Increasing soil health and climate resilience education for pasture-based livestock farmers

Pasture Improvement Demonstration

Glynwood staff and partners evaluated and commented on the labor needs and impact of pasture improvement treatments: compost application, fertilizer application, rotational grazing and use of the keyline plow. 

Compost Application: Glynwood had access to finished compost for the purpose of the pasture improvement demonstration. Many livestock managers would instead spread manure. Field treatment with compost (or manure) is important when soil health constraints call for an increase in organic matter. Organic matter is not a soil health constraint at the sampling areas in the demonstration. Spreading compost or manure does not require a lot of labor. Best management practices for manure call for regular removal and field-spreading or composting, so this treatment is a cost-effective one for pastures in need of organic matter, increasing biological diversity and improving aggregate stability. Loading and spreading compost can be done inside two hours per acre assuming reasonable distance to and from source materials. Application rate should be determined based on recommendations from a soil chemistry test, to avoid apply excessive nitrogen.

Fertilizer Application: Glynwood purchased high-calcium limestone and hired a contractor to spread it. This is a typical and inexpensive pasture improvement treatment. High-calcium limestone was used because the soils were already high in magnesium, which is more plentiful in a dolomite limestone. This is an inexpensive treatment on a per acre basis and an important one to improve low soil pH. Cost varies greatly depending on hauling distance and contractors, but generally will fall in the $30-50 per acre range (hauled and spread). Application rate should be determined based on recommendations from a soil chemistry test. Fall application is recommended. If soil test results call for other nutrients and minor elements, they can be blended with lime and spread together.

Rotational Grazing: This is a labor-intensive management practice, but proponents point to multiple benefits in the long-term, like adding organic matter, increasing biological diversity, stimulating root growth and trampling undesirable forage plants. Multiple factors will determine the labor required for rotational grazing, including herd size, paddock size, forage growth rate and recovery rate. The herds used in these demonstrations have required an average of fifteen hours a week for rotational grazing activities such as moving, maintaining and troubleshooting fencing, movement of animals, monitoring grazing impacts and recording related data.

Keyline Plow: Setup, use and resetting on this implement takes an average of one hour per acre. A keyline plow requires a high HP tractor and the implement cost is in the $6,000 range. There are few such implements in the region, but they can occasionally be made available to rent or borrow.

Data review and analysis was conducted by Glynwood staff, Jason Detzel of Cornell Cooperative Extension and Dr. Masoud Hashemi of University of Massachusetts. Glynwood and partners compared anecdotal findings with the results of the Cornell Soil Health Assessment. Glynwood staff noted that they observed a significant improvement in water infiltration following the use of the keyline plow prior to receiving Soil Health Assessment results. Sixteen samples were sent to the Cornell University lab for Soil Health Assessments.

[See Soil Health Assessment compilation: Soil Health Assessments by Treatment ]

Results from the control sample indicate that Surface Hardness, Subsurface Hardness and Soil pH are the most significant limiting factor to soil function at all sixteen sampling areas. Reducing soil compaction at the surface and subsurface levels will improve water infiltration and open more pathways for plant roots to grow, improving overall soil function. Treatments including the use of the keyline plow to shatter crusted soils showed promise in mitigating soil compaction. The best soil health rating for Surface and Subsurface Hardness occurred with a combination of keyline use and rotational grazing. Soil pH should improve with time, given the previous treatment of the area with limestone and with the improvement of water infiltration.

Glynwood staff and partners stress that the Soil Health Assessment results are an inconclusive measurement of the long-term impact of the soil improvement methods. These early assessments provide a baseline from which we can monitor soil health improvements over time.

Glynwood submitted samples for soil chemistry analysis to Agro-One for additional baseline data on soil nutrient levels. Soil-Chemistry-for-Pasture-Improvement-Plots Nutrient levels are adequate for good forage production. Changes in soil pH will be monitored via subsequent testing.

Glynwood submitted sixteen forage samples to Dairy One for forage analysis. All-Forage-Analyses For reference: Understanding & Significance of Forage Analysis Results.

In the field, Glynwood established protocol for hands-on pasture quality and soil health indicators. These simple ecological monitoring practices include forage species and worm counts. Ecological monitoring is a good practice that encourages farmers to slow down and closely observe pasture conditions and the effects of farm management decisions. These two observations require a lot of labor, so it may be impractical for most farmers to replicate this over multiple observations. Adapting the monitoring practices by reducing the number of sample plots or alternating plot observations would make this more feasible for replication.

Glynwood and partners conducted three forage species counts during the season. The species counts highlighted a broad mix of plants. The plant community offer a mix of good forage and forbs, as well as a significant population of sedges and other plants of low palatability to livestock. By surveying and documenting pasture plant species before and during treatments, Glynwood has strong baseline data for monitoring changes in the makeup of pasture plant species.

[Forage Species and Worm Count records: SARE-forage-species-count-5-26-171 SARE-Forage-Species-and-Worm-Count-8-9-171 SARE-forage-species-count-9-7-17]

Glynwood and partners conducted two worm counts during the season, each indicating a very healthy worm population. During Dr. Masoud Hashemi's visit at our Soil Health Field Day, he shared that he instructs his students to make a mustard solution to soak the sample area before conducting the worm count. The solution irritates, but does not harm the worm population, and causes the worms to move towards the surface, easing the worm count process. This is a procedural change we would recommend to speed the process.

The mustard solution is prepared using a third of a cup of mustard powder to one gallon of water. This amount of solution is sufficient to draw earthworms to the surface at a square foot sampling area. The gallon of solution should be poured out in 2-3 pourings at two minute intervals to encourage the most earthworms to the surface. It is recommended that the worms be rinsed with water when the count is complete.

Glynwood has established demonstration plots and protocol for monitoring long-term change over time. Pasture improvement strategies are long-term, thus the effectiveness of various methods will be understood best after multiple years. Support from SARE has allowed Glynwood to establish and test demonstrations and monitoring protocol which will have the potential to benefit livestock farmers for a long time.

Warm Season Annual Forage Demonstration

The warm season annual forage demonstration was designed to answer the question: what is the cost effectiveness of planting warm season annual forage vs. buying in hay in dry seasons when perennial forage is not available?

This demonstration has allowed Glynwood to showcase and monitor the effective use of brown midrib sorghum, pearl millet and crimson clover for cattle forage during the warm season. It was a challenging season for the establishment of these species, as field conditions were wet and cool further into June than anticipated. The brown midrib sorghum grew well, while the other species did not. 

Overall, the warm season annual forage mix yielded an estimated 22 tons of forage over the two grazing periods, averaging a yield of 3.5 tons per acre. The four acres seeded in the forage mix were broken up into one acre plots. Two of these plots performed well. Another performed well, but Glynwood was unable to graze it a second time due to an early light frost. Glynwood did not graze the plot a second time due to concerns for plant toxicity to the cattle. One plot, more poorly drained than the other areas, performed quite poorly. The sorghum never reached its potential height, and it was not grazed a second time due to poor plant regrowth. 

Glynwood and partners produced 22 tons of forage (on four acres), which we believe to be an average yield with the soil conditions on this farm. Seasonal variability is to be expected, so these outcomes would not sway us from recommending this blend of forage species to another producer.

The forage was grazed twice by cattle between July and September. The intervals between grazings were determined based on pasture regrowth, and grazed until forage residuals were reduced to six inches. The length of grazing periods were determined by an estimate of available biomass and pasture rest/recovery period. Glynwood staff monitored and recorded data related to forage output and regrowth through use of an NRCS pasture stick. The quantitative measurement of dry matter of warm season forage was calculated by Glynwood staff.