Reivew: Utilization of Stockpiled Tall Fescue in Winter Grazing Systems for Beef Cattle

• Journal List
• Transl Anim Sci
• v.3(four); 2019 Jul
• PMC7200427

Transl Anim Sci. 2019 Jul; three(4): 1099–1105.

Enhancing the adoption of stockpiling tall fescue and managed grazing

Matthew Poore

Department of Creature Science, N Carolina Country University, Raleigh, NC

April Shaeffer

Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State Academy, Raleigh, NC

Received 2019 Mar 21; Accepted 2019 Jun half-dozen.

Abstract

Ane of the primary goals of extension is to encourage and back up adoption of improved technologies. Managed grazing and stockpiling provender are two such technologies. The goal of this project was to encourage adoption of these practices by providing on-farm demonstrations of the technologies. We also nerveless forage and soil data and held workshops at each of the sit-in sites. Host producers were selected, given a bones kit of temporary fencing supplies for use during the sit-in, and instructed on their proper apply during the winter stockpiling season. Forage yield and quality data were collected and soil tests made to evidence the economical advantages of proper fertilization and grazing fresh fodder in contrast to feeding stored forage and concentrate. The nutritive value of the provender stockpiled in September through November (67% total digestible nutrients [TDN] and 14% crude protein, CP) exceeded the needs of the cattle and was greater than the nutrient content of hay nowadays on the farms (59% TDN and 11% CP, P < 0.01). The mean quantity of available forage (ii,856 ± 164 kg dry out affair per hectare) provided an average of 260 (±81.8) standard cow (545 kg) grazing days per hectare of stockpiled forage. Taking into account the higher nutritive value of the fresh forage when compared with hay and the savings of time and equipment costs past grazing, nosotros estimated that grazing stockpiled forage saved $1.28 per standard cow per day. The grazing management skills gained during this project and the temporary fencing technology were adopted by 93% of the demonstration farms that responded to our follow-up survey (78% of sit-in sites), and the area managed with these technologies increased on these sites more 350%. Having the hosts share personal experiences played an of import part in encouraging their peers to adopt the technologies.

Keywords: adoption, managed grazing, stockpiled provender, temporary fencing, workshops

INTRODUCTION

All phases of agriculture seek to minimize costs to maximize profitability. Cost-saving efforts become a priority when inputs, such equally fuel, feed, and fertilizer, rise drastically in price. Amid the savings options available to beef farmers in the fescue belt are stockpiling tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) in the late autumn for subsequent wintertime grazing and improved grazing direction. Despite readily available temporary fencing equipment options and well-adult recommendations to facilitate these practices (Hancock and Josey, 2014; Castillo et al., 2018), many beefiness farmers continue to use the same fodder management techniques used for decades, namely continuous grazing combined with feeding stored fodder in the form of hay for an extended wintertime feeding period (Hanson, 1995), which typically begins in Dec and ends in late February or March.

Several factors have been found to bear on adoption of available technologies on farms including farm size (number of cows), ownership of the land, education, and region of the state (Pruitt et al., 2012). In the southeastern area of the United states of america, an area included in the "fescue belt" where herd size is small, adoption rates were lower than in other parts of the United States. Economies of scale would have had less affect on farms with fewer cattle, maybe influencing adoption decisions. Gillespie et al. (2007) establish that perceived nonapplicability and unfamiliarity were the most and 2d most commonly cited reasons for nonadoption of technologies, respectively. Somewhat in contradiction with Pruitt et al. (2012), farms with the largest beef herds viewed rotational grazing as non-applicable. Farms which maintained contact with personnel from United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service were more likely to adopt this do. Knowing the potential benefits stockpiling forage and adaptive grazing could offer beef farmers in North Carolina (Poore et al., 2000), the goals of this project were to (i) encourage adoption of strip grazing (1 facet of adaptive grazing) in conjunction with stockpiling tall fescue; (two) document pasture composition, yield, and nutritive value over the grazing season; (iii) collect cost data to determine the value of these practices when compared with continuous grazing and feeding hay; (iv) assess long-term adoption of these technologies by the demonstration farmers; and (five) provide a demonstration and workshop template that may be adapted to other locations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

These demonstrations were conducted on research stations and private farms across N Carolina. Demonstrations at research stations were conducted with approval of the Fauna Care and Utilise Committee at North Carolina State University (Protocol #x-131-A). Animal care met or exceeded the standards described in the Guide for the Care and Use of Agronomical Animals in Research and Teaching (FASS, 2010) at individual farms.

Farm Selection, Expectations, On-Farm Information Collection, and Scheduling

The project was designed as a serial of on-farm applied science demonstrations and involved partnership with North Carolina Cooperative Extension county extension agents and associated local conservation agency staff [Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Soil and Water Conservation District]. The demonstrations and accompanying workshops were conducted in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 grazing seasons every bit function of, "Astonishing Grazing", an interdisciplinary plan aimed at expanding the utilise of adaptive grazing management. Agents collaborated with local conservation staff to consider the farmers in their counties and to choice several who tended to be early on technology adopters and who were well regarded within their local area. The agents reached out to these farmers, invited them to participate in the project, and explained the expectations. Each would stockpile a pasture of alpine fescue, apply strip grazing (frontal grazing) when allowing cattle to consume the stockpiled forage, host a workshop during the grazing catamenia, and be willing to candidly share their thoughts regarding the implementation of the showcased technologies. Farmers also kept records of basic information including pasture area and fertilizer applications, including costs; grazing dates including starting time, terminate, and fauna motility days; fourth dimension spent moving animals or fences and supplying feed; equipment usage (type and time used); and amounts of supplemental feed offered (hay, minerals, and/or free energy supplements) and associated costs of the supplements.

In exchange for their participation and to facilitate strip grazing, each farmer was provided with a "grazing kit" containing the necessities for managed grazing (Effigy 1). The utilise of a standardized temporary argue kit ensured that fencing equipment would exist loftier quality and advisable for existing weather. Participating farmers were expected to complete a soil test and utilise lime and/or other nutrients according to the test prior to the demonstration. They were also required to supply at least 53 kg N per hectare in early autumn to promote tall fescue growth during the autumn growth period (September to November, depending on location) and then hold off grazing the growth ("stockpile") until early wintertime, when other forage sources were depleted (Poore and Drewnowski, 2010). They were asked to move their cattle no less frequently than every iii d.

Grazing kit supplied to workshop hosts to promote managed grazing on farms that showcased stockpiling tall fescue including (100) tread-in temporary debate posts (#1); (10) 7/viii in diameter fiberglass posts for utilize as temporary corners or gate posts (#2); (i) post commuter (#3); (2) nongeared argue reels with polywire and handles (#4); (two) geared debate reels with polywire and handles (#v); and (1) "error finder" fence tester (#six). Equipment was purchased from Pasture Direction Systems (Mt. Pleasant, NC).

Host farms likewise received support from their local Extension, NRCS, or the Soil and H2o Conservation District staff and detailed information to assist them better understand their forage resources. These data were supplied back to the farmer, to his or her extension amanuensis, and to those attention the workshop. Data from provender samples, nerveless monthly past the canton extension agents, allowed participants to follow forage nutritive value throughout the grazing season and compare it with stored forage they had on hand. Farmers' time was valued at $12 per hour for all calculations and equipment performance at $xv per hour (estimated with Edwards, 2016; not including labor).

Workshops were scheduled to allow attendees to detect the cattle grazing the stockpiled forage at each location (December or January). They were open to the public, advertised by the local informational teams, and allowed attendees to communicate directly from the host farmer most his/her experiences using strip grazing of stockpiled forage. A questionnaire was mailed to the host farmers in 2014 to determine longevity of adoption. They were given space to comment on the affect the technologies had on their corresponding farm operations.

Forage Sampling and Analysis

Prior to each workshop, project staff visited the site to make measurements of fodder yield by means of falling plate measurements co-ordinate to Drewnoski et al. (2007) with the modification of clipping to a residuum meridian of 5 cm instead of to the ground. Private tall fescue tillers (minimum of 25) were collected and sent to the N Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services laboratory for conclusion of endophytic infection charge per unit by the institute tissue stain test according to Association of Official Seed Analysts rules for testing seed. Samples of forage were collected from each pasture for analysis of sward botanical composition as described by Drewnoski et al. (2007). Forage catch samples for food assay were nerveless monthly during the grazing flavor and sent to the North Carolina Section of Agriculture Forage Analysis laboratory (Raleigh, NC) where dry thing (DM) was determined co-ordinate to Shreve et al. (2006; NFTA procedure 2.1.4). Forages were likewise analyzed for crude protein (CP; AOAC, 2010), neutral detergent cobweb (Van Soest et al., 1991), acid detergent fiber (ADF; Ankom Method 12), full digestible nutrients (TDN = 92.5135 − (0.7965 × ADF), and mineral concentrations (AOAC, 2010).

Statistical Analysis

Information from forage samples collected for food analysis were analyzed with SAS Proc Mixed (v. 9.4, SAS, Cary, NC) to detect differences between hay and fresh forage samples. The model included provender type (hay or fresh forage) equally the fixed upshot, and harvest appointment was used as the random event. Data from sward limerick samples and endophytic infection rates were analyzed with SAS Proc Means to determine hateful sward limerick and infection charge per unit beyond farms.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On-Subcontract Demonstrations and Workshops

Twenty-two sites in 13 NC counties across the land (Figure ii) were identified to participate in demonstrations and host workshops. Of these, 18 were privately owned farms, and four were research stations. Over 300 participants attended the workshops with private workshop attendance ranging from 10 to 85. Turnout varied primarily with weather condition conditions at or around the fourth dimension of the workshop. Pastures used for the workshops included a total of 174 ha and supported 525 cattle (5.8 ± 1.ane ha per site with 25 ± 17.i animals). Because cattle size varied, cow body weight was standardized on the basis of 544 kg for calculations ("standard moo-cow", e.g., if a cow really weighed 500 kg, she became 500/544 = 0.92 standard moo-cow). With this aligning, there was an average of 22.8 standard cows per farm.

Northward Carolina counties that hosted on-farm workshops that showcased stockpiling tall fescue and managed grazing.

Based on the results of the soil tests conducted at each site, soil pH averaged 6.4 ± 0.16. Relatively few farms required lime application as a outcome. Over the 3-year menstruation of the workshops, lime costs remained fairly consistent at $33 per ton applied. The cost of N-P-K applications, however, increased annually from $504 per t applied in the fall of 2009 to $547 and then $778 per t applied in 2010 and 2011, respectively. With the increase in fertilizer price, producers became more judicious with applications then that awarding rates dropped from an annual mean of 68 kg N per hectare in 2009 to 58 and 57 kg Due north per hectare in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Nitrogen applications averaged 61 kg Due north per hectare and met projection requirements at all sites. Hateful P and K were 38.seven and xvi.5 kg/ha, respectively. Application rates varied greatly because of differences in soil test results (SEM = 54.7 and 32.iii kg/ha for P and K, respectively). The result was a hateful per hectare price for fertilization of $162, $96, and $200 for 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. Phosphorus and potassium were practical according to soil test and, on average, at rates of xxx and 16 kg per ha, respectively. Full fertilizer and lime cost averaged $37.05 per standard moo-cow per twelvemonth for the duration of the project.

Mean yield of grazable forage (Table 1) was 2,856 kg DM per hectare (±164.ane) and fell within the range of yields found in the literature (Kallenbach et al., 2003; Teutsch et al., 2005; Lyons et al., 2016). With this amount of available forage, farmers were able to attain an average of 260 (±81.8) standard cow grazing days per ha of stockpiled provender.

Tabular array 1.

Summary of forage quality, grazing days achieved, and grazing price

Parameter, units	three-yr mean (standard deviation)
Grazable fodder dry matter, kg/ha	2,855 (405)
Rough protein, % of DM	14.four (ii.5)
Full digestible nutrients, % of DM	67.8 (3.3)
Acid detergent fiber, % of DM	31.0 (four.0)
Fescue, % of DM	66.8 (18.vii)
Greenish fescue, % of DM	45.4 (19.8)
Other grass, % of DM	13.5 (viii.vii)
Clover, % of DM	0.51 (ane.0)
Other plant, % of DM	xix.6 (eleven.0)
Grazing days (standard moo-cow days/ha)	260.ii (81.8)
Cost of grazing ($/standard moo-cow/d)	$i.26 ($0.71)

Forage nutritive value was fairly consequent from year to yr (Figure 3), but declined slowly over the course of each winter. This pattern agreed with the literature (Kallenbach et al., 2003; Poore et al., 2006; Drewnoski et al., 2007). Fresh fodder consistently had greater nutritive value for the cattle (greater CP and TDN with less ADF, P < 0.01) than available hay and it exceeded NRC requirements for lactating beefiness cows or developing heifers (National Research Quango (NRC), 2000). The mean CP, TDN, and ADF (Table ane) were typical of values previously reported (Poore et al., 2000). Tall fescue contributed the greatest corporeality of DM to the swards (Table 1); however, these "tall fescue pastures" were only 2/3 tall fescue and had considerable bluegrass, crabgrass, and other forage plants. Testing for the presence of endophytic fungus in the fescue showed that 89% of the tillers (±5.iii%) were infected across farms.

Fodder nutritive value for the duration of the winter grazing menstruation on farms that showcased stockpiling alpine fescue and managed grazing when compared with the quality of stored hay.

Economical Comparison of Grazing to Feeding Hay

The wintertime grazing season averaged 63 d (±three.two), beginning about December 15 and ending about Feb sixteen (Table 2). Participating farmers spent an average of 0.47 h per move (±0.05) shifting cattle to fresh pasture allocations. Each move required setting upwards a new, temporary fenceline (using the equipment provided) to permit cattle access to fresh pasture and taking downwards the previous solar day's fenceline. Farmers moved their animals an boilerplate of 54.6 times (±thirteen.4) during the demonstration menstruum resulting in a full expenditure of 25.7 h over the grade of the grazing season. Most moved their cattle daily and used either a pickup truck or all-terrain vehicle as transportation. Equipment and labor costs for giving cattle forage allocations were $649.46 or $28.45 per standard moo-cow per year (±$8.11).

Table 2.

The economics of grazing stockpiled provender when compared with feeding hay over 3 yr of demonstration workshops (U.Due south. dollars per standard cow over the winter grazing flavor unless otherwise noted)

Parameter	Grazing	Feeding hay
Winer grazing season, d	63	63
Standard cows present (545 kg)	22.6	22.6
Autumn fertilizer including equipment and labor	$37.05	—
Allocating provender, equipment and labor	$28.45	—
Feeding hay including equipment and labor	$viii.45	$120.33
Trace minerals	$2.94	$2.94
Energy/poly peptide supplements including equipment and labor	$two.84	$37.17
Total price	$79.73	$160.44
Total cost per standard cow per day	$1.26	$2.54

The need to feed hay was minimal and resulted in an average of just five bales (±3.1) per farm being fed per year. Hay was offered merely when snow and ice made grazing too difficult for cattle to encounter their nutritional needs on their ain. Hay toll averaged $83.36 per ton (±$21.01) and information technology took the farmers 0.36 h (± 0.07) to feed each bale resulting in an expenditure of $192.94 (±$145.70) including equipment functioning costs. This was $8.45 per standard cow per year during the sit-in menstruation.

Because the nutritive value of the stockpiled provender was adequate for the cattle being grazed, very fiddling supplemental feed was needed other than free-choice mineral. Farmers spent $64.74 per twelvemonth on energy/protein supplements ($2.84 per standard moo-cow ± $4.66) and $67.12 per yr on minerals for their cattle ($ii.94 ± $0.58 per standard moo-cow) and supplied the supplements as needed when they moved their animals so no additional labor time or equipment costs were accrued in supplying these feeds. The total corporeality (fertilizer, feed, labor, and equipment costs) participating farmers spent per standard cow was $79.73 per year or $ane.26 per grazing day. The range in costs varied from $0.22 to $2.84 per standard cow per day.

By contrast, the farmers had chosen to continue their former practise of feeding hay and concentrate during the same catamenia, costs would have been considerably greater under the economic conditions that existed during the menstruum of the workshops. Assuming a standard cow eats 2.5% of torso weight on a dry ground with twenty% waste, she would need sixteen.iii kg DM per day as hay. Hay was valued at $83.36 per ton based on the price of the hay per bale and actual bale weights reported which equates to $1.36 per standard moo-cow per day. Mean bale weight from participating farms was 290 kg, so one.three bales per day would be needed to meet the cows' needs or virtually nine bales per week. Labor and equipment costs for feeding hay would be estimated to exist $0.55 per standard cow per twenty-four hours (nine bales needed per week, 0.36 h per bale to feed it). Total cost for supplying hay was $120.33 per standard cow for the grazing flavor (Tabular array ii)

The hay at the farms that hosted workshops was lower than the available pasture in TDN [59.3 (SEM = 0.48) vs. 67.3% (SEM = 0.35) for hay and fresh forage, respectively; P < 0.01] and CP [10.8% (SEM = 0.26) vs. 14.3% (SEM = 0.xx) for hay and forage, respectively; P < 0.01]. To provide an equivalent plane of nutrition to that provided by fresh provender, the cattle would have been required 1.four kg per 24-hour interval free energy/protein supplement. Concentrate costs would accept been $176 per t or $0.24 per standard moo-cow per day. If nosotros assume feeding concentrate to the average herd would mean 1 daily trip to the feeding area (0.3 h), associated labor and equipment costs are $0.35 per cow per day. Mineral costs would have been similar in both systems ($0.05 per standard cow per twenty-four hours). The total daily cost of feeding a standard cow hay and concentrate is therefore estimated to exist $2.54, equally compared with $1.26 per standard moo-cow day in the grazing system, representing a savings of $i.28 per standard cow per 24-hour interval.

On our average subcontract, over a 63-dgrazing catamenia involving 23 standard cows, grazing saved $ane,855 as compared with feeding stored feed. Changes in fertilizer and hay prices would certainly impact this figure. At the time of this comparison, fertilizer prices were relatively high. Hay costs, based on what producers indicated they had paid, were relatively low. Raising hay costs would further increase the advantage of grazing (Teutsch et al., 2005). The cost of supplemental feed would likewise have an touch on on the relative advantage of grazing.

Value of On-Farm, Hands-On Demonstrations

Encouraging a hands-on temper and the sharing of personal experiences past the host farmers proved to exist valuable instruction tools during the demonstrations. One of the hands-on exercises adult during the start year of the workshops of greatest utility was a "reel race" during which two workshop participants, one with a geared reel and i with a nongeared reel, tried to retract equal lengths of outstretched polywire. The fourth dimension and energy saving advantage of the geared reel became obvious for most participants. As the projection progressed and interest in temporary fencing increased, more reels were added to the race as more workshop participants wanted to try different reels. Allowing workshop attendees to scout the host producer move his or her animals to a fresh strip of pasture demonstrated the simplicity of strip grazing and encouraged adoption of the applied science. No follow-upwardly was conducted with attendees to see if whatever adopted the technologies demonstrated at the workshops; nonetheless, anecdotal reports from county extension agents were that many farms had adopted these valuable tools as a result of the workshops.

Follow-Upwards Surveys to Host Farmers

Follow-up surveys were mailed to the 18 cooperating farmers in 2014 to make up one's mind longevity of technology adoption. Of the 15 respondents, 14 have continued to use stockpiling and managed grazing on their farms. The single person who stopped using the technologies was an elderly widow who cited "unreliable labor" equally her reason for stopping. One farmer was renovating his fescue pastures at the time of the follow-up survey and could now stockpile as a result. He indicated, even so, that he would resume when renovations were complete and that he continued using managed grazing in his other pastures.

The farmers reported using 58.5 ha every bit pasture at the time of the demonstrations and they committed xi.seven ha per farm (20% of their pasture) for use in the demonstrations. The completed follow-upward surveys indicated the area grazed under managed grazing had increased to an boilerplate of 42.i ha per subcontract (72% of pastures). This represents a 278% increase in area. Reduced expenses (feed, fuel, and equipment) was the most usually cited reward of managed grazing followed by calmer livestock and improved soil quality.

We received several positive comments dorsum on the follow-upwards survey. Among them were:

• "All-time project e'er completed on subcontract to increase income and reduce expenses!"

• "Stockpiling and managed grazing helped farm family receive conservation family of the year for 2014".

• "Amend trunk status on the cows through wintertime and calves wean 50 lb heavier."

Only one negative comment was received:

• "(We) had 3 calves cut legs on polywire in 2013–14 and had to put one down."

Despite this negative experience, however, this farm continues to use the technologies and is managing accordingly. This comment shows the importance of maintaining a high level of ability on the temporary fence to avoid teardowns of the debate and the potential injuries that tin can result.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of the follow-up survey coupled with the anecdotal reports of additional farms using stockpiled fescue and managed grazing suggested that the technique we used to promote these practices, namely on-subcontract, hands-on demonstrations with associated workshops, was successful in encouraging adoption. Supplying the farmers with a basic supply of the tools they needed, giving them hands on instruction on how to employ them, and and so allowing them to freely share their experiences with other farmers proved to be a valuable way of encouraging the adoption of these desirable practices on other farms. The format is easily adapted to promote the apply of other price saving or sustainability oriented technologies.

Notes

Disharmonize of involvement statement. None declared.

LITERATURE CITED

• Association of Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 2010. Method 985.01. In: Latimer G.W., Jr, editor, Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 19th ed. Rockville, Doc:Association of Analytical Chemists. [Google Scholar]
• Castillo M. Due south., Burns J. C., and Sosinski S.. 2018. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/show_ep3_pdf/ 1542644004/24185/ Production and utilization of stockpiled tall fescue: understanding the basic concepts. North Carolina State Extension.
• Drewnoski One thousand. E., Poore M. H., Oliphant Eastward. J., Marshall B., and Light-green J. T. Jr.. 2007. Agronomic performance of stockpiled tall fescue varies with endophyte infection status. Forage Grazinglands five. doi: 10.1094/FG-2007-1217-03-RS [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Edwards W. 2016. Machinery cost figurer [accessed November 8, 2017]. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM710.pdf.
• Federation of Creature Science Societies (FASS) 2010. Guide for the apply and care of agricultural animals in inquiry and educational activity, 3rd ed. Champaign (IL): Federation of Animal Science Societies. [accessed Apr 29, 2019]. https://www.aaalac.org/about/ag_guide_3rd_ed.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Gillespie J. E., Kim S-A., and Paudel K.. . 2007. Why don't producers adopt all-time management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry. Agric. Econ. 36:89–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00179.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hancock D. W. and Josey R. Due west.. . 2014. Stockpiling alpine fescue for fall and winter grazing. University of Georgia Extension Circular 920 [accessed November 10, 2018]. https://secure.caes.uga.edu/extension/publications/files/pdf/C%20920_4.PDF
• Hanson Grand. D. 1995. Adoption of intensive grazing systems. Periodical of Extension, 33(iv), Commodity 4RIB3. [accessed November ten, 2018]. https://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/rb3.php [Google Scholar]
• Kallenbach R. L., Bishop-Hurley M. J., Massie Thou. D., Rottinghaus G. E., and West C. P.. . 2003. Herbage mass, nutritive value, and ergovaline concentration of stockpiled tall fescue. Crop Sci. 43:1001–1005. doi: ten.2135/cropsci2003.1001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lyons Due south. E., Shaeffer A. D., Drewnoski M. E., Poore One thousand. H., and Poole D. H.. 2016. Effect of protein supplementation and fodder assart on the growth and reproduction of beef heifers grazing stockpiled tall fescue. J. Anim. Sci. 94:1677–1688. doi: x.2527/jas.2015-9969 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• National Research Council (NRC) 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, seventh revised ed., update., Washington, DC:National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
• Poore Yard. H., Benson G. A., Scott M. Due east., and Dark-green J. T.. . 2000. Production and use of stockpiled fescue to reduce beef cattle production costs. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1–11. doi: x.2527/jas.00.079ES1001i [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Poore M. H. and Drewnoski M. E.. . 2010. Review: utilization of stockpiled tall fescue in winter grazing systems for beefiness cattle. Prof. Anim. Scientist. 26:142–149. doi: 10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30573-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Poore Yard. H., Scott M. E., and Greenish J. T. Jr. 2006. Performance of beef heifers grazing stockpiled fescue as influenced past supplemental whole cottonseed. J. Anim. Sci. 84:1613–1625. doi: 10.2527/2006.8461613x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pruitt J. R., Gillespie J. M., Nehring R. F., and Qushim B.. . 2012. Adoption of technology, management practices, and production systems by U.Southward. beef cow-dogie producers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 44:203–222. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800000274 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Shreve B., Thiex N., and Wold Thousand.. . 2006. National Forage Testing Association (NFTA) reference method: dry matter by oven drying for iii hours at 105°C. NFTA reference methods; Omaha, NB: NFTA: [accessed December 11, 2018]. www.foragetesting.org. [Google Scholar]
• Teutsch C. D., Fike J. H., Groover G. E., and Aref South.. . 2005. Nitrogen rate and source effects on the yield and nutritive value of alpine fescue stockpiled for winter grazing. Online. Fodder and Grazinglands 3. doi: 10.1094/FG-2005-1220-01-RS [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Van Soest P. J., Robertson J. B., and Lewis B. A.. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent cobweb, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to beast nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583–3597. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from Translational Fauna Science are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

---

malonelievaight.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7200427/

Share this post