|
|
|||||||||||||
In 2000, additional applications of 40 lbs N/acre were made on June 14, July 20, August 18, and September 29 as urea and ammonium sulfate for low and high fertility treatments, respectively, for a total of 235 lb N/acre. These four applications of ammonium sulfate added an additional 184 pounds of sulfur/acre. On September 8, 0-30-60 was applied to all plots. In 2001, 40 lb N/acre was applied on March 14, May 10, June 15, July 16, and August 15 for a total of 200 lb N/acre and 256 lb S/acre, in the high fertility treatment. On August 29, 0-60-250 was applied to all plots. Plot grazing began on April 7 and concluded November 5, 2000. Grazing in 2001 began on April 19 and concluded on October 11. Plots were individually grazed whenever mean sward height reached 6 to 8 inches. Mean sward height is defined as the height below which an estimated 90% of the forage biomass occurs. Prior to grazing, each plot was sampled individually. Data collected included clipped yield estimate from six 0.25m2 quadrats in each plot with corresponding mean sward height at each quadrat. Clippings from all six quadrats were thoroughly mixed and a 100 g subsample was retained for forage quality analysis. Dry matter content of the forage sample was determined by oven drying at 130 F and forage dry matter yield calculated. Plots were grazed with 7 to 10 head of yearling heifers for four to seven hours to remove approximately 50% of the forage biomass. Grazing usually occurred between 6 AM to 3 PM but during the hottest part of the summer, cattle were placed on plots from 7 PM to 7 AM to encourage grazing. Ground cover by the seeded species was visually estimated on April 2 and December 10, 2000. Basal cover by component species was determined using step-point method with 100 points/plot on April 17, May 27, and October 2, 2001. Final stand density is presented as the mean of all three 2001 sample dates. All measured parameters were compared using the SAS GLM procedure and least square means calculated. Comparisons among treatment means was made using Fisher's protected least significant difference procedure. Results and discussion: None of the measured parameters were significantly affected by fertility treatment. Soil test values at the beginning of the study were in the medium to high range according to MU recommendations. Based on this two year study, there is no indication that increasing P and K to high soil test values, applying sulfur, or any of several micronutrients contributed to the production or persistence of perennial ryegrass. To evaluate uniformity of grazing treatment among all plots, pre- and post-grazing mean sward height and forage availability were compared (Figures 1 and 2). No significant differences in pre- and post-grazing mean sward height and forage availability existed in either year among the cultivars or fertility treatments indicating that plots had been managed uniformly through both grazing seasons. As would be expected based on similarity of pre- and post-grazing forage availabilities, temporal utilization rate was similar for all treatments and very close to our target of 50% (Figure 3), although utilization was somewhat higher in 2001. The forage dry matter yield per acre-inch was significantly greater for ‘Stargrazer' and ‘BG34' compared to ‘Mara' in 2000, but was similar for all cultivars in 2001(Figure 4). This may be due to the high level of annual ryegrass contamination in the ‘Mara' plots through June of 2000. Annual crops tend to be somewhat lower yielding per unit of height compared to perennial grass crops. Stargrazer tall fescue required a shorter rest period to reach target grazing height that either PRG cultivar in 2001 (Figure 5). This was due to a significantly higher daily growth rate for Stargrazer(Figure 6). Midsummer temperatures in 2001 were higher than in 2000 which may have favored the somewhat more heat tolerant tall fescue over PRG. Shorter rest periods generally result in higher forage quality forage, which may help offset any potential quality advantage PRG has over fescue. Total pasture yield for the grazing season was significantly greater for ‘Stargrazer' compared to either PRG cultivar (Figure 7). The total pasture yield includes yield contribution from the interseeded white clover, volunteer grasses and legumes, as well as weeds. Because the stand density of Stargrazer was significantly greater than PRG, the proportion of total yield which is attributable to the seeded species is proportionally greater. In the case of Mara, less than one-third of the yield was from PRG. Stand persistence has been difficult to assess due to the unfavorable environmental conditions under which the trial was established. The annual ryegrass contamination in the ‘Mara' plots has also been a difficult factor to deal with in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Stand density at the end of the 2001 growing season was significantly different among species (Figure 8), but no effect of fertility treatment was observed. Stand density of ‘Stargrazer' increased through the two grazing seasons while both PRG cultivars declined.
After two grazing seasons, ‘BG34' PRG has persisted adequately well in several of the plots. It appears that where ‘BG34' initially established well it has been able to maintain its stand. Where stand density was initially poor, it has not improved, but has declined due to increased competition from invading, better adapted species. In contrast, Stargrazer tall fescue has improved in stand density over the two years of the study. Given the annual ryegrass contamination of the ‘Mara' seed lot, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn regarding the adaptation of ‘Mara' PRG in this environment. The application of micronutrient and higher levels of P and K had no benefit for production or persistence of either tall fescue or perennial ryegrass. Quality analysis of the forage samples has not yet been completed, so no conclusions relative to forage quality can be made at this time.
The Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station is the research arm of the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Missouri-Columbia Site maintained by people at AgEBB | |||||||||||||