Journal of Range Management, Volume 52, Number 1 (January 1999)http://hdl.handle.net/10150/6354712024-03-29T00:14:36Z2024-03-29T00:14:36ZJournal of Range Management, Volume 52, Number 1 (January 1999)http://hdl.handle.net/10150/6505732020-12-23T01:27:10Z1999-01-01T00:00:00ZJournal of Range Management, Volume 52, Number 1 (January 1999)
Complete digitized issue.
1999-01-01T00:00:00ZYield and feeding of prairie grasses in east-central AlbertaSuleiman, A.Okine, E. K.Goonewardene, L. A.Day, P. A.Yaremcio, B.Recinos-Diaz, G.http://hdl.handle.net/10150/6440462020-09-24T01:07:21Z1999-01-01T00:00:00ZYield and feeding of prairie grasses in east-central Alberta
Suleiman, A.; Okine, E. K.; Goonewardene, L. A.; Day, P. A.; Yaremcio, B.; Recinos-Diaz, G.
Information on the yield of grasses as the plants mature is useful to optimize grazing potential and quality hay production. The objectives of this study were to compare the yield and feeding value of 11 common prairie grasses over 2 yearly cycles of growth and determine which of the grasses may require supplementation to meet nutrient requirements of grazing cattle. Dry matter yield (DM), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), calcium (Ca), and phosphorus (P) values were obtained for brome (Bromus inermis [L.]), creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra [L.]), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum [L.] Gaertn), intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron intermedium (host) Beauv), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis [L.]), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata [L.]), pubescent wheatgrass (Agropyron trichophorum Link. richt), streambank wheatgrass (Agropyron riparium Scriba &Smith), slender wheatgrass (Agropyron trachycaulum Link Malte), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb), and timothy (Phleum pratense [L.]) at weekly intervals from June to September, in 1992 and 1993. Most grasses reached maximum yields at week 8 in 1992 (drought year) and week 12 in 1993 (normal year). Herbage mass yields (g/0.25m2 at week 8 in 1992 (highest to lowest yielding) were crested wheatgrass (235), intermediate wheatgrass(210), pubescent wheatgrass(173), brome(161), slender wheatgrass(152), meadow foxtail(114), Tall fescue(110), timothy(101), orchardgrass(83), creeping red fescue(56), and streambank wheatgrass(50). Herbage mass yields pattern of the grasses in 1993 was similar to that in 1992 except for crested wheatgrass and brome which ranked first and fourth in 1992 but ranked fifth and second, in 1993, respectively. Quality declined in all grasses as they matured. The average CP content of grasses declined from 24% to 13% in 1992 and from 21.5% to 12.1% in 1993 but were adequate to meet crude protein requirements of growing, pregnant or lactating grazing cattle. The Ca levels in all grasses were adequate for all classes of cattle on pasture but the low P levels of 0.11% in both years indicate that growing, pregnant or lactating cattle grazing on these pastures would require P supplementation.
1999-01-01T00:00:00ZUse of livestock and range management practice in UtahCoppock, D. L.Birkenfeld, A. H.http://hdl.handle.net/10150/6440362020-09-24T01:05:50Z1999-01-01T00:00:00ZUse of livestock and range management practice in Utah
Coppock, D. L.; Birkenfeld, A. H.
Despite large efforts to generate and extend management innovations for rangeland operators, little is known about the degree to which practices are used. We determined what influenced use of 26 management practices among 340 permittees using data from a mailed survey. Five, co-dominant socioeconomic groups of permittees were identified by cluster analysis: "Large-Scale Operators," 2 types of traditional "Ranchers," and 2 types of "Hobbyists." The main concern across groups was losing access to public land, and coping strategies overall included passivity (64%), intensification of private-land use (27%), and enterprise diversification (5%). Across all groups the 4 highest use rates uniformly occurred for livestock cross-breeding (92%), livestock supplementation (80%), planting improved forages on private land (76%), and interaction with extension personnel (73%). The 4 lowest rates (3 to 12%) occurred for use of futures markets, range-trend monitoring on private land, estrus synchronization, and short-duration grazing (SDG). Groups varied in use of feed and financial consultants, prescribed fire on private land, forward contracting, and controlled grazing systems other than SDG, with Large-Scale Operators tending to use these the most. Larger operation size and higher level of formal education and income for managers were positively associated with using more practices. Hobbyists tended to use practices the least. Practices which were less complex, clearly linked to animal production, potentially more cost-effective, and had greater compatibility with operational goals were favored. Socioeconomic groups and coping strategies have utility for better targeting research and extension. Understanding why some seemingly beneficial practices are rarely used requires improved communication with rangeland operators.
1999-01-01T00:00:00ZSpatial use of warm-season food plots by white-tailed deerBonner, J. P.Fulbright, T. E.http://hdl.handle.net/10150/6440222020-09-24T02:29:27Z1999-01-01T00:00:00ZSpatial use of warm-season food plots by white-tailed deer
Bonner, J. P.; Fulbright, T. E.
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimm.) appear to concentrate foraging activity along the perimeters of warm-season food plots. Because of this, we tested the hypothesis that (1) providing travel lanes (i.e., rows not planted) free of vegetation within food plots will increase deer use of the plots and result in an equal spatial distribution of forage use within the plots, and (2) skip-row planting will result in increased yield and survival of lablab (Dolichos Lablab L.), an annual legume. During 1994 and 1995, lablab was established by planting (1) every row spaced 0.9 m apart (solid), (2) 2 rows and not planting 1 row (skip 1), and (3) 2 rows and not planting 2 rows (skip 2) in two 5-ha food plots. Planting scheme did not affect spatial patterns of food plot use by deer. Utilization was concentrated at food plot perimeters on 9 of 15 sampling dates. Food plot utilization by deer was greater in skip 2 treatments only during August 1995, possibly as a result of greater forage availability resulting from greater plant survival than solid rows. Deer foraging in food plots apparently shifted foraging activities to an area of greater forage availability as the resource supply was depleted. Skip-row planting had lower overall planting costs/ha than solid planting but maintained similar forage production per hectare.
1999-01-01T00:00:00Z