UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Miscellaneous Publication No. 194 Washington, D.C. April 1934 A PASTURE HANDBOOK By A. T. SEMPLE, associate animal hushandmariy Bureau of Animal Industry; H. N. ViNALL, senior agronomist^ and C. R. ENLOW, associate agronomist^ Bureau of Plant Industry; and T. E. WOODWARD, senior dairy husbaudman^ Bureau of Dairy Industry With a foreword by HENRY A. WALLACE, Secretary of Agriculture CONTENTS Page Page Foreword 1 Utilization of pastures—Continued. Establishment, maintenance, and impiove- Vitamin content of pasturage 51 ment of pastures 2 Palatability a factor in pasture manage- Considerations in establishing pastures., 2 ment 52 Kinds of pastures 5 Grazing practices 53 Permanent pastures 6 Shade, shelter, and water 54 Climatic adaptations of pasture plants Rotation grazing 55 Grasses desirable in permanent pas- Hohenheim system of pasture manage- tures 7 ment 55 Legumes desirable in permanent pas- Use of permanent pastures in winter 58 tures 13 Precautions against diseases and parasites 59 Plant mixtures for different sections Stock-poisoning plants 59 of the United States 17 Plants sometimes injurious 63 Establishing permanent pastures 22 Prevention and treatment of bloating 65 Maintenance and improvement of Pastures for beef and dual-purpose cattle 65 pastures 24 Breeding cattle on pasture 67 Supplemental pastures 32 Creep feeding suckling calves 68 Crops for summer and early fall graz- Fattening cattle on grass alone 68 ing 35 Fattening cattle on grain and grass.. 60 Crops for late fall, winter, and early Pastures for dairy cattle 71 spring grazing ._. 38 Requirements of the dairy cow 71 Aftermath of meadows 41 Quantity of grass a cow will eat 71 Annual pastures 42 Supplementing permanent pastures.. 72 Calendar of seedings 42 Supplementary feeds 73 Vitality of seeds of pasture plants 42 Pastures for dairy calves and heifers. 74 Utilization of pastures 44 Feeding minerals to cows on pasture. 74 Pastures compared with harvested crops Pastures for horses and mules 74 in cost of feed 44 Pastures for sheep and goats 75 Pastures compared with harvested crops Avoiding stomach worms 76 in yield of nutrients 45 Rotating pastures to control parasites 77 Quality of meat from livestock fattened on Schedule of temporary pastures 77 grass 46 Rotations with permanent and tem- Influence of pastures on health of live- porary pastures 78 stock 46 Fencing sheep pastures 79 Feed value of immature pasturage 47 Pasture for goats 79 Preserving immature pasturage 48 Pastures for swine 80 Changes in feed value as plants mature.. 48 Pastures for poultry 83 Mineral content of pasturage 49 Index 87 Proteins and other nutrients 51 FOREWORD Through a tragic sequence of drift and mismanagement, our econ- omy has come into a state which makes it necessary to revise the production schedule of agriculture. Until we can again sell our sur- plus crops in foreign markets, there is no reason for farmers to produce to the limit of the land's capacity. 43902°—34 1 ¿ MISC. PUBLICATION 194, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE ^ Today more than 2 million farmers are doing what they instinctively dislike—they are reducing their total output by taking out of surplus crops small acreages on their individual farms. As time goes on, public agencies can help adjust supply to demand by returning to forest, recreation, and wild-life uses much land that ought never to have been farmed. Another and fairly permanent way to promote a good balance in production is for farmers to change to less intensive methods of using the land. During the war we plowed up about 40,000,000 acres of grassland. Now we ought to put much of it back. Fortunately, farmers are already moving in that direction. Wider use of pastures and meadows in our farming system would reduce the production of cash crops, conserve the fertility of the soil, diminish soil erosion, and, for agriculture as a whole, should produce increased net returns. This shift would not, as so many suppose, increase the production of meat and milk, because pasture, as we know it in America, does not produce as much animal nutrients per acre as crops. About 70 per- cent of our present cultivated acreage produces feed for animals. Each farmer ought to examine for himself the possibility of sowing more land to pasture and roughage. Some will find that this would cut their costs and result in increased net returns per farm. Others less favorably situated may find that they w^ould get a lower income per farm. I suspect that we are going to revise some of our thinking about pastures. We usually find them on the poorest parts of our farms. They are as a rule, compared with those of other countries, of low productivity. We must make them more productive eventually to justify our going back to a grassland economy. The right grasses, the right legumes, proper mixtures, inoculation, fertilization, careful use—all these, and more, are necessary to get and maintain good pastures. Farmers who recognize the logic of increasing pasture acreage at the expense of cultivated crops, and who have an opportunity to do that on their own farms, will find helpful information in this handbook. Additional help may be obtained from the State agri- culture experiment stations and the State extension services. HENRY A. WALLACE, Secretary of Agriculture. ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND IMPROVEMENT OF PASTURES By H. N. ViNALL, senior agronomist, and C. R. ENLOW, associate agronomist^ Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHING PASTURES In planning for pastures on the average farm a ninnber of things should be taken into consideration. The principal object, of course, is to provide feed for livestock, and most of the following discussion is centered on this phase of the subject. However, there are other advantages to be derived from pastures, some of which are of special importance under present agricultural conditions, as indicated in the A PASTUEE HANDBOOK 3 foreword. The importance of pastures in livestock production, including their effect in reducing the cost of feed and promoting the health of the animals, is discussed elsewhere in this publication (see pp. 44-47). It is desirable to point out here briefly some of the favorable reactions on the soil which accrue from pastures, all of which have a direct bearing on the question of what and how much land should be seeded down to grass. Recent activities of the United States Department of Agriculture and the State experiment stations have provided some very significant data in regard to the losses of soil on land in cultivated crops as compared with that on similar land protected by a cover of grasses or legumes. It has been found that land planted to cotton on a 7 percent slope in Oklahoma or Texas (fig. 1) loses annually from 14 to 17 tons per acre of the best topsoil. Where this land is in grass, FiGUKE 1.—An example of good land practically ruined by the long continuation of improper methods of management. Such conditions can be prevented by proper cultural methods or by keeping the land in pasture and avoiding overgrazing. the annual loss is only 0.04 to 0.5 ton per acre. The run-off (rainfall loss) on the cotton land is 13 percent, ¡while on land in Bermuda grass it is less than 2 percent. The decaying grass roots keep the soil porous and create a favorable condition for the absorption of moisture. Land planted to corn on an 8- to 10-percent slope in Missouri and* North Carolina loses 15 to 17 tons per acre of soil annually, while that growing bluegrass or lespedeza loses only 0.8 to 0.9 ton per acre. Similar results were obtained in a comparison of the native- grass sod and clean-tilled kafir in central Kansas. The loss from the land growing kafir was 21 tons per a;cre of soil and 12 percent of the rainfall. On natural-grass sod the loss was 5 pounds per acre of soil and 0.5 percent of the rainfall (fig. 2). These results, obtained by actual measurements in different sec- tions of the United States, indicate the usefulness of grasslands not only in preserving soil resources but also in protecting storage reser- voirs from destruction through the gradual accumulation of silt. 4 MISC. PUBLICATION 194, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Many such reservoirs have been constructed for irrigation purposes and power development. The capacity and consequent usefulness of these expensive public utilities is lessened each year by the move- ment of soil from the surrounding watershed. Any increase in pas- ture acreage will tend to extend the period during which these reser- voirs will fulfill their purpose. In addition to losing less soU by erosion than cultivated land, well- managed grazing land loses less fertility because less is taken from the soil by pasture plants and part of that which is removed is restored directly through the excrement of grazing animals. Theoretically, the soil should lose only the fertilizing constituents contained in the carcass or in the milk that has been produced. However, if the PiauBE 2.—Steep hillsides in soutliwestem Vifginia, showing perfect control of soil erosion by pasture. Where phosphate has Seen applied, clover is abundant. grazing is not well managed the losses of fertility on grazed land may be much greater than is at first apparent. Observations show that on good pasture cattle spend only about one third of their time grazing. Therefore, if most of the remainder of the time is spent in barns, in lots, at watering places, in lanes, under trees along streams, or in brush or wooded places, as much as two thirds of the manure may never be returned to the pasture.