Knee Deep in Grass

Pasture Development

Pastures were developed for MIG by improving pastures that had been continuously grazed, pasturing old hayland and directly converting cropland to pasture. All farms but two that have grazed intensively for over 20 years have used one or more processes to develop their pastures.

Existing Pastures

Eleven farmers said that they had improved existing pastures or were in the process of doing so. Forage species were altered by using frost seeding, managed grazing and no-till drills to introduce or select for desired plant species. Graziers noted that Kentucky bluegrass and white clover were overwhelmingly the predominant species present in their pastures while grazing continuously. Since adopting MIG, all of the 11 reported that species diversification has increased both with and without overseeding pastures. Many stated that red clover is now a predominant species along with Kentucky bluegrass and white clover. Respondents indicated that red clover, orchardgrass, timothy, smooth bromegrass, birdsfoot trefoil, reed canarygrass, Kentucky bluegrass and white clover presently are or are expected to be the desired species in their renovated pastures.

Converting Hayland

Twelve farmers reported developing pasture from land previously used for hay production. Managed grazing and reliance on the natural seed bank for species diversification was the norm. However, frost seeding and no-till drills were occasionally used. Desired forage species included red clover, alsike clover, ladino clover, birdsfoot trefoil, orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass, reed canarygrass, timothy and quackgrass (see section on other forage species below for more information on quackgrass). Pastures developed from hayland had higher occurrences of quackgrass along with understandably higher occurrences of alfalfa than those developed from existing pasture or cropland. Red clover, orchardgrass and alfalfa were predominant in the converted hayland pastures. However, forage species varied depending upon frost seeding levels and alfalfa stand density.

Converting Cropland

Fifteen farmers had converted cropland to pasture. Seeding after tillage was the most common method of establishing pasture. One farmer did not seed or till, relying exclusively on the natural seed bank for establishment. Nurse crops of oats and perennial or annual ryegrasses often accompanied seedings. Planted and desired species were the same as those listed as desirable above. Predominant species usually included red clover, orchardgrass, timothy and smooth bromegrass.

Other Forage Species

Pasture mixes, albeit somewhat different species and proportions, were used by most graziers. Desired species not found in commercially available mixtures were added individually. Forage species seeded and not recognized earlier as common species include tall fescue, puna chicory and sweet clover.

Several graziers indicated that they liked quackgrass as a pasture forage. One grazier said, "Despite its classification as a noxious weed, I often encouraged its establishment because it is durable and has high RFVs and CP levels." A few graziers reported adding it to their pasture mixes.

Methods of Changing Forage Species

Frostseeding was commonly used by graziers to introduce red clover into existing pastures and old hayland. Orchardgrass, as well as other grasses and legumes, were occasionally frostseeded. Seeding was accomplished by dispersing seeds on the soil surface or sometimes on the last of the snow. Many graziers indicated that they usually begin to frostseed at the end of March. Soil-to-seed contact was made by the freezing and thawing actions of the soil. According to several graziers, frostseeding appeared very effective in establishing red clover.

Grazing was often managed to encourage or discourage the growth of specific forage species. Graziers said that by knowing the growth and regrowth characteristics of forage species they were able to change the density of many species. This was most commonly done to rid pastures of undesired species. A few graziers reported using no-till drills to introduce grass species in existing pastures and old hayland. No-till drills were typically rented from agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service. Reported effectiveness was mixed. Some graziers were very pleased with the results; others were not. Conventional drills were commonly used to seed cropland being directly converted to pasture.

Establishment of birdsfoot trefoil was challenging for most graziers interviewed. Some graziers fed birdsfoot trefoil seed in mineral or concentrate supplements to encourage seed dispersion. It was also felt that the manure would stimulate germination and provide some protection from grazing because cattle usually avoid manured areas for a short length of time.

Herd Management

• smaller, which they believed resulted in less damage to pastures;
• better able to withstand heat and flies; and
• easier to breed back, which is important for seasonally freshened herds.

Graziers were asked to describe pasture supplementation and parasite prevention and control practices, as well as current and planned calving intervals.

Herd Composition

The 29 graziers reported milking a total of 1,673 cows at survey time. Approximately 90.2% (1,509) were Holsteins. Jersey and Aryshire breeds each represented roughly 3.5% (59) of the total. Brown Swiss were 1% (17) of the total. Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn and mixed breeds were each about 0.5%. The percentage of calves on milk, dry cows, steers and bred heifers was similar in all farms surveyed. However, there were slight differences in the make-up of heifer calves. The differences include Holsteins decreasing by about 3.2% (from 90.2% to 87%) and an increase in mixed breeds by 8.3% (from 0.6% to 8.9%). There appeared to be a trend away from Holsteins toward crosses and mixed breeds, although Holsteins are still the dominant breed.

Despite a shift from pure Holsteins, they remained a part of almost all crosses and mixed breeds. These included :

• Brown Swiss x Holstein x Dutch Belted
• Holstein x Dutch Belted x Milking Shorthorn
• Holstein x Dutch Belted
• Holstein x Aryshire
• Holstein x Angus

Pasture Supplementation

Twenty-seven farmers reported providing concentrate-type supplements for their milking group while on pasture. Two graziers indicated they provided mineral supplementation only.

The supplementation levels and feedstuffs used varied among the farms. All 27 graziers who provided supplemental feed intentionally supplemented to increase energy levels in the diet. Most indicated that they provided supplemental energy to increase milk production levels. A few graziers also believed that increased energy levels improved reproduction. One grazier said, "Cattle will settle better if they are fed some extra energy." Corn was the most common source of energy provided, but other sources included oats, barley and liquid fat. Approximately one-half (14) of the graziers fed hay, haylage or corn silage to increase dry matter intake and maintain rumen function.

Most graziers believed that protein levels in pasture forages or supplemented forages were adequate to meet protein requirements. However, six graziers indicated that they provide bypass protein supplements to their milking herd. Bypass protein sources fed include roasted soybeans, soybean meal, distillers grains, wheat middlings and sunflower seeds.

All 29 farmers said they provided mineral and salt supplementation. Most graziers said they force fed at least a portion of the mineral and salt supplement with the concentrate; the balance was fed free choice. There were several graziers who supplied all minerals and salt free choice. Six graziers indicated they fed anti-bloat products. Four graziers reported feeding their entire supplementation as a total mixed ration (TMR). The following is a grouping of common feedstuffs and levels used:

Other rations reportedly fed during the grazing season include:

• 20 lb. corn, 25 lb. haylage
• 16 lb. corn, 12 lb. corn silage, 1 lb. distillers grain, 0.5 SBM, 0.75 liquid fat
• 18 lb. ear corn, 15 lb. corn silage, 3 lb. hay
• 10-30 lb. haylage, 14-15 lb. of 12% protein concentrate
• 6 lb. oats, 2 lb. wheat middlings
• 7 lb. oats, 3 lb. broken roasted soybeans, 3 lb. distillers grain
• 12 lb. corn and barley, 15 lb. corn silage, 10 lb. hay
• 20-22 lb. corn, soy hulls and roasted soybeans, 25 lb. corn silage

A direct correlation between supplementation levels and milk production levels did not appear. Stocking rates with supplementation and milk production levels were also examined but, again, no reportable conclusions could be drawn.

Herd Health

Other controls used include diatomaceous earth for deworming and using chickens to control flies. Six farms reportedly had no parasite prevention or control program in use. Several farmers were not using conventional parasite control programs and some didn't use any in order to sell milk labeled as organic.

Several graziers said that herd health has improved significantly since adopting MIG. One respondent said, "Since I began grazing my cows, I've forgotten the name of my veterinarian." Benefits noted include reduced incidence of diseases such as mastitis and improved feet, resulting in less hoof trimming.

Current and Planned Calving Interval

Graziers with seasonally freshened herds and those in transition to seasonally freshened herds, reported their planned calving interval was 12 months. Most other graziers indicated the same. Seven farmers said they currently had a 12-month calving interval. A current calving interval of 12 1/2 - 13 months was the current calving interval reported by most of the remaining graziers.

Manure Management

As mentioned earlier, most graziers consider the decreased amount of manure handling to be a significant benefit of MIG. The manure that did need to be removed from barns or lots was reportedly spread on cropland (19), pastures (13) and hayland (8). The manure was hauled in the fall (22), winter (9), spring (8) and summer (4). Few graziers reported applying manure on pastures during the grazing season; those that did reported pasture rejection lengths which ranged from 0 to 2 months. Most agreed that typical rejection lengths ranged between 2-4 weeks. Graziers noted rejection periods are affected by weather and form of manure application (solid, semi-solid, liquid or composted).

"Since I began Grazing my cows, I've forgotten the name of my veterinarian."

Equipment

In general, graziers said they eliminated the use of some equipment and reduced the operational time of most equipment still in use. For example, several farmers eliminated the use of upright silos as well as row crop production equipment. Most equipment savings resulted from the reduced amounts of feed harvesting, storage, processing and manure handling. Information about specific changes in equipment use for all farms was not documented because it did not seem particularly useful. However, specific information about types of fencing and watering equipment in use was reported. Most agreed that fencing and watering cattle in a grazing system has been simplified because of technological advances in wire, fence posts, fence chargers, water lines and coupling devices.

Fencing Equipment

Graziers reported using many types of wire and posts in both permanent and temporary fences. High tensile and smooth steel wire were used by many graziers for perimeter and other permanent (paddock layout) fencing. Perimeter fences in pastures previously continuously grazed often consisted of woven and barbed wire. Some other types of wire used for permanent fencing include maxi-shock, aluminum, used telephone wire and poly wire. Poly wire was used to do most temporary fencing (cross wires); poly tape and smooth wire were occasionally used.

Graziers reported that wood and steel posts were commonly used for permanent fencing. Plastic, fiberglass and steel T-posts were usually used for temporary fencing. Other fence posts used include steel rebar, eucalyptus posts (without insulators) and Fiberglass ^TM rods discarded from the oil industry.

All but four graziers said they were using low impedance-type fencers. Reported advantages were the ability to use them with poly wire and tape, durability and ability to function when wire is in contact with plants or the soil surface.

Estimated fencing costs for the implementation of MIG ranged from $0 - $11,000 per farm. The average spent on fencing was $2,221. This amount depended upon existing levels of fencing equipment in use or present on the farm, size of pasture and paddock design. In some cases, post pounders, lane construction and fencer energizer costs were included. Costs were generally higher for those without existing pastures.

Watering Equipment

Graziers supplying water in the pasture usually purchased some new equipment. Supplying water with 3/4" to 1" black plastic pipe appeared to be the standard. Water lines were generally laid on the ground surface. Buried lines were reported by a few respondents. Most water lines were equipped with quick coupling devices to allow fast and easy attachment to garden hoses connecting to water tanks. Half barrels equipped with automatic floats were commonly used for both portable and stationary water tanks.

Respondents reported spending an estimated average of $627 on watering equipment; estimates ranged from $0 to $5,000.

Labor Changes

Reported chore time estimates were used to analyze the effect of MIG on dairy chore labor requirements. Estimates were used from farms whose herd size, labor force, equipment and facilities remained similar. Graziers also reported changes in whole farm labor requirements. Changes in labor force, equipment, facilities, alternative enterprises and farm size complicated analysis of the effect of MIG on labor requirements.

Summer Labor Needs

Changes in summertime labor requirements (difference between before and after MIG) ranged from +1.5 - 6.0/adult worker hours/day. On two farms there was an increase in summer labor requirements; on four farms there was no change and on nine farms there were small decreases. On the remaining 14 farms other circumstances prevented analyzing the specific affect of MIG on the labor needs.

"Now the cattle work for us, instead of us working for them."

Graziers reported saving labor from decreases in feeding, feed processing and manure handling time. One grazier commented, "Now the cattle work for us, instead of us working for them."

The survey inadequately addressed calving labor requirements for farms that freshen herds seasonally. The survey also failed to fully consider the labor needs for all-at-once calving. Therefore responses concerning summer labor savings may be distortedly large on some farms.

Winter Labor Needs

Labor requirements changed only on farms that had seasonally freshened herds or farms in the process of changing to seasonally freshened herds. Labor savings resulted not only from decreased milking time but also from the reduced feeding and manure handling time associated with dry cows versus fresh cows. Time savings ranged from 0 - 9 adult worker hours/day. The percentage of the herd producing was a major factor.

The Period of Transition to MIG

Often labor requirements increased as farms made the transition to MIG. Initially, extra time is needed for fencing, installing watering systems, seeding pastures and developing a new chore routine. Almost all agreed that as they gained experience, chore time decreased.

Whole Farm

Fifteen graziers reported whole farm labor requirements decreased significantly because of grazing. Many farmers reduced or eliminated cropland, often in favor of pasture. The reduced amount of cropland was responsible for the bulk of the time savings on many farms. It simply reduced or eliminated the time spent planting and harvesting crops and time spent repairing equipment. Labor requirements were reportedly reduced a little on four farms. Seven farms indicated labor needs remained the same. Two farms reported that labor needs increased significantly and one said they increased a little.

Again, some farmers' need for labor changed for reasons other than MIG. For example, several farms expanded their herd size.

One grazier pointed out that, despite the significantly reduced need for labor on his farm, he was still keeping busy. He stressed, however, that MIG has changed the type of work on his farm. He and others indicated they have substituted management for physical labor.

Changes in Daily Tasks

The changes in daily tasks were noted as being much greater than changes in labor time savings. While impossible to place a numerical value on changes in tasks, many respondents viewed it as necessary for an improved quality of life.

Job Changes

Changes in the chore routine seemed to enthuse respondents more than time savings. Reduced amounts of physical and repetitious labor was recognized as one of the biggest benefits of MIG. Chores such as harvesting feed, manure handling, equipment maintenance, hoof trimming, etc., were reportedly reduced or eliminated on all farms in the study. In short, management duties have, in many cases, replaced those of a physical labor nature. Graziers frequently said that they enjoy the new challenges of managing cattle and pastures together. Respondents stated that they now have time to make actual management decisions since they have reduced much of the repetitive work. For example, one grazier noted that instead of raking hay or hauling manure he could focus on things like pasture supplementation or breeding schedules.

Time Off

Taking time off from the farm is more of an option since adopting MIG, according to some graziers. Hiring temporary labor while on vacation has become easier because of the reduced labor needs and concerns about equipment functioning properly. In general, graziers stated that finding qualified relief milkers is easier if there is less equipment to operate.

Responsibility Changes

Twenty graziers said there had been changes in their roles and responsibilities in the last five years. Nine farms said that there had been no recent changes. Ten of the 20 said that changes in their roles were the result of their changing family structure. These farms were either in transition between generations or respondents' young children were reaching the age when they could do chores. Five indicated that MIG has changed their roles and responsibilities. Four stated that changes in their spouse's off-farm employment have affected their roles.

Twenty-two graziers anticipated changes in their roles and responsibilities in the near future and seven said they did not expect any changes. Ten respondents expected changes in their family structure to change their responsibilities. This included farm transfers and an increase in available labor from maturing children. Four farmers said that expanding the herd size would affect their responsibilities. Four graziers expected physical labor requirements to be reduced and replaced by management duties. Other changes included hiring additional help, spending more time with their families and direct-marketing farm commodities.