PA Project Grass Pennsylvania Grazing Partnership Effort, 1980 ~ 2009 "Rotational Grazing At Its Best"

In July of 2007 due to lack of funding - PA Project Grass became a Non Profit Charitable Organization with the Board consisting of Private Sector Members. This action was done to preserve the then 27 year old educational out reach programs of PA Project Grass. Two years later this grazing program is going strong, continuing their goals of; Annual Two day State-wide Grazing Conference and Farm Tour Youth College Scholarship Program 1300 Montly E-mail Newsletters 6 Web-sites Continue Partnering with Gov't Agencies, Non Profit Groups, and Private Sectors Things do not just happen ~ People make them happen

2008 Two Day State-wide Grazing Conference

Groundhog Punxsutawney Phil Shows His Support to PA Project Grass at the 7th Annual State-wide Grazing Conference.

PA Project Grass Announcing!!! Youth Scholarship Winners Constance Anderson Penn State Sophomore, Sarah Shick Clarion High School 12th Grader. "Grazing with Conservation" A Written Composition and Interview Competition

PROJECT GRASS TIPS FOR GETTING STARTED

>Get Information! >Talk to other farmers, service agencies and conservation districts who are involved in Project Grass. >Place all gates in corner of the paddock that is the closest to the barn >Water is important. Try to provide water in each paddock. >A good fence is essential - a minimum of One strand for dairy, two strands for beef, and three strands for sheep. A good fence charger is the heart of the system. >Plan for animal movement, liming and fertilizing machines, and clipping machines. Alleyways are good to use for these purposes >Plan for a winter feeding program >Forage Pastures- A multi-species forage pasture is better than a one-specie forage pasture. >Size paddocks to allow for one to seven days for grazing . >Plan to have more acres to graze in the late summer and fall than you will in the spring.

MANAGEMNT IS THE KEY!!!

RULE OF THUMB BEEF: 1 COW AND CALF PER ACRE DAIRY: 1 COW PER 1.4 ACRES HORSES: FIRST HORSE TO 2 ACRES, THEN 1 HORSE TO AN ACRE SHEEP: 4 TO 7 EWES PER ACRE GOATS: 4 TO 7 DOES PER ACRE Call or visit your local Conservation District, or your local USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Office for technical assistance. AT no cost to the farmer, free consultation on how rotational grazing can benefit your opeartion.

Rotational Grazing is a MENU, Choose What is best for YOU! "

"Versatility is the Name of the Game" (Grazing fits into most farm operations)   Grazing is a menu, and one of the BIG misconceptions with grazing is that producers should throw out all of their machinery, fence in all of their land, and do nothing else but graze. This is not true.   Rotational Grazing is meant to be used as a "Tool", a very good tool, which every farm operation can work into, and benefit from, and then pass on these benefits in their healthy Finished Food Products sold to the consumers. PA Project Grass State Steering Committee interviewed Dairy Grazing Producers across the State of Pennsylvania.   Dairy Producers reported Benefits of switching to a Grazing Operation were:   Health: 100% reported that their cattle were healthier, with less hoof, leg, and utter problems, and less vet bills. One producer boasted of having the oldest age standing average of milking cows in her county. All the producers stated that their cows where just happy doing what they where suppose to do graze!   Supplement Feeding: 85% of the dairy producers interviewed where using concentrate supplement with their grazing systems for long-term effects on body condition, herd health, and reproductive performance. Using supplements they felt was better for their cattle's well being, plus the CLA positive impact in their milk is still two times better than with confinement cattle. 15% of those Dairy Producers where grazing 100% - where no concentrate supplements are used, trying to achieve complete CLA and omega-3 fatty acids for their selling niche market, but they did report problems in reproductive performance, and body condition, milk production, they all had small herds.   Economics: 100% Dairy Producers said there was a yearly increase in their profits - with the different grazers reporting increases raging from $500 to $800 a month during the grazing season, depending on weather and market prices. Less money was spent on vet bills, feed, fuel and machinery cost.   Labor: 100% reported during grazing months that labor was cut down drastically, less time spent in the barn, less manure removal, less hauling and spreading. Also reported was less time invested in farm field production with crops, and machinery use.   Conservation: All reported an increase in wildlife, and few did complain about having too much wildlife. But basically birds where singing more, rabbits hopping, and deer munching. They all reported their water and soil conservation practices with their NRCS and County Conservation Districts worked very well with their grazing systems, and they all felt they where better stewards of their land, and to their community.   As we said before Grazing is a Menu Choose what is best For You.ť Some producers graze and buy their winter feed, some grazers graze and plant their winter feed, some grazers graze just their heifers, and some graze dairy cattle and heifers. Some grazers do not even pick their field corn; they have their livestock graze it off little by little with temporary fencing. Some vegetable farmers graze off their vegetable patches before and after. The Versatility of Grazing Has Tremendous Opportunities, and Benefits, and works into most farm operations!   Happy Grazing! From The PA Project Grass State Steering Committee, Candace Burke Executive Director E-mailto: PaProjectGrass@webtv.net; Phone (724) 295-4928

PA Project Grass State-wide Programs and Other Website Links Project Grass 2007 State-wide Grazing Conference; http://community.webtv.net/candacesburke/PAProjectGrassState PA PG Youth Program; http://community.webtv.net/candacesburke/PAProjectGrassYouth. Pasture Based Foods List; http://community.webtv.net/PAProjectGrass/DoYouKnowWhereYour; Pa Project Grass By-Laws; http://community-2.webtv.net/PAProjectGrass/PAProjectGrassBy/ PA Project Grass is not just Another Educational EnviromentalGroup/History; http://community.webtv.net/jjburke/HistoryofPAProject

A three year study of applying 40 pounds of Nitrogen in March of the year to grass/clover pastures

at the Penn State Research Farm, Rock Springs PA. - Showed that early season pasture yield can be increased by 20%. This research was done by Dr. William Stout, PA Research Pasture Lab, ARS.

Is Tall Fescue On Your Side Of The Fence?

By Ben Cooper Conservation Planner Maryland Dept. of Agriculture, Allegany Soil Conservation District.  12407 Naves Crossroads NE Cumberland, MD 21502 301-777-1494 ext. # 110   There has been plenty of talk over the years about Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) as viable forage for grazing animals or hay land.  Sometimes these discussions have been within the walls of a research laboratory; sometimes around the loading dock of the local farmer's co-op; or sometimes in the cool of the evening on a pasture walk.  No matter what the venue, you are sure to have people lining up on either side of the fence.

Let's take a moment and look at Tall fescue from a historical point of view.  As far back as 80 years ago, it has been planted and promoted so well that according to the Oregon Tall Fescue Commission; there are about 35 million acres of Tall fescue in the United States.  The planting of Tall fescue really became widespread after discovering that an endophyte (in plant) fungus gave it some very impressive characteristics.  The fungus (Acremonium coenophialum) had this great ability to make the grass very persistent in extreme soil and environmental conditions.  This is accomplished by the symbiotic relationship between the host plant and the fungus.  This attribute allowed the plant to germinate and grow well in considerably harsh environments.  Fescue provided a forage that thrived where other plants couldn't survive.  These areas included old strip mines, areas that were somewhat poorly drained, road banks, and fields with shallow soils.  Therefore, this opened up the potential to get a pasture or hay crop off of ground that normally was considered unproductive.   During the 1970's, Tall fescue was championed, as the forage to meet all your grass nutritional needs.  However, by the early 1980's, studies showed that livestock were having health related issues that had not been seen before.  The same fungus that provided improved growth attributes and allowed fescue to grow nearly anywhere, also was seen to be the cause of physiological problems in various types and classes of livestock.

After careful study of endophyte-infected fescue, many people consider it to be an invasive plant that has no place on their farm.  That side of the fence might be accurate depending on the animals being raised.  The aggressiveness of the endophyte infected plant, combined with the potential health concerns for "at risk" animals, show a need for livestock or hay producers to be well educated on the effects of the fungus.   A 2-year study was done in the Western Maryland, tri-state area to identify and document the amount of fungus in pasture and hay land.  Fescue forage samples were collected, prepared, and viewed under a microscope and the results were recorded on 80 different fields. The results showed the majority of the fields had high levels of endophyte-infected fescue. Only fields with 50% or more fescue were sampled.  Of those fields, 75% had an endophyte level of 70% or greater.  An interesting thing to point out is some of the fields were never planted to fescue.  As a rule of thumb, when trying to ascertain whether a field of naturally existing fescue is high in endophyte, testing is not needed.  Just go ahead and assume you have an average of 70% infected fescue and manage accordingly.  A fescue field generally gains about 10% more endophyte infected plants each year.  If you know you have had fescue for ten years and you didn't plant it there, assume high levels of fungus.   Weather conditions, such as drought or excessive wet periods, as well as improper grazing methods actually help to increase the amount of Tall fescue in your pasture and hay land.  Proper management techniques can help you with any expected problems.  However, it is important to recognize some of the classic symptoms in livestock.   Signs of fescue toxicity in dairy & beef cattle, sheep and goats Reduced feed intake. Lower weight gains. Galatia – poor milk production (as much as 50% reduction). Increased time spent near water and shade during summer months. Decreased time actually grazing during the day. Higher respiratory rates during summer months. Elevated internal body temperatures. Rough looking hair coats.            Reduced reproductive performance.            Increased intervals between pregnancies.            Excessive salivation.            Loss of tails just above the switch in cattle.            Loss of the lower portion of the foot (below the dewclaws) in cattle.

The above symptoms have been observed in animals consuming high levels of endophyte infected pasture, hay and green chop.  Generally speaking, dairy animals should not be fed Tall fescue if the endophyte levels are greater than 30% and the fescue makes up more than 50% of the total forage.  Many of these symptoms are more pronounced when replacement animals are brought into existing herds.  Animals that were raised or acclimated to endophyte-infected fescue have a little better tolerance of the fungus.     Signs of fescue toxicity in breeding mares            Late term abortions.           Agalactia – poor or no milk production after foaling.            Dystocia – foaling difficulties resulting in death of foal, mare or both.            Prolonged gestation – up to 30 days.   *The fungus does generally not affect non-breeding mares, geldings and studs.  Breeding mares can tolerate Tall fescue with high endophyte levels until the last trimester of pregnancy, where it is imperative to remove Tall fescue with 30% or more levels of endophyte.

So, what should you do if you have Tall fescue growing on your side of the fence?  Let me add that I have been following the fescue issue for over 20 years and can find it growing on every farm I visit.  It may only be in the fencerows, in the wetter pastures, in that old drainage ditch or behind a shed, but it is there.  Even if it isn't there, the invasive characteristics of the plant should be watched out for, because it probably is on the neighbor's side of the fence.   Therefore, it's probably best to swallow hard and admit that you probably have Tall fescue on your farm or in your hay.  And given the result found from our research study, it's probably at a high level of endophyte.  Unless you have recently established an improved variety, make your management decisions based on the probability that you have some amount of fungus toxicity.  It is also important to learn to be able to identify and distinguish it between the other types of forages in your fields and hay.  The local extension office can help you with learning how to key it out.  Also, don't be afraid to ask the person providing your hay for permission to scout out the hayfields where you get your hay.  Secondly, if you have "at risk" animals or sell hay to producers of "at risk" animals; consider changing the composition of your fields that are predominately Tall fescue.  Remember, "at risk" animals are dairy animals, breeding mares and any other livestock that are showing symptomology.  There are many different cool and warm season grasses that can fill the forage requirements you have.  Again, contact your extension agent or local grazing specialist for help in renovating your farm forages.   In recent years, there have been many new varieties of endophyte friendly fescues developed such as Dovey™ or MaxQ™ to name a few.  We have used both of these varieties in Western Maryland and have found them to provide promising results.  However, keep in mind that Kentucky 31 Tall fescue with high levels of endophyte is invasive and persistent. It can still creep into your improved fields and crowd out the newer, sometimes less aggressive varieties.   You might consider planting other grass species to the problem areas such as ditches, wetter areas and shallow soils. Always remember to soil test and add the recommended soil amendments to get the best results.   But what happens when topography, cash flow or other issues prevent you from making changes?  You can consider adopting a grazing plan that includes close grazing and mowing of the pastures with Tall fescue to suppress it and keep it in an immature state.  Grazing livestock will avoid mature Tall fescue. if possible, until later in the fall after the sugar content has increased.  Mowing or closer grazing will allow for shorter forage species to become dominate.  Examples of these include Kentucky bluegrass and clovers. In this option, you, the manager have to be the aggressor.  Be diligent at maintaining a 2 – 6 inch forage height.   Some animal and forage specialist suggest keeping the endophyte infected Tall fescue, but adding and maintaining a 40% clover level in the mixture to dilute the ill affects of the fungus.  Since most clover production heavily relies on higher soil pH levels, regular liming and clover reseeding should be practiced.   Finally, a new counter tactic is providing supplemental minerals and vitamins that have been specifically developed to offset fescue endophyte toxicity.  One such product that is showing promise in beef cattle raised on Tall fescue is called Endo-Fighter™ and produced by ADM Alliance.   One of the best organizations providing Tall fescue research and education is The Oregon Tall Fescue Commission.  They can be found on the internet by going to: http://forages.oregonstate.edu.   The bottom line is knowing what is growing on both sides of the fence.  Most likely, it includes Tall fescue.   By becoming more familiar with what your forages are and how best to manage them for your livestock or hay customers, you will provide a better marketable product; be it milk, meat, wool or hay §End

Here is Your Chance to Know for Sure. Research proves that Locally Grown Pasture Based Foods are fresher, healthier, and a more nutritious product for you and me!  Choosing pastured animals that are eating the food that nature intended them to eat is supporting small farmers, safeguarding the environment, promoting animal welfare - and the plus for you is eating food that is nutritious, wholesome and delicious.

Research also proves that livestock out grazing lush pastures are physiologically happier animals - because they are doing what they are suppose to do, graze! Meat from animals that graze exclusively on grasses, have the highest levels of omega-3s, CLA, beta carotene, and vitamin E. Few farms in Pennsylvania have lush pastures 12 months out of the year. But meat from an animal that has been able to graze at least 3 months before slaughter is still nutritionally superior to feedlot beef, even if the animal has also been given some grain. When  grazing cows are fed concentrate supplements, the CLA content in milk is about two times that found in milk from cows fed in confinement.   Research suggests that some modification of the diet of grazing cows can help increase the "healthful" fatty acids in milk. It is a matter of degree. Grazing animals have lower risk of BSE, they eat what nature intended them to eat, grasses and other green plants. Research is now showing that choosing products from grass-fed animals may lower your risk of two other food borne illnesses, campylobacter and E. coli. Up until 1997 cattle were being fed meat that had been trimmed from other cattle, in effect turning herbivores (vegetarians) into carnivores. With this unnatural practice there is the belief that this is the underlying cause of "mad cow disease."  Grazing Poultry and pigs are not ruminants, so they cannot glean all their nutrients from pasture. They will always be given some grain or other feed supplements.   Ask questions:  What steps have been taken to ensure a good eating experience for you. Were pesticides, herbicides, feed antibiotics, or growth-promoting hormones used in the production of these animals? Were the selection of animals done with the right genetics, gentle handling of the animals, and how was the meat tenderized? Enjoy calling and visiting your local farmer, talk to him or her about their products, become educated in what you are buying, and most of all cherish the knowledge of knowing where your food comes from.

Knowing What is in Your Pasture   By Dr Marvin Hall, Grazing Research and Education Center, Penn State

If you wouldn't expect the breed of animal to the right to be a great milker, then maybe you shouldn't expect the species of grass in your pasture to do something it was not selected to do! People have been selecting species of plants and animals for their ability to do certain things or thrive under certain conditions for thousands of years. While the distinction between different breeds of cattle and what they can and can't do is common. Fewer people realize that different pasture species have distinct differences in what they can and can't do!   What's in your pasture? Differences in legume species are relatively distinct while grasses present more of a challenge to accurately identify. Here is a simplistic key to help you identify a few of the more common grasses grown in Pennsylvania.                                                  Perennial Grass Identification for Pennsylvania. Begin in upper left hand corner of chart and determine if the plant being identified that plant characteristic. If yes, then you've identified the species. If no, then go to the next characteristic.   Now that you know what plant species are? in your pasture you can check out their adaptability and production characteristics. If the adaptability of the species doesn't match the limitations of the soil it is growing in, then somethingwill need to change (alters soil limitations or change plant species) to optimize forage production.   Plant Characteristic                      Grass Species   Flat Stem                                                   Yes                        Orchardgrass                     No   United Leaf Sheath                                  Yes                        Smooth Brome grass                     No   Corm (bulb) at base of stems                  Yes                        Timothy                     No   Thick Veins in Leaf                                 Yes                        Tall Fescue                     No   Waxy Leaf                                                  Yes                        Ryegrass                     No   Wide Leaf                                                  Yes                        Reed Canary grass                     No   Prominent Auricles                                  Yes                        Quack grass   Characteristics of perennial forage species in Pennsylvania.     Seedling   Tolerance to soil limitations   Persis-     Tolerance to      Relative      Yield Grass                           Vigor     Droughty     Wet   Low pH†    tence Frequent harvest     Maturity‡  ton/acre Kentucky bluegrass          M§          L             M           M         H                H                  Early            1-3 Orchardgrass                    H            M            M           M         M               H            Early-medium      3-5 Perennial ryegrass            H            L             M           M         L                H            Early-medium      1-4 Reed canary grass            L            H             H           H          H                H             Medium-late       3-5 Smooth brome grass         H            H             M           M         H                L              Medium-late       3-5 Switch grass                    L            H             M           H          M               M                  Late             2-5 Tall fescue                        H            M            M           H          M               H             Medium-late       3-5 Timothy                            M            L             L           M         H                L                   Late             2-4   Alfalfa                              M           H             L           L          H                H                  Early            3-5 Birds foot trefoil                 L            M             H           H          M               L                   Late             3-4 Red clover                        H            L             M           M         L                H             Medium-late       3-5 White clovers                    M            L             H           M         H                H            Early-medium      1-3 † pH of 6.0. ‡ Maturity characteristic refers to relative time of flower or seed head appearance in the spring.       This will depend not only on species but also variety. § L = low, M = moderate, H = high

100% PASTURE FOR DAIRY COWS: PROFITABILITY, MILK QUALITY AND ANIMAL WELFARE

By Larry Muller Professor Emeritus The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Dairy and Animal Science   And Kathy Soder USDA-Agricultural Research Service Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research Unit University Park, PA   Some dairy farmers and consumers are proponents of a diet for dairy cows with 100% pasture and no supplementation. Milk from cows fed only pasture will be higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fatty acids than milk from cows fed supplements. These two fatty acids are known to be beneficial to human health.   A 100% pasture system would be similar to the New Zealand system where the climate provides for grass growth for nearly 12 months. In reality, cows in New Zealand receive about 10 to 15 % of their nutrients from feedstuffs other than pasture. For dairy producers who are thinking about a "100% pasture" system, this really does not exist. Even during the 6 to 7 months grazing period, most graziers need to feed some supplemental forages and feedstuffs, particularly in years with inadequate moisture.   Pasture as the only feedstuff (the "New Zealand" system) Studies from New Zealand, Ireland, and the USA indicate that when high quality pasture is the only feedstuff and offered in adequate amounts, lactating cows (Holsteins) can be expected to consume 35 to 40 lb. of dry matter intake (DMI)/cow/day.  This is about 3% of the body weight DMI.  Regardless of the breed of cattle, 3% of body weight is the expected DMI. This amount of pasture intake may support 45 to 50 lb. of milk in early lactation based on the estimated energy intake.  However, body condition loss will occur because cows are in a negative energy balance and will be mobilizing body reserves to produce this amount of milk.  This loss of body condition may contribute to thin cows and to reduced conception rates. The latter is most important if seasonal calving is planned. The additional energy required for grazing activity and walking to and from pastures is often not considered.

Profitability of 100% Pasture???   A common question by graziers relates to the optimum amount of concentrate supplement and/or supplemental forages to feed to achieve the most profitable milk production response by lactating cows.  Some graziers think about adopting the "New Zealand" system where little to no concentrates are fed.  However, this may not be the most profitable system in the Untied States where milk prices are higher and feed prices lower when compared to New Zealand. Feeding supplements will usually yield higher income and profit than a 100% pasture system.The decision on how much supplemental concentrate to feed depends on the following:                 Substitution rate of concentrate for pasture.                Expected milk yield response to supplementation               of concentrates.                Price of milk and the price of supplemental               concentrates (milk: concentrate price ratio).                Production of milk components (fat and protein).                Long-term effects on body condition, herd health,               and reproductive performance.                Farm philosophy.   Substitution Rate. When supplemental grain is fed, pasture DMI decreases as concentrate substitutes for pasture.  A summary of published research from around the world indicates a substitution rate of 0.4 to 0.6 is expected with cows grazing good quality pasture.  Feeding 1 lb. of concentrate will reduce pasture intake by 0.5 lb., however, total DMI is increased.  The increased energy intake with this substitution rate is about 0.50 Mcal/day, an amount that can support about 1 to 1.5 lb. more milk per day.  Is this more profitable than feeding 100% pasture?   Milk Response to Supplementation. The marginal response of milk per unit of supplemental concentrate fed follows the law of diminishing returns.  The first units of concentrate fed are most profitable, and each extra unit yields a lower return.  As concentrate feeding increases from 0 to 12 lb./cow/day of a nutritionally balanced supplement, the milk yield per unit of concentrate fed tends to decrease from about 1.2 to 0.8 lb.  The average milk response to feeding 12 lb. of concentrate is about 12 lb. of milk, or 1 lb. of milk per 1 lb. of concentrate fed.    Marginal Profitability. The marginal profit response to increasing concentrate feeding with the substitution rate and milk yield response discussed is positive.  The milk: concentrate price ratio is the ratio of the price of one lb. of milk and to the price of one lb. of concentrate supplement.  With a milk price of $0.14 per pound and a supplement price of $0.07 per pound, the milk concentrate price ratio is 2:1. A one lb. milk response/lb. to one lb. of supplement yields 14˘ for a 7˘ investment. A 10 lb/cow/day response to 10 lb. of concentrate fed yields $1.40 in milk minus $.70 feed cost or a marginal profit of $.70/cow/day when compared to a "100% pasture system".  When 16 to 18 lb. of concentrate are fed, the marginal return to concentrate approaches zero. With the milk: concentrate feed  price ratio close to 2:1 in the USA , it makes economic sense to feed up to 16 to 18 lb. of concentrate daily to high genetic merit Holstein cows. When the milk: concentrate price ratio approaches 1.0 or less, which it does in New Zealand and other countries, then concentrate feeding is not profitable, except perhaps when targeted for early lactation, high genetic merit cows. The "bottom line" is that feeding concentrate to high producing cows on pasture results in higher total DMI, higher milk production, improved body condition, and a higher income over feed cost compared to no supplementation or a "100% pasture system". One of main benefits to concentrate (energy) supplementation may be the long-term benefits of improvement in body condition and reproductive performance. One concern that arises with feeding concentrate supplements is that the milk fat percentage tends to decrease as the amount of supplementation increases. However, it is important to look at the yields of components not percentages. When supplemental concentrate is fed, milk yield increases and concurrently fat yield increases. Feeding supplemental concentrates typically increases milk protein percent and protein yield compared to only pasture.

Other Concerns of 100% pasture system.   Environment. There are many positives for the environment with a pasture system. However, a closer look indicates some problems. High quality pasture may contain 20 to 30% total protein. The total ration (forages and supplements) for the dairy cow should contain about 17 to 18% protein. When cows consume only pasture that contains 25 to 30% protein, about 85% of this protein is not utilized by the cow, and is excreted into the environment!  Feeding a concentrate supplement with the proper types of carbohydrates (starch), can increase the dietary protein utilization and milk yield, and decrease the amounts excreted into the environment.   Animal Welfare.  As mentioned, dairy cows fed 100% pasture tend to have lower body condition that can lead to decreased reproductive efficiency, some nutrition imbalances, including several minerals and potential health problems. It is interesting that the public in New Zealand and Australia are becoming concerned about animal welfare, or more specifically about thin cows!   Carrying Capacity of the Farm.  Expanding the grazing herd is often limited by land base. Supplementation (through substitution for a proportion of the total pasture intake) can be used to stretch pasture resources, thereby increasing the animal carrying capacity of the farm, and maintaining a herd size sufficient to provide adequate income.         Milk Quality. One positive of a 100% pasture system is that the CLA content in milk is increased between 3 to 4 times the amount in milk from cows fed in confinement. Also, the content of the omega 3 fatty acids tend to increase. When grazing cows are fed concentrate supplements, the CLA content in milk is about two times that found in milk from cows fed in confinement. Research suggests that some modification of the diet of grazing cows can help increase the healthful fatty acids in milk.   Pasture-based dairy farms must make management decisions that retain the benefits of a pasture-based system while striking a balance between profitability, environmental sustainability, and animal health and welfare. Supplementation is a management tool that plays a significant role in finding that balance. End

Carbon Dioxide Storage in Pennsylvania Pastures 2005 By Howard Skinner, Plant Ecophysiologist USDA-ARS, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit,University Park, PA

If US prices eventually approach those on the global market then much greater financial incentives will exist for producers to make management decisions based on potential income from selling CO2 credits Global warming, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is increasingly being recognized as a concern for the wellbeing of the planet.  Global temperatures are expected to increase by 2.5 to 8.0o F over the next century if steps are not taken to reduce the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere. Such increases will likely result in increased coastal flooding due to rising sea levels, and in more extreme weather events such as the drought Pennsylvania experienced in 2002 and the rash of hurricanes that struck the eastern US last summer.  Agricultural practices that increase CO2 storage in soil organic matter are one way of reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.   Recognizing the value of practices that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, mechanisms are being put into place world wide to offer financial incentives for either reducing CO2 emissions or increasing storage.  In the United States, a coalition of energy and other companies have agreed to a voluntary yet legally binding pledge to reduce CO2 emissions by 4% from 1998-2001 levels by 2006. Companies that realize additional reductions or entities such as farmers that sequester CO2 can sell credits to companies that fail to meet their goals.  Currently, such credits are selling for $1.60 per metric ton (MT) CO2  on the Chicago Climate Exchange.  In the European Union, mandatory caps on CO2 emissions have been put into place in accordance with the Kyoto protocol which went into effect on February 16, 2005. Carbon dioxide credits on the European market were selling for more than $12.00 per MT at the time this was written. Traders in CO2 credits like to deal in large volumes (5,000 to 10,000 MT), suggesting that producers will have to join together in partnerships of some sort to become involved in the carbon market.   What does all this mean for producers in central Pennsylvania?  For more than 2 years now we have been continuously monitoring CO2 uptake and loss from two pastures near State College (Fig. 1). One is a mixture of cool-season grasses that was last renovated in 1982. The other was planted to alfalfa in 1995 and now contains a mixture of grasses and alfalfa. The grass pasture is generally cut once for hay in the spring then rotationally grazed the rest of the year.  The alfalfa pasture is usually cut twice before being grazed in the fall. In 2003, these pastures accumulated 1.9 and 2.1 MT of CO2 per acre, but in 2004 they lost 0.7 and 1.8 MT/acre (Table 1). The pasture that had been in grazing since 1982 showed little net accumulation of CO2 over the two years, while average accumulation on the more recently established pasture was 0.7 MT/acre/year.  Others have estimated that US pastures using improved grazing management systems can sequester between 0.5 and 1.9 MT CO2/acre/year (Follett et al. 2001). The amount of CO2 stored will depend on the age of the pasture, management system used and environmental conditions.  Generally, younger pastures will store more CO2 than older pastures and grazed pastures will store more than those cut for hay.  Environmental stresses such as drought, flooding, unusually high or low temperature, or untimely harvesting can also reduce the amount of stored CO2. Manure application can increase CO2 storage but will have negative impacts on other greenhouse gasses such as nitrous oxide. At current US prices, incomes of $1-2/acre for CO2 sequestration are the best that can be expected. If US prices eventually approach those on the global market then much greater financial incentives will exist for producers to make management decisions based on potential income from selling CO2 credits.   Table 1.  Carbon dioxide uptake and loss from two pastures near State College Pennsylvania. Figure 1.  System for continuous measurement of CO2 uptake and loss from pastures.    2003 2004 Average   MT/acre   Grass Pasture 1.9 -1.8 0.1 Alfalfa Pasture 2.1 -0.7 0.7 Average 2.0 -1.3 0.4     Reference: Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal. 2001. The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon. pp. 401-430. In: R.F. Follett, J.M. Kimble, and R. Lal (eds.) The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. CRC Press, Boca Ratio, FL.  §

THE PROJECT GRASS STATE STEERING COMMITTEE

The object of this Pennsylvania State Program shall be to enhance Pennsylvania agriculture through better utilization of grasslands; to improve the economic position of Pennsylvania farmers, particularly, farmers working small farms; and to increase the amount of livestock and energy efficiency production in the Commonwealth; to increase and develop improved marketing capabilities for grazing and livestock; to achieve better utilization of land and water resources for improved environmental quality; provide rotational grazing education, public relations, and publicity, for youth, market, civic, and social interests; and to advance the welfare of the Pennsylvania Farming Community state-wide, following guide lines stated in the November 19, 2002 Strategic Planning.

Project Grass Saved Our Farm in 1985

My mother, a dairy farmer's daughter who hated farm life, ran away to the city, married, and raised her daughters happily in suburban Pittsburgh. Much to my mother's dismay, I dreamed of the country life and wanted to farm more than anything else in the world.   Twenty-four years ago, I talked my city born husband and two small sons into buying a small farm in Armstrong County. They did not realize that I had every intention of actually farming. My husband Jim figured I would get a few animals and that would be it.   Jim had a very demanding job, sometimes working long hours into the evening and on weekends. As far as Jim was concerned, he did not need another job; he felt a large, comfortable riding lawn mower was all the entire farm needed. When I told Jim that I could see the land covered with sheep one day, he replied, "You never told me you wanted to farm!!!   My uncle, who owned the family dairy farm in Bedford, Pennsylvania, knew Jim had a little problem with the farming idea, so he urged me to go to my County Soil Conservation Service (NRCS) office and ask for help.   I walked in to the County office and proudly announced I had 30 ewes and wanted to farm. Despite this introduction, an understanding technician introduced me to an exciting new program called "rotational grazing"   I went to my first Project Grass quarterly meeting in Somerset, Pennsylvania in the fall of 1985. I was fascinated with the rotational grazing concept and felt it would be a solution to my problem. I was also impress the way Tom Calvert conducted the Project Grass Meetings, with educational speakers, annual field days, and the progress reports given from each of the 14 counties present.   During the previous years, I had been making hay mostly by myself.

This was hard because I could only afford old machinery that always chose to break down in the middle of the hay season, usually when I had a field to cut. My sons were too young to be of much help in loading or unloading, and Jim was at work

To me, the big red baler with the bad knotter was a pain I could do without.

The idea of running animals in paddocks, letting them cut the grass instead of me, grew more and more enticing.   Twenty years later, the idea is a reality. We run 100 large show ewes and lambs through the paddocks, including Oxfords, Merino, and Natural Colored Sheep, also goats, a gaurd Llama, and two paint mares. They mow and fertilize the land as they go. The animals graze the paddocks starting as early as April 15th, and ending as late as December 1st.

This size of farm could never produce enough storage hay to feed that number of animals, but 7-8 months out of the year, I do not have to make hay or buy it. Running sheep and goats on the land yields me more profit (pounds of meat) at the end of the year per acre than hay. Even in dry spells, I may have to feed hay to 50% of the flock, but when that pencil is put to paper we are still ahead of the game financially.   Over the last couple of years, another problem arose with the increase in my flock size: manure. All of our ewes would return to the barn to water, rest, and just loaf around, depositing more manure with each visit. The wet, mucky buildup caused hoof problems and made disease control a challenge. As a Member at Large of Penn's Corner RC&D Council, I also understood the danger of water pollution from the buildup of nitrates around the barn.   The solution was simple; keep the sheep where you can use the manure's nutrients-in the grassy paddocks. With watering systems placed in each paddock, the sheep spread their manure, virtually eliminating the need to add commercial fertilizer to the fields, and putting my manure spreader into semi-retirement. The marriage of rotational grazing and nutrient management was beneficial to both my sheep and my business.

Twenty six years later, our little farm has grown into a full-time business: selling fresh lambs to housewives in Pittsburgh and surrounding counties, shipping Lamb Kielbasa at Easter, and Lamb Salami at Christmas time, and breeding, showing, and selling quality replacement ewes and lambs. People compliment us on how much we have done with that small farm, and what good business sense we have-but between you and me, all we did is put fence, water, and animals on the land. We open and close gates six or seven months out of the year, and the livestock do the rest. And Jim never did need to buy that large, comfortable lawn-riding mower.    *By our farm grazing 7 months out of the year, we save in Feed, Fuel, and Labor Per Ewe, $98.00, Per Market Lamb, $18.00 Per Goat Doe, $88.00 Per Horse, $315.00 Authors Note: I wrote this article fourteen years ago in 1995 in hope of saving the then 15-year-old Project Grass Program. Twenty four years later, and twenty four years older - thru up, and down markets, droughts, and floods, Jim and I can still open and shut gates - we are still in business, and this article still holds up for our 26-year-old grazing farm. Thank you Project Grass, and Happy 29th !!!