Little information is available about seasonal application and carry-over effects of biosolids application to semi-arid grasslands. Biosolids rates of 0 (control), 7, 18, or 34 Mg ha -1 were topically applied to tobosagrass (Hilaria mutica (Buckl.) Benth.) experimental plots in a Chihuahuan desert grassland in western Texas. Biosolids were applied twice in 1994, for one-year-only, either in winter-and-summer (WS), or spring-and-summer (SS) seasons. Half of the plots were irrigated every summer for 4 years (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997). Tobosagrass standing crop (herbage yield) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration (plant %TKN) were measured every year during the 4 years of the study (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)). An increase in biosolids rate increased tobosagrass herbage yield linearly during the 4 growing seasons. Linear and quadratic responses to biosolids rates were observed in %TKN during the experiment. Irrigation increased tobosagrass herbage yield. Irrigation decreased %TKN in 1995 and 1996 and had no influence during the other years. Winter-and-summer applications increased herbage yield more than spring and summer applications in 3 out of 4 years. Spring-and-summer applications increased %TKN more than winter and summer applications only in 1996. Carry-over effects on tobosagrass herbage yield and %TKN were observed in the second, third, and fourth growing seasons after biosolids application. Twice-a-year application of biosolids for 1-year-only offers an excellent means to improve tobosagrass productivity and forage quality.

No abstract

Arid and semiarid rangelands are suitable for responsible biosolids application. Topical application is critical to avoid soil and vegetation disturbance. Surface-applied biosolids have long-lasting effects in these ecosystems. We conducted a 10-year research program investigating effects of biosolids applied at rates from 0 to 90 dry Mg ha−1on soil water infiltration; runoff and leachate water quality; soil erosion; forage production and quality; seedling establishment; plant physiological responses; nitrogen dynamics; biosolids decomposition; and grazing animal behavior and management. Biosolids increased soil water infiltration and reduced erosion. Effects on soil water quality were observed only at the highest application rates. Biosolids increased soil nitrate-nitrogen. Biosolids increased forage production and improved forage quality. Biosolids increased leaf area of grasses; photosynthetic rates were not necessarily increased by biosolids. Biosolids effects on plant establishment are expected only under moderately favorable conditions. Over an 82-mo exposure period, total organic carbon, nitrogen, and total and available phosphorus decreased and inorganic matter increased. Grazing animals spent more time grazing, ruminating, and resting in biosolids-treated areas; positive effects on average daily gain were observed during periods of higher rainfall. Our results suggest that annual biosolids application rates of up to 18 Mg ha−1are appropriate for desert rangelands.

________________________________________________________________________________ AbstractA cattle welfare index was estimated through 14 visual indicators in the cow-calf system in northern Mexico. The study was carried out at 25 ranches in Chihuahua, Mexico. The indicators were rangeland forage availability; rangeland plant diversity; ease of walking owing to terrain slope; ease of walking owing to presence of rocks; water availability; water distribution; water distance; water appearance; heat protection through vegetation; cold protection through vegetation; cold protection through topography; cold protection through management; cattle docility and cattle body condition. A score of 1 to 4 was given to each indicator, rated as poor, fair, good and excellent, respectively. Ranches under study were classified according to their dominant vegetation type. Noticeable differences were obtained among animal welfare indexes, depending on rangeland type. The lowest index of 2.82 was recorded for the desert shrublands, while indexes above 3.0 were observed for the shortgrass prairie and oak-bunchgrass rangelands. Indicators with high values were water availability and distribution. The lower cattle welfare scores were related to natural factors rather than to management indicators. ________________________________________________________________________________ Keywords:Animal welfare, indicators, rangelands # Corresponding author: saucedo.ruben@inifap.gob.mx IntroductionLivestock producers are facing the need to regulate their processes according to new consumer concerns such as natural resources sustainability and animal welfare. This is true for some emerging production systems such as "organic" and "grass beef", which are based on ecological principles and good cattle health (Lund & Rocklinsberg, 2001;Cachiarelli, 2006; Schnettler et al., 2008;Rinehart, 2011). Beyond market demands, animal welfare concerns should follow deeper reasoning, such as recognizing that animals have the right to live healthily and comfortably. Nevertheless, the beef industry is still lacking on this matter. Modern production processes are designed to maximize productivity and profitability, without considering basic animal health and welfare needs (D'Silva, 2006; Thompson, 2009).Whether motivated by humanitarian incentives or not, animal welfare is an issue that has been studied widely around the world since the last decade. Von Borell & Sorensen (2004) indicated that open spaces without overcrowding are good cattle welfare indicators. Llavallol (2006) pointed out that there is no precise definition of cattle welfare, and it is therefore recommended that animals do not go through stress factors such as hunger, thirst, malnutrition, fear, anxiety, physical and thermal suffering, pain, diseases and injuries. Giraudo & Raviolo (2007) stated that animal welfare is reached with appropriate facilities to carry out sanitary and management tasks, to minimize thermal stress, provide shade and fresh water, and reduce stress during animal loading and...