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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".