Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:50:04.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distribution of herbage at different heights in ‘grazed’ and ‘dung patch’ areas of a sward under two methods of grazing management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. Tayler  and
J. E. Rudman
J. C. Tayler
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks.
J. E. Rudman
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A study of the horizontal and vertical distribution of herbage in grass-dominant swards was made to assess the relative importance of different sources of wastage during grazing. A sward grazed by cattle under two contrasting managements was divided, for the purpose of herbage sampling, into two categories: ‘grazed’ herbage, on ground with no obvious dung contamination, and ‘dung patches’, which were of ungrazed or lightly grazed herbage resulting from the effects of faeces dropped at previous grazings. In each category, samples were cut at two successive heights to provide an estimate of the quantity of herbage in the upper region of the sward (over 2½ in. from ground level) and in the lower region (½-2½ in. from ground level).

After grazing, some 35% of the original crop remained in ‘grazed’ areas, and some 20% in ‘dung patches’. In terms of vertical distribution, most of the residue (40% of the original crop) was in the lower region, from ½ to 2½ in. above ground level.

Total production as live-weight gain was not significantly different, but the yield of conserved herbage was greater in treatment R (five rotations) than in treatment RR (nineteen rotations). Frequent grazing reduced herbage production, and this effect was not offset by any less intense defoliation of the frequently grazed sward. The average quantity of herbage residue was no higher in treatment RR than in treatment R, although the time of occupation per plot by the cattle in RR was only a quarter of that of the cattle in treatment R.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 29 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anslow, R. C. (1964). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Anslow, R. C. (1965). 9th lnt. Grassl. Congr. São Paulo, 1965.Google Scholar
Appadurai, R. R. & Holmes, W. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 62, 327.Google Scholar
Bean, E. W. (1964). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S. 28, 427.Google Scholar
Bosch, S. (1954). Meded. landbouwk. Bur. ned. Stikstofmestoffen-Ind. 1, 11.Google Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1958). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 1, 707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1959). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 2, 1232.Google Scholar
Bryant, H. T. & Blaser, R. E. (1961). Agron. J. 53, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. G. (1961). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 21, 18.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. L. & Philip, J. R. (1958). Proc. Canberra Symposium on climatology. UNESCO.Google Scholar
Gervais, P. (1960). Canad. J. Plant. Sci. 40, 317.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1960a). Exp. in Progr. 12, 18.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1960b). Exp. in Progr. 12, 19.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1961). Research technique in use at the O.R.I., Hurley. Comm. Bur. Past. Fid Crops. Bull. 45.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1963). Exp. in Progr. 15, 71.Google Scholar
Hopewell, H. G. (1960). Proc. N.Z. Grassl. Ass. Conf. 22, 65.Google Scholar
Hunt, I. V. (1961). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr., Reading, 1960, 273.Google Scholar
Huokuna, E. (1961). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr., Reading, 1960, 429.Google Scholar
Jantti, A. & Kramer, P. J. (1956). Proc. 7th Int. Grassl. Cong. 1956, p. 33.Google Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1958). Nature, Lond., 182, 1817.Google Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langille, J. E. & Warren, F. S. (1961). Canad. J. Plant Sci. 41, 693.Google Scholar
Maclusky, D. S. (1960). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 15, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, G. C. & Donker, J. D. (1964). J. Dairy Sci. 57, 773.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. J. (1954). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 36, 193.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. J. (1955). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 37A, 8.Google Scholar
Morris D. W. (1962). Quoted by MacLusky, D. S. and Morris, D. W. (1964). in Agric. Progr. 39, 97.Google Scholar
Norman, M. J. T. & Green, J. O. (1958). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 13, 39.Google Scholar
Reid, D. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 53, 299.Google Scholar
Reid, D. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. A. & Hunt, I. V. (1936). Welsh J. Agric. 12, 158.Google Scholar
Soper, K. & Mitchell, K. J. (1956). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 37A, 484.Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. (1924). Bull. Welsh Plant Breed. Sta. Ser. H, no. 3.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. E. (1960). Personal communication of data partly given in reference, Grassl. Res. Inst. 1960b.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. & Deriaz, R. E. (1963). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 18, 29.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. & Large, R. V. (1955). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 10, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. & Rudman, J. E. (1965). 9th Int. Grassl. Congr. São Paulo, 1965.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). J. Brit. Orassl. Soc. 18, 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. B. & Mcguire, W. S. (1961). Can. J. Plant Sci. 41, 631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar