0634 Forage quality of two different pasture systems incorporating warm and cool season forages for grazing organic dairy cattle

2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (suppl_5) ◽  
pp. 302-303
Author(s):  
K. E. Ruh ◽  
B. J. Heins ◽  
J. Paulson
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Forage Quality ◽  
Cool Season ◽  
Organic Dairy

Forage quality of five cool-season grasses. I. Cultivar effects

1990 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Collins ◽  
Michael D. Casler
Keyword(s):  
Forage Quality ◽  
Cool Season

scholarly journals Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare?

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1786
Author(s):  
Eugénie Duval ◽  
Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk ◽  
Benjamin Lecorps
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Conventional Farming ◽  
Organic Dairy ◽  
High Standards ◽  
Vague Language ◽  
On Farm ◽  
The Eu

Animal welfare is an emerging concept in EU law; with the advent of specific regulations intending to protect animals. The approach taken by European lawmakers is to provide “minimum standards” for conventional farming; argued by some as failing to adequately protect animals. In contrast, the EU organic farming regulations aim to “establish a sustainable management system for agriculture” and promote “high animal welfare standards”. The first aim of this review was to identify key areas where there are clear improvements in quality of life for dairy cattle housed under the EU organic regulations when compared to the conventional EU regulations. Using the available scientific evidence, our second aim was to identify areas where the organic regulations fail to provide clear guidance in their pursuit to promote high standards of dairy cattle welfare. The greater emphasis placed on natural living conditions, the ban of some (but unfortunately not all) physical mutilations combined with clearer recommendations regarding housing conditions potentially position the organic dairy industry to achieve high standards of welfare. However, improvements in some sections are needed given that the regulations are often conveyed using vague language, provide exceptions or remain silent on some aspects. This review provides a critical reflection of some of these key areas related to on-farm aspects. To a lesser extent, post farm gate aspects are also discussed

Forage quality of five cool-season grasses. II. Species effects

1990 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Collins ◽  
Michael D. Casler
Keyword(s):  
Forage Quality ◽  
Cool Season ◽  
Species Effects

Maturation effects on forage quality of Kentucky bluegrass

1997 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. L. Hockensmith ◽  
C. C. Sheaffer ◽  
G. C. Marten ◽  
J. L. Halgerson
Keyword(s):  
Festuca Arundinacea ◽  
Poa Pratensis ◽  
Perennial Grass ◽  
Forage Quality ◽  
Kentucky Bluegrass ◽  
Phleum Pratense ◽  
Neutral Detergent Fiber ◽  
Cool Season

Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) is an important constituent of many permanent pastures in the northern United States and is an important source of livestock feed, but there is a paucity of information on its forage quality. The objective of this research was to assess changes with maturity in forage quality of whole herbage, leaves, and stems of Kentucky bluegrass compared with other important cool-season forage grasses. Kentucky bluegrass, orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae L.), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss), timothy (Phleum pratense L.), and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb) were sampled weekly beginning in mid-May until each species reached milk stage. Kentucky bluegrass had the highest or was among the grasses with the highest average leaf percentage, and leaf, stem, and whole herbage neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) concentrations; and lowest average whole herbage, leaf, and stem in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) concentrations compared with tall growing species. Kentucky bluegrass also had the slowest rates of change in leaf and stem concentration and in whole herbage IVDDM and NDF concentrations with maturity. Leaf concentration was negatively correlated with herbage NDF and ADL concentration, but was not correlated with herbage IVDDM and CP concentration. Relative to tall growing cool season grasses, Kentucky bluegrass is leafier, but it has poorer forage digestibility. Key words: Poa pratense L., forage quality, perennial grass, leaves, stems

The effect of bovine saliva on growth attributes and forage quality of two contrasting cool season perennial grasses grown in three soils of different fertility

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 307 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kerim Gullap ◽  
H. Ibrahim Erkovan ◽  
Ali Koc
Keyword(s):  
Sandy Soil ◽  
Crude Protein ◽  
Sandy Loam ◽  
Forage Quality ◽  
Belowground Biomass ◽  
Perennial Grasses ◽  
Cool Season ◽  
Acid Detergent Fibre ◽  
Dactylis Glomerata L

The aim of this study was to determine the response of Dactylis glomerata L. (Orchardgrass) and Festuca ovina L. (Sheep fescue), to bovine saliva application in a loamy soil (most fertile), a sandy loam and a sandy soil (least fertile). The effects of cutting and cutting + saliva on relative height growth rate (RHGR), above- and belowground biomass and forage quality attributes [crude protein, NDF (neutral detergent fibre) and ADF (acid detergent fibre)] were investigated. The results showed that the cutting and cutting + saliva treatments resulted in greater RHGR than the control, but only with D. glomerata in the sandy soil did the application of saliva increase the RHGR. However, saliva applied after cutting increased the aboveground biomass averaged over all species and all three soils. Saliva applied to D. glomerata increased the belowground biomass in the sandy loam and sandy soils but decreased it in F. ovina in the sandy soil. The application of saliva had no effect on the crude protein or the NDF content of either species in any of the soils. On the other hand, the application of saliva after clipping increased the ADF of F. ovina but decreased that of D. glomerata averaged over all three soils. Averaged over both species, the ADF was increased by the addition of saliva in the sandy soil, had no significant effect in the sandy loam (P > 0.05) and was slightly increased in the loam.

scholarly journals Milk Production, Body Weight, Body Condition Score, Activity, and Rumination of Organic Dairy Cattle Grazing Two Different Pasture Systems Incorporating Cool- and Warm-Season Forages

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 264
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Ritz ◽  
Bradley J. Heins ◽  
Roger D. Moon ◽  
Craig C. Sheaffer ◽  
Sharon L. Weyers
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Milk Production ◽  
Body Condition Score ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Cool Season ◽  
Organic Dairy ◽  
Condition Score ◽  
Annual Grasses ◽  
System 2 ◽  
System 1

Organic dairy cows were used to evaluate the effect of two organic pasture production systems (temperate grass species and warm-season annual grasses and cool-season annuals compared with temperate grasses only) across two grazing seasons (May to October of 2014 and 2015) on milk production, milk components (fat, protein, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), somatic cell score (SCS)), body weight, body condition score (BCS), and activity and rumination (min/day). Cows were assigned to two pasture systems across the grazing season at an organic research dairy in Morris, Minnesota. Pasture System 1 was cool-season perennials (CSP) and Pasture System 2 was a combination of System 1 and warm-season grasses and cool-season annuals. System 1 and System 2 cows had similar milk production (14.7 and 14.8 kg d−1), fat percentage (3.92% vs. 3.80%), protein percentage (3.21% vs. 3.17%), MUN (12.5 and 11.5 mg dL−1), and SCS (4.05 and 4.07), respectively. Cows in System 1 had greater daily rumination (530 min/day) compared to cows in System 2 (470 min/day). In summary, warm-season annual grasses may be incorporated into grazing systems for pastured dairy cattle.

Resistance to Anthracnose Protects Forage Quality of Alfalfa

Crop Science ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. W. Lenssen ◽  
E. L. Sorensen ◽  
G. L. Posler ◽  
D. L. Stuteville
Keyword(s):  
Forage Quality
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document