Yield, Nutritive Value, and Preference of Annual Warm‐Season Grasses Grazed by Horses

DeBoer, Michelle L.; Grev, A.M.; Catalano, D.N.; Wells, M. Scott; Hathaway, Marcia; Martinson, Krishona L.

doi:10.2134/agronj2017.02.0099

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has reported distinct preferences for horses grazing different forage species (Allen et al., 2013; DeBoer et al., 2017; Grev et al., 2017); however, few studies have evaluated horse preference of binary mixtures. When horses grazed perennial cool‐season grasses in monoculture, Kentucky bluegrass and meadow fescue were among the most preferred grasses (>60% removal), whereas orchardgrass was among the least preferred (47% removal) (Allen et al., 2013).…”

Section: Horse Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Herbage mass, botanical composition, forage nutritive value, and preference of grass–legume pastures under horse grazing

DeBoer

Grev

Wells

et al. 2020

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cool-season perennial grasses are the foundation of productive horse pastures in the north-central United States. The addition of legumes in pastures can increase forage mass and digestible energy content, yet little research has investigated grass-legume pastures under horse grazing. The objectives of this research were to evaluate herbage mass, botanical composition, forage nutritive value, and preference of grass-legume pastures under horse grazing. Plots consisting of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), and meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis Huds.) were planted in monoculture and in binary mixtures with alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) or white clover (Trifolium repens L.) and grazed by horses in Minnesota during the 2013, 2014, and 2015 grazing seasons. Herbage mass, weed mass, and forage nutritive values were determined prior to grazing, and horse preference was evaluated following grazing. When evaluating herbage mass, the inclusion of alfalfa resulted in a consistently higher mass than grass monoculture. Kentucky bluegrass mixtures resulted in a decreased mass of non-sown (weed) species and an increase in horse preference. Improved forage nutritive values were also observed with the inclusion of legumes regardless of grass species, including higher crude protein and neutral detergent fiber digestibility at 48 h and lower neutral detergent fiber. As a result, using grass-legume mixtures in pastures can provide benefits for grazing horses and pasture productivity. 1 THE IMPORTANCE OF PASTURE TO THE HORSE Forages are an important component of the equine (Equus Caballus L.) diet, and previous surveys have reported >80% Abbreviations: BCS, body condition score; BW, bodyweight; CP, crude protein; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; NDFD48, neutral detergent fiber digestibility at 48 h. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Section: Horse Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Herbage mass, botanical composition, forage nutritive value, and preference of grass–legume pastures under horse grazing

DeBoer

Grev

Wells

et al. 2020

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weight management is often the focus of equine feeding programs, with 30% to 50% of horses classified as overweight ( Fernandes et al, 2015 ; Robin et al, 2015 ; Jaqueth et al, 2018 ). Additionally, due to lower non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) content, WSGs have been suggested as an alternative source of pasture forage for obese horses and horses with metabolic dysfunction where limiting dietary NSC is recommended ( Chatterton et al, 1989 ; Frank et al, 2010 ; DeBoer et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yield, nutrient composition, and horse condition in integrated crabgrass and cool-season grass rotational grazing pasture systems

Weinert-Nelson

Meyer

Williams

2021

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integration of warm-season grasses into traditional cool-season pastures can increase summer forage for grazing cattle. The aim of this study was to determine impacts of this practice on yield and nutrient composition of equine rotational pasture systems as well as horse body condition. Two 1.5 ha rotational systems (6-0.25 ha sections/system) were evaluated: a control system (CON) [all sections mixed cool-season grass (CSG-CON)] and an integrated system (IRS) [3 CSG sections (CSG-IRS) and 3 Quick-N-Big crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] (CRB-IRS)]. Three horses per system grazed in 3 periods: EARLY (mid-May to mid-Jul), SLUMP (mid-Jul to mid-Sep), and LATE (mid-Sep to mid-Nov). Herbage mass (HM) was measured prior to each rotation and samples were collected (0800-1000 h) for nutrient analysis. Grazing days were tracked to calculate carrying capacity (CC). Horse condition measures were assessed monthly. Over the full grazing season, 9125 kg of forage was available for grazing in IRS vs. 6335 kg in CON. The CC was 390 horse d for IRS, while only 276 horse d for CON. Total HM/section did not differ during EARLY when CRB was not available (CSG-IRS: 2537 ± 605; CSG-CON: 3783 ± 856 kg/ha), but CC was greater in CSG-IRS (220 ± 37 horse d/ha) than CSG-CON (92 ± 26 horse d/ha; P = 0.03). In SLUMP, both HM and CC were greater in CRB-IRS (HM: 4758 ± 698 kg/ha; CC: 196 ± 31 horse d/ha) than CSG-IRS (HM: 1086 ± 698 kg/ha; CC: 32 ± 31 horse d/ha) or CON (HM: 970 ± 493 kg/ha; CC: 46 ± 22 horse d/ha; P < 0.02). While HM did not differ by section type in LATE (1284 ± 158 kg/ha), CC was greater in CSG-CON (84 ± 9 horse d/ha) vs CRB-IRS (32 ± 13 horse d/ha; P = 0.03) and CSG-IRS (40 ± 13 horse d/ha; P = 0.06). During SLUMP, water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) were lower in CRB-IRS (4.46 ± 0.80%) than CSG-CON (7.92 ± 0.90%; P < 0.04), but not CSG-IRS (5.93 ± 1.04%); however, non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) did not differ (7.05 ± 0.62%). There were no differences in WSC (6.46 ± 0.54%) or NSC (7.65 ± 0.54%) by section type in LATE. Horses in IRS maintained a body condition score (BCS) of 5.78 ± 0.48, but BCS did not differ by system (CON: 6.11 ± 0.48). Thus, integrated grazing increased summer pasture yield and provided adequate nutrition to maintain horse condition, but further research is needed to improve late-season production. Integrated grazing may not, however, provide an advantage in limiting dietary NSC, as NSC remained low for all pasture sections.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, teff has been proposed for grazing dairy farms; however, very few farmers use teff in grazing pastures. Teff has lower yield than sorghum-sudangrass [ 16 , 17 ], but there is little information on how dairy cattle may perform and graze on teff. No research has compared brown-midrib sorghum × sudangrass (BMRSS) and teff by grazing dairy cattle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Milk Production, Body Weight, Body Condition Score, Activity, and Rumination of Organic Dairy Cattle Grazing Two Different Pasture Systems Incorporating Cool- and Warm-Season Forages

Ritz

Heins

Moon

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organic dairy cows were used to evaluate the effect of two organic pasture production systems (temperate grass species and warm-season annual grasses and cool-season annuals compared with temperate grasses only) across two grazing seasons (May to October of 2014 and 2015) on milk production, milk components (fat, protein, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), somatic cell score (SCS)), body weight, body condition score (BCS), and activity and rumination (min/day). Cows were assigned to two pasture systems across the grazing season at an organic research dairy in Morris, Minnesota. Pasture System 1 was cool-season perennials (CSP) and Pasture System 2 was a combination of System 1 and warm-season grasses and cool-season annuals. System 1 and System 2 cows had similar milk production (14.7 and 14.8 kg d−1), fat percentage (3.92% vs. 3.80%), protein percentage (3.21% vs. 3.17%), MUN (12.5 and 11.5 mg dL−1), and SCS (4.05 and 4.07), respectively. Cows in System 1 had greater daily rumination (530 min/day) compared to cows in System 2 (470 min/day). In summary, warm-season annual grasses may be incorporated into grazing systems for pastured dairy cattle.

show abstract

Yield, Nutritive Value, and Preference of Annual Warm‐Season Grasses Grazed by Horses

Cited by 24 publications

References 42 publications

Herbage mass, botanical composition, forage nutritive value, and preference of grass–legume pastures under horse grazing

Herbage mass, botanical composition, forage nutritive value, and preference of grass–legume pastures under horse grazing

Yield, nutrient composition, and horse condition in integrated crabgrass and cool-season grass rotational grazing pasture systems

Milk Production, Body Weight, Body Condition Score, Activity, and Rumination of Organic Dairy Cattle Grazing Two Different Pasture Systems Incorporating Cool- and Warm-Season Forages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About