Heart of
America
15th Grazing Conference
January 18-19, 2017
Holiday Inn
Quincy, IL 62305
Welcome
On behalf of the Heart of America Grazing Conference planning committee, I would
like to welcome you to the 15th Annual Heart of America Grazing Conference. The
planning committee has developed a program that offers informative and educational
topics on forage use and gaining an economic edge. You will hear the latest about soil
health in grazing systems and soil health utilizing cover crops.
Thank you to the sponsors, exhibitors, presenters and moderators for their time and
contributions to the livestock industry. The sponsors and exhibitors represent some
of the best products and services in agriculture. In addition to products and services,
these sponsors and exhibitors provide financial support to make the conference a
success. Please visit with the businesses, organizations and agencies to find out more
about their products or services they can provide and say Thank You.
I want to extend a very special thank you to Stephanie Musselman with the McLean
County Soil and Water Conservation District for her assistance with publication
development, publicity, and registration, and to Jody Christiansen for her assistance
with layout and editing of the conference proceedings.
Lastly, thank you all for attending and taking the time out of your busy schedules
to attend the conference. You are encouraged to engage in sharing ideas and lively
discussion to further your knowledge and skills in grazing management. Take time to
visit with your neighbor, even if in disagreement!
It is hard to believe that this is the 15th HOAGC which started right here in Illinois. We
don’t look at stopping anytime soon, and look forward to seeing you at the next Heart
of America Grazing Conference and other grazing events in.
Best wishes for the 2017 grazing year and future.
Matt Bunger
2017 HOAGC Program Chairman
Agenda
January 18, 2017
1:00pm
Exhibitor Setup
2:00 Tour-optional: US Wellness Meats- Canton, MO
4:00 Registration and Trade Show/ Exhibits
6:00 Welcome- Ivan Dozier, State Conservationist, USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service
6:15Banquet
7:00 Grass Fed: Passing Fancy or Trend of the Future - Dr. Allen Williams, Grass Fed Insights, LLC
9:00 Trade Show closes for the evening
January 19, 2017
7:00 a.m. Registration and trade show/ Exhibits open
8:00 Revolving Slide show of AHSDG, Dudley Smith Farm, UI Orr and Dixon Springs Research
Centers
8:10 Welcome – Cliff Schuette, Illinois Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative
Session One – Soil Health and Grazing
Moderated by Cliff Schuette
8:15 Principles of Soil Health – Ray Archuleta, USDA-NRCS, East National Technology Center
9:00 Adaptive Grazing Promotes Soil Health - Dr. Allen Williams, Grass Fed Insights, LLC
9:45 Break, visit Exhibits
Session Two –New Concepts of Tall Fescue Management
Moderated by Ed Ballard
10:15 Tall Fescue Research in Illinois – Frank Ireland, U of I Dixon Springs Ag Research Center
10:45 Genetic Test for Fescue Toxicosis – Diane Spurlock - Iowa State University, Animal Science –
Retired. Consultant AgBotanica, LLC speaking for Dr. Monty Kerley- Professor of Nutrition,
University of Missouri
11:15 Seed Head Suppression of tall fescue with Chaparral herbicide– Dr. Scott Flynn, Field Scientist,
Dow AgroSciences
11:45 Last chance to visit with exhibitors
12:10 Lunch
Session Three – Research up-dates and AHSD grazing, Grazing Panel
Moderated by Elton Mau
1:00 Using Green Chemistry for Nutrient management– Ray Archuleta, USDA-NRCS, East National
Technology Center
1:45 Mitigating Challenges of Grazing Lush Forages– Travis Meteer, U of I Beef Extension Educator
2:15 Cover Crops and Grazing – Roger Staff, USDA-NRCS Grassland Specialist
2:45 Grazing panel
Moderated by Warren King
Adaptive High Stock Density Grazing experience – Jeff Beasley, Trevor Toland, Ted Krauskopf,
Dr. Allen Williams
3:45 Adjourn
CCA Credits Available
i
Heart of America Grazing Conference
Committee Members
Executive Committee
Matt Bunger
USDA-NRCS Grassland Specialist
402 N. Kays Drive
Normal, IL 61761
Phone: 309-452-3848 Ext. 112
[email protected]
Mark Kennedy
Grassland Services, LLC
2559 Old Wilderness Road
Reeds Spring, MO 63737
Phone: 417-766-0805
[email protected]
Ray Smith
University of Kentucky Forage
N-222C Ag Science Center North
Lexington, KY 40546
Phone: 859-257-3358
[email protected]
Jason Tower
Southern Indiana Purdue Agriculture Center (SIPAC)
11371 East Purdue Farm Road
Dubois, IN 47527
Phone: 812-678-4427
[email protected]
Ohio State University
Position currently open
ii
Program Planning Committee
Gary Letterly
Natural Resources Management Educator
University of Illinois
1120 N. Webster
Taylorville, IL 62568
[email protected]
Frank Ireland
Research Animal Scientist
University of Illinois
Dixon Springs Ag Center
Rt. 1, Box 256
Simpson, IL 62985
[email protected]
Travis Meteer
Extension Educator, Commercial Ag Beef
University of Illinois
3773 Research Fishhook Road
Baylis, IL 62314
[email protected]
Warren King
Regional Food Systems Developer
WellSpring, Ltd.
818 N. Marion Street
Oak Park, IL 60302-1533
[email protected]
Matt Bunger
USDA-NRCS Grassland Specialist
402 N. Kays Drive
Normal, IL 61761
[email protected]
David Smith Jr.
Beef Producer & Conklin AgroVantage Sales
RR 3 Box 144
Roodhouse, IL 62082
[email protected]
Cliff Schuette
Beef Producer and Chair Person
Illinois GLCI
17875 Jamestown Road
Breese, IL 62230
[email protected]
Edward N. Ballard
Retired, University of Illinois Extension
1204 N. Long Street
Shelbyville, IL 62565
[email protected]
Elton Mau
Sheep Producer and Small Business Owner
311086 E. 1300N. Road
Arrowsmith, IL 61722
[email protected]
iii
Heart of America Grazing Conference
Sponsors
Illinois Beef Association
Reid Blossom
2060 West Iles Suite B
Springfield, IL 62704
2177874280
[email protected]
www.illiosbeef.com
Illinois Farm Bureau
Tasha Bunting
1701 N Towada Ave
Bloomington, IL 61701
3095572993
[email protected]
Farm Credit
Derek Weber
2000 Jacobssen Drive
Normal, IL 61761
3092680222
[email protected]
[email protected]
Pennington Seed
John Carpenter
205 Helena Ln
Madison, MS 39110
7064742801
[email protected]
Illinois Forage and Grassland Council
President Don Brown
www.illinoisforage.org
US Wellness Meats
PO Box 249
Canton, MO 63435
8773830051
[email protected]
University of Illinois Extension
http:/web.extension.illinois.edu/state/index.php
Natural Resource Conservation Service
2118 W. Park Court
Champaign, IL61821
www.il.nrcs.usda.gov
IL GLCI & NatGLC
http://www.grazinglands.org/
McLean County Soil and Water Conservation
District
www.McLeanCountySWCD.com
The Pasture Project
Wallace Center/Winrock International
2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22202
www.pastureproject.org
iv
Exhibitors
Merial, LTD
Jim Morse
412 Fyre Lake Dr
Sherrard, IL 61281
3097379999
[email protected]
Sare
Wyatt Miller
100 S Main, Suite 201
Palmyra, MO 63461
5737692177
[email protected]
Midwest Grass & Forage
Donna Lamb
2600 E Jackson St
Macomb, IL 61455
3098371820
[email protected]
Oregon Forage Commissions
Lisa Ostlund
PO BOX 3366
Salem, OR 97302-0366
5033642944
(Gary 2703392273)
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mix30 by Agridyne
Joe Meggison
PO Box 7510
Springfield, IL 62791
2177874200 x 209
[email protected]
Tigerco Distributing Co.
Stephen Wiedmier
PO Box 128
Braymer, MO 64624
1-800-432-4020
[email protected]
www.tigercoinc.com
USDA/RMA
Niccole Anselm
3500 Wabash Ave
Springfield, IL 62711
2172416600
[email protected]
Saddle Butte Ag Inc
Kathi Jenks
PO Box 50
Shedd, OR 97377
541-928-0102
[email protected]
Quincy Tractor LLC
Zach Carlson
2507 Spring Lake Road
Quincy, IL 62305
2172221392
[email protected]
Ursa Farmers Coop
Casey Krieg
202 W Maple
Ursa, IL 62376
2175062529
[email protected]
USDA NASS
Mark Schleusener
801 Sangamon Ave, Rm 62
Springfield, IL 62702
2175249606
[email protected]
Summit Seed Coatings
Russell Terry
14668 Autumn Road
Wapella, IL 61777
3098250430
[email protected]
ProHarvest Seeds
Doug Hanson
2737 N 700 East Rd
Ashkum, IL 60911
8153826684
[email protected]
Green Valley Seed LLC
David Otte
PO BOX 35
Kahooka, MO 63445
6603417520
[email protected]
v
The Pasture Project
Wallace Center/Winrock
International
2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22202
www.pastureproject.org
Andras Stock Farm
PO Box 109
Manchester, IL 62663
Will 217-473-2355
Steve 217-473-2320
www.andrasstockfarm.com
Heart of America Grazing Conference
January 18 – 19, 2017
Holiday Inn
Quincy, Illinois
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Welcome
Agenda
Executive Committee
Conference Planning Committee
Conference Sponsors
Trade Show Exhibitors
Adaptive Grazing Promotes Soil Health, In Defense of Soil Health ............................ 1
Dr. Allen R. Williams, Grass Fed Insights, LLC
Tall Fescue Research in Illinois ......................................................................................... 9
Frank Ireland, University of Illinois, Dixon Springs Ag Research Center
Genetic Test for Fescue Toxicosis ....................................................................................12
Diane Spurlock - Iowa State University, Animal Science – Retired. Consultant AgBotanica, LLC
Mitigating Challenges of Grazing Lush Forage .............................................................13
Travis Meteer, University of Illinois Beef extension Educator
Cover Crops and Grazing..................................................................................................20
Roger Staff, USDA-NRCS Grassland Specialist
Adaptive High Stock Density Grazing Experience, Grazing Panel Biographies........21
Jeff Beasley
Trevor Toland
Ted Krauskopf
Moderators Biography ......................................................................................................23
Cliff Schuette, Illinois Grazing Lands Initiative
Edward Ballard
Warren King
Elton Mau
Heart of America Grazing Conference
Presenters
In Defense of Soil Health
Allen R Williams, Ph.D.
Soil health is a hot topic today in sustainable agriculture circles and is even becoming more popular in conventional
agriculture. However, the term is often thrown around loosely, and sometimes the meaning gets muddled.
I give a lot of presentations at conferences and conduct workshops around the country on soil health practices. What
we are finding is that, despite all the attention, fewer than 10 percent of farmers and grazers around the U.S. have
adopted sound soil health practices. Most are still somewhat skeptical and have a hard time grasping the benefits to
be gained from building true health within their soils.
I hear many objections from farmers and grazers about shifting practices to promote soil health. If this works so well,
why isn’t everyone doing it? What will it cost me? I’m too busy to implement any of those practices.
But the biggest question I get is this: “Where is the scientific data supporting all these claims of benefits?”
That data does indeed exist. Many studies published in peer-reviewed journals support the benefits of soil health,
along with the farming and grazing practices that enhance soils. I’ll discuss some of the data while pointing you
toward the research.
Benefits of soil health practices
To understand the benefits of soil health practices, we first must recognize that all plant growth is highly correlated to
soil life.
Research conducted at New Mexico State University revealed that the soil’s fungi-to-bacteria population ratio
has greater influence on plant biomass production and yield than does inorganic nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P)
applications (Johnson, et. al., 2012).
Soil bacteria and fungi perform much of the decomposition of organic matter at the soil surface, providing significant
nutrients for growth health and growth. Researchers have found that fungi are more efficient than bacteria at
decomposing and storing nutrients (Bardgett & McAlister, 1999; De Vries, et.al., 2006). It has been demonstrated that
higher fungal populations increase the soil’s ability to hold carbon, to create a readily available nutrient pool and to
buffer against low pH conditions.
This makes the soil fungi:bacteria ratio a reliable measure of overall soil health improvement and soil carbon
sequestration (Beare et al., 1992; Yeates et. al., 1997; Bailey et al., 2002).
The New Mexico State study found that when farmers planted highly diverse cover crops between plantings of cash
crops, they were able to produce similar or even higher yields with reduced reliance upon synthetic fertilizers. The
results showed that essential minerals and trace elements in the soil increased as cover crop diversity increased due to
carbon inputs from the living plants stimulating microbial activity.
This in turn increased soil aggregation and soil macro- and micronutrient availability, while improving soil water-holding
capacity. The system creates a positive feedback loop, similar to the endocrine loop found in animals and humans.
Interestingly, Johnson’s group discovered that as cover crop diversity and biomass production increased, the effects in
the soil were exponential, as improvements multiplied throughout the system. This is due to ever-increasing synergies
between soil microbial populations and the plants they serve.
1
Dr. Christine Jones (WANTFA New Frontiers in Agriculture, Sept. 2013) found that the more closely we mimic the
structure and function of year-round ground cover, the more productive our farms will be. Jones’ work indicates that
the more species included in the ground cover, the better.
Multi-species cover crops help restore below-ground diversity and soil biological function, including increases in
atmospheric N fixation and making bound phosphorus soluble. These effects improve overall plant productivity and
yields. Her work showed that the increases in nutrient sourcing and soil moisture retention through planting diverse
cover crops builds soil nutrients in successive years.
Similarly, research has shown that grassland ecosystems need year-round cover to protect from soil loss and facilitate
soil microorganism function. Plant and litter cover provide numerous documented benefits such as enhanced soil
microbial activity, soil aggregate stability, increased soil organic matter, improvements in water infiltration rates,
decreased soil water evaporation and soil temperature buffering.
These benefits result in enhanced plant nutrient status and nutrient availability, improved plant growing conditions
and increases in soil organic matter (Thurow,1991; Rietkerk, et. al., 2000; Bardgett, 2005).
Results of Poor Management Practices
Researchers have found that poor farming and grazing management can inhibit soil-building processes and even
cause soil degradation. Soil loss can result from grazing that causes excessive plant removal and trampling. These
researchers also found that frequent use of fire (“patch burning”, pasture burning) inhibited soil building, as did
excessive drought conditions (Thurow, 1991; Wright & Bailey, 1982).
Thurow (1991) found that as the amount of bare ground increased due to poor management practices, proper soil
function decreased and erosion risk increased substantially.
One of the biggest mistakes we make in agriculture is creating bare ground. Research has documented that bare
ground suffers significant declines in soil microbial activity and organic matter, with subsequent increases in
erosion. Plant diversity and density dissipates the energy of raindrops before they contact the soil and cause erosion.
(Blackburn, 1975; Blackburn, et. al., 1986).
Poor soil management practices cause soil degradation due to increases in soil compaction and bulk density, leading
to reductions in water penetration and soil aggregate stability (Herrick et. al., 1999; Herrick & Jones, 2002). Neary and
co-workers (1999) and Wright & Bailey (1982) found that conditions allowing for elevated soil temperatures and soil
loss negatively affect water infiltration rates, nutrient retention and biological function, while increasing the rate of
water evaporation from the soil.
Researchers in Australia discovered that at the time of European settlement, the hot and dry southern half of
the continent supported significantly more warm season (C4) grasses and forbs than it does today. Even with
temperatures routinely climbing above 100o F and little rain, the original groundcover remained green throughout the
summer season due to greater water holding capacity of the soils.
Poor grazing practices after European settlement devastated the forb population and reduced the number of grass
species, resulting in reduced plant populations and increased soil exposure (Presland, 1977).
In the U.S., poor grazing practices and excessive tillage have significantly reduced water-holding capacity and reduced
broadleaf plant (forb) populations. The original groundcover across the Great Plains of North America contained far
more broadleaf plants than grasses, with numerous summer-active legumes and forbs.
Broadleaf plants stimulate far greater nutrient cycling and microbial diversity than grasses alone. Scientists found
that poorly managed grazing and excessive tillage significantly reduced broadleaf plant populations across much of
the Great Plains. With unmanaged grazing, ruminants selected the broadleaf plants that were the most palatable and
nutrient-dense and grazed them out of existence in much of the landscape (Lunt, et. al., 1998).
Realizing Benefits From Soil Health Management
Studies have shown that the amount and type of vegetation covering the soil significantly influences all soil physical
parameters and hydrological properties. Benefits increase as you progress from bare soil, to short grasses, to bunch
grasses and forbs interspersed with woody plants.
2
A mixed plant population of bunch grasses, broadleafs and woody plants produces significantly greater amounts
of foliage and root biomass — especially when compared to monocultures, short grasses, annuals and improved
cultivars — resulting in greater soil organic matter and microbial species diversity and density (Blackburn, 1975; Milne
& Haynes, 2004; Pluhar et. al., 1987; Thurow, 1991; Thurow, et. al., 1986, 1987).
Devi and Yavada (2006) found that aboveground plant litter/cover aids soil moisture micro-environments and creates
more consistent soil temperatures. These conditions favor greater soil microorganism activity. In addition, they tend to
enhance the formation of stable soil aggregates, which aids water infiltration and improves soil fertility (Herrick, et. al.,
1999).
Approximately 60% of all soil organic matter (SOM) is comprised of soil organic carbon (SOC) that positively influences
all chemical, physical and biological functions of soil health (Bardgett, 2005). Increases in SOC result in increased soil
aggregate stability, water-holding capacity and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC).
As organic matter increases, the ability of the plant to take up nutrients and trace elements also increases, nutrient
leaching is reduced, soil pH is buffered and plant growth is enhanced. Scientists have found that SOM profoundly
impacts plant biomass production and health, water quality and availability, carbon sequestration and overall soil
health (Charman & Murphy, 2000; Lal, 2008).
Land management practices significantly affect the ability of the soil to sequester and retain organic
carbon. Carbon sequestration is accelerated by practices that enhance plant growth on a year-round basis,
lower incidence of bare or partially exposed soil, and stimulate extensive root growth and microbial growth.
(Parton et. al., 1987).
Adaptive Grazing Practices Produce Dividends
In a direct comparison of adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing with light continuous (LC), heavy
continuous (HC) and non-grazing (EX), researchers found that AMP grazing produced the highest levels of
soil carbon, the greatest plant biomass production and the least amount of bare soil. The LC and HC grazing
practices had lower plant biomass production, greater degrees of bare soil, and decreased soil waterholding capacity than AMP and EX (Teague, et. al., 2011; Allen, 2007; Leake, et. al., 2004).
These results are consistent with prior studies showing that soil carbon availability is regulated through
plant biomass production and soil coverage (Conant, et. al., 2001: Jones & Donnelly, 2004). Earlier work
conducted by Thurow (1991) demonstrated that AMP grazing at higher stock densities on semi-arid
rangeland provided more positive impacts on soil physical properties and soil water infiltration compared
to continuous grazing at the same stocking rate.
In earlier work, Teague and co-workers (2010) found that AMP grazing produced greater forage biomass
production, maintained adequate ground cover with far less exposed soil, increased soil aggregate stability,
lowered soil temperatures, and sequestered more soil carbon than other methods of grazing or nongrazing.
Soil chemistry parameters also were improved with AMP grazing. Soil CEC was higher when AMP grazing was
employed instead of light continuous, heavy continuous or non-grazing, which is consistent with differences in soil
carbon effects.
As CEC increases, the ability of the soil to retain nutrients and water increases. Soil pH was buffered when soil
microbial responses were increased with AMP grazing. In addition, magnesium and sodium levels in the soil were
improved with AMP grazing, as was the rate of nutrient cycling.
A primary reason for these nutrient cycling improvements was that AMP grazing encouraged deeper root penetration,
allowing the roots and the associated mycorrhizal fungi to reach mineral stores deeper in the soil (Teague, et. al.,
2011). AMP grazing practices produced the greatest fungi:bacteria ratio when compared to other grazing methods or
non-grazing (Teague, et. al., 2010; Teague, et. al., 2011).
Better soil management practices, which include AMP grazing, create favorable species changes in the plant
community. In turn this creates more favorable soil microbial compositions. Soil biota function is enhanced, triggering
natural feedback mechanisms (Coleman & Crossley, 1996).
3
Bardgett (2005) found that enhancing interactions between plants and soil biota drives ecosystem function and
productivity, as well as providing pivotal structuring forces in the plant community. Bardgett’s work showed that
plant-soil biota interactions increased the microbial breakdown of plants, making nutrients more readily available,
enhancing plant root exudate production, increasing fungal associations with plant roots, and positively altering the
physical structure of the soil to allow for increased water and nutrient movement.
Roundup toxic to soil fungus
A recently released study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research found that Roundup is toxic to
soil fungi, even at application rates well below recommendations.
The study discovered that at application rates diluted 100 times more than those typically used in agriculture,
Roundup caused 50% mortality in the soil filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans. This is important, as Aspergillus
nidulans is frequently used as a marker of soil health, thus pointing to the possibility that Roundup is causing more
widespread damage (Nicolas, et. al., 2016).
Even more disturbing is the finding that the commercial formulation of Roundup appears to have greater toxicity than
glyphosate alone, indicating that the additives are not necessarily inert. The research found that Roundup impaired
soil fungi growth, increased cellular disturbances and interfered with cellular energy and respiratory metabolism.
The report went on to note that soil microorganism energy metabolism and respiratory function disturbance were
detected at doses producing no visible effect to the naked eye. The researchers said this implies that even the
residues in GM herbicide-tolerant crops may be causing detrimental effects.
Since soil microorganisms are critical to soil health, and Roundup is the most frequently used herbicide worldwide, soil
fungi populations in many countries and across broad landscapes have been damaged.
Diversity and Complexity in Our Pastures: Does it Matter?
The vast majority of established pastures in the U.S. are dominated by what I would term a “near monoculture”,
meaning that most of the forage yield, or biomass production, is obtained through two to three primary forages in the
mix.
Natural prairies are a different story, as we see literally scores of plant species in mixes consisting of grasses, legumes
and forbs. I have been on “species counts” in native prairie where experts identified more than 150 different plants,
sometimes more than 200.
Does it matter whether our pastures are comprised of a near monoculture, or is managing for greater complexity and
diversity important? Let’s look at what some recent research tells us.
Penn State trial
A recent Pennsylvania State University study conducted at the Hawbecker Research Farm from 2005 to 2013 examined
two- and five-species perennial mixes in terms of their impact on forage biomass production and soil organic carbon
(SOC) analysis (Skinner and Dale, 2016).
In August 2004 the two-species pastures were sown into orchardgrass and white clover, while the five-species
mix pastures were sown into orchardgrass, tall fescue, white clover, alfalfa and chicory. There were a total of four
replications per treatment.
Grazing started in the spring of 2005 and continued through 2013. Paddocks in each treatment were grazed the
same, with the number and class of animals varying between years and seasons, but with consistent stocking rates
between treatments each grazing event.
Grazing started when the forage in each treatment reached 10 inches (25 cm) and stopped when the cattle had grazed
down to 4 inches (10 cm). This resulted in five grazing events per treatment every year except 2006, when there were
six. Grazing typically started in early to mid-May and ended in late October.
Forage biomass production was measured prior to each grazing by taking clippings and drying down, and comparing
that amount of dry matter with what was measured again post-grazing.
4
Results showed that the five-species mix produced 31% more total forage biomass annually than the two-species mix,
with the difference being more profound in wet years versus dry years. In other words, 31% more forage dry matter
was available for livestock simply by having a little more diversity in the mix.
The five-species mix produced 34% greater forage biomass in the spring, 30% more in the summer, and 26% more
biomass in the fall compared to the two-species mix. The five-species mix generally grew faster and recovered quicker
between grazings, and was thus an average of 11.2 inches in height when a grazing event started, compared to 10
inches in the two-species paddocks. Since both treatments were grazed to the same residual height, the five-species
mix paddocks had an additional 1.4 inches of forage growth removed with each grazing.
Soil organic carbon (SOC) was measured in alternate years from 2004 through 2012, with samples taken at six
different soil depths (strata) starting at 2 inches (5 cm) down to 39 inches (100 cm). SOC accumulation down to 39
inches averaged 1.8 tons of carbon per hectare annually (0.72 ton/acre) with the five-species mix, compared to 0.5
ton of carbon per hectare annually (0.20 ton/acre) with the two-species mix. The most significant increases in SOC
accumulation with the five-species mix occurred within the 4-8 and 8-12-inch strata.
The differences in both production and SOC remained strong throughout the nine-year period even though the fivespecies mix lost virtually all its chicory by 2008, and 95% of the alfalfa by 2012. So the residual effects of a five-species
mix that became essentially a three-species mix were quite important.
Green Acres Trial
In a trial conducted by Green Acres Research Farm near Cincinnati, Ohio, annual cover crop cocktails called “biological
primers” were planted in the spring of 2015. An 18-species, warm season cocktail mix developed by Dave Brandt at
Walnut Creek Seeds was planted with a no-till drill on June 4, 2015. Just 55 days after planting, scientists at Green
Acres measured 58,000 lbs. of wet forage biomass per acre. That translates into more than 8,000 lbs./acre forage dry
matter.
Stocker calves were grazed using adaptive high stock density (AHSD) practices with daily moves on one-quarter to
one-third acre paddocks. After the initial grazing, each paddock was rested approximately 30 days prior to re-grazing.
Calculated forage dry matter (DM) for the second grazing was 4,500 lbs./acre. At the end of the warm season grazing
period, the crop was terminated by intentionally overgrazing, and a 12-species cool season cocktail was no-tilled in for
winter grazing.
Cattle performance and soil response were impressive. Cattle weighed before and after grazing the warm season
cocktail gained an incredible 3.8 lbs./head/day. This was without the benefit of compensatory gain, as the cattle had
just come off cool season perennial pasture.
Soil organic matter (SOM) increased from 3.6% to 4.4%, a total increase of 0.8%. The USDA-NRCS states that for every
1.0% increase in SOM, water holding capacity increases 25,000 gallons per acre. At the 0.8% gain, the SOM increase
in this trial added 20,000 gallons/acre of water holding capacity. Over a 100-acre farm, that would be an additional
2 million gallons of water being absorbed into the soil with a moderate to heavy rainfall instead of running off or
ponding and pooling.
Increases were also measured in soil nitrogen, soil mineral value, earthworm populations and soil microbial respiration
(as measured by CO2 release). Soil N increased 58 lbs./acre because N fixation from the atmosphere increased due to
enhanced rhizobia activity from the legumes included in the 18-seed warm season mix.
Soil mineral value increased $105/acre due to the complex mix, adaptive grazing and enhanced microbial population.
This is $105 less in spending on the external inputs required for similar performance. The earthworm population
exploded to an estimated 130,000 per acre.
Soil microbial activity was measured indirectly using the Solvita method of measuring CO2 respiration. Measurements
showed a 44% increase in soil microbial activity, with CO2 respiration rising from 128 to 186.
5
Self-Medicating – Provenza
Diverse and complex forage mixes also produce significantly more — and more diverse — secondary and tertiary
nutrient compounds. We know much about primary compounds such as crude protein, calcium, potassium and
magnesium, but there are also hundreds of nutrient compounds that are very important to the health of our animals,
plants and soil. Different plant species produce different arrays of these compounds, and each has a specific role.
Dr. Fred Provenza has spent his academic career researching these compounds and their effects on the animal-plantsoil complex. His research shows that animals will purposely select for these compounds in their diet if given the
opportunity.
Our problem is that we have often created situations where livestock cannot select from a broad array of secondary
and tertiary nutrient compounds because our pastures do not have any complexity and diversity.
Dr. Provenza has shown that the medicinal benefits of these compounds are important in animal health and
performance. For instance, some plants produce tannins, natural anti-parasites that can significantly reduce internal
parasite loads in ruminant livestock (Lisonbee, et. al. 2009).
Livestock that consume plants containing tannins have lower fecal egg counts and nematode loads, and better animal
gains (Niezen, et. al. 2002; Coop and Kyriazakis, 2001; Min and Hart, 2003; Min, et.al., 2004). Athanasiadon and coworkers (2000) found that tannins have a direct anthelmintic effect. Tannins also increase the supply of bypass protein
in the gut (Reed, 1995; Foley, et.al., 1999) and enhance immune response to internal parasites (Niezen, et.al., 2002; Min
and Hart, 2003).
Other studies show that foraging behavior is influenced by the availability of secondary and tertiary nutrient
compounds in the diets of animals (Provenza and Villalba, 2006; Villalba and Provenza, 2007). Animals can selfmedicate if given the opportunity (Huffman, 2003; Villalba, et.al., 2006).
Summary
So does plant species diversity and complexity in our pastures matter? The very short answer is “Yes”.
We have to remember that in nature there are no singular effects. Everything we do in our management produces
compounding and cascading effects whether we realize it or not. Selecting or planting for monocultures and nearmonocultures produces compounding and cascading effects that reduce soil health, plant growth and animal
performance. Selecting for complexity and diversity do just the opposite.
Conclusions
Soil health management practices and principles have numerous benefits that produce exponential effects. I often
state during my presentations that nothing we do in agriculture has a singular effect. Every decision we make has
compounding and cascading effects, whether for the good or for the bad.
The practices we implement on a day-to-day basis will have effects. It is up to us whether those effects are beneficial,
or not.
References:
Allen, M.F., 2007. Mycorrhizal fungi: highways for water and nutrients in arid soils’. Soil Science Society of America.
Vadose Zone Journal 6, 291–297, doi:10.2136/vzj2006.0068.
Bailey, V.L., Smith Jr., J.L., Bolton, H., 2002. Fungal-to-bacterial ratios in soils investi- gated for enhanced C
sequestration. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34, 997–1008.
Bardgett, R.D., 2005. The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecosystem Approach.
Oxford University Press, New York.
6
Bardgett, R.D., McAlister, E., 1999. The measurement of soil fungal: bacterial biomass ratios as an indicator of
ecosystem self-regulation in temperate meadow grass- lands. Biology and Fertility of Soils 29, 282–290.
Beare, M.H., Parmelee, R.W., Hendrix, P.F., Cheng, W., 1992. Microbial and faunal interactions and effects on litter
nitrogen and decomposition in agroecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62, 569–591.
Blackburn, W.H., 1975. Factors influencing infiltration and sediment production of semiarid rangelands in Nevada.
Water Resources Research 11, 929–937.
Blackburn, W.H., Thurow, T.L., Taylor, C.A., 1986. Soil erosion on rangeland. In: Proceedings Use of cover, soils and
weather data in Rangeland Monitoring Sym- posium. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO, USA, pp. 31–39.
Coleman, D.C., Crossley, D.A., 1996. Fundamentals of Soil Ecology. Academic Press, London.
Conant, R.T., Paustian, K., Elliott, E.T., 2001. Grassland management and con- version into grasslands: effects on soil
carbon. Ecological Applications 11, 343–355.
Charman, P.E.V., Murphy, B.W., 2000. Soils, their Properties and Management, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.
Devi, N.B., Yavada, P.S., 2006. Seasonal dynamics in soil microbial biomass, C, N and P in a mixed-oak forest ecosystem
of Manipur, North-east India. Applied Soil Ecology 31, 220–227.
De Vries, F.T., Hoffland, E., van Eekeren, N., Brussaard, L., Bloem, J., 2006. Fun- gal/bacterial ratios in grasslands with
contrasting nitrogen management. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 38, 2092–2103.
Herrick, J.E., Weltz, M.A., Reeder, J.D., Schuman, G.E., Simanton, J.R., 1999. Rangeland soil erosion and soil quality: role
of soil resistance, resilience, and disturbance regime. In: Lal, R. (Ed.), Soil Erosion and Soil Quality. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, USA, pp. 209–233.
Herrick, J.E., Jones, T.L., 2002. A dynamic cone penetrometer for measuring soil penetration resistance. Soil Science
Society of America Journal 66, 1320–1324.
Johnson, D. C., Ellington, J., Eaton, W. 2012. Institute for Sustainable Agricultural Research, New Mexico State
University. Presentation to Sandia National Laboratories, 14 Aug 2012.
Jones, M.B., Donnelly, A., 2004. Carbon sequestration intemperate grassland ecosys- tems and the influence of
management, climate and elevated CO2 . New Phytologist 164, 423–439.
Lal, R., 2008. Sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in global carbon pools. Energy and Environmental Science 1, 86–
100.
Leake, J.R., Johnson, D., Donnelly, D.P., Muckle, G.E., Boddy, L., Read, D.J., 2004. Net- works of power and influence:
the role of mycorrhizal mycelium in controlling plant communities and agroecosystem functioning. Canadian
Journal of Botany 82, 1016–1045.
Lunt, I., Barlow, T., and Ross, J. 1998. Plains Wandering: Exploring the grassy plains of southeastern Australia.
Victorian National Parks Association and the Trust for Nature (Victoria).
Milne, R.M., Haynes, R.J., 2004. Soil organic matter, microbial properties, and aggre- gate stability under annual and
perennial pastures. Biology and Fertility of Soils 39, 172–178.
Neary, D.G., Klopatek, C.C., DeBano, L.F., Ffolliott, P.F., 1999. Fire effects on below- ground sustainability: a review and
synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management 122, 51–71.
Nicolas V., Oestreicher N., Velot, C. 2016. Multiple effects of a commercial Roundup® formulation on the soil
filamentous fungus Aspergillus nidulans at low doses: evidence of an unexpected impact on energetic metabolism.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016 Apr 11.
7
Parton, W.J., Schimel, D.S., Cole, C.V., Ojima, D.S., 1987. Analysis of factors controlling organic matter levels in
grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51, 1173–1179.
Pluhar, J.J., Knight, R.W., Heitschmidt, R.K., 1987. Infiltration rates and sediment production as influenced by grazing
systems in the Texas rolling plains. Journal of Range Management 40, 240–243.
Presland, G. 1977. Journals of George Augustus Robinson, January-March 1840. Edited with an Introduction.
Records of the Victorian Archaeological Survey, No. 5, 2nd Edition.
Rietkerk, M., Ketner, P., Burger, J., Hoorens, B., Olff, H., 2000. Multiscale soil and vegetation patchiness along a gradient
of herbivore impact in a semi-arid grazing system in West Africa. Plant Ecology 148, 207–224.
Skinner, R. H. and Dell, C. J. 2016. Yield and Soil Carbon Sequestration in Grazed
Pastures Sown with Two or Five Forage Species. Crop Sci. 56:2035–2044 (2016).
Teague, W.R., S.L. Dowhower, S.A. Baker, N. Haile, P.B. DeLaune, D.M. Conover. 2011. Grazing management
impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 141 (2011) 310–322.
Teague, W.R., Dowhower, S.L., Baker, S.A., Ansley, R.J., Kreuter, U.P., Conover, D.M., Waggoner, J.A., 2010. Soil and
herbaceous plant responses to summer patch burns under continuous and rotational grazing. Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environment 137, 113–123.
Thurow, T.L., Blackburn, W.H., Taylor Jr., C.A., 1986. Hydrological characteristics of vegetation types as affected by
livestock grazing systems, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Journal of Range Management 39, 505–509.
Thurow, T.L., Blackburn, W.H., Taylor Jr., C.A., 1987. Rainfall interception losses by midgrass, shortgrass, and live oak
mottes. Journal of Range Management 40, 455–460.
Thurow, T.L., 1991. Hydrology and Erosion. In: Heitschmidt, R.K., Stuth, J.W. (Eds.), Grazing Management: An
Ecological Perspective. Timber Press, Portland, OR, USA, pp. 141–159.
Wright, H.A., Bailey, A.W., 1982. Fire Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Yeates, G.W., Bardgett, R.D., Cook, R., Hobbs, P.J., Bowling, P.J., Potter, J.F., 1997. Faunal and microbial diversity in three
Welsh grassland soils under conventional and organic management regimes. Journal of Applied Ecology 34,
453–470.
8
Research Update: Beef Cattle Management Considerations for Grazing Tall Fescue
Frank Ireland
Research Animal Scientist
University of Illinois, Dixon Springs Agricultural Center
Introduction
It has been reported that 8 million beef cattle graze an estimated 35 million acres of endophyte-infected tall fescue
in the United States with the majority of tall fescue being produced in the Midwest and southeastern regions of the
United States. In the presence of the endophytic fungus, ergot alkaloids are present that when consumed by beef
cattle results in decreased animal performance as measured in reduced weight gains, lower body condition scores,
decreased conception rates, rough hair coats and the inability to regulate body temperatures. It has been estimated
that this loss in animal performance accounts for a $600 million annual loss to beef producers. Recently, novel
endophyte varieties of tall fescue have been identified that reportedly have the same agronomic advantages without
causing the depression in animal performance exhibited by older varieties.
Research projects investigating methods to improve beef cattle performance and reduce the negative effects in
animal production associated with grazing endophyte infected tall fescue have recently been conducted by the
faculty and staff of the Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Illinois in an effort to provide producers
with research based recommendations for profitable beef production. This paper will serve as an overview of
recent beef cattle research conducted at the University of Illinois’ Dixon Springs Agricultural Center addressing the
performance of animals grazing tall fescue.
Study 1
Grazing novel endophyte-infected tall fescue following grazing endophyte-infected tall fescue as a means to minimize
fescue toxicosis in beef calves
Introduction
In each of 2 years, 36 fall-born, Simmental x Angus calves (Yr. 1: steers, body weight (BW) = 401 ± 62 lbs; Yr. 2: heifers,
BW = 530 ± 35 lbs) were stratified by BW and randomly allotted into 6 groups. Groups were randomly assigned 1 of 3
treatments; 1) Endophyte-infected (E+) (May 2 – September 18, 2012 or May 1 – August 30, 2013), 2) Novel endophyte
(NE) (May 2 – September 18, 2012 or May 1 – August 30, 2013), and 3) E+ (May 2 – July 10, 2012 or May 1 – July 1, 2013;
period 1) followed by NE (July 11 – September 18 2012 or July 2 – August 30, 2013; period 2; E+/NE). Groups were
grazed on 10 ac pastures that were subdivided into six 1.33 ac paddocks, and were rotated every 5 days. Put-and-take
cattle were used to maintain similar forage availability. Calf BW, body condition score (BCS;1 = emaciated, 9 = obese),
and hair coat score (HCS; 1 = sleek, short; 5 = long, dull) were taken at the initiation, mid-point between periods, and
the conclusion of study. Resting respiration rate was taken at the mid-point of each period via visual estimation. Period
1 data were analyzed using a contrast of NE vs. E+ and E+/NE, as both treatments were grazed on E+ pastures during
this time.
Results
There were no differences in initial BW, BCS, or HCS between treatments. At the end of period 1, cattle grazed on NE
had greater BW than those grazed on E+, as they experienced greater average daily gain (ADG). Cattle grazed on NE
during period 1 also had greater improvement in HCS, while BCS tended to be greater at the end of the period. There
was no difference in respiration rate during period 1. Final BW was not different between cattle grazed on NE and E+/
NE during period 2, with both treatments being heavier than those grazed on E+ continuously. This is due to the fact
that cattle switched from E+ to NE pastures during period 2 exhibited compensatory ADG, resulting in no difference
in overall ADG between NE and E+/NE treatments for the duration of the study. There also were no differences in final
BCS or HCS between cattle grazed on NE and E+/NE, with both treatments having greater BCS and HCS improvement
than cattle grazed on E+. Period 2 respiration rate was greatest for E+, lowest for cattle grazed on NE, and intermediate
for E+/NE. There were substantial differences in the two years in which this study was conducted. The first year,
9
2012, was characterized by extreme drought and high temperatures. The second year, 2013, was characterized by
significantly more rainfall and milder temperatures. Differences in environmental stress and the difference in initial calf
BW may explain the significant effects of year that were observed.
Implications
Cattle grazed on novel endophyte-infected fescue during late summer after grazing endophyte-infected fescue
experienced compensatory gains and had similar overall performance relative to those grazed on novel endophyteinfected fescue continuously. Partial pasture renovation with novel endophyte-infected fescue may be an effective
strategy to mitigate the effects of fescue toxicosis while reducing the cost of pasture renovation to the beef operation.
Study 2
Differences in forage quality when comparing novel and endophyte-infected tall fescue over the grazing season
Introduction
Objectives were to compare forage characteristics and in situ digestibility of novel and endophyte-infected tall
fescue over the growing season. Tall fescue is widely used for grazing beef cattle predominantly in the Southeastern
United States. Endophyte-infected tall fescue (KY-31) possesses many positive agronomic qualities, but can depress
cattle growth due to ergot alkaloid-producing endophytes. Novel endophyte-infected tall fescue (MaxQ) combines
the agronomic advantages of KY-31 with improved cattle performance. However, comparison of forage quality
between MaxQ and KY-31 is lacking. We hypothesized MaxQ would have greater in situ digestibility than KY-31, in
part due to decreased ADF and NDF concentrations when compared to KY-31. Samples were taken at 10 d intervals
over 70 d, beginning May 28. Clipped samples were collected from randomly selected locations in 4 different
paddocks per cultivar at each time point. Forages were analyzed for DM, NDF, and ADF. Composite samples were
incubated in ruminally fistulated steers (n = 2) for 12 and 24 h to determine in situ DM disappearance (DMD) and NDF
disappearance (NDFD). Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedures in SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with repeated
measures. There were interactions of cultivar by d collected for ADF (P = 0.03) and NDF (P < 0.01). On d 20, 30, 50, and
60 of collection, paddocks of KY-31 had 2.5 to 7.8 percentage units greater NDF than paddocks of MaxQ. Similarly, on
d 20, 30, 50, 60, and 70 of collection, paddocks of KY-31 had 3.0 to 6.2 percentage units greater ADF than paddocks of
MaxQ.
Results
There were no interactions (P ≥ 0.16) of cultivar, incubation time, or week sampled for DMD. As expected, the 24-h in
situ DMD was greater (P < 0.01) than the 12-h in situ DMD. Over the course of the growing season, DMD of both MaxQ
and KY-31 decreased (P < 0.01). There was an interaction (P = 0.05) of incubation time and sampling d on NDFD. From
d 10 through d 40, 24-h NDF digestibility was greater than 12-h NDF digestibility; however, from d 50 through d 70,
there was no difference in 12 versus 24-h in situ NDF digestibility.
Implications
Although forage quality differed over the growing season, lack of difference in in situ DMD and NDFD between MaxQ
and KY-31 suggest that improved forage quality is not the mechanism for increased performance of cattle grazing
MaxQ compared to those grazing KY-31.
Study 3
Evaluation of KY-31 and Jesup MaxQ tall fescue for fetal development, growth, and reproductive performance in beef
cattle
Introduction
Eighty fall calving Angus crossbred cows were grazed in 8 groups on either endophyte-infected KY-31 tall fescue (E+)
or novel endophyte (NE; Jesup MaxQ) from May 28, 2014 through the end of calving on October 8, 2014. Cow body
weights, body condition scores, hair coat scores, and serum for prolactin concentration analysis were taken on days 0,
1, 63, 64, 97, and 98. Respiration rates were taken on days 5-8, 68-72, and 102-105 of the study. Calves were weighed,
tagged, and vaccinated immediately upon located them after birth. Milk production was measured utilizing a weighsuckle-weigh (WSW) procedure at approximately 60 days postpartum.
10
Results
There were no significant differences (P ≥ 0.10) in calf birth weight, Julian calving date, body weight at WSW, milk
production, AI conception rates or overall conception between cow treatments. Prolactin concentrations were higher
(P < 0.05) for cows grazing novel endophyte tall fescue with interactions of time, treatment, and time x treatment. Cow
respiration rates tended to be lower (P< 0.10) with a time x treatment interaction. Cows grazing novel endophyte tall
fescue tended to have lower respiration rates than cows that grazed the Ky-31.
There was a tendency for calf body weight (P=0.10) and body condition score (P=0.06) of calves to differ by dam
treatment. Calves born to cows that grazed novel endophyte tall fescue tended to be heavier and have a higher body
condition score than calves born to cows that grazed endophyte tall fescue. Dam treatment and time x dam treatment
did not differ (P≥0.14) for respiration rates, hair coat scores, and prolactin concentrations of calves.
There were no differences (P ≥ 0.10) in the feedlot performance or carcass characteristics (HCW, backfat, loin eye are,
marbling, yield grade or KPH) of the Charolais/Angus crossbred progeny.
Implications
The nutritive value of tall fescue in the fall, whether E+ or NE, is at one of the highest level of the year and, in many
cases, will meet the nutritional requirements of mature, non-lactating beef cows at this time of year. Research results
indicate there is no reduction in conception rates for fall bred beef cows grazing E+ as opposed to the reduction
in conception rates seen in spring bred herds. There does appear to be a benefit of reduced RR in cows grazing NE.
There was a tendency for calves born to cows that grazed E+ during gestation to perform better when grazing E+
tall fescue than calves born to cows that grazed NE during gestation. This data suggests that we may be altering fetal
development during gestation resulting in offspring that are more adapted to certain environmental conditions.
Study 4
Effects of eprinomectin on heifers grazing endophyte-infected tall fescue
Introduction
Angus-cross heifers were stratified by BW and were assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: 1) Control (Saline Solution; n = 99) or
2) LongRange (n = 100). Heifers were injected with 1 mL/50 kg BW of either LongRange or Saline. Two weeks prior to
treatments, all heifers were given oral fenbendezole (SafeGuard; 2.5 mg/lb) to remove internal parasites. Throughout
the trial, heifers grazed endophyte-infected fescue pastures as 1 group and were rotated among pastures as determined by forage availability.
Forage samples were collected for proximate analysis and forage heights were measured on d 1, 17, 31, 45, 59, 73, 87,
and 116.
Results
LongRange increased weight gains from 55 d to 291 d post-treatment, improved ADG throughout the entire study,
and increased BCS from 112 d to 291 d post-treatment. Respiration rates were numerically decreased for heifers given
LongRange, with no significant differences observed. Furthermore, at 111 d post-treatment, heifers injected with LongRange had a decreased fecal egg count compared to Control heifers. However, there was no effect of LongRange on
heifer serum prolactin concentrations. At the final pregnancy check, a greater percentage of heifers given LongRange
were confirmed pregnant compared to Control heifers.
Implications
Treating heifers with sustained released eprinomectin resulted in increased body weight gain and improved conception rates in growing beef heifers grazing endophyte-infected tall fescue summer pastures and placed in a fall calving herd. This improvement was experienced even in the absence of internal parasites. Previously reported research
suggests that compounds in the avermectin family may improve performance of cattle grazing endophyte-infected
tall fescue. While no differences were seen in serum prolactin concentrations between treatments, heifer development
11
was enhanced with eprinomectin treatment which may account for the improvement in conception rates. The numerical reduction in respiration rates may indicate an improvement in the heifer’s ability to maintain a lower body temperature while grazing E+ tall fescue. There is a savings in time associated with a sustained release drug administration
compared to other formulations requiring several injections over time. Further research is needed to determine the
mechanisms responsible for the improvement in performance.
Fescue Tolerance Testing
Dr. Monty Kerley
Professor of Nutrition, University of Missouri
Fescue toxicosis is characterized by clinical symptoms such as vasoconstriction, immunosuppression, and poor
thermoregulation. Fescue toxins bind to membrane receptors of cells that control constriction of blood through
capillaries responsible for heat dissipation. When cattle consume toxic tall fescue, they lose ability to move blood to
their skin where heat can be lost to the environment. As they lose this ability they become more prone to heat stress.
In the winter, this lack of blood flow leads to other clinical symptoms, such as fescue foot and loss of tail switch, that
occur from restricted blood flow.
Fescue toxicosis is also characterized by poor performance, such as low rate of gain, low weaning weight, low
conception rate, and low milk production. This lack of production costs beef producers between $180 and $200
million each year in Missouri alone; it costs livestock producers in the eastern US well over $1 billion annually.
Two approaches to reducing the impact of fescue toxicosis is 1) to replace toxic fescue with a nontoxic grass, or 2)
manage the toxic grass with a series of effective practices. One of the newest management practices is the selection
of animals that are tolerant to toxic tall fescue.
Cows were grazed on toxic tall fescue and calf weaning weight was measured. DNA was sampled from the cows and
analyzed to determine if any genetic similarity could be found between the dam’s DNA and weaning weight of the
dam’s calf. A genetic pattern was identified that was predictive of weaning weight. The genetic pattern of the dam that
correlated to its calf’s weaning weight were genes that play a role in regulating cell membrane receptors.
Research to date has measured a difference of 112 Lbs in weaning weight loss due to a susceptible dam grazing
toxic tall fescue compared to nontoxic forage. Selecting for fescue tolerance results in approximately 56 Lbs greater
weaning weight. It is possible to select for cows that are more tolerant to toxic tall fescue. As with any single trait
marker, single trait selection is not wise. It is possible that the best producing cows in a herd or fescue intolerant.
Consequently, consideration of using T-Snip testing should be as part of the selection criteria for a herd.
12
Seedhead Suppression in Tall Fescue with Chaparral Herbicide
E. S. Flynn and P.B. Burch
Introduction:
Tall Fescue (Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.)) is cool-season perennial grass found in pastures throughout the Eastern
US, most commonly in the transition zone. It’s tolerance to extreme temperatures, drought, poor soil fertility, heavy
grazing, and pests have made it a reliable forage base for livestock pastures. Released in 1943, ‘KY-31’ tall fescue was
quickly adopted by cattle producers and now inhabits an estimated 40 million acres in the US.
Soon after its adoption, cattle producers began to notice a reduction in animal performance and signs that animals
were heat stressed following tall fescue consumption. These symptoms were an indication of an animal disorder that
would later be called “fescue toxicosis” by scientists and producers. In the late 1970s, it was discovered that the cattle
health issues with tall fescue were actually caused by a fungus (Neotyphodium coenophialum) living within some
plants, which produced a toxic class of compounds termed ergot alkaloids. We refer to these tall fescue plants that
contain this fungus as being endophyte infected (E+) and those that do not as being endophyte free (E-).
Fescue toxicosis is estimated to cost the livestock industry 1$ billion annually. Economic losses are largely associated
with reductions in pregnancy rates, milk production, and average daily gains in stocker cattle and poor calf weaning
weights (Table 1). Other sources of economic loss can also be attributed to lower sale prices due to the unthrifty
appearance of cattle suffering from fescue toxicosis and higher receiving costs for feedlots when fescue toxicosis
stressed animals are delivered.
Table 1. †Summary of the effect of E+ tall fescue on cattle.
Data derived from multiple research trials were pastures
contained 70% or more E+ tall fescue.
Performance Metric
Pregnancy rates
Milk production
Weaning weights
Time spent grazing
Forage intake
Average daily gain
Water usage
Body temperature
†Paterson et.al, 1995
Effect on Production
Decreased 15-40%
Decreased 25%
Decreased 65- 85lbs
Decreased 20%
Decreased 25-40%
Decreased 0.3-1.2 lbs/day
Increased 25%
Increased 1-4°F
Seedhead Suppression
Chaparral™ is a broad spectrum herbicide approved for control of susceptible broadleaf weeds and woody plants on
rangeland and permanent grass pastures. It contains aminopyralid (2-pyridine carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro-)
and metsulfuron-methyl {methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5- triazin-2-yl)-amino]carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]
benzoate}. Timely spring applications of Chaparral on tall fescue pastures inhibit grass maturation, keeping the plants
in a vegetative state for the remainder of the growing season.
Both day length and temperature can affect seedhead emergence in tall fescue. Day length of 12 hours or more
triggers seedhead formation and temperature influences grass growth and development. With this in mind, it is best
to apply Chaparral starting within 3 weeks before seedhead emergence to when tall fescue is in the boot stage. For
most areas of the US where fescue is grown Chaparral application should begin around April 10th and end at the boot
stage. Tall fescue in southern US could be treated with Chaparral as early as March 20th (>12hrs day length) as warmer
conditions will promote faster seedhead development. For optimal seedhead suppression apply 2 oz/acre of Chaparral
with a 0.25% volume per volume, high quality non-ionic surfactant (NIS). Do not tank-mix with other herbicides as this
may reduce the level of seedhead suppression.
13
The Benefits of Seedhead Suppression
When seedheads are suppressed and weeds are controlled with Chaparral an increase in grass species diversity
is usually observed. This increase in diversity along with the better nutritive value of tall fescue, and reduced
consumption of ergot alkaloids has led to higher pregnancy rates in cows and higher 205-day adjusted weaning
weights in their calves (Table 2) and improved average daily gains in steers (Table 3). Tall fescue pastures where
seedheads have been suppressed by Chaparral have higher crude protein, in vitro dry matter digestibility (Table 3),
and water soluble carbohydrates than pastures not treated with Chaparral. In addition, herbage dry matter intake
by cattle is greater and cattle hair is shorter and smoother compared to cattle feeding on tall fescue not treated with
Chaparral (Figure 1) (Turner et al. 1990a, 1990b; Aiken et al., 2012).
Table 2. Effect of seedhead suppression on 205 day adjusted weaning weights of calves and breed back of cows. Data
were collected from three different locations owned by Whitesell Land and Cattle Co. At each location the pastures
were split into two paddocks so that half the herd would be on a Chaparral-treated paddock (tall fescue seedheads
suppressed) and the other half would be on a GrazonNext HL treated paddock (non-suppressed).
Location 205 Day Adjusted Weaning Wt.
Chaparral Treated Non-suppressed
difference
Cow Pregnancy Rates
Chaparral Treated Non-suppressed
Farm 1
473 lbs
418 lbs
+55lbs
95%
80%
Farm 2
483 lbs
463 lbs
+20lbs
95%
70%
†Farm 3 476 lbs
459 lbs
+17lbs
Equal at 91%
†Heavy spring grazing on treated and untreated paddocks resulted in seedhead suppression through grazing, thus
the non-treated paddock behaved similarly to the suppressed paddock.
Adapted from Boyer et al., 2015
™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow.
Table 3. Effect of seedhead suppression on stocker cattle and forage quality of pastures grazed. Data were collected
from 2009-2012 in three separate studies conducted by the USDA-ARS Forage Animal Production Unit, University of
Kentucky.
2009-2010
Steer ADG (lbs/steer/day)
Crude protein
In vitro dry matter digestibility
Chaparral™ Treated
2.1 lbs
14.4%
78.6%
Non-suppressed
1.48 lbs
11.6%
71.7%
2.1 lbs
14.2%
72.2%
1.74 lbs
9.9%
66.4%
2.29
18.6
76.1
1.96
14.8
72.6%
2011-2012
Steer ADG (lbs/steer/day)
Crude protein
In vitro dry matter digestibility
2011-2012
Steer ADG (lbs/steer/day)
Crude protein
In vitro dry matter digestibility
(Aiken et al., 2012; Goff et al., 2012a;
Goff et al., 2012b)
14
Figure 1. Comparison of 2-year-old brangus heifers bred on seedhead suppressed
(left) and unsuppressed (right) pastures. Hair coat length and roughness is usually
the most visually distinguishable characteristic of cattle suffering from fescue
toxicosis.
Where does seedhead suppression with Chaparral™ herbicide fit in your operation?
Chaparral is an herbicide that suppresses tall fescue seedhead emergence. Chaparral for seedhead suppression works
in rotational grazing systems and other grazing systems were quality forage is needed in late spring – early summer.
Seedhead suppressed tall fescue maintains higher forage quality in spring and early summer when compared to
unsuppressed tall fescue. This can allow cattle producers to keep up with spring grass production and maintain
availability of high quality forage for a longer period during the summer. It also gives producers the ability to rotate
to higher quality fescue pastures during a time of year when tall fescue is usually more mature and has low forage
quality.
For tall fescue pastures where Chaparral is being used to suppress seedheads, it is advised that no more than 50
percent of total acres be treated in a single season also applications should not be made on the same acres over two
sequential years. Chaparral will cause some leaf yellowing in tall fescue for a period of 7 to 14 days; it is not advised
that Chaparral be used on pastures for seedhead suppression with poor soil fertility as the length and severity of
yellowing will be prolonged.
Seedhead suppressed pastures produce less herbage mass early in the season due to the lack of a seedheads, but in
some cases, grass herbage yields may catch up with herbage mass levels in unsuppressed pastures. Herbage mass
in suppressed pastures may again decrease in late summer due to increased forage utilization by less stressed cows
and their calves (Figure 2) (Boyer et al, 2014). It is recommended that producers rotationally graze pastures to prevent
overgrazing and implement a spring and fall soil fertility program to maintain pastures with high quality grass forage.
Remember, reducing the stress of fescue toxicosis in cattle will increase their dry matter intake and put more
pressure on your pastures.
15
Figure 2. Pasture herbage mass data collected over the 2014 grazing season. Treatments were applied April 15-17, 2014.
Chaparral™ herbicide pastures started out with less biomass due to seedhead suppression but began a rapid stage of
growth by mid to late-May. However, Chaparral pastures did not grow back to the level of herbage mass of the untreated
pastures due to increased grazing pressure by unstressed animals.
™ Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated company of Dow.
Literature Cited
Aiken, G.E, B.M. Goff, W.W. Witt, I.A. Kagan, B.B. Sleugh, P.B. Burch and F.N. Schrick. 2012. Steer and plant responses to
chemical suppression of seedhead emergence in toxic endophyte-infected tall fescue. Crop Sci. 52:960-969.
Boyer, W.F. 2015. Cow-calf response to seedhead suppressed tall fescue pastures in Southern Missouri. Master
Thesis(2015). University of Missouri.
Goff, B.M. 2012a. Effects of seedhead suppression of endophyte-free tall fescue in grass mixtures on steer performance
and nutritive values. PhD Dissertation(2012). University of Kentucky
Goff, B.M., G.E. Aiken, W.W. Witt, B.B. Sleugh, P. Burch,. 2012b. Steer consumption and ergovaline recovery from in vitro
digested residues of tall fescue seedheads. Crop Sci. 52:1437-1440
Paterson, J., C. Forcherio, B. Larson, M. Samford, and M. Kerley. 1995. The effects of fescue toxicosis on beef-cattle
productivity. J. Anim. Sci. 73:889-898.
Turner, K.E., J.A. Paterson, J.S. Kerley, and J.R. Forwood. 1990a. Mefluidide treatment of tall fescue pastures: Intake and
animal performance. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3399–3405.
Turner, K.E., J.A. Paterson, J.S. Kerley, and J.R. Forwood. 1990b. Mefluidide treatment of tall fescue pastures: Forage
quality. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3406–3411
16
Mitigating the Challenges of Grazing Lush, Spring Forages
W. Travis Meteer
Orr Beef Research Center, Perry, Illinois
University of Illinois Extension
Introduction
During the winter season most cattle are supplemented with dry forages, grains, and co-products. This ration is
balanced and delivered to cattle. Then spring comes along and cattle are put out to grass. While green grass solves
a lot of problems associated with winter feeding (manure, pen maintenance, calf health, and labor demands), it can
pose nutritional challenges. Lush, spring forage has three major challenges when it comes to meeting cattle nutrition
requirements.
Challenges and Solutions
The first challenge is dry matter. Wet, washy grass can frequently be below 25 percent dry matter. This makes it hard
for the cow to consume the enough dry matter (DM) to meet energy demands. During the rapid, spring growth most
forage samples will be below 20 percent DM. This requires a lactating 1400lb. cow with average milk to consume 138
lbs. of fresh grass to meet her energy requirement. If that cow is a higher milking cow, she would need to eat 158 lbs.
of fresh grass. In most cases, the cow fills up her rumen between 100 and 125 pounds. Physical fill can be a limiter on
performance when grazing washy grass.
The second challenge is high protein content of lush forages coupled with moderate energy content. Excess
protein can be a problem when energy supply is short. When rumen microbes are presented a diet that is excess in
protein and deficient in energy (low in carbs, fats, and sugars), deamination of protein occurs. This process results
in production of ammonia and a carbon skeleton that can enter the Krebs cycle for energy production. Ammonia
produced from this process crosses into the blood via the rumen epithelium. Ammonia is then converted to Urea by
the liver and excreted in the urine. Excess protein has been well documented by the dairy industry as a detriment to
reproductive performance. Some researchers argue excess protein is not a problem. I would suggest that producers
must have adequate or above adequate energy in the ration before excess protein is ok. Even then, I would prefer the
excess protein contain a good portion of rumen undegradable protein.
I have observed cattle panting after being on lush, green grass for a few days. The panting was not due to heat stress
either, the temperature was in the high 60’s. These cattle were panting because they needed more oxygen. Red
blood cells carry oxygen to the cells. They must also carry ammonia away from the cells to the liver. I feel the panting I
observed was due to too much ammonia in the system. I challenge you to watch your cattle on lush, green grass.
The third challenge is fiber. The low fiber content of immature forages results in very high passage rates and an
unsatisfied cow. It seems odd that cows would be unsatisfied while knee-deep in green grass. However, I have
observed this several times. Cows will readily consume a low level of dry grass hay with lush pasture. This can help the
DM problem and add fiber.
While there are numerous solutions to remedy this short term problem, the main goal needs to be supplying cattle
with a balanced ration. Unfortunately, lush pasture is not balanced. Some strategies may include delaying turnout
until grass matures a bit more, supplying palatable dry baled forage that is low or moderate in protein (not alfalfa hay),
supplementing with grains (not over 0.5% of body weight), or grazing only the top 1/3rd of the grass plant.
Research
This project utilized 120 Angus and Simmental-Angus lactating cows. Cows had calves at side during the study. There
were approximately 60 cows per treatment with three reps of 20 head per treatment. The study was conducted in
2013 and 2014.
The two treatments were supplemented cows (SUP) and a non-supplemented control (CON). The SUP cows received a
supplement mix of 45 percent soybean hulls, 45 percent ground corn cobs, and 10 percent dry molasses (as-is basis).
The supplement was fiven at a rate of 4 lbs. per head per day. Each SUP group received 80 pounds of supplement per
day. Cows were rotationally grazed on fescue-clover mixed pastures. The CON cows received no supplement and were
17
rotationally grazed on fescue-clover mixed pastures. A Co-Synch Cidr protocal was used and cows were time-AI’d.
Cows were turned out to pasture the day of CIDR insertion, or approximately 10 days prior to breeding.
Pastures are mixed red clover, white clover, and endophyte-infected fescue. Pastures ranged from 8 to 14 acres in
size. Each allotment was rotationally grazed, moving between two pastures as necessary to ensure sufficient forage
availability. Stand density was measured daily, and when a pasture was determined to be too sparse to support
continued grazing, the allotment was moved to its other pasture. After cows were moved off a pasture, it was clipped
to remove seedheads and maintain a vegetative state so forage would continue actively growing to recover before
cattle were returned to it.
In 2014, blood samples were collected on day 0, 7, 10, and 18 of the trial. Samples were analyzed for non-esterified
fatty acids (NEFA), beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), and blood urea nitrogen (BUN). In both years, forage samples were
taken and analyzed for CP, ADF, NDF, and ash. Composited forage samples were analyzed for forage nutrients such as
CP, ADF, NDF, and ether extract.
Results showed no difference in cow body weight change or cow body condition score when comparing day 0 to day
70. No differences were seen in NEFA or BHBA concentrations. Slightly elevated BUN levels after one week on pasture
were observed for the CON group. The BUN results may indicate an imbalance in forage protein to forage energy. This
high ratio may still have subtle and short, brief negative impacts on energy state of the cows. Conception rates to
A.I. were not statistically different, but numerically an advantage was observed for the SUP cows in both years of the
study.
18
19
Cover Crops/Annuals and Grazing
Roger Staff
USDA-NRCS Grassland/Grazing Specialist
The use of annual forages (cover crops), both summer and winter, have been utilized for several years. When cover
crops first were used to extend the grazing season, it began with one to three species in a mixture. That was before the
soil health benefits were being observed and discussed as they are now. There have been a wide variety of planting
methods used: airplanes, helicopters, conventional and No-till drills. Some seeding methods is simply broadcast on
the soils surface and lightly tilled in or just rained in depending upon the weather. Then we discovered the herbicides
and amounts used can impact the species being planted. Also, the corn hybrid varieties can affect the planting and
germination as well depending upon how erect the leaves are and how much sunlight can penetrate the canopy
when flown on. Since the beginning, there has been many adaptive applications made. Some farmers added seed
applicators to their combines, and some fertilizer companies equipped the high wheeled spray rigs with equipment to
aerial seed over the standing crops, etc. Planting cover crops after small grain crops were harvested or silage chopping
were found to be good methods, with a wider date range for establishing these forage species. In high forage demand
locations, some farmers dedicated a few acres to rotating summer annuals with winter annuals without grain cropping
the land. Some farmers find this may lead to a high cost per grazing day, compared to perennial forages.
Now we strive for a variety of grasses, legumes and forbs to create a mixture of plants to have varying root depths and
growth patterns and to form a synergistic growth pattern between the plants. There may be 10 -15 different species
all planted together to take advantage of the benefits shared between the plants. The warm season and cool season
varieties are all planted together and then grazed by the livestock.
The adaptive high stock density grazing (AHSDG) practice technique or management intensive grazing can be used
to effectively graze the forage, by the strip grazing method, thus increasing the utilization rate of the forages. This
will allow for a better regrowth process and more forage production at the same time. Established forages and cover
crops, will lower erosion, improve water quality, increase infiltration rates and scavenge excess nutrients left from the
cropping systems. AHSDG has been shown to increase plant diversity in a grazing system as well. If all the forage is not
grazed off, then the organic matter may be improved as well! This will vary depending on the amount of forage left
un-grazed. For more information on the species and planting dates of cover crops go to the Midwest Cover Crop Tool
located at http://mccc.msu.edu/covercroptool/covercroptool.php . This program has been developed specifically for
the states of: IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI and Ontario, by the Midwest Cover Crop Council.
The most common feed source for cows and other livestock in the winter is hay. I encourage my clients to have all their
hay tested for its nutritional value before feeding to their livestock. All animals have different nutritional requirements
at different stages of their lives and production stages during the year. A lot of hay is baled in a low-quality stage,
especially in a wet year. This will impact the overall health and production of the animal. Corn stalks is a good food
source but can be low in quality, so the livestock may need supplemented, depending upon the amount of grain
lost at harvest. The use of grazing stalks with cover crops is an easy way to meet many of the livestock’s needs. You
will need to monitor your livestock in case you need to supplement with hay or another energy source. Any growing
crop will have higher nutritional value than most mature hay unless baled in the best quality stage. U of I Extension
publication http://web.extension.illinois.edu/oardc/eb275/entry_11983/ contains much of this information. Stockpiled
forages will meet the animal’s needs more closely than poor quality hay (mature Fescue). Stockpiled tall fescue grazed
in Jan-Feb. will meet the nutritional need of most dry cows. Through the Nutritional Balancing Program, NUTBAL, at
Texas A & M University, I have run numerous forage analysis through the fecal sampling process in the winter months
on stockpiled tall fescue. The Crude Protein can range from a high of 12.13 percent to a low of 8.88 percent and
the Digestible Organic Matter (this is 5 percent higher than TDN by comparison) ranges from 64.09 percent to 56.2
percent.
NUTBAL samples have also been ran on annual cover crop species as well. Sorghum Sudan grass and Pearl Millet will
meet the nutritional needs of cattle, sheep and goats during the growing season. Even in the August and September
the CP ranges from 19.8-11.6 percent. Cereal Rye can have a CP as high as 17-20 percent in Dec. planted alone or in
20
a mix. Turnips and oats over-seeded into standing corn then grazed can range from a CP of 19.02-15.32 percent with
a DOM ranging from 68.82-68.48 percent in Nov. and Dec. Turnips and cereal rye can range from a CP of 17.75–19.27
percent with a DOM of 58.71 – 64.01 percent in Dec. as well. The turnip tops are higher in protein than the bulbs
from 1-4 percent normally. Cereal rye over-winters and if grazed in the spring will have a CP ranging from 13.6-19.3
percent and a DOM ranging from 66.31 - 72.4 percent. Another cover crop used and grazed is Red Clover. It can
provide multiple soil and plant benefits. The NUTBAL CP samples analyzed for red clover in July run from 15.56 – 17.51
percent, in Nov. from 13.96-18.32 percent, and in Dec. from 16.58-19.88 percent. You will need to watch your cattle for
possibilities of bloat when it frosts on the legumes.
21
In the presentation I have compared the cost of feeding different winter feeds. According to information from U of I
publications and Travis Meteer, U of I Beef Educator, the costs for grazing corn stalks can run as much as $0.50 per day.
From my comparisons using current Urea Nitrogen prices for an application of 50# N /acre for stockpiling tall fescue,
then strip grazing, can range from $0.35 - 0.23 per head per day. The use of annual forages, or cover crops, will range
from $0.75 - 1.00 per head per day. With the specific example from Ted Krauskopf’s grazing system shows a cost of
$0.93 per head per day for cattle. In comparison to the hay cost per day or $4.63 (Adlib alfalfa big bales) - $1.42 (Adlib
poor hay [mature Fescue] /corn). The cost associated with hay and/or TMR mixtures with co-products range from $2.41
(limited TMR Alfalfa) - $0.88 (Limited TMR corn silage/DDGS) per day. But the big question is how much do you value
your time and machinery cost for all this extra work? As mentioned in many publications 60 percent of the annual cow
costs are from stored winter feeding annually. If you can reduce the cost by $100- 400 per head per year that can make
a major difference/savings in your bottom line with today’s economic situation!
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) are two
conservation programs that NRCS has to assist clients with improving and sustaining their resources. EQIP helps “Fix”
resource concern problems, erosion, water quality, animal waste, forestry, and grazing and plant health issues. The
CSP program is to encourage land stewards to improve their conservation performance by installing and adopting
additional activities, and improving, maintaining, and managing existing activities on agricultural land and Nonindustrial private forest land. There are many enhancements to choose from that may be applied or can be applied
on your farm. The enhancement purpose is to encourage adoption of new technology, meet identified purpose
(objective), and continued enhancement throughout the contract period and beyond. The grazing of the cover crops
is considered a secondary purpose in the Cover Crop Practice Standard 340 and programs. Grazing is allowed but with
specific guidelines and requirements that must be met, if in a contract.
To find out more about these programs and other conservation benefits contact your local USDA/NRCS office.
22
Grazing Panel
Jeff Beasley-Beasley Farm
Jeff Beasley and his family run an integrated cattle and grain operation in Creal Springs, IL. The farm has
been in the family since the early 1900’s, and is approximately 550 acres with 450 acres devoted to pasture.
Beasley is a past president of the Illinois Cattleman’s Association.
Our farm is a diversified beef operation. We are running cow/calf (registered and commercial), seedstock
sales, bull and heifer development, stockers (grazing only), backgrounding (pasture and feedlot) and
finishing (feedlot only). No overall changes have been made in diversity of operation. The changes we do see from time to time may
have to do with our cattle inventory and which of those enterprises may be seeing the most numbers at a
given time. We try to remain flexible based on market pricing and options, weather, cattle sourcing, etc.
I think over the last two years we have tried to give more focus to forage utilization. More cognizant of the
fact we were not managing forage hardly at all, just managing cattle. One pasture has been set aside for
rotational grazing management due to our involvement with the Pasture Project.
As compared with non-managed grazing in other pastures, we have over the last two years seen an increase
in forage diversity and quantity in the managed grazing pastureN. The first year we used yearling cattle
through the rotation. The second year we used pregnant cows. For our purposes, we have found the cows
were easier to manage in the rotation than the yearlings.
No work has been done as far as testing to see if there has been any improvement in the soil and forage
quality in the managed pasture.
Trevor Toland- Toland’s River Oak Ranch
Trevor Toland runs a heifer development operation near Macomb, IL. The ranch consists of approximately
200 acres of permanent pasture, 65 acres of crop land and 100 acres of managed woodlands. Trevor has
received numerous awards for his work to promote conservation and environmental stewardship at the
farm. He is a past president of the Illinois Beef Association and has been rotational grazing for over 20 years.
He opens his operation several times during each year to tour groups, as well as classes from Western Illinois
University, to teach the advantages of management intensive rotational grazing.
Open yearling heifers come to the ranch around April 1st each year and are returned to their home ranch
as bred heifers nine months later. During those nine months, the heifers graze fescue/red clover and
reeds canary/alsike pastures with no supplementation. The fescue/red clover pastures are stockpiled after
September 1st to be grazed in November and December.
As years pass, Toland has continued to develop and refine a management intensive rotational grazing
system. After beginning the Adaptive High Stock Density Grazing study, Toland has continued to downsize
paddocks to improve efficiency, control and change animal behavior. The ranch now has 37 permanently
fenced paddocks, ranging in size from 2 to 10 acres each. Any number of these paddocks may also, on
occasion, be subdivided by temporary fencing.
Toland’s River Oak Ranch is an example of a MIG operation that is successful and profitable despite having a
predominance of floodplain and rough land not suitable for any other purposes.
23
Grazing Panel continued
Ted Krauskopf-Hickory Flat Cattle Company
Ted Krauskopf’s grazing operation consists of 90 acres of improved pasture including 20 acres of annuals for
summer grazing. Krauskopf is a cooperator with Andras Stock Farm. The herd of 40 brood cows are mostly
registered Red Angus, with the balance being commercial cows. Registered calves go to Andras after weaning, while commercial calves are sometimes sold after weaning or kept for grass finishing. In 2013, Krauskopf
received the IBA Environmental Steward of the Year award.
Thanks to an EQIP Contract in 2007 the pasture was improved with new fencing, water in the paddocks,
and a winter feeding station over 3 years. An additional 40 acres of perennial pasture was added as part of
that contract. The additional acres allowed forage to be stockpiled for winter grazing by the 40-head cow
herd. The herd was calving spring and fall at that time. The winter stockpile was strip grazed using portable
fence with the cows getting enough forage for 1 to 2 days between moves. The strip-grazing offered
several benefits. The cattle grazed more evenly, and with that, manure distribution was much more even,
so nutrients were landing where they needed to be more often. The forage usage was much better since
the cows didn’t spend as much time walking the whole pasture. We started strip grazing in spring but soon
decided to continue year around and move fence almost every day. It’s about a 30-minute chore and is
mostly done from the 4-wheeler.
In 2014, Hickory Flat Cattle Co. agreed to be a demonstration site for “The Pasture Project” in Illinois. Baseline
sampling was completed in August of 2014. The sampling included soil fertility, soil biological life, soil water
absorbing ability, compaction, and a forage species inventory. As a demonstration site, a High Stock Density
Grazing trial was completed in 2015 on one 7-acre paddock, and again in 2016 on another 6-acre paddock.
Stock density was about 300,000 pounds per acre for both trials. The forage in the paddocks was allowed
to fully mature before the trial. To get the 300,000-pound stock density, it required the fence be moved five
times per day during daylight for the cows to get the amount of forage they needed. During the night, they
picked over the residue. The benefits of having the cattle graze in a dense manner include: more uniform
grazing; better manure and urine distribution; creation of a residue mat on the soil surface that, with the
increased hoof action, sets the stage for increased soil microbial activity since the soil stays cooler; as well as
germination of forage seeds in the soil seed bank. Runoff from rain is also reduced.
Since 2014, the cow herd has been switched to 100 percent fall calving. I’m leaving more residue after
grazing. By leaving more residue, the grass roots are not paired back, there is also more leaf area to catch the
sunlight so regrowth is much quicker and production per acre has increased. I’ve also noticed the pasture
will take more rain before runoff begins. To increased forage production use, I have begun to save some
calves back for grass finishing.
I’m looking forward to seeing the data from a new round of soil tests coming up in 2017.
24
Moderator Biographies
Cliff Schuette, District Sales Manager for Stine Seed Company
Business-Philanthropy (Clinton County)
Cliff Schuette graduated from Southern Illinois University – Carbondale with a Bachelor in General
Agriculture and Minor in Agriculture Business. He is currently the District Sales Manager for Stine Seed
Company. He oversees ten dealers in a six-county area. He has been with Stine Seed Company for 25 years.
He is also a dealer for Pennington, Center Seeds and AMPAC Seed Company. He won the MVP award for
District Manager Sales Team and had the highest corn market share in the company for 2011. Schuette is a
lifetime cattle producer and farmer, and for the past twelve years he has been doing so in conjunction with
his District Sales Manager position. He has served as the President of the Illinois Beef Association, and served
two years as Vice President, and has been a member since 2000. He received the Illinois Beef Association
Commercial Producer of the year award for the state of Illinois and the following year received the IBA
Environmental Stewardship of the Year award.
Schuette has been the Vice President for the Clinton County Farm Bureau since 2006, and a member since
2001. In 2004, he received the Farm Family Award for Clinton County Soil & Water District. He was past Vice
Chair and Director of the Clinton County Soil & Water District and has served as treasurer since 2010. He has
been active in hosting forage and grazing meetings. In 2000, he hosted the Forage Expo for the State of
Illinois. Schuette has been Chairman of the Illinois Grazing Land Conservation Initiative since 2006. Schuette
lives in St. Rose with his wife and have two children.
Edward N. Ballard
Retired Animal Systems Educator, University of Illinois Extension
Edward N. Ballard, Retired Animal Systems Educator, University of Illinois Extension. B.S. Agriculture
Economics, Southern Illinois University, M.S. Agricultural Extension, University of Illinois. Ed was an animal
systems educator who works with producers and industry groups to enhance farm profitability and
sustainability. His areas of specialization include forages and grazing management, nutrition, environmental
management, animal care and behavior, fences, energy conservation, nutrient management and economics.
Ed has taught over 250 Management Intensive Grazing Schools for Illinois producers. Ed is co-author of the
Illinois Grazing Handbook, and National Extended Grazing Publications. Ed has made grazing presentations
at the Ohio Forage Council, Western Ohio Grazing School, The Ohio State Extended Grazing Conference,
Heart of America Grazing Conferences, Great Lakes International Grazing Conference, University of Kentucky
Grazing School, 3 times, 2nd National Grassland Grazing Conference, Nashville, TN, 3rd National Grazing
Conference, St. Louis, MO, Wisconsin Grazing Conference, University of Kentucky Grazing Conference,
Missouri Grazing Conference, Missouri Livestock Symposium and Michigan Forage Council. Ed coordinated
the forage and grazing research and demonstration projects for the University of Illinois Animal Systems
team. He represents the University of Illinois on the Great Lakes Grazing Council and the Illinois Grasslands
Conservation Initiative Committee. He currently serves as liaison and farm manager for the University of
Illinois Dudley Smith Research Farm.
Ballard was also on the original executive committee that formed the HOAGC.
25
Moderator Biographies continued
Warren King
Pasture Project, Wallace Center at Winrock International
Warren King co-leads the Pasture Project, an initiative of the Wallace Center at Winrock International.
The Pasture Project is focused on accelerating shifts toward regenerative agriculture and improving farm
incomes in the Upper Midwest using cover crops, adaptive grazing and the marketing of grassfed beef. He
has 30 years of consulting and industry experience, including serving as Assistant Vice-President of Cargill,
Inc. and General Manager of Goodness Greenness. King and his wife, Kate, are the founders of WellSpring, a
company that promotes the stewardship of natural resources; particularly our land and water. King’s passion
for the land is rooted in his northern California upbringing and his work on the farm as a young man. He
possesses an MBA in Marketing from DePaul University and is a graduate of UC-Davis with degrees in
Economics and International Relations. King also serves on the boards of Kidz Express, The Food Commons,
and is a former chairman of FamilyFarmed. Today, his work centers on developing the capacity and resiliency
of regional and urban food systems to deliver products and services that will protect and enhance the health
of people and the planet.
Elton Mau,
McLean County Sheep Farmer
Elton Mau was raised on a successful conventional corn & soybean farm with sheep as his 4-H project. He
graduated from Illinois State University with a major in Agriculture and a major in Business. He worked in
agriculture, construction and owns rental properties to be able to save up his money to buy his first farm of
7.5 acres. At that point, Mau started back in the sheep business with six bred ewes. Eventually, he bought
the rest of the 80 acres and started no-till farming with cover crops. By keeping a living root in the ground
365 days a year he has been able to expand his flock to the current 126 ewes. He has highly prolific grass
based genetics in his sheep that consistently have a 98 percent conception rate with a 200 percent lamb
crop sonogramed inside the ewes. Therefore, when they lamb in May, out on pasture and by themselves, the
forage must be dairy quality to support the ewe and her multiple lambs. Mau has used perennial pastures,
summer annuals, winter annuals and crop residue/cover crops to raise and finish the lamb crop that is
marketed before Christmas. He has a 4-year rotation of corn/cereal rye, soybeans/wheat, wheat/winter
annuals and the 4th year is the regrowth of cereal rye/summer annuals. Hay is made off of the excess growth
of spring forage and the four free farmsteads that he also grazes with the old ewe flock after weaning and up
to breeding in Dec. In 2017, Mau grazed up to Jan. 16 before starting to feed baleage and dry big round hay
bales. The sheep will be on these until about April 1 when the regrowth of the cereal rye, in the corn stalk
field, will be tall enough to graze and lamb out the ewes on.
Mau has had several pasture walks on his farm, is President of the Illinois Lamb and Wool Producers, and is
involved in several local organizations. He lives in McLean County with his wife. All four of their daughters
had sheep as their 4-H projects.
26