Category Archives: Grazing
Grateful harvest has finished for most or will be hopefully wrapping up this week for the rest. Last week was seeing more fall herbicide applications being applied. If you have a 2021 Guide for Weed, Disease and Insect Management, page 93 provides fall burndown corn herbicide options and page 139 provides soybean ones (I also show these at https://jenreesources.com/). Most products contain 2,4-D and/or dicamba. Tank-mixing a residual herbicide with a burndown product will improve marestail control because the residual activity will control marestail emerging after herbicide application.
Regarding temperatures, Dr. Amit Jhala shared in a CropWatch article that the ideal temperature for applying most post-emergence herbicides is between 65°F and 85°F. Herbicides can be applied at 40°F to 60°F, but weeds may be killed slowly. When the temperature is below 40°F for an extended time after burndown, weed control will most likely be reduced, specifically for a systemic burndown herbicide such as glyphosate. Additionally, weed control may be reduced under cloudy conditions following an initial temperature drop below 40°F. With late-fall herbicide applications be sure to add labeled adjuvants to improve herbicide efficacy.
Actively growing weeds are key to achieving good control, regardless of herbicide used. Frosts of less than 25°F usually cause leaf damage to annual plants, making them poor targets for herbicide applications; however, winter annual weeds may tolerate a frost up to 20°F and continue growing when conditions improve, with little tissue damage. After weeds experience frost, active growth may not begin again for a few days. Growers should wait until new leaf tissue is produced, scout the field, and then consider applying herbicide. Generally, this would be when nighttime temperatures are 35°F or greater and daytime temperatures are at least 50°F for two consecutive days. Additionally, sunshine is needed for plants to recover.
Grazing fields with fall herbicide applications: Be sure to check labels for any grazing restrictions if livestock will graze cornstalks after in-season and fall herbicide applications. You can find these in the Forage, Feed, Grazing Restrictions area on pages 212-216 of the 2021 Guide. Some labels will say that residue should not be grazed or baled and fed to livestock. Sometimes there’s no guidance on the label. If you want to be on the safe side, a rule of thumb some chemical reps use is to use the pre-harvest interval for the amount of time to wait before grazing stalks. Regardless, if it says there’s a grazing restriction on the label, the label needs to be followed as it is a legal document and the law.
As you plan for next year’s herbicide program, if you’re thinking about fall cover crops, the following NebGuide may be of benefit to you as it goes through the grazing restrictions of various herbicides.
Lawns and Leaves: The tree colors have been gorgeous the past few weeks and with colder temperatures, leaves are now dropping. If you have large, established trees like I do, they can pile up on a lawn rather quickly. Leaves should be removed by raking or mulching into the lawn by mowing in order to prevent damage to lawns over the winter from snow mold. If you choose to mulch leaves via the mower, raising the mower height two to three times will help break down the leaves and incorporate them. According to our turfgrass specialists, mulching grass clippings and leaves does not contribute to thatch development in the lawn.
Fallen leaves release phosphorus and nitrogen when they decompose, which can help with lawns and also with gardens if they’re added to garden sites as a soil amendment. When leaves are intentionally blown into streets, they can be a pollutant to surface water as they are washed away via storm drains.
Grazing Corn Residue: Have received some questions on corn residue management. Cattle grazing can be a beneficial way of residue management if one has access to cattle. Note: I’ve been seeing quite a bit of black nightshade and some horsenettle, particularly in corn fields that had wind damage. Both species have poisonous leaves (increase concentration as plants age) and berries (decrease concentration as berries ripen). Frost doesn’t change toxin levels. UNL forage specialists say when cattle graze corn fields containing nightshade species, there’s enough dilution with the grain, leaf, and husk that poisoning shouldn’t be an issue. We’d recommend watching the cattle as some may prefer grazing the nightshade. I’ve also seen cattle prefer weeds after herbicide applications, so also watch that if fall herbicides are applied. Ultimately, would just recommend don’t turn cattle empty into stalks with significant amounts of nightshade, watch cattle, and don’t graze past the point of 50% of leaf/husk removal. Dr. Jerry Volesky shares more here: https://twitter.com/jenreesources/status/1320513145941692418?s=20.
So, how does one calculate 50% leaf/husk removal and the grazing days for cattle on corn residue? The following is information from my beef Extension colleague, Brad Schick.
- “There are 8 lbs of grazable dry matter per bushel of corn.
- Leaf and husk make up 39.6% of the dry matter in corn residue.
- Intake on corn residue fields will be close to 2% of bodyweight.
Having corn stalks to graze is a great resource for livestock producers. For dry cows, it is a relatively inexpensive feed that can typically meet or come very close to meeting nutritional needs. Grazing can also help get rid of corn remaining in the field and potentially reduce volunteer corn the following year. But are cattle really grazing stalks?
Yes and no. In everyday conversation, grazing corn stalks is said, but the stalk is the last thing cattle eat. Cattle do eat stalks, particularly if they are left on a field too long, but they are primarily consuming leaf, husk, and leftover corn. The stem or stalk makes up about 48.5% of the residue, while the leaf blade and husk make up 39.6%. Cattle will consume leaf and husk if available. That diet will consist of 52 to 55% TDN (total digestible nutrients) and 5 to 5.5% crude protein.
When thinking about how long to graze corn residue, the calculation to follow is that for every bushel of corn produced, there is 16 lbs of dry leaf and husk. The recommended grazing plan should be to remove 50% of the leaf and husk. This assumes that portions of the forage will also be lost to trampling, defecation, and other considerations such as wind. That leaves 8 lbs (16 lbs X 50%) of good forage on a dry matter basis that is available for consumption for every bushel of corn.
For example, say the field produced 200 bu/ac corn. By the calculations, there is 1600 lbs of dry matter per acre available (8 lbs X 200 bu = 1600 lbs). A 1000 lb animal will consume about 26 lbs of dried forage per day which means a 1300 lb animal will consume about 34 lbs per day. However, with lower quality forage such as corn residue, intake will be closer to 2% of bodyweight. In this example, that means closer to 26 lbs for the 1300 lb animal. So, how many days of grazing is that? By the calculations, there are 61 days of grazing for one cow grazing one acre (1600 lbs DM ÷ 26 lbs = 61 days). A general rule is about 30 cow days per 100 bushels/acre of corn produced.
Calves and replacement heifers can be also be a great option but will need a protein source in order to meet their growing requirements. Not only is grazing corn residue good for the cattle producer, but it is also good for the crop producer. Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have shown that grazing corn residue increases or at least maintains crop yields. (Grazing Corn Residue: A Win-Win for Crop and Cattle Producers).” More info. can be found at: https://go.unl.edu/fsa9.
Part 2 of my residue management series focuses on grazing corn residue. We’re blessed in Nebraska to have corn, cattle, and ethanol with the distiller’s co-product…the golden triangle as it’s been dubbed. What’s interesting is that a huge feed resource in corn residue is under-utilized each year, with an estimated 52% of our state-wide corn residue being grazed or mechanically harvested.
Because a small amount of residue is removed, many fields in Nebraska have potential for grazing, except for the case of extreme slope and/or very low yields. Regarding stocking rates, Dr. Mary Drewnoski, Extension Beef Nutritionist shares, “Corn residue is about 10% husk and 34% leaf with the remaining residue being stalk and cob. Recommended stocking rates are based on the ability of a pregnant cow to maintain body weight without supplementation of protein or energy. The rates suggest that you can graze a 1200 lb cow for 30 days for every 100 bu. of corn grain produced. This would result in the cow consuming only about 12% to 15% of the corn residue in the field and nearly all would be husk with some leaf. Cob and stalk have less energy available.”
Compaction is the main concern I hear for not grazing. An increase in a soil’s bulk density and penetration resistance can be indicators of compaction. A summary of Nebraska research studies when corn residue was grazed at proper stocking rates has shown fall and winter grazing:
- do not significantly impact soil properties that would lead to compaction;
- don’t result in changes to soil organic matter, N, P, or K (just uneven distribution of the nutrients excreted back onto the land);
- results in maintained or increased yields; and
- increases soil microbial activity.
Grazing corn residue resulted in no detrimental effects on soil properties (sixteen years in silty clay loam soils) including bulk density and penetration resistance. Increase of surface roughness was observed where cattle congregated for water and during wet conditions when soil was thawed. An Iowa study indicated the surface roughness could impact seed placement for the following no-till crop but only found that in one location in one field studied. In another study of five Eastern Nebraska locations, penetration resistance was slightly increased in two of the locations but was below the threshold for impeding root growth and did not carry over into the next year. There were no yield differences between grazed and ungrazed treatments whether continuous corn (239 bu/ac for grazed and 223 bu/ac for ungrazed) or soybean (grazed 59 bu/ac and ungrazed 62 bu/ac) in the three years at those five locations. Sixteen years of fall grazed corn residue (November to February) resulted in a statistical soybean yield increase of 3.4 bu/ac in Eastern Nebraska. There was also an increase in the soil microbial community in the grazed treatments vs. ungrazed for those sixteen years. Under continuous corn in western Nebraska, five years of fall grazing corn residue did not statistically impact yields (154 bu/ac grazed vs. 148 bu/ac ungrazed).
Some have mentioned that the weather is not allowing them to till this fall. Perhaps cattle grazing is an option? Regarding the questions I’m receiving about this: The tenant in cash rent situation owns the stalks unless the landlord has specified otherwise in the written lease. Specify in the grazing lease who takes care of fence, water, and monitoring cattle. To help connect cattle and crop producers for utilizing residue and forage cover crops for grazing, there’s a free resource called The Crop Residue Exchange at https://cropresidueexchange.unl.edu/. After establishing a log-in account, growers can list cropland available for grazing by drawing out the plot of land available using an interactive map. They can then enter basic information about the type of residue, fencing situation, water availability, and dates available and provide their preferred contact information. Livestock producers can log in and search the database for cropland available for grazing within radius of a given location of interest. There’s also an ‘Other’ category where growers can list forage cover crops for grazing. Grazing rates are listed as either a ‘per acre’ basis or ‘rate/head/day’. An excel spreadsheet called the ‘Cornstalk Grazing Cow-Q-Later’ may be of help to determine rates at this site: https://go.unl.edu/2fb6. There’s more I’d like to share but for additional resources, please see my blog site at: http://jenreesources.com or contact your local Extension Office.
Of importance is to double check in-season and fall-applied herbicide labels for any grazing restrictions. These restrictions can also be found in the ‘Forage Feed Grazing Restrictions’ in the UNL Guide for Weed Management. The forage, feed, and grazing restriction only applies to the crop for which the herbicide was applied. When it comes to grazing cover crops planted into these residues, one must use the replant/rotation restriction guidelines found on the herbicide label and in the UNL Weed Guide: ‘Replant Options Rotation Restrictions’. If the label doesn’t specify any restrictions, then it should be ok. If you want to be on the safe side, a rule of thumb is to use the pre-harvest interval for the amount of time to wait before grazing stalks.
- Crop Residue Exchange: https://cropresiduexchange.unl.edu
- Crop Residue Exchange Resources: https://cropresidueexchange.unl.edu/resources
- Grazing Crop Residues with Beef Cattle (excellent at explaining portion of crop residue, determining stocking rates, leasing rates, etc.)
- Cornstalk Grazing Cow-Q-Lator (excel spreadsheet guide for lease rates)
- Nutrient Removal by Cows Grazing Corn Residue, November 2018 CropWatch article
- Grazing Cornstalks Rental Agreement Considerations, 2016 Beef Article
- Renting Crop Residue: A Checklist for first-time renters, 2016 Beef Article
- Fillable leases: http://aglease101.org
- Grazing spring-calving cow-calf pairs on cornstalks-a producer’s perspective, November 2018 Beef Podcast
- Drewnoski et al. 2015. Effect of Corn Residue Removal on Subsequent Crop Yields. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Beef Report p 53-55.
- Rakkar et al. 2017. Effect of Long-term Corn Residue Grazing on Soil Properties. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Beef Report. p 50-52.
- Ulmer et al. 2017. Effect of Corn residue Grazing or Baling on Subsequent Crop Yield and Nutrient Removal. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Beef report p 46-49.
- Schmer et al. 2017. Corn Residue Use by Livestock in the United States. Agricultural & Environmental Letters.
Grateful for a nice week for harvesting and for the good yields being reported! It’s also good to see cattle being turned into cornstalks. A reminder to read herbicide labels to understand if there’s any grazing restrictions from corn and soybean herbicides applied in-season.
It’s also important to look for any grazing restrictions on fall-applied herbicides to control marestail and other germinating weeds. These restrictions can also be found in the Forage Feed Grazing Restrictions in the UNL Guide for Weed Management. The forage, feed, and grazing restriction only applies to the crop for which the herbicide was applied. When it comes to grazing cover crops planted into these residues, one must use the replant/rotation restriction guidelines found on the herbicide label and in the UNL Weed Guide: Replant Options Rotation Restrictions-long. I apologize as these scanned blurry; hopefully you can zoom in ok to read what you need.
If the label doesn’t specify any restrictions, then it should be ok. If you want to be on the safe side, a rule of thumb is to use the pre-harvest interval for the amount of time to wait before grazing stalks. Some labels will say that residue should not be grazed or baled and fed to livestock. Sometimes studies were actually conducted to know there is a safety concern. In other cases, the chemical company may not choose to conduct all the studies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required for labeling due to high costs. If that’s the case, the EPA requires the strongest restrictive language be placed on the label. Regardless, if it says there’s a grazing restriction on the label, the label needs to be followed as it is a legal document and the law.
As you plan for next year’s herbicide program, if you’re thinking about fall cover crops, the following NebGuide may be of benefit to you as it goes through the grazing restrictions of various herbicides.
Many stalks in Nebraska are left ungrazed for various reasons. One reason I’ve heard is the potential impact of increased compaction and reduced yield of the next crop. Nebraska Extension has long-term research addressing this concern…in fact, 16 years of research conducted at the Ag Research and Development Center near Mead. There’s various components to this study and you can view the full report at: http://go.unl.edu/8mp6.
In this study, cattle were allowed to graze corn residue in the spring (February to mid-April) or the fall (November through January) and these treatments were compared to an area not grazed. Corn and soybeans were planted the spring after grazing the residue for 16 years to determine the effect of grazing on the subsequent crop yield.
In the fall grazing treatments, the corn and soybeans were planted no-till. For corn or soybeans planted into the spring grazing treatments, three tillage treatments were also implemented for nine years: no-till, ridge-till, and spring conventional till, after which all treatments were converted to no-till. This result of the tillage by spring grazing treatments for either corn or soybean yield over nine years showed no interaction and suggested the same effect on yield regardless of tillage treatment used after spring grazing.
Spring grazing across all tillage treatments did increase soybean yields statistically (58.5 bu/ac for spring grazed vs. 57.0 bu/ac for ungrazed) and had no effect on corn yields. The results were similar looking at 16 years of grazing vs. not grazing under no-till for both corn and soybeans in the spring; there was no yield effect found for corn and the soybeans showed a slight yield increase with grazing.
Looking at a 10 year period of no-till management for both spring and fall grazed corn residue and subsequent corn and soybean crops, fall grazing statistically improved soybean yields over both spring grazing and no grazing (65.5 bu/ac vs. 63.5 bu/ac and 62.1 bu/ac respectively). No grazing effects were observed on corn yields in either season. All statistics were at the 95% confidence level meaning the researchers were 95% confident any yield differences were due to the treatments themselves vs. random chance.
Regarding compaction, in the fall, the field was typically frozen and the researchers felt any mud and compaction associated with grazing cattle was minimized; highest subsequent soybean yields were achieved with fall grazing. The spring treatment was designed to look more at potential compaction and muddy conditions after spring thaw till right before planting-thus the implementation of different tillage treatments as well. They used a stocking rate consistent with UNL grazing recommendations resulting in removal of half the husks and leaves produced (8 lbs of leaf and husk per bushel of corn grain produced). Results of this study indicate that even with muddy conditions in the spring, grazing increased subsequent soybean yields compared to not grazing regardless of tillage system used and that corn yields were not different between grazing vs. not grazing and regardless of tillage system used in the spring. This study was conducted in Eastern Nebraska in a rainfed environment with yields ranging from 186-253 bu/ac with a 16 year median yield of 203 bu/ac.
Additional Grazing Study
A five year fall grazing study (December through January) was conducted in an irrigated continuous no-till corn field at Brule, NE to determine the effect of corn residue removal via baling corn residue or fall grazing on subsequent corn yields. That environment receives limited rainfall and residue is deemed important for reducing evaporation of soil moisture in addition for catching/keeping snow on fields. Farmers were questioning the effects of any residue removal on subsequent corn yields and the study was implemented.
Treatments were 1) fall grazing at 1 animal unit month/acre (AUM), 2) fall grazing 2 AUM/ac, 3) baled, or 4) ungrazed. The researchers found that residue removal did not affect corn grain yields from 2009-2013 in the continuous corn rotation. There were no statistical yield differences with 5 year average yields of: 152 bu/ac, 155 bu/ac, 147 bu/ac and 148 bu/ac respectively for the above-mentioned treatments.
Grazing corn residue provides many benefits to both livestock and grain farmers, yet many corn stalks in our area are not grazed for various reasons. With as much hail as we’ve had this fall, grazing is also an option to remove ears and kernels that were lost, preventing volunteer corn next season. Normally there is less than a bushel of ear drop per acre, but we most likely have more than that in some of our fields this year. Two kernels per square foot or one ¾ pound ear in 1/100 of an acre is the equivalent of 1 bu/ac yield loss. In 30” rows, 1/100 of an acre is 174’ long if you count in one row or 87’ if you count in two rows.
What may also be of interest to you is a recent finding between corn grain loss pre-and during harvest and sudden death syndrome (SDS) of soybean. Many asked me this this year, “Why did I see SDS this year when we’ve never had it in this field before?” It’s a great question and I often responded by saying we need to sample the areas affected with SDS for soybean cyst nematode (SCN) as the two diseases are synergistic. Sampling for SCN still remains free through your Nebraska Soybean Board Checkoff dollars and you can stop by the Extension Office for free sampling bags. Crop consultants should contact the UNL Plant and Pest Diagnostic lab directly at (402) 472-2559 if you are requesting 10 or more sampling bags.
Anything that moves soil can transport the fungal soil-borne pathogens causing these diseases. But recent research from Iowa State University also suggests that the fungal pathogen causing SDS (Fusarium virguliforme) survives on grain lost during the harvest process in fields and that SDS management in soybean actually needs to begin at corn harvest.
Studies were conducted for two years in greenhouse and in field plots with nine treatments to determine the survivability of Fusarium virguliforme (Fv) on corn and soybean residue. The treatments were: 1-Corn kernels + Fv; 2-Corn roots + Fv; 3-Corn stem/leaves/husk + Fv; 4-No residue + Fv; 5-Soybean seeds + Fv; 6-Soybean stem/leaves/pods + Fv; 7-Soybean roots +Fv; 8-Corn stalk on soil surface + Fv; 9-Corn kernels and stalk on soil surface + Fv. The researchers consistently found in both the greenhouse and field experiments that Treatment 1 of corn kernels at average harvest loss resulted in the most SDS. Treatment 2 consistently resulted in the second most SDS.
This helps to explain why some farmers are finding SDS in fields that have been continuous corn for a period of years, are finding SDS in corn and soybean rotation when little or no SDS was previously observed, and why SDS has increased in seed corn fields that may have higher harvest losses. They did not experiment with tillage systems and their recommendation is to reduce harvest losses to reduce the risk of SDS.
Grazing residues can reduce your risk from these harvest losses and for those losses which were incurred with the hail/wind storms we’ve experienced since Labor Day. When grazing corn residue, cattle are selective. They will eat the grain first followed by the husk and leaf followed by the cob and stalk.
It’s also important to be aware of grazing restrictions from herbicides applied to row crops; you can read more about that in this post.
It’s nice seeing cattle being turned out into corn stalks! One point that I haven’t mentioned recently is that we all need to be checking the herbicide label for any grazing restrictions of crop residues.
So check the labels from in-season applied herbicides to row crops and fall-applied herbicides to crop residue for any potential grazing restrictions…and any restrictions on grazing cover crops planted into crop residues following application of those chemicals to a row crop. If the label doesn’t specify any restrictions, then it should be ok. If you want to be on the safe side, a rule of thumb many chemical reps use is to use the pre-harvest interval for the amount of time to wait before grazing stalks.
Some labels will say that residue should not be grazed or baled and fed to livestock. Sometimes studies were actually conducted to know there is a safety concern. In other cases, the chemical company may not choose to conduct all the studies the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required for labeling due to high costs. If that’s the case, the EPA requires the strongest restrictive language be placed on the label.
Regardless, if it says there’s a grazing restriction on the label, the label needs to be followed as it is a legal document and the law. Your cattle may/may not be affected by grazing stalks or cover crops where a chemical with a grazing restriction is on the label, but there may be other concerns such as problems with the chemical affecting the calf or being retained in the cow’s milk.
For quick references, the 2015 UNL Guide for Weed Management shows Forage, Feed, Grazing Restrictions for Row Crop Herbicides on pages 174-177. A new weed guide will be released January 2016. These pages just provide a reference; it’s truly best to read and follow the label.