Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on beef production and forage quality of Russian wildrye

Self Cite

] Nevski), with grass rows seeded perpendicular to the alfalfa rows. Two sites, 4 km apart, were grazed with yearling beef cattle from 1987 to 1993. Forage yield differed among grass treatments in 4 of 5 years, but differences were inconsistent over time. Five-year mean forage yields and total livestock production were not significantly different among the four grasses. Mean annual forage yields ranged from 800 to 8170 kg ha -1 and were related to the amount of growing season (April-August) precipitation. Carrying capacity ranged from 35 steer grazing days per hectare in 1992 to 176 in 1991. Grasses in the mixtures did have a significant effect on the grass-alfalfa ratio and on ground cover. Alfalfa content was highest when grown with Altai wildrye and lowest when grown with Russian wildrye. Percentage of ground cover by the grass plus alfalfa increased from an average of 3.8% in 1987 to 16.1% at one site and 31.9% at the second site by 1993. Russian wildrye contained the least alfalfa and weeds after 7 yr. Intermediate wheatgrass and Altai wildrye did not compete with invading weeds at one site, or with alfalfa at the other, and should not be recommended for spring-summer pastures in semiarid regions. Meadow bromegrass maintained a balance of grass and alfalfa and further research should confirm its persistence in semiarid climates.

Section: Forage Response To Grazingsupporting

confidence: 75%

Productivity and sustainability of four grazed grass – alfalfa mixtures

Holt¹,

Jefferson²

1999

Self Cite

“…This variability was attributed to year-toyear differences in forage quality and supply. The results for May and June were similar to those for season-long grazing of Russian wildrye with yearling steers (Holt et al 1991). Currie et al (1989) reported liveweights of steers on native grass in southern Montana, USA, peaked in late July or early August, then decreased to early September when the trial ended.…”

Section: Forage Yieldssupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Nevski) and crested wheatgrass (Lawrence and Knipfel 1981;Lawrence et al 1982). Decline in forage quality of the lowland complex and crested wheatgrass was more rapid than for the mixed prairie and typical of continuously grazed Russian wildrye pasture (Holt et al 1991). Quality of the mixed prairie and the crested wheatgrass was reduced by the contribution of residual forage from the previous year.…”

Section: Forage Yieldsmentioning

confidence: 84%

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

Schellenberg¹,

Holt²,

Waddington³

1999

, J. 1999. Effects of grazing dates on forage and beef production of mixed prairie rangeland. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 335-341. 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 midMay; 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 Schellenberg, M. P., Holt, N. W. et Waddington, J. 1999. Effets de la date de mise au pâturage sur la production herbagère et sur le rendement en viande bovine des parcours en zone de prairie mixte. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 335-341. La croyance établie veut que la productivité des parcours installés dans la prairie mixte soit compromise par le pâturage de printemps mais pas par une pâture modérée réalisée après la floraison des graminées. Nous estimions, pour notre part, que la prairie mixte peut se pâturer pour une courte durée durant la saison de végétation, pour autant qu'on la laisse reposer pour le restant de l'année. Une expérience de 6 ans a été installée dans un parcours sis dans un terrain ondulé et comprenant, en...

“…Smoliak (1986) 1985-19861986-19871987-1988Mean 1985 Exp. 2 1988-19891989-19901990*1991r991-1992-r993 1993-1994Mean 1988-1994 There was a negative relationship of fall soil water and over-winter water gain (r = -0.63, P < 0.063) for treatments with snow management by standing stems and snow fence. The condition of the soil at freezing in the fall, losses of snow as a result of drifting and evaporation, and the rate of snow melt in the spring effect the efficiency of converting snow to soil water in the spring.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Holt¹

1995

Self Cite

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