Evaluation of five C4 forage grasses in the tall Fescue Belt

Across much of the eastern United States, tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.], a cool‐season (i.e., C3) perennial grass, is the primary forage for pasture systems, thereby leaving producers vulnerable to reduced summer forage production and drought. Warm‐season (i.e., C4) fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Agronomy journal 2022-11, Vol.114 (6), p.3347-3357
Hauptverfasser: Keyser, Pat, Zechiel, Katelynn E., Bates, Gary, Ashworth, Amanda J., Nave, Renata, Rhinehart, Justin, McIntosh, David Weston
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3357
container_issue 6
container_start_page 3347
container_title Agronomy journal
container_volume 114
creator Keyser, Pat
Zechiel, Katelynn E.
Bates, Gary
Ashworth, Amanda J.
Nave, Renata
Rhinehart, Justin
McIntosh, David Weston
description Across much of the eastern United States, tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.], a cool‐season (i.e., C3) perennial grass, is the primary forage for pasture systems, thereby leaving producers vulnerable to reduced summer forage production and drought. Warm‐season (i.e., C4) forages can complement existing production systems by supplementing summer forage production and drought resiliency. Therefore, our objective was to compare five, C4 forage options in a grazing trial: switchgrass (SW; Panicum virgatum L.), eastern gamagrass (EG; Tripsacum dactyloides L.), a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash) blend (BBI), bermudagrass (BG; Cynodon dactylon L. Pers), and crabgrass (CG; Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop.). Research was conducted 2014–2016 at two locations in Tennessee. Weaned beef heifers (237–242 kg initial weight) grazed 1.2‐ha pastures with three replications per species and location. Average daily gains (kg d−1) (0.62 [BBI], 0.41 [BG], 0.44 [CG], 0.42 [EG], 0.51 [SW]), grazing days (d ha−1) (412 [BBI], 459 [BG], 455 [CG], 664 [EG], 617 [SW]), and total gain (kg ha−1) (259 [BBI], 186 [BG], 200 [CG], 276 [EG], 315 [SW]) all varied among forages (P 
doi_str_mv 10.1002/agj2.21195
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_wiley_primary_10_1002_agj2_21195_AGJ221195</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>AGJ221195</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-w1275-76466c3067250d8b9b277a6627b8105385844aeeca91d81d2557b6009fa549a63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj81Kw0AUhQdRMFY3PsG8QOq9k_nJgJsa2qoU3Oh6uEkmMWVsJJO29O3tj6tz4Hwc-Bh7RJgigHiidi2mAtGqK5agzFQKWqprlsBxTdFqccvuYlwDHBmJCXue7yhsaez6De8b3nQ7zwvJm36g1vN2oBh95N2Gj9-ejxQCX_hYbT1_8WG8ZzcNhegf_nPCvhbzz-I1XX0s34rZKt2jMCo1WmpdZaCNUFDnpS2FMaS1MGWOoLJc5VKS9xVZrHOshVKm1AC2ISUt6WzC8PK774I_uN-h-6Hh4BDcSdqdpN1Z2s2W7-Lcsj9I8kly</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of five C4 forage grasses in the tall Fescue Belt</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Keyser, Pat ; Zechiel, Katelynn E. ; Bates, Gary ; Ashworth, Amanda J. ; Nave, Renata ; Rhinehart, Justin ; McIntosh, David Weston</creator><creatorcontrib>Keyser, Pat ; Zechiel, Katelynn E. ; Bates, Gary ; Ashworth, Amanda J. ; Nave, Renata ; Rhinehart, Justin ; McIntosh, David Weston</creatorcontrib><description>Across much of the eastern United States, tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.], a cool‐season (i.e., C3) perennial grass, is the primary forage for pasture systems, thereby leaving producers vulnerable to reduced summer forage production and drought. Warm‐season (i.e., C4) forages can complement existing production systems by supplementing summer forage production and drought resiliency. Therefore, our objective was to compare five, C4 forage options in a grazing trial: switchgrass (SW; Panicum virgatum L.), eastern gamagrass (EG; Tripsacum dactyloides L.), a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash) blend (BBI), bermudagrass (BG; Cynodon dactylon L. Pers), and crabgrass (CG; Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop.). Research was conducted 2014–2016 at two locations in Tennessee. Weaned beef heifers (237–242 kg initial weight) grazed 1.2‐ha pastures with three replications per species and location. Average daily gains (kg d−1) (0.62 [BBI], 0.41 [BG], 0.44 [CG], 0.42 [EG], 0.51 [SW]), grazing days (d ha−1) (412 [BBI], 459 [BG], 455 [CG], 664 [EG], 617 [SW]), and total gain (kg ha−1) (259 [BBI], 186 [BG], 200 [CG], 276 [EG], 315 [SW]) all varied among forages (P &lt; .001). Similarly, forage nutritive values differed (P &lt; .001) among forages: season‐long crude protein ranged from 94 (BG) to 115 (CG and EG) g kg−1, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 601 (CG)–680 (SW) g kg−1, and acid detergent fiber (ADF) 379 (BG)–417 (EG) g kg−1. These forage options should be evaluated in the context of TF pastures to establish a broader understanding of their contribution within an overall forage system. Core Ideas The C4 grasses provide a beneficial complement to C3‐dominated pasture systems. Native grasses tended to have greater rates of gain and grazing days than bermudagrass or crabgrass. Overall, rates of gain for the forages in this study were lower than in comparable studies. Native grasses had greater total gain per hectare than bermudagrass or crabgrass. Bermudagrass and crabgrass provided more grazing days during late summer than native grasses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-1962</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0645</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/agj2.21195</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Agronomy journal, 2022-11, Vol.114 (6), p.3347-3357</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. Agronomy Journal © 2022 American Society of Agronomy.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-6872-8079 ; 0000-0003-0954-1789 ; 0000-0002-3218-8939</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fagj2.21195$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fagj2.21195$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Keyser, Pat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zechiel, Katelynn E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bates, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashworth, Amanda J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nave, Renata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhinehart, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntosh, David Weston</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of five C4 forage grasses in the tall Fescue Belt</title><title>Agronomy journal</title><description>Across much of the eastern United States, tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.], a cool‐season (i.e., C3) perennial grass, is the primary forage for pasture systems, thereby leaving producers vulnerable to reduced summer forage production and drought. Warm‐season (i.e., C4) forages can complement existing production systems by supplementing summer forage production and drought resiliency. Therefore, our objective was to compare five, C4 forage options in a grazing trial: switchgrass (SW; Panicum virgatum L.), eastern gamagrass (EG; Tripsacum dactyloides L.), a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash) blend (BBI), bermudagrass (BG; Cynodon dactylon L. Pers), and crabgrass (CG; Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop.). Research was conducted 2014–2016 at two locations in Tennessee. Weaned beef heifers (237–242 kg initial weight) grazed 1.2‐ha pastures with three replications per species and location. Average daily gains (kg d−1) (0.62 [BBI], 0.41 [BG], 0.44 [CG], 0.42 [EG], 0.51 [SW]), grazing days (d ha−1) (412 [BBI], 459 [BG], 455 [CG], 664 [EG], 617 [SW]), and total gain (kg ha−1) (259 [BBI], 186 [BG], 200 [CG], 276 [EG], 315 [SW]) all varied among forages (P &lt; .001). Similarly, forage nutritive values differed (P &lt; .001) among forages: season‐long crude protein ranged from 94 (BG) to 115 (CG and EG) g kg−1, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 601 (CG)–680 (SW) g kg−1, and acid detergent fiber (ADF) 379 (BG)–417 (EG) g kg−1. These forage options should be evaluated in the context of TF pastures to establish a broader understanding of their contribution within an overall forage system. Core Ideas The C4 grasses provide a beneficial complement to C3‐dominated pasture systems. Native grasses tended to have greater rates of gain and grazing days than bermudagrass or crabgrass. Overall, rates of gain for the forages in this study were lower than in comparable studies. Native grasses had greater total gain per hectare than bermudagrass or crabgrass. Bermudagrass and crabgrass provided more grazing days during late summer than native grasses.</description><issn>0002-1962</issn><issn>1435-0645</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNotj81Kw0AUhQdRMFY3PsG8QOq9k_nJgJsa2qoU3Oh6uEkmMWVsJJO29O3tj6tz4Hwc-Bh7RJgigHiidi2mAtGqK5agzFQKWqprlsBxTdFqccvuYlwDHBmJCXue7yhsaez6De8b3nQ7zwvJm36g1vN2oBh95N2Gj9-ejxQCX_hYbT1_8WG8ZzcNhegf_nPCvhbzz-I1XX0s34rZKt2jMCo1WmpdZaCNUFDnpS2FMaS1MGWOoLJc5VKS9xVZrHOshVKm1AC2ISUt6WzC8PK774I_uN-h-6Hh4BDcSdqdpN1Z2s2W7-Lcsj9I8kly</recordid><startdate>202211</startdate><enddate>202211</enddate><creator>Keyser, Pat</creator><creator>Zechiel, Katelynn E.</creator><creator>Bates, Gary</creator><creator>Ashworth, Amanda J.</creator><creator>Nave, Renata</creator><creator>Rhinehart, Justin</creator><creator>McIntosh, David Weston</creator><scope/><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6872-8079</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0954-1789</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3218-8939</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202211</creationdate><title>Evaluation of five C4 forage grasses in the tall Fescue Belt</title><author>Keyser, Pat ; Zechiel, Katelynn E. ; Bates, Gary ; Ashworth, Amanda J. ; Nave, Renata ; Rhinehart, Justin ; McIntosh, David Weston</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-w1275-76466c3067250d8b9b277a6627b8105385844aeeca91d81d2557b6009fa549a63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Keyser, Pat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zechiel, Katelynn E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bates, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ashworth, Amanda J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nave, Renata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rhinehart, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntosh, David Weston</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Keyser, Pat</au><au>Zechiel, Katelynn E.</au><au>Bates, Gary</au><au>Ashworth, Amanda J.</au><au>Nave, Renata</au><au>Rhinehart, Justin</au><au>McIntosh, David Weston</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of five C4 forage grasses in the tall Fescue Belt</atitle><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle><date>2022-11</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>114</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>3347</spage><epage>3357</epage><pages>3347-3357</pages><issn>0002-1962</issn><eissn>1435-0645</eissn><abstract>Across much of the eastern United States, tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.], a cool‐season (i.e., C3) perennial grass, is the primary forage for pasture systems, thereby leaving producers vulnerable to reduced summer forage production and drought. Warm‐season (i.e., C4) forages can complement existing production systems by supplementing summer forage production and drought resiliency. Therefore, our objective was to compare five, C4 forage options in a grazing trial: switchgrass (SW; Panicum virgatum L.), eastern gamagrass (EG; Tripsacum dactyloides L.), a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash) blend (BBI), bermudagrass (BG; Cynodon dactylon L. Pers), and crabgrass (CG; Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop.). Research was conducted 2014–2016 at two locations in Tennessee. Weaned beef heifers (237–242 kg initial weight) grazed 1.2‐ha pastures with three replications per species and location. Average daily gains (kg d−1) (0.62 [BBI], 0.41 [BG], 0.44 [CG], 0.42 [EG], 0.51 [SW]), grazing days (d ha−1) (412 [BBI], 459 [BG], 455 [CG], 664 [EG], 617 [SW]), and total gain (kg ha−1) (259 [BBI], 186 [BG], 200 [CG], 276 [EG], 315 [SW]) all varied among forages (P &lt; .001). Similarly, forage nutritive values differed (P &lt; .001) among forages: season‐long crude protein ranged from 94 (BG) to 115 (CG and EG) g kg−1, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 601 (CG)–680 (SW) g kg−1, and acid detergent fiber (ADF) 379 (BG)–417 (EG) g kg−1. These forage options should be evaluated in the context of TF pastures to establish a broader understanding of their contribution within an overall forage system. Core Ideas The C4 grasses provide a beneficial complement to C3‐dominated pasture systems. Native grasses tended to have greater rates of gain and grazing days than bermudagrass or crabgrass. Overall, rates of gain for the forages in this study were lower than in comparable studies. Native grasses had greater total gain per hectare than bermudagrass or crabgrass. Bermudagrass and crabgrass provided more grazing days during late summer than native grasses.</abstract><doi>10.1002/agj2.21195</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6872-8079</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0954-1789</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3218-8939</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-1962
ispartof Agronomy journal, 2022-11, Vol.114 (6), p.3347-3357
issn 0002-1962
1435-0645
language eng
recordid cdi_wiley_primary_10_1002_agj2_21195_AGJ221195
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
title Evaluation of five C4 forage grasses in the tall Fescue Belt
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T23%3A19%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20five%20C4%20forage%20grasses%20in%20the%20tall%20Fescue%20Belt&rft.jtitle=Agronomy%20journal&rft.au=Keyser,%20Pat&rft.date=2022-11&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=3347&rft.epage=3357&rft.pages=3347-3357&rft.issn=0002-1962&rft.eissn=1435-0645&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/agj2.21195&rft_dat=%3Cwiley%3EAGJ221195%3C/wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true