Assessing On-Farm Pasture Availability and Forage Quality for Dairy ...
Final Report (2006-07)
Assessing On-Farm Pasture Availability and Forage Quality for Dairy Feed Planning S.C. Bosworth and M.P. Cannella, University of Vermont1 Introduction Feed planning on pasture is an important management strategy for improving profitability for pasture-based dairy farms (Murphy, 1994). Prescribed grazing plans as required by the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service, rely on feed budgeting information (Kevin Kaija, personal communication). Yet, little on-farm information is available concerning pasture productivity, utilization and forage quality in New England states that can be used for planning purposes. Objectives 1) To collect quantitative information on pasture production and quality for a variety of soil types and specie mixtures on Vermont farms, 2) To assess a method using on-farm records as a way to estimated pasture yield and availability as compared to more intensive hand sampling, and 3) To evaluate the impact of legume content on forage availability and quality. Materials and Methods Four grazing paddocks from two Vermont farms were monitored throughout the 2006 season in order to assess pasture growth rates, pre and post pasture mass, net mass, percent utilization, botanical composition, and pasture quality. The two farms participating in this project included Shelburne Farms of Shelburne, VT and Moultrup Farm of Richmond, VT. Both farms utilize a management intensive grazing system such that lactating cows are moved to new pasture between every milking. Shelburne Farms milks Brown Swiss cows and is located near Lake Champlain. Their pastures are on a variety of soils ranging from well-drained silt loams to moderate and poorly drained clays. The Moultrup farm milks Jersey cows and is located about 20 miles east of Shelburne and is adjacent to the Huntington River. Most of the pasture are fine and very fine sandy loam soils. Pasture Mass and Dry Matter Yield – The day before and the day after each treatment paddock was grazed, a pre- and post-grazing measure of pasture yield was determined using the acrylic pasture plate method (Rayburn, 1997) taking the mean and standard deviation of 25 measurements per paddock. The difference between pre and post grazing yield was calculated as net pasture yield. Percent utilization was calculated by dividing net yield by pre-grazing yield times 100.
Pasture Quality and Botanical Composition – During each pre-grazing sampling, half of the 25 sites were hand sampled using a 2x2 ft wire quadrat placed over the plate meter. Forage was removed with hand clippers to a height similar to what the cows are observed to graze. 1
Extension Associate Professor, Plant and Soil Science Dept. and Project Assistant (now a graduate student in the Department of Community Development and Applied Economics at University of Vermont)
SARE Partnership Final Report
1 of 10
A composite from all samples was thoroughly mixed and sub-sampled for quality analysis. Samples were sent to the University of Vermont Agricultural Testing Lab and analyzed for crude protein, soluble protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), digestible NDF, net energy of lactation and minerals. A second sub-sample was hand separated into grasses, legumes, and forbs. Each was dried and weighed to determine percent botanical composition. Indirect Method for Determining Legume Content – a point count method utilizing 24 equally spaced 3/8” holes drilled into the acrylic rising plate was found to correlate well to hand separations and was also used throughout the season to estimate legume content. Counts were made on each of the 25 rising plate points per paddock measurement.
Results Growth and Pasture Utilization - Both farms in this project utilized managed intensive grazing as a method for pasturing their dairy animals (usually moving their milk cows to new paddocks between each milking). Pre-grazing mass was usually above 2500 lbs. per acre, more than adequate for optimum dry matter intake (Figure 1, Tables 2 and 4 in Appendix).
Figure 1. Pre-grazing mass means and standard deviations of the four paddocks from each farm through the 2006 grazing season SARE Partnership Final Report
2 of 10
The Moultrup Farm utilized an average of 50% of their pasture each grazing (Figure 2, Table 2 in Appendix). Shelburne Farm had poorer utilization partially due to the excessive rain in 2006 along with their poorly drained soils (Figure 2, Table 4 in Appendix).
Figure 2. Pasture utilization means and standard deviations of the four paddocks from each farm through the 2006 grazing season Pasture growth rates ranged from 38 to 98 lbs. per acre per day (Figure 3, Tables 2 and 4 in Appendix). The high amounts of rainfall in June seemed to enhance the pasture growth at the Moultrup farm which has a predominately course texture soil; whereas, the growth rate at Shelburne Farm was more variable across paddocks, particularly in the first half of the season when there was excessive rainfall.
Figure 3. Pasture growth rate means and standard deviations of the four paddocks from each farm through the 2006 grazing season. Legume Content - Legume content varied across paddocks but mostly varied with season (Figure 4, Tables 3 and 5 in Appendix). Generally, legume content increased as the season progressed with highest levels in August and September. Recently overseeded paddocks did not show any higher levels of legume content as compared to the non-overseeded ones except for Middle A and B at the Moultrup Farm. Jim’s South and North paddocks were harvested for hay in the first cutting and then grazed which may explain why legume content was low in the first grazing. The wet fields at Shelburne Farms were difficult to graze in the first half of the season resulting in a higher amount of grass cover and low legume content.
SARE Partnership Final Report
3 of 10
Legume Content (% of DM)
50
Moultrup Farm
40
Middle A(y) 30
Middle B (n) Jims South (y)
20
Jims North (n)
10
(y) - overseeded (n) - not overseeded
0 12-May
1-Jun
21-Jun
11-Jul
31-Jul
20-Aug
9-Sep
Legume Content (% of DM)
50
Shelburne Farm
40
Alecs Road (y) 30
Lower Chapel (n) Silo A(y)
20
Silo C (n) 10
(y) - overseeded (n) - not overseeded
0 12-May
1-Jun
21-Jun
11-Jul
31-Jul
20-Aug
9-Sep
2006
Figure 4. Average legume content of each paddock through the 2006 grazing season Generally, legume content was only associated with higher pasture quality when it exceeded 30 percent of the botanical mixture; however, the relationship varied greatly and was also influenced by time of year (Figure 5, Tables 3 and 5 in Appendix).
Figure 5. Relationship of legume content to NDF, ADF and crude protein across all paddocks on both farms for the 2006 grazing season. SARE Partnership Final Report
4 of 10
Calcium was the only mineral that significantly correlated with legume content (Table 1) Table 1. Correlation coefficients of legume content with various forage quality parameters. Correlation coefficient
Significance
Crude protein
0.41
*
Soluble protein
0.00
ns
Acid detergent fiber
-0.58
**
Neutral detergent fiber
-0.57
**
Net Energy of Lactation
0.53
**
Total digestible nutrients
0.58
**
Phosphorus
0.08
ns
Potassium
-0.09
ns
Magnesium
0.28
ns
Calcium
0.54
**
Parameter
On-Farm Records Using on-farm records to estimate net pasture yield showed a similar result to intensive hand sampling utilizing an acrylic pasture plate method (Figure 6). C alcu lated V erses Measu red N et Yield s M o u ltr u p F a r m - 2 0 0 6
Average Net Yield Per Grazing (lbs dm/acre)
2000 -9%
1800
-16%
3%
7%
1600 1400 1200
C a lcu la te d
1000
Me a su re d
800 600 400 200 0 Jim No rth
Jim So u th
Mid d le A
Mid d le B
Pa d d o c k N a m e s
Figure 6. Net yields per grazing period averaged over the grazing season. Calculated yields were determined from estimating dry matter intake using on-farm records of milk production, fat composition and animal weight. Measured net yields were determined from the rising plate pre and post grazing yields.
SARE Partnership Final Report
5 of 10
Summary On farm records have the potential to be used as a tool for estimating pasture productivity; however, indirect methods such as the use of a rising plate and point count methods for determining legume content can also enhance the data by estimating pounds of pre-grazing cover, percent utilization, and residual dry matter. These tools are relatively inexpensive to make and can be quite useful for collecting pasture data that can be used in feed planning, fine tuning a grazing program, extension demonstrations, or on-farm research. References th
Murphy, William. 1994. Greener pastures on your side of the fence (4 ed.). Arriba Publishing, Colchester, VT. Rayburn, Edward. 1997. An acrylic plastic weight plate for estimating forage yield. West Virginia Un. Extension Service (http://www.caf.wvu.edu/~forage/pastplate.htm) Acknowledgements This project could not have been accomplished without the help, guidance and assistance of Nat Bacon of Shelburne Farms and Jeff Moultrup of Moultrup Farms.
The project was supported by the Northeast USDA-SARE program (http://www.uvm.edu/~nesare/index.html) through a Partnership Grant.
More information about pasture and grazing management in Vermont can be found at the following websites: Vermont Crops and Soils Homepage: http://pss.uvm.edu/vtcrops/?Page=pasturegrazing.html Vermont Pasture Network: http://www.uvm.edu/~pasture/
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. University of Vermont Extension, Burlington, Vermont. University of Vermont Extension and U.S. Department of Agriculture, cooperating, offer education and employment to everyone without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, or marital or familial status.
SARE Partnership Final Report
6 of 10
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix 1832 3184 3326 2753 2926 2804
1064 1369 1425 1846 1482 1531
1155 1384 1470 1706 1520
1533 1813 1959 1640 1736
1369 1771 1850 1400 1597
Post Mass lb/a
900 1963 1545 1311 1606
1898 1777 2067 1214 1739
1711 1665 1887 1284 1637
Net Mass lbs/a
44% 59% 51% 43% 51%
55% 49% 51% 43% 50%
56% 48% 51% 48% 51%
Forage Utilization %
50%
96.3 75.2 60.4 47.0 69.7
2056 3347 3014 3016 3126
3431 3590 4026 2854 3475
3080 3436 3737 2684 3234
Pre Mass lb/a
Farm Average 27 67.3 3160 1596 1625 *Calculated intake per cow per day is based on average cow weight and daily milk production
24 28 24 28 26
99.6 62.7 67.2 76.5
76.2 79.0 34.4 63.2
76.5 70.2 32.1 59.6
Growth Rate lbs/a/d
42% 57% 57% 33% 49% 49%
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
24 28 24 28 26
28 30 27 28
28 30 27 28
Rest Period days
768 1814 1901 907 1444 1517
Middle B 0.90 No Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
Middle A 0.90 Yes Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
0.90 No Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
Area acres
Grazing Date
0.90 Yes Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
Jim South
Jim North
Paddock Name
Over seeded with legume
1462
691 1633 1711 816 1300 1365
810 1766 1390 1180 1445
1709 1599 1860 1093 1565
1540 1499 1699 1156 1473
22.8
12.6 26.3 25.9 12.4 19.7 21.1
14.7 29.0 21.1 17.9 22.6
28.5 24.6 28.2 16.6 24.5
25.7 23.1 25.7 17.5 23.0
Measured Intake lbs/d lbs/cow/d
Table 2. Paddock area, soil type, treatments and grazing information for Moultrup Farm in 2006, Richmond, VT
20.6
22.6 21.1 21.1 20.8 19.2 20.5
22.6 21.1 21.1 20.6 19.5 20.6
21.1 20.6 20.8 19.8 20.6
22.8 20.6 20.4 19.8 20.9
Calculated Intake* lbs/cow/d
APPENDIX
7 of 10
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix
8 of 10
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
10% 25% 33% 30% 25%
22% 35% 47% 35% 23.5 16.6 21.5 21.2 20.7
25.0 18.9 24.0 22.6
21.1 23.0 21.8 28.5 23.6
45.6 49.7 42.7 46.4 46.1
47.8 46.5 44.0 46.1
46.8 42.4 44.5 48.1 45.5
Soluble Protein % 47.3 41.3 44.1 46.7 44.9
29.2 33.2 32.0 29.4 31.0
30.4 28.4 28.6 29.1
31.6 31.4 27.9 26.6 29.4
ADF % 30.7 30.3 26.9 25.8 28.4
51.5 58.6 53.2 49.9 53.3
53.1 49.4 48.6 50.4
53.5 54.5 49.9 45.4 50.8
NDF % 52.1 53.3 47.9 45.5 49.7
0.65 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.62
0.63 0.66 0.66 0.65
0.61 0.61 0.67 0.69 0.65
NEl Mcal/lb 0.62 0.63 0.68 0.70 0.66
69 66 67 69 68
68 70 70 69
67 68 70 71 69
TDN % 68 68 71 72 70
0.63 0.53 0.83 0.66
0.56 0.56 0.45 0.74 0.58
Ca % 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.60
0.47 0.36 0.43 0.42
0.44 0.46 0.38 0.54 0.46
P % 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.51 0.45
0.43
No
Middle B
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
2% 18% 14% 38% 18%
CP* % 21.9 22.4 22.3 29.0 23.9
Farm Average 25% 22.7 45.6 29.5 51.0 0.64 69 0.62 *CP - crude protein; ADF - acid detergent fiber; NDF - neutral detergent fiber; TDN - Total digestible nutrients
Yes
Middle A
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
Legume Content % of DM 3% 13% 33% 37% 22%
0.45 0.35 0.43 0.40 0.41
Yes
Jim South
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
Grazing Date
0.38 0.66 0.68 0.79 0.63
No
Jim North
Paddock Name
Over seeded with legume
Table 3. Legume content and pasture quality for each grazing period at Moultrup Farm in 2006, Richmond, VT
3.38
3.39 2.24 3.42 3.26 3.08
3.43 3.17 3.41 3.34
3.45 3.75 3.59 3.65 3.61
K % 3.23 3.70 3.43 3.62 3.50
0.21
0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.21
0.22 0.18 0.25 0.22
0.20 0.23 0.18 0.24 0.21
Mg % 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.21
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix
9 of 10
48.5 60.0
2716 3122
3533 3439 2802
2965 2695 2682 2860
1622 1695
1638 1725 1796
1567 1535 1981 1673
1754 1527
2026 2369 1837 1784 2178 2039
lb/a 2352 1573 2070 1831 1784 1987 1933
1895 1714 1006
1398 1160 701 1187
906 1772
1581 953 1006 1068 608 1043
lbs/a 656 1232 1462 1363 846 1141 1117
54% 50% 36%
47% 43% 26% 41%
34% 54%
44% 29% 35% 37% 22% 33%
% 22% 44% 41% 43% 32% 36% 36%
39%
20 23
9/12 Average
90.1 41.4
75.7 66.3 54.6 65.3
2659 3299
3607 3322 2843 2852 2786 3082
lb/a 3009 2805 3533 3193 2630 3128 3050
Farm Average 24 57.2 3028 1835 1194 *Calculated intake per cow per day is based on average cow weight and daily milk production
21 27
7/3 7/25 8/22
22 20 23 24
7/21 8/11 9/4 Average
64.4
30.1 31.6 67.7 47.7 44.3
lbs/a/d 16.8 93.3 80.2 53.3 53.7 59.5
40% 45%
7.80 No Predominate soil types: 70% Covington silty clay 22% Stockbridge stony loam 5% Palatine silt loam
Silo C
29
46 16 18 26 27
days 31 24 16 19 26 23
5/29 6/28
5/25 7/11 7/28 8/16 9/12 Average
5/14 6/15 7/10 7/27 8/16 9/12 Average
1095 1427
6.50 Yes Predominate soil types: 56% Stockbridge stony loam 24% Palatine silt loam 20% Covington silty clay
3.90 No Predominate soil types: 50% Palatine silt loam 50% Vergennes clay
acres 3.50 Yes Predominate soil types: 80% Palatine silt loam 20% Vergennes clay
Silo A
Lower Chap
Alec Road
3073
2846 2935
3342 2616
3029 3015 3037 3369
3924 3840
4110 2479 2616 2777 2372 2871
lbs/d 2297 2875 3412 3180 2960 3994 3120
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.8
20.7 20.6
20.8 20.7 20.1
21.0 20.8 20.4 21.0
21.6 21.3
21.8 20.6 20.8 19.8 20.1 20.6
lbs/cow/d 22.8 20.7 21.2 20.5 20.6 20.6 21.1
Table 4. Paddock area, soil type, treatments and grazing information for Shelburne Farm in 2006, Shelburne, VT Over seeded Forage with Grazing Rest Growth Post Net Measured Calculated Pre Paddock Utililegume Date Period Rate Mass Mass Mass zation Intake Intake* Name Area
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix
10 of 10
7/3 7/25 8/22 9/12 Average
25% 26% 39% 16% 27%
3% 21% 20% 23% 17% 16.4 16.9 21.8 22.3 19.4
19.2 22.0 22.4 21.2 25.3 22.0
22.0 16.4 20.4 20.2 25.0 20.8
52.9 44.0 48.0 46.2 47.8
53.1 46.2 41.6 42.5 45.3 45.7
38.5 46.0 43.6 42.1 46.0 43.2
% 44.1 48.1 46.7 43.3 42.3 43.8 44.7
32.1 34.0 30.1 30.8 31.8
34.2 30.2 30.0 31.5 25.8 30.3
28.7 30.8 33.7 27.9 21.9 28.6
% 27.1 31.7 29.3 28.1 30.3 27.2 29.0
ADF
52.7 54.9 46.9 52.2 51.7
57.4 49.1 51.6 51.0 45.5 50.9
54.1 52.5 55.0 47.8 40.3 49.9
% 55.7 51.4 46.3 48.1 51.1 45.6 49.7
NDF
0.60 0.57 0.63 0.62 0.61
0.57 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.70 0.63
0.66 0.62 0.58 0.67 0.70 0.65
% 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.66 0.63 0.68 0.64
Nel
65.2 68.5 68.6 67.4 72.0 68
69.7 68.0 65.7 70.3 75.1 70
% 66.7 67.3 69.2 70.1 68.4 70.9 69
TDN
0.50 0.57 0.41 0.59 0.84 0.58
0.32 0.48 0.73 0.66 0.63 0.56
% 0.33 0.47 0.68 0.49 0.56 0.35 0.48
Ca
0.58
No
Silo C
5/29 6/28 7/21 8/11 9/4 Average
8% 24% 22% 45% 25%
% 25.2 19.5 20.5 21.3 22.5 21.0 21.7
% of DM 2% 6% 19% 35% 20% 16%
Soluble Protein
Farm Average 21% 21.0 45.4 29.9 50.6 0.63 69 *CP - crude protein; ADF - acid detergent fiber; NDF - neutral detergent fiber; TDN - Total digestible nutrients
Yes
Silo A
5/25 7/11 7/28 8/16 9/12 Average
CP*
Legume Content
0.67 0.63 0.86 0.58 0.69
No
Lower Chap
5/14 6/15 7/10 7/27 8/16 9/12 Average
Grazing Date
66.9 65.4 68.6 67.9 67
Yes
Alec Road
Paddock Name
Over seeded with legume
Table 5. Legume content and pasture quality for each grazing period Shelburne Farm in 2006, Shelburne, VT
P
0.38
0.34 0.34 0.37 0.37 0.36
0.41 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.43 0.40
0.29 0.31 0.40 0.33 0.37 0.34
% 0.47 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.42 0.35 0.40
K
3.45
2.69 3.27 3.27 3.18 3.10
3.51 3.39 3.90 3.88 3.61 3.66
3.09 3.20 3.47 3.27 3.08 3.22
% 3.83 3.61 3.84 4.13 3.92 3.63 3.83
0.23
0.20 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.23
0.19 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.23
0.20 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.23
% 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.22
Mg
Assessing On-Farm Pasture Availability and Forage Quality for Dairy Feed Planning S.C. Bosworth and M.P. Cannella, University of Vermont1 Introduction Feed planning on pasture is an important management strategy for improving profitability for pasture-based dairy farms (Murphy, 1994). Prescribed grazing plans as required by the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service, rely on feed budgeting information (Kevin Kaija, personal communication). Yet, little on-farm information is available concerning pasture productivity, utilization and forage quality in New England states that can be used for planning purposes. Objectives 1) To collect quantitative information on pasture production and quality for a variety of soil types and specie mixtures on Vermont farms, 2) To assess a method using on-farm records as a way to estimated pasture yield and availability as compared to more intensive hand sampling, and 3) To evaluate the impact of legume content on forage availability and quality. Materials and Methods Four grazing paddocks from two Vermont farms were monitored throughout the 2006 season in order to assess pasture growth rates, pre and post pasture mass, net mass, percent utilization, botanical composition, and pasture quality. The two farms participating in this project included Shelburne Farms of Shelburne, VT and Moultrup Farm of Richmond, VT. Both farms utilize a management intensive grazing system such that lactating cows are moved to new pasture between every milking. Shelburne Farms milks Brown Swiss cows and is located near Lake Champlain. Their pastures are on a variety of soils ranging from well-drained silt loams to moderate and poorly drained clays. The Moultrup farm milks Jersey cows and is located about 20 miles east of Shelburne and is adjacent to the Huntington River. Most of the pasture are fine and very fine sandy loam soils. Pasture Mass and Dry Matter Yield – The day before and the day after each treatment paddock was grazed, a pre- and post-grazing measure of pasture yield was determined using the acrylic pasture plate method (Rayburn, 1997) taking the mean and standard deviation of 25 measurements per paddock. The difference between pre and post grazing yield was calculated as net pasture yield. Percent utilization was calculated by dividing net yield by pre-grazing yield times 100.
Pasture Quality and Botanical Composition – During each pre-grazing sampling, half of the 25 sites were hand sampled using a 2x2 ft wire quadrat placed over the plate meter. Forage was removed with hand clippers to a height similar to what the cows are observed to graze. 1
Extension Associate Professor, Plant and Soil Science Dept. and Project Assistant (now a graduate student in the Department of Community Development and Applied Economics at University of Vermont)
SARE Partnership Final Report
1 of 10
A composite from all samples was thoroughly mixed and sub-sampled for quality analysis. Samples were sent to the University of Vermont Agricultural Testing Lab and analyzed for crude protein, soluble protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), digestible NDF, net energy of lactation and minerals. A second sub-sample was hand separated into grasses, legumes, and forbs. Each was dried and weighed to determine percent botanical composition. Indirect Method for Determining Legume Content – a point count method utilizing 24 equally spaced 3/8” holes drilled into the acrylic rising plate was found to correlate well to hand separations and was also used throughout the season to estimate legume content. Counts were made on each of the 25 rising plate points per paddock measurement.
Results Growth and Pasture Utilization - Both farms in this project utilized managed intensive grazing as a method for pasturing their dairy animals (usually moving their milk cows to new paddocks between each milking). Pre-grazing mass was usually above 2500 lbs. per acre, more than adequate for optimum dry matter intake (Figure 1, Tables 2 and 4 in Appendix).
Figure 1. Pre-grazing mass means and standard deviations of the four paddocks from each farm through the 2006 grazing season SARE Partnership Final Report
2 of 10
The Moultrup Farm utilized an average of 50% of their pasture each grazing (Figure 2, Table 2 in Appendix). Shelburne Farm had poorer utilization partially due to the excessive rain in 2006 along with their poorly drained soils (Figure 2, Table 4 in Appendix).
Figure 2. Pasture utilization means and standard deviations of the four paddocks from each farm through the 2006 grazing season Pasture growth rates ranged from 38 to 98 lbs. per acre per day (Figure 3, Tables 2 and 4 in Appendix). The high amounts of rainfall in June seemed to enhance the pasture growth at the Moultrup farm which has a predominately course texture soil; whereas, the growth rate at Shelburne Farm was more variable across paddocks, particularly in the first half of the season when there was excessive rainfall.
Figure 3. Pasture growth rate means and standard deviations of the four paddocks from each farm through the 2006 grazing season. Legume Content - Legume content varied across paddocks but mostly varied with season (Figure 4, Tables 3 and 5 in Appendix). Generally, legume content increased as the season progressed with highest levels in August and September. Recently overseeded paddocks did not show any higher levels of legume content as compared to the non-overseeded ones except for Middle A and B at the Moultrup Farm. Jim’s South and North paddocks were harvested for hay in the first cutting and then grazed which may explain why legume content was low in the first grazing. The wet fields at Shelburne Farms were difficult to graze in the first half of the season resulting in a higher amount of grass cover and low legume content.
SARE Partnership Final Report
3 of 10
Legume Content (% of DM)
50
Moultrup Farm
40
Middle A(y) 30
Middle B (n) Jims South (y)
20
Jims North (n)
10
(y) - overseeded (n) - not overseeded
0 12-May
1-Jun
21-Jun
11-Jul
31-Jul
20-Aug
9-Sep
Legume Content (% of DM)
50
Shelburne Farm
40
Alecs Road (y) 30
Lower Chapel (n) Silo A(y)
20
Silo C (n) 10
(y) - overseeded (n) - not overseeded
0 12-May
1-Jun
21-Jun
11-Jul
31-Jul
20-Aug
9-Sep
2006
Figure 4. Average legume content of each paddock through the 2006 grazing season Generally, legume content was only associated with higher pasture quality when it exceeded 30 percent of the botanical mixture; however, the relationship varied greatly and was also influenced by time of year (Figure 5, Tables 3 and 5 in Appendix).
Figure 5. Relationship of legume content to NDF, ADF and crude protein across all paddocks on both farms for the 2006 grazing season. SARE Partnership Final Report
4 of 10
Calcium was the only mineral that significantly correlated with legume content (Table 1) Table 1. Correlation coefficients of legume content with various forage quality parameters. Correlation coefficient
Significance
Crude protein
0.41
*
Soluble protein
0.00
ns
Acid detergent fiber
-0.58
**
Neutral detergent fiber
-0.57
**
Net Energy of Lactation
0.53
**
Total digestible nutrients
0.58
**
Phosphorus
0.08
ns
Potassium
-0.09
ns
Magnesium
0.28
ns
Calcium
0.54
**
Parameter
On-Farm Records Using on-farm records to estimate net pasture yield showed a similar result to intensive hand sampling utilizing an acrylic pasture plate method (Figure 6). C alcu lated V erses Measu red N et Yield s M o u ltr u p F a r m - 2 0 0 6
Average Net Yield Per Grazing (lbs dm/acre)
2000 -9%
1800
-16%
3%
7%
1600 1400 1200
C a lcu la te d
1000
Me a su re d
800 600 400 200 0 Jim No rth
Jim So u th
Mid d le A
Mid d le B
Pa d d o c k N a m e s
Figure 6. Net yields per grazing period averaged over the grazing season. Calculated yields were determined from estimating dry matter intake using on-farm records of milk production, fat composition and animal weight. Measured net yields were determined from the rising plate pre and post grazing yields.
SARE Partnership Final Report
5 of 10
Summary On farm records have the potential to be used as a tool for estimating pasture productivity; however, indirect methods such as the use of a rising plate and point count methods for determining legume content can also enhance the data by estimating pounds of pre-grazing cover, percent utilization, and residual dry matter. These tools are relatively inexpensive to make and can be quite useful for collecting pasture data that can be used in feed planning, fine tuning a grazing program, extension demonstrations, or on-farm research. References th
Murphy, William. 1994. Greener pastures on your side of the fence (4 ed.). Arriba Publishing, Colchester, VT. Rayburn, Edward. 1997. An acrylic plastic weight plate for estimating forage yield. West Virginia Un. Extension Service (http://www.caf.wvu.edu/~forage/pastplate.htm) Acknowledgements This project could not have been accomplished without the help, guidance and assistance of Nat Bacon of Shelburne Farms and Jeff Moultrup of Moultrup Farms.
The project was supported by the Northeast USDA-SARE program (http://www.uvm.edu/~nesare/index.html) through a Partnership Grant.
More information about pasture and grazing management in Vermont can be found at the following websites: Vermont Crops and Soils Homepage: http://pss.uvm.edu/vtcrops/?Page=pasturegrazing.html Vermont Pasture Network: http://www.uvm.edu/~pasture/
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. University of Vermont Extension, Burlington, Vermont. University of Vermont Extension and U.S. Department of Agriculture, cooperating, offer education and employment to everyone without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, or marital or familial status.
SARE Partnership Final Report
6 of 10
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix 1832 3184 3326 2753 2926 2804
1064 1369 1425 1846 1482 1531
1155 1384 1470 1706 1520
1533 1813 1959 1640 1736
1369 1771 1850 1400 1597
Post Mass lb/a
900 1963 1545 1311 1606
1898 1777 2067 1214 1739
1711 1665 1887 1284 1637
Net Mass lbs/a
44% 59% 51% 43% 51%
55% 49% 51% 43% 50%
56% 48% 51% 48% 51%
Forage Utilization %
50%
96.3 75.2 60.4 47.0 69.7
2056 3347 3014 3016 3126
3431 3590 4026 2854 3475
3080 3436 3737 2684 3234
Pre Mass lb/a
Farm Average 27 67.3 3160 1596 1625 *Calculated intake per cow per day is based on average cow weight and daily milk production
24 28 24 28 26
99.6 62.7 67.2 76.5
76.2 79.0 34.4 63.2
76.5 70.2 32.1 59.6
Growth Rate lbs/a/d
42% 57% 57% 33% 49% 49%
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
24 28 24 28 26
28 30 27 28
28 30 27 28
Rest Period days
768 1814 1901 907 1444 1517
Middle B 0.90 No Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
Middle A 0.90 Yes Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
0.90 No Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
Area acres
Grazing Date
0.90 Yes Predominate soil type: Agawam fine sandy loam 0 - 5% slope
Jim South
Jim North
Paddock Name
Over seeded with legume
1462
691 1633 1711 816 1300 1365
810 1766 1390 1180 1445
1709 1599 1860 1093 1565
1540 1499 1699 1156 1473
22.8
12.6 26.3 25.9 12.4 19.7 21.1
14.7 29.0 21.1 17.9 22.6
28.5 24.6 28.2 16.6 24.5
25.7 23.1 25.7 17.5 23.0
Measured Intake lbs/d lbs/cow/d
Table 2. Paddock area, soil type, treatments and grazing information for Moultrup Farm in 2006, Richmond, VT
20.6
22.6 21.1 21.1 20.8 19.2 20.5
22.6 21.1 21.1 20.6 19.5 20.6
21.1 20.6 20.8 19.8 20.6
22.8 20.6 20.4 19.8 20.9
Calculated Intake* lbs/cow/d
APPENDIX
7 of 10
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix
8 of 10
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
10% 25% 33% 30% 25%
22% 35% 47% 35% 23.5 16.6 21.5 21.2 20.7
25.0 18.9 24.0 22.6
21.1 23.0 21.8 28.5 23.6
45.6 49.7 42.7 46.4 46.1
47.8 46.5 44.0 46.1
46.8 42.4 44.5 48.1 45.5
Soluble Protein % 47.3 41.3 44.1 46.7 44.9
29.2 33.2 32.0 29.4 31.0
30.4 28.4 28.6 29.1
31.6 31.4 27.9 26.6 29.4
ADF % 30.7 30.3 26.9 25.8 28.4
51.5 58.6 53.2 49.9 53.3
53.1 49.4 48.6 50.4
53.5 54.5 49.9 45.4 50.8
NDF % 52.1 53.3 47.9 45.5 49.7
0.65 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.62
0.63 0.66 0.66 0.65
0.61 0.61 0.67 0.69 0.65
NEl Mcal/lb 0.62 0.63 0.68 0.70 0.66
69 66 67 69 68
68 70 70 69
67 68 70 71 69
TDN % 68 68 71 72 70
0.63 0.53 0.83 0.66
0.56 0.56 0.45 0.74 0.58
Ca % 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.60
0.47 0.36 0.43 0.42
0.44 0.46 0.38 0.54 0.46
P % 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.51 0.45
0.43
No
Middle B
5/29 6/23 7/22 8/16 9/14 Average
2% 18% 14% 38% 18%
CP* % 21.9 22.4 22.3 29.0 23.9
Farm Average 25% 22.7 45.6 29.5 51.0 0.64 69 0.62 *CP - crude protein; ADF - acid detergent fiber; NDF - neutral detergent fiber; TDN - Total digestible nutrients
Yes
Middle A
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
Legume Content % of DM 3% 13% 33% 37% 22%
0.45 0.35 0.43 0.40 0.41
Yes
Jim South
6/15 7/14 8/14 9/11 Average
Grazing Date
0.38 0.66 0.68 0.79 0.63
No
Jim North
Paddock Name
Over seeded with legume
Table 3. Legume content and pasture quality for each grazing period at Moultrup Farm in 2006, Richmond, VT
3.38
3.39 2.24 3.42 3.26 3.08
3.43 3.17 3.41 3.34
3.45 3.75 3.59 3.65 3.61
K % 3.23 3.70 3.43 3.62 3.50
0.21
0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.21
0.22 0.18 0.25 0.22
0.20 0.23 0.18 0.24 0.21
Mg % 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.21
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix
9 of 10
48.5 60.0
2716 3122
3533 3439 2802
2965 2695 2682 2860
1622 1695
1638 1725 1796
1567 1535 1981 1673
1754 1527
2026 2369 1837 1784 2178 2039
lb/a 2352 1573 2070 1831 1784 1987 1933
1895 1714 1006
1398 1160 701 1187
906 1772
1581 953 1006 1068 608 1043
lbs/a 656 1232 1462 1363 846 1141 1117
54% 50% 36%
47% 43% 26% 41%
34% 54%
44% 29% 35% 37% 22% 33%
% 22% 44% 41% 43% 32% 36% 36%
39%
20 23
9/12 Average
90.1 41.4
75.7 66.3 54.6 65.3
2659 3299
3607 3322 2843 2852 2786 3082
lb/a 3009 2805 3533 3193 2630 3128 3050
Farm Average 24 57.2 3028 1835 1194 *Calculated intake per cow per day is based on average cow weight and daily milk production
21 27
7/3 7/25 8/22
22 20 23 24
7/21 8/11 9/4 Average
64.4
30.1 31.6 67.7 47.7 44.3
lbs/a/d 16.8 93.3 80.2 53.3 53.7 59.5
40% 45%
7.80 No Predominate soil types: 70% Covington silty clay 22% Stockbridge stony loam 5% Palatine silt loam
Silo C
29
46 16 18 26 27
days 31 24 16 19 26 23
5/29 6/28
5/25 7/11 7/28 8/16 9/12 Average
5/14 6/15 7/10 7/27 8/16 9/12 Average
1095 1427
6.50 Yes Predominate soil types: 56% Stockbridge stony loam 24% Palatine silt loam 20% Covington silty clay
3.90 No Predominate soil types: 50% Palatine silt loam 50% Vergennes clay
acres 3.50 Yes Predominate soil types: 80% Palatine silt loam 20% Vergennes clay
Silo A
Lower Chap
Alec Road
3073
2846 2935
3342 2616
3029 3015 3037 3369
3924 3840
4110 2479 2616 2777 2372 2871
lbs/d 2297 2875 3412 3180 2960 3994 3120
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.8
20.7 20.6
20.8 20.7 20.1
21.0 20.8 20.4 21.0
21.6 21.3
21.8 20.6 20.8 19.8 20.1 20.6
lbs/cow/d 22.8 20.7 21.2 20.5 20.6 20.6 21.1
Table 4. Paddock area, soil type, treatments and grazing information for Shelburne Farm in 2006, Shelburne, VT Over seeded Forage with Grazing Rest Growth Post Net Measured Calculated Pre Paddock Utililegume Date Period Rate Mass Mass Mass zation Intake Intake* Name Area
SARE Partnership Final Report Appendix
10 of 10
7/3 7/25 8/22 9/12 Average
25% 26% 39% 16% 27%
3% 21% 20% 23% 17% 16.4 16.9 21.8 22.3 19.4
19.2 22.0 22.4 21.2 25.3 22.0
22.0 16.4 20.4 20.2 25.0 20.8
52.9 44.0 48.0 46.2 47.8
53.1 46.2 41.6 42.5 45.3 45.7
38.5 46.0 43.6 42.1 46.0 43.2
% 44.1 48.1 46.7 43.3 42.3 43.8 44.7
32.1 34.0 30.1 30.8 31.8
34.2 30.2 30.0 31.5 25.8 30.3
28.7 30.8 33.7 27.9 21.9 28.6
% 27.1 31.7 29.3 28.1 30.3 27.2 29.0
ADF
52.7 54.9 46.9 52.2 51.7
57.4 49.1 51.6 51.0 45.5 50.9
54.1 52.5 55.0 47.8 40.3 49.9
% 55.7 51.4 46.3 48.1 51.1 45.6 49.7
NDF
0.60 0.57 0.63 0.62 0.61
0.57 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.70 0.63
0.66 0.62 0.58 0.67 0.70 0.65
% 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.66 0.63 0.68 0.64
Nel
65.2 68.5 68.6 67.4 72.0 68
69.7 68.0 65.7 70.3 75.1 70
% 66.7 67.3 69.2 70.1 68.4 70.9 69
TDN
0.50 0.57 0.41 0.59 0.84 0.58
0.32 0.48 0.73 0.66 0.63 0.56
% 0.33 0.47 0.68 0.49 0.56 0.35 0.48
Ca
0.58
No
Silo C
5/29 6/28 7/21 8/11 9/4 Average
8% 24% 22% 45% 25%
% 25.2 19.5 20.5 21.3 22.5 21.0 21.7
% of DM 2% 6% 19% 35% 20% 16%
Soluble Protein
Farm Average 21% 21.0 45.4 29.9 50.6 0.63 69 *CP - crude protein; ADF - acid detergent fiber; NDF - neutral detergent fiber; TDN - Total digestible nutrients
Yes
Silo A
5/25 7/11 7/28 8/16 9/12 Average
CP*
Legume Content
0.67 0.63 0.86 0.58 0.69
No
Lower Chap
5/14 6/15 7/10 7/27 8/16 9/12 Average
Grazing Date
66.9 65.4 68.6 67.9 67
Yes
Alec Road
Paddock Name
Over seeded with legume
Table 5. Legume content and pasture quality for each grazing period Shelburne Farm in 2006, Shelburne, VT
P
0.38
0.34 0.34 0.37 0.37 0.36
0.41 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.43 0.40
0.29 0.31 0.40 0.33 0.37 0.34
% 0.47 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.42 0.35 0.40
K
3.45
2.69 3.27 3.27 3.18 3.10
3.51 3.39 3.90 3.88 3.61 3.66
3.09 3.20 3.47 3.27 3.08 3.22
% 3.83 3.61 3.84 4.13 3.92 3.63 3.83
0.23
0.20 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.23
0.19 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.23
0.20 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.23
% 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.22
Mg
