Abstract
Stocking rate is a fundamental variable for managing pastures, and there is a distinct relationship between stocking rate and animal performance for each forage type. This research was conducted to determine the effects of fall stocking rate (SR) and method of establishment of wheat pasture planted into dedicated crop fields on animal performance during the fall and subsequent spring. There was a factorial arrangement of tillage methods used in the establishment of wheat pasture and fall stocking rates. Tillage treatments included 1) CT, seed sown into a prepared seedbed, 2) RT, a single pass with a light disk followed by broadcasting of seed, or 3) NT, direct seeding into the undisturbed stubble of the grazed-out wheat pasture from the previous year. The fixed SR during the fall were 1.9, 2.5, and 3.7 growing beef steers (Bos taurus L.)/ha. In the spring all pastures were grazed at the same fixed SR by steers for graze out. Data were analyzed using the mixed procedure of SAS as a randomized complete block design with field as the experimental unit and year as the block. Forage mass, forage nutritive composition, and animal performance during the fall or spring were not affected (P ≥ 0.14) by tillage method. During the fall grazing season, with increasing SR there were linear (P < 0.01) decreases in BW of steers upon removal from pasture, BW gain per steer, and ADG, whereas grazing-day per hectare and BW gain per hectare increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing SR. The carryover effects of fall SR into the spring grazing season decreased (P< 0.01) grazing-day per hectare and tended (P ≤ 0.09) to produce quadratic changes in BW upon removal from pasture and BW gain per hectare. Across the fall and spring grazing seasons, grazing-day per hectare increased linearly (P < 0.01) with greater SR, and BW gain per hectare increased quadratically (P = 0.02) with increased fall SR. A tillage treatment by fall SR interaction (P = 0.10) indicates that although there was no difference (P ≥ 0.12) due to tillage treatment in BW gain per hectare at 1.9 or 2.5 SR, NT fields produced (P ≤ 0.04) more BW gain per hectare than CT or RT at the 3.7 SR. Although increasing SR of growing steers leads to reduced animal performance in the fall and reduced carrying capacity in the spring, NT appears to be capable of withstanding greater fall SR with less impact on total production per hectare than CT or RT.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage method did not significantly affect forage mass, composition or animal performance.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- tillage methode0
- Outcome
- Forage mass, forage nutritive composition, and animal performancee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Value
- P ≥ 0.14e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Forage mass, forage nutritive composition, and animal performance during the fall or spring were not affected (P ≥ 0.14) by tillage method.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing stocking rate reduced steer weight and gain in fall.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increasing SRe0
- Outcome
- BW of steers upon removal from pasture, BW gain per steer, and ADGe0
- Direction
- decreasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with increasing SR there were linear (P < 0.01) decreases in BW of steers upon removal from pasture, BW gain per steer, and ADG”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing stocking rate raised fall grazing days and gain per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increasing SRe0
- Outcome
- grazing-day per hectare and BW gain per hectaree0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grazing-day per hectare and BW gain per hectare increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing SR.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall stocking rate reduced spring grazing days per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- fall SRe0
- Outcome
- grazing-day per hectaree0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The carryover effects of fall SR into the spring grazing season decreased (P< 0.01) grazing-day per hectare”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall stocking rate tended to produce quadratic spring changes in weight and gain.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- BW upon removal from pasture and BW gain per hectaree0
- Direction
- quadratic changese0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tended (P ≤ 0.09) to produce quadratic changes in BW upon removal from pasture and BW gain per hectare.”
e1“effects of fall SR into the spring grazing season”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Across seasons, grazing days increased with stocking rate.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- greater SRe0
- Outcome
- grazing-day per hectaree0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Across the fall and spring grazing seasons, grazing-day per hectare increased linearly (P < 0.01) with greater SR”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Across seasons, gain per hectare increased quadratically with fall stocking rate.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increased fall SRe0
- Outcome
- BW gain per hectaree0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BW gain per hectare increased quadratically (P = 0.02) with increased fall SR.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
At lower stocking rates, tillage did not significantly alter gain per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- tillage treatmente0
- Outcome
- BW gain per hectaree0
- Direction
- no differencee0
- Qualifier
- 1.9 or 2.5 SRe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no difference (P ≥ 0.12) due to tillage treatment in BW gain per hectare at 1.9 or 2.5 SR”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
At the highest stocking rate, NT produced more gain per hectare than CT or RT.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- BW gain per hectaree0
- Direction
- moree0
- Qualifier
- 3.7 SRe0
- Comparator
- CT or RTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT fields produced (P ≤ 0.04) more BW gain per hectare than CT or RT at the 3.7 SR.”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.