Archived
This content is available here strictly for research, reference, and/or recordkeeping and as such it may not be fully accessible. If you work or study at University of Kentucky and would like to request an accessible version, please use the SensusAccess Document Converter.
Publication Date
1981
Description
Beef cattle supply a major portion of farm income of northern Minnesota, but the major resource supporting this enterprise, forage, is vastly underutilized. A 5-year on-the-farm demonstration was conducted by the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Minnesota and the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission to improve income in this area by improving management of the beef enterprise.
We compared one or two improved pasture systems with an unimproved permanent grass pasture composed predominantly of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), system A, on each of six ranches. Improved systems included use of a cool-season grass fertilized with 138 kg N/ha for spring and autumn grazing and either birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) or a legume-grass mixture (alfalfa [Medicago sativa L.], red clover [Trifolium pratensis L.], smooth bromegrass [Bromus inermis Leyss.], and orchardgrass [Dacrylis glomerata L. l) for summer grazing. All pastures were rotationally grazed, with excess forage harvested for hay. System B involved use of 6 ha ofbirdsfoot trefoil and 8 ha of ferti lized grass. System C contained 9.6 ha oflegume-grass and 6.0 ha of fertilized grass. A fourth system, AA, had Kentucky bluegrass fertilized once a year with 55 kg N/ha. All pasture systems carried 25 to 30 animal units (AU), and we used cows and calves, except in one case, in which we used lightweight yearlings, to measure productivity. The introduced cool-season grass, smooth bromegrass, yielded more AUM (months)/ha than did the native Kentucky bluegrass when both received the same amount of N fertilizer. Legumes provided pasture during 70 to 90 days of the grazing seasons (100 to 132 days long). Harvesting of excess forage improved its utilization, but unless the excess was harvested early, fall pasturage was limited. Animal live-weight gains/ha increased from the use of improved pasture-management systems on all six ranches. Gain increases ranged from 182 % to 480 % from the best system compared with system A. When extra harvested forage was converted to extra calf gain, at least two ranches produced more calf gain/ha (93 to 126 kg) than was shown at an agricultural experiment station.
Citation
Martin, N P.; Hasbargen, P R.; Arthaud, R L.; and Sullivan, G J., "Pasture Demonstrations for Beef: Agronomic Considerations" (1981). IGC Proceedings (1977-2023). 3.
(URL: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/1981/section13/3)
Archival?
Archival
Included in
Agricultural Science Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, Plant Pathology Commons, Soil Science Commons, Weed Science Commons
Pasture Demonstrations for Beef: Agronomic Considerations
Beef cattle supply a major portion of farm income of northern Minnesota, but the major resource supporting this enterprise, forage, is vastly underutilized. A 5-year on-the-farm demonstration was conducted by the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Minnesota and the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission to improve income in this area by improving management of the beef enterprise.
We compared one or two improved pasture systems with an unimproved permanent grass pasture composed predominantly of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), system A, on each of six ranches. Improved systems included use of a cool-season grass fertilized with 138 kg N/ha for spring and autumn grazing and either birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) or a legume-grass mixture (alfalfa [Medicago sativa L.], red clover [Trifolium pratensis L.], smooth bromegrass [Bromus inermis Leyss.], and orchardgrass [Dacrylis glomerata L. l) for summer grazing. All pastures were rotationally grazed, with excess forage harvested for hay. System B involved use of 6 ha ofbirdsfoot trefoil and 8 ha of ferti lized grass. System C contained 9.6 ha oflegume-grass and 6.0 ha of fertilized grass. A fourth system, AA, had Kentucky bluegrass fertilized once a year with 55 kg N/ha. All pasture systems carried 25 to 30 animal units (AU), and we used cows and calves, except in one case, in which we used lightweight yearlings, to measure productivity. The introduced cool-season grass, smooth bromegrass, yielded more AUM (months)/ha than did the native Kentucky bluegrass when both received the same amount of N fertilizer. Legumes provided pasture during 70 to 90 days of the grazing seasons (100 to 132 days long). Harvesting of excess forage improved its utilization, but unless the excess was harvested early, fall pasturage was limited. Animal live-weight gains/ha increased from the use of improved pasture-management systems on all six ranches. Gain increases ranged from 182 % to 480 % from the best system compared with system A. When extra harvested forage was converted to extra calf gain, at least two ranches produced more calf gain/ha (93 to 126 kg) than was shown at an agricultural experiment station.
