cowtrek
Well-known member
Yes overgrazing is overgrazing, and it is detrimental to both natives and improved grasses, but generally speaking, overgrazing is harder on natives than improved grasses. Native grasses generally grow slower and are less competitive, in general terms, than most improved grasses that tend to spread and colonize and grow more quickly. I'm not saying that natives cannot produce equal or greater amounts of forage, just that, as a rule, they grow slower. Anything that grows slower than a faster growing plant is by definition less competitive, not including plants that can simply out-reproduce other plants. That is why, generally speaking, natives take longer to establish, longer to grow to full yield, and must not be grazed too low. They take longer to grow and so must have more leaves left to recover. Productionwise, natives can yield pretty close to improved grasses, and on very little external inputs compared to improved grasses, but when you look at it strictly on tons/acre, TDN, and protien levels, the natives are lower. But consider what you've saved too.
Kinda like back when I was farming cotton. We only spent $100 an acre or so to put in a crop. Some years we made 3/4 bale/acre, some years 2 1/2 bales per acre, depending on the timeliness and kindness of the weather, and what the Good Lord chose to give us. Some neighbors spend over $300 an acre to produce cotton. But ya know what? In a bad year (too dry or too wet or bad rain timing) they could end up making 3/4 bale/acre cotton too. Sure in a good year they might make closer to 3 bale cotton, and in an average year when I made 1 to 1 1/2 bale, they made closer to 2 or 2 1/2. BUT, when you figure it took them between 1 and 1 1/2 bales/acre to make it, when it only cost me about 1/2 bale to make my crop, who came out on top? My fertilizer supplier used to say that a lot of guys shoot for "coffee shop yields", big yields to have something to gloat about at the coffee shop or beer joint. He was a big farmer too and owned the fertilizer plant, so he could have shot it to it too, but he realized that the biggest yield isn't always the BEST yield ($$$ return/acre), but the most COST EFFECTIVE yield is always the most profitable (diminishing returns). Not knocking on guys that go all out, they have to pay thier own bills and good luck, but sometimes the bestest ain't the mostest. Good luck, JR
Kinda like back when I was farming cotton. We only spent $100 an acre or so to put in a crop. Some years we made 3/4 bale/acre, some years 2 1/2 bales per acre, depending on the timeliness and kindness of the weather, and what the Good Lord chose to give us. Some neighbors spend over $300 an acre to produce cotton. But ya know what? In a bad year (too dry or too wet or bad rain timing) they could end up making 3/4 bale/acre cotton too. Sure in a good year they might make closer to 3 bale cotton, and in an average year when I made 1 to 1 1/2 bale, they made closer to 2 or 2 1/2. BUT, when you figure it took them between 1 and 1 1/2 bales/acre to make it, when it only cost me about 1/2 bale to make my crop, who came out on top? My fertilizer supplier used to say that a lot of guys shoot for "coffee shop yields", big yields to have something to gloat about at the coffee shop or beer joint. He was a big farmer too and owned the fertilizer plant, so he could have shot it to it too, but he realized that the biggest yield isn't always the BEST yield ($$$ return/acre), but the most COST EFFECTIVE yield is always the most profitable (diminishing returns). Not knocking on guys that go all out, they have to pay thier own bills and good luck, but sometimes the bestest ain't the mostest. Good luck, JR