Busy Spring for the UA, Department of Animal Science

The UA, Department of Animal Science has had a busy semester for students, staff, and faculty. Between events, competitions, conferences, and awarding over $42,000 in scholarships to current students, the Department has been a constant hub of activity.

The outstanding students who helped to make those activities possible were honored at the Department’s annual Awards Banquet in April. It was at this banquet that 48 scholarships totaling over $42,000 were presented to our students. Funds to support these scholarships are generated from you, our alumni, supporters, and stakeholders. We extend a huge thank you from the entire Department for your generous support of the scholarship program. Also at the banquet, Graduate of Distinction awards were presented to alumni William H. (Billy) Caldwell, II (B.S. ’89) and William R. (Bill) Shaddox, Sr. (B.S. ’56). Advanced Graduate of Distinction awards were presented to alumni Dr. Curtis C. Melton (M.S. ’65) and Dr. Ernest Keith (M.S. ’75). The faculty and staff of the UA, Department of Animal Science would also like to congratulate all students from the Department that graduated either last Fall or this Spring with B.S. degrees in Animal Science. Eight of these students were accepted to veterinary medicine schools.

The Livestock Judging Team has been busy earning awards at the five competitions they competed in this semester. The 2013 Arizona National Livestock Show was the highlight, where the UA team scored top in all group sections. The team also placed well in the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, the Southwestern Expo and Livestock Show, the Dixie National Intercollegiate, and the National Western Stock Show. They plan to continue their success in the upcoming school year.

The Department also established their very first Horse Judging Team. Members were selected from the Equine Evaluation course offered this Spring. In April, the team traveled to Whitesboro, TX, to compete in its first competition.  Members are currently preparing for five competitions scheduled for the Fall semester.

The Departmental faculty had numerous research abstracts, and several students in both the undergraduate and graduate student competitions at the Southern and Midwest sections of the American Society of Animal Science meetings. Faculty will hit the road again this summer, attending various scientific conferences to present their recent research findings.  If you would like to know more about specific research projects, please visit our website at http://animalscience.uark.edu.

The Department recently teamed up with law enforcement to educate and promote safe large animal handling and wellbeing. Faculty met with the Arkansas State Animal Control Association to provide an educational session on the topic. Randy Forst, Extension Agent and Staff Chair in Carroll County, coordinated the day’s activities and attained the live dairy and beef cattle, horses, and small ruminants utilized in this hands-on demonstration.  Faculty members Dr. Michael Looper, Dr. Andrew Fidler, Steve Jones, Dr. Mark Russell, and Dr. Tom Troxel presented on various topics and assembled a book of guidelines providing recommended minimum standards of care. The guidelines will serve the animal control officers and law enforcement officials when addressing neglect and cruelty to livestock. The book and program was sponsored by the Animal Care Committee of the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. Dr. Yvonne Thaxton, director of the Center for Food Animal Wellbeing, and Beth Rumley, attorney with the National Agricultural Law Center, both of the Division of Agriculture, informed the group of available resources.

Want to keep up with all these stories and more? Check out the Department’s Facebook and Twitter pages to get instant updates of our activities. Just search for AnimalScience – UA.

Livestock Judging Team

Coach Bryan Kutz, Jimmie Hollenback, Colten Booth, Caleb Russell, Lindsay Bowman, Matt Merideth, Olivia Foster, Brittany Smith, Morgan Watts, Bryce Brummet, Assistant Coach Tom Devine

Horse Judging Team

Brittany Rodgers, Whitt Bell, Becca Schlote, Sean Hill, Shelby Wood, and Chynell Fitzgerald

Phosphorus best management practices help protect water quality

With the storm season in full swing, intensive rainfall events increase the likelihood of water quality impairments through sediment transport and P intake into surface waters. Several BMPs for phosphorus management are available and can be implemented relatively easily by landowners. While it is difficult to measure the effect of a single BMP, it has been shown that the combination of several BMPs together will have an overall positive effect on water quality.

BMPs addressing P mitigation are essentially split into source and transport BMPs, or a combination of both. In general, P input and outputs should ideally be balanced at the farm or watershed scale. While a precise balance may be difficult to calculate, measures can be taken to reduce the risk of excessive P loss. First, testing pasture soils for fertility levels goes a long way of keeping P in- and output in check. Over-application of P is avoided by applying recommended fertilizer amounts. This also means that fertilizer and manure spreaders should be calibrated and in good working order to ensure even distribution of the applied material. For some farmers the application of poultry litter is an option and a good opportunity to increase soil organic matter besides providing plant nutrients. The application of litter should be timed carefully however, as heavy rainfall can lead to runoff and transport of P away from pastures.

Because P is attached to soil particles that can be transported away, so-called transport BMPs are aimed at retaining P on site before it enters water ways. One of the first things to consider is, therefore, minimizing soil erosion. Proper grazing management is a very effective way of avoiding excessive erosion as rainfall can infiltrate on pastures with sufficient grass cover where runoff is usually filtered before it reaches streams or creeks.

Cover crops can be used on bottom land with the purpose of reducing erosive potential and filtering runoff. Filter strips are another option for retaining excess nutrients. These strips can be situated alongside riparian zones and infrequently grazed when conditions permit. Grassed waterways, also called vegetated swales, are very common in the Midwest where they help reduce runoff and filter nutrients in crop fields such as corn or soybean. In a pasture situation, these swales can easily be established alongside intermittent streams. There appears to be interest among landowners to work with native plant species such as switchgrass, big bluestem, indiangrass, or gamagrass that are adapted to a variety of conditions and are well suited for establishment in grassed waterways. In pasture situations, vegetated swales need to be strategically placed to avoid a large reducation of grazable land, although these areas can be grazed infrequently. Such waterways need to be fenced off, but this is easily accomplished with polywire. Grassed waterways can also be linked to riparian zones to increase their efficacy.

It should be kept in mind that a combination of several well-executed BMPs is the most efficient way of maintaining or improving water quality. BMPs do not have to be implemented at once, but a long-term plan is useful for establishing several over time. As it has been mentioned before, good grazing and animal management help protect water quality. A more intensive management approach will require planning on how to section pastures, where to locate watering sources, which forages may need to be established, and what grazing method will maximize forage utilization, all of which improve pasture management.

There is a lot of good material available from the UA Division of Agriculture, NRCS, and USDA on grazing management and BMPs for the livestock industry including cost share options. Contact your local county extension office for advice and help in implementing P mitigation measures that suit your situation.

Dr. Michael L. Looper

Cow Slaughter UP?

Coming into this year, the expectation was for US cow slaughter to trend lower, with some forecasts calling for a double digit decline in US cow slaughter rates. After all, record high cattle prices, a shrinking cow herd and lower calf numbers and improving cow-calf profitability were expected to provide an incentive to limit the number of female bovines coming to market and possibly encourage some heifer retention. With the first four months almost behind us, things have not shaped up exactly as expected. US cow slaughter actually declined sharply from the seasonal high in early January. March and April cow and bull slaughter, however, has been notably higher than a year ago. USDA reports the weekly official cow and bull slaughter with a two week lag so the latest available data is for the week ending April 6. However, we can get an estimate of the more recent trend in slaughter from the daily USDA slaughter estimates. For the seven days ending April 24, US cow and bull slaughter was estimated at 140,000 head, 13.8% higher than the previous year and also above 2011 levels. Bull and cow slaughter has been above year ago levels since at least mid March, resulting in a notable increase in the supply of nonfed beef in the marketplace.

Looking at the regional breakdown in weekly cow slaughter, we can see a notable increase in slaughter in some regions although the regional slaughter data has become increasingly difficult to work with. Because of confidentiality constrains, USDA has discontinued reporting in a number of regions. Beginning in January 2013, USDA no longer provides weekly slaughter data for region 5, which includes IL, IN, MI, MN, OH and WI. This was an important region as it accounted for about a quarter of all US beef and cow slaughter in 2012. USDA also does not provide any information from region 7 and region 8. At this point, the regional cow slaughter data only covers about 59% of the US cow slaughter. Dairy cow slaughter was one of the drivers for the increase in cow slaughter numbers in late 2012 and in 2013, as high feed costs and negative margins forced dairy producers to liquidate their herds. More recently, however, it appears that the increase in cow slaughter rates has been driven by more beef cows coming to market. Cold and wet weather in a number of key production areas certainly have negatively impacted cow-calf producers. Also, the sharp decline in forward feeder prices has changed the profitability estimates on future calf production. Beef cow slaughter in region 6 (TX, OK, NM, LA, AR) averaged 20% below year ago levels through early March but in the last three reported weeks it has jumped some 20% over 2012 levels.

The pace of slaughter cow imports from Canada is another important factor to consider when looking at US weekly cow slaughter rates. As a special report by the Livestock Marketing

Information Center points out, the closing of the Levinoff-Colbex cull cow packing plant in Canada, which processed some 2000 – 2500 culls cows a week, has meant that more of those cows are now coming to the US. Year to date, imports of Canadian cull cows are up 114% or 44,397 head compared to the previous year. Since the beginning of the year, US cow slaughter is up 0.2% from a year ago but when adjusting for the imports of Canadian cows, US cow slaughter is down 2.4% (Source CME Group).

Market Comments

USDA the National Agricultural Statistics Service released estimates of US beef production for March. The data showed notable reductions in output but it is important to note that there was 1 less marketing day in March 2013 compared to March 2012. When adjusting for the calendar mismatch, the supply picture appears less bullish. Total cattle slaughter was 2.585 million head, 6.1% lower than the previous year. However, the average weekday slaughter in March was 123,114 head, 1.6% lower than a year ago. Cattle carcass weight increases appear to be leveling off, with the average cattle carcass weight in March pegged at 792 pounds, 0.5% over a year ago. Cattle carcass weights rose by 2.3% in 2012. Total commercial beef production in March was 2.038 billion pounds, 5.6% lower than a year ago. Average daily beef supplies in March were about 97.1 million lb/day, 1.1% lower than the previous year. Beef production is slowly declining but the cutbacks are not significant enough yet to propel beef prices to new record highs, especially given significant demand headwinds so far this year.

Food Prices

The follow two charts illustrate how food costs have risen over the past two years and how they are expected to increase in 2013 (Source: USDA).

Presentations include:
Breeding and Calving Season Management
Dr. Tom Troxel, University of Arkansas
23 minutes and 40 MB file size for download

Understanding EPD’s
Dr. Bob Kropp, Oklahoma State University
54 minutes and 304 to 740 MB file size for download

This program was funded, in part, through the support of Farm Credit Ag Heritage and Farm Credit of Western Arkansas.

The beef industry has undergone significant change in the past few years. On the production side, severe drought has caused structural changes in the industry. Herd size has dramatically diminished, input costs are high and some cattlemen are exiting the business instead of taking on herd rebuilding. Looking ahead, there are further significant changes in the marketing landscape that the industry must successfully adapt to in order to keep beef as the premier center of the plate protein.

Households composed of one or two persons now represent 62% of total households. In addition, some families are now eating more a la carte meals, where individual entrees are needed to meet each person’s desire. Retailers are going to need several merchandising options as they reach out to these consumers. A recent beef checkoff study found strong consumer interest in packages of small, 4-5 ounce expertly trimmed steaks in the meat case… as well as on the restaurant menu. Market research also has found that a limiter for beef consumption is that beef does not perform well in the microwave. This has led to testing of new packaging such as a microwaveable ground beef option with a pouch to collect grease as the beef is cooked.

Hispanics are anticipated to grow from 16 percent to 30 percent of U.S. households from 2010 to 2050. The percentage of Asian consumers in this country is expected to nearly double, from 5 percent to 9 percent. Not only will tastes shift, but the beef industry must be able to satisfy increasingly diverse consumer palates. This will create an explosion of taste options to enjoy, particularly for millennials who embrace ethnic flavors to a much greater degree than older segments of the population.

The marketplace is fractured into three major generational cohorts. The baby boomers remain the most economically powerful generation and, at its peak, was 76 million strong. Boomers want to stay vital and productive as they age and, as more become empty nesters, their discretionary income increases. Generation X is the smaller (49 million) that followed the boomers. They are the in-between cohort whose influence is increasing as the boomers retire. Third is the millennial generation which, at 80 million strong, is bigger than the boomers. Millennials are the market of the future and as this cohort moves through society it is changing everything. Also, it is important to note that many of us refine our taste buds when coming of age in our 20’s. Historically that has been the time frame when steak consumption climbs. We must stand ready to educate millennials as they go through this important gastronomical coming of age.

Millennials – consumers born between about 1980 and 2000 – use social media to make many of their decisions, as well as increase their knowledge base. Technology in communications is advancing faster than most consumers can keep up with it. Research has found that millennials are much more likely than other consumers to use a ‘shopping app’ at the supermarket – an app that tells them, for example, what’s on sale, where to find certain foods in the store and can provide recipes and suggest ingredients. What kind of electronic communication will drive millennial decisions and knowledge-building tomorrow?

The beef industry has come up with several new beef cuts (Denver Cut, Flatiron Steak, etc.) that have helped make steak-eating more affordable, and increased the value of the carcass to the beef industry. Today about half of U.S. households are low to moderate income households, and these consumers are typically higher frequency beef eaters. Innovation is needed to find affordable beef options for all income levels. As the industry moves toward a more comprehensive selection of great beef solutions, we must also remember many consumers today never talk to a butcher, and thus have a declining level of understanding of beef selection and cookery. Matching beef options up with the distribution channel that appreciates the unique strengths of each cut will require more precise distribution models in the future.

Nearly one-third of consumers believe that 40 minutes is too long to wait for their meals, from start to table, and 70% say an hour is too long. Add to that the fact that 70% of women now are working and it is easy to see that convenience is critical. While ground beef has been the “fall-back” product for the time-conscious, more convenient whole muscle cuts, including microwaveable roasts, could boost demand. So, too, could easy beef options which quickly assemble into one-pot meals, an increasingly popular choice for the home cook.

Pick up a steak at Walgreen’s on the way home from work? Grab lunch from a food truck outside your office? Have dinner at the nice restaurant in your favorite supermarket? Order your groceries online? Online grocery shopping is finally growing at a sustained and rapid rate. Food distribution is ever changing, with specialty stores, pharmacies and others beginning to add meat products to their offerings and supermarkets providing sit-down restaurants.

The many venues offering fresh foods are a challenge for beef and, in response, the industry is creating new packaging technologies, size variety, and new preparation methods to meet food distribution needs and consumer demands.

As we look down the road, the trends we’ve identified stand out as particularly relevant to beef producers. They have important implications for how beef is marketed and communicated about. It has been said that the future is what you make it. Obviously, no one can predict the future. However, it makes sense for the beef industry to take action today to manage what we see coming down the road tomorrow (Beef Issues Quarterly; Fall 2012. Vol. 4 No. 1).

The following video demonstrates a breeding soundness examination.

If email settings restrict playback, click on the post title to open the blog page to watch.

The following file contains the video transcript.
Bull Breeding Soundness Examination Script

So far this year in Arkansas (as of March 1), there have been 23 reported cases of rabies. 21 of these cases have been skunks, while 1 has been in a cow and 1 reported case in a dog. Though it is unlikely your horse will become stricken with rabies during its lifetime, as owners we should always be cognizant of the signs of not only our horses having rabies, but also other animals that could come in contact with the horses. Further, rabies is especially dangerous, given the fact that rabies can be spread to humans quite easily.

How does a horse get rabies?
• In nearly every case of rabies, it is spread from one animal to another in a bite
• Horses are curious animals and will often walk up to another animal acting bizarre and will most often get bit on the nose or somewhere on the face.

What does a horse look like with rabies?
• Surprisingly, horses that come in contact with rabies, will not show signs until 2 -6 weeks. In more rare cases, a horse may not show signs for up to one year.
• Signs include:
o Change in behavior
o Dull
o Aggressive
o Ataxia
o Head pressing and/or circling
o Difficulty swallowing
o Muscle tremors or convulsing

Treatment?
• There is currently no treatment available
• Most horses die within 2-4 days after contracting rabies if not euthanized
• If horse has been exposed to an animal with rabies and vaccination is more than 30 days old, re-vaccinate and hold in quarantine for 45 days. If there was no previous vaccination, it is recommended the horse be held in quarantine for 6 months.

Prevention
• Vaccination is the best prevention for your horse. It is also recommended to have dogs and any barn cats that may come in contact with your horse to be receive vaccination as well. It should also be noted that just because a horse has received a vaccination for rabies, does not guarantee the horse will not get it.
• Foals and weanlings less than 12 months of age are administered an initial series of three vaccines (the timing is dependent on the vaccination status of the mare). Thereafter, horses are vaccinated annually (even if the vaccine is labeled as a three-year product)

Sources: AAEP, Dr. Stacey Oke, TheHorse.com, Colorado State University Extension, and University of Kentucky Animal Science Department.

Kim Magee, Reviewer

University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture

The beef cattle industry in Arkansas was especially hard hit by the 2012 drought.  Poor pasture conditions, increased cost of inputs, reduced revenues from low hay production, and lower cattle marketing weights all contributed to eroding farm income. A survey done in late summer gathered data from cow-calf farms in Arkansas.  545 responses were received from farmers in 58 counties. The results showed that the drought had a drastic impact on farmers’ cattle sales. Over 73% of farmers reported that they planned to sell calves as much as two and a half months earlier than normal.  Compared to a typical year, farmers reported that:

• 49% had sold more mature cows
• 41% planned to sell more mature cows
• 41% had sold replacement heifers
• 30% were planning to sell more replacement heifers

Arkansas Farmers May be Able to Postpone Payment of Income Tax

Arkansas farmers who sold livestock in 2012 due to a weather-related condition may be able to postpone reporting the gain from these additional sales until the next tax year.  These early sales may have been caused by shortage of water, poor grazing conditions, low feed production, or other consequences of weather-related conditions. There are two tax options available to farmers. Farmers must meet all of the following conditions to qualify:

1. Your principal trade or business is farming.
2. You use the cash method of accounting.
3. You can show that, under your usual business practices, you would not have sold or exchanged the additional animals this year except for the weather-related condition.
4. The weather-related condition caused an area to be designated as eligible for assistance by the federal government.

Tax Option 1 – Postpone reporting taxable gain on additional sales of any livestock for 1 year

Code Section 451(e) – The first option known as the deferred sales receipt method has the broadest class of animals that qualify. The income from livestock or poultry sold in excess of normal sales (whether raised or purchased) may be deferred for up to one year.  To postpone a gain, farmers must attach a statement to their tax return for the year of sale.  The statement must include the following information for each class of livestock for which a gain is being postponed:

1. A statement that you are postponing gain under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 451(e).
2. Evidence of the weather-related conditions that forced the early sale or exchange of the livestock and the date, if known, on which an area was designated as eligible for assistance by the federal government because of weather-related conditions.
3. A statement explaining the relationship of the area affected by the weather-related condition to your early sale or exchange of the livestock.
4. The number of animals sold in each of the 3 preceding years.
5. The number of animals you would have sold in the tax year had you followed your normal business practice in the absence of weather-related conditions.
6. The total number of animals sold and the number sold because of weather-related conditions during the tax year.
7. A computation, as described above, of the income to be postponed for each class of livestock.

Option 1 is the ONLY option for livestock held for sale (e.g., steers, feeder heifers). Not all income must be deferred to the following year.  One advantage to farmers using Option 1 is that some income can be taken as income for the drought year and some can be deferred to the following year.

Example – Option 1:  Farmer Smith normally sells 20 cows each year.  Due to the 2012 drought, Smith had no pasture or hay to feed his cattle and he sold 50 cows rather than the normal 20.  Smith sells the 50 cows at $650 per head.  Since 20 cows are sold in a “normal” year, the amount of sales that can be deferred calculated as follows: 30 cows at $650/head = $19,500.  The 20 cows sold at $650/head would be reported as income in 2012 for $13,000.

Tax Option 2 – Postpone and avoid paying taxes on the gain from the sale of breeding, draft, or dairy animals if they are replaced within a specified time frame

Code Section 1033(e) – The second option is the “involuntary conversion” option.  Income from drought-related sales of draft, breeding, or dairy animals (no sporting animals) sold do not have to be recognized if the proceeds are used to purchase replacement livestock within two years from the end of the tax year in which the drought-related sales take place.  The recovery period for federally declared disaster areas is extended to four years.  The new livestock must be used for the same purpose as the livestock sold (breeding stock replaced with breeding stock). The taxpayer must show that weather caused the sale of more livestock than otherwise would have been sold in a typical year. Under option 2, the area does not have to be declared a federal disaster area.  The requirements under option 2 are the following:

1)      Evidence of existence of the weather conditions that forced the sale or exchange of the livestock.

2)      A computation of the amount of gain realized on the sale or exchange.

3)      The number and kind of livestock sold or exchanged.

4)      The number of livestock of each kind that would have been sold or exchanged under the usual business practice if the weather condition had not occurred.

Farmers should carefully consider future intentions for rebuilding their herds when opting for the second option.  When replacements are purchased, the date of purchase should be attached to the tax return along with the cost, number of animals and kind of animals.

Example – Option 2: Farmer Smith normally sells 20 cows from her beef herd each year. In 2012 due to the drought, Smith sold 70.  This was 50 more than normal.  Smith plans to purchase additional cows in 2013 to replace the extra 50 cows sold.  The average price for all 70 head was $675/head.   Only the 50 extra cows sold qualify for the deferment and because the cows were raised rather than purchased, they have a zero tax basis.  The 50 head at $675 = $33,750 of deferred income.  Farmer Smith can now invest the $33,750 in replacement cows in 2013 and have a zero tax basis in the new replacements.  If Smith only invests $20,000 in replacement cows in 2013, then the difference ($33,750 – $20,000) of $13,750 must be reported as taxable income by amending her 2012 income tax return.

This report is for educational information only and is not a substitute for tax advice from your CPA. Farmers considering either Option 1 or Option 2 due to drought-related livestock sales in 2012 should refer to the IRS Farmer’s Tax Guide for 2012 returns (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p225.pdf).  Print this document and visit with your tax accountant about your options for deferring income from your drought-related livestock sales from the 2012 drought.

Table 1. Summary of Tax Options Related to Drought-Related Livestock Sales

Source: Adapted from J.C. Hobbs “Tax Consequences of Weather Related Sale of Livestock”

Other Resources

IRS Farmer’s Tax Guide: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p225.pdf

Economic Impact of the 2012 Drought: http://srmec.uark.edu/beef/

OSU Fact Sheet: “Tax Consequences of Weather Related Sale of Livestock” (http://osufacts.okstate.edu)

LMIC Fact Sheet: “Tax Implications of Drought Induced Livestock Sales” (http://www.lmic.info/)

Forage problems resulting from the 2012 drought will extend into 2013. However, many of those problems could be disguised as unplanned pasture improvement opportunities. Not all farms have the perfect forage or livestock system in place. After assessing the drought’s damage to pastures and to livestock herds, producers should seriously think about possible changes and improvements. Does that field need to be reseeded and if so does it need to be the same forage species or variety?  Could the grazing and hay systems be made better to avoid such disastrous effects in the next drought? All good questions, but the answers will be unique for each farm. Good assessment of actual damage and weed pressure will be critical. Soil tests for all pastures will be extremely helpful. The following options can help direct forage improvement efforts.

Options:

1. Do nothing and let the surviving forages regrow
2. Try to thicken the thin pastures with more of the same species
3. Add legumes to thin fields
4. Renovate damaged pastures and convert to other forage species or varieties

Option 1 -Do Nothing:

Success with this option will be dependent on severity of drought damage, the existing forage species, and willingness of the operator to nurse the field back to health. Tall fescue fields are resilient and often produce enough seed in summer to repopulate a drought-thinned stand. However, armyworms in spring ruined seed production in many fields. Prolonged grazing during drought reduced plant populations further. Careful field observation in early spring will reveal how much reseeding took place. Some thin fescue and bermudagrass fields will eventually fill in, but this make take a year or more. Clover died out in a majority of fields. White clover is a prolific reseeder and that seed should volunteer. Common bermudagrass produces seed and any surviving rhizomes will regrow next season. Any fields left “as-is” to regenerate on their own will need to be managed like new seedings. This means good management of fertility, weed control, and use of deferred grazing.

Option 2 – Try to thicken pastures with the same species

Adding seed to fill in a thin pasture can prove beneficial, but it should be managed like a new seeding. Fall rains have stimulated a lot of weed growth that can hinder seedling forage establishment. Guessing at a seeding rate based on percent damage is difficult. It is best to use a full seeding rate on damaged areas to make this option effective. Simply spreading a little seed over a weedy field hoping something good will happen has a high chance of failure. Spring oats can be planted as a nurse crop with fescue or orchardgrass although these grasses are best planted in fall. Do not plant annual ryegrass with fescue and orchardgrass seed. Ryegrass will crowd out most other forages and will produce seed that can continue to be a problem. Plant bermudagrass in late spring.

Option 3 – Adding legumes

Thin pastures provide a great opportunity to interseed legumes. Legumes improve forage quality and reduce N fertilizer need. Fall or late winter seeding is recommended for fescue pastures. Fall seeding is recommended for bermudagrass and other warm-season grass pastures. White and red clovers are popular perennial clovers and arrowleaf and crimson clovers are popular annual clovers. Controlling weeds this season and replanting clover in fall would be a good approach.

Option 4 – Renovate damaged pastures and convert to other forages

Converting damaged fields to different forage species can help extend the grazing season, improve forage quality, or reduce fescue toxicity. Make sure the new forage fits the operation because renovation is an expensive and time-consuming process. Pick a new forage based on seasonal forage need. For example, warm-season grasses should be considered in fescue-dominant systems. Cool-season grasses should be selected in bermudgrass or bahiagrass-dominant systems.

Diversity of seasonal forage species on the farm improves forage production throughout the year. Both cool-season and warm-season forages should be included. In north Arkansas the ratio of cool-season to warm-season forage should be about two-thirds cool-season and one third warm-season forage. In south Arkansas this ratio may be reversed due to a longer growing season. At the simplest level, a perennial cool-season grass like fescue and a perennial warm-season grass like bermudagrass should serve as the forage base.  Adding more species makes the forage program more stable and dependable over time.

Individual pastures can be single forage species or simple mixtures. It is not necessary to have complex forage mixtures in each pasture. In fact, complex multi-seasonal forage mixtures within individual pastures are not desirable for all pastures because it complicates management during weather extremes. However, a robust combination of warm- and cool-season forage species in different pastures across the farm is desirable to improve forage availability during weather extremes. This separation simplifies management practices such as fertilization, weed management, and planning seasonal grazing or hay harvest. The transition of grazing cool-season forages to warm-season forages can also be accomplished more easily.