Teff Grass as a Warm Season Forage for Backgrounding Calves in the Shenandoah Valley Brian Jones – Agronomy Jason Carter – Animal Science

Background • Teff is a warm season C4 annual grass – African origin, used as a grain crop • Gaining popularity as a summer annual forage – Primarily marketed as high quality horse hay

The Teff plant

Objective To compare the weight gain and profitability of calves rotationally grazing a Teff grass forage system to calves continuously grazing a typical Shenandoah Valley cool season pasture

Establishment • Seeded following barley (wrapped haylage) • May 23: Turbo-till • May 25: Pasture harrow • May 31: Fertilizer – 64 lb 0-0-62.5

– 83 lb 10-34-0 – 52 lb 30% UAN • May 31: Herbicide – 1.5 qt/A Gramoxone

Establishment • Seeded June 3 • 7 lbs/A • “Tiffany” teff – Coated seed – 1.3 million seeds/lb

Establishment • Brillion seeder • Must seed no deeper than ¼”

First Cutting July 10 • 37 Days after planting • Analysis: CP: 16.5% TDN: 66% RFV: 94

Experimental Design • “Gate cut” two groups of calves – 48 in each group – Calves weaned 30 days prior to study • Calf data: – Weight – Frame score – Switch length

Experimental Design • Group A – Rotationally grazing Teff grass pasture – 20 acres • Group B – Continuous grazing cool season pasture (fescue/OG/clover) – 40+ acres • Grazed for 69 days (September 30)

Calf Beginning Weights

Treatment Group

Teff Cool-Season 5% LSD

Beginning Weight

-----------lbs--------- 508.3

509.6

21.94

Calf In-Weight Distribution Flesh Score

2.2

1.9

0.26

25 Teff Group Control Group 20 15 10 5 0 400 450 500 550 600

Starting Weight (lb)

650 700

Start Grazing July 27 • 17 Days after cutting • Teff 20” tall • Rotational system – 8 2.5A paddocks – Portable water trough – 3-4 day rotation

Water Consumption • Water meter to measure calf H 2 O intake • Drank 5 gal/hd/day • Typical intake is 10.2 gal/hd/day

August 3 Teff grew 16” in 23 days after cutting!

August 13

August 18

Finished Grazing Sept. 30 • Teff pasture was completely utilized • Pulled calves, sorted, weighed

Treatment Group

Teff Cool-Season 5% LSD

End Weight ADG

-------------------lbs---------------- 571.4

1.0 a 556.9

24.2

0.7 b 0.1

Efficiency of Gain

Treatment Group

Teff Cool-Season 5% LSD

Gain Acre -1

------------lbs------------ 3.31 a 1.22 b 0.38

QUESTIONS?

Tolerance of Teff

(Eragrostis tef)

var. “Tiffany” to Several Selective Herbicides Brian Jones Agronomy Extension Agent

Objective • Limited literature exists on selective weed control in teff • Objective was to examine the effect of several common selective forage herbicides on teff growth and yield

Establishment • Variety: “Tiffany” teff • Planting date: 3 June, 2009 • Seeding rate: 7 lb/A • Seeding tool: Brillion seeder • Previous crop: Barley harvested as silage • Site prep: – Turbo-till vertical tillage (23 May) – Pasture harrow (25 May) • Fertilizer applied 31 May: – 64 lb 0-0-62.5

– 83 lb 10-34-0 – 52 lb 30% UAN • Burndown herbicide applied 31 May – 1.5 qt/A Gamoxone Nteon

Herbicide Treatments • Treatments applied on 10 August in a randomized complete block design with four replications

Chemical Trade Name

aminopyralid Milestone 2,4-D + picloram Grazon P+D 2,4-D dicamba control Weedone LV4 Rifle

Product Rate acre -1

10 oz 4 pt 2 qt 1 pt

Teff on 10 August • Treatments applied to teff after 17 days of re-growth occurred from hay cutting

Weed Species Composition • Number of common forage weed species present, including – Canada thistle – Bull thistle – Pigweed spp.

– Horsenettle – Broadleaf dock • Weed composition and cover varied between treatments • Teff stand was consistent and above 90% ground cover in all treatments

Teff Yield • Teff harvested on 22 September (6 WAT) • Sample weight and dry matter determined

Dry Matter Yield of Teff 6 WAT

3.00

2.80

2.60

2.40

2.20

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

P ≤ 0.05

NS 10 oz Milestone NS NS 4 pt Grazon 2 qt 2,4-D Ester

Herbicide

NS 1 pt Rifle NS Check

Milestone Control Grazon P+D 2,4-D Rifle

Summary • No difference in teff yield observed between treatments • No visual difference in teff performance noted between treatments • A more thorough investigation of herbicide application at different teff growth stages should be performed

QUESTIONS?