Search

Sustainability research is complex and involves the evaluation of tradeoffs. Environmental, economic, and social aspects should ideally be considered. Even when one only pillar of sustainability is evaluated, results should be assessed within the broader context of overall sustainability. Environmental impacts from forage and livestock systems, as well as confined animal feeding operations, can be positive and negative, depending on the type of operation, environmental setting, weather episodes, and management conditions. These systems also have associated social and economic impacts. As in all agricultural management systems, there are likely to be hotspots of damage due to a particular management style combined with the right soil, landscape, and climatic conditions. Widespread, positive benefits of pasture-based management are possible when forage resources are utilized ideally with best grazing management principles leading to enhanced soil organic carbon storage, high water infiltration, efficient nutrient cycling, and minimal water and nutrient runoff into nearby water bodies. Research to quantify the environmental impacts of livestock management systems can be designed in detail on research stations to understand the direct implications of management differences on plant biomass production that captures atmospheric CO2, on carbon stored in soil organic matter, and on greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant livestock fed controlled diets. On-farm research is also valuable to characterize the impacts of a particular style of management across a diversity of environments using a system-level approach integrated across the farm. Communication strategies engaging major stakeholders from the livestock industry are key to deliver a consistent message to the general public. Perceived benefits, challenges, and opportunities must be science based, seeking opportunities to reduce negative impacts, and enhancing the positive ones. Messaging to the lay audience about environmental impacts can be focused on solutions from positive benefits or problems from negative effects, but should also address economic and social components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Production efficiency in beef grazing systems can be improved by several relatively simple changes in forage management practices. During a 4-year project period funded by the NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant Program (68-3A75-14–251) and in collaboration with the University of Georgia, the Amazing Grazing Program in North Carolina utilized several innovative forage management approaches on 6 private farms and 3 public research stations to educate beef producers. On-farm grid sampling illustrated spatial distribution of soil nutrients as influenced by long-term historical management, particularly of winter hay feeding stations. Side-by-side testing of simple and complex annual forage mixes on three private farms demonstrated the opportunities to enhance forage nutritive value, capture the value of diverse botanical composition, and to defer grazing on perennial pastures. Smallplot testing of yield response to fall-stockpiled tall fescue nitrogen fertilizer rate allowed producers to reap the economic benefits of improved soil health and to help improve the environment surrounding their farm. At each private farm, summer, and winter forage management workshops explored innovative approaches to beef farm management, including the nature and importance of dung beetles, value of simple compared with complex annual forages, how to approach winter grazing, benefits of hay unrolling, need for mineral supplementation, utilizing temporary fencing, and frost-seeding clovers. As the project progressed, interest and attendance at workshops grew and cooperating farmer engagement increased. We found that many small-scale beef farmers were interested in simple practices such as hay unrolling and frost seeding when demonstrated by their peers. Using a variety of educational approaches, workshop audiences responded positively to hands-on activities and time for open discussion. Attendees were interested, attentive, and motivated to adopt new practices based on these practical demonstrations on peer farms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to analyze animal performance following renovation of toxic-infected tall fescue (TF) to novel endophyte tall fescue (NE) in order to increase producer adoption of NE. In 2018, three renovation strategies were implemented in a randomized complete block design. Strategies included: 1) control (C), 2) renovation to NE after one season of a single-specie cover crop (1-SM), 3) renovation to NE after three seasons of a single-specie cover crop (3-SM), and 4) renovation to NE after three seasons of a multi-specie cover crop (3-CM). Forty-eight pregnant (30-90-d) Angus heifers (initial BW 383 kg ± 32) were randomly assigned to rotationally graze spring growth for 56-d, two years after NE establishment. Pre- and post-grazing forage mass was measured every 7-d. Animal measurements were collected every 14-d. Data were analyzed using procGLIMMIX of SASv9.4. Average daily gain was greatest (P < 0.0001) for cattle grazing 3-CM (0.74 kg/d), 1-SM (0.72 kg/d), and 3-SM (0.62 kg/d) and least for C (0.33 kg/d). Pre-grazing forage biomass was greatest (P = 0.0157) in 3-CM (3261 kg/ha) and lowest in C (2523 kg/ha), with 3-SM (2813 kg/ha) and 1-SM (2779 kg/ha) being intermediate. Post-grazing forage biomass was greatest (P = 0.0063) in 3-CM (1982 kg/ha), C (1916 kg/ha), 1-SM (1900 kg/ha), but lower in 3-SM (1592 kg/ha). Prior to grazing, body condition score (BCS) was higher (P = 0.0029) for animals grazing C (5.48), but change in BCS of animals within treatments was not different (P = 0.798). Hair shedding scores (HS) were not different on d-0, with all treatments near 5. However, HS were highest (P < 0.0001) in C (4.75), and lowest in 1-SM (1.75), 3-SM (2), and 3-CM (2) after 56-d. Data suggest animal performance for NE was improved compared to TF during spring grazing in years following renovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]