Performance of Irrigated Tall Fescue–Legume Communities under Two Grazing Frequencies in the Southern Rocky Mountains, USA

Lauriault, Leonard M.; Guldan, Steven J.; Martin, Claude; VanLeeuwen, Dawn

doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.0126

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Trampling also may not have been a problem for the turnip and, possibly, the oat because most of the turnip stand established on the sides of the beds where trampling would be less likely as has been reported in other research [16,17]. Although not compared in the present study, cattle also will select the higher quality plant species first in mixed pastures [40] (e.g., turnip vs. maize in the maize-turnip treatment, Table 2). …”

Section: Post-grazing Overseeded Forage Biomass and % Disappearancementioning

confidence: 56%

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: Post-grazing Overseeded Forage Biomass and % Disappearancementioning

confidence: 56%

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

“…In addition to the production benefits of forage legumes, their forage nutritive value is important. This potential for yield compensation by legumes can be instrumental in improving the seasonal distribution of forage and increasing the capacity of a pasture to support livestock grazing throughout the summer (Leep et al, 2002;Lauriault et al, 2006). Multiple studies have shown that grass-legume mixtures improve crude protein (CP) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content in forage compared with the grass monocultures (Malhi et al, 2002;Zemenchik et al, 2002;Kopp et al, 2003;Deak et al, 2007;Kleen et al, 2011) Forage legumes commonly used in grass-legume mixtures, such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (ALF) and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) (BFTF), are productive during summer months when cool-season grass production is low.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Legume intake is typically higher than grasses due to lower cell wall content, higher crude protein, and faster rate of particle size reduction and passage rate of the rumen (Rook and Yarrow, 2002;Elgersma and Søegaard, 2016). Furthermore, the ability of ALF to increase production of grasses when grown together can be similar to that of commercial N fertilizer (Guldan et al, 2000;Sleugh et al, 2000;Berdahl et al, 2001;Lauriault et al, 2006). This potential for yield compensation by legumes can be instrumental in improving the seasonal distribution of forage and increasing the capacity of a pasture to support livestock grazing throughout the summer (Leep et al, 2002;Lauriault et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the ability of ALF to increase production of grasses when grown together can be similar to that of commercial N fertilizer (Guldan et al, 2000;Sleugh et al, 2000;Berdahl et al, 2001;Lauriault et al, 2006). Birdsfoot trefoil has been shown to increase forage production in pastures when used in grass-legume mixtures (Hoveland and Richardson, 1992;Sleugh et al, 2000;Lauriault et al, 2006;Elgersma and Søegaard, 2016). Birdsfoot trefoil is a nonbloating, tannin-containing legume that is readily used by livestock (Lees et al, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple studies have shown that grass-legume mixtures improve crude protein (CP) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content in forage compared with the grass monocultures (Malhi et al, 2002;Zemenchik et al, 2002;Kopp et al, 2003;Deak et al, 2007;Kleen et al, 2011) Forage legumes commonly used in grass-legume mixtures, such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (ALF) and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) (BFTF), are productive during summer months when cool-season grass production is low. This potential for yield compensation by legumes can be instrumental in improving the seasonal distribution of forage and increasing the capacity of a pasture to support livestock grazing throughout the summer (Leep et al, 2002;Lauriault et al, 2006). Furthermore, the ability of ALF to increase production of grasses when grown together can be similar to that of commercial N fertilizer (Guldan et al, 2000;Sleugh et al, 2000;Berdahl et al, 2001;Lauriault et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Forage Production of Grass–Legume Binary Mixtures on Intermountain Western USA Irrigated Pastures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Well‐managed irrigated pasture production can be optimized without nitrogen (N) fertilizer. The objective was to determine mixture and planting ratios of tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinacea Schreb.) (TF), meadow brome (Bromus riparius Rehm.) (MB), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) (OG), timothy (Phleum pratense L.) (TIM), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) (PRG) with alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (ALF), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) (BFTF), or cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer L.) (CMV) that maximize productivity. Planting ratios were 0:100 (grass:legume), 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, and three 100:0 grass monocultures fertilized at 0, 67, and 134 kg N ha−1. Seasonal production of TF–ALF was 12.69 Mg ha−1, equal to TF fertilized at 134 kg N ha−1. ALF mixtures with MB, OG, TIM, and PRG produced 12.57, 10.97, 11.77, and 10.74 Mg ha−1, respectively, and 8 to 40% more than grasses receiving 134 kg N ha−1. Production of BFTF mixtures with TF, MB, and OG were 11.69, 11.45, and 9.95 Mg ha−1, respectively, equal to their respective grass monoculture receiving 134 kg N ha−1. The BFTF–TIM and BFTF–PRG mixtures averaged 12% more forage than grass monocultures receiving 134 kg N ha−1. Production of CMV‐grass was similar to that of grasses receiving 67 kg N ha−1. Seasonal forage distribution was more uniform in ALF– and BFTF–grass mixtures, averaging 30% more at the second and third harvests than fertilized grasses. The TF and MB legume mixtures averaged 7% more production in the 50:50 planting ratios than the other two grass–legume mixtures, while the 50:50 and 25:75 ratios of OG and TIM–legume mixtures averaged 12% more than the 75:25 and the 25:75 PRG–legume planting ratio averaged 9% more than the 50:50 and 75:25. Forage production of grass–legume mixtures can equal or exceed fertilized grass monocultures and with more uniform distribution over the growing season.

show abstract

Influence of irrigation regimes on alfalfa dry matter yield and water productivity in a semiarid subtropical environment*

Darapuneni

Lauriault

VanLeeuwen

et al. 2020

Irrigation and Drainage

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing water in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) production is crucial for sustaining the limited surface and groundwater resources. A 3-year study in eastern New Mexico, USA, compared nine irrigation strategies that included various combinations of in-season irrigations for six harvests (1-2-3-4-5-6, 1-2-3-4-5, 1-2-3-5, 1-2-3, 2-3-5, 1-2-5, 1-5, and 2-3) plus unirrigated control (none) to evaluate the dry matter (DM) yield production capability and irrigation efficiency. The number in each treatment structure represents irrigation provided for each cutting. For example, number '1' represents irrigation provided for the first cutting; number '2' represents irrigation provided for the second cutting, and so on. The results suggested that terminating irrigation for the last harvest (1-2-3-4-5), equivalent to 96 mm water saving, had no significant negative impact on annual DM yield of established alfalfa compared to season-long full irrigation (1-2-3-4-5-6) (14.4 vs 13.3 t ha −1 ; P > 0.05) during the 3-year study period. Irrigation water productivity was doubled when alfalfa was irrigated during the first three harvests (1-2-3), compared to 1-2-3-4-5-6 (0.050 vs 0.027 t ha −1 mm −1). The second and third harvests provided the greatest DM yields in alfalfa. The DM yields declined drastically after the third harvest, with the exception of the third year. Therefore, irrigating alfalfa early in the season during the initial three harvests is an important strategy when water is limited.

show abstract

Performance of Irrigated Tall Fescue–Legume Communities under Two Grazing Frequencies in the Southern Rocky Mountains, USA

Cited by 8 publications

References 29 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

Forage Production of Grass–Legume Binary Mixtures on Intermountain Western USA Irrigated Pastures

Influence of irrigation regimes on alfalfa dry matter yield and water productivity in a semiarid subtropical environment*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About