Corn Residues in Beef Production Systems

Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Roth, L. D.; Rivera, Salvador Fernández; Lewis, M.

doi:10.2527/jas1987.6541139x

Cited by 50 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was consistent to the report by others [4]. Husks have been reported to be the most digestible component of grain maize stover [7] as well as sweet maize residue (husks, cobs, cull ears, and part kernels), which, as a whole, would have about 650 g kg −1 total digestible nutrients (TDN) [33]. The ear component in the present study had somewhat lesser 48-h IVDMD at 487 g kg −1 .…”

Section: Sweet Maize Stover 48-h Ivdmdsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Lesser ear biomass yield also was anticipated because, although the grain component of maize generally comprises about 50% of the total biomass [6,7], the market-ready ears had been previously harvested. There was no relay intercropping treatment effect or interaction for sweet maize stover total DM biomass ( Table 2).…”

Section: Sweet Maize Stover Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crop residues, such as maize stover, help to protect the soil, but also have been used as an economical winter feed source for livestock in many parts of the world, either grazed in situ [1][2][3][4] or as stored feed ex situ [2,5,6]. Grazing is probably the best use of maize stover although energy and/or protein may be limiting, except possibly for non-lactating cows or calves, especially in irrigated fields [4,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relay Intercropping with Cover Crops Improved Autumn Forage Potential of Sweet Maize Stover

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maize (Zea mays L.) stover is used globally as winter feed for livestock but the nutritive value is low, requiring supplementation. A 2-year randomized complete block study with three replicates at New Mexico State University's Alcalde Sustainable Agriculture Science Center compared sweet maize (Zea mays var. rugosa; maize-alone) with sweet maize relay intercropped with oat (Avena sativa L.; maize-oat) or turnip (Brassica rapa L.; maize-turnip). Relay intercropping had no effect (p > 0.05) on sweet maize stover dry matter (DM) yield and there was no difference in aboveground biomass DM yield of the intercropped species. Turnip aboveground biomass had greater crude protein concentration and 48-h in vitro dry matter disappearance (IVDMD) than oat aboveground biomass. Relay intercropping with turnip improved sweet maize stover IVDMD (443, 439, and 515 g IVDMD kg −1 for maize-alone, maize-oat, and maize-turnip, respectively, p < 0.0001). Intercropping increased animal gains compared to maize-alone (0.36, 0.52, and 0.59 kg/day for maize-alone, maize-oat, and maize-turnip, respectively, p < 0.02), likely due to provision of additional crude protein. Relay intercropping oat or turnip into sweet maize is viable for improving sweet maize stover for fall forage. In addition turnip, specifically, had a positive effect on stover nutritive value.

show abstract

Section: Sweet Maize Stover 48-h Ivdmdsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Sweet Maize Stover Biomassmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relay Intercropping with Cover Crops Improved Autumn Forage Potential of Sweet Maize Stover

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Agricultural residues, such as maize stover, are expected to provide substantial amounts of biomass for conversion into biofuels, but excessive maize stover removal can lead to increased soil erosion and decreased soil organic C 73 . Further, grazing of maize stover after harvest is a simple and economical way of integrating crop-livestock systems 78 . If crop residues become a significant source of biomass feedstock, there will be a critical need for timely and accurate data on residue cover to ensure sustainability; however, no government program exists to objectively monitor residue cover across large areas [79][80][81] .…”

Section: Bioenergy Cropping Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop–livestock systems

Sanderson

Archer

Hendrickson

et al. 2013

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation agricultural systems rely on three principles to enhance ecosystem services: (1) minimizing soil disturbance, (2) maximizing soil surface cover and (3) stimulating biological activity. In this paper, we explore the concept of diversity and its role in maximizing ecosystem services from managed grasslands and integrated agricultural systems (i.e., integrated crop-livestock-forage systems) at the field and farm level. We also examine trade-offs that may be involved in realizing greater ecosystem services. Previous research on livestock production systems, particularly in pastureland, has shown improvements in herbage productivity and reduced weed invasion with increased forage diversity but little response in terms of animal production. Managing forage diversity in pastureland requires new tools to guide the selection and placement of plant mixtures across a farm according to site suitability and the goals of the producer. Integrated agricultural systems embrace the concept of dynamic cropping systems, which incorporates a long-term strategy of annual crop sequencing that optimizes crop and soil use options to attain production, economic and resource conservation goals by using sound ecological management principles. Integrating dynamic cropping systems with livestock production increases the complexity of management, but also creates synergies among system components that may improve resilience and sustainability while fulfilling multiple ecosystem functions. Diversified conservation agricultural systems can sustain crop and livestock production and provide additional ecosystem services such as soil C storage, efficient nutrient cycling and conservation of biodiversity.

show abstract

“…Grazing corn residue costs less than winter range even though both are similar in nutrient content (Klopfenstein et al, 1987). If a calving date were selected which matched the cow's greatest feed intake with this inexpensive feed resource, net returns could be increased.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calving date and wintering system effects on cow and calf performance I: A systems approach to beef production in the Nebraska Sandhills

Pas

Stalker

Adams

et al. 2012

The Professional Animal Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Corn Residues in Beef Production Systems

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Relay Intercropping with Cover Crops Improved Autumn Forage Potential of Sweet Maize Stover

Relay Intercropping with Cover Crops Improved Autumn Forage Potential of Sweet Maize Stover

Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop–livestock systems

Calving date and wintering system effects on cow and calf performance I: A systems approach to beef production in the Nebraska Sandhills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About