BULLETIN No. 296 JUNE 1955 ECONOMICS of PASTURES i FEEDING SYSTEMS or DAIRY COWS 4 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION INSTITUTE POLYTECHNIC /de ALABAMA E. V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabama In cooperation with PRODUCTION ECONOMICS RESEARCH BRANCH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE of AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT UNITED STATES CONTENTS INTRODUCTION------------------------------- 3 Procedure--------------------------------- ------ 4 COSTS AND POTENTIAL FEEDING VALUE OF SELECTED GRAZING CROPS---------------------------------- 6 Costs----------------------------------------6 Production of Forage----------------------------7 Forage Available for Grazing----- ---------------- 8 Digestible Nutrients in Available Grazing------------Digestible Nutrients Available for Milk Production-------9 Potential Milk Production per Acre 9 ----------------- 11 POTENTIAL ECONOMY OF FEEDING CONCENTRATES WITH AMPLE GRAZING--------------------------------------OTHER FORAGES-----------------------------16 13 16 CONSIDERATION OF FORAGES IN FEEDING SYSTEMS -------------- Utilizing Surplus Pasture Forage -------------------------------- 25 SUMMARY--------------------------------------------------------------------26 ACKOWLEDGMENTS----- ---------------------------------------------------- 28 APPENDIX---------------28- FIRST PRINTING 3M, JUNE 1955 ECONOMICS SYSTEMS of PASTURES i FEEDING /,r DAIRY COWS* WADE F. GREGORY, Associate Agricultural Economist** INTRODUCTION FARMING is a very old form of agriculture. Even so, less scientific information on production and utilization of forage crops has been accumulated than for most other crops. However, in the South as elsewhere, production scientists are learning how to produce high yields of good quality forage; they are also learning the technical aspects of utilizing these crops. Plant and animal scientists, working together, have shown that high levels of livestock production often can be obtained from pastures. In most areas of the South, large numbers of farmers in recent years have placed major emphasis on pastures and livestock in their farming systems. Many other farmers in the South are interested in the possibilities of adding pastures and livestock to their present farming systems as a supplement to cash crops. The increased interest in pasture crops and livestock has resulted from several factors. In some areas, cotton has lost some of its competitive position in bidding for farm resources. Many people have left southern farms for nonfarm jobs. Farm wage rates are high and many farms are not adapted to complete mechanization. GRASSLAND *This report is based on the results of part of an over-all study that is intended to provide farmers with information that will help them decide on adjustments in farming in view of changing conditions in the economy as a whole. The over-all study undertakes to compare the income potentialities of various systems of farming and emphasizes systems that feature forage crops and livestock. The study is being cooperatively planned, executed, and financed by the A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station and the Production Economics Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. ** Cooperatively employed by the A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station and the Production Economics Research Branch, A.R.S., U. S. Department of Agriculture. The over-all study is being carried out under the general supervision of E. L. Langsford, Production Economics Research Branch, A.R.S., U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Ben F. Alvord, Department of Agricultural Economics, A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station. 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Numerous new and improved forage crops and improved pasture production practices have been developed in recent years. The demand for meat, milk, and eggs is increasing in the South because of its growing population, increasing urbanization, and higher per capita incomes. Conservation farming is getting more attention. All of these developments tend to improve the competitive position of livestock in the South's farming systems. Because of these and other changes in the economy of the South, farmers need and want information pertaining to the best forage crops and combinations of crops and feeds to use in developing livestock systems for individual farms and areas. This report contains the results of comparisons of several feeding systems used for dairy cows and an appraisal of selected individual pasture crops and combinations of pasture crops and hand-fed feeds. It is designed especially to aid in determining which pasture crops or combination of pasture crops and feeds will give the most economical feeding system for an individual situation. Similar analyses will need to be made for other crops and production practices as they are developed and as data become available. PROCEDURE Basic farm production and cost data were obtained for 1948-51 on a group of dairy farms in the Piedmont Area of Alabama. These were typical of most farms in the area with regard to land resources, nearness to market, and accessibility to technical assistance. With respect to pasture and livestock management practices used, however, the operations of these farms were above average. Information on dairy enterprises and on costs, production, and use of grazing crops was emphasized in collecting data on farm operations. Monthly yields of forages were estimated for several months of the period studied by making clippings from areas protected from grazing by wire cages. Four hundred cages were located in pastures on 40 different farms so that all of the important grazing crops grown on these farms would be sampled under the variety of conditions that existed in the Piedmont Area of the State.' Representative samples of clipped forages were hot-air 1 Caged locations were changed every 28 days. ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 5 dried to determine the dry-matter content of the green forage. The plant composition of the various samples were determined, and "normal yields" were calculated on both green and dry-matter basis. Unusually cold weather prevailed during some months of the study and zero yields resulted. These were adjusted to "normal yields" by referring to the results of controlled experiments, such as variety trials, time of planting tests, and legume-grass compatibility tests, and to the judgment of production specialists. The estimates of forage quality were made with reference to digestibility coefficients calculated from results of grazing experiments currently in progress in another area of the State.2 Although the quality of forage is affected by several factors, digestibility and fiber content were the only factors considered directly in this analysis because they represented the major differences among the feeds studied. Total digestible nutrients (TDN) and digestible dry matter were considered to be synonymous in this study. Because of the similarity of the rations studied, digestible nutrients from all sources were considered equally effective in providing energy for maintenance and milk production. The limit of feed intake by dairy cows was assumed to be either 3 pounds of total dry matter or 0.6 pound of crude fiber per day per 100 pounds of body weight, whichever was reached first. Thus, it was assumed that 850-pound cows, which were used as the basis for calculations in this study, could consume forage containing approximately 25 pounds of dry matter per day, except for fibrous forages like sericea. Dry matter intake of sericea was limited to 21.3 pounds per day because that quantity of dry matter from sericea contained about 5.1 pounds of fiber. Therefore, feed intake of sericea was limited by fiber content rather than by total dry matter. The rations in which the forages were fed were assumed to be nutritionally adequate. Regardless of the different forages consumed and the different quantities of milk produced, it was assumed that TDN requirements for body maintenance and milk production did not differ significantly. Requirements of TDN 2 The estimates for all forages except sericea were made by W. B. Anthony of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Nutrition, based on his knowledge of pastures as gained from work in conducting digestibility tests. Research conducted on the digestibility of sericea hay by George E. Hawkins, Jr., of the Dairy Husbandry Department formed the basis for the estimates of sericea digestibility. 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION were assumed to be 6.9 pounds per cow daily for maintenance and 0.32 pound for the production of each pound of milk.3 COSTS POTENTIAL FEEDING VALUE oF SELECTED GRAZING CROPS AND Six forages, (1) white clover-Dallisgrass, (2) white clovercarpetgrass, (3)Ladino-fescue, (4) sericea, (5) annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass, and (6) reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass, were studied and are discussed in detail in this report. These represented situations on Piedmont dairy farms. CosTs Establishment and maintenance costs for each of these forages varied with conditions. However, general cost comparisons for five of the forages were estimated from costs of practices recommended for their establishment and maintenance, Table 1 and Appendix Tables 1 and 2. Since white clover-carpetgrass was not a recommended forage for improved pastures, no list of recommended practices for this forage was available. Therefore, costs could not be calculated on a comparable basis with costs for the other forages. TABLE 1. ESTIMATED PER ACRE COSTS FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING SELECTED FORAGES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Establishment costs Kind of forage Total Prorated over 5 Annual maintenance years costs Indirect costs Total annual costs Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars White clover-Dallisgrass 47.20 9.44 11.60 6.80 27.84 Ladino-fescue 49.70 9.94 11.60 6.86 28.40 Sericea 30.60 6.12 9.60 4.88 20.60 2 Annual crimson-ryegrass 12.00 2.40 41.72 5.92 50.04 Reseeding crimsonBermudagrass 35.35 7.07 11.60 6.50 25.17 1 Includes interest and taxes on land, fence repairs and depreciation, and interest on half of the costs of establishment. 2 All costs for annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass, except lime, are annual costs. Therefore, only the cost of lime is figured as an establishment cost; the remaining costs are listed under annual maintenance since they are incurred every year. Company. 'Morrison, F. B. "Feeds and Feeding." 21st Edition. Ithaca, New York. Appendix Table III. 1949. Morrison Publishing ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 7 The annual per acre costs for sericea were substantially less than those for the other forages. The costs for annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass were much higher than those for the other forage crops because of the additional expenses annually for land preparation, seed, and nitrogen. PRODUCTION OF FORAGE Production of forage can be measured by several methods. One of these is total production of dry matter, which represents what would be obtained by monthly clippings. None of the forages studied produced a net growth in every month of the year, Table 2. Production was usually low during the winter months, even for winter-hardy crimson and ryegrass. Of the forages studied, white clover-Dallisgrass had the highest total production; about 92 per cent of its production, however, was concentrated in 6 months. Ladino-fescue was second in total quantity, but the production was better distributed.4 Production of Ladinofescue was substantial during 8 months of the year, and the month of maximum production accounted for only 19 per cent of the TABLE 2. ESTIMATED YIELDS OF DRY MATTER PER ACRE FROM SELECTED FORAGES, BY MONTHS, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Month White cloverPounds -300 White cloverPounds ---- Ladino escue Pounds 205 Sericea Pounds -500 837 1,644 1,383 Annual Reseeding crimson- crimson-Berryegrass mudagrass Dallisgrass carpetgrass January Pounds 1,700 2,000 1,000 800 Pounds 500 February March April May June 50 570 611 621 539 1,700 ... .. 652 800 1,038 2,324 1,793 989 1,749 1,158 July August September October November December TOTAL 1,683 1,681 1,103 490 __120 10,412 955 1,105 968 501 1,499 1,086 1,201 568 89 9,153 1,482 1,286 904 ... 7,536 5,881 __ 200 800 600 7,600 _ .. 1,054 1,396 1,877 825 8,304 'Estimated yields with recommended establishment and maintenance practices for all forages except white clover-carpetgrass, for which yields are with usual farm practices. SReference to this combination throughout the bulletin refers to a balanced mixture. This is defined as one in which neither forage makes up less than 40 per cent or more than 60 per cent of the mixture. 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION total. Crimson clover mixtures gave less total production, but tended to provide more winter grazing than did the other forages. Annually seeded crimson clover with ryegrass left a midsummer gap in grazing of about 4 months. Reseeding crimson clover with Bermudagrass provided little growth for grazing during November and December, and left an early summer gap between the time that crimson clover began developing seed and before Bermudagrass came into full production.5 The quantity of dry matter produced by white clover-carpetgrass was only slightly more than half of that produced by white clover-Dallisgrass, and it was no better distributed throughout the year. FORAGE AVAILABLE FOR GRAZING Even with the best management of cattle and use of a "putand-take" system, it is impossible for cattle to utilize the entire growth of forages through grazing because of tramping, fouling, and other factors. Therefore, it was assumed that only 65 per cent of each month's growth was actually available for grazing, TABLE 8. ESTIMATED DRY MATTER PER ACRE "AVAILABLE FOR GRAZING" FROM SELECTED FORAGES, BY MONTHS, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Month White White clover cloverDallisgrass carpetgrass Sericea Annual Reseeding crimson- crimson-Berryegrass mudagrass Pounds February Pounds 88 870 897 404 621 718 629 826 8,498 Pounds 188 Pounds __ 544 1,069 899 963 886 587 __ January... 195 675 1,511 1,165 1,094 1,098 717 818 Pounds 825 520 Pounds 825 520 March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL 6 850 643 1,1387 753 974 706 781 869 78 5,949 1,105 1,800 650 1,105 424 685 908 895 -25 6,768 --- __ 4,898 180 520 890 4,940 586 ... . 5,898 Forage was produced in April and May, but it was not considered available for grazing if the crimson clover was to reseed. Since these data were collected, there is evidence to indicate that crimson clover will reseed even though it is grazed during April and May. ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 9 6 Table 3. Obviously, distribution of the forages available for grazing followed the pattern of total production shown in Table 2. DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS IN AVAILABLE GRAZING Largely because of their digestibility, different forages and the same forages in different stages of growth varied in respect to feeding value (TDN) per pound of dry matter, Table 4. The two forages with the highest yearly average coefficient of digestibility, white clover-Dallisgrass and annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass, had the most uneven seasonal production. White clovercaxpetgrass and sericea averaged about 62 and 47 per cent digestible. Since these two forages were rather low in total production of forage, their production of digestible nutrients also was quite low. In fact, they produced less than half as much digestible nutrients as white clover-Dallisgrass, the most productive forage. The Ladino-fescue mixture for which digestibility is reported here was obtained from pastures managed in such a way that a balance between the clover and fescue was maintained. If the pastures had been predominantly fescue, both the digestibility of the forage and the nutrient yield per acre would have been much less than indicated. 7 DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS AVAILABLE FOR MILK PRODUCTION The quantity of nutrients from grazing that a cow can use daily for the production of milk depends on her intake of feed, digestibility of the forage consumed, and the amount of nutrients required for body maintenance. Since daily maintenance requirements for 850-pound cows were 6.9 pounds of TDN, and since 850-pound cows could consume 25 pounds of dry matter daily from five of the forages considered (provided the forage was available), the nutrients available for production of milk varied directly with digestibility of the forages consumed. Both the digestibility and maximum daily intake of sericea were low; this combination limited the daily amount of TDN available for milk production from sericea to 3.1 pounds. This was less than onefourth that from most of the other forages in succulent stages of e Inthe remainder of this report, except in the section "Consideration of Forages in Feeding Systems," a "put-and-take" system (cattle are "put on" or "taken off" the forage) is used so that all the forage "available for grazing" is assumed to be utilized. 'See McCullough, M. E., Neville, W. E., Jr., and Sell, O. E. "The Suitability and Utilization of Winter Forages for Dairy Cattle." Mimeo Series 62. Ga. Agr. Expt. Sta. January 1953. O TABLE 4. ESTIMATED DIGESTIBILITY AND TDN PERaiACRE "AVAILABLE FOR GRIAZING" FROM SELECTED FORAGES, BY MONTHS, 1 PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA White cloverMonth White clovercarpetgrass Ladino-fescue Sericea2 Annual crimsonryegrass Reseeding crimsonBermudagrass January February_-- PercentPercentTDN age diTDN age diTDN gestible gestible Per cent Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Pounds _ _ _ -_Percentage digestible 7 10 Dallisgrass PercentTDN age digestible Percent Pounds _ -__ 47 47 47 Percentage digestible 78 78 TDN Percentage digestible TDN Percent Pounds Per cent Pounds 254 406 78 78 254 406 March April May 75 75 74 73 146 506 1,118 850 75 70 71 68 25 259 282 275 75 75 71 69 262 482 807 520 __ 256 502 423 75 70 65 829 910 422 75 - 829 June July August September October __ 65 276 -IC rm 788 72 65 710 466 65 ------65 207 65 58 5555 404 416 846 179 65 60 58 68 --- 70 --- 70 67 688 424 453 251 55 18 4,009 47 47 47 --47 453 398 276 ---- _-__ __ 78 78 78 74 __ _-__ 62 55 56 58 425 499 501 811 101 406 November December TOTAL OR AVERAGE 71 4,791 62 --2,808 804 8,682 --65 x 8,501 -v 2,186 m maturity, and growth made during the previous 28 days.° 2 Some recent experiments indicate that the digestibility of sericea is not constant. These estimates were arrived at after due consideration was given to such factors as plant composition of the forage, stage of z ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 11 growth, Table 5. Moreover, in all months for two of the forages, and in all months except three for white clover-carpetgrass mixture and four for reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass, the amount of nutrients available for milk production from grazing was more than three times that of sericea. TABLE 5. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM TDN AVAILABLE DAILY FOR MILK PRODUCTION FROM A FULL RATION OF GRAZING BY 850-POUND Cows, SELECTED FORAGES, BY MONTHS, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA 1 White Pounds January February March April May June July August September October November 11.85 11.85 11.60 11.35 11.10 9.35 9.35 9.35 .. White Pounds . . 11.85 10.60 10.85 10.10 9.35 7.60 6.85 6.85 - LadinAnnual LadinoSericea Reseeding crimson- crimson-Berryegrass mudagrass cloverMonth clover Dallisgrass carpetgrass Pounds . 12.60 11.85 11,85 10.85 10.85 9.35 8.10 7.60 10.10 10.60 Pounds ... ._ 8.11 3.11 8.11 3.11 8.11 3.11 Pounds 12.60 12.60 11.85 10.60 9.85 __ Pounds 12.60 12.60 11.85 9.85 8.60 6.85 7.10 12.60 12.60 7.60 December -10.60 12.60 1 To convert to daily milk production, multiply TDN available for production by 3.125. Daily intake of dry matter was 25 pounds for all forages studied except sericea; for sericea, the maximum daily intake of dry matter was 21.3 pounds because of its high fiber content. Maintenance was assumed to require 6.9 pounds of TDN. Therefore, total daily TDN consumption was in each instance 6.9 pounds more than the amount utilizable for milk production. This table shows the variation in forage quality and is not concerned with quantity of forage produced. POTENTIAL MILK PRODUCTION PER ACRE Potential production of milk per acre depends on the amount of TDN available for milk production per cow (Table 5) and the stocking rate per acre (Table 6), assuming that cows can convert the available TDN to milk.8 Of the forages studied, sericea provided the lowest average potential production per month and furnished grazing for the fewest number of months. It could help fill gaps if it complemented crimson clover mixtures. However, if any of the other SMilk throughout this report is 4 per cent butterfat equivalent. 12 TABLE 6. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ESTIMATED MAXIMUM CARRYING CAPACITY PER ACRE FROM I SELECTED FORAGES, BY MONTHS, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Month White White clovercloverDallisgrass carpetgrass Number Number Number __ Annual crimsonSericea fescueLadnoryegrass Number _ 0.4 Reseeding crimson-Bermudagrass Number Number 0.4 January February __ 0.2 2 .7 .7 March April May June July 0.3 .9 1.9 1.6 1.4 .5 .9 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.5 .5 .5 .8 1.7 .8 - -- -_ .6 August September October November December 1.4 1.0 .4 .9 .8 .4 .9 1.0 .5 .1 2 1.1 .8 _-- 1.2 1.2 .7 .2 .7 .5 .9 -- ' This table shows the number of cows needed each month to fully utilize the forage available for grazing. If fewer cows are stocked, some forage is wasted. For potential milk production, see Table 7. Figures are calculated on the assumption that 850-pound cows grazing their fill (25 pounds of dry matter for all forages except sericea) are used. 2 Less than 0.1. TABLE 7. ESTIMATED POTENTIAL MILK PRODUCTION PER ACRE FROM GRAZING ALONE BY 850-POUND COWS, SELECTED FORAGES, BY MONTHS, I PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA White Month clover- White clover LadinoSericea Annual fescue Pounds 197 518 Reseeding mudagrass Pounds 512 827 1,628 crimson- crimson-Ber- Dallisgrass carpetgrass Pounds Pounds 296 37 Pounds . 252 485 407 436 378 272 ------ January February March ryegrass Pounds 512 827 1,628 April May June July August September October November December 999 2,172 1,668 1,527 1,285 847 380 --- 496 542 506 730 690 535 278 -------- 962 1,526 969 1,189 708 738 474 99 1,721 759 _496 __ 197 827 680 726 770 799 500 complete utilization of available forage and that the inherent productive capacity of cows is not a limiting factor. "Assumes -33 - ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 13 summer or long-season forages could be grown, sericea would be relatively expensive grazing. White clover-carpetgrass had, under usual growing conditions, more milk potential than did sericea even when sericea was grown by following recommended practices. The potential of white clover-carpetgrass per acre, however, was much lower than the potential of the other four forages, Table 7. Potential production of milk from sericea averaged about 370 pounds per month for a period of only 6 months, whereas that from white clover-carpetgrass averaged about 475 pounds per month for an 8-month period, or 540 pounds for a 7-month period, and that from three of the other forages averaged about 900 pounds for 8 months. POTENTIAL ECONOMY or FEEDING CONCENTRATES WITH AMPLE GRAZING Concentrates are fed to high-producing cows on full grazing to increase their TDN intake and, consequently, their flow of milk. Therefore, when cows get their fill from grazed forage, the flow of milk can be increased by concentrate feed only when its percentage of digestibility exceeds that of the forage consumed. The greater the difference between the digestibility of the concentrate and that of the forage, the more milk flow will be increased by feeding the concentrate. The monthly digestibility coefficients for white clover-Dallisgrass, reseeding crimson cloverBermudagrass, and sericea covered the range in digestibility for all the forages studied. Therefore, conclusions regarding the economy of concentrate feeding while cattle were full grazing these forages may be applied to other forages. The concentrate used for comparison was crushed corn-cobhusk meal, which had a digestibility coefficient of about 70 per cent as fed, or about 78 per cent for the dry matter in the feed. However, when cows graze sericea and other low-protein forages, a higher protein concentrate than corn would be needed for enough protein to be supplied. This is especially true for high rates of milk production. Corn-cob-husk meal was readily available to most Piedmont farmers. Its digestibility was substantially greater than that of all forages in 1 or more months; it was considerably above that of white clover-carpetgrass in 3 months; and faxr above that of sericea in all months, Table 4. Probable effects on milk production from feeding concentrates at different levels with white clover-Dallisgrass and reseeding 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION crimson clover-Bermudagrass are shown in Table 8. From August through October, when pasture forage has a low coefficient of digestibility, the increase in milk production through the addition of crushed corn-cob-husk meal may be profitable, especially when the forage grazed is sericea or Bermudagrass. When cows graze sericea under conditions assumed in this study, each added pound of concentrates adds more than a pound of milk to production until about half of the TDN requirements are met by the concentrates, Table 9. Production of milk increases four-fifths of a pound with each added pound of concentrates even when concentrates provide four-fifths of the TDN. The high fiber content of sericea tends to reduce dry matter intake. Therefore, feeding of concentrates with sericea not only TABLE 8. ESTIMATED RATES OF MILK PRODUCTION WHEN CONCENTRATES ARE SUBSTITUTED FOR GRAZED FORAGE IN THE RATION OF FULL-FED, 850-PoUND Cows, SPECIFIED MONTHS, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA 25 lb. forage dry matter and Daily feed intake' 16 lb. forage dry 11.5 lb. forage dry matter and 10 matter and 15 Increased milk production for Month no concentrates lb. concentrates lb. concentrates each addiMilk tional lb. of TDN Milk TDN Milk TDN pro- conentrates from profrom rofrom duced forage duced forage forage duced Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 18.75 18.75 18.50 18.25 18.00 16.25 16.25 16.25 19.50 WHITE CLOVER-DALLISGRASS March April May June July August SSeptem ber October January 37.0 87.0 86.2 35.5 84.7 29.2 29.2 29.2 89.4 12.00 12.00 11.84 11.68 11.52 10.40 10.40 10.40 12.48 87.8 37.8 37.3 36.8 86.8 32.8 82.8 82.8 8.62 8.62 8.51 8.40 8.28 7.48 7.48 7.48 8.97 8.97 8.62 38.2 38.2 37.8 37.5 37.1 34.6 34.6 34.6 0.08 .08 .10 .14 .16 .86 .36 .86 RESEEDING CRIMSON CLOVER-BERMUDAGRASS February March April May- 19.50 18.75 - 39.4 37.0 --- 12.48 12.00 10.40 9.92 8.80 - 39.3 39.3 37.8 39.3 89.3 88.2 .08 June July August 32.8 7.48 84.6 .36 33.5 .44 31.83 7.183 27.8 31.0 6.82 .64 8.96 28.38 81.4 .61 September 14.00 22.2 6.44 29.83 82.1 .55 October 14.50 28.8 9.28 6.67 STwenty-five pounds of dry matter; forage, 100 per cent dry matter; concentrates, 90 per cent dry matter. Assumes that 1 pound of digestible dry matter from concentrates substitutes for 1 pound of digestible dry matter from pastures in determining feed intake. 16.25 15.50 13.75 29.2 26.9 21.4 ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 15 TABLE 9. ESTIMATED DAILY PRODUCTION OF MILK BY 850-POUND COWS CONSUMING VARIOUS QUANTITIES OF SERICEA AND CONCENTRATES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Daily intake per cow SeriFiber TDN TDN for daily milk Concen- cea produc- production trates' dry Concen- Seri- Total Concen- Seri- Total tion per cow matter trates cea trates cea Lb. 0 Lb. 21.3 Lb. - Lb. 5.1 Lb. 5.1 Lb. -- Lb. 9.16 8.82 6.66 4.97 Lb. 11.96 18.92 15.06 16.17 Lb. 8.11 Lb. 9.7 10.01 10.01 'A Maintenance requirements, 6.9 pounds. 2 4 8 12 16 19.5 17.7 14.2 10.6 0.4 .9 1.3 1.8 4.7 4.2 3.4 2.5 5.1 5.1 4.7' 4.38 2.8 5.6 8.4 11.2 5.06 7.02 8.16 9.27 15.8 21.9 25.5 29.0 14 per cent protein concentrate is needed to provide the protein required. 'Dry matter becomes a limiting factor when more than 9.0 pounds of concen- trates are fed. increases the digestibility of the ration but also increases the total TDN intake. The most profitable level of concentrate feeding while cows are grazing sericea depends on milk-feed price ratio, cost of growing sericea, and the productive ability of cows at the time they are grazing sericea. Under recent milk-feed price relationships, it would have paid to feed less than 10 pounds of mixed dairy feed daily per cow while they had access to ample sericea, Table 10. However, if TABLE 10. RELATIVE PROFITABLENESS OF FEEDING CONCENTRATES TO 850-PouND Cows GRAZING SERICEA WHEN INHERENT CAPACITY TO PRODUCE IS NOT A LIMITING FACTOR, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA' Concentrates Milk production Additional: Concen-Milk Milk trates Added milk Pounds Cost of additional Value of additional milk' fed 0 2 pounds of per pound of concentrates mixed dairy feed' Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 9.7-- Cents Cents 9.8 12.4 8.1 1.55 12.8 2 2 12.0 1.50 9.8 4 15.8 2 3.0 12.4 1.55 9.3 2 3.1 6 18.9 12.0 1.50 9.8 2 8.0 8 21.9 7.6 .95 9.3 2 1.9 10' 23.8 6.8 1.7 .85 9.3 12 25.5 2 7.2 9.3 1.8 .90 27.8 2 14 6.8 9.8 1.7 .85 29.0 2 16 xSee Table 9 for method of estimating milk production. ' Mixed dairy feed, $4.65 per 100 pounds. ' Milk, $4.00 per 100 pounds. SAfter 9 pounds of concentrates were fed, dry matter became a limiting factor. As concentrates were further substituted for sericea, the increase in energy was less than when fiber was the limiting factor because concentrates and sericea had about the same percentage of dry matter. 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION their capacity to produce did not exceed 10 pounds of milk per day, there would have been little need to feed any concentrates because the sericea could have been expected to provide for about that much production by 850-pound cows. The effectiveness of sericea for dry cows and replacement stock, however, has been demonstrated. OTHER FORAGES In this study, no attempt was made to consider all of the forages grown in the area. Forages in addition to those discussed may have an important place on many Piedmont farms. Some of these forages have periods of growth almost identical with those of the grazing crops studied; such crops, therefore, are more or less competitive. Soils, topography, and many other factors determine for individual farms the forages that are grown. There are several forages, however, that can provide grazing during periods of short pasture supply. These are sometimes referred to as "insurance" or "supplementary" grazing crops. Some of these are Sudangrass, millet, kudzu, alfalfa, and grain sorghum. Whether these crops should be included in a grazing program would depend on the comparative costs of feed from these and other forage crops and from harvested feeds. Sources of feed that give the highest-profit combination would determine whether to supplement the regular grazing program with harvested feeds or with other grazing. At present, adequate data concerning these other forages are not available in usable form for such an analysis. CONSIDERATION of FORAGES IN FEEDING SYSTEMS In previous sections of this report, production of individual forages has been considered in terms of (1) the pounds of digestible nutrients that could be grazed from each throughout the year, and (2) the amount of milk that could be produced if all of the available forage was grazed by high-producing, 850-pound cows. Each cow was assumed to be able to produce up to 40 pounds of milk per day provided the forage she could consume contained enough TDN for maintenance and that amount of production. Obviously, grazing is not fully utilized on many farms. The milking herd is usually constant during the year insofar as numbers are concerned, and the growth of any one forage usually ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 17 varies from nothing in some months to sufficient growth in other months to full-feed one or more high-producing cows per acre, Table 6. Because of the lactation curve, all cows are not in the 40-pound per day production class in each month of the year, or in each month when grazing is available. Therefore, in this section, an examination is made of the use of these forages, especially reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass, on a typical Piedmont dairy farm in Alabama. Cows in good herds in the Piedmont Area weigh about 850 pounds and produce an average of about 6,500 pounds of milk per year.9 Their production by months, after freshening, probably follows rather closely the standard lactation curve; thus, production is heaviest during the first 2 months after freshening and decreases during the next 8 months to the dry period at about the beginning of the eleventh month. The TDN requirements of 850-pound cows and their production are given in Table 11. These build up to 10-cow herd averages for spring and fall freshening as shown in Table 12. A 10-cow herd was used rather than the average size herd found on the farms studied so that the TABLE 11. MILK PRODUCTION AND TDN REQUIREMENTS, BY MONTHS FROM FRESHENING, FOR 850-POUND Cows HAVING THE CAPACITY TO PRODUCE 6,500 POUNDS OF 4 PER CENT FAT-CORRECTED MILK DURING A 10-MONTH LACTATION PERIOD, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Month from fresheningl Percentage each month's production is of total production' Monthly production per cow TDN required for: ProductionS Total monthly of milk Maintenance' TDN requirements Per cent 1 2 8 13.0 18.0 12.2 Pounds 845 845 793 Pounds 270 270 254 Pounds 207 207 207 Pounds 477 477 461 4 5 6 7 8 9 11.4 10.6 9.7 8.8 7.9 7.1 741 689 630 572 518 462 287 221 202 183 164 148 207 207 207 207 207 207 444 428 409 390 871 855 10 11 12 TOTAL 6.8 .0 .0 100.0 410 Dry Dry 6,500 181 0 0 2,080 207 3725 8726 2,814 338 372 372 4,894 ' Based on "The DHIA Supervisor's Manual." U. S. Dept. Agr. BDIM-Inf-26. 1945. 80.82 pound of TDN for 1 pound of milk. '6.9 pounds of TDN required for daily maintenance per cow. SAn additional allowance of 5.5 pounds of TDN daily per cow for pregnancy. ' This was the typical situation on the farms studied. Thirty-day month; 860-day year. 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURLEPRMN TTO optimum land-animal ratio calculated could be easily applied to any size herd. The aim of a pasture-feed program for such herds is to provide the kind and quantity of pasture and feed that will result in the greatest profit. It is assumed for such herds that full production is profitable; therefore, full-feeding of the quantities of TDN required is essential, Table 12. Thus, within these limits, the cheapest adequate feeding will be the most profitable. The problem is to determine the acreage of forage (in this instance, reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass pasture costing $25.17 per TABLE 12. MONTHLY MILK PRODUCTION AND FEED REQUIREMENTS FOR A 10-Cow HERD FOR FALL AND FOR SPRING FRESHENING, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Fall freshening Month Month freshened August Sept. October1 3 cows 4 cows 3 cows 0 Spring freshening Month freshened cows Feb. March April 10 cows 8 cows 4 cows 8 cows Lb. MILK PRODUCTION January February Lb. 2,756 2,520 2,288 2,052 1,848 1,640 Dry Dry 8,380 Lb. 2,223 2,067 1,890 1,716 1,589 1,386 1,230 Dry Dry Lb. 6,869 6,303 5,717 5,154 4,617 8,026 1,230 2,535 5,915 Lb. Dry 2,535 2,535 2,879 2,223 2,067 1,890 1,716 1,539 Lb. Dry Dry 8,380 8,380 3,172 2,964 2,756 2,520 2,288 Lb. 1,230 Dry Dry 2,535 2,535 2,379 2,223 2,067 1,890 Lb. 1,230 2,535 5,915 8,294 7,930 7,410 6,869 6,308 5,717 March April May June 1,890 1,716 1,539 1,386 1,280 Dry Dry 2,535 2,535 July August September October November December TOTAL 2,379 3,880 2,535 8,294 1,886 2,052 1,716 5,154 2,223 3,172 2,535 7,930 1,230 1,848 1,539 4,617 Dry 1,640 1,886 8,026 2,067 2,964 2,379 7,410 19,500 26,000 19,500 65,000 19,500 26,000 19,500 65,000 1,227 1,170 1,113 1,065 1,014 1,116 1,116 1,431 1,481 1,383 1,882 1,284 14, 682 FEED REQUIREMENTS IN TDN January February March April May June 1,712 1,636 1,560 1,484 1,420 1,352 1,488 1,488 1,908 1,908 1,832 1,284 1,227 1,170 1,113 1,065 1,014 1,116 1,116 1,481 1,431 4,271 4,090 3,900 3,719 8,547 8,533 8,618 4,035 4,455 4,722 1,116 1,431 1,431 1,883 1,332 1,284 1,227 1,170 1,118 1,065 1,014 1,116 14,682 1,488 1,488 1,908 1,908 1,844 1,776 1,712 1,636 1,560 1,014 1,116 1,116 1,481 1,431 1,383 1,832 1,284 1,227 8,618 4,035 4,455 4,722 4,607 4,443 4,271 4,090 3,900 July August September October November December TOTAL 1,844 1,776 19,576 14,682 1,383 4,607 4,443 48,940 1,484 1,170 8,719 1,420 1,113 8,547 1,852 1,065 8,53 19,576 14,682 48,940 ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 19 acre) and the pounds of concentrates (in this instance, corn-cobhusk meal costing $0.034 per pound of TDN) that will provide the feed at least cost, Table 13.10 Under the conditions described here for the fall-freshening 10cow herd, nutrient requirements would be provided at the lowest cost by 13 acres of pasture, plus harvested feeds. Grazing from 12 or 14 acres plus harvested feeds would cost practically the same. However, if more than 15 acres or less than 10 acres are grazed, plus harvested feeds, the cost of total feed nutrients would rise rapidly. Although 13 acres of reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass forage will supply, on the average, nearly a sufficient quantity of TDN for maintenance and milk production for the entire year, the growth distribution will not permit full utilization by a 10cow herd through grazing, Figure 1. Under conditions of this study, surpluses of forage occur in 6 months of the year; they are especially large in March, July, August, and September. On the other hand, grazing for the herd is inadequate in 6 months, and almost all feed must be provided from a stored supply in April, May, November, and December. If an additional acre of grazing is provided (Figure 2), making TABLE 18. LEAST-COST COMBINATION OF CRIMSON CLOVER-BERMUDAGRASS PASTURE AND HARVESTED FEED FOR A 10-Cow HERD, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA' Acreage of pasture AvailTDN Cost per able TDN grazed pound of TDN actually from TDN u for grazed last lized from grazing addedacrelast TDN from harvested Cost gof growing Cost of harvested feed Pounds 18,750 17,964 17,899 16,884 16,528 pasture Dollars 802.04 827.21 852.88 877.55 402.72 feed 8 Total feed cost 12 18 14 15 16 Pounds Pounds Pounds Dollars 42,012 80,190 841 0.080 45,518 80,976 786 .082 49,014 81,541 565 .044 52,515 32,106 565 .044 56,016 32,417 811 .081 Dollars 687.50 610.78 591.57 572.86 561.78 Dollars 989.54 937.99 948.95 949.91 964.50 xEight-hundred-fifty-pound cows freshening in the fall and producing 6,500 pounds of 4 per cent fat-corrected milk annually. Growing cost per acre, $25.17. $ Corn-cob-husk meal at $0.084 per pound of TDN was used in calculating harvested feed costs, but a higher protein feed should be fed in August and September to high-producing cows, see Table 12. ' x0 Because of limited experience with Ladino-fescue and the difficulty of maintaining a balanced combination of Ladino and fescue, this mixture is not used for illustration purposes. 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 208 ALBMA GRICUILTURLEPRMN TTO Monthly feed requirements (TDN.) TQN. from forage produced Surplus forage produced T.ON. from hand fed feed Figure 1. Forage production from 13 acres of reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass, showing months of freshening dairy herd, Piedmont Area of Alabama. (Yields are plotted at the midpoint of each month. For example, the yield for March is 10,777 and for April is 0.) short and surplus forage production for a 1 0-cow fall- ECONOMICS ECNMICS of of PSTURES in FEDING SYSTES2 PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 21 11000 Monthly feed requirements (TD.N) 10000 T.D.N. from forage produced Surplus forage produced 9000 TD.N. from hand fed feed Forage produced on 14t acre 8,000 3000 2,00 1,00 1 Jan. Feb. pr. May June July Aug. Nov. Dec. I from and Figure by a udagrass BermProductionwhen use of forage at the midpoint of dairy herd, For exclover-of2.Alabama. (Yieldsgrazedplotted 10-cow fall-fresheningeach month. Piedmont are Area emple, the yields for March are 10,777 end 11,606 and the yield for April is 0.) the 14th acre of reseeding crimson 22 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 14 acres, the surplus of forage is increased in 6 months, but the deficit is not completely eliminated in any of the other 6 months. These combinations of pasture and harvested feed are based on situations in which only one kind of forage is available. When only this forage is used, more than one-third of the feed must come from other sources in a normal year. Harvested feeds make up about 35 to 40 per cent of the requirements when a balanced combination of Ladino-fescue is used and about 70 to 80 per cent when sericea is used in least-cost combinations with harvested feeds for both fall- and spring-freshening herds, Table 14. Leastcost combinations are shown also for harvested feeds with the other forages studied, Table 14. TABLE 14. LEAST-COST COMBINATIONS OF HARVESTED FEED AND GRAZING FOR A 10-Cow HERD, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA x CROPS Kind of pasture Fed as Percentage of harvested feed Costs Costs Tot Acre- available Percentage of of harfeed age pasture of total growing vested costs feed TDN re- pasture T TDN grazed quirements Acres Per cent Lb. Per cent Dollars Dollars Dollars 65 74 91 75 68 23,936 19,133 34,347 24,535 17,964 49 39 70 50 87 222.72 284.00 144.20 450.36 327.21 813.82 1,036.54 650.52 934.52 1,167.80 1,312.00 834.19 1,284.55 610.78 937.99 FALL FRESHENING3 White cloverDallisgrass 8 Ladino-fescue 10 Sericea' 7 Annual crimsonryegrass 9 Reseeding crimsonBermudagrass 13 SPRING FRESHENING' White cloverDallisgrass 9 67 19,898 41 250.56 676.53 927.09 Ladino-fescue 10 82 16,007 3388 284.00 544.24 828.24 Sericea' 7 79 36,240 74 144.20 1,232.16 1,376.36 Annual crimson776.32 1,226.68 450.36 47 80 22,833 9 ryegrass Reseeding crimson615.74 917.78 87 802.04 73 18,110 12 Bermudagrass Eight-hundred-fifty-pound cows producing 6,500 pounds of 4 per cent fatcorrected milk annually. a 3 Corn at $0.034 per pound of TDN used in calculating harvested feed costs. Pattern of freshening given in Table 12. ' A higher protein feed than corn is needed when cows graze sericea. Even though corn is used in this example, feed costs would have to exceed $5.00 per 100 pounds before it would be profitable to add the eighth acre of sericea for both fall- and spring-freshening herds. ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 23 If grazing is so planned to take advantage of two forages, one producing largely during cool and cold months and the other during warm months, dependence on harvested feeds may be reduced. Except where combinations including sericea are used, all but about 25 per cent of the TDN requirements can be produced from pasture by using winter-summer grazing combinations, Table 15. Even so, about three-fourths of a ton of concentrates or one and one-fourth tons of good quality hay would be needed per cow annually. Total costs of feed are about the same for all pasture systems considered except the combination of sericea with annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass; even this relatively high-cost system supplies feed at a much lower cost than does full dependence on harvested feeds. For the systems not including sericea, feed costs per cow vary from $80 to $95 for fall-freshening and from $75 to $80 for spring-freshening herds. The difference in utilization of forage by spring- and fall-freshening herds is apparent from data in Tables 14 and 15. Fall-freshening herds grazed only about 75 per cent of the available forage, whereas springfreshening herds grazed about 80 per cent. The acreages of pasture required are approximately the same, but less harvested feed is needed by spring-freshening herds. It would appear, therefore, that for both fall- and spring-freshening herds, costs vary somewhat among the feeding systems; the differences, however, may not be great enough to overcome any special advantages or disadvantages on individual farms for production of specific forages. This analysis indicates that pastures can provide low-cost feed for dairy cows. Thus, dairying may bid strongly for farm resources. However, a final evaluation of the place of dairying must await an evaluation of alternative opportunities for land and labor utilization in farming systems. Some other factors to be considered in the broader evaluation are the risks and uncertainties of producing the various forage crops, the variations in yields caused by abnormal weather, and how well pastures fit into crop rotations. 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 24 TABLE ALABAMA GRICULTUL EPRMN TTO 15. LEAST-COST COMBINATION OF HARVESTED FEED AND GRAZING SYSTEMS FOR A 10-Cow HERD, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA' Kind of pasture Fed as PerTotal centage harvested feed Costs Acreof PerTotal teae ffe age of acre- availcosts forae - astue TDN of totalgrowing vested foaeternpatDNe TDN pasture feed 2 TDN requiregrazed ments Acres Acres Pct. Lb. Pdt. Dollars Dollars Dollars Costs of FALL FRESHENING' White cloverDallisgrass Annual crimsonryegrass Ladino-fescue Annual crimsonryegrass Sericea Annual crimsonryegrass Reseeding crimsonBermudagrass Annual crimsonryegrass None SPRING FRESHENING 3 6 4 10 4 7 5 12 4 0 16 0 70 0 9,162 48,9408 19 100 502.20 311.51 813.71 1,887.506 1,387.50 ____ 10 14 .12 75 68 88 16,666 11,969 20,464 84 24 42 867.20 484.16 94.40 566.64 406.95 933.84 891.11 695.78 1,090.18 White cloverDallisgrass Annual crimsonryegrass Ladino-fescue Annual crimsonryegrass 6 5 9 8 6 11 12 81 82 10,959 10,461 22 21 417.24 405.72 872.61 855.67 789.85 761.89 Sericea' Annual crimson83 16,289 38 478.88 558.88 1,027.71 13 7 ryegrass Reseeding crimson10 Bermudagrass Annual crimson501.90 272.24 774.14 77 8,007 16 5 15 ryegrass 1,387.50r 1,887.50 0 48,9408_100 0 0 None 1 Eight-hundred-fifty-pound cows producing 6,500 pounds of 4 per cent fatcorrected milk annually. 2 Corn at $0.034 per pound of TDN used in calculating harvested feed costs. 8 Pattern of freshening given in Table 12. 'A higher protein feed than corn is needed, but feed costs would have to exceed $5.00 per 100 pounds before it would be profitable to add an additional acre of sericea. s w pounds of hay per 100 pounds and the remainder as corn. a Hay valued at $25.00 per ton and corn at $1.80 per bu. If concentrates other ____ liveweight than corn are fed (which is probably a more realistic situation), feed costs will be even higher. ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 25 FORAGE UTILIZING SURPLUS PASTURE If grazing is the only method used for harvesting pastures, about 25 per cent of the forage will not be utilized as feed in the pasture systems discussed. This surplus forage is a potential source of low-cost feed. It can be obtained for only the costs of harvesting, storing, and feeding - the costs of production having already been incurred. From Figures 1 and 2, it would seem to be a simple matter to level out the feed supply by harvesting the surplus forage and feeding it during periods when little or no forage is produced. If this were as easy as it appears, undoubtedly the practice would be more common on a great number of farms; but the practice is not prevalent. Some of the obstacles to utilizing this surplus forage are unfavorable weather conditions and lack of knowledge of efficient methods of harvesting, storing, and feeding such forage. Supply of available labor, machinery and capital needs, and storage facilities also are obstacles to overcome. Rough estimates were made of the quantity of surplus forage that might be harvested for a fall-freshening herd from pasture systems that include reseeding crimson clover-Bermudagrass and annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass. It was assumed that 16 acres of these forages are grown. In the spring, crimson clover is grown on 12 acres and crimson clover-ryegrass on 4 acres. Five acres of either pasture provide all the nutrients that are needed during March and April for 10 cows. Therefore, the forage grown on the remaining acreage is surplus and would be available for harvest early in April. The weather is usually unfavorable for hay-making in April; therefore, if the surplus forage is to be harvested, it may have to be made into silage. At present, very few farmers in the Piedmont Area make grass silage, and data on the economic feasibility of saving surplus pasture forage as silage are not available. In the summer, 4 of the 16 acres furnish no grazing (annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass acreage). However, in July, August, and September, only 9 of the 12 acres of Bermudagrass are needed for grazing. This leaves about 8 acres of surplus growth that could be cut for hay. 26 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY Farmer interest in and the need for information relative to the profitableness of different grazing and feeding systems led to this economic study of several important grazing crops and their use in milk production in the Piedmont Area of Alabama. Forages included were (1) white clover-Dallisgrass, (2) white clover-carpetgrass, (3) Ladino-fescue, (4) sericea, (5) annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass, and (6) reseeding crimson cloverBermudagrass. Costs of producing forages with recommended practices were estimated for five of these forages. The estimated per acre costs for sericea were $20.60, and those for annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass were $50.04. Costs for other crops (except white clover-carpetgrass) ranged from $25.17 to $28.40. Total yields were estimated from clippings taken from caged areas. Some adjustments were made in these yields to make them conform more nearly with yields expected under normal weather conditions. Estimated annual yields per acre varied from about 5,400 pounds of dry matter from white clover-carpetgrass to about 10,400 pounds from white clover-Dallisgrass. None of the forages studied produced growth in all months of the year, and in the coldest months growth of all forages was scant. Sixty-five per cent of the growth was assumed to be available for grazing with a "put-and-take" system. Nutrients available for maintenance and milk production depended on the dry matter produced and the degree of digestibility of the forage. All forages, except sericea, varied considerably in digestibility at different times during the year. Sericea digestibility, based on experiments with sericea hay, was estimated to be only 47 per cent. However, studies now in progress indicate, and future work may confirm, that sericea digestibility also varies seasonally. The high fiber content of sericea and its low digestibility combined to make it less effective than other forages in milk production, particularly with cows having a high production potential. However, for a 6-months' period, it had a carrying capacity for low or nonproducing cows and young stock similar to that of the more succulent and digestible forage crops. ECONOMICS of PASTURES in FEEDING SYSTEMS 27 Because of the typical variable rates of growth of grazing crops throughout the year and the fairly uniform size of herds, in general, on dairy farms, it is normally impracticable to supply cows with all of the needed nutrients throughout the year from grazing alone. The range in proportion of needed nutrients that might be supplied to a Piedmont dairy herd averaging 6,500 pounds of milk by any one of the grazing crops studied varied from less than 30 per cent for sericea to about 65 per cent for a balanced mixture of Ladino-fescue. Therefore, with a herd grazing only sericea, it might well be economical to feed a substantial quantity of concentrates to all cows except those with current potential production of about 10 pounds daily or less. It might also pay to feed concentrates to cows grazing an ample supply of other forages when they are in their less succulent stages of growth. This supplementing is especially desirable with high-producing cows. By using two forages, one growing principally in warm weather and one in cool, up to 80 per cent of the annual requirements of nutrients for a herd could normally be supplied. Even so, about 3/4 of a ton of concentrates or 114 tons of hay would be needed per cow annually. To the extent that surpluses of grazing could be economically saved, the supply of feed from a given acreage could be more fully utilized and costs of production could be reduced further. 28 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation is expressed to farmers who gave their time in supplying farm data; to A. C. Newman, Jr., for his assistance in clipping caged areas and estimating pasture conditions; to Ben F. Alvord, E. L. Langsford, and others for advice and guidance in developing and executing the study; and to E. E. Mansfield for supervising and checking the statistical analyses of data. Technical assistance and advice were received from R. M. Patterson, W. B. Anthony, and K. M. Autrey of the A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station staff in agronomy and soils, animal husbandry and nutrition, and dairy husbandry, respectively. Appreciation also is expressed to staff members of the Department of Agricultural Economics for their many valuable contributions to the study. APPENDIX APPENDIX TABLE 1. RECOMMENDED INPUTS PER ACRE FOR GROWING SELECTED FORAGES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA Sericea White Input Unit Dallisgrass Ladino- Annual crimsonfescuecrimson- Bermudagrass Breaking Harrowing Cultipacker- Times Times Est. Maint. Est. Maint. Est. Maint. ryegrassEst. 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 4 0 4 2 Maint. 0 0 seeding Times Tons 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 Lime N P20 5 Pounds 0 0 80 0 160 10 2 0 0 80 0 0 8 0 160 0 80 50 80 0 80 0 80 K20 Seed: Grass Legume Mowing Pounds 80 Pounds 40 Pounds 0 Pounds 80 Times 0 40 0 0 1 80 40 80 10 2 0 40 0 0 8 40 25 25 0 40 0 25 0 40 0 0 8 xInputs for annually seeded crimson clover-ryegrass are not listed as establishment and maintenance practices since all inputs except lime are made annually. APPENDIX TABLE 2. ESTIMATED PER ACRE COSTS FOR GROWING SELECTED FORAGES, PIEDMONT AREA OF ALABAMA m A Item Direct Costs: Preparation and seeding' Lime' (N)2 Phosphate (P20)2 Nitrogen Potash (K20)2 Seeds Mowing' TOTAL LadinoAnnual crimson- Reseeding crimsonfescue ryegrass Bermudagrass Estab- Mainte- Estab- Mainte- Estab- Mainte- Estab- Mainte- Estab- Maintenance nance lishment nance lishment nance nance Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars 12.50 .00 .00 12.50 8.50 .00 12.50 .00 8.50 .00 12.00 12.00 6.00 .00 12.00 .00 .00 .00 12.00 .00 .00 .00 10.62 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 12.80 6.40 6.40 6.40 12.80 6.40 .00 6.40 6.40 6.40 2.20 2.20 4.40 2.20 4.40 .00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 7.50 .00 5.50 .00 .00 10.00 8.00 .00 6.25 .00 .00 1.00 .00 3.00 .00 8.00 .00 .00 .00 8.00 Sericea Sericea 1White cloverDallisgrass lishment lishment lishment z 0 H C H 17' 80.60 9.60 47.20 11.60 49.70 11.60 12.00 41.72 85.85 11.60 v3 Indirect Costs: Establishment costs 1/2 H .. prorated over 5 years Interest @ 5 per cent on Land charge @ 7.5 per cent of estimated value' Fencing charge @ 12.5 per cent of estimated value TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 6.12 .76 2.25 1.87 20.60 9.44 1.18 3.75 1.87 27.84 9.94 1.24 3.75 1.87 28.40 2.40 .30 8.75 1.87 50.04 7.07 .88 3.75 1.87 25.17 z 0 H' of establishment costs '''PRates assumed: Breaking, $8.00 acre; harrowing, $2.00 per acre; cultipacking, $1.50 per acre; mowing, $1.00 per acre. Prices rices 8 80 Ladino; $1.50 per pound plus inoculation; fescue, 50 cents per pound; crimson clover (annual and reseeding), 25 cents per pound pound; 'Sericea land value, $80.00 per acre; all other land value, $50.00 per acre. Interest based on 5 per cent and taxes on 2.5 per per used: Lime, $6.00 per ton; nitrogen, 21.25 cents per pound; phosphate, cents per pound; potash, 5.5 cents per pound. used: Sericea, 25 cents per pound; white clover, $1.25 per pound plus inoculation; Dallisgrass, cents per pound; Bermudagrass, volunteer. plus inoculation; ryegrass, 15 cents per cent of land value. 'Average fencing value, $15.00 per acre. Interest based on 5 per cent; depreciation, 5 per cent; and repairs, 2.5 per cent of fence value. N% ,O