ANR-764, Reprinted June 1998. Donald M. Ball, Extension Agronomist, Professor, Agronomy and Soils, and Jerry R. Crews, Extension Economist, Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, both at Auburn University

Comparison of Selected Alabama Forage Crops as Pasture for Stocker Steers

In most beef cattle operations in the Southeast, the primary factor limiting production is nutrition. Animal breeding and genetics are of great importance and receive much emphasis, but on most farms the existing genetic potential of livestock for making weight gains is never fully realized due to insufficient levels of nutrition, especially energy. Also, pregnancy rates in many beef herds in Alabama could be improved with better nutrition.

Most producers know, or can easily determine, which forage species and varieties are suited to be grown on land they have available for pasture. However, it may be difficult to decide specifically which one to use of several that could be grown. To do so, it is critically important to develop a basic understanding of the animal production that might be expected from those forages, as well as the cost of that production.

Many grazing experiments have provided animal performance data on one or perhaps a few forage species. However, due mainly to the expense of conducting grazing research, it is rare to see animal performance comparisons on more than two or three species or species mixtures at a time. Thus, it is difficult for livestock producers to obtain an overall view of the relative productivity of various forages.

This publication provides a comparison of animal performance criteria from several selected steer grazing experiments conducted in Alabama. It also provides pasture cost per acre and cost per pound of gain information for the forage crops used in these tests, based on 1992 Auburn University enterprise budgets. Collectively, these data provide an interesting and useful comparison of many of the forage crops commonly used in the Southeast.

I. Performance Criteria

Several criteria can be used to measure pasture excellence. While the really important criterion for most producers is the number of dollars of profit, it is far from being constant. Therefore, several other criteria stand out as being helpful to producers who wish to compare various forages for livestock.

Calendar Days Grazing. In most cases it is desirable for a forage crop to provide nutrition over a long period of time. It is also important for a producer to know approximately when forage is likely to be available or unavailable so stored feed can be obtained and provided as needed.

Gain Per Animal. A desirable gain per animal indicates that forage quantity was adequate and forage quality was relatively good during a specified period of time. In cases in which gain per animal is poor, expenses associated with owning animals become more difficult to offset.

Average Daily Gain. This is a measure of gain per animal over the grazing period, expressed on a daily basis. Average daily gain is a convenient and easy-to-understand way to compare the animal production efficiency of various forage species.

Gain Per Acre. Most producers want a high gain per acre because it is associated with efficient land use. If gain per acre is high, then fixed costs per unit of production are less, thus enhancing profit potential. This becomes particularly important when land is limited.

Cost Per Acre and Cost Per Pound of Gain. The primary objective of most producers is to make a profit. Knowing the cost per unit of land or the cost per pound of live weight produced provides a producer with the opportunity to compare pasture with alternative feedstuffs.

II. Studies Selected for Comparison

Auburn University scientists have conducted numerous experiments involving steers grazing various forage species. A number of these studies involved crossbred animals of generally similar breeding and weights and were conducted over multiple years. Therefore, they provide a good basis for comparison of both the animal production potential and the profit potential of various forage species commonly used in Alabama.

An early test at the Wiregrass Substation (WG) near Headland evaluated steer performance at four nitrogen levels on Coastal bermudagrass, and at three levels on both Pensacola bahiagrass and "common" bermudagrass. A later study at the Tennessee Valley Substation (TVS) near Belle Mina compared bermudagrass interseeded with either hairy vetch or Explorer rye.

At the Black Belt Substation (BBS) near Marion junction, the tall fescue varieties AU Triumph (0 percent fungal endophyte) and Kentucky 31 tall fescue (having 1, 34, or 90 percent endophyte) were compared. In another study, Kentucky 31 pastures having less than 5 percent endophyte and 94 percent endophyte were tested. Also at that station, highly endophyte-infected Kentucky 31 fescue and AP-2, an experimental line of hardinggrass (Phalaris), were evaluated.

Endophyte-infected tall fescue was grazed in pure stands as well as with either ladino clover or birds-foot trefoil at the Sand Mountain Substation (SMS) near Crossville. Steer gains on orchardgrass-ladino clover were obtained in a test at TVS. In another study at the same location, Kentucky 31 tall fescue and common orchardgrass (both grown with and without Regal white clover) were evaluated.

Continuously grazed AU Lotan sericea lespedeza was tested against rotationally grazed AU Lotan and Serala sericea, and Cimarron alfalfa at the Upper Coastal Plain Substation (UCP) near Winfield. At TVS, Funk's 78F sorghum-sudan was evaluated. Various winter annual mixtures including rye, oats, ryegrass, and crimson clover were tested at the Lower Coastal Plain Substation (LCP) near Camden.

III. Procedure

Performance criteria for stocker steers grazing the 37 different pasture treatments used in these Auburn University grazing studies were summarized from various research reports and articles. These experimental results provide a basis for comparison of animal performance among the treatments (Table 1).

Subsequently, Auburn University 1992 budget estimates for the various forage species or species mixtures involved in these studies were used to determine both the approximate pasture costs per acre and the pasture costs per pound of gain. This information, also in Table 1, provides a basis for economic comparison. The ranking (least to most expensive) of variable and total pasture cost of gain for each forage species also is provided.

IV. Animal Performance Comparisons

As would be expected, the animal performance reported in these experiments varied greatly among the various pasture species or mixtures. The number of calendar grazing days ranged from a low of 77 for sorghum-sudan to a high of 238 for an orchardgrass-white clover mixture at TVS.

The variation in calendar grazing days was greater among cool season species and mixtures than among warm season species. Neither endophyte status nor presence of a legume companion species seemed to have any great effect on the number of grazing days obtained from pasture treatments involving tall fescue.

High per day gains (1.7 pounds or more) were obtained with alfalfa, continuously grazed AU Lotan sericea lespedeza, tall fescue having low or medium endophyte infection, common orchardgrass, hardinggrass, orchardgrass with ladino clover, and tall fescue with ladino clover. In several cases in which ADG was high, a relatively short grazing season reduced gain per steer. In other cases, a lower ADG with a long grazing season resulted in impressive gains per steer.

The lowest gains per animal occurred with sorghum-sudan, common bermudagrass receiving no nitrogen, and tall fescue that was highly infected with endophyte. It should be noted that winter annuals often produce higher individual animal gains than were obtained in the experiments selected for use in this exercise.

Gain per acre was at least 475 pounds on ten of the pasture treatments. These were alfalfa, Coastal bermudagrass receiving at least 160 pounds of nitrogen per acre, Coastal bermudagrass overseeded with vetch or rye, endophyte-free AU Triumph tall fescue, endophyte-infected tall fescue-white clover (SM), Hallmark orchardgrass-white clover, and with two of the four winter annual mixtures. The lowest gain per acre (100 pounds) was obtained on common bermudagrass receiving no nitrogen fertilizer.

V. Pasture Cost Comparisons

Bermudagrass, Bahiagrass, Sorghum-Sudan. The calculated pasture costs per pound of gain for Coastal bermudagrass and for bahiagrass were similar (20 to 27 cents per pound), with slight increases for each species at the highest rates (320 and 160 pounds, respectively). However, costs of gain for both species were lower than for common bermudagrass (30 to 44 cents per pound). The cost of gain for sorghum-sudan (45 cents) was high as compared to the warm season perennial grass pastures.

Alfalfa, Sericea Lespedeza. Although the animal gain figures for alfalfa were impressive, the calculated pasture cost per pound of gain for this species (28 cents) was higher than for some other forages that also produced high gains. Animal gains on sericea lespedeza were lower than on alfalfa, but the calculated costs of gain were quite low (12 to 15 cents). Pasture costs for low-tannin sericea were only marginally less than for high-tannin sericea.

Tall Fescue. The pasture cost per pound of gain was inversely proportional to the level of endophyte infection, ranging from 22 to 26 cents for low-endophyte or endophyte-free fescue to a range of 26 to 37 cents for highly infected fescue. However, due to improved gains and lowered nitrogen fertilizer requirements, the cost of gain figures were 10 to 24 cents when white clover was present with infected fescue, and 19 cents when birdsfoot trefoil was the companion legume.

Orchardgrass. The fact that there can be great variations in profit potential for a given forage species is illustrated by work done at TVS. With an improved orchardgrass variety grown with white clover, the pasture cost per pound of gain was 12 cents, while in another experiment at the same location it was 24 cents for common orchardgrass-white clover and 49 cents (highest of all treatments) for common orchardgrass alone.

Winter Annuals. The pasture cost per pound of gain for three of the four winter annual combinations tested at the LCP were quite good (20 to 23 cents), while the fourth (30 cents) was better than many of the pasture treatments included in this exercise. This provides evidence of the value of winter annuals as pastures for stocker steers in Alabama. Also, when winter annuals were overseeded into Coastal bermudagrass at TVS, costs of gain were good, especially with vetch (15 cents).

General. Overall, the lowest pasture costs per pound of gain were obtained with tall fescue-white clover at SM (10 cents), with orchardgrass-white clover at TVS (12 cents), with sericea lespedeza at the UCP (12 to 15 cents), and with bermudagrass overseeded with vetch at TVS (15 cents). The highest costs of gain occurred with common bermudagrass receiving no nitrogen (44 cents), and with sorghum-sudan (45 cents).

VI. Observations

The accompanying table provides many interesting comparisons. A producer's decision on which forage species to use can be affected by many factors including soil types, management ability, available capital, available labor, and weather. However, these data clearly indicate that some forage species offer more economic opportunity than others.

For example, it is obvious that animal performance and the potential for profit is great with endophyte-free tall fescue. However, enthusiasm for this option must be tempered with the realization that endophyte-free tall fescue is less stress tolerant (thus more vulnerable to stand loss) than infected fescue. Therefore, endophyte-free tall fescue offers an opportunity only under good management levels and in areas where tall fescue is well adapted.

It is also important to note that these data indicate that producers who have infected tall fescue can offset the gain-suppressing effects of endophyte infection by interseeding white clover or other legumes. This is a technique that should be used widely, because most of the tall fescue in Alabama at present is endophyte-infected.

All measures of animal gain on alfalfa are impressively high, but the cost of production is also high relative to other grazing crops. However, when producers see an opportunity for profit associated with rapid animal gains, the crop could be an attractive option.

The attributes of bermudagrass are a potentially high stocking rate and gain per acre when using high levels of nitrogen fertilization and improved varieties. Thus, when land is a limiting factor, or when nitrogen sources are available at low cost, bermudagrass becomes increasingly attractive.

Perhaps surprisingly to some people, sericea lespedeza seems to also constitute an opportunity on many livestock farms. This widely adapted forage legume does not provide spectacular animal performance, and it has the disadvantages of having rather poor seedling vigor and requiring some grazing management. However, lespedeza can provide low-cost summer animal production, especially on poorer soil types.

Finally, winter annuals provide a long growing season and excellent animal performance. In general, the economics of using winter annuals, especially for animals having relatively high nutritional requirements, are attractive. Southern producers are fortunate to have a mild climate that allows the growth of these excellent forage species.

The conclusions that can be made from the data provided here are limited, but it should be mentioned that inclusion of legumes often results in economical pasture and animal performance. In this exercise seven of the lowest ten pasture costs per pound of gain included legumes (Table 1).

Furthermore, it is clear that while a high-stocking rate is often associated with a high gain per acre, the cost of that gain may be high as well. Similarly, neither a high daily gain nor a high gain per steer insure a low cost per pound of gain. The cost of inputs, levels of production per animal and per acre, as well as the length of the grazing season, impact on the cost per pound of gain. Also, pasture management that results in a vigorous, productive forage stand, as well as grazing management that allows proper use, are integral.

Table 1. Production and Economic Performance Data for Stocker Steers Using Various Forage Types and Varieties. (a)

Description	Item No.	Pasture	Line or Variety	Calendar Days Grazing	Average Grazing Dates	Years Of Data	Loca- tion(b)
Warm Season Perennial Grasses (WSPG)	1	Bermudagrass	Coastal	168	NS (g)	4	WG
	2	Bermudagrass	Coastal	168	NS	4	WG
	3	Bermudagrass	Coastal	168	NS	4	WG
	4	Bermudagrass	Coastal	168	NS	4	WG
	5	Bahiagrass	Pensacola	168	NS	3	WG
	6	Bahiagrass	Pensacola	168	NS	3	WG
	7	Bahiagrass	Pensacola	168	NS	3	WG
	8	Bermudagrass	Common	168	NS	3	WG
	9	Bermudagrass	Common	168	NS	3	WG
	10	Bermudagrass	Common	168	NS	3	WG
WSPG W/Winter Annuals	11	Bermudagrass w/Vetch	Coastal/Hairy	161	4/4 - 9/27	8	TVS
	12	Bermudagrass w/Rye	Coastal/Explorer	161	3/19 - 9/27	8	TVS
Summer Annuals	13	Sorghum-Sudan	Funks 78-F	77	6/6 - 8/22	3	TVS
Perennial Legumes	14	Alfalfa (h)	Cimarron	163	3/30 - 9/8	3	UCP
	15	Sericea Lespedeza (h)	Serala	139	4/22 - 9/8	3	UCP
	16	Sericea Lespedeza (h)	AU Lotan	139	4/22 - 9/8	3	UCP
	17	Sericea Lespedeza	AU Lotan	139	4/22 - 9/8	3	UCP
Cool Season Perennial Grasses	18	Tall Fescue (i)	AU Triumph (0%)	161	10/5 - 12/26 & 2/28 - 5/27	3	BB
	19	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (1%)	161	10/5 - 12/26 & 2/28 - 5/27	3	BB
	20	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (34%)	161	10/5 - 12/26 & 2/28 - 5/27	3	BB
	21	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (90%)	161	10/5 - 12/26 & 2/28 - 5/27	3	BB
	22	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (< 5%)	172	10/23 - 12/24 & 2/26 - 6/16	4	BB
	23	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (94%)	172	10/23 - 12/24 & 2/26 - 6/16	4	BB
	24	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (> 90%)	150	3/18 - 7/9 & 9/25 - 11/22	8	TVS
	25	Orchardgrass	Common	139	3/23 - 7/9 & 9/25 - 11/11	8	TVS
	26	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (0%)	177	10/17 - 12/26 & 3/7 - 5/19	3	BB
	27	Hardinggrass	AP-2	177	10/17 - 12/26 & 3/7 - 6/19	3	BB
	28	Tall Fescue	KY 31 (> 90%)	206	10/15 - 1/15 & 3/15 - 7/19	2	SM
Cool Season Perennial Grasses W/Legumes	29	Orchardgrass W/Ladino	Hallmark/Regal	238	9/5 - 12/5 & 4/1 - 8/27	2	TVS
	30	Tall Fescue W/Ladino	KY 31/Regal	143	3/18 - 7/9 & 9/25 - 11/15	8	TVS
	31	Orchardgrass W/Ladino	Common/Regal	143	3/23 - 7/9 & 9/25 - 11/15	8	TVS
	32	Tall Fescue W/Ladino	KY 31/Regal	205	10/15 - 1/15 & 3/15 - 7/19	2	SM
	33	Tall Fescue W/Birdsfoot	KY 31/Fergus	194	10/15 - 1/15 & 3/15 - 7/19	2	SM
Winter Annuals	34	Rye, Oats & Crm. Clover (j)	NS	121	10/18 - 5/2	2	TVS
	35	Rye & Ryegrass (k)	NS	153	10/24 - 5/15	7	TVS
	36	Rye, Ryegrass, & Crm. Clover	NS	177	10/6 - 5/2	6	BB
	37	Oats & Crm. Clover	NS	201	10/29 - 5/18	2	BB

Table 1. contd. Refer to above table for pasture names.

Item No.	Nitrogen Rate	Stocking Rate	Average Daily Gain (c)	Total Gain (c)	Gain Per Steer (c)	Variable Pasture Costs (d)	Total Pasture Costs (e)	Variable Pasture Cost		Total Pasture Cost
								$/Lb.	Ranking (f)	$/Lb.	Ranking (f)
	Lb./A./Yr.	Head/A.	Lb./Head	Lb./A.	Lb./Head	$/A.	$/A.	$/Lb.		$/Lb.
1	0	1.40	NS	250	179	26.59	50.04	0.11	7	0.20	9
2	80	1.70	NS	340	200	50.22	75.32	0.15	11	0.22	14
3	160	2.60	NS	480	185	73.85	100.61	0.15	12	0.21	12
4	320	3.50	NS	620	177	121.11	151.18	0.20	22	0.24	21
5	0	1.20	NS	220	183	26.59	43.94	0.12	9	0.20	8
6	80	1.80	NS	290	161	50.22	69.22	0.17	16	0.24	18
7	160	2.00	NS	350	175	73.85	94.51	0.21	26	0.27	25
8	0	0.70	NS	100	143	26.59	43.83	0.27	33	0.44	35
9	80	1.40	NS	230	164	50.22	69.12	0.22	27	0.30	29
10	160	1.80	NS	300	167	73.85	94.40	0.25	30	0.31	31
11	0	2.26	1.29	493	218	47.46	73.05	0.10	6	0.15	5
12	150	2.45	1.30	530	216	94.89	123.81	0.18	19	0.23	16
13	100	2.80	1.10	210	84	78.96	93.89	0.38	37	0.45	36
14	0	1.30	2.16	475	352	51.49	131.51	0.11	8	0.28	26
15	0	1.30	1.39	248	193	21.49	37.54	0.09	5	0.15	6
16	0	1.20	1.65	276	229	21.49	37.54	0.08	4	0.14	4
17	0	1.20	1.87	306	260	21.49	37.54	0.07	3	0.12	3
18	200	1.54	2.09	519	336	89.85	112.01	0.17	15	0.22	13
19	200	1.32	2.16	462	348	89.85	112.01	0.19	21	0.24	20
20	200	1.40	1.76	397	283	89.85	111.44	0.23	28	0.28	27
21	200	1.77	1.41	370	227	89.85	111.44	0.24	29	0.30	30
22	200	1.32	1.82	426	323	89.85	112.01	0.21	25	0.26	24
23	200	1.73	1.00	301	174	89.85	111.44	0.30	35	0.37	34
24	150	2.13	1.31	268	126	75.08	95.64	0.28	34	0.36	33
25	150	1.27	1.77	200	157	75.08	97.00	0.38	36	0.49	37
26	200	1.40	1.78	434	310	89.85	112.01	0.21	24	0.26	23
27	200	1.26	1.73	347	275	89.85	112.86	0.26	31	0.33	32
28	150	1.76	1.06	374	218	75.08	95.64	0.20	23	0.26	22
29	0	1.97	1.62	576	292	38.83	58.85	0.07	2	0.10	2
30	0	1.81	1.46	244	135	38.83	57.49	0.16	13	0.24	17
31	0	1.46	1.83	244	167	38.83	58.85	0.16	14	0.24	19
32	0	1.63	1.53	582	314	38.83	57.49	0.07	1	0.10	1
33	0	1.24	1.51	398	293	57.43	77.40	0.14	10	0.19	7
34	130	2.00	1.37	544	272	97.07	111.50	0.18	18	0.21	11
35	130	1.86	1.36	528	278	91.71	105.77	0.17	17	0.20	10
36	100	1.31	1.57	364	278	94.85	109.13	0.26	32	0.30	28
37	100	1.38	1.60	443	321	86.04	99.70	0.19	20	0.23	15
a - Data compiled from AAES reports (see references). Majority of steers were crossbred with an initial weight of approximately 500 pounds. b - WG = Wiregrass; TVS = Tenessee Valley Station; UCP = Upper Coastal Plains; BB = Black Belt; SM = Sand Mountain. c - Put-and-take grazing was employed in these tests, which precludes calculation of figures in this column from other data presented. For example, if you multiply Gain Per Steer times the Stocking Rate, this number does not necessarily equal Total Gain, as it normally would. d - Variable costs (1992 estimates) include annual maintenance items such as fertilizer, mowing, etc. (excluding labor) e - Total costs (1992 estimates) include variable items plus fixed costs associated with establishment and ownership of machinery and equipment. f - Ranking based on lowest to highest; fractional differences not shown allowed separation of treatments rounded to the same cost/lb. g - NS = Not Specified h - Rotationally grazed. i - Tall fescue varieties, where indicated, are identified by percentage of endophyte infestation. j - Average of 78 days off grazing; dates not specified. k - Average of 52 days off grazing; dates not specified.

VII. Other Factors To Consider

It is important to remember that different types and classes of livestock have different nutritional requirements. The data summarized here pertain to stocker-steer tests. While some possibility exists for using the data to evaluate the usefulness of these forage species for other livestock operations, the usefulness is quite limited.

The data summarized here are from experiments at various locations and under environmental conditions unique to the years during which the studies were conducted. While valuable for the purpose of making general comparisons, any of a number of animal or plant factors influence such results.

It is important to note that the pasture cost values provided were calculated estimates assuming application of recommended management practices. In addition, although pasture cost per pound of gain is an important measure of production efficiency, it is not the only factor that affects profit. In particular, pasture cost per pound of gain does not take into consideration seasonal price fluctuations (buy-sell relationships) or expenses associated with owning animals over time.

In addition, marketing and animal management costs should always be considered when evaluating forage and livestock systems. For example, the pasture costs per pound of gain for some of the warm season perennial grass treatments are relatively low. However, few stocker cattle operations of this type exist at present.

One reason for this is that greater production and marketing risks are associated with higher stocking rates and higher nitrogen fertilization levels required for high per-acre gains with these forage species. Also, the market for animals coming off warm-season species is usually poorer than for animals coming off cool-season species. Given these circumstances, summer stocker programs are often difficult to justify.

Furthermore, the pasture costs were calculated from the gain per acre figures reported. Since all of these experiments used put-and-take stocking to insure proper forage availability, the gains per acre reported are perhaps higher than a producer might be able to obtain with larger operational conditions and less rigorous control of pasture areas. Consequently, the pasture cost per pound of gain figures may be slightly lower than a producer could normally obtain.

Despite the limitations of the information generated in this exercise, these data provide a unique basis for comparison of animal performance on, and estimated pasture costs for, various forage crops. The data should be extremely helpful to Alabama producers who are striving to make sound decisions regarding selection of pasture species for beef production.

VIII. References

Ball, D. M., C. S. Hoveland, and G. D. Lacefield. 1991. Southern Forages. Atlanta, Ga.: Potash and Phosphate Institute and Foundation for Agronomic Research.

Crews, J. R., and D. M. Ball. 1992. Budgets for Major Forage Crop Enterprises in Alabama. Auburn, Ala.: ACES Special Report.

Harris, R. R., W. B. Anthony, V. L. Brown, J. K. Boseck, H. F. Yates, W. B. Webster, and J. E. Barrett, Jr. 1971. Cool Season Annual Grazing Crops For Stocker Calves. AAES Bulletin 416

Hoveland, C. S., R. R. Harris, J. K. Boseck, and W. B. Webster. 1971. Supplementation of Steers Grazing Sorghun-Sudan Pasture. AAES Circular 188.

Hoveland, C. S., R. R. Harris, E. E. Thomas, E. M. Clark, J. A. McGuire, J. T. Eason, and M. E. Ruf. 1981. Tall Fescue with Ladino Clover Or Birdsfoot Trefoil As Pasture For Steers In Northern Alabama. AAES Bulletin 530.

Hoveland, C. S., C. C. King, Jr., E. M. Evans, R. R. Harris, and W. B. Anthony. 1960. Bermudagrass for Forage in Alabama. AAES Bulletin 328.

McGuire, R. L., J. G. Floyd, Hr., D. M. Ball, W. R. Jones, W. B. Mikel, B. G. Ruffin, and Harold Watson. 1991. Circular ANR-427, "Alabama Beef Cattle Production Guide."

Pedersen, J. F., J. A. McGuire, S. P. Schmidt, C. C. King, Jr., C. S. Hoveland, E. M. Clark, L. A. Smith, H. W. Grimes, and J. L. Holliman. 1987. Steer Response to AU Triumph and Kentucky 31 Fescue at Three Endophyte Levels. AAES Circular 289.

Schmidt, S. P., C. S. Hoveland, E. D. Donnelly, J. A. McGuire, and R. A. Moore. 1987. Beef Steer Performance on Cimarron Alfalfa and Serala and AU Lotan Sericea Lespedeza Pastures. AAES Circular 288.