Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 379–384 | Cite as

Stockpiled tall fescue and livestock performance in an early stage midwest silvopasture system

  • R. L. KallenbachEmail author
  • E. B. Venable
  • M. S. Kerley
  • N. J. Bailey


Using stockpiled forage can substantially reduce livestock feed costs over the winter. However, little is known about utilizing stockpiled forage in an early-stage silvopasture system. This study was conducted to determine if silvopasture production practices utilizing stockpiled forage influence stocker steer performance. The treatments were: (1) stockpiled forage in a non-forested pasture (OPEN) and (2) stockpiled forage in a silvopasture (TREE). Grazing began early December and ended in late February in each of 2 years. Each treatment was replicated three times in a completely randomized design. Forage nutritive value, production, and steer average daily gain (ADG) for the OPEN and TREE treatments were not significantly different as long as the areas occupied by trees was excluded from analyses. When the area occupied by trees was included, the OPEN treatment produced more (P < 0.01) forage than the TREE treatment, with the OPEN producing 3510 kg ha−1 and the TREE producing 2812 kg ha−1. Average daily gain (P = 0.21) was 0.41 kg for the steers in the OPEN treatment and 0.37 kg for steers in the TREE treatment. Gain per ha was significantly different (P < 0.01); the OPEN treatment produced 193 kg of animal gain and the TREE treatment produced 125 kg of animal gain. Exclusion of the area under the tree row from the analysis changed the total gain per ha for the TREE treatment to 148 kg, but was still less (P = 0.01) than the OPEN treatment.


Cattle Afforestation Silvopasture Stockpiled tall fescue Winter forages 



Contribution of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station and the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry. This work was funded through the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry under cooperative agreements AG-02100251 with the ARS and C R 826704-01-0 with the US EPA. The results presented are the sole responsibility of the authors and/or the University of Missouri and may not represent the policies or positions of the ARS or EPA.


  1. Bishop-Hurley GJ, Kallenbach RL (2001) The economics of grazing beef cows during winter. In: Terril T (ed) Proceedings of American forage and grassland council, Springdale, AR, 22–25 April, 2001. AFGC, Georgetown, TX, 274 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Bromley SW (1935) The original forest types of southern New England. Ecol Monogr 5:61–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JR, Rodriguez RR (1983) Soil testing in Missouri. Missouri coop exten ser EC923. University of Missouri, Columbia, MOGoogle Scholar
  4. Burner DM, Brauer DK (2003) Herbage response to spacing of loblolly pine trees in a minimal management silvopasture in southeastern USA. Agrofor Syst 57:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright TC (1955) Responses of beef cattle to high ambient temperatures. J Anim Sci 14:350–362Google Scholar
  6. Feldhake CM (2001) Microclimate of a natural pasture under planted Robinia pseudoacacia in central Appalachia, West Virginia. Agrofor Syst 53:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrett HE, Buck LE (1997) Agroforestry practice and policy in the United States of America. For Ecol Manag 91:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garrett HE, McGraw RL (2000) Alley cropping practices. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. Madison, Wisconsin, pp 149–188Google Scholar
  9. Gold MA, Rietveld WJ, Garrett HE, Fisher RF (2000) Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts, and practices for the United States. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. Madison, Wisconsin, pp 63–77Google Scholar
  10. Hill NS, Rottinghaus GE, Agee CS, Schultz LM (1993) Simplified sample preparation for HPLC analysis and ergovaline in tall fescue. Crop Sci 33:331–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hüttl RF, Ende H (1997) Agroforestry and changes in land use management. Pref Ecol Manag 91:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kallenbach RL, Kerley MS, Bishop-Hurley GJ (2006) Cumulative forage production, forage quality and livestock performance from an annual ryegrass and cereal rye mixture in a Pine-Walnut Silvopasture. Agrofor Syst 66:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kurtz WB (2000) Economics and policy of agroforestry. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. Madison, Wisconsin, pp 321–360Google Scholar
  14. Lin CH, McGraw RL, George MF, Garrett HE (2001) Nutritive quality and morphological development under partial shade of some forage species with agroforestry potential. Agrofor Syst 53:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McDaniel AH, Roark CB (1956) Performance and grazing habits of Hereford and Aberdeen-angus cows and calves on improved pastures as related to types of shade. J Anim Sci 15:59–63Google Scholar
  16. McGraw RL, Stamps WT, Houx JH, Linit MJ (2008) Yield, maturation, and forage quality of alfalfa in a black walnut alley-cropping practice. Agrofor Syst 74:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton BW, Wilson JR, Shelton HM, Hill KD (1991) The effects of shade on forage quality. In: Forages for plantation crops. Aciar proceedings. Accessed 23 Oct 2009
  18. O’Brien MJ, Wood WR (1998) The prehistory of Missouri. University of Missouri press, Columbia, MOGoogle Scholar
  19. Paterson J, Forcherio C, Larson B, Samford M, Kerley M (1995) The effects of fescue toxicosis on beef cattle productivity. J Anim Sci 73:889–898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Roth PL, Mitchell RJ (1982) Effects of selected cover crops on the growth of black walnut. In: Black Walnut for the future. USDA Forest service north central forest experiment station, St. Paul, MN. Gen Tech Rep NC-74, pp 110–113Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt SP, Osborn TG (1993) Effects of endophyte-infected tall fescue on animal performance. Agric Ecosyst Environ 44:233–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spanghero M, Boccalon S, Gracco L, Gruber L (2003) NDF digestibility of hays measured in situ and in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 104:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Vogel KP, Pedersen JF, Masterson SD, Toy JJ (1999) Evaluation of a filter bag system for NDF, ADF, and IVDMD forage analysis. Crop Sci 39:276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. L. Kallenbach
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. B. Venable
    • 2
  • M. S. Kerley
    • 2
  • N. J. Bailey
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plant SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Animal SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations