A joint initiative between:

Manitoba Agriculture and FoodManitoba Forage Council

Manitoba Cattle Producers AssociationWestern Forage Beef GroupParticipating Agri-Business

December 2nd, 3rd and 4thKeystone Centre

Brandon, Manitoba

ORGANIZING COMMITTEEFor more information contact:

Fraser StewartManitoba Forage CouncilPhone: (204) 482-5547

Program:Kim Ominski, Fraser Stewart, Don Green

Pam Iwanchysko, Melinda German,Jane Thornton, Paul McCaughey

Wray Whitmore, Elizabeth Stadnyk

Facilities:Stephanie Cruickshanks, Jane Thornton,

Peter Petrash, Roger Berard

Trade Show & Registration:Larry Fischer, Holly Troop, Scott Atkins,

Roberta Currah, Jo-Lene Gardiner, Heather Froebe

Promotion:Michael Sykes, Kevin Yaworski,

Wanda McFadyen, Vaughan Greenslade

Fundraising and Finances:Don Green, Fraser Stewart, Jo-lene Gariner,

Mark Sloane, Vaughan Greenslade, Roberta Currah

The committee would also like to recognize the following peoplefor their efforts and hard work to pull this event together.

Holly Troop, Debra Watson, Cheryl Fraser

SPONSORS

PPllaattiinnuumm (($$ 11,,000000..0000 ++)) Northstar Seed Ltd Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council Inc. Manitoba Cattle Producers Association PFRA - Land Management Division

Brett-Young Seeds LimitedDow AgroScience Canada Inc.Manitoba Forage Council

SSiillvveerr (( $$ 550000..0000 )) Real Industries Ltd. Proven Seed

BBrroonnzzee (( $$ 225500..0000 )) Promark Seed Elanco /Provel Animal Health Feed-Rite Ltd. Unifeed Ltd.

Cattelex Ltd.Pickseed Canada Inc.Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation

Photo Contest Sponsors

Canadian Cattlemen Farmers' Independent WeeklyGrainews Manitoba Agriculture and FoodManitoba Cooperator Yourview Aerial Services

Hospitality Sponsors

Canadian Inn Colonial Inn/ Redwood InnComfort Inn Days InnRoyal Oak Inn & Suites Victoria Inn

Manitoba Grazier of the Year Award Sponsors

Gallagher Power Fence SystemsSpeedrite

Pel (Kane Veterinary Supplies)

EXHIBITORS

Elanco/Provel Animal Health Leafy Spurge Stakeholders GroupPromark Seed Kelln SolarProven Seed Jarvis Fencing SuppliesFeed Rite Ltd. Brandon Research Centre - AAFCJohnson Seeds Hi-Qual ManufacturingDucks Unlimited Canada Cargill Animal NutritionKane Veterinary Manitoba Simmental AssociationSharptails Plus Foundation Inc. Mixed Grass Prairie Stewardship ProgramPFRA Manitoba Charolais AssociationAgromec Industries Critical Wildlife Habitat ProgramOak Creek Industries Ltd. Pickseed Canada Inc.Merial Canada Inc. Manitoba Habitat Heritage CorporationBrett-Young Seeds Limited Ayerst Veterinary LaboratoriesGallagher Power Fencing Feed MaxVetoquinol N.-A. Inc. Manitoba Agricultural Credit CorporationManitoba Forage Council Manitoba Agriculture and FoodManitoba Sheep Association Covering New GroundMulti-Species Grazing Project East Man FeedsManitoba Rural Adaptation Council Inc. Dow Agro Sciences Canada Inc.Manitoba Angus Association Manitoba Hereford AssociationFarm Credit Canada Manitoba Cattle Producers AssociationNorthstar Seed Ltd. Fair-Valley Polled Simmentals

MANITOBA GRAZING SCHOOLDECEMBER 2nd, 3rd and 4th

Keystone Centre - Brandon, ManitobaTABLE OF CONTENTS

Speaker Profiles: (In Order Of Presentation) .................................................................. 7

More Than A Matter of Taste ........................................................................................ 21Prepared By: Dr. Fred Provenza and Beth BurrittPresented By: Dr. Fred Provenza

Grass-Legume Pastures: What, Why, and How ........................................................... 29Paul R. Peterson

Pasture Productivity: Growth and Development.ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Dr. Vern S. Baron

Holistic Grazing...................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Don Campbell

Matching Sheep Requirements to Grass Growth = Efficient Low Cost ProductionERROR! BOOKMJanet W McNally

Watching Your Animals Eat- What Does It Mean?ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Dr. Fred Provenza

Integrating Ecology and Production Into Sustainable Grazing SystemsERROR! BOOKMARK NOTDr. Barry Irving

Pasture Renovation Methods That Work ............ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Paul R. Peterson

Multiple Species Grazing “A Solution for the Leafy Spurge Scourge”ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DTimothy C. Faller, Kevin K. Sedivec, and Jack D. Dahl

Financial Strategies for Manitoba Beef Praducers in a Falling MarketERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DHarlan Hughes

Beef Value Chains: Lessons Learned and Possibilities for the Manitoba BeefIndustry ...............................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Prepared By: Jerry BoumaPresented By: Jerry Bouma and Dr. Larry Martin .......Error! Bookmark not defined.

Opportunities for Forage Fed Beef in the Organic MarketERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.David Schettler

Opportunities for Forage Fed Beef in the Organic Market”ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Hélène Bouvier

Using Futures and Options to Manage Risk .......ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Gerald Klassen

Strategic Alliances in Beef ..................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Bernie Kotelko

Is There A Market Opportunity for Raising..........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.Replacement Dairy Heifers On A Beef Farm? ....ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Tom Droppo and Dr. Jack ReebA New Era For Western Canadian Agriculture....ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Owen McAuley

Summary Of Poster Presentations......................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Forage Quality of Hybrid Bromegrass at Four Phenological Growth StagesERROR! BOOKMARK N

SPEAKER PROFILES: (in order of presentation)

DR. FRED PROVENZA

Fred Provenza is a professor with the Department of Forestry, Range, and WildlifeSciences at the College of Natural Resources at Utah State University. Fred hasextensive experience in studying the grazing behavior of both cattle and sheep. Fred’sresearch has practical applications in livestock production. He is a very popular speakerat grazing conferences and has authored many articles in the farm media and scientificjournals on his research and experiences. In his presentation he will discuss the grazingbehavior of different animal species and how you can use this information in yourgrazing practices.

Fred looks forward to the opportunity to interact with producers at the Grazing Schoolabout this facet of grazing management.

Fred Provenza can be reached at:Department of Rangeland ResourcesUtah State UniversityLogan Utah 84322-5230

Phone:1-435-797-1604Email: stan@cc.usu.eduWeb site: http://www.cnr.usu.edu/default.asp?category=personnel&section=-117&content=index

DR. PAUL R. PETERSON

Since April 2000, Paul’s primary areas include extension and research on pasturemanagement and renovation, alfalfa management, kura clover, perennial cool-seasongrasses, and native grasses and legumes.

From 1997-2000, he was the Extension Forage Agronomist at Virginia Tech inBlacksburg, VA where his work included extension and research on pasturemanagement and perennial warm-season grasses.

Paul was the Assistant Professor of Forage Agronomy at McGill University – MacdonaldCampus in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada from 1994-1996. During this timehe focused on research in pasture management and renovation and teaching in forageproduction.

During 1992-1994 Paul was a Research Specialist at the Forage Systems ResearchCenter with the University of Missouri at Linneus, MO, where his work included researchand extension in grazing and forage systems for beef cattle.

Paul Peterson graduated from the University of Wisconsin with B.S. (Agronomy) in 1987and from the University of Minnesota with M.S. degree in 1990 and with a Ph.D. in 1993.

Paul was born in Madison, Wisconsin on June 22, 1965. He is married to Danielle andthey have 4 children: ages 17, 12, 4, and 2.

Paul Peterson can be reached at:Extension Forage Agronomist and Assistant ProfessorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul Minneapolis 55108

Phone:1-612-625-3747Email: peter072@umn.edu

DR. VERN BARON

Dr. Baron was raised on a farm in southern Manitoba and currently resides on a farmnear Lacombe, Alberta. He was educated at the Universities of Manitoba (BSAg 1973,and Guelph (MSc 1977, and PhD 1982).

Dr. Baron has authored 94 publications including 34 refereed papers, 1 book chapter, 31conference proceedings, 28 abstracts and 1 departmental bulletin. He also hasauthored over 100 extension articles. His research articles have involved collaborationwith plant, animal and soil scientists in Canada and France. Dr. Baron has served on 6graduate student committees in the departments of Renewable Resources and PlantScience at the University of Alberta. Dr. Baron is a member of Crop Science Society ofAmerica (CSSA) and was an Associate Editor for Agronomy Journal for two terms. Hehas served on the Agronomic Research Awards Committee and the G. O. MottScholarship Committee. Currently Dr. Baron is the chairman of the Forage andGrazinglands Division of CSSA and is responsible for the annual meeting program to beheld in Indianapolis in November 2002. He is a member of the Canadian Society ofAgronomy and has been an Associate Editor of the Canadian Journal of Plant Science.Dr. Baron is co-chair of the Western Forage/Beef Group, a federal/provincial group ofanimal and crop scientists, whose mandate is to provide production research andextension to the moister areas of the Canadian Prairies. This area accounts for over60% of the beef cows in Canada. He acted as section head of the Plant and SoilSection at the Lacombe Research Center 1990 through 1991.

Dr. Baron’s research interests are focused on extension of the grazing and growingseason and maximizing the use of a short growing season with forage/beef systems.Recent research has involved sustainability of intensively managed pastures, includingeffects of grazing intensity on C and N flows through sward, livestock and soil. Dr.Baron has also conducted research in the area of hay preservation. Consequently hisinterests span the areas of animal, plant and soil science. Dr. Baron works primarily withcool-season grasses and with others helped develop meadow bromegrass as anadapted pasture species in Western Canada. Dr. Baron has developed croppingsystems for extending the grazing season by using spring planted winter cereals, whichgrow vegetatively well into the fall. He is currently working with others to developstockpiling systems for grazing cattle through snow.

Vern Baron, Ph.D. can be reached at:Forage Pysiologist/Agronomist6000 C & E TrailLacombe Alberta T4L 1W1

Phone:1-403-782-8109Fax: 1-403-782-6120

DON CAMPBELL

Don was born and raised at Meadow Lake Saskatchewan. He is a second-generationrancher and now, the third generation is involved. He received his DVM degree in 1967.

Don and Bev Campbell have been married for 30 years and have four children, ages 21to 26. They own B-C Ranch Inc., which includes 4,500 acres and 600 cows.

Don has taken numerous holistic management courses and also has facilitated financialplanning courses for 3 years with Noel McNaughton. As part of his private holisticmanagement facilitating business dealing with people, land and finances, he hasintroduced holistic management to non farm businesses and has facilitatedintergenerational farm transfers. Past member of the Canadian Board of HolisticManagement, Don Campbell is currently a member of the Devon Management Club.

Through his 15 years of experience in holistic management, he has worked in 4Canadian provinces and 2 American states. Don knows the results have beenimpressive, a better quality of life, improved land and adequate profit. He is anxious toshare his success and lives by his mission, “To empower people to live a full andrewarding life.”

Don Campbell can be reached at:Box 187Meadow Lake Saskatchewan S9X 1Y6

Phone:1-306-236-6088Fax: 1-306-236-2973

JANET MCNALLY

Janet McNally is a livestock producer from Hinckley, Minnesota. Janet and her family runa commercial sheep and beef operation (200 ewes, 20 cows). Janet is a member of thePrairie Lamb Cooperative. Janet developed and ran the Lamb and Wool adulteducational program for Pine Technical College for 14 years.

She looks for looks forward to the opportunity to interact with producers at the GrazingSchool about this facet of grazing management.

Janet McNally can be reached at:Box 63, RT2Hinckley, Minnesota55037

Phone:1-320-384-7262Email: tamarack@pinenet.comWeb site: http://www.pinenet.com/~tamarak/homepage.html

DR. BARRY IRVING

Barry is a rangeland conservationist who is firmly grounded in production agriculture.Barry has managed numerous research projects that have investigated a variety ofgrazing impacts on mesic grassland (tame and native) as well as forested range types.Barry actively uses grazing management and fire to manipulate grassland and forest inthe Aspen Parklands of central Alberta. Barry believes in an interactive approach tograzing system development and deployment. Grazing systems need to consider thelong-term viability of the plants, animals, and farm and ranch families to be trulysustainable. Barry will discuss some strategies to coordinate the needs of all threesegments into one management stream.

Dr. Barry Irving can be reached at:

Department of Agriculture Food & Nutritional ScienceKinsella Ranch ManagerUniversity of AlbertaCalgary Alberta T6G 2P5

Phone:1-780-492-9738Email: birving@afhe.ualberta.ca

TIMOTHY C. FALLER

Timothy Faller is the director of the NDSU Research and Extension Center at Hettinger,North Dakota. The Hettinger center does research in Range, Sheep Production,Agronomy, Farm Management, and Calf Feeding. The center maintains a flock of 1000-1300 ewes for research and all cattle utilized in feeding and grazing research areprovided by cooperators. Recent work in grazing has focused on the merits of Multi-Species grazing as a tool for leafy spurge control and range improvement. Leadershipfor grazing studies in the Team Leafy Spurge Project was provided by North DakotaState University and Mr. Faller was the PI.

He looks forward to their opportunity to interact with producers at the Grazing Schoolabout this facet of range management.

Tim Faller can be reached at:Director, HRECBox 1377Hettinger, ND 58639

Phone:1-701-567-4324Fax: 1-701-567-4327Email: tfaller@ndsuext.nodak.eduWeb site: http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/hettinge/

DR. HARLAN HUGHES

Harlan is a native of Ravenna, Nebraska. He received his B.Sc. degree in agriculturalmechanization and M.Sc. degree in farm management from the University of Nebraska,and his Ph.D. degree in production economics from the University of Missouri.

He served as a farm management specialist at the University of Wisconsin from 1972 to1978, as a marketing specialist at Michigan State University in 1978, and as the AGNETcoordinator and microcomputer application specialist at the University of Wyoming from1979 to 1985. Harlan came to NDSU to provide extension leadership in livestockeconomics in 1985.

In March 2000, Harlan retired from NDSU and is currently Professor Emeritus at NorthDakota State University. Harlan is a monthly author for the BEEF magazine available atwww.BEEF-mag.com. He actively solicits e-mail from beef cow producers.

"Harlan has done as much as anyone to lead U.S. cow-calf producers into themanagement mode."

Harlan introduced Integrated Resource Management (IRM) in North Dakota. Thiseducational program was designed to teach beef cow producers how to conduct anintegrated production and economic analysis and to use their individual herd analysesagainst benchmark herds to identify their own herd's strengths and weaknesses.

Harlan’s Web page can be found at www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/cow, which features theMarket Advisor column, the IRM data and other materials. He designed a weekly feedercattle price projection system and posts updated price projections for the next 12 to 15months every week.

How to profit from cattle cycles, the economic value of a bred heifer, what we havelearned from 10 years of Integrated Resource Management (IRM), and unit cost ofproducing a hundredweight of calf have been the subjects of his recent presentations.

Harlan and his wife Lois live in Mankato, Minnesota.

Harlan Hughes can be reached at:Livestock Economist & Professor EmeritusNorth Dakota State University109 Martin CircleMankato, Minnesota 56001

Phone:1-507-388-1478Cell : 1-701-238-9607Fax: 1-701-231-1059Email: harlan.hughes@gte.netWeb Page: www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/cowDR. LARRY MARTIN

Larry Martin has over 30 years’ experience in the economics of the Canadian agri-food.industry. In gaining this experience he has been:

• Director or Economic Research and then CEO of the George Morris Centre, aThink-Tank on Agricultural and Food Policy with staff in Guelph and Calgary

• Professor and Chair, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business,University of Guelph

L.J. Norton Visiting Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois, Chair of a national Task Force on Competitiveness in the agri-food sector.

Larry participates in the George Morris Centre’s strategic and agricultural policy researchprograms and leads it’s training program in Management. Some recent Centre researchby Larry includes;Larry Martin and Holly Mayer, The 2002 US Farm Bill’s Implications for CommodityMarkets and Canada’s Agri-food Sector, July 2002Larry Martin, Kevin Grier, Al Mussel and Kate Stiefelmeyer. Relative Profitability of HogProduction in Western Canada and the US Midwest. October 2001.Kate Stiefelmeyer and Larry Martin. Strategic Alliances and Cooperatives Aiding inRural Development in North America. June 2001Larry Martin, Al Mussell and Kate Stiefelmeyer. Forces Underlying Market Concentrationand Consolidation in Agriculture and Food. April 2001.

Larry has also facilitated the strategic planning processes of: Ontario Grape GrowersMarketing Board, Farm Credit Canada, and Bay Growers Cooperative.

He also led the research team and facilitated the process to plan changes in futurescontracts for the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange in 1996-97.

He holds a BSc and MSc from Ohio State University, and a PhD from the University ofIllinois. He is Past President of the Canadian Agricultural Economics Association, and amember of the American Agricultural Economics Association. He is also a member ofDucks Unlimited, and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He and his wifeSusan live in Puslinch, Ontario where they dote over their grandson, and tend theirperennials.

Larry Martin can be reached at:George Morris Centre102-150 Research LaneGuelph Ontario NIG 4T2

Phone:1-519-822-3929 ext. 208Fax: 1-519-837-8721Cell: 1-519-240-8779Email: larry@georgemorris.org

JERRY BOUMA

Jerry Bouma has over 20 years experience as a marketing strategist in the agri-foodbusiness to business marketplace. He has held several senior marketing positions withagri-business firms including:

• Partner with Toma & Bouma Management Consultants - a firm, which specialises inthe provision of strategic business and planning services to the agri-food industry.

• Marketing Manager with Shur-Gain, A Member of Maple Leaf Foods Limited.• Manager and Senior Consultant with the Deloitte Touche Agribusiness Consulting

Group (formerly Deloitte, Haskins & Sells), also based in Guelph.

Jerry has been at the forefront of value added development in Western Canadian agri-food sector. He has served as lead consultant in a number of initiatives including:

• Value Chains as a Strategy – The development of a value chain strategy for theAgriculture & Food Council, 1998. This has led to the formation of Value ChainPrograms in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

• The Pursuit of Quality. A Sustainable Growth Strategy for the Alberta Agri-FoodSector. Completed in Dec. of 1997.

• A Business Plan for Livestock Inspection Services - a plan to privatize brandinspection in Alberta, 1997.

• People, Pathways, Possibilities…! A Human Resource Strategy for the Alberta Foodand Beverage Processing Industry, 2000.

• A Plan to Privatize B.C. Livestock Inspection Services, 1997.• Project manager in the development of a strategy for the enhancement of value added

in the Alberta agri-food sector. The strategy is called " Changing Course" The ValueAdded Strategy for Food & Fibre in Alberta. The strategy identified supply chains andtheir strategic importance to the Alberta agri-food sector.1996.

Jerry is director with Northlands Park, a member of the Canadian Agri-MarketingAssociation - an organization in which he has been a past president and director. He isalso a member of the American Marketing Association, the Canadian Feed IndustryAssociation and the Alberta Food Processors Association. He holds a B.Sc. inMathematics from Villanova University, Pennsylvania and a M.Sc. in AgriculturalEconomics from the University of Guelph.

Jerry Bouma can be reached at:Strathcona Professional Centre#202, 10328 - 81 AvenueEdmonton Alberta T6E 1X2

Phone: 1-780-433-5666Fax: 1-780-433-5946Website: http://www.tomaandbouma.com

DAVID SCHETTLER

David and his family operate an organic farm in the Arborg area of Manitoba’s Interlake.The land base of 480 acres on this mixed farm has been certified organic since 1986,while the beef cattle have been certified organic since 1997.

David uses the Organic Producers Association of Manitoba (OPAM) as his certifyingagency. He is also currently second vice-president of OPAM and has belonged to theorganization for a number of years.

David is an active spokesperson in the organic community and advocates the directmarketing approach that he uses for his own farm products.

David Schettler can be reached at:Organics from the Ground UpP.O. Box 1072Arborg Manitoba ROC OAO

Phone:1-204-378-2830Email: bschettl@mb.sympatico.ca

HELENE BOUVIER

Raised on a grain and livestock farm near Oak Lake, MB, Helene has worked foragricultural and rural-related government departments at both the provincial and federallevel for several years. She has specialized training in meat processing from theHermann Laue Spice Co. in Uxbridge, Ontario.

Helene is an active member of the Organic Food Council of Manitoba (OFCM) and theOrganic Trade Association (OTA). This past summer, she was on the organizingcommittee for the first annual Prairie Sun Organic Market held at the Red RiverExhibition Park in Winnipeg.

Helene is currently the owner/manager of a busy and growing organic meat-handlingcompany known as Minnewashta Valley Organics Canada Inc. The company has threetrademark brand names: the Organic Bread Basket, Pop’s Farm and Front-Tier. Helenehas designed and developed her own website, which can be found atwww.OrganicBreadBasket.com.

Helene Bouvier can be reached at:Minnewashta Valley Organics Canada Inc.70 Kendale DriveWinnipeg Manitoba R3T 5M4

Phone:1-204-269-0658Email: hbouvier@organicbreadbasket.com

GERALD KLASSEN

Gerald Klassen grew up on a mixed farm in Coaldale, Alberta (6 miles east ofLethbridge). Gerald graduated from the University of Alberta with a degree in AgricultureBusiness Management and then started working for Cargill. Gerald worked in Viking,Alberta, as an elevator assistant. He then worked in Lethbridge as a Domestic GrainMerchant and then worked in Vancouver as an International Grain Merchant for Cargillas well. Gerald moved to Winnipeg in the summer of 1998 joining UGG’s GrowersMarketing Services which later became part of Benson Quinn – GMS. In 2001 Geraldjoined Fimat Derivatives Canada Inc as a Floor Trader/Account Executive. Whileemployed at Benson Quinn –GMS and at Fimat, Gerald worked with feedlot managerson risk management strategies using futures and options, cash contracts, over thecounter derivatives and foreign exchange products.

This experienced led Gerald to take on a new challenge, starting his own businesslooking after the market analysis and risk management for certain small to medium sizefeedlots. He also trades as a “Local” on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. Gerald stillfeeds cattle and has maintained interest in the family feedlot back in Coaldalethroughout his career.

Gerald Klassen can be reached at:1206-240 Stradbrook AvenueWinnipeg Manitoba R3L 2P7

Phone:1-204-287-8268Fax: 1-204-287-82-68Email: jkci@mts.net

BERNIE KOTELKO

Bernie Kotelko is the president of Highland Feeders Limited. Highland Feeders is asuccessful, family run 36,000-head custom feedlot enterprise. In 1997 Highland Feederswon the Alberta Cattle Commission's Environmental Stewardship Award. HighlandFeeders also participates in a beef value chain. The key to Highland Feeders success isgrounded in their attention to detail and high quality standards.

Bernie looks forward to the opportunity to interact with producers at the Grazing Schoolabout this facet of production and marketing.

Bernie can be reached at:Highland Feeders LimitedBox 57Vegreville Alberta T9C 1R1

Phone:1-780-768-2466Fax: 1-780-768-3888Email: bkotelko@highlandbeef.comWeb site: http://www.highlandbeef.com/indx.htm

TOM DROPPO

Tom Droppo graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) with B.Sc.(Agr) andM.Sc. degrees in 1980 and 1982. From 1982 to 1985 he was a regional dairy specialistwith the Ontario government. Since 1985, he has been Manitoba Agriculture and Food'sProvincial Dairy Specialist.

Tom is responsible for several programs including milk quality recognition, milkingmanagement extension, the Department's dairy website, dairy publication and trainingprogram development, and troubleshooting on-farm production problems. He haspresented talks, delivered training programs and participated in Trade Missions toMexico, China, Japan and the U.S.

Tom Droppo can be reached at:Agricultural Services Complex204-545 University CrescentWinnipeg MB R3T 5S6

Phone:204-945-7670Fax: 204-945-4327E-mail: tdroppo@gov.mb.ca

DR. JACK REEB

Dr. Jack Reeb graduated with his DVM degree in 1974 from the Ontario VeterinaryCollege, University of Guelph. Dr. Reeb worked in general veterinary practice for 20years and also owned and managed a 100-cow dairy from 1988 to 1995. Past president

of the Canadian Embryo Transfer Association (CETA), Dr. Reeb is currently thepresident and owner of Central Canadian Genetics Ltd., which specializes in embryotransfer (collection, freezing, exporting and sexing), reproduction and nutrition.

Dr. Jack Reeb can be reached at:Central Canadian Genetics Ltd.601 Christie Ave.Selkirk Manitoba R1A 2L9

Phone:1-204-482-1760Fax: 1-204-482-1761E-mail: djreeb@mb.sympatico.ca

OWEN MCAULEY

Owen was born January 25, 1949, and has spent his entire life in the McAuley district onthe family farm. He graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1968 with a diploma inAgriculture.

Owen and Anna-Mae McAuley has three children, and four grandchildren. With theirfamily, they farm over 6,000 acres, of which 4,500 acres is in annual production, plus700 acres of hay. They also operate a cow-calf and feeder cattle operation, and haveinvested in a large hog barn in the community. Named Manitoba Farmer of the Year in1991, Owen McAuley was a Municipal councillor for 11 years and was a long-standingmember of the Virden District Vet Board. He served on the executive of KeystoneAgricultural Producers and participated in the grains committee for a number of years.He has served on the National Safety Net Committee, the Producer Payment Panel, andthe Western Grain Marketing Panel and most recently the Prairie Agricultural LandscapeProject with PFRA. He also sat on the Manitoba Farm Mediation Board and theFarmland Ownership Board. He was elected to the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Boardand spent five years there and currently is Chair of the Western Agri-Food Institute.

Owen McAuley can be reached at:Box 22McAuley Manitoba ROM 1HO

Phone:1-204-722-2316Fax: 1-204-722-2002

MORE THAN A MATTER OF TASTEPrepared by: Dr. Fred Provenza and Beth Burritt

Presented by: Dr. Fred Provenza

INTRODUCTION

Have you ever considered why animals behave as they do and what it means formanagement? Why livestock moved from pastures or rangelands to confinement or viceversa often refuse to eat, get sick, and perform poorly even when fed nutritious foods?Why wild and domestic animals moved to unfamiliar environments frequently suffer frompredation, malnutrition, and over-ingestion of toxic plants? Why some individuals knowexactly which toxic plants to avoid while others don’t have a clue? Why livestock onpastures and rangelands perform better with a wide variety of plants than when they onlyhave a few plant species to eat? Why changes in grazing management can reducelivestock performance for up to 3 years?

Unfortunately, efforts to help people make a living often ignore how animals make theirliving. Yet simple strategies that use knowledge of behavior can improve the efficiencyand profitability of agriculture, the quality of life for managers and their animals, and theintegrity of the land.

Which foods animals eat and where they forage influences weight gains, reproductiveperformance, and the carrying capacity of pastures and rangelands. What factors drivefood and habitat selection, and what are the implications for management? Animals arethought to prefer foods that are palatable, but what is palatability and is it merely amatter of taste?

What is Palatability?

Palatability is considered to be a matter of taste, and all popular definitions focus oneither a food's flavor or its physical and chemical characteristics. Yet, if palatability ismerely a matter of taste, why do herbivores supplemented with polyethylene glycolincrease their intake of unpalatable plants high in tannins, why do goats eat woodrathouses, and why do cows eat moldy hay and endophyte-infected grass high in toxicalkaloids rather than highly nutritious pasture legumes?

Flavor-Feedback Interactions. Palatability is more than a matter of taste. It is theinterrelationship between a food's flavor and its postingestive effects. Flavor is thecombination of odor, taste, and texture. Postingestive effects are due to feedback fromthe cells and organs. Feedback is positive (increases palatability) if the food meetsnutritional needs. Feedback is negative (decreases palatability) if the food is inadequateor excessive relative to nutritional needs or if the food is toxic. Thus, flavor-feedbackinteractions are influenced by the nutrient and toxin content of the food and thenutritional needs of the animal. The senses - smell, taste, sight - enable animals toselect among foods and provide pleasant or unpleasant feelings associated with eating.Thus, postingestive feedback influences an animal’s liking or disliking for a food - itspalatability, and that depends on how well a food meets the needs of the body.

Feedback within the body is critical for health and well-being. Bodies are made up ofcells, organs, and organ systems all with nutritional needs. They interact with one

another through feedback from nerves, neurotransmitters, and hormones. In the case offlavor-feedback interactions, nerves for taste converge with nerves from the body at thebase of the brain. These nerves interact as they send information throughout the centralnervous system. Feedback from the body to the palate is how groups of cells and organsinfluence which foods and how much of those foods are eaten.

Changes in palatability through flavor-feedback interactions occur automatically. Animalsdon’t need to think about or remember the feedback event, just as none of us need toconsider which enzymes to release to digest the foods we eat. Even when animals areanesthetized or tranquilized, postingestive feedback still changes palatability. Whensheep eat a nutritious food and then receive a toxin dose during deep anesthesia, theybecome averse to the food because the negative feedback of the toxin occurs evenwhen the animals are deeply asleep. Thus, feedback operates automatically, and oftenin the absence of rationality, to change palatability. For example, people acquire foodaversions even when they know their illness was not caused by the food. A person oftenacquires strong aversions to foods eaten just prior to getting nauseated even if theperson knows that the flu or seasickness - not the food - was responsible for the nausea.

Polyethylene Glycol. Tannins reduce the digestibility of protein and energy in foods,and some tannins are toxic. Polyethylene glycol binds with tannins, preventing theiradverse effects. Animals fed small amounts of polyethylene glycol eat much more offoods high in tannins because the tannins no longer produce negative effects. Thus, it isthe aversive post-ingestive effects of tannins, not their flavor, that renders plants high intannins unpalatable, and it is the positive post-ingestive effects of nutrients in the foodthat make high-tannin foods palatable. That’s why polyethylene glycol can be used totrain animals to eat unpalatable weeds, such as serecia, that are high in tannins.

Goats and Woodrat Houses. The shrub blackbrush is deficient in macronutrients -energy and protein. Several years ago during a winter-grazing study, we placed smallgroups of goats on six blackbrush pastures. As the study progressed, goats becameincreasingly averse to blackbrush. In one pasture they began to eat woodrat houses.Goats acquired a preference for woodrat houses because the houses contained urine-soaked (nitrogen-rich) vegetation that helped goats rectify their deficiency. By the end ofthe study, goats that ate woodrat houses lost 12% of body weight, whereas goats thathad not discovered woodrat houses as a source of macronutrients lost 20%. Animalsdeficient in nutrients seek out new foods, and animals are likely to form a preference fora food, no matter how odd, if the food corrects a nutritional deficit or imbalance.

Cows and Legumes. Animals form preferences for foods high in nutrients but diets toohigh in nutrients or diets that are not nutritionally balanced can cause ruminants to limitintake and search for alternative foods. When it comes to nutrients, herbivores can gettoo much of a good thing. The pasture likely provided cattle with a diet too high in proteinrelative to energy, which results in ammonia toxicity. The dietary imbalance probablycaused cows grazing a pasture high in legumes to seek moldly hay and matureendophyte-infected grass. When strips of grass were planted in the pasture, cattleperformance increased and their strange feeding behaviors stopped.

If That’s All There is to Palatability....

So, palatability is the interrelationship between flavor, feedback and nutritional state, butif that’s all there is to palatability, then why do dairy cows reared in confinement perform

poorly on pasture and livestock reared on pastures and rangelands perform poorly indrylots or feedlots? In both cases, animals have nutritious food available free choice, butfood intake is low, performance is poor, and animals are more likely to suffer diseases.Likewise, why do cows of uniform age and breeding differ markedly in performancewhen ingesting ammoniated straw?

Livestock Culture. Pasture and rangeland researchers and managers typically considerforaging only in terms of how the physical and chemical characteristics of plantsinfluence an animal's ability to achieve high rates of intake. The social environment israrely considered important when studying diet and habitat selection. This is anunfortunate oversight because a young animal's interactions with mother and peers havea lifelong influence on where it goes and what it eats. When it comes to managingpastures and rangelands that contain a variety of foods and terrain, it is criticallyimportant to understand how social factors influence the foods eaten by creatures andthe locations where they forage, both of which affect animal performance and carryingcapacity.

The impact of social learning on adaptation helps account for why herbivores of thesame species can occur in very different environments and survive on radically differentfoods. A young herbivore learns what kind of creature it will be through socialinteractions. A calf reared in shrub-dominated deserts of southern Utah is different froma calf reared on grass in the bayous of Louisiana. A bison reared on shrub-dominatedranges in Alaska is different from a bison reared on grasslands in Montana. We typicallyconsider cattle, elk, and bison to be grazers, and goats, deer, antelope, and sheep to beforb eaters and browsers. However, "grazers" can live nicely on diets of shrubs, and"browsers" can survive primarily on grass if they learn to do so.

Socializing with mother helps young animals learn about every facet of the environmentfrom the location of water and cover, to the wide array of hazards such as predators, tothe kinds and locations of nutritious and toxic foods. Learning from mother about foodsbegins early in life as flavors of foods mother eats are transferred to her offspring inutero and in her milk. For instance, in livestock the flavor of plants like onions and garlicis transferred this way, which increases the likelihood that young animals will eat onionand garlic when they begin to forage.

As offspring begin to forage, they further learn what to eat and where to go by followingmother. Young animals learn quickly to eat foods mother eats, and they remember thosefoods for years. Research shows that lambs fed nutritious foods like wheat with theirmothers for 1 hour per day for 5 days eat more wheat than lambs exposed to wheatwithout their mothers. Even 3 years later, with no additional exposure to wheat, intake ofwheat is nearly 10 times higher if lambs are exposed to wheat with their mothers than iflambs are exposed alone. Lambs exposed with their mothers to various foods - grainslike barley, forbs like alfalfa, shrubs like serviceberry - eat considerably more of thesefoods than lambs exposed without their mothers.

Mother also reduces her offspring’s risk of eating toxic foods. If a mother avoids harmfulfoods and selects nutritious alternatives, the lamb acquires preferences for foods itsmother eats and avoids foods its mother avoids. Lambs given a choice of palatableshrubs such as mountain mahogany or serviceberry - one of which their mother wastrained to avoid - show a preference for the shrub they ate with mother. Through her

actions, mother models appropriate foraging behaviors for her offspring, who learn whatto eat and where to forage.

Dairy and Beef Cows. To reduce the high cost of feeding lactating dairy cows inconfinement, many producers are using intensively managed pastures as a source oflower-cost, high-quality forage. Unfortunately, for a dairy cow raised in confinement, thebarn is habitat, ingredients from a total-mixed ration are food, and water comes in atrough. Thus, mature dairy cattle reared in confinement on processed foods are at adisadvantage when put on pastures and expected to harvest forages they have neverseen. Although they may be quite hungry, they lack the knowledge and the skills to eatpasture. Little wonder they stand at the gate and bellow to be fed - grass isn't food andthe pasture isn't home. Conversely, for a beef cow reared on rangelands, riparian areasand uplands are habitat, grasses, forbs, and shrubs are food, and water comes instreams and ponds. When these animals are moved to feedlots, total-mixed rationsaren’t food and feedlot pens aren’t habitat.

The fear and stress of new foods and environments cause huge decreases in intake andmilk production. To ease these losses, dairy cows should be exposed to green chop inthe barn before grazing the first time. The time cows spend on pasture should beincreased gradually to reduce stress and losses in production. Exposing calves topastures where they will be expected to forage later in life will help them be moreproductive as adults by increasing their preferences for pasture species and enablingthem to acquire needed foraging skills. Likewise, before leaving home, cattle on theirway to the feedlot should be exposed to the foods they will be expected to eat in thefeedlot.

Ammoniated Straw. To reduce the cost of ranch operation, researchers are exploringways to feed low-cost foods such as straw to livestock during winter. During a 3-yearstudy, 32 cows - 5 to 8 years of age - were fed ammoniated straw from December toMay. Some cows performed poorly, while others maintained themselves. Researcherswere baffled until they examined the dietary histories of the animals. Half of the cowswere exposed to ammoniated straw with their mothers during their first 3 months of life,while the other half had never seen straw. Throughout the study, the experienced cowshad higher body weight and condition, produced more milk, and bred back sooner thancows with no exposure to straw, even though they had not seen straw for 5 years prior tothe study.

Producers should incorporate unfamiliar low quality foods such as ammoniated strawinto their winter feeding program cautiously. Low quality forages should only make-up asmall portion of the winter forage and be increased gradually. Replacement heifersshould be exposed to poor quality forages with their mothers early in life to increaseintake of these foods later in life.

If That’s All There is to Palatability....

So, palatability is the interrelationship between flavor, feedback, and nutritional state asthey are influenced by an animals past experiences with food. But if that’s all there is topalatability, then why do animals perform better when offered choices of different foodsand why is the grass always greener on the other side of the fence? For example, whydo sheep prefer to eat clover in the morning and grass in the afternoon, even thoughclover is more digestible and higher in protein than grass? Why do cattle perform better

when offered individual ingredients from a total mixed ration than when fed a total mixedration formulated to meet their needs? Why do cattle on a ranch in Montana eat foodssuch as snowberry and sagebrush that cattle don’t normally eat?

Each Critter is Different. With the advent of statistics in the 20th century, greatemphasis has been placed on assessing the response of the “average” animal to atreatment. While the discipline of statistics has advanced our ability to conductexperiments, it also has made variation among individuals an enemy to counter ratherthan a friend to embrace. We emphasize means and populations, rather than individualsand variation, while nature and evolutionary processes do the opposite. Research andmanagement strategies in nutrition determine needs and formulate diets for the“average” member of the herd, not for individuals. Yet, marked variation is common evenamong closely related animals in needs for nutrients and abilities to cope with toxins.

Differences among individuals in food intake and preference depend in part ondifferences in how animals are built morphologically and how they functionphysiologically and in part on their past experiences with different foods. When weunduly constrain individuals by mixing food to meet the needs of the "average" animal,by planting monocultures of forages on pastures, or by restricting the ability of animals tofully use pastures and rangelands, we may only meet the nutritional needs of a subset ofindividuals in a herd - and abuse landscapes in the process. Individuals can better meettheir needs for nutrients and regulate their intake of toxins when offered a variety offoods that differ in nutrients and toxins than when constrained to a single food, even ifthe food is nutritionally balanced. Variety allows the uniqueness of the individual to bemanifest.

Variety is the Spice of Life. Whether confined or foraging on pastures or rangelands,variety is the spice of life for herbivores. Like us, they periodically satiate on familiarityand thrive on variety. That combination causes animals to continually investigatedifferent foods and foraging locations. Sheep and cattle prefer foods in different flavors,just as eating maple-flavored oatmeal for breakfast every day causes people to preferoatmeal in a different flavor. Preference for particular foods declines as the foods areeaten. When sheep and cattle eat a food in one flavor, such as maple- or coconut-flavored grain or straw, they prefer food with the alternate flavor on the following day.Preference also drops if animals eats too much of a food on a particular day, just as aperson's preference for turkey drops markedly following a Thanksgiving Day meal.That’s why we cook foods in different ways using a variety of flavors: How many wayscan you cook ground beef?

Interactions between the senses and the body help to explain why palatability changeswithin meals and from meal to meal. Flavor-, nutrient-, and toxin-specific satiety refer tothe decrease in preference for the flavor of a food during and after eating because ofinteractions involving a food’s flavor and postingestive feedback from nutrients andtoxins. Flavor receptors respond to taste (sweet, salt, sour, bitter), smell (a diversity ofodors), and touch (astringency, pain, temperature). Flavor receptors interact withreceptors in the body (liver, gut, central nervous system, and elsewhere) that respond tonutrients and toxins (chemo-receptors), concentration of salts (osmo-receptors), and gutdistension (mechano-receptors). Preference for the flavor of a food declinesautomatically as that food is eaten because of interactions between the senses and thebody. These interactions cause temporary decreases in the preference for foods justeaten.

Animals fed a nutritious food in one of two flavors for a day prefer the other flavor in ameal on subsequent days. The decrease in preference, which is influenced by ananimal's nutritional needs relative to a food's chemical makeup, is more persistent whena food has either too many or too few nutrients. Aversions may be pronounced whenfoods contain excess toxins or rapidly digestible nutrients, such as some forms of proteinand energy. Aversions also occur when foods are deficient in nutrients. They even occurwhen animals eat nutritionally adequate foods, particularly if those foods are eaten toooften or in too great an amount. Thus, eating any food to satiety causes a transientaversion to the flavor of that food. When forced to eat the same food too frequently orexcessively, people typically remark, "I'm sick of it." Through their actions, livestock echothe same sentiments.

Sheep and Clover. Sheep in the United Kingdom satiate on clover in the morning andswitch to grass in the afternoon. In the morning, hungry sheep initially prefer cloverbecause it is highly digestible compared with grass. As they continue to eat clover,however, sheep satiate - acquire a mild aversion - from the effects of nutrients likesoluble carbohydrates and proteins, from the effects of toxic cyanide compounds, andfrom eating the same flavor. The mild aversion causes them to switch to grass in theafternoon. During the afternoon and evening, the sheep recuperate from eating clover,and the aversion subsides. By morning, they are ready for more clover. The combinationof clover and grass likely enables sheep to eat more each day than if only one specieswere available.

Sewing clover and grass in spatially separated strips can further enhance intake andperformance compared to clover-grass mixtures. When grass and clover are planted indistinct strips, as opposed to conventional intermixtures, dry matter intake of sheepincreases by 25% (265 g/sheep/day) and milk production of dairy cows increases by11% (2.4 kg/cow/day). The choice allows each animal to balance the mix of grass andclover, and the strip evidently minimizes time spent searching for the desired amounts ofthe different forages. Planting forages in strips overcomes many difficulties inherent inestablishing and maintaining mixed pastures, and also mimics what happens naturallyas different plant species aggregate in response to environment.

Herders in France use understanding of plant diversity to stimulate food intake and morefully use the range of plants available by herding in grazing circuits. Daily grazing circuitsare designed to stimulate and satisfy an animal's appetite for different nutrients, and theyenable animals to maximize intake of nutrients and regulate intake of different toxins.The circuits include a moderation phase, which provides sheep access to plants that areabundant but not highly preferred to calm a hungry flock; the next phase is a maincourse for the bulk of the meal with plants of moderate abundance and preference; thencomes a booster phase of highly preferred plants for added diversity; and finally adessert phase of abundant and palatable plants that complement previously eatenforages. Moving animals to fresh pastures, or moving them to new areas on rangelands,has the same effect. The new areas offer nutritious forages and a change of scenery.Once the animals have learned the routine, and experienced the benefits, they movethemselves.

Choice at the Bunks. In a recent study, cattle fed barley, corn, alfalfa, and corn silagewere compared with animals fed a chopped and mixed ration of those ingredients.Averaged throughout the trial, animals offered the mixed-ration ate slightly more food

than animals given a choice but they did not gain at a faster rate. Gain per unit foodconsumed was similar for both groups. However, daily food costs were less for animalsoffered a choice than for those fed the mixed-ration ($1.36 per day vs. $1.58 per day)because animals offered a choice ate less, and they ate less grain. Cost/lb gain was lessfor the choice group than for the mixed-ration group ($0.68/lb vs. $0.84/lb). Animalsmeet their needs for energy and protein more efficiently when offered a choice amongfoods than when fed a mixed-ration, even if the ration is nutritionally balanced. Allowingindividuals to choose their own diet may be less stressful for animals thereby reducingillness and improving performance.

Montana Cows. Ray Banister manages 7,200 acres of rangeland in eastern Montana.His management style has evolved over 40 years from reliance on rotational grazing thatinvolved relatively short periods of grazing and rest to boom-bust management thatconsists of intensive periods of grazing followed by two growing seasons of rest. Ray’sboom-bust grazing management stresses systems - plants and cattle - with intensivegrazing pressure, then allows them to recover. Ray believes that stress, and recoveryfrom stress, strengthens systems.

The change to boom-bust grazing challenged the Hereford cattle on his ranch. The cattlewere no longer allowed to eat only the most palatable plants as they had under therotational grazing system. Instead, they were forced to eat all of the plants. Under thenew management procedures, Ray monitors the least palatable plant species - shrubslike sagebrush and snowberry and various weeds - as indicators of when to move thecattle to a new pasture. Cattle are allowed to move only after their use of the unpalatablespecies reaches high levels. In so doing, Ray reduces the competitive advantageunpalatable plants have over more palatable species. Heavily grazed plants are at adisadvantage when competing with ungrazed plants for moisture and nutrients.

Under boom-bust management, cattle eat formerly unpalatable species such assnowberry and sagebrush as soon as they enter a new pasture. The cows evidentlyhave learned how to mix their diets in ways that better enable them to eat both thepalatable and the unpalatable species. Cattle likely mitigate the aversive effects of toxinsby eating palatable plants high in nutrients along with unpalatable species high in toxins.The higher the nutritional plane of the animal, the better they are able to detoxify toxiccompounds found in all plants.

It took Ray’s cows 3 years to adapt to the boom-bust style of management. During thattime, the weaning weights of calves plunged from robust animals well over 500 poundsto scrawny individuals that weighed closer to 350 pounds, then rebounded back to over500 pounds.

Once the older cows made the transition to a new way of behaving, the young calveswere able to learn from their mothers how to thrive under boom-bust management. Thecalves that Ray keeps as replacements never have to make the harsh transition - theyare young dogs that don’t have to learn new tricks. They were trained by their mothersthat all plants are food at Ray’s place.

Ray has increased the carrying capacity of his ranch and in the process made hisoperation less subject to the adverse effects of drought. Occasional disturbance,followed by rest, creates a diversity of micro and macro habitats for all plants, and thatreduces the abundance of undesirable plants. It is hard to find any part of the ranch -

riparian areas or uplands - that lacks abundant plant cover, and that creates a foragebank during drought. The abundance and diversity of plants also lessens soil erosionwhich leads to clean water and great habitat for fish, waterfowl, and terrestrial wildlife.

CONCLUSION

Scientists and managers often ignore the power of behavior to transform systems,despite compelling evidence. We know that the environment acting on biological steps isas important in shaping creatures as their genetic code. For those willing to understandhow environment interacts with the genome to influence behavior, the potential isvirtually unlimited. Once mastered, behavioral principles and processes become a partof the “infrastructure” of the person, so they are readily transferred from one situationand locale to another. People who understand and use behavioral principles inmanagement can enhance the welfare of animals and the integrity of land.

For Additional Information

A book and companion video titled Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in aWorld of Change have just been published. The scientific discoveries and real-lifesituations in the book and video provide insights into why animals behave as they do,and they show how understanding behavior can enhance management in any part of thecountry. The book and video are filled with new discoveries about the age-old topic ofgrazing animals and forage resource management. Anyone challenged with managingnatural resources - soils, water, plants, herbivores, people - can use these principles.The book and video are available for the cost of shipping and handling. Send requests inwriting to: Fred Provenza or Beth Burritt; Forest, Range and Wildlife Sciences; UtahState Univ.; Logan, UT 84322-5230 or send requests by e-mail to stan@cc.usu.edu.

GRASS-LEGUME PASTURES: WHAT, WHY, AND HOWPaul R. Peterson

Well-managed pastures are usually the cheapest source of high-quality feed forruminant livestock. Unfortunately, pastures are often incorrectly perceived to have littleproduction and economic potential and are thus often “relegated” to soils with marginalproductivity. This perception is fed largely by lack of management attention. Grass-dominant pastures lacking management attention often don’t produce much. Grass-legume pastures that have a legitimate legume component (30-50%) often require moremanagement attention. However, the production and economic responses more thanpay back the investment in management and capital inputs. As the title suggests, thispaper will address the “what, why, and how” of grass-legume pastures. In other words, Iwill describe some examples of successful grass-legume pasture mixtures, share somedata illustrating their performance potential, and discuss how to maintain them.

Grass-Legume Pastures as Part of Whole-Farm Forage System

A diversity of forage species within pastures and across pastures on a farm is a goodthing. There are at least two reasons for this: macro- and micro-site adaptation andimproved distribution of yield. There are no “silver bullet” pasture species. All specieshave their strong and weak points in terms of adaptation and season of production. Agoal of most graziers should be to provide pasture for as many days of the year aspossible. This cannot be achieved without a diversity of forage species on the farm.

Let’s take smooth bromegrass as an example. Smooth bromegrass is one of the mostcommon perennial cool-season grasses in Minnesota. I recommend it as a componentof pasture mixtures for the following reasons: 1) it is a sod-former and thus increases theanimal traffic tolerance of a pasture, 2) it produces a lot of palatable forage, and 3) it hasdependable winter survival. However, if you have experience with smooth bromegrass,you know it has some shortcomings. One of its greatest shortcomings is distribution ofyield. Smooth bromegrass has tremendous forage production in spring, but limitedsummer and fall production as illustrated in Figure 1.

Alfalfa has much better summer forage production than smooth bromegrass and iscompatible with smooth bromegrass under rotational grazing (Figure 1). On a fertile soilwith adequate drainage, alfalfa is one of the most productive perennial legumes that canproduce tremendous livestock performance when pastured in monoculture. However, itcan induce bloat and cannot be grazed without risk of significant stand damage whensoil moisture is high. It can also heave on heavier soils. Growing alfalfa with smoothbromegrass together in a pasture mixture could be considered synergestic, and thusbeneficial to the livestock producer. The sod-forming smooth bromegrass significantlyreduces the potential damage to alfalfa by treading and heaving while reducing bloatpotential. Alfalfa provides fixed nitrogen to the bromegrass, increases nutritive valueand summer and total season forage production.

Figure 1. Seasonal growth pattern of pasture forages (from Undersander et al, 2002).

While this binary grass-legume mixture provides a better pasture than either speciesalone, it can be further improved both by introducing an additional species andcomplementing it with other forage species mixtures in other pastures on the farm.We’ve had success including winter hardy orchardgrass varieties in this mixture. Two of

the limitations of an alfalfa-smooth bromegrass mixture include: 1) wide swings in grass-legume proportion through the grazing season (eg. limited grass presence in summer),and 2) limited fall/stockpiling productivity. It is important to recognize that rarely can wehave any one pasture type/mixture on the farm that doesn’t have its limitations. It’s oftenbest to have different mixtures across the farm that are adapted to each particular fieldand have different primary seasons of greatest use. However, we find that addingorchardgrass to a smooth bromegrass-alfalfa mixture provides somewhat more stablegrass-legume proportions through the season and better fall production. Orchardgrasshas more rapid regrowth and better summer production than smooth bromegrass, andthus helps to better maintain grass presence in the mixture during the summer months(Figure 1).

Despite many positive characteristics in pastures, legumes generally are not effective forextending the grazing season into the fall (Figure 1). The most winter hardy perenniallegume species and varieties do not have good fall growth, and stockpiled summergrowth of legumes deteriorates very rapidly in both yield and quality after a hard frost.Thus, pastures on the farm that are designed primarily for their punch in the fall may beone place where legume presence may actually detract from the primary pasture need.

Thus, when designing a pasture mixture for a particular pasture, think about the role andpotential benefit that each species will play in the mixture. Also consider what role thepasture will play in the overall forage system, i.e. what season and to what animals it willprimarily supply feed.

The tremendous potential impact of pasture improvement in general, and grass-legumepastures specifically, on beef production was well documented in a large-scale on-farmproject conducted in northern Minnesota over 20 years ago! Three improved pasturesystems, including two with legumes, were compared to unfertilized “native” grasspasture, comprised mainly of Kentucky bluegrass, and continuously grazed. Eachpasture system was designed to carry 25 to 30 animal units (AU; 1 AU = 1000 lb) basedon previous research data on total and seasonal distribution of yields of each of thepasture species and mixtures. Extra forage harvested was converted to cow days byassuming 22 lb of hay consumed per cow day. Details of the systems are outlined inTable 1.

Table 1. Pasture systems compared on 6 northern Minnesota beef farms from 1976 to1980 (adapted from Martin et al., 1981).

SystemTotalAcres

Species, Fertilization, and ComponentAcres Grazing Management

System A 61-113 Unimproved, permanent “native” grass,partially wooded, mainly Kentuckybluegrass, no N

Continuous

SystemAA

79 Permanent “native” grass, mainlyKentucky bluegrass, 50 lb N/ac in spring Rotational

System B 35 20 acres N-fertilized “native” grass (75 lbN/ac spring, 50 lb N/ac summer) and 15acres birdsfoot trefoil

Grass rotationally grazed spring andfall, trefoil 3-paddock rotation duringsummer

System C 38-40 15 acres N-fertilized “native” or smoothbromegrass (75 lb N/ac spring, 50 lbN/ac summer) and 24 acres legume-grass mixture (alfalfa, red clover, smoothbromegrass, orchardgrass)

Grass grazed early spring, legume-grass mixture 3-paddock rotationduring summer, grass 3-paddockrotation during fall; June hayharvest from grass and 1-2 legumegrass paddocks

Results are shown in Table 2. All cooperators obtained more gain per acre fromimproved pasture systems compared to unimproved pastures. This increase in gain peracre for the highest yielding system on each farm compared to system A ranged from166 to 257 lb/ac. System C, which included grass-legume mixtures, produced the mostgain per acre of all systems on all farms but one.

Table 2. Animal performance on pasture systems demonstrated on six beef farms innorthern Minnesota 1976-1980 (adapted from Martin et al., 1981).

Pasture ADG (lb/day) Gain per Acre (lb/ac)Farm System Acres Days Cow Calf Cow Calf Total1 A 113 126 1.1 1.9 39 57 96

C 38 132 1.1 2.1 161 194 355AA 79 125 1.2 2.0 64 94 158

2 A 67 126 1.4 - - 91B 35 127 1.4 - - 256C 38 121 1.6 - - 248

3 A 79 88 1.0 2.0 32 57 89B 35 113 0.8 1.5 68 125 193C 39 120 1.0 1.8 119 141 260

4 A 107 127 0.6 1.7 23 50 73B 35 120 0.6 1.8 76 145 221C 38 128 0.9 1.7 111 125 236

5 A 93 102 1.2 2.0 20 26 46C 38 104 1.3 1.8 187 82 269

6 A 61 113 0.5 1.5 19 46 65B 35 103 1.2 1.8 94 121 215C 40 119 1.2 1.8 138 149 287

What is a Legitimate Grass-Legume Mixture?

Producers often readily accept the importance/value of including legumes in pastures.However, one of the things I’ve begun to observe in recent years is that we oftenunderestimate how much legume we need in a mixture to really make a difference, andthis can cause us to make some unwise decisions. The most common situation I see ispastures that are called grass-legume mixtures that have a serious biennial or perennialbroadleaf weed problem. One of the challenges of managing grass-legume mixtures isvery limited herbicide options. Herbicides that are effective at killing or suppressingbroadleaf weeds are generally equally effective on desirable legumes! Legumes need torepresent at least 30% of pasture mixture yield to be significantly benefiting the mixture.Since their leaf blades are often horizontal in contrast to the generally vertical leaves ofgrasses, legume content of pastures is easily overestimated. A mixture that appears tohave 30% of its cover as legumes may only be about 15% legume on a yield basis. Ifbiennial or perennial broadleaf weeds are a significant problem in this pasture, it is bestto get the weeds under control and not worry about destroying some or all of thelegumes in the process. There are a number of ways to easily get legitimate legumecontent back in pastures (see paper titled Pasture Renovation Methods That Work inthese proceedings).

There are almost innumerable grasses, legumes, and grass legume combinations thatare viable candidates for pastures. Most grass-legume mixtures should have thefollowing general components, and a number of different species and combinations canbe used to fill these components. This follows from the example above.

Figure 2. Characteristics of some forage grasses and legumes for pastures(Undersander et al., 2002).

Components of Good Pasture Mixture• Sod-forming grass (eg. Smooth bromegrass or reed canarygrass)• Bunch grass (eg. Orchardgrass)• Legume(s) (eg. Alfalfa, red clover, or kura clover)

The most common examples of productive sod-forming grasses are smooth bromegrassand reed canarygrass. Kentucky bluegrass is also a sod-former, but it lacks theproductivity of the others. Orchardgrass and timothy are the most common bunchgrasses. Perennial ryegrass and tall fescue are somewhat intermediate because theyare bunch grasses that become quite “turfy” and treading tolerant if seeded heavily anddefoliated (grazed) frequently.

An example pasture/hay mixture for fertile, well drained soil:Smooth bromegrass (8 lb/ac)Orchardgrass (3 lb/ac) {or perennial ryegrass (5 lb/ac)}Alfalfa (6 lb/ac)Red clover (3 lb/ac)

An example pasture/hay mixture for medium fertility is:Reed canarygrass (6 lb/ac)Timothy (3 lb/ac) optionalBirdsfoot trefoil (5 lb/ac)Kura clover (5 lb/ac)

Why step up management to include legumes in pastures?

Many studies have documented improved yield, quality, and animal performanceassociated with including legumes in pastures. The following tables illustrate some ofthese data from studies in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Particular emphasis is placed onkura clover, as we’ve had considerable experience with this legume and feel it has greatpromise for pastures in the northern USA and Canada.

Table 3. Total forage DM of three pasture renovation treatments as a percent of the un-renovated control for three years after the renovation year at Morris (west central),Minnesota.

YearPasture Renovation Treatment 1995 1996 1997

% of controlControl (Un-renovated) 100 100 100Alfalfa 168 158 159Red clover/trefoil 142 128 126Graziers Mix1 183 128 144

1 The grazier’s mix included 7 seeded species but was comprised primarily of orchardgrass, redclover, and alfalfa in addition to bluegrass, quackgrass, and smooth bromegrass (control).

Table 4. Total season yield and season average kura clover (KC) percentage inmixtures of kura clover and grasses seeded in 1993 and grazed from 1994 through 1997at St. Paul, MN (Peterson et al., 2002).

Total Season Yield % Kura cloverMixture 1994 1995 1996 1997 1994 1997

tons DM/acre %KC + timothy 2.6 2.9 1.5 2.7 22 89KC + Reed canarygrass 2.7 3.5 2.1 3.5 12 52KC + Kentucky bluegrass 1.4 3.1 1.5 3.7 33 75KC + orchardgrass 2.6 1.6 1.4 3.8 14 53KC alone 1.5 2.5 1.8 3.2 67 93LSD (0.05) 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 8 17

Table 5. Yield and fertilizer nitrogen replacement value (FNRV) of Kura clover orbirdsfoot trefoil in mixture with grasses over 3 years at two southern Wisconsin locations(Albrecht, 2002).

Grass Component Legume ComponentMixture or MonocultureYield FNRV1

Ton DM/acre lb/acKentucky bluegrass Kura clover 2.5 225

Birdsfoot trefoil 2.6 240None, 300 lb N/ac 2.8 ---

Smooth bromegrass Kura clover 2.5 169Birdsfoot trefoil 2.8 214None, 300 lb N/ac 3.1 ---

Orchardgrass Kura clover 2.4 83Birdsfoot trefoil 2.5 102None, 300 lb N/ac 3.5 ---

1 Fertilizer nitrogen replacement value (FNRV) is the amount of nitrogen fertilizer required for agrass monoculture to yield as much dry matter as the grass grown in mixture with a legume

Table 6. Potential milk production per acre of pasture from monoculture grasses andmixtures with Kura clover or birdsfoot trefoil averaged over 3 years and 2 southernWisconsin locations (Albrecht, 2002).

Nitrogen fertilizerOr Legume Grass

Kentucky bluegrass Smooth bromegrass Orchardgrasslb Milk/ac1

100 lb N/ac 2170 3230 3360300 lb N/ac 3710 4530 4360Kura clover 5510 5090 4320Birdsfoot trefoil 4750 5430 4470

1 Milk production per acre was estimated from forage yield and quality with the MILK90spreadsheet (Undersander et al., 1993).

Despite greater dry matter production from N fertilized grasses, the potential milkproduction per acre from grass/legume mixtures was always equal to or greater thanmonoculture grass in a study in southern Wisconsin (Table 6). This was attributed to thehigh forage quality of the legumes compared to grasses. Potential milk productionmirrored the proportion of legume in the mixture. Over the 3 years, birdsfoot trefoildecreased and kura clover increased, so long term potential milk production from thekura clover-grass mixture would likely exceed that of the trefoil-grass mixture or mixtureswith other short-lived legumes.

Wisconsin researchers compared performance of Holstein steers on grass pastures frostseeded each spring with red clover to that on a kura clover/grass pasture over 3 years(Table 7). The main grasses were smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, and Kentuckybluegrass. Pastures were subdivided into 6 paddocks and 6 to 9 grazing cyclesoccurred each season. Kura clover represented over 2/3 of pasture DM every yearwhereas red clover was generally less than 1/3 of the mixtures despite being frostseeded at 6 lb/ac each spring. Superior animal performance of kura grass pasturescompared to red clover grass pastues was associated with greater total forage yield,clover proportion, and nutritive value compared to red clover/grass pastures. Theresearchers observed that orchardgrass, reed canarygrass, and tall fescue remainedconstant or increased in association with kura, whereas Kentucky bluegrass and smoothbromegrass decreased. This points to necessity of having aggressive grasses inmixture with kura clover.

Table 7. Performance of Holstein steers on clover/grass pastures in southwesternWisconsin averaged over 3 years (Mourino et al., 2002).

TreatmentGrazing Days

Steer Days ADG GainCarryingCapacity

Days d/ac/yr lb/day lb/ac/yr lb LW/ac/dKura clover/grass 169 345 2.67 912 1370Red clover/grass 169 313 2.18 714 1200

Results of a grazing study recently completed in northern Minnesota are shown in Table8. The shotgun mixture included orchardgrass, red clover, chicory, alfalfa, birdsfoottrefoil, tall fescue, timothy, and reed canarygrass. This mixture was primarilyorchardgrass and red clover. Chicory represented 20% of the mix in the first year, butdeclined thereafter. The authors thus felt there was no advantage in seeding thecomplex mixture. Rotationally grazed grass-legume pastures had about 70% greatercarrying capacities and 20% more grazing days than did the “native”, unimproved grasspastures. They also consistently produced greater calf ADG and greater cow ADG in 2of 3 years.

Table 8. Cow-calf and pasture performance of rotationally grazed grass-legumepastures and continuously grazed “native” (bluegrass/quackgrass) pasture at GrandRapids (north central), Minnesota over 3 years (Brown et al., 2002)

Pasture Mixture Calf ADG Cow ADG Grazing DaysCarryingCapacity

lb/day days AUM/acreOrchardgrass/Red clover 2.68a 0.7 136a 29aShotgun Mix 2.73a 0.7 135a 29aAlfalfa/Reed canarygrass 2.82a 1.1 127a 28a“Native” grass 2.49b 0.7 110b 17b

How to Maintain Grass-Legume Mixtures

Species combinations should be selected based upon their compatibility forcompetitiveness and palatability, otherwise, one or two species will dominate over time,often the most competitive and least palatable. Maintaining proper soil fertility enhancesperformance of all forage species, but particularly legumes. A soil pH of at least 6.0 isdesirable for most species, but alfalfa requires a pH of 6.5 or above to be competitive inmixtures. Potassium (K) is one of the most important fertilizer elements for maintaininglegume competitiveness in mixtures. Grasses are much more effective scavengers forpotassium, so if K is limited, grasses will get it before legume. Potassium is importantfor winter hardiness and disease resistance. In well-managed rotationally grazedpasture, minimal maintenance K will be required after appropriate soil test levels havebeen achieved, since livestock recycle a high percentage of the K they consume inforage. Sulfur and boron are needed for legumes in some areas, particularly on sandysoils with low organic matter content.

Another important component of maintaining grass-legume mixtures is grazingmanagement. Most perennial forages with high forage production potential require restperiods between grazing events to restore energy reserves and thus maintain vigor andpersistence. Rotational grazing is the means by which the plants are permitted to rest,restore reserves, and thus remain competitive in mixtures. Another factor is residualheight of grazing as illustrated in Figure 3. Some species, such as orchardgrass, tallfescue, and Kentucky bluegrass have a lot of basal leaf area. These species thus canhave rapid rates of regrowth if not defoliated adequately. Orchardgrass grazed to a 3”residual will regrowth more rapidly and vigorously than when grazed to a 1.5” residual.In contrast, most alfalfa varieties have the majority of regrowth from crown buds near thesoil surface. Thus, the presence of 3 vs 1.5” of residual has little influence on rate ofregrowth. So, to maintain alfalfa with orchardgrass and not allow the latter to overtakethe former, it is important that the mixture be defoliated adequately. This maynecessitate periodic clipping. Another option is to use a leader-follower grazing system,allowing a group of animals with lower nutritional requirements to do the “clean up”grazing behind a group of animals that has grazed the upper, more nutritious portion ofthe sward.

Figure 3. Influence of a 3” vs. 1.5” residual height on regrowth of an alfalfa-orchardgrass mixture (from Blaser et al., 1986).

REFERENCES

Albrecht, K. 2002. Experiences withkura clover in agricultural systems inWisconsin. P.83-88. In Proc. GreatLakes International Grazing Conf.Battle Creek, MI. 11-12 February2002.

Blaser, R.E., et al. 1986. Forage-animal management systems. Virginia TechExperiment Station Publication.

Brown, D.R., G.C. Lamb, R. Mathison, and J.B. Hall. 2002. Pasture species andgrazing management influence cow-calf performance. Minnesota Forage Update, Vol.XXVII, No. 4, September 2002.

Cuomo, G.J., D.G. Johnson, F. Forcella, M.V. Rudstrom, G.D. Lemme, and N.P. Martin.1999. Pasture renovation and grazing management impacts on cool-season grasspastures. J. Prod. Agric. 12:564-569.

Martin, N.P., P.R. Hasbargen, R.L. Arthaud, and G.J. Sullivan. 1981. Pasturedemonstrations for beef: Agronomic considerations. In Proc. XIVth InternationalGrassland Congress.

Mourino, F., K.A. Albrecht, and D.M. Schaefer. 2002. Animal performance onclover/grass mixed pastures. P.90-94. In Proc. American Forage and GrasslandCouncil. Bloomington, MN. 14-17 July 2002.

Peterson, P.R., C.C. Sheaffer, N.J. Ehlke, P. Seguin, R.D. Mathison, L.R. DeHann, G.J.Cuomo, M.P. Russelle, P.H. Graham. 2002. The potential of Kura clover as a foragecrop: The Minnesota experience. P.61-71. In Proc. Great Lakes International. GrazingConf. Battle, Creek, MI. 11-12 February 2002.

Undersander, D., B. Albert, D. Cosgrove, D.Johnson, and P. Peterson. 2002. Pasturesfor profit: A guide to rotational grazing. Univ. of Wisconsin-Extension Pub. A3529.