HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sanderson, M. A. Articles by Rayburn, E. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Sanderson, M. A. Articles by Rayburn, E. B. Agricola Articles by Sanderson, M. A. Articles by Rayburn, E. B. Related Collections Forage Management Economics Other Models Production Agriculture

PRODUCTION PAPER

Estimating Forage Mass with a Commercial Capacitance Meter, Rising Plate Meter, and Pasture Ruler

^a USDA-ARS Pasture Syst. and Watershed Manage. Res. Unit, Building 3702, Curtin Rd., University Park, PA 16802-3702
^b Maryland Coop. Ext. Serv., Frederick, MD, 21702
^c West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV 26506-6108

* Corresponding author (mas44{at}psu.edu)

Received for publication January 2, 2001. Accurate assessment of forage mass in pastures is key to budgeting forage in grazing systems. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of an electronic capacitance meter, a rising plate meter, and a pasture ruler in measuring forage mass and to determine the cost of measurement inaccuracy. Forage mass was estimated in grazed pastures on farms in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia in 1998 and 1999. Forage mass estimated by each method was compared with forage mass estimated by hand-clipped samples. None of these indirect methods were accurate or precise, and error levels ranged from 26 to 33% of the mean forage mass measured on the pastures. The computer model DAFOSYM (Dairy Forage System Model) was used to simulate farm performance and the resulting effects of inaccuracies in estimating forage mass on pasture. A representative grazing dairy farm was developed, and the costs and returns from low-input and conventional managements were calculated. Different scenarios were then simulated, including under- or overestimating forage yield on pastures by 10 or 20%. All scenarios simulated resulted in lower returns compared with the optimum farm, with decreases in net return ranging from $8 to $198 ha^-1 yr^-1. Underestimating forage mass resulted in less hay and silage being harvested, more pasture being consumed, and more forage purchased compared with the optimum scenario. The opposite occurred for overestimation of forage mass. Our results indicate that achieving greater accuracy (to within 10% of actual pasture yield) in estimating pasture yields will improve forage budgeting and increase net returns.

Abbreviations: DM, dry matter • SEP, standard error of prediction

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. H. Skinner High Biomass Removal Limits Carbon Sequestration Potential of Mature Temperate Pastures J. Environ. Qual., June 23, 2008; 37(4): 1319 - 1326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Flynn, C. T. Dougherty, and O. Wendroth Assessment of Pasture Biomass with the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index from Active Ground-Based Sensors Agron. J., January 11, 2008; 100(1): 114 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. W. Hancock and C. T. Dougherty Relationships between Blue- and Red-based Vegetation Indices and Leaf Area and Yield of Alfalfa Crop Sci., November 7, 2007; 47(6): 2547 - 2556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. G. T. Schut, G. W. A. M. van der Heijden, I. Hoving, M. W. J. Stienezen, F. K. van Evert, and J. Meuleman Imaging Spectroscopy for On-Farm Measurement of Grassland Yield and Quality Agron. J., September 5, 2006; 98(5): 1318 - 1325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]