Evaluation of Swath Grazing Simple and Complex Polycrop Mixtures on Forage Biomass and Quality, Beef Cow Performance and Enteric Methane Emissions, System Economics and Soil Health Characteristics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Polycrop mixtures are of increasing interest to western Canadian beef producers as alternative forages for grazing as they may promote soil health, plant biodiversity and nutritive value. A 2-yr grazing study (2022 and 2023 for yr 1 and 2, respectively) was managed at the Livestock and Forage Center of Excellence (LFCE), Forage and Cow-Calf Research and Teaching Unit (FCCRTU) located near Clavet Saskatchewan, located in the Dark Brown soil zone. This 2-yr study evaluated the effects of swath grazing either Simple or Complex polycrop mixtures on forage yield and quality, beef cow performance and intake, methane emissions, soil characteristics and system economics. Forage treatments included (1) CDC Haymaker oat (Avena sativa) (Control); (2) CDC Haymaker oat, Goliath brassica (Brassica napus), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), CDC Jasper pea (Pisum sativum) (Simple); (3) CDC Haymaker oat, Goliath brassica, hairy vetch, CDC Jasper pea, CDC Maverick barley (Hordeum vulgare), Red proso millet (Panicum miliaceum), Teff grass (Eragrostis tef) and Choice chicory (Cichorium intybus) (Complex). Dry pregnant beef cows (n = 90; BW = 607.2 ± 32.3 kg; BCS = 2.9 ± 0.06) blocked by body weight were randomly allocated to 1 of 9 paddocks (10 cows/paddock). Paddocks were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 replicated (n = 3) systems. Cow body condition score (BCS) was measured at start (SOT) and end (EOT) of trial. Cow body weight (BW) was recorded on 2 consecutive days at the SOT and EOT, and every 21 d during trial. Soil characteristics analyzed included organic carbon, total carbon, total nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur, bulk density, pH, electrical conductivity, and root biomass. Over 2 yr, cows grazed for an average of 52 d from October to December (Control 51 ± 9.07 d; Simple 54 ± 9.20 d; Complex 53 ± 12.41 d). Data was analyzed as a completely randomized block design using the MIXED model of SAS (9.4). Year and paddock were included as a random effect. Forage dry matter yield (DMY) was similar (P = 0.44) among Control (4369 kg/ha), Simple (4053 kg/ha), and Complex (4245 kg/ha) treatments. Start of trial forage crude protein (CP), total digestible nutrients (TDN), and cow dry matter intake (DMI) did not differ. Methane emissions were greatest (P = 0.04) for cows grazing Simple (280.0 CH4 g/d) and Complex treatment forages (241.8 CH4 g/d) compared to monoculture oat treatment (167.6 CH4 g/d) in yr 1, while there was no significant differences between treatments in yr 2. Complex mixtures (1.21 mg C/ha) had significantly (P = 0.001) more soil organic carbon at 15-30 cm depth than the Simple (0.90 mg C/ha) and the Control (0.97 mg C/ha). Soil phosphorous was also significantly greater (P = 0.03) in the Complex (2.86 ppm) compared to the Simple (1.06 ppm) and Control (1.97 ppm) at the 15-30 cm depth. Study results suggest that Simple or Complex polycrop mixtures are suitable alternatives to monoculture oat grazing system as they produce adequate biomass and nutritive value suitable for meeting requirements of gestating beef cows. The greater root biomass, although not significant, could have contributed to the added soil carbon observed in the Complex polycrop mixtures. An economic analysis indicated that the cost to grow Simple ($ 709/ha) and Complex ($688/ha) polycrop mixtures was significantly greater (P = 0.01) than the oat monoculture ($ 634/ha). However, total feeding costs did not differ between treatments (P = 0.14).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».