Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LUCERNE VERSUS TEMPORARY PASTURE.

A COMPARISON AT MARTON

J. M. SMITH, H.D.A.,

Assistant Instructor in Agriculture, Wanganui

It is well recognized that where suitable conditions for lucerne exist there is no more valuable crop our farmers can grow, this having been proved many times. Unfortunately, however, it has been stated repeatedly that lucerne will grow on all types of . soil and under practically any conditions; and while this . may be literally true, the growing of lucerne on certain types of land has often turned out to be an unsound proposition, much to the farmer’s regret. In considering lucerne, the point is- not so much whether it will grow, but whether it will give returns in excess of any other crop in respect to quality, yield, and cost of production. The answer to the latter query is occasionally in the negative. SOIL CONDITIONS AT MARTON. The soil of the Marton Experimental Area, which is typical of much of the land in the district, is by no means a suitable one for lucerne. . It is of a heavy clay typeso heavy and puggy, in fact, that mole drains (made by the drain-plough) have lasted for over •fifteen years, and at the end of that period were still working satisfactorily in parts. The clay surface soil is underlaid in many situations by a stratum of hard ironstone which varies in depth from a few inches up to 18 in. or 2 ft., and lies anywhere between the surface and a depth of 4 ft. or 5 ft. This stratum could hardly be called a hardpan, however, as it is more or less broken, and is not continuous. In connection with this. ironstone it is interesting to note that, during the . summer months the roots of the lucerne ■ go down beyond the stratum and draw their nourishment from below it; but with the rise of the dead-water level during the winter months the roots rut back to the ironstone, and it is not until the fall of the water in spring that the roots go down again. Thus it must be seen that much of the plant’s strength is used up in the growing of new deep roots each spring, and this no doubt accounts to some • extent for the slowness with which the crop comes away at that period. This is probably only a contributing factor, as the nature of the soil itself does not tend towards early growth. Considering the soil-conditions at Marton it must be recognized that the lucerne has done remarkably well in yielding as it. has, and its success is largely due to the fact that the stand has never been grazed. With constant or even occasional stocking the stand would probably have died out during the first season or two ; it certainly 'could never have lasted as it has. It should be noted that, owing to the nature of the land, the crop has • never been successfully cultivated. In early spring the land lies too wet for cultivating, the clay holding the moisture for a much longer period than a lighter soil would ; then in autumn the land is too hard, and consequently cultivation cannot be carried out. This, of course, is only another point against the growing of lucerne on that type of soil.

LUCERNE AND TEMPORARY PASTURE : POINTS OF COMPARISON. In making a comparison between a lucerne stand and a temporary pasture there are several points that must be kept in view. Firstly, there is the length of period of the usefulness of each of these crops. For instance,- even on the. class of land now referred to, the lucerne crop should continue to give fair returns for a considerable period after the temporary pasture has outlived its usefulness. Temporary pasture under many conditions, however, can be made to give splendid returns for five years or more by careful treatment, as will be shown. Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that hay crops from the lucerne stand represent the total usable product from that crop for the whole of the year, and especially ' so where grazing in the spring and late autumn cannot be carried out, or would be disastrous if attempted. On the other hand, the hay crops from the temporary pasture represent but part of the year's return. It may even be held that the hay crops are but. four months’ growth, while the remaining eight months represent a . very considerable return through, grazing. Thirdly, the cost of the year’s operations in connection with each crop must be considered, and in this connection it will be seen that the annual cost per crop is about the ; same. Lucerne will require the same top-dressing, hence the manure bills will be equal. With regard to cost of harvesting, this should favour the temporary pasture, for with the latter there are at the most two hay crops a year to handle, whereas with lucerne there will be the cost of harvesting three or four crops. RECORDS OF FIVE SEASONS. The lucerne stand at the Marton Area was put down in December, 1918, when 15 lb. of Marlborough seed was sown to the acre. The land was limed with carbonate of lime at the rate of i j tons, and manured with basic super at the rate of 3 cwt. per acre. In the same —November, 1918 —a temporary pasture consisting of 25 lb. Italian rye-grass and 5 lb. cow-grass per acre was sown. It will be noticed that this is a purely temporary mixture. Basic super was applied with the seed at the rate of 2 cwt. per acre. It is between these two crops that a comparison will be made. In connection with the weights recorded hereafter for both crops, the figures given are tons and. hundredweights of green material. Hay crops at the Area are carefully weighed when cut, so that these weights are accurate and representative. During the 1919-20 season, unfortunately, no record was kept of the yield from the lucerne stand, but the temporary pasture was closed for hay on 1st October. It was cut on 19th December, and yielded 7 tons 14 cwt. per acre. The material was mostly ryegrass. On 16th February it was again cut, yielding 7 tons 15 cwt. of first-class cow-grass, giving a total return of 15 tons' 9 cwt. per acre for the period 1st October to 16th February. This field (5 acres in all) carried 135 sheep all through September, and was ready for grazing again at the end of February. In addition to . this the field carried between two and three sheep to the acre forjthe remainder* of the year.

The following season, 1920-21, the lucerne was cut three times, yielding in all 17 tons to the acre. This same season the pasture field was closed for hay on 18th . October, and was cut on 13th December, yielding .12 tons 17 cwt. per acre. The 'field remained closed until 17th March, when it was cut for a seed crop, this cut being practically pure clover. On threshing it yielded 148 lb; of clover-seed . to the acre. During the month preceding the date of the first shutting-up for hay the .5 acres carried 101 sheep, and the area was again ready for grazing at the end of March.- No actual record was kept of the grazing for the remainder of the year, but it is estimated that it. carried between three and four sheep per acre. The lucerne crop yielded four cuts during the 1921-22 season, the total yield on this occasion being 22 tons .6 cwt. per acre. The temporary-pasture field was closed early in October and cut for hay on 19th December. This crop yielded 14 tons 15 cwt. per acre. The pasture was cut for hay a second time on 13th February and yielded 6 tons 8 cwt.',’ making a total yield for the year of 21 tons 3 cwt. In. addition to this the area carried an average of 2-8 sheep for the whole year, or an average of 4-3 sheep for the period when it was not shut up for hay. It should be stated that in the early spring of this season the pasture was top-dressed with 10 cwt. of carbonate of lime and 2 cwt. of super per acre. The 1922-23 season was not a favourable one for haymaking, and this put the lucerne at a greater disadvantage than the temporary pasture. Had the weather been favourable a fourth cut could have been made, but, as it was, only three were taken. The three cuts yielded a total of-17 tons 16 cwt. per acre. Only one cut of hay was taken from the temporary pasture . during . this season, on account of the weather conditions ; it yielded 8 tons 3 cwt. per acre. In addition to this the pasture carried just over 21 sheep per acre for the whole year. ■ ' ' ' • Three crops were taken from the. lucerne area during the 1923-24 season, the total yield being 14 tons 10 cwt. per acre. The temporary pasture was now in.its. fifth year, and yielded but one cut of grass, that a fairly Tight one5 tons 9 cwt. per acre. Notwithstanding the length of. time that the pasture had been down, its carrying-capacity averaged 1-78 sheep per acre during this season, and it would have comfortably carried two sheep had they been available. . . • . The results of the five seasons under review may be briefly summarized- as follows, all yields given being green weights : —- ■ ;

Season.

19221923-

Lucerne (sown December, 1918).

No record ... Three cuts, totalling 17 tons .. Four cuts —22 tons 6 cwt. Three cuts—17. tons 16 cwt. . . j Three cuts-14 tons 10 cwt. . .

Temporary Pasture (sown November, 1918).

Two cuts, totalling 15 tons 9 cwt. ; 135 sheep all September ; 2 J sheep per acre for year. One cut—12 tons 17 cwt. ; seed-yield, 148 lb. per acre ; 101 sheep all September ; 3I sheep per acre for year. Two cuts —21 tons 3 cwt. ; 2-8 sheep for whole year. . One cut; tons 3 cwt. ; 2| sheep per acre for whole year. One cut —5 tons 9 cwt. ; 1-78 sheep per acre for whole year.

From the foregoing records' it will be seen that, taking all things into consideration,, the returns from the temporary pasture are in excess of those from the lucerne. The actual hay-yields from the pasture (although it must be remembered this hay is not quite so high in quality as the lucerne hay) are very little below those of the lucerne, and then in addition the grazing of the pasture, which is . very

considerable, must be taken into consideration. The quality of the grazing is shown in the increase in weight that lambs have made on the aftermath of clover after the second cut of hay. During February of this year twenty-four cull lambs were weighed and turned on to the clover. At the end of a fortnight they were again weighed and found to have put on an average of q| lb. per head. ■

A FURTHER COMPARISON. In April, 1923, a further 131 acres of temporary pasture were: put down, the mixture being a little different from the previous one, having 10 lb. of perennial rye-grass included. - This rye species, being more permanent, should give . the pasture a longer life. . During the past season this pasture was cut twice for hay, the 'first 'cut yielding 8 tons 18 cwt. of green material per acre, and the second cut yielding 7 tons 11.cwt., making a total of 17 tons 9 cwt. per acre for the season. The carrying-capacity of this area for the year ended June, 1924, Was 2-78 sheep per acre. For the period between June and the shuttingup of the area for hay it carried just over three sheep. Although it is hardly-fair to compare these results with that'of the lucerne' stand, which is now in its seventh year, it-may be noted that the yield , of the lucerne for the past season was 16 tons 15 . cwt. of green material. - . . ' ' ■ CONCLUSIONS. - ' . The . experience at MartonExperimental Area seems to indicate that temporary pasture of Italian rye-grass and cow-grass should there not be kept down longer than four years, as there is a considerable reduction in yield after that period ; while in the case of the lucerne the yield in its sixth year was equal to the average of the previous five years. In any comparison between lucerne and temporary pasture at Marton the cost of renewal of the pasture has to be taken into consideration. As £4 per acre will be more than sufficient for renewal, allowing four years as the duration ..of the temporary pasture, it has to be weighted with £i*per year in excess of the lucerne. The high grazing - capacity of the temporary pasture would, however, in . the case of soil similar to that of the Marton Area make any comparison distinctly in favour of temporary pasture.

WINTER DAIRYING AT HANMER SPRINGS.

The Queen Mary Hospital farm at Hanmer Springs, North Canterbury, is operated primarily for the purpose of supplying, milk to the hospital, and the .supply: must thus be kept up all through the year. The farm is situated 1,200 ft. above sealevel, and the locality is subject to heavy falls of snow in winter. The land is very poor, and owing to the comparatively short growing season the dairy herd has to be band-fed for six months of the year, during which period the pastures are practically negligible/ For four months of.the winter the cattle are housed and all food is supplied in the bails. The food consists of oat-sheaf chaff, bran, oil-cake, mangolds (in season), hay, and rock salt. The cattle are given the following daily rations : Chaff, 14 lb. ; bran, 2 lb. ; oil-cake nuts, 2 lb. ; mangolds, 40 lb. ; and as much hay as they will consume. All this fodder is of the best quality, and the ration varies according to the time each cow has been in profit. Thus a cow six or seven months in milk will not be getting, so large a ration as a cow at full profit. During the winter of 1924 the herd consisted of fifteen to seventeen head, and ranged from cows fresh in profit to others seven and eight months in milk. During the six feeding-months, from April to September inclusive, eight cows were turned out dry and replaced with fresh ones, so the winter ended as it began with cows ranging from fresh in to others six and seven months in profit. The milk produced during the six months was 8,943 gallons, which averages close on 3 gallons per cow per day. The experience here recorded is claimed as a demonstration that winter dairying can be profitably conducted if carried out on right lines even under unfavourable natural conditions. The particulars were supplied by the farm-manager, Mr. W. B. Willis. 1

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZJAG19250520.2.3

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XXX, Issue 5, 20 May 1925, Page 296

Word Count
2,478

LUCERNE VERSUS TEMPORARY PASTURE. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XXX, Issue 5, 20 May 1925, Page 296

LUCERNE VERSUS TEMPORARY PASTURE. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume XXX, Issue 5, 20 May 1925, Page 296