Effects of grazing dates on forage and beef production of mixed prairie rangeland

1999 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Schellenberg ◽  
N.W. Holt ◽  
J. Waddington
Keyword(s):  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Bouteloua Gracilis ◽  
Early Spring ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Canadian Prairies ◽  
Crested Wheatgrass ◽  
Forage Digestibility ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Mixed Prairie

Conventional belief is that mixed prairie range is harmed by early spring use but not by moderate grazing after the grasses have flowered. Our hypothesis was that mixed prairie range may be grazed for a limited period in the growing season providing rest is allowed for the remainder of the year. This 6-yr test was established on a rolling site of range pasture, which contained, by area, 65% upland mixed prairie, 5% lowland bluegrass (Poa spp.) and 30% crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). The species mix is commonly found in southern Canadian prairies. The mixed prairie grasses were needle and thread (Stipa comata), northern wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). Each pasture was 1.6 ha and was grazed with yearling beef cattle once a year beginning mid-May; the end of June; mid-August or late September. Forage yields in grazing-exclusion cages averaged 580, 2960, and 1370 kg ha−1 for the mixed prairie, lowland grasses, and crested wheatgrass, respectively. The date of grazing in the previous year did not affect current-year maximum forage yield. The main determinant of maximum forage yield was a combination of spring soil moisture plus April to June precipitation. Available forage for grazing, on average, doubled from mid-May until the end of June for the three forage types. There were year-by-grazing date interactions, which were related to distribution of precipitation. Mixed prairie was the preferred forage at the last two grazing dates. Forage digestibility, N and P content were highest during the May and June grazing period and declined thereafter. Average daily gain of the steers decreased from 0.9 kg d−1 in May and late June to 0.2 kg d−1 by late September. Annual carrying capacity (in standard animal units) was 40 d ha−1 in May and averaged 55 d ha−1 for the other dates, which were not different. Grazing mixed prairie did not have a negative effect on the yield of native grasses when used for only one short period per year. Delayed use from mid May to end of June increased available forage and carrying capacity. Key words: Mixed grass prairie, crested wheatgrass, grazing, weather effects

Production characteristics of the mixed prairie: constraints and potential

1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 765-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. D. Willms ◽  
P. G. Jefferson
Keyword(s):  
Species Composition ◽  
Great Plains ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Bouteloua Gracilis ◽  
Fertilizer Application ◽  
Plant Litter ◽  
Northern Great Plains ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Canadian Prairies ◽  
Mixed Prairie

The mixed prairie represents the most arid region of the Northern Great Plains in Canada. Approximately 6.5 M ha of the original total of 24 M ha have retained their native character. The native prairie supports about 5.3 M animal–unit–months or about 15% of all beef cattle present on the Canadian prairies. A large portion of the area is dominated by either needle-and-thread (Stipa comata Trin. + Rupr.) or western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii Rydb.), both cool season grasses, and associated with blue grama [Bouteloua gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag. ex Steud.] a warm season grass. These species define the major plant communities of the mixed prairie and determine their production potential. However, their production is limited by available water during the growing season and by soil nutrients; factors which also influence their species composition. Grazing imposes a significant impact on the grasslands by altering the water and nutrient cycles, through defoliation and reduced plant litter, and eventually by affecting the species composition. Removing litter may reduce forage production by up to 60% and repeated defoliation will favour the more drought tolerant but less productive species. Forage production may be increased by seeding introduced species, which have a greater shoot to root ratio than native grasses, or with fertilizer application. Livestock production may be increased with the use of grazing systems. However, the benefits of each practice on the mixed prairie must be assessed in terms of their cost, their impact on the environment, and the reduced or lost value for other users. Key words: Biomass, above-ground, below-ground, water-use efficiency, reseeding, soil fertility, grazing efficiency

Productivity of Russian wildrye as fall pasture with and without non-protein nitrogen supplementation

1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. W. Holt ◽  
J. E. Knipfel
Keyword(s):  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Stocking Rate ◽  
Protein Nitrogen ◽  
Yield And Quality ◽  
Russian Wildrye ◽  
Forage Intake ◽  
Daily Gain

Russian wildrye (Psathyrostachys junceus) is recommended for fall pasture but little data are available from grazing trials to substantiate this advice. This study was initiated to evaluate forage yield and quality, and carrying capacity of Russian wildrye as fall pasture. The experiment was conducted at Swift Current, Saskatchewan from 1983 to 988 with Hereford cows and calves as the grazing units. Stockpiled yields of forage, available for grazing, averaged 650 kg ha−1 when determined in September. In vitro organic matter (OM) digestibility averaged 53% and nitrogen content of the forage averaged 1.3%. Yield of forage supported 34 animal-unit grazing days per hectare, when grazed with Hereford cows (540 ± 60 kg) and calves (190 ± 30 kg) for 4–7 wk in September and October. Cows weights were maintained, and calves gained, on average, 0.95 kg d−1. Supplementation with liquid urea-molasses, provided free choice in lick tanks, had no effect on stocking rate or average daily gain of cows or calves. Daily forage intake (OM basis), as measured by chromic oxide dilution, was 2.8% of cow body weight (BW). Daily forage intake by the calves was 1.6% of BW in 1987 and 2.2% of BW in 1988 when OM digestibility of the forage was 54 and 63%, respectively. Forage intake was not affected by supplementation. However, cows allowed access to the supplement grazed 1 h less each day than cows receiving no supplement (7.7 vs. 8.7 h). Russian wildrye provided excellent fall pasture for cows and calves but its production and, consequently carrying capacity, were below levels reported previously. Key words: Psathyrostachys junceus, forage intake, stocking rate

Effect of snow fence or trimming seed heads or stems of Russian wildrye on April soil water content, forage and beef production

1995 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. W. Holt
Keyword(s):  
Water Content ◽  
Soil Water ◽  
Soil Water Content ◽  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Forage Quality ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Snow Fence ◽  
Russian Wildrye

Russian wildrye [Psathyrostachys juncea (Fisch.) Nevski] is an introduced forage, used for season-long grazing in the northern plains. Trimming the heads may improve forage quality but may reduce snow trapping and the amount of moisture conserved. The purpose of this grazing study was to examine the effects of trimming seed heads, trimming seed stems or erecting snow fences on spring soil water content and spring and summer pasture productivity of Russian wildrye at Swift Current, Saskatchewan. From 1985 to 1988, a period of below-normal November to April precipitation, treatments had no effect on soil water content in spring or annual carrying capacity of Russian wildrye pastures. From 1989 to 1994, soil water content in April averaged 74, 64 and 50 mm for treatments of: stems intact (but with added snow fence in 1988); heads trimmed in June, but stems standing; and stems trimmed, respectively. For this 6-yr period, annual carrying capacity of yearling Hereford steers was 153, 143 and 131 animal unit d−1, respectively, for the three treatments. Average daily gain of 0.94 kg d−1, or total gain of 92 kg per steer, was unaffected. Average forage yields (1989–1993) were 2030 kg ha−1, of which 77–86% was consumed by the steers. There was no evidence that trimmed seed heads increased forage yield or quality. The only benefits were related to soil and water conservation, which increased carrying capacity by 15% because of improved snow trapping and water management. Key words:Psathyrostachys juncea, grazing steers, forage quality, soil water

173 Grazing Cover Crops: Effects of Cattle Removal Date on Forage Production and Cattle Performance

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Russell C Carrell ◽  
Sandra L Dillard ◽  
Mary K Mullenix ◽  
Audrey Gamble ◽  
Russ B Muntifering
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Neutral Detergent Fiber ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Cool Season ◽  
Total Gain ◽  
Cattle Performance

Abstract Use of cool-season annual cover crops through grazing has been shown to be a potential tool in extending the grazing season, while still mitigating environmental risks associated with warm-season row crop production. Although data describing the effects of grazing on soil health are not novel, effects of grazing length on animal performance and cover crop production are limited. The objective was to determine cattle performance and forage production when grazing a cool-season annual cover-crop. Twelve, 1.2-ha pastures were established in a four species forage mix and randomly allocated to be grazed through either mid-February (FEB), mid-March (MAR), or mid-April (APR) with a non-grazed control (CON). Three tester steers were randomly placed in each paddock and a 1:1 forage allowance was maintained in each paddock using put-and-take steers. Animals were weighed every 30 d for determination of average daily gain (ADG). Forage was harvested bi-weekly and analyzed for forage production, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF). Fiber fractions were measured using an ANKOM fiber analyzer (ANKOM Tech, Macedon, NY). All data were analyzed using MIXED procedure of SAS version 9.4 (SAS Inst., Cary, NC). Differences in forage mass were detected between CON and FEB (3,694.75 vs. 2,539.68 kg/ha; P < 0.003), CON and MAR (3,694.75 vs. 1,823.45 kg/ha; P < 0.001), and CON and APR (3,694.75 vs. 1,976.23 kg/ha; P < 0.001). Differences in total gain/acre were detected between APR and MAR (212.24 vs. 101.74 kg/ha; P < 0.0001), APR and FEB (212.24 vs 52.65 kg/ha; P < 0.0001), and FEB and MAR (101.74 vs. 52.65 kg/ha; P < 0.003). No differences were detected for tester ADG (1.23 kg/day, P = 0.56), NDF (44.9%, P = 0.99), or ADF (27.2%, P = 0.92) among treatments. These results indicate that cattle removal date effected forage yield and total gain/hectare.

PRODUCTIVITY AND DURABILITY OF CRESTED WHEATGRASS IN SOUTHEASTERN ALBERTA

1967 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 539-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Smoliak ◽  
A. Johnston ◽  
L. E. Lutwick
Keyword(s):  
Agropyron Cristatum ◽  
Native Range ◽  
Crested Wheatgrass ◽  
Mixed Prairie

Productivity and durability of 29- to 38-year-old stands of crested wheatgrass, Agropyron cristatum Gaertn., were assessed. Crested wheatgrass consistently outyielded the grass and sedge component of Mixed Prairie native range vegetation by a ratio that ranged from 12.42 to 1.08. Analysis of soils showed that exhaustion of N was not a factor in persistence of stands. The data indicated that, in the study area, seeded stands of crested wheatgrass became a permanent part of the vegetation and that yield was dependent mainly on current rainfall.

Comparing fall and spring seeding of Kochia scoparia on saline soil

1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1055-1065 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Steppuhn ◽  
D. G. Green ◽  
G. Winkleman ◽  
J. A. Kernan ◽  
E. Coxworth
Keyword(s):  
Saline Soil ◽  
Plant Competition ◽  
Early Spring ◽  
Late Spring ◽  
Shoot Biomass ◽  
Forage Production ◽  
Kochia Scoparia ◽  
Canadian Prairies ◽  
Plant Densities ◽  
Growing Conditions

Kochia scoparia naturally invades distributed soils in the Brown soil zone of the Canadian Prairies and offers potential as a forage crop in saline environments. A 3-yr study conducted on severely saline soil near Swift Current, Saskatchewan, compared kochia production resulting from fall (natural- and implement-seeded) and spring (early- and late-seeded) treatments. Late spring-seeded crops produced, on average, 5.4 t of dry, shoot biomass per ha per yr. Early spring and fall-seeded kochia (naturally or implement-placed) yielded between 5.4 and 10.9 t ha−1. Of the nine comparisons between forage yields from fall and spring seedings, six favored fall over spring, two were equal, and one produced more forage from early spring seedings than from the naturally-seeded fall treatment. The late spring treatment consistently produced the least forage. Fall seedings exhibited a greater potential for forage production because fall-seeded plants usually established early in the growing season and in sufficient number to fully exploit soil and water resources when conditions became favorable and effective rooting depths were not restricted by concentrated salt layers. When drier growing conditions prevailed, the lower plant densities associated with early spring seedings tended to minimize plant competition and foster greater forage production. Key words: Kochia forage, seeding dates, salinity, Kochia establishment, Kochia agronomy

Comparative forage yield, water use, and water use efficiency of alfalfa, crested wheatgrass and spring wheat in a semiarid climate in southern Saskatchewan

2005 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Jefferson ◽  
Herb W. Cutforth
Keyword(s):  
Water Stress ◽  
Water Use Efficiency ◽  
Water Potential ◽  
Soil Water ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Spring Wheat ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Forage Crops ◽  
Crested Wheatgrass ◽  
Use Efficiency

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum L. Gaertn.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) are introduced forage species used for hay and grazing by cattle across western Canada. These species are well adapted to the semiarid region but their long-term responses to water stress have not been previously compared. Two alfalfa cultivars with contrasting root morphology (tap-rooted vs. creeping-rooted) and two crested wheatgrass (CWG) cultivars with different ploidy level (diploid vs. tetraploid) were compared with continuously cropped spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) for 6 yr at a semiarid location in western Canada. Soil water depletion, forage yield, water use efficiency, leaf water potential, osmotic potential and turgor were compared. There were no consistent differences between cultivars within alfalfa or CWG for variables measured. However, these two species exhibit different water stress response strategies. Leaf water potential of CWG was lower during midday stress period than that of alfalfa or wheat. Alfalfa apparently had greater capacity to osmotically adjust to avoid midday water stress and maintain higher turgor. Soil water use patterns changed as the stands aged. In the initial years of the trial, forage crops used soil water from upper layers of the profile. In later years, soil water was depleted down to 3 m by alfalfa and to 2 m by crested wheatgrass. Alfalfa was able to deplete soil water to lower concentrations than crested wheatgrass or wheat. Soil water depletion by wheat during the non-active growth season (after harvest to fall freeze-up) was much less than for CWG or alfalfa as expected for annual vs. perennial crops. As a result, more soil water was available to wheat during its active growth period. In the last 3 yr, the three species depleted all available soil water. Forage yield responses also changed over time. In the initial 3 yr, crested wheatgrass yielded as much as or more than alfalfa. For the last 3 yr of the experiment, alfalfa yielded more forage than crested wheatgrass. Forage crops deplete much more soil water during periods of aboveground growth dormancy than wheat. Water use efficiency of crested wheatgrass declined with stand age compared with fertilized continuous spring wheat. Alfalfa exhibited deep soil water extraction and apparent osmotic adjustment in response to water stress while CWG exhibited tolerance of low water potential during stress. Key words: forage yield, soil water, water potential, water use, water use efficiency, drought

scholarly journals NITROGEN FERTILISER ON GRAZED HILL PASTURES

1982 ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.C. Luscombe
Keyword(s):  
Nitrogen Fixation ◽  
Species Composition ◽  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Early Spring ◽  
N Fixation ◽  
Nitrogen Fertiliser ◽  
Hill Country ◽  
Composition Effects ◽  
Major Species

The effect of N fertiliser on pasture yields and species composition, and spring stock carrying capacity was measured undergrazing at Ballantrae, the Grasslands Division hill country area. N fertiliser was applied as urea in early spring at rates up to 100 kg N/ha. Paddocks were set stocked with sheep with additional sheep being added to N fertilised paddocks to maintain similar herbage availabilities. N fertiliser increased pasture growth by an average of 7 kg DM/ kg N applied. Stock carrying capacities over spring ranged from 18 sheep/ ha without N, to 26 sheep/ ha with 100 kg N/ha. The major species composition effects of N was a reduction in clover yields and clover nitrogen fixation rates, in the spring, summer and autumn after the spring application. Clover growth and N fixation decreased most over summer when clover yields and nitrogen fixation were 41% and 52% lower respectively on hill slopes, at the highest rate of N fertiliser. Pasture yields were lower in autumn on pastures previously N fertilised.

scholarly journals INFLUENCE OF INTERCROPPING MAIZE WITH CLIMBING BEAN ON FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY

AGROFOR ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Darko UHER ◽  
Zlatko SVEČNJAK ◽  
Dubravka DUJMOVIĆ-PURGAR ◽  
Dario JAREŠ ◽  
Ivan HORVATIĆ
Keyword(s):  
Protein Content ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Forage Yield ◽  
Dry Matter Yield ◽  
Forage Digestibility ◽  
Yield And Quality ◽  
High Feed ◽  
Feed Costs

Maize forage is poor in protein content which shows its low quality and nutritive value. Regarding to high feed costs of protein supplementations, legumes can be used in livestock nutrition for their high protein content and, thus, providing cost savings. Since legumes have low dry matter yield, acceptable forage yield and quality can obtained from intercropping cereals and legumes compared with their sole crops. In this study, maize (Zea mays L.) and climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were intercropped in different sowing densities and their monocropping equivalents were tested to determine the best intercropping system on forage yield and quality. Maize was cultivated alone (75 000 plants ha-1) and intercropped with bean as follows: 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 37 500 plants ha-1 of bean (MB1), 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 50 000 plants ha-1 of bean (MB2) and 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 75 000 plants ha-1 of bean (MB3), in rows alternating with maize. The highest dry matter yield was produced by MB3 (20.9 t ha-1), and the lowest by maize (16.9 t ha-1). All intercropped systems had higher crude protein contents, MB1 (92 g kg-1 DM), MB2 (99 g kg-1 DM) and MB3 (110 g kg-1 DM), than the maize (77 g kg-1 DM). Intercropping of maize with bean reduced neutral and acid detergent fiber, resulting in increased forage digestibility. Therefore, maize intercropping with bean could substantially increase forage quantity and quality, and decrease requirements for protein supplements as compared with maize.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document