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:

• Major Cost Items on Ohio Grazing Dairy Farms
• 2006 Ohio Forage Performance Trials
• Grazing Corn Residue
• Forage Quality & Body Condition

[top] Major Cost Items on Ohio Grazing Dairy Farms - Tom Kriegl, U.W. Center for Dairy Profitability.*

Cost management should receive regular attention on any farm. Focusing on the largest cost items and cate-gories is an important tactic in controlling costs.

In this four year average:

• Basic costs represented 77% of allocated costs and 62% of income.
• Non-basic costs represented 23% of allocated costs and 18.6% of income.
• With 81% of income used up by allocated costs (basic plus non-basic), 19 cents of every dollar of income was left for net farm income from operations (returns to unpaid labor, management and equity). Without non-farm income, NFIFO (plus depreciation taken) is the annual source of family living funds.

The Big Four! (Represent about 55% the total allo-cated cost and about 45% of the income for Ohio grazing dairy farms.)

1. Purchased feed = 32.1% of allocated cost and 25.9% of income
2. Paid labor and management = 10.6% of allocated cost and 8.6% of income
3. Non-livestock depreciation = 6.5% of allocated cost and 5.3% of income
4. Repairs = 6.1% of allocated cost and 4.9% of income

Purchased feed was easily the highest cost category each year. Paid labor and management, non-livestock depreciation and repairs were the other three of the four major costs for Ohio grazing dairy farms. These three cost categories together typically account for another 23% of allocated costs and 19% of income on Ohio grazing farms. Paid labor and management and non-livestock depreciation are non-basic costs. Purchased feed and repairs are basic costs. For the Ohio graziers, the four year average purchased feed cost was slightly less than total non-basic costs.

Paid labor and management is a non-basic cost and was the second highest cost category in all years. Repairs is a basic cost and was third highest in two of four years but fourth highest on average.

The Second Big Four!

1. Interest = 5.9% of allocated cost and 4.7% of income
2. Marketing and Hedging = 5.1% of allocated cost and 4.1% of income
3. Livestock depreciation = 3.6% of allocated cost and 2.9% of income
4. Other Livestock Expenses = 3.5% of allocated cost and 2.8% of income

Collectively, the second “big four” accounted for about 18.1% of allocated cost and 14.5% of income. Interest is a non-basic cost and was the fifth largest cost item for Ohio grazing herds even though it spent one year in four at third, fourth fifth and sixth place.

You may access the entire report at http://cdp.wisc.edu/Great%20Lakes.htm#glgn

* Lead author. The following have led the project in their respective states: Jim Endress (Illinois); Larry Tranel and Robert Tigner (Iowa); Ralph Booker and Ed Heckman (Indiana); Sherrill Nott, Bill Bivens, Phil Taylor, and Chris Wolf (Michigan); Margot Rudstrom (Minnesota); Tony Rickard (Missouri); Jim Grace (New York); Thomas Noyes and Clif Little (Ohio); Jack Kyle and John Molenhuis (Ontario); J. Craig Williams (Pennsylvania); and Tom Kriegl and Gary Frank (Wisconsin).

[top]2006 Ohio Forage Performance Trials - Mark Sulc, OSU Extension Forage Specialist

The 2006 report of the Ohio Forage Performance Trials will be available soon at your local country Extension office. It will be printed in the December special insert of Ohio’s Country Journal and will be online at: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~perf/

The report summarizes performance of 56 alfalfa varieties, 22 orchardgrass varieties, 11 tall fescue varieties, 6 perennial ryegrass varieties, and 24 annual ryegrass varieties. Trials were located at North Baltimore, Wooster, S.Charleston, and Jackson, OH.

Alfalfa yield topped the 10 tons of dry matter per acre mark for the first time in the history of the perform-ance trials (at North Baltimore). The reported yield in those trials represents what was growing in the field, with no harvesting and curing losses. It demonstrates the potential for very high forage yields in Ohio!

[top]Grazing Corn Residue- Dave Samples & Jeff McCutcheon, OSU Extension Educators

How Much Forage Can I Expect?

Approximately 50 percent of the weight of the total corn plant is residue left after harvest. This residue consists of stalk, leaf, cob, and husk. The stalk, which is typically the last plant part con-sumed by livestock, contains the most moisture and is one-half of the dry matter weight of the total residue material.

It is estimated that for each bushel of shelled corn produced per acre, 50 pounds of residue are also produced. At that level, an acre yielding 120 bushels of corn will produce 6,000 pounds of residue. An added benefit for grazers is that corn grain is also lost in the harvesting process. It is estimated that at least three bushels of grain per acre are left on the field during harvest. This means that more than 150 pounds of corn per acre are also available for the animals to consume.

Grazing corn residue can be an important part of many livestock operations. 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.

How Good Is the Residue?

Corn residue is not a high-quality feed and would not be adequate for growing animals or maintaining producing females year-round unless supplemental feed was provided. However, if grain is available in the residue, then the consumed feed quality may be adequate for some stages in the livestock production cycle. The feed quality of corn residue is lower 60 days after harvest, indicating some weathering and loss of nutrients. The greatest loss is from deterioration of the husk and leaves, with cobs and stalks less affected. Rain can accelerate the decomposition process. Also, snow cover will limit an animal's ability to find the smaller plant parts, further limiting the quality of feed available.

Source: NRC 1996 Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle.

How and When Should Livestock Graze?

Corn fields should be used immediately after harvest for 30 to 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 to 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 first-calf heifer; 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.

Are There Any Health Concerns?

There can be some health concerns with grazing corn residue. Livestock should not be allowed unlimited access to corn residue if they have had limited feeds available and are going into the fields on an empty stomach. Special care should be given where high levels of grain (eight to 12 bushels per acre) remain following harvest. Where this is the case, hungry animals may consume high amounts of grain in a short period of time, resulting in digestive upsets and even founder. It is recommended that hungry animals be permitted to fill on hay or other roughage before entering these fields. Strip grazing is also recommended for limiting the animals' foraging area.

Another consideration for grazing crop residue is the herbicide program that has been used. With most popular weed control programs, there should not be a concern. The current edition of the Weed Control Guide for Ohio Field Crops, Bulletin 789, (found at: http://agcrops.osu.edu/weeds/) contains a listing of grazing restrictions for different corn herbicides. It is always best to read all herbicide labels to determine if any grazing restrictions need to be followed.

Will Grazing Affect My Cropping Practice?

Many producers who could graze residue cite the need to maintain at least 30% ground residue cover as a restriction. This plant residue reduces soil erosion during the winter until the establishment of the new crop. However, grazing residue is still possible since animals seldom consume more than 25% of the residue. Since a 120-bushel-per-acre grain yield should also produce 6,000 pounds of residue, the removal of 1,500 pounds should allow for a sufficient amount of residue remaining to provide the required cover. This is especially true where adequate stands of taller-growing corn hybrids were grown and livestock grazing is limited to consumption of unharvested grain, leaves, and husks. These tender plant tissues generally decompose rapidly and are not present in large quantities the following spring.

Soil compaction is also cited as a reason not to graze corn residue. Livestock can cause soil compaction, but the compaction they cause is generally shallow. Studies in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska indicate that soil compaction from cows grazing corn residue is limited to the top 6 inches of soil. Shallow compaction can be corrected by disc, chisel-plow, or the freeze-thaw action of the soil. The two main factors that affected the severity of compaction were soil moisture and soil type. In each of those studies, no significant difference was found in the yield of corn or soybeans following the residue grazing, even using no-till.

Producers concerned about compaction could graze the residue immediately after harvest, removing the livestock after 60 days to allow the soil's freeze-thaw action to minimize surface compaction. Producers should pay attention to the soil types of the crop fields and remove livestock when the fields are muddy. Growing no-till soybeans after grazing corn residue may require more management to minimize compacted paths and water-filled hoof tracks.

What Is the Value of Corn Residue?

The real economic advantage of using corn residue in a livestock operation is that the cost of producing the feed is paid for by the grain operation. In contrast, when using an annual forage crop for grazing, the cost of establishing and growing the feed is paid for by the livestock operation. Like all grazing programs, determining the true value must be done on a case-by-case basis. One method, and probably the simplest way to place a value on grazed corn residue, is to determine a daily feed cost based on similar quality or average grass hay. Here's how:

A mature cow will consume from 2.5 to 3.0% of her bodyweight in dry matter each day. If that cow weighs 1,000 pounds, she would eat between 25 to 30 pounds of dry matter per day. At that rate, one ton of hay would provide feed for about 60 days, if you include 10% loss in spoilage and waste. Assuming the market value of the hay is $65 per ton, then the immediate savings would be $65 spread over 60 days or about $1.08 per head per day. Even after applying a lease charge of $7 per acre for the corn residue (lease rates range from $3 to $7 per acre), the resulting $0.12 per day charge provides a $0.96 savings per head per day.

An added bonus to the feed value is the contribution of nutrients to the soil. A 1,000-pound cow produces about 63 pounds of manure each day. It is estimated that the value of those recycled nutrients amounts to about $0.10 per head per day or $6 over the 60-day grazing period.

Obviously, purchased fertilizer inputs can be reduced by grazing corn residue.

Summary

The cost effectiveness and flexibility of grazing corn residue make the practice an important feed source for livestock in the fall and winter. The abundance of corn residue in Ohio makes this an attractive option. The compatibility with permanent pastures will provide more grazing options and decrease winter feed cost. Source: OSU Extension factsheet, ANR-10-02.

[top]Forage Quality & Body Condition- Clif Little, OSU Extension Educator

Winter is the most expensive period of livestock production. Cold wet weather increases the nutrient requirements of farm animals and the grass stops growing. Research studies have demonstrated that animals maintained in good body condition during the winter months and during gestation produce heavier offspring, and have shorter rebreeding intervals. The key to maintaining this high level of animal performance is good quality nutrition.

As with most farm animals forages; pasture, hay, and silages provide the bulk of the animals’ nutritional requirements. Knowing the quality of these forages allows farm managers to provide the best quality nutrition to the animals that need it the most. Recently a local beef cattle producer brought in thirteen forage analysis reports. These reports represented first and second cutting mixed hay produced on this farm. The relative feed value (RFV) of the hay ranged from 75-102 RFV. Crude protein (CP) content ranged from 6.7-14.8 percent dry matter ba-sis. Total digestible nutrients (TDN) ranged from 44-52 percent on a dry matter basis. What does this mean? Quite simply, these two forages obviously differ in their ability to provide nutrients. For me, there is a significant difference in value of these forages. I would price the better quality hay about 20% higher than the poorer quality hay based on the amount of energy, protein, calcium and phosphorus in the forage. Have you ever bought or sold hay? Without a forage analysis how do you accurately compare value? I would feed these hay sources differently and to different classes or groups of animals. Growing/pregnant or early lactating females need the highest level of nutrition.

Finally, if I had a history of these analyses, I would use them to develop my mineral supplement and protein/energy supplementation program. The bottom line is that a $15 investment in the forage analysis provides me with one of the greatest opportunities to save and make money on a livestock farm. For more information on forage sampling or winter supplementation contact your local Extension Office.