Froehlich, L.

Lardner, H. A.

Ward, C.

Zemlak, L.

English

University of Kentucky

University of Kentucky UKnowledge International Grassland Congress Proceedings 21st International Grassland Congress / 8th International Rangeland Congress Evaluation of the Productivity and Grazing Capacity of Cool Season Grasses H. A. Lardner Western Beef Development Centre, Canada C. Ward University of Saskatchewan, Canada L. Froehlich Western Beef Development Centre, Canada L. Zemlak Western Beef Development Centre, Canada Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc  Part of the Plant Sciences Commons, and the Soil Science Commons This document is available at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/21/9-1/39 The 21st International Grassland Congress / 8th International Rangeland Congress took place in Hohhot, China from June 29 through July 5, 2008. Proceedings edited by Organizing Committee of 2008 IGC/IRC Conference Published by Guangdong People's Publishing House This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Plant and Soil Sciences at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Grassland Congress Proceedings by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. 　 Multifunctional Grasslands in a Changing World 　 Volume Ⅱ 　 瞯 ]55　 瞯Grasslands/Rangelands Production Systems——— Livestock Production SystemsEvaluation of the productivity and grazing capacity of cool season grassesH .A .L ardner 1 ,C .W ard2 ,L .Froehlich1 and L .Zemlak11 Western Bee f Development Centre , H umboldt , Saskatchew an ,S0K 2A0 ,Canada ; 2 Department o f A nimal and PoultryScience ,University o f Saskatchewan ,Saskatoon ,Saskatchew an S7N 5A8 ,Canada . E‐mail : blardner .wbdc＠ pami .caKey words : cumulative yield ,steers ,grazing ,Bromus ,FestucaIntroduction Pasture forage is an important part of beef production systems in western Canada and producers require adaptedspecies that are high yielding and provide good nutritional quality .Small plot evaluation of forages uses mowing or clipping tosimulate grazing events ; however ,these treatments lack animal effects such as pulling ,treading ,manure and urine depositionand short stubble heights ( Thompson et al . ２００３ ) .Thus ,forage varieties need to be evaluated for livestock performance andstand persistence under grazed conditions before they are recommended for use in grazing operations .This study comparedhybrid bromegrass ,crested wheatgrass and tall fescue for yield and animal grazing days ( AGD) over ３ seasons (２００５‐２００７) .Materials and methods The study was conducted at the Termuende Research Ranch ,Lanigan ,Saskatchewan ,Canada .The studysite was a ６ .４ ha pasture situated on a mixed Orthic Black soil . In ２００３ ,crested wheatgrass ( CWG ) ( A gropy ron cristatum( L .) Gaertn .) cv .�Goliath�,hybrid bromegrass ( HBG) ( B .riparius Rehm .X B .inermis Leyss) cv .�AC Knowles�and tallfescue ( TF) ( Festuca arundinacea Schreb .) cv .�Courtney�were established in ２ ,０ .８ ha replicate paddocks and compared to along established stand of CWG ( control pasture) over ３ years .Each year steers were randomly allocated to pastures whengrow th was approximately ２０ cm high .Quadrats ( ０ .２５ m２ ) were taken to determine cumulative dry matter yield ( CDMY ) .Statistics were completed using SAS Mixed Model and means were separated using the least significant difference multiple rangetest when P ＜ ０ .０５ .Results In ２００５ all pastures were grazed only once ,however in ２００６ and ２００７ sufficient re‐grow th allowed for two grazingperiods for most species ( Table １ ) .In ２００５ Goliath CWG yielded ３X greater ( P ＜ ０ .０５ ) than control .However in ２００６ and２００７ ,HBG and TF yielded ８３ and ３０％ greater than control ,respectively .In P１ each year ,AGD were greater than in P２ whichmay be due to lower forage quantity in P２ .CWG ,HBG and TF had greater AGD ( P ＜ ０ .０５ ) each year compared to controlpastures ,indicating the potential of these grasses as pasture species for beef producers .Table 1 Y ield and graz ing days o f f orage species .Control CWG HBG TF SEMzCumulative dry matter y ield (kg ha‐１ )２００５ T２４８５b ７５１５a ３１３６b ３９３２ab ７２７ 邋.４２００６ ( P１) y ３７４４ C３２９３ ;４３８１ 2４８８７ *８８４ -.８　 　 ( P２) ０b ２５０４a ２４８４a ０b １８７ -.６Total ３７４４ L５７９８ C６８６３ ;４８８７ 2７９８ 邋.８２００７( P１) ４２８１ C５９８５ ;６８７８ 2５９３１ *５４５ -.４　 　 ( P２) ３１７２ C３２３４ ;２６６０ 2３７４５ *３００ -.０Total ７４５３ L９２１９ C９５３８ ;９６７６ 2８１２ 邋.３A nimal graz ing days ( d ha‐１ )２００５ T７８b ２１５a ２５２a ２３２a １４ 挝.３２００６( P１) １４８ d ２１５bc ２５４bc ２３５bc １９  .７　 　 ( P２) ０c ８４a ４９ab ７８a １０  .５Total １４８c ２９９ab ３０３ab ３１３ab ２４ 挝.８２００７( P１) ８４c １４０b ２４０a ２８０a １５  .１　 　 ( P２) ６４b １１２a １０４a ６４b １０  .２Total １４８b ２５２a ３４４a ３４４a １７ 挝.６z SEM ＝ standard error of the mean .　 y P１ ＝ grazing period １ ; P２ ＝ grazing period ２a‐d Least square means in the same row with different letters differ at P ＜０畅０５ .Conclusions Results indicate these varieties under grazed conditions had superior CDMY and AGD compared to control and maybe well suited to season‐long grazing .Similar yields but greater grazing days for HBG and TF suggests these varieties willperform better than CWG over several years .

Evaluation of the Productivity and Grazing Capacity of Cool Season Grasses

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3020&amp;context=igc

Evaluation of the Productivity and Grazing Capacity of Cool Season Grasses

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky