Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHeitschmidt, R. K.
dc.contributor.authorDowhower, S. L.
dc.contributor.authorWalker, J. W.
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-24T03:32:52Z
dc.date.available2020-09-24T03:32:52Z
dc.date.issued1987-05-01
dc.identifier.citationHeitschmidt, R. K., Dowhower, S. L., & Walker, J. W. (1987). 14-vs. 42-Paddock rotational grazing: Aboveground biomass dynamics, forage production, and harvest efficiency. Journal of Range Management, 40(3), 216-223.
dc.identifier.issn0022-409X
dc.identifier.doi10.2307/3899082
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/645267
dc.description.abstractResearch was initiated at the Texas Experimental Ranch in 1981 to quantify the effects of 2 stocking densities, equivalent to 14- and 42-paddock rotational grazing (RG) treatments, on aboveground biomass dynamics, aboveground net primary production (ANPP), and harvest efficiency of forage. Baseline data were collected in 1981 from 3 adjacent 30-ha paddocks in a 14-paddock, cell designed RG treatment. Near the beginning of the 1982 growing season the center paddock was subdivided into three, 10-ha paddocks to establish the RG-42 treatment. Stocking densities in the 14- and 42-paddock treatments were 4.2 and 12.5 AU/ha, respectively, from March 1982 to June 1984 and 3.0 and 9.1 AU/ha from June to November 1984. During 1981, estimated ANPP in the two RG-14 paddocks averaged 4,088 kg/ha as compared to 5,762 in the single RG-42 paddock. Following subdivision, ANPP in the RG-14 paddocks averaged 2,533 kg/ha as compared to 2,670 kg/ha in the RG-42 paddocks. Although ANPP varied significantly among the 4 years of the study it was not affected by density treatment. Likewise, harvest efficiency varied among years but was unaffected by density treatment. Average harvest efficiency over the 4 years was about 42%. Aboveground biomass dynamics were also generally unaffected by density treatments.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSociety for Range Management
dc.relation.urlhttps://rangelands.org/
dc.rightsCopyright © Society for Range Management.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectstocking rate
dc.subjectrotational grazing
dc.subjectcattle
dc.subjectTexas
dc.subjectbiomass
dc.subjectrangelands
dc.subjectgrazing
dc.subjectforage
dc.title14- Vs. 42-Paddock Rotational Grazing: Aboveground Biomass Dynamics, Forage Production, and Harvest Efficiency
dc.typetext
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Range Management
dc.description.noteThis material was digitized as part of a cooperative project between the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries.
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Journal of Range Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact lbry-journals@email.arizona.edu for further information.
dc.eprint.versionFinal published version
dc.description.admin-noteMigrated from OJS platform August 2020
dc.source.volume40
dc.source.issue3
dc.source.beginpage216-223
refterms.dateFOA2020-09-24T03:32:52Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
8115-7996-2-PB.pdf
Size:
1.017Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record