Nutrient optimization for sustainable goat production systems in the southeastern U.S.

Nutrient optimization for sustainable goat production systems in the southeastern U.S.

Summary

Feed cost is the major variable cost for meat goat production. Goats raised for meat need high quality feed in most situations and require an optimum balance of many different nutrients to achieve maximum profit potential. Therefore, profitable meat goat production can be only achieved by optimizing the use of high quality forage and browse, and minimizing the use of expensive commercial feeds. This can be achieved by developing a year-round forage program allowing for as much grazing as possible throughout the year. For this project, six different forage combination (grasses and legumes) were planted for the second year in September of 2010, this time for winter grazing. Twelve previously established paddocks, 0.5 acre each was planted, where two paddocks represented each grass/legume combination. For the first year, forage samples were collected monthly starting in February through May of 2010 to determine forage biomass production and chemical composition without animal grazing.

For second year same experiment was repeated, this time with additional animal grazing. Multi-culture forage dry matter (DM) production in February, April and May 2011 was higher for annual rye grass/wheat (RW)+ berseem clover (BC) than other forage combination. However, forage DM production in March was significantly different in the following order: Rye and wheat + Australian pea (AP) + hairy vetch (HV) + BC > RW + AP + HV > RW + AP > RW + BC > RW+ HV > RW combination (P < 0.01). There was a forage sampling time x multi-forage combination interaction (P < 0.01) for CP and NDF. Forage CP content was higher in March than February and April, but DM and NDF content continuously increased with time. The data indicated that plant maturity and forage growth are important factors affecting forage quality and forage DM production. Interestingly, RW + HV combination continued to have greater CP content until April and then decreased gradually with time. However, fiber content (NDF) was constant until April and then increased. It is important to point-out that HV is locally available legume forage and has better survival rate in hot temperature than the other introduced legume forages (e.g. BC or AP). The soluble protein, P, K, Na, Cl, Fe, Cu, Zn contents remained similar with varying species of legume forage combination, but CP, ADF, NDF, crude fat, ash, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, and lysine were varied.

Goats grazing multi-culture forage combination, RW+ HV+AP, in March, April and May 2011 had higher BW and carcass and shoulder weights than other forage combination. All four forage combination (RW+AP+HV+BC) and RW alone, represented lowest BW gain and carcass production compared to other forage combination. According to our results, animal BW changes was different (P = 0.07) in the following order: Rye and wheat + AP + HV > RW + AP > RW + HV > RW and RW+HV+AP+BC combination. Mean fecal egg count (FEC) was measured as an indication of health. Mean fecal egg count for growing meat goats tended to be higher (P = 0.17) for RW grazing group than for other forage combination. These results indicated that legume forage combination could be beneficial to growing goats and provide sufficient nutrients for goats to maintain optimum weight gain and carcass production as well as minimize parasites infection rate in grazing animals. Forage biomass production and animal performance was lower for RW pastures as compared to others.

Objectives/Performance Targets

1) To determine pasture quality changes using multi-culture grasses, and grasses in combination with legumes;

2) To determine animal health, performance and carcass quality of goats when browse is incorporated in the feeding system and when grazing multi-culture grasses, and grasses in combination with legumes;

3) To determine soil quality changes using multi-culture grasses, and grasses in combination with legumes;

4) To identify and assess economic characteristics and optimum economic return of different goat production (grazing/browsing) systems;

5) To evaluate adaptability (on an experiment station with goats) and demonstrate applicability (on three small farms) of an integrated year round forage system using commercial goats, pure bred goats, and goat co-foraging with cattle.

Accomplishments/Milestones

Objective 1. Determine pasture quality changes using multi-culture grasses, and grasses in combination with legumes

Winter Grazing Pastures

For this objective, 6 forage combination (grasses/legumes), for winter gazing were planted in duplicates on 12 pasture paddocks of 0.5 acres each during 2010 and 2011. Seedbeds were prepared in September of 2010, according to the recommendations with proper amounts of seeds, per acre, for respective forages and were planted in October. Six different forage combination were: (1) annual rye grass/wheat (RW) + Berseem clover (BC), (2) RW + Australian pea (AP), (3) RW + Hairy vetch (HV), (4) RW + AP + HV, (5) RW + HV + AP + BC, and (6) annual rye grass/wheat (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Summer Grazing Pastures

For summer grazing, six different forage combination were planted including (1) bermudagrass (BG), (2) sericea lespedeza (SL), (3) BG + SL, (4) BG+ soybeans (SB), (5) BG+ brown top millet (BTM), (6) BG+ BTM + SB. Seedbeds were prepared in October 2010 for SL and April for the rest of the forage combination.
All the forages for winter grazing were newly sown with no-till drill methods after bush-hog. The area for each forage combination (2 rep x ½ acre) was planted in October 26, 2010 and April 15, 2011 for winter and summer forages, respectively. Seeds were drilled at the different seeding rate (Table 1). After forages emerged for winter and summer forages, respectively, fertilizer (16-16-16; K:P:N, respectively) was applied at 500 lbs/ac in November 19, 2010 and May 15, 2011, respectively. However, due to the severe drought in summer of 2010 and again 2011, and sandy soils at the Tuskegee University George Washington Carver Agricultural Experiment Station, summer forages subsequently died again, thus providing no summer data. However, to achieve some results, subsequent forage/weed growth after winter grazing and hay making on those paddocks, were monitored throughout the summer.

Data Collection

Forage mass (kg DM/ha), botanical composition and forage chemical composition were measured on February, March, April and May 2011for winter grazers, and in July for summer. On each occasion four random quadrates per paddock were cut using a hand-clipper for biomass. The forage samples were then oven-dried at 90 oC for 18 h, and weighed. For laboratory analysis, four quadrates of herbage on offer were cut to ground level from each paddock. Samples were combined for each paddock, mixed, and divided, with the first part used for botanical composition assessments and the second part for chemical analysis.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed as repeated measure with production system included in the model as a fixed effect using the Proc GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Carry, NC). Differences among means, for all analysis, were determined by least square means procedure with the protected F-test (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Forage biomass changes

The benefit of using multiple species on the same pasture comes from the fact that different animals have different plant preferences. Multi-culture forage dry matter (DM) production (Figures 2) in February, April and May 2011 was higher for RW+ BC than other forage combination. However, forage DM production in March was significantly different in the following order: RW + AP + HV + BC > RW + AP + HV > RW + AP > RW + BC > RW+ HV and RW combination (P < 0.01; Figure 2). In July, we measured voluntary forage re-growth after grazing period was over and paddocks were cleared for hay production. As indicated in Figure 2, RW, RW+HV and RW+AP+BC+HV combination produced highest DM production than others. Average forage DM production was lower (P < 0.01) for WR or WR + HV than other combination group for winter grazing; however, RW + HV sustained forage production with high re-growth after harvest biomass in July. It should be noted that this biomass was made of different summer weeds that are very desirable for goats.

Forage chemical composition

Forage chemical composition of multi-cultural forage system is presented in Tables 2 and Figure 3. There was a forage sampling time x multi-forage combination interaction (P < 0.01) for CP and NDF (Figure 3). Forage CP content was higher in March than February and April, but DM and NDF content continuously increased with time. The data indicated that plant maturity and forage growth are important factors affecting forage quality and forage DM production. Interestingly, RW + HV combination continued to have greater CP content until April and then decreased gradually with time. However, fiber content (NDF) was constant until April and then increased. It is important to point-out that HV is locally available legume forage and has better survival rate in hot temperature than the other introduced legume forages (e.g. BC or AP; Figure 3). The soluble protein, P, K, Na, Cl, Fe, Cu, Zn contents remained similar with varying species of legume forage combination (Table 2), but CP, ADF, NDF, crude fat, ash, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, and lysine were varied

Hay production

After winter grazing season was over in May, animals were removed and remaining biomass was harvested for hay production (Table 3). The benefit of hay making after grazing is to extend the sustainability of the system in terms of animal feeding and production. Our results indicated that dry matter biomass production as hay was higher for RW when compared to other combination and resulted in 50 bales of hay produced vs. on average 31-39 bales of hay produced on other combination of forages.

Objective 2) Determines animal performance, animal health and carcass quality of goats when grazing multi-culture grasses, and grasses in combination with legumes;

This objective is fully investigated by this project and it is one of the main contributions of this progress report. Forty-eight cross breed goats were placed on 12 paddocks, 4 goats each (the two ½ acre plots of each forage combination replicated twice) and spent approximately 45 days in each plot. Finding goats for winter grazing a challenge in AL and maybe southeast. We could not locate 48 uniform young stocker until first week of March. Therefore goats were placed very late on paddocks and only grazed for 45 days. Goats were quarantined for 3 weeks and placed on the paddocks by March 29 and after grazing for 45 days they were removed from pastures by May 17. After grazing period, goats were transported to Mississippi State University Meat lab and were slaughtered according to the USDA guidelines and carcass characteristics and traits were determined. Animal body weight (BW) changes in multi-forage system in March, April, and May are presented in Figure 4 and animal performance and average daily gain are presented in Table 4, while carcass characteristics and traits are presented in Table 5. Multi-culture forage BW responses (Figure 4) in March, April and May 2011 and shoulder weights were higher in three forage combination groups (RW+ HV + AP) than other forage combination. Average daily gain was highest (P < 0.01; ADG =225 g) for goats grazing on RW+AP+HV and was lowest (ADG = 108 g) for goats on all four forage combination (RW+AP+HV+BC) and RW alone (ADG = 128 g). According to our results animal BW changes were different (P = 0.07) in the following order: RW + AP + HV > RW + AP > RW + HV > RW and WR+HV+AP+BC combination (Figure 4).

Animal Health and Parasite Load

As an indication of animal health, fecal egg counts for animals were measured for months of March, April and May. Mean fecal egg count (FEC) for growing goats tended to be higher (P = 0.17) for RW than for other combination (Figure 5). These results indicated that legume forage combination could be beneficial to growing goats and provide sufficient nutrients for goats to maintain optimum weight gain and carcass production as well as lowering parasites infection rate. Although RW produced high amount of biomass with comparable composition to legume/grass forage, animal performance was consistently lower. Higher FEC in goats on RW may have contributed to these results.

Objective 3) Determine soil quality changes using multi-culture grasses, and grasses in combination with legumes;

We know that soil changes as affected by sources of forages growing on the soil may be slow and need long term studies. However, soil samples from 12 pasture paddocks have been collected for the last two years, twice each season, at the beginning and end of the grazing period. The results will be reported in the next progress report.

Objective 4) Identify and assess economic characteristics and optimum economic return of different goat production (grazing/browsing) systems.

More data is needed to assess optimum economic returns of multi-culture pasture (grass and legumes) vs. grass only. Total crude protein output from each treatment combination will be calculated. This data along with soil nitrogen and organic matter improvement will be factored in determining optimum forage system. Animal performance data as well as length of pasturing will also affect profitability and economic feasibility of the system.

Objective 5) Evaluate adaptability on an experiment station with goats and demonstrate applicability (on three small farms) an integrated year round forage system using commercial goats.

For this objective two producers (Mr. Bennie Simmons; Dallas Co. AL and Ms. Sandra Simon; Talladega Co. AL) have been identified and are currently working with our team. It has been very hard years for goat producers in AL and it is very hard to produce goats economically. We will continue working with these farmers to adopt winter grazing. However, most of the producers have their kid crop in March and April and winter grazing will only applies to their seed herd rather than the young stocker. In order to utilize winter grazing, producer should be kidding in fall.

• Table 1
• Table 4
• Table 5
• Figure 1
• Figure 3
• SARE winter grazer1
• Grazer 4
• SARE Pastures
• Table 3
• Figure 4
• Grazer 3
• Goat Grazing
• Table 2
• Figure 2
• Figure 5
• Winter grazer 2
• Grazer 5
• Winter pastures

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

We feel using proper forages for winter grazing followed by summer forages can provide for year-round foraging. However, combination of forages used for grazing should be selected to optimize animal performance, enhance the soil property and reduce methane or ammonia emission from feces while reducing dependency on petrochemical fertilizer. We are hoping that combining legume forages with grasses will increase protein output as well as restore N in soil, thus reducing dependency on petroleum-based fertilizer.

Problems Encountered

1- The major problem encountered during this period was finding proper age stocker goats in January or February. Most of the goats in southeast are produced (kidding season) in February, March and April therefore, animals that needed to be grazing for meat production are already old for winter grazing. To fully utilize system fall kidding should be encouraged. However, this system can be utilized for the seed herd and those goats that will stay long term on the farm. However, if goat industry reaches a point that goats are needed year-round, fall grazing will be practiced and stocker goats will be available to fully take advantage of this system.

2- This was our second year that we failed to grow summer pastures. The lack of water at this time of the year hindered the summer pasture growth. The extreme dry weather in May and June when plants grow, along with direct sun would not allow pasture growth for summer. In order to have summer pastures and introduce new crops, we realized that we need irrigation. However, with this economy having an irrigation system, is questionable and it is not sustainable. Only old bermudagrass/bahiagrass stands with abundance of weed would grow in summer at this part of AL. We used goats to clear weeds in 12 summer paddocks. We knew goats like weeds, therefore, these paddocks were used to feed more than 50 goats through rotation from June through August.

3- Another problem that we have encountered was encouraging producers to adopt the system. Their major concern is the need for fencing and costs associated with it. There is very little profit from goat sales and many producers loose faith soon and get out of goat production business. This makes it very hard to work with minority farmers that are looking for a way to survive in this though economy.

4- Goat production in AL, Southeast, and all over the nation is down. However, year-round foraging can be used for other livestock species.

Collaborators: