Production characteristics of the mixed prairie: constraints and potential

Willms, Walter D.; Jefferson, P. G.

doi:10.4141/cjas93-080

Cited by 59 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that CPY increases were evident even during drought, these results provide clarification to the notion that moisture rather than N availability limits production in arid regions of the prairies (e.g. Willms and Jefferson 1993;Campbell et al 1986;Lorenz and Rogler 1972). Furthermore, it is plausible that had rainfall in 1999 been closer to average and nutrient depletion less extensive in the year immediately following LHM application, greater residual increases in CPY may have been realized during 2000 despite the dry conditions.…”

Section: Grass Yieldmentioning

confidence: 57%

Herbage yield and crude protein concentration of rangeland and pasture following hog manure application in southeastern Alberta

Blonski¹,

Bork²,

Blenis³

2004

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blonski, L. J., Bork, E. W. and Blenis, P. V. 2004. Herbage yield and crude protein concentration of rangeland and pasture following hog manure application in southeastern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84: [773][774][775][776][777][778][779][780][781][782][783]. Intensive hog production is expanding into semi-arid regions of Alberta, where perennial forage lands are increasingly targeted for manure application despite limited guidelines for its efficient use. Herbage yield and crude protein were assessed over two consecutive years within two native rangelands and two tame pastures, following different rates (10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 kg ha -1 NH 4 -N), methods (surface banding vs. subsurface injection) and seasons (fall vs. spring) of one-time liquid hog manure (LHM) application. Increasing manure rates improved grass yield across all sites the first growing season after treatment, from 1626 to 3576 kg ha -1 . Although absolute increases in production were greatest on tame pasture, relative yield increases were similar among sites. Average crude protein (CP) concentration also increased from 69 to 91 g kg -1 in the first year. Despite low rainfall and the absence of a yield response in the second year, grass CP and crude protein yield (CPY) were maximized with increased manure application, highlighting the positive effects of manure on forage production, even with drought. Forb yields demonstrated variable effects among sites, with increasing manure decreasing alfalfa and increasing native forbs. Overall, both semi-arid tame pastures and native rangelands responded positively to LHM application, highlighting the complementary nature of hog and forage production under these conditions. Le rendement fourrager augmente avec le taux d'application à tous les endroits la saison végétative suivant le traitement pour passer de 1 626 à 3 576 kg par hectare. Bien que la production augmente davantage dans les prairies artificielles en termes absolus, le rendement relatif demeure le même aux différents endroits. La quantité moyenne de protéines brutes s'accroît elle aussi la première année, soit de 69 à 91 g kg -1 . Malgré la pluie et l'absence de réaction du rendement la deuxième année, la concentration de protéines brutes des herbages et le rendement en protéines brutes atteignent leur maximum avec l'augmentation du taux d'application, ce qui souligne les effets positifs du fumier pour la production fourragère, même quand il y a sécheresse. Le rendement en herbacées dicotylédones révèle que la réaction varie d'un site à l'autre, la production de luzerne diminuant et celle d'herbacées dicotylédones indigènes augmentant avec l'application de fumier. Dans l'ensemble, les prairies artificielles et les grands parcours naturels des régions semi-arides réagissent bien à l'application de lisier, signe que l'élevage de porc et la culture fourragère sont complémentaires dans de telles conditions.

show abstract

Section: Grass Yieldmentioning

confidence: 57%

Herbage yield and crude protein concentration of rangeland and pasture following hog manure application in southeastern Alberta

Blonski¹,

Bork²,

Blenis³

2004

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inherent in all rangeland ecosystems are both diurnal and seasonal variation in CO 2 flux, with the direction of flux controlled by the balance between photosynthesis and respiration during the growing and dormant seasons (Norman and others 1992, Bremer and others 1998, Dugas and others 1999, Mielnick and Dugas 2000, Frank 2002. Rangelands are also resource limited, particularly for nitrogen and water (Willms and Jefferson 1993). Severity, duration, and timing of grazing and drought in relation to plant phenology are important in determining the status of prairie vegetation as a C source or sink.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing Effects on Carbon Dynamics in the Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie

Haferkamp

MacNeil

2004

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

/ The role of rangelands in the regulation of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations is a critical issue in global climate change research. Rangelands are complex ecosystems that occupy about 50% of the land area in the world and USA. We studied the effects of seasonal grazing on CO 2 flux on small plots located on a silty range site in the northern mixed-grass prairie with an Eapa fine loam soil. Treatments were no grazing or short-duration intensive grazing during mid-May or mid-

show abstract

“…Data from this study and others clearly show that seeded pastures can provide more forage than native rangeland (Smoliak 1968;Hart et al 1983;Adams et al 1989) and will support increased grazing pressure in spring and autumn. However, this may not occur every year or with every seeded species (Willms and Jefferson 1993). The utility of seeded forages depends in part on the vigor of the seeded stand, the adaptability of the seeded forage to a given site (e.g., Luna and Bozoisky in this study), and on the amount and distribution of precipitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, often increased gains per hectare also result from higher stocking rates used on seeded pastures compared with native rangeland (Hart et al 1983;Adams et al 1989;Hofmann et al 1993). Variable animal responses have been observed over both time (e.g., years) and space (e.g., sites) so research needs to be conducted within a variety of climate and vegetation types (Willms and Jefferson 1993). Our objective was to compare performance of yearling heifers grazing native rangeland with contemporary animals grazing seeded forages in an integrated system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heifer Production on Rangeland and Seeded Forages in the Northern Great Plains

Haferkamp¹,

MacNeil²,

Grings³

2005

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating use of seeded perennial cool-season grass pastures with native rangeland can increase available forage and provide a high plane of nutrition for grazing livestock. Our objective was to compare performance of yearling beef heifers grazing native rangeland with those grazing an integrated system that included seeded forages. Native rangeland was grazed during summer in the integrated system and spring, summer, and autumn in the rangeland treatment. Heifers exhibited greater weight gains on seeded pastures than on native rangeland in spring and autumn of most years. In 2 out of 3 years, heifers that grazed native rangeland during spring gained more (P ¼ 0.012 for gain head À1 and P ¼ 0.021 for gain head À1 day À1 ) while grazing native rangeland during summer than heifers that grazed seeded pastures in spring. Spring þ summer gains averaged (mean 6 SE) 0.56 6 0.01 kg head À1 d À1 and 73.1 6 1.6 kg head À1. Livestock managers need to consider their livestock marketing and management strategies when using seeded pastures for seasonal grazing. ResumenLa integració n del uso de praderas sembradas de zacates perennes de estació n fría con pastizal nativo puede incrementar el forraje disponible y proveer un buen plano nutricional para el ganado en apacentamiento. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar el comportamiento productivo de vaquillas de ganado de carne de añ o apacentando un pastizal nativo con vaquillas apacentando un sistema integrado que incluía forrajes sembrados. ] Pilger) variedad 'Prairieland' fueron apacentadas en otoñ o; en el sistema integrado, el pastizal nativo fue apacentado en verano y en el tratamiento de solo pastizal se apacentó en primavera, verano y otoñ o. En la mayoría de los añ os, las vaquillas mostraron mayores ganancias de peso en las praderas sembradas que los obtenidos en el pastizal nativo en primavera y otoñ o. En 2 de 3 añ os, la vaquillas que apacentaron el pastizal nativo durante la primavera, ganaron má s peso (P ¼ 0.012 para ganancia cabeza À1 y P ¼ 0.021 para la ganancia cabeza À1 dia À1 ) cuando apacentaban el pastizal en verano que las vaquillas que apacentaron en primavera las praderas sembradas. Las ganancias de primavera þ verano promediaron 0.56 6 0.01 kg cabeza À1 d À1 y 73.1 6 1.6 kg cabeza À1 . Cuando utilicen praderas sembradas para el apacentamiento estacional, los manejadores de ganado necesitan considerar su mercadeo del ganado y estrategias de manejo.

show abstract

Production characteristics of the mixed prairie: constraints and potential

Cited by 59 publications

References 54 publications

Herbage yield and crude protein concentration of rangeland and pasture following hog manure application in southeastern Alberta

Herbage yield and crude protein concentration of rangeland and pasture following hog manure application in southeastern Alberta

Grazing Effects on Carbon Dynamics in the Northern Mixed-Grass Prairie

Heifer Production on Rangeland and Seeded Forages in the Northern Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About