Abstract
The effects of three different grazing pressures on beef ( Bos taurus ) and wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) grain production were studied at Pasman (Argentina) during a 3‐yr study. Thirty hectares of the variety ‘Pincen’ wheat were grazed with Angus heifers during 3 yr (1995–1997) until apex differentiation. The different grazing pressures were obtained through different stocking rates, adjusted every 21 d according to forage mass, predicted forage production rate, and an estimated forage allowance of 10, 15 and 20 kg dry matter (DM) heifer −1 d −1 for high, medium, and low pressures, respectively. The three treatments were randomly allocated within a complete block design with two replications. Every 21 d forage samples were clipped and forage mass and plant composition were recorded and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), crude protein (CP), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) were determined. Spike density and grain production were measured at harvest. Average daily gain (ADG) was obtained from 10 heifers per plot, present throughout the entire grazing period. Gain per hectare (GH) was obtained in each plot from the mean ADG and animal days per hectare computed during stocking rate adjustments. During grazing period the levels of CP and IVDMD decreased and NDF content increased, and these trends were more pronounced in 1996 and 1997 because of rust infection. Increased grazing pressure caused increased GH and reduced ADG, forage mass at the end of the grazing period, and grain production. Means of treatments over the years for GH were 283, 225, and 176 kg ha −1 , and for grain production were 955, 1150, and 1351 kg ha −1 for high, medium, and low pressures, respectively. The increase in grazing pressure (from low to high treatment) produced an increase of 107 kg ha −1 in beef production and a 396 kg ha −1 reduction in grain production. Taking into account the traditional price of beef with respect to grain in Argentina, this beef gain over grain relation at increased grazing pressure is economically profitable for farmers.
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
Crude protein decreased over the grazing period.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Outcome
- CPe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- more pronounced in 1996 and 1997 because of rust infectione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During grazing period the levels of CP and IVDMD decreased and NDF content increased, and these trends were more pronounced in 1996 and 1997 because of rust infection.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
In vitro dry matter digestibility decreased over grazing.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- IVDMDe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During grazing period the levels of CP and IVDMD decreased and NDF content increased, and these trends were more pronounced in 1996 and 1997 because of rust infection.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Neutral detergent fiber content increased over grazing.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- NDF contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During grazing period the levels of CP and IVDMD decreased and NDF content increased, and these trends were more pronounced in 1996 and 1997 because of rust infection.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher grazing pressure increased beef gain per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Increased grazing pressuree0
- Outcome
- GHe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased grazing pressure caused increased GH and reduced ADG, forage mass at the end of the grazing period, and grain production.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher grazing pressure reduced animal average daily gain.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Increased grazing pressuree0
- Outcome
- ADGe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased grazing pressure caused increased GH and reduced ADG, forage mass at the end of the grazing period, and grain production.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher grazing pressure reduced end of period forage mass.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Increased grazing pressuree0
- Outcome
- forage mass at the end of the grazing periode0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increased grazing pressure caused increased GH and reduced ADG, forage mass at the end of the grazing period, and grain production.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher grazing pressure reduced wheat grain production.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increase in grazing pressuree0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 396 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in grazing pressure (from low to high treatment) produced an increase of 107 kg ha −1 in beef production and a 396 kg ha −1 reduction in grain production.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing grazing pressure from low to high increased beef production by 107 kg per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increase in grazing pressuree0
- Outcome
- beef productione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 107 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase in grazing pressure (from low to high treatment) produced an increase of 107 kg ha −1 in beef production and a 396 kg ha −1 reduction in grain production.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
Claim · model-written summary
Under traditional Argentine beef and grain prices, greater grazing pressure was judged economically profitable.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- increased grazing pressure is economically profitable for farmerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this beef gain over grain relation at increased grazing pressure is economically profitable for farmers.”
t0“Wheat in Argentina”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 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.