Bale grazing vs Fertilize for Pasture Improvement

Help Support CattleToday:

40 some years ago there was a fella used to buy about 75 #3 and worse calves and light yearlings every fall, His neighbours said he would roll out a bale and let them eat for 3 hours. Then he raked and baled what was left. When he had a bale made after several days he would let it be known he had a spare bale of "horse hay" to sell. Not sure if and how many repeat customers he got.
The calves he bought were eventually resold a grade or two less than when he bought them.
 
Also would it be worth while to try and overseed some red clover over this ground in February? If so would you overseed before or after the hay is fed out?
Red clover will increase your nitrogen, but with low pH, that nitrogen won't stick around long!
Yes broadcast clover before unrolling bales. This will help with seed germination. You are going to need a lot of lime to get your pH up. Never spread more than 3 ton per acre I've been told at one time. It's going to take you 8-10 tons of lime per acre to get closer to 7pH!

Don't waste your money on fertilizer until your pH is above 6.0

Also find your cation exchange rate for your field. It will tell you the holding capacity of fertilizer and thus never exceed this rate or you are just throwing your money away!!!
 
Red clover will increase your nitrogen, but with low pH, that nitrogen won't stick around long!
Yes broadcast clover before unrolling bales. This will help with seed germination. You are going to need a lot of lime to get your pH up. Never spread more than 3 ton per acre I've been told at one time. It's going to take you 8-10 tons of lime per acre to get closer to 7pH!

Don't waste your money on fertilizer until your pH is above 6.0

Also find your cation exchange rate for your field. It will tell you the holding capacity of fertilizer and thus never exceed this rate or you are just throwing your money away!!!
Very good advice. I used to think that some poor soils just needed more fertilize. Found out there is a limit to what a poor soil can produce compared to a good soil.
 
I built this unroller. I insert the spikes manually. The sides move in/out hydraulically to accomodate different size bales, and I'm able to "clamp" a bale in it then to keep it from rolling until I want it to (comes in handy particularly with bales that want to fall apart too quickly, or like when unrolling in the corral and tight areas). I take a 2nd bale along to the pasture on the 3 pt. carrier. LOVE it! Unroll about 1000 bales a year with it. No "moving parts" to wear out, versatile, can unroll easily into ditches and other uneven ground areas that need "repair", can get into corrals etc., easily (like to entice the herd in). Takes up minimal shed space when not in use..., entirely self-propelled and self-contained unit, easy to drop off and use the tractor for other things with the skid-loader QT system.

I would disagree with the comment that cattle don't "add" anything to the decomposing bale. They exponentially add biological components that otherwise you won't have without running it through them. It's not just about the "fertility" (NPK analysis) of the hay or manure... that's just the "chemical component". The microbes ARE the much bigger part of any fertility program. THEY are what builds the aggregation, and water holding and infiltration capacity, and nitrogen capture and THEY feed the plants. BUT... the micro-biology also needs to be fed... organic matter. The hay residue provides that organic matter, and it provides a "house/habitat" for the micro-biological elements to function within.

Unroll the hay, if you can at all, IMO. I know you don't currently have an unroller... GET ONE! I don't care what kind... they all "work"... some just work better in some situations and for certain individuals than others... but they all accomplish the same goal... spreading out the bale across the pasture instead of dumping it all in one spot! Spread the wealth across as many acres as you can. In areas where it may need some extra help, unroll more often, NOT just "deeper", which is what happens with bale grazing. Bale grazing generally results in the application of "too much of a good thing", overwhelming the capabilities of the soil biology to keep up and keep functioning optimally, which is why it requires "time" to recover back to full production levels ("dead spots" in the field for a year or two... they're not "dead"... the soil is actually very alive biologically, but the conditions prohibit the growth of much forages until it can "stabilize" it to where the forages "can thrive in it" again). You could apply the same amount of hay residue over the same amount of area by applying it in multiple different "applications", but the net result cumulatively will be better with bale unrolling, because you allowed the biology of the soil "R&R time" in between those applications, and you never "overwhelmed" it.

Think of it this way... you need water to survive, and with the right amount of water, you can THRIVE. But you need some water everyday, at a specific proper amount every day. But if I have to bring you your water every day, and I decide to cut corners to make it easier FOR ME, and I just bring a whole years worth of water to you, and I dump it on you, maybe even put a ring around you so that it can't "escape" by just running off... you're going to DROWN! Same way with the microbes. They can only handle "so much". Smaller doses, with "R&R" allowed between them, will help them to thrive, rather than "drowning them" with "too much of a good thing". It really is that simple.

View attachment 52580View attachment 52581View attachment 52582
You explained this very well. 100% fact and knowledge here!
 
I tell people they need to rethink their definition of "waste".
Our biggest concern from years past had been to have enough hay and not spend anymore then we have to with tight margins in this business. What we learn throughout the years is that improving soil can take decades and our need to improve our soil is usually caused by our own shortcomings from the years past and how we handled them.
Overgrazing during growing season, not rotating pastures or hay ground, and allowing animals to tear up ground during winter around my part can really set you backwards, in less than 5 years, if repeated. We need to let our fields rest. Best way I've found is to have less cattle or put them on concrete barn lot during winter and early spring. May need to feed more bales that year, but the increased forage offsets the hay cost.
Our biggest challenge is that every year is different and the weather has to make us react in the right way and avoid the pitfalls of the wrong ways!
Good luck and Happy New Year.
 
Very good advice. I used to think that some poor soils just needed more fertilize. Found out there is a limit to what a poor soil can produce compared to a good soil.
being that nitrogen from clover is in an organic form and I assume more stable (could be very wrong), wouldn't it be more apt to hang around when compared to the type from a bag?

How long do those clover N nodules remain a nodule after the plant has died. I guess that's my question.
 
I have read that N is only around for 45 days. If not used it's wasted.

Don't remember where, so it may be a lie!
 
I have read that N is only around for 45 days. If not used it's wasted.

Don't remember where, so it may be a lie!
that apply yo the applied chemical type ya reckon? I've heard the same thing from UT extension. It was concerning hay field fertilization if I'm remembering right.

I know people do legume mix covers on crop fields with the goal of supplying a large portion of N for the following seasons crop.
 
It may have been UT..... I spoke with them years ago about planting hardwoods on 50ac or so. They pretty much talked me out of EVER going back to them for advice. I was told I'm not a large enough operation for them to come out to waste time on. I don't keep 30 or more cows on the property year round and I don't hay at least 100 acres. He said they dont work with small operations and wished me luck!
 
being that nitrogen from clover is in an organic form and I assume more stable (could be very wrong), wouldn't it be more apt to hang around when compared to the type from a bag?

How long do those clover N nodules remain a nodule after the plant has died. I guess that's my question.
Like everything, the answer is, "It depends"! :rolleyes:

Biology, primarily bacteria, feeds on the various forms of N, and then THEY feed it to the plants. It's also specific bacteria, living in a symbiotic relationship with specific plants (why you innoculate your legume with a specific bacteria, so that it WILL nodulate) that create the nodules on the plant that they are associated with. Bacteria "consume" those nodules, and bacteria "feed" it to the N requiring plants.

Yes, legume nodulated N is more "stable" in that it is in an organic form, and less prone to "leaching"... it requires bacteria to convert it into inorganic N, which is then prone to solubilizing in water, and so becomes vulnerable to "leaching" as well AT THAT POINT. But this is a slower process, BECAUSE it is done biologically. You could call it "stabilized nitrogen" if you wanted to. However... do a tillage pass where these nodules are located, and you end up aerating the soil to unnatural levels... which generates a big bloom of aerobic bacteria (why tilled soils are bacterially, rather than fungally dominant).

Those bacteria need to eat something to survive... they need carbon, and nitrogen. And they breathe out CO2, just as a result of being alive, and active. Till the soil, and your Solvita CO2 burst test will suddenly indicate an unnaturally high level of biological activity shortly thereafter (So we say, OH... isn't that what we want... so a "good thing"? But you have to wait for "the rest of the story..."). Throw nitrogen out on the soil, and catch a rain, and you'll see a somewhat similar burst, even without the tillage... and you'll see the evidence of that "handoff" of nutrients between the N consuming bacteria and the plants as well... they'll "green right up" and have a sudden growth burst (again... that's what we wanted, right?). We "took a shortcut", and we injected everything with synthetic cocaine (N), to get that quick, and "short-term" gain... and it responded as we anticipated. Like a "sugar high", literally. But when the cocaine injection wears off, the plants and the biology will wane too. So we need to keep on pushing more cocaine at it to keep the bacteria consuming and handing off, and keep this artificially created situation performing at what we perceive as "optimal levels".

The problem here though, is that the population of these aerobic bacteria is thrown into unnatural, unsustainable levels... because we've added "unnatural levels" of N, without commensurately adding additional carbon into the mix. The bacteria need both N and carbon to feed on in order to survive. The unnatural level of aeration created an exponentially unnatural population explosion of aerobic bacteria. They consume carbon voraciously, as long as they have enough N, to stay alive and reproducing at this unnaturally rapid pace. Add N to this aerated soil, the bacteria explosion consumes the available carbon and releases energy and carbon to the plants... and they grow faster, and greener, and more. But we're burning off the organic matter (carbon) in the soil, faster than we're injecting it back into the soil through the plant photosynthetic processes. So our soil organic matter, and soil organic carbon, is leaving the "piggy bank"... we're operating in a deficit banking condition. An unsustainable condition, long term.

How to turn this around? Stop adding the synthetic N, and add N instead through the use of "N fixing legumes", encouraging other "N fixing bacteria" that can directly capture N from the air and fix it in the soil (different process and different bacteria than those associated with legumes... tillage destroys the "home" for these beneficials), and livestock/animals that consume carbon product (primarily forages) and produce manure/urine that concentrates... AND SPOON FEEDS N along with other chemical and biologically stimulating carbon elements, WITHOUT the unnatural tillage generated aerobic conditions which result in this excessive burning of the carbon faster than it is able to be returned. A "naturally balanced" system. By ADDING CARBON into the equation (bale grazing, bale unrolling, cover crops, livestock ON the land, etc.), along with the manure/biological stimulation through the animals, we now have a condition where the biology levels will be NATURALLY ramped up in balance, increasing the output of energy from the biology, without "taking" more out than is being put back into the soil piggy bank. It becomes a "slower, steadier, timed-release, sustained" feeding of the plants. As we increase the soil biological elements in balance with the increasing soil carbon levels, production of growing plants gradually increases as well. It becomes a "perpetual motion machine", literally.

You CAN grow more in a short period of time by artificially stimulating the system with "cocaine N and tillage" (that YOU have to pay for and provide... not just today, but always, and in more quantity because of the decreasing natural carbon and biological capacity)... but eventually, you'll run out of carbon. Without carbon, you can't support the soil life. Without the soil life, you can't support life above the surface either.
 
Last edited:
Best way I've found is to have less cattle or put them on concrete barn lot during winter and early spring.

Either of those options sound very costly.

My pencil and eyeballs say roll out hay all winter and spring. Rotate them out once things green up in the spring and keep them moving. By later in the summer that winter feeding area will have greened up and can be added to the rotation. By the following growing season that winter area will often be the best grass on the farm.
 
A novel question, if you have left over hay from the past year or years, wouldn't the benefit of using it to raise soil OM outweigh the benefits of holding it over to future years? I truly believe that the value of green stockpiled forage, outweighs the nutritional value of stockpiled hay.
 
Either of those options sound very costly.

My pencil and eyeballs say roll out hay all winter and spring. Rotate them out once things green up in the spring and keep them moving. By later in the summer that winter feeding area will have greened up and can be added to the rotation. By the following growing season that winter area will often be the best grass on the farm.
Because... at least for us where we have "poor man's concrete"... you can run more animals on it during the winter than the "growing capacity" limitation you have during the growing days will allow, winter is potentially one of the best opportunities you have to improve the grass growing capacity in summer!

I might be able to "graze off properly" at a stocking rate of 1000#/acre during the summer (pick your appropriate stocking rate there... "it depends"). But in winter, I'm not concerned about "overgrazing" beyond the growing capacity, because its not growing then. I might be able to run 3000#/acre then, and bring in as much feed as is necessary from OTHER acres... like somebody else's acres. The corn/bean guys are totally bought into "purchasing" their fertility, and selling it down the road. I can "import" fertility in winter, in ways that I just can't during the summer, unless I'm willing to just set aside that pasture as a "sacrifice area" in summer.
 
Because... at least for us where we have "poor man's concrete"... you can run more animals on it during the winter than the "growing capacity" ...

Our ground hardly freezes UP here. The heavy snow blankets the ground and keeps it from freezing much and also thaws it out. I can push off 4' of snow in Janurary at -30 and dig a hole in the mud by hand.

Only place our ground freezes hard is where it's plowed or where you drive repeatedly and pack it down. So I feed on fresh snow on top of wet mud nearly all winter.
 
A novel question, if you have left over hay from the past year or years, wouldn't the benefit of using it to raise soil OM outweigh the benefits of holding it over to future years? I truly believe that the value of green stockpiled forage, outweighs the nutritional value of stockpiled hay.
I'll offer a 'guarded' yes. However, If you are just putting the hay out there for the benefit of the soil only, the fertilizer value in the hay will likely have more of an impact than the OM. Putting OM on top of the soil doesn't get the OM where it really needs to be, which is mixed into the soil. At the same time, don't till the soil to incorporate it. OM is best built up in the soil through good root growth. Half of all grass roots are replaced (die) each year. After 2 years, all the roots on a grass plant have been totally recycled. The best way to get more roots is through good above ground growth (don't overgraze). Rotational grazing (eating the grass, resting the grass, eating regrowth, resting, eating the regrowth again, resting) will speed up the recycling somewhat. Putting the hay out for the benefit of the soil also somewhat depends on if the soil needs it, although this is usually a yes.

OM can get underground from hay bales with a significant amount of earthworm and insect activity. That said, this activity is significantly slower (if there was even enough to begin with, there is sometimes) in the winter months and will marginalize the incorporation of OM from hay into the soil by this manner. The litter on the soil surface (not thought of as OM) from the hay can play a significant amount of importance to the ground/pasture/hayfield.
 
I'll offer a 'guarded' yes. However, If you are just putting the hay out there for the benefit of the soil only, the fertilizer value in the hay will likely have more of an impact than the OM. Putting OM on top of the soil doesn't get the OM where it really needs to be, which is mixed into the soil. At the same time, don't till the soil to incorporate it. OM is best built up in the soil through good root growth. Half of all grass roots are replaced (die) each year. After 2 years, all the roots on a grass plant have been totally recycled. The best way to get more roots is through good above ground growth (don't overgraze). Rotational grazing (eating the grass, resting the grass, eating regrowth, resting, eating the regrowth again, resting) will speed up the recycling somewhat. Putting the hay out for the benefit of the soil also somewhat depends on if the soil needs it, although this is usually a yes.

OM can get underground from hay bales with a significant amount of earthworm and insect activity. That said, this activity is significantly slower (if there was even enough to begin with, there is sometimes) in the winter months and will marginalize the incorporation of OM from hay into the soil by this manner. The litter on the soil surface (not thought of as OM) from the hay can play a significant amount of importance to the ground/pasture/hayfield.
All of what you have pointed out is a given with even a minimal knowledge of agriculture. What seems to be overlooked is all of the needs of forage crops. Water being the main component. Nothing grows without it accept for debt.

If the P, ,K, N, and PH are stable and perfect, nothing will grow on it with no water. The ability of soil to retain moisture without extensive runoff has nothing to do with any of the elements mentioned above. Tilling soil as a means to break up a hard pan to improve absorption is detrimental to the retainage of the elements needed to sustain growth.

What I was referring to with the use of old hay stock is at what point do the nutritional benefits of the stored hay cross the benefits it would add to the soil. Extension of growth through a drought being a huge one. Especially if you were stockpiling the forage to extend grazing and alleviate the need for purchasing hay. I can't remember where, but I read once that hay stored in a barn loses 25 to 30% of it's nutritional value for every year it is stored. I would think the seed germination rates would also suffer for every year hay is stored.
 
All of what you have pointed out is a given with even a minimal knowledge of agriculture. What seems to be overlooked is all of the needs of forage crops. Water being the main component. Nothing grows without it accept for debt.

If the P, ,K, N, and PH are stable and perfect, nothing will grow on it with no water. The ability of soil to retain moisture without extensive runoff has nothing to do with any of the elements mentioned above. Tilling soil as a means to break up a hard pan to improve absorption is detrimental to the retainage of the elements needed to sustain growth.

What I was referring to with the use of old hay stock is at what point do the nutritional benefits of the stored hay cross the benefits it would add to the soil. Extension of growth through a drought being a huge one. Especially if you were stockpiling the forage to extend grazing and alleviate the need for purchasing hay. I can't remember where, but I read once that hay stored in a barn loses 25 to 30% of it's nutritional value for every year it is stored. I would think the seed germination rates would also suffer for every year hay is stored.
Yes to losing nutritional value the longer it is stored and yes to loss of seed germination in the hay. I didn't touch on your mention of stockpiled forage, but a yes to that as well. Stockpile is more valuable and nutritious than hay, ALMOST any given day. I am going to make an assumption that you are talking tall fescue in terms of stockpiling, and winter stockpiling at that. There are species that do not stockpile well and hay very well could be preferred in these instances, although those species are likely not stockpiled to begin with. Different species would need to be considered for summer stockpile as tall fescue isn't great for that.
 
Either of those options sound very costly.

My pencil and eyeballs say roll out hay all winter and spring. Rotate them out once things green up in the spring and keep them moving. By later in the summer that winter feeding area will have greened up and can be added to the rotation. By the following growing season that winter area will often be the best grass on the farm.
Yes hay is costly! Less cattle means less money coming in too. I personally barn lot my cattle through winter and keep them confined until mid to late May. Our Midwest weather creates mud during spring time and I like to take a cutting of hay off my pasture before turning out my cattle. The manure has to be spread which costs money, but it's done while ground is froze so no ruts and tearing up of my fields and I can control where I want to spread throughout the years.
If I was farming in a more arid area, I would leave my cattle out throughout winter and let them pick when they wanted to between feeding bales.
I only have 80 acres of grass and I'm able to run 15 cows, 1 bull, 50 ewes, 2 rams and all of their calves and lambs.
I'm not rich off of them, but they manage to pay for themselves. I enjoy my animals, but also understand why many people have left livestock for an easier way with becoming grain crop farmers solely. We are tied to our animals all 365 days of the year. If we go on vacations, we still need others to tend our animals while we are away. You don't need to do any of this with grains. We are a dying breed of people. Hence the reason cattle are so expensive anymore. There just isn't many head around. But, the cattle we have now, far outperform those of the past.
 

Latest posts

Top