Water footprint, herbage, and livestock responses for nitrogen‐fertilized grass and grass–legume grazing systems

Jaramillo, David M.; Dubeux, José C. B.; Sollenberger, Lynn E.; Vendramini, J. M. B.; Mackowiak, Cheryl L.; DiLorenzo, Nicolás; Garcia, Liza; Queiroz, Luana M. D.; Santos, Erick R. S.; Homem, Bruno Grossi Costa; Ruiz‐Moreno, Martin

doi:10.1002/csc2.20568

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Florida, USA (30°52′ N; average annual rainfall of 1363 mm; average annual temperature of 20 °C), three year-round systems were compared during four years under continuous stocking with a variable stocking rate adjusted every 14 d based on forage allowance (Jaramillo et al, 2021b). During the warm season, treatments were bahiagrass with no N fertilizer in summer (cool-season, grass-clover [Trifolium spp.]…”

Section: Mixture Vs Monoculture With Both No N and Moderate/high N Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variable SR was used to maintain similar forage allowance, so the SR was a useful proxy for forage accumulation. Also in Florida, rhizoma peanut was grown in strips in association with bahiagrass during four years and compared with the bahiagrass monoculture receiving either 0 or 120 kg N ha −1 during summer (Jaramillo et al, 2021b). A variable SR methodology was used to maintain constant forage allowance, so observed SR is a response to forage accumulation.…”

Section: Forage Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the major take-home messages from this study is that grass-legume systems receiving only 34 kg N ha −1 year −1 recycled 80% the amount of N recycled in the grass system receiving 224 kg N ha −1 year −1 , indicating the role of forage legumes to increase N cycling efficiency in grasslands. In fact, these grass-legume systems were able to sustain similar productivity compared with the high-N input system, despite using only 15% of the N fertilizer input (Jaramillo et al, 2021b). Homem et al (2021) also investigated excreta return in N-fertilized Marandu palisadegrass (150 kg N ha −1 year −1 ) or palisadegrass mixed with pintoi peanut without N fertilizer application, or the grass monoculture without N fertilizer or legume.…”

Section: Nutrient Cyclingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our fascination with the potential of legumes owes to research documenting their ability to increase litter quality, nutrient release (Kohmann et al, 2018(Kohmann et al, , 2019, and rate of soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation (Liu et al, 2017) compared with grass monocultures; increase N cycling in grassland soils and reduce grassland degradation (Boddey et al, 2004); increase biodiversity and system resilience (Tracy et al, 2018); increase diet digestibility and livestock performance (Jaramillo et al, 2021b); extend grazing longer into the dry season (Böhnert et al, 1985); decrease N 2 O emissions compared with N-fertilized grass swards (Jensen et al, 2012); and decrease enteric CH 4 emissions per unit of ruminant animal product compared with grasses (Hammond et al, 2009(Hammond et al, , 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Warm-climate, legume-grass forage mixtures versus grass-only swards: An ecosystem services comparison

Sollenberger¹,

Júnior²

2022

Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating warm-climate forage legumes into grass monocultures has received significant research attention during the past 70 years, but widespread adoption by end users has been elusive. The objectives of this review are to provide historical context regarding legume use in warm-climate grasslands; synthesize the current literature addressing contributions to grassland ecosystem services of warm-climate, grass-only vs. legume-grass mixed swards; and consider how to achieve more widespread adoption of legume technology in warm climates. For this review, warm-climate grasslands are considered those in areas between latitudes 30° N and 30° S, where C4 perennial grasses dominate. The literature suggests measurable advantages in animal performance, soil carbon accumulation, and nutrient cycling of legume-grass mixtures are most likely when grass-only swards receive little or no N fertilizer. Advantages are less or may disappear when mixtures are compared with grasses receiving high N fertilizer rates. In contrast, amelioration of greenhouse gas emissions is often most pronounced for mixtures when compared with grass-only swards receiving high rates of N, because of the magnitude of N fertilizer effects on emissions. Going forward, there is need to focus on selecting for, and thoroughly documenting legume persistence, achieving low-risk and affordable legume establishment methods, assessing compatibility of legumes in mixture with grasses prior to legume cultivar release, emphasizing adoption of both legume species and optimal management practices, and recognizing scientists must assume a larger and more intentional role in encouraging adoption by end-users of research innovations, in addition to our traditional role in technology and product development.

show abstract

Section: Mixture Vs Monoculture With Both No N and Moderate/high N Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Forage Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nutrient Cyclingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Warm-climate, legume-grass forage mixtures versus grass-only swards: An ecosystem services comparison

Sollenberger¹,

Júnior²

2022

Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subtropical and tropical grasses are well adapted to the soil and weather conditions in the Southern US, and cow-calf operations rely heavily on these grasses. Several studies report that the integration of legumes in beef-forage systems increases forage production and animal weight gain, reduces the use of fertilizers and irrigation, and increases nutrient cycling [61][62][63] . The development of forage production systems that have less reliance on N fertilizer is an important step towards reducing C footprints and increasing economic sustainability.…”

Section: Agricultural Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The carbon footprint of beef cattle systems in the Southeast United States

2022

Carbon Footprints

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasslands in the Southeast United States (SE US) cover 15.8 million ha and most of this area is dedicated to beef production systems. This region holds 6.3 million beef cows and 12.1 million cattle, including calves. Beef cattle systems in the SE US are mostly cow-calf based, and most of the greenhouse gas emission from cattle occurs during this phase (cow-calf) because of their forage-based diet. This review assessed the carbon footprint (C footprint) of beef cattle systems in the SE US and indicates possible ways to reduce it. Major emissions in beef cattle systems come from livestock enteric fermentation and greenhouse gases from excreta. Cow-calf systems in the SE US are typically low input, although they use some industrial fertilizers, machinery, and fossil fuel, which adds to the C footprint of the sector. There are opportunities to reduce the beef C footprint in the SE US by adopting climate-smart practices, including preservation of natural ecosystems that have potentially high carbon sequestration, afforestation, integration of forage legumes (and reduction of nitrogen fertilizer), use of slow-release fertilizers, and dietary interventions. In fact, depending on the level of adoption of some of these practices, it is possible to establish climate-neutral beef at the farm gate in the SE US. Beef is a key food for humans and has large economic effects. Development of climate-smart beef could create opportunities for a niche market that recognizes the environmental footprint of agricultural production and could incentivize producers to pursue those systems.

show abstract

Seeding rate affects the performance of oat and black oat

Santos

Dubeux

Queiroz

et al. 2022

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basic management practices, including ideal seeding rates, are still lacking for black oat (Avena strigosa Schreb.) in the southeastern United States. This study evaluated the performance of five seeding rates (15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 lb acre −1 ) on 'Legend 567' oat (Avena sativa L.) and 'UF-10' black oat at three harvest dates (early, mid-season, and late) per year. Seeding rates of 60, 120, and 240 lb acre −1 tended (P = .07) to increase total herbage accumulation [4,760 lb dry matter (DM) acre −1 ] compared with 15 lb acre −1 (3,945 lb DM acre −1 ). Tiller density was usually greater for black oat than for oat. Seeding rate was positively associated with tiller density and explained 84 to 98% and 96 to 98% of the variation for black oat and oat, respectively. Tiller mass was greater for oat (0.045 oz tiller −1 ) than black oat (0.034 oz tiller −1 ), and greater for the mid-season harvest (0.043 oz tiller −1 ), compared with the early and late harvests (0.037 oz tiller −1 on average). There was a negative effect (P < .001) of seeding rate on tiller mass. Increasing the seeding rate had a negative effect on leaf length at the early and middle harvests (P < .05), and decreased leaf width from 0.56 to 0.39 inches in oat, and from 0.32 to 0.29 inches in black oat when changing from 15 to 240 lb acre −1 . To maximize herbage accumulation at a lower seeding rate, we recommend 60 lb acre −1 for both oat and black oat for multiple harvests.

show abstract

Water footprint, herbage, and livestock responses for nitrogen‐fertilized grass and grass–legume grazing systems

Cited by 14 publications

References 41 publications

Warm-climate, legume-grass forage mixtures versus grass-only swards: An ecosystem services comparison

Warm-climate, legume-grass forage mixtures versus grass-only swards: An ecosystem services comparison

The carbon footprint of beef cattle systems in the Southeast United States

Seeding rate affects the performance of oat and black oat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About