Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 81–93 | Cite as

Hair sheep performance in a mid-stage deciduous Appalachian silvopasture

  • A. G. Fannon
  • J. H. FikeEmail author
  • S. P. Greiner
  • C. M. Feldhake
  • M. A. Wahlberg
Article

Abstract

Silvopastoral management has potential to diversify and increase the output from livestock systems. Silvopastures offer solutions to many management issues associated with grazing systems in Appalachia (USA). Several tree species have been proposed for silvopastures in humid temperate regions, but few data comparing animal performance from systems with different deciduous tree species are available. The objective of this project was to compare early-stage honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos) or black walnut (Juglans nigra) silvopastures with open pastures in terms of forage botanical composition, yield, and nutritive value, and in terms of gain, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of hair sheep (Ovis aries) that grazed these systems. Forage and animal performance from open systems (i.e., no trees) was compared with that from silvopastures containing 13- and 14-year-old honeylocust or black walnut trees. Cool-season grass-legume pastures were rotationally stocked with crossbred hair sheep from mid-June through September in 2008 and 2009. Forage production varied by year and pre-graze forage mass in black walnut silvopastures generally was less (P ≤ 0.05) than in open pastures at most measurement periods. Averaged over the season, forage production in honeylocust silvopastures tended (P = 0.0937) to be lower than in open systems in 2008 and was lower (P = 0.0001) in 2009. Few differences in forage nutritive value among systems were observed. Total and average daily gains (ADG) did not differ among treatments in 2008, but black walnut silvopastures supported less (P ≤ 0.05) ADG and total gain than open pastures and honeylocust silvopastures in 2009. Carcass characteristics evaluated did not vary among treatments although hot carcass weights were lower (P < 0.05) for lambs that grazed black walnut silvopastures. Although walnut-based systems were less productive and will need modification to improve output, similar levels of performance between open pastures and honeylocust systems show the potential of silvopasture systems to supply multiple products from the land base without reducing agricultural system production.

Keywords

Black walnut Honeylocust Cool-season forage Carcass characteristics 

References

  1. Allard G, Nelson CJ, Pallardy SG (1991) Shade effects on growth of tall fescue: I. Leaf anatomy and dry matter partitioning. Crop Sci 31:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton B, Berrier R, Harris R, Alleman D, Swanson L (2009) The walnut tree: allelopathic effects and tolerant plants. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 430-021Google Scholar
  3. Brodie J (1985) Vegetation anaylsis. In: Grassland studies. Unwin Hyman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Buergler AL (2004) Forage production and nutritive value in a temperate Appalachian silvopasture. M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Buergler AL, Fike JH, Burger JA, Feldhake CR, McKenna JA, Teutsch CD (2005) Botanical composition and forage production in an emulated silvopasture. Agron J 97:1141–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buergler AL, Fike JH, Burger JA, Feldhake CR, McKenna JA, Teutsch CD (2006) Forage nutritive value in an emulated silvopasture. Agron J 98:1265–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke JM, Apple JK, Roberts WJ, Boger CB, Kegley EB (2003) Effect of breed-type on performance and carcass traits of intensively managed hair sheep. Meat Sci 63:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burner DM, Brauer DK (2003) Herbage response to spacing of loblolly pine trees in a minimal management silvopasture in southeastern USA. Agrofor Syst 57:67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clason TR, Sharrow SH (2000) Silvopastoral practices. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI, pp 79–118Google Scholar
  10. Davis EF (1928) The toxic principle of Juglans nigra as identified with synthetic juglone, and its effects on tomato and alfalfa plants. Am J Bot 15:620Google Scholar
  11. Debruyne SA, Burger JA, Feldhake CM, Fike JH (2011) Tree effects on forage growth and soil water in an Appalachian silvopasture. Agrofor Syst 83:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldhake CM, Schumann CM (2005) Tree establishment for a temperate agro-forest in Central Appalachia, USA. Agrofor Syst 65:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fike JH, Buergler AL, Burger JA, Kallenbach RL (2004) Considerations for establishing and managing silvopastures. Forage Grazinglands.  https://doi.org/10.1094/FG-2004-1209-01-RV CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford MM, Zamora DS, Current D, Magner J, Wyatt G, Walter WD, Vaughan S (2017) Impact of managed woodland grazing on forage quantity, quality and livestock performance: the potential for silvopasture in Central Minnesota, USA. Agrofor Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0098-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holt DA, Hilst AR (1969) Daily variation in carbohydrate content of selected forage crops. Agron J 61:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houx JH, Garrett HE, McGraw JL (2008) Applications of black walnut husks can improve orchardgrass and red clover yields in silvopasture and alley cropping plantings. Agrofor Syst 73:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson JW, Fike JH, Fike WB, Burger JA, Munsell JF, McKenna JR, Hodges SC (2012) Millwood and wild type honeylocust seedpod nutritive value changes over winter. Crop Sci 52:2807–2816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson JW, Fike JH, Fike WB, Burger JA, McKenna JR, Munsell JF, Hodges SC (2013) Millwood honeylocust trees: seedpod nutritive value and yield characteristics. Agrofor Syst 87:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kallenbach RL, Venable EB, Kerley MS, Bailey NJ (2010) Stockpiled tall fescue and livestock performance in an early stage midwest silvopasture system. Agrofor Syst 80:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kephart KD, Buxton DR (1993) Forage quality responses of C3 and C4 perennial grasses to shade. Crop Sci 33:831–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Mayerfeld D, Rickenbach M, Rissma A (2016) Overcoming history: attitudes of resource professionals and farmers toward silvopasture in southwest Wisconsin. Agrofor Syst 90:723–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McArthur AJ (1991) Forestry and shelter for livestock. For Ecol Mgt 45:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 15:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitlöhner FM, Galyean ML, McGlone JJ (2002) Shade effects on performance, carcass traits, physiology, and behavior of heat-stressed feedlot heifers. J Anim Sci 80:2043–2050PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mize TA (2014) Perceptions and understanding of silvopasture by extension agents in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern United States. Report to the faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Non-thesis MSGoogle Scholar
  28. Neel JPS, Belesky DP (2015) Herbage production, nutritive value and animal productivity within hardwood silvopasture, open and mixed pasture systems in Appalachia, United States. Grass For Sci 72:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neel JPS, Felton EED, Singh S, Sexstone AJ, Belesky DP (2015) Open pasture, silvopasture and sward herbage maturity effects on nutritive value and fermentation characteristics of cool-season pasture. Grass For Sci 71:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Orefice J, Smith RG, Carroll J, Asbjornsen H, Howard T (2016) Forage productivity and profitability in newly-established open pasture, silvopasture, and thinned forest production systems. Agrofor Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0052-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orefice JJ, Carroll D Conroy, Ketner L (2017) Silvopasture practices and perspectives in the Northeastern United States. Agrofor Syst 91:149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peri PL, Varella AC, Lucas RJ, Moot DJ (2001) Cocksfoot and lucerne productivity in a Pinus radiata silvopastoral system: a grazed comparison. Proc NZ Grassl Assn 63:139–147Google Scholar
  33. Rietveld WJ (1983) Allelopathic effects of juglone on germination and growth of several herbaceous and woody species. J Chem Ecol 9:295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. USDA (1992) United States standards for grades of lamb, yearling mutton, and mutton carcasses. Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Wildeus S (1997) Hair sheep genetic resources and their contribution to diversified small ruminant production in the United States. J Anim Sci 75:630–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia Cooperative ExtensionJonesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Crop and Soil Environmental SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Animal and Poultry SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.USDA-ARSBeaverUSA

Personalised recommendations