Transcript Teff Grass as a Warm Season Forage for Backgrounding Calves
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?