DOCSLIB.ORG

Meadow Foxtail H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Meadow Foxtail H STATION BULLETIN433 Ocroaea1945 Revised January 1947 Meadow Foxtail H. A. SCHOTH \1 'A '1 Oregon State System of Higher Education, Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State College, Corvallis Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperating TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Description 3 Climatic Adaptations 6 SoilRequirements 6 Seedbed Preparation 8 Date of Seeding 8 Rate of Seeding 9 Method of Seeding 9 Utilization 10 Pasture 11 Hay 12 Silage 15 Seed 15 Insects, Diseases, Rodents, and Birds 18 Improvement 19 Special Features 19 Illustration on cover Figure 1.Good type plant of meadow foxtail in bloom. Meadow Foxtail By H. A. SCHOTH* foxtail, Alopecurus pratensis L., is a native grass of MEADOWthe temperate parts of Europe and Asia.It has been cultivated since about 1750 and is grown in Europe to a considerable extent as a hay grass for rather wet lands of high fertility. While no authentic information is available as to when it was introduced into America, the probabilities are that introduction was in the latter part of the nineteenth century in northeastern United State and eastern Canada. During recent years it has assumed increasing importance in the Pacific Northwest and in this region its use for forage and seed production is increasing as rapidly as seed supplies become available. It appears to have possibilities as a satisfactory forage grass in sev- eral sections of the northern half of the United States. Meadow foxtail should not be confused with several minor- value or weedy grasses because of its common name.The word "foxtail" in particular is considered by many persons to be an in- dicator that it may be a grass of little value or possibly a pest.In reality, it differs widely from other grasses quite commonly referred to as foxtail in that its agronomic and utility values are high and there is no evidence whatever of weedy characteristics. DESCRIPTION Meadow foxtail is a long-lived perennial grass.The under- ground branches are short, and individual plants for the most part are in loose tufts.Heavy stands produce medium dense sods as they age. Rootstocks are comparatively few and short.The flowering stems are erect and usually about three feet high. The head is much like that of timothy; in fact, it so nearly resembles that of timothy that many times it is mistaken for it.Note Figures 2, 3, and 4. Meadow foxtail starts growth very early in the spring and is about the earliest of all cultivated grasses.Under some conditions, particularly where winter and early spring climatic conditions are mild, it produces a succession of flowering stems from late winter to Senior Agronomist, Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperating with Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. Forage Crop work at Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station is conducted in coopera- tion with the Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agricultural Engineering, United States Department of Agriculture, and credit is hereby acknowledged as jointly due to the above-named division, bureau, and department and the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. 3 -- I Figtre 2.A: Timothy.B: Meadow foxtail heads in bloom. 4 MEADOW FOXTAIL 5 early summer.Where winter and early spring temperatures are relatively low, production of flowering stems is usually within a comparatively short period. The leaves are clark green, medium broad, smooth, and nu- me rous. The seeds are usually light in color with occasional plants pro- ducing brown or black ones.The caryopsis or kernel is enclosed in a light, fluffy, membranous covering. t Figure 3.A: Timothy.B. Meadow foxtail heads after blooming. 6 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 433. CLIMATIC ADAPTATIONS Meadow foxtail does best where the climate is moist and cool; however, it is not sensitive to heat or cold, as it grows successfully where summer temperatures occasionally reach 1000 F. and where winter temperatures may drop below zero for relatively long periods. Where average mean minimum temperatures are 400500 F., meadow foxtail makes rather continuous winter growth.Growth made dur- ing periods of relatively high mean maximum temperatures depends somewhat on soil moisture but usually during such periods growth is checked. Meadow foxtail is adapted to the moist cool climates of the southern part of Canada but is not suited to southern climates.It will withstand cold weather or frost in early spring and summer, thus being adapted to high elevations where frost may occur any month of the year. SOIL REQUIREMENTS Meadow foxtail makes its best growth on fertile, moist, or swampy soils.It is especially suited to swampy or overflow lands of ii I Figure 4.Mature meadow foxtail heads.Note variations in shape, color, and density. MEADOW FOXTAIL 7 a mucky or peaty nature.It makes very good growth on barns and clays of good fertility when well supplied with moisture.It is being used extensively on diked lands near the Pacific Ocean in the Pacific Northwest.Occasionally some of these lands overflow with brackish water.This does little or no injury to established stands of meadow foxtail.In the northern intermountain country of western United States good stands have existed for many years on low wet lands that are quite alkaline with a pH up to 8.5.Growth on such lands de- creases rapidly as the strength of alkali increases over a pH of 8.5, with the limit being near pH 9.0.Figure 5 shows meadow foxtail making satisfactory growth to the edge of a heavy alkali spot in southeastern Oregon. It stands long periods of overflow especially during the dormant period and when the water is cool.Medium long periods of over- flow during the winter seem to be beneficial because practically always there is increased growth afterwards. Although naturally a wet or moist land grass, its use is increasing on high, well drained soils of medium high fertility and well supplied with moisture for winter, spring, and early summer growth. It responds to irrigation in cool climates and is adapted to irri- gated pastures seeded alone or in combination with other grasses and legumes. Figure 5.Meadow foxtail growing at edge of heavy alkali soil in southeastern Oregon. 8 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 433 SEEDBED PREPARATION Most satisfactory stands of meadow foxtail have been obtained when seedings were made on well cultivated land or after burning over of newly cutover or slashed timberland or brushland. The seedbed on cultivated land should be such that the soil is fine, firm, and reasonably free from weeds. The time of the prepara- tion of such a seedbed depends on the character of the soil, especially with reference to its moisture condition where the land is wet or swampy.Late spring, summer, and early fall preparation is usually most feasible.This will make possible early summer or early, fall seeding. Most land that has been well burned over is reasonably free from weeds and the natural ashy seedbed is often as good as or better than can be prepared by machinery. This type of seedbed is quite common in the Pacific Northwest. Rough lands that can be semicultivated and have suitable mois- ture and soil conditions for this grass are being seeded with success. Any cultural operations that stir the surface and form a partial seed- bed are of much help in securing stands of grass.Disk or spring- tooth harrows are usually the most suitable implements for this pur- pose.Favorable natural conditions determine to a considerable de- gree the success of this method. Uncultivated or unburned seedbeds are the most unsatisfactory for meadow foxtail.Stands are usually difficult to obtain on such lands and initial growth is slow because of difficulty in developing good seedling root growth. Weed and other plant competition and competition for moisture are also limiting factors.Occasionally par- tial success in securing stands may be had by "spot" seeding on lands where small areas have been cultivated or logs or brush piles burned. When satisfactory stands develop on such spots and seed is allowed to mature, natural spreading often occurs. DATE OF SEEDING Both fall and spring seedings are successful in the Pacific Northwest, but in the northern and northeastern states early spring seedings are best.Where winter temperatures do not cause heaving and winter overflows do not occur until the seedlings are well estab- lished, fall seeding on reasonably well prepared seedbeds is satis- factory. On burned-over lands fall seedings usually result in better stands than spring seedings, as the land is in better condition, soil moisture is more plentiful, nO further seedbed preparation is neces- sary and the full value of the plant food in the ashes is realized. MEADOW FOXTAIL 9 In general, in most of the sections in which meadow foxtail is adapted spring seeding is most satisfactory on cultivated lands.On these lands a longer seeding season is usually possible, good seedbeds can be more easily prepared, and possibilities of getting stands estab- lished are in less danger of damage from overflow on low lands. Where these conditions exist, seedings may be made from February to June, depending on climatic and soil moisture conditions. Meadow foxtail seed germinates rapidly.The seedlings are small and quite weak.As a consequence, fall seedings in particular should be made as early as possible so that the young plants can make maximum development previous to any adverse climatic conditions and be in best condition to resist washing or drowning out when seedlings are on low and wet or overflow land.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture
    i Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture A report for WWF Scotland from the Organic Policy, Business and Research Consultancy Authors: Nic Lampkin, Laurence Smith, Katrin Padel NOVEMBER 2019 ii Contents Executive summary............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Portfolio of mitigation measures ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Measuring greenhouse gas emissions and global warming potential .............................................. 3 2.3 Emission reduction measures to be analysed ................................................................................... 5 A. Improved nitrogen fertiliser use ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 M1 (E1, FBC): Improving synthetic N utilisation ........................................................................ 5 2.3.2 M2 (E6): Controlled release fertilisers (CRF) ............................................................................. 6 2.3.3 M3 (E10): Precision applications to crops ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Weeds of Coastal Plains and Heathy Forests Bioregions of Victoria Heading in Band
    Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band b Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Heading in band Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria Contents Introduction 1 Purpose of the list 1 Limitations 1 Relationship to statutory lists 1 Composition of the list and assessment of taxa 2 Categories of environmental weeds 5 Arrangement of the list 5 Column 1: Botanical Name 5 Column 2: Common Name 5 Column 3: Ranking Score 5 Column 4: Listed in the CALP Act 1994 5 Column 5: Victorian Alert Weed 5 Column 6: National Alert Weed 5 Column 7: Weed of National Significance 5 Statistics 5 Further information & feedback 6 Your involvement 6 Links 6 Weed identification texts 6 Citation 6 Acknowledgments 6 Bibliography 6 Census reference 6 Appendix 1 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed alphabetically within risk categories. 7 Appendix 2 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by botanical name. 19 Appendix 3 Environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria listed by common name. 31 Advisory list of environmental weeds of coastal plains and heathy forests bioregions of Victoria i Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, March2008 © The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Performance for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Lowland Permanent Pasture: Benchmarking Potential of Forage-Based Systems
    agronomy Article Livestock Performance for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Lowland Permanent Pasture: Benchmarking Potential of Forage-Based Systems Robert J. Orr 1, Bruce A. Griffith 1, M. Jordana Rivero 1,* and Michael R. F. Lee 1,2 1 Rothamsted Research, Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK; [email protected] (R.J.O.); bruce.griffi[email protected] (B.A.G.); [email protected] (M.R.F.L.) 2 University of Bristol, Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-1837-512302 Received: 29 January 2019; Accepted: 18 February 2019; Published: 21 February 2019 Abstract: Here we describe the livestock performance and baseline productivity over a two-year period, following the establishment of the infrastructure on the North Wyke Farm Platform across its three farmlets (small farms). Lowland permanent pastures were continuously stocked with yearling beef cattle and ewes and their twin lambs for two years in three farmlets. The cattle came into the farmlets as suckler-reared weaned calves at 195 32.6 days old weighing 309 45.0 kg, were ± ± housed indoors for 170 days then turned out to graze weighing 391 54.2 kg for 177 days. Therefore, ± it is suggested for predominantly grass-based systems with minimal supplementary feeding that target live weight gains should be 0.5 kg/day in the first winter, 0.9 kg/day for summer grazing and 0.8 kg/day for cattle housed and finished on silage in a second winter. The sheep performance suggested that lambs weaned at 100 days and weighing 35 kg should finish at 200 days weighing 44 to 45 kg live weight with a killing out percentage of 44%.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Friendly Farming: Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Executive Summary
    Future Friendly Farming Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Ryan Stockwell and Eliav Bitan August 2011 Future Friendly Farming Seven Agricultural Practices to Sustain People and the Environment Ryan Stockwell and Eliav Bitan August 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the contributions of many people in the development of this report. Julie Sibbing and Aviva Glaser provided guidance and editing. Bill McGuire provided content and consulted on the development of the report. Mekell Mikell provided insightful edits. A number of reviewers provided helpful feedback on various drafts of this report. We appreciate the time everyone took to talk with us about their practices or projects. Finally we would like to thank the Packard Foundation for their support of this project. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................3 CHART: Multiple benefits of agriculture and land management practices ......................................................................4 1. Cover Crops ...........................................................................................5 CASE STUDY: Minnesota Corn and Soybean Farmer Grows Profits, as well as Water Quality and Climate Benefits .........................................................................6 CASE STUDY: Cover Cropping North Dakota Grain and Cattle Farmers Grow Profits, as
    [Show full text]
  • Dairy Farmer Profitability Using Intensive Rotational Stocking
    Dairy Farmer Profitability Using United States Department of Intensive Rotational Agriculture Natural Stocking Resources Conservation Service Better grazing management Grazing Lands for pastures Technology Institute In 1992, Pennsylvania State University researchers conducted a study of the profitability of dairy farms practicing intensive rotational grazing. The 52 cooperating farmers were selected completely at random, with a stratified random sample statistical design, from among nearly 15 percent, or 350 farmers, practic- ing intensive grazing in a five-county region of northeastern Pennsylvania—Bradford, Tioga, Susquehanna, Wyoming, and Wayne Counties. The results from this study reflect typical use of intensive rotational stocking. The randomness of the sample selection ensures that the results reported here are representative, and can most likely be achieved by the typical farmer. September 1996 For additional copies of this publication, contact— Grazing Lands Technology Institute USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. 6567 Fort Worth, Texas 76115 Dairy Farmer Profitability Using Intensive Rotational Stocking Figure 1. In a study of dairy farmer practices in a five-county area of northeastern Pennsylvania, farmers using pasture cut feed costs and increased profit per cow. One of the first representative studies of dairy Why typical dairy farmers adopt farmers practicing intensive rotational stocking was intensive rotational stocking conducted by Pennsylvania State University. The grazing method is defined as rotation of grazing cows In this 1992 study, the main reasons cited by dairy among several small pasture subunits called pad- farmers (fig. 2) for adopting intensive rotational docks versus stocking for continuously grazing one stocking were reduced costs and labor, they had large pasture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mineral Composition of Wild-Type and Cultivated Varieties of Pasture Species
    agronomy Article The Mineral Composition of Wild-Type and Cultivated Varieties of Pasture Species Tegan Darch 1,* , Steve P. McGrath 2 , Michael R. F. Lee 1,3 , Deborah A. Beaumont 1 , Martin S. A. Blackwell 1, Claire A. Horrocks 1, Jessica Evans 4 and Jonathan Storkey 2 1 Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK; [email protected] (M.R.F.L.); [email protected] (D.A.B.); [email protected] (M.S.A.B.); [email protected] (C.A.H.) 2 Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK; [email protected] (S.P.M.); [email protected] (J.S.) 3 Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK 4 Computational and Analytical Sciences, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 21 August 2020; Accepted: 22 September 2020; Published: 24 September 2020 Abstract: Mineral deficiencies in livestock are often prevented by using prophylactic supplementation, which is imprecise and inefficient. Instead, the trend for increased species diversity in swards is an opportunity to improve mineral concentrations in the basal diet. Currently, there are limited data on the mineral concentrations of different species and botanical groups, particularly for I and Se, which are among the most deficient minerals in livestock diets. We grew 21 pasture species, including some cultivar/wild type comparisons, of grasses, legumes and forbs, as single species stands in a pot study in a standard growth medium.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Meadows and Enclosed Pasture
    Meadows and enclosed pasture 7 Definition and location of meadows and enclosed pasture ................................ 7:3 7.1 Definition of meadows and enclosed pasture ....................................... 7:3 7.2 Location and extent of meadows and enclosed pasture .............................. 7:4 Habitats and species of meadows and enclosed pasture in the uplands ..................... 7:5 7.3 Why meadows and enclosed pasture are important ................................. 7:5 7.4 Habitats and species of meadows and enclosed pasture, their nature conservation status and distribution ................................................................... 7:5 7.4.1 Vascular plants ......................................................... 7:5 7.4.2 Bryophytes ............................................................. 7:6 7.4.3 Plant communities ...................................................... 7:6 7.4.4 Birds .................................................................. 7:8 7.4.5 Invertebrates ........................................................... 7:9 7.4.6 Mammals ............................................................. 7:10 7.4.7 Amphibians and reptiles ................................................ 7:10 7.5 Habitat and management requirements of meadow and enclosed pasture species ...... 7:10 Management of upland meadows and enclosed pasture .................................. 7:11 7.6 Managing upland meadows and enclosed pasture ................................. 7:11 7.6.1 Establishing management objectives
    [Show full text]
  • Regenerative Consumer TOOLKIT Find Food, Fiber and Other Goods Produced in a Way That Slows Down Climate Change
    Regenerative Consumer TOOLKIT Find food, fiber and other goods produced in a way that slows down climate change Hear the buzz about regenerative farming, but not sure what that means for YOU? Want to find carbon-farmed goods? Want to #changeclimatechange in a way that feels empowering and tastes amazing? Then read on. Photo: Shawn Linehan In a world so filled with problems that it’s easy to feel overwhelmed, here’s a bit of good news: Farmers and scientists around the world are confirming time and time again that a major climate solution lies in something as simple as soil: healthy soil can absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere and store it safely for long periods of time. The practices for increasing this capacity in the soil are low-tech, low-cost, and accessible, and bring with them numerous other environmental benefits. We call them regenerative farming practices. This is farming that can help to slow down or potentially even reverse global warming. So there it is. Farming doesn’t have to be destructive, it can be restorative. The way you meet your daily material needs doesn’t have to be destructive, it can be restorative. You don’t need to be a farmer to participate in this regenerative revolution. If you eat food, wear clothes, or use any products that can be traced back to farm- land somewhere, you are already a part of the equation that can make this work. You already have a say. And it’s quite simple: By supporting regenerative farms and companies that source from them, YOU can help to slow down or potentially even reverse global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus Pratensis L
    meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis L. Synonyms: Alopecurus alpinus Smith var. songaricus Schrenk ex Fischer & Meyen, A. laxiflorus Ovcz., A. songaricus (Schrenk ex Fischer & Meyen) V. Petrov. Other common names: field meadow-foxtail Family: Poaceae Invasiveness Rank: 52 The invasiveness rank is calculated based on a species’ ecological impacts, biological attributes, distribution, and response to control measures. The ranks are scaled from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a plant that poses no threat to native ecosystems and 100 representing a plant that poses a major threat to native ecosystems. Description Meadow foxtail is a tufted, perennial grass with short rhizomes. Stems are erect and 30 to 100 cm tall with three to five nodes. Leaf sheaths are open, smooth, and slightly inflated. Ligules on the lower leaves are entire and 1.5 to 2 mm long, while ligules on the upper leaves are finely jagged and up to 6 mm long. Leaf blades are 3 to 10 mm wide, 2.5 to 30 cm long, and scabrous on both surfaces. Panicles are gray-green, cylindrical, Panicle of Alopecurus pratensis L. dense, 3 to 10 cm long, and 6 to 10 mm wide. Spikelets are 4 to 6 mm long. Glumes are pubescent on the nerves Similar species: Meadow foxtail is similar to the non- and keels, and each have three distinctive veins. Lemmas are awned from near the base. Awns are bent native timothy (Phleum pratense). Timothy can be distinguished from meadow foxtail by the presence of and 2 to 5 mm longer than lemmas (Hultén 1968, Cody awns on the glumes rather than on the lower portion of 1996, DiTomaso and Healy 2007, eFloras 2008, the lemma (Cody 1996, eFloras 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Socio-Demographic and Economic Characteristics, Crop-Livestock Production Systems and Issues for Rearing Improvement: a Review
    Available online at http://www.ifgdg.org Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 12(1): 519-541, February 2018 ISSN 1997-342X (Online), ISSN 1991-8631 (Print) Review Paper http://ajol.info/index.php/ijbcs http://indexmedicus.afro.who.int Socio-demographic and economic characteristics, crop-livestock production systems and issues for rearing improvement: A review Daniel Bignon Maxime HOUNDJO1, Sébastien ADJOLOHOUN1*, Basile GBENOU1, Aliou SAIDOU2, Léonard AHOTON2, Marcel HOUINATO1, Soumanou SEIBOU TOLEBA1 and Brice Augustin SINSIN3 1Département de Production Animale, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 03 BP 2819 Jéricho, Cotonou, Benin. 2Département de Production Végétale, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 03 BP 2819 Jéricho, Cotonou, Benin. 3Département de l’Aménagement et Gestion des Ressources Naturelles, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Abomey-Calavi, 03 BP 2819 Jéricho, Cotonou, Benin. *Corresponding author; E-mail : [email protected]; Tél: (+229) 97 89 88 51 ABSTRACT This paper reviews some characteristics of crop-livestock production systems in Benin with a special focus on the issues for enhance pasture production and nutritive value which in turn will increase animal productivity. Benin is located in the Gulf of Guinea of the Atlantic Ocean in West Africa and covers 114,763 km2. The population estimated in 2017 is 10,900,000 inhabitants with an annual population growth rate of 3.5%. The country is primarily an agro-based economy, characterized by subsistence agricultural production that employs more than 70%. The climate ranges from the bimodal rainfall equatorial type in the south to the tropical unimodal monsoon type in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Sheep & Goats to Improve Your Beef Pasture
    Advantages and Challenges of Multi-species Grazing Randy Saner Extension Educator Multi-species grazing • To control weeds and brush, while yielding Cattle, sheep, and goats have complementary foraging more pounds of gain per behavior. acre. Sheep/goats and cattle and • To increase carrying horses generally do not share capacity of pasture. the same parasites. • To control parasites. • To diversify income. • To reduce predation. Image: Missouri NRCS Decrease Risk • Disease • Break Each Others Parasite Cycles • Very Few Diseases that Cross Species • Drought • Marketing • More Opportunities to Sell Image: Terrell Ranch Decrease Overheads Image: Double M Farms • Labor • Fence • Fall and Winter Cattle Work • Land • Add one Ewe or Doe per cow Image: Double M Farms Image: Double M Farms Harvesting Multiple Layers Off the Same Land • Decrease Marketing Risk • Increase Diversity • Spread Out Labor and Other Overheads Image: Terrell Ranch Adding Sheep or Goats to a Cattle Operation • Profitable • H2A Program • Bringing in a trained • Labor Management work force • Wool • Guard Dogs • Reduce predator loss • Family Friendly • Cold May Rains can be • Positive Range Impact a problem • Enterprise Stacking • Lamb with wool on if in pasture • Meet New People • Prejudice Against • Fencing Sheep • Steep Learning Curve Double M Farms (Mixed Livestock Operation) • 40 (1200lbs.) cows 230 (130lbs.) ewes and 40 (130 lbs.) does on 400 acres 7.5 ewes = 1 AU 7.5 does = 1 AU and 1 cow = 1.3 AU • Pasture based rotationally grazed pastures at two locations 3 miles apart • 16 paddocks (240 acre) • 13 paddocks (160 acres) • 48,000 lbs. of cattle, 29,900 lbs. of sheep and 5,200 lbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance (PRF) 2021 Crop Year
    Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance (PRF) 2021 crop year The Pasture, Rangeland, Forage Insurance Program (PRF) is designed to help protect a farm operation from the risks of forage loss due to the lack of precipitation*. This insurance can mitigate increased costs for feed, destocking, depopulating or other actions that result due to losses of forage produced for grazing or harvested for hay. The coverage is based on precipitation expected during specific intervals, as designated by the producer. The PRF program utilizes a rainfall index to determine precipitation for coverage purposes, and does not measure production or loss of products themselves. * PRF is NOT designed to insure against ongoing or severe drought. How Rainfall is Measured and Index Interval RMA uses the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Prediction Center (NOAA CPC) data to track rainfall levels in a grid system, with each grid approximately 17 x 17 square miles. Acres to be insured are located in one or more grids. Rainfall in the insurance year is compared to the 50-year precipitation average for each grid and when the rainfall during the two-month insured period falls below the 50-year average for that grid, the producer may receive an indemnity payment. The index interval represents a two-month period to be insured. The producer selects a minimum of two 2-month intervals to be insured. Coverage and Claims Producers select the coverage level, index intervals and productivity factor. The index interval represents a two-month period to be insured. A period selected should be one when precipitation is important to the producer’s forage production.
    [Show full text]