Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:25:44.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Weed Control in Established Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) on Forage Yield and Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Dennis R. Cosgrove  and
Michael Barrett
Dennis R. Cosgrove
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Michael Barrett
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of weed control measures in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) on forage yield and quality were investigated at three sites with varying alfalfa densities and weed populations. Herbicide treatments were 0.56 and 1.12 kg/ha metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] applied in fall or spring, respectively, 1.68 kg/ha pronamide [3,5-dichloro (N-1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide] applied in fall, and combinations of these treatments. First-harvest forage yields (weeds plus alfalfa) were either reduced or unchanged by herbicide treatments. Total forage yield was not altered by the herbicide treatments, but first-harvest and total alfalfa yield as well as first-harvest forage protein content were increased by several treatments, depending on stand density and weed pressure. Little effect was observed on in vitro digestible dry matter or acid detergent fiber content.

Keywords

Metribuzinpronamideproteindigestible dry matteracid detergent fiber
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 1987 , pp. 564 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. A.O.A.C. 1970. Official methods of analysis (Eleventh ed.). Association of Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2. Duke, W. B. 1970. Effects of RH-315 on quackgrass and established alfalfa. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 24:220.Google Scholar
3. Duke, W. B. and Spear, E. S. 1969. Weed control in established legumes. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 23:212–219.Google Scholar
4. Dutt, T. E., Harvey, R. G., Fawcett, R. S., Jorgensen, N. A., Larsen, H. J., and Schlough, D. A. 1979. Forage quality and animal performance as influenced by quackgrass control in alfalfa with pronamide. Weed Sci. 27:127–132.Google Scholar
5. Fawcett, R. S., Harvey, R. G., Schlough, D. A., and Block, I. R. 1978. Quackgrass control in established alfalfa with pronamide. Weed Sci. 26:193–198.Google Scholar
6. Sheaffer, L. L. and Wyse, D. L. 1982. Common dandelion control in alfalfa. Weed Sci. 30:216–220.Google Scholar
7. Temme, D. G., Harvey, R. G., Fawcett, R. S., and Young, A. W. 1979. Effects of annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron. J. 71:51–54.Google Scholar
8. Tilley, J.M.A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassland Soc. 18:104.Google Scholar
9. Van Soest, P. J. 1963. The use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 46:829–835.Google Scholar
10. Vengris, J., Drake, M., Colby, W., and Bart, J. 1953. Chemical composition of weeds and accompanying crop plants. Agron. J. 45:213–218.Google Scholar