ROOM FOR MORE LUCERNE

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32660, 16 July 1971, Page 13

ROOM FOR MORE LUCERNE

Recent dry seasons, along with higher stocking rates, have spurred farmers into seeking ways of producing a more assured feed supply. A fortnight ago, farmers in Canterbury and Otago met to discuss irrigation; last week 125 farmers in the Geraldine County met to discuss an increased place for lucerne in their area.

In opening the conference at Geraldine, the Department of Agriculture farm advisory officer for the area (Mr J. Oliver) referred to the success of lucerne on light land at Ashley Dene, and asked why it had not been more widely accepted in the Geraldine area.

Quoting statistics for 1967-1968, he said there were only 5400 acres under lucerne in Geraldine County. If it had been accepted by some, why did it cover only 10 to 20 per cent of farms which could well be growing 70 per cent of their area in lucerne?

Mr Oliver said one or two pros and cons on lucerne had led to holding the conference.

Listing the advantages, he said under appropriate grazing methods total production of lucerne on light land was 50 to 100 per cent greater than conventional subterranean clover-rye-grass-cocksfoot pastures. Further, the variation in production between seasons was significantly lower. Lucerne was a high quality sheep feed and especially good for fattening lambs. Mature lucerne was resistant to grass grub and porina. So by growing more feed per acre, with a more predictable growth pattern, it seemed evident . . . that farmers could achieve higher performance per animal, and later, more stock per acre. But there were problems, the first and obvious being the cost of establishment, coupled with the risk of an establishment failure. Research workers had told farmers that to get the most from stock and lucerne, they must practise an intensive rotational grazing policy. This led to greater production and permanency of the stand. But the problem was just how to relate this to farm management.

To follow the recommendation could mean a

terrific capital outlay in fencing and water reticulation, not to mention all the extra stock work. To farm existing size paddocks could mean mobs too large to handle, and associated problems such as mismothering. Mr Oliver said that in spite of the fact that trials in the area had repeatedly shown a reduction in production when grass was sown with lucerne, he still saw many farmers drilling a mixture. Did these farmers still think there was a case for sowing cocksfoot or prairie grass? Since a pure lucerne stand did not come away in the spring until later than conventional pastures, how would farmers overcome a likely feed shortage in September? Later lambing might be the answer, but the light land of Geraldine was traditionally early country. However, by growing more feed later into ths summer with lucerne, this was a possibility. Alternatively, the September feed shortage could be bridged by Tama or Italian ryegrass overdrilled into old lucerne stands, as local and other trials had indicated. Weeds, associated often with the need to spray, were another problem, and local trials showed more fertiliser was required for lucerne than grass. This, of course, had to be balanced against increased output. In spite of any disadvantages, Mr Oliver said he thought lucerne had a big place on the county’s light land farms, and that the drier properties could grow a high proportion of lucerne very profitably. But it was quite a development programme to change over. Any change over must not only be physically well planned, but financially well planned too.