A quarterly news publication of The Ohio State University Extension, Editors: Clif Little and Mark Sulc
This newsletter is made possible with support from the Bob & Jewell Evans Foundation
Click here for past issues of this publication.
Click here to subscribe to an e-mail version of Amazing Graze.

Contents:

• Looking for Fall Feed? What About Corn Residue?
• Comparing Herds by Size
• Eastern Ohio Grassland Program
• Learning From Drought
• Comparison of Pasture Supplementation for Finishing Lambs
  

[top] Looking for Fall Feed? What About Corn Residue? - Jeff McCutcheon & Dave Samples

Ohio produces over 3 million acres of corn each year. Most of those acres are harvested for grain with the rest of the plant left in the field. In addition to the value of the grain, one acre of corn residue can supply enough forage to sustain a 1,000-pound cow or animal equivalent for 1.5 to 2 months. Any quick calculation you do, should lead to the conclusion that there is enough feed remaining on corn fields after harvest to significantly increase the grazing days for ruminant livestock. The use of corn residue offers producers increased flexibility for fall and winter pasture and helps reduce the overall feed costs.

Ideally corn fields should be used immediately after harvest for 30-60 days to take maximum advantage of the feed value of the residue. This would allow the permanent pastures to "stockpile" additional days of fall growth that could be grazed after the animals come off the corn fields. Grazing corn fields for an extended period, even all winter, is also an option if supplemental feed is provided and the fields remain dry.

Livestock will selectively graze the most palatable portions of the residue first, starting with the grain, leaves, and husks and then the cobs and stalks. Generally, animal grazing will leave 75-80% of total residue in the field, especially if animals are rotated to new areas before much of the cob and stalk material is consumed. With this in mind, one acre of corn residue will yield approximately 60 animal unit grazing days. This means that one acre of corn residue will provide 60 days of grazing for a 1,000-pound animal, or 30 days for two animals.

Limiting access by strip grazing will allow for an increased stocking rate and greater utilization of the residue. This can be accomplished by using portable electric fencing. Either a single break wire to the front, or double wires with one in front and one to follow can be used effectively, depending on the layout of the field and water sources. However, if strip grazing practices are used, and snow cover arrives before the field is grazed through, some of the best feed may be lost if the grain and husks cannot be recovered.

The easiest fit for grazing crop residue is with non-lactating, mature beef cows or ewes that are in the middle trimester of gestation and are in desirable body condition. Animals that have grain to select will consume a diet that is probably above 7% crude protein and as high as 70% Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN). If corn is visible in the manure, supplementation with anything other than vitamins and minerals is probably not needed. However, when most of the grain has been consumed, or little grain was left in the field, protein supplementation will probably be needed. Several studies have shown that dry cows will at least maintain body weight and may gain up to 1.0 pound per head daily while grazing corn stalks that have grain, husk, and leaves to select.

For other classes of livestock like first calf heifers, ewe lambs, fall calving beef cows, lambs, and calves supplementation will be needed. These classes of animals have higher nutritional needs than average corn residue can provide and producers cannot afford to ignore those needs.

For more information check out a new OSU Extension fact sheet on grazing corn stalks at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr fact/0010.html or call your local Extension Office.

[top] Comparing Herds by Size - Tom Kriegl, U.W. Center for Dairy Profitability

The first enterprise analyzed in this project is dairy grazing. To be considered a dairy farm for the study, 85% or more of gross income must be from milk sales, or 90% of gross income must typically be from dairy livestock sales plus milk sales. Additionally, to be considered a grazier for the study, one must harvest over 30% of grazing season forage needs by grazing and must provide fresh pasture at least once every three days.

Management Intensive Rotational Grazing (MIRG) has become a more common dairy system in the northern U.S. This analysis of actual farm financial data from 92 graziers in the Great Lakes region provides some insight into the economics of grazing as a dairy system in the northern U.S.:

• There is a range of profitability amongst graziers. A comparison of the most profitable half with the least profitable half shows that the top herds had an advantage of $2.41 in Net Farm Income From Operations per Hundred Weight Equivalent (NFIFO/CWT EQ).
  
• The average grazing herd with less than 100 cows had a higher NFIFO per cow and per CWT EQ than the average grazing herd with more than 100 cows. The smaller herds have a $0.54 per CWT EQ advantage in the cost of paid labor, which accounts for more than the $0.44 NFIFO/CWT EQ overall advantage that the smaller herds have.
  
• The average grazier in the study who is fully seasonal (stops milking at least one day each year), has a less desirable financial performance than the average non-seasonal herd, whether NFIFO/cow, NFIFO/CWT EQ or total NFIFO is used as the yardstick. Despite having access to data from many states, only seven seasonal herds' data were available for analysis.
  
• The graziers in the study were economically competitive with confinement herds in the states that had comparable data from both groups.
  

The study also confirms that accounting methodology and financial standards are important both in the accuracy and the standardization of comparison values across large geographic areas involving different combinations of production assets and management skills. Any comparison between the measures in this report and data based on the current market value (CMV) of assets will be misleading. Here, the measures of profitability are calculated in this report using the historic cost asset valuation method (HC) to provide a better measure of profit levels generated by operating the farm business.

Comparing Herds by Size: Less than 100 Cows vs. More than 100 Cows
The average "large" herd has almost three times as many cows, selling slightly less milk per cow, and is less profitable on a per cow and a per CWT EQ basis. The average "large" farm does provide many more total dollars of NFIFO per farm. In the basic cost category, the larger herds have a higher cost per CWT EQ for chemicals, custom hire, feed purchased, rent, repairs, seed, vet and medical expenses and change in prepaid expenses.

The smaller herds have a basic cost per CWT EQ that is $0.13 higher than the larger herds. However, the larger herds have a cost of paid labor that is $0.54 per CWT EQ higher. This provides the smaller herds much of their advantage in NFIFO per CWT EQ. If all labor expenses were added back to NFIFO, the larger herd size would have a slightly higher NFIFO per CWT EQ as shown below.

The smaller herds have $0.57 per CWT EQ advantage in the four cost categories (paid labor, paid management, depreciation and interest) that are added to basic cost to create the allocated cost category (allocated costs equals total income minus NFIFO).

This accounts for the $0.44 per CWT EQ overall advantage that the smaller herds have in NFIFO per CWT EQ.

[Top] Eastern Ohio Grassland Program

It was standing room only for participants attending the Eastern Ohio Grassland Conference October 10th and 11th at the Guernsey County Extension Office. The Extension office has room for only forty participants, but many more would have attended. There was a waiting list to attend. Both OSU Extension and the USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service provided speakers and educational materials to the conference. A 319 Grant for Wills Creek was used to support educational materials for the conference.

The class met for two intensive days of grassland training. Participants attended classroom and field tours; visiting the Howard & Carol Wheeler farm, the EORDC Research Station in Belle Valley and Andy and Emily Fadorsen's farm. In addition, experienced livestock producers and grazers from all over eastern Ohio served on producers panels discussing their operations and answering questions of participants. Better grazing management has been proven to increase farm profitability per acre and reduce nutrient and soil erosion.

The majority of those attending plan to adopt some form of managed grazing as a result of what they learned during the conference and all attending indicated the program was outstanding.

[Top] Learning From Drought - Dr. David Barker, Ohio State University & Clif Little, Extension Agent

Dry July-August weather in Ohio has raised several questions about how pastures should be managed during drought. Although the experts don't all agree if this period of dry weather meets the definition of a drought, there is no doubt that pasture growth will slow to zero. How should we be grazing our pastures in mid-summer??

1. Avoid over-grazing. Unfortunately, without rain or irrigation pastures will not grow, and close grazing will exaggerate this effect. Leaf removal results in death of roots - potentially devastating during a drought. As a general rule of thumb, grazing below 2-3" will accelerate drought effects on pastures, and slow recovery when rain does come. Of course, optimum grazing height and management varies with pasture species. As summer progresses into fall we will increase pasture grazing heights and leave more residual, while increasing resting periods. More leaf means less water runoff.
2. Watch for endophyte poisoning on tall fescue and perennial ryegrass. Drought can result in a double whammy in respect to endophyte i) ergovaline (the toxic alkaloid) levels are elevated, and ii) livestock graze nearer the base of plants where endophyte and alkaloids are the most concentrated. It would be best to utilize other forages during this period of growth, such as annuals or legumes where possible. You might also consider feeding hay or grain.
3. De-stock pastures. Livestock pressure on pastures can be reduced by selling unproductive livestock, feeding silage/hay/grain, and finally in extreme cases you should consider selling productive livestock. In many cases, making the hard decisions early can be the best decision in the long-run.
4. Be ready with nitrogen. Pastures and livestock can make compensatory growth upon relief of drought. Strategic use of N, early in the recovery from drought can re-gain some of your losses. Don't make applications too early, since volatilization losses could be high without rain to ensure incorporation of N.
   
5. Start planning for next year. The best drought strategy is to plan in advance, i.e., it's not "if" it gets dry, but "when" it gets dry.
   

   a) Spring-planted crops such as brassica, grazing corn, and sorghum-sudan grass (use brown mid-rib varieties) can fill the summer slump.
   b) Warm-season grass stands (big-bluestem and switchgrass) are not high quality, but will be more than adequate to keep livestock maintained during summer.
   c) Use drought tolerant pasture mixes - species including alfalfa, chicory, red clover, orchardgrass and tall fescue have good drought tolerance and can help during dry summers.
   d) Surplus spring growth can reduce tiller density and summer growth potential - there is evidence that closer spring grazing can benefit summer production.
   e) Early calving could get your calves weaned and off your property before the drought hits - dry cows on a maintenance diet have a much lower feed requirement.
   f) Learn feed budgeting. Using a feed budgeting and monitoring system can identify feed deficits up to 3 weeks earlier than without such a system. This advance notice can give you critical time to think and plan your options before the effects of a drought actually hit.
   g) Observe changes in your pasture. What has survived the drought? Are these the grasses and legumes you want? Does your management favor these forage species?
   h) Maintain a sacrifice area, a heavy use pad or a paddock, which will be utilized in extreme situations while allowing pastures to re-grow. One of the best ways to weaken a stem is to overgraze during the summer through the killing freeze.
   i) Maintain good fertility levels. Soil test and adjust pH, phosphorus, potassium and strategically apply nitrogen to support forage growth.
   j) Consider frost-seeding legumes in February or March.
   k) Evaluate the need for weed control. Consider carefully weed pressure and herbicide use next year. Some problem perennials may need to be controlled.

These are just a few general suggestions which we hope will improve your forage stand.

[Top] Comparison of Pasture Supplementation for Finishing Lambs - Clif Little & Jeff McCutcheon, Ext. Agents;Ed Pickenpaugh, EORDC Shepherd;Wayne Shriver, EORDC Branch Manager; Dr. Francis Fluharty, Dept. of Animal Sciences; Dr. Henry Zerby, Dept. of Animal Sciences

Introduction
In an effort to reduce cost and increase profits many shepherds are investigating alternatives for low cost finishing of lambs on pasture outside. Producers are interested in the use of supplements, which compliment pasture forage.

At the Eastern Ohio Resource Development Center, we decided to evaluate animal performance, the cost of using two methods for supplementation for finishing lambs on pasture, evaluating carcass merit, and cost per pound of gain on self feeders, using two different rations.

Methods
The two self-feeder systems to be evaluated included: pasture with corn/soybean meal supplementation and pasture with soy hulls supplementation (Table 1). Three replications of each feeding system were used in this trial with lambs randomly assigned to groups. Lambs born in early May were weaned in August, vaccinated, de-wormed, grazed for a week and started on feed, then randomly sorted into separate sex and breed groups of four. Distribution by weight ranges were made across the groups. Lambs were set stocked in approximately one half-acre paddock, consisting of stockpiled fescue and clover, for the duration of the trial.

Lambs were on test for 63 days from September 28th to November 29th. They grew to approximately 100 pounds. When lambs reached market weight, wethers were shipped to the OSU meat lab for carcass measurements. All groups received free choice trace mineral salt with selenium.

Results
Lambs were weighed at the beginning and end of the trial (Table 2). At the end of the trial the lambs were shipped to the OSU Meat Lab for slaughter and carcass evaluation (Table 3). For the lamb feeding trial, the six pens of four lambs each for the two feed treatments of soybean hulls versus corn, statistical analysis using (CRD) completely randomized design was used. None of the measured parameters was significant for the two treatments at 5% level of significance.

Discussion
Animal performance was not different for the two treatments. The cost of the two treatments did show some differences (Table 4). In addition, as you can see from the pounds of feed consumed, significantly more soy hulls were fed. In our outside feedbunk there is some waste, and when soy hulls pellets get wet our sheep did not want to eat them. We are purchasing new feeders for 2002. Please also note, feed amounts consumed were high enough to meet dry matter (DM) requirements and the sheep supplemented themselves with forage selecting the best to graze. With a few changes in our feed management this system would make it possible to finish large numbers of lambs on grass with minimal labor input.