Ship hay or ship cattle?

Purchasing more feed isn’t the only or best option during periods of drought.

Mike Rankin

MUCH of the western U.S. is still facing moderate to extreme drought conditions that will likely persist through much of the current year and perhaps even longer. At our location in central Idaho, we started the spring in the same situation. We had not seen a month with above average precipitation in over a year, and the April 1 snowpack was only about 60% of average.

However, from central Idaho north into Canada, there has been some good moisture recently. During May and June, we received over 5.5 inches of precipitation, which is about 70% of our annual historic average of 7.88 inches. Mountain snowpack is still strong due to the prevailing cooler conditions. At the moment, things are looking up.

Unfortunately, too many others in the states to the south and east of us are not faring as well. With hay and other feeds at record-high prices, buying feed to maintain stock numbers is probably not an economically viable strategy. In fact, buying feed during a drought is rarely a profitable choice.

Historic financial records have shown that it generally takes three to five years of profit in a cow-calf enterprise to recover from the added cost of using purchased feed to carry a cow herd through a one-year drought without substantially reducing numbers.

During a drought is the worst time to be making decisions about how your farm or ranch is going to operate during the dry period. Keeping your ranch profitable takes forward planning and a proactive drought management plan. If all you can do is react to the current drought, you are already in a precarious position.

The temptation to try to keep all of your stock is generally the first step to a full-blown drought disaster. Depending on location in the country and the prevailing precipitation regime, the damage to your pastures and landscape may be fairly short term in the wetter regions, but it may last many years in a drier region.

If you retain all of your livestock, most livestock producers consider two primary choices: 1. Continue to graze all of your land more severely, which results in resource degradation and subsequent years of reduced carrying capacity; or 2. Buy more feed, which can have huge financial costs that take years to recover from.

There are two other choices that many producers either fail to recognize or consider too late. Destocking should be the first consideration in response to developing drought. Destocking can occur through two avenues. One is selling some portion of your livestock. The other is shipping livestock to an area where feed is available.

Too many livestock producers are hesitant to sell off animals because they fail to understand that grazing or ranching are first and foremost land-based businesses, and that livestock are just incidental to the process. You need to first take care of the land before it will support a long-term profitable livestock enterprise. Destocking is about protecting the land and grazing resources.

Find greener pastures

The alternative destocking method is putting wheels under those critters and sending them somewhere else where the drought is not so severe or may be completely absent. Usually, an animal unit day (AUD) of grazing costs less than an AUD fed as hay or silage. Yes, there are sometimes exceptions to this principle, but most of the time, letting livestock harvest their own feed is cheaper than having it mechanically harvested.

If we think about a pot load of cattle as 50,000 pounds with a daily intake requirement of about 2.8% of body weight, that load of cattle needs about 1,400 pounds of dry matter per day or about 1,600 pounds of hay. If we are buying in hay as 50,000-pound semiloads, one semi-load of hay feeds our herd for about one month.

To send the cow herd away for six months costs two semi trips. To bring hay to the cows for six months costs six semi trips. If the hay is coming from the same place where we could have shipped the cows, we have three times the trucking costs to bring feed.

If the cows are grazing for those six months, the feed cost is going to be much lower per day compared to trucked in hay. Yes, there have been past years when hay was much cheaper and the cost savings may not have been as great as it is today. The current average cost for custom grazing pairs is about $42 to $45 per AUM. That is $1.40 to $1.50 per day. Current average hay cost is about $160 per ton. That is $2.24 per day based on an intake of 28 pounds per day.

What are you going to put on the truck? Cattle or hay? •

JIM GERRISH

The author is a rancher, author, speaker, and consultant with over 40 years of experience in grazing management research, outreach, and practice. He has lived and grazed livestock in hot, humid Missouri and cold, dry Idaho.

Soil and grasslands serve each other

EACH morning, we experience some of the many services of soil — soft cotton fibers from which to arise, clean water to wash our face, firm ground to stand on, and the aromas of brewed coffee, baking pastries, and sizzling bacon.

Benefits we derive from soil and its processes are called ecosystem services. Biomass production and high-quality feedstuffs are vital ecosystem services.

Inherent soil characteristics such as texture and depth to restrictive rock layers might be reasons for differences in productivity. Soil texture is the “fine earth” combination of particle sizes from clay (smallest) to silt (medium) to sand (largest). Of course, in some regions, coarse fragments, rocks, and boulders are present, too.

Depth of soil can determine the total amount of water that can be stored, which influences when drought might start affecting productivity. Soil productivity can also be affected by how it is managed. We can choose to manage soil toward a healthy state, or we can abuse soil, resulting in undesirable consequences for us, our neighbors, and even the global human population and planetary condition.

Nutrients are recycled

Nutrients are continually cycled among the atmosphere, plants, grazing animals, and soils. For example, much of the nitrogen that is taken up by forages is derived from soil. We don’t often test for how much nitrogen soil provides, but if we measured the total nitrogen content of surface soil, it would likely be 10 to 100 times greater than a pasture or hayfield might need during a growing season.

Most soil nitrogen is bound tightly in organic matter and not readily available to plants. Soil microorganisms must consume the organic matter and release inorganic nitrogen that can be acquired by plant roots exploring the soil. Plant nitrogen may be consumed by ruminant livestock, and this nitrogen is used to create animal protein.

Some of the nitrogen will enter our food system, where we gain nutritional benefits from high-protein food. Some of the nitrogen that livestock consume will be returned to soil in urine and feces. During decomposition of these organic additions to soil, a portion of the nitrogen might wash off the soil into surface water or leach through the soil into groundwater.

Losses of nitrogen from the soil can be avoided with good soil management. Soils with healthy nutrient cycling conserve nitrogen in the soil-plant-animal continuum. Similar cycles are present with other nutrients such as phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium.

The water cycle drives most nutrient cycles, and soil is a key component of the water cycle, too. We all await the day when it rains after a long dry spell in the summer. What if we needed 2 inches of rain to sustain a forage crop to the end of the season, but only 3/4 of an inch soaked into the ground? Then 1 1/4 inch would have run off, and additional rain would be needed to meet plant demand.

Why did that rain run off? Was the soil surface so compacted by animal or tractor traffic? Was bare soil present between widely spaced clumps of grass?

These are factors that can prevent soil from functioning properly. Maintaining soil cover with residual forage mass or surface residue will keep soil organisms active so the pores linking the soil surface with subsoil are available to receive abundant precipitation. Roots, earthworms, and beetles can make these channels, thereby allowing distribution of nutrients flowing from the surface to the rooting zone. The water and nutrient cycles work together effectively when soil is healthy.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Regulating services

Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes, including climate, water, and human diseases Supporting services

Essential to other services, including biomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling, and provisioning of habitat Cultural services

Nonmaterial benefits obtained through cognitive development, aesthetic experience, spiritual enrichment, recreation, and reflection Provisioning services

Products obtained from ecosystems, including genetic resources, food, feed, fiber, fuel, and fresh water

✔ Food/feed production ✔ Nutrient cycling ✔ Water cycling ✔ Biodiversity ✔ Climate regulation ✔ Societal benefits

Better with biodiversity

Forages and grazing lands can harbor an abundance of biodiversity, but only if we allow them to. Much of that diversity is not seen since many of these organisms may be small insects, spiders, and microorganisms. However, there are many visible species, too, like grasses, trees, birds, bees, rodents, deer, and so forth. The ecosystems we live in are more robust and function more effectively when biodiversity is high. Grasslands can provide abundant biodiversity.

Grasslands are one of many biomes that produce oxygen for us to breathe by transforming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. This is a fundamental process we depend on. As land managers, you are caretakers of this natural phenomenon, and this should keep you humble but also fill you with pride. •

ALAN FRANZLUEBBERS

The author is a soil scientist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Raleigh, N.C.

Save water on irrigated alfalfa

Hay & Forage Grower is featuring results of research projects funded through the Alfalfa Checkoff, officially named the U.S. Alfalfa Farmer Research Initiative, administered by National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA). The checkoff program facilitates farmer-funded research.

THREE-year study of irrigation strategies on 12 south central Utah alfalfa fields compared ways farmers could save on water yet maintain alfalfa production. One result suggests a 10% reduction in irrigation won’t hurt alfalfa production, particularly in wet years, said Matt Yost, Utah State University Extension agroclimate specialist.

“The impetus for this project was to find inexpensive ways farmers could use less water or become more efficient with water and provide more resiliency to drought,” Yost said. He also wanted to see if updating irrigation equipment would improve alfalfa production. Using Alfalfa Checkoff research funds, Yost and his colleagues also compared three tools that potentially could help schedule irrigation more efficiently. One is a free, university-developed tool called Irrigation Scheduler, which estimates and tracks evapotranspiration. The other tools: an in-field soil moisture sensor program developed by MeterGROUP and a commercial program from Lindsay Corp., called FieldNET Advisor. The commercial program uses satellite imagery and data to estimate water need and can automatically adjust pivots to irrigate.

“We’ve had sensors and weather stations to help guide irrigation for a long time. But very few studies compare them side-by-side and see how they perform,” Yost said.

The study was established in 2019 on 12 alfalfa fields owned by 11 farmers. On each pivot, researchers divided one span into three sections. One section included new sprinkler equipment, such as nozzles, regulators, and sprinklers. Another section had the same new equipment but smaller nozzles to apply 10% less water. The third section used farmers’ existing equipment and rates.

Four irrigation schedules tested on the pivots included: 1. The grower’s conventional irrigation rate and timing. 2. A rate based on a soil moisture sensor installed in each field. 3. A rate set by the irrigation scheduler using weather data collected on site. 4. A rate set by FieldNET Advisor.

Each schedule was replicated four times. Pivot panel and logistic issues resulted in schedule treatments on

nine fields in 2019 and six fields each in 2020 and 2021. “Sometimes we saw pretty significant water savings, like 15%, but sometimes it was pretty small, like 5%, to get the same alfalfa production,” Yost said. MATT YOST Funding: $97,994 Reducing irrigation by 10% did not impact production in 2019, which was a wet year. But yield losses from the irrigation reduction were apparent in 2020, a drought year. “There’s definitely more opportunity to cut back in wet years than in dry years,” he added. Yost was surprised to see little impact on alfalfa production from changing out older equipment for new, although not all of the equipment was highly worn. The irrigation industry recommends replacing sprinklers every six to eight years, but some are used 15 years or more, he said. He continues to recommend changing out worn equipment because it impacts performance and

Average water use across farms for four irrigation schedules

Irrigation Schedule

Conventional

2019

45.9

2020

Irrigation rate across farms (inches)

34.5

2021

31.3

FieldNET Advisor 43.3 49.3 34.9

Alfalfa yield and quality sampling at a farm in Sevier County, Utah.

PROJECT RESULTS

Growers can likely cut irrigation rates by 10% without hurting alfalfa yields. Worn irrigation equipment may not cause as much yield loss and nonuniformity issues as expected. Advanced irrigation scheduling tools may have more potential to reduce irrigation rates than improve alfalfa yield.

can cause crop losses.

“Among the tools, the soil moisture sensor most frequently had the largest water savings, which wasn’t too surprising because it had the most direct measurement,” Yost said. The commercial product often recommended more irrigation than the other methods during dry years.

“When we talk about that program, we mention the automatic nature and ease of it,” he noted. But it requires the most investment and technical expertise in setting it up. The irrigation scheduler tool recommended near to or slightly more irrigation than did the soil moisture sensor, but the tool is free and a good place for farmers to start, Yost said.

The research showed that irrigation scheduling in general is more likely to save water than improve yield. In dry years, the scheduling tools “were really useful” because they helped farmers figure how to partition irrigation water, he noted.

“One of the most important points is that farmers are already doing a really good job,” Yost said. “They are irrigating close to what the advanced tools would suggest. But, there is still quite a bit of opportunity to save water with the advanced tools.” •

SUPPORT THE ALFALFA CHECKOFF!

Buy your seed from these facilitating marketers:

Alfalfa Partners - S&W Alforex Seeds America’s Alfalfa Channel CROPLAN DEKALB Dyna-Gro Fontanelle Hybrids Forage First FS Brand Alfalfa Gold Country Seed Hubner Seed Innvictis Seed Solutions Jung Seed Genetics Kruger Seeds Latham Hi-Tech Seeds Legacy Seeds Lewis Hybrids NEXGROW Pioneer Prairie Creek Seed Rea Hybrids Specialty Stewart Stone Seed W-L Alfalfas

RELIABLE IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE LIKE NO OTHER.

WILL IT RAIN? OR MISS US AGAIN…

Tired of UNCERTAINTY? Want insurance and assurance all bundled into one reliable package? Time to invest in some long-term peace of mind and stability with a T-L Center Pivot — THE MOST RELIABLE SYSTEM IN THE INDUSTRY.

Contact your local T-L representative to find the perfect fit for your irrigation capabilities and needs.

Contact T-L, your T-L dealer, or visit www.tlirr.com to learn more.

T-L … LIKE NO OTHER.

www.tlirr.com

151 East Hwy 6 & AB Road · P.O. Box 1047 Hastings, Nebraska 68902-1047 USA sales@tlirr.com · www.tlirr.com Phone: 1-800-330-4264 Fax: 1-800-330-4268 Phone: (402) 462-4128 Fax: (402) 462-4617

CERTIFIEDISO QUALITY9001

DOUBLE-CROPPING IS ABOUT TIMING

Mike Rankin

DIFFERENT reasons exist for growing small grain crops on a dairy farm. Winter annual crops capture nitrogen from the manure applied to the soil, protect the soil from erosion, and provide forage for feeding cattle. In respect to forage production, it is sometimes believed that a double-crop rotation will yield more forage than a single crop rotation. However, a boost in total forage production due to double cropping does not always occur and should not be taken for granted.

What should farmers expect from their double-crop system? Likewise, how should farmers manage their double-crop system to maximize forage yield? Let’s evaluate some data that might help answer these questions.

A study done in Vermont and New Hampshire evaluated the production of forage under single- and double-cropping strategies in the context of an organic dairy production system. The study consisted of planting a full-season corn hybrid as a single crop at its optimum planting date (May 18 to May 25), a short-season corn planted after a winter crop (triticale or wheat) harvested at the boot stage of maturity (May 24 to June 10), and a short-season corn planted after a winter crop harvested at the soft-dough stage of maturity (June 28 to July 10).

Corn crop impacted

The full-season corn yielded 6 tons of dry matter (DM) per acre while the short-season corn harvested after the winter crops harvested at the boot and soft-dough stages yielded 5.3 and 4.3 tons of DM, respectively. The full-season corn contained 43.8% neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and 38.6% nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC), whereas the short season corn harvested after the boot-stage small grain contained 44.7% NDF and 37.8% NFC. The short-season corn harvested after the soft-dough small grain contained 53% NDF and 29.4% NFC.

These partial results highlight that planting corn after a winter crop harvested at the soft-dough stage substantially affects the yield and quality of the corn crop, whereas planting corn after a winter crop harvested at the boot stage slightly reduces yield and minimally affects quality.

The winter crop harvested at the boot stage yielded 3 tons of DM per acre, whereas the winter crop harvested at the soft-dough stage yielded 5.2 tons of DM per acre. Therefore, the total forage production was 6 tons of DM per acre for the full-season corn, 8.3 tons of DM per acre for the short-season corn plus the boot-stage winter crop, and 9.5 tons of DM per acre for the short-season corn plus the soft-dough winter crop.

Results from this study show that the double-crop system yielded more forage than the single-crop system. That being said, it seems like these plots were not evaluated as an integrated rotation, and it is worth mentioning that some of the corn plots in this study were harvested after a killing frost. Considering an annual, integrated rotation, it is unanswered what would have been the impact of the late harvest on a following small grain crop, which would have been planted later than recommended.

Different location and results

Another study performed in Minnesota evaluated the effect of a rye and corn double-crop system on total forage production. Corn planted under a single-crop system yielded 7.5 to 9.5 tons of DM per acre, which is 25% to 58% more yield than that reported in the previously discussed trials. In Minnesota, the double-crop system yielded 6.2 to 8.7 tons of DM per acre, nevermore than the single-crop system within the same year or over a period of three years.

Similar to the previous study, delayed planting negatively affected corn yield. A big difference, however, is that the winter crop in this study produced 1.3% to 19.1% of the total forage produced, which is substantially less than in the first study (36.3% to 54.5%). In agreement with the latter study, another New York trial reported that triticale produced 15.9%, at the most, of the total forage production in a double-crop system with sorghum.

Managing a double-crop system to maximize forage production on a dairy farm is more complex than one might think. First and foremost, the geographic location and climate are major determinants to the success of a double-crop system as they will determine the optimum planting and harvesting dates for the winter and summer crops.

The contribution of the winter crop on the total forage yield should be considered when evaluating a double-crop system. The production advantages might be minimal when looking at the whole system, and the effort of growing a winter crop might not be worthwhile. That being said, if a double-crop system is used, the planting and harvest dates of both winter and summer crops should be optimized so that the crops are synergistic. Also recognize that there are agronomic and environmental benefits for growing a small grain between corn crops, and these might outweigh small losses in yield. •

GONZALO FERREIRA The author is an associate professor and dairy management extension specialist with Virginia Tech University.

Brian Mumm produces alfalfa in southeast Nebraska for the local beef market.

ALFALFA KEPT HIM ON THE FAMILY FARM

by MIke Rankin

BRIAN Mumm seeded down more than his usual number of alfalfa acres this year. He didn’t need to because he also raises 3,800 acres of high-value row crops with his father, Paul. They farm just south of the small, rural town of Geneva, Neb., which has at least been indulged an exit ramp off U.S. Highway 81.

This is prime southeastern Nebraska corn and soybean country — just far enough north to still have distinct seasons and just far enough south to allow for a long growing season between frosts.

Regarding the additional alfalfa seedings in 2022, Mumm said, “I think hay prices are going to stay strong longer than corn is going to stay at $7 per bushel. The hay industry is what got us to where we are today, so we’re not going to shy away from it.”

A recent Nebraska tourism campaign proudly states, “Honestly, it’s not for everyone.” The same could certainly be said for the business of commercial haymaking, but Mumm has no regrets about his lot in life as a haymaker in the Cornhusker State. After a few minutes of talking to him, it’s easy to discern that he loves the hay business. The congenial hay producer is still young by most farmer age standards — old enough to have a wealth of practical experience but young enough to help anchor the commercial hay industry for at least the next couple of decades.

In addition to row crops, Mumm harvests 600 acres of alfalfa and 200 acres of native and cool-season grasses into large square or round bales. He also makes about 2,000 small square bales that he sells at a local hay auction and has about 90 cow-calf pairs that graze summer pastures and winter cornstalks. Mumm’s wife, Heather, does the farm bookkeeping, and they have three children: Mackenzie (16 years), Addison (10), and Colton (9). The farm also has two full-time employees.

Mumm’s father didn’t have an operation of his own until 1982, when he began renting the current home farm, which he eventually purchased. At that time, it was row crops and cattle with a little alfalfa grown for the cow herd. The hay enterprise expanded in 2000, a year after Mumm graduated from high school.

“Row crop prices were in the dumpster,” he recalls. “I determined that alfalfa was going to be my ticket to stay on the family farm. About this same time, there was a custom hay baler in the area who was ready to retire, and I

assumed his customer base along with expanding alfalfa acres on our farm. We continued to do custom hay baling up until 2022,” he added.

Markets have evolved

“In the past five years, our hay markets have really changed,” Mumm said about his current clientele base. “For a long time, we were shipping a lot of our hay to Texas dairies. Then that shifted to Indiana and Wisconsin dairies. It seemed our environment was different back then — we were able to get a lot more dairy hay in the barns than we have been recently.”

In the past five years, Mumm’s demand for dairy hay has waned. He also noted that his remaining dairy customers were asking for a bit lower quality and lower-priced hay — somewhere in the range of 145 to 160 relative forage quality (RFQ). Meanwhile, the number of feedlot and cow-calf customers has grown in recent years, and most of these operations are close by.

Currently, Mumm said that 80% of his production is sold within 50 miles of the farm, which allows him to do his own trucking. Mumm’s biggest customer is a 2,200-ewe sheep producer who buys both grass and alfalfa hay. Almost all of his customers are repeat clients from year-to-year.

“Many of our beef customers are mostly interested in nice, leafy green hay,” Mumm said. “They’re really not interested in a forage test. So, we’re now able to let the hay mature a little longer, realize a higher yield, but still try to retain leaves and get it up green. We’ve moved from five or six cuttings per year to four and sometimes five cuttings.”

Productive alfalfa stands

About 70% of Mumm’s alfalfa acres are pivot irrigated and produce an average yield of 7.5 to 8 tons per acre. The remaining fields are dryland, which average 4 to 5 tons per acre. Not surprisingly, a dry year can really cut into his production on the dryland acres.

Alfalfa is seeded during both the spring and late summer, depending on the year. “We sometimes put in a short-season soybean crop and hope to get it off early enough to still seed alfalfa in a timely manner,” Mumm explained. “It doesn’t work every year, so then we have to seed the next spring.”

Roundup Ready alfalfa varieties are drilled at 20 pounds per acre, including the 9% seed coating, and without a companion crop. He has tried HarvXtra-traited varieties but doesn’t think he can realize a benefit given his current beef producer customer base who don’t demand extremely high-quality hay.

Mumm gets four to five years from his stands. “We’re pretty aggressive on our stands. If they’re not full-production stands, we rotate them out,” he said. “We can get pretty high row-crop yields here, so if I don’t have top hay yields, it goes back to corn.”

Hayfields are cut with 16-foot Massey Ferguson 9980 mower-conditioner. Swaths are dropped into an 8-foot width, which is the maximum the conditioner allows. Darf wheel rakes are used to merge two swaths together and raking occurs in the morning of the day the hay will be baled, just as the dew is starting to burn off. Mumm bales with either a Massey Ferguson 3x4 square baler or two John Deere round balers. About 50% of the production is put into round bales.

Mumm also has a Stinger in-line bale wrapper. He explained, “Often, in July and August, the humidity is high and it’s difficult to get hay dry enough to bale. In such cases, we will wrap the 3x4 bales about three days after cutting when they are 20% to 25% moisture.”

Often referred to as “sweet hay,” Mumm said that they wrap to ensure oxygen is excluded and then haul it out during the winter when the temperature is cold enough to prevent any rapid heating and molding. His customers know to begin feeding this hay right away.

About 1,000 wrapped bales are made each year. “We actually have a few customers who request the wrapped hay,” Mumm said of the end product that is neither baleage nor dry hay. “In fact, we feed our own cow-calf pairs with the wrapped hay in springtime.”

Spring alfalfa weevils are Mumm’s toughest annual insect challenge. “It’s never a question of if we’re going to spray for them, but when,” he said. “Maybe one out of five years we’ll also have to spray the stubble after first cutting. Potato leafhopper issues are sporadic from year-to-year,” the haymaker added.

To maintain high yields, Mumm has his soils grid sampled before fields go into alfalfa. Variable rate fertilizer applications are made based off the grid sampling results. Phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and boron dry fertilizers are applied during March as a convenience to his custom applicator. The farm’s native soil pH is 5.6 to 6.1, according to Mumm, so lime is needed on a routine basis and is applied the winter before the alfalfa is seeded.

Brian Mumm is bullish on alfalfa, seeding down more than his usual number of acres in 2022.

Giving back

Mumm is a farmer who thoroughly enjoys the hay business, even with its inherent challenges, and finds pleasure when interacting with those of a like mind. That’s why he and his father have been long-time members of the Nebraska Alfalfa Marketing Association (NAMA), which assists its members in the promotion and marketing of their forages. The organization also provides various educational events pertaining to alfalfa production and marketing methods.

Mumm has served several terms on NAMA’s board of directors, including a multi-year stint as president. In 2019, he was awarded the association’s “Producer of the Year” award.

Mumm, like a lot of hay producers, considers his biggest hay-producing challenge to be the weather. “My answer has changed over the years. At one time, I would have said marketing, but it’s been pretty easy to sell hay in recent years,” he chuckled.

Challenges aside, it’s clear that Mumm enjoys what he does. In looking to the future, the Nebraskan reflected and said, “I just hope one of my kids loves the hay business as much as I do.” •

CREATE HERD EFFECT WITH ADAPTIVE GRAZING

by Hugh Aljoe and Steven Smith

IN THE third and final installment of this series about getting started with regenerative grazing, we’ll address the keys to adaptive grazing, the selective use of high stock density grazing, and creating the desired herd effect.

As we’ve discussed, regenerative grazing is the primary management tool or set of practices in regenerative ranching. Guided by ecological principles, these practices use the benefits of grazing livestock to rebuild soil health and may also help diversify the enterprises and income a farm or ranch produces. The practice of adaptive grazing management is also called adaptive multi-paddock, or AMP, grazing, but we will refer to it as simply adaptive grazing.

There are four variables to manage in grazing: timing, frequency, intensity, and duration. When managed intentionally and adaptively, these four variables, plus the tool of stock density, can play a significant role in improving ecosystem function and soil health. So can the strategic use of herd effect, which is also called animal impact. This is the beneficial result of a concentrated and excited herd using its hooves to knock down old, standing vegetation and/or break up the soil.

Work your grazing plan

Once you and your animals are accustomed to the frequent grazing moves you’ve practiced on a small scale and you’ve had time to add more temporary fences and additional water sources, if needed, it’s time to implement the regenerative (adaptive) grazing management plan we discussed in the March issue of Hay & Forage Grower.

Your plan will have considered your regenerative goals, which may include some or all of the following: improving soil health and animal health, enhancing plant diversity, reducing brush encroachment, improving livestock production, and boosting profitability. Take time to adjust your grazing plan based on what you learned when you tried rotational grazing on a small scale, but also account for current forage growing conditions.

As you plot out and use your grazing charts based on your priority goals, remember the keys to adaptive grazing:

 Allow for long recovery periods, which is the most important variable to manage regardless of grazing approach. Recovery periods are adapted to growing conditions — longer recovery with slow growing conditions, and shorter recovery with rapid regrowing conditions.

 Keep grazing periods short, ideally no longer than three to four days in one area. It’s best to have the capability to move cattle daily — but be flexible. Extending grazing periods by a day or two as plant regrowth slows with reduced moisture conditions is accept-

able. The key is to rotate cattle out of a pasture before they begin to regraze a grazed plant.

 Manage the grazing intensity, or the amount of forage grazed or defoliated versus the amount left untouched in a pasture. Typically, the rule of thumb is “take half, leave half,” which means graze the top half of the plant leaf material.

 Use high stock densities. Most producers who have implemented the first three keys of adaptive grazing are also using high stock densities. More often than not, you’ll need to increase the pounds of live-weight per acre to implement the first three keys to successful adaptive grazing. When using high stock densities, a manager needs to vary the stock densities, adapting to growing conditions and the amount of biomass accumulated prior to grazing. We do not want to become prescriptive or routinely use the same stock density for a paddock or pasture with every grazing event.

Capitalize on herd effect

Occasionally, one might want to use ultra-high stock density grazing (UHSD) in a pasture for short periods of time. Ultra-high stock density is the intentional increase in stock density achieved by providing a much smaller grazing paddock for a short time period (usually requiring multiple moves per day) to increase a desired herd effect on an area and/or reduce animal selectivity of grazeable forage.

Some ideal situations for UHSD are at peak forage production in the spring or early summer; during the transitions between cool-season and warm-season forage production (and vice versa); with introduced pastures and foraged cropland; and when there is an abundance of mature, less desirable (often dormant) plant material in a pasture. Especially in the last instance, be sure not to ignore livestock gut fill, physiological condition, and nutrient requirements when using UHSD. You may need to supplement the diet or provide more palatable forage for part of the day to avoid stressing the animals and jeopardizing production.

You also can make strategic applications of UHSD for very short time periods by placing mineral feeders, hay, and supplement at targeted sites, such as into woody thickets or briar patches. The animal impact at that density can remove much of the undesired plant structure, and it feeds the soil biology through the trampling action. Herd effect can also disturb exposed, compacted soil surfaces, stimulating new plant recruitment and production during favorable moisture conditions.

Use a safe-to-learn approach

One word of caution when implementing UHSD: Use a “safe-to-learn” approach when learning how to apply it successfully. Begin with a situation where small setbacks during the learning process will not adversely affect you, the animals, or your operation. The safe-to-learn approach includes elements of how, where, and when.

Use existing resources with a few electric fence supplies and apply your best grazing management while adhering to the soil health principles. Select a location that is easy to manage and where you can take the time to thoroughly observe all grazing activities and soil and plant responses — near the headquarters, for example.

Start where you have a lot of forage and a definitive plan to guide your grazing process as you try higher stock densities. The plan includes estimates of forage production and the livestock’s daily grazing demand, duration of time the targeted area will last, the stock densities you want to try, and a contingency plan if things don’t go as intended.

Early successes can be built into future grazing plans, but it is the observations of the results later in the growing season that will guide you in your next applications of UHSD.

Keep tabs as you go

Monitor your grazing management activities throughout your regenerative ranching journey. • Benchmark your soil health with soil tests (preferably a Haney Test) on your primary pastures. • Use grazing charts to plan and monitor grazing activities and recovery. • Create a diversity list to capture all the species of plants and animals you can locate on your ranch, and continually add to the list as the diversity grows.

• Take photos of key management areas and track changes over time. • Use grazing “exclosures” (small, ungrazed areas) to measure ungrazed forage production at end of the growing seasons, moving exclosures to new locations every year or two. • Every few years, use additional soil tests to analyze for improving soil health metrics.

Soil health, grazing, and sustainability can be integrally related. If continual improvement is the objective of a land manager — and it is for most — then understanding how to manage for improvements in soil health using adaptive grazing can lead to the longterm improvements for the soil, land stewardship, forage production, the ecosystem, and ranch economics. It is the culmination of these improvements that lead to true operational sustainability for generations to come. •

AMP grazing boosts soil carbon, nitrogen

New research looking at adaptive multi-paddock, or AMP, grazing is documenting how the practice can help with climate change by capturing carbon and retaining nitrogen in the soil.

In 2018, a large-scale on-farm study in the southeastern United States compared AMP and conventional grazing grasslands across the fence from each other, looking at the effect of AMP grazing on soil carbon capture. The AMP sites averaged 13% more soil carbon and 9% more soil nitrogen down to a 1-meter depth than the conventional sites. In their 2021 Journal of Environmental Management article, the study authors concluded: “These findings provide evidence that AMP grazing is a management strategy to sequester carbon in the soil and retain nitrogen in the system, thus contributing to climate change mitigation.”

HUGH ALJOE AND STEVEN SMITH

Aljoe is the director of producer relations, and Smith (pictured) is a wildlife and fisheries consultant, at the Noble Research Institute, Ardmore, Okla.

ALTITUDE ADDS ENERGY VALUE TO ALFALFA HAY

by Jennifer MacAdam and Mylen Bohle

THE list of components in a dairy cow’s ration includes forages, nonfiber carbohydrate feeds (grains and by-products), rumen degradable and by-pass proteins, fat, minerals, vitamins, and other feed additives.

Forages are the main source of fiber in a ration. Nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) include starch, soluble carbohydrates, and pectins, which are also found in citrus and beet pulp. Nonfiber carbohydrates are the readily available energy that – along with digestible protein – support digestion and microbial growth in the rumen. For a high-producing dairy cow, Penn State recommends an NFC concentration of between 32% and 38% of the ration’s dry matter.

Forages are usually described in terms of their “cell wall” concentration, which is the source of fiber, and their “cell contents,” which include the highly digestible fats, sugars, and proteins inside of living cells. In all forages, stems have a high proportion of thickwalled cells, so the more stemmy the hay, the greater the fiber concentration. Ration calculation programs provide values for the energy, protein, and other nutritive value characteristics of ration components, and the characteristics of alfalfa hay change with the growth stage at which hay is harvested.

USDA defines the quality of alfalfa hay, from Supreme to Utility, in terms of its protein, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), total digestible nutrients (TDN; in this case, based on ADF), and relative feed value (RFV). As alfalfa matures, the proportion of stem increases relative to the proportion of leaves, so fiber concentrations go up and proteins and other readily digestible components go down. The rigidity that keeps stems upright is due to lignin, and more lignin slows the digestion of fiber, so the proportion of ADF (the strongly lignified fiber) rises with maturity.

Surprising results

In a study of beef cattle finished either in the feedlot or on irrigated pastures near Logan, Utah, that was published in 2016, the NFC concentrations of the diets were compared, and the NFC of the monoculture perennial legume pasture used in the study (birdsfoot trefoil) was 40% while the NFC of the feedlot ration was 43%, which was a surprising result. Nonfiber carbohydrate concentration is not usually reported for forages, but research studies carried out in California, Korea, and Serbia (all located at relatively low altitudes) have reported NFC concentrations of 25% for alfalfa hay. After testing alfalfa grown at numerous locations in Utah at elevations greater than 4,000 feet, we found that the NFC

of alfalfa hay, also a perennial legume, is routinely close to 40%.

Elevation is not likely to have a direct influence on the NFC concentration of forages, but other elements of the climate of the Mountain West are. These include such factors as a dry atmosphere that results in little growing season cloud cover, warm temperatures and intense solar radiation during the day that promote photosynthesis, and cool nights (commonly near 60°F) that minimize respiration and therefore the loss of carbohydrates. The end result is the maximal accumulation of NFC.

A study was initiated in northern Utah in 2020 at an elevation of 4,500 feet with a HarvXtra-traited cultivar of alfalfa that was sampled every two weeks and harvested at six-week intervals to determine the NFC concentration of an alfalfa with reduced-lignin (see Figure 1). The blue sections of the graph columns represent the part of the NFC concentration that is likely to be located in the cell wall, the green sections are the water-soluble carbohydrate (sugar) concentrations, and the orange sections are the starch concentrations; hence, the total column height is the total NFC concentration, and the arrows indicate the harvest dates.

The NFC concentration declines with maturation and is lower at the second harvest than at the first and third harvests, but on every date, it was between about 35% and 45% of the dry matter.

Elevation made a difference

A series of studies of irrigated alfalfa were carried out at three elevations in Oregon – Madras at 2,440 feet, Powell Butte at 3,200 feet, and Fort Rock at 4,300 feet. Annual precipitation at these locations is between 10 and 12 inches per year, and growing season temperatures at these locations are also similar: mid-summer daytime highs are between 80°F and 90°F and nighttime lows are between 50°F and 60°F. The mean alfalfa NFC concentrations at these locations were 31%, 32%, and 37%, respectively (see Table 1). Temperatures are similar at these locations, but a factor that differs and could increase NFC concentrations with greater altitude is solar radiation. Unlike common pasture grasses that hit a maximum rate of photosynthesis as sunlight intensifies, the rate of alfalfa photosynthesis increases with higher solar radiation. Mid-summer total daily solar radiation at Madras, Ore., is 7.4 kilowatt-hours (kWh), while at Lewiston, Utah, it’s 8.4 kWh.

Since the components of alfalfa hay are expressed as a percent of the total dry matter, when the concentration of one component increases, the concentrations of other components will decline. In Table 1, the season-long average concentrations of crude protein, NDF, ADF, fat, and ash are listed for the alfalfa grown at 4,500 feet in northern Utah and for the mean of four years of alfalfa tested at three elevations in the Oregon study. As NFC rises, the concentrations of NDF and ADF drop.

Figure 1. Components of nonfiber carbohydrates (NFC) in samples taken from HarvXtra alfalfa.*

Carbohydrate, % DM

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5/12/20 5/26/20 6/11/20 6/24/20 7/8/20 7/22/20 8/5/20 8/19/20 9/5/20  Starch  WSC  Cell Wall NFC

*Grown in northern Utah. Arrows indicate harvest taken at six-week intervals. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean

Higher pectin

The identity of the carbohydrate that is driving up NFC concentrations in Mountain West hay has not been confirmed. Comparisons were made of the easily identified water-soluble carbohydrate and starch concentrations of high-NFC alfalfa from both Utah and Oregon with published values for

continued on following page >>>

Table 1. Quality components of Mountain West alfalfa averaged across harvests and years

Madras, Ore. Powell Butte, Ore. Fort Rock, Ore.

Altitude (ft.) 2440 3199

Quality component % of Dry Matter

Protein 20.50 19.45

4300

24.87

aNDF

ADF

Starch 39.10

34.05 40.70

35.30 30.82

28.19

0.71

WSC

TDN

Total NFC

Cell Wall NFC 62.25

31.45 60.90

31.70 10.22

68.52

36.62

25.69

Lewiston, Utah

4500

22.18

29.08

25.61

2.43

11.36

71.28

37.13

23.34

alfalfa grown in a humid Eastern environment that contained 1.3% starch and 11.5% water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC). The similarities of these values (see Table 1) confirmed that Mountain West alfalfa contains “normal” concentrations of starch and WSC.

On the other hand, a different story existed for pectin, which is sometimes referred to as the intercellular “cement” of the plant. The expected concentration for pectin in alfalfa is 15%, but it appears to be approximately 25% in high-altitude Mountain West alfalfa. As a reference, citrus pulp contains 10% to 40% pectin and beet pulp contains 15% to 32% pectin.

For dairy producers, the potential benefit of high-altitude-grown alfalfa hay would be to substitute higher-NFC alfalfa hay for more costly sources of NFC such as grain. A diet containing 45% high-NFC alfalfa hay and 5.5 pounds of steam-flaked corn per day and a diet containing 25% normal-NFC alfalfa hay and 9.75 pounds of steamflaked corn per day both have NFC concentrations of 44% and will support 85 pounds of milk yield per day. However, the high-NFC alfalfa ration will cost 13.5% less ($96.62 compared to $111.68 per ton as-fed).

Studies where citrus pulp was substituted for grain as a source of NFC demonstrated that pectin fermentation slows as the rumen pH decreases, but the fermentation of starch or sucrose does not, lowering rumen pH further. Another difference is that higher pectin diets result in measurably greater milkfat production while starch generates more rumen protein.

The factors that favor photosynthesis — high solar radiation, long sunny days, and cool nights — can boost the concentration of NFC in alfalfa from the northern Mountain West. Other perennial legumes, including birdsfoot trefoil, sainfoin, and cicer milkvetch, also accumulate NFC similar to or greater than alfalfa.

More high-NFC/low-NDF alfalfa hay could be included in dairy diets as long as NFC and NDF values are known and factored into the ration. Since NFC is calculated from factors measured by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), Western alfalfa hay growers can determine NFC concentrations as a part of their hay tests. Relative forage quality (RFQ), a newer index of hay quality based on digestibility, more accurately predicts milk production from alfalfa hay compared to RFV. It is based, in part, on NFC, and the RFQ of the two high-elevation alfalfa hays have far higher RFQ values than the lower elevation hays (Table 1).

Where alfalfa is grown impacts forage quality. From our studies, alfalfa produced at higher elevations, all other factors being equal, offers dairy producers a unique feed with outstanding milk production potential and economic benefits. •

JENNIFER MACADAM AND MYLEN BOHLE

MacAdam (pictured) is a professor of plant physiology and forage production at Utah State University in Logan. Bohle is an emeritus associate professor and agronomist with Oregon State University Extension.

1-509-546-13001-509-546-1300 dana@seedlogicllc.com dana@seedlogicllc.com

TRIFECTA III ALFALFA

AGRONOMICS

WINNER OF THE 2021 WASHINGTON STATE HAY GROWERS YIELD TRIAL by .56 tons per acre over second place yielding 10.64 tons/acre in a three-year trial comprising 12 cuttings. 109.7% higher yield than the mean of the trial! GERMINATION GUARANTEE: 90% on all Trifecta III seed with zero other crop and zero weeds. We have very competitive pricing and take back all unopened bags.

Fall dormancy class FD 4 TRIFECTA HAS STANDFAST™ TECHNOLOGY giving it a

Winter hardiness class Regrowth rate WS 1.8 2.4 very upright growth habit and a wider harvest window. Axillary bud elongation genetically delayed 2-3 days.

PEST PACKAGE

Diseases Proprietary rhizobia in our seed coating results in very

Anthracnose Aphanomyces-Race 1 HR HR fast emergence. 21 days after cutting it will be 3” to 5”

Aphanomyces-Race 2 R taller than competitive varieties. It has a fast regrowth.

Bacterial wilt Fusarium wilt HR HR Trifecta III is licensed from the leading dormant alfalfa

Phytophthora root rot HR seed breeding company in the world.

Verticillium wilt HR

Insects

Blue alfalfa aphid R Seed Logic LLC is a family-owned business, farming

Cowpea aphid Pea aphid HR MR since 1915, and selling alfalfa seed since 1995.

Spotted alfalfa aphid Nematode Resistance MR CONTACT US TODAY!

A high yielding fast-growing alfalfa with StandFast™ trait. Bred for today’s aggressive alfalfa mangers.

PERFORMANCE

• Bigger second, third and fourth crops • 30% faster growing than leading alfalfas • Extra 6” growth in the first 21 days • Shaves 3-5 days off time to late-bud and next cut

MANAGEMENT

• Yield and quality equal to best alfalfas for CP, NDFD, ADF, RFQ • More milk, beef or tons per acre

APPEARANCE AT HARVEST MATURITY

• Tall, showy leafy growth habit • Fall dormancy 4 and rated 1.8 for winter survival • Strong multiple pest package, including nematodes HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON Yield in DM Tons per Acre

Competitor Competitor Trifecta III % Yield Advantage

Vernal 4.04 5.67 41%

N-R-Gee 5.22 6.12 17%

Let forage build a better feeder calf

WITH high feed costs and areas plagued with drought, cowcalf producers are looking at options like early weaning, early pregnancy diagnosis to market open females sooner, and other ways to reduce feed needs and conserve winter feed sources. On the flip side, feedlots face high grain costs and have a large incentive to source heavier calves needing fewer days on feed.

A logical option to market a larger, more desirable feeder calf is to retain ownership and put calves through a backgrounding or stocker program. The stocker/backgrounding sector of our industry is extremely diverse and can get generalized in daily conversations. What sets great programs apart from others is their ability to capitalize on whatever forage is available at any given time, whether low or high quality. Producers use their forage to take advantage of the efficient growth potential in a weaned calf.

Successful operations are flexible and can choose when to sell their calves based on market price or forage inventory. Here, we’ll outline some considerations for feeding growing cattle regardless of what forage inventory is available.

Consider forage quality

Programs with growing cattle on low-quality forages often utilize crop residue. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres available to harvest in areas of drought, or where acres are coming out of CRP, can also provide an alternative low-quality forage source that may be worth exploring. These acres are diverse in composition and are often comprised of many plant species, some of which may pose a toxicity risk.

The variation in species makes it extremely difficult to assign a feed value without forage sampling and lab analysis. If considering grazing CRP options, there may be some regulation around supplementation that needs to be accounted for as well.

For all low-quality forages, a tailored supplement is necessary, and a lab analysis is crucial to make a supplementation program successful. A good supplement is formulated based on costs, target market date or weight, and performance goals. Keep targets realistic; performance above 2 to 2.5 pounds per head per day will help maintain marbling potential. While these gains can easily be achieved on high-quality forage and a mineral mix without a supplement, supplementation for the limiting nutrient(s) on low-quality forage will provide an economical performance boost.

Consider how the make-up of the supplement will impact performance. Growing cattle are in their peak need for metabolizable protein. This can be directly fed through rumen undegradable “bypass” protein, or created through bacteria turnover in the rumen, if enough energy is available. Protein supplementation on low-quality forage will boost performance partly because of higher dry matter intakes. The supplement composition’s impact on fiber digestibility should also be considered, especially on higher quality forage.

For high-fiber diets, feeding more than 0.4% body weight of a nonstructural carbohydrate (starch)-based supplement will hinder fiber digestibility. Instead, if supplementing over 0.4% of body weight, consider utilizing a digestible fiber supplement low in nonstructural carbohydrates such as soyhulls, corn gluten feed, distillers grains, or cottonseed meal.

Compared to a high-starch supplement, a 15% to 30% boost in performance per unit of total digestible nutrients (TDN) supplemented can be achieved. Also, consider adding an ionophore to the supplement. Ionophores fed with forage diets have shown to improve gains by 0.15 to 0.25 pounds per day without noted changes in dry matter intake.

Make it better

Low-quality forages are poorly digestible, so if mechanically harvesting, consider options like alkali treatment or ammoniation to improve fiber digestibility. For example, Nebraska research demonstrated more than a 15% boost in neutral detergent fiber digestibility when corn residue bales were ammoniated post-harvest. A protein boost due to added ammonia also occurred. If considering treating feeds, contact your extension specialist or nutritionist to ensure proper technique and follow safety precautions.

Grazing corn residue is a very effective option for stocker calves, but diet quality and how it changes over time needs to be accounted for. Upon turnout, cattle will select grain husk and leaf first, which are the plant parts with the most feed value. Therefore, supplementation strategy, grazing management, and stocking density should account for diet selectivity. For baled corn residue, harvesting to favor more leaf and husk versus stalks significantly improves the feed value as well.

Typically, high-quality forages like silage or vegetative forages are higher in crude protein and energy. A significant driver to the higher energy is fiber digestibility. The more vegetative the forage, the more digestible the fiber is. Ensiling forage generally improves forage quality, and utilizing an inoculant may add to that improvement. To be successful, harvesting and storing to promote good fermentation is essential.

Finally, consider utilizing implants to significantly boost performance. Multiple implants have been developed for growing cattle that are grazing or in confinement. The performance response of an implant is better described as a percentage rather than expecting a standard response. In other words, the better the feed that the animal is consuming, the larger the response from an implant. A reasonable expectation is a 10% to 20% performance improvement.

A common denominator for all beef producers, especially this year, is that getting the most out of available forages is crucial to operation profitability. Growing a feeder calf postweaning is an option to utilize less traditional forage options in a manner that produces more pounds to market. •

BETH REYNOLDS

Reynolds is an extension beef program specialist with Iowa State University.