Diet Selection by Cattle under High-Intensity Low-Frequency, Short Duration, and Merrill Grazing Systems

Taylor, Charles A.; Kothmann, M.M.; Merrill, Leo B.; Elledge, Doak

doi:10.2307/3898577

Cited by 40 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3). Other studies (Taylor et al 1980, McGinty et al 1983) also confirm the relative preferences for forage classes estimated for cattle in this study.…”

Section: Comparisons With Published Datasupporting

confidence: 89%

Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Herbivore Preferences

Iglesias¹,

Kothmann²

1998

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generalized linear mixed models were used to obtain best finear unbiased predictions (BLUP's) of herbivore preferences for range plant species from expert knowledge contained in range site descriptions produced by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (currently Natural Resources Conservation Service). A total of 4,558 assessments of preference for cattle, deer, goats, and sheep on 167 plant species were available from 55 range site descriptions for the Edwards Plateau (Texas). Consistency of predicted preferences was evaluated through intraclass correhttion estimated by restricted maximum likelihood. Predictions in observed (3-level ordinal) and logit scales were very similar; rank correlations between predictions in different scales ranged from 0.994 (P < 0.0001) for cattle to 0.998 (P < 0.0001) for sheep. Estimated intraclass correlations were also high (0.74 to 0.84 in observed scale and 0.82 to 0.92 in logit scale) suggesting consistent rankings of plant species across range sites. Metric multidimensional scaling and principal components analysis showed distinct patterns among the 4 herbivores. Grasses and browse were the most informative forage classes for discriminating preferences among herbivores. Deer and cattle exhibited the least similar diet preferences. Sheep and goats were intermediate, with sheep closer to cattle and goats most similar to deer. The pair deer-goat showed the most similar pattern of preferences. BLUP's of plant species preferences showed good agreement with published research on both individual plant species and forage classes. Optimal properties of mixed model procedures can be exploited to predict animal preferences at the range site scale from standardiied expert opinion. These estimated preferences may be useful for modeling grazing effects at spatial scales compatible with management decisions.

show abstract

“…3). Other studies (Taylor et al 1980, McGinty et al 1983) also confirm the relative preferences for forage classes estimated for cattle in this study.…”

Section: Comparisons With Published Datasupporting

confidence: 89%

Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Herbivore Preferences

Iglesias¹,

Kothmann²

1998

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diet quality, in the fourth year of grazing, was similar under SDG and CG, indicating that SDG did not increase or decrease forage quality. Taylor et al (1980) reported similar results from SDG and Merrill systems when dietary crude protein and digestible organic matter were determined. This further indicates that decreases in animal performance were related to stocking rate and ultimately forage ability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Steer and Vegetation Response to Short Duration and Continuous Grazing

Pitts¹,

Bryant²

1987

Journal of Range Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparisons were made over a 4-year period between l-herd, 16pasture short duration grazing (SDG) and continuous grazing (CC) on the Texas High Plains. Animal performance, vegetation response, and diet quality were evaluated. Stocking rate on SDG was equal to that on CC the fhst year (13.3 ha/AU), double that on CG in the second year, and 1.5 times that on CG the third and fourth years. Average daily gain (ADG) of steers was the same (0.33 kg/day) between SDG and CG the first year. When stocking was doubled on SDG the second year, steers on SDG gained 0.15 kg/day compared to 0.25 kg/day under CG. In the third and fourth years, with stocking under SDG at 1.5 times that on CG, gains were similar. Standing crop biomass on SDG fell below that on CG after 1 year of gradng. In the second year standing crop was greater (KO.05) on SDG than on CG, but in years 3 and 4, standing crop on the SDG was less than on CC. Changes in species composition were the same on both CC and SDG. Steer diet composition and quality were evrhtated during the growhtg season (May to October) of year 4. Steers on SDG consumed 15% more forbs (39% VI 24%) than steers on CC. No differences (BO.05) between CG and SDG were ohserved for dietary crude protein or in vitro digestible organic matter. SDG did not improve animal performance, diet quality, or forage l variability over CC when evahtated over 4 years. mance, (2) forage dynamics, and (3) diet quality. Methods and Procedures The study site was located in Lubbock County, Texas, on the Texas Tech University campus. At the initiation of the study, the area was considered a poor condition native shortgrass range site on an Amarillo fine sandy loam soil. Dominant grasses on the site were Bouteioua gracilis. Buchloe dactyloides. Panicum obtusum, Sporobolus cryptandrus, Aristida purpurea. and Bothriochloa saccharoides. Major forbs were Kochia scoparia, Zinnia grandiflora. Spharalcea coccinea, and Kuhnia sp. There also was a heavy infestation of Xanthocephalum sarothrae and Prosopisglandulosa. The climate is warm-temperate and continental with an average annual precipitation of 40 cm. Precipitation occurs mainly in the spring and late summer months. Temperature ranges from +40° C to-25" C with a frost-free growing season of 200 days. Mean elevation is 960 m. (SCS 1979).

show abstract

“…Other studies have reported that livestock and wildlife often consume prickly pear even when forage quantity is not limited (Taylor et al 1980, Fontenot et al 1991). …”

Section: Prickly Pear Intakementioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional value and intake of prickly pear by goats

McMillan¹,

Scott²,

Taylor³

2002

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prickly pear (Opuntia sp.) is both a benefit and hindrance to the livestock industry in the southwestern U.S. It competes with herbaceous forage but is sometimes used as emergency feed during drought. Spineless prickly pear (0. fiscus-indica Engelm. and 0. rufida Engelm.) has been planted in some regions of the southwest but little is known about its nutritional value. Our objectives were to determine: (1) the nutritional value of both spined (0. macrorhiza Engelm.) and spineless prickly pear (0. rufida Engelm.); (2) if goats can be conditioned to eat prickly pear after prescribed burning; and, (3) if goats would consume prickly pear when alternative forage was available. In Experiment 1, 8 goats were placed in metabolism stalls and fed either spineless or spined prickly pear with singed spines in both summer and winter. Intake, digestibility, and nitrogen balance were measured. In Experiment 2, 18 goats were placed in individual pens, and 9 were fed spineless prickly pear to determine if this increased acceptance of spined prickly pear with singed spines. In the third experiment, we varied the amount of alfalfa pellets fed to goats (below, near, and above maintenance) to determine if level of alfalfa intake affected prickly pear intake. Spineless prickly pear was higher (P < 0.05) in digestibility and crude protein than singed prickly pear, but nitrogen balance was similar for goats consuming the 2 species. Goats ate more spineless prickly pear on an as fed basis, but on a dry basis, intake was similar.Familiarity with spineless prickly pear increased (P < 0.05) subsequent intake of singed prickly pear. Level of alfalfa intake did not affect prickly pear intake. We concluded that both species are moderately nutritious, spineless prickly pear is more digestible than spined prickly pear, and once a preference for prickly pear has developed, goats may continue to eat prickly pear even though other forage is available. invierno y verano fueron alimentadas con "Prickly pear"sin espinas o con espinas marcadas y se midio el consumo, la digestibilidad y el balance de nitrogeno. En el experimento 2,18 cabras fueron colocadas en corrales individuales y 9 se alimentaron con "Prickly pear" sin espinas para determinar si esto incrementa la aceptacion sobre el "Prickly pear" con espinas marcadas. En el tercer experimento variamos la cantidad de pelets de alfalfa con la que se alimento a las cabras (abajo, cerca y arriba del nivel de mantenimiento) para determinar si el nivel de consumo de alfalfa afecto el consumo de "Prickly pear". La especie de "Prickly pear" sin espinas fue mayor en digestibilidad y proteina cruda (P < 0.05) que la especie con espinas marcadas, pero el balance de nitrogeno fue similar en cabras consumierdo las 2 especies. En base al alimento, las cabras consumieron mas "Prickly pear" sin espinas, pero en base de materia seca el consumo fue similar. La familiaridad del "Prickly pear" sin espinas incremento (P < 0.05) el consumo subsecuente de "Prickly pear" con espinas marcadas. El nivel de consu...

show abstract

Diet Selection by Cattle under High-Intensity Low-Frequency, Short Duration, and Merrill Grazing Systems

Cited by 40 publications

References 6 publications

Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Herbivore Preferences

Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Herbivore Preferences

Steer and Vegetation Response to Short Duration and Continuous Grazing

Nutritional value and intake of prickly pear by goats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About