PS8-22. Evaluation of Grazing or Harvesting Cereal Rye in Corn-soybean Rotation on Yield and Nutritive Quality.

Clicks: 10
ID: 330259
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #785 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract The objective was to determine forage yield, quality and feed value of cover crops when either grazed or mechanically harvested in the spring. Four treatments were randomly assigned to 20 plots (5 plots/treatment) on an approximately 20-hectare field (1 ha/plot) in a corn/cereal rye/soybean rotation at the Dudley Smith Farm near Pana, IL. The treatments include: no cereal rye (CON), cereal rye – no graze or mechanically harvest (CC), cereal rye – grazed (CC-G), and cereal rye – mechanically harvested (CC-MH). Cereal rye was drilled at a rate of 100 kg/ha into corn stover in October 2024. Twenty fall-calving cows were stratified by initial body weight (BW; 663 ± 62 kg) and body condition score (BCS; 5.9 ± 0.56) and assigned to a CC-G plot (4 cows/plot). Cows grazed within their respective CC-G plots for 17 d (April 11th, 2025 to April 28th, 2025) and gained 2.35 kg/d. Cereal rye – mechanically harvested plots were cut on May 14th, 2025 and raked, baled, and wrapped the following day. Forage samples were collected on April 10th, 2025 and May 14th, 2025. A 0.25 m2 quadrat was tossed 3 times/plot and mechanically clipped to an above-ground stubble height of 7.62 cm to determine forage mass and nutritive quality. Data were analyzed utilizing the MIXED procedure of SAS 9.4. On April 10th, 2025, dry matter (DM) concentration was greater (P = 0.02) in CC-G plots than CC-MH with CC being intermediate (21.4, 19.6 and 20.4 %, respectively). There were no differences (P ≥ 0.44) between treatments in crude protein (CP), total digestible nutrients (TDN), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF). Macro- and micromineral concentrations were not different (P ≥ 0.20) between treatments. On April 10th, 2025, forage yield was not different (P = 0.69) between CC-G, CC-H, and CC-MH. On May 14th, 2025, DM concentration was not different (P = 0.11) between treatments. There was a tendency (P = 0.07) for CC-H and CC-MH to have greater concentrations of NDF compared to CC-G. Acid detergent fiber was greater (P = 0.01) in CC-H and CC-MH compared to CC-G. Crude protein and TDN concentrations were greater (P = 0.01) in CC-G compared to CC-H and CC-MH. Calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, copper, zinc, aluminum, boron, and nitrogen concentrations were greater (P ≤ 0.03) in CC-G than CC-H and CC-MH. There were no differences (P ≥ 0.15) in potassium, sodium, and manganese concentrations. On May 14th, 2025, CC-H and CC-MH had greater (P = 0.01) forage yield compared to CC-G. The cereal rye remained in a vegetative state after grazing and at the time of mechanical harvest was higher quality compared to the mechanically harvested cereal rye which produced more tonnage.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214725724 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.487
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.