Short Duration Grazing at the Texas Experimental Range: Effects on Forage Quality

Heitschmidt, R. K.; Gordon, Roberto Antonio González; Bluntzer, J.S.

doi:10.2307/3898321

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Weather data ( Figure 2) indicated that average monthly temperatures were 2.3°C greater and average monthly precipitation was 10.3 cm less in 2010 than in 2009, which likely resulted in an increase of senescent forage towards the conclusion of yr 2. Frequent defoliation of pasture forage in a managementintensive grazing system has been shown to increase pasture quality when pastures are used before forage senescence (Heitschmidt et al, 1982). Therefore, the reasons for the differences in DM yields in HG pastures between grazing seasons are not clear, but are most likely a result of increased stocking density on HG pastures compared with HO and decreased monthly rainfall in yr 2.…”

Section: Forage Quality Yield and Botanical Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of co-grazing dairy heifers with goats on animal performance, dry matter yield, and pasture forage composition1

Dennis

Unruh-Snyder

Neary

et al. 2012

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed livestock grazing can offer an alternative management system for rearing dairy replacement heifers (Bos taurus). A 2-yr study was conducted during 2009 (yr 1) and 2010 (yr 2) to determine the effects of co-grazing Holstein heifers under rotational stocking with Boer × Kiko goats on animal performance, pasture DM yield, and botanical composition. Each year, 24 heifers (134 ± 6 d of age and 147.4 ± 31.2 kg BW in yr 1; 166 ± 11 d of age and 168.0 ± 27.6 kg BW in yr 2) and 6 goats (2 yr old and 39.7 ± 16.2 kg BW in yr 1; 1 yr old and 33.7 ± 7.4 kg BW in yr 2) were divided into 6 paddocks with 4 heifers and 2 goats, where applicable, per group. Low endophyte-infected tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.) pastures were used to evaluate 2 grazing strategies (heifers grazed alone [HO] or heifers co-grazed with goats [HG]). In addition, 6 goats were assigned to 2 paddocks and grazed alone (GO) each year to estimate goat pasture forage intake and compare Haemonchus contortus infection to co-grazed goats. Forage samples were taken monthly to assess DM yield and botanical composition. Samples collected for botanical composition were manually sorted into grass, legume, and weed species. Forage DMI was estimated using a rising plate meter before and after grazing. Heifer BW at the conclusion of yr 1 and yr 2 did not differ between HO and HG (P = 0.40 and P = 0.12, respectively). Likewise, overall ADG did not differ between HO and HG, averaging 0.65 kg/d and 0.63 kg/d over both grazing seasons (P = 0.70). Grazing strategy did not affect forage or total DMI in yr 1; however, HO consumed 2.3 kg/d more forage DM than HG (P < 0.01), resulting in greater total DMI for HO in yr 2 (P < 0.01). Heights at the hip and withers were greater for HO than for HG during both grazing seasons (P < 0.05). Weed presence did not differ between grazing strategies over both grazing seasons as determined by manual harvesting, but visual estimation of botanical composition at the end of yr 2 showed that HO paddocks had 3.5 times more weed presence than HG pastures (P < 0.01). Within the confines of this study, co-grazing did not affect overall heifer BW gain, but it decreased DMI, suggesting that dairy heifers can be co-grazed with goats without negative effects on ADG or feed efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Forage Quality Yield and Botanical Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of co-grazing dairy heifers with goats on animal performance, dry matter yield, and pasture forage composition1

Dennis

Unruh-Snyder

Neary

et al. 2012

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rapid movements, sometimes over large distances, are a characteristic behavioral pattern of undomesticated animals that evolved in grassland ecosystems. Experimental livestock management plans implementing animal movement patterns similar to those of the Serengeti ungulates have doubled animal production per unit land area compared with control plots (Walton et al 1981, Heitschmidt et al 1982a) due to enhanced forage quality (Walton et al 1981, Heitschmidt et al 1982b and grassland productivity (Heitschmidt et al 1982c). Deterioration of agricultural grazing lands may be less a consequence of stocking density than of the reduced responsiveness of a confined fauna to the temporal and spatial dynamics of grassland ecosystems.…”

Section: Primary Productivity and Herbivory In A Stochastic Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti

McNaughton¹

1985

Ecological Monographs

1,178

929

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecological Monographs.Abstract. Primary productivity and herbivory were studied in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, and Masai Mara Game Reserve, Kenya, during the annual cycle of 1974-1975, and wet-dry season transitions in 1976-1979. Basic state variables measured were aboveground plant biomass inside permanent and temporary fences, and outside fences. Productivity was calculated as the sum of positive plant biomass increments. Control productivity (cPn) was calculated from biomass dynamics inside permanent fences. Temporary fences were moved in concert with grazing by the region's abundant ungulates to estimate actual aboveground primary productivity (aPn). Primary productivity was highly stochastic with productive periods poorly synchronized even among nearby sites. Shortterm productivities could be extremely high, exceeding 30 g. mi-2 d-l. Grazing animals adjusted their densities in relation to grassland productivity. The average proportion of annual aPn that was consumed by herbivores was 0.66, with a minimum of 0.15 and a maximum of 0.94. Green forage was available everywhere late in the wet season in May but was available only at high rainfall sites in the northwest late in the dry season in November. By the end of the dry season, the residual plant biomass outside fences averaged only 8% of cPn. Nomadic grazers moved seasonally in response to grassland productivity. The growing season ranged from 76 d in low rainfall areas to virtually continuous in high rainfall areas.Annual cPn was linearly related to rainfall and averaged 357 g m-2 yr-1 over the year and 1.89 g.m-2 d-I during the growing season. Actual aPn was substantially greater than cPn at most sites, averaging 664 g.m-2 yr-1. Growing season aPn averaged 3.78 g.m-2 d-l. Grazing stimulated net primary productivity at most locations, with the maximum stimulation at intermediate grazing intensities. Stimulation was dependent upon soil moisture status at the time of grazing. Rain had a diminishing effect on primary productivity as the wet season progressed and plant biomass accumulated. Part of the stimulation of grassland productivity by grazing was due to maintenance of the vegetation in an immature, rapidly growing state similar to that at the beginning of the rainy season. Since grazers overrode rainfall-determined productivity patterns, aPn was more closely related to grazing intensity than to ranfall. Grazing was heavier on grasslands that were intrinsically more productive. Rate of energy flow per unit of plant biomass was much higher in grazed vegetation. Grazers ate green leaves almost exclusively during...

show abstract

“…Reference samples of known in vivo digestibility were analyzed in each batch run for standardization of OMD estimates. Forage quality analyses were limited to subsamples collected in the RG treatment because previous research (Heitschmidt et al 1982b) had shown %CP of live and dead tissue of a given species was unaffected by grazing treatment. Subsamples were combined by treatment (RG-14 and RG-42) and time (before and after grazing) prior to qualitative analyses.…”

Section: Vegetdion Hmplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Effects of a Rotational Grazing Treatment on Quantity and Quality of Available Forage and Amount of Ground Litter

Heitschmidt¹,

Dowhower²,

Walker³

1987

Journal of Range Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A U-paddock, celldesigned, rotational grazing (RG) system was initiated in March 1M)l to evaluate the effects of RG on various vegetation response variables and cow/calf production. This 20-month study was initiated in January 1983 to contrast herbage dynamics in the RG treatment to those in 8 yearlong continuously grazed tmtment (MC). Rate of stoclring in the RG treatment was 3.7 ha/cow/year as compared to a moderate rate of 5.9 ha/cow/year in the MC treatment. There was no difference between treatments in herbage grorvth dynamics. Total herbaceous standing crop, however, was greater in the MC treatment than the RG because of greater amounts of senesced forage. The resultant effect on forage quality, in terms of crude protein (CP) concentration md organic matter digestibility (OMD) was that they were generally greater in the RG than the MC treatment. Litter standing crop was also less in the RG than MC treatment although seasonal dynamics were similar. Results indicate differences between treatments were.caused primarily by dierences in stocking rates and not gr8zing systems.

show abstract

Short Duration Grazing at the Texas Experimental Range: Effects on Forage Quality

Cited by 18 publications

References 6 publications

Effects of co-grazing dairy heifers with goats on animal performance, dry matter yield, and pasture forage composition1

Effects of co-grazing dairy heifers with goats on animal performance, dry matter yield, and pasture forage composition1

Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti

Some Effects of a Rotational Grazing Treatment on Quantity and Quality of Available Forage and Amount of Ground Litter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About