Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:24:22.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal changes in forage nutritive value of common weeds encountered in Missouri pastures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2019

Gatlin Bunton ,
Zach Trower ,
Craig Roberts  and
Kevin W. Bradley Open the ORCID record for Kevin W. Bradley [Opens in a new window]
Gatlin Bunton
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Zach Trower
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Craig Roberts
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Kevin W. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Kevin W. Bradley, University of Missouri, 201 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the 2015, 2016, and 2017 growing seasons, weed and weed-free mixed tall fescue and legume forage samples were harvested from 29 pastures throughout Missouri for investigation of the nutritive value of 20 common pasture weed species throughout the season. At certain times during the growing season, many broadleaf weed species had greater nutritive values for a given quality parameter as compared with the available weed-free, mixed tall fescue and legume forage harvested from the same location. There were no significant differences in crude protein concentration between the weed-free forage and many weeds throughout the growing season. However, crude protein content of common burdock, common cocklebur, common ragweed, dandelion, horsenettle, and lanceleaf ragweed was greater than that of the corresponding forage sample at multiple collection periods. The digestible neutral detergent fiber (dNDF) content of all broadleaf weeds except lanceleaf ragweed was significantly lower than that of the weed-free forage at all collection periods. Conversely, large crabgrass had significantly greater digestible neutral detergent fiber levels than did the mixed tall fescue forage at all sampling dates. Dandelion and spiny amaranth had greater in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) content than did the forage for the entire growing season. Three perennial weeds—horsenettle, vervains, and late boneset—did not differ in IVTD levels as compared with the mixed tall fescue and legume forage at any collection date. For most summer annual weeds, the trend was toward greater digestibility earlier in the season, with a gradual decline and often lower IVTD by the late summer or early fall. The results of this study will enable producers to make more informed management decisions about the potential benefit or detriment a weed may provide to the overall nutritive value of the pasture system.

Keywords

Bradley Hanson, University of California, DavisCommon burdock, Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L.common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.dandelion, Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigghorsenettle, Solanum carolinense L.lanceleaf ragweed, Ambrosia bidentata Michx.large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.late boneset, Eupatorium serotinum Michx.spiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus L.vervain species, Verbena spp.tall fescue, Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.Crude proteindigestibilityforage quality
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 164 - 171
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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

Abaye, AO, Scaglia, G, Teutsch, C (2009) The nutritive value of common pasture weeds and their relation to livestock nutrient requirements. Petersburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication 418-150. p 3Google Scholar
Ball, DM, Hoveland, CS, Lacefield, GD (2018) Forage quality. Pages 42–48 in Forage Crop Pocket Guide. Peachtree Corners, GA: International Plant Nutrition InstituteGoogle Scholar
Ball, DM, Collins, M, Lacefield, GD, Martin, NP, Mertens, DA, Olson, KE, Putnam, DH, Undersander, DJ, Wolf, M (2001) Understanding forage quality. Park Ridge, Illinois: American Farm Bureau Federation. Publication 1-01. 16 pGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, DE, Schwemmin, DJ, Wagner, WH (1959) Pollen release in the common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Botan Gaz 120:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, SC, Hoveland, CS, Buchanan, GA (1986) Forage quality of selected cool-season weed species. Weed Sci 34:150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, RH, Blaser, RE, Tontenot, JP (1955) Digestibility of fall-grown Kentucky 31 fescue. Agron J 55:321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, RJ, Watson, VH, Cole, AW (1980) Canopy and chemistry of pasture weeds. Weed Sci 28:139–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M, Newman, YC (2018) Forage quality. Pages 269–285in Collins, M, Nelson, CJ, Barnes, RF, Moore, KJ, eds. Forages, Volume 1: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture. 7th edn. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 432 pGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, JL, Adesogan, AT, Carter, JN, Sollenberger, LE (2009) Annual legumes for forage systems in the United States gulf coast region. Agron J 101:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, S, Glenn, B, Rieck, CE, Ely, DG, Bush, LP (1981) Chemical quality, in vitro cellulose digestion, and yield of tall fescue forage affected by mefluidide. J Agric Food Chem 29:1158–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JD, Witt, WW, Martin, JR (2006) Weed management in grass pastures, hayfields, and other farmstead sites. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Extension Service. AGR-172. p 1Google Scholar
Israel, TD, Rhodes, GN (2013) Pasture weed fact sheet: tall ironweed. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Extension. Publication W307. 1 pGoogle Scholar
Marten, GC, Andersen, RN (1975) Forage nutritive value and palatability of 12 common annual weeds. Crop Sci 15:821–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, GC, Sheaffer, CC, Wyse, DL (1987) Forage nutritive value and palatability of perennial weeds. Agron J 79:980–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, DR (2009) Impact of NDF content and digestibility on dairy cow performance. Pages 191–201in Proceedings of Western Canadian Dairy Seminar. Red Deer, AB, Canada: University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1996) Nutrient requirement of beef cattle. 7th rev. edn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 16 pGoogle Scholar
Phelan, P, Moloney, AP, McGeough, EJ, Humphreys, J, Bertilsson, J, O’Riordan, EG, O’Kiely, P (2015) Forage legumes for grazing and conserving in ruminant production systems. Critic Rev Plant Sci 34:281–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popay, I, Field, R (1996) Grazing animals as weed control agents. Weed Technol 10:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, GI, Folkins, LP, Pigden, WJ (1962) The in vitro digestibility of whole grasses and their parts at progressive stages of maturity. Can J Plant Sci 43:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, KK, Bradley, KW, Roberts, CA (2011) Influence of increasing common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) or common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) densities on forage nutritive value and yield in tall fescue pastures and hay fields. Weed Technol 25:222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, MA, Jolley, LW, Dobrowolski, JP (2012) Pastureland and hayland in the USA: land resources, conservation practices, and ecosystem services. Pages 25–40in Nelson, CJ, ed. Conservation Outcomes From Pastureland and Hayland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps. Lawrence KS: Allen Press. 370 pGoogle Scholar
Shewmaker, GE (2005) Idaho Forage Handbook. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. Pp 32–33Google Scholar
Sleugh, BB (1999) Evaluation of forage yield, quality and canopy development of various species of amaranths harvested at different stages of development. PhD dissertation. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. 104 pGoogle Scholar
Spanghero, M, Boccalon, S, Gracco, L, Gruber, L (2003) NDF digestibility of hays measured in situ and in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 104:201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temme, DG, Harvey, RG, Fawcett, RS, Young, AW (1979) Effects of annual weed control on alfalfa forage quality. Agron J 71:51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ (1994) Forage evaluation techniques. Pages 108–121in Van Soest, PJ, ed. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd edn. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. 476 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (2018) Missouri agricultural overview 2017. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=MISSOURI. Accessed: August 28, 2018Google Scholar