A bi-monthly 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:

• Newsletter Update
• The Ideal Goat Buffet
• Feed Budgeting
• Measuring Pasture
• A Forage Grazing System
  

[top] Newsletter Update

Thanks to the generosity of the Bob & Jewell Evans Foundation, we now have the funding to mail the Amazing Graze Newsletter again!

We ask that if you receive this newsletter both electronically and in the U.S. mail, that you let us know, so that your name can be removed from the mailing list. This will avoid duplicates and let our funding go further!!

If you receive the newsletter both ways, simply call 740-432-9300 or email Kaye Clay and tell us to remove your name from the Amazing Graze mailing list.

Thank You!

[top] The Ideal Goat Buffet - Megan Burgess and Dave Barker, Dept. Hort & Crop Science, OSU

The meat goat industry is among the fastest growing animal industries in the United States. The increase in demand for goat is greatly exceeding the supply, and has given way to a 420%, or $9 million, increase in live goats imported into the United States from 1995 to 2001. Throughout the United States, goats are primarily being used as biological control agents for brush and noxious weeds. Although this practice is common in southeastern Ohio and the broader Appalachian region, there are producers throughout the remainder of Ohio and the U.S. where forage and grazing production practices in areas with no brush should be explored. However, there is uncertainty about the goats’ preferred forage species. Two studies were conducted over two years (2002 and 2003) on private farms in Wayne and Ashland Counties to determine some of the preferred forage species for goats in Ohio, including forage species that the animals may have not previously experienced.

Firstly, an indoor study compared four forages: chicory, birdsfoot trefoil, orchardgrass, and red clover arranged in three spatial scales. At the small scale, species were planted and grazed in a mixture (traditional mixture). At the medium scale, species were planted in adjacent monocultures, and animals had the opportunity to select among all species (‘buffet’ mixture). At the large scale, each set of animals grazed an individual monoculture. Secondly, a field study extended the findings of the indoor study to determine goat preference to more species over a longer period of time. The field study included the four forage species used in the indoor study, as well as five additional forages: plantain, alfalfa, white clover, ryegrass, and crabgrass. The field study also tested the same three spatial scales as did the indoor study.

The first objective of these studies was to determine some of the preferred forage species for goats in Ohio, including forage species that the animals may have not previously experienced (non-traditional forage species). Of the species used, the goats’ preference was for chicory (non-traditional) and red clover (traditional). Chicory intake was the greatest of the species tested in both studies for both years. Red clover was highly preferred in the indoor studies and the 2002 field study. Orchardgrass also had good intake in the indoor studies, while ryegrass was highly preferred in the 2003 field study. I believe these were readily consumed because they are common grass species found in Northeastern Ohio pastures. Combining the preferred forage species with the familiar forage species would allow goats the best opportunity for increased intake and for the highest utilization of the pasture.

Goat grazing preferences were not strongly related to forage quality. Birdsfoot trefoil had the highest crude protein (CP) and lowest neutral detergent fiber (NDF), but was the least preferred species of this study. Conversely, orchardgrass had the highest NDF and lowest CP, but was one of the more preferred forage species. Chicory, though, was a preferred species and had low NDF and one of the highest CP values.

The second objective was to determine the effects of spatial scale on goat intake. We thought that the spatial scale, or degree of species mixing, and the number of species offered would affect goat intake. The medium spatial scale with the choice between pure plots of multiple species had the greatest intake overall for the 2002 field study. This supported the idea that spatial scale affects goat intake. Goats preferred a variety of forages to choose from (large and medium scales), rather than consuming multiple species in one bite (small scale).

One unexpected result was the variation I found between goat herds. For a multiplicity of reasons I used goats from at least 5 different herds and as many producers over the two studies in 2002 and 2003. Although these goats represented six breeds (and their cross-breeds), this did not seem to be a dominant factor in their preference for forage species and spatial patterns. Of primary significance seemed to be the familiarity of goats to grazing the forages in this study. Goats with a predominance of concentrate in their diet, and goats relocated from another location did not graze as well as goats that were familiar with grazing.

In conclusion, goats preferred to choose from a variety of forages, rather than consuming multiple species in one bite. Combining the preferred forage species with the familiar forage species would allow goats the best opportunity for increased intake and for the highest utilization of the pasture. Overall, knowing the forage species familiar to a herd and mixing them with preferred forage species will allow a producer the opportunity to maximize intake and production.

Acknowledgements: Mark Sulc, Kent Harrison, Dave Zartman, Jessica Gardner, Traci Bultemeier, Gene Varns the Harold Swain family, Riddle Ridge Farm, Acer Acres, and Ampac Seed Company. This project was funded by the North Central Region SARE Program’s Graduate Student Award.

[top] Feed Budgeting- Dave Barker, OSU Hort & Crop Sciences & Jeff McCutcheon, OSU Extension, Knox County

Feed budgeting is the allocation of forage according to growth rate and animal demand. Feed budgets can be thought of as regular financial budgets with income and expenses. Income for a feed budget would include: available forage, expected growth and supplemental feed available. Expenses would include: animal class/es, animal production targets and total feed demand.

A feed budget can help answer a lot of questions. For example – if you have insufficient forage: Will supplementation be required? Will nitrogen help fill in the low periods?, Should I reduce stocking rate?. In the case when there is too much forage- Should some forage be harvested? – How much? Should I increase the stocking rate? Or should supplementation be reduced? Or in cases when the forage is just right - How long should my rotation length be? What stocking density should I use?

Income

So how do you do a feed budget? The first step is measuring forage. We need to determine, how much forage is out there? The measurement needs to be in the same scale as the expense side. Remember livestock eat pounds of dry matter (DM) not inches of forage. If your grazing period is going to be more than 5 days you will need to adjust for pasture growth rate, i.e. pasture that grew during the grazing period – in spring this can be quite significant (during slow growth it can be insignificant). Pasture growth rate can be determined on a similar area that is not being grazed. Accuracy is not as important as consistency.

Expense

Feed demand is the primary expense. Live weight is the main factor determining maintenance feed requirements. Production levels will add additional requirements such as, gestation, lactation, and growth. Total feed demand = feed requirement for average live weight of group multiplied by the number of animals and the number of days for the budget period.

Feed budgeting is the allocation of forage according to growth rate and animal demand. To do it you will need a few numbers. Numbers we need include: total head, total acreage in rotation, number of days for the budget, total forage in lb DM/ac, forage growth in lb DM/ac/day, desired residual forage in lb DM/ac, and feed demand in lb DM/head/day.

Feed budgeting is easy. What Needs to Be Done? First, determine your production goals. Next, figure animal needs based on those goals. Then, measure forage often enough to determine growth. And finally, record IT!!!

Running out of pasture is bad and if we can identify a deficit early we will have more options to manage the deficit. Identifying surplus pasture is equally important. Inadequate utilization of pasture is a lost opportunity for turning grass into profit!!!

[Top] Measuring Pasture- Jeff McCutcheon, OSU Extension, Knox County and Dave Barker, OSU Dept of Hort & Crop Science

So how much forage do you have? What is the growth rate of your pasture over the last month? What is your stocking rate? Carrying capacity? Stocking density? Measuring pasture has the same function as any other business measures inventory – it’s the basis for making management decisions.

To determine how much feed is available we must measure the forage. Now there are lots of ways to measure forage: pasture sticks, rising plate meters, electric pasture probes, and even the ‘fun’ method of cutting. With experience, graziers can consistently determine how much forage is available “by eye”. There is no perfect system for measurement – each has its advantage and disadvantage.

The first problem with measuring pasture is that it is a dynamic, living community of plants that is highly variable. To overcome the variability many samples must be taken to estimate how much pasture is there accurately. This can be time consuming and tedious. Usually 20-30 samples are recommended per pasture/paddock.

In research we usually use forage cutting. Cutting is simply to take a known area, usually a 1 or 2 foot square, cut all of the forage in that area, dry it down, weigh the sample and convert it to pounds of dry matter per acre. See the Fact sheet “Using a Microwave Oven to Determine Forage Moisture” AGF-004-90 for an easy method to dry a sample.

Taking samples like that does take time. So most people use it to calibrate some other faster method of measurement, which is OK. Unless you are doing research, consistency is more important than accuracy.

The easiest measurement of forage we can do is height. We see inches of forage. There seems to be some common confusion about using plant height to measure forage. Do livestock eat inches of forage or do they eat pounds of forage? Actually they eat pounds – dry pounds. We describe pasture mass (and animal intake) as pounds of dry matter.

Using plant height has also confused a lot of people when we talk about the rule of thumb for forage management; ‘Take Half: Leave Half’. The rule of thumb ‘Take Half: Leave Half’ refers to dry matter not inches. Actually we can vary the “take half – leave half” rule – but that is another story!!! If you really look at the profile of grass plants you should notice that there is more dry matter the closer you get to the ground. If you are ambitious you could cut and weigh each inch of plant material from the ground up. Depending on the grass species you would find that the first 2-3 inches has more dry matter than the next 6-10 inches.

If height is the easiest measurement then we have to convert plant height to pounds of dry matter. There have been tables created that list different forages and pounds of dry matter expected per inch depending on the condition of the pasture – a common value is 400 lb dry matter per inch. Those came from multiple observations of specific grasses.

Another caution about using tables like that are the condition of the pasture. Pounds of forage per acre is also related to the density of the plants in the field. The pasture condition side of those tables try to get at density. Which numbers should be used? This is a subjective measurement, one person may call a pasture poor and someone else calls it good.

Rising plate meters and pasture probes try to account for both height and density. Both can be used for consistent estimations of forage dry matter. But they still need to be calibrated. The calibration relies on cutting. A basic plate meter you can build yourself is described in “A Falling Plate Meter for Estimating Pasture Forage Mass” by Rayburn & Lozier, located at http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forglvst/fallplate.pdf. Overall there are many advantages with the rising plate meter. We will be working to develop the use of plate meters as a practical measuring tool.

[Top] A Forage Grazing System- Clif Little, OSU Extension, Guernsey County

The Rocky Ford Ranch, owned by Elmer and Terry Becherer is located in Trenton, Illinois. I have visited with Terry about his grazing system and listened to his presentations at various conferences. The Becherer’s utilize forages, both perennial and annual, to provide feed for their 175 head Finn and Dorset sheep operation, which is located on 40 acres. I’ll briefly describe how they utilize these forages in their “star” lambing system. They lamb five times a year and their lambing percentage in 2003 averaged over 200 percent each lambing time. They market 40 to 60 pound lambs in Mt. Vernon, Ohio and in 2003 sold over $38,000 worth of lambs.

In the spring turnips and oats are seeded. The oats are seeded at 2-3 bushels per acre. Pasja, a cross between turnips and rape, is seeded at 4-5 pounds per acre. They start grazing the oats when they are 8-10 inches tall and graze them down to a height of 2-3 inches. The oats re-grow and are re-grazed. To stimulate additional growth from the oats, 30 to 40 units of actual nitrogen are sometimes utilized.

Sorghum-sudan grass is utilized for summer production. It can be planted in late May or June at 30-50 lbs. per acre and they do not graze it until it is approximately 18 inches tall. The Becherer’s utilize Brown Midrib sorghum-sudan grass. They have also used pearl millet for summer forage production. They seed this at 35 lbs. per acre and find the sheep prefer pearl millet to the sorghum family. Pearl millet also does not cause prussic acid poisoning after being frost injured.

The Becherer’s also utilize winter annuals in their grazing program. Spring oats and turnips are planted in mid to late August at a rate of 2 bushels of oats per acre and 2-3 pounds of turnips per acre. The oats/turnip pastures are strip grazed in the fall utilizing step-in posts and a single electric wire. Cereal rye is also utilized for mid- to late-winter grazing and again in the spring. The cereal rye is planted in September at 100 lbs. per acre. Annual ryegrass is also planted in September at 30 lbs. per acre and provides 2 grazings in the fall and spring.

The perennial pastures on this farm are utilized for grazing, hay production, and stockpiling. The cool season grasses consist of orchard grass and novel endophyte fescues. The legume component of their perennial pasture is white clover.

The Rocky Ford Sheep Ranch utilizes annual forage in combination with perennial pastures to extend their grazing season and maximize production on limited acres. While these forages and management practices may not be suitable for your operation, perhaps you can adapt some of these practices to your farm.