-------
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
MarkOrlic.USEPA 3
Welcome
Charles Adams, USDA NRCS Southeast Regional Conservationist 5
Program Introduction
TomWirth,USEPA 7
Virginia Pilot Project
Glenn Johnson, USDA NRCS, Billy Wayson, VA Forage and Grasslands Council 9
Virginia Beef Production Efficiency and Retained Ownership
John Hall, Virginia Tech Extension 13
Financial Analysis of Improved Grazing Management
Tom Hogan,ICF and Alan Graybeal,VA Cattleman 19
A Summary of Southeast Demonstration Farm Activities
Sid Brantly, USDA NRCS 21
Extension Activities in Utah
Roger Banner, Utah State University 27
Fecal Sampling Program
Arnold Norman, USDA NRCS, Grazing Lands Technology Institute 29
Carbon Sequestration in Pastures
Richard Conant, Colorado State University . 33
A Systems Approach to Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Livestock Operations
Don Johnson, Colorado State University ......43
Research Presentations
Washington State University
Kris Johnson and Hal Westberg 47
Utah State University
Ken Olson 51
Utah State University
D. Layne Coppock 61
University of Tennessee
Henry Fribourg and John Waller 65
University of Southwest Louisiana
Alan DeRamus and Terry Clement 75
University of Georgia
MarkMcCann 83
Conference Participants 87
-------
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
PREFACE
The purpose of this document is to describe the status of activities undertaken by
the EPA and USD A through the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (RLEP) in
1998. The RLEP was initiated in 1993 as Action Item 39 of the President's Climate
Change Action Plan. RLEP is a voluntary program that works with beef and dairy cattle
fanners to improve production efficiency and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in
the US. In the fall of each year, a conference is held where program participants meet to
share information on their accomplishments and present plans and ideas for future
activities. The two main components of the program are research and education.
When the RLEP began in 1993, Washington State University had just published
the methodology for the SF6 tracer-based livestock methane measurement technique in
the scientific literature. Today, in addition to Washington State University, four other
research institutes in the US are using the technique. These include Utah State
University, the University of Tennessee, the University of Georgia and the University of
Southwest Louisiana. Elsewhere, it is being used in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the
United Kingdom, India, Zimbabwe and Ukraine. Also, scientists from Uruguay, Costa
Rica and Mexico have been trained and are planning to start up measurement programs in
their countries. In each country including the U.S., the technique is being used to
improve livestock emission inventories and to quantify the effects of improved
management practices on the environment, specifically how improved management
reduces methane emissions per unit of product. In the US, methane measurement studies
mainly focus on improving beef cow diets through better forage and grazing management
practices. Studies have also been implemented to examine effects of production
enhancing technologies such as growth promotants and ionophores. In developing
countries, researchers are studying the effects of dietary supplements such as molasses
urea blocks and oilseed cakes.
The educational activities initiated by RLEP are numerous. In eleven
southeastern states, USDA NRCS technicians work closely with 48 fanners who have
agreed to use their farms to demonstrate improved grazing management techniques, hi
Virginia, special efforts are being made through a pilot project to address total
greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. Through this RLEP sponsored
project, USDA NRCS works closely with Virginia Tech Extension on a variety of
projects: improved grazing management education, beef production efficiency and
retained ownership education, financial and business planning for beef operations,
monitoring carbon content in pasture soils that have been converted to improved
management, and a new pastureland management software program.
t
In the intermountain west, Utah State is incorporating research results into
ongoing extension programs. Three major sets of activities include an NRCS-USU video
production on plant-herbivore interactions, Western Integrated Resources Education
program (WIRE), and the Utah Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI).
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
The National Council for Agricultural Education and the Future Farmers of
America developed classroom educational materials on climate change and livestock
production systems. Materials include a student reference text, a teacher's guide, a poster
and a video. The plans are to introduce the materials to teachers, and to provide training
to teachers at workshops next summer.
Because improved pasture management has been identified as a potential means
for sequestering substantial amounts of atmospheric carbon, RLEP is sponsoring a new
project to quantify carbon sequestration in pastures of the Southeastern United States.
Colorado State University recently began this work, which includes setting up long-term
microsites to allow accurate collection and analysis of soil samples, compilations of state-
wide pasture land use data, and simulation modeling of soil C dynamics. Their work is
an integral part of the Virginia Pilot Project and will eventually become part of the larger
regional program.
Colorado State University is also developing a livestock production systems
simulation model for RLEP to evaluate the net impact of changes in livestock production
practices on total greenhouse gas emissions at the farm level. Many practices directed at
improving efficiency and decreasing emissions of a particular greenhouse gas might
simultaneously produce multiple or ripple effects on the system which could suppress or
enhance net greenhouse gas emissions from the production system. This project will
enable us to identify practices that provide the greatest overall benefits to the
environment considering emissions of all major greenhouse gases including methane,
nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. It will incorporate the effects of agricultural soil as a
sink for atmospheric carbon plus the effects on economic returns resulting from
implementing these practices.
The data contained in this document is presented as a status report and is not in all
cases, in its final form. All data should therefore be considered preliminary. For
information on a specific study, please contact the author directly. Contact information is
provided in the last section of the document.
/
Mark Qrlic
US EPA
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
WELCOMING REMARKS
Charles Adams, NRCS Regional Conservationist
Welcome to the state of Georgia and to the Southeast Region. As Regional
Conservationist for NRCS in the Southeast, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
attend to attend this year's conference in person and to provide you with this welcome.
We want to thank the University of Georgia and Dr. Mark McCann for acting as the host
for this year's conference and for the opportunity to enjoy these fine facilities.
This year's meeting is of particular significance as it marks the third and final
year of the regional interagency agreement between NRCS and EPA for cooperation on
the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program (RLEP). With the help and cooperation of
private livestock producers, we have accomplished much through implementation of this
effort.
Environmental Protection Agency funding of research efforts here in the
Southeast and across the country have extended our knowledge and understanding of how
ruminant diets affect the efficiency of production. Global climate change funding from
NRCS has been used to establish approximately thirty livestock efficiency demonstration
farms scattered across the southeast. These demonstration farms are serving as models for
other producers to help them understand what improved efficiency of production can
mean in terms of a healthier bottom line and a cleaner environment.
The timing of this effort has been especially opportune. It has coincided with an
on-going effort, begun at the request of the nation's livestock producers in the early part
of this decade, to expand NRCS's program of conservation technical assistance on our
country's privately owned grazing lands. This Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative
(GLCI) and the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program have common objectives in
improving livestock production practices.
Here in the Southeast the level of livestock management is traditionally among
the lowest in the nation and the availability, of NRCS technical assistance for improved
grazing management has been limited. We have been able to use these two programs,
GLCI and RLEP, together to accelerate the development of our capacity to provide
assistance on grazing lands in this region.
We have made much progress over the last three years. In addition to the
establishment of the livestock production demonstration farms which have provided
opportunities for public field days, accomplishments include:
• expanded NRCS staff qualified to provide grazing lands assistance
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
• creation of two regional grazing lands leadership positions in the NRCS Southeast
Region to assist states with training and development of state grazing lands assistance
programs
• dedicated staff at each NRCS state office to provide leadership for the grazing lands
program
• expanded partnerships with other agencies, industry groups, and cooperative
extension to assist and educate the public and to provide workshops and training to
NRCS conservation professionals in grazing lands management.
Throughout the past three years, we have worked to incorporate concerns over the
effect of agricultural activities on atmospheric carbon into the overall NRCS conservation
assistance program and not to treat these concerns as a program unto themselves.
Working together, we have helped to focus attention not just on the level of greenhouse
gases produced by ruminant livestock, but on the overall benefits of well managed
grazing systems. These positive impacts, especially carbon sequestration in grazing lands
and other agricultural soils, have become a part of the international discussion about how
to best control the earth's atmospheric carbon levels.
The work that has been done and which continues to be done under this effort is
helping to create a holistic view of the impacts of the livestock industry on atmospheric
carbon and to demonstrate that this important industry is a part of the solution to global
climate change rather than a cause. The completion of the current agreement for NRCS
cooperation with EPA on improving livestock production efficiency does not denote an
end to our joint efforts. The excellent cooperative work, involving not just NRCS and
EPA but the Forage and Grassland Council and Cooperative Extension as well as private
producers, is ongoing
Where do we go from here with interagency coordination and public
involvement? How do we continue to improve the level of livestock grazing management
and production efficiency in this and other regions? As you discuss these issues here at
this meeting, I wish you well and will be interested in the results of your deliberation and
discussions.
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
PROGRAM INTRODUCTION
Tom Wirth, US EPA
Welcome to the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program's Annual Conference.
For the RLEP, 1998 was a classic roller coaster year. In spite of excellent
progress on several fronts, recent developments such as budget cuts, congressional riders
on EPA's budget, among other things, have forced us to narrow our focus and make some
changes.
First of all, there have been a number of important accomplishments that should
not be overlooked:
• The SF6 measurement technique has been perfected for a variety of animal types and
situations and is now being used across the US and around the world to measure
emissions of methane from ruminant livestock.
• University research, that we will hear more about in this meeting, has established a
firm basis for evaluating measures to reduce methane emissions from livestock on a
per unit of product basis.
• Through EPA's cooperative agreement with USDA-NRCS, RLEP has developed a
very promising model forage and grazing management program in Virginia. The next
step is to use it as a case example and apply it in other states.
• Forty-eight demonstration farms have been established across the Southeast to show
how improved management can lead to lower methane emissions per unit of product
as well as increased profitability for the producer. Numerous producers have visited
these farms and benefited by participating in field day activities.
Like all Climate Change Action Plan programs, RLEP must be evaluated in terms of
how well it is reducing emissions, at what cost, and with what level of industry
participation. The family of government sponsored climate change programs has grown
rapidly over the past few years with several programs achieving high levels of success.
In most cases the successful programs are the ones with good industry participation at the
national level. Although RLEP enjoys excellent relations with demonstration farmers
and a number of state level organizations, the national organizations that represent the
industry still have not chosen to participate in climate change programs. This situation
has hindered broad scale implementation of the program.
For decades, managers of conservation programs have wrestled with difficulties of
quantifying the benefits of environmental improvement. While the RLEP may be having
positive impacts in the short term, and certainly will in the future, it will always be
difficult to measure success using the same standards that are applied to many of the
other climate programs. The specific actions that RLEP promotes will always result in
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
increased efficiency of livestock production, but livestock respiratory gases never flow
through pipelines and are not metered. In most cases, efficiency improvements can lead
to net emissions reductions but the results are determined in an indirect manner. Because
direct and immediate reductions of methane from livestock digestive systems do not
occur, the program can not produce the short-term results that are needed for Climate
Change Action Plan programs. So what this all means for the future of RLEP is that we
will continue to operate but on a reduced budget from EPA. Fortunately, NRCS has not
been affected by these changes so RLEP will continue to advance and while EPA funding
has been reduced, it has not been eliminated so support will continue for most of the
current commitments.
The Virginia activities are a high priority and will not be affected. This includes
support for the beef production efficiency and retained ownership project, the formation
of the Forage and Grassland Council grazing clubs and the development of the Pasture
Land Management Software. It also includes support for classroom educational activities
with the Future Farmers of America. Unfortunately, the most serious cutbacks will be to
the research part of the program as a result of congressional riders on EPA's
appropriation bill.
The other projects that were recently started up with Colorado State University will
also continue as planned. These include a comprehensive systems analysis of livestock
production related greenhouse gas emissions and their economic implications, plus a
project to quantify the carbon sequestration potential on pastureland in the Southeastern
US from improved grazing management.
In the future, RLEP will be incorporating a more holistic systems approach to
reducing greenhouse gases from livestock production systems, both domestically and
internationally. This is being done to ensure that our efforts to reduce emissions of one
gas do not result in increased emissions of another to the extent that net emissions are
increased. This analysis will take all greenhouse gases into account including methane,
nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, to ensure that the mitigation options we are promoting
are the most "greenhouse friendly" options available. Only with a truly holistic approach
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, can we be sure that the environment will benefit as
much as the producer when production efficiency is improved.
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
VIRGINIA PILOT PROJECT
Glenn Johnson, USDA NRCS, Bill Wayson, Virginia Forage and Grassland Council
A project was initiated in Virginia in late 1997 to develop a model for assisting
ruminant livestock producers that would:
• improve the environment which includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
sequestering carbon in the soil;
• improve ruminant livestock production efficiency;
• improve technology transfer;
• promote cooperation among agencies and with producers;
• actively and meaningfully involve producers;
• provide consistency and continuity to all of the above.
A major project strategy is to involve producers, not only as recipients of information,
but as partners in determining how and what information should be delivered and shared.
Consequently, where appropriate, many projects are "close to the producer". Another
major strategy was to consider as many factors in grazing management as possible,
including plants, soils, animals, economics, and environment. To accomplish these goals,
program flexibility has been maintained so that lessons learned during the project can be
incorporated for improvement. In this sense, the project is dynamic and evolving.
Producer Involvement
The Virginia Forage and Grassland Council (VFGC) has begun a project to
improve technology transfer by beginning at the "ground level". A key focus throughout
the project has been the solicitation of input from the producer, looking for suggestions
for development and execution of the project. Towards that end, two information
gathering efforts were made across Virginia; a phone survey of approximately 300
ruminant livestock producers was done and eight focus group discussion sessions were
held.
The focus groups contained both beef and dairy producers from 35 counties.
Participants were of all ages and most beef producers were not considered full time
producers. Other crops (tobacco, grains, and cotton) as well as off farm employment
often commanded priority.
The broad based questions for the focus groups were:
• Why do you raise livestock?
• What is "good" pasture management?
• What sources of information on pasture management have you used in the past?
• What kind of information do you need?
• How is the best way for information to be presented to you?
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
• What are the limiting factors to implement improved grazing management on your
operation?
Several conclusions from the focus groups were:
• Producers want information customized to their locality. State-wide information
often does not address regional needs.
• Producers wanted to receive information through small, local group meetings so that
they would have an opportunity for discussion and to learn from each other.
• Motives for raising livestock were primarily due to a sense of history, tradition, and
lifestyle. Economic considerations, for the most part, did play a primary motivating
role for raising livestock.
• Perceived barriers were increased time, labor, money (costs), and difficulty in water
placement.
Consequently, the VFGC held a series of three conferences in separate locations
across the state. The primary objective was to promote the formation of localized grazing
clubs. As a result, twelve clubs were begun with nine being active. Many have met
several times, somewhat organized themselves, arranged presentations from both agency
specialists and producers, and conducted a number of pasture walks.
The VFGC is developing a support mechanism for the grazing clubs. Club projects
may be financed upon application to VFGC. Requirements for such financial assistance
are:
• the project must improve the quantity, quality and availability of forages;
» the project must have an outreach component;
• the club must provide a written report on results to VFGC as a feedback and
documentation mechanism;
In addition, a graziers network is being developed across the state. A newsletter is
being started to facilitate this effort.
Soils
As an excellent example of how different projects can work together for common
goals, the Natural Resources Ecology Lab located at Colorado State University is
conducting a study of five farms in Virginia to examine the effects of different pasture
management systems on the soil's ability to sequester carbon. The project objectives
include:
• provide baseline data on carbon sequestration potential of improved grasslands;
• verify soil carbon determination techniques;
• improve existing modeling efforts.
With the advent of international agreements to address climate change, many
scientists and policy experts in the United States and Canada feel that agricultural soils
10
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
may have some potential to sequester carbon. Improved sequestration with the use of
conservation tillage in annual row crops has already been shown. This project is on the
cutting edge of determining if well-managed pastures have the ability to improve
sequestration.
In Virginia, five farms have been selected that represent different forage management
systems and two areas of the state, mountain and valley and piedmont. Each of the farms
will have multiple soil sampling sites identified with buried magnetic markers to allow
accurate re-sampling in future years.
Plants
The combination of NRCS fecal sampling program and a Virginia Cooperative
Extension forage sampling program on a climate change demonstration farm project has
examined forage quality parameters over a grazing season.
At no time did either the fecal or forage samplings indicate a percent crude
protein below 14.5% and %TDN (forage sampling) go below 61.9 and %DOM (fecal
sampling) go below 62.4. This showed that a forage base of orchardgrass, fescue,
bluegrass, alfalfa, red and white clovers could more than adequately meet the nutritional
requirements of a cow-calf operation throughout the grazing season.
In addition, fecal sampling is being conducted on three other farms representing
cow-calf, stacker and grazing dairy operations.
Animal
The Virginia Cattleman's Association has received EPA funding to conduct a
project involving the improvement of cow-calf management. A series of "courses" are
being held across the state to inform producers on the latest techniques for management.
The project will also inform producers about the retained ownership of animals to feed
lots so that they can receive valuable carcass information. Retained ownership will allow
the producer to make informed management decisions on breeding and other aspects of
cow-calf management. One of the most important environmental benefits of this
program will be reduced emissions of methane because of the shortened time to
slaughter.
Economics
Tom Hogan of ICF conducted an economic analysis of two demonstration farms
in Virginia. This work included the development of business plans for each operation.
The project is being conducted in order to understand the cost effectiveness of
conservation and management improvements that are being promoted as a means of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The results of the Graybeal farm are presented in the
following section.
11
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Summary
The Virginia Pilot Project covers a wide array of factors, including soils,
environment, plants, animals and human. It is a "systems" type of approach to improving
forage and livestock management in Virginia. Rarely has such an opportunity occurred.
Enormous efforts are being taken to facilitate the successful execution of this program.
One of the most important early benefits has been the improvement if interagency
cooperation with the placement of the NRCS state agronomist at Virginia Tech to
enhance technology transfer and development. Also, the Virginia cooperative extension
service, soil and water conservation districts, Department of Conservation Resources and
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries have cooperated to take advantage
of the opportunities this program offers. A key component is the active involvement of
livestock producers in the formulation and execution of the program. Such involvement
offers ownership to producers and will enhance the possibility of success. The lessons
learned can be used by other states in developing similar approaches.
12
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
VIRGINIA BEEF CATTLE EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
John B. Hall, Virginia Tech
Background
Beef cattle (not including the feedlot industry) account approximately 10 to 11%
of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases, particularly methane, produced by the US.
Although 23 % of the US beef cattle herd is located in the southeastern US, these herds
are among the most inefficient in the US. This inefficiency is primarily due to small part-
time producers who do not utilize good management practices. In addition, most calves
are sold as feeders; therefore, producers know little about the ultimate product they are
producing or the feedlot efficiency of the calves they produce. It has been estimated that
the US beef industry uses only 35 - 45% of the technology available to it. Therefore,
considerable opportunity exists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of edible
beef by educating producers to adopt technologies to increase beef cattle efficiency as
well as technologies that directly reduce methane emissions. These practices should
increase profitability as well.
The Virginia Cattlemen's Association in conjunction with Virginia Tech
developed the Virginia Beef Cattle Efficiency program to assist VA cattle prpducers with
improving the efficiency and reducing the environmental impacts of their beef operations.
A grant from the EPA-USDA RLEP Program supports this three-year effort. Program
partners also include NRCS.
Objectives
1. Conduct one session to prepare trainers for the cow/calf management training
sessions.
•
2. Provide cow/calf management training sessions for producers in 4 locations across
Virginia. The goals of such sessions would be to:
A. Reduce the number of open (unbred) cows carried throughout the year.
B. Improve calving management
1. Improve weaning rates and percents
2. Establish defined calving seasons
C. Improve animal nutrition and growth
D. Improve livestock genetics
E. Reduce time from birth to slaughter by up to 33%.
F. Reduce the amount of farm, capital and natural resources required per pound
ofbeefproduced.
3. Recruit participants for the ROP. Organize them into groups for education, self-
support and continuity of support.
13
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
4. Develop a basic beef producer's manual.
5. Document the changes in beef cattle management practices as a result of the VA Beef
Cattle Efficiency Program. Estimate the impact of these changes on reduction of
methane emissions.
Program Areas
The VA Beef Cattle Efficiency Program (VABCEP) is divided into 2 components
the VA Cow-Calf Management Course and the VA Retained Ownership Program. The
VA Cow-Calf Management Course began in October of 1998. The expansion of the VA
Retained Ownership Program associated with the VABCEP will begin in spring 1999.
The VA Cow-Calf Management Course focuses on teaching the basics of sound
beef management to increase efficiency of cow-calf production. The primary objectives
of this program are: 1) increase reproductive efficiency, 2) improve genetic and
biological composition of cows and calves, and 3) enhance nutritional management of
cowherds. This program is designed for the beginning to mid-level producers. It
combines at home learning through a new cow-calf manual and an Internet website. The
unique components of this program are an on-line discussion group and hands-on
workshops. Hands-on activities help build the understanding and confidence of
producers to adopt new practices. The on-line discussion group allows instructors to post
answers to questions where all students can see them. In addition, the discussion group
allows producers to learn from one another and build some interdependence.
The VA Retained Ownership Program builds on the existing retained ownership
program sponsored by VCA and VA Tech Extension. The program focuses on increasing
the number of producers retaining ownership of their calves through the feedlot, and
enhancing producers understanding and use of the data they receive on their calves. The
primary goals are: 1) improve the quality of the product produced from VA calves, 2)
increase efficiencies in the feedlot, 3) improve profitability of beef operations, 4) reduce
time from birth to slaughter. Learning activities include introductory meetings,
development of small producer groups, tours of feedlots and processing facilities and
newsletters and reports.
Program status
The VA Cow-Calf Management Course has begun and has generated great
interest by producers. One hundred and ninety-one producers are participating in the
1998-1999 sessions of the course. These producers come from 35 different counties in
VA and 3 surrounding states. Some farms are represented by more than one participant
in the course. Several husband and wife or parent-child groupings are represented.
Producers were given a survey at the beginning of class to assess the demographics of the
audience. One hundred and thirteen farms responded to the survey. The average age of
producers is 47 and they have an average of 10 years (range 0-30 yrs) in the cow-calf
business. Most (>60%) of the participants have off-farm jobs.
14
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Table 1. Lists other characteristics of producers in the first year of this course.
Characteristic
Farm size
Number of Cows
Commercial cow/calf
operations
Amount
100-200 acres
50-99
81%
The southeast is often portrayed as having terrible reproductive performance and
calving rates. Recent surveys by APHIS put the percentage of cows that wean a calf in
the 75-80% range for the southeast. A large survey in 1992 of VA beef producers
reported the average as 92%. Both surveys may be incorrect due to sampling error.
Reproductive performance as reported by producers in the VA Cow-Calf Management
Course is listed in table 2. In reality, calving and weaning rates for producers in the
upper southeast and mid-Atlantic states are probably in the range of 85%. It is obvious
that there is some room for improvement. In addition, individual responses to the survey
indicated that producers might have difficulty in accurately assessing reproductive
performance. For example, the high reported calving percentage compared to the low
rate of producers pregnancy checking their cows.
Reproductive Trait
Response
Percentage of cows that calve
Percentage of cows that wean a calf
Percentage of operations that pregnancy
check
Average length of the calving season
85-90 %
90-95 %
50%
90+ days (many 60-90 days)
Many of the producers entering this course presently fail to use basic technologies
proven to increase beef cattle efficiency (figure 1). However, early indications are that
producers are beginning to adopt these technologies as a result of the course. An end of
course survey will be taken to assess adoption rate.
15
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Operations that do not.
BSE
BCS
Sep
Nutrition
Rotate Implant
BSE = Breeding Soundness Exam of bulls; BCS = Body Condition Scoring of cows; Sep Nutrition =
Separating Age groups for feeding; Rotate = some form of rotational grazing; Implant = Use growth
implants.
The new VA Cow Calf Management Handbook is under development and
approximately 50% complete. The new website and discussion groups are active and
continue to be updated. Some locations are using the discussion group to its fullest.
Over 50% of the participants have Internet access. Participants receive materials
approximately 2-3 weeks before the next workshop.
Hands-on workshops are well received with many positive comments by
producers as to the additional value of these workshops over traditional
lectures/meetings. Extension agents, extension specialists, veterinarians and experienced
producers conduct the workshops. Four workshop locations run simultaneously and each
location conducts 5 workshops between October and March. The same producers attend
all 5 workshops at a given location. Each location teaches the same basic information,
but customizes the program to the location's climate and production schedule.
The VA Retained Ownership Program currently has over 3000 head of cattle on
feed in feedlots in Kansas and Nebraska. Most of these cattle are a result of recruitment
efforts that occurred before RLEP funding began. A few new producers have entered the
program as a result of the retained ownership program. The newly hired technician is
compiling feedlot and carcass data from these cattle and will be assisting in the
presentation of this data to producers. Three information and recruitment meetings are
being planned for the spring and early summer. A trip to feedlots is planned for January.
This portion of the VABCEP will continue to expand in 1999.
16
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Future Plans and Potential impacts
The VABCEP is targeted to continue for a total of three years. Two locations for
the 1999-2000 class of the VA Cow Calf Management Course have been identified.
Final revisions to the handbook and website will be made this spring. Yearly follow-up
surveys will be made of all participants. Responses by the participants will be used to
modify the program. The VA Retained Ownership Program major thrust will begin in
1999.
The impacts of this program can be significant even if only modest results are
achieved. The impacts of the VABCEP program if 1000 herds in the state with an
average of 80 head (approximately 11% of the total VA herd) are reached are indicated in
Table 3. These projections are an example of the powerful effect increased efficiency of
beef production can have on the kg of greenhouse gases per Ibs. of beef produced. It may
be that increases in Ibs. of beef per cow will be easier to obtain than decreases in methane
output per cow.
Table 3. Some potential impacts of increased efficiency in beef production from 80,000
cows on greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle
Efficiency change
5% reduction in methane produced per cow
Impact
280,000 kg less methane produced per year
5% improvement in conception and
weaning rates
2 million more pounds of calves per year;
minimal increase in methane (only that
produced by calves until weaning)
50 pound increase in weaning weight
3.4 million more pounds of calves; no
additional methane produced
17
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
18
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF
ROTATIONAL & INTENSIVE GRAZING SYSTEMS
Tom Hogan, ICF Inc.
The purpose of this project is to determine the economic advantage of proper
grazing management in a beef cattle agribusiness in the southeast. Six candidates were
chosen in two states, three from Virginia and three from South Carolina. Each candidate
farm offered something a little different as far as size and scope of the operation. Two
candidates, one from each state dropped out almost immediately upon receipt of the
"required information" form. One candidate from Virginia and the two remaining from
South Carolina seemed willing enough but as with the majority of people involved in
agriculture, they possessed less than adequate records and were therefore slow in
responding.
Mr. Alan Graybeal, a demonstration farmer from Blacksburg, VA was very
cooperative, had adequate records, and appreciated the value of the information which he
received from the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program. Mr. Graybeal is about to
complete his second year of the project on 185 acres of his farm. Each day he becomes
more and more impressed by the results he is getting with his new grazing system. In
fact he discussed the development of a more intense system during an August 25,1998
visit, as well as making additional adjustments to other areas of their farm.
An Integrated Agribusiness Management System analysis was performed on Mr.
Graybeal's operation with results that were much better than expected. Though his
continuous grazing program with stocker animals indicates a slight profit in FY 1996
($22.42 / acre), the very next year (FY 1997) on a partial rotational system the cow-calf
enterprise increased Net Revenues by 70.3% to $38.19 / acre. By the end of FY1998 the
Net Revenues will have almost doubled over that of FY 1996 to $42.93 / acre.
This is only the beginning and is fairly typical of the many improved grazing
systems used and/or implemented here in the U.S. and in five foreign countries. By FY
2001 Mr. Graybeal's farm will be producing Net Revenues of $247.95 / acre. More than
enough cash flow to service the debt on additional land in Virginia, typically priced
around $3,000 / acre, if he cares to expand his operations.
The average progress forecast for the other three operations involved in this
project is also significant. These producers can reduce their production costs from an
average of $0.82 / pound weaned (FY1995) down to $0.51 / pound of calf weaned
(FY2000). Many of the same management techniques and systems that were proven
successful by Mr. Graybeal will be employed by the three other cooperators. Certainly
the grazing system is not the only major change being implemented on these operations,
however it is the most economically significant move.
19
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
The graph below indicates the rate of progress that has been made on Mr.
Graybeal's operation.
Profit Per Acre from Implementing an Improved Grazing Management System
(pre-1998 actual, beyond 1998 projected)
Conclusion
Improved grazing systems are more than economically viable. They are
especially affective in the Southeast where the growing season is long and more often
than not adequate rainfall can be expected. They provide efficiencies that were
previously unrecognized i.e. cattle handle more easily as they are used to being handled
and moved. A grazing system where larger groups of cattle are kept in small paddocks,
close at hand, also lends itself well to projects such as Artificial Insemination, individual
identification and performance analysis as well as preconditioning.
The investment required is minimal in comparison to the return both
economically and ecologically. Net Revenues can push upwards of $250 / acre, as has
been indicated with the Graybeal project.
20
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
DEMONSTRATION FARM ACTIVITIES
SOUTHEAST REGION
Sid Brantly, USDA NRCS
Background
A total of 48 Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program Demonstration Farms have
been established in the states of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and the Caribbean Area.
These 48 sites are used to demonstrate resource management systems with increased
production efficiency levels that reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition to the primary objective of demonstrating methodologies to reduce
methane production per pound of beef produced, there have been other benefits that have
accrued to the Ruminant Livestock Efficiency Program. Some of these "spin-offs"
include increased profitability, better erosion control, improved pastureland health,
enhanced and maintained wildlife habitats, improved water quality, carbon sequestration
in the soil and special attention to wise riparian area grazing management.
Goals
A summary of individual farm demonstration goals (as stated by demonstration
farmers):
• Implement conservation practices that will improve forage quality for livestock and
wildlife.
• Implement grazing strategies that will ensure long term persistence of legumes in the
forage base.
• Improve management and production efficiency.
• Reduce inputs through use of solar energy.
• Increase income and lower operating costs.
• Enhance land quality for agricultural use.
• Improve management of cattle, control the breeding season, and improve weaned
calving rate.
• Improve resource conditions and increase grazing efficiency.
• Target resource problems such as nutrient loading, runoff, species composition, and
water quality.
• Improve forage utilization and grazing efficiency.
• Make the enterprise sustainable and profitable.
• Improve fertility of soil (pH is very low in some fields).
• Renovate pastures and control weeds.
* Develop a pasture rotation of 7 days or less and improve water conditions.
• Increase conception rates and improve weaning weights of calves.
21
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
• Have a 90-day calving season instead of year-round.
• Stockpile fescue, establish warm season forage, and renovate pastures.
• Implement pasture rotation, improve water facilities, and herd health.
• Improve pasture quality, water quality, and utilization of forage.
• Purchase less feed and comply with state water quality rules.
• Implement a more efficient grazing system.
• Establish a controlled breeding season and rotational stocking system.
• Improve animal production through pregnancy checking, improved genetics, and
supplemental feed analysis.
• Improve forage production and quality.
• Utilize cow/calf identification and improved record keeping..
• Improve nutrient management and animal waste utilization.
• Monitor quality of supplemental feeds.
• Improve livestock efficiency through better forage management and livestock
distribution.
• Improve utilization of resources to demonstrate increased production and profit.
• Improve livestock efficiency through better grazing management.
• Demonstrate intensive grazing land management for the purpose of helping livestock
producers realize greater profits and to manage their land resources in an
environmentally sustainable manner.
• Establish improved grasses and legumes, treat severely eroded areas, and provide
high quality water.
• Improve overall efficiency of the livestock farming operation through rotation grazing
and providing additional water sources to distribute grazing more evenly.
• Provide an easily accessible location to demonstrate land improvement measures and
management.
• Install conservation practices on the land that will improve livestock production and
health.
• Improve hay production efficiency and livestock forage management efficiency.
• Improve soil conditions and grazing forage quality and quantity.
• Producers seek to improve the efficiency and profitability of their dairy operation.
They also desire to minimize soil loss and address related natural resource concerns.
• Reduce soil loss, establish permanent grass cover, and facilitate fanning operation.
• Demonstrate improved grass production on low fertility soils and demonstrate
chemical weed control.
• Demonstrate that through a managed rotational grazing system, ample forage can be
supplied with reduced use of chemical fertilizers and less use of pesticides. With
good forage growing conditions, some of the paddocks can be bypassed, thereby
stockpiling forages for later use.
These 48 livestock efficiency demonstrations encompass management of over 3,387
cattle for increased efficiency of production, resulting in lower methane production per
unit of beef or milk produced.
22
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
For all states reporting complete, qualitative data, the average pounds of beef
produced per cow in the demonstration units prior to the demonstration averaged 341
pounds. Currently, those same units average 384 pounds produced per cow, and the
projected future production average is 425 pounds.
Production Efficiency
Pounds of Beef
produced per cow
before RLEP
Pounds of Beef
produced per cow,
with RLEP
Future predictions of
pounds of beef
produced with RLEP
DD Before:
d Future
200 400
600
The key to these demonstrable improvements in ruminant livestock efficiency
seems to be implementation of farm management systems that are:
1) Voluntary, non-threatening, and economically sound;
2) Supported by the research community and the press as sustainable;
3) Presented by knowledgeable, competent staff; and
4) Implemented with "start-up cost" incentives that help overcome marginal
returns and capital shortfalls within this segment of the industry
23
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
The major components of improved management being practiced on these farms include
the following:
Component
Prescribed grazing
Keeping production records
Soil testing for nutrient management
Forage tissue analysis
Dietary supplementation
Fecal analysis for nutrition management
Herd health / wellness program
Pasture / forage improvement
Improved genetics
Managed breeding season
Artificial insemination
Calf marketing plan
Sites practicing component
Prior to RLEP
6
4
13
0
IS
2
15
6
5
9
1
6
Planned
45
39
44
21
26
36
35
32
16
27
5
21
Underway
40
35
42
13
23
31
34
27
13
19
4
14
Additionally, in fiscal year 1998, NRCS activities in the Southeast Region
included providing assistance in livestock efficiency on grazing lands through an animal
well being and nutrition monitoring program.
Manure samples were analyzed "from 422 specimen submitted to the Grazing
Animal Laboratory at Texas A&M University. The samples were collected from mixed
warm and cool season pastures, Tall fescue pastures, Bermudagrass, Bahiagrass, and
native plant communities in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky,
Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. The samples collected and
submitted were analyzed for % Crude Protein and % Digestible Organic Matter at a
minimum.
In some locations, the NRCS agent utilizes the nutritional balance analyzer
(NUTBAL) to provide consultation regarding nutrition needs for the producers' herds.
NRCS supports providing technical assistance in conservation and management of soil,
water, air, plants, and animals. Toward this end, the agency is allocating a portion of its
resources to enable us to work on addressing this unmet need in the Southeast. The data
is also creating awareness in NRCS conservationists of the role animal nutrition plays in
the success or failure of forage management and grazing systems in the region. State
Grazing Land Specialists (and Grassland Specialists, Agronomists) are beginning to build
databases for forages in their respective state, by forage species, by month.
A summary of these results from 405 specimen is given below. Please remember
this summary data is inclusive of all of the kinds of pastures and forages described above,
24
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
as well as a large geographical and physiographical area. The graph "Regional Data for
all Pastureland" (with correction line for October and November samples from hunting
areas in South Carolina) indicates that average forage quality remains above minimum
requirements for mature, dry cows yearlong; and for lactating cows with the exception of
protein levels in December and January. The reality is, of course, that forages are well
above these levels in the regions with more palatable, perennial C3 forages (northern
areas, piedmont and upper coastal plains), and generally much less in the southern coastal
plains and peninsular Florida.
Summary of forage sampling results
July 97
58 samples
11.7 average cp
64.1 average dom
Aug97
49 samples
11.3 average cp
63.1 average dom
Sept 97
51 samples
11.1 average cp
61.2 average dom
Oct97
30 samples*
12.0 average cp
54.1 average dom
Nov97
28 samples*
11.1 average cp
52.1 average dom
Dec 97
15 samples
8.2 average cp
59.9 average dom
Jan 98
20 samples
9.88 average cp
60.17 average dom
Feb98
22 samples
11.54 average cp
63.45 average dom
Mar 98
18 samples
12.7 average cp
63.8 average dom
Apr 98
15 samples
16.9 average cp
66.9 average dom
May 98
39 samples
14.6 average cp
66.2 average dom
Jun98
60 samples
12.3 average cp
64.0 average dom
25
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
*50-60% of the samples in October and November are for testing plant materials on the
Western Piedmont Hunting Area in South Carolina. These samples reflected digestible
organic matter content ranging from a low of 32% to a high of 59% (the average of which
was 45.4% in November and 46.5% in October). Without this influence, Southeast
Region DOM for October averaged 62.9% and November averaged 60.8%.
**The estimated number of demonstration sites practicing components of farm
management systems is derived from data sheets with qualitative information from thirty-
six sites in the southeast, and verbal reports or personal knowledge from the other twelve.
When reports indicate a practice is implemented but not planned, it is presupposed that
the reporter thought marking one category prohibited marking another. Thus, this
summary presumes a component that is underway was also planned.
cp = dietary crude protein
dom= digestible organic matter
26
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES IN UTAH
Roger E. Banner, Utah State University
RLEP-related extension activities occurred in three programmatic areas in 1998,
the NRCS-USU video production on plant-herbivore interactions, Western Integrated
Resources Education (WIRE), and the Utah Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative
(GLCI).
NRCS-USU Plant-Herbivore Interaction Video
This video production stems from a short course offered by Dr. Fred Provenza for
NRCS personnel at the national level since the early 90's. It is based on the Plant-
Herbivore Interaction program of research that Dr. Provenza has led since the late 70's. I
have helped teach this offering since the early 90's and continue to work with Dr.
Provenza to emphasize the practical applications of this work. The video being produced
is directed toward livestock producers and technical specialists (professionals) dealing
with herbivores on rangelands and pastures. It covers basic mechanisms of diet and
habitat selection and feeding behavior that increase understanding of issues related to
grazing management.
The principles addressed in this video apply to grazing management and habitat
use by herbivores regardless of geographic location. For this reason we made a concerted
effort to take video footage in as many different environments across the United States as
possible. Our crew made visits to New Mexico (Chihuahuan Desert rangelands),
Louisiana (coastal marshes), New York (orchardgrass pasture for dairies), Missouri (tall
fescue pasture for beef cattle) and Wyoming (Rocky Mountain rangelands) to obtain
footage and interview producers and technical specialists. The finished product will
consist of one overview video (30 minutes) covering the topic of plant-herbivore
interactions and six in-depth videos (30 minutes) covering subtopics. A detailed
publication with emphasis on practical application of science-based knowledge is also
being published to complete the package. The NRCS plans to distribute the package to all
field offices and to make it available to anyone interested at reasonable cost. We also
have plans to make this package available to extension agents and specialists in Utah and
around the country through the Extension Service. The package will be provided to all
RLEP participants when available. If possible we would like to offer satellite broadcasts
and to make the package available in electronic format as well.
Western Integrated Resource Education (WIRE)
WIRE schools with the objective of improving decision-making and production
efficiency by farmers and ranchers were offered in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah
in 1998. Abbreviated sessions were also taught in Queensland as part of an Australia-
USA exchange designed to share information and educational approaches. The
Queensland Department of Primary Industries is also making efforts to assist
27
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
agriculturalists in adapting to change and employing sound management practices by
offering numerous programs such as FutureProfits, Beef Plan, Building Rural Leaders
and others. Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), now called the Meat Research
Corporation (MRC), co-sponsored the exchange the with WIRE programs in Wyoming
and Utah by providing round-trip transportation for the WIRE contingent. Team members
from Wyoming and Utah participated in the exchange. Members of the WIRE contingent
participated in various reviews, workshops, and programs to learn firsthand what is being
done in Queensland and how the efforts are being made. Generally speaking, livestock
and grazing management are carried out in Queensland and Northern Australia in a much
more extensive manner than we experience here. This is related to size of operations and
land area involved as well as the value (price) of livestock. Most of the research and
education emphasis is placed on setting stocking rates for continuous grazing. While
there is considerable interest among producers in intensive grazing management, pasture
rotation, and improved livestock distribution, little emphasis is being placed on
intensifying grazing management by government research and extension personnel.
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)
The Utah GLCI, a coalition of IS groups of producer organizations and related
support entities, worked at and received funding for the first time since the effort was
begun in 1995. Up until 1998, the coalition had only been able to develop a mission
statement and strategic plan, to publish a brochure, and to help sponsor a few local tours
due to the fact that no funding was received from the earmarked GLCI funds provided
NRCS. Through my efforts and insistence by coalition members from Utah producer
groups, the coalition was successful in obtaining $30,000 of earmarked GLCI funds from
NRCS and a $12,100 Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) grant to carry out
an educational efforts in Utah. Since receiving funding, the Coalition has completed a
work plan and begun implementing it. The Coalition has taken steps to update and
reprint our GLCI informational brochure, developed a traveling display for promoting
grazing land conservation at producer group annual meetings and conventions, and
developed a web page (http://www.usu.edu/~utahglci/grazing.htm). Plans call for
sponsoring pasture walks and state and local tours, sponsoring demonstration practices,
and producing educational materials such as fact sheets on practices and conservation
funding opportunities.
Future Plans
Future plans are based on continuing a programmatic effort to improve pasture
and rangeland grazing management by working in these same three areas, NRCS-USU
Video production, WIRE, and Utah GLCI. Some information on planned activities is
provided in the discussions above. Information and materials will be shared widely as
they become available.
28
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
ENHANCING CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT VIA
NUTRITIONAL PROFILING OF LIVESTOCK ON GRAZING
LANDS:
THE NRCS NATIONAL EVALUATION OF FORAGE QUALITY
AND ANIMAL WELL-BEING PROGRAM
Arnold Norman, NRCS Grazing Lands Technology Institute
One of the driving concepts of USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service is
to address critical needs of Soil-Water-Atmosphere-Plants-Animals and Humans or
SWAPA+H, on private lands in the USA. Over the years, the agency has targeted
programs that address soil, water, air and plants issues on croplands and grazinglands,
with narrower emphasis on human issues (economics, anthropology) and even less focus
on animals. Recent analysis has indicated that improved grazingland management can be
attained when there are programs that link the human element more directly with the
animal component interacting with natural resources under the control of individual
landholders. Given the complexity of grazingland environments, difficulties arise in
determining management and animal response relationships in these complex
management environments.
For the past two years, USDA-NRCS Grazing Lands Technology Institute (GLTI)
and the Ranching Systems Group (RSG) at Texas A&M University have been
implementing a program that allows livestock producers to use direct feedback from their
animals on a near real-time basis to improve their understanding as to how conservation
practices impact performance of their animals in grazingland situations. A
comprehensive program involving over 240 NRCS conservationists working with over
550 ranchers in 44 states, has been organized to assist landholders in improved decision
making as it relates to management of the livestock within the context of conservation
planning.
There are several major components associated with the program. First, the
GLTI, within NRCS, provides overall program coordination and collaborates relationship
with the RSG a part of the Center for Natural Resource Information Technology at Texas
A&M University. GLTI is based in Ft. Worth, Texas, and provides expertise and funds,
training in animal nutrition concepts and technical support to NRCS field personnel
working with landholders in the program. RSG's primary responsibility is to provide the
analytical capacity for assessing diet quality of free-ranging animals via the Grazingland
Animal Nutrition (GAN) Lab, support for the Nutritional Balance Analyzer decision
support system (NUTBAL) and technical training in use of the technology with
landholders.
Researchers in RSG have developed nutritional monitoring technology, which
allows the prediction of dietary crude protein (CP) and digestible organic matter (DOM)
of free-ranging livestock via sampling of fresh feces. The fresh fecal samples are sent to
GAN Lab via 2-day priority mail in an insulated mailer and results returned to the client
29
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
rep (conservationist in this case) within 48 hours after receipt of the sample. The
monitoring technology is made possible by a breakthrough in using near infrared
reflectance spectroscopy to determine a suite of chemical bonds in feces, a secondary
product of digestion, which can be used to predict primary components, CP and DOM, in
the diet of the animals in an accurate manner. When NIRS is coupled with the analytical
capacity of the NUTBAL decision support system, NRCS personnel have the necessary
tools to determine the nutritional status of free-ranging livestock. They can then make
recommendations to land managers concerning nutrient inputs, grazing adjustments,
general husbandry, nutrient management and economic payoff of a variety of animal
production practices.
Training is one of the critical elements of the program, because many of the
NRCS personnel have limited backgrounds in animal nutrition. Recent advances in our
understanding of ruminant nutrition have made training critical for even the most recent
graduate from a natural resource or agricultural academic program. GLTI has organized
a series of regional, 2-day training workshops each year where agency personnel,
cooperating ranchers, extension personnel and in some instances, researchers attend the
training sessions. The principle objective of these sessions is to cover critical nutrition
concepts with the primary focus being on factors affecting nutrient intake. Trainees are
provided copies of the NUTBAL software and subjected to a series of "cases" to solve in
group settings. .To help reinforce learning, RSG and GLIT has created a series of training
documents that cover the same materials as well as two, 15-minute videos that emphasize
the underlying concepts driving the use of the NIRS/NUTBAL systems and preparation.
of advisories for clients. CD-ROMS of the videos are also available to agency personnel
and ranchers to view on portable or desktop computers. GAN Lab also maintains a geo-
referenced database of all results from the fecal scans as well as digital photos of animals,
vegetation and landscapes associated with the samples. National nutritional quality maps
can rapidly be developed and made available to the advisors. A webpage is maintained
on the Internet to provide sources of information on feedstuffs, breeds, literature and
examples of success stories pertaining to use of the system.
Once an individual has been trained, a contact is made with key producers in a
conservationist's region and critical herd and pasture management information acquired.
Proper representation of the landscape, environmental conditions, and the client's
animals, husbandry practices, feeding and grazing programs are critical to the usefulness
of the advisories provided. Typically, the landholder receives the insulated mailers,
samples the herds, and mails the samples to GAN Lab. Sometimes, NRCS personnel
visit the ranch to acquire the samples. The method of sampling depends on the nature of
the working relationship between the landholder and the advisor. When the NRCS
advisor gets the results from GAN Lab, approximately four days after collecting the
sample, the herd is profiled in NUTBAL and the herds' nutritional balance is determined.
An advisory is written and provided to the client, generally with a follow up phone call
and site visit to discuss actions and anticipated next sample date. Typically, 12 samples
are collected each year on a ranch to determine the temporal changes in diet quality and
assess opportunities to improve nutrient inputs and grazing practices.
30
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
To reinforce the process, GLTI and RSG jointly offer advanced training
workshops for NRCS personnel and their clients where they bring cases to solve as a
group. New emerging science, enhancements in the NUTBAL software, improved
advisory techniques and general concept reinforcement are the primary topics at these
sessions. Approximately 6-12 beginning and advanced training sessions are offered each
year in the program. Approximately one-third of the 250 NRCS advisors have received
advanced training. These individuals serve as an informal network of expertise to the
remaining personnel.
Two of the strengths of the program are the strong feedback mechanism to the
science, and user the friendliness of the NIRS/NUTBAL system. The broad variety of
ecosystems covered by the program, coupled with the diverse set of livestock operations,
allows robust testing of the system and immediate feedback to the technology
development process. This facilitates rapid design changes and identification of gaps in
our scientific understanding of grazing animals.
A recent meeting of key NRCS advisors discussed a series of critical benefits of
the NIRS/NUTBAL system. These benefits included: 1) greater landholder
understanding of the impact of their management decisions on the nutritional well-being
of the animals, 2) more efficient use of nutrients to mediate deficiencies, 2) improved
animal performance (conception and weaning weights), 3) reduced costs of production,
4) more efficient use of pastures, and 5) greater awareness of the role of conservation in
meeting the nutritional needs of their animals in a more environmentally friendly manner.
31
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
-32
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
THROUGH IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
Richard T. Conant and Keith Paustian
Colorado State University
Abstract
Improved pasture management can potentially sequester substantial amounts of
atmospheric carbon. The purpose of this study is to quantify the storage potential for the
Southeastern United States. Our study includes collection and analysis of field samples,
compilations of state-wide pasture land use data and simulation modeling of soil C
dynamics.
Five farms have been selected in Virginia to study the effects of conversion to
pasture and changes in pasture management on C storage. These farms are located across
the central and western parts of the state, represent the Piedmont and mountains and
Valleys regions, and occur on widely distributed soil series. Data collected at these sites
will include organic C, rapidly mineralizable C, POM C, and soil physical characteristics.
Additionally, primary productivity and other data will be collected to permit a more
mechanistic understanding of C sequestration. Model parameterization will be based on
these data and information on land use.
Numerous land use datasets have been collected using surveys and remote
sensing. However, the datasets were collected at different resolutions, used different
classifications, and differ in frequency and time of sampling. Since spatial and temporal
projection of C sequestration potentials relies heavily on these data, comparisons are
underway to determine their congruity and which are most useful.
As this work proceeds, there are a number of international C emission issues that
need to be addressed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. These issues include C emissions trading, determination of acceptable C sinks
under the Kyoto Protocol, and how the magnitude of those sinks can be verified. Based
on early discussion, it appears that C sinks due to land use change, likely including
changes in fanning practices, will be allowable. As a component of this project we will
test a method to document C sequestration, and determine whether it meets the
requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Emission trading coupled with verifiable C storage
may add an additional financial incentive to the list of reasons for adopting improved
pasture management.
Introduction
The most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on
global climate," because of continued increasing atmospheric concentration of COa and
other greenhouse gasses (Houghton et aL, 1996). The IPCC report went on to explain
33
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
that human induced climate change may have significant adverse impacts on agricultural
production, coastal regions, and ecosystems (Houghton et al., 1996). These and other
findings have led to resolutions regarding limitation of greenhouse gas production,
including the internationally agreed upon Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol.
The goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to
achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (Article 2)."
More recently, the Kyoto Protocol set specific greenhouse gas emission limitation goals
for developed countries. Under the Kyoto Protocol, net COj emissions for the .United
States in 2010 must be seven percent less than net emissions in 1990. Additionally, all
Kyoto Protocol signatory nations must make demonstrable progress toward then- 2010
emission goals by 2005. Emission reduction goals can be reached a number of different
'v ways. Carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere can be directly decreased through a
variety of political and technological means. Net emissions may be decreased by
removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or increasing C sequestration. Finally, the Kyoto
Protocol allows for C emission transfers and joint implementation, letting countries
transfer C emission credits internationally.
Gross CC>2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have continued to increase
in the US (Figure 1; Marland et. al., 1998). Continued difficulties in lowering CO2
emissions have turned the focus to C sequestration as a method of reducing net CO2
emissions. A variety of technological mechanisms have been suggested for increasing C
sequestration, but land use change arid changes in land management offer an alternative
method to store large amounts of C (Bruce et al., 1998).
The potential for C storage in soil has received more attention recently because
there is a large potential for long term C storage that may be relatively inexpensive
(Bruce et al., 1998). Total soil C typically decreases by 20-40% following conversion
from forest or grassland to agriculture (Davidson and Ackerman, 1993). Soil C loss
typically decreases over time and most of the C loss occurs over about 20 years
(Davidson and Ackerman, 1993; Johnson, 1992). All or part of the C that was lost to the
atmosphere due to conversion could potentially be transferred back to the soil if the land
were converted back to forest, if tillage decreased, or if residue inputs increased (Lai et
al., 1998).
Improvements in pasture management could lead to C sequestration over time, in
a manner similar to that observed under improved agricultural practices (Fig. 2; Donigan
et al., 1994; Bruce et al., 1998). Soils with the largest potential for C sequestration are
those that have lost significant portions of soil C in the past due to poor management or
those with a history of cultivation (Bruce et al., 1998). Conversion of cropland to pasture
or more intensive management of pasture could potentially sequester 0.2 Mg C per
hectare per year (Bruce et al., 1998).
34
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
Large areas of pasture land in the Southeastern United States prompted an
investigation into the potential for C storage under improved pasture management. This
paper describes: (1) the approach used for determining the potential for C sequestration in
pasture soils with improved pasture management; (2) methods used to verify changes in
pasture soil C storage; and (3) model simulations of C dynamics to make site, state, and
regional level projections. Anticipated results of this study are discussed with reference
to the Kyoto Protocol and the expected developments at COP4.
Field sample collection and analysis
We plan to use a broad-based approach to field sampling, focusing on examining
paired plots of improved and unimproved pasture. Additionally, where available,
comparisons will be made between native soils (under forest) and agricultural soils. This
paired plot approach substitutes space for time, and changes in C pools over time in
response to management changes can thus be determined. Analysis of soils under paired
plots will allow us to determine the amount of C lost following conversion from forest to
pasture, the amount of C sequestered following conversion from row crops to pasture,
and the potential for C sequestration following improved pasture management (Fig. 2).
The paired plot approach requires that sites be chosen carefully to ensure that differences
between sites are the result of differences in management rather than other characteristics
such as soil, topography, hydrology, etc.
Sites selected in Virginia are located at five farms that span the Piedmont and
Mountain and Valleys regions of the central and western portions of the state. Paired
plots within these farms offer the opportunity to study conversions from forest to pasture,
from agriculture to pasture, from poorly managed pasture to intensive management, and
comparisons between long term hay production and pasture.
Sample collection will focus first on collecting data that are useful for quantifying
differences in soil C pool size with changes in land use. But the data are also intended to
be used to identify mechanisms leading to changes in soil C pool size following changes
in management. For this reason, net primary production will be measured for a number
of the plots in poorly- and well-managed pastures. We expect that increased production
on improved pasture leads to soil C sequestration.
Sample locations will be chosen to limit variation due to factors other than
management. Topography, hill-slope position, aspect, and soil series and associated
characteristics will be held as consistent as possible between the fields. Three microsites
will be established within each field to be sampled. Each will be sampled according to
the methodology described in the sampling instructions for the Soil Carbon Enhancement
Project. Microsites within a field will be located on ridgetops and within the same soil
series within each farm. Soil samples will be collected using a 2.5-inch diameter soil
core. Six replicates will be collected at each microsite. Four of the cores will be SOcm
deep and the other two will be 1m, with the deep samples located randomly within each
microsite. Depth increments will be 0-1 Ocm, 10-20cm, 20-50cm, and 50-100cm. Each
35
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
sample will be stored separately in a one-gallon freezer bag. Bags will be labeled with
pre-printed labels indicating farm, field, microsite, sample, and depth.
Following collection, samples will be stored on ice in coolers and returned a cold
room for temporary storage. Samples will remain packed in coolers and will be shipped
to Fort Collins. Upon return to Fort Collins, samples will be transferred to cold (4°C)
storage. Samples will be stored in sealed plastic bags during processing, until samples
have been oven-dried.
Samples will initially be passed through an 8mm mesh sieve and 200g subsamples
will be collected for further preparation and analysis. Coarse root material remaining on
the sieve will be collected from three samples from each microsite (determined at
random). All soil samples will then be passed through a 2mm-mesh sieve, and root
material will be collected from the sieve and picked from the sieved soil for the same
subset of samples mentioned above.
Following sieving, a portion of each sample will be air-dried. Dried soil will be
used for POM C determinations, and for 200d incubations to determine active C fractions
(Cambardella and Elliott, 1992). A portion of each sample will be oven dried. These
oven-dried samples will be analyzed for soil moisture, texture, and pH. A portion of each
sample will be ground to fine powder. Finely ground samples will be analyzed for total
C, total N, and organic C (if significant amounts of carbonate are present).
Verification of changes in C stocks
A key component of this project is the establishment of microsites that can be
relocated and resampled. Though the primary goal of the field sampling is to quantify C
sequestration following pasture improvement, the Kyoto Protocol states that C
sequestered be "measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks (Article 3.3)." A key
component of verification is thus determining appropriate methods for confirming
changes in C storage. We propose to follow a method of intensive sampling developed
for an intensive C sequestration study in Canada (Ellert and Bettany, 1995).
Within each field to be sampled three microsites will be established. Microsite
locations will be identified using differential GPS and established benchmarks.
Microsites will be two meters by five meters and six samples will be taken around the
perimeter of each microsite in specific locations (Fig. 3). The microsites are small
enough so that lateral variability is limited, but large enough so that they can be
intensively sampled, and resampled numerous times in the future. Relocateable
electronic marking balls will be buried 75cm deep in the northwest corner of each plot.
Thus, once the general area within each field is located using GPS, the precise location of
the microsite can be identified with a marker locator. These sites can be resampled in the
future with minimal influence due to the natural variability in soil characteristics, thus
establishing changes in C pools over time in response to improved pasture management.
36
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
Modeling
Modeling will be done using the Century ecosystem model (Parton et al., 1988).
Initially the model will be parameterized for each field within a farm using data collected
in the field. Model inputs will include soil physical characteristics, information about
land use collected from farmers, and extant data such as air photos. The model will be
used to project the effects of changes in pasture management on long term C storage
potential. As mentioned above, field data collection will aid in making modeling
projections by focusing on variables that influence soil C sequestration.
One of the goals of this project is to develop estimates of regional C sequestration
potential and their distribution over space and time. To achieve this goal, we need to
develop information about current and past land use in the Southeast region. Available
survey data include the NRI, NASS, and Agricultural Census. Remotely sensed data are
available at different resolutions and use different methods of land characterization (not
always identifying pastureland). A comparison of the different data sets is underway to
determine how well they agree with one another. One of the limitations is that the
datasets are all relatively recent (1982 or later) except the Agricultural Census.
Comparison of these datasets at the county scale might allow us to parameterize them
with each other permitting more extensive and intensive use of the datasets (i.e., Fig. 4).
Summaries of the National Resources Inventory data confirm that significant
areas of the Southeast region are devoted to pasture land (Fig. 5). Furthermore, between
1987 and 1992, pastureland increased by 400,000 acres, with increased pastureland in
every state but Virginia and Florida (Fig. 6).
Implications of the Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a set of international agreements that limits greenhouse gas
emissions for developed countries. The Protocol includes a variety of methods for net
emission reduction including developing sinks, carbon trading, and the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM). There are numerous questions left unanswered by
Kyoto Protocol, many of which are to be resolved at the Fourth Conference of the Parties
(COP4) in Buenos Aires November 2-15, 1998. Among the outstanding issues to be
resolved at COP4 are carbon emission trading, protocols for verifications of sinks, and
types of sinks to be allowed under the protocol.
The issue of sinks is first dealt with under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol,
where it is stated that
"... net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting
from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to
afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes
in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments."
37
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
This clearly indicates that sinks will be an important part of C balance
calculations, but is not clear on the issue of which sinks may be applied. It is also unclear
whether limits to forestry activities apply to forestland use change or to all human-
induced land use change. Article 3.4 of the Protocol goes on to explicitly state that this is
an issue that needs to be resolved. Agricultural soils are specifically mentioned as a
potential sink in Article 3.4.
Another important issue to be resolved at COP4 is methodology for verifiable
quantification of C sinks. The Protocol states that sinks are to be identified through
changes in C stocks over time, but technical methods to quantify changes have yet to be
fully defined.
The other main issues to be dealt with at COP4 are the flexibility mechanisms of
the Kyoto Protocol. One of these is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The
CDM allows for transfer of C emissions and sinks between countries. The CDM (Article
12) allows emitters or countries to pursue C sequestration projects (mainly forestry) in
Annex I countries (countries with fully developed market economies). These projects
would be paid for by emitters and would be used to offset emissions. The CDM
encourages sustainable development in Annex II countries, contributes toward the
environmental goals of the UNFCCC, and assists other Annex I and Annex la countries
(countries without fully developed market economies) in meeting the requirements of the
Kyoto Protocol.
The other flexibility mechanisms to be discussed deal with the issue of emission
trading. Under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, emission trading could evolve in
one of two ways. Emission trading could arise through the development of domestic
emission trading programs. Within any developed Annex I country a domestic C
emission trading program may be developed. This would allow carbon emitters with
large impediments to emission reduction to buy emission credits from other emitters that
can more easily reduce emissions. This creates an economically efficient situation where
the most easily obtained emission reductions are valuable to both parties. This system of
tradable emission credits has the potential to develop similar efficiencies internationally.
Discussion is underway in the United States to examine the development of a tradable
emissions credit program modeled after the tradable SO2 emission program implemented
by the USEPA acid rain program (Solomon, 1995).
A formal emission trading program is more efficient, but more difficult to develop
than the other C emission trading scenario under the Kyoto Protocol, Joint
Implementation (JI). Joint Implementation allows emitters to trade C emission credits
without the benefit of a domestic emission trading system. Joint Implementation is not as
efficient because emitters must identify the cost of COi emission reduction for their
potential trading partners. Though less efficient, JI will likely be a major method of C
emission transfers between countries, as it is unlikely that all Annex I countries will
establish domestic emission trading programs (Kopp and Toman, 1998).
38
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
There are other issues regarding the CDM and JI that are to be addressed at
COP4. For example, Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol states that emission trading shall
be supplemental to emission reduction, but several nations are making this a major part of
their policies. Japan recently announced that it plans to meet 67% of it's reductions by
emission trading within Japan, with other countries, and through increased forest cover.
Cost estimates for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol generated by the Clinton
administration suggest that the United States intends to buy emission credits to ameliorate
85 percent of what is needed to meet Kyoto, instead of making those reductions in the
American domestic economy (Kopp and Anderson, 1998). However, C trading is already
occurring both within and between Annex I nations, and between other Annex I nations
and Annex II nations. Trades have taken place between U.S. and Canadian power
companies, between Costa Rica and three Norwegian power companies (Goodman,
1998), and between a power company and a State Forest in Australia (Washington,
1998).
The potential value of C emission credits as commodities are difficult to predict
based on the limited number of concluded trades. Current C sequestration sales have
been near ten dollars per ton (Goodman, 1998), but some predict that prices may rise to
$100 per ton. At the current price of $10 per ton, improving pastureland may be worth
about $0.40-4.00 per acre per year, though, as mentioned, this figure could increase 10
fold. In addition to the direct benefit to fanners, C sequestration in improved pasture will
be beneficial to the US as a whole, as the Southeastern U.S. has the potential to sequester
2.7 Tg. C year"1 through pasture improvement alone (Table 1). This is about 0.7% of the
amount needed to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. If more land is converted
from crops to pasture, there is potential for much more C sequestration in pastureland.
Conclusion
This study is designed to quantify the potential for C sequestration in pasture soils
with improved management. We will gather data on both changes in .C pools with
changes in land use (including pasture improvement) and on the mechanisms responsible.
Our understanding of C storage mechanisms in pastures and information about land use
history and land use change will permit us to generate accurate local and regional
estimates of C sequestration potential.
This work was prompted by international agreements to limit CC»2 emissions and
the potential to offset emissions with C sinks. One of the main issues regarding the
Kyoto Protocol is verification of C storage. We will test a method to verify C
sequestration through changes in C stocks. In addition to the benefits associated with
increased soil organic matter, the development of emissions trading offers potential
income for farmers converting to improved pasture management.
References
Bruce, J. P., Frame, M., Haites, E., Janzen, H., Lai, R., and Paustian, K. (1998). "Carbon
Sequestration in Soil," U.S. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Calgary, Alberta.
39
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Cambardella, C. A., and Elliott, E. T. (1992). Paniculate soil organic-matter changes
across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J56, 777-783.
Davidson, E. A., and Ackerman, I. L. (1993). Change in soil carbon inventories following
cultivation of previously unfilled soils. Biogeochemistry 20,161-193,
Donigan, A. S., Jr., Bamwell, T. O., Jackson, R. B., Patwardhan, A. S., Weinreich, K. B.,
Rowell, A. L., Chinnaswamy, R. V., and Cole, C. V. (1994). "Assessment of alternative
management practices and policies affecting soil carbon in agroecosystems of the central
United States," Rep. No. EPA/600/R-94/067. US EPA, Athens, GA.
Ellert, B. H., and Bettany, J. R. (1995). Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored
under soils in contrasting management regimes. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 75,
529-538.
Goodman, A. (1998). Carbon trading up and running. In "Tomorrow Magazine", Vol.
May/June 1998.
Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and
Maskell, K., eds. (1996). "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change," pp..
1-584. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Johnson, D. W. (1992). "Effects of forest management on soil carbon storage," Rep. No.
628. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Kopp, R., and Toman, M. (1998). International emissions trading. In "Weathervane".
http://www.weathervane.rf'f.org/
Kopp, R. J., and Anderson, J. W. (1998). Estimating the costs of Kyoto: How plausible
are the Clinton Administration's figures? In "Weathervane".
http ://www. weathervane.rff.org/
Lai, R., Kimble, J. M., Follett, R. F., and Cole, C. V. (1998). "The potential of U.S.
cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect," Ann Arbor Press,
Chelsea, ML
Marland, G., Boden, T. A., Andres, R. J., Brenkert, A. L., and Johnston, C. (1998).
Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. In "Trends: A compendium of data on
global change". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B., and Cole, C. V. (1988). Dynamics of carbon, nitrogen,
phosphorus and sulfur in grassland soils: A model. Biogeochemistry 5,109-132.
40
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
Solomon, B. D. (1995). Global C02 emissions trading: Early lessons from the U.S. acid
rain program. Climatic Change 30, 75-96.
Washington, S. (1998). Industry showing intense interest in emissions trading. In "The
Australian Financial Review".
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3301
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
41
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
42
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
LIVESTOCK SYSTEM GREENHOUSE GASES
Johnson, D., H. Phetteplace, G. Ward and A. Seidl
Colorado State University
Introduction
Changes in livestock production systems directed at improving efficiency and
simultaneously decreasing methane commonly result in multiple or ripple effects on the
system. These indirect, non-methane related effects might repress or enhance other
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the livestock and/or supporting systems, hi light
of the Kyoto objective(s) of quantifying and reducing overall greenhouse gases, inherent
system variations or effects of mitigation strategies must be viewed in a holistic manner.
This project attempts such a summation as illustrated by Figure 1.
Matrices of GHG emissions are being constructed for nine representative
locations of three industry segments, dairy, cow-calf and feedlot in the U.S. The first
stage will determine the relative component strengths of representative cattle production
system emissions of; a) enteric methane, b) manure methane, c) fossil fuel carbon, d) soil
carbon sequestration, and e) nitrous oxide emissions.
These will be aggregated and expressed as global wanning potential (GWP) per
kg milk and or meat produced by each system. Secondarily, the emissions and associated
financial impacts in response to changes in management practices, forage utilization,
production levels or other mitigation strategies will be examined. Policy
recommendations may be formulated based upon the emissions and financial impacts,
depending on decision-maker objectives with respect to each.
Prior estimates of total GHG's from dairy cattle in the U.S. (Johnson, et al., 1997)
and England (Jarvis and Pain, 1994) indicates 45% or more of the GWP to stem from
CO2 and/or N2O. The U.S. dairy system sums to approximately 1400 g of CO2
equivalent per kg of milk produced. The non-methane portions included about 6% from
fertilizer related N2O and 47% from fertilizer and farm operation related fuel. The .
British system characterized an intensive dairy system as producing much more N2O,
nearly 3 g/kg milk, or about 1000 g as carbon dioxide equivalent GWP per kg milk. Soil
carbon sequestration has largely been undefined in these systems, but has the potential of
adding 100 or more, or offsetting 300 or more g of GWP/kg of milk.
Progress
The initial effort examines a Marathon county, WI dairy system. It is currently
characterized as 16 production classes representing herd dynamics during various phases
of growth and physiological function. Body weight, gain, mortality, days in class, etc are
defined, the nutrient requirements and diet quality projected in a manner similar to
methods used previously for whole country scenarios (Johnson, et al. 1993, Gibbs and
Johnson, 1993). Typical individual feedstuffs, cropping system, hectares, fertilizer, fuel,
43
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
etc. was then projected and all GHG's summed and related to costs and products. The
information to construct these matrices has been garnered from many sources including;
NASS, NAHMS, Cattle-Fax, NRC, IPCC, NSF, DHIA and extension service personnel.
The current representation of the 100 milking cow WI dairy (Table 1) has 164 head, with
43 and 93 % replacement and calving rates and requires 358 ha of land, principally for
corn and soybeans. This system produces 1559 g of CO2 equivalent per kg of milk if soil
carbon sequestration is in equilibrium (Table 2). About 38% of this arises from methane,
35% from fuel use and the balance, 27%, from nitrous oxide. Use of best management
practices for these crops may offset about l/4th of these through increased soil-C
sequestration.
The next scenarios will examine these GHG outputs from dairies in CA, cow-calf
production in WI, VA, AL, TX and UT, and feedlot systems in TX and IA. When these
are completed, evaluation of mitigation strategy effects on GHG per product and herd
income will be conducted. Mitigation strategies include increased productivity, forage
utilization, product fat content and age at slaughter. Ultimately this approach will allow
GHG and economic impact analyses of any beef or dairy system management change or
mitigation effort.
Table 1. Characteristics of representative Marathon County, Wisconsin dairy (100 milking cows).
Animal Dynamics
Total head
Milk/cow, kg/year
Replacement, %
Calving rate, %
Mortality, 1st month %
Mortality, cows, %
164
7169
43
93
5.6
3.8
Feed Characteristics
Average, TDN %
Pasture, ha
Alfalfa hay, ha
Corn silage, ha
Corn grain, ha
Soybeans, ha
66
39
45
10
145
115
Table 2. Current estimates of Wisconsin dairy greenhouse gases per kg milk.
Source
Enteric
Manure
Farm Operations
Crop fertilizer
Fuel
Soil-Carbon (normal)
Total greenhouse gases
Soil Carbon (BMP)
Net Effect with Best
Management Practices
Gas
CH4
Cft,
C02
N20
C02
CO2
CO2
g/kg milk
21.9
2.1
190
1.3
353
0
-398
CO2equiv
548
52
190
416
353
0
1559
-398
1161
44
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
RgLiBl.RxxluctsarxJGHGfnyn<^taePrxxiuction
.Herd
Oopping
Carton:
Literature Cited:
Gibbs, MJ. and D.E. Johnson. 1993. Chapter 3: Methane emissions from the digestive
processes of livestock In: International Anthropogenic Emissions of Methane. USEPA,
Washington, D.C.
Jarvis, S.C. and B.F. Pain. 1994. Greenhouse gas emissions from intensive livestock
systems: There estimation and technologies for reduction. Climate Change 27:27-38.
Johnson, D.E., T.M. Hill, G.M. Ward, et al. 1993. Principal factors varying methane
emissions from ruminants and other animals. In: Atmospheric Methane. NATO
Advanced Research Workshop. Springer Verlag (in Press), 39 pp.
Johnson, D.E., G.M. Ward and G. Bemal. 1997. Biotechnology mitigating the
environmental effects of dairying greenhouse gas emissions. Chapt. 32. In: Milk Comp.
Prod, and Biotech., ed. Welch et al., CAB Int., p. 497.
43
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
46
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
APPLICATION OF STRATEGIES T6 MITIGATE METHANE
EMISSIONS
FROM RUMINANT LIVESTOCK
K.A. Johnson, H. H. Westberg, B. K. Lamb, R. L. Kincaid and D. Yonge
Washington State University
Overview
The goals of the program are to develop methods of reducing cattle methane
emissions by enhancing animal productivity and to transfer this technology to cattle
producers. These efforts in mitigation include not only methane emissions resulting from
enteric fermentation but also those associated with manure management. In addition, we
intend to extend our work beyond the borders of the United States to work with others
worldwide in measurement and mitigation of methane associated with domestic
livestock. This important work will help facilitate the successful implementation of the
Clinton-Gore Climate Change Action Plan.
Specific objectives:
1) The development of economically viable strategies to reduce methane emissions from
ruminants
2) The transfer of information to livestock producers on how to implement these
strategies
3) The development of sampling protocols for measuring methane emissions from
manure handling systems ,
4) To continue to transfer to interested groups worldwide, the technologies for sampling
and reducing methane emissions.
The project began in October 1997 and continues until September, 1999. Work
completed as a part of this project has been reported at the annual meeting at the
American Society of Animal Sciences meeting in Denver, CO and has been published in
the Farmer-Stockman. This work includes an evaluation of apple pomace silage as a feed
ingredient for growing beef heifers and measurements of methane emissions from
suckling calves and growing bulls, information that has been missing from ruminant
methane inventories. In addition, workshops were held to train scientists from the U.S.,
Europe, Mexico and South America in the use of the SF$ tracer technique.
Management conditions
Measurements of CH4 emissions were made from growing beef heifers fed
ensiled apple pomace, suckling calves and growing bulls. These measurements were
made to evaluate the methane reduction potential of an available by-product feedstuff and
to provide estimates of methane production from grazing suckling calves and bulls for
inventory purposes.
47
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Supplementation of diets with ensiled apple pomace for growing steers and
heifers could reduce the cost of feeding because transportation is the only cost of the
apple pomace. The use of the apple pomace by cattle producers would have the added
advantage of using a product currently considered waste and spread on fields. To
prolong the storage life and enhance the feeding value, apple pomace was ensiled with
rolled barley and alfalfa hay. Growing heifers (n=24) were assigned to one of three diets;
0% ensiled apple pomace, 25% of the diet DM as ensiled apple pomace and 50% of diet
DM as ensiled apple pomace. Body weight gain, diet digestibility and CHt emissions
were measured every 21 days then the diets were switched. Feed intake was monitored
daily.
Four suckling calves approximately four months of age were separated from their
dams and moved to a room for six hour CRj emissions estimates. All calves had been
grazing pasture for approximately two months prior to these measurements. While in the
room calves had access to alfalfa hay and water.
\
Four growing bulls were fed a diet consisting of 60% com silage and 40%
concentrate, to enable body weightgains of greater than 1.36 kg/d. Bulls were moved
into a room for measurement of CtLj and had ad libitum access to their diet and water.
Table 1. Summary of CH4 emissions from heifers fed three levels of ensiled apple pomace,
suckling calves and growing bulls.
Management Condition; Ensiled apple pomace feeding, calf and bull emissions
Animal Type: Growing beef heifers fed ensiled apple pomace silage
Characteristics of Animals Measured
CH4 Emissions
(g/hd-day)
Live Weight (kg)
Weight Gain
(kg/day)
Dry Matter Intake
(kg/d)
TRT
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
274.3
.72
227
.95
1.04
.04
7.5
.18
25
284.6
.72
227
.95
.97
.04
8.95
.18
50
242.4
.72
227
.95
.85
.04
7.67
.18
*Extrapolated from room tracer 6 hr measurement (n=4)
Management Condition; Growing Bulls
Animal Type: Growing bulls fed 40% grain and 60% alfalfa hay
CH( Emissions
(g/hd-day)
Live Weight (kg)
Weight Gain
(kg/day)
Dry Matter Intake
/d)
TRT
Mean
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
227.4*
498
4.5
3.1
.4
30
Management Condition: Suckling calves
Animal Type: 4 mo. old suckling calves
CHt Emissions
(g/hd-day)
Live Weight (kg)
Weight Gain
(kg/day)
Dry Matter Intake
(kg/d)
Sampling
Mean SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
Mean
SE
1
46.80
206
.5
.9
58.56
206
.5
.9
•Extrapolated from room tracer 6 hr measurement (n=4)
48
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Implications
Economics of implementation:
Because the ensiled apple pomace was not utilized as well for growth of beef
heifers, as indicated by tabular nutrient values, the economic value of apple pomace in
diets was low. When utilized at 25% of the ration dry matter, the value of the ensiled
apple pomace was $0.052/kg DM, and when incorporated at 50% of the ration dry matter,
the value of the apple pomace was $0.044/kg DM. The costs of the apple pomace for
shipping were $ 0.0776/kg DM, and were $ 0.033/kg DM for ensiling (Table 2). The
costs of shipping the product must be minimized for apple pomace to be competitive as a
feed ingredient.
Table 2. Cost of ingredients and total mixed rations fed to growing beef heifers.
Ingredient
Bluegrass hay
Alfalfa hay
Ensiled apple pomace
Barley
Urea
Trace mineralized salt
Dicalcium phosphate
S/keofDM
0.072
0.154
0.11
0.123
0.44
0.26
0.41
$/kg DM of total mixed ration
$/kg of BW gain
kg gain/kg CH4 produced1
0% Ensiled
Apple Pomace
0.043
0.154
0
0.027
0.004
0.001
0
0.101
0.728
5.29
Treatments
25% Ensiled
Apple Pomace
0.025
0.154
0.028
0.027
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.112
1.002
4.75
50% EnsUed
Apple Pomace
0.007
0.154
0.055
0.027
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.120
1.083
4.89
'One liter of methane = 0.7162 g
Methane emissions from calves were approximately 2.2 g CrLj/hd-hr or 52.7 g
CH4/hd-d. These rates approximate those from sheep and reflect the degree of grazing
activity of these calves. Emissions from calves will increase as the calf s intake of milk
declines and forage intake increases prior to weaning. Whether this amount of CtLi is an
important contributor to an inventory remains to be investigated.
As expected, bulls emit CHj at the same rate as cows. To add bulls to the
inventory estimates of intake should be made and the same diet factor measured with
cows can be applied. The bulls in these measurements produced 227 g CIVhd-d. Feed
intake of bulls during the breeding season is likely to be difficult to estimate.
Summary
One of the objectives of this project was to determine if ensiling of apple pomace
would increase its storage life as a feed. This was successful. The ensiled apple pomace
was a stable product and no deterioration of quality was observed after 4 months of
storage. When the ensiled apple pomace was fed to growing beef heifers as part of a total
mixed ration, the apple pomace reduced methane emissions on a per animal basis, but
increased methane emissions on the basis of kg weight gain per kg methane produced.
49
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Given feed prices current in October, 1997, the apple pomace was economical at about
$0.066/kg DM. However, weight gains of heifers fed the ensiled apple pomace were less
than expected and the concentrations of serum urea-N indicated a need for more crude
protein in the diets. Thus, the apple pomace may have affected utilization of dietary
crude protein and performance of heifers fed the apple pomace may have been improved
by more crude protein in the diet. This project has demonstrated that apple pomace can
be used in diets for growing beef cattle, but also clearly identifies the need for further
work on factors which influence successful incorporation of agricultural byproducts in
diets of livestock for reduced methane emissions.
50
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
REDUCING METHANE EMISSIONS FROM BEEF COW HERDS IN
RANGE BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Kenneth C. Olson, Utah State University
President Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan calls for "improved ruminant
productivity and product marketing" to reduce greenhouse emissions. This plan further
details that such efforts include regional field studies to (1) refine emission estimates and (2)
identify management strategies that simultaneously improve productivity and profitability
of farming operations throughout the U.S. and reduce methane emissions. It also charges
that educational efforts be developed to disseminate this information.
To date, little has been done to investigate the possibilities of reducing methane
production by beef cattle on pasture or rangeland through improved management. We are
conducting this project to establish some baseline information on methane production by
beef cattle during the annual production cycle. We are investigating seasonal levels of
methane emissions produced under traditional and improved grazing and herd management
strategies on pasture and rangeland in Utah. Field study results from this project will have
implications for Utah ranches, as well as operations throughout the Intermountain West.
These results should strengthen the scientific basis for improved production efficiency,
improved overall land management, improved economic well being of producers, and
reduced methane emissions from grazing beef cattle. We will integrate field study findings
into extension education programs for livestock producers and land managers. These
educational efforts will attempt to extend the field study results to Utah producers, as well as
throughout the Intermountain West. Extension networks and cooperation already exist
throughout the West and efforts under this program will be integrated into the efforts of this
network. This extends the impact to the largest number of beef cows. Educational efforts
will be designed to illustrate the relationships between economic efficiency and methane
emissions, so that producers become aware of the win-win situation of simultaneously
improving ranch finances and the environment. Finally, general relationships identified
through field study and extension efforts of this project should provide insight for
development of beef cattle methane reduction strategies in other regions and global
environments.
Objectives
Field Studies. Studies have been conducted to document methane emissions under a
variety of grazing and livestock management conditions. The overall objective is to
investigate the influence of grazing and livestock management alternatives on methane
emissions to estimate annual emissions from grazing beef cattle and to evaluate the
influence of some alternative management strategies to reduce methane emissions. Specific
objectives being evaluated are:
1. To compare methane emissions from beef cattle grazing seasonal rangelands in
native, unimproved conditions to rangeland improved by seeding to improved grass
51
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
species.
2. To evaluate the influence of grazing intensity upon the methane emissions of beef
cattle grazing irrigated meadow pastures.
3. To evaluate the methane emission response to an alternative management strategy
wherein feeder cattle are at slaughter weight by shortly after weaning (about 10
months of age).
4. To develop an estimate of yearly methane emissions from grazing beef cows based on
data collected herein.
Extension. Adoption of methane reducing technologies by beef cattle producers
hinges on maintaining or improving individual producer profitability from complex crop
and livestock production systems. Our objective is to effectively disseminate information
on profitable and environmentally sound management systems mat reduce methane
emissions. This includes identification and analysis of relevant policy options that will
provide incentives to beef cattle producers to adopt practices that reduce methane
emissions. It also includes integration of results of field study efforts into existing and
new extension education programs for producers in Utah and throughout the western U.S.
Approach
Field efforts were designed to establish a methane emission baseline for cattle in a
variety of temporal and spatial environments. The intent is to measure methane
emissions from three discrete locations when grazing at each location is most appropriate
to encompass some of the most common vegetation types and seasons of use. Combining
this seasonal data should provide an estimate of annual methane emissions from beef
cattle enterprises using similar resources. Second, each trial will compare alternative
management strategies for forage or livestock management to provide an overview of
possible emission reductions from improved management practices. The alternatives
selected for evaluation are hypothesized to provide significant positive responses and are
selected to represent groups of similar strategies, including grazing management, forage
improvement, or livestock management. Two field seasons of sample and data collection
from grazing livestock have been conducted for each experiment described herein. The
final phase of the project, to complete laboratory and data analysis and publish results in
appropriate journals, is in progress. v
Initial extension activities have focused on development of a framework for
presentation of results in an enterprise level model. This will be used in the near future to
present results to livestock producers and land managers, culminating with publication of
results in media accessible by livestock producers.
52
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
Progress Of Work And Principal Accomplishments
1. Nutritional and methane emission responses of beef cattle grazing improved forage
species for rangelands.
Alternative forages on foothill rangeland in the Intel-mountain West are being evaluated
at the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (UAES) Tintic Research Site. Treatments
include native rangeland and pastures seeded to four improved forage species, including
"Hycresf crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum X A. cristatum), "Nordan* crested
wheatgrass (A. desertorum), "Vinall' Russian wildrye (Psathrostachysjunceus), and 'Syn-A'
Russian wildrye. Pastures of each species are established in a randomized complete block
design with three replicates. Seasonal grazing of foothill rangeland occurs during the spring
and fall, so our sampling occurred during an approximate 30 day grazing season during each
spring and fall. Specifically, grazing trials were conducted during fall 1995, spring 1996,
fall 1996, and spring 1997. Trials were conducted with nonlactating beef cows during
fall and cow-calf pairs during spring. During the first two trials, sixty cows were used, so
each pasture (6.88 ha) had four cows. Sulfur hexafluoride (SFe) boluses (to sample
methane emissions) were placed in three cows per pasture in replicates one and two, and
in two cows per pasture in replicate three. During the last two trials, 45 cows were
assigned similarly so each pasture had three cows and all cows received a SF6 bolus.
Cows were adapted to pasture forage for 14 days before data collection. Methane was
sampled on replicate one and half of replicate two from days 15 to 20 and on the other
half of replicate two and replicate three from days 22 to 27. Feces were collected every
other day for 10 days, so samples were collected from cows on each pasture for a total of
five days. Heifers fitted with esophageal fistulae were used to collect diet samples. Fecal
and diet samples are presently being analyzed in the laboratory.
Animal performance and methane emission responses from the first two sampling periods
are presented in the following two tables. These preliminary data suggest that variation
exists among species, and the species of choice depends on the season of use. For
example, native rangeland species provided the lowest methane emissions in fall, but
were among the highest in spring.
Methane emission and performance responses of beef cows grazing
dormant forages during October 1995.
Species
Native mixture
'Nordan' crested wheatgrass
'Hycrest' crested wheatgrass
'Vinall' Russian wildrye
'Syn-A' Russian wildrye
Cli,
(g/d)
87.0
110.7
124.3
154.6
99.1
CH4 (g/d/kg
BW)
.150
.204
.223
.282
.179
Wt. change
(kg)
-40.6
-42.5
-46.9
-10.6
-20.6
DCS
change
-.6
-.7
-.7
-.4
.2
53
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Methane emission and performance responses of beef cows grazing vegetative forages
during May 1996.
Species
Native mixture
'Nordan' crested wheatgrass
'Hycrest' crested wheatgrass
'Vinall' Russian wildrye
'Syn-A' Russian wildrye
CH4 (g/d/kg CH4 (g/d/kg CowWt
CH4(g/d) cowBW) calfBW) Change (kg)
244.6
251.1
226.7
262.4
259.1
.510
.491
.429
.502
.477
2.48
2.32
2.63
2.65
2.79
-19.0
-8.6
-5.0
-9.9
1.6
Cow BCS
Change
.1
-.1
.1
.2
.3
CalfWt.
Gain (kg)
18.5
23.2
27.6
25.0
26.6
Methane emission and performance responses of beef cows grazing dormant
forages during October 1996.
Species
Native mixture
'Nordan' crested wheatgrass
'Hycrest' crested wheatgrass
'Vinall' Russian wildrye
'Syn-A' Russian wildrye
CH4
(g/d)
217
217
196
257
237
CH4 (g/d/kg
BW)
.38
.38
.36
.46
.43
Wt. change
(kg)
-17.8
-23.3
-14.4
2.5
6.1
BCS
change
-.39
-.33
-.56
-.25
-.17
Methane emission and performance responses of beef cows grazing vegetative
forages during May 1997.
Species
Native mixture
'Nordan' crested wheatgrass
'Hycrest' crested wheatgrass
'VinalP Russian wildrye
'Syn-A' Russian wildrye
CH4 CH4 (g/d/kg
(g/d) BW)
324.6
287.5
321.1
296.1
324.6 .
.57
.54
.58
.59
.63
Wt. change
(kg)
103.3
143.9
156.1
126.1
106.1
BCS
change
.81
.83
.97
.67
.69
2. Nutritional and methane emission responses of beef cattle to grazing management
(stocking rate) on irrigated pastures.
Grazing intensity is being evaluated on irrigated pastures at the UAES Panguitch
Farm. The current vegetation on the pastures is a mixture of cool-season grasses,
including quackgrass (Agropywn repens), smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). This is typical of the vegetation on many irrigated
54
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
pastures in the valleys of the Great Basin. Two trials were conducted during the
summers of 1995 and 1996. Cow/calf pairs were assigned to one of four stocking
rates ranging from 6.2 to 16.8 and 4.2 to 10.6 AUM/ha in 1995 and 1996,
respectively. Cows were assigned to each treatment group by age and weight for the
summer grazing period. Sulfur hexafluoride boluses were placed in five cows per
treatment. Methane emissions were determined during two periods during the
summer grazing season (July and August) with 5 days of sampling per period. Feces
were collected for 10 days during each collection period. Rumen fistulated cows
were used to collect forage samples for nutritional analyses. Fecal and diet samples
are presently undergoing laboratory analyses.
Methane emission responses are presented in the following table. In general,
animal performance increased (data not shown) and methane per unit of animal
weight decreased as stocking rate decreased. However, the level of these responses
was less than reported in previous research comparing animal responses across
stocking rates.
Methane emissions by beef cows grazing irrigated pasture during 1995 and 1996.
Stocking rate (AUM/ha)
6.2
8.4
12.2
16.8
Period
g/d
216
167
153
196
1995
1 (July 11-16)
g/d/kg g/d/kg
cow calf
.404 1.371
.331 1.318
.302 1.068
.391 1.300
Period
g/d
196
119
195
144
2 (Aug. 22-27)
g/d/kg g/d/kg
cow calf
.344 .906
.220 .611
.329 1.067
.263 .676
1996
Period 1 (July 2-8)
Stocking rate (AUM/ha)
4.2
5.8
8.4
10.6
g/d
276
331
295
310
g/d/kg g/d/kg
cow calf
.516 1.88
.613 2.33
.575 2.03
.601 2.68
Period
g/d
330
319
323
216
2 (Aug. 20-25)
g/d/kg g/d/kg
cow calf
.560 1.32
.540 1.28
.579 1.34
.418 1.13
3. Nutrient intake and methane emission responses of cows and calves in a "slaughter-
weight at weaning" program.
An ongoing project at the UAES is being conducted to develop an alternative beef
55
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
production strategy wherein the feeder animal is at slaughter weight by about 270 days
(nine months) of age. This is shortly after weaning, as opposed to more traditional
systems wherein cattle are slaughtered at 12 to 18 months of age. This system requires
the use of cows with greater genetic potential than the average cow used in traditional
systems. The influence of this difference in genetic potential on nutrient requirements,
efficiency of nutrient utilization, and resultant methane emissions of the cow is being
documented. Cattle currently involved in this program are being compared to typical
beef cattle from the UAES beef cowherd. These cattle have been kept on common
forage resources throughout the trial. This includes grazing during spring, summer, and
fall, primarily on irrigated pastures, and being housed in drylot and fed hay- or straw-
based diets during the winter. Two trials were conducted during the summers of 1995
and 1996 at the UAES facilities at Logan using 10 cow/calf pairs. Cows with calves
that should reach slaughter weight at 270 days (9 months) of age (ESW, 5 pairs) have
been compared to cows with calves that should reach slaughter weight at 12 to 18
months (control, 5 pairs). Methane emissions, animal performance, and nutrient
intake were estimated three times during each summer grazing season (June, August,
and September). Methane samples were collected for 5 days during each collection
period and feces were collected for 10 days. Rumen fistulated cows were used to
collect diet samples for nutritional analyses. Preparation of samples for laboratory
analysis and performance data analysis is in progress.
Methane emission responses are presented in the following table. In general,
methane emitted per unit of cow weight was similar, but methane emitted per unit
of calf weight was less because the ESW calves were heavier than control calves.
Methane emissions by cows with control or early-slaughter weight calves.
1995
1996
Control
ESW
Control
ESW
Period 1
g/d
g/d/kg cow BW
g/d/kg calf BW
Period 2
g/d
g/d/kg cow BW
g/d/kg calf BW
Period 3
g/d
g/d/kg cow BW
g/d/kg calf BW
June 19-24
168 178
.274 .276
.974 .866
Aug. 2-7
186 182
.319 .289
.781 .659
Sept. 18-23
99 61
.164 .096
.359 .197
June 13-20
249 229
.433 .415
1.91 1.64
Aug. 5-10
256 264
.450 .470
1.27 1.24
Sept 16-22
281 291
.477 .517
1.07 1.02
56
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
4. Nutrient intake and methane emission responses during winter feeding of cows.
A sub-trial of the ESW trial was conducted during winter feeding of the cows to
compare the influence of grass hay- or ammoniated cereal straw-based diets on methane
emissions of cows. Eight cows (four in each feed treatment group) were used to sample
methane during the winter feeding period. Methane samples were collected two times
during each winter feeding period. Cow performance and feed intake were also measured.
Data analysis is in progress.
Methane emissions were similar from cows receiving either diet during either
period in the first year of sampling (see following table).
Methane emissions of cows wintered on grass hay or ammoniated straw
g/d g/d/kg BW
Grass Hay Amm. Straw Grass Hay Amm. Straw
Yearl
Period 1 (Dec. 1995)
Period 2 (Jan.-Feb. 1996)
144
221
122
241
.25
.38
.22
.41
Year 2
Period 1 (Dec. 1996)
Period 2 (Jan. 1997)
264
222
274
232
.43
.35
.41
.34
5. Nutrient intake and methane emission responses during finishing of weaned calves.
Another sub-trial of the ESW trial was conducted during finishing of the weaned
calves to evaluate the potential of such a system to reduce methane emissions through
the shortened life of the feeder calf. Calves were weaned in November and put
onto a finishing ration. Eight steers (four of each treatment group) were retained to
sample methane during the finishing period. Methane samples were collected two
times during each finishing period. Steer performance and feed intake were also
measured.
Performance was similar among steers from each treatment during finishing.
However, because the ESW steers started at over 100 kg heavier than control steers,
they reached slaughter weight 77 days sooner, thus cutting total methane emitted to
reach slaughter almost in half (see following table).
57
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Performance and methane emissions by early-slaughter-
weight or control calves during finishing
Initial weight, kg
Final weight, kg
Age at slaughter, d
ADG.kgd'1
Feed intake, kg d"1
Feed efficiency, kg kg"1
Daily methane, g d"1
Period 1
Period 2
Daily methane, g d"1 kg BW"1
Period 1
Period 2
Daily methane, g d"1 kg ADG'1
Period 1
Period 2
Total methane, kg
Control
296
515
401
1.39
13.5
10.0
165
212
.52
.55
140
117
30
ESW
400
498
324
1.39
16.0
11.6
161
239
.38
.48
80
135
17
Implications Of Results
When linked with other nutritional variables, evaluation of methane emission will
provide an opportunity to consider energetic efficiency in ruminants. Increasing retained
energy through decreased gaseous energy loss will fulfill the dual goals of increasing
production efficiency and reducing methane emission by beef cattle. This affords the
opportunity to simultaneously increase profitability and the public image of the livestock
industry. During this project, we have evaluated applied management alternatives to
determine if they are both nutritionally superior and environmentally sound. Specific
conclusions include:
1. Variation in animal performance and methane emissions existed among species and
cultivars adapted for revegetation of arid rangelands.
2. Animal performance and diet quality were depressed by increasing stocking rate, but
less than expected. • Animal response appeared to be less sensitive to grazing
management on improved pastures man on rangelands.
58
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
3. Production of calves using an accelerated growth program reduced methane emission
per unit of calf body weight by the cow during the suckling phase simply because total
daily methane was divided by greater calf body mass.
4. Winter feeding of cows using chemically treated low quality forage yielded similar
methane emission to feeding grass hay.
5. Early slaughter steers performed similarly and emitted similar methane amounts to
control steers on a daily basis. However, methane emissions per unit of body weight
were less because of greater body weight. Additionally, total methane emitted during
the finishing period was reduced by 57 percent because ESW steers were slaughtered
77 days sooner than control steers.
Our preliminary conclusion is that methane emission reduction is most sensitive to
manipulation of animal management rather than manipulation of forage or grazing
management.
59
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
60
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
CONTRAINTS FOR IMPROVED LAND AND ANIMAL
MANGEMENT AMONG BEEF CATTLE PRODUCERS IN UTAH
D. Layne Coppock, Utah State University
Previous social survey research among 2,520 beef producers in Utah, who also
had permits to graze public lands, identified two main groups in 1993: (1) A minority
(32%) of pro-active managers who adopted novel land- and animal-management
technology and practices and therefore invested and innovated (i.e., intensified,
diversified, and/or extensified) within their production systems; and (2) a majority (68%)
of passive managers who tended to be more conservative and did little to change. By the
mid-1990s, it was speculated that pro-active management was on the rise in Utah because
beef producers anticipated reduced access to public grazing, and in preparation for this
sought to improve their production systems on privately owned land.
Pro-active management intervention can have benefits for operations including
improved production efficiency and profitability. Another consequence of improved
efficiency could also be reduction in rates of methane emission from grazing ruminants.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is negatively implicated as one contributor to
global warming. The EPA has identified a possible opportunity to reduce methane
emissions from ruminants via management innovation - this was the main reason the
EPA had interest in technology transfer among Utah beef producers and funded some of
the work reported here. Research was commissioned by the EPA as a pilot project to
address the following objectives: (1) Refine and up-date estimates of the proportions of
Utah's beef operations that have been pro-actively or passively managed during the
1990s, and determine factors that most influence management behavior; (2) identify
prominent forms of producer innovation and estimate the impact these innovations could
have on mitigating methane emissions from beef cattle; (3) determine constraints which
preclude more beef operators from becoming pro-active managers; and (4) provide a
social survey methodology that would allow the EPA to address similar issues in other
locations. The primary focus of EPA-funded work was to collect data on a previously
unsurveyed group in Utah - beef producers who operated solely on private land. Little
was known about the numbers, resources, or management strategies of this group. A
secondary focus of EPA-funded work was then to combine previous results from
permittees with those of private-land-only operators into one comprehensive analysis.
, Work documented in this report covers the period 1992-97. Mail and phone
surveys of 192 to 340 randomly selected, public-grazing permittees were funded by the
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research & Extension (SARE) program and the Utah
Agricultural Experiment Station (UAES). Phone survey of 201 randomly selected,
private-land-only operators was funded by EPA and implemented by the Utah
Agricultural Statistics Service (UASS). All surveys included questions that solicited
information on: (1) The resource base for each operation; (2) opinions of managers
regarding production innovation, technology transfer, and how operations have changed
over tune; (3) views of operators regarding their management strategies, goals, and future
61
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
concerns; (4) what factors were perceived to have had the greatest effects on management
strategies; and (5) the priority needs of operators for applied research. Questions were
posed as multiple choice, short answer, or ranking exercises. Data were analyzed using
descriptive statistics and logistic regression.
We identified a subpopulation of 2,547 private-land-only producers, which
brought the total population of relevant producers for Utah to about 5,067 operations
including permittees. Compared to private-land-only producers, permittee operations
were much larger - permittees ran 5.6 times more cattle and managed 15 times more
private land, on average. Permittees derived 49% of their annual income from livestock
production compared to only 17% for private-land-only producers. Private-land-only
producers obtained 76 % of their annual income from "off-ranch" and therefore were
part-tune (e.g., hobbyist) livestock producers in the extreme. Far more permittees were
involved in livestock production as a core business. Seventy percent of permittees and
90% of private-land-only operators considered themselves to be passive managers
throughout the 1990s. Only 10% of operations, and up to 13% of the beef cattle
inventory, have been subjected to proactive management in recent years. The main
reasons stated by producers for passivity were: (1) pending retirement and declining
health for up to 39% of the producer population; and (2) economic constraints such as
low beef prices and non-competitive rates of return on investment in their grazing
operations. Only 22% of permittees experienced any cuts of AUMs on public land
between 1993 and 1996, and these were typically only temporary. This suggests that
implementation of grazing reforms on public lands has been slow to occur, and thus
permittees have refrained from going ahead with privaterland investments. The main
reasons stated by a minority of producers for proactive management were: (1) to increase
productivity and profitability; and (2) maintain a rural lifestyle with a social value for
being a "good" manager. Logistic regression analysis revealed that proactivity was
significantly (P< 0.01) and positively associated with: (1) Gross annual income; (2)
willingness to assume debt to improve operations; (3) whether or not a producer was a
permittee; and (4) number of social memberships, seen here as a proxy for wealth and
community stewardship values. As one indicator of the role of wealth in innovative
behavior, about 60% of the small subgroup of proactive, production intensifiers were not
seeking grants or cost shares to help fund their land management improvements - these
were commonly self-funded efforts that cost from $5,000 to $250,000 to implement.
Finally, producer priorities for applied research were dominated by (1) pasture (e.g.,
forage) improvements (in case the technology is needed); (2) policy; (3) economics; and
(4) technology transfer.
It is concluded that proactive management in Utah is most constrained by macro-
level forces such as demographics and low beef prices and micro-level factors such as
level of personal income and debt tolerance. As long as the population is becoming
elderly, beef prices are fluctuating and unattractive, alternative (off-ranch) investment is
attractive, and/or implementation of more strict policies for use of federal lands remains
fuzzy, passivity will prevail. For most producers, however, it is important to note that
passivity is probably a wise survival strategy given the wide array of economic and
ecological risks and uncertainties they routinely encounter. Proactive managers, in
contrast, are those in the minority with the financial resources to invest - perhaps even
62
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
indulging a few whims - and thus take large risks that returns on such investments may
not be lucrative over the short- to medium-term. Impact of innovation and investment on
improved management of beef cattle in Utah, and hence mitigation of methane emissions
from grazing ruminants via altered management systems, remains elusive.
The scenario above describes a simple state-and-transition model for the beef
producer population. Traditional extension efforts, in and of themselves, should therefore
not be expected to have much impact in stimulating a land use revolution per se in Utah.
More focus on larger, risk-tolerant operators could yield more impact to this end per unit
of extension effort. Relatively more attention could also be given to some aspects of
policy to stimulate broad-based, positive change.
63
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
64
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
BEEF EFFICIENCY PRODUCTION AND TALL FESCUE TOXICOSIS:
1996-1998 PASTURE RESEARCH IN TENNESSEE
John C. Waller, Henry A. Fribourg, Mitchell A. Zuckerman, and Teri Ingle
INTRODUCTION
Tall fescue is a cool season perennial grass which, since its major spread in the
1940-1950s, has become the predominant forage in the transition zone of the eastern US.
About 15 million ha are currently grown in the US. Problems with poor performance of
animals grazing tall fescue have been observed since at least the 1950s. The decreased
animal performance, known as tall fescue toxicosis and caused by the fungal endophyte,
Neotyphodium coenophialum, is characterized by diminished weight gain, heat
intolerance, slightly elevated body temperature, rough haircoat, reduced voluntary forage
intake, and decreased calving rate.
Beef cattle grazing £- tall fescue pastures have improved animal performance
over those grazing £+ pastures. Reductions in cattle average daily gain (ADG) have
been related in part to alterations of cattle grazing behaviors on E+ pastures due to the.
increased heat stress characteristic of tall fescue toxicosis.
Methane produced by enteric fermentation in domesticated livestock is of interest
because it represents an energetic inefficiency of microbial fermentation and because of
the role CfLt is suspected of playing in global wanning scenarios. Tall fescue pastures
managed in different ways provide an economically important experimental situation to
study whether CKt emissions from cattle can be mitigated with improved management
strategies. In this report, CH» emissions from beef steers and cows grazing different tall
fescue based pasture systems are related to animal performance at different seasons of the
year.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pastures and Animals
Eight 1.2-ha pastures at the Blount Unit (35 49 N, 83 13 W) of the Knoxville
Experiment Station were used to measure CH4. Four well-established >Kentucky-31" tall
fescue pasture systems were used: (1) E+, (2) E-, (3) alternating groups of four 20-cm
drill rows of E+ and E- tall fescues (E+/E-); and (4) E+/clover >Regal=, where there was
about 25 to 35% clover in spring each year, decreasing to 15 to 20% in summer.
Two pasture systems of about 4 ha each at the Holston Unit (35 57 N, ' .
83 51 W) of the Knoxville Experiment Station were also used: (1) an unimproved
pasture (UP) typical of the region [E+ tall fescue, bermudagrass, Kentucky bluegrass,
other grasses and weeds], and (2) a well managed E+ tall fescue/clover pasture using the
best management practices (BMP) adopted by superior producers in the region. The
BMP pasture contained 35 to 40% ladino white clover in spring each year, decreasing to
15 to 25% in summer.
65
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Phosphorus and K fertilizers were applied to all the pastures (except for UP at the
Holston Unit) in winter or early spring of each year to maintain a medium soil test level
of fertility. In early spring and in early September each year, all pastures except the
pastures containing clover and the UP received 56 kg N*ha"' applied as ammonium
nitrate. The UP at the Holston Unit had received no inputs in pasture management, such
as fertilization, seeding of improved species, and mowing, in the recent past. Pastures at
Blount and the BMP at Holston were clipped occasionally ^- in June and August --to
remove tall fescue seedheads and excess mature growth. There were between 900 and
1500 kg*ha~' of available dry matter forage at all times, as confirmed every 21 d by
clipping 10»ha"' forage strips measuring 53.3 x 304 cm in each pasture. This
management provided enough forage to allow adequate voluntary intake by the cattle.
Within each pasture, artificial or natural shade, fresh water, and mineralized salt were
provided ad libidum.
Two Angus steers were placed on each pasture at the Blount Unit, and two
pastures of each of the four systems were used. Four steers and four cow/calf pairs were
placed on each of the two pastures at the Holston Unit. The steers used each year were
weaned stackers selected from the spring calf crop of the Tennessee Agricultural
Experiment Station herd. Mature (> 3-yr old) Angus cows from the Knoxville
Experiment Station spring calving herd were pregnancy checked and eight pregnant cows
were selected each fall. All cows and steers used were allotted to pasture systems on the
basis of age, weight, and body condition. The experimental animals were weighed every
21 d while on pasture. Body condition scores on a 9-point scale were recorded for cows
at the beginning of the spring and at the end of the summer grazing seasons.
Methane
The SFt Tracer Method. The Washington State University method for measuring
eructated CH4 involves placing a permeation tube with a known SF^ permeation rate in
the reticulum. Eructated gas is then constantly sampled through a collection device worn
by the animal. Methane emission rates from each animal are calculated using the rate of
SF& permeation from the tube and the concentrations of CH4 and SF6 in the collection
canister. In order to achieve proper quality control, since molecules of SF$ tend to reside
in plastics and other materials to which they are exposed, and to provide better laboratory
conditions for the gas chromatograph (GC), three separate laboratories were used. The
first one housed only the GC and supporting equipment. The second was used as a work
space, where collection halters and canisters were constructed, repaired, and prepared for
field use and GC analysis. The third, in a separate building, was established to load and
calibrate the SF6 permeation tubes.
66
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
In 1997, each brass permeation tube used had been 3.175 cm long with an outside
diameter of 1 cm, weighing 30.5 g. The inside cavity had a 0.5-cm diameter and a 2.8-
cm depth. One end of the tube was engraved with a unique identification number. The
other end was machined for a swagelok nut. The open tubes were immersed in liquid N
to freeze the container, and then filled with gaseous SF6 by syringe which solidified upon
contact with the brass tube. The amount of SFg was sufficient to provide gaseous
emission until the projected termination of the experiment and met the requirements of
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Animal Drug Use (INAD)
number 9542. The filled permeation tubes were then sealed with a thin piece of Teflon
through which the SF6 would be emitted, a stainless steel frit, and secured with a
swaglok nut. Loaded permeation tubes were placed in a flask kept in a water bath placed
under a fume hood at rumen temperature (approximately 39 degrees C) to mimic the
emission rates of the permeation tubes within the reticulum. The emission rates were
calibrated by weighing the permeation tubes weekly for two months. A weight decay
emission rate was then calculated for each numbered tube. Permeation tubes with an
emission rate greater than 800 ng.min"1 were selected for administration to the
experimental animals. In 1998, the tube length was increased to 5.08 cm with an inside
cavity depth of 4.5 cm. Consequently, the weight of the empty permeation tube was
increased to 40.5 g. These modifications were made to assure that the permeation tube
would remain at all times in the lowest part of the reticulum and would give off SF6 into
the collection canister at a rate that would result in easier detection with the GC.
Collection canisters were constructed from two 51-cm lengths of 5-cm diameter
white PVC tubing to withstand 1.104*106 Pa pressure. They were connected to a 1.575-
radian elbow, each end closed with an end cap, heated until pliable in an oven, and then
bent into an ox-bow shape. A valve connected by Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene
[PTFE]) tubing to a quick-connect was attached to the top of the canister. The quick-
connect could be attached to the collection halter for sample collection and later to the
injection port on the GC for analysis. Since the collection system had to be leak-proof,
the canisters were checked for leaks by submersion in water. Velcro straps, swivel
hooks, and cable ties were used to secure the canisters to the halters worn by the animals.
The collection halters were large, adjustable horse halters, fitted with a leather
patch sewn on top of the muzzle to secure the filter end of the tubing system to the halter.
The tubing system used on the halters consisted of a 35.6-cm length of 0.127-mm inside
diameter stainless steel capillary tubing. The length and diameter of the capillary tubing
determined the flow rate of gases through the tubing, and were selected to provide about
a 27-hr sample for each collection canister. The capillary tubing was attached to a 46-cm
length of flexible Teflon tubing. A quick-connect attached to the other end of the Teflon
tubing allowed the system to be connected to the collection canister. The tubing system
was checked for leaks with a mixture of alcohol and water, and then attached to the halter
with electrical tape. The tape was applied loosely, to allow the tubing system to move
laterally, should the animal snag it on obstructions in the field. An in-line 15-jn Nupro®
filter was attached to the end of the stainless steel tubing. The system was checked for
leaks again. It was also checked to determine whether sufficient gas flow passed through
67
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
the filter and capillary system by running compressed N gas through the tubing. The
filter was then placed within an appropriate length of 2.5-cm diameter PVC tubing for
protection and was attached to the leather patch with three cable ties. The leather patch,
and therefore the filter inlet, could then be placed on top of the muzzle between the
nostrils of the animals. The collection canister and collection halter together weighed
about 240 g.
Sampling. Experimental animals were fitted with practice halters and collection
canisters 1 wk prior to first use to allow them to become accustomed to the sampling
devices. Methane emissions were measured from cattle grazing the eight pastures at the
Blount Unit in January, April, May, and June 1998. Measurements were taken from
cattle grazing the two pastures at the Holston Unit in February (steers only because cows
were calving elsewhere), May, and June 1998. Each sampling period began on Monday
in the early morning, and ended the following Saturday morning. Five 24-hr CH4
samples were taken during each sampling period from each animal.
About 1 wk prior to the first sampling period each year, a permeation tube was
administered with a balling gun to each animal. Following the last sampling period each
year, the tubes were removed surgically by rumenotomy from the steers. The tubes were
not removed from cows, since these animals remained in the herd beyond the time when
the SFe would be exhausted completely. The heavier permeation tubes used in 1998 were
always found at the bottom of the reticulum, whereas the lighter tubes used in 1997
sometimes had to be recovered from within the undigested forage in the reticulum.
On the first day of a sampling period, collection canisters were attached to a
vacuum pump hi the laboratory to create a negative pressure of less than 6.9 x 103 Pa,
producing a canister capable of drawing expelled air samples through the halter tubing
system for at least 27 hr. At each location, animals were moved through handling
facilities in the early morning, restrained in a head gate where the numbered collection
canister and associated equipment were placed on each animal by two trained individuals.
The valve on the canister was opened, and the starting time of sampling was noted. The
animals were then returned to the appropriate pastures.
Additional canisters were placed near the experimental pastures to monitor
background levels of CILt and SFe daily during each sampling period. Measured
background levels of CUt and SF6 were not considered large enough to warrant inclusion
in the calculation of daily cattle CHt emissions.
Canisters were replaced each morning during the sampling period. Canister
pressure at time of removal from the animal was used as an indicator of sample flow
through the collection system. A pressure reading between 5.52 x 104 Pa and 7.59 x 104
Pa indicated that the tubing system was functioning properly. A reading approximating
atmospheric pressure was evidence of a leak in the collection system. A pressure reading
lower than 5.52 x 104 Pa indicated blockage of sample flow through the collection
68
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
system. The halters on each animal were also visually inspected for clogs and rips, and
faulty halters were replaced,
The used canisters were taken from the corral to the laboratory for analysis. Each
canister was pressurized with N gas to about 1.242 x 105 Pa, allowing for auto-pressure
injection into the GC. A GC fitted with an electron capture detector (BCD) and a flame
ionization detector (FID) was used to determine the concentrations of SF^ and CtLj,
respectively, in the canister gas samples. Two sub-samples of each canister were
processed through the GC for analysis. The SFg and CH4 concentrations were used along
with the known permeation rate for the permeation tubes in each animal to calculate a
daily CtL* emission rate for each experimental animal.
Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed by analysis of variance using the MIXED procedure of
SAS. Data from the Blount Unit were analyzed using the model:
where y = animal starting weight, ADG or CHU, T = pasture system, Pa = pasture
number, A = animal identification, and S = grazing season.
Models to analyze the data obtained at the Holston Unit included also a variable
for animal class. Least squares means were obtained and analyzed using the pdiff option.
A probability value ofp ~ 0.05 was used for rejecting the null hypotheses in all statistical
tests. Variability between GC samples was negligible.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
General Considerations
Methane emissions among several periods within each season at each location
were not statistically different in a preliminary analysis, and were consequently pooled
for analysis and in data presentation. Daily CH4 emissions per animal were combined
within each sampling period, and these in turn pooled into seasonal data. On the other
hand, both ADG and CH» emissions were widely and statistically different from season to
season, being significantly larger in spring than in winter.
Methane emissions were also expressed per unit of ADG per animal and per unit
of metabolic weight (kg body weight ). Reporting CHj emissions per unit of ADG
provided a measure of efficiency, since this expression considers the CHj emission per
unit of animal performance. Expressing CRj emissions per unit of metabolic weight
factored the size of each animal into the emission rate, since body mass has been shown .
to be related to energy expenditure.
69
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Sampling Considerations
Between 75 and 85 % of the total possible samples during each sampling period
were actually usable. Sample losses were due primarily to clogging of the halter system
with water. The sampling technology had been previously used in the western US under
drier conditions than those in Tennessee. Other causes of sample losses included
accidental disconnections between the canister and the halter systems by the animals,
broken canisters, and breaks in the halter system. The halter system breaks occurred
primarily at the union of the capillary tubing and the in-line filter because the design of
the waterers in the pastures allowed direct contact of the sampling system with the upper
lip of the water reservoir. Other breaks in the halter systems, particularly at the filter and
Teflon tubing connections, resulted from animals snagging the equipment on other
fixtures in the pasture.
Measurements at the Blount Unit
Steers on the four pasture systems did not differ in initial weight in winter 1998
(Table 1). Among pasture systems, ADG of steers grazing E+ tall fescue was the
smallest in winter and spring. Highest ADG were obtained in winter from E- tall fescue
and in spring from E- and E+/clover pastures.
While the relationship between ADG and pasture systems was similar to that
reported elsewhere, the actual ADG observed were somewhat greater than those reported
by others. We have reported elsewhere mean summer ADG of 370 g*d"' and 510 g«d"'
for steers grazing E+ tall fescue and E+ tall fescue/clover pastures, respectively. The
difference between the ADG reported here and the earlier ones could be due in part to the
higher than normal precipitation in the Knoxville area during spring 1998 grazing season.
Daily CtLj emissions ranged from 110 to 150 g*d"! for the growing steers grazing
the tall fescue pastures (Table 1). Although these emissions tended to be greater hi spring
than in winter, they were not greatly different among pasture systems within season.
When CH4 emissions were expressed per unit of ADG they were generally greater in
winter than in spring. The reason for this difference is perhaps related to the greater
intake which may have been reflected in a more rapid gain in spring. Mean CH4
emissions per unit of metabolic weight among the pasture systems followed relationships
similar to those for the mean daily emissions.
Measurements at the Holston Unit
There were no differences among mean starting weights within an animal class
(steers, cows, or calves) for any grazing season (Table 1). Average body condition scores
for cows grazing both pastures were similar at the start and end of the grazing season, and
averaged 5.5 on a scale ranging from 1 to 9.
Average daily gain was higher in spring than in winter for steers, and ADG were
similar on the two pastures. Mean calf ADG was greater on the UP than on the BMP
pasture. This indicated that as the spring season progressed, the higher than normal
70
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
rainfall resulted in greater than normal forage for cows on the UP pasture and that the
BMP pasture was not greater in forage quality or availability than the UP pasture.
Mean daily CHU emissions from steers ranged between 95 and 145 g*d"' and
between 145 and 170 g*d"' for cows. Emissions of CHU from steers in winter were less
than in spring.
Mean Cttt emissions per unit of ADG were quite different between cows and
steers because animal sizes and weight gains were dissimilar. Since cow ADG were less
than those by steers and these smaller gains occurred on larger animals, the steer ADG
are a better reflection of CHU production per unit of animal performance. The steers
grazing the BMP pasture did not produce less CHU per unit of ADG than those on the UP
pasture in spring, probably because of the wet season. The lower efficiency (unit of CHU
per unit of ADG) of cows was related to the fact that the cows used intake energy to
provide milk for calves rather than to increase their body weight. This is supported by
the fact that the calves on the two pasture systems maintained similar and adequate ADG
throughout.
General Discussion and Concluding Implications
When we consider the data reported last year for 1997 and those reported here for
1998, the most significant effects were those of season and animal size. While there were
instances where numerical differences were observed, statistical analysis was not able to
detect some differences, possibly due to the lack of seasonal repetition and the limited
number of animals. We have demonstrated elsewhere in our work the importance of
including several years of data in pasture grazing studies to provide observations over a
broad spectrum of environmental and climatic conditions. Indeed climatic factors were
important during this study, for the Knoxville area experienced two consecutive springs
with abnormally high precipitation levels. Elevated spring precipitation levels might
have reduced the climatic stresses that pastures undergo during seasons with normal or
below normal precipitation, and hence animal performance was better than would be
expected with E+ tall fescue pastures when drier and hotter conditions prevail.
We did not measure CHU production by calves and thus cannot estimate the total
CHL$ production by the cow/calf pair. Development of the rumen in calves depends on
access to a fibrous diet and the availability of rumen microbes to inoculate the rumen.
Developing calves are considered to be transitional ruminants at around 6 to 8 wk of age,
and to become functional ruminants at 8 to 12 wk. Therefore, the calves in this study
could have been producing CHU. Since that was not measured, the efficiency estimated
for the cow-calf pair was incomplete. Further studies are needed to investigate the
efficiency of the cow-calf pair, rather than just that of the cow, since both contribute
to the environment. Li addition, cows should be evaluated during the remainder of the
year when choice of feeding management usually results in positive weight gains for
cows.
71
U S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Differences in CHj emissions per unit of ADG were affected by management
strategies: less OLj was produced per unit of performance by steers grazing pastures with
better management practices than by steers grazing pastures receiving fewer management
inputs.
72
-------
00
ON
Os
___4
^^•^
rt
W
»_,*^
S
K^
O
^
w
g
2
w
^
^H
0
u
OH
W
£
.s
s
3
w
"o
ffi
•o
OS
•«->
a
o
»
15
A
1
cn
es
&
u
a
W
ss
£
1
on
1
So
£
9>
!
A
«2
£
•|
«
S
§
i
g
0>
B
•&
B
es
W
A
a
e
a
K
i
*
^H
|i
H »N
IM £
o "g
3S *S
a *
a £
*!
E?2
P*N fli
U2J
s
o
40
DO
u O
4i ^i
a<
=
U
DC
a
1
S
.S
£
I^c
'C
> ^
ia?
5 u
O w
0
<
_ -w
A p8
'•B «
'S E
M &
i§
^j .^3
i^
O. «"
X
a
o
•5
g
5
"^ i In "- ^
_* t~- v« "2 r-
•M ^ - ^
^
^? (• K 41 K
'T1 os ^ o in
So !£ 2 S S
^"r ^^ ^^ ^^ V*4
u « -2 -S
s: K v) v>
•5 85 t; g s
'oc
^
4t v • *S o
» S S « !C
P4 «S ,5 N
1- * V -
5= ffi S 5!
^i >^ *"' »^
ia
M
"o "o "o o
•"» o r« oo
m ON 10 r-
oii « vo rn r~-
jut »-* ^ f»i f»j
CO f*"3 fO IT)
- A . xa
0 0 N OS
' 2 S « «
** M ^ VH
Ha
ftfi
"" « W A £
O O O O
flV f^% 1^ v+
Wi ™j r^ ^^
rj in ^ TT
JP ft S ft S
«O fKJ «K] «M
*^* r^ T^f T^
+ J, ^ ^
W « ? ™
w :p
u
"S
i
0*00 , 0 ?D ,
I"- Ift I 00 «S i
»H ^ T*H , ^H
•* 9
N 1 ! S ! 1
^H ^^
« .0 « u
VO H , 1-1 O ,
2 S ' S ffi '
S t i -Js i i
V \O
ft % lit I
— ,S <-< S
0 0 0 0 0 S
a op •*»• ffj 53 g
00 *) P-I
« £ S3 fe S 5=
4> O « O O «
35 u u £ u u
S *<
i *
a
2
JS
£
V)
. o
V
&rf
ct
•**
c
4>
i
*M
•3
|-
ta
w
1
•z
i
I
j
I
i
«
e
|
i
«
.i
x
¥
"3.
•c
I
a
s
M
«>
5
JS
«^
'*
V
S
me vari:
n
0Q
IU
5
<2
ires means
i
CT
OS
•fart
Ml
g
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
74
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
BEEF EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT:
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS RESEARCH IN
LOUISIANA
H. Alan DeRamus, Terry Clement, and Dean Giampola
University of Southwestern Louisiana
Introduction
Recent estimates show that about one-half of the beef cows in the United States
are presently in the Southern Region. Beef production in the Southeast has traditionally
consisted mainly of cow and calf enterprises with the calves sold at weaning. These
operations have frequently been shown with low profit potential. Studies have shown
that this low income from calf sales is low because the beef production from these calves
was less than 90 kg/ha per year. Tremendous amounts of forage growth can occur due to
the long growing season (frequently more than 300 days in Louisiana). However, the
introduced warm-season perennial grasses that are dominant usually lack sufficient
quality for maximum sustained beef cattle weight gain. Controlled-rotation grazing
management systems have the potential to maximize both forage and beef production
with an increase in the efficiency of beef production.
Techniques to increase production efficiency have been used to identify
appropriate management practices that increase livestock productivity. Emission rates of
methane for the various grazing management systems and the productivity on these
management systems have not been studied. The linking of methane measurement in
ongoing grazing management research studies has been designed to compare common
animal management practices with planned improved practices. Emission rates of
methane from beef cattle consuming different forages, different protein supplements and
grazing under different grazing scenarios have been obtained.
Relating the production efficiency of all these management systems to formulate
recommendations for area livestock producers is important.
The sulfur hexaflouride (SFg) tracer technology developed and tested by
Washington State University is being used to measure methane emissions from beef
cattle in the listed management systems. This tracer technology technique involves using
a brass capsule (bolus) of SFg gas placed in the rumen of the halter-broken animal being
tested. Methane is collected above the muzzle with a collection device attached to a
harness. Collected gas is then analyzed on a gas chromatograph machine to determine
concentration levels of both SFe and methane gases.
75
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
All methane emission rates will be linked with a specific class of livestock
(mature cows, heifers, calves, etc.), body condition scores, weight (frame scores), forage
quality, forage quantity, and livestock's nutritional demands. By linking the methane
emission rates to specific forage values and specific livestock requirements, data can be
used in determining animal and forage management recommendations to be presented to
producers. Models can also be developed to use this data for estimating livestock
efficiency from a wide range of livestock operations in the South.
Body condition seems to be the most reliable indicator of well being of an animal.
Livestock weight and body condition scores have been determined on all experimental
animals before each methane collection period and included in the database. Forage
production on each pasture being grazed has been measured with quadrates to determine
the total quantity available. Average plant height, phonological stages of development,
and days of re-growth have also been recorded by forage species at each grazing site.
PROCEDURE
Animals
Brahman crossbred females have been used in all collection trials. The Simbrah
breeding of 5/8 Brahman and 3/8 Simmental is well adapted to the humid conditions of
the Gulf Coast region. Weanling heifers were purchased for initial use and retained for
breeding and further use in subsequent years as bred heifers and lactating cows. Simbrah
cows, aged 3-7 years, in the University herd were selected for use for the duration of the
experiment. Thus, several classes of cattle have been available including: yearling
heifers (stockers),dry cows, and lactating cows. Age, weight, frame score, body
condition score and breeding were recorded and used as a basis for allotment to pastures
at the initiation of this experiment.
These animals have been raised and maintained under typical commercial cattle
conditions. They are typically handled in working facilities only a few times a year for
breeding, deworming, annual vaccination, etc. Therefore, all these animals received
extensive training with halter breaking, standing tied, and brushing to be gentled for this
research project. Halters and Velcro-attached "dummy"canisters were used on the
animals during this training period for acclimation to the methane collection apparatus.
All animals were open and implanted with Syno-mate B for estrus control because it was
noted that cycling cows tended to damage the collection apparatus. To accommodate the
many collections and still evaluate a typical production system, all animals were placed
in a fall calving program. The animals were placed with the bulls in December for
breeding with the planned calving season of September 15 through December 15.
76
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
Both cows and heifers were blocked on weight and age at the beginning of the
experiment to either the treatment or control group. Six yearling heifers with an average
weight of 823 pounds, and six cows with an average weight of 1180 pounds that had
nursing calves were included as tester animals in each experimental herd.
Forages
Pasture treatments include: 1) control ~ unimproved pasture that is naturalized
revegetated cropland (typical of the area). Multiple species of forages are represented in
these pastures. 2) treatment -well-managed warm-season perennial pastures with a base
forage of bahiagrass or common bermudagrass, and overseeded with ryegrass for use
during the appropriate growing season. Paddock size was approximately 1.5 acres. Each
paddock included bahiagrass and bermudagrass and was overseeded with ryegrass in
September. The paddocks have been managed intensively with a stocking density of
30-40 animal units/acre/day and an appropriate recovery period between each grazing (15
to 30 days to produce 2000-3000 Ib. of dry matter forage per acre). The unimproved
pasture was grazed continuously throughout the growing season (March- October) with a
herd stocking rate sufficient to maintain 1000 Ib/a of available dry matter forage.
Preserved forage as hay of bahiagrass has been used during the winter (November -
February). A good quality hay and protein supplement has been used for the treatment
herd (pasture treatment two) and fair hay has been used for the control herd (pasture
treatment one). Limited ryegrass grazing was included as one of the protein supplements
included in the collections this year.
Forage samples were collected from each sward both before and after each
grazing period to determine quantity available at that physiological state of development
and residual forage to determine forage utilization. Samples were analyzed for forage
quality components of crude protein, ADF, and NDF. Fecal samples were analyzed at
the Texas A&M NIR laboratory for prediction of dietary crude protein and digestible
organic matter and the calculation of dry matter intake.
Management
When forage growth of a species is adequate (at least 1500 pounds DM/acre) and
animals are adjusted to that particular forage, two classes of cattle have been used to
obtain methane emission at each measurement period. Cattle grazed the same forage as
the one to be sampled for a minimum of two weeks before the initial sampling period to
assure adequate time for rumen microorganism adaptation. Portable corral panels were
constructed within the grazing paddock area to facilitate daily sampling of the methane
collection canisters on each animal. Five animals of each class were used on each
measurement trial.
77
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Daily rotation on the management intensive grazing paddocks (treatment 2) has
been compared with continuous grazing on unimproved native pastures (treatment 1)
where the available forage may become somewhat limited. Canisters on each animal
were used to collect samples of emitted air, exchanged every 24 hours and transported to
the laboratory for CHt and SFe analysis on a daily basis.
Results
Data collection was begun with the cows and yearling heifers on warm season
perennials, bermudagrass and bahiagrass, in October and November 1996. Bahiagrass
hay with protein supplements of cottonseed meal, urea and corn, and protein blocks were
fed during February - April 1997, and again during February - April 1998 with methane
collections during each period. New heifers were started in May 1997 on ryegrass and
subsequent summer grazing along with the cows that had undergone rumenectomy for
perm tube removal. Collections on ryegrass were made with these yearling heifers during
February - April 1998. Limited grazing time of one or four hours daily on ryegrass was
also used as a protein supplement during February and March for the mature cows.
Collections on bahiagrass and bermudagrass were continued during summer of
1997 with the mature cows. Collections with the original cows on the project had to be
suspended until all the SF6 ai the perm tubes had dissipated. New perm tubes were
deposited into the cows and collections were resumed on the hay and protein supplement
wintering diets.
The methane emissions for the 1997 collections were included in the 1997 annual
report. Nutritional analyses of warm-season forages of bermudagrass, bahiagrass and
native species suggest that late-summer growth of warm-season perennial grass is not
high quality forage and does not support high weight gain or efficient beef production.
During this late summer period, the forage will support dry beef cows in a maintenance
condition with some slight condition improvement.
The methane emissions of the growing yearling heifers on ryegrass are
significantly different at each collection. The weight gain of the different treatments
confirms that high quality forage can support excellent rates of gain. When the methane
emissions are expressed as methane per pound of weight, the higher rates of gain are
certainly more efficient (table 1). As forage quality declined from a digestibility in the
70's to the 60's, the methane emission per unit of gain increased for similar amounts of
grazing time. With the high quality ryegrass forage, the additional grazing time is critical
to achieve adequate dry matter intake for these stocker animals.
Similar results of methane emissions (table 2) of 0.37 to 0.53 grams of methane
per kilogram of bodyweight were obtained in 1998 as 1997 with the protein supplements
78
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
fed as wintering diets to the mature cows. The highest emission rate was again obtained
with the urea supplement diet (0.53). The control level of feeding was designed to
maintain or allow a slight weight loss while the treatment was to support at least one
pound per day gain. The results show that most of the different feeding regimes allowed
weight gains in the desired range.
The use of the "Nut Bal" program to calculate forage intake allows another
dimension to be measured. More calculations will be done with this program in which
our herd will be more precisely defined to create more meaningful data for this project.
Reproductive Efficiency
Initial data collection on reproductive efficiency began in 1998. The reproductive
status of all animals in the methane study was synchronized to produce a fall calving
season between September 15 and December 15. Reproductive efficiency will be
measured in terms of calving interval, adjusted weaning weights, pounds of calf produced
per cow exposed and methane emissions per unit of beef produced.
Treatment and control females were naturally mated to Angus bulls from
December 15,1997 through March 15,1998. Pregnancy rates established via rectal
palpation show that the average days pregnant for mature treatment cows were 146.5, as
compared with 111.5 days for the control group. This preliminary data reflects a 21%
advantage in calving the interval for the MIG treatment cows.
Weaning weights on all calves bom in the fall of 1997 were collected and
adjusted according to age of the dam and sex of the offspring. This data is summarized in
Table 3.
The treatment group was 64 Ib. heavier than the control animals and projects a
13% advantage in weaning weight efficiency. Total forage was affected by a relatively
mild winter and a severe spring drought that certainly could have been affected
pregnancy rates and weaning weights for both groups.
79
-------
OO
o\
ON
i-H
CSn
W
«
S
O
u
55
EP CONFERE
^
i
t
a
If
T.
8
>t
€
1
an
ilTerent levels of ryegrass gi
•e
g
S
a
i.
s
vt
et
I
9
V
2
M
1
c
^
"T
Ell
S" 58 -"
gm/MW 1.49, gm/lbgain I
gm/MW 1.89, gm/lbgain
gm/MW 1.74, gm/lbgain A
uns to the 3/4 power)
rf 5 - ^
O
cO A rt
g g e -S
U a> ft> ^>
co w to ^r
-------
00
^^x
tj^t
^
PM
f T^l
PQ
1
0
Z*
w
ERENC
pH
f
O
u
PL,
W
^
s
1
1
w
a
s
&
c
O
5
upplement effa
M
1
|
t
«
e
(V
1
• £
I
_M
^ 5 Q
<
§2
il1
*
ll
5 B
I3
u
1
8.
B
A
S
b.
JJ
i
j«
£
£>
_a
a
8
*
1
V
£
>»
£
.|
fit
S1
1
S
5"\
(ft
5*
u
o
*
&
%TDN
B.
U
i
a
a.
!
s5
"*
t-
00
Ov
00
s
0
v£>
•ft
ve
2
5
00
00
i
=
1
a:
-
—
o
00
IS
o
00
8
n
OJ
r-
OV
i
vq
j
a!
u
£
*-
-
R
1
CO
8
n
00
O
00
r~
vO
$
e
M
'
'
1
*"
O
fS
5
a
1
o
00
ri
s
3
00
t
-
u
u
\p
9
00
-
C C
>•« 8 8
Is § §
.-*! _°NU
OO
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Table 3. Comparis
Control
Treatment
*"%
Difference
on of Adjusted Weaning Weights of >97 calves
Heifers
378
477
99
Cows
497
536
39
Total
448
512
64
82
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 1998
INFLUENCE OF FORAGE TYPE AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
ON METHANE EMISSIONS AND
PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY OF BEEF CATTLE
M. A. McCann, A. H. Parks, M.Q. Lowder, L. L McVay and K. R. Harwell
University of Georgia
Introduction
The Piedmont area of Georgia has a mild and varied climate which allows the use
of both cool season annuals and perennials in beef cattle stockering programs. Cattlemen
can and do apply many other management options to enhance the efficiency and
profitability of these systems.
One of the most common and basic decisions is to what level should pastures be
stocked and how stocking rate impacts cattle performance. Generally cattlemen tend to
assume that increasing stocking rate will not have an effect on cattle performance.
Another frequently used strategy is the addition of ionophores which enhances the
efficiency of rumen fermentation. Ionophores are commonly used in feed rations and
supplements. Bovatec® and Rumensin® are two ionophores that are cleared for use in
grazing cattle. The simplest method of delivery is in free-choice minerals.
The objectives of two trials were (1) to examine the effects of Bovatec? and Rumensin?
versus a control group and (2) examine the effects of stocking rate on the performance
and methane emissions of grazing stocker cattle.
Management Conditions
The two trials were conducted at the Central Georgia Branch Experiment Station which is
located approximately 50 miles south of Athens in the southern Piedmont. All hereford
steers used in the trials were halter broke prior to being used.
Trial 1.
Six 1.0 ha paddocks of wheat-ryegrass were randomly assigned to either a control
mineral mix, one with Rumensin® or one containing Bovatec®. Minerals were identical
other than the addition of the ionophores and were manufactured by the same company.
Pastures were planted at the end of August and received 150 kg N/ha split into three
different applications. Lime, P and K were added according to soil test
recommendations.
83
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Three Hereford steers were stocked on each paddock beginning in November. Individual
animal weights and forage availability data were recorded every 28 days. Mineral intake
was monitored on a weekly basis. Cattle were weighed off after 180 days of grazing (Nov
- May). Hay was offered during periods of forage shiortages.
Trial 2.
Four .8 ha paddocks of Jesup (endophyte infected) tall fescue were randomly allotted to
either a high (4 steers/paddock) or low (2 steers/paddock)stocking rate treatment.
Hereford steers were weighed on test in March and off in June after 105 d of grazing.
Individual animal weights and forage availability were monitored every 28 days. Grazing
was terminated earlier than expected due to hot dry conditions.
The Jesup tall fescue pasture was a 7 year old stand. Sixty kg N/ha was applied in
October and February. Lime, P and K were added according to soil test
recommendations. Forage availability was recorded on 28-day intervals.
Methane Collection
One week prior to collection, steers were dosed with Captec chromic oxide boluses, fitted
with dummy collection canisters and weighed. At the start of each collection week,
collection halters and canisters were changed. Daily esophageal samples, emission
samples and fecal samples were collected.
The winter annual forage system was collected in November, December, February, May
and June. The Jesup fescue system was sampled in March, April, May and June.
Results
Trial 1.
Mineral intakes of the control and Bovatec? mineral were not different and met the
target intake of 114 g/d. However, the mineral containing Rumensin? was consumed at a
lower level (86 g/d). There was no effect due to treatment on any of the variables
measured (Table 1). The expected impact of Rumensin? on methane emission could be
the result of the reduced mineral intake.
Forage availability averaged over 1200 kg/ha during the trial, but was lower than desired
in February (< 600 kg/ha). In spite of the forage shortage, animal performance was
excellent (> 1.2 kg/d).
84
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
The difference in stocking rate resulted in a dramatic difference in forage available,
approximately 1000 vs 2000 kg DM/ha for the high versus low stocking rate.
Overall there was no treatment differences for performance, methane emissions or DM
intake. However there was a trend for the high stocking rate group to consume forage
with a greater DM digestibility. This seems reasonable in that higher grazing pressure
should have kept the forage more vegetative. A sampling time effect was different for
DM intake with intake being reduced by 40% in May and June as compared to March and
April. This change in DM intake reduced daily methane emissions by about 20%. This
period effect was likely due to the effect of the endophyte exerting a negative effect on
animal DM intake during the hotter months.
Table 1. Summary of steer performance and methane emissions as affected by
lonophore.
Initial wt, kg
Final wt, kg
Wt gain, kg
ADG,kg/d
CH4,g/d
CHU, g/kg gain
DM intake, kg/d
DM digestibility, %
Control
257
482
225
1.23
152
122
11.4
77.8
Treatment
Rumensin
251
493
242
1.35
157
116
11.0
78.0
Bovatec
249
476
227
1.26
151
120
12.2
77.9
SE
8
17
13
.07
13
5
.4
.7
85
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Table 2. Summary of steer performance and methane emissions as affected by
grazing pressure
Initial wt, kg
Final wt, kg
Wt gain, kg
ADG, kg/d
ca,,g/d
CEi, g/kg gain
DM intake, kg/d
DM digestibility, %
Low
326
407
81
.77
127
165
6.1
70.4
Stocking Rate
High
324
405
81
.77
121
157
6.5
72
SE
7
2
7
.07
6
16
3
.5
86
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Glen Abney
State Representative
USDANRCS
605 Millersburg Road
Paris, KY 40361
Tel: (606) 987-1279
Fax:(606)987-0773
Mr. Charles Adams
Regional Conservationist
USDA NRCS Southeast Region
Atlanta, GA
Mr. Roger Banner
Range Extension Specialist
Department of Rangeland Resources
Natural Resources Building, Room 118
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-5230
Tel: (435) 797-2472
Fax: (435) 797-3796
E-mail: rogerb@ext. usu.edu
Mr. Greg Brann
State Representative
USDANRCS
U.S. Courthouse, Room 675
801 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: (615) 736-7241
Fax:(615)736-7764
E-mail: gbrann@tn.nrcs.usda.gov
Mr. Sid Brandy
Regional Grazing Lands Specialist
USDANRCS
665 Opelika Road
Auburn, AL 36830
Tel: (334) 887-4568
Fax:(334)887-4551
E-mail: sbrantly@aubum.al.nrcs.usda.usda.gov
Mr. Steve Carmichael
NRCS/EPA Liaison
EPA, Region IV
Water Management Division
Atlanta Federal Center
100 Alabama Street South West
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Tel: (404) 562-9374
Fax: (404) 562-9343
E-mail: caraiichaeLsteve@epamail.epa.gov
Dr. Terry Clement
Professor
College of Applied Life Sciences
P.O. Box 70504
University of Southwestern Louisiana
Lafayette, LA 70504
Tel: (318) 482-6645
Fax:(318)482-5395
E-mail: rjc3233@usl.edu
Dr. Rich Conant
Natural Resource Ecology Lab
NESBA217
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Tel: (970) 491-2104
Fax: (970) 491-1965
E-mail: conant@nrel.colostate.edu
Mr. Pete Deal
State Representative
USDANRCS
2614 North West 43rd Street
Gainesville, FL 32606-6611
Tel: (352) 338-9546
Fax: (352) 338-9578
E-mail: pdeal@i1.nrcs.usda.gov
Dr. Alan DeRamus
Professor
College of Applied Life Sciences
611Mckinley
Hamilton Hall Room 308
University of Southwestern Louisiana
P.O. Box 44650
Lafayette, LA 70504
Tel: (318) 482-6642
Fax:(318)482-5395
E-mail: had2299@usl.edu
87
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Dr. Henry Fribourg
Professor
Plant and Soil Science Department
2431 Center Drive
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Tel: (423) 974-8814
Fax: (423) 974-7997
E-mail: fribourgh@utk.edu
Ms. Kathryn Gaffiiey
Research Assistant
ICF Kaiser, Consulting Group
14724 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1100
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: (818) 325-3149
Fax:(818)325-3137
E-mail: kgafmey@icfkaiser.com
Mr. Dean Giampola
Research Technician
College of Applied Life Sciences
1300 Souvenir Gate
University of Southwestern Louisiana
P.O. Box 44650
Lafayette, LA 70504
Tel: (318) 482-6641
Fax:(318)482-5395
E-mail: ddg0824@usl.edu
Mr. Michael Gibbs
Senior Vice President
ICF Kaiser, Consulting Group
14724 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1100
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: (818) 325-3146
Fax:(818)325-3137
E-mail: mgibbs@icikaiser.com
Mr. Alan Graybeal
Virginia Forage Grasslands Council
365 Deercroft Drive
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Tel: (540) 953-3935
Dr. John Hall
Beef Cattle Specialist
Animal and Poultry Science Department
304 Litton-Reaves Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel: (540) 231-9153
Fax:(540)231-3010
E-mail: jbhall@vt.edu
Mr. Michael Hall
State Representative
USDANRCS
Federal Building
Room 135
Grassland Resources
Greenwood, SC 29646
Tel: (864) 388-9163
Fax: (864) 388-9168
Mr. Tom Hogan
Livestock Consultant
2420 Westport Circle
Agri-Plan Corp. and ICF
Marietta, GA 30064
Tel: (770) 427-7423
Fax: (770) 218-9366
E-mail: agriplan@compuserve.com
Mr. Greg Huber
NRCS, LA
USDANRCS
3737 Government Street
Alexandria, LA 71302-3727
Tel: (318) 473-7759
Fax:(318)473-7771
Mr. Walter Jackson
State Representative
USDANRCS
1321 Federal Building
100 West Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39269
Tel: (601) 965-4339
Fax:(601)965-4430
Mr. Larry Jeffries
President
Kentucky Forage and Grasslands Council
1915 Fallen Timber Road
Newcastle, KY 40050
Tel: (502) 845-2495
Dr. Don Johnson
Professor
Department of Animal Science
209 Animal Science Building
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Tel: (970) 491-7833
Fax: (970) 491-5326
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Mr. Glenn Johnson
State Representative
USDANRCS
Room 419, Smyth Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0403
Tel: (540) 231-2257
Fax: (540) 231-3075
E-mail: gdj@va50.va.nrcs.usda.gov
Dr. Kris Johnson
Associate Professor
Department of Animal Sciences
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-6320
Tel: (509) 335-4131
Fax: (509) 335-1082
E-mail: johnsoka@wsu.edu
Ms. Holli Kuykendall
State Representative
USDANRCS
Stephens Federal Building
Box 13
355 East Hancock Avenue, Stop 207
Athens, GA 30601-2773
Tel: (706) 546-2095
Fax: (706) 546-2275
E-mail: holli@ga.nrcs.usda.gov
Mr. Sam Linkenhoker
USDANRCS
Litton Reserves Building
Room 364
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060-0306
Tel: (540) 231-9168
Fax: (540) 231-3010
Mr. Wes McAllister
President
State Cattleman's Association
McAllister and Sons
Main Street
Mt Carmel, SC 29840-0230
Tel: (864) 391-2121
Dr. Mark McCann
Professor
Animal Dairy Science
Animal Dairy Science Complex
425 River Road
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-2771
Tel: (706) 542-2584
Fax:(706)542-9316
E-mail: mmccann@arches.uga.edu
Ms. Lori McVay
Technician
Animal Dairy Science
Animal Dairy Science Complex
426 River Road
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-2772
Mr. Arnold Norman
USDA Grazing Lands Technology Institute
501 West Felix
P.O. Box 6567
Fort Worth, TX 76115-3495
Tel: (817) 509-3214
Fax:(817)334-5454
E-mail: arnold-norman@glti.ftw.usda.gov
Dr. Ken Olson
Range Livestock Nutritionist
Animal, Dairy, & Veterinary Sciences
Agricultural Science Building, Room 228
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-4815
Tel: (435) 797-3788
Fax:(435)797-2118
E-mail: kcolson@cc.usu.edu
Mr.MarkOrlic
Environmental Protection Specialist
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6202J)
401 M Street South West
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tel: (202) 564-9043
Fax: (202) 5652077
E-mail: orlic.mark@epamail.epa.gov
89
-------
RLEP CONFERENCE
NOVEMBER 1998
Dr. Ed Rayburn
Extension Forage Agronomist
1078 Agricultural Science Building
West Virginia University
PO Box 6108
Morgantown, WV 26506-6108
Tel: (304) 293-5229
Mr. David Stipes
State Representative
USDANRCS
771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110
Lexington, KY 40503-54
Tel: (606) 224-7392
Fax: (606) 224-7410
Mr. Dennis Thompson
National Grazing Lands Ecologist
Biological Conservation Sciences
USDANRCS
South Agricultural Building, Room 6150
14th and Independence Avenue South West
Washington, D.C. 20250
Tel: (202) 720-5010
Fax: (202) 720-2646
E-mail: dwthompson@sies.wsc.ag.gov
Mr.TomWirth
Environmental Protection Specialist
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6202J)
401 M Street South West
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tel: (202) 564-9108
Fax: (202) 565-2077
E-mail: wirth.tom@epamail.epa.gov
90
------- |