dr. bill deen - forages - essential crop of the past, present and future

Bill Deen

University of Guelph, Canada, Department of Plant Agriculture

[email protected]

Forage: Essential crop of the past, present and future

5th Annual CFGA Conference and Annual General Meeting

‘Closing the Forage Gap’ – Addressing theCompetitiveness of Forages

in the Agricultural LandscapeNovember 17, 18, 19, 2014 – Bromont, Québec

Outline

• Overview of Canadian forage industry

• Trends in the industry: acreage, research

• Reasons for concern: Ontario example

• Future opportunities for forages?

Overview of the Canadian Forage Industry

Overview of the Canadian Forage Industry

• Cultivated forages for pasture, feed and seed production, account for 33.8 million acres or 39% of Canada crop production land

• Approximately 80% of Canada’s beef production depends on forages

• Forages represent 60% of a dairy cow diet

• Farm cash receipts for forage was $ 381.9 million in 2010, $5 billion when on farm feed value for beef, dairy, sheep and equine is included

Source: National Forage Assessment 2011

Forage Acreages – Canada 2011

Type (000 acres)

Natural Pastures 36,316

Tame, Seeded Pastures 13,669

Alfalfa and Alfalfa Mixtures 11,223

Other Tame Hay & Fodder 5,711

Cereals for Green Feed 1,245

Cereals for Silage 860

Corn for silage 675

Forage Seed 326

Total 000 acres 70,065


Trends in the industry: acreage, research

Tame hay yield-

Canada, 1970-2012

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 001-0010 - Estimated areas, yield, production and average farm price of principal field crops, in metric units, annual(accessed: November 08, 2014)


Harvested area by

crop, 1970-2012

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 001-0010 - Estimated areas, yield, production and average farm price of principal field crops, in metric units, annual (accessed: November 08, 2014)


Yield by crop, 1970-2012

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 001-0010 - Estimated areas, yield, production and average farm price of principal field crops, in metric units, annual (accessed: November 08, 2014)


# of farms /tame hay acreage,

1970-2012

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 004-0015 - Census of Agriculture, focus on selected commodities, Canada and provinces, every 5 years (number) (accessed: November 08, 2014)


# of cattle by class , 1970-

2012

Source: Statistics Canada. Table 003-0032 - Number of cattle, by class and farm type, annual (head) (accessed: November 08, 2014)

“ First, Wisconsin dairy producers have suffered considerable stand loss from alfalfa winterkill during the 1990’s. In some situations, this has forced producers to harvest and feed more corn silage. Many of these producers found that there was no milk production decline on these higher corn silage diets when rations were balanced accordingly.”

“ A second reason for more corn silage production is being driven by private industry. Some seed companies are placing a strong emphasis and devoting large chunks of research dollars toward developing and marketing corn hybrids for use as silage crop.”

`Finally, many dairy farms in Wisconsin are modernizing and rapidly increasing cow numbers. As farms get bigger, it becomes increasingly difficult to harvest large acreage of alfalfa in the window where optimum forage quality is obtained.``

Exported Forages, Hay & Clover($ Million) Statistics Canada, March 2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Tim hay 104.8 123.4 77.4 75.1 53.6 48.8

Dehy Alf M & P 22.4 29.5 23.3 18.7 13.3 13.7

Dehy Alf cubes 15.3 17.2 17.2 11.7 5.5 7.3

Other Hay 7.4 9.4 13.1 9.9 4.9 9.0

Other Alfalfa -

bales

6.0 7.7 10.8 7.2 2.6 17.7

Other 10.9 6.2 5.8 2.7 2.3 4

Total value 166.8 193.4 147.6 125.3 82.2 100.5



Source Survey of 25 federal, provincial and industry beef research funders, Beef Cattle Research Council

Reasons for concern

Why should “we” be concerned that forage yields have plateaued/declining and acreage is declining?

• Growing global demand for food/feed/fibre/fuel• Canadian land area stable…Class 1, 2 and 3 land being developed and

replaced by “less dependable” land• Rate of gain in livestock feed conversion efficiencies is slowing• Future increase in production increasingly reliant on yield per acre• Forages represent approximately 40% of land area

• Forages contribute to competitiveness of beef, dairy and sheep sectors

Reasons for concern


• Forages provide substantial environmental goods and services, particularly on “marginal” or “sensitive” land

Source: Amélie C.M Gaudin*, Sabrina Westra, Cora E.S Loucks, Ken Janovicek, Ralph C. Martin, William Deen. 2012. Improving Resilience of Northern Field Crop Systems Using Inter-Seeded Red Clover. Agronomy. doi:10.3390/agro20x0000x

Reasons for concern


• Forages provide substantial environmental goods and services, particularly on “marginal” or “sensitive” land

• Increasing concerns with moving to simple rotations that exclude forages

Reasons for concern: Ontario example

Trend in past five years• Declining beef and dairy head• Declining forage acres• Increasing corn silage• Growers questioning inclusion of wheat/cover

crops in rotation• Increase in corn and soybean acreage

Elora Research Station : 1625 acres, silt loam soil, 900mm annual rainfall, 2700-2800 CHU

• Initiated in 1980

• Rotations – CCCC, AAAA, CCAA, CCSS, CCSW, CCSW(rc), CCOB, CCO(rc)B(rc)

• Conventional tillage and no-till

Corn

Soybean

Alfalfa

Barley

Wheat

NTCT


Corn soybean rotation is associated with

• Reduced yield

• Reduced system resiliency

• Reduced soil organic matter and associated benefits

• Increased input requirement (eg. nitrogen)

• Reduced input use efficiency

• Reduced probability of no-till success

• Reduced opportunity to incorporate cover crops

• Increased GHG emission

Meyers et al, 2006a; Meyers et al 2006b; Sanscartier et al, 2013; Munkholm et al, 2012; Munkholm et al, 2013; Muellera et al, 2009; Gaudin et al, 2013; Gaudin et al. 2014; Gaugin et al. (submitted), Kludze et al. 2013.

Photo: October 09, 2011 satellite image when the cyanobacteria bloom covered the largest area of Lake Erie. Bright green is the bloom as scum or right near the surface. Courtesy NASA MODIS data processed by R. Stumpf, NOAA.


Given a future (and a present?) that is characterized by • Climate change • Higher yield potential • Lower average soil class • Residue removal

Is a simple two crop rotation OK?

Past technological yield gains

- Increased maize water requirements?-

There is an obligatory link between CO2 assimilation rate (A) and

transpiration rate (T)

TR Sinclair

Increase in yields have been tightly linked with increase in transpiration losses.

Potential increase in crop residue removal for biomass

-5 0 5 10

Rotation effect (% of CCSS cluster mean)

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

CCCC

CCSW

CCOB

CCSWrc

CCOrcBrc

CCAA

Rotation effect (% of CCSS cluster mean)

*

*

**

**

*

*

*

**

*

**

**

**

Rotation diversity

• Increases long term yields (“rotation effect”)

• Helps mitigates weather variations

COOL / WET seasons HOT DRY seasons OPTIMAL - High Yielding

Reduced Tillage Tillage

Gaudin A et al., PLOS one (2014) in press

• Significantly decrease in yield variations and risk of crop failure

when forages are included

Is sensitivity to moisture increasing over time?

Did increase in grain yields/biomass and removal of non-water

constraints to crop production increased maize yields

responsiveness to precipitation?

Response to both low – high precipitation

1950-2012 in Ontario

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

05

00

10

00

15

00

GD

D

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

01

02

03

04

05

06

0

HD

D

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

02

00

400

600

800

100

0

Accu

mula

ted P

recip

ita

tio

n

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

02

46

81

01

214

Sta

nd

ard

Devia

tion

of

Daily

Pre

cip

.

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

500

10

00

15

00

GD

D

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

01

02

03

04

05

06

0

HD

D

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

02

00

400

600

800

100

0

Acc

um

ula

ted P

reci

pita

tion

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

02

46

81

01

214

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iatio

n o

f D

aily

Pre

cip.

Corn

yie

lds /co

un

ty (

bu

ac

-1)

R package: visreg (Breheny and Burchett, 2014)

Precipitation during vegetative growth

(mm, May-June)

ΔY

ield

(b

ua

c-1

)

• No alteration in maize response to precipitation at early growth stages

• Yields appear to be increasingly sensitive to summer rainfall over time

- Model captures the persistence of early growing season precipitation

into the summer months

- Relationship between extreme heat/VPD and precipitation

Change in yield response to precipitation

1950 1980 2010 1950 1980 2010

Precipitation during flow-grain filling

(mm, July-August)

ΔY

ield

(b

ua

c-1

)

Future opportunities for forages? • Continue research to

• “develop annual and perennial forage varieties with improved establishment, increased yield, improved adaptation to stressors such as drought, flooding and saline soils, improved ensilability and nutritional value, and

• improve grass/rangeland/hay land management and utilization to increase productivity, longevity and sustainability” (CFGA stated objectives)”

Source Canadian Forage and Grassland Association’s Strategy for the Future

Future opportunities for forages? • Promote message of INCREASING economic and

environmental importance forages• Look for non-traditional ways to incorporate

forages/livestock production into existing cropping systems

• Expand traditional concept of forages to include • Cover crops• Biomass

• Look for ways to encourage private industry to participate in research

Future opportunities for forages? • Look for non-traditional ways to incorporate

forages/livestock production into existing cropping systems – eg. double cropped forages after winter wheat

Future opportunities for forages? • Expand traditional concept of forages to include Biomass

Crops

Technical and sustainability challenges with crop residue removal

MIscanthus

Switchgrass

Future opportunities for forages? • Look for ways to encourage private industry to

participate in research

Corn Price2

N Cost MERN 3

MEY 4

Profit 5

$ Mg-1

$ kg-1

kg N ha-1

kg ha-1

$ ha-1

No-Red clover 143 9454 1293

Red clover 79 9886 1382

Difference ** ** **


Red clover 74 9841 889

Difference ** ** **


Red clover 74 9841 1353

Difference ** ** **



Difference ** ** **

2 Corn price after drying, handling and marketing

3 Maximum economic rate of nitrogen calculated using a quadratic function

4 Maximum economic yield at MERN

5 Profit based on nitrogen rate and corn yield at MERN and clover establishment cost of $40 ha

-1

1 Analysis conducted using 19 paired comparison of red clover-no-red clover

150 1.5

100 1.5

Cover crop

150 1

100 1

Corn Price2

N Cost MERN 3

MEY 4

Profit 5

$ Mg-1

$ kg-1

kg N ha-1

kg ha-1

$ ha-1


Red clover 79 9886 1382

Difference ** ** **



Difference ** ** **


Red clover 74 9841 1353

Difference ** ** **



Difference ** ** **

2 Corn price after drying, handling and marketing

3 Maximum economic rate of nitrogen calculated using a quadratic function

4 Maximum economic yield at MERN

5 Profit based on nitrogen rate and corn yield at MERN and clover establishment cost of $40 ha

-1

1 Analysis conducted using 19 paired comparison of red clover-no-red clover

150 1.5

100 1.5

Cover crop

150 1

100 1

[email protected]

dr. bill deen - forages - essential crop of the past, present and future

Environment