Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T00:53:36.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forage Quality of Selected Cool-Season Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S. C. Bosworth ,
C. S. Hoveland  and
G. A. Buchanan
S. C. Bosworth
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State Univ., Univ. Park, PA 16802
C. S. Hoveland
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
G. A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forage quality was determined at vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages for nine cool-season weed species and four cultivated forages. When compared at the vegetative stage of maturity, Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L. # GERCA), Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum L. # LEPVI), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L. # ELYVI), wild oats (Avena fatua L. # AVEFA), cheat (Bromus secalinus L. # BROSE), and little barley (Hordeum pusillum Nutt. # HORPU) had high nutritive quality as indicated by in vitro dry-matter digestibility (IVDMD) values equal or superior to rye (Secale cereale L.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.), and ladino clover (Trifolium repens L.). Cutleaf evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill # OEOLA) and curly dock (Rumex crispus L. # RUMCR) had lower IVDMD values than the cultivated forages and all weed species except wild oats. However, the rate of decline in IVDMD as plants matured was generally greater for the weed species compared to cultivated forage plants. All weed and cultivated forage species had adequate levels of Ca and K for livestock. Nearly all weed and cultivated forage species had suboptimum levels of P for high-producing ruminant animals; Carolina geranium and cutleaf evening primrose had high Ca:P ratios, which can cause metabolic disorders. Carolina geranium, Virginia wildrye, wild oats, cheat, little barley, and all the cultivated forage species had inadequate levels of Mg and could be considered “tetany prone”. Most of the forbs had high Mg concentrations.

Keywords

Digestibilitycrude proteincalciumphosphorusmagnesium
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 150 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Bosworth, S. C., Hoveland, C. S., Buchanan, G. A., and Anthony, W. B. 1980. Forage quality of selected warm-season weed species. Agron. J. 72:1050–1054.Google Scholar
2. Bremner, J. M. 1965. Total nitrogen. Pages 1149–1176 in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of soil analysis, Part 2. Chemicals and microbiological properties. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
3. Deinum, B., van Es, A.J.H., and van Soest, P. J. 1968. Climate, nitrogen, and grass. II. The influence of light intensity, temperature, and nitrogen on in vivo digestibility of grass and the prediction of these effects from some chemical procedures. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 16:217–223.Google Scholar
4. Elkins, C. B. and Hoveland, C. S. 1977. Soil oxygen and temperature effect on tetany potential of three annual forage species. Agron. J. 69:626–628.Google Scholar
5. Fairbairn, C. B. and Thomas, B. 1959. The potential nutritive value of some weeds common to northeastern England. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 14:36–46.Google Scholar
6. Grunes, D. L. 1973. Grass tetany of cattle and sheep. Pages 113–140 in Matches, A. G., ed. And-quality components of forages. Crop Sci. Soc. Am. Special Publication No. 4, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
7. Hoveland, C. S., Anthony, W. B., McGuire, J. A., and Starling, J. G. 1978. Beef cow-calf performance on Coastal bermudagrass overseeded with winter annual clovers and grasses. Agron. J. 70:418–420.Google Scholar
8. Jackson, M. L. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 895 pp.Google Scholar
9. Jagusch, K. T., Gumbrell, R. C., Mobley, M. C., and Jay, N. P. 1977. Effect of salt blocks and roughage as supplements to grazing lucerne on growth rate of lambs and incidence of death from “red gut”. N.Z. J. Exp. Agric. 5:19–22.Google Scholar
10. Marten, G. C. and Anderson, R. N. 1975. Forage nutritive value and palatability of 12 common annual weeds. Crop Sci. 15:821–827.Google Scholar
11. National Research Council. 1976. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 5th ed. rev. National Academy of Science. Washington, DC. 56 pp.Google Scholar
12. Temme, D. G., Harvey, R. G., Fawcett, R. W., and Young, A. W. 1979. Effects of annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron. J. 71:51–54.Google Scholar
13. Tilley, J.M.A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 18:104–111.Google Scholar