Risk and returns from grazing beef cattle on warm‐season grasses in Tennessee

Abstract

Beef cattle production in the southeastern United States is forage‐based, relying primarily on tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus [Schreb.] Dumort; TF). While TF has many desirable characteristics for forage, physiological traits can create forage management challenges for producers during the summer. Managing forage production is necessary for producers to maximize profits and reduce feed costs. A possible way to extend grazing in this region is to use warm‐season grasses (WSGs) during summer to complement tall fescue. Therefore, the objective of this study is to compare the profitability and risk associated with grazing beef stocker cattle on five WSGs: a combination of big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L.; BI), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.; SG), eastern gamagrass, (Tripsacum dactyloides; EG), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.; BG), and crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis; CG). Data comes from a 3‐yr (2014–2016) grazing experiment at two locations in Tennessee. The results show that CG had the lowest expected net returns to grazing due to its high production cost, and a profit‐maximizing and risk averse producer would select grazing SG relative to the other forages. The study extends the literature by comparing the profitability and risk of native WSGs (BI, SG, EG), traditional WSG (BG), and annual WSG (CG). Furthermore, these results will be important in educating southeastern US beef cattle producers on using WSGs.

Evaluation of eastern gamagrass and a sorghum × sudangrass for summer pasture

“…In another economic analysis, EG outperformed a summer annual [crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler] in terms of net returns for grazing weaned beef heifers (Boyer, Zechiel, Keyser, Rhinehart, & Bates, 2019).…”

“…In the case of SXS, high forage yields, 7–10 Mg ha −1 , can be produced at a time of year when TF has become semi‐dormant and is not productive (Fontaneli, Sollenberger, & Staples, 2001; Machicek, Blaser, Darapuneni, & Rhoades, 2019). However, these summer annuals are less cost‐effective (Boyer et al., 2019; Keyser, Bates, Waller, Harper, & Holcomb, 2015; Tracy et al., 2010), may not be available in early summer (Tracy et al., 2010; Zechiel, 2017) and thus provide fewer grazing days (Zechiel, 2017) than perennials.…”

Continuous grazing of mixed native warm‐season grass in the fescue belt

“…); LB], and eastern gamagrass [ Tripsacum dactyloides (L.) L.]. Native warm‐season grasses are low input, endophyte free, persistent, productive during summer, and drought tolerant (Anderson, 2000; Boyer, Zechiel, Keyser, Rhinehart, & Bates, 2020; Keyser, Bates, Waller, Harper, & Doxon, 2012; Keyser, Harper, Bates, Waller, & Doxon, 2011; Lowe et al., 2015).…”

Simulating the Feasibility of Dual Use Switchgrass on Cow-Calf Operations

“…Transport to the farm adds a constant footprint of 0.106 kg of CO 2 eq./kg of material moved from regional warehouses to farms except for poultry manure [16]. 4 Taken from Rotz et al [17]. 5 Cost information for fuels and fertilizer were sourced from archived cost of production information provided by Mississippi State University [18].…”

“…Estimating economic and sustainability impacts of introducing switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.; SG) for making hay and supplying SG biomass to biorefineries while holding the cattle output constant is thus the focus of this analysis. Previous work, assessing the extent to which SG could be used profitably for grazing has found that, at a sufficiently high price for biomass, grazing-only and mechanical harvest for biomass after grazing could improve profitability [4,5]. Furthermore, cattle performed well on SG, and SG was economically optimal in comparison with other native warm-season grasses.…”