Abstract
Abstract Crop‐livestock systems may improve land use and food security; however, heavy grazing can impair the soil physical properties and reduce the forage accumulation of subsequent crops. The study was conducted to evaluate the impact of mechanically harvest or low‐intensity grazing on the physical properties of soil and the productivity of an annual pasture, ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum L.), and its successive crop, maize ( Zea mays L.). Pasture and maize were evaluated from 2017 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022, respectively. The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed when the pre‐defoliation sward height was between 20 and 25 cm. The total forage accumulation increased ( P < 0.08) by approximately 500 kg ha −1 and forage accumulation rate were 25% greater ( P < 0.01) in grazed pastures than in non‐grazed pastures. Different pasture defoliation methods did not affect the physical properties of the soil. The total organic carbon concentration tended to be greater ( P = 0.058) in the grazed area than in the non‐grazed area, and the maize forage accumulation (average = 14,611 kg ha −1 ) and chemical composition were similar for plants from the previously grazed and non‐grazed areas. Four consecutive years of grazing did not impair the physical quality of the soil and DM production in either the pasture or maize silage. Thus, moderate grazing can be sustainably implemented over multiple years without degrading soil structure or reducing the productivity of forage and subsequent crops.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing increased total forage accumulation of ryegrass by approximately 500 kg ha −1.
- Treatment
- grazede0
- Outcome
- total forage accumulatione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- approximately 500 kg ha −1e1
- Qualifier
- P < 0.08e1
- Comparator
- non‐grazed pasturese2
LoliumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed”
e1“The total forage accumulation increased ( P < 0.08) by approximately 500 kg ha −1”
e2“forage accumulation rate were 25% greater ( P < 0.01) in grazed pastures than in non‐grazed pastures”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage accumulation rate of ryegrass was 25% greater in grazed than in non-grazed pastures.
- Treatment
- grazede2
- Outcome
- forage accumulation ratee2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Value
- 25%e2
- Qualifier
- P < 0.01e2
- Comparator
- non‐grazed pasturese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed”
e2“forage accumulation rate were 25% greater ( P < 0.01) in grazed pastures than in non‐grazed pastures”
Claim · model-written summary
Different pasture defoliation methods did not affect the physical properties of the soil.
- Treatment
- pasture defoliation methodse3
- Outcome
- physical properties of the soile3
- Direction
- did not affecte3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed”
e3“Different pasture defoliation methods did not affect the physical properties of the soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Total organic carbon concentration tended to be greater in the grazed area.
- Treatment
- grazed areae4
- Outcome
- total organic carbon concentratione4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Qualifier
- P = 0.058e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed”
e4“The total organic carbon concentration tended to be greater ( P = 0.058) in the grazed area than in the non‐grazed area”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize forage accumulation was similar for plants from previously grazed and non-grazed areas.
- Treatment
- previously grazede6
- Outcome
- maize forage accumulatione6
- Direction
- similare6
- Value
- 14,611 kg ha −1e6
- Comparator
- non‐grazed arease6
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Pasture and maize were evaluated from 2017 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022, respectively”
e6“the maize forage accumulation (average = 14,611 kg ha −1 ) and chemical composition were similar for plants from the previously grazed and non‐grazed areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical composition of maize was similar for plants from previously grazed and non-grazed areas.
- Treatment
- previously grazede6
- Outcome
- chemical compositione6
- Direction
- similare6
- Comparator
- non‐grazed arease6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Pasture and maize were evaluated from 2017 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022, respectively”
e6“the maize forage accumulation (average = 14,611 kg ha −1 ) and chemical composition were similar for plants from the previously grazed and non‐grazed areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Four consecutive years of grazing did not impair the physical quality of the soil.
- Treatment
- Four consecutive years of grazinge7
- Outcome
- physical quality of the soile7
- Direction
- did not impaire7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed”
e7“Four consecutive years of grazing did not impair the physical quality of the soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Four consecutive years of grazing did not reduce DM production in pasture or maize silage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Four consecutive years of grazing did not impair the physical quality of the soil”
e2“DM production in either the pasture or maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate grazing can be sustained over multiple years without degrading soil structure or reducing forage and crop productivity.
- Outcome
- moderate grazing can be sustainably implemented over multiple yearse1
- Qualifier
- without degrading soil structuree1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ryegrass was either mechanically harvested for silage production or grazed”
e1“Thus, moderate grazing can be sustainably implemented over multiple years without degrading soil structure or reducing the productivity of forage and subsequent crops”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →grazing · molecular: metabolites · LoliumPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.