Preference and Selection by Beef Cattle Grazing Diverse Forages in Resource Islands Embedded in Grass Monocultures

IF 2.6 3区 农林科学 Q1 AGRONOMY
Bashiri Iddy Muzzo, Kelvyn K. Bladen, Manuel Martinez, Juan J. Villalba
{"title":"Preference and Selection by Beef Cattle Grazing Diverse Forages in Resource Islands Embedded in Grass Monocultures","authors":"Bashiri Iddy Muzzo,&nbsp;Kelvyn K. Bladen,&nbsp;Manuel Martinez,&nbsp;Juan J. Villalba","doi":"10.1111/gfs.70089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Beef cattle on rangelands typically graze grass monocultures that become nutritionally and phytochemically constrained during summer, reducing animal performance and health. We tested whether patches of forages (i.e., “islands”) embedded within smooth bromegrass (SBG) paddocks enable cows to self-select complementary forages that may improve animal performance. Fifteen Angus cow–calf pairs grazed three SBG paddocks (five pairs/paddock), each with three 30 × 40 m forage islands (three islands/paddock) comprising adjacent strips of alfalfa-ALF, sainfoin-SF, forage kochia-KH, small burnet-SB, and a patch of mixed weeds-MW. Across three 15-day periods, cows accessed one island/paddock for 1 h each evening. Cows were video-recorded simultaneously, and the forage species grazed by each cow was recorded at 2-min intervals using instantaneous scan sampling. Caged biomass quantified proportional forage availability for preference–biomass comparisons and availability-based multispecies indices, while scan-based preference was analysed using binomial GLMMs, FSI using a linear mixed-effects model, and the remaining selectivity, forage-mixing, and turnover indices descriptively. Scans on forage use shifted across periods (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001): scans on MW declined from 30%–35% to 15%–20% of total scans, while those on SF and ALF increased to 25%–30% and 15%–20%, respectively. SF had the highest overall selection ratio (<i>w</i> = 1.53), and ALF shifted from avoidance to positive selection. Within bouts, FSI peaked early, then declined as the diversity of forage items selected increased; MS trended toward 0, and turnover decreased. Forage islands promoted cattle preference and selectivity for nutrient- and phytochemical-rich legumes and broadened dietary choice within SBG monoculture paddocks, potentially supporting their health and performance while reducing environmental impacts.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12767,"journal":{"name":"Grass and Forage Science","volume":"81 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grass and Forage Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gfs.70089","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Beef cattle on rangelands typically graze grass monocultures that become nutritionally and phytochemically constrained during summer, reducing animal performance and health. We tested whether patches of forages (i.e., “islands”) embedded within smooth bromegrass (SBG) paddocks enable cows to self-select complementary forages that may improve animal performance. Fifteen Angus cow–calf pairs grazed three SBG paddocks (five pairs/paddock), each with three 30 × 40 m forage islands (three islands/paddock) comprising adjacent strips of alfalfa-ALF, sainfoin-SF, forage kochia-KH, small burnet-SB, and a patch of mixed weeds-MW. Across three 15-day periods, cows accessed one island/paddock for 1 h each evening. Cows were video-recorded simultaneously, and the forage species grazed by each cow was recorded at 2-min intervals using instantaneous scan sampling. Caged biomass quantified proportional forage availability for preference–biomass comparisons and availability-based multispecies indices, while scan-based preference was analysed using binomial GLMMs, FSI using a linear mixed-effects model, and the remaining selectivity, forage-mixing, and turnover indices descriptively. Scans on forage use shifted across periods (p < 0.001): scans on MW declined from 30%–35% to 15%–20% of total scans, while those on SF and ALF increased to 25%–30% and 15%–20%, respectively. SF had the highest overall selection ratio (w = 1.53), and ALF shifted from avoidance to positive selection. Within bouts, FSI peaked early, then declined as the diversity of forage items selected increased; MS trended toward 0, and turnover decreased. Forage islands promoted cattle preference and selectivity for nutrient- and phytochemical-rich legumes and broadened dietary choice within SBG monoculture paddocks, potentially supporting their health and performance while reducing environmental impacts.

单植草资源岛肉牛对不同牧草的偏好与选择
牧场上的肉牛通常以单一栽培的牧草为食,这些牧草在夏季营养和植物化学成分受到限制,降低了动物的生产性能和健康。我们测试了在光滑的雀麦草(SBG)围场中嵌入的饲料块(即“岛屿”)是否能使奶牛自我选择补充饲料,从而提高动物生产性能。15对安格斯牛犊牛放牧3个SBG围场(5对/围场),每个围场有3个30 × 40米的牧草岛(3个岛/围场),包括相邻的苜蓿- alf、红豆素- sf、牧草kochia-KH、小burnet-SB和一片混合杂草- mw。在三个15天的试验期内,奶牛每天晚上进入一个岛/围场1小时。同时对奶牛进行录像,并采用瞬时扫描采样法每隔2分钟记录每头奶牛的牧草种类。笼养生物量量化了比例饲料可用性,用于偏好生物量比较和基于可用性的多物种指数,而基于扫描的偏好使用二项glmm进行分析,FSI使用线性混合效应模型进行分析,剩余的选择性、饲料混合和周转率指数进行描述性分析。对牧草使用的扫描在不同时期发生了变化(p < 0.001):对牧草使用的扫描从占总扫描的30%-35%下降到15%-20%,而对牧草使用的扫描分别增加到25%-30%和15%-20%。SF的总选择比最高(w = 1.53), ALF从回避选择转向积极选择。在试验期内,FSI较早达到峰值,然后随着所选牧草多样性的增加而下降;MS趋向于0,营业额下降。草料岛促进了牛对富含营养和植物化学物质的豆科植物的偏好和选择,并扩大了单作牧草围场内的饮食选择,可能在减少环境影响的同时支持它们的健康和生产性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Grass and Forage Science
Grass and Forage Science 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
37
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Grass and Forage Science is a major English language journal that publishes the results of research and development in all aspects of grass and forage production, management and utilization; reviews of the state of knowledge on relevant topics; and book reviews. Authors are also invited to submit papers on non-agricultural aspects of grassland management such as recreational and amenity use and the environmental implications of all grassland systems. The Journal considers papers from all climatic zones.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书