Search

A short survey was conducted in 2019 to determine knowledge of bioactive forages for parasite control, including specifically Sericea Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), before or during small ruminant workshops (also available online via SurveyMonkey® - link sent to a small ruminant email list). Questions also included livestock owned, hay grown and/or fed, and interest in bioactive forages, among others. Descriptive statistics were obtained by using weighted (by region for goat numbers) SURVEYMEANS procedures (SAS). A total of 151 surveys were completed, including paper (n = 45) and online responses (n = 106). Response rate for paper surveys was 90%. Twenty-six of the fifty states were represented and assigned to regions: Southeast (SE), Midwest (MW), Northeast (NE), and southwestern and western combined (SWW). The highest responses came from the SE (unweighted), but after weighting, the SWW region was represented at the highest level (P < 0.001). Nearly 100% of respondents had small ruminants on their farm, most fed both grass and legume hay (P < 0.001), 36.5 ± 8.6% raised hay, but very few sold hay (4.9 ± 1.5%; less than those that did not, P < 0.001). The most popular method of marketing for hay was "word of mouth" (P < 0.001). Prior knowledge of forage plants with bioactivity was noted for 78.0 ± 8.1% (P < 0.001) vs those without. Approximately a third of respondents had used or grown sericea lespedeza (32.8 ± 8.4%; P < 0.05) and most (tendency, P < 0.07) thought of it favorably. Almost half of respondents indicated they were willing to grow sericea lespedeza (P < 0.02). Other sericea lespedeza products of interest to respondents included primarily pellets (around 85.3 ± 8.3%), with little interest in silage (2.2 ± 1.1%; P < 0.0001). Producer surveys, such as this, help inform efforts for researchers and Extension staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was conducted to determine greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water consumption, land use, as well as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and carbon (C) balance of five diet formulation strategies and feeding programs for growing-finishing pigs (25–130 kg body weight) in the three spatially explicit geographic regions where the majority of U.S. pork production occurs. Feeding programs evaluated consisted of 1) standard corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diets, 2) CSBM containing 15% corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), 3) CSBM with 8.6% thermally processed supermarket food waste (FW), 4) low crude protein CSBM diets supplemented with synthetic amino acids (SAA), and 5) CSBM with phytase enzyme (PHY) added at 600 FTU (phytase units)/kg of diet. An attributional Life Cycle Assessment approach using a highly specialized, spatially explicit Food System Supply-Chain Sustainability (FoodS3) model was used to quantify GHG emissions, water consumption, and land use of corn, soybean meal, and DDGS based on county level sourcing. The DDGS, FW, and SAA feeding programs had less estimated N and P intake and excretion than CSBM, and the PHY feeding program provided the greatest reduction in P excretion. The FW feeding program had the least overall GHG emissions (319.9 vs. 324.6 to 354.1 kg CO2 equiv./market hog), land use (331.5 vs. 346.5 to 385.2 m2/market hog), and water consumption (7.64 vs. 7.70 to 8.30 m3/market hog) among the alternatives. The DDGS feeding program had the greatest GHG emissions (354.1 kg CO2 equiv./market hog) among all programs but had less impacts on water consumption (7.70 m3) and land use (346.5 m2) per market hog than CSBM and PHY. The SAA feeding program provided a 6.5–7.4% reduction in land use impacts compared with CSBM and PHY, respectively. Regardless of feeding program, the Midwest had the least contributions to GHG emissions and land use attributed to feed and manure among regions. Water consumption per market hog associated with feeding programs was much greater in the Southwest (59.66–63.58 m3) than in the Midwest (4.45–4.88 m3) and Mid-Atlantic (1.85–2.14 m3) regions. Results show that diet composition and U.S. geographic region significantly affect GHG emissions, water consumption, and land use of pork production systems, and the potential use of thermally processed supermarket food waste at relatively low diet inclusion rates (<10%) can reduce environmental impacts compared with other common feeding strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from a recent survey suggest that the major reasons Nebraska farmers plant cover crops are to improve soil organic matter, reduce erosion, improve soil water holding capacity, produce forage, and increase soil microbial biomass. Many of these benefits appear to be positively correlated with production of above-ground biomass. Thus, selecting species that will produce the greatest biomass should be beneficial for both soil conservation and forage production. Furthermore, the limited data available suggest that grazing of cover crops does not have large negative crop production, soil, or environmental impact. In the Midwestern United States, the production window following wheat harvest, male row destruction in seed corn, and to a lesser extent following corn silage harvest is long enough to produce 2,500 to 4,500 kg DM per hectare of high-nutritive value, fall forage. In the past 4 yr, we have conducted eight trials using predominantly oats and brassicas planted in mid- to late-August. Forage nutritive value of oats and brassicas is extremely high in early November (70% to 80% IVDMD; 14% to 23% CP) and remains high through December with only a 4% to 7% unit decrease in IVDMD and no change in CP concentration. Thus, it appears that delayed grazing could be an option to maximize potential forage yield. Fall-weaned calves (200 to 290 kg BW) grazing oats with or without brassicas in November and December (48 to 64 d) at stocking rates of 2.5 to 4.0 calves per hectare have ADG between 0.60 and 1.10 kg. The cost of gain has ranged from $0.53 to $2.08/kg when accounting for seed costs plus establishment ($60 to 117/ha), N plus application ($0 to 58/ha), fencing ($11/ha) and yardage ($0.10 calf-1 d-1). Although soybeans and corn harvested for grain do not provide a large enough growing window to accomplish fall grazing, similar dual purpose cover crop practices are often accomplished by planting winter-hardy small grain cereal grasses, such as cereal rye or winter triticale in the fall and grazing in the spring. However, traditional planting dates for corn and soybean result in a 30 to 45 d grazing period prior to corn and a 45 to 60 d period prior to soybean planting. Planting cover crops to provide late fall or early spring grazing has potential. However, incorporating forage production from cover crops into current cropping systems greatly increases the need for timeliness of management since the window of opportunity for forage production is quite narrow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]