KBS research on Complementary Forages for Pasture Systems

Transcription

1 KBS research on Complementary Forages for Pasture Systems Santiago A Utsumi Assistant Professor of Animal Science Michigan State University utsumi@msu.edu 1

2 Complementary forage Systems Complementary forage systems (CFS) are a viable practice to sustainably extend the grazing season and the amount of grazed forages beyond the limits of systems relying only on perennial pastures. A CFS seeks to maximize utilities and ecological services arising from the agronomic complementation of perennial pastures and short-rotation forage crops (FC). Profit increase, lower business risks, perenniality conservation, biodiversity maintenance, soil organic matter build-up, flexible feed budgeting and pasture renovation, and opportunity to efficiently increases use of key resources (land) and inputs (water and nutrients) are some potential benefits in a CFS (Farina 21, Garcia et al., 21). Starting in 212, KBS is evaluating alternative CFS for Michigan dairy farms. This research is aimed to develop a portfolio of forage alternatives for pasturebased dairy farms seeking to achieve sustainable increases in milk production from grazed forages at low agronomic risk. 2

3 Role of Brassicas in a CFS Brassicas (leaf turnips, radishes, forage rape, kale) need to play a key role in a CFS in Michigan. Brassicas incorporate three important complementarities into the system by i) producing high amounts of quality forage during periods of pasture shortage (System level), ii) improving dietary balance and reducing limitations in energy intake commonly experienced in lactating or finishing animals (Animal level), and, iii) by improving soil physical properties and function (Garcia et al. 28). This last factor adds to the sustainability dimension of a CFS, as brassicas i) release glucosinolate exudates to suppress soil-borne pathogens (biofumigation service; Matthiessenand Kikegaard, 26), ii) increase soil aeration and infiltration through deep root penetration, iii) facilitate use of water by subsequent crops (Williams and Weil, 24), iii) enhance soil nutrient utilization by exploring different levels in the soil profile (Merrill et al., 22), iv) increase N use efficiency and reduce risks of N leaching (Malagoliet al., 25). 3

4 Forage rape trials at KBS: Winfred and A3-Goliath from PGGseeds July: No till Drilling after herbicide August: Rapid establishment despite drought September: Exponential growth October: Explosive yield in short period 4

5 Equipment Costs Spraying Equipment and Labor at $12/hr Spraying Equipment and Labor at $12/hr Fertilizer Application with Labor at $12/hr Per Acre $ 8.1st application $ 8.2nd application $ 1.56 Planting with John Deere No-till Drill $ 32.4 $ Input Costs Cornerstone (glyphosate) + 2,4-D Amine + AMS Cornerstone (glyphosate) + AMS Does not include cost of picking up the spreader and fertilizer at the dealer Rate = 1.25 qt Cornerstone and.5 qt $ 3.1 2,4-D amine $ 3.8 Rate = 1. qt Cornerstone Fertilizer Cost: Urea at 29 lbs N/acre $ $.651 per lb N Winterhawk' Annual 34 lbs/acre $ $.92 per lb PGG seeds Winfred and A3 3.9 $ 15.6 $4. per lb lb/acre $ $ Total implantation cost, Equipment + Inputs *** The equipment/labor costs are all probably low for working in these small paddocks and taking extra care for research purposes. Costs were derived using normal driving speeds 5

6 PGG BrassicaGrowth and Yield: A 2 penny high quality forage yield, lb DM/acre A3 Winfred Yield, lb DM/ac DM content, % A3- Goliath Winfred Pasture 1,536 8,84 9,898 18, 18,3 2,2 ADF, % 1,7 1,6 29,4 NDF, % 15,4 15,8 5,3 IVTD-48h, % 93,7 94,8 71,1 CP,% 24,2 23,7 17,6 In about 8 days of growth, standing crop yield is between 4 to 5 tndm. Implantation cost was $.12 to $.14 per lb produced. At 65% utilization the cost of forage consumed was about.17 to.2/lb DM. This is comparable to the cost of a perennial pasture forage and is significantly lower than the cost of most forage or concentrate supplements available in the market. 6

7 Inclusion of Forage Rape in pasture-based CFS Growth rate,lb/ac d Pasture Only Forage Rape Forage produced during summer and fall has higher economic value than feed produced during spring, when environmental conditions are more favorable for pasture growth. This concept fits well with the growth pattern of growth of forage rape in Michigan 7

8 Forage Rape acreage in a CFS CFS 7 Pasture-3 Ryegrass/ Rape Average GR Growth rate, lb/ac d Forage Utilization CFS Forage Utilization, lb/ac year Acreage of Forage Rape should be based on a reasonable compromise between the amount of available pasture, forage seasonality and production goals. Trials at KBS started in 212 confirm that a CFS including 7% perennial pasture and 3% Forage Rape-Annual Ryegrass mix could increase forage production compared to a perennial pasture system (14, vs. 1,5 lb DM/ac) while improving the distribution of grazeable forage throughout the season. 8

9 Forage Rape-Annual Ryegrass Mix: Spring 14 Vs. Summer seeding (213) Forage production, DM lb/ac Spring Ryegrass + Summer Rape Spring Ryegrass- Rape Mix Fall Spring Multiple grazing events (2-3/year) of regrowth Brassicas and annual ryegrass has the potential to provide balanced high quality feed for a more extended period. It may also help reduce loss of milk production or weight gains as a result of the rumen adaptation to a new highly degradable feed (> 9 % digestibility) or to changing proportions of different feeds. Winfred Forage Rapewasdrilledintoa previous year s annual ryegrass in late April. Seed rate was 4 lb/ac plus 32 units of N/ac. No irrigation was applied The Ryegrass- Winfred mix was heavily stocked and grazed once in spring (>65%) to facilitate ryegrass seed bank development and subsequent regrowth of both,winfred Rape and newly established annual ryegrass seedlings 9