MISCELLANEOUS FORAGE PUBLICATIONS
Can Forage Fertilizer Costs be Reduced?
By Dr. Don Ball, Extension Agronomist/Alumni Professor, Dept. of Agronomy & Soils, Auburn University , AL 36849 .
Typically, fertilizer comprises half or more of the expense associated with pasture or hay production. Thus it is not surprising that many producers are especially interested in considering ways to lower fertilizer costs, especially if livestock prices are lower than optimum.
As is often the case with issues regarding agricultural production, there is no simple answer. Numerous factors must be considered in developing a management strategy that will handle short- term needs and still fit long term management plans. In most cases, not applying fertilizer for a couple of years is not cost effective in either the short or long term. The objective should be to increase the efficiency of utilization of resources: fertilizer, hay, and grazing.
Increase Efficiency Of Fertilization:
Soil Testing - Soil testing is a valuable forage production practice under any economic scenario, but it is especially important during economically difficult periods. It is wasteful to apply more fertilizer than needed, but forage production will be reduced if too little is applied. Soil testing takes the guesswork out of fertilization. Fertilizer recommendations are tailored to the type of forage being grown.
Timing of Fertilization - The timing of fertilization becomes increasingly important as the need to maximize production efficiency increases. Timing is especially important with nitrogen fertilizer, which results in the greatest grass growth response, but which leaches easily. Applying nitrogen fertilizer just prior to times when conditions are likely to be optimum for forage growth, such as at the beginning of the growing season, helps maximize its utilization. In periods of limited soil moisture, delaying fertilizer application until moisture is present or is imminent can also increase efficiency.
Use of Waste Materials as Fertilizer - Each year many producers express interest in using various types of waste materials such as animal manures, sewage sludge, or effluents from various sources to fertilize (and to a lesser extent irrigate) forage crops. There are many considerations involved in the use of waste materials, but they unquestionably often offer a means for some producers to lower their fertilizer bills. Products that were not economically feasible to use in the past may have become feasible to use because of changed economic conditions.
Legumes - The biological nitrogen fixation ability of forage legumes becomes increasingly attractive as the expense of nitrogen fertilizer increases. While soil pH, phosphorus and potassium requirements are higher for legumes, the combined cost of the increased requirement for these soil amendments is lower than the cost of nitrogen fertilizer.
Another incentive for using clovers and other legumes is that they usually increase animal performance and can help offset certain animal disorders such as fescue toxicity and grass
tetany . If pastures contain at least 30 to 40% legumes, the addition of commercial nitrogen fertilizer can usually be avoided.
Acidification from Nitrogen Fertilizer - Most nitrogen fertilizers decrease soil pH. This, amounts to a "hidden cost" associated with applying nitrogen fertilizer because even forage grasses must be limed periodically to offset low soil pH. In general, the more nitrogen fertilizer applied the more lime that needs to be applied.
Long Term Pasture Health - If phosphorus and/or potassium levels are allowed to become depleted, forage stands will decline and weedy species such as broomsedge will be likely to invade.
Therefore, allowing levels of these nutrients to fall below the "medium" level of soil fertility is not in the best interests of long-term pasture health. Pastures having poor forage stands will not respond quickly to fertilization once livestock prices improve, plus the costs of weed control will then have to be borne.
Increase Efficiency Of Hay Production/Utilization:
Reduced Fertilization of Hayfields - It is particularly difficult to economically justify reducing fertilization of any field that is to be cut for hay. The reason for this is that fixed costs typically account for at least 30% of the cost of hay production, so as yields increase there are more tons of hay over which to spread these costs. Therefore, while it pays to strive for high yields from any field devoted to hay production, fertilization may be reduced through use of the following strategies which pertain to hay production.
Convert Hayfields to Pasture - Converting a hayfield to pasture can lower the fertilizer requirement for a field because more fertilizer is recommended for hayfields. This practice could be employed only on a short- term basis, but for some producers it might offer long term advantages. Most of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that livestock ingest is excreted from their bodies. Nutrients in manure and urine are usually poorly distributed in pastures, but at least they remain on the farm and may eventually benefit pastures.
Purchase Rather Than Produce Hay - If hay fields are converted to pasture, any hay used will have to be purchased. For some producers, particularly those having small numbers of animals, there can be significant economic advantages associated with buying, rather than producing, hay. There are also disadvantages, however, so this option requires careful thought.
Hay and other feedstuffs purchased off - farm ultimately impact favorably on pasture fertility as the nutrients in these materials are recycled into the system. The benefits received from the recycling of nutrients from purchased feeds into pastures do not by themselves justify the purchase of feed materials of course, but this is a factor worth considering.
Protect Hay During Storage and Feeding - Research has shown that on many livestock farms 30 to 50% of the hay produced is wasted as a result of poor storage and feeding practices. The greater extent to which this expensive commodity is protected, the less expense (including fertilizer expense to produce additional hay) will be required.
Increase Efficiency Of Grazing:
Grazing Management - It is difficult to generalize about the value of using various grazing methods such as rotational stocking, limit grazing, and creep grazing. The feasibility of using any particular grazing method depends on the situation and the objectives of the producer. However, because various grazing methods can increase efficiency of pasture utilization over continuous grazing, they are more easily justified during periods of economic adversity.
Pasture Versus Hay - It is less expensive to provide nutrition from pasture than from hay. Therefore, if a livestock producer has a limited amount of money to spend on fertilizer, it is better spent on increasing pasture growth than on increasing hay production, assuming the pasture can be efficiently utilized.
Stocking Rate - If pastures are heavily stocked, cutting back on fertilizer will actually increase costs in the long run because failure to fertilize will increase the amount of expensive stored feed that must be purchased later. The goal should be to reduce, not increase, the total amount of stored feed required to provide nutrition to livestock.
Reduce Cattle Numbers - A final consideration is the possibility of reducing livestock numbers. Unless a producer has over-fertilized in the past, the only way to justify reducing the amount of nutrients applied to pastures is to reduce the number of animals grazing the pastures. Thus, when livestock prices are low and fertilizer expense is high is a good time to do some heavy culling. Cutting back on pasture fertilization only makes sense if there is a small enough number of animals to be grazed that they do not need the extra growth that fertilizer would provide.
Can Forage Fertilizer Costs be Reduced?
By Dr. Don Ball, Extension Agronomist/Alumni Professor, Dept. of Agronomy & Soils, Auburn University , AL 36849 .
Typically, fertilizer comprises half or more of the expense associated with pasture or hay production. Thus it is not surprising that many producers are especially interested in considering ways to lower fertilizer costs, especially if livestock prices are lower than optimum.
As is often the case with issues regarding agricultural production, there is no simple answer. Numerous factors must be considered in developing a management strategy that will handle short- term needs and still fit long term management plans. In most cases, not applying fertilizer for a couple of years is not cost effective in either the short or long term. The objective should be to increase the efficiency of utilization of resources: fertilizer, hay, and grazing.
Increase Efficiency Of Fertilization:
Soil Testing - Soil testing is a valuable forage production practice under any economic scenario, but it is especially important during economically difficult periods. It is wasteful to apply more fertilizer than needed, but forage production will be reduced if too little is applied. Soil testing takes the guesswork out of fertilization. Fertilizer recommendations are tailored to the type of forage being grown.
Timing of Fertilization - The timing of fertilization becomes increasingly important as the need to maximize production efficiency increases. Timing is especially important with nitrogen fertilizer, which results in the greatest grass growth response, but which leaches easily. Applying nitrogen fertilizer just prior to times when conditions are likely to be optimum for forage growth, such as at the beginning of the growing season, helps maximize its utilization. In periods of limited soil moisture, delaying fertilizer application until moisture is present or is imminent can also increase efficiency.
Use of Waste Materials as Fertilizer - Each year many producers express interest in using various types of waste materials such as animal manures, sewage sludge, or effluents from various sources to fertilize (and to a lesser extent irrigate) forage crops. There are many considerations involved in the use of waste materials, but they unquestionably often offer a means for some producers to lower their fertilizer bills. Products that were not economically feasible to use in the past may have become feasible to use because of changed economic conditions.
Legumes - The biological nitrogen fixation ability of forage legumes becomes increasingly attractive as the expense of nitrogen fertilizer increases. While soil pH, phosphorus and potassium requirements are higher for legumes, the combined cost of the increased requirement for these soil amendments is lower than the cost of nitrogen fertilizer.
Another incentive for using clovers and other legumes is that they usually increase animal performance and can help offset certain animal disorders such as fescue toxicity and grass
tetany . If pastures contain at least 30 to 40% legumes, the addition of commercial nitrogen fertilizer can usually be avoided.
Acidification from Nitrogen Fertilizer - Most nitrogen fertilizers decrease soil pH. This, amounts to a "hidden cost" associated with applying nitrogen fertilizer because even forage grasses must be limed periodically to offset low soil pH. In general, the more nitrogen fertilizer applied the more lime that needs to be applied.
Long Term Pasture Health - If phosphorus and/or potassium levels are allowed to become depleted, forage stands will decline and weedy species such as broomsedge will be likely to invade.
Therefore, allowing levels of these nutrients to fall below the "medium" level of soil fertility is not in the best interests of long-term pasture health. Pastures having poor forage stands will not respond quickly to fertilization once livestock prices improve, plus the costs of weed control will then have to be borne.
Increase Efficiency Of Hay Production/Utilization:
Reduced Fertilization of Hayfields - It is particularly difficult to economically justify reducing fertilization of any field that is to be cut for hay. The reason for this is that fixed costs typically account for at least 30% of the cost of hay production, so as yields increase there are more tons of hay over which to spread these costs. Therefore, while it pays to strive for high yields from any field devoted to hay production, fertilization may be reduced through use of the following strategies which pertain to hay production.
Convert Hayfields to Pasture - Converting a hayfield to pasture can lower the fertilizer requirement for a field because more fertilizer is recommended for hayfields. This practice could be employed only on a short- term basis, but for some producers it might offer long term advantages. Most of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that livestock ingest is excreted from their bodies. Nutrients in manure and urine are usually poorly distributed in pastures, but at least they remain on the farm and may eventually benefit pastures.
Purchase Rather Than Produce Hay - If hay fields are converted to pasture, any hay used will have to be purchased. For some producers, particularly those having small numbers of animals, there can be significant economic advantages associated with buying, rather than producing, hay. There are also disadvantages, however, so this option requires careful thought.
Hay and other feedstuffs purchased off - farm ultimately impact favorably on pasture fertility as the nutrients in these materials are recycled into the system. The benefits received from the recycling of nutrients from purchased feeds into pastures do not by themselves justify the purchase of feed materials of course, but this is a factor worth considering.
Protect Hay During Storage and Feeding - Research has shown that on many livestock farms 30 to 50% of the hay produced is wasted as a result of poor storage and feeding practices. The greater extent to which this expensive commodity is protected, the less expense (including fertilizer expense to produce additional hay) will be required.
Increase Efficiency Of Grazing:
Grazing Management - It is difficult to generalize about the value of using various grazing methods such as rotational stocking, limit grazing, and creep grazing. The feasibility of using any particular grazing method depends on the situation and the objectives of the producer. However, because various grazing methods can increase efficiency of pasture utilization over continuous grazing, they are more easily justified during periods of economic adversity.
Pasture Versus Hay - It is less expensive to provide nutrition from pasture than from hay. Therefore, if a livestock producer has a limited amount of money to spend on fertilizer, it is better spent on increasing pasture growth than on increasing hay production, assuming the pasture can be efficiently utilized.
Stocking Rate - If pastures are heavily stocked, cutting back on fertilizer will actually increase costs in the long run because failure to fertilize will increase the amount of expensive stored feed that must be purchased later. The goal should be to reduce, not increase, the total amount of stored feed required to provide nutrition to livestock.
Reduce Cattle Numbers - A final consideration is the possibility of reducing livestock numbers. Unless a producer has over-fertilized in the past, the only way to justify reducing the amount of nutrients applied to pastures is to reduce the number of animals grazing the pastures. Thus, when livestock prices are low and fertilizer expense is high is a good time to do some heavy culling. Cutting back on pasture fertilization only makes sense if there is a small enough number of animals to be grazed that they do not need the extra growth that fertilizer would provide.
