Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:45:02.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization of irrigated pastures by dairy cows. I. A comparison of rotational and strip grazing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. Freer
M. Freer
Affiliation:
Animal Husbandry Research Centre, Werribee, Victoria, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment was carried out from 1 August 1953 to 31 July 1955 to compare strip grazing with rotational grazing on the basis of the total animal production obtained from dairy cattle on irrigated pasture.

2. The same overall stocking rate was used for both treatments. Herbage surplus to grazing requirements at any time was conserved as hay and fed back to the appropriate group of cows at the end of the grazing season.

3. The aim was to manage the area under each technique as efficiently as the technique permitted.

4. The average production from the rotationally grazed group during the main pasture season of 260 days was 8740 lb. milk per acre (including 354 lb. of butterfatand 766 lb. of solids-not-fat) and from the strip-grazed group 8867 lb. milk per acre (including 358 lb. of butterfat and 766 lb. of solidsnotfat).

The average weight of pasture nutrients utilized per annum by the rotationally grazed group was 5887 lb. starch equivalent per acre and by the stripgrazed group 5896 lb. starch equivalent per acre.

None of the treatment differences in animal production was significant.

5. The differences between the results of this experiment and those obtained by other workers are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1959 , pp. 129 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Hancock, J. (1950). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 18, 249.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, B., Fergusson, D. L. & Campbell, J. I. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, B., Fergusson, D. L. & MacLusky, D. S. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. & Hancock, J. (1954). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 14, 111.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1956). Proc. 1th Int. Orassl. Congr. p. 146.Google Scholar
Norman, M. J. T. (1957). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 12, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, J., Hood, A. E. M., Feeguson, W. S. & Lewis, A. H. (1950). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 5, 243.Google Scholar
Proctor, J. & Hood, A. E. M. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R., Holmes, W., Campbell, J. I. & Fergusson, D. L. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. B. (1956). Proc. 7th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 134.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1954). Bull. Ministr. Agric, Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar