Agronomy Journal Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 1 July 1999
Published in Agron J 91:690-696 (1999)
© 1999 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prigge, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldman-Innis, E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Prigge, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldman-Innis, E. S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Prigge, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldman-Innis, E. S.
Agronomy Journal 91:690-696 (1999)
© 1999 American Society of Agronomy

FORAGE PRODUCTION

Early- and Late-Season Grazing of Orchardgrass and Fescue Hayfields Overseeded with Red Clover

Edward C. Priggea, William B. Bryana and Esther S. Goldman-Innisa

a Div. of Plant and Soil Sci., West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV 26506-6108 USA

wbryan{at}wvu.edu

Received for publication December 28, 1996.

   ABSTRACT
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 REFERENCES
 
Low-cost alternatives to hay feeding for wintering the beef herd (Bos taurus L.) are needed to design sustainable production systems for northern Appalachia. This study was conducted to compare forage production, quality, and botanical composition of hayfields overseeded with a legume when grazed by beef cattle in early spring and late fall. Four management systems were applied to fields containing either tall fescue [Festuca arundinacea Schreb.] or orchardgrass [Dactylis glomerata L.], each overseeded with red clover [Trifolium pratense L.]: (i) early spring grazing, one hay cutting, late fall grazing (GHG); (ii) two hay cuttings (HH); (iii) early spring grazing followed by two hay cuttings (GHH); and (iv) one hay cutting followed by grazing in late fall (HG). Total dry matter (DM) was highest for the HG management. Early spring grazing (GHH and GHG) reduced spring hay yield; quality, however, as indicated by crude protein, acid-detergent fiber, and in vitro dry matter disappearance, was higher than for hay not grazed in spring (HH and HG). Fall grazing increased quality of forage grazed in early spring. Tall fescue produced more DM than orchardgrass, primarily in spring hay yield. Red clover contributed 50% of the DM of spring hay in the first year after seeding. Fall grazing extended the life of the red clover by one year; however, almost no red clover persisted into the fourth year after seeding. Results suggest that fall grazing after a single hay cutting has the potential to be a viable alternative to exclusively relying on hay for wintering the beef herd.

Abbreviations: ADF, acid-detergent fiber • GHG, spring graze–1 hay cut–fall graze • GHH, spring graze–2 hay cuts • HH, 2 hay cuts • HG, spring hay cut–fall graze • CP, crude protein • DM, dry matter • IVDMD, in vitro dry matter disappearance • ME, metabolizable energy


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 REFERENCES
 
THE WINTER PERIOD in northern Appalachia can last up to 6 months. During this time conserved forage is generally fed to the beef herd. Lengthening the grazing season would decrease the need for conserved forage, and thereby reduce the costs of wintering the herd. Legumes contribute N to grasslands and increase forage quality; however, lack of stability of grass–legume mixtures is a serious limitation to their use (Fales et al., 1996).

An earlier study (Baker et al., 1988) compared four grassland management systems imposed on tall fescue and orchardgrass meadows. That study determined that late fall grazing after one summer hay cutting produced greater annual yield of digestible DM and metabolizable energy (ME) than two hay cuttings. The authors also observed that tall fescue yielded more digestible DM than did orchardgrass.

Even though N is the most limiting nutrient (Sweeney et al., 1996), applying N fertilizer to hayfields is costly for beef producers. However, Frame et al. (1998) state that a grass–legume sward with no added N can produce the same DM yield as a pure grass sward with 100 to 250 kg N ha-1 applied. Red clover is reported to be one of the easiest legumes to establish in renovated sods (Bryan, 1985), but the amount of N fixed is related to seasonal persistence of the legume (Goh et al., 1996). Proportions of red clover in the sward can be influenced by harvest management (Smith et al., 1985) and grazing (Hume et al., 1995). Consequently, hayfield management that includes grazing can influence persistence of red clover over a number of years. For this study, tall fescue and orchardgrass hayfields were overseeded with red clover. Our objective was to evaluate combinations of spring and fall grazing of these hayfields in regard to harvestable forage yield, quality, and sward composition.


   Materials and methods
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 REFERENCES
 
Experimental Design
The experiment was conducted over a 4-year period (1986–1989) at the West Virginia University Agricultural Experiment Station, Reedsville, WV. Soils were Gilpin silt loam (fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults) and Wharton silt loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Aquic Hapludults). Four blocks, each consisting of a 1-ha plot of established `Kenhy' tall fescue and a 1-ha plot of established `Potomac' orchardgrass, both previously harvested as hay, were sod-seeded at rates of 2 to 5 kg ha-1 with `Kenstar' red clover in fall 1984. Paraquat (1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium ion) was applied at 1.0 L ha-1. The plots were overseeded again during March of 1985, at a rate of 6 kg ha-1, without further application of paraquat. To limit grass height so that red clover seedlings could establish, the plots were grazed once during May 1985 by 25 animals (12 steers, 12 heifers, and 1 bull); animals were rotated to a new plot every day. Plots were grazed again in November by 23 animals (4 d plot-1).

Throughout the experiment, soil pH was maintained at 5.8 or above and P and K were applied as needed to maintain availabilities at or above 56 and 196 kg ha-1, respectively. No N was applied, because of the legume component of the sward.

In the spring of 1986, four plots of tall fescue and orchardgrass were each divided into four 0.25-ha subplots, and four management treatments were randomly assigned to each subplot. The four treatments were spring grazing followed by a hay cutting, then late fall grazing (GHG); two hay cuttings, spring and fall (HH); early spring grazing followed by two hay cuttings (GHH); and one hay cutting (spring) plus late fall grazing (HG). The spring hay cutting on all treatment subplots was made in mid-June. Forage on plots with treatments HG and GHG was stockpiled after the spring hay cutting, then grazed in the fall after a killing frost (-5°C). Treatments HH and GHH were harvested for hay in the fall (late August to September).

Data were collected for the entire year in 1986, 1987, and 1988. Only spring data were collected in 1989. Data from the spring of the first year of the study were not used, because probable carryover effects from the late fall grazing would not have been evident for this harvest. For analytical purposes, seasons were designated as fall (July to December) and spring (January to June). Portions of tall fescue samples harvested for the two hay cuttings and fall grazing period in 1987 were analyzed for ergoline alkaloids (Hill and Agee, 1994) and were found to be negative. Consequently, the tall fescue plots were considered free of the tall fescue endophyte [Neotyphodium coenophialum (Morgan-Jones & W. Gams) Glenn, Bacon, Price & Hanlin; syn. Acremonium coenophialum Morgan-Jones & W. Gams.].

Grazing Periods
Spring grazing commenced when herbage availability reached about 1000 kg ha-1, determined from an average of five samples per subplot clipped at a 2.5-cm height from 0.2-m2 quadrats. Twenty-four crossbred yearling steers of predominantly Hereford, Simmental, and Angus breeds were placed on subplots at a stocking rate of 12 head ha-1 (3 per subplot) for 5 to 7 d. To estimate fecal output for forage consumption and production determinations, animals were fed a small portion of oats (Avena sativa L.) labeled with Yb (i.e., ytterbium) at 24-h intervals 2 d prior to grazing and throughout the grazing period. Cattle were weighed immediately prior to assignment to the plots. Two blocks were grazed simultaneously. After the 5- to 7-d grazing period, cattle were moved to the other two blocks for an equal length of time. Cattle were then removed and weighed. Cattle were kept on the same forage for both grazing periods, but were not maintained on the same management treatments. Blocks were grazed in the same order each year of the study.

Fall grazing was initiated after a killing frost (late October) on treatments with stockpiled forage. Twenty dry beef cows (Hereford and Simmental breeds) were assigned to each of the grass species and accordingly were placed on either tall fescue or orchardgrass nonexperimental swards to initiate administration of the fecal output marker (Yb). Cattle were weighed 3 d later and assigned to appropriate subplots within grass species at a stocking rate of 40 head ha-1 (10 per subplot). Blocks were grazed one at a time; as available herbage was removed (5 to 7 d), cattle were moved to the next block. Initial average residual forage was visually estimated at 1200 kg ha-1 and verified for each subplot by determining DM on five 0.2-m2 quadrats harvested at 2.5 cm. Cows grazed the same grass species throughout the period, but were not maintained on the same management treatments. Blocks were grazed in the same order each year.

Estimation of Herbage Production
Both animal and agronomic techniques were used to estimate herbage production. Forage consumed by grazing cattle, combined with the agronomic estimate of hay yield, was used to calculate annual and seasonal forage production.

Forage Consumption
A marker technique was used to measure fecal output (Baker et al., 1988). Cattle were fed oats labeled with approximately 1.75 mg of ytterbium chloride (YbC13) per gram of oats. Each animal was fed 100 g of labeled oats mixed with an equal portion of unlabeled oats daily for an initial 2-d adjustment interval and for the entire grazing period. After cattle had grazed a plot for 3 d, all fecal pats were dusted with ground limestone. Fresh pats were sampled a second day and samples from both days were combined. The fecal sampling period, for each block, lasted 2 d. Fecal samples were stored at 5°C until the end of the grazing period; they were then dried in a forced-air oven at 50°C and ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 1-mm screen. Fecal samples were analyzed for Yb concentration by atomic absorption (Baker et al., 1988) and fecal output was calculated; consumption was estimated using fecal output and the in vitro dry matter disappearance (IVDMD) (Barnes, 1966) of clipped samples used to estimate forage composition and quality for the corresponding subplots and times as described by Baker et al., 1988.

Hay Yields
Prior to hay harvest, three randomly selected 6-m2 areas per plot were clipped with a sickle bar mower adjusted to a 5- to 7-cm cutting height. The clipped herbage was weighed to determine dry matter yield. A subsample was hand-separated into grass, legume, other broadleaf plants (weeds), and dead components; this subsample was then dried in a forced-air oven at 50°C. Conventional hay harvesting machinery was used to harvest forage as square or round bales.

Estimation of Sward Composition and Forage Quality
Subplots were sampled at the following times: (i) spring and fall, prior to initiation of grazing, (ii) before and after grazing (grazed subplots only), and (iii) before hay harvest, for those subplots not grazed. The area of all clipped samples, except before hay harvest, was 0.2 m2; the height of cut was 2.5 cm. Clipped samples were hand-separated into the same components as hay, then dried, weighed, and composited by subplot for forage quality determinations.

The composite sample for each subplot was ground to pass a 1-mm screen (Wiley mill). Dry matter (AOAC, 1984) and forage quality were estimated as follows: (i) crude protein (Kjeldahl method; AOAC, 1984), (ii) acid-detergent fiber (Goering and Van Soest, 1970), and (iii) IVDMD (Barnes, 1966).

Statistical Analysis
The experimental design was a randomized complete block with a split-plot arrangement of treatments. Swards of orchardgrass and tall fescue seeded with red clover were the main plots and were replicated four times, with management as subplots. The effect of years was analyzed as a second split plot, years being the sub-subplot. Analysis of variance was performed using the SAS General Linear Model (SAS Inst., 1990) and treatment differences were compared using the least significant difference. The null hypothesis was rejected at values of P <= 0.10. Because grazing periods were short and the cattle were moved among blocks and management treatments, the influence of treatment on average daily gain could not be evaluated.


   Results and discussion
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
Summary and conclusions
 REFERENCES
 
Forage Yield
Since no forage species x management interactions were evident (P <= 0.10), seasonal and annual dry matter yields were summarized by management (Table 1) . Averaged over all years, HG management produced more DM over the entire season than GHH and GHG treatments (P < 0.05) and the HH treatment (P < 0.10). The other three management treatments did not differ in total DM production. In a previous study, Baker et al. (1988) used the same hayfields and management treatments, but with N fertilizer instead of red clover; they also found that more total DM was produced when hay was harvested in spring and aftermath stockpiled and grazed in fall. Two factors could contribute to this difference. Managements harvested for hay in September (GHH and HH) had several weeks of regrowth before cold weather, which is not accounted for in Table 1. In addition, managements that were grazed in fall had nutrients returned to the plots in the form of feces and urine.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Mean seasonal and annual herbage dry matter (DM) harvested as influenced by management (Reedsville, WV)

 
Tall fescue produced more total forage annually than orchardgrass (Table 2) . This was due mostly to greater spring hay production, although tall fescue also produced a greater quantity of forage in the fall than orchardgrass. Baker et al. (1988) also found that tall fescue outyielded orchardgrass on a yearly basis, but in that study the difference was mostly in the fall harvests. Other research has shown that tall fescue yields more than orchardgrass, although not under all harvesting managements (Matches, 1979). Allen et al. (1992) reported that stockpiled orchardgrass–red clover yielded much less than tall fescue–red clover. Their results for fescue production are very similar to ours, but those for orchardgrass are less than half what we observed.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Seasonal and annual herbage dry matter (DM) harvested as influenced by forage species (Reedsville, WV).{dagger}

 
Spring hay production (Table 1) was reduced by grazing in early spring (GHG and GHH), compared with fall grazing (HG). However, there was an interaction between management and year; for the first year only, the GHG treatment had a lower spring hay yield than the other managements (Table 3) . Thus, depending on its timing and intensity, grazing early in spring can be expected to remove reproductive tillers and reduce subsequent spring hay yield.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Spring and fall hay production for orchardgrass and tall fescue pastures overseeded with red clover, as influenced by year (Reedsville, WV)

 
When the forage consumed at early spring grazing was added to spring hay production, there was no significant difference due to grazing only in spring. However, hayfields grazed both spring and fall produced significantly less DM (P < 0.05) than the other treatments. Baker et al. (1988) compared the same treatments on N-fertilized hayfields and found that the lowest spring production was from the management grazed once a year, in spring, and the highest was from the management grazed once, in fall. Turner et al. (1996) defoliated orchardgrass and a tall fescue–perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) hybrid and reported that cumulative spring yields were reduced, compared with hay harvest. Fall grazing may increase spring hay production because more nutrients are returned to the field, compared with all hay production or grazing only in spring. However, fall grazing may also weaken plants and make them less resistant to early spring grazing. Since Baker et al. (1988) found that grazing twice, in early spring and late fall, produced more forage than grazing once in early spring and since they used N fertilization rather than red clover, it can be suggested that in the present study fall grazing may have affected red clover and resulted in lower production when hayfields were grazed again in early spring. On the other hand, they applied N fertilizer about 3 wk before spring grazing, which may have overcome slow early spring growth caused by late fall grazing.

Fall forage production (Table 1) was greater (P < 0.10) for the treatments that were fall-grazed (HG and GHG), as opposed to the one grazed only in spring; these results also are similar to Baker et al. (1988) and are explained by the longer regrowth period for fall-grazed forage, compared with the treatments harvested for hay. There were no effects of spring grazing on fall production. This was expected, since the amount of forage removed in early spring grazing was low and would have resulted in minimal recycling of nutrients.

The 1988 fall hay yields were approximately 800 kg ha-1 less than the mean of either 1986 or 1987. This reduction can be attributed to a lack of rainfall in the summer of 1988. Lack of rainfall in 1988 may also have influenced spring hay yields in 1989 and limited the expression of treatment differences observed for previous years.

Sward Composition
Average percentage grass, legume, weed, and dead material in the swards by management, forage species, and season (spring grazing, spring hay, fall hay and fall grazing) is summarized in Table 4 . During the spring grazing period, the GHG management had a greater proportion of grass (P < 0.05), legume, and weeds (P < 0.10) and had less (P < 0.05) dead material than the management that was harvested as hay the previous fall (GHH). This resulted from less carryover of dead material on the fall-grazed treatments. For fall-grazed treatments (GHG and HG), the proportion of grass decreased and the proportion of legume increased in spring hay, compared with treatments harvested as hay during the fall (HH and GHH). No differences (P < 0.10) in proportions of grass, legume, and dead material were detected in swards for fall hay and fall grazing periods.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4 Percentage by weight of grass, legume, weed, and dead components in the sward as influenced by season, management, and forage species (Reedsville, WV)*

 
Management x year interactions were significant for percentages of grass, weeds, and legumes in spring hay; sward composition is therefore reported by year (Table 5) . All management systems resulted in a decrease (P < 0.01) in legume content from 1986 (first year after seeding) to 1987, and the legume content of the HH and GHH swards continued to decline through 1989. This is expected, since the persistence of red clover in cool-season grass swards has been reported to decrease in the second year after establishment (Bryan, 1985). However, from 1987 through 1989 the legume component of GHG and HG increased from an average of 5.5 in 1987 to 24.5% in 1988 and then decreased to 1% in 1989. Grass content followed trends opposite to legume content, since the proportion of weeds and dead material were low. Visual observation of GHG and HG managed swards suggested that the increase in legume content for these managements in 1988 was a result of establishment of new plants in the spring of 1988 through volunteer reseeding in the fall of 1987. The decline in legume percentage in all treatments from 1988 to 1989 was possibly caused by drought in 1988, which could predispose red clover to root and crown diseases that would influence its persistence.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5 Percentage by weight of grass, legume, weed, and dead components of spring hay as influenced by year, management, and forage species (Reedsville, WV)

 
The interaction between managements and years for spring hay yield may be partly explained by effects of management and years on botanical composition. Spring hay yield was low in 1987 on plots grazed both spring and fall (Table 3). This coincided with the highest percentage of weeds (Table 5). Grazing in fall may weaken red clover and predispose it to reduced spring growth after early spring grazing. Further research on early- and late-season grazing of red clover is required to test this hypothesis.

Fall grazing (GHG and HG) maintained adequate red clover into the third year after establishment (1988); however, by 1989 the legume component of all swards was insignificant. Thus, while we found that fall grazing increased persistence of red clover by 1 year, periodic reseeding would be required in a production situation if maximum benefit of legume incorporation into a sward is to be achieved. Long-term systems experiments are required to better understand grass–legume dynamics in hayfields.

Compared with orchardgrass, tall fescue swards had a lower percentage of weeds (P < 0.05) except when fall-grazed (Table 4). The increase in weeds appears to be at the expense of grass. This suggests a greater competitive ability for tall fescue than for orchardgrass. Swards had been established for 9 years by the end of the study, at which time weeds represented only 6% of first cutting orchardgrass and 2% of tall fescue (Table 6) ; this indicates that weeds were not a problem for either forage species. In contrast, Allen et al. (1992) reported drastic losses in stands of orchardgrass in stockpiled hayfields and an increase in weeds.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6 Concentration of crude protein (CP), acid-detergent fiber (ADF) and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) in spring and fall harvested forage as influenced by management and forage species (Reedsville, WV).{dagger}

 
Forage Nutrient Composition
When spring grazing was used, subsequent grazing in the fall resulted in higher (P < 0.01) CP and IVDMD and lower ADF concentrations (Table 6). Since Baker et al. (1988) did not report such a difference, this may have been the result of higher legume proportion (Table 4) or the removal of low quality, carryover forage by grazing after a killing frost the previous fall.

Average ADF concentration was lower and CP was higher in spring hay in treatments that were grazed in the spring (GHG and GHH), prior to the spring hay harvest, compared with no spring grazing (HH and HG) treatments. Grazing hayfields in spring apparently resulted in a less mature, more vegetative forage for spring hay harvest. There were no treatment differences in digestibility (IVDMD) of spring hay. The results of Baker et al. (1988) were similar, but hay cut after early spring grazing was also higher in IVDMD. Turner et al. (1996) compared early and repeated defoliation of a tall fescue–perennial ryegrass hybrid and orchardgrass with a single hay harvest. They found that CP was lower in the hay harvest, but that herbage mass and cumulative ME yield were higher. Berg and Hill (1989) also found that yield of orchardgrass increased and quality decreased with later harvest date in spring.

There was a significant year x management interaction for ADF concentration of the forage (P < 0.05) (data not shown). The fall-grazed treatment (GHG) had lower ADF concentrations (P < 0.10) than treatments in which a second cutting of hay was harvested for the spring grazing period in 1988 and 1989, but this response was not evident in 1987. The higher early-spring ADF concentration for fall-grazed treatments in 1987 than in the other years is most likely the result of carryover of more dead material from the previous fall (Table 4). In general, standing forage on plots grazed in the fall had high ADF concentration, because this tissue was more mature than forage harvested as fall hay. No differences in ADF were attributed to management (P < 0.10) during fall for forage harvested either as hay or grazed.

Regarding forage species, tall fescue and orchardgrass had similar ADF and IVDMD concentrations for the grazed forage, while spring and fall hays were lower in ADF for tall fescue than orchardgrass (P < 0.05 and P < 0.10, respectively). Crude protein (CP) was lower (P < 0.05) for tall fescue than for orchardgrass during spring grazing; however, CP was similar for both grass species at all other harvests. Baker et al. (1988) found that tall fescue had higher IVDMD than orchardgrass when grazed in the fall; a similar response (P < 0.05) was observed in this study. Other reports have shown few differences between orchardgrass and tall fescue in nutrient composition. Watanabe et al. (1996) found that, over a 5-year period, digestibility of orchardgrass averaged 70% and that of tall fescue was 69%. Allen et al. (1992) compared the composition of spring hay and found a difference similar to that in our experiment.

Animal Performance
No differences (P < 0.10) in DM intake (average 5.9 kg head-1 d-1 in spring and 10.9 in fall) of the cattle were linked to management treatments or grass species in either the spring or fall grazing period. Differences in the spring would not have been expected, because grazing was not intense enough to limit intake or reflect differences in yield. Differences in animal performance between managements would not have been expected in the fall, because there were no differences in availability or quality. According to Matches (1979), tall fescue quality is superior to most other temperate grasses for stockpiling. In the present study, IVDMD of tall fescue was greater (P < 0.05) than that of orchardgrass in the fall grazing period (Table 6), and DM intake also was greater.

There were no significant differences (P < 0.10) in average daily gain for either spring (average 1.10 kg head-1 d-1) or fall (average 0.82 kg head-1 d-1) grazing periods. Grazing periods were too short to provide a reliable measure of animal performance.


   Summary and conclusions
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
REFERENCES
 
In summary, fall grazing after a single hay cutting in the spring produced more (P < 0.10) annual DM than either two hay cuttings or other combinations of grazing and cutting regimes. Compared with orchardgrass, tall fescue appears to be the preferred grass species for stockpiling and grazing in the fall. Tall fescue produced more annual DM and had better quality attributes than orchardgrass during the fall grazing period. Quality of standing forage deteriorates rapidly during the fall (Fribourg and Bell, 1984), and the higher quality of tall fescue at this time may be critical for meeting the nutrient requirements of cattle.

As expected, the legume percentage of the swards decreased significantly in the years that followed overseeding. For the most part, grass replaced the legume component. Management systems that included fall grazing were slightly more adequate for maintenance of the red clover component of a sward than management systems where late summer production was harvested as hay. However, the magnitude of management effects on the legume content of hayfields may not be consistent enough to result in a reduction in reseeding intervals.SAS Institute 1990


   NOTES
TOP
 NOTES
ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 REFERENCES
 
Published as West Virginia Agric. and Forestry Exp. Stn. Scientific Paper no. 2584.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 NOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
J. C. Burns, D. S. Fisher, and G. E. Rottinghaus
Grazing Influences on Mass, Nutritive Value, and Persistence of Stockpiled Jesup Tall Fescue without and with Novel and Wild-Type Fungal Endophytes
Crop Sci., July 25, 2006; 46(5): 1898 - 1912.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
O. J. Gekara, E. C. Prigge, W. B. Bryan, E. L. Nestor, and G. Seidel
Influence of sward height, daily timing of concentrate supplementation, and restricted time for grazing on forage utilization by lactating beef cows
J Anim Sci, June 1, 2005; 83(6): 1435 - 1444.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prigge, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldman-Innis, E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Prigge, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldman-Innis, E. S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Prigge, E. C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldman-Innis, E. S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome