Upload
silvester-simpson
View
232
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Teff Grass as a Warm Season Forage for Backgrounding Calves
in the Shenandoah Valley
Brian Jones – Agronomy
Jason Carter – Animal Science
Background
• Teff is a warm season C4 annual grass– African origin, used as a grain crop
• Gaining popularity as a summer annual forage– Primarily marketed as high quality horse hay
The Teff plant
Objective
To compare the weight gain and profitability of calves rotationally grazing a
Teff grass forage system to calves continuously grazing a typical
Shenandoah Valley cool season pasture
Establishment
• Seeded following barley (wrapped haylage)• May 23: Turbo-till• May 25: Pasture harrow• May 31: Fertilizer
– 64 lb 0-0-62.5– 83 lb 10-34-0– 52 lb 30% UAN
• May 31: Herbicide– 1.5 qt/A Gramoxone
Establishment
• Seeded June 3
• 7 lbs/A
• “Tiffany” teff– Coated seed– 1.3 million seeds/lb
Establishment
• Brillion seeder
• Must seed no deeper than ¼”
First Cutting July 10
• 37 Days after planting
• Analysis:
CP: 16.5%
TDN: 66%
RFV: 94
Experimental Design
• “Gate cut” two groups of calves– 48 in each group– Calves weaned 30 days prior to study
• Calf data:– Weight– Frame score– Switch length
Experimental Design
• Group A– Rotationally grazing Teff grass pasture– 20 acres
• Group B– Continuous grazing cool season pasture
(fescue/OG/clover)– 40+ acres
• Grazed for 69 days (September 30)
Calf Beginning WeightsTreatment Group Beginning Weight Flesh Score
-----------lbs----------Teff 508.3 2.2Cool-Season 509.6 1.95% LSD 21.94 0.26
Calf In-Weight Distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Starting Weight (lb)
Nu
mb
er o
f C
alve
s
Teff Group
Control Group
Start Grazing July 27
• 17 Days after cutting
• Teff 20” tall
• Rotational system– 8 2.5A paddocks– Portable water
trough– 3-4 day rotation
Water Consumption
• Water meter to measure calf H2O intake
• Drank 5 gal/hd/day
• Typical intake is 10.2 gal/hd/day
August 3Teff grew 16” in 23 days after cutting!
August 13
August 18
Finished Grazing Sept. 30
• Teff pasture was completely utilized
• Pulled calves, sorted, weighed
Treatment Group End Weight
Teff 571.4 1.0 aCool-Season 556.9 0.7 b5% LSD 24.2 0.1
ADG-------------------lbs-----------------
Efficiency of Gain
Treatment Group
Teff 3.31 aCool-Season 1.22 b5% LSD 0.38
------------lbs-------------Gain Acre-1
QUESTIONS?
Tolerance of Teff (Eragrostis tef) var. “Tiffany” to Several
Selective Herbicides
Brian JonesAgronomy Extension Agent
Objective
• Limited literature exists on selective weed control in teff
• Objective was to examine the effect of several common selective forage herbicides on teff growth and yield
Establishment• Variety: “Tiffany” teff• Planting date: 3 June, 2009• Seeding rate: 7 lb/A• Seeding tool: Brillion seeder• Previous crop: Barley harvested as silage• Site prep:
– Turbo-till vertical tillage (23 May)– Pasture harrow (25 May)
• Fertilizer applied 31 May:– 64 lb 0-0-62.5– 83 lb 10-34-0– 52 lb 30% UAN
• Burndown herbicide applied 31 May– 1.5 qt/A Gamoxone Nteon
Herbicide Treatments
• Treatments applied on 10 August in a randomized complete block design with four replications
Chemical Trade Name
Product
Rate acre-1
aminopyralid Milestone 10 oz
2,4-D + picloram Grazon P+D 4 pt
2,4-D Weedone LV4 2 qt
dicamba Rifle 1 pt
control
Teff on 10 August
• Treatments applied to teff after 17 days of re-growth occurred from hay cutting
Weed Species Composition
• Number of common forage weed species present, including– Canada thistle– Bull thistle– Pigweed spp.– Horsenettle– Broadleaf dock
• Weed composition and cover varied between treatments
• Teff stand was consistent and above 90% ground cover in all treatments
Teff Yield
• Teff harvested on 22 September (6 WAT)
• Sample weight and dry matter determined
Dry Matter Yield of Teff 6 WAT
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
10 oz 4 pt 2 qt 1 pt
Milestone Grazon 2,4-D Ester Rifle Check
Herbicide
DM
Yie
ld (
ton
/ A
)
NS NSNS
NS
NS
P ≤ 0.05
Milestone Grazon P+D
2,4-D Rifle
Control
Summary
• No difference in teff yield observed between treatments
• No visual difference in teff performance noted between treatments
• A more thorough investigation of herbicide application at different teff growth stages should be performed
QUESTIONS?