[Carpenter] Warm vs. Cool season for cattle

[Kevin N Carpenter]

Paul -

I've come across Kansas studies around cattle weight gain on warm season 
grasses showing it similar to fescue that has been mildly infected with 
the common fungus is suffers from.  e.g. Not as good as prime pasture, 
but equal to most pasture.  Seasonality is an issue since cool season 
grasses have a longer growing season (or at least do so twice a year in 
spring and fall vs. mostly during warmer weather).

For warm season grasses we would shoot for a native prairie mix similar 
to what is growing across the road on the Shoop prairie.  Cool season 
would be represented by the current mix of fescue and similar grasses 
present.

Nothing magic about 16 foot wide strips.  The field I'm thinking about 
is at least 500 feet wide so we have many options. 

The key to this study would be to see what forage the cattle prefer, 
given easy access to both.  I think it would be interesting.

Kevin

RATLIFF, PAUL G [AG/1000] wrote:
> Kevin,
> You might do a literature search and see if grazing and pasture
> preferences have been explored before.
>
> Very interesting.  What warm and cool season grasses are you
> contemplating?
>
> I agree for pasture performance or agronomic trait comparisons, strip
> trials are a very good way to get your side-by-side.
>
> For grazing preference though, I'd think you would want to seed larger
> stands due to the inability to sequester cattle on 16ft stands.
> I guess you could tell which had more browse pressure this way though.
>
> Keep us posted.
>
> Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carpenter-bounces at mysticplains.org
> [mailto:carpenter-bounces at mysticplains.org] On Behalf Of Kevin N
> Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:06 AM
> To: carpenter at mysticplains.org
> Subject: [Carpenter] Warm vs. Cool season for cattle
>
> I keep hearing pros and cons around warm season (e.g. Native) vs cool
>
> season grass nutrition and edibility for cattle.
>
> I was talking with Frank Oberle this afternoon, and we were knocking 
> around the idea of doing a side-by-side comparison in one my fields. 
>
> We originally talked about taking a field, perhaps my eastern one with 
> the large pond, and splitting it in half - 50% cool, 50% warm 
> (chemically treated to kill the fescue and broadcast seeded to augment 
> the present warm season species).
>
> When I think of most agricultural field test, they are done in strips.  
> I suspect that would make the most sense, since it would minimize local 
> variance such as sun exposure or soil conditions.  e.g.  If Frank had, 
> say, a 16' foot sprayer, we would process the field in 16' strips, 
> alternating cool and warm seasons strips (presumably, once sprayed, it 
> would quickly become obvious where the fescue was for later seeding).  I
>
> have not talked to Frank about this crazy idea yet, other than via this 
> e-mail.  Of course, wider strips or zones would work too, but I think 
> having 10 or so of each in the field would make for better science.
>
> Once the fields were established, photo cronicals could be created as 
> well as cattle usage observations and manual inspections.  My guess is 
> there would be some seasonality to it as the various grasses hit their 
> prime.  Of other interest might be to see which invaded the other, given
>
> fair and equal initial footing.  I suppose "fair and equal" would be 
> tough to create since the fescue is already established - but than 
> again, so are some of the warm seasons.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Seems like the results would be something of interest to the scientific 
> and prairie restoration folks.  Maybe their might be some cost share to 
> help with the experiment?
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Carpenter mailing list
> Carpenter at mysticplains.org
> http://www.seaplace.org/mailman/listinfo/carpenter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use of this e-mail by you is strictly prohibited.
>
>
> All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading and archival by Monsanto, including its subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware". Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage caused by any such code transmitted by or accompanying this e-mail or any attachment.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>