My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in AJ

  1. Vol. 100 No. 5, p. 1289-1295
     
    Received: Apr 11, 2007
    Published: Sept, 2008


    * Corresponding author(s): pbeck@uaex.edu
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0136

Tillage Systems for Production of Small-Grain Pasture

  1. M. T. Bowmana,
  2. P. A. Beck *b,
  3. K. B. Watkinsc,
  4. M. M. Andersc,
  5. M. S. Gadberrya,
  6. K. S. Lusbyd,
  7. S. A. Guntere and
  8. D. S. Hubbellf
  1. a Univ. of Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv., Little Rock, AR 72204
    b Univ. of Arkansas Southwest Res. and Ext. Cent., Hope, AR 71801
    c Univ. of Arkansas Rice Res. and Ext. Cent., Stuttgart, AR 72160
    d Univ. of Arkansas, Dep. of Animal Sci., Fayetteville, AR 72701
    e USDA Southern Plains Range Res. Stn., Woodward, OK 73801
    f Univ. of Arkansas Livestock and Forestry Branch Stn., Batesville, AR 72501

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare conventional tillage (CT), reduced tillage (RT), and no-till (NT) establishment of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and rye (Secale cereale L.) forage for stocker calves (Bos taurus). Animal performance was analyzed as a completely randomized design using the mixed procedure of SAS. In the 2002–2003 study, grazing-d ha−1 was greater (P < 0.01) for CT than RT, but NT did not differ (P = 0.08) from CT and RT, while gain ha−1 was not affected (P ≥ 0.42) by tillage treatment. During 2003–2004, grazing-d ha−1 was identical for all pastures, but gain ha−1 of NT was greater (P = 0.05) than CT and RT. Grazing-d ha−1 was greater (P = 0.05) for NT than CT and RT in 2004–2005 and gain ha−1 tended to be greater (P = 0.10) for NT than CT and RT. During 2005–2006, grazing-d ha−1 of CT was greater (P = 0.03) than RT, but gain ha−1 did not differ (P ≥ 0.81) among treatments. Establishment of small-grain pasture using NT and RT was as successful as CT when timely fall rains promoted small grain emergence and growth, while NT was superior to CT and RT when fall rains are delayed and soil water profile can be maintained by summer chemical fallow.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2008. American Society of AgronomyCopyright © 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy