UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The assessment of forage production from irrigated pastures by means of beef cattle Nicholson, Hugh Hampson 1953-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1954_A4 N5 A8.pdf [ 4.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0106325.json
JSON-LD: 1.0106325+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0106325.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0106325+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0106325+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0106325+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0106325 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0106325.txt
Citation
1.0106325.ris

Full Text

THE  ASSESSMENT OF FORAGE PRODUCTION FROM IRRIGATED PASTURES BY MEANS OF BEEF CATTLE -byHUGH HAMPSON NICHOLSON  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE in the Department of ANIMAL HUSBANDRY  We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE.  Members of the Department of Anipiyt Husbandry  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1953  A B S T R A C T  The use of Irrigated Pastures for the production of beef cattle  i n British Columbia i s a relatively new venture.  aaplace i n the ranch ecomony of the province  i s appreciated when i t i s  realized that the natural range resources are being used extent at the present time.  That they have  to their fullest  Irrigated pastures provide a means of inten-  sification of production and permit increased beef output from the limited land areas available i n the province. The various methods of estimating pasture production through the use of grazing animals have been investigated. indicate  These investigations  the need for accuracy of experimental procedure since the  variables encountered are numerous. The production of forage from i r r i gated pastures i n IAS days was 4290.0 to 5011.8 pounds of total digesti b l e nutrients per acre depending upon method used i n calculation. The young succulent grasses and legumes encountered i n i r r i gated pastures are high i n protein with a corresponding deficiency i n carbohydrate.  The use of high energy supplementation may be worthy of  further investigation. The incident of bloat and foot rot i n animals on orrigated pasture can be a problem. treatment w i l l assist  Correct management procedures and prompt  i n alleviating these problems.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  The writer wishes to thank Dr. A.J. Mood, Associate Professor i n the Department of Animal Husbandry for his direction and constructive criticism i n the preparation of this Thesis. To Mr. T.G. W i l l i s , Superintendent of the Canada Range Experiment Station, gratitude i s expressed for permission to undertake the project as part of the Station research program. Thanks must also go to Mr. Willis  for his assistance i n the establishment of the  pastures. To the numerous other people who assisted i n gathering data on the pastures and the expressing of that data i n written form, I tender my sincere thanks.  -OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO-  TABLE  I. II. £H.  IV.  OP  CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION  p. 1,2  REVIEW OF LITERATURE  p.3 - 21  EXPERIMENTAL  p. 22  A* Experimental Animals  p.22  B. Animal Procedure  p.22  C. Pasture Forage Assessment Procedure  p.24  RESULTS  p.25-31  V. DISCUSSION  p.32-36  VI.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  APPENDIX I.  p. 37,38.  IRRIGATED PASTURE BACKGROUND  APPENDIX II. MANAGEMENT OF PASTURES  p. 39-48 p. 49,50  APPENDIX III. ESTABLISHMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PASTURES  p. 51-56  APPENDIX IV.  ANIMAL DISEASES  p. 57,58.  APPENDIX V.  PHOTOGRAPHS  p. 59-62.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  -oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOo-  I.  I N T R O D U C T I O N I r r i g a t e d lands have p r o v i d e d f o r a g e f o r b e e f  e a t t i e i n B r i t i s h Columbia since the time o f t h e e a r l i e s t ranch s e t t l e m e n t s .  The forage has normally been recovered  as hay and has been used f o r w i n t e r f e e d i n g *  Some aftermath  g r a z i n g i s p r a c t i c e d on these i r r i g a t e d lands d u r i n g the f a l l months*  4 recent i n n o v a t i o n has been the use o f i n t e n s i v e l y  managed i r r i g a t e d lands f o r summer g r a z i n g and f a t t e n i n g o f beef animals*  I n t e r e s t i n such i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s has been  f u r t h e r e d by the f i n d i n g s o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n the P a c i f i c Northwest S t a t e s which suggest  t h a t the y i e l d o f animal  products p e r acre can be g r e a t l y expanded by such p a s t u r e s * Approximately  f i f t e e n m i l l i o n acres o f f o r e s t  g r a z i n g l a n d and two m i l l i o n acres o f open g r a s s l a n d comprise the g r a z i n g l a n d p o t e n t i a l o f B r i t i s h Columbia*  Anderson  (1952) estimates t h a t t h i r t e e n m i l l i o n acres o f open and forested almost  g r a z i n g lands a r e b e i n g used and i t r e p r e s e n t s  the e n t i r e a c t u a l g r a z i n g p o t e n t i a l *  (1949) makes the f o l l o w i n g statement:  MacGillivray  "Though the p r o v i n c e  i s supposed t o be capable o f f u r t h e r expansion ranching  of i t s cattle  and i t s sheep r a n c h i n g , i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by the  G r a z i n g Branch o f the Department o f Lands and F o r e s t s would i n d i c a t e t h a t the unused areas o f ranch l a n d i n B r i t i s h . C o l umbia are very l i m i t e d i n e x t e n t *  Muwh o f t h e range l a n d i s  now over grazed and would probably be a more p r o f i t a b l e resource i f c a r r y i n g fewer c a t t l e and sheep*  u  From these  -2e t a t omenta i t appears  s a f e to conclude that the open g r a s s l a n d s  are at p r e s e n t b e i n g f u l l y u t i l i z e d and i n f a c t i n many oases are b e i n g over u t i l i z e d , .  The  a v a i l a b l e open g r a s s l a n d s are  used i n the main f o r e a r l y s p r i n g and l a t e f a l l g r a z i n g *  The  f o r e s t lands are used f o r summer g r a z i n g d u r i n g J u l y , August and September* I f i t can be  shown t h a t I r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s  poss-  ess the p r o d u c t i v e c a p a c i t y suggested by o t h e r workers then such p a s t u r e s may  fulfill  i n a measure the apparent  need f o r  g r e a t e r p e r acre p r o d u c t i v i t y . The Range Experiment  i r r i g a t e d pastures i n i t i a t e d at the Canada S t a t i o n , Kamloops, B r i t i s h Columbia, were  designed t o study'the fundamentals o f p l a n t and animal growth and t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s * still  While  the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i s  i n i t s i n i t i a l s t a g e s , i t i s a l r e a d y p o s s i b l e t o delineates  c e r t a i n b a s i o c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s e a r l y d a t a *  T h i s study  had  as i t s primary o b j e c t i v e the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s u i t a b l e ways and means to assess p a s t u r e p r o d u c t i o n through the use o f beef animals.  Such a method of assessment i s necessary t o form a  base upon which to b u i l d p a s t u r e r e s e a r c h and p a s t u r e mendations*  recom-  -3 II.  REVIEW OF LITERATURE The assessment of pasture production by means of  grazing animals has been the subject of many technical communications. These have ranged from detailed observations of grazing behaviour (Tribe and Gordon (1953), Wordrop (1953), Taylor (1953)) to extensive laboratory studies designed to determine i t s digestibility and nutritive quality, (Crampton (1939), Algren (1947), Report (1952)). Before reviewing the literature relative to the various methods proposed for assessing pasture production, i t i s perhaps well to examine the nutritive requirements of beef cattle relative to their stage of growth. On the basis of these requirements, i t should be possible to estimate the necessary production of pastures to sustain any given rate of gain. The National Research Council (U.S*a.) in their Recommended Nutrient Allowances for Beef Cattle (1950) l i s t the requirements for fattening yearling cattle. presented in Table I .  This information i s  TABLE . . BodyWeight Pounda  Expected D a l l y Gain Pounds  I  t "NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL RECOMMENDED NUTRIENT -ALLOWANCES FOR FATTENING. YEARLING CATTLE"  Percent Per of Animal L i v e Weight Pounds  Digestible Protein Pounds  CalTotal D i g e s t - cium ible Grams Nutrients Pounds  Phos- Caro- T.D.N. phorus tene p e r Grams Mg. Pound Gain  Dry Mat . per Pound Gain  600  Average  3.0  18  1.3  11.5  20  17  36  5.22  8.18  700  for  3.0  21  1.4  13.5  20  18  42  6.14  9.54  800  period  2.8  22  1.5  14.0  20  19  48  6.64  10.00  900  22  2.7  24  1.6  15.5  20  20  54  7,04  10.91  1000  pounds  2.6  26  1.7  17.0  20  20  60  7.73  11.82  1100  dally  2.4  27  1.7  17.5  20  20  66  7.95  12.27  Morrison*s (1949) recommendations (Table I I . ) f o r c a t t l e i n the same weight range appear t o be  appreciably below those o f  the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l as recorded i n Table I . T A B L E II. MDRRISON'S FEEDING STANDARD FOR FATTENING YEARLING CATTLE Weight;  Dry matter  Digestible Protein  T.D.N. lhfi.  Nutritive Ratio  ' Net Energy-Therms  600  13,2-16,3  1,20-1,41  10,3-12.7  7.0-8.0  9.3 -11.5  700  15,2«18.3  1,41-1,60  12*0-14.4  7.0-8,0  11.0 -13,2  800  17.0-20*3  1.59-1.79  13.5«*16,1  7.0-8.0  12,6 -15.0  900  18.5-21 8  1*79-1.94  14,8-17.4  7.0-8.0  13.9 -16.4  1000  19.7»22.9  1.87-2*06  15.9-18.5  7,0-8.0  14.9 «17,4  1100  20.8-24.0  1.99-2,17  16.9-19.5  7.0-8,0  15.9 -18,3  0  Unfortunately Morrison does not suggest the r a t e Of gain to be expected from the feeding l e v e l that he has recommended,hence i t may be reasonable t o conclude that h i s lower recommendations are designed to produce a gain o f l e s s than the 2.2 pounds per day suggested by the N a t i o n a l Research Council,  Morrison's p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s o precludes the c a l c u l a t i o n  of the dry matter o r t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s required p e r unit of gain.  Reference to Table I suggests that the e f f i c i e n c y  of g a i n t o be expected i n c a t t l e o f the weight 800 pounds w i l l be 6,64 pounds of t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s and 10,91 pounds o f dry matter per pound of body weight g a i n . From Morrison (1949) (Table 111) the average  composition o f pasture grasses and legumes can be estimated* I t may be i n t e r e s t i n g to determine  i f the 800 pound animal  mentioned above can consume the amounts o f forage necessary to o b t a i n 6*64 pounds o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s and 10*91 pounds o f dry matter p e r pound o f body weight g a i n * T A B L E  III.  DRY MATTER, DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS AND NET ENERGY .„ , ,. ..IK -.PASTURE.PORAGE. (AFTER MORRISON) GRASSES  "Total'Dry Matter.in Percent  Pasture " • Grasses and Legumes from w e l l grazed, F e r t i l e Pasture, $o rthe m St at e s  Total Digestible Nutrients i n Percent  E s t . Net Energy 100 l b s . Therms  22.0  14*9  13*0  F a s t . g r a s s e s and Legumes from w e l l grazed,fertile p a s t u r e , Southern States _  25*1  16*6  14*4  Pasture grasses w i t h s m a l l amt. legume from w e l l grazed, f e r t i l e pasture, Southern S t a t e s  22*0  14*6  12*2  23*0  15*3  13*5  Average o f Pasture Forage  T h i s animal must consume 43*4 pounds o f green f o r a g e t o p r o v i d e the necessary t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s to produce one pound o f body weight g a i n *  F o r 2*2 pounds o f  g a i n 95.48 pounds o f green forage must be consumed. T h i s amount o f forage a t 23 p e r c e n t d r y matter represents  adry  matter i n t a k e o f 21.9 pounds p e r day*  work by  Garrigua  Experimental  as r e p o r t e d by Crampton (1939)(Table  IV)would tend t o  i n d i c a t e that suoh a dry m a t t e r i n t a k e o r what i s more  import-  ant such a green forage i n t a k e i s w e l l w i t h i n the realms o f p o s s i b i l i t y f o r an animal weighing 800 pounds.  The above  c a l c u l a t i o n i s dependent f o r I t s v a l i d i t y upon numerous ad hoc  f e e d i n g t r i a l s as summarised by M o r r i s o n . An a l t e r n a t i v e approach t o the same problem can  be obtained from the f i e l d o f e n e r g e t i c s . reasonable  F o r example, a  approximation o f the C a l o r i c i n t a k e r e q u i r e d by an  animal t o make a s p e c i f i o d a i l y g a i n can be determined by u s i n g Brody's (1945) R e s t i n g Metabolism d a t a and Hacker's (1920) d a t a on the composition composition  o f gains i n beef animals.  o f the weight g a i n i s an important  The  consideration.  Brody has s t a t e d : Two animals may g a i n welghtc a t d i f f e r e n t w  r a t e s , y e t g a i n energy at the same r a t e .  T h i s i s because  some types o f weight g a i n - i n v o l v e g r e a t e r energy p e r u n i t l i v e weight t h a n o t h e r s .  storage  F o r i n s t a n c e , one gram o f  p r o t e i n g a i n i s n e c e s s a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h r e e grams o f water g a i n .  Moreover, the energy e q u i v a l e n t o f one gram o f  fat  i s two and one q u a r t e r times one gram o f p r o t e i n . Hence  one  gram o f f a t g a i n i s C a l o r i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o about  e i g h t grams p r o t e i n g a i n , "  T A B L E  IV,  WEIGHT OP ANIMAL AND DAILY DRY MATTER CONSUMPTION OF . PASTURE. HERBAGE.BY.FREELY GRAZING STEERS . . Steer .No,  Forage Grazed Blue Grass s headed Alfalfa % bloom  B C  C l o v e r mixture \ bloom  938 988  963,  Dry Matter Consumed Indiyid.ually Average 25 .8 13*1  535  535  12*3  602 A l f a l f a fbloom Alfalfa, f u l l bloom 618  610  10.5  Alfalfa, f bloom Alfalfa, f u l l bloom Blue grass, 5 weeks Red C l o v e r , mature Red C l o v e r , £ bloom F  Weight o f S t e e r s ..Individually Average  Blue grass, 5 weeks Red C l o v e r , mature Red C l o v e r , \ bloom Blue g r a s s , 5 weeks Red C l o v e r , mature Red C l o v e r , \ bloom  758 775  10*2  766  364 362  373  394 584 582  12*0 12,0  12*3 10*3  12.0  10*4 12*3  12*2  13*9  596  12*6 19*7  622:  16.7  844  14*4  834  19*5  862  19*5  847  17.5  (continued next  16*3  17.1  page)  -9TABLE IV CONTINUED . Steer No.  Forage Grazed :  H  Blue G r a s s , 5 weeks Red C l o v e r , mature Red C l o v e r , ^ bloom  Weight o f S t e e r s Individually Average 940 942  Dry Matter Consumed .Individually Average 21.7  948  963  25.0  22.9  22.0  Reed Canary mixture Brome Grass  410 470  440  7.4 8.5  Reed canary mixture Brome grass  505 600  552  14.8 14.3  14.5  Reed canary Brome grass  800 850  825  15.6 14.9  15.2  Reed canary Brome grass  745 815  780  15.0 12.5  13.7  7.9  R e c a l c u l a t i o n o f Haeker's d a t a (Table V) lends support to Brody's  statement.  I t should be noied t h a t  Brody  has erred i n assuming that one gram o f f a t i s C a l o r i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o 2,25 grams o f p r o t e i n . m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy  T h i s i s t r u e i n the  sense but h i s context i n f e r s t h a t ho i s  d e s c r i b i n g the gross energy g a i n o f the a n i m a l .  In such an  event f a t c o n t a i n s approximately 9/5.65 C a l o r i e s more than protein.  -10T A B L E Body weight lbs.  Percent Protein  V:  "CHANGES IN BODY COMPOSITION WITH CHANGES IN BODY WEIGHT." . Calories/ 100 Grama  Percent Pat  Calories/ 100 Grams  Total Caloric Gain  100  16,88  95*4  3.41  32*4  127*8  200  15.12  85,4  4.73  45,9  131,3  300  15*32  86,6  9.17  87.1  173.7  400  15,77  89,1  8.63  81.9  171*0  500  15,89  89,7  11.41  108,4  198,1  600  15,75  89,0  12.22  116.1  205,1  700  15.43  87.2  13,76  130*7  217,9  800  15,96  90.2  15«73  149,4  239,6  900  15,10  85.3  20,59  195*5  280 8  1000  14.93  84*0  23*54  223*6  307*6  1100  14,43  81*5  28*21  268.0  349.5  1200  14.49  81*9  29*27  278*1  360*0  1500  14.10  79*8  33,71  320.2  400,0  e  By u n i t i n g the data o f these two workers M i l l s (1953) has evolved and e s t a b l i s h e d a feeding standard for fattening yearling cattle* f o r movement o f h i s animals.  M i l l s allowed no increment Since the animals used were  confined t o a s m a l l area and movement was kept to a minimum, the e r r o r i n C a l o r i e s f o r R e s t i n g Metabolism would be at a minimum*  Animals on pasture u s u a l l y have f u l l freedom o f  movement, therefore a 12 percent increment has been added t o  -lithe R e s t i n g Metabolism t o allow f o r t h i s Movement* The work o f Ritzman and B e n e d i c t (1938) would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i s approximately c o r r e c t s  figure  This information i s presented i n  T a b l e V I . below, T 4 B L E ., , . . Body Weight  V I : "DISTRIBUTION OP ENERGY INTAKE OF • . » . . • YEARLING CATTLE * „  R e s t i n g "' Metabolism Calories 1  1  Gain ( l j Expected Pounds/Day " '"'  NetCalo r i c Content o f Gain/tbi^  Gain/ Day i n Calories  Net C a l orio Intake r e quired p e r Day  500  6989  1.50  1100  1650  8639  525  7163  1.58  1150  1817  8980  550  7336  1.65  1170  1921  9257  575  7514  1«73  1250  2163  9677  600  7692  1.80  1320  2376  10068  625  7862  1.88  1400  2632  10494  650  8030  1.95  1450  2828  10858  675  8182  2.03  1510  3065  11247  700  8323  2.10  1620  3402  11725  725  8469  2.18  1710  3728  12197  750  8620  2.25  1800  4050  12670  775  8771  2.33  1870  4357  13128  800  8916  2.40  1950  4680  13596  825  9072  2.48  2020  5010  14082  850  9224  2.55  2120  5406  14630  875  9377  2.63  2230  5865  15242  900  9462  2.70  2320  6264  15726  « continued next page-  -12TABLE VT  Body Weight  continued:  Resting Metabolism Calories  " D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Energy Intake o f Yearling Cattle"  Gain (l)Expected Pounds/ Day  Net C a l o r i c Content o f . Galn/pd.  Gain/ Day i n Calories  Net C a l o r i c . Intake r e quired per Day  925  9600  2.78  2410  6700  16300  950  9798  2.85  2510  7154  16952  975  9946  2.93  2620  7677  17623  1000  10092  3.00  2700  8100  18192  (1) Assuming an instantaneous r e l a t i v e growth r a t e constant of,0.0030 ( o r 0.3 p e r c e n t ) throughout t h e body weight range 500 bo 1000 pounds. Reference  to Table VT suggests t h a t an 800 pound  animal g a i n i n g 2.4 pounds p e r day r e q u i r e s 13,596 C a l o r i e s o f Net Energy p e r 24 h o u r s . i n Table I I I  Accepting M o r r i s o n ' s f i g u r e s g i v e n  f o r the Net Energy content o f f o r a g e s as 135  C a l o r i e s p e r pound o f green f o r a g e , i t would appear that the 800 pound animal c i t e d above w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o consume 100.1 pounds o f green f o r a g e p e r diem t o support t h i s r a t e o f g a i n . I n o t h e r terms 41.7 pounds o f green f o r a g e should he r e q u i r e d to produce 1 pound o f body weight g a i n . too great disagreement  T h i s v a l u e i s not i n  w i t h t h e value o f 43.4 pounds as c a l -  c u l a t e d u s i n g the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l s n u t r i e n t f  ances. I n f a c t the two v a l u e s can p r o b a b l y be brought  allowinto  c l o s e r agreement when one r e a l i z e s that the d a i l y r a t e o f g a i n o f 2.2 pounds as estimated by the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l i s a mean r a t e o f g a i n o v e r t h e weight range 600 to 1000 poundsa  The a c t u a l rate of g a i n at 800 pounds p r o b a b l y i s i n the neighborhood o f 3»4 pounds p e r day*  Support f o r t h i s con-  t e n t i o n can be found i n M i l l ' s work i n which the Mean I n s t a n taneous percentage growth r a t e f o r y e a r l i n g s t e e r s was to be 0*3 p e r c e n t * The p r e v i o u s c a l c u l a t i o n s can b e s t be summarized i n t a b u l a r form* a .summary.  T a b l e V I I p r e s e n t s such  found  TABLE V I I : Body Weight  "SUMMARY OP NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND ENERGETIC METHODS OP CALCULATING FORAGE REQUIREMENTS •** N. R. C.  CALCULATIONS , . REQUIRED PER POUND OF GAIN  T.D.N,  GREEN FORAGE ,  DRY MATTER -  600  5,22  34.1  7.84  700  6,14  40,1  800  6,64  900 1000  ENERGETIC  CALCULATIONS  REQUIRED PER POUND OF GAIN NET ENERGY CALORIES  GREEN FORAGE  DRY MATTER .  5593  41,4  s  9.51  9.22  5583  41.3  9,49  43,4  9,98  5665  41,9  9.62  7,04  46,1  10.60  5824  43,1  9.91  7,73  50,5  11,61  6064  44,9  10.32  Sylvestre  and W i l l i a m s  (1952) have proposed a method  by means o f which the d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t p r o d u c t i o n o f f o r age  can be computed from the gain made by animals consuming  such f o r a g e *  I n essence they have s e l e c t e d Morrison's  feeding  standard f o r growth and f a t t e n i n g and deducted from i t the estimated maintenance requirement as proposed by Armsby.  The  d i f f e r e n c e between these two e s t i m a t e s they take to be that p o r t i o n o f the d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t f o r weight g a i n by t h e animal*  i n t a k e which was u t i l i z e d  T h e i r c a l c u l a t i o n s may be  summarized i n p a r t as shown by Table TABLE V I I I : L i v e Weight .Range Pounds )L  VIII•  "ESTIMATED T.D.N* REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE,.AND._PR0DUCTION,TIN.BEEF CATTIE" Maintenance Total Digestible N u t r i e n t s /100 l b s . L i v e Weight  "  Gain Total Digestible Nutrients per 1 Pound G a i n  600  .775  2*11  650  .754  2.32  700  •732  2«52  750  .710  2.72  800  .697  2.92  850  .684  3.12  900  .671  3.32  950  .658  3,53  •646  3.73  1000  To  i l l u s t r a t e the use o f S y l v e s t r e  and W i l l i a m ' s  -16method of c a l c u l a t i o n , assume that a g i v e n animal weighing pounds gains 50 pounds i n a p e r i o d of 20 days. VIII  Then from Table  the animal w i l l r e q u i r e f o r maintenance 113.8  total digestible nutrients. w i l l r e q u i r e 151.0  800  pounds o f  F o r body weight g a i n the same animal  pounds o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s , y i e l d -  i n g a t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t intake o f 264 pounds over a p e r i o d o f 20 days  o r 13.2  pounds of t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s per  Using g r a z i n g animals weighing 800 pounds and of 2.5  day.  g a i n i n g at the r a t e  pounds per day, each pound o f weight g a i n must r e p r e s e n t  the consumption o f 5.24 e v i d e n t t h a t the product  pounds o f d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s . o f weight gained and  5.24  It i s  represents  the t o t a l forage d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s produced by the area o f l a n d on which the animals are To  grazing.  summarize, u s i n g N a t i o n a l Research recommendations,  the p r o d u c t i o n o f one  pound of g a i n by an 800 pounds animal  represents the consumption o f 6.64 n u t r i e n t s , and  pounds of t o t a l  i f the animal made t h i s g a i n on pasture  then the pasture must have y i e l d e d the 6.64 d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s i f no carried out.  digestible  pounds o f  forage total  supplementary f e e d i n g had been  In the case of the e n e r g e t i c c a l c u l a t i o n s , one  pound o f weight g a i n represents the consumption o f 5665 G a l o r i e s i n the net sense.  I f i t i s assumed t h a t the r a t i o o f d i g e s t -  i b l e energy to net energy i s as 3.2  i s to 2.2,  then the d i g e s t -  i b l e energy consumption must be 8240 C a l o r i e s o f d i g e s t i b l e energy.  T h i s would then r e p r e s e n t 5.09  pounds of t o t a l d i g e s t -  i b l e n u t r i e n t s i f i t be assumed that 1616 energy i s o b t a i n e d from one  Calories of digestible  pound of t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s .  -17*  These values, 6.64 5.24  (National Research Council),  (Sylvestre and Williams), 5.09  (Energetic) Indicate that  there w i l l he some v a r i a t i o n i n d i g e s t i h l e nutrient y i e l d dependent upon the method of c a l c u l a t i o n used.  It does seem  safe to conclude however that a not unreasonable estimate  of  productive capacity of pastures can be obtained using any  one  of the three methods. Various other methods of reporting productivity of pastures have been developed.  Clipping methods, whereby the  y i e l d s are expressed as pounds of dry matter per acre have been reviewed by Algren  (1947).  using grazing animals.  He emphasizes the advantages of  The four generally accepted methods  involve the reporting of production i n the form of Animal Unit Months, Standard Cow Days, Standard Steer Days or pounds of production per acre.  Burlingame (1949) reports l i v e weight  gains of lambs and steers i n the form of Animal Unit Months. An Animal Unit Month being the t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e nutrients required f o r a mature cow to produce 200 pounds of b u t t e r f a t per year.  This i s taken to be equal to 400 pounds of t o t a l digest-  ible n u t r i e n t s .  Bateman and Packer (1945), Rich,et al.,(1950. )  report pasture production i n terms of Standard Cow Days which i s taken to he represented by 16 pounds of t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e nutrients per day*  Other workers too numerous to mention use  as a reference point the Standard Steer Day which i s taken to be represented by 12 pounds of t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e nutrients per day.  Bartels (1944A) reports young sheep production In terms  -18o f pounds o f lamb p a r acre which i s a r r i v e d a t by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l g a i n by t h e number of a c r e s g r a z e d . The use of t h e terms, Animal U n i t Month (A.U.M.) , Standard Cow Day (S.C.D.) o r g a i n p e r acre i n r e p o r t i n g gains i n animals have a number o f Inherent e r r o r s .  The r e f e r e n c e  p o i n t s f o r the terms, Animal U n i t Month i s e s t i m a t e d to be 400 p o u n d s * o f - t q t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s f o r a mature cow g i v i n g 200 pounds o f b u t t e r f a t p e r year*  Standard Cow Day i s taken  to be e q u a l t o 16 pounds o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s p e r day, and a Standard S t e e r Day (S.S.D.) i s taken to be e q u a l to 12 pounds o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s p e r day*  These r e f e r e n c e  p o i n t s are the product o f t h e number o f p a s t u r e days and the average number o f stock c a r r i e d on the p a s t u r e * The main disadvantages o f the "Animal Day" method o f r e p o r t i n g p a s t u r e p r o d u c t i o n s are l i s t e d by Howstad  (1953):  " ( a ) No allowance can be made f o r g a i n o r l o s s in  weight.  (b) High p r o d u c i n g animals are n o t d i s t i n g u i s h e d from those h a v i n g lower n u t r i e n t requirements because o f lower p r o d u c t i o n . (c) No allowance i s made f o r supplementary f e e d i n g .  tt  A f u r t h e r disadvantage i s that t h e n u t r i e n t requirements o f animals vary a c c o r d i n g to the nature o f the g a i n they a r e making.  S t e e r s weighing 500 pounds r e q u i r e  less  t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s p e r pound o f g a i n than 950 pound s t e e r s because  they a r e making t h e i r g a i n i n the form o f  muscle o r p r o t e i n r a t h e r t h a n fat«  The extreme case o f t h i s  i s i l l u s t r a t e d by W i l l i a m s and Wood (1952) i n the f o l l o w i n g Chart.  § pound water / 635 Cal« MAINTENANCE / \ pound p r o t e i n ories v /*" Pound * 1 pound —* MUSCLE cone. ^ g a i n as GROWTH ^ PAT 1/10 pound water 3800 Calories 9/10 pound f a t 6 pound cone* 1  PEED  They p o i n t out that such a b s o l u t e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f g a i n to muscle and f a t never o c c u r s . the two extremes. T a b l e V  The a c t u a l case w i l l f a l l between  i l l u s t r a t e s the change i n composition  of gain i n a c t u a l c a s e s . The r e l a t i v e amount o f .total d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s r e q u i r e d t o produce one pound o f g a i n as compared to one pound of f o u r percent m i l k w i l l a l s o a f f e c t the accuracy o f r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d as Animal U n i t Months o r Standard Cow Days* Forbes et a l (1928, 1930, 1932, 1938) f o u n d t h e r e l a t i v e value ?  of feed energy f o r maintenance, m i l k p r o d u c t i o n and body i n crease to be 1.000,  0.985, and 0.761 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  c u l a t i o n would i n d i c a t e that 0.341 pounds o f t o t a l  This  cal-  digestible  n u t r i e n t s which w i l l produce one pound o f f o u r p e r c e n t m i l k w i t h an energy value o f 336 C a l o r i e s would produce only 200 C a l o r i e s  -20when used to Increase body weight.  I t would r e q u i r e 10.36  times as much t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s to produce  a pound o f  g a i n i n body weight as would be r e q u i r e d to produce  one pound  of f o u r percent m i l k . T h e r e f o r e , t h e weight  g a i n o f animals as w e l l as the  p r o d u c t i o n must be a c c u r a t e l y measured t o o b t a i n a t r u e product i o n f i g u r e f o r the p a s t u r e . Report  (1952) and Nowstad  The reader Is r e f e r r e d to  (1953) f o r a more d e t a i l e d study o f  these methods o f r e p o r t i n g pasture p r o d u c t i o n . The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n would i n d i c a t e that t h e r e are s e v e r a l methods at p r e s e n t i n use t o assess p a s t u r e p r o d uction.  F o r purposes  o f comparison  i z e d b r i e f l y I n T a b l e IX.  these methods a r e summar-  «21T A B L E M E T H O D  National Research Council  Energetics  IX: "SUMMARY OP METHODS USED TO MEASURE . , PASTURE. PRODUCTION" W O R K E R S  Committee o Animal Nutrition n  Brody Haeker Armsby and others  U n i t s P e r Pound o f G a i n  Total Digestible N u t r i e n t s Necessary p e r Pound o f G a i n  Energy E x p r e s s e d as C a l o r i e s Required to Produce a Pound of Gain  Maintenance plus Gain  Sylvestre Williams —*  Total Digestible N u t r i e n t s Required to m a i n t a i n a g i v e n weight and produce a given gain  Standard Cow '  Days ~  Bateman, Packer, R i c h and others  Standard Steer Day  Numerous  Animal Unit Month  Burlingame and Others  Workers  16 Pounds o f T o t a l Digestible Nutrients taken as requirements of one Standard Cow 12 pounds o f t o t a l digestible n u t r i e n t s taken as requirements o f one standard S t e e r , 400 pounds o f t o t a l digestible nutrients taken as requirements f o r ene mature cow t o produce 200 pounds o f butterfat per year  -22-  III.  EXPERIMENTAL  A. EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS. The animals used to graze the Irrigated pastures •were loaned for the purpose. The pasture production was such that eighteen yearling Holstein steers had to be used during the last thirty days of grazing. A l t other animals used were of predominantly Hereford breeding. Since the steers had to be returned to the owner at a body weight of 1000 pounds, a continuous removal and replacement of animals took place throughout the grazing season.  In general, the type of animals available for this  test left muoh to be desired. The animals were extremely variable with respect to weight and age.  The f i r s t thirty-eight animals  obtained ranged in age from eighteen months to thirty months. The range in weight was from 600 to 900 pounds with an average weight of 843 pounds. Prom previous calculations such animals would require 5.09 to 6.64 pounds of total digestible nutrients per day to produce one pound of body weight gain. A number of the f i r s t steers obtained were extremely nervous in temperament and required a longer period of acclimatization before they settled down i n the confined space of the  irrigated pastures.  B.  ANIMAL PROCEDURE. The animals were weighed on a Fairbanks MorBe  platform scale equipped with a f u l l y enclosed box.  See Photo-  graph, Appendix VI. The increment of weight on such a scale  -23i s two pounds.  The r e p e a t a b i l i t y o f weight on a s c a l e  type Is shown i n Table X.  of this  To o b t a i n t h i s r e p e a t a b i l i t y , ten  s t e e r s were weighed t e n i n d i v i d u a l times i n s u c c e s s i o n . The s c a l e was b a l a n c e d f o l l o w i n g each weighing,  T A B L E w  X  R e p e a t a b i I i t y " o f S c a l e Used In Weighing Experimental_Animals 0  Weights Obtained  Average o f Ten Weights Obtained  Variation from ' Average  1)  8266  2)  82 68  8.2  3)  8266  6.2  4)  8262  5j  8260  6J  8256  7)  8256  8)  8258  1.8  9^  8254  5.8  10)  8252  7.8  4  8259,8  Range In Weights  •  6,2  4  2.2  +  0,2 3,8  -  3.8  The e r r o r i n weighing based on a group weighing and average weight o f fee t e n weighings would be 0.19 percent * but  Such an e r r o r i s n e g l i g i b l e on a group  basis  I f such an e r r o r was committed f o r the i n d i v i d u a l weighing  i t would amount t o 1,9 percent o f the animal's would be an a p p r e c i a b l e e r r o r ,  weight and t h i s  A similar repeatability  test  -24u s i n g one animal was performed  and t h e range i n weights  was  found t o be s i x pounds on an animal a v e r a g i n g 852«8 pounds over ten weighings*  T h i s r e p r e s e n t s an e r r o r of 0.70  of the animal's body weight* n e g l i g i b l e and may  percent  Such an e r r o r would appear t o be  w e l l be accounted f o r by the d e f e c a t i o n o f  the animal while b e i n g ..'too-v^u on and o f f the  scale*  The e x p e r i m e n t a l animals were weighed i n groups of  ten animals to o b t a i n a group weight.  The s c a l e was  balanced  a f t e r weighing each group to c o r r e c t f o r manure accumulation on the p l a t f o r m d u r i n g weighing* i n i t i a l weight  One  weight was  taken as the  a f t e r the animals had been i n d r y l o t f e e d i n g f o r  twenty-four hours on f u l l f e e d *  Subsequent weighings were ob-  t a i n e d when fee animals went i n t o and came out of each p a s t u r e * In a c t u a l p r a c t i c e t h i s a l l o w e d the c o l l e c t i o n of a group  weight  every f o u r t o f i v e days, as g r a z i n g time on each p a s t u r e amounted to f o u r or f i v e days.  (See Appendix I I I ) *  Care was  taken  to weigh the animals at the same time o f day so that the degree of f i l l would be approximately the same*  I n a d d i t i o n , an  attempt  was made t o leave the same amount o f a f t e r m a t h i n each p a s t u r e as t h i s f a c t o r has an e f f e c t on degree o f f i l l * of  a l l o w i n g f o r degree  The  Importance  of f i l l has been f u l l y d i s b u s s e d by  RItzman and Benedict (1938) and T a y l o r (1953)*  C. PASTURE FORAGE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE. " '  ::  Dry "matter"content; of the p a s t u r e f o r a g e as w e l l  as t o t a l d r y matter p r o d u c t i o n was  determined from c l i p  plots*  -25 Eight mower strips, 32 Inches by 40 feet were cut immediately before the animals went on pasture. These strips were located at random over the whole pasture area. The forage cut from each mower strip was weighed Individually. A two pound sample from each strip was oven dried at 200 degrees Fahrenheit for fortyeight hours.  The average dry matter content of the eight samples  was then taken to represent the dry matter content of the forage for that pasture. Protein content of the pasture was determined on a representative sample from every eight pasture d i p s . The procedure used was that of the Association of O f f i c i a l Agricultural Chemists (1950). The establishment and management of the pastures is discussed f u l l y elsewhere in the text, see Appendix II and I I I . Animal disease factors and abnormal physiological conditions encountered are discussed in Appendix V. 17.  RESULTSi A.  ANIMALS; Table XI presents a summary of a l l weight data  obtained on the experimental steers.  see over.  T A B L E  X I : "SUMMARY OP ANIMAL WEIGHT DATA  1  Experimental Period  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Number o f Pasture Days  8  6  28  3  5  33  6  Number o f Animal Days  304  240  1512  165  190  1320  276  38  40  54  53  38  40  A c t u a l Number Animals  Starting  9  10  11  MEAN  2  20  30  148  315  92  520  1200  6134  46  45  46  51  40  44.6  8  7  1  A c t u a l Number Animals F i n i s h ing T o t a l I n i t i a l Weight  38  40  54  53  38  40  46  45  46  51  40  44.6  32040  34784  46452  49286  33784  36310  43408  42866  44096  47422  36536  40,634.9  T o t a l F i n a l Weight  33524  35192  50240  49408  34435  38248  43776  43192  44548  48772  38560  41,808.6  Average I n i t i a l Weight  843.1  869.6  860.2  929.9  889.0  907.7  943.6  952.5  958.6  929.8  913.4  908.8  Average F i n a l Weight  882.4  894.8  922.9  932.2  906.1  956.2  951.6  959.8  968.4  956.3  964.0  Average Weight D u r i n g P e r i o d  862.7  882.2  891.5  931.0  897.5  931.6  947.6  956.1  963.5  943.0  938.7  T o t a l G a i n p e r Lot  1484  408  3788  122  651  1938  368  326  452  1350  2924  12911  Average D a i l y G a i n p e r Head  5.2  4.2  2.5  .73  3.4  1.4  1.3  1.1  4.9  2.6  1.6  2.6  935.8  -27B. PLANT DATA Table XTT presents a summary of the data collected and calculated on the pasture forage. Using the information embodied i n Tables VII, VIII, IX and XII, i t i s possible to arrive at an estimated production figure for the pastures.  This information i s presented i n summary form i n Table XIII.  The pasture period was 146 days. Calculated as per the method of Sylvestre and Williams, (Table V H I ) , the total production of t o t a l digestible nutrients on the pasture was 77,221.7 pounds. Represented on a per acre basis, this amounts to 4290.0 pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre.  Cal-  culated as per the standard of the National Research Council (Table VII), the t o t a l production  was  89,612.6 pounds of total digestible nutrients  or 4978.4 pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre.  Similar cal-  culations by energetic methods (Table IX) give a net Caloric figure of 145,784,874 Calories.  Assuming 1616 Calories per pound of t o t a l  digestible nutrients, this represents a t o t a l production of 90,213.4 pounds of total digestible nutrients or 5011.8 pounds of total digesti b l e nutrients per acre. The protein percentages expressed i n Taftle XII would indicate the high crude protein content of pasture forage. The percent crude protein i s based on nitrogen x 6.25 since this i s the generally accepted figure for calculating the protein content of feedstuffs. The average crude protein percentage for the season was 25.71 percent  -28vith one pasture going as high as 34 percent during the season* There did not appear to be a relationship between the application of nitrogen fertilizer and the protein content of the forage*  One hundred pounds  of ammonium nitrate per acre was applied to the following pastures on the dates listed* Pasture Number 5:  July 3  1952  Pasture Number 4:  July 3  1952  Pasture Number 3:  July 10  1952  Pasture Number 2:  July 16  1952  If high crude protein content of the forage had been encountered on clips immediately following the application of ammonium nitrate, i t would have indicated a large proportion of nitrate nitrogen to be present*  The clipping dates as recorded in Table XII show that  this did not occur*  TABLE X I I :  "SUMMARY OP PLANT DATA ON PASTURE FORAGE" PASTURE  Clipping Date  Average Pds. Green Fo rage Per acre  PerAvercent age Dry Dry Matter MatPer Acre t e r  Per-c cent Protein 6.25XN  Clipping Date  Average Pds. Green Forage per acre  Average Dry Matter per acre  Percent Dry Mattel  PerClipcent ping ProDate tein 6.25XN  AverAverage Pds. age Green Dry Forage Matter Per acre Per acre  Percent Dry Matter  Percent Protein 6.25XN  7921.8  1915.7  24.1  19.61  May 26  7942.3  1674.3  21.9  28.64  May 20  5035.6  1162.2  24.0  14.37  June 24 3111.4  954.4  26.4  27.11  June19  3746.0  980.8  26.2  18.74  Jun 16  1965.1  556.9  28.6  24.96  J u l y 14 3745.9  768.8  20.3  31.53  Jul 9  5567.8  982.5  17.6  34.05  Jul 5  1924.2  373.3  19.4  32.90  Aug,18 11667.9  2558.8  22.3  20.05  Augll  12015.9  2366.2  19.8  29.94  Aug 1  5997.7  1336.8  22.2  30.01  Sep.10  1330.5  364.1  27.6  24.30  Sep 6  3213.7  795.8  24.7  24.20 Sep 3  2702.0  567.6  31.0  31.84  Sep.29  1658.0  350.1  21.1  28.45  Sep 24  2845.3  569.1  20.0  24.20  Sep20  1248.6  334 .0  27.2  19.50  Total  18,873.2  4331.0  May 31  Total  29,434 .3 6911.6  Total  35,331.0  7368.7  Ave rage  25.17  Average  26.62  Average  25.59  Range  11.92  Range  15.31  Range  18.53 T  --continued next p a g e — -  TABLE X I I . continued. P A S T U R E Clipping Date  Ave rage Pounds Green Forage per acre  ^SUMMARY OF PLANT DATA ON PASTURE FORAGE * 1  #4  Average Dry Matter per acre  P A S T U RE Peroent Dry Matter  Peroent Protein 6.25XN  #5 Percent Dry Matter  Percent Protein 6.25XN  2436.2  22.5  23.85  Clipping Date  Average Pounds Green Forage per acre  Average Dry Matter per acre  10,899.0  May 14  5997.7  1346.0  22.5  32.05  June 11  6468.5  1499.9  23.4  20.70  June 5  July 2  3316.1  716.3  21.6  34.47  June 28  1801. 3  344.1  19.2  20.49  J u l y 26  7778.6  1775.0  22.8  20.59  J u l y 19  5997.7  1191.4  19.7  22.23  Aug 29  3131.9  752.3  23.9  26.08  Aug. 25  8167.5  1983.6  24.7  30.37  Sept.18  3152.4  354.3  22 .3  33.73  Sept .15  1637.6  503.7  32.5  19.50  29,945.2  6443.8  28,494.1  6486.0  Total  Total  Avo rage  27.93  Average  23.28  Range  13.88  Range  10.87  AVERAGE YIELD OF DRY MATTER FOR THE FIVE PASTURES:  6308.3  TOTAL YIELD FOR 18 ACRES:  113,549.4 POUNDS OF DRY MATTER  OVER ALL PERCENT PROTEIN:  25.71 PERCENT.  POUNDS DRY MATTER PER ACRE  -31 TABLE X I I I : . Experimantal Period 1  "SUMMARY OP PASTURE PRODUCTION CALCULATED . BY VARIOUS METHODS"  Sylvestre and Williams Pounds 6393.2  National Research Council Pounds 10,239.6  Energetics Calorie e 16,887,920  2  2770.5  2,835.6  3  21,496.9  26,516.0  4  1437.1  884.5  1,467,660  5  3282.3  4589.5  7,593,915  6  14,893.1  14,050.5  22,227,240  7  2,982.6  2,712.1  4,393,280  8  3,103.7  2,428.7  4,009,800  9  2,175.1  3,376.4  5,591,240  10  7,937.5  9,922.5  16,457,500  11  14,464.7  14,775.2  24,510,640  Total  80,936.7  93,327.6  151,788,315  Less T.D.N. Fed (1) 3,715.0  3,715.0  6,003,440  77, 221.7  89,612.6  145,784,875  (1)  4,708,320 43,  940,800  7430 pounds o f good q u a l i t y oat hay was  f e d d u r i n g the l a s t period.As p e r Morrison's recommendations, t h i s was taken t o have a d i g e s t i b i l i t y o f 50 p e r c e n t , (2)  The 3715 pounds o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s  d e r i v e d from hay was taken to have a C a l o r i c content of 1616 C a l o r i e s p e r pound.  -32V.  D I S C U S S I O H The p r o d u c t i o n d a t a p r e s e n t e d i n Table X I I I  to bear out c o n c l u s i o n s expressed i n S e c t i o n I I I .  The  tends  Nation-  a l Research C o u n c i l method and the e n e r g e t i c method o f e s t i m a t i n g pasture p r o d u c t i o n would appear to be  comparable,  there b e i n g o n l y a 600.8 pound d i f f e r e n c e i n the two amounts o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s *  This represents a  d i f f e r e n c e o f .66 p e r c e n t between the two methods. o f S y l v e s t r e and W i l l i a m s appears o f the o t h e r two  calculated  The  method  t o he app B e d ably below t h a t  and here the d i f f e r e n c e i s approximately  t h i r t e e n p e r c e n t between t h e i r method and the o t h e r two* The  o n l y f i g u r e a g a i n s t which these  calculations  can be checked  i s that o f the forage p r o d u c t i o n data presented  i n Table X I I .  From these data the c a l c u l a t e d t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n  o f dry matter was embodied i n Report  113,  549,4 pounds.  U s i n g the recommendations  (1952) i n which an average  digestibility  o f 72 percent f o r p a s t u r e forage i s suggested, the d r y  matter  p r o d u c t i o n would r e p r e s e n t 81,755 pounds of t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e nutrients *  I n t h i s case the method of S y l v e s t r e and W i l l i a m s  i s approximately 5 percent below t h a t o f the dry m a t t e r  cal-  c u l a t i o n while the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l and e n e r g e t i c methods are approximately matter c a l c u l a t i o n s *  10 pereent above that o f the dry  T h i s i s not an uncommon occurrence when  comparing c l i p p l o t d a t a with g r a z i n g animal data*  The  reasons  f o r t h i s have been i n v e s t i g a t e d by numerous workers and have been summarized i n Report  (1952) as f o l l o w s : "'When the herbage  -33is  u p s t a n d i n g more herbage  is  p r o c u r e d by animals when grazing,, (2)  When the herbage  i s out by c l i p p i n g techniques than  i s procumbent, such as w i t h White  Dutch c l o v e r , the animals can graze more forage than can be o b t a i n e d by c l i p methods* (3)  Animals s o i l and trample a c e r t a i n amount o f forage  which i s not e a t e n . (4) for  When mower s t r i p methods are used no account can be made  forage growth d u r i n g the days the animals are on the  pasture." The f o r e g o i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n the methods o f e s t i m a t i n g pasture p r o d u c t i o n p o i n t up the need f o r accurate d a t a * For  example d u r i n g p e r i o d One, the animals produced an average  d a i l y g a i n o f 5*2 pounds p e r day*  Such a g a i n would I n d i c a t e  that an e r r o r due t o weighing i n c r e a s e i n degree o f f i l l has been committed*  When we c o n s i d e r that f i l l  i n an animal can  account f o r up t o 31 percent o f I t s l i v e body weight*  (Ritzman  and B e n e d i c t 1938))the importance o f such a f a c t o r i s apparent* That such a d a i l y g a i n i s improbable  can be seen by the f a c t  that an animal weighing 862 pounds would have to consume 35*88 pounds o f t o t a l d i g e s t i b l e n u t r i e n t s p e r day t o produce 5*2 pounds o f body weight g a i n .  T h i s r e p r e s e n t s an Intake o f 235  pounds o f green forage o r an intake o f 54*05 pounds o f d r y matter p e r day. a l l o w such forage  The c a p a c i t y o f an 862 pound animal would not consumption.  On the animal side o f e s t i m a t i n g forage p r o d u c t i o n  -34i t would appear that accuracy could be increased by more frequent individual weighings*  An individual weight taken at weekly intervals  would allow the regression of weight against time and hence permit a much more accurate estimate of the t o t a l digestible nutrients or Caloric intake necessary to produce a given gain* /  In conjunction with  the frequent individual weighings of the animals, digestibility t r i a l s and complete chemical analysis of the forage would aid i n increasing the accuracy of estimating pasture production* The use of individual weights would also allow for accurate graphic presentation of weight gain data*  Such graphic  presentation would allow for an assessment of the type of gain being l a i d on by each animal.  An example of this type of graphic present-  ation i s shown i n Graph I (which i s taken from Williams and Wood  (1952)). see over.  looo. 9ooi 800  7oot  60O1  1  5oo  to  BULL  NO-1  1  T 270 360  CO  o  400  1  400  W  750 835"  3oo  g  1 2oo 162  180  198  216  234  252 270 288 306 AGE QF ANIMAL IN DAYS  324  342  360  378  396  414  432  450  468  -35An i n t e r e s t i n g aspect a r i s i n g out of the chemi c a l a n a l y s i s of the forage samples f o r p r o t e i n i s that there i s an excess of a v a i l a b l e n i t r o g e n to the animals*  Therefore  there must be a h i g h e x c r e t i o n o f n i t r o g e n i n the feces and urine.  This i s one of the reasons why extreme clumping occurs  on i r r i g a t e d pastures around droppings.  This h i g h e x c r e t i o n  p o i n t s up the need f o r good management o f pastures so that the droppings w i l l be adequately spread t o reduce t h i s clumping. Very l i t t l e trouble i s experienced from urine spots since the I r r i g a t i o n water acts as a d i l u e n t . To I l l u s t r a t e the above case o f n i t r o g e n excret i o n , the f o l l o w i n g t h e o r e t i c a l case Is set up: an 800 pound steer consuming 100 pounds o f pasture forage per day which contains 20 percent dry matter and 25 percent p r o t e i n w i l l consum© f i v e pounds of crude p r o t e i n . Crampton (1939) l i s t s the d i g e s t i b i l i t y o f the crude p r o t e i n o f mixed d r i e d pasture grass aa 75 percent, therefore t h i s s t e e r would consume 3.7 pounds o f d i g e s t i b l e crude p r o t e i n (D.C.P.) per day.  Brody (1945) i n d i c a t e s t h a t an 800  pound s t e e r requires .4 pounds of d i g e s t i b l e crude p r o t e i n (D.C.P.) f o r maintenance.  I f t h i s s t e e r made a g a i n o f 3 pounds  per day and the assumption i s made that t h i s gain I s t o t a l l y p r o t e i n the s t e e r would need .8 pounds o f p r o t e i n , assuming p r o t e i n gain as being 75 percent water. The f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s : D i g e s t i b l e crude p r o t e i n consumed:  3.7 pounds  -36Digestible Crude Protein required for Maintenance  •4 pounds  Digestible Crude protein required for gain  •8 pounds  Excess digestible crude protein  2*5 pounds  Therefore 2*5 pounds of Digestible crude protein are returned to the pasture per day i n the degraded form with the feces and urine* Converted back to nitrogen* assuming protein i s nitrogen x 6*25, this would equal *4 pounds of nitrogen excreted per day by the steer* Table XII l i s t s the average dry matter yield per acre as  6308*3 pounds*  The average protein percent for the  25*71 as shown i n Table XII*  season was  Therefore 1621*8 pounds of crude  protein was produced per acre*  Converted to nitrogen this would  equal 259*4 pounds of nitrogen*  The above facts point up the need  for heavy f e r t i l i z a t i o n of irrigated pastures because a depletion of nitrogen reserves would soon occur under such heavy production* In fact the growth response obtained by mid-summer and f a l l applications of ammonium nitrate bear this out*  Since there i s an excess  of protein produced i n pasture forage, i t would be logical to assume that there may be a deficiency of energy.  Foley (1933)* Harwood (1933),  and Perkens (1935) have shown that i n supplementary feeding i t i s energy that i s required* protein feeds were  They came to the conclusion that low  best suited for supplementary feeding*  -37VI.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The various methods of estimating pasture production  by use of animals have been investigated and discussed. The following conclusions can be drawn: 1) To obtain an accurate estimate of pasture production, using animls as the necessary device, the type of gain being made by the animal must be considered. Evidence from other work indicates that frequent weighing on an individual animal basis w i l l assist materially i n increasing the accuracy of the production estimates. In conjunction with these frequent individual weighings, digestibility t r i a l s and complete chemical analysis of the pasture forage should be undertaken. 2) The degree of " f i l l " i n an animal can materially affect the weight recorded, therefore care should be taken to eliminate inaccuracies due to this cause as much as possible. (  This may be  done by weighing the animals at the same time of day at each weighing, 3) The Standard Steer Day,  Standard Cow Day, Animal Unit  month, and pounds of beef per acre are methods of assessing pasture forage but have a number of inherent errors and should be used with reservations. 4) The crude protein content of pasture forage i s high and would indicate that there may be a deficiency of energy i n pasture forage.  -385) The production of beef through the use of irrigated pastures is one means of intensifying beef production* 6) The production of total digestible nutrients from the experimental pastures under study was found to be from 4290*0 to 5011*8 pounds per acre in 148 pasture days depending upon the method used in calculating the production*  A P P E N D I C E S  The Appendices which follow are included with this Thesis because they form an essential background for the evolution of these f i r s t irrigated pastures*  Since the present  work must represent an exploration into, what for this area i s a new f i e l d of investigation, much of what i s included i n the following pages i s necessary to obtain a perspective of the entire f i e l d of Irrigated Pasture investigations*  It i s  regrettable that more detailed and recorded information i s not available i n the Agronomic and economic aspects of Irrigated pasture production*  «S9A P P E N D I X  I.  IRRIGATED PASTURE BACKGROUND I.  HISTORY: Irrigated  p a s t u r e s have been i n e x i s t e n c e f o r y e a r s  but the intense i n t e r e s t  shown i n these p a s t u r e s has been  brought about i n l a t t e r years through a need to forage p r o d u c t i o n * p l a n t i n g I n 1915 was  intensify  Morgan (1949) p o i n t s out t h a t a f i v e acre  i n the Wuribee D i s t r i c t  of V i c t o r i a ,  the b e g i n n i n g of a development which reached  one t h i r d m i l l i o n a c r e s by 1947*  The  1940  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s estimated that 2.7  Australia  approximately  Census o f  Irrigation  m i l l i o n acres of i r r i g a t e d  lands i n the seventeen western S t a t e s are used f o r forage uction for livestock*  prod-  Anderson (1952) estimates that  150,000 a c r e s o f l a n d are under I r r i g a t i o n i n B.C.  Further  estimates are made that an a d d i t i o n a l 500,000 a c r e s c o u l d be brought under i r r i g a t i o n .  (Farrow,  1949).  I t i s not to be presumed that a l l t h i s acreage w i l l be used f o r i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s but the acreage  i s or  i s on  the  i n c r e a s e and i t i s l i k e l y that some l a n d that Is at present i n tree f r u i t s , vegetable p r o d u c t i o n o r hay p r o d u c t i o n w i l l be v e r t e d to i n t e n s i f i e d i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s . tribute  con-  F a c t o r s which con-  to t h i s change over are the development o f new  l a n d s , the need f o r more f o r a g e , the low l a b o r c o s t o f i n t h i s manner and the n e c e s s i t y of changing  irrigated Irrigation  the type o f a g r i -  c u l t u r e p r a c t i c e d i n areas that are marginal f o r c e r t a i n o t h e r crops. Miller  (1951), r e p o r t i n g on the f i r s t  improved  .  i r r i g a t e d pasture  i n Oregon,mentioned that 5000 a c r e s o f new  see dings had taken p l a c e w i t h i n three y e a r s o f the e s t a b l i s h ment o f t h e f i r s t  improved p a s t u r e .  T h i s pasture produced 600  pounds g a i n p e r acre a t a cost o f a l i t t l e over seven cents p e r pound o f g a i n .  2.  SOILS: S o i l s used f o r I r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s vary g r e a t l y as to  p h y s i c a l and chemical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  Some o f t h e s o i l s used  are h i g h i n f e r t i l i t y but there i s a tendency to use poorer classes o f s o i l s .  These s o i l s may be r e l a t i v e l y  because o f the presence  non-arable  o f s a l t s , shallowness, presence o f  rocks o r steepness o f s l o p e s , o r o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s . Most o f the s o i l s used f o r I r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s are t y p i c a l of  arid conditions.  Thome (1948) c h a r a c t e r i z e s these  soils  as b e i n g low i n o r g a n i c matter and c o n t a i n i n g adequate o r exc e s s i v e q u a n t i t i e s o f c a l c i u m , sodium, magnesium, carbonates  and s u l p h a t e s .  potassium,  He a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t these  soils  when put under i r r i g a t i o n o f t e n c o n t a i n Inadequate amounts o f phosphorus  and n i t r o g e n f o r maximum p r o d u c t i o n .  gated p a s t u r e s these  Under  irri-  s o i l s r a p i d l y i n c r e a s e i n content o f  o r g a n i c matter and n i t r o g e n . Magiatad and C h r i s t i a n s e n (1944) c l a i m that a l a r g e p a r t of  the 20 m i l l i o n acres under i r r i g a t i o n i n the mine t e e n western  s t a t e s c o n t a i n enough s o l u b l e s a l t s to depress  crop,  yields.  4 s m a l l e r area c o n t a i n s enough a l k a l i t h a t crop p r o d u c t i o n i s  -41** g r e a t l y c u r t a i l e d and  unprofitable*  R i c h a r d s (1947) has saline-alkali,  classified  s o i l s into saline,  and n o n - s a l i n e - a l k a l i s o i l s .  The  saline soils  are d e f i n e d as s o i l " f o r which the c o n d u c t i v i t y o f the a t i o n e x t r a c t i s greater than four millimhos 25oC) and 15.  The  the exchangeable pH o f the  per  cm.  s o i l paste may  exceed 8.5" •  These s o i l s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by white c r u s t s on the  l e a c h i n g and  i n the  drainage.  The  soil.  They can be  i s g r e a t e r than 4 millimhos  p e r cm.  The  reclaimed  exceed  by  defined  saturation extract  (at 25°C) and  sodium percentage i s g r e a t e r than 15.  s a t u r a t e d s o i l paste may  surface  s a l i n e - a l k a l i n e s o i l s are  as " s o i l s f o r which the c o n d u c t i v i t y o f the  able  (at  (SP) sodium percentage i s l e s s than  saturated  o r by s t r e a k s o f s a l t  satur-  The  the exchange-  pH of  the  8.5%  n o n - s a l i n e - a l k a l i s o i l s are those " f o r which  the exchangeable sodium percentage i s g r e a t e r t h a n f i f t e e n  and  the c o n d u c t i v i t y o f the s a t u r a t i o n e x t r a c t i s l e s s than 4 millimhos  p e r cm.  (at 2 5 ° C ) .  g e n e r a l l y range between 8*5 s o i l are more d i f f i c u l t water  The and  pH  10.  values The  f o r these  l a t t e r two  soils  types of  to r e c l a i m because o f the low r a t e o f  penetration. R i c h a r d s (1947) and Hamilton e t a l . ( 1 9 4 5 )  i n d i c a t e t h a t the r o o t s o f s a l t  t o l e r a n t forage p l a n t s  permeability  speed up r a t e at which s a l t s  may  be  o f s a l t y s o i l s and  increase  leached from them. Morgan (1947) c o n s i d e r s  land l e v e l l i n g e s s e n t i a l  -42-  to r e c l a m a t i o n o f s a l t y l a n d *  L e v e l l i n g makes p o s s i b l e the  uniform a p p l i c a t i o n o f water to l e a c h s a l t s downward* (1947) has r e p o r t e d on the s a l t species.  Richards  t o l e r a n c e o f a number o f  T a b l e X I V ( i n Appendix I ) summarizes h i s f i n d i n g s . T A B L E  XIV  "SALT TOLERANCE OP FORAGE CROPS ACCORDING TO RICHARDS (1947).°  T o l e r a n c e decreases from top to bottom*  S c i e n t i f i c names added by K e l l e r and P e t e r s o n  (1950)  GOOD SALT TOLERANCE Alkali Salt  sacaton  grass  (Sporobolus  airoides)  ( D i s t i c h l i s spp.)  N u t t a l a l k a l i grass  (Pucclnellla nuttalliana)  Bermuda grass  (Cynodon d a c t y l o n )  Rhodes g r a s s  (Chloris  Rescue grass  (Bromus cat h a r t i c u s )  Canada w i l d rye  (Elymus  Beardless wild rye  (Elymus t r i t l c o i d e s )  Western wheatgrass  (Agropyron  gayana)  canadensis)  smithii)  MODERATE SALT TOLERANCE White sweet c l o v e r  (Melllotus alba)  Yellow  (Melilotus  sweet  clover  officinalis)  Perennial ryegrass  (Lolium perenne)  Mountain brome  (Bromus c a r i n a t u s )  B a r l e y (hay)  (Hordeurn v u l g a r e )  Birdsfoot  (Lotus c o r n i c u l a t u s )  trefoil  -43-  TABLE XIV  (continued)  Moderate S a l t Strawberry  Tolerance  clover  (continued) (Trifolium  fraguferum)  D a l l a s grass  (Paspalum d i l a t a t u m )  Sudan grass  (Sorghum v u l g a r e sudanense)  Hubam c l o v e r  ( M e l i l o t u s a l b a annua)  Alfalfa  (Medlcago s a t i v a )  T a l l fescue  (Festuca e l a t i o r  Rye  (Secale c e r e a l e )  (nay)  Wheat  (hay)  Oats  (hay)  Orchard  grass  arundinacea)  ( T r i t l c u m sativum aestivum) (Avena s a t i v a ) ( D a c t y l i s glomerata)  Blue grama  (Bouteloua  Meadow f e s c u e  (Festuca e l a t i o r )  Reed's canary  (Phalaris  Big  (Lotus u l i g l n o s u s )  trefoil  gracilis)  arundinacea)  Smooth brome  (Bromus l n e r m i s )  Tall  (Arrhenatherum  (meadow) oat  elateus)  Cicer milk vetch  (Astragalus  cicer)  Sour c l o v e r  (Melilotus indlca)  S i c k l e m i l k vetch  (Astragalus f a l c a t u s )  POOR SALT TOLERANCE White  (dutch) c l o v e r  (Trifolium ripens)  Meadow f o x t a i l  (Alopecurus p r a t e n s i s )  Alsike  ( T r i f o l i u m hybridum)  clover  Red c l o v e r Ladino c l o v e r Burne t  ( T r i f o l i u m pratense ( T r i f o l i u m r i p e n s latum) (Sanguisorba minor)  -443,  PASTURE MIKTURES: K e l l e r and P e t e r s o n (1950) p o i n t out how d i f f i c u l t  it  i s to conduct  o f combinations*  s t u d i e s on pasture mixes because o f the number Only three grasses and three legumes give r i s e  to f o r t y - n i n e d i f f e r e n t mixtures w i t h one o r more legumes*  c o n t a i n i n g one o r more grasses  E i g h t grasses and e i g h t legumes p r o -  vide s i x t y - f o u r mixtures o f a s i n g l e g r a s s w i t h a s i n g l e legume, 784 mixtures o f two grasses w i t h three legumes and 4,900 mixt u r e s o f f o u r grasses w i t h f o u r legumes.  There are a p o s s i b l e  65,025 d i f f e r e n t m i x t u r e s , u s i n g one t o e i g h t grasses w i t h one to e i g h t legumes, not i n c l u d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n seeding r a t e s . They a l s o p o i n t out that most pasture mixture cluded s e l e c t e d s p e c i e s put i n combinations  s t u d i e s have i n -  c o n s i d e r e d o f most  value by the experimenter* K e l l e r and P e t e r s o n (1894) and F r e n c h  (1950) mention t h a t Sanborn  (1902) recommended that Kentucky blue grass  be not i n c l u d e d i n pasture mixtures as i t i s r e l a t i v e l y unproductive as a p a s t u r e g r a s s * o f Kentucky b l u e grass 8,  Welch (1914) recommended a mixture  Orbhard grass 5;^ Smooth brome 5,  Meadow fescue 4, Timothy 4, and White c l o v e r 2 pounds p e r a c r e . L a t e r Welch (1917) p o i n t e d out that Orchard grass and Brome grass were the more important g r a s s e s , while Kentucky b l u e g r a s s , Meadow fescue and Timothy were o f l e s s e r  importance.  Current recommendations appear to exclude Kentucky b l u e g r a s s from pasture mixtures*  Common white  c l o v e r has been  r e p l a c e d lar<gej.y by Ladino c l o v e r and T a l l fescue i s i n c l u d e d i n nearly a l l mixtures*  -45Hegnauer (1942) recommend*,  the f o l l o w i n g mixtures  f o r tho v a r i o u s s o i l c o n d i t i o n s encountered i n western Washington*  F o r bottom l a n d s , moist and f e r t i l e : I t a l i a n rye grass  4 pounds  E n g l i s h rye grass  4 pounds  Orchard grass  4 pounds  Kentucky b l u e g r a s s  3 pounds  Common white c l o v e r  2 pounds  Red c l o v e r  2 pounds  Alslke clover  4 pounds 23 pounds  F o r upland s o i l s o f c l a y loam o r sand o r sandy loam types:  E n g l i s h rye grass  3 pounds  I t a l i a n rye grass  3 pounds  T a l l meadow oat grass  4 pounds  Orchard grass  6 pounds  Kentucky b l u e g r a s s  2 pounds  Common white c l o v e r  1 pound  Red c l o v e r  2 pounds  Alaike clover  3 pounds 24 pounds  He suggest*, that Chewing fescue c o u l d r e p l a c e Kentucky b l u e g r a s s on bottom l a n d * Law e t al»(1945) recommends : the f o l l o w i n g mixt u r e s f o r i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s i n C e n t r a l Washington: (1) w e l l d r a i n e d * deep s o i l s , t h a t can be i r r i g a t e d  -46u n i f ormly. (a) mixtures c o n t a i n i n g A l f a l f a Alfalfa  5 pounds p e r acre  Smooth brome  6 pounds p e r acre  Orchard g r a s s  4 pounds p e r acre  T a l l oat g r a s s  4 pounds p e r acre  (b) Mixtures  containing clover:  Ladino c l o v e r  2 pounds p e r acre  Smooth brome  6 pounds p e r acre  O r c h a r d grass  4 pounds p e r acre  T a l l oat g r a s s  4 pounds p e r acre  (2) s u b - i r r i g a t e d o r p o o r l y d r a i n e d s o i l s : Ladino c l o v e r  2 pounds p e r acre  Meadow f o x t a i l  7 pounds p e r acre  A l t a fescue  4 pounds p e r acre  (3) Dry areas where water i s l i k e l y to be l i m i t e d i n amount: Alfalfa  6 pounds p e r acre  C r e s t e d wheat grass  4 pounds p e r acre  Smooth brome  6 pounds p e r acre  Rogers (1949) i n d i c a t e s the b e s t mixture f o r i r r i g a t e d pastures i n C e n t r a l Oregon i s Ladino c l o v e r 2, Smooth brome 5, O r c h a r d grass 3, and A l t a fescue 2 pounds* L a t e r i n f o r m a t i o n from Rogers I n d i c a t e s t h a t Smooth brome grass has been dropped from the mix as i t d i d not do w e l l under  irrigation* Miller  (1951) i n d i c a t e s that a f t e r p l a n t i n g com-  -47p l e x mixtures and t e s t i n g them, t h e recommended mix f o r C e n t r a l Oregon now i s : A l t a fescue  6 pounds p e r acre  Orchard  4 pounds p e r acre  grass  Intermediate wheat o r Smooth brome  6 pounds p e r acre  Ladino  1-2  clover  pounds p e r acre  Many problems surround the s e l e c t i o n o f t h e best pasture m i x t u r e .  F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s needed to determine  the pasture mix b e s t s u i t e d f o r d i f f e r e n t atic conditions.  s o i l types and c l i m -  As an example, T a l l o r A l t a fescue i s con-  s i d e r e d u n p a l a t a b l e i n some areas of the U.S. and Cunningham (1948) r e p o r t s i t i s poisonous  4.  PREPARATION OF LAND FOR  to c a t t l e i n New  Zealand.  IRRIGATION  The l i t e r a t u r e w i l l not be reviewed on t h i s comp l e x problem.  The s u b j e c t has been adequately covered by Ham-  i l t o n et a l (1945); gan  Jones and Brown (1949);  (1944) and Raynor (1941).  B a r t e l s and Mor-  A l t h o u g h numerous types o f  i r r i g a t i o n systems are used they c a n be c l a s s i f i e d as S p r i n k l e or Flood.  I n F l o o d i r r i g a t i o n , l e v e l l i n g o f some type i s  usually necessary. 5.  SEED BED PREPARATION Hamilton e t a l (1945) l i s t  the requirements o f a  good seed bed as f i n e t e x t u r e d , f i r m , m o i s t , f e r t i l e and f r e e o f weeds.  These c o n d i t i o n s can be o b t a i n e d through v a r i o u s  methods o f t i l l a g e and management.  -48Jones and Brown (1949) i n C a l i f o r n i a , recommend an I r r i g a t i o n j u s t p r i o r to seeding to s e t t l e f i l l s , f i r m s o i l and provide s u b - s o i l m o i s t u r e .  When s p r i n k l e r  the  irrigation  i s used, p o s t seeding I r r i g a t i o n i n s m a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s  appears  desirable • Time o f seeding depends l a r g e l y upon c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s of  the area i n which the pasture i s s i t u a t e d *  I n areas where  m i l d w i n t e r s p r e v a i l , Jones and Brown (1949) recommend f a l l e a r l y winter seedings. et  P o s t and T r e t s v i n (1939) and  a l (1945) recommend f a l l  and  Hamilton  seeding i f the l a n d i s not weedy,  the g r a i n has not s h a t t e r e d , and adequate i r r i g a t i o n water can be a p p l i e d *  -49A P P E N D I X  II.  MANAGEMENT OF PASTURES: 1* G r a z i n g Managemont: New  stands s h o u l d he managed to promote r a p i d  development o f the young s e e d l i n g s .  Prolonged  when the p a s t u r e s are wet Bhould be a v o i d e d .  close grazing B a r t e l s (1947)  p o i n t s out that heavy g r a z i n g o f young p a s t u r e s i s sometimes necessary  to prevent p e r e n n i a l rye grass from smothering out  slower growing white c l o v e r . K e l l e r and P e t e r s o n  (1950) l i s t  three o b j e c t i v e s  o f g r a z i n g management: (a) to m a i n t a i n the d e s i r e d balance species (b) to o b t a i n continuous  between  high production  (c) to o b t a i n u t i l i z a t i o n o f the f o r a g e when i t i s most n u t r i t i o u s . They p o i n t out t h a t most pasture s p e c i e s now  recommended  provide h i g h p r o d u c t i o n but must have p e r i o d s o f re growth. T h i s i s p r o v i d e d by r o t a t i o n g r a z i n g . R o t a t i o n g r a z i n g c o n s i s t s o f the use o f two o r p r e f e r a b l y three o r more p a s t u r e s i n a r o t a t i o n . each pasture i s i r r i g a t e d and allowed to r e c o v e r .  After grazing, The  animals  r e t u r n to the f i r s t pasture three t o s i x o r e i g h t times i n one season. Important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n a g r a z i n g r o t a t i o n are:  (1) Length between g r a z i n g p e r i o d s .  T h i s must be a d j u s t e d  so that the animals graze the p a s t u r e s when the f o r a g e i s a t i t s most n u t r i t i o u s s t a g e .  I f i t i s t o o young the s t a n d w i l l be  -50weakened.  I f i t i s over mature i t w i l l be r e l a t i v e l y u n p a l -  atable* (2) Number o f days g r a z i n g i n each p a s t u r e .  This  should  be kept t o a minimum so t h a t the animals do not have the chance to graze  selectively,  (3) Number o f s u b - d i v i s i o n s i n the f i e l d .  These must  by n e c e s s i t y be kept to a minimum to a l l o w f o r ease o f i r r i g a t i o n and to lower t h e c o s t o f f e n c i n g , Hodgson e t a l (1934) r e p o r t 8,82 percent r o t a t i o n g r a z i n g over continuous g r a z i n g ,  Semple e t a l (1934)  i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n s t u d i e s at B e l t s v i l l e , Maryland, grazing increased production K e l l e r and Peterson  10 percent  g a i n from  rotational  over continuous g r a z i n g ,  (1950) mention that Starke  (1947) o f South  A f r i c a l i s t s f i v e reasons f o r r o t a t i o n g r a z i n g o f sheep: 1, l e s s s e l e c t i v e  grazing  2, l e s s f o u l i n g o f forage 3, more r e g u l a r i r r i g a t i o n 4, l e s s i n t e r n a l p a r a s i t e  infection  5, b e t t e r q u a l i t y and more p a l a t a b l e  forage.  ~51« A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X  III.  ESTABLISHMENT OP EXPERIMENTAL PASTURES 1. P r e p a r a t i o n o f Land: The e i g h t e e n acres used i n t h i s pasture were n a t i v e sod t h a t was  extremely  rough w i t h "Nigger Heads."  The  was ploughed  and a l l o w e d to r o t down over the w i n t e r .  land In the  e a r l y S p r i n g the l a n d was d i s c e d twice w i t h a heavy o f f s e t and then harrowed w i t h a c h a i n harrow. bed the l a n d was  To produce a f i r m  disc seed  packed w i t h a C u l t i p a c k e r .  Seed bed p r e p a r a t i o n i s one of the most aspects i n e s t a b l i s h i n g an I r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e .  important  B u r l i s o n et a l  (1936) say, "'More stands o f p a s t u r e p l a n t s are l o s t because o f poor seedbeds than from any o t h e r s i n g l e cause. need a moist, f i n e , compact and f e r t i l e  These p l a n t s  seedbed.  In f a c t a  w e l l prepared seedbed i s p r o b a b l y more e s s e n t i a l f o r them t h a n f o r any o t h e r c r o p . "  Most o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s have a r r i v e d  at the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a w e l l worked f i r m seedbed pays o f f i n d i v i d e n d s o f g r e a t e r g e r m i n a t i o n , s t r o n g e r stands and g r e a t e r production. 2.  Seeding  Pastures The e i g h t e e n a c r e s o f pasture was d i v i d e d i n t o  equal s i z e d f i e l d s and seeded to f i v e d i f f e r e n t mixtures follows: Pasture Number One  Pounds per acre  Brome grass Orchard grass  6 4  A l t a fescue  2 (cont inued)  five as  »52 « Alfalfa  4 pounds p e r acre  Ladlno c l o v e r  1 pound p e r acre  Pasture Number Two  Pounds p e r acre  Brome grass  6  Orchard  4  grass  A l t a fescue  6  Ladlno  2  clover  Pasture number Three  Pounds pe r acre  Brome grass  6  Orchard  grass  4  Meadow fescue  2  Alfalfa  4  White  1  clover  Pasture Number F o u r  Pounds p e r £cre  Brome grass  6  Orchard  grass  4  Meadow fescue  6  White c l o v e r  2  Pasture Number F i v e  Pounds per ficre  Brome g r a s s  5  Orchard  grass  4  Timothy grass  3  Alfalfa  4  Red c l o v e r  2  -53Seeding was accomplished u s i n g a g r a i n d r i l l w i t h g r a s s seed attachment*  The grass seeds were seeded through the  g r a i n box and the Legume seeds through t h e g r a s s seed box. The d r i l l d i s c s o r shoes were set i n t o the ground q u i t e deeply b u t the  tubes were removed from the shoes and a l l o w e d t o d a n g l e . I n  t h i s way the seed i s broadcast on t o p o f the ground and t h e n covered s l i g h t l y by the d r a g c h a i n s . to ing to 3.  To f u r t h e r cover the seed  the d e s i r a b l e depth, t h e seeded l a n d was packed a f t e r seedw i t h a Culfeipacker.  T h i s method o f s e e d i n g c o v e r e d the seed  a depth o f 1/4 to 1/2 i n c h e s . F e r t i l i z a t i o n of Pastures Immediately  phosphate  b e f o r e seeding,300 pounds o f ammonium  11.48.0 p e r acre was spread on the l a n d .  T h i s was  put on p r i o r to t h e l a s t harrowing and then harrowed  i n t o t he  s u r f a c e o f the l a n d . An a l t e r n a t e f e r t i l i z e r and one recommended s t r o n g ly  i s super phosphate  0-20-0 a t 600 pounds p e r a c r e .  The reason  11.48.0 was used i n t h i s case was that the s o i l s showed a dep l e t i o n o f n i t r o g e n and the n i t r o g e n i n the 11.48.0 was thought to  be advantageous  f o r g e r m i n a t i o n and growth o f the young seed-  lings. F e r t i l i z a t i o n a f t e r seeding has taken the form o f a p p l i c a t i o n s o f ammonium n i t r a t e 33-0-0 a t the r a t e o f 100 pounds p e r acre when thought n e c e s s a r y .  In practice this i s  u s u a l l y found t o be i n the l a s t week o f June o r the f i r s t of  week  J u l y when growth tends to slow down, and a g a i n d u r i n g the  -54-  f i r s t week o f September. The  i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f 600 pounds o f Super  Phosphate, o r 250  pounds o f ajnmonium phosphate i s recommended  so t h a t s u f f i c i e n t phosphate i s added to supply a v a i l a b l e source o f that m a t e r i a l * the dry b e l t of the I n t e r i o r o f B.C. phosphorus;.  a readily  Most o f tiie s o i l s found i n are d e f i c i e n t i n a v a i l a b l e  T h i s i s brought about by the f a c t that these  are a l k a l i n e i n r e a c t i o n * S t a t i o n i s between 7*8 "white a l k a l i "  - 8.0.  s o i l s and  of soluble s a l t s *  The  soils  pH o f the s o i l s on the Range These s o i l s can be  termed  contain r e l a t i v e l y large q u a n t i t i e s  These s o l u b l e s a l t s form a complex w i t h  phosphates through f i x a t i o n o f the phosphate as i n s o l u b l e s a l t s * thus a l a r g e q u a n t i t y o f phosphate must he t h i s complex before source o f phosphate*  a p p l i e d to  the p l a n t s can have a r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e I t i s considered  that 600 pounds o f  super phosphate per acre every three y e a r s w i l l supply phosphate to s a t i s f y the complex and  to supply  phate t h a t i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the 4.  Grazing  eighteen  a source o f phos-  plants*  acres o f pasture was  f i v e e q u a l s i z e d areas o f 3*6  acres each*  divided into  Through t h i s  division  p o s s i b l e to p r a c t i c e a r o t a t i o n a l system o f g r a z i n g *  pastures forage  sufficient  Rotation The  i t was  satisfy  were stocked  at  such a r a t e tflosit  The  the animals grazed the  on each pasture i n f o u r to f i v e days, thus g i v i n g a 20-25  day p e r i o d between g r a z i n g on each i n d i v i d u a l p a s t u r e * p e r i o d allowed s u f f i c i e n t regrowth o f the forage  This  so t h a t i t c o u l d  -55be grazed when a t a h e i g h t o f 6-8 i n c h e s . to  a l e v e l o f 2-3 i n c h e s .  The forage was grazed  An a f t e r m a t h o f 2-3 inches i s thought  a d v i s a b l e so t h a t the forage w i l l  make a q u i c k r e c o v e r y .  This  much a f t e r m a t h g i v e s enough l e a f a g e to a l l o w p h o t o s y n t h e s i s to go on at a more o r l e s s constant r a t e .  I n o t h e r words, p l a n t  r e c o v e r y i s not slowed by a l a c k o f t o p growth.  This rate o f  g r a z i n g promotes a s t r o n g vigorous s t a n d . 5.  Management o f P a s t u r e s : Proper management o f the pasture sward i s o f extreme  importance.  I n many cases p a s t u r e s are not c o n s i d e r e d a crop  and t h e r e f o r e are not managed p r o p e r l y . B u r l l s o n (1936) i n d i c a t e s that unproductive  pastures  u s u a l l y r e s u l t from poor s o i l c o n d i t i o n s and poor management w i t h management b e i n g the cause o f most f a i l u r e s .  He  lists  o v e r - g r a z i n g as a prime reason f o r low p r o d u c t i o n and suggests that a l t e r n a t e g r a z i n g be used as i t produces more f e e d than continuous g r a z i n g . In managing the e x p e r i m e n t a l p a s t u r e s on the Range S t a t i o n , the f o l l o w i n g p r a c t i c e s are f o l l o w e d : (a) Animals  are turned i n t o graze when the forage i s  6-8 inches h i g h and they are removed when the forage has been grazed to a h e i g h t o f 2 to 3 i n c h e s . (b) Clumping o f the grasses i s prevented by frequent mowings and harrowings  t o spread the d r o p p i n g s .  I t would  appear that t h i s o p e r a t i o n should take p l a c e f o u r t o f i v e d u r i n g the g r a z i n g season to m a i n t a i n an even award.  times  -56The maintenance of an even sward reduces selective grazing and thus assists i n a greater utilization of the forage* c) The pastures were seeded on June 5th, 1951* on August 6th, 1951*  Pasturing was started  A very light grazing was permitted at this time to  assist i n control of weeds and to firm the top soil*  To further control  weeds, the pastures were clipped twice before grazing commenced*  That  weeds were effectively controlled by these measures i s established by the complete lack of weeds on the pasture during the grazing season of 1952* 6*  Irrigation of Pastures; The amount of water necessary and the frequency of irrigation  depends on the characteristics of the soil*  The most important aspect of  irrigation i s to keep the roots of the pasture plants supplied with readily available water at a l l times*  Without this, rapid growth and high prod-  uction cannot be maintained* Sprinkler irrigation i s the most versatile method of irrigation and eliminates the problem of irrigating each pasture immediately after being grazed*  With flood irrigation the problem arises of keeping the  water off pastures that are being grazed*  It should be pointed out that  sprinkler irrigation i s generally more expensive than flood irrigation and should not be used where flood irrigation i s available and efficient* Water requirements of the pasture under study have been 2*5 acre feet per season so far but this w i l l vary depending upon climatic and s o i l conditions* The irrigation aspects require further study.  A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X  .  IV  "ANIMAL DISEASES AND ABNORMAL PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS" le Bloat: B l o a t can be a severe problem on i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e • AJBimals  should be c l o s e l y watched f o r the f i r s t day a f t e r  b e i n g turned i n t o an i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e *  Prompt treatment i s  necessary once an animal shows s i g n s o f b l o a t * s e v e r a l recommended  treatments  There are  t o a l l e v i a t e b l o a t , none o f  them are completely s a t i s f a c t o r y but a l l o f them w i l l the b l o a t i n animals i f used e a r l y enough*  reduce  Drenching o f the  animals w i t h a p i n t o f m i n e r a l o i l , o r a cup o f c o a l o i l i n a cup o f m i l k appears of  to r e l i e v e b l o a t i n many c a s e s .  Injection  "Rumene", a commercial p r e p a r a t i o n , i n t o the rumen o f a  b l o a t e d animal u s i n g a 3 i n c h , 16 gauge needle and 100 c . c . of the m a t e r i a l has r e l i e v e d s e v e r a l cases o f b l o a t t h a t t h e w r i t e r has encountered.  The use o f a T r o c a r and Canula i s a  p o s i t i v e means o f r e l i e v i n g b l o a t , but care must be taken t h a t the instrument i s i n s e r t e d i n the r i g h t a r e a and t hat the instrument i s c l e a n . The f o l l o w i n g p r a c t i s e s w i l l a s s i s t i n p r e v e n t i n g bloat.  (a) P a s t u r e forage s h o u l d not c o n t a i n more than  50 percent by weight o f legumes* (b) Animals  should be f e d d r y hay b e f o r e b e i n g  turned out on p a s t u r e * (c) Animals times*  should be l e f t on the pasture a t a l l  The removal o f the animals a t n i g h t has a tendency to  -<5Si n c r e a s e b l o a t because they are too hungry when turned out the f o l l o w i n g morning* 2,  Foot Rot: Foot Rot can become a problem on i r r i g a t e d pastures  since under the c o n d i t i o n s p r e v a i l i n g i t can spread q u i c k l y from i n f e c t e d animals to n o n - i n f e c t e d animals*  D u r i n g the  pasture season o f 1952, twelve animals showed t y p i c a l s i g n s of Foot Bot*  411 these animals were s u c c e s s f u l l y  u s i n g a 100 c * c . subcutaneous  treated  i n j e c t i o n o f a S u l f a drug prep-  a r a t i o n s u p p l i e d by a l o c a l v e t e r i n a r i a n ,  A l t h o u g h a l l these  animals recovered w i t h i n three days of commencement of t r e a t ment* t h e r e was an a p p r e c i a b l e l o s s o f f l e s h i n g i n a l l the animals. 5,  Parasites: No t r o u b l e has as y e t been experienced w i t h P a r a s i t e s  on i r r i g a t e d p a s t u r e s but i t i s understandable that the cond i t i o n s that p r e v a i l , - c l o s e confinement lend themselves  and continuous u s e ,  to c r e a t i n g t h i s problem and pasture managers  should watch f o r s i g n s o f p a r a s i t i c  infection.  ,  ANIMALS ON IR2IG-ATED PASTURE  -60  ANIMALS ON IRRIGATED PASTURE. Notice B r i g h t o f forage i n foreground  4 pa»ture immediately removal of animal*  after  -62-  S c a l e used t o weigh the animals  B I B L I O G R A P H Y 1*  A h l g r e n , H.L., 1947. J . Am, S o c , Agronomy 39, 240 - 259.  2.  Anderson, W.J., 1952. T r a n s a c t i o n s o f the 5 t h . B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l Resources Conference. Feb. 27, 28, 29. 143 - 53.  3.  B a r t e l s , L.C. and""A. Morgan, 1944., J» Dept. Agr., . V i c t o r i a , A u s t r a l i a , 42,, 291 » 295..  4.  B a r t e l s , L.C., 1944A.. J . Dept. A g r . . A u s t r a l i a , 42,, 391 - 397.  Victoria,  5.  B a r t e l a , L.C., 1947. J . Dept. Agr., . A u s t r a l i a , 45. 201 - 210,  Victoria,  6.  Bateman, G.<^., and J . E . P a r k e r , 1945. . Farm Home S c i . , (Utah) 6, No, 2, 10 - 11,  7.  Brody, Samuel. (1945) B i o e n e r g e t i c s and Growth. R e i n h o l d Pub,..Corp, . N.Y. p.476.  8.  Burlingame/'B.B. , 13 - 14. .  9.  B u r l i s o n , W.L., H.P. Rusk and J . J . Peeper. 1936 Pasture Improvement and Management. I l l i n o i s , A g r . E x p t . S t a t e Circ'., 465, pp. 50.  10.  Crampton, E.W. (1939) The N u t r i t i v e Value o f Pasture Herbage, S c i e n t i f i c A g r . , 19: 6.  11.  Cunningham, I . J . , 77 519. .  12.  Farrow, R.C., 1949. T r a n s a c t i o n s o f the 2nd. B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l Rasources Conference, p . 42 ~ 48.  13.  F o l e y , R.C. (1933) The P r o p e r Supplementary Return f o r M i l k i n g Cows on F e r t i l i z e d P a s t u r e , J . D a i r y S c i . , 16: 407.  14.  F o r b e s , E.B., W.W. Braman, M. K r i s s , 1928. J , A g r i . Res, 37, 253, 40, 37 (1930); J . Nut, 5, 183, (1932) 15, 565,(1938)  15.  F r e n c h , H.T. 1902.' Idaho A g r . E x p t , S t a . , B u l l . 33, 87 - 107,  1949. C a l i f o r n i a A g r , 3.  1948. New Zealand J . A g r . .  16.  Haeker, T.L., 1920. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n Beef Production, Minnesota Agr. E x p t . S t a . B u l l . 193.  17.  Hamilton, J.G., G.F. Brown, H.E. Tower, and W. C o l l i n s J r . , 1945. U.S. Dept. Agr. Farmers B u l l . 1973, p.p. 30.  18.  Hegnauer, L. 1942. B e t t e r Pastures - More M i l k . , State C o l l e g e of Wash., E x t . C i r . 42. pp.3,  19.  Hodgson, R.E., M.S. Grander, J.C. K n o t t , and" E.V. E l l i n g t o n , 1934. Wash, Agr. E x p t . S t a . B u l l . 294, 1 - 36.  20.  Horwood, H.E., and G.W. Putman, High versus Low P r o t e i n g a i n w i t h Mich, (^uart...Bull. 16s 20,  Pasture.  21.  K e l l e r W. and M.L. P e t e r s o n , 1950, I r r i g a t e d Pastures, Advances in'Agronomy, 2: 351 - 381.  22.  Law, A.G., H.P. S i n g l e t o n , and I.M. Ingham, I r r i g a t e d Pastures f o r C e n t r a l Washington, S t a t e C o l l e g e o f Wash., E x t . B u l l , 319.  23.  Magistad, 0 .C• and' J.E. " C h r i s t i a n s e n , 1944, U.S. Dept. Agr, C i r c . 707, pp.  1-32,  24.  M c G i l l i v r a y , W., 1949, T r a n s a c t i o n s of the 2nd, B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l Resources Conference, p . 61 - 84,  25.  M i l l e r , A . E . , 1951. The place o f I r r i g a t e d Pasture and Range and L i v e s t o c k Management., P r o c , 3 r d . Ann. Meeting, Nor-West Sec. Amer. Soc, Range Manmt. Baker, Ore., Nov. 1.  26.  M i l l s , J.A., S t u d i e s i n Beef C a t t l e N u t r i t i o n . B.S.A. Degree E s s a y . U.B.C., Van. B.C.  27.  Morgan, A*, 1947*" J , Dept. Agr., Australia 45, 111115.  28.  Morgan, A« 1949., J . Dept. Agr. Victoria, A u s t r a l i a , 47., .97- 105, 199-207, 241-247,  29.  N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l , (1945) Recommended N u t r i e n t Allowances f o r Beef C a t t l e , Wash, D.C, No, 4.  Victoria,  30.  Nowstad, F.S., S.B. W i l l i a m s , L„S. Donovan, S.N. Donaldson, R.R, C a i r n s , 1953, Review o f L i t e r a t u r e on Methods and Techniques Employed i n Pasture Research. C e n t r a l Exp. Farm Mimeo,,  31.  Perkens, A.E., Prop, of P r o t e i n needed i n g r a i n mixture f e d w i t h p a s t u r e . Ohio A g r . E x p t . S t a . B u l l . 548: 64.  32.  P o s t , A.H., and J . 6 . T r e t a o e n , 1939. Ext. Ser. B u l l . 174: 1-14.  33.  Raynor, G.B., Australia,  1941. 39:  314  j . Dept. A g r . -  Montana Agr. Victoria,  318.  34.  Report, 1943.  j . Dairy S c i .  26,  353  35.  Report, 1952.  Agron, J . , 44.  36.  R'ich, L.H., A.F. Bracken, W.R". Bennett, and G,T,.Baird, 1950.. Utah Agr.» Ext B u l l . 188, 1-24. R i c h a r d s , L.A» E d . 1947, D i a g n o s i s and Improvement of S a l i n e a n d , A l k a l i S o i l s . U.S. R e g i o n a l S a l i n i t y L a b o r a t o r y , Mimeo. pp. 1 - 157.  39 -  -  369.  50.  e  37.  38.  Ritzman, E.G. and F r a n c i s G, B e n e d i c t , 1938, N u t r i t i o n a l P h y s i o l o g y of the A d u l t Ruminant, garnegie I n s t . o f Wash,  39.  Rogers, A»> 1949. You Can Have Your Home on the Range. The Ore. Farmer, Aug. 4.  40.  Semple, A.T., H.N. V i n a l l , C.R. Ehlow,'and T.E. Woodward, 1934. U.S. Dept. A g r . M i s c . 194 - 1-89  Pub.  41.  S y l v e s t r e , P.E., and S.B. W i l l i a m s , 1952. Methods of Measuring the R e l a t i v e P r o d u c t i v i t y o f Pasture Experiments w i t h L i v e s t o c k , Mimeo. C e n t r a l Exp. Farm, Ottawa, R e v i s e d .  42.  T a y l o r , J.C. 1953. The Behaviour o f B u l l o c k s under Two Systems o f Management. V o l . 1, No. 2. April.  43.  Thorne, D.W., Yearbook,  1948." U.S. Dept. Agr. pp. 141 - 143.  Tribe, BJ3., and J.G. Gordon. The C r i t i c a l Approach i n Grazing Behaviour Studies. B. J . of An. B. Vol. No. 1. Williams, CM., and A.J. Wood, 1952. Beef Bull Research Project., Dept. of Extension. U.B.C. Wordrop, J.C. (1953) Studies in the Behaviour of Dairy COKTS at Pasture. British J . of An. Behaviour. Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan.  -oOoOoOoOoOoOo-  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 23 0
China 7 0
Canada 6 0
Germany 5 0
Russia 3 0
France 2 0
Australia 1 0
Unknown 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 16 0
Unknown 8 0
Shenzhen 6 0
Ottawa 4 0
Saint Petersburg 3 0
Mountain View 3 0
Toronto 2 0
Washington 2 0
Mackay 1 0
Chicago 1 0
Seattle 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106325/manifest

Comment

Related Items