5

£5) } )

‘59)"

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ADAPTATION OF DIPLOID AND TETRAPLOID CULTIVARS
OF PERENNIAL RYEGRASS THROUGHOUT MICHIGAN AS
GROWN IN ASSOCIATION WITH AND WITHOUT LADINO
CLOVER

presented by

Deborah L. Wamock

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Crop and Soil Sciences

 

 

ZM/Voé/

Major Professor’s Signature
\/// O /O (/

Date

MSU is an Afiinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

-. -.-.-.-.---.-a-A----

......-.—.--.-.-.-.--.-n-n—---a-—.- -.-.-.-.-—._.-

01-0--—-— -

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

ADAPTATION OF DIPLOID AND TETRAPLOID CULTIVARS OF PERENNIAL
RYEGRASS THROUGHOUT MICHIGAN AS GROWN IN
ASSOCIATION WITH OR WITHOUT
LADINO CLOVER

By

Deborah L. Wamock

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

2004

ABSTRACT
ADAPTATION OF DIPLOID AND TETRAPLOID CULTIVARS OF PERENNIAL
RYEGRASS THROUGHOUT MICHIGAN AS GROWN IN ASSOCIATION WITH
OR WITHOUT LADINO WHITE CLOVER
By

Deborah L. Wamock

Perennial ryegrass, Lolium perenne L., is a commonly seeded cool-season grass,
but lacks winter hardiness. The objective of this study was to evaluate the adaptation of
diploid (‘Aries’ and ‘Mara’) and tetraploid (‘Barfort’ and ‘Quartet’) perennial ryegrass
cultivars in Michigan. ‘Bronson’ tall fescue, F estuca arundinacea Schreb., ‘Tekapo’
orchardgrass, Dactylis glomerata L., and ‘Duo’ festulolium, F estulolium loliaceum
(Huds.), were used for comparison. Germination across a range of temperatures was
evaluated in the laboratory, using a thermogradient plate, to determine if germination in
cold temperatures was an indicator plant field performance. Cultivars were grown at
three locations in Michigan as monocultures and co-cultures with ladino white clover,
Trifolium ambiguum Bieb., and evaluated for winter injury, ground cover, tillering, yield,
palatability, and clover content in the co-culture. Laboratory results were not indicative
of field performance. Field results show Barfort, Mara, and Duo comparable to Bronson
and Tekapo for winter injury. Fall ground cover and first harvest yield correlated with
amount of winter injury. Quartet had lower ADF and NDF than other perennial ryegrass
cultivars, and Duo was similar to perennial ryegrass. Based on these results, cultivar was
more important than ploidy level for winter hardiness as Mara (diploid) and Barfort
(tetraploid) perennial ryegrasses were winter hardy while Aries (diploid) and Quartet

(tetraploid) were not.

 

 

 

 

 

HUIIII

IIIIC'OI

Char]

 

 

DEDICATION
To my parents, Stephen and Virginia Wamock, who have supported me in
numerous ways throughout life and throughout my Master’s program. Without their
unconditional love and faith I could never have accomplished so many dreams. Also, to

Charles Van Erp, for his patience and willingness to listen.

 

 

 

guid "
Sulei.
com
to par

cheeri

 

comic
or effi
starts .
time a
gladly
Intere
Buma

ands

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Richard Leep, for his patience and
guidance throughout my Master’s program. I would also like to thank my co-advisor, Dr.
Suleiman Bughrara, for his support. Special thanks to the other members of my
committee, Dr. Doo-Hong Min and Dr. Margaret Benson, for their time and willingness
to participate in my research project. I would also like to acknowledge Tim Dietz who
cheerfully provided a helping hand in everything from data collection and analysis to
comic relief. Without Tim, this project would not have been completed nearly as easily
or efficiently. I would also like to thank Chris Kapp for his aid in data collection, and the
staffs at W. K. Kellogg Biological Station and the Lake City Experiment Station for their
time and care of the cattle used in this trial. Finally, I would like to thank the other
graduate students who assisted with data collection and/or made life much more
interesting in general: Nasser Al-Ghumaiz, Mark Bemards, Tim Boring, Skaidrite

Bumane, James DeYoung, Corey Guza, Dan Hudson, Kevin O’Reilly, Jianping Wang,

and Sherri Weisbeck.

 

 

 

 

MAT]

h‘flf‘l

SIX

RES]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION
Perennial Ryegrass
Mite Clover
Binary Mixtures

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant Material
Trial Establishment
Trial Maintenance
Data Collection
Laboratory Experiment
Field Experiment
Stand Evaluations and Forage Yield
Grazing and Palatability
Forage Quality

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Laboratory Experiment

Winter Injury
Hickory Corners — Establishment year
Lake City — Establishment year
Chatham - Establishment year
Hickory Corners - First production year
Lake City — First production year
Chatham — First production year

vii

carol——

t-H—xoxooooooommu:
t-‘O

p—e
A

14
14
16
16
17
17
18
18
19

Ground Cover
Hickory Corners — Establishment year
Lake City — Establishment year
Chatham — Establishment year
Hickory Comers — First production year
Lake City — First production year
Chatham — First production year

Tiller Production
Hickory Corners — Establishment year
Lake City — Establishment year
Chatham — Establishment year
Hickory Corners —— First production year
Lake City -— First production year
Chatham — First production year

Clover Ratings
Hickory Comers - Establishment year
Lake City — Establishment year
Chatham — Establishment year
Hickory Corners — First production year
Lake City - First production year

Yield
Hickory Comers — Establishment year
Lake City — Establishment year
Chatham — Establishment year
Hickory Comers - First production year
Lake City — First production year
Chatham — First production year

Palatability

Forage Quality
Hickory Corners — Establishment year
Lake City — Establishment year
Chatham — Establishment year
Hickory Comers — First production year
Lake City - First production year
Chatham — First production year

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX

LITERATURE CITED

vi

24
24
24
25
25
26
26
33
33
33
34
34
35
35
4O
40
4O
41
41
42
46
46
46
47
47
47
48
54
57
57
58
59
6O
61
61

75

78

95

 

 

 

 

 

Table

Table '

Table ‘

Table 8

Table 9

 

Table 1(
Table 11
Table 13
Table 13

Table 14

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

LIST OF TABLES

Treatments and seeding rates for all trial locations.
Trial locations, seeding dates and soil types.

Statistics for calibration (SEC, R2) and cross validation

(SECV, l-VR) for Near Infrared Reflectance
Spectroscopy analysis of nutritive value traits in co-
culture samples.

Statistics for calibration (SEC, R2) and cross validation
(SECV, l-VR) for Near Infrared Reflectance
Spectroscopy of nutritive value traits in grass samples.

Germination results from the thermogradient plate
experiment.

Co-culture winter injury means (n=3) taken during the
establishment year.

Grass monoculture winter injury means (n=3) taken
during the establishment year.

Co-culture winter injury means (n=3) taken during the
first production year.

Grass monoculture winter injury means (n=3) taken
during the first production year.

Co-culture ground cover means (n=3) taken during the
establishment year.

Grass monoculture ground cover means (n=3) taken
during the establishment year.

Co-culture ground cover means (n=3) taken during the
first production year.

Grass monoculture means (n=3) taken during the first
production year.

Co-culture tiller count means (n=3) taken during the
establishment year.

vii

n;

 

 

 

Tab?

Tab?

 

 

Tabl.

Table

Table

 

Table
Table I
Table L
Table ;

Table .

Table .

Ifable j

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Grass monoculture tiller count means (n=3) taken
during the establishment year.

Co-culture tiller count means (n=3) taken during the
first production year.

Grass monoculture tiller count means (n=3) taken
during the first production year.

Co-culture clover means (n=3) taken during the
establishment year using a 1-9 scale, where 1 = no
clover in the plot and 9 = clover throughout the plot.

Co-culture clover means (n=3) taken during the first
production year using a 1-9 scale, where 1 = no clover
in the plot and 9 = clover throughout the plot.

Co-culture dry matter yield (t ha") means (n=3) at each
harvest during the establishment year.

Grass monoculture dry matter yield (t ha") means (n=3)
at each harvest during the establishment year.

Co-culture dry matter yield (t ha'l) means (n=3) at each
harvest during the first production year.

Grass monoculture dry matter yield (t ha") means (n=3)
at each harvest during the first production year.

Co-culture and grass monoculture palatability scores
(n=3) at the fourth harvest for the establishment year
and first production year. Scores are on a 1-5 scale
with 1 being least palatable.

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and crude protein (CP) values for co-culture
samples at Hickory Comers at each of the five harvests
during the establishment year. Units for all analyses are

g kg"-

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and crude protein (CP) values for grass samples
at Hickory Comers at each of the five harvests during
the establishment year Units for all analyses are g kg".

viii

 

Tab

Tabli

Table

Table

Table .

Table 3

Table 33

Table 34

 

 

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and crude protein (CP) values for co-culture
samples at Lake City at each of the three harvests
during the establishment year. Units for all analyses are

3 kg"-

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and crude protein (CP) values for grass samples
at Lake City at each of the three harvests during the
establishment year. Units for all analyses are g kg”.

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber

(N DF ), and crude protein (CP) values for co-culture
samples at Chatham at each of the three harvests durin
the establishment year. Units for all analyses are g kg' .

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and crude protein (CP) values for grass samples
at Chatham at each of the four harvests during the
establishment year. Units for all analyses are g kg".

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber

(N DF ), and crude protein (CP) values for co-culture
samples at Hickory Corners at each of the four harvests
during the first production year. Units for all analyses
are g kg".

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(N DF ), and crude protein (CP) values for grass samples
at Hickory Corners at each of the four harvests during

thelfirst production year. Units for all analyses are g
kg' .

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(N DF), and crude protein (CP) values for co-culture
samples at Lake City at each of the four harvests during

thelfirst production year. Units for all analyses are g
kg' .

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and crude protein (CP) values for grass samples
at Lake City at each of the four harvests during the first
production year. Units for all analyses are g kg".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table

I
Table i

Table (I

 

Table 1
Table 1
Table 1;
Table 1 3

Table 1:

Table 35.

Table 1A.

Table 2A.

Table 3A.

Table 4A.

Table 5A.

Table 6A.

Table 7A.

Table 8A.

Table 9A.

Table 10A.

Table 1 1A.

Table 12A.

Table 13A.

Table 14A.

Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber

(N DF), and crude protein (CP) values for grass samples
at Lake City at each of the three harvests during the
first production year. Units for all analyses are g kg".

Fertilizer application dates at each location for both
years of the trial.

Data collection dates for all locations and years of the
trial.

Cattle description, number of cattle used, and number
of grazing events at each location for both years.

Analysis of variance table for co-culture winter injury.
Analysis of variance table for grass winter injury.
Monthly minimum and maximum air temperatures
(°C) at all locations for the establishment year, first
production year, and 30 year average.

Monthly rainfall (mm) at all locations for the
establishment year, first production year, and 30 year
average.

Number of days with snow depth _>_ 2.5 cm by month at
all locations for the establishment year, first production
year, and 30 year average.

Analysis of variance table for co—culture ground cover.
Analysis of variance table for grass ground cover.
Analysis of variance table for co-culture tiller counts.
Analysis of variance table for grass tiller counts.
Analysis of variance table for co-culture clover ratings.
Botanical composition at Hickory Corners for the

establishment year. Component means (n=3) are in
grams.

 

.1
Tab,

 

IIII‘I.‘

Tabl;

Table

 

 

Table

Table

Table 15A.

Table 16A.

Table 17A.

Table 18A.

Table 19A.

Table 20A.

Botanical composition at Lake City for the
establishment year. Component means (n=3) are in
grams.

Botanical composition at Chatham for the
establishment year. Component means (n=3) are in
grams.

Botanical composition at Hickory Comers for the first
production year. Component means (n=3) are in
grams.

Botanical composition at Lake City for the first
production year. Component means (n=3) are in
grams.

Co-culture palatability scores (n=9) at the first, second,
third, and fifth harvests. Scores are averaged across
years and location where 1 is least palatable and 5 is
most palatable.

Grass palatability scores (n=9) at the first, second,
third, and fifth harvests. Scores are averaged across
years and location where 1 is least palatable and 5 is
most palatable.

xi

 

 

 

inclut

pastur

habit l
and fal

vn'de rd

 

PH fang

610 7.

INTRODUCTION
Perennial ryegrass

Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) is the most commonly grown perennial
forage grass in temperate regions throughout the world (Wilkins, 1991). It is a cool-
season grass that is native to Europe, temperate Asia, and North Africa (Balasko et al.,
1995). It has been widely distributed to other parts of the world, including North and
South America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. In the United States, it is grown
primarily in the costal northwest and the northeast. It is also grown in the Midwest,
including Michigan where it is grown on approximately 4,000 ha and is used primarily in
pastures (Leep, 2001).

Perennial ryegrass is best adapted to cool, moist climates and has a bunch growth
habit (gradual increase in clump size) (Moore, 2003). It grows well during early spring
and fall, but production declines over the summer as the grass becomes dormant. It has a
wide range of soil adaptability, growing in both well and poorly-drained soils having a
pH range from 5.0 to 8.3, but grows best on fertile, well-drained soils with a pH range of
6 to 7.

The popularity of perennial ryegrass is due to its high forage quality, which makes
it the first choice for pasture in regions where it is adapted. Advantages of perennial
ryegrass are: it is highly digestible (Frame, 1989), easily established, and an adequate
seed producer (Wilkins, 1991). The main limitation of perennial ryegrass is low winter
hardiness. Humphreys and Eagles (1988) found that the cold tolerance of perennial
ryegrass needed to be improved before the species could be used in northern continental

climates. In much of the US, it is grown only as an annual (Allinson et al., 1986) because

it does not survive through winter. In the south, it is used as over seeding in the winter
because it does not tolerate the heat

Perennial ryegrass cultivars are either diploid (contains two sets of chromosome;
2n = 2x = 145) or tetraploid (contains four sets of chromosomes; 2n = 4x = 28).
Tetraploid plants can occur naturally, but more often chromosome doubling is induced by
chemical means, such as using colchicine (Morgan, 1976). Perennial ryegrass tetraploids
were first developed in Holland in the 19605 (Connolly, 2001). Since then, many
tetraploid cultivars have been developed, released, and widely used for herbage
production in numerous countries (Dewey, 1980). Doubling chromosome number has
both desirable and undesirable effects on several agronomic traits. Diploid cultivars have
been shown to have higher cold tolerance than tetraploid cultivars (Dvorak and Fowler,
1978; Yamashita and Shimatmoto, 1996) and have better tolerance to animal treading
(Edmond, 1966). Diploid cultivars have a higher growth rate following emergence and
are more persistent than tetraploids (Balasko et al., 1995).

Tetraploids have fewer but larger tillers than diploid cultivars (Balasko et al.,
1995). Pysher and Fales (1992) found that tetraploid perennial ryegrass had a slightly
higher in vitro dry matter digestibility than diploid cultivars. Seeds of tetraploids are
larger in size, but more seed must be sown to ensure good establishment because of their
slower growth rate relative to diploids (Wilkins, 1991).
White Clover

White clover (T rifolium repens L.) is one of the most important and widely
distributed forage legumes in the world. It is adapted to a wide range of climates, has a

high nutritional quality, and the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen (Pederson, 1995).

 

 

 

 

var
und
(Pet

Bin:

seasc

a syn

transl

decon
soil ni
pasturc
compa
This C(
base 01
mixtur.
Herbag
Friar. b

and Di.

applica

INBSII

Ladino white clover has larger petioles, leaflets, flowers, and stolons than the common
varieties of white clover. Its greater biomass gives it the largest forage yields, especially
under rotational grazing, but it does not persist as well as the smaller, common types
(Pederson, 1995).
Binary Mixtures

As a pasture species, Ladino white clover is valuable when planted with cool
season grasses such as perennial ryegrass. White clovers are able to fix nitrogen through
a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar. trifolii. Nitrogen is
transferred from the legume to the soil through grazing livestock (urine and feces) and
decomposition of legume plant material (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). The enrichment of
soil nitrogen by white clover can improve the forage quality of pastures and supply
pasture grasses with available forms of nitrogen. White clover when seeded with grass
companions and grazed, can give greater yields than clover alone (Evans et a1, 1996).
This could be due to complementary growth habits, allowing more light penetration at the
base of the sward than in monocultures (Jones and Roberts, 1994). Binary legume/grass
mixtures have also been shown to improve forage yield and quality (Sleugh, et al., 2000).
Herbage yields of grass/white clover swards tend to be relatively low in the establishment
year, but generally increase during the second and third years of establishment (Spedding
and Diekmahns, 1972).

Grass/legume mixtures generally do not need nitrogen applications; in fact,
application of nitrogen contributes to a decline in the clover component of the mixture

(Nassiri and Elgersma, 2002; Williams et al., 2003). The grass component of the mixture

 

 

 

 

 

dep;

the>

TIES
State
“Till;
dei'ei
I999.
mixtu
seedi.r
Hassir
(Hum;
Improi
palata'r
[61mph
bide r;

orcham

(glass 3.

 

depends on nitrogen fixation by the clover and nitrogen mineralization and deposition in
the soil (Elgersma and Hassink, 1997).

Currently, seed companies are offering improved cultivars of both perennial
ryegrass and Ladino white clover. As a result of breeding efforts in both the United
States and Europe, improved cultivars of perennial ryegrass are available with increased
winter hardiness, forage quality, and disease resistance. Improved Ladino varieties were
developed for greater yields, longer persistence, and better pest resistance (Lacefield,
1999; Ball, 2000). While much research has been done on Ladino white clover-ryegrass
mixtures varying from evaluating competition (Hill and Michaelson—Yeates, 1987),
seeding method (Mooso et al., 1990), plant and soil nitrogen levels (Elgersma and
Hassink, 1997), seasonal variations (Hogh-Jensen and Schjoerring, 1997), and yield
(Humphreys et al., 1998) there is a lack of data on binary mixtures of the newer,
improved cultivars. This research has evaluated winter hardiness, persistence, yield,
palatability, and forage quality of four improved cultivars of perennial ryegrass (both
tetraploid and diploid) grown as both mono and binary mixtures of ladino clover over a
wide range of climatic conditions in Michigan compared to a tall fescue cultivar, an

orchardgrass cultivar, and a festulolium cultivar.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS
The trial was divided into three sections: grass or legume only, and co-culture
(grass and legume mixture). Each section was a randomized complete block with three

replications. In the grass section there were 16 cultivars, in the legume section there were

 

Plan

and E
are 16
and it
fescuel
Treatn

Trial I

 

LTiller
eXperi p
clover,

seedbe <

 

 

ITfIdS n-l

Carter 1

 

eight cultivars, and in the co-culture there were 72 grass/legume combinations. For this

research 7 cultivars were selected for further study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant Material

Cultivars in the grass section were Aries, Mara, Quartet, Barfort, Duo, Tekapo,
and Bronson. Aries and Mara are diploid perennial ryegrasses, while Quartet and Barfort
are tetraploid perennial ryegrasses. Duo is a festulolium (a cross between meadow fescue
and tetraploid perennial ryegrass), Tekapo is an orchardgrass, and Bronson is a tall
fescue. Co-culture combinations consisted of the above grasses with ladino clover.
Treatments and seeding rates are listed in Table 1.
Trial Establishment

Three grass/legume co-culture trials were established at Michigan State
University Experiment Stations in 2001. Co-culture and legume portions of the
experiment at Chatham were destroyed and reseeded in 2002 due to a poor stand of
clover. Experiment sites, soil types, and establishment dates are listed in Table 2. The
seedbeds were prepared by moldboard plowing, disking once, and then passing over the
fields multiple times with a drag. All of the plots were 1.8 m x 4.6 m and seeded with a

Carter Forage Plot Seeder (Carter Manufacturing Co. Inc., Brookston, IN).

 

 

 

hwaif—2.5.: 24.—.5 :1 L»: 1.922..

In Ila-In... L 3...:=:~0L.F I -.-I -.l I. PI. III .\
Effiioubw 3.3...-w.»:.i.::...,..t.:~.. .s .34: \.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omd 3.x 0593 5>2o 8E3 0%on mmflwpaaouo
cmam ”at: 8:34 5520 853 05D 85:28QO
omd ”.3 9:25 coca—o 233 588m 03QO :3.
omd me 0:65 563 BE? Hugo mmfiwotnm .A 20386;.
omd Qmm 0:63 ago—o 833 “Siam mmfiwoww .m Beanbag.
36. SN 0:63 b>2o BE? «52 mmeawob .m 3035
ofim own 0:63 553 2:39 85 mmfiwob .m 2035
”3 0%on mmfiwEmsouO
ween 0:0 SEE—amen“
”2 :8:on osomom :3.
9mm 85:0 mmEmoxm .m Beanbag.
9mm tomam mmaawob .m Eoieboh
9mm ~32 mmmuwob .m 22219
9mm mug magma? .m 22me
Ca use 9.2 was
.35 9:5»?— 43 must—U ESE—=0 2::qu 09¢. «Eswoq 235:0 EEO 09C. 330

 

 

 

 

 

 

33m BEE-em

 

35.53:.

 

.3888— EE =e com mean 955% was 35880:. A 05:

 

 

 

$.49»; :37. 3:... .752”? wh...§..rov. .v.:C.:....O.< \....C.\. .m. 3?th

.p a...

ago—o mo 38m been a 33
208 3:33 35:28.8 mg» Baum Be: a was comobmon 20>» RE 05 me 2388 unswe— uSc. 8339.8 05 mo mus—Sm 3538 05....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aegean
39C. 238 .o>uomEom 5.52 N? I $833
60me Same—-05": :2 £3.80 >3on
.52 Seemed. 88 2&3. a Seem 18%an $23 a. .3

@3386
omsgxxo Swim 582 New I 2553
638388 68:8 GEE :2 £20 8H3
:82 35% ~88 Z Sow “Sweet 3 couflm acoEtomxm 36 0x5
aaoaeoaam 2A5 Ema Boa 3&3. a €02 $4 I 233
.3me flame—-8808 can :2 45530
Emo— tncowm E530 SON “mama/w h 538m waofitaxm «333$ 5&3
25. _am 35 3.5% 5:83 E;

 

 

 

.899 :8 was £33 wfiuoom .8332 35. .m 03mg.

 

 

Tri

 

appl

Stat

 

K we
Clipp
Data

LEW

PCICDI

thfinm

Walde

replica.

 

Could k'
1empty1 .
[empen

 

 

Trial Maintenance

The grass only section was maintained with split applications of ammonium
sulfate fertilizer (21-0-0). Each of the four applications consisted of 45.4 kg of nitrogen
per hectare, for a total of 181.6 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year. Applications were in
early spring, following the first and second grazing periods, and in mid-autumn. For
application dates see Appendix Table 1A.

Soil samples were taken from each section in the fall and tested at the Michigan
State University soil testing laboratory for phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and pH. P and
K were adequate, so no additional fertilization was applied. In the late fall all plots were

clipped and the clippings were removed.

Data Collection

Laboratory Experiment

Germination response to a range of temperatures was evaluated for the four
perennial ryegrass cultivars (Aries, Mara, Barfort, and Quartet) using a one-way
thermogradient plate. The procedure used was a modified version of that described by
Wade et a1. (1993).

The experiment was a completely randomized block design, with three
replications of each cultivar. The thermogradient plate was marked such that Petri dishes
could be placed equidistantly across the apparatus, allowing seeds to be tested at
temperatures of approximately 4, 10, 16, 21, 27, 32, 38, and 43 °C. At each of the eight
temperature regimes, three Petri dishes were randomly placed in three blocks for a total
of nine Petri dishes per temperature regime. The Petri dishes were lined with Whatman

Number 4 filter paper, which was divided into four equal quadrants. Five seeds were

placed in each quadrant and covered with another layer of the filter paper. One week
constituted one run of the experiment. At the end of the week, seeds were scored as
germinated or not germinated. Germination was defined as the emergence of a radicle

from the seed coat.

Field Experiment

For a complete list of all data collections and dates see Appendix Table 2A.

Stand Evaluations and Forage Yield

In early spring (March-April) all plots were visually assessed for winter injury
(WI) and amount of ground cover (GC). Plots were rated on a 1-9 scale (WI: 1 = no
winter injury, 9 = plot winter killed; GC: 1 = least amount of ground cover, 9 = greatest
amount of ground cover). Plots in the co-culture treatment were rated on a 1-9 scale for
amount of clover (1 = no clover in stand, 9 = clover present throughout stand). For all
visual assessments, two people rated the plots and the average was taken. Observers
were trained, and one individual was appointed be present at all ratings; the second
individual was not always the same at each rating. Grass stand counts were also taken in
the spring for the grass only and co-culture treatments by randomly selecting a 30.5 cm
section of one row and counting all the grass tillers within that section. In the fall, all
treatments were again rated for ground cover and grass stand counts were taken for the
grass only and co-culture treatments.

Forage yield was determined at each grazing event by randomly placing a 45.7 cm
x 45.7 cm quadrat per plot. The forage inside the quadrat was clipped at a 7.6 cm height

and removed. All removed samples were dried at 60°C for 48 hours and dry weight was

recL

legt

(Era

graz

graz
rfl-fls“.‘1 graz;
dens

deun

 

InaI
comp

consi

Visu;

 

“hen

1988;

 

 

recorded, however, prior to drying the co-culture samples were hand separated into grass,

legume, or weed groups for botanical composition.

Grazing and Palatability

To determine how the cultivars performed under grazing pressure, trials were
grazed when the average grass height was between 20 and 30 cm tall. The number of
grazing events at each location was dependent on the grth rate of the grass. The
grazing events for each location, type of cattle used, average cattle weights, and stocking
density are listed in Appendix Table 3A. The number and type of cattle used was
determined by availability at each Experiment Station. For data collection purposes, the
trial area at each location was divided in half using a temporary fence. The first half was
composed of the grass only and legume only sections of the trial, while the second half

consisted of the co-culture section.

Palatability of the cultivars was assessed visually using a single digit scale.
Visually assessing palatability has been sensitive enough to detect differences in cultivars
when grazing cattle (van Santen, 1992; Shewmaker et al., 1997) and sheep (Johnston,
1988). Cattle were allowed into the first half of the trial and approximately half-way
through the grazing period, plots were rated on a 1-5 scale for palatability (1 = least
preferred and 5 = most preferred) as described by McCaughey (1998). The length of time
required for the cattle to graze the plot area down to approximately a 7.6 cm height varied
at each location. The area at Hickory Corners took 36 hours during the establishment
year and 102 hours during the first production year (due to differing numbers of cattle
available). At Lake City, 24 hours was required both years and at Chatham it took 48

hours both years. When the cattle had grazed most of the forage down to a 7.6 cm height,

10

un. fish-€36 j
I

 

 

 

the

p31;

For

30
365

with

and I
durin
selec
Port I
used J
INDI'
year \
equati

includ

Procet‘
b); mu,

GO‘é‘n'r.

 

dEIeI’m

“Mil

 

they were moved into the second half. The second half of the grazing trial was rated for

palatability in the same manner.

Forage Quality

Samples collected for forage yield were ground to pass through a 1 mm screen in
a Christy 8” lab mill (Christy-Norris Co., Ipswich, UK). Each sample was scanned with
a 6500 near-infrared spectrophotometer (FOSS NIRSystems, Inc., Silver Spring, MD)
with wavelengths between 800 and 2500 nm.

All three replicates of the seven cultivars were scanned for each grazing period
and location. A subset of samples (84 for the co-culture and 74 for the grass monoculture
during the establishment year; 46 for the co-culture during the first production year) was
selected using the Select program from WinISI software (Infrasofi International, LLC.,
Port Matilda, PA.) for wet chemistry analysis. The co-culture establishment subset was
used to create an equation for prediction of crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber
(NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF). The co-culture subset from the first production
year was used to verify the equation. The grass only subset was used to verify an
equation from the NIRS consortium. Statistics for calibration and cross-validation are
included for the co-culture (Table 3) and grass (Table 4).

Total nitrogen was determined for the subset by the Hach modified Kjeldahl
procedure using 0.25 i 0.001 g of sample (Watkins et al., 1987), and CP was estimated
by multiplying total N by 6.25, since most feed proteins contain about 16% nitrogen. The
Goering and Van Soest (1970) method was used for sequential NDF and ADF
determination using 0.50 :t 0.001 g of sample. For NDF analysis, a ground sample, 100

mL of neutral-detergent solution, and 2 ml of amylase were refluxed for 60 minutes.

11

San

aft:

“fit

 

refit.

dryi

 

C001

for ‘1

deter

 

 

 

 

Samples were then filtered and rinsed with acetone before drying at 100°C for 8 hours,
after which they were hot weighed. ADF analysis included covering the crucible and
remaining sample from NDF analysis with 200 ml of acid detergent solution and
refluxing for 60 minutes. Samples were then filtered and rinsed with acetone before
drying at 100°C for 8 hours, after which they were hot weighed. Dry matter (DM)
content was determined by drying 0.50 i: 0.001 g of sample in ceramic crucibles at 100°C
for 12 hours. The samples were then ignited in a muffle furnace at 500°C for 6 hours to

determine ash content.

12

 

ffi -.

 

 

Crc

Table
Infrar

_—

 

Table 3. Statistics for calibration (SEC, R2) and cross validation (SECV, l-VR) for Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy analysis of nutritive value traits (g kg-l) in co-culture
samples.

 

Parameters N1 Mean SD3 SEC§ Rfl SECV' l-VR"

 

ADF 84 234 43.0 8.3 0.96 9.6 9.5
NDF 84 448 78.8 2.0 0.94 26.1 8.9
CP 75 202 45.8 9.6 0.96 1.2 9.3

 

TN: number of samples in the calibration equation.

IStandard deviation of know quality values.

§Standard error of calibration.

1Coefficient of determination.

aStandard error of cross validation.

bCross validation performance expressed as the coefficient of determination.

Table 4. Statistics for calibration (SEC, R2) and cross validation (SECV, l-VR) for Near
Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy analysis of nutritive value traits (g kg-l) in grass
samples.

 

 

Parameters N1 Mean SDI SEC§ R“ SECVa l-VRb
ADF 1443 362 65.4 16.4 .94 8.2 9.3
NDF 1013 490 115.0 23.3 .96 16.9 9.6

CP 1630 170 55.2 79.9 .98 8.2 9.8

 

1N: number of samples in the calibration equation.

IStandard deviation of know quality values.

§Standard error of calibration.

1Coefficient of determination.

3Standard error of cross validation.

bCross validation performance expressed as the coefficient of determination.

13

 

 

 

 

three

these
among

a tem

Percer.

 

Signifz
101€rafjh
83111071

Mara f.

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data were collected in 2002 and 2003 and analyzed with the PROC MIXED function in
SAS version 8e (SAS Institute Inc., 2001). Rep nested within location and year and
treatment * rep nested within location and year were considered random effects. Unequal

variances were accounted for using the repeated/ group command.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Laboratory Experiment

The germination results over a range of temperatures are presented in Table 5. At
three of the eight temperature regimes (4, 38, and 43°C) there was no germination, and
these are not included in Table 5. There was a significant difference in germination
among the cultivars at only two of the five temperatures where germination occurred. At
a temperature of 16°C, Aries, Barfort, and Quartet showed the highest germination
percentages. The germination of Mara was significantly lower. At 10°C the only
significant difference was between Barfort and Mara. Diploid cultivars have greater cold
tolerance than tetraploids (Yamahita and Shimatmoto, 1996), but this experiment showed
Barfort, a tetraploid cultivar, to tolerate the cold stress and have better germination than
Mara, a diploid cultivar.

Soil temperature affects both the rate of germination and growth of seedlings.

Cool season grasses grow actively when soil temperatures are between 16 and 21°C. Too

14

high or low of a temperature, however, can prevent germination or greatly reduce the rate
of seed germination. Germination did not occur at 4, 38, and 43°C because the
temperatures were too extreme and the seeds were either dormant or dead.

The ability to germinate in cold temperatures was not indicative, however, of how
the cultivars would perform in the field in this experiment. This is similar to findings by
Humphreys and Eagles (1988) where laboratory assessments of perennial ryegrass
freezing tolerance did not always accurately predict survival under natural freezing

conditions.

Table 5. Germination results from the thermogradient plate experiment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grass Grass Percent Germination (%)

Type Cultivar 10 °c 16 °c 21 °C 27 °C 32 °c
Diploid Aries 57 AB 93 A 87 A 93 A 50 AT
Diploid Mara 37 B 70 B 93 A 97 A 53 A

Tetraploid Barfort 70 A 97 A 97 A 87 A 63 A
Tetraploid Quartet 53 AB 93 A 93 A 87 A 63 A
Mean 54 88 92 91 57
SE. 12.1 8.2 5.0 5.0 6.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p50.05).

15

 

 

 

Tab;
prod

mcx

tam

loca:

mdu
3111014

5110“

Hick.

the C1"
mono
mecu
Wee:
ufiha

Were r

 

Winter Iniurv

There was no year*location*treatment or year*treatment interaction (Appendix
Table 4A) for the co-culture, therefore, at each location establishment year and first
production year data could have been combined. Data were separated by year, however,
in order to evaluate cultivar performance under different winter conditions.

In the grass monoculture, there was a significant (P<.0001) year* location*
treatment interaction (Appendix Table 5A), so data needed to be compared at each
location and year.

Weather data was obtained and is included in the Appendix. Data recorded
include the monthly minimum and maximum air temperatures (Appendix Table 6A),
amount of rainfall per month (Appendix Table 7A), and number of days with 2.5 cm of

snow depth or greater per month (Appendix Table 8A).

Hickory Corners - Establishment year

There were no significant differences in winter injury among cultivars in either
the co-culture (Table 6) or the grass monoculture (Table 7). In both the co-culture and
monoculture, Aries was the only cultivar with an injury rating greater than 1.0. None of
the cultivars had much injury because winter conditions during the establishment year
were relatively mild. Warmer than normal air temperatures (Appendix Table 6A), along
with adequate snow cover from December 2001 to March 2002 (Appendix Table 8A) ,

were not harsh enough to result in significant differences among cultivars.

16

Lax

culti
mm:-
and

(App
raft}; 2' x4225...

snow
' I

been

Chat

 

destr.
Lake
hgnn
Were .

Ahho

 

lOCdIIt
akoh

fOIagQ

during

cUlIII'a

 

Lake City —- Establishment year

In the co-culture, there was no significant difference in winter injury among
cultivars (Table 6). There were, however, significant differences in the grass
monoculture. Aries had the most winter injury, followed by Quartet, having means of 2.3
and 1.5, respectively (Table 7). Air temperatures were warmer than the 30 year average
(Appendix Table 6A), but there were 20 days less than the 30 year average which had
snow cover greater than or equal to 2.5 cm (Appendix Table 8A). This might not have
been adequate snow cover to prevent all cultivars from having some injury.
Chatham — Establishment year

Establishment year data for the Chatham co-culture was from 2003 because it was
destroyed and reseeded due to a poor stand of clover, whereas establishment year data at
Lake City and Hickory Comers was from 2002. In the co-culture, Barfort had
significantly more winter injury than all the cultivars except for Aries (Table 6). There
were no differences in winter injury among cultivars in the grass monoculture (Table 7).
Although Chatham had the coldest minimum and maximum air temperatures of all
locations in both the establishment year and first production year (Appendix Table 6A), it
also had the greatest amount of snow cover (Appendix Table 8A), which insulated the

forage, keeping winter injury relatively low.

At all three locations, establishment year minimum and maximum air
temperatures were warmer than the 30 year averages. The mild weather conditions
during the establishment year resulted in few significant differences between species and

cultivars. In fact, over all locations there were only two significant differences. One

17

 

 

had

fast.

Hie/t"

all 0t]
mom
more
21111011
cooler
(Appg
there ~.
(APPC

Lake (,

CL1111M";
in the .

“Inter

 

significant difference occurred in the Lake City monoculture where Aries, then Quartet,
had the most injury. Another significant difference occurred in the Chatham co-culture.
Differences at Chatham occurred during the 2003 winter which was quite harsh. Barfort
had the greatest winter injury at Chatham, but it was observed that Barfort also had the

fastest growth after seeding.

Hickory Corners — First production year

There was no difference in winter injury among cultivars in the co-culture (Table
8). In the grass monoculture, Aries and Quartet had significantly more winter injury than
all other cultivars except Barfort (Table 9). There was more winter injury in the
monoculture than the co-culture. This could be due to better insulation as a result of
more biomass, better N nutrition, or a combination of these factors. There was a greater
amount of winter injury during the first production year because air temperatures were
cooler than the establishment year and the 30 year averages from October to November
(Appendix Table 6A). Also, the forage was not insulated during these cooler months as
there was less than the average number of days of snow cover from October to November
(Appendix Table 8A).
Lake City — First production year

In the co-culture, Quartet had significantly more winter injury than all the
cultivars except Aries (Table 8). Quartet and Aries also had the greatest amount of injury
in the grass monoculture (Table 9). Like Hickory Comers, there was a greater amount of

winter injury than the monoculture than the co-culture. At Lake City, there was also a

18

greater amount of winter injury when compared to the establishment year. Minimum and
maximum air temperatures were cooler than the 30 year averages from October to
January (Appendix Table 6A). There were also less than the average days of snow cover
from October to December (Appendix Table 8A).
Chatham — First production year

There is no first production year data for the co-culture because it was reseeded.
In the grass monoculture, Aries and Quartet had significantly more winter injury than all
other cultivars with means of 8.5 and 8.2, respectively (Table 9). Chatham did have
reliable snow cover during the first production year, but air temperatures were extremely
cold. Temperatures were cooler than the 30 year averages from October to July, with
February having the coolest temperatures of -1 8.4°C minimum and -5.3°C maximum

(Appendix Table 6A).

There was a greater amount of winter injury at all locations during the first
production year. Winter conditions were harsh, so significant differences can be seen
between species and cultivars. Minimum and maximum air temperatures were below
average from at least the months of October to December. At Hickory Corners and Lake
City, there were also less than average days of snow cover.

Aries and Quartet had significantly more injury at all locations, except in the co-
culture at Hickory Comers. This was expected as perennial ryegrass is used primarily in
lower Michigan where it is adapted. Barfort and Mara, however, ofien performed as well
as the tall fescue cultivar, Bronson, and the orchardgrass cultivar, Tekapo. This is

because these cultivars are from Europe which has a similar climate as Michigan and are

19

therefore better adapted to this region than Aries and Quartet which are from New
Zealand. Orchardgrass is classified as being adapted to the entire lower peninsula of
Michigan, while tall fescue is classified as being adapted to both the lower and upper
peninsulas. The festulolium cultivar, Duo, had a similar amount of winter injury as
Bronson at all locations and years. Duo had less winter injury than Aries and Quartet, but
a similar amount of injury as Barfort and Mara.

Previous research has determined that diploid perennial ryegrass has greater cold
tolerance than tetraploid perennial ryegrass (Yamashita and Shimamoto, 1996; Sugiyama
1998). Aries and Quartet are diploid and tetraploid cultivars, respectively, from New
Zealand and had a greater amount of winter injury than all the other cultivars when
damage occurred. Mara and Barfort are a diploid cultivar from Romania and a tetraploid
cultivar from Holland, respectively. This research suggests that location of origin is a
more important factor for winter injury than ploidy level.

Earlier research has also found location of origin to be an important factor for
winter injury and survival. Cooper (1964) found a similar relationship between cold
survival and temperature at site of origin in ryegrass populations. A study in Canada
evaluated the hardiness of thirty perennial ryegrass cultivars and found a large variability
for tolerance to subfreezing temperatures, however, cultivars from Canada and northern
Europe were the most winter hardy (Kunelius and Castonguay, 2003). Research done in
the United Kingdom, at Wales, found that varieties fi'om northern Europe were more cold
tolerant than ecotypes from the Mediterranean region (Lorenzetti et al., 1971).

Typically, there was less winter injury in the co-culture than the grass

monoculture. This might be due to the extra biomass of the clover helping to “catch” the

20

snow, providing insulation, or less regrowth after the last fall clipping than the grass
monoculture. White (1973) found that high levels of N, especially late in the season,

encourage vegetative growth, which predisposes perennials to winter injury.

21

Table 6. Co-culture winter injury means (n=3) taken during the establishment year. A

1 — 9 scale was used where 1 = no winter injury and 9 = winterkilled.

 

 

Cultivar Hickory Corners Lake City Chatham§
(species)r
Aries (dPR) 1.7 AI 1.7 A 3.5 AB
Mara (dPR) 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.0 A
Barfort (tPR) 1.0 A 1.0 A 3.8 B
Quartet (tPR) 1.0 A 2.2 A 1.0 A
Bronson (TF) 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.0 A
Duo (Fest) 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.2 A
Tekapo (OR) 1.0 A 1.3 A 1.2 A
Mean 1.] 1.3 1.8
SE. 0.2 0.7 1.3

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p30.05).
§Chatham data is from 2003 because the original co-culture stand was destroyed and
reseeded.

Table 7. Grass monoculture winter injury means (n=3) taken during the establishment
year. A 1 — 9 scale was used where l = no winter injury and 9 = winterkilled.

 

 

Cultivar Hickory Comers Lake City Chatham
(species)l
Aries (dPR) 1.2 AI 2.3 A 1.0 A
Mara (dPR) 1.0 A 1.0 C 1.0 A
Barfort (tPR) 1.0 A 1.0 C 1.0 A
Quartet (tPR) 1.0 A 1.5 B 1.0 A
Bronson (TF) 1.0 A 1.0 C 1.0 A
Duo (Fest) 1.0 A 1.0 C 1.0 A
Tekapo (OR) 1.0 A 1.0 C 1.0 A
Mean 1.0 1.3 1.0
SE. 0.1 0.1 0.1

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p50.05).

22

Table 8. Co-culture winter injury means (n=3) taken during the first production year. A
1 - 9 scale was used where 1 = no winter injury and 9 = winterkilled.

 

 

Cultivar Hickory Corners Lake City
(species)l
Aries (dPR) 2.2 AT 3.7 AB
Mara (dPR) 1.3 A 1.0 B
Barfort (tPR) 2.3 A 1.2 B
Quartet (tPR) 1.3 A 5.8 A
Bronson (TF) 1.7 A 1.0 B
Duo (Fest) 1.8 A 1.0 B
Tekapo (OR) 1.7 A 1.3 B
Mean 1.8 2.1
SE. 0.2 0.7

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p=0.05).

Table 9. Grass monoculture winter injury means taken during the first production year.
A 1 - 9 scale was used where 1 = no winter injury and 9 = winterkilled.

 

 

Cultivar Hickory Corners Lake City Chatham
(speciesf
Aries (dPR) 3.8 AI 5.7 A 8.5 A
Mara (dPR) 1.8 B 2.0 BC 2.5 BC
Barfort (tPR) 2.2 AB 3.0 B 2.7 BC
Quartet (tPR) 3.8 A 7.2 A 8.2 A
Bronson (TF) 1.3 B 1.0 C 1.0 C
Duo (Fest) 2.0 B 1.3 BC 1.5 BC
Tekapo (OR) 1.8 B 1.0 C 2.8 B
Mean 2.4 3.0 3.9
SE. 0.6 0.6 0.6

 

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p=0.05).

23

Ground Cover

There was a year*location*treatment interaction (Appendix Table 9A) for the co-
culture, therefore, ground cover was compared within a location and year. In the grass
monoculture, there was also a significant year*location*treatment interaction (Appendix

Table 10A), so data compared at each location and year.

Hickory Corners — Establishment year

Barfort had a similar amount of spring ground cover as Bronson, Duo, and
Tekapo in the co-culture. Mara and Quartet had significantly less ground cover than the
above listed cultivars. Aries had the least amount of ground cover (Table 10). In the fall,
there was no difference in the amount of ground cover for the perennial ryegrass cultivars
or the orchardgrass cultivar in the co-culture (Table 10). Bronson had a greater amount
of ground cover than Barfort, and Duo.

The only significant difference in spring ground cover in the monoculture was
between Barfort and Quartet. Means for these cultivars were 8.7 and 7.8, respectively
(Table 11). In the fall, Mara had more ground cover than all cultivars except Quartet
(Table 11).

Lake City — Establishment year

Barfort and Mara had significantly more spring ground cover in the co-culture
than Aries, Quartet, and Bronson. Quartet had less spring ground cover than all cultivars
except for Aries (Table 10). The perennial ryegrass cultivars, Bronson, and Duo had
similar amounts of fall ground cover, but Mara had significantly more ground cover than

Tekapo (Table 10).

24

In the monoculture, Barfort, Mara also had a greater amount of spring ground
cover than Aries and Quartet. Aries had less ground cover than all other cultivars;
Quartet had more ground cover than Aries, but less spring ground cover than the other
five cultivars (Table 11). Barfort and Mara also had significantly more ground cover
than Aries and Quartet in the fall (Table 11).

C hatham — Establishment year

The co-culture was reseeded at Chatham, hence, establishment year data is from
spring 2003 instead of spring 2002. There were no significant differences among
cultivars for either spring or fall ground cover (Table 10).

There were no differences in spring ground cover among perennial ryegrass
cultivars in the monoculture. Barfort and Quartet had more spring ground cover than
Duo and Tekapo (Table 11). In the fall, all cultivars had equal amounts of ground cover

(Table 11).

Hickory Corners — First production year

In the co-culture, there were no differences in spring ground cover among
perennial ryegrass cultivars. Barfort had significantly less ground cover than both
Tekapo and Bronson (Table 12). All cultivars had similar fall ground cover ratings
(Table 12).

There were no significant differences in amount of spring or fall ground cover

among cultivars in the grass monoculture (Table 13).

25

 

 

l

Althea-.45 M.

1.... ulfllilflnl .Jm.

Lake City — First production year

Barfort and Mara had significantly more spring ground cover in the co-culture
than Aries and Quartet. Quartet had less ground cover than all other cultivars; Aries had
more ground cover than Quartet, but less spring ground cover than the other five cultivars
(Table 12). In the fall, Quartet had less ground cover than Aries, Mara, Bronson, and
Duo in the co-culture (Table 12)

Aries and Quartet had significantly less spring ground cover than all other
cultivars in the monoculture (Table 13). In the fall, all cultivars had a similar amount of
ground cover (Table 13).

Chatham — First production year

There is no first production year data for the co—culture because it was reseeded.

Aries and Quartet had significantly less spring ground cover than all other cultivars in the

monoculture (Table 13). All cultivars had similar amounts of fall ground cover (Table

13).

The amount of spring ground cover was inversely related to the amount of winter
injury in both the co-culture and monoculture. Aries and Quartet, which tended to have
the most winter injury, also had the least amount of spring ground cover. Bronson, Duo,
and Tekapo had little to no winter injury and good spring ground cover, but during the
establishment year at Lake City, Bronson had less ground cover than Mara and Barfort in
both the co-culture and monoculture. Overall, there was a lower amount of spring ground

cover in the first production year because of the harsher winter conditions.

26

Humphreys and Eagles (1988) came to a similar conclusion when they subjected
perennial ryegrass accessions to freezing temperatures from 2°C to -10°C, then let
surviving plants recover for six weeks. They found that grth was severely limited by
freezing and determined that spring grth may be limited by previous winter conditions
even in the absence of plant death. Hofgaard et al. (2003) also found greater spring
growth in perennial ryegrass cultivars with greater tolerance to freezing and ice
encasement.

Casler et al. (2002) found that selected strains of ‘Spring Green’ festulolium had a
greater survival rate and averaged 30% more ground cover than its unselected parents in
USDA hardiness zones 2 through 4. The researchers also found mean ground cover was
highly correlated with USDA hardiness zone classification. The only exception was at
Rosemount, MN (USDA hardiness zone 4) which they attributed to longer and more
reliable snow cover.

Amount of fall ground cover was not as predictable as the amount of spring
ground cover. As both the co-culture and monoculture treatments recovered from the
winter injury, the difference in ground cover means became smaller so more winter injury
did not necessarily mean less fall ground cover. A study by Frame (1989) evaluated
herbage productivity of fourteen grasses and during the winter of the third year, both
Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), a perennial grass originally from Europe, and perennial
ryegrass plots were damaged with some plant death, however, both species largely
recovered by the second harvest.

Overall, the amount of ground cover decreased from spring to fall in the

establishment year. In the first production year, the amount of ground cover typically

27

increased from spring to fall. This is partly due to a larger amount of winter injury and
partly because fall ground cover ratings were taken in before grass was becoming

dormant.

28

Table 10. Co-culture ground cover means (n=3) taken during the establishment year. A
1 — 9 scale was used where 1 = no ground cover and 9 = complete ground cover.

 

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)l Spring Ground Fall Ground Cover
Cover Rating Ratinj
Aries (dPR) 6.5 C‘b§ 7.5 ABCa
Mara (dPR) 7.3 Ba 7.7 ABa
Hickory Corners Barfort (tPR) 8.5 Aa 7.2 BCb
Quartet (tPR) 7.3 Ba 7.3 ABCa
Bronson (TF) 8.7 Aa 8.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 8.5 Aa 6.8 Cb
Tekapo (OR) 8.7 Aa 7.0 BCb
Mean 7.9 7.4
SE. 0.3 0.3
Aries (dPR) 6.3 CDb 7.3 ABa
Mara (dPR) 8.0 Aa 8.0 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 8.2 Aa 6.7 ABb
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 5.3 Da 7.0 ABa
Bronson (TF) 7.0 BCa 7.3 ABa
Duo (Fest) 7.7 ABa 7.3 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 7.3 ABCa 6.5 Ba
Mean 7.1 7.2
SE. 0.3 0.3
Aries (dPR) 6.7 Ab 8.8 Aa
Mara (dPR) 6.8 Ab 9.0 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 7.2 Ab 9.0 Aa
Chathaml Quartet (tPR) 7.7 Aa 9.0 Aa
Bronson (TF) 7.3 Ab 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 6.8 Ab 9.0 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 7.0 Ab 9.0 Aa
Mean 7.1 9.0
SE. 0.3 0.3

 

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).
§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).
1Chatham data is from 2003 because the original co-culture stand was destroyed and

reseeded.

29

Table 11. Grass monoculture ground cover means (n=3) taken during the establishment
year. A 1 — 9 scale was used where l = no ground cover and 9 = complete ground cover.

 

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)T Spring Ground Fall Ground Cover
Cover Rating Rating
Aries (dPR) 8.3 ABIa§ 7.0 BCb
Mara (dPR) 8.3 ABa 8.2 Aa
Hickory Corners Barfort (tPR) 8.7 Aa 7.3 BCb
Quartet (tPR) 7.8 Ba 7.5 ABa
Bronson (TF) 8.0 ABa 7.2 BCb
Duo (Fest) 8.2 ABa 7.3 BCb
Tekapo (OR) 8.3 ABa 6.7 Cb
Mean 8.2 7.3
SE. 0.2 0.2
Aries (dPR) 4.8 Db 6.9 Da
Mara (dPR) 8.3 Aa 8.7 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 8.2 Aa 8.3 ABa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 6.0 Cb 7.5 CDa
Bronson (TF) 7.5 Ba 7.8 BCa
Duo (Fest) 8.5 Aa 8.8 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 8.0 ABa 8.5 Aa
Mean 7.3 8.1
SE. 0.2 0.2
Aries (dPR) 8.3 ABb 9.0 Aa
Mara (dPR) 8.7 ABa 9.0 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 9.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Chatham Quartet (tPR) 9.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Bronson (TF) 8.3 ABb 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 8.0 Bb 9.0 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 8.0 Bb 9.0 Aa
Mean 8.5 9.0
SE. 0.2 0.2

 

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).
§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different
within a location @5005).

30

Table 12. Co-culture ground cover means (n=3) taken during the first production year.
A l - 9 scale was used where 1 = no ground cover and 9 = complete ground cover.

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)r Spring Ground Fall Ground Cover
Cover Rating Rating
Aries (dPR) 6.5 ABIb§ 8.5 Aa
Mara (dPR) 6.8 ABb 9.0 Aa
Hickory Comers Barfort (tPR) 6.3 Bb 9.0 Aa
Quartet (tPR) 7.0 ABb 8.8 Aa
Bronson (TF) 7.2 Ab 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 6.5 ABb 9.0 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 7.3 Ab 9.0 Aa
Mean 6.8 8.9
SE. 0.3 0.3
Aries (dPR) 6.7 Cb 9.0 Aa
Mara (dPR) 8.0 ABb 9.0 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 8.0 ABa 8.5 ABa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 3.3 Db 7.5 Ba
Bronson (TF) 8.5 Aa 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 7.7 Bb 9.0 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 8.0 ABa 8.8 ABa
Mean 7.2 8.7
SE. 0.3 0.3

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).
§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).

31

Table 13. Grass monoculture ground cover means (n=3) taken during the first production
year. A 1 - 9 scale was used where 1 = no ground cover and 9 = complete ground cover.

 

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species) Spring Ground Fall Ground Cover
Cover Rating Rating
Aries (dPR) 5.3 A‘b§ 9.0 Aa
Mara (dPR) 7.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Hickory Comers Barfort (tPR) 6.3 Ab 8.7 Aa
Quartet (tPR) 5.0 Ab 8.8 Aa
Bronson (TF) 6.0 Ab 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 7.0 Aa 8.5 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 5.5 Ab 9.0 Aa
Mean 6.0 8.9
SE. 0.8 0.8
Aries (dPR) 4.7 Bb 8.8 Aa
Mara (dPR) 7.7 Aa 9.0 A3
Barfort (tPR) 7.7 Aa 8.7 Aa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 3.7 Bb 8.2 Aa
Bronson (TF) 8.3 Aa 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 7.8 Aa 8.5 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 9.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Mean 7.0 8.7
SE. 0.8 0.8
Aries (dPR) 3.7 Bb 7.5 Aa
Mara (dPR) 7.2 Aa 9.0 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 8.2 Aa 8.8 Aa
Chatham Quartet (tPR) 1.5 Bb 7.0 Aa
Bronson (TF) 6.8 Aa 7.5 Aa
Duo (Fest) 8.5 Aa 8.7 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 7.2 Aa 9.0 Aa
Mean 6.2 8.2
SE. 0.8 0.8

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

Tiller Production

There was no year*treatment*location or year*treatment (Appendix Table 12A)
interaction for the co-culture, therefore, at each location establishment year and first
production year data could have been combined. In the grass monoculture, there were no
interactions (Appendix Table 13A), so data from all locations and years could have been
combined. Both co-culture and monoculture data were separated by location and year,

however, to easily compare seasonal results with winter injury and ground cover.

Hickory Corners — Establishment year

The perennial ryegrass cultivars had similar numbers of spring tillers in the co-
culture. Quartet had a significantly greater number of tillers than Duo and Tekapo;
Tekapo had the lowest number of tillers overall (Table 14). In the fall, Mara had a
significantly greater number of tillers than the other cultivars in the co-culture (Table 14).

Mara had a greater number of spring tillers than all cultivars except Bronson in
the monoculture (Table 15). All cultivars had a similar number of fall tillers (Table 15).
Lake City — Establishment year

Mara and Barfort, which had less winter injury, had significantly more spring
tillers than Quartet, Duo, and Tekapo in the co-culture (Table 14). Perennial ryegrass
cultivars had a similar number of fall tillers, but Aries had more tillers than Bronson,
Duo, and Tekapo (Table 14).

In the monoculture, Mara had a significantly greater number of tillers than Aries,
Quartet, Bronson, and Tekapo which would indicate it has better winter hardiness.

Barfort only had more tiller than Aries (Table 15). Fall tiller numbers were similar

33

among cultivars, which indicates that cultivars that exhibit winter injury often recover

during the growing season. (Table 15).

C hatham — Establishment year

Co-culture data is from 2003 because it was reseeded. Perennial ryegrass
cultivars had a similar number of spring tillers in the co-culture. Aries and Mara had
significantly more tillers than Bronson and Duo (Table 14). In the fall, Mara had a
greater number of tillers than Barfort, Quartet, Bronson, Duo, and Tekapo (Table 14).

Spring tiller numbers were similar among perennial ryegrass cultivars in the grass
monoculture. Bronson and Tekapo had significantly less tillers than all cultivars except
Barfort (Table 15). Fall tiller numbers were similar, but Mara had significantly more

tillers than Quartet (Table 15).

Hickory Corners — First production year

There were no differences in spring tiller number for the perennial ryegrass
cultivars in the co-culture, but Mara had more tillers than Tekapo (Table 16). Mara and
Quartet had a significantly greater number of fall tillers than Aries, Bronson, and Duo
(Table 16).

In the monoculture, Aries and Mara had more spring tillers than Quartet; Mara
had more tillers than Bronson as well (Table 17). Mara had a greater number of fall

tillers than all other cultivars (Table 17).

34

Lake City — First production year

Mara had a greater number of spring tillers in the co-culture than all other
cultivars. Barfort and Tekapo had a greater number of spring tillers than Quartet (Table
16). Aries and Mara had more tillers than Quartet and Bronson in the fall (Table 16)

Mara had more spring tillers than the other perennial ryegrass cultivars and Duo
in the monoculture (Table 17). Fall tiller numbers were similar among all cultivars, but
Aries had a significantly greater number of tillers than Bronson (Table 17).
C hatham — First production year

There is no first production year data for the co-culture because it was reseeded.
In the monoculture, Mara had a greater number of spring tillers than Aries, Quartet,
Bronson, and Tekapo. Barfort also had a greater number of tillers than Quartet and
Bronson (Table 17). Mara and Barfort both had more tillers than Aries, Quartet, and

Bronson in the fall (Table 17).

There were a total of 22 tiller counts (10 from the co-culture section and 12 from
the grass only section) from the three locations. For eight of the tiller counts, there was
no difference among perennial ryegrass cultivars. Mara tillered significantly more than
the other three perennial ryegrass cultivars on five occasions and was among cultivars
with the greatest number of tillers on the remaining 11 occasions. Tetraploids have been
known to have fewer, but larger, tillers than diploid cultivars which explains why Mara
tillered more than Barfort and Quartet. Tiller numbers may have been greater for Aries if

it had less winter injury.

35

Table 14. Co-culture tiller count means (n=3) taken during the establishment year.

 

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)l Spring Tiller Fall Tiller
Counts Counts
Aries (dPR) 186 AB‘a§ 54 Bb
Mara (dPR) 191 ABa 121 Ab
Hickory Corners Barfort (tPR) 174 ABa 39 Bb
Quartet (tPR) 210 Aa 52 Bb
Bronson (TF) 168 ABa 54 Bb
Duo (Fest) 154 Ba 37 Bb
Tekapo (OR) 76 Ca 65 Ba
Mean 166 60
SE. 19.6 19.6
Aries (dPR) 136 ABa 125 Aa
Mara (dPR) 180 Aa 89 ABb
Barfort (tPR) 190 Aa 89 ABb
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 101 Ba 55 ABa
Bronson (TF) 142 ABa 48 Bb
Duo (Fest) 107 Ba 31 Bb
Tekapo (OR) 94 Ba 42 Ba
Mean 136 68
SE. 26.6 26.6
Aries (dPR) 64 Aa 66 ABa
Mara (dPR) 64 Ab 76 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 43 ABa 42 BCa
Chathaml Quartet (tPR) 50 ABa 52 BCa
Bronson (TF) 31 Ba 40 Ca
Duo (Fest) 33 Ba 44 BCa
Tekapo (OR) 47 ABa 43 BCa
Mean 47 52
SE. 9.2 9.2

 

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).
Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different
within a location (p30.05).
lChatham data is from 2003 because the original co-culture stand was destroyed and

reseeded.

Table 15. Grass monoculture tiller count means (n=3) taken during the establishment

 

 

 

 

year.
Location Cultivar (species? Spring Tiller Fall Tiller
Counts Counts
Aries (dPR) 223 131a§ 69 Ab
Mara (dPR) 289 Aa 71 Ab
Hickory Comers Barfort (tPR) 231 Ba 40 Ab
Quartet (tPR) 205 Ba 48 Ab
Bronson (TF) 247 ABa 44 Ab
Duo (Fest) 238 Ba 58 Ab
Tekapo (OR) 215 Ba 37 Ab
Mean 235 52
S .E. 1 5.9 1 5.9
Aries (dPR) 106 Ca 138 Aa
Mara (dPR) 263 Aa 154 Ab
Barfort (tPR) 214 ABa 110 Ab
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 120 BCa 93 Aa
Bronson (TF) 118 BCa 64 Aa
Duo (Fest) 171 ABCa 82 Ab
Tekapo (OR) 151 BCa 78 Aa
Mean 163 102
SE. 38.0 38.0
Aries (dPR) 103 Aa 94 ABa
Mara (dPR) 109 Aa 99 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 78 ABa 88 ABa
Chatham Quartet (tPR) 108 Aa 62 Bb
Bronson (TF) 54 Ba 64 ABa
Duo (Fest) 99 Aa 93 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 60 Ba 72 ABa
Mean 87 81
SE. 12.8 12.8

 

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

37

Table 16. Co-culture tiller count means (n=3) taken during the first production year.

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)f Spring Tiller Fall Tiller
Counts Counts
Aries (dPR) 4o ABIa§ 35 Ba
Mara (dPR) 93 Aa 116 Aa
Hickory Corners Barfort (tPR) 43 ABa 79 ABa
Quartet (tPR) 42 ABb 121 Aa
Bronson (TF) 41 ABa 49 Ba
Duo (Fest) 42 ABa 52 Ba
Tekapo (OR) 33 Ba 66 ABa
Mean 47 74
SE. 19.6 19.6
Aries (dPR) 113 BCa 136 Aa
Mara (dPR) 213 Aa 149 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 119 Ba 114 ABCa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 39 Ca 64 BCa
Bronson (TF) 110 BCa 60 Ca
Duo (Fest) 79 BCa 126 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 131 Ba 75 ABCa
Mean 114 103
SE. 26.6 26.6

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different

within a location (p30.05).

§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

38

Table 17. Grass monoculture tiller count means taken during the first production year.

 

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species? Spring Tiller Fall Tiller
Counts Counts
Aries (dPR) 92 ABIb§ 127 Ba
Mara (dPR) 106 Ab 242 Aa
Hickory Comers Barfort (tPR) 79 ABCa 103 BCa
Quartet (tPR) 46 Cb 84 BCa
Bronson (TF) 50 BCa 77 Ca
Duo (Fest) 76 ABCa 91 BCa
Tekapo (OR) 71 ABCa 97 BCa
Mean 74 117
SE. 1 5.9 1 5.9
Aries (dPR) 48 CDb 178 Aa
Mara (dPR) 197 Aa 133 ABa
Barfort (tPR) 84 BCDa 163 ABa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 23 D3 123 ABa
Bronson (TF) 165 ABa 69 Ba
Duo (Fest) 79 BCDa 135 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 144 ABCa 92 ABa
Mean 105 127
SE. 38.0 38.0
Aries (dPR) 37 CDEa 52 Ba
Mara (dPR) 99 Aa 87 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 72 ABCa 90 Aa
Chatham Quartet (tPR) 13 Ba 23 Ba
Bronson (TF) 32 DEa 51 Ba
Duo (Fest) . 74 ABa 91 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 51 BCDa 57 ABa
Mean 54 64
SE. 12.8 12.8

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid

perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different

within a location (£130.05).

39

Clover Ratings

There was no year*treatment*location or location*treatment (Appendix Table
14A) interaction for the co-culture, therefore, each year of data could have been
combined all across locations. Data were separated by location and year, however, to
compare seasonal results at each location. Botanical composition data are included in
Appendix Tables 14A-18A. Visual ratings did not relate well to the botanical
composition data because only presence of clover was taken into account and not size of
the clover. When clover was present throughout the plot, but small in size, a high clover
rating was given. Since botanical composition data is based on biomass, a plot with

small clover throughout would have a low clover content.

Hickory Corners — Establishment year

Aries had the least amount of clover of all the cultivars in the spring. Mara,
Barfort, and Quartet had similar amounts of clover (Table 18). In the fall, Barfort had a
greater amount of clover than the other perennial ryegrass cultivars (Table 18). The
amount of clover present in a stand is an indication of its compatibility with grass. Grass
with little or no clover present is not as compatible with the clover as a grass with a large
amount of clover present. Aries, which had the least amount of clover, is very non-
dormant and may have been too competitive during establishment resulting in less clover.
Lake City — Establishment year

Tekapo had the greatest amount of spring clover of all the cultivars. Barfort had
more clover present than Aries (Table 18). Perennial ryegrass cultivars had similar

amounts of clover in the fall. Tekapo had a greater amount of clover than Mara, Quartet,

40

and Bronson (Table 18). Aries again had a small presence of clover, most likely due to
competition during establishment. Tekapo, which had the greatest amount of clover, is
slower to establish than the other cultivars, resulting in less competition. Lake City had
less overall clover than both Hickory Comers and Chatham. Soil pH was similar at all
locations, so pH was not a contributing factor to the low clover content.
Chatham — Establishment year

In the spring, Barfort and Quartet both had more clover present than Aries; Duo
and Tekapo also had greater amounts of clover than Aries (Table 18). Cultivars had
similar amounts of clover in the fall (Table 18). Since Aries had a small amount of
clover at Chatham as well as the other locations, it may be too competitive for clover
establishment. Duo and Tekapo again had more clover, indicating they are less

competitive with ladino clover during establishment.

Hickory Corners — First production year

There were no significant differences in the amount of clover among perennial
ryegrass cultivars in the spring because all cultivars experienced some winter injury.
This decreased competition between the grass and clover, allowing a greater clover
presence throughout the plots. Barfort had more clover than Bronson and Tekapo (Table
19). In the fall, Mara had less clover present than the other perennial ryegrass cultivars.
Barfort most likely had more clover than Mara because it has less tillers and they are
more upright than Mara. Bronson had significantly less clover than all perennial ryegrass
cultivars except for Mara and Tekapo (Table 19), which could be due to canopy shade or

grass density.

41

Lake City — First production year

In the spring, the four perennial ryegrass cultivars had similar amounts of clover.
Duo had significantly more clover than Mara and Bronson (Table 19). Quartet had a
greater amount of fall clover than Aries, Mara, Bronson, and Tekapo (Table 19). Once
again, Lake City had less overall clover than Hickory Comers in the fall. Soil pH was

similar at all locations, so pH was not a contributing factor to the low clover content.

There were not many significant differences in the amount of clover present
among perennial ryegrass cultivars. When there were significant differences, Barfort had
more clover present than Aries and/or Mara. Differences between these cultivars may be
a result of differences in grass density. Mara tillered more than the other perennial
ryegrass cultivars and therefore may have been more competitive with the clover in the
spring. Also, Aries had significantly less clover in the establishment year at two
locations probably due to its rapid establishment resulting in more competition

Duo had similar amounts of clover as Barfort on all occasions, and also had
similar number of tillers as Barfort. Bronson had a similar amount of clover as Mara, but
had significantly less tillers half of the times tillers were counted.

The relationship between presence of another plant species and tiller number has
been noted in several studies. Short and Carlson (1989) researched compatibility of
orchardgrass with birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) and found increased
compatibility was associated with fewer tillers per plant. Gilliland (1996) studied 33
varieties of perennial ryegrass and 4 varieties of white clover as binary mixtures. The

perennial ryegrass differed in maturity, ploidy, yield potential, and morphological

42

characteristics. Gilliland found tetraploid varieties were more compatible with white
clover than diploids, and that sward density was the most important factor in grass/clover
compatibility. Tetraploid perennial ryegrass varieties were also found to be more
compatible with white clover than diploid varieties by Gooding et al. (1996). The
researchers observed that a more open grass grth habit increased the presence of white

clover in the stand.

43

Table 18. Co-culture clover means (n=3) taken during the establishment year using a
l — 9 scale, where 1 = no clover in the plot and 9 = clover throughout the plot.

 

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)T Spring Clover Fall Clover
Rating Ratings
Aries (dPR) 1.0 C1b§ 3.3 BCa
Mara (dPR) 2.7 Ba 2.2 CDa
Hickory Comers Barfort (tPR) 3.7 ABb 5.0 Aa
Quartet (tPR) 2.7 Ba 3.2 BCDa
Bronson (TF) 4.0 ABa 1.8 Db
Duo (Fest) 4.3 Aa 4.3 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 4.0 ABa 2.5 CDb
Mean 3.2 3.1
SE. 0.5 0.5
Aries (dPR) 1.2 Da 1.8 BCa
Mara (dPR) 1.5 CDa 1.3 Ca
Barfort (tPR) 2.8 BCa 2.2 ABCa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 1.7 CDa 1.7 Ca
Bronson (TF) 3.2 Ba 1.7 Cb
Duo (Fest) 3.2 Ba 3.2 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 6.2Aa 3.3 Ab
Mean 2.8 2.1
SE. 0.5 0.5
Aries (dPR) 6.0 Cb 8.8 Aa
Mara (dPR) 7.2 BCb 9.0 Aa
Barfort (tPR) 9.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Chatham Quartet (tPR) 8.5 ABa 9.0 Aa
Bronson (TF) 7.3 BCb 9.0 Aa
Duo (Fest) 9.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 9.0 Aa 9.0 Aa
Mean 8.0 9.0
SE. 0.5 0.5

 

 

 

 

lAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different

within a location (p50.05).

§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).

44

Table 19. Co-culture clover means (n=3) taken during the first production year using a
1 — 9 scale, where 1 = no clover in the plot and 9 = clover throughout the plot.

 

 

 

Location Cultivar (species)l Spring Clover Fall Clover
Ratings Ratings
Aries (dPR) 4.0 AIBb§ 8.8 Aa
Mara (dPR) 3.7 ABa 5.3 Ba
Hickory Corners Barfort (tPR) 6.3 Aa 9.0 Aa
Quartet (tPR) 4.3 ABb 9.0 Aa
Bronson (TF) 2.0 Bb 5.7 Ba
Duo (Fest) 5.0 ABb 9.0 Aa
Tekapo (OR) 3.0 Bb 7.0 ABa
Mean 4.0 7.7
SE. 1.1 1.1
Aries (dPR) 3.3 ABa 2.2 BCa
Mara (dPR) 2.3 Ba 1.7 BCa
Barfort (tPR) 4.3 ABa 3.8 ABa
Lake City Quartet (tPR) 4.7 ABa 5.3 Aa
Bronson (TF) 1.7 Ba 1.0 Ca
Duo (Fest) 6.0 Aa 4.5 ABa
Tekapo (OR) 3.3 ABa 1.3 Ca
Mean 3.7 2.8
SE. 1.1 1.1

 

 

 

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue, Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.
Means in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different
within a location (p30.05).
§Means in a row followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different
within a location (p50.05).

45

liglg

Yield was determined at each harvest, however, only the first and total yields are
discussed here. For the establishment year there were five harvests at Hickory Comers,
three at Lake City, and four at Chatham. During the first production year there were four
harvests at Hickory Comers and Lake City, and three harvests at Chatham. Data were
separated by location and year, however, to account for different weather conditions. For

botanical composition data see Appendix Tables 14A to 18A.

Hickory Corners — Establishment year

There was no significant difference in first or total harvest yields among perennial
ryegrass cultivars in the co-culture. Bronson had greater yields than all the perennial
ryegrass cultivars at the first harvest, but only yielded more than Barfort for total yield
(Table 20). In the monoculture, Mara had greater first yields than Barfort. Aries and
Mara had significantly greater total yields than Quartet, Duo, and Tekapo (Table 21).
Lake City — Establishment year

Quartet had lower first and total yields than all other cultivars in the co-culture.
Bronson had greater first yields than Aries, Barfort, Quartet, and Tekapo. Duo had a
greater total yield than Aries, Barfort, and Quartet (Table 20). In the monoculture, Mara,
Barfort, and Duo out yielded Aries and Quartet at the first harvest. This is probably due
to winter injury at this location resulting in fewer tillers at the first harvest. Mara had a
greater total yield than all perennial ryegrass cultivars and Tekapo most likely because it

did not exhibit any winter injury (Table 21).

46

Chatham — Establishment year

In the co-culture, perennial ryegrass cultivars had similar yields at the first
harvest, but Mara had a greater total yield than Aries. Duo and Tekapo also had greater
total yields than Aries (Table 20). Aries had greater first yields than all cultivars, except
Duo, at the first harvest in the monoculture. Tekapo yielded the least amount at the first
harvest. Mara had a greater total yield than Aries, Barfort, Bronson, and Tekapo (Table

21). Again, this may be related to winter injury symptoms in Aries and Quartet.

Hickory Corners — First production year

All cultivars had similar total yields in the co-culture which indicates that white
clover makes up for grass cultivar yield differences (Table 22). Aries had the lowest total
yield of all cultivars in the monoculture due to winter injury. Quartet had a greater total
yield than Aries, but lower yields than the other cultivars due to winter injury (Table 23).
Lake City — First production year

Bronson and Tekapo had significantly greater first yields than the other cultivars
in the co-culture. Perennial ryegrass cultivars had similar first yields. Bronson was the
greatest total yielding cultivar. Of the perennial ryegrass cultivars, Aries had a greater
total yield than Barfort and Quartet, which indicates it recovered from winter injury;
Mara had a greater total yield than Quartet (Table 22). In the monoculture, perennial
ryegrass cultivars again had similar yields, and Bronson and Tekapo out yielded the
perennial ryegrasses at the first harvest. Bronson and Tekapo also had the greatest total

yields. Of the perennial ryegrass cultivars Mara had a greater total yield than Barfort and

47

Quartet (Table 23). These data indicate tall fescue and orchardgrass may be better
adapted to conditions at Lake City.
C hatham — First production year

There is no first production year data for the co-culture because it was reseeded
due to poor clover establishment. Bronson, then Duo, were the highest yielding cultivars
in the monoculture at the first harvest. Mara, Barfort, and Tekapo had greater first yields
than Aries or Quartet indicating better adaptation at this location. For total yield,
Bronson out yielded all cultivars, except for Mara. Mara, Barfort, Duo, and Tekapo had a

greater total yield than Quartet (Table 22).

Yields at the first harvest were closely related to winter injury. In both the co-
culture and monoculture, treatments with the least amount of winter injury typically had
the highest yields. Winter damage affecting spring yields has also been reported by
Frame (1989).

Total yields, however, did not seem to follow a definite pattern. This is probably
because there are other factors that affect production over the season besides winter
injury and ground cover including amount of precipitation, amount of sunlight, and
animal preference. In addition, perennial ryegrass cultivars recovered from winter injury
resulting in yields similar to those cultivars exhibiting less winter injury. Mara was
among the highest yielding groupings of perennial ryegrass and had significantly higher
yields than all the other ryegrass cultivars during the establishment year at Lake City and

Chatham. This is would be due to a combination of winter hardiness and tillering ability.

48

Duo had comparable yields to Mara, while Tekapo yielded slightly less than the
perennial ryegrass cultivars in the establishment year. Tekapo had similar yields to Mara
and Barfort and higher yields than Aries and Quartet in the first production year due to
winter injury in the perennial ryegrass cultivars. Bronson yielded as much or more than
perennial ryegrass, especially during the warmer, drier summer months.

Previous research has found higher yields in mixtures as opposed to
monocultures, (Roberts and Olsen, 1942; Aberg, 1943; Evans et al., 1989; Sleugh et al.,
2000), however, that was not true in this research. Other previous research has shown no
yield advantage over a monoculture for mixtures of grasses (Keane, 1982; Culleton,
Murphey, and O’Keeffe, 1986) or an alfalfa/grass mixture (Wilsie 1949; M0030 and
Wedin, 1990). However, Culleton, Murphey, and O’Keeffe (1986) reported mixtures
tended to be less variable, giving relatively high yields each year. That was true of this

study as well, especially during the warm, dry summer months.

49

.3383 23 36.8% 83 “23% 2330.8 _afiwto 65 8:33 moon 89a 2 83 82.2.20o
.Amcdwnc .8332 a 5.23 “nocotmu bagufiwfi 8: an .532 :3an 2:8 05 .3 326:8 5:28 a E 2:32»
.mmeEuneo u do 28 gum—238.2 u mom
.288.“ :8 n "E. £22on 32:23 22938 u ”E“ any—web 35.82. 2226 n 1% ”36:8 8 8a 82839525

 

 

 

 

as 8... m3 :6 new
RN :2 ”no «no :82
m 82 2:. 82. m as 29 82¢
< 3a MS S2 3. N2. one 25
R2 2% 22 and < m; FE 882m
03. 2M 2: $5 9.. $5 9.8 355 2.5520
R? e2 3.: NS 5. and 9.3 Beam
m< 23 an; ”no 9.. and 9:2 222
0 $2 23 z .o m< and 932 ”22
23 2.2. mg a; .5
8e 22 c2 Ed e8:
3. Be a: mom m 3.. 99 82¢
< o: 2: SN m< 2% can: 25
m< Be 2: am < 5N at 822m
o m? 42 2.~ o ”2 2.8 3:25 26 2.3
m an :2 :3 m can 922 Evan
3. a3 2: a.” m< a3 :32 as:
m 22 m2 mg m 82 9:2 22
$5 Ed NE a... MS 25 .m.m
2: NS 2.2 a: 82 a2 5a:
m< 23 :2 m5 m2 22 um 22 29 82¢
3. was :2 a: 43 2.” 9.. _2 case 25
< a; $2 :2 a: a: < e: at 822m
m< a: 82 a: a? 2d um 22 2.3 89.5
m 2% 23 N2 22 $2 um 82 2.8 52am 8&8 29.2:
m< N2 2: $2 3.2 e: um 82 922 as:
m< a; m2 2: e3 ”3 so :2 2.22 322
.53. 22> m 22> a 22> m 22> N 22> _ 22> .383 32:5 5283

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.23» “cos—£2338 05 mat—6 83.8: :08 “a Amlqmeaoe A72 5 202N283... Eu 8330.00 .3 via.

50

Amedwfi 5:32 5 5.23 EfloEc £552.“?me 8: 25 33— 3293 083 05 >9 330:8 5:33 a E 5:32”
5523.358 u MO can .Ezzgamom u “mom
628$ :3 u E. ago? 323th 22.25.35 u 2% .mmflwob 3522. 2036 u may 530:8 3 0.8 28:25.55:

 

 

 

 

555 555 555 555 :5 .m.m
25 53 52 555 $2 :82
o 23 52 2: 52 o 52 955 2.8.0.5
m< 5: 53 a: 555 m< 555 can: 8e
um 555 :1 52 25 u 2: at 888m
22 555 552 5: :5 o a... 255 65.5 .5626
um 555 52 555 555 o a: 2.3 team
< 55 S5 555 555 um E2 252 an:
um 85 a: 52 a: < 555 9:3 85
85 . 555 555 555 .m.m
555 55.2 555 5: :82
um 85. :5 555 um 52 205 893
9.. 555 2: 555 < 555 :85 25
m< 25 Q5 £5 22 5: at 582m
um 85 52 555 u :1 9.3 35:0 25 83
um 25 555 555 m< 555 255 team
< 5; 555 $5 m< 555 9:2 $2
0 555 52 25 o 552 252 85.
85 555 555 555 555 25 55
555 52 52 55.2 25 .55 so:
a 555 s: :2 52 552 m< 555 205 83.05.
m 2.5 5: 5: 555 3.5 m< 5E 92: 95
< 53: 2.5 552 25 $5 3. R2 at .5255
no 555 55.2 52 55.2 53 m< 52 9:5 35:0
um 35 :2 52 25 R2 m 552 925 team 22:5 >522:
m< £5 :2 552 2.5 555 < :2 952 .52
m< 555 :2 2: 5: 35 “3. 52 922 “2.2
35> 22> m 22> e 22> n 22> 5 22> _ 22> 228.852 .5225 52.33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53> 808523520 05 wars—5 53$: :23 55 Amncv 852: N75: 5v 22> .8358 .3. 23.28.58 $80 An 035,—.

51

.GodWB 88588 5 8223 8283: 52850822825 88 25 33— 28850 5855 58 >2 330:8 8828 5 8 8322

5558228220 u 80 :85 8828358 n 53.2

.2558 :8 u 2:. .552on 328222 28982 n 8% .552on 358222 838: n 8% ”530:8 mm 25 5882532235

 

 

 

55.5 55.5 :5 255 52.5 .525
25.5 552 55.5 55.5 555 5522
um 55.5 522 55.5 55.5 < 522 2205 55822
o 52.5 552 25.5 555 m 55.5 552.5 25
< 25.5 552 552 522 < 552 EC 585252
a 52.5 25.5 55.5 55.5 m 55.5 255 55:25 520 8252
o 55.5 552 555 55.5 m 55.5 2255 E55552
om 55.5 552 555 255 m 555 252 852
m 55.5 552 55.5 552 “m 55.5 9252 522
55.5 55.5 55.5 25.5 . 5.5
55.5 555 522 55.5 5522
< 252. 552 552 555 905 553255
< 55.5 55.5 55.5 552 25525 28
< 552. 552 552 552 at 85582
< 55.5 55.5 552 552 255 55550
< 522. 555 522 55.5 255 522.2552 2588 5.8222
< 55.5 555 55.5 525 252 822
< 55.5 55.5 555 55.5 9252 522
5.5583di
.35... 22> 5 22> 5 22> 5 22> 2 22> S525 52.852

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.5595 528835228 55.28 2: meta: 25252.: :80 55 mun: 838 A75: a 22.5 .5858 .0: 2880.00 .NN 535.2.

52

.536qu 22022500: 5 22222223 22228.22: 2522250822285 2022 25 2822 _5222250 5855 52: >22 330:8 22822200 5 222 52255222
5558852220 .1. MO 0225 8820.858 .1. 255.2
622058 :52 u 2:. 5553952 32222222 803588 n 8% .5552on E28202: 208:. u 82:5 ”530:8 55 25 52202253222225

 

 

 

 

52.5 . 55.5 555 2 2.5 .525
555 552 522 55.5 52.2
52 55.5 552 522 0 55.5 9205 558255
52 25.5 55.5 55.5 m 522 05225 5522
< 552. :2 552 < 552 222.: 585252
0 55.2 . 55.5 55.5 0 52.5 92225 2.22550 525220
52 555 55.2 55.5 0 55.5 9255 225852
52.5. 55.5 522 52.2 0 55.5 9252 5222
052 55.5 55.5 252 a 52.5 9253 522
55.5 55.5 55.5 555 55.5 .525
555 552 252 552 552 552
< 55.5 55.5 552 552 < 52.5 9205 55825.5
052 55.5 552 552 55.5 52.5. 552 08.25 2.22 3
< 55.5 55.5 552 55.5 < 55.5 2.2.: 2855852 5
0 55.5 552 555 55.5 0 55.5 22.25 222550 520 325.2
00 55.5 552 52.5 55.5 052 2.22 255 25852
52 52.5 552 55.2 552 052 522 22252 852
22052 52.5 55.5 252 552 0 55.5 9252 522
55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 . .525
55.5 55.5 555 552 52.2
< 55.2. 55.5 55.2 552 9205 55525.5
< 55.5 55.5 55.5 552 052.25 550
< 552. 552 552 552 222.55 2.85252
52 55.5 255 55.5 522 92225 52:50
< 55.5 55.5 2.55 552 2.555 2.5852 22:50 529.2:
< 55.5 55.5 55.5 252 222 2522
0 25.5 55.5 52.5 552 9252 522
5583092:
35> 22> 2. 22> 5 22> 5 22> 2 22> .325 2.22352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2595 2203026022 222.8 2: meta: 2525.252: 2.050 25 Amncv 522508 52.5; 2v 22> 22258 .0: 22522002208 280 .mm 035,—.

Palatability

Palatability data was separated by each harvest because the fourth harvest had a
significant (P<.001) year*treatment interaction, and data is separated by year. There
were no interactions for all other harvests, so these data are combined by location and
year.

There were no significant differences among cultivars in the co-culture at the first,
second, third, and fifth harvests (Appendix Table 19A). Cultivars had similar palatability
scores at the fourth harvest of the establishment year. Bronson had a significantly lower
palatability than all other cultivars at fourth harvest of the first production year. Tekapo
and Mara were more palatable than Bronson, but significantly less palatable than the
other cultivars (Table 24).

Bronson was less palatable than the other cultivars at the first harvest of the
monoculture. All cultivars had similar palatability scores at the second, third, and fifth
harvests (Appendix Table 20A). Cultivars also had similar palatability scores at the
fourth harvest of the establishment year. Bronson was the least palatable, then Tekapo,
then Mara at the fourth harvest of the first production year (Table 24).

The year*treatment interaction at the fourth harvest was most likely because of a
difference in disease presence between years. In the first year, no disease was observed,
whereas during late fall of the first production year both leaf spot (Helminthosporium
spp.) and brown patch (Rhizoctonia spp.) were observed. Disease presence was the
greatest in Bronson, Tekapo, and Mara. In addition, there may have been differences due

to species maturity with tall fescue being earlier than orchardgrass and perennial

54

ryegrasses. Given enough time, however, the animals consumed all species of grasses
presented to them.

Although research has shown tetraploid cultivars of perennial ryegrass are
preferred to diploids (Wilkins, 1991), this research did not have similar results. Also, tall
fescue and orchardgrass are considered to be less palatable than perennial ryegrass but
these data indicate the four species were similar in palatability. This is most likely
because the grasses were grazed while still immature. McCaughey (1998) found that
animal preference was similar when grass species had similar proportions of reproductive
to vegetative tillers. A low proportion of reproductive to vegetative tillers was associated

with greater animal preference.

55

Table 24. Co-culture and grass monoculture palatability scores (n=3) at the fourth
harvest for the establishment year and first production year. Scores are on a 1-5 scale
with 1 being least palatable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Cultivar Co-culture Monoculture
(species)r Cut 4 Cut 4

Aries (dPR) 5.000 AI 5.000 A
Mara (dPR) 5.000 A 5.000 A
. Barfort (tPR) 5.000 A 5.000 A
EsmbI‘Shmem Quartet (tPR) 5.000 A 5.000 A
Bronson (TF) 5.000 A 5.000 A
Duo (Fest) 5.000 A 5.000 A
Tekap_o (OR) 5.000 A 5.000 A

Aries (dPR) 5.000 A 4.000 AB
Mara (dPR) 3.667 B 3.000 C
First Production Barfort (tPR) 5.000 A 4.333 A
Quartet (tPR) 5.000 A 3.667 B
Bronson (TF) 2.333 C 1.000 E

Duo (Fest) 5.000 A 4.000 AB
Tekapo (OR) 3.667 B 2.000 D

 

TAbbreviations are as follows: dPR = diploid perennial ryegrass, tPR = tetraploid
perennial ryegrass, TF = tall fescue,

Fest = festulolium, and OR = orchardgrass.

IMeans in a column followed by the same capital letter are not significantly different

within a year (pS0.0S).

56

Forage Quality

Forage quality is defined as the potential of a forage to produce the desired animal
response (Collins and Fritz, 2003). It is the physical and chemical characteristics of a
forage that make it valuable to animals as a source of nutrients. Forage quality is often
evaluated by measuring characteristics such as crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber
(N DF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and hemicellulose (Pavetti et al., 1994). For this
research, quality is defined as forage which with high concentrations of CP and low
concentrations of both NDF and ADF.

When analyzing the data there was no pattern to the interactions for ADF, NDF,
and CP, hence data was separated by year, location, and harvest to present results in a
logical format. Forage quality for the co-culture ranged from 138 to 357, 305 to 589, and
110 to 312 g kg'1 for ADF, NDF, and CP respectively. Forage quality for the grass
monoculture ranged from 163 to 411, 242 to 630, and 40 to 322, for ADF, NDF, and CP

respectively.

Hickory Corners — Establishment year

In the co-culture, Barfort and Tekapo had lower ADF and NDF values and higher
CP values than the other cultivars at the first harvest. For the second harvest, Tekapo
Barfort, and Mara had lower ADF values than Aries and lower NDF values than Aries
and Bronson. Tekapo had a higher CP value than all cultivars. Tekapo and Barfort had
lower ADF and NDF values than Aries and Mara at the third harvest. Bronson, Tekapo
and Barfort had a greater amount of CP than Mara. At the fourth harvest, Barfort and

Quartet had a smaller amount of ADF than Duo. Mara had a lower NDF value than all

57

cultivars, except Tekapo and Aries. Barfort and Duo had lower fiber values and higher
crude protein values at the final harvest (Table 25).

In the grass monoculture, Barfort, Tekapo, and Duo had lower ADF
concentrations than Aries at the first harvest; Mara had a lower NDF concentration than
Duo. Tekapo had greater CP values than Mara and Quartet. At the second harvest,
Barfort, Quartet, and Tekapo had lower ADF values than Aries and Bronson. Bronson

had a higher NDF concentration than all cultivars except for Aries. Tekapo had a higher

0mm: .2 .5 .-._ 2.10.1"

CP concentration than Barfort, Mara, and Bronson. Quartet had lower ADF values than

all cultivars except Bronson and Tekapo at the third harvest and lower NDF values than

 

all cultivars except Duo and Tekapo. The only significant difference in CF values was
between Barfort and Mara, with Barfort having a greater CP value. Duo and Quartet had
lower ADF concentrations than Barfort and lower NDF concentrations than Tekapo at the
fourth harvest. Crude protein was similar among all the cultivars. At the final harvest
Tekapo had greater ADF and NDF concentrations than Barfort, Quartet, and Duo.
Barfort and Quartet had greater CP values than Mara, Bronson, and Tekapo (Table 26).
Lake City — Establishment year

In the co-culture, Quartet had the lowest ADF value compared to all cultivars at
the first harvest. Quartet and Tekapo had lower NDF values than Bronson. Tekapo had a
greater amount of CP than Duo and Mara. For the second harvest, Quartet and Tekapo
had lower ADF and NDF concentrations than all cultivars except Bronson. Tekapo and
Bronson had greater CP concentrations than Duo and Quartet. Quartet had the lowest

concentration of ADF of all cultivars and a lower NDF concentration than Tekapo and

58

Mara at the third harvest. Crude protein values were similar among all cultivars (Table
27).

Quartet had the lowest ADF values of all cultivars in the monoculture at the first
harvest. Quartet also had lower NDF values than the other cultivars except for Aries and
Duo. Barfort had the least amount of CP except for Bronson and Duo. At the second
harvest, Barfort, Mara, and Tekapo had a greater concentration of ADF than Quartet;
Quartet had a lower NDF concentration than all cultivars. Crude protein concentrations
were higher in Quartet and Tekapo than Aries and Duo. Bronson had a greater ADF
concentration than all cultivars, except Tekapo, at the final harvest. Tekapo had a higher
NDF value than all cultivars. Crude protein values for Quartet and Duo were greater than
those for Bronson (Table 28).

Chatham —Establishment year

Acid detergent fiber concentrations were greater in Aries, Bronson, and Tekapo
than the other cultivars at the first harvest in the co-culture. Aries and Bronson also had
the greatest NDF concentrations. Tekapo had the largest CP value. At the second
harvest, both ADF and NDF values were similar among cultivars. Tekapo had a greater
ADF value than Duo and Quartet at the final harvest, while Mara had a greater NDF
value than Barfort and Quartet. Barfort, Quartet, and Duo had a greater CP concentration
than Mara (Table 29).

In the monoculture, Quartet had the lowest ADF concentration at the first harvest.
Duo, then Quartet, had the lowest NDF concentrations. Tekapo had the greatest CP
concentration. Bronson had smaller ADF and NDF values than all the other cultivars at

the second harvest. Bronson and Tekapo had the greatest CP values. At both the third

59

and fourth harvests, Tekapo had a greater ADF and NDF concentration than all the other
cultivars. There was no difference in CF values among cultivars (Table 30).
Hickory Corners — First production year

Tekapo and Bronson had the greatest ADF and NDF concentrations at the first
harvest of the co-culture. Crude protein levels were similar among cultivars. At the
second harvest, Mara had a greater ADF value than Aries and Quartet. Mara had a
greater NDF than Duo and Quartet. Quarter had a higher concentration of CP than Mara,
Barfort, and Tekapo. Bronson had a greater ADF concentration than Aries and Duo at
the third harvest. Bronson and Mara had a greater NDF concentration than Aries.
Bronson also had a lower CP value than the other cultivars. At the fourth harvest,
Bronson and Tekapo had the greater ADF values. Bronson and Tekapo also had greater
NDF values than Barfort and Duo. Bronson, then Tekapo, had the lowest CP
concentrations (Table 31).

Bronson had the highest ADF values at the first harvest of the monoculture, while
Bronson and Tekapo had the greatest NDF values. Quartet and Aries had greater CP
concentrations than Bronson and Duo. Quartet had the lowest ADF and NDF values at
the second harvest. Bronson had a greater CP value than Mara and Quartet. At the third
harvest, Barfort, Duo, and Tekapo had a greater ADF value than Aries. Barfort, Tekapo,
and Duo had greater NDF values than Mara. Mara and Aries had a greater CP
concentration than both Barfort and Duo. Tekapo had the greatest ADF and NDF
concentrations at the final harvest, while Duo ad the greatest CP concentration (Table

32).

6O

Lake City — First production year

Bronson had the greatest ADF and NDF concentrations at the first harvest of the
co-culture. Tekapo had a greater CP concentration than Mara. Quartet had a lower ADF
concentration than the other cultivars, except for Barfort and Tekapo, at the second
harvest. Quartet had a lower NDF concentration than all the other cultivars. Tekapo had
a greater CP concentration than Mara. Tekapo also had the lowest ADF and NDF values
at the third harvest. Quartet and Tekapo had greater CP values than Mara and Bronson.
At the final harvest, Quartet had a lower ADF and NDF values than the other cultivars,
expect Aries and Duo. Crude protein values were similar among cultivars (Table 33).

Quartet had the lowest ADF concentration at the first harvest of the monoculture.
Bronson and Tekapo had the greatest NDF concentrations. Quartet had a greater CP
value than Mara, Bronson, and Duo. Bronson had a lower ADF value than the other
cultivars, except Mara, at the second harvest. Quartet had a lower NDF value than all the
other cultivars. Quartet, Bronson, and Duo had the greatest CP values. At the third
harvest, Tekapo had a greater ADF concentration than Quartet, Aries, and Bronson.
Quartet, Duo, and Tekapo had greater NDF concentrations than Bronson. Bronson had
higher CP values than Quartet and Duo. Quartet had the lowest ADF values at the fourth
harvest, while Tekapo had the largest NDF value. Quartet had greater CP values than
both Mara and Tekapo (Table 34).
Chatham — First production year
There is no data for the first production year of the co-culture because it was reseeded. In
the monoculture, Barfort had a greater ADF concentration than the all the other cultivars,

except Tekapo, at the first harvest. Quartet had the lowest NDF concentrations. Aries

61

and Quartet had greater CP concentrations than Bronson and Duo. At the second harvest,
Barfort and Duo and greater ADF values than Aries and Quartet. Quartet also had a
lower NDF value than the other cultivars. Crude protein concentrations were similar
among cultivars. Duo and Tekapo had a greater ADF value than Mara at the third
harvest. Tekapo had the greatest ADF concentration. Aries had a greater CP

concentration than Aries (Table 35).

ADF and NDF levels were lower and CP levels were higher in the co-culture than
the monoculture. This was expected as clovers are known to be higher in protein and
lower in fiber than cool-season grasses. Other research also found that a grass/legume
mixture has improved forage quality over a grass monoculture (Sleugh et al., 2000;
Zemenchick et al., 2002).

Perennial ryegrass cultivars were compared in the grass monoculture to determine
if there were differences in forage quality. Overall, Quartet had lower ADF and NDF
values. This supports research by Pysher and Fales (1992) that tetraploid perennial
ryegrass is more digestible than diploid perennial ryegrass. Crude protein values were
similar among the perennial ryegrass cultivars at half of the harvest events. When there
were significant differences, Quartet ofien had a greater CP concentration than Mara.

Duo had similar ADF, NDF, and CP concentrations as perennial ryegrass. This
would be expected as it is a cross between perennial ryegrass and meadow fescue, bred
for high forage quality and improved persistence. Tekapo and Bronson had similar ADF
and NDF concentrations which were greater than the perennial ryegrass cultivars. Baker

et al. (1988) also found tall fescue and orchardgrass had similar ADF concentrations

62

when grazed. Unlike Baker et al. (1988), CP was not lower for tall fescue than for
orchardgrass during spring grazing, but was similar for both grass species throughout the
grazing season. Research by Jensen et al. (2003) found perennial ryegrass had higher CP
and lower NDF concentrations than orchardgrass, which was also true in this study.
Perennial ryegrass had greater forage quality than the tall fescue and orchardgrass
cultivars. This is important because animal performance is highly influenced by intake,
nutrient concentration, and digestibility. Voluntary intake is correlated with laboratory
measures of NDF, such that increased NDF concentrations mean decreased dry matter
intake (Casler and Vogel, 1999). As ADF increases, digestibility of forage usually

decreases (Pond et al, 1995).

63

.Amodwnc 25025: 5 822.83 222208225 2322502882285 2022 25 .2222 252850 0855 02% >22 330:8 302 5 8 5225022
22552352522020 u 80 :25 88—02858 0. 2558
.0358 :52 u 5:. 5558952 58222022 802525.228 u 8% 55580252 25822202 8086 n 8585 ”530:8 55 25 55202253222225

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

 

5.: SN 08 EN < 5.5m Q0 N52 08 SN m< wmm O 55.2 08 SN 80
SN 555 < 35 0 cam < .35 < 35 um Nam < wow m< N55 ”52 5
WE 25mm < 525m 08 Sm < 3N < 3% 0 58 < :55. m< 5mm 55¢
5.52 3m < 53 m< 5mm 255 5mm m< wvm m< mmm m< 5mm 8 NNN 80
:65 $5 m< 525 m 59 m 5.? m 555 m o? < 5mm 8.5. 555 552 v
Dom Nmm m< mvm < mam m< ova m own 8 mmm 85. ohm m< mvm .8955
5.25.. mom < 5mm m< mom < 5mm m< 32 < 5mm 8 52 m< 232 220
2.2m 53 O mow om< 595 um 35 um :55 U m; 5. mom .55 52m 552 m
02 5mm 08 wmm m< new 08 mvm um< 95m 0 mmm < 2mm .5. owm .8952
5.25.. vow 225. new 08 com 8 Em 08 N52 08 mom 08 N52 0 N52 280
odm 5? m 02.5 m< mmv 2.5 55.5 m< 53.. m 522. m 5N5 < $5 “52 N
3: mmm 0 52m 08 mmm m< 5mm 08 5mm 08 mmm 08 0mm 25. mmm 55¢.
Q52 Km .25 Sm Q08 mom DU com um mum m< gm no 53 G 5mm 80
5.2 55m 0 5mm 85. 055. 8 55m 8 55m 0 own 8 2mm .25 mg 252 2
N6 vow Q a: 8 m8 8 mg no 32 Q 32 08 EN 2255 man 555.
@200 228.25 2.225 222.220 92.25 222.22 2.225 25522:. 255.252
.88 22502 022580.: 0:: 2205.20.28 202.2525 2.28.258 5.252 502.22 .50 025,—. 2595.25:
522800an 2532—220
fwd—J 25 50525—5225 :5 28 5283 .2505 80825255250 08 922222: 525025.252: 02.8 05 80 22050 25 80800
boo—028 25 5072855 2880.00 28 5025.» 38 8020.8 03.8 0225 .896 20528 8092025: 252222022 .053 208.8 80820: 20¢. .mm 035,—.

 

 

.Amodwnc 5.5965: 5 E555 55.5wa bag—Mammy. Ho: 25 Ste— _5:n5o 0855 55 .3 535:8 38 5 E 5:552“
.mm5uw2558 u MO 5:5 dam—235$ n “mom
.2550.“ :8 u E. .mmfiwob 3:522. 2035558 U ME“ .5555on 3:85th 2235 u ~35 ”530:8 55 25 550353253555.

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

0.2 new 0m 53 m< m8 0 o: < omm < mmm on N3 95. com m0
02 5am < 2.5 was mom m< wm5 m N5m mm 5mm um 85 90 £3 mQZ m
2: omm < 0mm 0m Sm m< ~5m 0 new um 2N 0m< 5mm 0m< SN "55.
5:: m3 <N§ 5.2m <53 <2N «In: 552 <ww~ mo
93 35 < 5mm 0m 35 0m< 5&5 U 0N5 m< mom 0m< R5 om< 5m5 (.52 5
3: 3m m< mom m ohm m< mom m mom 5. mmm m< mam m< 2m ”H95.
9: m2 m< mm: m< Q: m< m: m< 5: < ma m a: m< m2 m0
5.0m $5 m< $5 m< mm5 < 35 m 35 5. $5 < S5 5. 3.5 ~52 m
QB 23. m< com < wmm m< mwm m m5m 5. won < 3N < man “55.
EN of <m~m m< m2 mmS m<mw~ ma: m~§ m<ow~ mo
92 35 um 85 um 5N5 < .35 U 85 um 25 0m 35 m< wm5 "52 N
Na ~5m m cmm m< m5m .5. com m mam m _mm m5. N5N < 5mm “555
2: 5mm < wwm m5. cum ma. mom m SN m< SN m mom m< owm mu
5:: O5m m5. ~5m m 3m m< 05m m<55m m< 5mm < hmm m< ~5m mDZ ~
ed 2m maom mwom m<m~m m<omm mSN m<w- ”5. amm mQ<

29 58.5 at 2.5 $73 253 :33 “.325 .3552
.md :32 2.5on 2.: :cmacum Sta—.0 28.—5m 5.32 852 a: 2:“. «59:5:

$835an 55.5—=0

 

 

 

.53 w 25 8.5555 :5 5.5 $33 55% 5555:9558 55 megs $825: 26 55 mo 555 “5 56:80
>8on “5 529555 555% SM $25> SUV 580a 5585 555 .EDZV 525 Euwbwov _5265 55$ 53m “598% 25.5. .mm 035,—.

Amodwav 55525: 5 5555 55.55.25 mugocmcwmm 8: 85 5852 _55E5o 0855 05 .3 553028 38 5 E 555525
5555355580 u MO 55 5:33—83.“ u 555m
6355.5 :55 n 5:. .5555on 35822. 583558 N $5 55553? 33:23 55235 n ~35 ”530:8 55 25 5535556555

 

 

 

 

66

5.: 5: <5: <52 <5 <5: 5555 5 _5_ <5: .6
5.55 555 < 35 m5 555 m5 555 m 555 m5 555 5 555 m5 555 ”52 5
5.5 555 5555 <25 <555 5555 5555 5.555 5.555 "55
5.5_ 52 5555 5555 5.555 5555 555.5: 5552 55.5: 50
5.55 :5 o 555 < 555 um 555 05 555 5. 555 < 555 < :5 .52 5
5.55 :5 o 555 < 555 um 555 5. 555 5.5 85 m5 5:. 5.5 555 53.
5.: 55_ .5555 552 525: 55 E 5252 55: 55555 .5
5.2 555 um 555 om< 555 < 555 u 555 RE 555 m5 555 m... 555 .52 _
5.2 555 m5 5: 5555 <55_ 05: 5552 52555 55 555 .55

29 5.8.5 at 95.8 8.3 2.53 2.53 555.25. 52:52
.H.m flue—Z GAS—oh. can Gama—chm— autasc wharf-am aha—Z nowh< u: 09%? «metal

535639 5535.50

 

.53 w 85 555.5555 :5 58 5:55 .5595 55855255555 25 $5.85 5555255 855 25 .50 5055 55 N55
8554 55 529555 2855-8 58 5525> EB 5885 5525 555 .0575 5555.5 5559855 35555 .EQ$ 89.5 559855 56.5. Hm 535.5

Amodwfi 55535; 5 £555 “5.55:5 55552555555 8: 25 5852 3&3 5555 25 53 536:8 38 5 E 5:552H
55555555508 n MO 5:5 daze—35$ H 5595

6355.5 :9 n E. .5555on 555823 5635.58 u Maw “5555595.. 555883 56—35 H ~55 ”530:8 55 25 5505535555

 

 

 

 

67

5.5 52 9552 <52 5:52 552 555552 m< 52 555555— 55
52 85 < 555 no 555 um 555 Q 555 m 555 um O55 Q 255 {.52 5
5.2 5: m< 555 U 53 < 555 0 5M: 0 52 um 85 um 85 55.55
5.55 55_ <3: 0555 om< @— m< 53 0m< 52 um of 053 mu
5.: 5cm < 555 < 555 < 35 m 555 < O55 < 35 < 555 “52 5
5.5_ 85 < 5 55 55555. 52 Dom ofl Q 52 m< 555 om< 85 Q0 5: “555
5.3 555 m< 555 0m 5555 um< 555 m< 555 0 S5 0555. 555 < 555 50
5.55 505 < 85 um 85 m 25 U 555 m 555 m 35 um 555 "52 5
5.5_ 85 < 85 < O55 < 555 m 2.5 < 35 < 555 555 O55 ”555

$9 €5.55 Ed 9.3 55.55 953 :33 555.25. .355
.md :32 2.5on 25 58:85— 8....30 5.8.5.55— 35: 55535 me 595,—. «59:5:

5538an 5535.50

 

.755— w 85 5555—555 :5 58 5555 .5555 55855255555 25 wag—5 5555355 85 25 mo 5555
55 5:0 BBQ 55 553855 55555 58 555_5> $8 5395 5520 555 5575 535 5555355 53:5: 5.53 555 5555855 56.55. .55 535,—.

.A5o.ow& 555g: 5 35555 5:25.555 55555555535 8: 555 5535— 33:55 5855 56 53 552/5:3 Bo: 5 :3 5:5525
555555555555 n MO 5:5 .5523555 .I. 5555
635555 :55 n “E. 55555555 355555 53555555 M Mr: a5555555.: 3::555: 5635 H ~35 ”53520.5 55 55 585535355

 

 

 

 

68

5.3 552 m< 552 < 555 m< 552 < 552 < 555 m 52 m< 5M: 50
0.55 555 m< 555 m< 555 m< 555 m 555 m 25 < 555 m< 555. 552 5
5.5 555 < 555 m 555 m< 555 m 555 m< O55 m< 555 m< 555 mQ<
5.2 52 m< 5E <52 05: 052 um 55_ 0m 5: Dm< 52 50
5.55 555 < 255 < 555 < 555 < 255 < 555 < 555 < 555 “52 5
5.5 555 < :55 < 555 < 555 < 555 < 555 < 555 < 555 na<
5.5 5: < 252 m 552 m 552 55552 52552 5252 5552 50
2.2 555 um :55 um 555 < 595 U 555 on 555 m 255 < 555 552 2
5.5 25_ <5o5 52552 <25 552 m5: m z: 5< :5 mfl<
955 555% 5:5 955 955 2:53 253 555.555 52.5.2
.mfi :55: 5555.55 5.5 55:95 “525:0 558.555— 5552 55525 .55 59.5.5. 555:5:
55525559 555—=0

 

.755. m 555 555555 :5 55.5 53:3 .5555 55585555555 55 5:555 5555;: 55:5 55 mo 5555 55 E56550
55 553855 55335-55 55.5 55:35 EB 3552: 5585 5:5 .0575 55pm 5:558:55 35:5: .EQ<V 555—.5 5:558:55 5mo< .55 535.5

.Amodwmv 5.5525: 5 8555 E53555 55:52.33? :5: 5:5 3:3— 38:55 5855 5:5 3 5538—8 So: 5 8 5:552:
555353553 u 80 5:5 5:335:58 u :m5m
.5358 :5: u ”E. .8535»: 3:33: 533585: H ME: .3535»: 3:335 5885 u ~55 ”535:8 55 5:5 88:83:82,:

 

 

 

 

 

3: mm: <55: <55: <52 <52 <52 <52 <55: 3
5.5 gm < 5% 5 an m 5.3 5 555 5 55m 5 E. 5 55m 32 v
5.: 555 < 52 5 SN 5 58 um :55 55 5:5 55 5:5 55 SN ::<
5: mm: <5: <3: <52 <55: <5: <9: <2: 3
3 53. < 5% m 59 5 :3. m 5? m :3. m o? m 3. 32 m
5: 58 < «.2 m 555 5 SN 5 555 m 85 5 85 5 EN 3<
2. m < S m e. < E m 5:. m 5:. m 8 m a. 3
5.: am < 58 5:2 85 a :5 5 am 55 5% :2 58 5 an 32 N
2: am < 2:. < :3 5 5mm < 85 < 8:. < 59. < am :3
3 E < 555 : SN 5 SN 55 mm 55 5mm :5 5:5 5 $5 3
5.: 555 m cm 5 SN :5 55m 5 555 m m: < 55m 3. 5mm 32 :
55 E 5. am $38 m< Ma: 5:: m 3: 5.38 H.525 :3.

9:9 53.5 at 83 5:3 2:3 2:3 58.25. .353:
.H.m :50: ans—0H. OSA— flcmfiohm— “8.350 renam— aha—Z nowh< .«c 095,—. “meta:

3.535an 33:59

 

.735 5:5 559:5:5 =5 :8 58:: :55» 8585555565 58 58:55 85535: :58 5:5 .85 5555
:5 555550 :5 553555 555:5 :8 5525:» $8 853:: 555:5 5:5 .9575 38.8 ::5w:5:55 3:35: 55$ 38.: ::5m:5:55 53< 65 535.5

69

Amodwdv “mean: a GEE» Eofibfi bwqmomawmm «o: 0.8 532 3:98 08% 05 3 330:8 38 a 5 $82):
$933858 n MO can dam—033$ n “mom

658$ :8 u PH "38on 38:83 32938 n ”E“ £3“on 3::on @836 n ”Ev 626:8 mm 0.8 mcosam>ofin<+

 

 

 

 

 

5a mom 0 mm: m< SN G $— m< 2N < 98 m aom m SN mo
2:» Km < 3% o :m < m? om _mm 0 com m< cam um 2m “52 v
m6 omm < SN m SN < mmm m Sm m Sm m omm m SN an?
NE SN m< Em m< omm 0 >2 m< SN < omm um Sm < Rm mu
:m mmv 0m< mmv Dom :« < Sm Dom 34. no can m2 m5. Q mom mQZ m
2: 0mm m< com um Nmm < mum om< nmm 0m EN m< own 0 Sn mg
53 SN m Em m< omm m< mam < 5mm m in U of m< ovm .5
".mm 5m m< a? mom mom 0m 3m D Em Gum cum < on... Q0 omm "52 N
0.: mmm m< mvm Gum Rm um mmm Q mom Dom 7mm < own no EN "54¢
oém omm < Em < mum < vom < 2% < mmm < Sm < van mu
mg mmm m< mow DU 9% < omv Q vmm Q mom um mom D Em n52 _
m.» mom < omm m >2 < mum m «a m o2 m com mm #2 ”:2

29 one“: EU 2.3 9:: 2.5 953 ”is: .252
Aid flaw—Z Gag—0H. 65A— :cmflaflm— «cf—«=0 tag—am— ass momhd‘ m: 0?»? “meta:

$8339 .5515

 

 

.79— w 2m mombfla =m 8a 383 .53» 53833 «am 05 mafia 3823 So.“ 05 was» “a £8.80
~08on as 838% 83.3-8 8m 82? SUV £805 £58 98 .396 Saw Eowbwou :33: Anna; “RE “cowuouow Eo< Am 2an

70

.Amodwmv meta: a £53» «:80me biméfiwfi 8: 8w Btfl 3:93 083 05 E 330:8 38 a E 282):
.mmfiwcbfieo u MO was .E==o_8m£ n “mom
638% :5 n uh .38on 3anth 22938 n. MA: .389? 3:5qu 663% n Maw ”950:8 8 2m mcowmgofins

 

 

 

 

 

a: a 8 E < cam m we m< 2m 8m a2 80 3: 03. wow .5

mm m? < gm 0 m? m g m c? m v3 0 8v 0 8m ”52 w
E Sm < man 0 am m ”a m EN m ax 0 NS 0 vmm ”:2
0.: SN m< mom on 2: RE ma 22 SN 0 E < am < _Nm no
93 E. < Sm < 8m m< 8w m< 8v < a m m? m 8v "52 m
_.2 gm m< am < Rm om NR om E < NS um SN 0 3 ”54¢.
3: or $32 m< G. <3: mo: m< o2 m m: m< x: no

mom a? < 2% m< a; m w? 0 8m m 5 m 5 m< 23 "52 m
0.2 EN < am m< 5N m< E 0 mm m< E m gem m< am an?

«fl 3 RE am 9 EN no 08 < 8m 8m RN 8 SN m< SN .6
E. mom < ms. om mom < oz. om 9% u an m 8m om 3m 32 _

3 ”cm m SN um 22 < SN 0 a: u :2 um NS Mum mom ”54¢.

29 G86 65 2.3 2.3 933 933 £222 .352
.H.w flaw: gnaw—9H. :59 gang—chm wot—3° «hay—ham— aha—Z motdw ac grab «meta:
muofioamv .5530

 

 

.73 m 08 mama—£8 :5 8m $82 .30» .8326on “we «5 wars—u $85: 58 2: (Hana 3 £8.80
bow—2m “a 838% 8me 8m 83g 38 58qu 03.8 93 .EQZV 8.5 25983 353: Ana/xv “RE “combuov Eo< .mm 038.

71

.Amodwfi 08E: 0 88:3 0028:: >:§08:0m:m :00 98 5:00: 3:98 08% 2:: E 330:8 30: a a: £802:
.mmgwuanao n :0 :00 08:01:38 u 000:
.0088 :8 n :H .mmfiwob 358.5: 20:92:00 u 8:: £083? 300000: 22:6 u 8:: 6.30:8 00 0.8 3000:5503

 

 

 

 

 

:.mm 0:: <mm: <5: <3: <3: <8: <3: <3: :0
m.:m 3m m< 3H 0m< mwv m< mmm 0 mmv m< emm < mom 0: Ev :9: v
Nd: mom < 33 m< 03 < ohm m: :mm < mum < 0mm m< ova :n:<
m.mm :mm < :3 Q0: mmm Q mm: m< mwm D0m< mmm Q0 mom 0m< 3m :0
mam N9 0 5mm m< new < in 0 Sum m< 03 < :Nm 0: mam :9: m
Wm: New 0 m:~ m< 03 < NR 0 o:m m< mmm < mom 0: mmm :Q<
9mm :0: < 00: m< mm: m:< m: m< NV: m< :0: m: mm: m< 00: :0
00m :3 m< 3% < new < Em 0 mmm < 03 < 3:. < 33 :9: m
m.:m :mm m< :3 < mom < chm m: mom m< ovm < mmm < mum :Q<
md: 00: <3: m<m2 m< mm: m< we: m<0m: m: 0:: m< :m: :0
0.0m we:q 0m: mwm m mow < :3 0 wmm m 3v m 09 0: 00m :97: :
:0: mom mew m: ::N < :vm mmw: m :om mwom Hm: mom :Q<

4:00 08:: 0:: 9.0: 2:0 8:3 2:3 “as“: .352
.md :32 0930:. 0.5 0800.5 0022.0 :83: «.35: 8€< :0 0%? «mafia:

:33025: 33:00

 

 

.79: w 80 893000 :0 :8 3:5 .30: 00:00:08: 0%: 05 mg: 9820:: S8 08‘80 :08 “0 ~30
8:01:80 3:903 05:00-00 :8 80:; E0: 0:38: 0:030 :05 “057:: 58.: Hogan”: 3000: .A:n:<v :3: 000380: 20¢. .mm 2an

72

.Amodwfi “meta: a £53» acouobmw hung—mama Ho: 8a .832 3:98 08% 05 E 326:8 38 a E 882»
.mmfiwwbfieo n MO 28 aSam—238% H “mom
Gnome“ :8 u “El .383? 3:883 30386“ H May .38on WEEK 22va u MAG 530:8 mm 0.8 meowmm>ofin<+

 

 

 

 

 

3: m3 0m 3: 0m< mf m< m: < 03 um< m3 0 m2 m< mi mo
93 2? < vow Um Q3 Q0 9% Q wow 0m m: m 2m DU amv “52 v
m6 m3 m< Sm m<oom m< ma 03— mmfi m<vom <SN an?
3: 02 m< :N m w: < vmm m v2 m< fig m< wfi m< m3 m0
me m? < 3m < Sm m mmv < 23 m< a: m< va m< wmv “52 m
ogm mom < 5mm m< mom 0 mom 0 New 0% 3m m< 3m om mum ma
aw mom < «m m o3 < va < mmm m o2 m 8“ m 8: m0
NE vow om 3v m 2v m mmv G van 0 3m 0m mow < 53 ”52 m
WE RN m< Rm < mom 0 0mm m< cam m< cwm on com m< owm ”HQ/x
v.m_ umm m< mmm m can m mmm < omm m< ovm m vmm m< mmm mo
~.mm vom < nmv m Em < mmv m omm m mom m Gm m me n52 _
0.2 gm um 0mm 0m mvm m< omm Q 3: U mmm um mmm H< SN mg

99 9% at 2.5 8.3 933 933 “.3“: 5:52
.md :32 3.3—oh. 25 =3:ch Sta—.0 28.—am «.32 8€< no 2r; “mots:

R8339 232:0

 

_-

wxwoa 89:98 =a 8m 3:5 .Soaowosuoa $5 05 wagu 883938 05 mo :80
3 55 8.3 “a 838mm 8me SM 33?» EB £88m 35.8 was .QQZV “on: “Swanson 13:0: “05$ Spa 289an Eo< .VM 2an

 

73

.Amodwnd “mots: m 55$» Enact? 3280meme Ho: Ed at“: Emamo 088 05 3 326:8 38 m E made—2“
A .mmfiwuhfiao u MO 98 552288.“ N “mom
Gnome“ :8 .I. E. .52on 358.59 32938 n NEH .mmfimoi Banana EoEE .I. yaw ”36:8 mm 03 32330525

 

 

 

 

74

oi @S m< c2 m2: 91.: mi: 93$ mg: <3 6
2; a < Re m 9% om 3m om an om é um vow o £3 ”52 m
92 am < ”m < Sm 3. can m< 8m m< an m am m< mmm m3
”.2 we < ms <8 :2 :2 <8 <8. :2 8
an am < Sm om Nam RE 9% a E“ m< Sm om N: 0 av 32 N

3 2m m< am < a m< can 0 am < a on mom 0 8m ":2
SN 5 m< or 03 um a <2; 036: 093: <5 8
3m 8m m< a; 0 ”mm < 5. a ma om 8m o as om mm». ”52 _
w: a: m? Sm um E < 2m 0 m2 om o: 0 m2 Hum E ”HQ

89 G8,: at 2.5 2.5 9:3 933 was: .352
dud flan—Z gnaw—0H. can flan—Sum— ner—«=0 tat—«mm aha—Z mutd‘ he 0?»? «nuts:
hAmomuoamv 332:0

 

.73 w 2w momma“ =« 8m 3E3 .80» 832603 Em 05 waist $822 8:: 05 mo :80
a :85an 3 838% mmfiw Ho.“ 83? SUV :6on 03.8 28 .EDZV “one Eowsgov Ruse: Amgv Spa 25923 Eo< .mm 033.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that perennial ryegrass can be grown throughout Michigan
successfully if cultivars are chosen carefully. Although past research has shown that
diploid cultivars have greater cold tolerance than tetraploid cultivars, this research
indicates that winter survival may depend more on location origin than ploidy level.
Mara and Barfort, both European cultivars, typically had less winter injury than the New
Zealand cultivars, Aries and Quartet. This is important because less winter injury is an
important factor in stand persistence. Aries and Quartet would persist in Michigan as
long as the winters remained mild. Although Mara and Barfort are able to withstand
harsh winter conditions, more research is needed to determine the length of time these
cultivars can persist in Michigan. The ability to germinate in cold temperatures was not
indicative of how grasses would perform in the field, and should not be used to determine
how plants will respond to cold stress.

Winter injury was inversely related to spring ground cover and first harvest
yields. However, as the season progressed and the grass recovered from the injury,
differences in ground cover and yield were not as apparent. By choosing an adapted
cultivar, a producer could grow perennial ryegrass and still have high yields even in a
more northern region of Michigan. First harvest yields were decreased by winter injury,
however, so a producer should rely on a more winter hardy species such as tall fescue or
orchardgrass for the first grazing event to be safe. Although this research did not show
co-cultures to have a yield advantage over monocultures, there was less variability in

yield throughout the season for the co-cultures. This would be important especially

75

during the warm, dry summer months when the cool-season grasses become less
productive.

The four perennial ryegrass cultivars typically had similar amounts of clover,
although Mara had less clover than Barfort. The results of this study indicate that grass
density is an important factor in legume compatibility. Barfort and Duo were less dense
than Mara and had a greater amount of clover present. Since ADF and NDF levels were
lower and CP levels were higher in the co-culture than the monoculture it appears that
presence of clover has a positive affect on forage quality. To take full advantage of a
mixture, a producer would need to plant grasses compatible with clover.

There were no palatability differences among perennial ryegrass cultivars.
Bronson was less palatable on only a few occasions, probably because grasses were
grazed before they matured. Producers could increase palatability by grazing earlier, or
by including a legume. In this study, the same cultivars had higher palatability scores
when grown in association with ladino white clover than without.

Forage quality was the greatest among the perennial ryegrass cultivars and Duo,
with Quartet having the lowest ADF and NDF concentrations and often having higher CP
concentrations. Although previous studies have found differences in quality between
diploid and tetraploid cultivars, a greater number of cultivars need would need to be
researched in this case to determine if differences do exist. Even though Quartet was a
high quality cultivar, it is not well adapted to Michigan unless winter conditions are mild.
A producer should determine whether quality or persistence is more important for their
operation, and plant a species and cultivar which excel in the desired characteristics.

Bronson and Tekapo were considered to have the lowest quality, but since it is adapted

76

throughout Michigan producers could include a legume to increase quality and
palatability. If planting a monoculture, Barfort and Mara would be able to withstand a
harsh Michigan winter.

Although producers should plant a variety of species, this research indicates that
Michigan producers would benefit by including an adapted perennial ryegrass cultivar
such as Mara or Barfort in their operation. These cultivars have high yields and better
forage quality than Bronson and Tekapo, but will persist better than Aries or Quartet
when exposed to harsh winter temperatures. Duo, festulolium, would also benefit
producers as it has good forage quality like perennial ryegrass and is winter hardy like
fescue. Even though co-cultures had no yield advantage over monocultures, the yields
were less variable throughout the season. Co-cultures also had better forage quality and

less winter injury than monocultures.

77

APPENDIX

78

Appendix Table 1A. Fertilizer application dates at each location for both years of the
trial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Application Dates
Location Establishment First Production
Year Year
W. K. Kellogg Biological Station 22 April 2002 4 March 2003
Hickory Corners, MI 21 May 2002 21 May 2003
22 August 2002 24 June 2003
5 November 2002 15 September 2003
Lake City Experiment Station 28 March 2002 2 March 2003
Lake City, MI 23 May 2002 27 May 2003
28 June 2003 23 June 2003
31 October 2002 3 September 2003
Upper Peninsula Experiment Station 3 May 2002 25 April 2003
Chatham, MI 7 June 2002 9 June 2003
31 July 2002 14 July 2003
16 October 2002 20 August 2003

 

 

79

.wSNEw 8.“ 03383 Ho: oEaU
.Emfimnu 2 8839.8 0%. 8m $522 3% 53268

“mum on can 22$ .mcom mo 38.0.5 meow 80¢ 03 mwcufi 89855.88 8 .Emfimgu E @0338 was» we 5qu 8330-8 2:...

 

 

 

 

2&2 2 2&_:.. E 3900 v a: £38 2.
3900 v be 2 23 a 22 a. a: as; a. a: 0 E520
0:3. 0 83 v .2
He: e&=< R
22. R 23 «N 2&3 R 3200 _ H£200 2 98$
“Bozo _ as; .8 as: t 2.2 Q a: S a: S a: m 26 23 5:885
:2 mm a: 2 2E
“cesium 3 conEoEom 3
be a 33 : 2&3. : 2&=< 2 2&3. a 2088
2&3... 2 as; 2 as: S a: a 2:: S 2%.. a 29.. mm 28:5
.32 a .32 n
3900 : hBose &
cotomno
2&2... : 2&3. am 2&2... mm 2.8200 v 2&3. mm
”gamma 3:. M: 23 2 25. m .23 a as; m as: m .5520
05:. N. 05:. m
32030 ”a? 59800 S u 08 c o o c o o
28% as: 2 as; : fiEww “ML/mew fimkmm =5. 2 26 33 388
oz 32 cm a: S . . . 8052382
$880 2 838 2
©3530 finws< 3 Hmzw=< m—
u Eo>o .5 Eo>o .5 Eo>o WEED
2.2a 2.3 2 as: a omega. mm m ”:3. mm m ”2:. mm m 2%. 2 232m
02 a: M: a: E . . . .
:5. a E... S
lug—:3— wnzam 35:5 datum 3.50 hi?—
omaoan 553525— 3333 35,—. 3.6.0 155.5 3.53 .833?— 53>
.35 95 mo 88% can 30:82 =m com 32% 558:8 8mm .<N 03mg. 5333‘

80

deacon 2338808 05 Ho.“ H8» 82680.8 28¢ 05 mm 083

25 8 8228.288 283 cm .3332 $3 a 8:83 83.38 mg» 88:85 a 8an 8830.8 25 88 83.» 8285388 on?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: 28 $8 & 2&2 2m 3% 9% was & 2&2 v .5526
SN 828 M: 8m 828 2
2mm 222 m 3% 2022 a
2.3 8 258 8 22 2. 30 22 $8 2 .282 m 26 93
80800
mi 2 m 282 m 2&2 .. 3% mg .28 2 2&2 m 29.08
2-2. :3 an: 226 2:32 :2. :3 my: 226 25.8
22.5 3&3» 226 a. 28.22 22.5 2&3: 226 .8 2826
wan—25m $895. we .22 09C. .«e 52 Maw—93m $295. he .22 99:. we 52 853.5
89> nezoseeum .83 80> Eon—_EEEmH

 

 

 

.83» Eon 8m 8582 some E 3:96 988% mo .6983: 88 .28: 333 go .6288 8038.628 2320 .<m 253. x6583.

81

Table 4A. Analysis of variance table for co-culture winter injury.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effect Num DF Den DF F value Pr > F

Year 1 10 6.81 0.0261

Location 2 10 2.02 0.1830

Year“ Location 1 1 O 0.08 0.7778

Treatment 6 60 4.69 0.0006

Year“ Treatment 6 60 1 .5 l 0. 1 894

Location*Treatment 12 60 2.22 0.0215

Year” Location*Treatment 6 60 1 .70 0. 1368
Table 5A. Analysis of variance table for grass winter injury.

Effect Num DF Den DF F value Pr > F

Year 1 82 229.82 <.0001

Location 2 82 10.13 0.0001

Year“ Location 2 82 l 1.55 <.0001

Treatment 6 82 43.82 <.0001

Year*Treatment 6 82 32.99 <.0001

Location*Treatment 12 82 3.82 0.0001

Year* Location*Treatment 1 2 82 3 .96 <.0001

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

Appendix Table 6A. Monthly minimum and maximum air temperatures (°C) at all
locations for the establishment year, first production year, and 30 year average.

 

 

 

Hickory Lake City Chatham
Corners
Year Month Min Max Min Max Min Max
Aug 14.3 25.8 12.5 20.2 10.5 23.1
Sep 10.4 22.7 7.3 19.3 6.6 18.4
Oct 6.5 16.9 2.1 13.3 0.0 13.4
Nov 4.0 14.4 0.7 10.7 -0.4 8.7
Dec -0.9 6.1 -4.0 3.1 -6.2 2.3
Establishment Jan -3.7 4.8 -7.3 0.9 -9.7 -0.7
(2001-2002) Feb -3.8 5.9 -10.0 1.4 -11.2 -0.3
Mar -4.2 7.2 -8.8 1.7 -12.2 -0.2
Apr 4.2 16.8 -0.3 11.2 -1.9 7.8
May 6.6 19.7 3.1 15.1 0.8 12.9
Jun 15.2 29.2 12.2 24.1 8.9 22.8
Jul 17.9 32.1 15.1 29.5 13.0 28.5
Aug 16.2 29.2 11.7 26.4 10.6 24.4
Sep 12.8 27.9 8.5 24.7 8.5 22.4
Oct 5.0 15.8 0.7 11.4 -1.2 10.]
Nov 0.] 7.9 -3.9 4.5 -7.8 2.8
First Dec -5.4 2.5 -8.9 0.5 -11.3 -0.3
3:1: :3 1%: :2 1:2 2‘;
e - . . - . -. - . -.
(2002'2003) Mar 32 10.3 -9.3 4.3 -12.8 1.2
Apr 3.3 18.0 -2.3 11.0 -5.8 7.4
May 7.9 20.8 5.6 17.5 1.1 17.6
Jun 12.1 27.3 8.6 23.4 6.4 22.3
Jul 15.2 29.8 12.0 25.2 9.7 26.3
Aug 15.6 27.9 11.4 25.1 11.7 24.9
Sep 11.4 23.8 6.9 20.3 7.7 20.6
Oct 5.6 17.1 1.6 13.5 1.9 13.3
Nov 0.3 8.9 -3.3 5.5 -3.6 4.8
30 Year Dec -5.6 2.1 -9.3 -0.8 -9.6 -1.0
Average if“; '3'? 103‘ '83 '12 '31 '13
e -. . - . -. - . -.
“9714000) Mar 32 8.1 -7.9 3.9 -8.3 3.6
Apr 2.4 15.3 -0.9 11.4 -2.3 10.4
May 8.6 22.2 4.8 19.3 3.7 18.9
Jun 13.8 27.2 9.8 24.2 9.2 24.3
Jul 16.3 29.2 12.3 26.6 11.6 25.6

 

83

Appendix Table 7A. Monthly rainfall (mm) at all locations for the establishment year,
first production year, and 30 year average.

 

 

 

Year Month Hickory Corners Lake City Chatham
Aug 147.8 91.4 99.3
Sep 125.2 101.4 103.6
Oct 195.8 150.4 115.3
Nov 52.1 51.1 60.5
Dec 71.1 33.3 42.9
Establishment Jan 58.4 15.2 18.0
(2001_2002) Feb 51.1 42.4 39.9
Mar 55.4 73.2 73.2
Apr 82.6 87.6 112.5
May 114.1 55.1 90.7
Jun 51.8 70.8 98.3
Jul 109.0 40.1 126.0
Annual 1114.4 812.0 980.2
Aug 146.1 76.2 150.1
Sep 43.4 14.7 82.8
Oct 58.7 58.7 158.2
Nov 52.1 27.2 50.0
Dec 60.5 15.8 21.8
First Jan 23.4 16.8 39.4
Production Feb 28.5 16.5 3 1 .8
(2002-2003) Mar 47.5 29.7 65.5
Apr 77.2 78.5 68.6
May 158.5 79.5 120.4
Jun 62.7 49.8 49.5
Jul 74.2 12.2 76.5
Annual 832.8 475.6 914.6
Aug 99.8 92.9 53.9
Sep 107.7 94.6 33.3
Oct 78.6 74.7 51.0
Nov 84.4 63.0 47.9
Dec 75.5 45.7 69.1
30 Year Jan 54.0 40.0 82.9
Average Feb 44.3 30.4 92.7
(1971-2000) Mar 67.0 51.1 91.0
Apr 96.9 70.4 99.2
May 88.8 70.8 84.8
Jun 96.0 75.0 78.8
Jul 93.6 72.8 55.9
Annual 986.6 781.4 840.5

 

84

“-fl

 

 

 

 

 

222 o o o 2 2 8 8 2m 8 22 2 o 22 25222220 288-28:

22 2 o o o 2. 22 R 8 22 a 2 o o 26 823 882

S 22 22 o 2 2 2: mm 22 m o o o 8&8 2920222 28> 2

a2 22 o o 2 2m 8 22 R 2 2 m o o 2522220 288-882

82 22 o o 2 cm 8 mm 2.2 2. o o o 220 823 2522822222

N22 22 o o m 2.2 8 a Q m o o o 8&8 28208 2222.2

2222 o o 22 2 2m mm 22 m2 2 N o o 222222220

8 o o o m mm 8 4m 2 m N o o 220 823 2222m22222222w222mm2wm2

8 o o o o a 2 4m 2: o o o o 82:8 2820222 .
—a=fl:< 1:. :5—. has LEA» .32 £0,"— flan. oom— >¢Z «go new d=< :cmuauew— .30?

 

.owfigm 23» cm 88 223%

22283298 282.2 .228.» 80823383 65 28 83282 :22 222 5288 .3 86 Wm M 228% 322m 223 @322 .20 238:2 .32 2an 22682292..

85

Appendix Table 9A. Analysis of variance table for co-culture ground cover.

 

 

Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F

Year 1 10 8.68 0.0146
Location 2 10 5.47 0.0248
Year*Loc 1 10 2.81 0.1244

Trt 6 60 5.41 0.0002
Year*Trt 6 60 0.84 0.5425
Loc*Trt 12 60 2.89 0.0033
Year*Loc*Trt 6 60 2.48 0.0331
Season 1 70 191.53 <.0001
Year“ Season 1 70 1 12.49 <.0001
Loc* Season 2 70 41.22 <.0001
Year*Loc*Season 1 70 9.48 0.0030
Trt*Season 6 70 4.69 0.0005
Year*Trt* Season 6 70 6.03 <.0001
Loc*Trt* Season 12 70 3.61 0.0003
Year“ Loc*Trt*Season 6 70 2.15 0.0578

 

Appendix Table 10A. Analysis of variance table for grass ground cover.

 

 

 

Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F

Year 1 12 16.25 0.0017
Location 2 12 l .99 0. 1 799
Year*Loc 2 12 12.68 0.0011

Trt 6 72 1 1.65 <.0001
Year*Trt 6 72 3.70 0.0029
Loc*Trt 12 72 2.09 0.0278
Year*Loc*Trt 12 72 2.23 0.0190
Season 1 82 69.26 <.0001
Year“ Season 1 82 57.5 1 <.0001
Loc*Season 2 82 0.58 0.5612
Year*Loc*Season 2 82 9.08 0.0003
Trt" Season 6 82 4.89 0.0003
Year“ Trt* Season 6 82 2.76 0.0170
Loc*Trt* Season 12 82 0.69 0.7605
Year*Loc*Trt* Season 12 82 0.79 0.6577

86

Appendix Table 11A. Analysis of variance table for co-culture tiller counts.

 

 

 

 

 

Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F
Year 1 10 10.79 0.0082
Location 2 10 45. 1 6 <.0001
Year*Loc 1 10 18.58 0.0015
Trt 6 60 9.00 <.0001
Year" Trt 6 60 1.41 0.2250
Loc*Trt 12 60 2.26 0.0196
Year*Loc*Trt 6 60 0.69 0.6565
Season 1 70 20.31 <.0001
Year" Season 1 70 64.19 <.0001
Loc*Season 2 70 58.80 <.0001
Year*Loc*Season 1 70 10.33 0.0020
Trt*Season 6 70 0.87 0.5191
Year*Trt* Season 6 70 2.27 0.0465
Loc*Trt*Season 12 70 2.60 0.0064
Year“ Loc*Trt*Season 6 70 0.63 0.7075
Appendix Table 12A. Analysis of variance table for grass tiller counts.
Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F
Year 1 12 22.95 0.0004
Location 2 12 47.15 <.0001
Year’Loc 2 12 2.91 0.0935
Trt 6 72 10.34 <.0001
Year*Trt 6 72 0.64 0.6999
Loc*Trt 12 72 1.31 0.2302
Year“ Loc*Trt 12 72 1 .26 0.2624
Season 1 84 33.65 <.0001
Year“ Season 1 84 1 16.50 <.0001
Loc* Season 2 84 81.41 <.0001
Year*Loc* Season 2 84 171.63 <.0001
Trt* Season 6 84 2.42 0.0332
Year*Trt* Season 6 84 1 .17 0.3324
Loc*Trt* Season 12 84 3.17 0.0009
Year“ Loc*Trt* Season 12 84 3.36 0.0005

 

87

 

 

Appendix Table 13A. Analysis of variance table for co-culture clover ratings.

 

 

Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F

Year 1 10 16.99 0.0021
Location 2 10 83 .76 <.0001
Year“ Loc 1 10 5.27 0.0445

Trt 6 60 8.80 <.0001
Year*Trt 6 60 5.22 0.0002
Loc*Trt 12 60 1.01 0.4494
Year“ Loc*Trt 6 60 1.05 0.4001
Season 1 70 18.73 <.0001
Year“ Season 1 70 18.20 <.0001
Loc“ Season 2 70 39.98 <.0001
Year“ Loc* Season 1 70 22.44 <.0001
Trt“ Season 6 70 2.02 0.073 8
Year*Trt* Season 6 70 1.32 0.2615
Loc*Trt* Season 12 70 3 .77 0.0002
Year” Loc*Trt* Season 6 70 0.50 0.8087

 

88

Amodwfi 2322222 0 8523 222020.2«6 >22§0m8wmm 2022 020 20220— 82800 08% 05 .3 326:8 302 0 8 80022
2882022222020 .I. MO 2082 .822=o_:2m0.2 n 2322
62280.2 :8 u ”E. .mm8w0b 2082202022 2088202 U ~32 £88022 288202022 22820 n yaw ”95:22.2 3 0222 8220305225

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

odm hm m< 2 m< mm m< om m< 2 < mm m c m< on 303
22.—m2 .03 m 82 < 3v m m2 m mom m< ohm m 8 m< mmm 08302
5va $0 m< owm m R21 < 32 m< mg m an m< 0mm m< 03 $80
Ndm mm < we < 9 < E < S < vm < w < am 303
gm: 3m < 0mm m 2mm m mum m 53 m 3% < 022 m cam 08280.2
07mm 2.02 m< vmfl um 3w m< SS 0m 23 U nmn 22. N02 092. cog $86
2.02 am m< mm om mm < oo Um cm 32 2v 0 E um mm 30?
ed 2 mow < m3 < a: < own 42.. 032 < moo < com 22.. one 0880.2
0me ~32 m ohm m $2: m< Nmfi m< 3: m 32 m< .903 < 2a: 880
Q: ofi m< mg m S < nmm m< m2 m< NE m 3 m< 82 30>»
5% 2&— < mmm < omm m< cm 2 < v: < owm < oom m on 0880.2
93% 82 U mwa m< at: 0m va m2 é: um wmfi um 02: < 33 380
tom G2 m< Q: m mm 222. Sm m< R2 m< mmm m< 32 m 3 303
ad: com < in m mmm < omm m< KN < com m mmm m 3 0830.2
2.02 go 0m 9% < $2 um ova m 8: 0 $0 0 a: Hm 3: $80
29 288 2.22.2 8.222 8.222 92.23 8.23 22.2222an
.md 8202 2.3—0H. 85 uenuem 202.2820 2.28.2.5 «.82 002.22 308325 20.0.28:
$00339 8.5—=0

 

.m88w 8 020 Guam 8008 80com8ou .200» 80823383 05 20.2 80800 228—02: 20 2822202288 2.008325 .3; 030,—. 222202202223.

.39ch 603: a 8883 8080336 >=§0m3mm Ho: 03 803— 7898 08mm 08 E 326:8 38 m 8 0.832H
.0333808 U MO 83 883138 u «00.»

6:03“ :8 n ”E. £3303 388083 88988 u and £303 3880.83 8880 n #38 ”030:8 mm 0.3 883308388

 

 

 

 

03 am <8 m3 m 3 m3 m3 mg m mm 303
W; S < S: m< 3 m 3. m on m mm m 2 m me 0830:. m
w.mmm 05S m< 33 < 3: m owm m 3: m Tm: m :2 m< 33 008.0
:2 o2 < Sn 0 mm m 3m 0m N: 0 mm 0 cm om No 303
Em: Sm < Re m «mm m vow m m: m 9 m mm m mo 0833 m
03m 33 Q 32 m 23 no 33 no em“: um 33 < Sam om comm $80
Wmm mom < mom 0 mm m 03 um 5 0m 3 0m 3 0 mm 303
Qua 3 < Rm m< we < m3 m< Vm m< Nv m< em m mm 0833 H
Wmmv PS 0 o; m< 3cm < womm 0m 5mm“ um um: m< mim ”m2 2% 0080
29 985 at 2.5 8% 8.8% 883 2.8258 .252
.H.m 8:02 2.8—0h can :38ch .0280 tctam «.82 8€< 80883— total
*Am0_00nmv 8.5—=0

 

.0883 8 0.8 Amncv 838 8083800 .30» 80888383 08 Sm ~05 0013 3 88883800 Eugen .<2 8an 830mm<

90

 

Amodwfi “maid: a GEE» “:88.“me Eagommawmm “o: 0.8 5:2 :3an 08mm 05 B 330:8 38 a E 232“
.mmfiwgfieo u MO 98 “923—83.“ n “mom
“ozomom :8 n “E. .38on 358th 22938 H Maw .38on 3::qu EBA—6 n yaw 630:8 mm 2m 30325533

 

 

 

 

Cam 2 m : m S < we m 3 m R m _ m mm 803
22 am no m? < Ea um m8 8 :v um 3m m< new a oz 8:ng m
:0 ”mm 0 ma 0 3m 3. an m an o o; < 80 < was $5
:9 2 <3 me <3 5 <o 5 f 30>»
mg on m< N2 03. am um 32 um< :N < 5 um< EN 0 5 2:st m
32 com m E < E m E m 3N m mg m E m 2 38o
3 S < S om on m< a om 3 o : 02 B»?
3; R m mm 3. am < S m _m m 3 m n m mm «8&3 _
2a a? 0 v2 om o3 m< v8 < 85 m< Sm om 8m “m2 0% 22w
28 as“: Eb 8.3 2.5 $33 $33 .5835 .352
.H.m flan: Gas—OH 05A— :cmflchm— aura-.0 «Laram— aha—Z motdw _aumflauom «meta:
1860an 235:0

 

@8me 5 2m QUE €on “cocomEoU can» 8085388 05 Sm :35an 3 836258 Rogom 43 033. x659“?

91

.Amodwmv 63.8: a £59» “satay bwcwomawmm Ho: 2a 832 3:98 08% 05 3 EBB—om 38 a 5 £822”
.mmfiwwanouo n MO 98 “Ease—83% n “mom
6:88 :8 u PH .88on 3583 22358 n Maw £92on 3555a 2296 u M% 630:8 mm 8.» m:o_§>ofin<*

 

 

 

 

 

2m mm RE 3 RE 3 < w: om 2 om< S u o m< 3 Bu?
32 mm < NS m< mam m< W? m o: m< E m N: m< a? 2&3 v
32 v? m 23 um m2 < 8» u w: om m8 um own om Man 3.5
3m 2 < 8 < S < m < 8 < on < E < m 803
38 :m m< 8v m< vow m< o8 m< 8m m< 3 m am < a» 2334 m
Sam 5 m< 3 m 5 < a8 m N? m :3 m< :6 m of £5
3m 3 m _ m< a m< mm < a < a < R m< x 803
38 am < 8v < o? < N? < :m < 8v < wow < m8 08:3; N
ER 8: m< 82 m< a: m Ra m< 32 < E: m as $2 32 £5
. . . . . . . . . Boa
ofiswoq ~
$80
99 90,: EC Em: 2.3 933 953 £22.55 h2:52
and :32 Era—oh. 25 :8:ch nor—«:0 tab—um Ea: moms. .3353— «metal

335 .53

 

.mEmw 5 2m QUE £808 EncomEoU .Soflcozoacoa “mac 2: How @8500 ~08on 8 :oEmomEoo _mogom 4: £an xmwcomfix

92

Amodwfi “mafia: a :2?» “Shawna bEmofiEwmm Ho: 0.8 522 Efimo 08mm 05 3 330:8 38 a 5 £802»
.mmfimcbfieo u MO can #320330.“ N “mom

638m :8 u up .38qu 356th 22958 n M% .383? 38:82“ 20E? u an? ”950:8 3 8m maoufl>ofin<+

 

 

 

 

 

2a m: 932 $32 5 < m: «48 m 3 <§~ 803
3:” 8 m 8 < mm m m m S m 3 m N m mm 3&3 v
32 mg m 8m m :3 < S: o a? m mg m E: < 32 v.85
SN 3 m 3 m m m 8 < 2: m 3. m fl < mm 803
3 o 5 <8 5 f f i <2 833 m
23 mm m< 80 m :a < 22 m as. m< 2m m< E m< Rm $5
3m 3 < a: m M: m mm < N: m a m w < mum Boa
0.2 «N < 3 <3 <$ m m 5. mm m m 2.33 N
:8 m3 um 3m m< mac < 9:: 0 § m< a: om< 8m m< E v.85
3: as < 5. m m m< § 3. g m 3 m 8 m< SN BOB
03. % m< % < ”2 m 8 m< mm m< 3 m mm m< 2 25MB _
M32 mm» m< N8 om 2m < E: 0 com um 8m m< o2 ”om 3m $5
9:: care at 8.3 8.3 95.? 2.5 £2355 .352
dad flue: gnaw—oh. can flan-aha «otaq—o tenan— aha—Z mow—(V _aumflaucm— «meta:
$869an 235:0

 

.252m E 08 Amncv £808 «cocomaoo 58% couosvoa “m5 2: .8me 813 E 838388 _moESom .3: 033. xmwaomfiw

93

Appendix Table 19A. Co-culture palatability scores (n=9) at the first, second, third, and
fifth harvests. Scores are averaged across years and location where 1 is least palatable

and 5 is most palatable.

 

 

Cultivar (speciesf Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 5
Aries (dPR) 5.0 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 5.0 A
Mara (dPR) 4.9 A 4.4 A 4.7 A 5.0 A

Barfort (tPR) 4.9 A 4.3 A 4.1 A 5.0 A

Quartet (tPR) 4.7 A 4.6 A 4.8 A 5.0 A

Bronson (TF) 3.9 B 3.9 A 4.0 A 5.0 A

Duo (Fest) 4.8 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 5.0 A

Tekapo (OR) 4.6 A 4.7 A 4.6 A 5.0 A
Mean 4.7 4.4 4.5 5.0
SE. 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1

 

Appendix Table 20A. Grass palatability scores (n=9) at the first, second, third, and fifth

harvests. Scores are averaged across years and location where 1 is least palatable and 5 is

 

 

most palatable.

Cultivar (species)T Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 3 Cut 5
Aries (dPR) 4.6 A 4.2 A 4.2 A 5.0 A
Mara (dPR) 4.6 A 4.4 A 3.6 A 5.0 A

Barfort (tPR) 4.7 A 4.4 A 4.0 A 5.0 A

Quartet (tPR) 4.6 A 4.4 A 4.2 A 5.0 A

Bronson (TF) 4.4 A 4.0 A 3.9 A 5.0 A

Duo (Fest) 4.7 A 4.3 A 4.1 A 5.0 A

Tekapo (OR) 4.8 A 4.5 A 4.2 A 5.0 A
Mean 4.6 4.3 4.0 5.0
SE. 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1

 

 

 

 

LITERATURE CITED

Aberg, E., I. J. Johnson, and C. P. Wilsie. 1943. Associations between species of grasses
and legumes. Agron J. 35: 357-369.

Allinson, D. W., W. J Potvin, R. W. Taylor, K. Guillard, and R.A. Peters. 1986.
Evaluation of Lolium cultivars in Connecticut. Monograph Storrs. Agri. Expt. Stn. No. 4.

Baker M. J ., E. C. Prigge, and W. B. Bryan. 1988. Herbage production from hayfields f
grazed by cattle in fall and spring. J. Prod. Agric. 1: 275-279. '

Balasko, J. A., G. W. Evers, and R. W. Duell. 1995. Bluegrasses, ryegrasses, and
bentgrasses. In: Forages Volume 1: An introduction to grassland agriculture. 5th ed.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. pp. 357 - 371.

 

Casler, M. D., P. R. Peterson, L. D. Hoffman, N. J. Ehlke, E. C. Brummer, J. L. Hansen,
M. J. Mlynarek, M. R. Sulc, J. C. Henning, D. J. Undersander, P. G. Pitts, P. C. Bilkey
and C. A. Rose-Fricker. 2002. Natural selection for survival improves freezing
tolerance, forage yield, and persistence of festulolium. Crop Sci. 42: 1421-1426.

Casler, M. D., and K. P. Vogel. 1999. Accomplishments and impact from breeding for
increased forage nutritional quality. Crop Sci. 39: 12-20.

Collins, M., and J .0. Fritz. 2003. Forage Quality. In: Forages Volume 1: An
introduction to grassland agriculture. 6 ed. Iowa State Press, Ames, IA. pp. 363-390.

Connolly, V. 2001. Breeding Improved Varieties of Perennial Ryegrass. End of Project
Report 3495. Dublin, Ireland: TEAGASC.

Cooper, J. P. 1964. Climatic variation in forage grasses. 1. Leaf development in climatic
races of Lolium and Dactylis. J. of App. Ecol. 1: 45-61.

Culleton, N., W. E. Murphey, and W. F. O’Keeffe. 1986. The role of mixtures and
seeding rate in ryegrass productivity. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 25: 299-306.

95

Dewey, D. R. 1980. Some application and misapplication of induced polyploidy to plant
breeding. In: Polyploidy — Biological Reference, pp. 445-468. Plenum Press, New York.

Dvorak, J. and D. B. Fowler. 1978. Cold hardiness of potential triticale and tetraploid
rye. Crop Science 18: 477-480.

Elgersma, A. and J. Hassink. 1997. Effects of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) on
plant and soil nitrogen and soil organic matter in mixtures with perennial ryegrass
(Lolium perenne L.). Plant and Soil. 197: 177-186.

D.
.3
Evans, D. R., T. A. Williams, and S. A. Evans. 1996. Breeding and evaluation of new '
white clover varieties for persistency and higher yields under grazing. Grass and Forage
Science. 51: 403-411.
Frame, J. 1989. Herbage productivity of a range of grass species under a silage cutting -—

 

regime with high fertilizer nitrogen application. Grass and Forage Science 44: 267-276.

Gilliland, T. J. 1996. Assessment of perennial ryegrass variety compatibility with white
clover under grazing. Plant Var. Seeds 9: 65-75.

Goering, H. K. and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fiber analysis: Apparatus, reagents,
procedures, and some applications. USDA Agric. Handb. 379. US. Gov. Print Office,
Washington, D. C.

Gooding, R. F ., J. Frame, and C. Thomas. 1996. Effects of sward type and rest periods
from sheep grazing on white clover presence in perennial ryegrass—white clover
association. Grass Forage Sci. 51: 180-189.

Hofgaard, I.S., A.V. Vollsnes, P. Marurn, A. Larsen, and A. M. Tronsmo. 2003.
Variation in resistance to different winter stress factors within a full-sib family of
perennial ryegrass. Euphytica 134: 61-75.

Humphreys, J ., T. Jansen, N. Culleton, and F. S. MacNaeidhe. 1998. Comparison of
annual herbage yield, botanical composition and mineral content of swards of perennial
ryegrass sown with white and red clover. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food
Research. 37(2): 159-172.

96

Humphreys, M. O. and C. F Eagles. 1988. Assessment of perennial ryegrass (Lolium
perenne L.) for breeding. I. Freezing tolerance. Euphytica 38: 75-84.

Jensen, K. B., B. L. Waldron, K. H. Asay, D. A. Johnson, and T. A. Monaco. 2003.
Forage nutritional characteristics of orchardgrass and perennial ryegrass at five irrigation
levels. Agron. J. 95: 668-675.

Johnston, W. H. 1988. Palatability to sheep of the Eragrostis curvula complex. 1.
Methods of assessing palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 28: F
41-45.

Jones, E. L. and J. E. Roberts. 1994. Herbage quality and production of perennial

ryegrass cultivars in monoculture and mixtures. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food
Research 33(2): 169-175.

 

 

Keane, G. P. 1982. The annual yield, and its distribution, of some grass cultivars and
mixtures. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 21: 159-169.

Kunelius, H. T., and Y. Castonguay. 2003. Performance of perennial ryegrass in
Atlantic Canada. American Forage and Grassland Council Proceedings and Reports,
Lafayette, Louisiana 12: 26.

Leep, R. H. 2001. Perennial ryegrass potential in Michigan. Forage Information Systems
website http://www.msue.msu.edu/fis/exteanion documents/Perennial_MI Rye.htm.
Viewed 09 October 2002.

Lorenzetti, F., B. F. Tyler, J. P Cooper, and E. L. Breese. 1971. Cold tolerance and
winter hardiness in Lolium perenne 1. Development of screening techniques for cold
tolerance and survey of geographical variation. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 76: 199-209.

McCaughey, W. P. 1998. Herbage yield and cattle preference for dryland pasture
grasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 78: 237-239.

Moore, K. J. 2003. Compendium of Common Forages. In: Forages Volume 1: An
introduction to grassland agriculture. 6th ed. Iowa State Press, Ames, IA.

97

Mooso, G. D., and W. F. Wedin. 1990. Yield dynamics of canopy components in
alfalfa-grass mixtures. Agron. J. 82: 287-290.

Morgan, W. G. 1976. A technique for the production of polyploidys in grasses.
Euphytica 25: 433-446.

Nassiri, M. and A. Elgersma. 2002. Effects of nitrogen on leaves, dry matter allocation
and regrowth dynamics in Trifolium repens L. and Lolium perenne L. in pure and mixed
swards. Plant and Soil. 246: 107-121. E

Pavetti, D.R., D.A. Sleper, C.A. Roberts, and GR Krause. 1994. Genetic variation and

relationship of quality traits between herbage and seed of tall fescue. Crop Sci. 34: 427-
431.

 

Pederson, G. A. 1995. White clover and other perennial clovers. In: Forages Volume 1:
An introduction to grassland agriculture. pp. 227-236. 5th ed. Iowa State University
Press, Ames, IA. pp. 367.

Pond, W. G., D. C. Church, and K. R. Pond. 1995. Basic animal nutrition and feeding.
4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NW. pp. 17-22.

Roberts, J. L., and F. R. Olson. 1942. Interrelationships of grass and legumes grown in
association. Agron. J. 34: 695-701.

Shewmaker, G.E., H.F. Mayland, and SB. Hansen. 1997. Cattle grazing preference
among eight endophyte-free tall fescue cultivars. Agon. J. 89: 695-701.

Short, K. E., and I. T. Carlson. 1989. Bidirectional selection for birdsfoot trefoil
compatibility traits in orchardgrass. Crop Sci. 29: 1131.

Sleugh, B., K. J. Moore, J. R. George, and E. C. Brummer. 2000. Binary legume-grass
mixtures improve forage yield, quality, and seasonal distribution. Agronomy Journal.
92: 24-29.

98

Sugiyama, S. 1998. Differentiation in competitive ability and cold tolerance between
diploid and tetraploid cultivars in Lolium perenne. Euphytica 103: 55-59.

Tisdale, S. L., and W. L. Nelson. 1975. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 3rd ed. New York:
Macmillan.

van Santen, E. 1992. Animal preference of tall fescue during reproductive growth in the
spring. Agron. J. 84: 979-982.

Wade, L. J., G. L. Hammer, and M. A. Davey. 1993. Response of germination to
temperature amongst diverse sorghum hybrids. Field Crops Research. 31: 295-308.

Yamashita, M. and Y. Shimamoto. 1996. Differentiation in freezing hardiness among
cultivars groups of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Grassland Science 42: 57-62 (in
Japanese with English summary).

Watkins, K. L. 1987. Total nitrogen determination of various sample types: a
comparison of the Hach, Kjeltec, and Kjeldahl methods. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 70:
3.

White, L. M. 1973. Carbohydrate reserves of grasses: a review. J. Range Manage.
26: 1 3—1 8.

Wilkins, P. W. 1991. Breeding perennial ryegrass for agriculture. Euphytica. 52: 201-
214.

Williams, T. A., D. R. Evans, 1. Rhodes, and M. T. Abberton. 2003. Long-term
performance of white clover varieties grown with perennial ryegrass under rotational

grazing by sheep with different nitrogen applications. Journal of Agricultural Science.
140: 151-159.

Zemenchik, R. A., K. A. Albrecht, and R. D. Shaver. 2002. Improved nutritive value of
kura clover— and birdsfoot trefoil—grass mixtures compared with grass monocultures.
Agron. J. 94: 1131-1138.

99

 

 

 

1mm STATE XJHIVERSII'V LIBRARIES
1‘1 l ‘ 1 l‘ ‘ ‘ 1‘ 1 H“
1 111‘. ll l‘ 1 1

‘1 l1l ‘ ‘ 1111‘ ” lll‘ M 1

‘1 11 1 1 1 ‘ 11‘
.‘11‘111‘11‘11111 11‘1 ‘1 1.11

 

     

MICH
11‘

l 1‘
ll l1
3

1293 02497 7054