Background Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) is one of the most common perennial warm‐season forages grown in the Southeastern United States. The incorporation of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) into bermudagrass pastures could serve as an alternative source of nitrogen (N) while also improving the nutritive value of the forage base. Methods A 2‐year grazing evaluation arranged in a randomized complete block design was conducted from May to September 2018 (Year 1) and May–August 2019 (Year 2) in Tifton, GA, USA. The objective was to compare the production of alfalfa–bermudagrass mixed pastures (BGA) with bermudagrass monoculture pastures with (BGN) or without (BG) the application of synthetic nitrogen on forage production and stocker cattle performance. Results Differences were observed for average daily gain (p = 0.10), gain per hectare (p = 0.02) and stocking rate (p = 0.01), in that BGA was greatest compared to BGN and BG, which did not differ from each other. Furthermore, BGA had increased forage crude protein (p = 0.01) and total digestible nutrients (p = 0.01) compared to BGN and BG. Finally, BGA provided the greatest economic return per hectare compared to BG or BGN. Conclusions These data illustrate improved animal performance and forage nutritive value using alfalfa–bermudagrass systems and offer a viable option for producers seeking alternatives to synthetic N sources for bermudagrass pastures in the Southeastern United States.

Since its 2010 discovery in southern Georgia, the bermudagrass stem maggot (BSM, Atherigona reversura Villenueve) has spread throughout the southeastern United States, damaging bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] hayfields and pastures. The objective of this research was to quantify the damage potential of the BSM in terms of forage accumulation, nutritive value, and economic returns from five bermudagrass varieties grown in Tifton, GA. The BSM significantly reduced accumulated forage only from late July to September in each year of this study. This would generally correspond to the third, fourth, and/or fifth harvest of the year for bermudagrass hay producers in the states of the Deep South. When BSM damage affected accumulated forage, crude protein increased while other nutritive value parameters decreased in plots not treated with insecticide. The results indicate that spraying prior to every harvest is not an economical management strategy. Instead, insecticide applications should only be made when significant forage loss is expected (generally from late July to September). Producers should create and implement a strategic integrated pest management plan to manage BSM populations on their farms to ensure positive economic returns and slow the potential resistance of the BSM to pyrethroids by preventing their overuse.

Cool-season forages provide high-quality forage throughout the cooler months, which can reduce winter feed and hay consumption by extending the grazing season in the Southeast. Limited research has been conducted to simultaneously evaluate common annual and perennial cool-season forage options during this time period. A 2-year grazing trial was conducted to evaluate annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.), mixtures of cereal rye (Secale cereal L.) and annual ryegrass, and novel endophyte tall fescue [Lolium arundinaceum (Shreb.) Darbysh.] seeded with annual crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.), perennial white clover (Trifolium repens L.), or treated with spring-applied N fertilizer. Parameters evaluated were timing and length of grazing season, forage nutritive value, forage dry matter (DM) availability, animal performance, and economic returns. Economic analysis evaluated monetary returns per acre. In Year 1 (2013-2014) annual treatments provided 68 days of grazing while perennial treatments provided 75 days. In Year 2 (2014-2015) mixtures of cereal rye and annual ryegrass provided 57 days, while annual ryegrass and novel endophyte tall fescue treatments provided 85 and 84 days, respectively. Animal average daily gain (ADG) and body weight (BW) gain/acre was greatest for ryegrass and tall fescue and least in treatments containing cereal rye. No differences in animal performance were observed between legume and N fertilizer within forage base. Novel endophyte tall fescue treatments had positive returns per acre compared with negative returns for annual treatments. These results indicate that under conditions of similar animal performance and forage production, novel endophyte tall fescue systems may provide a more economical option for producers in the lower transition zone of the Southeast. Cool-Season Forage Systems for Extended GrazingHigh-quality, cool-season forage systems have forage production characteristics that complement annual production in warm-season grass-based forage systems common to the southeastern stocker industry (Beck et al., 2008;Gunter et al., 2012). In this region, cold weather limits winter forage production, so cattle

A 52-d winter feeding trial was conducted to determine animal performance, utilization, and economics of pearl millet (PM) baleage, sorghum × sudangrass (SS) baleage, and “Tifton 85” bermudagrass (B) hay for lactating beef cow–calf pairs. Cone (C) and open-shaped (O) rings were evaluated for potential to minimize forage wastage. The experiment was a completely randomized design with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments for each forage type × hay ring (3 cow–calf pairs per treatment; 2 replications per treatment). Animal response measures included cow body weight (BW) change and body condition score (BCS) over the 52-d trial, initial and final calf BW, and cow milk production at the midpoint and end of the study. Forage nutritive value parameters evaluated for each forage type included ash, crude protein (CP), in vitro true digestibility (IVTD), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, and acid detergent lignin (ADL). Forage wastage was estimated for each forage × ring treatment as the percentage of the bale weight remaining in feeding rings at the time of bale replacement. An economic evaluation of the relative costs associated with production and utilization of each forage type was calculated. There were no differences (P ≥ 0.10) in cow BW change or BCS change among forage types, between ring shapes, or an interaction observed for these response variables. Proportion of waste from PM and SS baleage was greater (P < 0.10) than for B hay, although there was no forage type × hay ring interaction or differences between O and C hay ring treatments for forage waste (P ≥ 0.10, respectively). Cow milk production and calf BW gain did not differ among forage type (P ≥ 0.10, respectively); however, beef calves in pens containing the O ring feeder weighed 6 kg more (P ≤ 0.05) than calves whose dams were fed using C rings. The economic analysis implies that it is more costly to feed warm-season annual forage baleage to cow–calf pairs than dry hay, largely due to greater costs of production, lack of difference in animal performance responses, and less utilization of baleage compared with feeding bermudagrass hay in this trial.

No abstract

Producers cannot completely control infertility in their cow herds. However, understanding and addressing the factors that affect infertility will help producers implement management practices that can improve fertility and reduce the negative impacts of infertility on the profitability of beef cow-calf operations. This 4-page fact sheet discusses reasons why beef cows fail to become pregnant or wean a calf, identification of infertile beef cows, and economic impacts of reduced fertility and infertility in beef cattle. Written by Chris Prevatt, G. Cliff Lamb, Carl Dahlen, Vitor R. G. Mercadante, and Kayln Waters, and published by the UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences, revised September 2018. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an208

US cattle markets have experienced a roller coaster ride over the last several years, with cattle prices have been supported by a declining US beef cow herd and strong beef demand. But a turning point in the US cattle industry occurred at the beginning of 2015. This 7-page fact sheet includes highlights of the US cattle market’s cycle since 2004 and the estimated outlook for 2016, a brief analysis of the supply situation, food and forage conditions, demand and trade, competing meats, and the 2016 beef price outlook. Written by Chris Prevatt and published by the UF Department of Food and Resource Economics, April 2016.

No abstract