stephen van vleet, ph.d washington state university whitman county extension agriculture and natural...

Stephen Van Vleet, Ph.DWashington State UniversityWhitman County Extension

Agriculture and Natural Resources

Influence of Multi-species Grazing on Continuous CRP

CRP in Whitman County

Acres Accepted 198,577.00Annual Payments $12,389,030.00Total County Cropland 1,020,157.70

No general CRP or CSP signup for 2007 or 2008

Managed Haying and Grazing Provisions•Nesting season April 1 – June 1 **Changed 9/2006: April 1-August 1

•Must start with FSA and file a request for grazing

•25% payment reduction

•NRCS grazing plan

•Incidental grazing – contour buffers and filter strips

•Changes 9/2005:Only allowed 1 out of every 4 years

Grazing period for Whitman County November 1 – February 28

•Recent changes 9/2006:Only allowed 1 out of every 10 years

• Each year approximately 30% of grasses root system is replaced

• It is necessary for grass to replace its roots to remain healthy and productive

• It is necessary for grass to replace its above-ground biomass to remain healthy and productive

• Avoid overgrazing, provide enough rest for grasses to recover

• Manage grass not livestock

Managing Grass

• Many weeds we face are good sheep and cattle feed– Canada Thistle, Leafy Spurge, Downy Brome,

Medusa Head, Rush Skeletonweed, Dalmation Toadflax, Lupine, common Mallow, common Tansy, Whitetop

• Some weeds are not – Bull Thistle, Nightshade, Poison Hemlock

• Some weeds do not like to be trampled– Fiddleneck, Rattail fescue

Grazing and Weed Control

CRP Grazing Study• Research site set up on June 20, 2005• Pasture 1=1.12 acres, pasture 2=0.65 acres,

pasture 3=1.72 acres, pasture 4(2006)=1.28 acres

• Primary vegetation: fiddleneck, Canada thistle, downy brome, tumble mustard, cattail, reed canary grass, mullein, catchweed bedstraw, lambsquarter

• 2005: 6 yearling steers and 6 ewes put in pasture 2 (P2) on June 23

• Cattle and sheep removed from trial August 19• 2006: 6 yearling steers and 6 ewes put in pasture 2

on June 12 increased to 8 steers on June 16

• Cattle and sheep removed from trial on August 30

CRP Grazing Study

• Permanent sampling areas (rebar rods) were established in each pasture

• Changes in vegetation were recorded at each sampling point

• Temperatures were also evaluated (20 foot sections) in cattails and in open areas of a continuous flowing spring

June 23

July 5

July 19

Aug. 5

Aug. 19

Aug. 10

Aug. 17

Pasture 2 Pasture 1Pasture 3

2005 Rotation

Pasture 4

June 12

June 19

June 29

July 14

Aug. 25

July 20

July 26

Pasture 2 Pasture 1Pasture 3

2006 Rotation

July 30

July 31Aug. 10 Aug. 14

Aug. 20Aug. 23

Aug. 30

Pasture 4

May 24 & 25

May 30

June 12

Pasture 2 Pasture 1Pasture 3

2007 Rotation

Pasture 4

June 20

July 4

June 30

July 13

8

9

10

1112

June 23, 2005

Pasture 2Pasture 1

8

9

10

111213

July 04, 2005

Pasture 2Pasture 1

June 10, 2006

Pasture 2 Pasture 1

8

9

10

11

1213

June 27, 2006

Pasture 2

Pasture 1

8

9

10

13

June 30,2005 Plot 8 Sept. 22,2005 Plot 8

June 20,2006 Plot 8 Sept. 11,2006 Plot 8

May 24, 2007 Plot 8

June1, 2007 Plot 8

100% Grass, Height = 33 cm

After 1st grazing rotation

July 19, 2005 Plot 26 Sep. 22, 2005 Plot 26

July 14, 2006 Plot 26 Sep.11, 2006 Plot 26

May 24, 2007 Plot 26

June 17, 2007 Plot 26

After 1st grazing rotation

20% Grass, Height = 23 cm

Pastures Weeds Grass

1 47% decrease 47% increase

2 35% decrease 35% increase

3 18% decrease 18% increase

Change in the percent cover of weeds and grass from 2005 to 2006

20’ Open Sampling Area

20’ Cattail Sampling Area

66°F 64°F

64°F

64°F

64°F

Average 2°F decrease after grazing in 2005 and 2006

Days lbs/day

2005 6 steers 57 1.75

2006 8 steers 74 1.55

Yearling Steer Weight Gain Data

Individual weight gains were taken in 2005 and ranged from 1.35 to 2.26. Weights in 2006 were taken on all eight steers combined. There was a weak performing steer in 2005 and in 2006 which influenced the weight gain averages. Sheep remained at their maintenance weights because they did not lamb.

Grazing CRP

Advantages DisadvantagesVegetation management Water availabilityWeed control Constant animal rotationLimit weed seed production Poor feed quality?Increase grass prod.Decrease H2O temperature

Increase OM--carbon storing

Wildlife benefitNatural reseeding--hoof actionIncrease water infiltration

Continued Work-Initiatives1) Separate haying from grazing within the CRP guidelines.

2) Use rotational grazing as a management tool. The typical cost share of $5.00 per acre for maintenance (weed control) and $6.00 per acre for mowing could be used to encourage livestock managers to perform managed grazing on CRP lands (i.e., temporary fencing, water tanks).

3) CRP contract holders: If managed grazing were to be allowed on CRP lands, the livestock producer would enter into an agreement to manage the land and continue to keep the land in grass for the same number of years as the CRP contract, following expiration of the CRP contract.

Example: Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Under contract--CRP payments No contract, no payment managed grazing remain in sod and continue mgmt

4) Allow managed grazing on CRP lands 1 out of every 2 years

Questions ?

svanvleet@wsu.edu(509)397-6290