Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Grasses, Pastures & Hay
Forage news
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dun" data-source="post: 145504" data-attributes="member: 34"><p><a href="http://www.leblink.com/~dunmovin/december-2005.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.leblink.com/~dunmovin/december-2005.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>And a response from an agronomist at U of MO:</p><p></p><p>The article generally supports our Missouri recommendations,</p><p>however those recommendations may be changing slightly. Peter Scharf,</p><p>John Lowry, Robert Kallenbach and Regional Specialists have been working</p><p>on revising our soil test recommendations (especially for N for hay and</p><p>pasture) - may turn out to be a bit more conservative than in the past,</p><p>not considering the cost of N. (dry N is down to $.38/lbs. as of 11/29</p><p>in Central MO). </p><p></p><p>Also, when comparing Penn State forage research with Missouri conditions</p><p>we should remember that their growing season is more favorable to cool</p><p>season grasses than ours. Our soils and wicked summers play heck with</p><p>guessing what our yield goals should be. I think it's pretty safe</p><p>though to count on a ton of forage in a well managed stockpile</p><p>situation. And, for that situation, this data is probably applicable to</p><p>Missouri, although I don't know of any $80/T. fescue.</p><p></p><p>Not a lot of N applied this late summer ($$$$) though, and we still got</p><p>pretty good recovery and growth in the better soils and stands</p><p>(especially where soil P, and O.M. is good from previous turkey litter</p><p>applications).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dun, post: 145504, member: 34"] [url=http://www.leblink.com/~dunmovin/december-2005.pdf]http://www.leblink.com/~dunmovin/december-2005.pdf[/url] And a response from an agronomist at U of MO: The article generally supports our Missouri recommendations, however those recommendations may be changing slightly. Peter Scharf, John Lowry, Robert Kallenbach and Regional Specialists have been working on revising our soil test recommendations (especially for N for hay and pasture) - may turn out to be a bit more conservative than in the past, not considering the cost of N. (dry N is down to $.38/lbs. as of 11/29 in Central MO). Also, when comparing Penn State forage research with Missouri conditions we should remember that their growing season is more favorable to cool season grasses than ours. Our soils and wicked summers play heck with guessing what our yield goals should be. I think it's pretty safe though to count on a ton of forage in a well managed stockpile situation. And, for that situation, this data is probably applicable to Missouri, although I don't know of any $80/T. fescue. Not a lot of N applied this late summer ($$$$) though, and we still got pretty good recovery and growth in the better soils and stands (especially where soil P, and O.M. is good from previous turkey litter applications). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Grasses, Pastures & Hay
Forage news
Top