of pasture-based systems by decreasing costs and maintaining maximum milk

production, resulting in improved competitiveness.

77

Comparing Biomass Removal Among Timothy And KentuckyBluegrass Cultivars In An Intensively Managed Dairy Pasture

Carolyn A. MacKendrick, Ralph C. Martin, and Alan H. Fredeen

AbstractThe development of suitably adapted varieties of pasture species is of importance to

optimize animal performance. Traditionally, perennial, cool-season grasses have been

bred and evaluated under mechanical harvest regimes such as hay production. Data

collected under these circumstances may not accurately reflect cultivars' performance

under grazing. In the fall of 1999, four cultivars each of timothy (Phleum pratense L.)

and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) were seeded according to a split-split plot

design in four blocks at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College Pasture Research Centre,

in order that the biomass removed by a grazing dairy herd may be estimated. In each of

the four blocks, cultivars were growing in pure stands and in grass-white clover

mixtures. Stands were subjected to one of two management strategies, "grazed"

(grazed over the entire 5 defoliation events) and "cut" (taking a cut for stored feed at the

time of the 1st defoliatio! ! n, and grazing the regrowth at subsequent defoliations).

Preliminary analysis suggests that while there is no significant difference (p=0.05)

among bluegrass cultivars, more biomass was removed in plots seeded with Farol and

Promesse timothy cultivars than those with Kahu and Comtal. Pure grazed plots had the

least biomass removal, regardless of cultivar or species, while cut bluegrass plots had

greater biomass removal. Specific to bluegrass cultivars and management strategy,

greater biomass was removed from cut Slezanka, cut Huntsville, and cut Knutt, while

with timothy, the greatest biomass removal was seen with cut Promesse.

78

Fertilizer and Managed Grazing as a Tool to Optimize PastureProduction

D. Green, J. Heard, and M. Walsh

Summary:

With a large percentage of Manitoba pastures producing less than optimal levels of

pasture, the Pasture Fertility and Managed Grazing project started in 2000 to evaluate

rotational grazing strategies and fertilizer application as a method of improving

production. By excluding cattle from existing bluegrass pastures and applying fertilizer,

measurements of the returns to rotational grazing and fertilizer application have been

developed.

79

Nitrogen Impact On Yield And Quality Of Export Timothy HayK.Yaworski, R. Bitner, J. Kostiuk, D. Green, J. Heard

Timothy often responded to increases of N fertilizer with increased yield, but declining

quality. The results from 5 site - years of data will be used to estimate optional N

application rates.

80

Using Growing Degree Days To Predict Harvest Timing Of First CutAlfalfa

D. Green, A. Nadler, and M. Walsh

Summary:

The optimum timing for harvesting first cut alfalfa is dependant on production goals and

the market and livestock enterprise that forage will be used in. Growing degree days are

a commonly used method to measure heat unit accumulation and as an indicator of

crop growth and development. In conjunction with the Agrometeorogical Center of

Exellence, a model that shows promise for forecasting the standing crop quality of

alfalfa stands has been developed. Preliminary indications show that the model will

have acceptable accuracy and margins of error for reliable use in the 2002 growing

season.

81

Hog Manure as a Fertility Source for Forages

Sponsored by Stuartburn-Piney Agricultural Development Association,Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council, Manitoba Agriculture & Food andPrairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration.

Manitoba has seen a recent expansion in the hog industry and it is expected tocontinue. Hog expansion is also moving from the traditional grain producing areas of theprovince to more forage and cattle producing areas such as the Southeast and InterlakeRegions. As with manure application to annual croplands, there is growing publicpressure for producers to reduce odours and ensure the protection of the environment.In addition, there is interest by producers to apply the manure in a method that iseconomical, makes the most use of the nutrients in the manure and is environmentallysound.

Currently there is limited information regarding manure application to forage andpasture lands that producers can use in decision making and to ensure economic andenvironmental sustainability within their operations. This project involved severalactivities to evaluate: the effectiveness of liquid hog manure as a fertility source forforage crops and pasturelands; to provide economic and agronomic information that willbe used by local farmers; and to identify areas of further research.

A brief description of activities and highlights are as follows:

Application Systems

This trial was conducted to evaluate and assess different application systems availableto producers. Four different manure application systems along with a commercialfertilizer treatment were used in this trial. They include:

1. Aerway system is a gang disc unit with spiked wheels that open and disturb the soilallowing manure penetration.

2. Greentrac system uses disc openers to inject manure into slits in the soil.3. SleighFoot system has a trailing shoe system that floats on the soil surface placing

the manure directly on the ground.4. Dribble system uses a boom spreader that drops the manure six inches above the

ground.

Highlights

(a) Systems that injected the manure had a slight advantage in forage production overthe dribble or surface application.

(b) At higher application rates of manure, both the Greentrac system, which injects themanure into the soil and the SleighFoot system, which places the manure directly onthe surface, resulted in the pooling of manure on the soil surface. This may reduce

82

the relative advantage of these systems over the dribble system in reducing odorsand nitrogen loss. The Aerway unit resulted in greater penetration of manure into thesod due to greater soil disturbance.

(c) The fall application provided the most consistent results due to the cooler weatherduring application and the availability of moisture. Dry periods following our summerapplications reduced the effect of manure applications and may have causedincreased nitrogen loss through volatilization. Summer is a viable option for manureapplication to forages and the efficiency is dependent on the weather and moisturestatus during and following manure application.

(d) There were slight yield increases at the higher nitrogen application rates. Furtherresearch may be required to compare these systems at rates higher than the 100lbs. of nitrogen used in this trial and to provide additional information regarding theeconomic, agronomic and environmental assessment of the different applicationsystems.

(e) The soil disturbance action of the Aerway unit likely had a beneficial root stimulationeffect that helped to increase the yields from that application system. It may haveadditional benefits of leveling forage and pasturelands and allowing for standrenovation or improvement.

(f) The trials observed a slight increase in nitrate levels under all fertility treatments,with nitrate levels similar between the 50 and 100lbs. /acre rates of nitrogen.

(g) Due to the limited yield differences between application systems, the dribble systemmay be the most economical due to the lower draft requirements and cost ofequipment. The Greentrac and SleighFoot units may not be suitable in uneven orstony fields.

Timing of Application

This trial compared a fall application to a split application treatment involving the samerates of nitrogen. The fall application was applied after the second cut, with the splitapplication receiving manure after both the first and second cuts of forage. This trialwas conducted over three years at two sites. Each treatment was replicated three timesand the results are based on six harvests.

Highlights

The results indicated that if the manure was applied directly after harvest, such as afterthe first cut or in the fall in the dormant season, there was minimal difference in theamount of dry matter forage produced or the profitability between the applicationperiods. This indicates that a split application provides another option for application ofmanure than the traditional fall application system.

83

Rate of Application

Forage production from manure applied at 100 lbs. and 200 lbs. of nitrogen per acrewere compared. This trial was conducted over three years at two sites with eachtreatment replicated three times providing results based on six harvests.

Highlights

a) Although there was more forage produced at the higher rates, the difference inprofitability was marginal, indicating that forage producers need to be careful regardingthe cost of the hog manure as a fertility source. Further work is required in determiningmanure application rates based on economic and environmental factors.

b) In relation to the check, there were no major differences in soil nitrate andphosphorus levels. Deep soil sampling did not indicate nitrate leaching within the soilprofile. Further work is required in monitoring and assessing soil fertility changes overlonger periods of time.

Adaptation of Forage Species

Forage plots were established at three locations in 1999 to evaluate eighteen differentforage species and mixtures as to their adaptability to South Eastern Manitoba and theirability to utilize different rates of fertility applied as hog manure.

Hog manure was applied after the first cut in 2000 at 100 lbs. N, 200 lbs. N, and 300lbs. nitrogen per acre to the forage species. As a comparison, the same fertility rateswere applied using commercial fertilizer. Two replications were used at each of thethree sites. The results to date are based on two harvest periods in 2000. Only theresults of the second cut reflect the hog manure application.

Highlights

(a) In these initial harvests, some species do show an ease of establishment and aninitial adaptability to the higher nutrient regime. Courtney Tall Fescue, for examplehad the highest yield of energy per acre at all sites.

(b) The intention is to maintain these sites for an additional three years to assess theeffect of fertility on the productivity of the species. This information will assistproducers in selecting forage species that are adapted to manure application.

84

Grazing Systems Evaluation

Two pastures have been established to conduct monitoring on the effect of hog manureon forage yields, changes in forage species and the environmental impacts. The sitesinclude a seeded pasture and an unimproved or native pasture. The hog barns at thesesites were established in 1998/99 with manure application beginning in the fall of 2000.Only a few paddocks have received manure to date.

Highlights

Baseline information from these sites has been collected including soil nutrient levels;species composition; and livestock productivity prior to manure application. Theintention is to monitor these sites for the next three years.

Timothy hay feeding trial

A feeding trial with horses was established to evaluate the acceptance of timothy haytreated with hog manure compared to commercial fertilizer.

Highlights

The feeding trials involving both mares and geldings did not show any preference orrejection of hay treated with hog manure or fertilized by commercial fertilizer. This is anindication that hog manure, provided it is applied during the dormant season or prior toregrowth (after first cut), is an option for hay being marketed into the cash hay market.

Producer Survey

A survey was conducted at the start of this project to determine some of the currentknowledge and experience local producers have using hog manure as a fertility sourcefor forages. The results of this survey of twenty producers indicated that they generallywere using good management practices to apply the manure. There was a concernregarding protection of the environment from degradation and they had experiencedsome excellent results from the manure application to forage harvested as stored forageor by grazing animals.