Recovery of Pasture Forage Production Following Winter Rest in Continuous and Rotational Horse Grazing Systems

Weinert, J.R.; Williams, Carey A.

doi:10.1016/j.jevs.2018.06.017

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was also a trend for lower phosphorus (P) in CRB-IRS than CSG-IRS ( P = 0.07) in the LATE period. The nutrient concentrations reported for CSG sections are similar to those found in prior rotational grazing trials at the current study site ( Weinert and Williams, 2018 ; Williams et al, 2020 ). The CP concentrations of CSG in this study are within to slightly above concentrations documented in studies evaluating KB, OG, and TF under equine grazing, while fiber concentrations were slightly greater ( Allen et al, 2013 ; Jacqueth, 2018 ).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…This study was conducted in 2019 at the Ryder’s Lane Environmental Best Management Practices Demonstration Horse Farm (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; New Brunswick, NJ). Pasture soil was a silty clay loam comprised of FapA (Fallsingotn loams, 0% to 2% slopes, Northern Coastal Plain), NknB (Nixon loam, 2% to 5% slopes), and NkrA (Nixon moderately well-drained variant loam, 0% to 2% slopes) ( Weinert and Williams, 2018 ; Williams et al, 2020 ). Bi-annual soil tests are conducted at the study site, and lime and fertilizers were applied to adjust soil fertility to optimum ranges based on soil test results, with the most recent applications preceding initiation of grazing in 2019.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If forage is overgrazed, over time vegetative cover (VC) will be reduced ( Williams et al, 2020 ), increasing the potential for soil erosion and nutrient runoff ( Butler et al, 2007 ). Furthermore, overgrazing may result in long-term decreased forage stand persistence and weed invasion ( Weinert and Williams, 2018 ). This may necessitate more frequent pasture renovation, conferring additional cost to producers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Yield, nutrient composition, and horse condition in integrated crabgrass and cool-season grass rotational grazing pasture systems

Weinert-Nelson

Meyer

Williams

2021

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integration of warm-season grasses into traditional cool-season pastures can increase summer forage for grazing cattle. The aim of this study was to determine impacts of this practice on yield and nutrient composition of equine rotational pasture systems as well as horse body condition. Two 1.5 ha rotational systems (6-0.25 ha sections/system) were evaluated: a control system (CON) [all sections mixed cool-season grass (CSG-CON)] and an integrated system (IRS) [3 CSG sections (CSG-IRS) and 3 Quick-N-Big crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] (CRB-IRS)]. Three horses per system grazed in 3 periods: EARLY (mid-May to mid-Jul), SLUMP (mid-Jul to mid-Sep), and LATE (mid-Sep to mid-Nov). Herbage mass (HM) was measured prior to each rotation and samples were collected (0800-1000 h) for nutrient analysis. Grazing days were tracked to calculate carrying capacity (CC). Horse condition measures were assessed monthly. Over the full grazing season, 9125 kg of forage was available for grazing in IRS vs. 6335 kg in CON. The CC was 390 horse d for IRS, while only 276 horse d for CON. Total HM/section did not differ during EARLY when CRB was not available (CSG-IRS: 2537 ± 605; CSG-CON: 3783 ± 856 kg/ha), but CC was greater in CSG-IRS (220 ± 37 horse d/ha) than CSG-CON (92 ± 26 horse d/ha; P = 0.03). In SLUMP, both HM and CC were greater in CRB-IRS (HM: 4758 ± 698 kg/ha; CC: 196 ± 31 horse d/ha) than CSG-IRS (HM: 1086 ± 698 kg/ha; CC: 32 ± 31 horse d/ha) or CON (HM: 970 ± 493 kg/ha; CC: 46 ± 22 horse d/ha; P < 0.02). While HM did not differ by section type in LATE (1284 ± 158 kg/ha), CC was greater in CSG-CON (84 ± 9 horse d/ha) vs CRB-IRS (32 ± 13 horse d/ha; P = 0.03) and CSG-IRS (40 ± 13 horse d/ha; P = 0.06). During SLUMP, water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) were lower in CRB-IRS (4.46 ± 0.80%) than CSG-CON (7.92 ± 0.90%; P < 0.04), but not CSG-IRS (5.93 ± 1.04%); however, non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) did not differ (7.05 ± 0.62%). There were no differences in WSC (6.46 ± 0.54%) or NSC (7.65 ± 0.54%) by section type in LATE. Horses in IRS maintained a body condition score (BCS) of 5.78 ± 0.48, but BCS did not differ by system (CON: 6.11 ± 0.48). Thus, integrated grazing increased summer pasture yield and provided adequate nutrition to maintain horse condition, but further research is needed to improve late-season production. Integrated grazing may not, however, provide an advantage in limiting dietary NSC, as NSC remained low for all pasture sections.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Yield, nutrient composition, and horse condition in integrated crabgrass and cool-season grass rotational grazing pasture systems

Weinert-Nelson

Meyer

Williams

2021

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of this study showed that winter rest alone was not sufficient to mitigate the effects of overgrazing in C pastures. In C pastures, forage yield only reached levels measured in R pastures after 9 mo of rest, and differences in species composition of pastures persisted throughout the duration of this recovery study ( Weinert and Williams, 2018 ). It is likely that, with additional years under the existing management, C pastures would be further degraded by constant trampling and grazing, while R pastures could be managed to minimize these effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Spring recovery of pasture forage yield was depressed in C pastures compared with R pastures and this divergence remained for the duration of the study. Upon completion of this current study, a follow-up study was conducted to evaluate recovery of pasture forage production in C vs. R pastures after a period of rest (or grazing exclusion) ( Weinert and Williams, 2018 ). The results of this study showed that winter rest alone was not sufficient to mitigate the effects of overgrazing in C pastures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of 27 mo of rotational vs. continuous grazing on horse and pasture condition

Williams

Kenny

Weinert

et al. 2020

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine whether rotational grazing generates horse, pasture, or cost benefits over continuous grazing. The study established two replicates (1.57 ha each) of rotational (R; four grazing sections and a stress lot per replicate, where horses were fed a moderate quality grass hay at 2% of body weight when not grazing) and continuous (C) grazing systems (treatments). Twelve Standardbred mares were grazed for an overall stocking rate of 0.52 ha/horse (n = 3 in each pasture). Recommended management practices for each grazing system were followed for 27 mo including three grazing seasons. Samples were collected monthly between 0800 and 1000. Results were analyzed in SAS (V9.4) using mixed model repeated-measures analysis of covariance, chi-square tests of association, and two-sample t-tests. Alpha level was set at P < 0.05. The C horses were maintained on pasture for 100% of the study duration (844 d; August 1, 2014 to November 22, 2016), while R horses had access to pasture for approximately half of this time (408 ± 33 d). The average length of grazing bout per rotational grazing section during the grazing season increased numerically each year from 7.88 ± 0.76 d in 2014, 10.0 ± 0.61 d in 2015, and 10.9 ± 0.80 d in 2016. Average horse body condition score (BCS) and body fat differed by treatment, with C horses (BCS 6.3 ± 0.05, 17.9 ± 0.15% body fat) greater than R horses (BCS 5.9 ± 0.05, 16.8 ± 0.15% body fat). Both sward height and herbage mass were greater in R (11.8 ± 0.1 cm tall; 1,513 ± 41 kg/ha) than C pastures (6.9 ± 0.1 cm tall; 781 ± 35 kg/ha). The R pastures had higher proportions of vegetative and total cover, planted grasses (tall fescue and orchardgrass), and weeds but lower proportions of grass weeds (nonplanted grasses) and other (rocks, litter, bare ground, etc.) as compared with C pastures. Digestible energy, acid detergent fiber, and calcium were higher in R vs. C pastures; however, crude protein was lower in R vs. C pastures. There were no significant differences between treatments for average monthly amount of hay fed (C, 597 ± 34.1 vs. R, 659 ± 34.1 kg) or average monthly pasture maintenance cost (C, $17.55 ± 3.14 vs. R, $20.50 ± 3.14). This study is one of few replicated experiments comparing the effects of rotational and continuous grazing for horses on pasture quality, horse condition, and production costs. The results here support the recommendation of rotational grazing for production, environmental, and ecological purposes.

show abstract

Research on Dynamic Rotational Grazing Assignment Model based on Grass Resource Leveling

Xiao-yan

Zirui

Yingying

et al. 2019

Procedia Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery of Pasture Forage Production Following Winter Rest in Continuous and Rotational Horse Grazing Systems

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Yield, nutrient composition, and horse condition in integrated crabgrass and cool-season grass rotational grazing pasture systems

Yield, nutrient composition, and horse condition in integrated crabgrass and cool-season grass rotational grazing pasture systems

Effects of 27 mo of rotational vs. continuous grazing on horse and pasture condition

Research on Dynamic Rotational Grazing Assignment Model based on Grass Resource Leveling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About