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

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Muir, J. P. Articles by Bow, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Muir, J. P. Articles by Bow, J. R. Agricola Articles by Muir, J. P. Articles by Bow, J. R. Related Collections Forage Management Other Forage Crops

FORAGES

Harvest Techniques Change Annual Warm-Season Legume Forage Yield and Nutritive Value

^a Texas AgriLife Res., Stephenville, TX 76401
^b The Noble Foundation, 2510 Sam Noble Parkway, Ardmore, OK 73401

^* Corresponding author (j-muir{at}tamu.edu).

	ABSTRACT

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Comparison among warm-season legume forage trials may not be valid if harvest techniques vary. To address this question, herbage dry matter (DM) yields, branching, crude protein (CP), and fiber concentrations for nine warm-season annual herbaceous legumes were measured by hand-plucking all leaves and pliable tips or clipping at 7.5- or 15-cm height. The experiment was conducted in Texas on a Windthorst fine sandy loam over 2 yr. Harvest technique did not affect DM yield in 2004, but the hand-plucked harvest technique produced 34 to 39% less forage in 2005 (low rainfall year) compared with the clipped plots. Most entries had greater branching on hand-plucked than on clipped plants (entry by harvest P < 0.05). Crude protein concentration was greater (P < 0.05) and fiber concentrations lower in the hand-plucked compared with the clipped plants. These results suggest that neither yields nor nutritive values of hand-plucked forage trials examining annual warm-season herbaceous legumes should be compared with clipped forage trials, whereas clipping heights may be less problematic. Results support a careful choice of experiment harvest technique based on the future field-scale harvest method or degree of target herbivore selectivity.

Abbreviations: ADF, acid detergent fiber • ADL, acid detergent lignin • CP, crude protein • DM, dry matter

	NOTES

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Received for publication January 25, 2007.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
AS AGRONOMIC TRIALS of annual warm-season legumes are designed in response to renewed interest in these forages (Sollenberger and Collins, 2003), the question of which harvest technique to use in plot trials may arise. Legume species have distinct morphologies, sometimes even within the same genus (Diggs et al., 1999), that may influence which harvest techniques best reflect potential yield and nutritive value. Upright, lignified species may require different harvest techniques than prostrate or coppicing species with more decumbent growth patterns. Published studies comparing influences of harvest technique among herbaceous warm-season annual legumes do not exist.

Canopy structure or plant architecture influences ingestive behavior in ruminants (Allden and Whittaker, 1970; Chacon et al., 1978; Moore et al., 1980) and forage selectivity depends on the type of animal and its grazing/browsing behavior (Ellis and Travis, 1975). Bulk grazers such as bovines harvest plant material indiscriminately compared with selective grazers or browsers such as caprines. Researchers may want to adjust harvest techniques in forage plot trials to reflect not only plant structure but also future target herbivore-specific differences in ingestive behavior. Mechanical harvest methods that most closely mirror the herbage removal of the eventual target herbivore species or harvest system will more likely give accurate predictions of field-scale yield or nutritive value.

The choice of harvest technique may affect the trade-off between yield and apparent nutritive value and complicate comparisons among forage legume trials. Research on grass harvest techniques has long indicated that hand-plucked and clipped samples are not comparable (Smith et al., 1959) and that hand-plucked samples are fairly accurate reflections of esophageal-sampled protein and cellulose intake (Edlefsen et al., 1960; de Vries, 1995). However, there is a paucity of published trials comparing these techniques for forage legumes, which have arguably different canopy structures than grasses.

Researchers have justified individual leaf harvest as a more accurate reflection of what selective herbivores might harvest compared with clipping methods that harvest both leaves and stems (Muir, 2002). Upright dicotyledonous forages are especially susceptible to yield and nutritive value changes with clipping height over the long term (El-Houssini et al., 2002). Nutritive values of leaves and stems differ considerably (Terry and Tilley, 1964) and selective grazers/browsers concentrate the value of forage intake by selecting for the former (Papachristou et al., 1999). To date, however, no published trials have established that there are differences in herbaceous forage yield or nutritive value resulting from hand-plucked vis-à-vis clipped harvests. Among herbaceous legumes, season-long yield totals from multiple harvests (as distinct from single harvests) are often unaffected by clipping height (Muir et al., 2005) in contrast to nutritive values that are less consistent across clipping heights (Minnee et al., 2004; Muir et al., 2005). The objective of this experiment was to determine whether a leaf-selective harvest technique (hand-plucking) resulted in differing forage yields, degree of branching, and fiber or CP concentrations in nine annual warm-season herbaceous legumes over two growing seasons compared with the same plants clipped to include both leaves and stems at two different heights.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
A randomized complete block design in a split-plot arrangement with four replications was used. Whole plots were annual legume entries (nine). Subplots were harvest techniques (three). The study was conducted during the 2004 and 2005 growing seasons at the Texas A&M University Agricultural Research Center near Stephenville, TX (32°15' N, 98° 12' W, altitude 395 m). The soil in the experiment area was a Windthorst fine sandy loam (fine, mixed, thermic, Udic Paleustalf; pH 6.6, 11 mg P kg^–1, 196 mg K kg^–1, 902 mg Ca kg^–1, and 168 mg Mg kg^–1 using the TAMU-EDTA extractant method [Hons et al., 1990]). Legumes were planted in 1.5- by 9-m strips and harvest technique was measured in 1.5- by 3-m subplots. Eighteen Mg (DM) ha^–1 of dairy manure compost were applied to increase P available to the plants and equated to 140 kg P, 360 kg K, and 522 kg N ha^–1 each year. Seven introduced and two legumes native to Texas (Strophostyles spp.) (Table 1 ) were selected for the trial based on adaptation to the region, varying morphology, and differing seasonal production peaks (Muir et al., 2001; 2005; Muir, 2002). These were seeded (see Table 1 for seeding rates) into tilled and packed soil using a Hege 1000 small-plot seeder (Hege Equip. Inc; Colwich, KS) at 15-mm depth on 15 April on immediately adjacent land with identical soil characteristics each year. The area was irrigated with 25 mm of water immediately following seeding to guarantee uniform germination after which no additional irrigation was applied either year. Weeds were removed by hand throughout the trial.

The harvest techniques consisted of manually clipping all plant material 7.5 or 15 cm above the soil, or hand-plucking all leaves and growing pliable tips to ground level. Pliable tips were defined as stems that were still flexible and snapped readily (nonlignified) between the thumb and forefinger (de Vries, 1995). Subplot total fresh weights were corrected to DM basis by drying a subsample for 72 h at 55°C in a forced-air oven, and then DM yields were reported on a per-hectare basis.

Dried samples were ground through a sheer mill fitted with a 1-mm screen. Total N concentrations were measured in the forage by using a modification of the aluminum block digestion procedure of Gallaher et al. (1975). Nitrogen in the digestate was determined by semiautomated colorimetry (Hambleton, 1977) using a Technicon Autoanalyzer II (Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown, NY). Nitrogen was reported as CP concentration by multiplying N concentrations by 6.25. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were determined utilizing the method originally described by Van Soest and Robertson (1980).

Dependent variables (yield, branching, and nutritive values) were submitted to analyses of variance using PROC GLM (SAS Institute, 1999) with treatment differences having P < 0.05 reported as significant. Year, legume entry, and harvest technique were considered fixed effects, while replication was considered random (Lentner and Bishop, 1986, p. 200–240). Means, where appropriate, were separated using Fisher's Protected LSD test at P = 0.05 level of significance.

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Yield
Year by legume entry and year by harvest intensity interactions were significant for DM yield; therefore means are reported by year (Table 2 ). This interaction was likely due to differences in rainfall (Fig. 1 ; Texas AgriLife Research, 2008). Rainfall during the growing season (Mar.–Oct.) in 2004 was 20% greater than the 30-yr average, while that in year 2005 was 43% below average. These extremes are not uncommon for the subhumid climate and are useful in comparing legume yields and nutritive values during years with high and low rainfall. Legume species by harvest technique interactions were not significant; therefore means are pooled across these variables in both 2004 and 2005.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Monthly rainfall for the growing season at Stephenville, TX, 2004 and 2005, and 30-yr average (Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 2007).

In 2005, cumulative DM yields ranged from 97 to 4063 kg ha^–1. Rongai lablab and Iron and Clay cowpea produced the greatest DM yields (3689–4063 kg ha^–1), which were similar to the 2004 growing season except that the two experimental lablab entries did not yield as much in the lower rainfall year. Malinowski et al. (2007) reported cumulative DM yield of nonirrigated alfalfa that ranged from 5580 to 6010 kg ha^–1 in north Texas during the 2004 and 2005 growing seasons, which is similar to the highest yielding entries of this study, but greater than the lower yielding entries. Muir (2002) reported that yearly warm-season legume DM yields were dependant on rainfall and that cowpea yields ranged from 511 to 3194 kg ha^–1 and lablab ranged from 78 to 2739 kg ha^–1 under dryland conditions in north-central Texas. However, under irrigation, Muir et al. (2001) reported that cowpea produced 4300 to 5600 kg ha^–1 while lablab produced more than 9000 kg ha^–1 yr^–1.

In both seasons, the ‘Laredo’ soybean had the lowest yields relative to other non-native entries, followed by the two native wild beans. Rao et al. (2005) reported forage soybean yields ranging from 1573 to 5406 kg ha^–1 over a 3-yr period (2001–2003) in central Oklahoma, which is higher than the soybean yields in this study. Muir (2002) reported forage soybean yields ranging from 0 to 624 kg ha^–1 on a similar soil to this study. The forage soybean germplasm used in these studies does not appear to have potential for use in central TX. Although the native wild beans do not have the yield potential of the introduced legumes, these species may still be useful due to their natural reseeding ability and for those seeking exclusively native germplasm (Butler and Muir, 2006). In addition, the wild beans exhibited earlier maturity, producing the greatest portion of DM in the early season (June–Aug.), which could be an advantage when incorporating summer annual reseeding legumes into cool-season perennial grasses. This broad range of annual herbaceous warm-season legume yields and peak production patterns provides a solid basis for the primary focus of this trial: the comparison of harvest techniques over a wide range of legume species and accessions.

Harvest Technique
In 2004, when March to October rainfall totaled 711 mm (Fig. 1), there were no differences in total forage yield among the hand-plucked or the two harvest height (7.5 or 15 cm) treatments (Table 2). In 2005, when rainfall during the same period was only 335 mm, hand-plucked harvests of these warm-season annual legumes yielded 34 and 39% less than the two clipped treatments (7.5 and 15 cm, respectively), which did not differ from each other (Table 2). Stems in the initial June clipped harvests, as well as slower subsequent regrowth in the hand-plucked harvest, may have contributed to greater overall yields in the clipped plots during 2004, the drier year. In both years of this experiment, the June 7.5-cm harvest yields were superior to the hand-plucked yields. When differences between the 7.5-cm and the 15-cm harvests were identified after the initial harvest in June (July 2004 and Sept. 2005, both low-rainfall months), the 15-cm harvest height out-yielded the lower cutting height. These data indicate that harvest technique does affect cumulative DM yield of summer annual legumes, especially in the spring; these effects are more pronounced when low summer rainfall results in low post-spring regrowth. In other words, harvest technique has a greater effect on cumulative DM yields when the initial harvest comprises a larger proportion of the cumulative DM yields. Comparison among trials using different harvest techniques becomes less tenable in lower rainfall climates with short growing seasons where initial harvests contribute more to the season-long yield total.

In a perennial rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth) trial conducted at the same location and years as the present trial, a hand-plucked harvest treatment did not differ in DM yield from clip harvesting at a 5-cm height, but was 15% greater than clip harvesting at a 10-cm height in the 2004 growing season (Butler et al., 2007). During 2005, the hand-plucked rhizoma peanut treatment yielded less than harvesting at a 5- or 10-cm height, indicating that perennial warm-season legumes may respond differently than annual legumes to harvest techniques and clipping heights.

Branching
Year, year by legume entry, and year by harvest technique interactions were not significant; therefore branching means are pooled across years. Legume entry by harvest technique interaction was significant for branching, thus means are reported by legume species for each harvest technique (Table 3 ). Within each harvest technique, the two native wild beans had greater branching compared with all other entries except Rongai lablab in the hand-plucked treatment, indicating that these plants may be more grazing/browsing tolerant by having the ability to generate more new shoots. Hand-plucked plants had greater branching than the 7.5-cm clipped plants for seven of the nine entries and greater than the 15-cm clipped plants for five entries (Table 4 ). No differences were apparent between the clipped treatments, regardless of entry. There were no clear patterns in yield response differences to harvest technique between determinant and indeterminant entries. These data illustrate that harvest technique does affect plant regrowth morphology, despite not consistently affecting DM yield. In climates with greater rainfall and longer growing seasons, these differences in regrowth response to harvest technique may result in differences in yield, especially late in the season.

Legume Entry
The CP values generally decreased as plants matured from the early to late season harvests, and CP values were generally higher in the 2004 growing season (Table 4). Early in both 2004 and 2005, CP values ranged from 190 to 311 g kg^–1, while CP ranged from 157 to 262 g kg^–1 late in the season, which is similar to values reported elsewhere for these species (Muir et al., 2001; Muir, 2002). Although entry CP concentration decreased from early to late season, the two cowpea entries had consistently greater or equal CP values in early- and late-season harvests than the other entries. However, these differences in CP are probably not important to animal nutrition since all values were sufficient for the major domesticated ruminant species and classes (Ball et al., 2002).

The ADF values were relatively low and ranged from 183 to 265 g kg^–1, which were similar to those reported elsewhere for the same species and harvest techniques (Muir, 2002; Muir et al., 2005). All fiber values compared favorably with those reported for alfalfa (Sanderson, 1992), which indicates these species have potentially high nutritive values. Fiber concentrations differed among legume entries and season of harvest in both 2004 and 2005, making it difficult to draw conclusions regarding individual legume entries. This wide range in nutritive values indicates that selection of entries provided a broad base of comparison for harvest techniques.

Harvest Technique
Regardless of season or year, hand-plucked forage had consistently greater CP concentrations than the material harvested by clipping (Table 4), which was also the case with rhizoma peanut CP response in a small plot experiment (Butler et al., 2007) and grass rangeland trials (de Vries, 1995; Pires Silveira et al., 2005). Research has long established (Terry and Tilley, 1964) that the nutritive value of leaves is greater than stems, so it would follow that hand-plucked samples containing only leaves should have greater nutritive value than clipped samples containing some stems. The only exception in our experiment was the lack of early-season CP concentration differences among harvest treatments in the 2005 growing season. The ADF concentration was 32 to 34% lower in hand-plucked forage than in clipped forage in 2005, and 12 to 18% lower in 2004. This same relationship held for ADL during 2005, the drier year, when hand-plucked forage had 22 to 27% lower concentrations than forage from clipped plants; however, ADL did not differ among treatments during the 2004 growing season, indicating that environmental conditions can also affect fiber concentrations, although not consistently.

Differences in nutritive value between clipping height harvests were minimal (Table 4). The exceptions were ADF and ADL concentrations during late 2005 when these fiber fraction concentrations were greater in the regrowth from the 15-cm harvest material than from the 7.5-cm harvest, a difference that cannot be explained by corresponding differences in yield.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Hand-plucking annual warm-season legumes sometimes resulted in lower yields and usually had greater CP and lower ADF concentrations than clipping samples, regardless of clipping height. This may encourage future researchers to choose harvest technique based on eventual target herbivore or production system. Results from clipping trials may be applicable to hay production or bulk grazers while hand-plucking may be more appropriate for selective grazers and, in particular, selective browsers. These findings suggest that forage agronomists may profit from greater plot–harvest technique flexibility vis-à-vis plant anatomy and target herbivore selectivity.

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

	REFERENCES

TOP NOTES ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 

• Allden, W.G., and I.A.M. Whittaker. 1970. The determinants of herbage intake by grazing sheep: The interrelationship of factors influencing herbage intake and availability. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 21:755–766.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Ball, D.M., C.S. Hoveland, and G.D. Lacefield. 2002. Southern forages. 3rd ed. Potash and Phosphate Institute (PPI) and the Foundation for Agronomic Research (FAR), Norcross, GA.
• Butler, T.J., and J.P. Muir. 2006. Evaluation of wild bean, a summer annual legumes for the southern Great Plains of USA. p. 952–956 In C.F Mercer (ed.) Proc. 13th Australasian Plant Breeding Conf., Christchurch, NZ. 18–21 Apr. 2006. Grain Res. and Dev. Corp., Christchurch, NZ.
• Butler, T.J., J.P. Muir, M. Anowarul Islam, and J.R. Bow. 2007. Rhizoma peanut yield and nutritive value are influenced by harvest technique and timing. Agron. J. 99:1559–1563.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Chacon, E.A., T.H. Stobbs, and M.B. Dale. 1978. Influence of sward characteristics on grazing behaviour and growth of Hereford steers grazing tropical grass pastures. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29:89–102.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• de Vries, M.F.W. 1995. Estimating forage intake and quality in grazing cattle: A reconsideration of the hand-plucked method. J. Range Manage. 48:370–375.
• Diggs, G.M., Jr., B.L. Lipscomb, and R.J. O'Kennon. 1999. Shinners & Mahler's illustrated flora of north central Texas. Botanical Res. Inst. of Texas, Fort Worth.
• Edlefsen, J.L., C.W. Cook, and J.T. Blake. 1960. Nutrient content of the diet as determined by hand plucking and esophageal fistula samples. J. Anim. Sci. 19:560–567.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• El-Houssini, A.A., S.A. Khalifa, and Z.M. Nassar. 2002. Forage yield of fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens James) as affected by cutting management under south Sinai conditions. Annals Agric. Sci. Ain Shams Univ. 47:611–620.
• Ellis, J.E., and M. Travis. 1975. Comparative aspects of foraging behaviour of pronghorn antelope and cattle. J. Appl. Ecol. 12:411–420.
• Gallaher, R.N., C.O. Weldon, and J.G. Futral. 1975. An aluminum block digester for plant and soil analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:803–806.
• Hambleton, L.G. 1977. Semiautomated method for simultaneous determination of phosphorus, calcium and crude protein in animal feeds. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 60:845–852.
• Hons, F.M., L.A. Larson-Vollmer, and M.A. Locke. 1990. NH₄OAc-EDTA-extractable phosphorus as a soil test procedure. Soil Sci. 149:249–256.
• Lentner, M., and T. Bishop. 1986. Experimental design and analysis. 2nd ed. Valley Book Co., Blacksburg, VA.
• Malinowski, D.P., W.E. Pinchak, B.A. Kramp, H. Zuo, and T.J. Butler. 2007. Management strategies to increase alfalfa productivity and reduce irrigation water in semiarid environments of the Texas Rolling Plains. Agron. J. 99:621–629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Minnee, E.M.K., S.J. Bluett, and S.L. Woodward. 2004. Harvesting sulla for yield and quality. Agron. Soc. N.Z. 34:83–88.
• Moore, J.E., L.E. Sollenberger, G.A. Morantes, and P.T. Beede. 1980. Canopy structure of Aeschynomene americana and Hemarthria altissima pastures and ingestive behaviour of cattle. p. 1126–1128. In Japanese Soc. Grassland Sci. (ed.) Proc. XV Intern. Grassl. Congr. Sci. Council Japan and Japanese Soc. Grassl., Tochigi, Japan.
• Muir, J.P. 2002. Hand-plucked forage yield and quality and seed production from annual and short-lived perennial warm-season legumes fertilized with composted manure. Crop Sci. 42:897–904.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Muir, J.P., R.L. Reed, and D.P. Malinowski. 2005. Forage and seed of Strophostyles species as affected by location and harvest height. Native Plants J. 6:123–130.
• Muir, J.P., S. Stokes, and E. Prostko. 2001. Production, quality and phosphorus uptake of summer annual dicots grown as alternative silages with dairy compost. J. Prof. Anim. Sci. 17:95–100.
• Papachristou, T.G., P.D. Platis, V.P. Papanastasis, and C.N. Tsiouvaras. 1999. Use of deciduous woody species as a diet supplement for goats grazing Mediterranean shrublands during the dry season. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 80:267–279.
• Pires Silveira, V.C., A. Ferreira da Costa Vargas, J.O. Rocha Oliveira, K.E. Gomes, and A.F. Motta. 2005. Qualidade da pastagem nativa obtida por diferentes métodos de amostragem e em diferentes solos na Apa do Ibirapuitã, Brasil. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria 35:582–588.
• Rao, S.C., H.S. Mayeux, and B.K. Northup. 2005. Performance of forage soybean in the Southern Great Plains. Crop Sci. 45:1973–1977.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Sanderson, M.A. 1992. Predictors of alfalfa forage quality: Validation with field data. Crop Sci. 32:245–250.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• SAS Institute. 1999. The SAS system for Windows. Release 8.2. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
• Smith, E.F., V.A. Young, L.A. Holland, and H.C. Fryer. 1959. A comparison of two grass sampling methods for digestibility trials conducted on pasture. J. Range Manage. 12:306–308.
• Sollenberger, L.E., and M. Collins. 2003. Legumes for southern areas. p. 191–213. In R.F Barnes et al. (ed.) Forages: An introduction to grassland agriculture. Vol. I, 6th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
• Terry, R.A., and J.M.A. Tilley. 1964. The digestibility of the leaves and stems of perennial ryegrass, cocksfoot, timothy, tall fescue, lucerne and sainfoin as measured by an in-vitro procedure. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 19:363–372.
• Texas AgriLife Research. 2008. TAES weather. http://stephenville.tamu.edu/TAES/weather/ [cited 27 Jan. 2008; verified 28 Jan. 2008].
• Van Soest, P.J., and J.B. Robertson. 1980. Systems of analysis for evaluating fibrous feeds. p. 49–60. In W.J. Pigden et al. (ed.) Standardization of analytical methodology for feeds. Proc. Int. Workshop, Ottawa, ON. 12–14 Mar. 1979. Rep. IDRC-134e. Int. Dev. Res. Cent., Ottawa, ON, Canada, and Unipub, New York.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. C. Rao and B. K. Northup Water Use by Five Warm-Season Legumes in the Southern Great Plains Crop Sci., October 22, 2009; 49(6): 2317 - 2324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Rao and B. K. Northup Capabilities of Four Novel Warm-Season Legumes in the Southern Great Plains: Biomass and Forage Quality Crop Sci., May 11, 2009; 49(3): 1096 - 1102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Muir, J. R. Bow, W. Rodriguez, and J. M. Patterson Defoliation of Panicled Tick-Clover, Tweedy's Tick-Clover, and Tall Bush-Clover: II. Herbage Nutritive Value and Condensed Tannin Concentrations Agron. J., October 21, 2008; 100(6): 1635 - 1639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Muir, J. P. Articles by Bow, J. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Muir, J. P. Articles by Bow, J. R. Agricola Articles by Muir, J. P. Articles by Bow, J. R. Related Collections Forage Management Other Forage Crops