The increasing frequency of droughts and floods on grasslands, due to climate change, increases the risk of soil compaction. Soil compaction affects both soil and forage productivity. Differing grasses may counteract some effects of compaction due to differences in their root architecture and ontogeny. To compare their resilience to soil compaction, three Festulolium (ryegrass and fescue species’ hybrids) forage grass cultivars comprising differing root architecture and ontogeny were compared in replicated field plots, together with a ryegrass and tall fescue variety as controls. Pre‐compaction soil and forage properties were determined in spring using > four‐year‐old plots to generate baseline data. Half of each field plot was then artificially compacted using farm machinery. Forage dry matter yield (DMY) was determined over four cuts. After the final harvest, post compaction soil characteristics and root biomass (RB) were compared between grasses in the non‐compacted and compacted soils. Pre‐compaction data showed that soil under Festulolium and ryegrass had similar water infiltration rates, higher than soil under tall fescue plots. Tiller density of the Festulolium at this time was significantly higher than fescue but not the ryegrass control. Forage DMY was significantly lower (p < .001) with compacted soil at the first cut but, by the completion of the growing season, there was no effect of soil compaction on total DMY. Tall fescue had a higher total DMY than other grasses, which all produced similar annual yields. Soil bulk density and penetration resistance were higher, and grass tiller density was lower in compacted soils. Root biomass in compacted soils showed a tendency for Festulolium cv Lp × Fg to have higher RB than the ryegrass at 0–15 cm depth. Overall, findings showed alternative grass root structures provide differing resilience to machinery compaction, and root biomass production can be encouraged without negative impacts on forage productivity.
The efficient preservation of protein in silage for livestock feed is dependent on the rate and extent of proteolysis. Previous research on fresh forage indicated enhanced protein stability in certain Festulolium (ryegrass × fescue hybrids) cultivars compared to ryegrass. This is the first report of an experiment to test the hypothesis that a Lolium perenne × Festuca arundinacea var glaucescens cultivar had reduced proteolysis compared to perennial ryegrass (L. perenne) during the ensiling process. Forages were harvested in May (Cut 2) and August (Cut 4), wilted for 24 h and ensiled in laboratory-scale silos. Silage was destructively sampled at 0 h, 9 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 14 days and 90 days post-ensiling, and dry matter (DM), pH and chemical composition were determined. At Cut 2, there was no difference in crude protein between treatments but ryegrass had higher soluble nitrogen (SN) (P < 0.001) and grass × time interactions (p = 0.03) indicated higher rates of proteolysis. By Cut 4, Festulolium had (5.5% units) higher CP than ryegrass (p < 0.001) but SN did not differ. Ammonia-N did not differ between silages in either cut. DM differences (11.8% units) between treatments in Cut 4 (v.2.2% in Cut 2) may have masked effects on proteolysis, highlighting the importance of management on silage quality. This was despite higher WSC in ryegrass in both cuts (p < 0.001), with grass × time interactions (Cut 2; p = 0.03) showing slower WSC decline in ryegrass in Cut 4 (p < 0.001). Silage pH values did not differ between grasses in either cut, but grass × time interactions (p < 0.001) showed a slower decline in both ryegrass cuts, resulting in higher (p < 0.05) pH at 24 h and 72 h for Cuts 2 and 4, respectively.Overall, the hypothesis for an enhanced protein stability in Festulolium when ensiled as ruminant feed was evidenced by lower SN but not ammonia-N in an earlycut silage with a comparable DM to ryegrass.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.