Eastern/Interlake Region April 7, 1999

Transcription

1 Manitoba Eastern/Interlake Region April 7, 1999 Pasture Quality Survey - Eastern/Interlake The Eastern/Interlake region of Manitoba, is very suited to the production of forage crops and the harvesting of the forage by grazing livestock is a very cost effective and sustainable option. The profitability of using a grazing system to provide a high net return to the land base, depends on many factors but primarily on the availability of quality and quantity of forage. If you look after the Grass - the animals will look after you! Pasture Quality Survey How good are our pastures - in terms of forage quality and quantity? Are there major nutrient deficiencies in our pastures? This was the objective of this survey conducted on 61 farm locations in the Eastern/Interlake Region from 1996 to Survey Method The survey involved monitoring forage production in 4 ft x 4 ft enclosures at each location. Forage samples were harvested with hand shears at: i) late spring or early summer, ii) mid summer and, iii) early fall. This survey method has some limitations as it does not accurately reflect the quality of the pasture available to the grazing animal. The sampled area represented regrowth where as the grazing animal in the surrounding pasture would have both regrowth plants plus mature plants available. As the clipping process takes the total plant, the grazing animal will selectively eat the higher quality portions of a plant. In 1998, an estimate of the dry matter production and forage species content was taken at each location. This was not done for the 1996 or 1997 sites. All clippings were analyzed for dry matter, protein, TDN and for all major and most minor minerals. The pastures involved in this survey were of introduced grass or legume species or some native species. They were reflective of the pastures of the areas being surveyed. Locations of Sampled Areas: The sites were selected in consultation with the district Agricultural Representatives, sampling by summer students and funding was made available under the ASI program sites: were located in the following Agricultural Representative districts: Vita (13), Beausejour (3), Dugald (2) Teulon (3), Stonewall (1) sites were located in the following Agricultural Representative districts: Dugald, Selkirk, Beausejour, St Pierre, Steinbach, Stonewall, Teulon, Arborg, Fisher Branch sites: were located in the following Agricultural Representative districts: Selkirk(2), Beausejour (4), Dugald (3), Steinbach 10), Teulon (2), Lundar (1) Page -1-

2 What Does the Grazing Animal Require? The nutrient requirements of all livestock will vary according to the animal type, size and growth or maintenance. In a pasture system, the quality and quantity of the forage produced will Determine the livestock productivity of the pasture. Some pastures could be identified as cow/calf pastures, while others are very much suited to rearing of feeder livestock or replacement heifers. Animal Requirements Type of Animal TDN % Protein % Nursing Beef Cow (1200 lbs.) 54% 8.13 Feeder Steer (800 lbs.) * 60% 9.1% Rep. Heifer (750 lbs.) * 55.9% 9.1% Note: * AVDG of 1.5 to 2.0 lbs./day Ref. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle 1997 Mineral Levels of E/I Pastures Compared to Livestock Requirements Minerals Analysis Optimum Levels for Forage Growth Beef Cow (1200 LB) Grazing Animal Requirement Feeder Steer (800 LB) Replacement (750 LB) Pasture Analysis (Average of all sites) 1996 Avg Avg Avg. Phosphorus % Calcium % Potassium % Magnesium % Sodium % Copper PPM Iron PPM * Manganese PPM Molybdenum PPM* Zinc PPM * No minimum requirement Page -2-

3 Pasture Quality Results (Eastern/Interlake Area) Pasture Species Protein TDN DM(lbs) Native June (13 sites) August Grass/Legume June (6 sites) August Tame Grass June (3 sites) August 12.6% 62.4% 1, % 65.8% % 71.1% % 59.2% 3, % 63.1% 1, % 71.0% % 55.8% 4, % 62.3% 1, % 71.0% 289 Type of Animal Protein % TDN % Nursing Beef Cow (1200 lbs.) % Feeder Steer (800 lbs.) * 9.1% 60% Rep. Heifer (750 lbs.) * 9.1% 55.9% Note: * AVDG of 1.5 to 2.0 lbs./day Ref. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle 1997 Protein and Energy On average, the energy levels of the pastures were sufficient for the nursing beef cow but could be marginal for feeders to gain much greater than 1.50 lbs./day depending on the time of the growing season. Although the TDN level was quite adequate in the latter part of the season, the low forage production could limit the animal performance. Protein was not a limiting nutrient on the pastures monitored. Mineral Status of Pasture Forage There are optimum mineral levels for the production of high quality grass pastures; sampling pasture forage will provide useful information to aid in developing fertilizer requirements. However, the minerals required for plant growth is not the same as what is required by the grazing animal. Plants generally do not require high levels of Co, I or Se for growth and require only low amounts of Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn for production. It is of interest to compare the plant levels to that which is required by the grazing livestock. The following table compares the pasture analysis to the animal requirements. Page -3-

4 Pasture Mineral Analysis (Eastern/Interlake Area) PASTURE TYPE P CA K MG NA CU FE MN MO ZN Native June August Grass/Legume June August Tame Grass June August Mineral Requirements of Beef Cattle Type of Animal P Ca K Mg Na Cu Fe Mn Mo Zn Nursing Beef Cow (1200 lbs) Feeder Steer (800 lbs) * Rep. Heifer (750 lbs) * Note: * AVDG of 1.5 to 2.0 lbs/day Page -4-

5 Effect of Hog Manure as a Fertility Source for Forages One site monitored, was where a three year old stand of tall fescue, meadow brome and legume mixture was subjected to very high rates of hog manure (16,000 gals (+). The result was the suppression of the seeded forage and the promotion of quack grass as the major forage. The following tables indicate the yield and quality of the forage in the two locations. Pasture Quality -Effect of High Rates of Hog Manure Pasture Species Protein TDN DM(lbs) High Rates of Hog Manure (100% Quack) June August Low Rate of Hog Manure (Tall Fescue June Meadow Brome) August Animal Requirements (Feeder Steer lbs) 13.7% 56.1% 8, % 55.3% 3, % 74.3% % 58.5% 4, % 58.6% 1, % 64.4% % 60.0% General Comments and Observations 1) In general, the survey indicated that there are some fairly productive pastures in the region. There was considerable variation between sites due to soils, climate, fertility (hog manure) and forage species. However, on average, the survey indicated that pasture forage in the region was sufficient to provide for the basic nutritional requirements of the beef cow and feeder animals 2) The clippings did not mimic the selective grazing of the animal as the grazing cages did provide a rest/regrowth opportunity not always available in the sampled pasture. 3) Many of the native pastures had good quality forage throughout the season, however the forage quantity was not always sufficient for extended grazing as two of the 13 sites were not sampled in due to a lack of forage. Some of the sites with native forage did have an application of hog manure, which improved the quality, and quantity of the forage. 4) There were no major deficiencies in the nutrient components except for the standard requirements for trace minerals (Cu, Mn, Zn), Salt and for phosphorus. 5) There was considerable variation between pasture sampling sites and between sampling dates, this indicates that adequate supplementation is required to maintain adequate mineral levels throughout the growing season. General Recommendations 1) Subdivide the pasture to provide rest and regrowth period to maintain quality - will also help with nutrient recycling 2) Selectively fertilize pasture to provide adequate nutrition for the plant. Manure such Page -5-

6 as hog manure can be very effective to increase forage quality and quantity. 3) Add a legume such as alfalfa into the pasture sward. 4) Mineral supplements to be used in the region should contain Copper and Zinc. 5) Mineral is preferred in the loose form and should be replaced often to maintain freshness and fed in weather protected feeders. 6) To encourage consumption of mineral, as most phosphorus supplements have poor palatability by stock, mix mineral with salt at a 1 to 1 or 0.5 to 1 ratio (30-40%). 7) High salt content in the water may offset the attraction to the mineral, more palatable minerals (with molasses) may be the only solution 8) Grazing animals will vary in their mineral requirements. Younger growing stock will require higher levels of minerals and it appears as if older animals will require less mineral in their diets. 9) Pasture with low quality, low digestible forage, will require higher amounts of mineral supplementation. High quality pastures will require limited supplementation. 10) Due to seasonal variations, consumption of minerals will vary throughout the grazing season therefore supplementation must be available at all times. 11) Consumption mineral in the blocks form appear to be 10% less than in the loose form. 12) To monitor pasture quality, locate a bench mark site, take samples 3 x times per season and compare the pasture quality and to the expected animal performance. Acknowledgements: This pasture survey was made possible by the support of the Agricultural Sustainability Initiative and the individual farm cooperators. Summer students: Leslie Bond (1996), Kate Basford (1996&97) and David Ostermann(1998) were the individuals responsible for data collection. Fraser Stewart Forage Specialist Manitoba Agriculture, Beausejour April 7, 1999 Monitor Your Own Pastures Annually to keep track of the health of the Grass & Livestock! Page -6-

7 Pasture Nutrient Survey - Eastern/Interlake Region 1997 Location M. DeMeyer Lorette R. Krentz Steinbach Bill Pankiw St Pierre John Johnson Selkirk St Laurent Date 6/2 8/7 9/10 6/21 8/7 9/10 6/21 8/30 10/6 6/2 8/1 9/9 6/18 8/1 9/9 Protein % ADF % NDF % TDN % RFV P % Ca % K % Mg % Na % Cu ppm Fe ppm Mn ppm Mo ppm Zn ppm Page -7-

8 Pasture Nutrient Survey - Eastern/Interlake Region 1997 Location Arborg Teulon Hansell Beausejour Coxan Fisher Branch Optimum Levels Average of Group Date Harvested 6/17 8/1 9/9 6/18 8/1 9/9 6/17 8/7 9/9 6/27 8/1 9/9 Protein % ADF % NDF % TDN % RFV P % Ca % K % Mg % Na % Cu ppm Fe ppm Mn ppm Mo ppm Zn ppm Page -8-

9 Pasture Quality -Effect of High Rates of Hog Manure Pasture Species Protein TDN DM(lbs) High Rates of June Hog Manure (100% Quack) August 13.7% 56.1% 8, % 55.3% 3, % 74.3% 282 Low Rate of June 9.8% 58.5% 4,780 Hog Manure (Tall Fescue August 12.6% 58.6% 1,556 Meadow Brome) 16.5% 64.4% 206 Animal Requirements (Feeder Steer lbs) 9.1% 60.0% Page -9-