2010 Results Improving Tall Fescue Production in Northwest Missouri with Legumes and Timing of Nitrogen Application

Transcription

1 Project Contacts Livestock Shawn Deering, Gentry Co Ag Business Randa Doty, Nodaway Co Jim Humphrey, Andrew Co Agronomy Wayne Flanary, Holt Co Heather Benedict, Harrison Co Amie Schleicher, Atchison Co Copyright 2010 Curators of the University of Missouri, all rights reserved. University of Missouri, Lincoln, Lincoln University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Local Extension Councils Cooperating EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ADA INSTITUTIONS 2010 Results Improving Tall Fescue Production in Northwest Missouri with Legumes and Timing of Nitrogen Application

2 Thanks to Bruce Burdick, Superintendent, Hundley-Whaley Ag Experiment Station, and staff for their assistance; Missouri Southern Seed and Hoffman and Reed, Trenton, for supplying seed; Dr. Robert Kallenbach, State Forage Specialist, for his expertise in demonstration design.

3 Using Legumes and Nitrogen Application Timing in Tall Fescue to Improve Forage Production Study conducted by Northwest Missouri Regional Ag Extension Specialists, Dr. Rob Kallenbach, State Forage Specialist, University of Missouri Extension and Bruce Burdick, Superintendent of Hundley-Whaley Farm Objective To demonstrate the use of different legumes to reduce the need for nitrogen fertilizer and nitrogen application timing to improve forage production. Procedures Plots were established at the Hundley-Whaley Research Center in spring of 2008 in an area in which tall fescue had been used as a parking area during field days. Plots were established measuring 9 X 15 feet with 10 foot alleys with four replications in a randomized complete block design. Red clover and lespedeza were overseeded February 23. Red clover was seeded at 4 lbs per acre and lespedeza was applied at a full rate. Nitrogen application rate of 60 pounds per acre was applied as urea with the addition of the mid-rate of Agrotain. Plots were harvested with a bagging lawn mower and grab samples taken from each replication and combined for measuring moisture. Plots were cut at a 3.5 inch height Results Table 1 contains the treatment means of the individual harvests and total harvests. The first harvest was later than planned because of a wet spring. The first cutting had greater yields compared to both the August and November harvest. Red clover, Birdsfoot trefoil, and white clover all increased total yield. Lespedeza was lower-yielding but yielded more than the spring application of 60 pounds of nitrogen. The use of August nitrogen application combined with over-seeding red clover provides two benefits. Over-seeded red clover without spring nitrogen allows the clover to successfully compete with the fescue to establish itself. Spring applications of nitrogen choke red clover as the fescue is stimulated by the nitrogen. The August nitrogen application does not reduce the legumes but stimulates fall growth of fescue for stockpiling. The distribution of dry matter shown in Figure 1 shows the greatest yield occurred with the June harvest date. This harvest was later than planned. The subsequent harvests were affected by dry weather which limited yields.

4 Red Clover Birdsfoot Trefoil Alfalfa White Clover (Kopa II) White Clover (Durana) Lespedeza White Clover (Kopa II) & Alsike Fescue 60 lb N March lb N Aug lb N March 15 & Red Clover 60 lb N Aug 15 Red Clover 60 lb N March 15 & Aug lb N March 15 & June 15 & Aug 15 Lbs DM/Acre The 2010 harvest yields were the greatest compared to both 2008, which was the establishment year, and All treatments except the spring nitrogen application yielded greater in 2010 compared to other years. Treatment 6/28/2010 8/25/ /23/2010 Total 2010 Red Clover Birdsfoot Trefoil Alfalfa White Clover (Kopa II) White Clover (Durana) Lespedeza White Clover (Kopa II) & Alsike Fescue lb N March lb N Aug lb N March 15 & Red Clover lb N Aug 15 Red Clover lb N March 15 & Aug lb N March 15 & June 15 & Aug The test results will only be as good as the care given to the samples. Do not let them sit in the hot sun; send them immediately or refrigerate until they can be sent. Overnight delivery is best, and the earlier in the week, the better. In the example shown in these photos, a cardboard box lined with a 13-gallon trash bag was used to ship the samples. The bag was tied and the submission form was placed outside the trash bag. In the interest of preserving the integrity of the samples and for quicker results, the samples were shipped overnight. However, it would also be possible to ship in an insulated container with cold packs. LSD NS CV % Table 1. Treatment dry matter yields for each of the different harvest dates Distribution of Dry Matter Yields Across Harvest Dates 11/23/2010 8/25/2010 6/28/2010 The cost of the test will depend on the lab; in this example, for 80 tillers the cost was $60, not including the overnight shipping fee. There are a number of labs that will test tall fescue but it is important to choose one that does actually test for the endophyte rather than simply looking for it under the microscope. The test results will indicate the percentage of tillers submitted that were infected with the fungal endophyte. This is determined using the immunoblot laboratory procedure. Samples taken in northwest Missouri in fall 2010 in Nodaway and Clinton counties showed 84% and 79% levels of infection, respectively. As mentioned earlier in this article, expect results to be high. These both are considered high levels of infection and must be managed to reduce toxic effects on livestock. When the test results arrive, work with an Extension specialist to determine the steps that need to be taken. Refer to the 2009 Results: Improving Tall Fescue Production in Northwest Missouri with Legumes and Timing of Nitrogen Application article on the tall fescue endophyte for additional information. Sources: Sampling for the Tall Fescue Endophyte in Pasture or Hay Stands, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Lexington, KY, Personal communication, Division of Regulatory Services, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, September Treatments Figure 1. Treatment dry matter yield means for each of the harvest dates.

5 Testing Tall Fescue Pastures for Endophyte The number of samples needed depends on the pasture size. For the laboratory used for the purposes of this article, less than five acres required 20 specimens; 5-10 acres required 40 specimens; more than 10 acres required at least 50 specimens (or more for larger fields) Treatments Figure 2. Comparison of 2010, 2009 and 2008 dry matter means. 60 lb N March 15 & June 15 & Aug lb N March 15 & Aug lb N Aug 15 Red Clover 60 lb N March 15 & Red Clover 60 lb N Aug lb N March 15 Fescue White Clover (Kopa II) & Alsike Lespedeza White Clover (Durana) White Clover (Kopa II) Alfalfa 0 Birdsfoot Trefoil 5000 Red Clover Lbs DM/Acre It is widely known that most tall fescue pastures are infected with a fungal endophyte which, when consumed by livestock, can cause fescue toxicosis. Testing tall fescue for its level of infection can help producers make decisions on how to manage those pastures to reduce the negative effects on livestock. In this article, the process for testing tall fescue pastures for the endophyte will be outlined. Most producers who wish to have their pastures tested will likely have experienced issues with animals consuming infected fescue. Testing will give the producer a benchmark to work from. In all likelihood, most pastures will be highly infected. Samples must be taken during the time of year when the endophyte is most likely to be present in the tillers. That is when the plants have been actively growing for at least a month, usually in spring and fall. Equipment needed for sampling includes: a sharp knife, buckets, scissors, trash bag, cardboard box (if shipped overnight) or insulated box with cold pack (if shipped using a method other than overnight delivery). A set of samples must come from fields with the same seeding date and management. Pastures seeded with the novel endophyte-infected fescue should not be tested. The samples should be representative of the field, so take samples randomly while walking in a zigzag pattern, making sure to avoid areas like ditches, ponds, feeding sites, and borders unless they make up more than 20% of the stand. To take samples, cut the tillers below the soil surface and include the upper roots so the clump stays together. When all the samples are taken, the roots can be trimmed and the soil removed. Care must be taken not to include other species in the clumps. Three Year Comparison of Dry Matter Yields

6 2010 Tall Fescue and Legume Plot Forage Quality Results The Effect of Nitrogen Timing and Legumes Background Forage production is challenging at best. While we want high yields, we also want high quality. Unfortunately, the two do not always go hand-in-hand. Yield is pretty simple to measure and anyone with a set of scales can do it. Quality determination is more complicated in that samples must be analyzed in a lab. What are we looking for when we sample for quality? The main components we are interested in are crude protein, energy, and digestibility. While there are other things we can analyze for, if we have information for these three we can do a pretty good job balancing beef cattle diets. Therefore, these are the areas we are highlighting. Crude Protein (CP) is the sum of true protein and non-protein nitrogen. Most plant protein will be true protein, with the exception of some of the nitrate-accumulating grasses such as sudangrass. It is a measure of the forage s ability to meet the protein needs of livestock. Different classes of beef cattle have different protein requirements. In general, younger, growing cattle and cows in early lactation have the highest protein needs. % Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) is a measurement of energy that gives the percentage of digestible material (protein, fiber, nonstructural carbohydrates, and fat) in forage. % Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) represents the bulkiness or all of the structural or cell wall material in the forage (hemicellulose, cellulose, lignin, and silica). Because forage fiber is bulky, there is a limit to the amount that will fit in a cow s rumen (first stomach). When that limit is reached, she will stop eating and thus the NDF of forage is inversely related to the amount that a cow or calf is able to consume. Forages with low NDF values result in higher intakes as compared to those with high NDF values. Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) is an index for ranking forages and is calculated from crude protein, acid detergent fiber, NDF, fat, ash, and NDF digestibility at 48 hours. A RFQ of 100 is considered the average score and is representative of full-bloom alfalfa. RFQ reflects the feeding value of forage and higher values mean higher quality. Why are we interested in forage quality? Well, higher quality forages equate to greater animal performance. By sampling the tall fescue and legume plots for quality at different times during the production cycle, we will begin to establish a forage quality database for northwest Missouri. In addition to the nitrogen fixation that legumes provide to grasses in a grass-legume mixed pasture, legumes are typically higher in nutrients and have a positive effect on forage quality. This is especially true during the summer slump period when cool-season grasses are lower in quality. This forage quality information should prove to be useful for area farmers and ranchers as they manage pastures and hayfields for maximum animal gains as well as maximum forage yield. a Common Lespedeza Kopa II White Clover + Alsike 0 Nitrogen 60 N March 60 N Aug 60 N Mar + Red Clover 60 N Aug + Red Clover 60 N Mar, Aug 60 N - Mar, June, Aug % 91.74% 91.34% 87.63% 86.54% 79.61% 90.21% 86.21% 79.99% 81.45% % 5.18% 4.72% 8.35% 9.18% 12.32% 7.11% 6.19% 8.76% 7.68% % 3.09% 3.93% 4.02% 4.28% 8.07% 2.68% 7.61% 11.26% 10.87% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38.60 $38.60 $38.60 $38.60 $77.20 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ er basis equals $60 per ton as-fed at 85% dry matter. Hay price determined by the February 17, 2011 Missouri Depart-

7 2010 Hundley Whaley Forage Plot Budget Summary - Year Estimated Forage Value/Acre Treatment Common Birdsfoot Red Clover Trefoil Alfalfa Kopa II White Clover Durana White Clover June 28 Harvest % of total harvest 87.66% 82.76% 81.22% 90.60% 90.53% August 52 Harvest % of total harvest 7.49% 15.49% 14.76% 6.87% 5.06% November 23 Harvest % of total harvest 4.85% 1.75% 4.02% 2.53% 4.40% 2010 Total Yield lbs of DM Value of Production/ Acre 1 $70.59 per ton/dm $ $ $ $ $525.7 Fertility Cost Nitrogen Rate (lbs/acre) lbs/acre Total N Cost per acre $0.50 lb of N (Urea) Agrotain Cost $0.06 Agrotain/lb of N Application Charge per acre $5.00 per acre Total fertility Cost/acre N + Agrotain + Application $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0 Methods As mentioned previously in this booklet, the tall fescue and legume plots were harvested on June 24, August 25, and November 23, Paired samples of each of the fourteen treatments were air dried and after yield data was collected they were then submitted to a custom laboratory facility utilizing NIR (near infrared) methods for forage quality analysis. Samples were statistically analyzed using ANOVA procedures to determine least significant difference (LSD) at the ninety-five percent confidence level (LSD.05). If the LSD.05 = a number greater than zero, there was a significant difference observed. For example, in the crude protein chart for the June 24 harvest, red clover had a % crude protein value of 12.4 and birdsfoot trefoil had a value of The difference between those two treatments was 3.5, which is greater than So, there was a statistically significant difference between % crude protein levels for red clover and birdsfoot trefoil harvested on that date. For ease of reading, results are presented by cutting date in the order of CP, NDF, TDN and RFQ. Income over fertility cost per acre $ $ $ $ $ Value of production is compared to hay values. Hay price is on a 100% dry matter basis. Hay valued at $70.59 dry matte ment of Agriculture-USDA Market News Missouri Weekly Hay Summary Establishment Cost and Stand Life Comparison for Legumes Treatment Establishment Cost 1 Expected life of legume stand 2 1 Common Red Clover $ years 2 Birdsfoot Trefoil $ years 3 Alfalfa $ years 4 Kopa II White Clover $ years 5 Durana White Clover $ years 6 Common Lespedeza $ years 7 Kopa II White Clover & Alsike $ years 1 Stand was established in 2008, complete budget can be viewed in Improving Tall Fescue Production in Northwest Missouri with Legumes and Timing of Nitrogen Application: A producers Guide 2 Stand life is estimated to reflect the life of an average stand when managed under ideal conditions.

8 2010 Hundley Whaley Forage Plots: Value of Production June 24 Harvest Yield and Quality Measures Operating costs/ ton 2 Ownership costs/ ton 3 Yield (ton/acre), Total costs/ lbs of Cost/lb lbs of Cost/lb Treatment DM basis 1 ton 4 % CP CP/ton of CP 5 % TDN TDN/ton of TDN 5 Fescue, Red Clover 6.32 $2.96 $15.67 $ % 248 $ % 1,070 $0.017 Fescue, Check 2.58 $7.26 $38.38 $ % 202 $ % 1,120 $0.041 Fescue, 60 lbs N March $19.22 $40.39 $ % 138 $ % 1,100 $0.054 Corn $ % 196 $ % 1,760 $ Yield is on a 100% dry matter basis. Hay as-fed is typically 85% dry matter. 2 Operating costs include: seed, fertilizer, crop supplies, storage, fuel, repairs & maintenance, labor, and operating interest 3 Ownership costs include: farm business overhead, machinery overhead, machinery depreciation, and real estate charge 4 Total cost/ton for forages was determined by operating and ownership costs; corn was determined by CBOT prices on 1/1/11 5 The lowest cost feedstuff might not be the best option depending on animal intake and performance level desired Needs of a 600 lb growing calf with anticipated finishing/mature weight of 1,400 lbs, gaining 2 lbs/ day DM, lb/ CP TDN day 9.8% 59% 17 Needs of a 1,400 lb cow at calving, weaning a 612 lb calf, 2 months since calving DM, lb/ CP TDN day 10.3% 59.1% 30.5 Needs of a pregnant replacement heifer, 1,400 lb mature weight, in late 2nd trimester DM, lb/ CP TDN day 7.5% 52.4% 24.9

9 Economic Value of Forage Quality Feeding livestock is the most costly part of production. Forages can be a cost effective way to feed livestock. However, hay prices have reached new highs in recent years and will probably not be decreasing in the near future. When looking at the economics, all feed stuffs are not created equally. You have heard time and time again from your extension specialists to get a forage test to properly balance your ration. Once you get a forage test, what can you determine from the results? In the Hundley- Whaley forage plots there were some significant differences found in forage quality. The differences in quality also reflect a wide range in cost per pound of crude protein (CP) and cost per lb of total digestible nutrients (TDN). CP is the sum of the true protein and non-protein nitrogen. TDN is a measurement of energy that gives the percentage of digestible material in forages. Most producers know their fields total yield, several take a forage test, but many forget to figure cost of production. Cost of production should include operating and ownership costs. Operating costs include: costs of seed, fertilizer, supplies, storage, fuel, repairs & maintenance, labor, and operating interest. Ownership costs include: farm business overhead, machinery overhead, machinery depreciation, and real estate charge. After cost of production is determined and a forage test has been run, cost per lb of CP and TDN can help determine the most cost effective way to feed livestock. In this demonstration, the cost per lb of CP and TDN was compared in the red clover, check, and the 60 lb N on March 15 treatments. It was observed that adding red clover not only increased the total yield of, but also increased percent, crude protein. The cost per lb of CP in the fescue/red clover mix forage was the lowest of the three treatments at $0.075 per lb of CP. The check treatment showed a cost of $0.226 per lb of CP and the treatment with 60 lb N on March 15 showed a cost per lb of CP of $ The red clover treatment also yielded the lowest cost per lb of TDN at $0.017 per lb compared to $0.041 per lb in the check treatment, and $0.054 in the plots with 60 lb N on March 15. Knowing the differences in the costs per pound of CP and TDN has economic value in a livestock production system. A producer can more effectively utilize the forages based on the nutritional needs of their livestock and determine cost of production. For example, a producer feeding pregnant replacement heifers with a 1,400 lb mature weight in late 2 nd trimester can feed the forage that most closely matches the nutritional needs of the animals based on the nutrient analysis. If that forage is deficient in nutrients, the appropriate supplement can be chosen to make up for that deficiency and meet the animals requirements. The cost per lb of nutrient of supplemental feed can be used to determine which supplement makes up that deficiency on a costeffective basis. Knowing cost of production, a producer can more efficiently balance rations and feed their livestock. This can help producers decrease their total cost of production and increase their bottom line.

10 Summary Significant differences were observed for % CP and % NDF levels for all three harvest dates between some of the treatments. However, % TDN differences between some treatments were only noted for the August harvest date as no significant differences were found between treatments for the June and November harvests. While there were no significant differences noted for RFQ between treatments for the November harvest, there were differences between some of the treatments for the June and August harvested forages. Producers must remember that this data set only includes samples taken from one year of production. While the data may be useful and the trends are interesting, more samples taken over multiple years will provide better information and aid producers in making more informed management decisions.

11