Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Forage Harvest Timing Impact on Biomass Quality from Native Warm-Season Grass Mixtures
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | McIntosh, David W. Bates, Gary E. Keyser, Patrick D. Allen, Fred L. Harper, Craig A. Waller, John C. Birckhead, Jessie L. Backus, William M. |
| Copyright Year | 2016 |
| Abstract | 1 The development of renewable bioenergy resources has become increasingly important over the last three decades (Lynd et al., 1991; McLaughlin and Kszos, 2005; Sanderson et al., 1996). Switchgrass has often been a primary species investigated for bioenergy (Lynd et al., 1991; Sanderson et al., 1996), with a single late fall or early winter harvest resulting in the greatest sustainable biomass yield (Parrish and Fike, 2005). There is the potential to remove an early-season forage harvest in a biomass system, which may provide more options to producers from the same crop (Mosali et al., 2013; Sanderson and Adler, 2008). Research has indicated that an early-season forage harvest followed by a fall biomass harvest will result in a reduced biomass yield but will also result in an increase in total yield influenced by the forage harvest timing (McIntosh et al., 2015). Just as harvest timing influences yield, timing is a major factor influencing forage nutritive value (Ball et al., 2015). In hay production, nutritive value is an important consideration when using native warm-season grasses (NWSGs) in mixture and can be affected by plant maturity (Springer et al., 2001). As harvest is delayed from early to late seedhead production, nutritive value decreases dramatically, making it important to include plant maturity as one of the considerations for hay production instead of yield alone (Waramit et al., 2012). With proper management, switchgrass (SG) in monoculture can produce good nutritive values before maturity causes reduced values, usually after the vegetative stage at late boot when the head is emerging (Mitchell et al., 2001; Richner et al., 2014). Species mixtures that include SG provided good quality forage with increased yields, depending on the management system (Fike et al., 2006; Posler et al., 1993; Sanderson et al., 2006). Suggestions from Guretzky et al. (2011) included using SG in the vegetative stage of growth if used for a dual use, thereby allowing regrowth for biomass if harvested in Forage Harvest Timing Impact on Biomass Quality from Native Warm-Season Grass Mixtures |
| Starting Page | 1524 |
| Ending Page | 1530 |
| Page Count | 7 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.2134/agronj2015.0560 |
| Volume Number | 108 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://utbeef.com/Content%20Folders/Research%20Projects/Forage%20Research/Publications/aj-0-0-agronj2015.0560.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0560 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
