Search

The daily BW gain of stocker steers grazing tall fescue [Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) S.J. Darbysh. = Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.]-based pastures typically declines during summer. To avoid these declines, in part to mitigate the effects of tall fescue toxicosis, it is commonly advised to move cattle to warm-season forage during this period. A 3-yr (2006, 2007, and 2008) grazing study was conducted to evaluate the effect of replacing 25% of the area of a tall fescue/clover (81% endophyte-infected) pasture system with "Ozark" bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] overseeded with clover (Trifolium spp.) to provide summer grazing for stocker steers (TF+BERM). The TF+BERM treatment was compared with a grazing system in which tall fescue/clover (TF) pastures were the only type of forage available for grazing. Our objective was to determine if replacement of 25% of the land area in a fescue system with bermudagrass would increase annual beef production compared with a system based solely on tall fescue. The study was conducted at the Southwest Research and Education Center of the University of Missouri near Mt. Vernon. Each treatment was rotationally stocked with 5 steers (248 ± 19.3 kg) on 1.7 ha. Fertilizer applications were applied at rates recommended for each respective forage species. Total forage production, BW gain per hectare, and season-long ADG of steers was greater (P < 0.06) for TF+BERM than for TF in 2006, but none of these measures differed (P > 0.19) in 2007 or 2008. In vitro true digestibility of pastures was greater (P = 0.01) for TF (84.4%, SEM = 0.64%) compared with TF+BERM (80.6%, SEM = 0.79%), even in summer. The decreased in vitro true digestibility of the bermudagrass pastures likely negated any benefit that animals in TF+BERM had in avoiding the ergot-like alkaloids associated with endophyte-infected tall fescue. Renovating 25% of the pasture system to bermudagrass provided some benefit to the system in years when summertime precipitation was limited (2006) but provided no value in wetter years (2007 and 2008). Although renovating endophyte-infected tall fescue pastures to a warm-season forage is a widely used practice to mitigate tall fescue toxicosis, the benefits of this practice are limited if forage quality of the warm season component is poor.

Despite increased attention and demand for the adoption of agroforestry practices throughout the world, rigorous long-term scientific studies confirming environmental benefits from the use of agroforestry practices are limited. The objective was to examine nonpoint-source pollution (NPSP) reduction as influenced by agroforestry buffers in watersheds under grazing and row crop management. The grazing study consists of six watersheds in the Central Mississippi Valley wooded slopes and the row crop study site consists of three watersheds in a paired watershed design in Central Claypan areas. Runoff water samples were analyzed for sediment, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) for the 2004 to 2008 period. Results indicate that agroforestry and grass buffers on grazed and row crop management sites significantly reduce runoff, sediment, TN, and TP losses to streams. Buffers in association with grazing and row crop management reduced runoff by 49 and 19%, respectively, during the study period as compared with respective control treatments. Average sediment loss for grazing and row crop management systems was 13.8 and 17.9 kg ha yr, respectively. On average, grass and agroforestry buffers reduced sediment, TN, and TP losses by 32, 42, and 46% compared with the control treatments. Buffers were more effective in the grazing management practice than row crop management practice. These differences could in part be attributed to the differences in soils, management, and landscape features. Results from this study strongly indicate that agroforestry and grass buffers can be designed to improve water quality while minimizing the amount of land taken out of production., (American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.)