Open Access

Cool-season annual pastures with clovers to supplement wintering beef cows nursing calves

  • Stacey A Gunter1Email author,
  • Whitney A Whitworth2,
  • T Gregory Montgomery3 and
  • Paul A Beck4
Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology20123:25

DOI: 10.1186/2049-1891-3-25

Received: 27 March 2012

Accepted: 12 July 2012

Published: 24 July 2012

Abstract

In December of 3 years, 87 beef cows with nursing calves (594 ± 9.8 kg; calving season, September to November) at side were stratified by body condition score, body weight, cow age, and calf gender and divided randomly into 6 groups assigned to 1 of 6 cool-season annual pastures (0.45 ha/cow) that had been interseeded into a dormant common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon [L.] Pers.)/bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge) sod. Pastures contained 1 of the following 3 seeding mixtures (2 pastures/mixture): 1) wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam., WRG), 2) wheat and ryegrass plus red clover (Trifolium pretense L., WRR), or 3) wheat and ryegrass plus white (Trifolium repens L.) and crimson clovers (Trifolium incarnatum L., WRW). All groups had ad libitum access to grass hay (12% crude protein; 58% total digestible nutrients). The second week in December, cow estrous cycles were synchronized and artificially inseminated. In late December, a bull was placed with each group for 60-d. Data were analyzed with an analysis of variance using a mixed model containing treatment as the fixed effect and year as the random effect. Body weight and condition scores did not differ (P ≥ 0.27) among cows between February and June. Calf birth weights or average daily gain did not differ (P ≥ 0.17) among treatments; however, calves grazing pastures with clovers did tend (P = 0.06) to weigh more than calves grazing grass only. Weaning weight per cow exposed to a bull was greater (P = 0.02) for WRR and WRW than WRG. Cows grazing winter-annual pastures containing clovers tended to wean more calf body weight per cow exposed to a bull than cows grazing the grass only pastures.

Keywords

Annual ryegrass Beef cows Clovers Nitrogen Pasture

Background

Complementary forage systems based on warm-season perennial grasses and cool-season annual grasses have proven successful for cow/calf production in providing supplemental nutrients and decreasing hay requirements during the winter [15]; common advantages noted in these reports are extension of the grazing season and decreased days and quantities of hay feeding required. For example, Gunter et al. [5] reported that interseeding wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) into a common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon [L.] Pers.) pasture in southern Arkansas completely eliminated the need for grain-based supplementation and decreased the amount of hay required per cow.

A negative issue associated with grass only systems is the need for significant amounts of chemical fertilizer containing nitrogen, such as urea. Nitrogen fertilizer inputs represent a large part of the total feed cost in forage-based livestock systems. Further, nitrogen fertilizers are a major source of nitrous oxide emissions in the feed production for herbivores and more efficient use of fertilizers is an important tool to mitigate nitrous oxide losses [6]. In an Australian experiment, nitrogen loss from total denitrification were 116% less from unfertilized pasture of clover and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) mixtures compared with all perennial ryegrass pastures fertilized annually with 200 kg of nitrogen/ha from urea [7]. An experiment in northern Florida evaluated the use of wheat or rye (Secale cereale L.) with crimson (Trifolium incarnatum L.) and arrowleaf (Trifolium vesiculosum Savi) clovers as a supplement to Argentine bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge) hay and discovered that winter-annual pasture grazing could decrease hay intake by as much as 30% compared to bahiagrass hay, plus a grain-based supplement [3].

These forage systems have been successful but they increase the cattle enterprise’s need for nitrogen fertilizers. To address this issue, we evaluated the use of Trifolium species in cool-season pasture mixtures overseeded in to warm-season pastures to replace the need for fertilizer nitrogen, using the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by associated Rhizobium bacteria.

Materials and methods

All animal procedures in this experiment at the Southeast Research and Extension Center, Monticello, Arkansas (33° 35’ N, 91° 48’ W) were conducted in accordance with the recommendations of Consortium [8]. Each year 2001 to 2003, during the last week of September through the first of December, 87 cross-bred beef cows (body weight = 552 ± 9.4 kg), of mostly Beefmaster breeding, were allowed to calve in a 5-ha pasture and fed a bermudagrass/bahiagrass hay that averaged 12% crude protein and 58% total digestible nutrients (dry matter basis). Before penning in the 5-ha calving pasture, cows were treated for internal and external parasites with an ivermetin, vaccinated with a 7-way Clostridial antigen, and vaccinated against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhea, parainfluenza-3, bovine respiratory syncytial virus plus 5 strains of Leptospirosis. The morning after calving, calves were weighed, eartagged with an individual number, and male calves were castrated and implanted with zeranol (Ralgro; Schering-Phough Animal Health, Kenilworth, NJ, USA).

In the first week of December, cows were weighed and body condition scores (1 to 9 scale) were recorded [9]. Cows were sorted into 6 groups by body condition score and weight, cow age, and calf gender and assigned to 6 dormant common bermudagrass/bahiagrass pastures (2 pastures/treatment) that had been interseeded to 1 of 3 cool-season grass and(or) clover combinations: 1) pastures were wheat and annual ryegrass (WRG), 2) the same grasses as WRG plus red clover (Trifolium pretense L., WRR), or 3) the same grasses as in WRG plus crimson clover and white clover (Trifolium repens L., WRW). Groups had ad libitum access to the same cutting of bermudagrass/bahiagrass hay as described above.

Cool-season forages were interseeded into the six 4.0- to 6.9-ha common bermudagrass/bahiagrass pastures during the first week of October using a no-till drill (Model 750, John Deere, Inc.; Des Moines, IL, USA). Before planting, standing herbage mass was removed from the area by continuously stocking with cattle until the standing herbage mass was visually estimated to be < 5 cm. After planting, forage was allowed to grow until December so forage was not limiting through January and February, when plant production was less than cattle demand. Seeding rates for the grasses were 101 kg/ha of wheat (variety not specified), 22 kg/ha of ‘Marshall’ ryegrass; clover seeding rates were 8 kg/ha of ‘Cherokee’ red clover, 11 kg/ha of ‘Tibbee’ crimson clover, and (or) 5 kg/ha of ‘Oseola’ white clover. Clovers were inoculated with the appropriate Rhizobium bacteria and reseeded annually. In the fall of 2000, pastures had lime applied in amounts sufficient to raise the soil pH to approximately 7.0 [10]. Pastures were annually fertilized with phosphorus and potassium 2 weeks after planting based on soil test [10] plus 55 kg of nitrogen/ha. In late-January, mid-March, and late-June, pastures with no clovers were fertilized with an additional 55 kg of nitrogen/ha on each date using urea. Pastures with clovers received no additional nitrogen fertilizer beyond the initial application that occurred 2 weeks after planting.

During the first week of December, an estrous synchronization protocol was employed, which included vaginal insertion of an implant drug release (1.38 g of progesterone; Eazi-Breed™ CIDR, Pfizer Animal Health, Madison, NJ, USA) for 7 days, with half of the cows receiving an injection of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (100 μg, i.m.) and the remaining receiving estradiol cypionate (2.0 mg i.m.). Prostaglandin F2α (25 mg, i.m.) was injected at CIDR removal on day 7 and an injection of estradiol cypionate (0.5 mg, i.m.) was given 24 to 30 hours after CIDR removal. Cows were inseminated approximately 12 hours after observed standing estrus. These two different estrous synchronization protocols were reported in Whitworth et al. [11]. In this report, conception rates with artificial insemination did not differ (P ≥ 0.59) between gonadotropin-releasing hormone or estradiol cypionate and did not (P ≥ 0.64) interact with forage system, hence estrous synchronizations protocols were not further considered in the statistical models [11]. Approximately 2 weeks after cows were artificially inseminated, 1 of 6 Angus bulls that had passed a breeding soundness examination was assigned to each of the 6 groups of cows for 60 days.

Cows had ad libitum access to a self-fed commercial mineral mixture limited with salt that contained at least 15.0% Ca, 5.0% P, and 5.0% Mg plus 0.13% Cu, 0.30% Zn, and 0.0026% Se. Each year, cows and calves were weighed and body condition score of the cows was recorded again during mid-January, mid-February, late-March, early-May, and early-June. Cows were checked for pregnancy by rectal palpation at weighing in June. Hay intake was not measured in this experiment; research from this location [4] has shown that forage mixtures represented in this experiment were not associated with differences (P > 0.20) in hay dry matter intake.

The experiment was analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) as a completely randomized block (year) design with the effect of treatment (fixed effect) and the covariates of cow age and calving date and the random effect included pasture(year x treatment). Least-square means were separated using the following contrasts: 1) WRG versus WRR and WRW, and 2) WRR versus WRW [12].

Results and discussion

January through June, body weight did not differ (P ≥ 0.27) between cows grazing WRG and the cows grazing WRR and WRW (Table 1). Further, the body weight of cows grazing WRR in February, April, May, and June did not differ (P ≥ 0.35) from cows grazing WRW. In January, after the cows had been grazing the winter-annual pastures for approximately 3 to 4 weeks, however, the body weight of cows grazing WRR was greater (P = 0.05) than cows grazing WRW; also, this trend (P = 0.08) in cow body weight was noted during mid-March. This tendency for greater cow body weight in the early winter for cows grazing WRR probably resulted from red clover seeming to be more productive in the fall and winter, while crimson and white clover were more productive in the late winter and spring. Though species composition of the winter-annual pastures were not measured using a quantitative technology, visual evaluations of the pastures by the research technician during the 3-year experiment resulted in estimates that the pastures with red clover displayed a 20% to 25% canopy cover in mid-winter, while the white and crimson clover pastures only displayed a 10% to 15% canopy cover. Further, during April and May, the red clover diminished to approximately 10% to 15% canopy cover where the crimson and white clovers mixture increased to approximately 40% to 45% canopy cover. In June, white clover was the only remaining Trifolium genera occurring in significant amounts in the pastures at a rate of 10% to 15% canopy cover. Cow body condition score did not differ (P ≥ 0.34) within any month during the experiment and cows maintained body condition score sufficient to remain reproductively active during the entire year [9, 13].
Table 1

Body weight, body condition score, body condition score at calving, conception rates and post-partum interval by mature beef cows fed bermudagrass/bahiagrass hay supplemented by grazing on wheat/ryegrass pasture or wheat/ryegrass plus clovers over a 3-year period

 

Treatmentsa

 

P-valueb

Item

WRG

WRR

WRW

SE

WRG versus Clover

WRR versus WRW

Cow body weight, kg

      

 January

596

608

579

9.8

0.83

0.05

 February

596

602

589

11.1

0.95

0.40

 March

575

594

565

11.0

0.73

0.08

 April

573

577

560

12.7

0.77

0.35

 May

599

582

584

11.2

0.27

0.93

 June (weaning)

607

594

593

12.6

0.34

0.97

Body condition score c

      

 January

5.8

5.9

5.9

0.06

0.53

0.76

 February

5.9

5.8

5.9

0.09

0.72

0.34

 March

5.9

5.8

5.8

0.16

0.71

0.93

 April

5.9

5.7

5.9

0.15

0.71

0.55

 May

6.0

5.8

5.9

0.14

0.34

0.63

 June (weaning)

5.9

5.8

5.8

0.13

0.47

0.86

Conception rate,%

73

83

85

4.9

0.07

0.79

Post-partum interval, d

84

84

98

7.5

0.46

0.19

a WRG = winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass; WRR = winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass plus red clover, and WRW = winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass plus white and crimson clover.

b Contrasts: WRG vs Clover = WRG versus the average of WRR and WRW.

c Body condition score range 1 to 9; 1 = emaciated, 9 = obese [9].

Research at this same location documented the nutritive value of grasses collected from pastures planted to a wheat and ryegrass mixture, similar to the one we used in our experiment, over a 3-year period [14]. These researchers reported [14] that the crude protein concentrations and in vitro digestibility (dry matter basis) averaged 15.4 ± 1.3% and 59.0 ± 9.1% in January, 20.6 ± 1.9% and 78.3 ± 2.5% in March, and 17.9 ± 6.6% and 74.3 ±3.0% in May, respectively. The hay used in this experiment averaged 12% crude protein and 58% total digestible nutrients (dry matter basis) over the 3-year period and compared to nutritive values reported for winter-annual pasture [14, 15], it can be seen why this type of pasture complements warm-season grass hays and has been successfully used as a supplement for gestating beef cows [15, 16]. Comparison of the nutritive value among cool-season annual grasses and clovers are few, but Lush [15] reported that the crude protein concentrations in pastures planted to a white clover and annual ryegrass mixture was normally 27% greater than monocultures of ryegrass. Further, Evans et al. [17] reported that white clover growing with perennial ryegrass increased the crude protein concentration of the grass by 9.2% because of atmospheric nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium bacteria. This increase in crude protein concentration of grasses grown in association with legumes has been documented for other species combinations [1820]. Hence, pastures containing treatments WRR and WRW probably produced grasses that contained more crude protein than in pastures with the WRG treatment.

Conception rates for the cows on the WRG (73%) pastures tended to be less (P = 0.07) than the average of cows grazing WRR and WRW (84%). However, the conception rates between WRR and WRW did not differ (P ≥ 0.19). Conception rates from artificial insemination as calculated from difference in calving date and the artificial insemination breeding period did not differ (P ≥ 0.31) among pasture types (WRG = 16%, WRR = 20%, and WRW = 17%, SE = 0.06). Several experiments have shown that the Bos indicus species of cattle exhibit decreased reproductive function as day length is decreasing [21] and that interval from calving to initiation of cyclicity tends to be longer than in Bos taurus type cattle [22]. Additionally, Bos indicus cattle have shown increased anestrus during unfavorable breeding seasons [23]. Experiments have also shown that estradiol cypionate can have more variable results in insemination protocols than other estrogens with a longer half-life [24]. Hence, these factors more than likely contribute to the lower conception rates during the artificial insemination period. Conception rates during natural service also did not differ (P ≥ 0.29) among pasture types (WRG = 57%, WRR = 63%, and WRW = 68%, SE = 0.06), as well as post-partum intervals (P = 0.79, Table 1). Other research examining the use of cool-season annual grasses in the southern United States as a supplement for lactating beef cows during the winter has shown similar success at maintaining body weight and condition score, post-partum interval, and conception rates [2, 3, 5, 16, 25].

Calf body weight in January through March and at weaning (June) did not differ (P ≥ 0.21) between calves nursing cows grazing WRG and the average of calves nursing cows grazing WRR and WRW (Table 2). In April and May, calf body weight tended (P = 0.06) to be heavier for cattle grazing WRR and WRW pastures than for calves grazing WRG, but this trend diminished by weaning. Also, the body weight of calves nursing cows grazing WRR did not differ (P ≥ 0.70) from calves nursing cows grazing WRW. Average daily gain did not differ (P ≥ 0.37) between calves nursing cows grazing WRG and the average of calves nursing cows grazing WRR and WRW in any period (Table 2). Further, the average daily gain of calves nursing cows grazing WRR did not differ (P ≥ 0.41) from calves nursing cows grazing WRW. In southern Alabama, calf average daily gain of 0.89 kg was higher on rye/arrowleaf clover mixture than on a monoculture of annual ryegrass overseeded into bermudagrass [26].
Table 2

Birth weight, body weight, average daily gain, and weaning weight per cow exposed by calves nursing mature beef cows fed bermudagrass/bahiagrass hay supplemented by grazing on wheat/ryegrass pasture or wheat/ryegrass plus clovers over a 3-year period

Item

Treatmentsa

P-valueb

WRG

WRR

WRW

SE

WRG versus Clovers

WRR versus WRW

Birth weight, kg

34

36

35

0.9

0.17

0.89

Calf body weight, kg

      

 January

62

66

67

9.6

0.41

0.91

 February

84

91

91

10.9

0.23

0.94

 March

99

107

106

11.1

0.21

0.93

 April

116

123

128

11.7

0.06

0.58

 May

227

237

239

4.3

0.06

0.70

 June (weaning)

244

254

253

6.7

0.29

0.88

Average daily gain, kg

      

 Birth to the start of grazing

0.92

0.92

0.95

0.086

0.71

0.41

 January to weaning

0.98

1.02

0.99

0.035

0.37

0.44

 Birth to weaning

0.93

0.96

0.95

0.023

0.39

0.57

Weaning weight/cow exposed, kg

173

212

209

12.0

0.02

0.86

a WRG = winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass; WRR = winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass plus red clover, and WRW = winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass plus white and crimson clover.

b Contrasts: WRG vs Clover = WRG versus the average of WRR and WRW.

Because of multiplying effects of conception rate by cows to weaning weight gain by their nursing calves, calf weaning weight per cow exposed was 38 kg greater (P = 0.02) for cows collectively grazing WRR and WRW pastures than for cows grazing the WRG. This advantage means that cows grazing pastures with clovers produced 4.8 kg of calf body weight/kg of fertilizer nitrogen applied to the pasture, where the cows grazing only grass produced only 1.0 kg of calf body weight/kg of fertilizer nitrogen. Other research also demonstrated that overseeding with clovers alone with no nitrogen fertilizer resulted in calf body weight gains equal to those for annual ryegrass overseeded into bermudagrass and annually fertilized with 168 kg/ha N [26]. Reported nitrous oxide emission from pastures planted to mixtures of perennial grass and clovers in temperate zones are between 6 and 11 kg of nitrous oxide-nitrogen/ha annually [27, 28]. Unfertilized temperate pastures receive the majority of their nitrogen supply for forage production from precipitation, mineralization of soil nitrogen, and fixation of atmospheric nitrogen [29]. Unfertilized perennial ryegrass pastures emitted only 6 kg of nitrogen/ha annually, whereas pastures fertilized with 200 kg of nitrogen/ha annually in the form of urea emitted 13 kg [7]. Hence, using a mixture of clovers and grasses for winter pasture should prove useful in maintaining production, reducing the need for nitrogen fertilization, to a small degree reducing nitrous oxide emission [30], and decreasing a system’s claim on fossil energy reserves [31].

Conclusions

The results of this experiment show that by adding Trifolium clover species to winter-annual pasture mixtures for overseeding warm-season pastures can effectively supplement a beef cow herd, improve weaning weight per cow exposed, reduce the fertilizer nitrogen requirements needed to maintained sufficient production, and should result in decreased nitrous oxide emission from the pasture.

Abbreviations

WRG: 

Winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass

WRR: 

Winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass plus red clover

WRW: 

Winter-annual pasture composed of wheat and ryegrass plus white and crimson clover.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Range Research Station
(2)
University of Arkansas at Monticello
(3)
Division of Agriculture, Southeast Research & Extension Center, University of Arkansas
(4)
Division of Agriculture, Southwest Research & Extension Center, University of Arkansas

References

  1. Utley PR, McCormick WC: Evaluation of cow-calf management systems using sod-seeded ryegrass pastures. J Anim Sci. 1978, 47: 1219-1224.Google Scholar
  2. Hill GM, Utley PR, McCormick WG: Evaluation of cow-calf systems using ryegrass sod-seeded in perennial pastures. J Anim Sci. 1985, 61: 1088-1094.Google Scholar
  3. DeRouen SM, Prichard DL, Baker FS, Stanley RL: Cool-season annuals for supplementing perennial pasture on beef cow-calf productivity. J Prod Agric. 1991, 4: 481-485.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Shockey JD, Gunter SA: Cool-season annual pasture with legumes to supplement for wintering beef cows fed warm-season grass hay. J Anim Sci. 1999, 77 (Suppl 1): 9.Google Scholar
  5. Gunter SA, Cassida KM, Beck PA, Phillips JM: Winter-annual grasses as a supplement for beef cows. J Anim Sci. 2002, 80: 1157-1165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Schils RLM, Eriksen J, Ledgard SF, Vellinga TV, Kuikman PJ, Luo J, Peterson SO, Velthof GL: Strategies to mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from herbivore production systems. Animal. 2012, 10:1017/S175173111100187X. in pressGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckard RJ, Chen D, White RE, Chapman DF: Gaseous nitrogen loss from temperate perennial grass and clover dairy pastures in south-eastern Australia. Australian J Agric Res. 2003, 54: 561-570. 10.1071/AR02100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Consortium: Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. Consortium for Developing a Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Training, Champaign, IL. 1988Google Scholar
  9. Wagner JJ, Lusby KS, Oltjen JW, Rakestraw J, Wettermann RP, Walters LE: Carcass composition in mature Hereford cows: estimation and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirements. J Anim Sci. 1988, 66: 603-612.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman SL: Soil Test Recommendations Guide. 1998, University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Little Rock, AR, AGR–9Google Scholar
  11. Whitworth WA, Montgomery TG, Gunter SA, Coffey KP: Comparison of synchrony rates of Bos taurus and Bos indcus-type females using CIDR devices in combination with prostaglandin and ECP or GnRH. Arkansas Anim Sci. 2003, RS-509: 53-54.Google Scholar
  12. Steel RGD, Torrie JH: Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 1980, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Selk GE, Wettemann RP, Lusby KS, Oltjen JW, Mobley SL, Rasby RJ, Garmendia JC: Relationships among weight change, body condition score and reproductive performance of range cows. J Anim Sci. 1988, 66: 3153-3159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Coffey KP, Coblentz WK, Montgomery TG, Shockey JD, Bryant KJ, Frances PB, Rosenkrans CF, Gunter SA: Growth performance of stocker cattle backgrounded on sod-seeded winter annuals or hay and grain. J Anim Sci. 2002, 80: 926-932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lush RH: The chemical composition of early pasture legumes and grasses. J Anim Sci. 1933, 1933: 91-94.Google Scholar
  16. Apple K, Lusby KS, Hudson AL, Ely L, Provence GM: Evaluation of wheat forage in wintering programs for cow calf operations—year 2. Oklahoma Agric Exp Sta Res Rep. 1993, P-933: 131-136.Google Scholar
  17. Evans DR, Humphreys MO, Williams TA: Forage yield and quality interactions between white clover and contrasting ryegrass varieties in grazed swards. J Agric Sci (Camb). 1996, 126: 295-299. 10.1017/S0021859600074840.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Springer TL, Gillen RL, McNew RW: Combining ability of binary mixtures of introduced, cool- and warm-season grasses and legumes. Crop Sci. 2007, 47: 2540-2546. 10.2135/cropsci2006.12.0773.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Deak A, Hall AH, Sanderson MA, Archibald DD: Production and nutritive value of grazed simple and complex forage mixtures. Agron J. 2007, 99: 814-821. 10.2134/agronj2006.0166.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Deak A, Hall AH, Sanderson MA: Grazing schedule effect on forage production and nutritive value of diverse forage mixtures. Agron J. 2009, 101: 408-414. 10.2134/agronj2007.0365.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Randel RD: Seasonal effects on female reproductive functions in the bovine (Indian breeds). Theriogenology. 1984, 21: 170-185. 10.1016/0093-691X(84)90315-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds WL: Breeds and Reproduction. Factors Affecting Calf Crop. Edited by: Cunha TJ, Warnick AC, Koger M. 1967, University of Florida Press, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  23. Stahringer RC, Neuendorff DA, Randel RD: Seasonal variations in characteristics of estrous cycles in pubertal Brahman heifers. Theriogenology. 1990, 34: 407-415. 10.1016/0093-691X(90)90532-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Thundathil J, Kastelic JP, Mapletoft RJ: Effect of estradiol cypionate administration on ovarian follicular wave dynamics in cattle. Canadian J Vet Res. 1997, 61: 314-316.Google Scholar
  25. Bagley CP, Carpenter JC, Feazel JI, Hembry FG, Huffman DC, Koonce KL: Effect of forage system on beef cow-calf productivity. J Anim Sci. 1987, 64: 678-686.Google Scholar
  26. Hoveland CS, Anthony WB, McGuire JA, Starling JG: Beef cow-calf performance on Coastal bermudagrass overseeding with winter annual clovers and grasses. Agron J. 1978, 70: 418-420. 10.2134/agronj1978.00021962007000030013x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Dalal RC, Wang WJ, Robertson GP, Parton WJ: Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigation options: a review. Australian J Soil Res. 2003, 41: 165-195. 10.1071/SR02064.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Luo J, Tilman RW, Ball PR: Nitrogen loss through denitrification in a soil under pasture in New Zealand. Soil Biol Biochem. 2000, 32: 497-509. 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00179-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Russelle MP: Nitrogen cycling in pasture and range. J Prod Agric. 1992, 9: 13-23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Ledgard S, Schils R, Eriksen J, Luo J: Environmental impacts of grazing clover/grass pastures. Irish J Agric Food Res. 2009, 32: 209-226.Google Scholar
  31. Schils RLM, Boxem TJ, Jagtenberg CJ, Verboon MC: The performance of a clover based dairy system in comparison with a grass/fertilizer-N system. II. Animal, economics, and environment. Netherlands J Agric Sci. 2000, 48: 305-318.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Gunter et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement