III!III/III!!!III!!!

l'

I
I
I

 

IIHHIHII

II

 

I

H
I
II

J—I_._I
I\J_\ }
(DNN

  

THE INFLUENCE OF SEEDING RATES VON BOTANICAL" ' ‘
COMPOSITION AND YIELD OF FORAGE MIXTURES '

UNDER TWO DIFFERENT CUTTING TREATMENTS - ‘

Thesis for H1; Degree Of ‘Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
William “F. Hueg, Jr»

I 1959

 

 

 

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled
THE INFLUENCE OF SEEDING RATES
ON BOTANICAL COMPOSITIUN AND YIELD
OF FORAGE MIXTURES UNDER TWO
DIFFERENT CUTTING TREATMENTS
presented bg

William F. Hueg, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

__P_1’l_l_)___degree in F arm Crops

7

[’2‘ 7/ (Lfi “A, ((4441,- (2‘ AV,

Major professor

Date May 4, 1959

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE INFLUENCE OF SEEDING RATES ON BOTANICAL COMPOSITION
AND YIELD OF FORAGE MIXTURES UNDER TWO
DIFFERENT CUTTING TREATMENTS

William F. Hueg, Jr.

AN ABSTRACT
I

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

 

Department of Farm Crops

1959

-/
// ,
Approved (fizflwa’jé:11/€xALA,4LA§k.//

 

—_<~;-7..'—;-..-.-. —. .— - -
. 5-.- : .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William F. Hueg, Jr.

ABSTRACT

In a greenhouse experiment, Alfalfa (Medicago
sativa), Red Clover (T. pratense), Ladino clover (T. repens
L) and Bromegrass (Bromus inermis) were planted at varying
seeding rates in mixtures, and subjected to two and five
cutting treatments. As the rate of seeding of the indivi—
dual species was increased, the number of plants of that
species and total plants in the mixture increased.

Under both cutting treatments the yield of the
individual species in mixtures was not higher than the
yield of the species seeded alone. In only four of the
thirty—three mixtures that were out twice, were total yields
greater than alfalfa seeded alone, and eleven mixtures had
total yields lower than red clover seeded alone. Total
yields from mixtures with Ladino clover and bromegrass
were greater than either species seeded alone.

The increased rate of individual species in the
mixtures had less influence on total yield of tops and roots
than the two different cutting treataents. Higher total
yields of forage and roots were produced from the mixtures
out twice. Ladino clover and bromegrass were less affected

by frequent cutting than red clover or alfalfa. Alfalfa

'yields decreased when the recovery period was of short

duration, but the other species showed increased yields

with successive cuttings.

 

 

 

 

William F. Hueg, Jr.

The dependence of new growth on carbohydrate re—
serves was shown by the roots from those mixtures cut fre—
quently. The vigor of alfalfa roots as seen in weight,
length and diameter determinations, was reduced markedly
by frequent cutting. Red clover and bromegrass roots were
also retarded by frequent cutting but less than alfalfa.
Ladino clover produced more vigorous roots and slightly
higher root yields under frequent cutting.

In the mixtures for pasture, higher total yields
were obtained at the higher rates of seeding, while the
medium seeding rates produced the highest yields of hay.
Mixtures of two compatible species gave as much or more
yield than those mixtures with more than two species.

The inclusion of Ladino clover to an alfalfa—bromegrass
mixture for hay purposes did not add to the total yield

in this experiment, and the rapid recovery attributed to
Ladino under frequent cutting was overshadowed in mixtures
cut for hay by competition from other species. When red
clover was used in the mixtures, total yields were not in-
creased and the yield of component species was less than

when only two or three species were in the mixture.

 

- -. ._._..-;.-_a.—,.

 

 

 

THE INFLUENCE OF SEEDING RATES ON BOTANICAL COMPOSITION
AND YIELD OF FORAGE MIXTURES UNDER TWO
DIFFERENT CUTTING TREATMENTS

0
William Ff Hueg, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies
of Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Farm Crops

1959

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

é/fi/N '3 L.

Acknowledgement

The writer wishes to express his sincere appre—

ciation to Dr. C. M. Harrison, Professor of Farm Crops,

 

 

for his guidance and encouragement during the course of
this investigation and for his helpful advice in the pre—
paration of the manuscript; and to Professor H. M. Brown,
for assistance in the statistical analyses in the problem.
I express a special note of gratitude to my wife,
Vina, for her continued encouragement throughout the entire
program; and to William III and Anne, our children, for

their continued devotion even when Daddy was "too busy."

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Introduction.......................................... 1
Review of Literature.................................. 2

Experimental Procedure................................ 5

 

Experimental Results
1. Influence of Seeding Rate on Establishment... 8

2. Influence of Seeding Rates and Cutting Treat—
ments on the Yield of Forage................ 17

 

3. Influence of Seeding Rate and Cutting Treat?
ments on the Botanical Composition of a
MixturBOOODOOOIOOOIO'IIO0'.DOCOCUOOOIIDOIQI. 34

4. Influence of Cutting Treatments on the Number
of Plants at Final Harvest.................. 45

5. Influence of Seeding Rate and Two Different
Cutting Treatments on the Yield of Roots.... 53

Discussion............................................ 73
Summary and Conclusions............................... 76
Literature Cited...................................... 78

Appendix Tables....................................... 80

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table Page

Influence of Seeding Rate on Establishment

H

 

Single Species......... ..... .................. 10

N

Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixture. o o o o o o o o u I a I o o o a no. 12

Bromegf'aSS-Alfalfa hiixtureo o o o I o o o o o o o o a o o u o o o 13

”>- 00

Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixture. 14

5 Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Clover and Brome—
grass Mixture................................ 15

 

 

 

Comparison of Forage Yield Between Cutting Treat—
ments

 

6 Single Species................................ 18
7 Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixtures................... 21
8 BromegPaSS-Alfalfa MIXCuI‘e. o n a u n o a o o a a o o o o a o a u 25

9 Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixture. 28

 

10 Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Glover and Brome—
grass Mixture................................ 31

The Influence of a Varied Rate of Seeding and
Two Different Cutting Treatments on the Botani-
cal Composition of a Mixture

 

 

 

11a Alfalfa—Bromegrass Mixtures — 5 cuttings...... 86 I ‘
11b Alfalfa—Bromegrass Mixtures — 2 cuttings...... 37 .,I
12a Bromegrass—Alfalfa Mixtures — 5 cuttings...... 38 g l
12b Bromegrass—Alfalfa Mixtures — 2 cuttings...... 39 I:
13a Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixture. 4O :2

— 5 cuttings 1:

13b Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixture. 41 ’
— 2 cuttings

14a Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Glover and Brome—
grass Mixture "‘ 5cuttings..........-........ 42

 

 

 

 

 

 

14b Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Glover and Brome—
grass Mixture — 2 cuttings................... 44

15
16
17
18

19

20
21
22
23
24

Influence of Cutting Treatments on Number of
Plants at Final Harvest

Single Species................................ 46
Alfalfa—Bromegrass Mixtures................... 47
BromegrassaAlfalfa Mixtures................... 48
Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixture. 49

Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Glover and Brome—
grass Mixtures............................... 51

The Influence of Seeding Rate and Two Different
Cutting Treatments on the Yield of Roots

Single Species................................ 53
Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixtures................... 56
BromegraSS<Alfalfa Mixtures................... 60
Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixture. 63

Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Clover and Brome—
grass I‘IixturesoOlOOOOOOOOOI...IIOOOOOIOOOICOO 67

Diameter of Legume Root Cross Sections from
Representative Samples....................... 72

Appendix Tables..-...o...n.o..o.-.o-........-.o.. 80

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure

1.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Growth six weeks after seeding — red clover,

alfalfaoonooonooocouoooutooonccIcon-ooooooaoooauo 11

Growth six weeks after seeding — Ladino clover,

bromegraSSQOotoooooooutoo-one...aIlooootooguooooo 11

Regrowth of single species 10 days after first

cuttinguOOOI‘OlOiiolOOOIIOOOOIOOOOOI'OOOOIOIIIIOI 18

Forage yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treatments.

Alfalfa—brc‘vlflegrass mixtureoonnoooooboooo-ono-‘ola 22

Regrowth of alfalfa~bromegrass mixtures 10 days

after first cutting.............................. 23

Forage yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treatments.
Bromegrass-alfalfa mixtures...................... 26

Forage yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treatments.
Ladino clover, alfalfa and bromegrass mixtures... 29

Regrowth of red clover, alfalfa, Ladino clover
and bromegrass mixture 10 days after first cut—

4'—'-~
olflg......-.a.c................o............oo...

32

Forage yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treatments.
Ladino clover, alfalfa, red clover and bromegrass

mixtul"es..oo..oo........o..o.o....o..............

33

Influence of cutting treatments on the root de-
velopment of legume species...................... 54

Influence of varied rates of alfalfa and brcme—
grass and two cutting treatments on alfalfa root
development...................................... 57

Root yield as influenced by variation in the seed—
ing rate and two different cutting treatments.

Alfalfa—bromegrass mixtures...................... 58

Root yield as influenced by variation in the seed-,
ing rate and two different cutting treatments.

Bromegrass—alfalfa mixtures...................... 61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Influence of varying the rate of Ladino clover
and cutting treatments on the development of
legume rootSOIOUOIOIOOIOOUIOIIOOOOOOIIOIIOIOOCQQQ

15.

16. Boot yield as influenced by variation in the seed—
ing rate and two different cutting treatments.
Ladino clover, alfalfa and bromegrass mixtures...

17. Influence of varying the rate of red clover and
five cuttings on the development of legume roots.

18. Influence of varying the rate of red clover and
two cuttings on the development of legume roots..

19. Root yield as influenced by variation in the seed—
ing rate and two different cutting treatments.
Bed clover, alfalfa, Ladino clover and bromegrass
mixtures.........................................

Plate I. Influence of Two Different Cutting Treatments
on the Diameter of Legume Roots.............

64

70

72

 

 

 

 

 

The Influence of Seeding Rates
on Botanical Composition and Yield
Forage Mixtures Under Two Different Cutting

of
Treatments

Introduction

When Cato, the Roman philosopher, was asked over

2000 years ago what was the most profitable thing a farmer

could have, he replied, "A first class meadow.” This some—

what startled his questioners who then asked what the second

most prized possession might be. ”A second class meadow",
was his ready reply.

Today, as in the times of ancient Rome, a depend—

able supply of high quality forage from meadows is still

necessary for successful and economical livestock production.

A first step to adequate supplies of forage is the establish—
ment of the stand.

Between states and regions there are broad varia-

tions in the recommended forage species, but most noticeable
are the wide range of seeding rates, especially in mixtures.

In their book, ”Forages", Hughes, et al (10) cite recommended

mixtures and rates for ten north central states. Sixteen of

these involve alfalfa at rates from 3 to 15 pounds per acre;

12 include red clover at rates from 1 to 10 pounds yer acre;

eight include ladino clover at rates from % to 2 younds per

acre; and 11 recommend hromegrass either alone or in com—

bination with other grasses at rates from 3 to 10 pounds.

Some mixtures include from four to eight legumes

 

 

 

and as many grasses. The seeding rate for most of these

"shot gun" mixtures will approach forty pounds per acre.

Recent experimental work has shown an advantage
to reducing the number of species in a mixture, not only
because of cost, but for ease of planting and management
once the meadow is established. When mixtures are composed
of many snecies it is virtually impossible to establish and
maintain all of the species. Therefore, the more aggressive
species, and those few syecies best adapted to the grazing
or cutting management will dominate the stand.

Farmers continue to request information on the best
species or mixture of snecies for their meadows. Are there
evident differences in species to be used for hay or pasture?
What is the best seeding rate for hay and pasture? What is
the effect of time and number of cuttings on forage yield,
botanical composition, and uersistence of stand?

An experiment was established in the greenhouse at
Michigan State University, East Lansing, on January 28, 1956,
to learn more about the influence of seeding rate and fre—
quency of cutting on the establishment, yield and botanical

composition of meadow stands.
Review of Literature

Many volumes have been written dealing with the
factors under consideration in this experiment. The effect

of varying the total amount of seed planted has been studied,

 

 

 

 

 

but very little is reported where seeding rates of only one

mixture component were varied. In addition, many of the re—

ports are contradictory because of environmental differences,
species combination, and methods of management studied. Some—
what general agreement exists, however, that the more simple

the mixture used the easier to approach the goal of maintain-
ing vigorous, high yielding stands of superior quality forage.

Blaser, et a1 (1) (2) have thoroughly examined the
physiological factors to be considered in compounding seed
mixtures. Particular emphasis was given to seedling competi—
tion. By weighing seedlings of each species, alfalfa was
found to be very aggressive, while red clover and ladino
clover were less aggressive. Bromegrass was rated to be more
aggressive than red clever, but less than alfalfa. Their work
suggests that several simple mixtures of different maturity
are useful and can be manipulated during the season accord—
ing to growth to obtain a uniform distribution of grazing.

A report from Wales by Milton (10) shows that the
yield from mixtures combosed of two grasses were about as
good as yields from mixtures with more than two grasses.
Legume species in the mixture were held constant.

Dennis (3) found in a Michigan field experiment
that yields of alfalfa were directly associated with cutting
interval; the oftener the plants were cut, the less product—
ive they became.

Boot nroduction and winter survival were

curtailed by frequent cutting. Frequent cutting stimulated

 

 

 

 

 

 

regrowth for a short period, after which new growth was de—

finitely limited. These findings confirm the earlier work

of Hodgson, (7) with greenhouse grown bromegrass, bluegrass
and orchard grass, which showed that frequent close cutting
stimulated growth for a short time, but severely reduced root
and top production ultimately.

Sprague and Sullivan (13) reported that reserve
carbohydrates in grasses were not only stored in the roots
and rhizomes but primarily in the lower leaf sheaths that
comprise the stubble of plants in the vegetative stages of
growth. When forage was cut back to near ground level, a
large portion of the stored carbohydrates was removed. The
rate of recovery and vigor of grasses were reduced as they
were cut or grazed closer to ground level.

In later work, Sprague, et al (14) found that the
carbohydrate content of grass and legume plants decreased
rapidly for 7 to 10 days following cutting, and then in—
creased for about four weeks to its original level.

In legumes, the reserve food used by the plant for
recovery is stored in the roots and stolons which are not
removed in grazing or cutting. Moran (11), and Stewart and
Bear (15), reported that frequency of cutting rather than
height of cutting affected carbohydrate reserves in alfalfa
and ladino clover. Hildebrand (6) showed that frequent cut—
ting of alfalfa reduced food reserves and resulted in large

decreases in yield and plant vigor. Graber, et al (5),

 

 

 

concluded that depleted food reserves caused by frequent

cutting at immature growth stages resulted in reduced pro—
ductivity and vigor of perennial plants.

Harrison and Hodgson (7) found under greenhouse
conditions that the combination of frequent cutting at 1
inch heights produced Severe damage to grasses. Wagner (16),
at Beltsville found that the greatest reduction in growth
occurred when the grass was clipped back to 2 inches during
the later stages of development. He reported bromegrass to
be more sensitive than orchard grass in this respect. This
data suggests that moderate clipping in the early stages
should help the legumes and less aggressive grasses to com—

pete against weeds and result in their faster establishment.
Experimental Procedure

Seedings were made in sand in ten inch clay pots.

The species used were Alfalfa (Medicago sativaLgvar. Vernal);

 

Red Clover (Trifolium nratense, var. Pennscott); Ladino Clo—

 

ver (Trifolium repens L.); and Bromegrass (Bromus inermis).

 

They were grown as single species and in mixture. In the
mixture only one of the components was varied in each of
the four series. Details of the seeding rates are as fol—
lows:

Single Snecies

Alfalfa — 8 lbs. per acre

Red Clover —8 lbs.per acre

 

 

 

 

Ladino Clover — 1 lb. per acre

Bromegrass — 3 lbs. per acre

Species Mixtures

Alfalfa — i,2,4,6,8,10,12,16, and 20 pounds per acre
Bromegrass - constant rate at 3 pounds per acre

Bromegrass - i,2,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 pounds per acre
Alfalfa — constant rate at 8 pounds per acre

Ladino Clover — 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1,2,3,4., and 5

pounds per acre

Alfalfa — constant rate at 8 pounds per acre

Bromegrass — constant rate at 3 pounds per acre

Red Clover — 1,2,4,6,8, and 10 pounds per acre
Alfalfa — constant rate at 8 pounds per acre
Bromegrass — constant rate at 3 pounds per acre
Ladino Clover — constant rate at 1 pound per acre

The seeds were carefully weighed and counted before
planting.

The experiment was set up in a split plot design
and replicated three times within each of the cutting treat-
ments. One—half of the cultures in the experiment were cut
when growth reached a ten inch height to simulate a grazing
or pasture treatment. The other half of the cultures were
allowed to go to the hay stage (approximately one—fifth
bloom) before cutting. An aftermath cutting was taken at
the completion of the experiment in early June.

The seedings were watered daily for the first six
weeks, then as required. After emergence a standard nutrient
solution was applied weekly for the first five weeks, then

each 3% days until the end of the experiment. The pH of

the medium remained fairly constant at 7.2, and regular

 

 

 

 

 

flushing with water prevented excessive salt accumulation.

The greenhouse temperature fluctuated between 65
and 70 degrees F. for the first three months, but was more
irregular in May, when it sometimes reached 90 degrees F.

Stand counts were made on March 1. All of the
seed had not germinated by this first count as there were
increased plant numbers in some treatments at the time of
the final harvest. The first clipping in the pasture treat—
ment was made on March 28. Clippings were taken two inches
above the sand level. The species were hand separated for
botanical analysis and the green and 0Ven dry weight re—
corded. The hay treatment was harvested on May 8, and the
aftermath growth on June 1.

After the final harvest, the root systems were
carefully washed free of sand, and individual plants were
counted before green and oven dry weights were taken.

Legume roots of each species were separated into
three groups based on length and diameter. From each group
three representative roots were selected for sectioning.

The nine roots were washed and a portion one—half
inch long was cut from the alfalfa roots at 3% inches below
the crown. The selected portion was taken two inches below
the crown from red clover and 1 inch in ladino clover.

The root sections were pickled in formalin alco—
hol. After imbedding in paraffin, cross sections approxi—

mately 10 microns in thickness were prepared and stained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with triple stain.

Statistical significance was determined by analy—
sis of variance and use of Duncan's (4) Significant Student-
ized Range Test. Any difference less than the corresponding
L.S.D. value was not considered significant at that level.
Any difference greater than the corresponding R.E. value was
considered significant at that level. All differences be-
tween the corresponding L.S.D. and R.E. values were consi—
dered questionable as to their significance. R.E. (6) is

the range of equality based on a maximum number of means in

 

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

 

1. Influence of Seeding Rate on Establishment

Seedling emergence was most rapid the first two
weeks, although later emergence did occur. Alfalfa was first
to emerge, followed by red clover, Ladino clover and brome- (
grass. The greatest rate of growth was shown by alfalfa
and bromegrass, followed by red and Ladino clover. Develop—
ment of Ladino clover was very slow until after the first
trifoliate leaf had expanded. Figures 1 and 2 show that 1
the average height of all species, six weeks after seeding,
was four to five inches, with a range from two to eight
inches, with bromegrass being the tallest.

As the rate of the varied or single species was

increased the number of plants of that species increased

 

steadily as shown in Tables 1 through 50 The same pattern

was noted in total plant numbers, but the increases were

not always proportional. With single species the difference~

in plant numbers between groups in the cutting treatments
was not significant.

In the alfalfa—bromegrass series, alfalfa dominated
the mixtures above the two pound rate. (Table 2) At the
higher rates there were differences in plant numbers between
cutting treatments. There were no significant differences
in bromegrass numbers. Total plant numbers increased at
about the same proportion as alfalfa.

Bromegrass did not dominate the bromegrass—alfalfa
mixtures at any rate. (Table 3) There were significant
differences in bromegrass numbers in the group to be out five
times at most rates. Alfalfa showed large differences be—
tween cutting treatment groups but not between rates. The
total number of plants in the group which was to be out five
times were significantly different than the group to be
out twice between rates of bromegrass.

Ladino clover was the dominant species in those
mixtures above the two pound rate. (Table 4) There were
significantly more Ladino clover plants between rates Within
cutting treatment groups at the higher rates of Ladino.
Total plant numbers were significantly different between
rates only in the group to be out five times.

Red clover dominated that series where red clover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

was the varied species only at the highest rats. (Table 5)
Alfalfa, bromegrass, Ladino and mixture totals were not sig—
nificantly different between rates or cutting treatment groups.
The competitive effect of red clover on alfalfa
establishment can be seen by comparing alfalfa numbers in
Tables 3 to 5. In the bromegrass-alfalfa mixtures, alfalfa
averaged 18.0 and 18.3 plants for the five and two cutting
groups;18.3 and 16.8 respectively in the Ladino clover mix—
tures; but only 13.4 and 12.8 respectively in the red clover

series.

Table 1. ‘Influence of Seeding Rate on Establishment_

Single Species

 

 

 

 

Pounds Seeds Number of plants
Species per per (average of 3 cultures on.Mr.i)
acre culture 5X* 2X* Diff.
Alfalfa 8 22 19.0 20.0 +1.0
Bromegrass 3 6 5.0 6.0 +1.0
Ladino clover 1 9 8.0 8.0 ——
Red clover 8 22 14.3 15.0 +0.7
no
sig.
diff.

* Seedings set up in groups to be cut 5 and 2 times
respectively

 

 

 

11

 

Figure 1. Growth six weeks after seeding
L. — Red Clover 8 lbs; R. — Alfalfa 8 lbs.

 

 

Figure 2. Growth six weeks after seeding
L. — Ladino Clover 1 lb; 3. — Bromegrass 3 lbs.

 

 

 

 

12

 

hao>flaocmmoh mcaflp m was m use on on mazesm nfl a: pom mmsfldoom*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.m w.m s.m m.m m.s w.© as
s.m m.m m.s m.m o.m m.e fin n awn
mim as as w.» a; a
a.m s.e .uufle .mflm 0: e.m o.m an H mm
Illlilillliii. IilIillililillllllllllllllll
m.ou o.ms m.ae m.o: o.m m.m II o.sm o.es mm om
s.m| m.om o.w¢ e.on m.m s.m m.m| o.mm m.mm ms ma
o.m+ o.mm o.m s.fil o.w s.m s.m+ o.Hm m.sm mm NH
o.w+ m.om m.©m o.H| o.m o.© o.m+ m.mm m.om mm OH
s.sl m.mfi o.em o.H1 o.e o.m s.m| m.mfi o.mfi mm m
H.m+ s.~m m.mfi s.o+ s.m m.s s.fi+ o.sfi m.mH ma o
v.0: m.¢H o.mH o.fin o.e o.m m.o+ m.oa o.oa Ha d
m.o+ ©.ofi m.oH m.o+ m.m o.m In m.m m.m s m
p.01 ©.© m.s o.H| m.m m.m m.o+ m.m o.m m H
- .MHHQ Nm Nm .HHHQ MN Mm .mmflm *Nm *Mm oLSpHSO
Hopes mmsawoaoum omaowas com ones
AH Soho: so monSQHSO m %o omoso>¢v mcoow com .mpH
I - moflooam an mossam mo sopasz smasma< as syacma<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

chauazo ham women o as pumpmsoo mmshwofioap I Ucflnsb smHsMHd

puosnmflancpmm So owmm mnflooom Mo ooQoSHMQH

.N mandfi

 

 

I
_
"

 

 

 

 

 

 

hao>flpoommoh moafip m was m use on op mmdohw ma a: wow mwsfluoom*

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s m o.m m.m m.q
m.e .wwfis s.m 0.. m.H
.mam o.m
on .Hwflw.mflm on ¢.H
o.m+ m.mm In w.ofi m.wfi o.m+ s.m vs
m.mn o.mw ©.H+ o.>H ©.wfi v.01 s.mfi ofi
o.m| m.mm s.m| o.©H o.aa ©.H1 m.ofi ma
9. + m.mm o.fl+ o.mH o.wfl ©.H+ s.w NH
m.ml o.mm m.e1 m.sfi o.Hm o.H| s.w HH
¢.H+ s.mm m.fi+ s.wfi ©.©H w.o| s.m w
o.m+ s.mm s.w+ e.fim o.sfl ©.o+ s.m s
o.m+ o.mm @.m+ m.om s.©fi 0.0: m.m v
m.m+ o.Hm s.H+ o.afi m.sfi s.o+ m.a m
.33 Mm 333 Nm 14% 5:3 *Mm
aspoe swammad mmnnwoaosm endpaso
AH Sosoz no mosSQHSO m mo ow no>sv Log mvoom
mofioomm kg mpqoam we nonasz mmmhonOLm

 

 

 

thpado hem mUomm mm pm ascpmsoo swammfis I

uofluc> mmchmcaonm

psoESmfiHQmpmm no ovum msflwoom mo oonosHMuH

 

 

14

 

zao>flpoommoh moafla m can m 950 on op manoaw as a: pom mwsflcoom*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H a m3 aim rim m.m a:
¢.¢ m.m ©.m m.m m.m fiwnmmq
.33 o.» of. j. as a
.mflm 0: 04... .33 .m3 o: .3uomflm on mum Tm emu mm
111
0.91 o.mm O.H© v.01 o.¢ s.m o.m1 m.¢fi m.wfi m.¢1 s.nn o.mm as m
m.H1 e.md ©.On o.H1 s.m m.m m.H1 s.mH o.sH s.a+ 0.0m m.wm mm m
¢.N1 o.©¢ ¢.wv $.01 m.m s.¢ o.fl1 3.mfi o.mfi 0.H1 s.mm s.sm om m
¢.m1 ©.om o.o¢ v.01 w.m o.m o.m1 o.mfi 0.0m >.m1 m.mfi o.mH mfl m
s.fi1 m.mm o.Hm 0.01 >.m m.m m.H+ o.mfi s.sfi m.m1 >.m o.m a a
m.o+ m.mm «.mm m.fi+ n.m o.m w.o+ m.mfi s.wfi o.fi1 s.¢ s.m s m\m
w.m1 c.6m o.wm O.H1 o.¢ o.m «.m1 m.ofi s.wfi 11 m.w m.¢ m «\H
©.©1 e.fim o.wm o.H1 s.s s.m ©.m1 s.mH m.mfi o.H1 o.m o.m m «\H
v.01 m.Hm o.mm o.H1 b.m s.e ®.o+ m.©H s.mfi $.01 m.fi >.H m w\H
.33 Nm Mm .333 Mm SR .33 Nm Mm .333 3a .33 -, 3330 0.3m. 3
3509 . mmoswosoum 33333 3353c 936.93 33 mooom Ian: 23
AH Sous: no mohdpaSo m 30 ommso><v uo>oao hc>oao
mofioomm an mpsmfim mo sonssz omflsmq omficsq
1111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mdoom w as mmshmcaoun .mooom mm as

psspmuoo smacwas 1

 

ou5pH50 Mom
uoflss> csflwcq

pSoESmHHmmpmm no comm msfluoom Ho sensuamsH

.fi mfinsa

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Influence of Seeding Bate on Establishment
Red clover varied - alfalfa constant at 22,
Ladino clover at 9 and bromegrass at 6 seeds
per culture
Red Red Number of Plants by Species
Clover Clover (Average of 3 cultures on March 1)
in lbs. seeds per Red Clover ‘ Alfalfa
per acre culture 5X* 2X* Diff.. 5X 2X Diff.
1 3 2.3 2.7 +0.4 13.0 10.7 —2.3
2 7 4.7 5.0 +0.3 15.3 12.7 —2.6
4 11 8.7 6.7 "2100 11.7 13.3 +1.6
6 18 10.0 11.0 +1.0 13.0 14.7 +1.7
8 22 14.3 12.7 -1.6 15.0 12.0 —3.0
10 28 11.7 18.3 +6.6 '12.3 13.7 +1.4
RE6:5% 6.5 3.5 no Sig. diff.
1% 9.6 5.1
LSD=5% 6.0 3.2 4.2
1% 8.5 4.5 5.8

*Seedings set up in groups to be cut 5 and 2 times re—
spectively

 

 

 

 

Table 5.

 

 

Ladino Clover

 

 

 

Bromegrass Total
5X 2X Diff. 5X 2X Diff. 5X 2X Diff.
7.3 8.0 +0.7 3.7 4.7 +1.0 26.3 26.0 +0.3
7.7 4.7 —3.0 5.0 4.0 —1.0 32.7 26.4 —6.3
4.7 4.0 -0.7 5.0 5.0 —— 29.7 29.0 +0.7
5.7 6.3 +0.6 5.0 3.7 —1.3 33.7 35.7 +2.0
4.7 5.0 +0.3 4.0 4.0 —— 38.0 33.7 —4.3
8.0 4.7 —3.3 3.7 4.7 +1.0 35.7 41.4 +5.7
no significant difference

 

 

 

17

2. Influence of Seeding Bates and Cutting Treat-
ments on the Yield of Forage

Single species

Single species were established to determine the
performance of each species under conditions free of inter—
species competition and to relate these yields to performance
with controlled rates of seeding in mixtures. Dry weight
yields are shown in Appendix Table I.

Alfalfa made the greatest initial growth in the
group to be out five times but needed a longer recovery per— ”1
iod after cutting than the other species as indicated by the 3!
yield in the second and fifth cuttings. A period of four—
teen days and ten days respectively elapsed between the
first and second and fourth and fifth cuttings, which ap—
pears to be too short for good alfalfa recovery.

Although red clover was slow to start, it did pro—
duce a slightly higher total yield than alfalfa. Ladino
clover and bromegrass showed fast recovery after clipping.
Yields between species were not significantly different.
Figure 3 shows the regrowth ten days after the first of
five cuttings.

Alfalfa produced a significantly greater yield
than bromegrass and Ladino clover when out twice. Red clover
was significantly higher yielding than Ladino clover.

The data in Table 6 shows that the total yields
of alfalfa and red clover harvested as hay were more than

double the pasture yield. The yield of bromegrass as hay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Regrowth of single species 10 days after first
cutting, L to B — bromegrass, red clover, al—
falfa and Ladino clover.

(Top of stakes were 10 inches above the top of
the pot.)

 

19

was not significantly greater than that from the pasture
treatment. Ladino clover showed slightly less yield when

harvested for hay than when harvested as pasture.

Table 6. Comparison of Forage Yield Between Cutting Treat—

 

 

 

 

 

ments
Single Species
Dry Weight Yield in Grams — average of 3 cultures

Species Pasture Hay Difference
Alfalfa 19.81 55.44 35.65
Bromegrass 17.88 29.83 11.95
Ladino Clover 16.28 15.87 -1.41
Red Clover 20.58 41.80 21.22
LSD : 5% 12.01

1% 16.85

Alfalfa-Bromegrass Mixtures ‘
In this series the rate of alfalfa varied from one

to twenty pounds per acre, while bromegrass remained constant

at three pounds. Highest yield as shown in Appendix Tables

IIaand IIb was not always significantly different from lower

yields.
The nineteen pound (16 lbs. of alfalfa and 3 lbs.

of bromegrass (16—3)) rate gave the greatest total yield

When out five times as shown in Table Ila. At the eleven

pound rate, the yield of alfalfa and bromegrass were about

equal. Generally as the rate of seeding alfalfa increased

 

 

the yield of alfalfa increased, and the yield of bromegrass
decreased. The rate of increase in alfalfa yields was greater
than that of total yield of the mixtures.

The nine pound (6—3) rate gave the greatest total
yield when out twice as shown in Table 11b. The highest
yield of alfalfa came from the fifteen pound (12—3) rate.
Generally as the rate of seeding alfalfa increased the yield
of alfalfa increased, and the yield of bromegrass decreased.
The rate of increase in total yieldwas greater than in alfalfa
yield.

The data in Table 7 and Figure 5 shows that the
production of forage differs greatly within the component
parts of the same mixture clipped two or five times. The
highest yield from two cuttings was nearly three times the
highest yield from the five cuttings. The increasing rate
of alfalfa had an earlier depressing effect on bromegrass
under a two cutting system than in the five cutting treatment.
Figure 6 shows the regrowth ten days after the first of five

cuttings.

Bromegrass-Alfalfa Mixtures

In this series the rate of bromegrass varied from
one to ten pounds, with alfalfa constant at eight pounds per
acre. Yields shown in Appendix Tables IIIaand IIIb.

The highest total yield from five cuttings came
from the seventeen pound (9 lbs. of bromegrass and 8 lbs. of

alfalfa (9—8)) rate which also produced the highest yield of

 

 

21

Table 7. Comparison of Forage Yield Between Cutting Treatments

Alfalfa — Bromegrass Mixtures
(alfalfa varied, bromegrass constant at 3 lbs.)

Dry weight yield in grams — average of 3 cultures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rate of Pasture lay Total Differences (2X_5fiji
Alfalfa M
lbs. 5X 2X Mixture Alfalfa Bromegrass
1 16.64 23.37 6.73 5.80 0.94
2 21.18 41.63 20.45 8.93 11.52
4 23.71 41.25 17.54 14.64 2.90 ‘y
6 19.93 61.40 41.47 27.04 14.33 13
8 23.57 39.91 16.34 13.96 2.38
10 20.74 47.31 26.57 23.06 3.52
12 22.26 60.23 37.97 23.30 9.67
16 27.67 54.20 26.53 15.59 10.93
20 24.62 52.14 27.52 23.44 4.08
LSD = 5% 13.61 11.01 9.34
1% 18.29 14.79 12.54

 

 

 

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

 

 

i7()1‘
TWO CUTTINGS
60 —
TOTAL
50 L-
40 ~
ALF.
30 -
20 r
BR.
| O -
l l l l l I l l I
30 -
FIVE CUTTINGS
TOTAL
20 -
ALF.
l O - BR.
1 I l L L, 1 LJ J J

 

 

Figure 5.

I 24 68l0|2|620
POUNDS OF ALFALFA
Forage yield as influenced by variation in the

seeding rate and two different cutting treat—
ments. Alfalfa—bromegrass mixtures.

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.

 

Regrowth of alfalfa — bromegrass mixtures 10 days
after first cutting

Left to right: Alfalfa 20 lbs; 8 lbs; and 1 lb.
Bromegrass at 3 lbs. in all treatments.

(Top of stakes 10 inches above the top of the pot)

bromegrass. Generally as the rate of bromegrass increased
the yield of alfalfa decreased, but the rate of decrease was
only slightly affected. Total yield followed the yield of
bromegrass closely, indicating faster recovery than alfalfa,
especially during regrowth periods of short duration.

Under the two cutting system, the highest total
yield came from the sixteen pound (8—3) rate, and the high—
est bromegrass yield from the fifteen pound (7—8) rate. Al-
falfa yields decreased generally as the rate of bromegrass
increased.

Yields between cutting treatments were highly sig—
nificant at six of the nine rates of bromegrass, while brome—
grass yield differences between cutting treatments were sig—
nificant only at the seven and eight pound rates. Alfalfa
yield differences between cutting treatments were much great—
er than in bromegrass. (Table 8)

Figure 7, shows that the increasing rate of brome—
grass influenced alfalfa yields very early in the five cut-
ting treatment, but did not influence alfalfa yields under
two cuttings until the medium rates of seeding were reached.
There was more fluctuation in total bromegrass, and alfalfa
yields in the two cutting treatments than in the five cutting
treatments.

Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixtures

The rates of Ladino clover varied from one—eighth

to five pounds in this series with alfalfa constant at eight

 

 

. _. __._.. .

m ._~—‘4—_. .. . .._
—~__~.v.-

 

\.

 

 

 

 

25

Table 8. Comparison of Forage Yield Between Cutting Treatments

1
J'
-l
I
i

Bromegrass — Alfalfa Mixtures
(Bromegrass varied, alfalfa constant at 8 lbs.)

Dry weight in grams — average of 3 cultures

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rate of Pasgkre HEX Total Differences (2X:SX)
Bromegrass
lbs. Mixtures Bromegrass Alfalfa
1 20.96 35.86 14.90 1.63 13.27
2 21.12 47.20 26.08 1.94 24.14
4 24.24 52.50 28.26 4.12 23.14
5 22.75 51.50 28.75 9.42 19.33
6 27.40 55.40 28.00 8.48 19.52
7 25.24 49.90 23.76 12.97 10.79
8 22.77 56.10 33.23 12.51 20.82
9 32.02 42.40 10.38 5.27 3.21
10 27..5 47.10 19.55 9.28 10.27
LSD = 5% 15.67 9.69 10.56
1% 21.04 13.01 14.19

 

60F

40-

 

3O

*1

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

r

20

 

Figure 7.

TWO CUTTINGS

TOTAL

BR.

ALF.

t

FIVE CUTTINGS TOTAL

ALF.

I I l I l l J I I

l 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0
POUNDS OF BROME GRASS

Forage yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treat—
ments. Bromegrass-alfalfa mixtures.

 

 

 

 

27

and bromegrass at three pounds per acre. Yields are shown
in Appendix Tables IVa and IVb.

The maximum rate of seeding produced the highest
yield when out five times. (Table IVa) A steady increase in
Ladino clover yield was obtained as the rate increased. As
the rate and yield of Ladino clover increased, the yield of
alfalfa and bromegrass showed a general decrease. The yield
of Ladino clover surpassed the yield from alfalfa and brome—
grass after the one pound rate of Ladino. Total yield fluc—
tuations were similar to those of alfalfa and bromegrass until 2
reaching the four and five pound rates of Ladino clover.
(Figure 8)

Ladino clover recovered faster after cutting than
alfalfa or bronegrass. The yield of Ladino clover increased
with each successive harvest.

When these mixtures were out twice the highest yield
came from the eleven and three—quarter pound (3/4 lb. of La-
dino clover, 8 lbs. of alfalfa and 3 lbs. of bromegrass) rate.
@able IVh) Increasing the rate of seeding Ladino clover had
little effect on alfalfa and bromegrass yields. Yields from
these two species showed large fluctuations, with a very
different yield pattern than Ladino clover, as shown in
Figure 8.

The highest yield under the two cuttings system
was double that for the five cutting system at the same rate.
(Table 9) To produce the highest pasture yield five additi—

onal pounds of Ladino clover were used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

Table 9. Comparison of Forage Yield Between Cutting Treatments
Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromegrass Mixtures
(Ladino clover varied, alfalfa constant at 8 lbs.
and bromegrass at 3 lbs.

Dry weight yield in grams — average of 3 cultures

 

 

 

 

2566 of Pasture Hay Total Difference (2X352)
Ladino
Clgggr ij 2X Mixture Ladino cl. Alfalfa Bromegrass
1/8 26.35 35.35 9.00 —1.59 10.74 —0.15
1/4 24.24 36.81 12.57 -1.83 5.22 9.18
1/2 32.84 39.58 6.74 —2.39 9.32 —0.19
3/4 27.07 56.03 28.96 -4.28 16.91 16.33
1 33.48 53.93 20.45 -6.49 15.21 11.73
2 29.60 36.26 6.66 —8.19 7.62 7.24
3 26.23 44.40 18.17 —6.70 14.28 10.60
4 32.55 52.73 20.18 ~9.01 15.99 13.20
—5.61 16.69 5.46
3.87 10.97 9.29

5.20 14.73 12.48

 

 

 

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

29

60f TWO CUTTINGS

50"

40*

 

TOTA L

 

 

40' FIVE CUTTINGS

W TOTAL

L.CL.

30‘

20}-

 

BR.
ALF.

l I I L l l l l I

 

Figure 8.

'/8 '/4 l/23/4| 2 3 4 5
pou~os OF LADlNO CLOVER

Forage yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treat—-
ments. Ladino clover, alfalfa and bromegrass
mixtures.

 

 

Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Clover, and Brome—
grass Mixtures

In this series the rate of red clover was varied
from one to ten pounds with alfalfa constant at eight, La—
dino clover at one, and bromegrass at three pounds per acre.
Yields are shown in Appendix Tables Va and Vb.

There were no significant differences in total
yield from the five cutting treatments. The highest total
yield and highest yield of red clover were obtained at the
twenty pound (8 lbs. of red clover, 8 lbs. of alfalfa, 1 lb.
of Ladino clover and 3 lbs. of bromegrass (8—8—1—3) rate.

As the rate of red clover increased the yield of
red clover increased. Increasing the rate of red clover
above two pounds had a depressing effect on the yield from
the other three species when out five times. Ladino clover
yield was affected most by the increasing rates of red clover.

Total yield was more affected by the yield of species other

 

than red clover until the higher seeding rates.
Ladino clover recovered faster after clipping es—
pecially where the period of regrowth was short. Red clover
was the nexo most favorable in regrowth, while alfalfa showed
the slowest recovery during short periods of regrowth. Fig—

ure 9 shows the regrowth ten days after the first of IlVB
clippings.
J. ,' 1., v ' j‘ I.
When these mixtures were cut tuice the higheSt
total yield and highest yield of red clover also came from

the twenty pound (8—8—1—3) rate. There were no significant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

differences in total yields between rates of red clover.
(Table Vb)

Red clover yields increased with an increased seed—
ing rate. Alfalfa yields were affected very little by this
increase of red clover, but Ladino clover and bromegrass
generally decreased. The pattern of total yield of the
mixtures followed the yield pattern of alfalfa. When out
five times all species showed a uniform decline in yield
as the rate and yield of red clover increased.

The pattern of total yield shown in Figure 10 was
more irregular in the two cutting treatment than in the five.
This variation occurred with all species but Ladino clover.
Total yields are compared in Table 10.

Table 10. Comparison of Forage Yield Between Cutting Treatments

Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Glover and Bromegrass
Mixtures

(Red clover Varied, alfalfa Constant at 8 lbs.,
Ladino clover at 1 1b., and bromegrass at 3 lbs.)

 

 

 

 

Dry weight yield in grams — average of 3 cultures
Rate of Pasture Hay Total Differences (2X:5X)
Red 5X 2A
Cigver Mixture Red 01. Alfalfa L. Cl. Brome.
s.
1 25.53 42.80 17.27 -O.99 9.54 —4.41 13.13
2 26.11 38.45 12.34 0.87 6.93 —1.70 6.24
4 24.69 38.15 13.46 0.47 10.93 —2.37 4.43
6 24.31 43.54 19.23 0.83 12.97 —1.04 6.47
8 27.66 50.59 22.93 2.89 13.23 —1.06 7.87
10 26.28 39.85 13.57 2.41 6.03 —0.99 6.12
E’ * ‘s 1'ff. 2.40 6.88
LSD259 15.90 no s1g. Q1
1% 21.61 3.26 9.35

 

 

 

Figure 9.

 

Regrowth of red clover, alfalfa, Ladino clover,
and bromegrass mixtures 10 days after first
cutting.

Left to right: Bed clover 1 1b.; 4 lbs.; and
101bs. Alfalfa at 8 lbs.; Ladino clover at 1
1b.; and bromegrass at 3 lbs.

(Top of stake 10 inches above the top of the pot)

 

 

 

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

33

50
{- Two CUTTINGS

TOTAL

4-0

30-

w
o
l

 

 

 

30F FIVE cunwcs

TOTA L

N
O
l

 

 

 

l 2 4 6 8 IO
POUNDS OF RED CLOVER
Forage yield as influenced by variation in the

seeding rate and two different cutting treat—_
nents. Red clover, alfalfa, Ladino clover and

bromegrass mixtures.

Figure 10.

 

 

34

3. Influence of Seeding Rate and Cutting Treat—
ments on the Botanical Composition of a
Mixture

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within the four combinations of species, the
proportion of the varied species increased with increasing
seeding rates. Under the five cutting treatment the pro—
portion of alfalfa decreased after the first, third and
fourth cuttings. At the rates of alfalfa below four pounds
seeded with bromegrass, this decrease took place from one
cutting to the next.

Under this treatment bromegrass increased mark—
edly in the first two cuttings, but dropped sharply in the
third cutting. Between the third, fourth and fifth cuttings
there was a marked increase in the proportion of bromegrass
in the mixtures.

In those mixtures with Ladino clover the propor—
tion of the mixture that was Ladino clover increased with
each successive cutting. By the third cutting in the
series Where Ladino rates were varied, Ladino clover was
the dominant species at rates above two pounds.

The proportion of red clover increased at all
rates with each successive cutting through the fourth cut—
tings but decreased at the higher rates in the fifth cut—
ting.

uhen these mixtures were out twice the alfalfa
increased as the seeding rate increased, and increased from

the first to second cutting. Bromegrass decreased from the

35

first to the second cutting but it, too, increased in pro—
portion with increased seeding rates.

Ladino clover never comprised more than one third
of the mixtures when out twice but increased in proportion
from the first to the second cutting. Red clover also
showed an increase from the first to second cuttinv.

The botanical composition of mixtures is given

in Tables 11 through 14.

.._~‘__.__-¢__’__.- .

 

 

 

 

 

.mQH m we asspmsoo mmdhmoaohn .woflad> dede<*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.os H.mm m.om m.om o.afi s.mm ®.sw v.9m v.mw o.fiw om
o.w© s.>m ®.mm ¢.sm $.0m o.«m ©.m© H.e> ©.mw w.ms ma
p.m© N.mw H.0m N.H¢ o.om m.wm m.¢m m.@® m.wm ®.m> ma
m.Hw s.©m m.mm o.e© o.mm w.mfi ©.m¢ m.so v.nm o.Hr OH
w.ss m.mm m.sm H.mm 9.0m ©.mm b.0e s.mo m.es «.mo w
o.mw «.mm H.8s w.sm s.mm o.sfi o.ss m.mm w.me o.a© o
e.mm w.as o.©© «.mw m.wm m.© m.wm 0.8m 0 sm m.Ho e
o.wm m.ms m.ms s.ms H.wm 0.8 m.om w.mm ©.om a.ms m
m.om s.bm m.Hw m.mm m.m© H.m m.mH m.wfi m.sa w.om a
owaoma<
Ho .mQH
filw mmlm mum Hats mmlm Hum mmlm mlm Hale wmum wsflppsO
we open
Aadaop we psooaomv Adopop Ho psooaomv
mmosonOLm bmaomas *mOHocmm
mohduado m Mo omsso>o I mwsflpwdo m l psospooaa chapmsm

shanks? o No Soapfimomsoo HoOflsopom map so masoSpoohe
wnflppso psosowmfln 0B8 one msfiooom Ho owdm ooflho> d We ooQoSHmsH one

campwflz mmdsmoaosm I dedMH<

.saa oases

?‘

Table 11b. The Influence of a Varied Rate of Seeding and
Two Different Cutting Treatments on the Bo—

tanical Composition of a Mixture

Alfalfa — Bromegrass Mixture

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hay Treatment — 2 cuttings — average of 3 cul—
tures
Species* Alfalfa Bromegrass
(percent of total) (percent of total)
Date of
Cutting 5—8 6—1 5-8 6—1
lbs. of
Alfalfa _
1 36.1 29.6 63.9 70.4
2 29.7 34.0 70.3 66.0 r
4 49.9 55.5 50.1 44.5
6 54.6 64.0 45.4 36.0
8 57.9 70.2 42.1 29 8
10 64.1 76.2 35.9 23.8
12 66.6 73.6 33.4 26.4
16 58.6 67.3 41.4 ' 32.7
‘20 68.3 76.0 31.7 24.0

 

 

 

 

 

*Alfalfa varied, bromegrass constant at 3 lbs.

\

 

 

38

.mpH w 96 psovmsoo smfidmao .coflao> mmdaonOhm*

 

 

 

©.sfi m.mm «.me m.wm ©.s¢ s.mm m.os m.sm N.mo s.mm 0H
m.HH H.mm. w.H¢ m.mm m.me s.ww m.os w.mm m.ss s.sm m
m.mfi s.sm o.ms s.sfi m.ms m.mw m.mm o.sm ©.mm p.0m m
m.sfi s.mm o.m¢ m.sm m.mm s.mw ®.s© o.mm fi.m© w.ws v
m.sa m.sm m.w¢ o.wm s.mm s.m m.m© H.Hm o.ms m.fis m
m.mm w.ow >.mm 0.0m m.mw s.©s m.mm m.oe 0.0m >.sm m
m.mfi H.mm m.sm m.sm m.mm s.®w m.ow s.m¢ w.m© m.ss e
fi.mfi m.ms m.©© H.0m H.as m.mw m.mm w.mm m.as o.mm m
v.0m ©.ms s.mm m.ms m.mw m.ms w.fim mrsfi v.8m m.ow a
mmoswoaosm
Ho .mpa
Hum mmlm mum Hale wmln Him mmlm min fiaue mmlm msHQQSQ
we open
Aaopop mo wsoosomv Aadpoe we psoosomv
owadyas mmshmoSOLm *mofloomm
moLSQHSO m Ho omoao>b I mmsflquO m I passpooaa manomom
endpmflz omaoyaa.u mmsnwosOsm

endanfifi s we soawflwomsoo Hoowssvom saw no mesoSpdosE
msflpodo unosoymfin 0B5 one wsflooom mo spam umflho> s so oesoSHmsH one .omfi canoe

:l- |'
39 1:

Ti.

.1:

Table 12b. The Influence of a Varied Rate of Seeding and ”‘
Two Different Cutting Treatments on the B0—
tanical Composition of a Mixture

Bromegrass — Alfalfa Mixture
Hay Treatment — 2 cuttings — average of 3 H

 

 

 

 

cultures
Species* Bromegrass Alfalfa
(percent of total) (percent of total)
Date of
Cutting 5—8 6—1 5—8 6—1
Lbs. of
Bromegrass
1 16.7 17.8 83.3 82.2 1]
2 28.2 27.6 71.8 72.4 3W
4 36.8 34.7 63.2 65.3 d
5 43.8 36.7 50.2 65.3 V
6 51.9 36.7 48.1 63.3
7 62.4 51.1 37.6 48.9
8 50.3 47.2 49.7 52.8
9 70.4 64.0 29.6 36.0
10 59.3 57.1 40.7 42.9

 

 

 

 

 

*Bromegrass varied, alfalfa constant at 8 lbs.

 

 

.mQH m as mmsswosohn ..mQH m we usdpmsoo dwaomad .uofls$> ao>oao osflesg*

 

 

 

 

 

s.afi w.fim m.mH w.mm m.mm m.ofi o.mH m.em w.am m.mm m.os m.m© m.mw «.me m.mfi m
s.mm m.ma o.ma s.mm o.mm a.flfi w.mfi m.©m m.fim m.m© N.oo v.08 m.em o.mm s.w a
H.sm m.©fi e.sfi H.8m w.mm m.oa s.efi s.om ®.mm m.wo s.m© o.mw m.mm m.sn o.oa m
m.om m.sm o.mm 0.8m o.wm w.mfl m.sm 0.8m o.©m o.m© 6.6m m.ss 8.08 0.0m o.m m
m.¢s m.sm m.fim m.a¢ w.mm m.©a m.mm o.Hs m.ms s.oo w.mm w.mm 8.8m o.ofi m.m H
H.88 8.0m m.mm m.oe m.wm o.mH H.sm w.om m.om o.m© m.mm m.mm s.mfi m.m H.m ¢\m
w w.oo m.m¢ w.sm H.Hs m.mm o.ma m.wm P.mm ©.mm m.oo w.mm w.ma m.afl m.m m.H m\fi
H.©m w.me n.8m o.wm o.mm H.Hm 8.8m fi.sm e.sm H.86 m.mfi w.mfl s.w 0.8 o.© e\fi
m.ms m.wm m.n¢ 0.8m m.em m.mfi w.om v.0m o.we 83.89 m.0H o.HH m.m 0.8 H.H w\a
ao>oao
cases;
we .mQH
filo mmlm mum Hale mmum filo mmnm mum fifils wmlm filo mmlm mum Hale wmlm wsflppso
mo ops:
Aaopop we poochomv Aaspop Ho psoosomv Aaspop mo pnooaomv
mmdsmofiosm swaowas sc>oao osflwsq *mofloomm
messpHSO n we owdso>o I mwsflupdo m 1 escapooaa oudwmsm

osSPNME mmohwofic&m use .omaoya< .so>oao osflddq

osdeHE a Mo :owpflmomaoo HdOflsspom 0:9 :0 mpsoapoose
wsflupSO psosoyyflm 039 use msfluoom Ho comm woesd>.o mo ooQoSstH was .oMH canoe

Nu

 

-r-[
41 .

 

 

 

 

Table 13b. The Influence of a Varied Rate of Seeding and
Two Different Cutting Treatments on the B0—
tanical Composition of a Mixture
Ladino Clover, Alfalfa, and Bromegrass Mixture
Hay Treatment — 2 cuttings — average of 3 cul—
tures
Species* Ladino Clover Alfalfa Bromegrass
(percent of total) (percent of total) (pct. of tot.)
Date of
Cutting 5—8 6-1 5—8 6—1 5—8 6—1
lbs. of
Ladino
Clover
1/8 0.8 2.2 61.1 55.5 38.1 42.3
m
1/4 1.6 2.4 44.1 40.2 54.3 57.4
1/2 4.1 6.3 58.1 65.9 37.8 27.8 .g'
3/4 3.2 4.6 49.4 55.2 47.4 40.2
1 4.3 4.0 48.1 56.1 47.6 39.9
2 9.6 12.3 42.4 53.3 48.0 34.4
3 17.8 21.2 43.3 50.8 38.9 28.0
4 18.2 17.9 41 5 49 4 40.3 32.7
5 26.2 31.9 47.9 43 9 25-9 24-3

 

*Ladino 010Ver varied,

 

 

alfalfa constant at 8 lbs., brome—

grass at 3 lbs.

 

42

Table 14a. The Influence of a Varied Rate of Seeding and
Two Different Cutting Treatments on the B0—
tanical Composition of a Mixture

Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Clover and Brome-
grass Mixture

Pasture Treatment — 5 cuttings — average of 3

 

 

cultures
Species Red Clover Alfalfa
(percent of total) (percent of total)
Date of
Cutting 3-28 4—11 5—2 5—22 6—1 3-28 4—11 5—2 5—22 6-1
lbs. of
Red
Clover
1 3.3 9.0 6.9 10.8 30.4 69.8 43.4 43.9 30.0 14.4
2 9.6 12.7 11.9 17.5 29.5 62.4 26.8 40.0 26.5 13.6
4 19.7 29.8 28.2 33.6 85.7 45.1 26.2 28.0 21.0 10.8
6 13.4 27.9 31.5 37.3 34.7 60.7 28.0 30.9 21.5 8.5
8 19.9 38.0 43.0 49.3 35.4 60.6 30.3 26.2 19.2 12.5
10 23.5 47.3 44.4 47.9 31.4 58.0 23.5 27.2 16.0 15.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

43
Table 14a.
Ladino Clover Bromegrass
(percent of total) (percent of total)

3-28 4—11 5-2 5—22 6—1 3—28 4—11 5—2 5-22 6—1
4.0 15.2 26.0 33.8 30.4 22.9 32.4 23.2 25.4 24.8
1.4 9.5 21.3 25.1 25.1 26.6 51.0 26.8 30.9 31.8
2.6 12.2 19.3 23.5 25.3 32.6 31.8 24.5 21.9 28.2
1.6 9.0 14.1 13.9 15.8 24.3 35.1 23.5 27.3 41.0

.7 9.7 14.9 14.1 18.5 18.8 22.0 15.9 17.4 33.6
1.3 10.3 15.3 19.4 28.4 17.2 18.9 13.1 16.7 25.0

 

 

Table 14b. The Influence of a Varied Rate of Seeding and
Two Different Cutting Treatments on the Bo—
tanical Composition of a Mixture

Bed Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Clover and Brome—
grass Mixture

Hay Treatment

 

 

Species Red Clover Alfalfa Ladino Clover Bromegrass
(% of total)(% of total)(% of total)(% of total)

Date of

Cutting 5—8 6—1 5—8 6—1 5—8 6-1 5—8 6—1
lbs. of

Red

Clover
1 4.1 5.5 45.3 43.3 5.9 4.9 44.7 46.1
2 14.4 13.6 40.4 36.5 7.8 12.5 37.4 37.4
4 19.2 24.6 44.8 42.5 5.2 9.2 30.6 23.7
6 18.9 22.5 45.1 41.9 4.7 5.2 31.3 30.4
8 27.8 29.0 39.0 42.0 4.7 5.5 28.5 23.5
10 29.3 39.9 28.7 32.5 11.6 5.8 30.4 21.8

 

 

\

 

45

4. Influence of Cutting Treatments on the Number of
Plants at Final Harvest

 

Counts were made in all mixtures and treatments
before cuttings were made. At the last harvest the plants

were separated by species and counted to determine the in—

 

fluence of the two levels of cutting. In some mixtures
there was an increase in plant numbers as a result of late
germinating seed. Where plant numbers decreased this was
assumed to be the effect of the cutting treatments. Data
on plant numbers at final harvest are presented in Tables
15 to 19.

There were no significant decreases in plant num—
bers of the individual species in mixtures following the two
cutting treatments. TLe delayed germination of seed had a
greater influence than did cutting treatments, but these

increases were not significant.

 

There were no significant differences in the num—
ber of total plants between cutting treatments. Within in-
dividual species there were significant differences in the
number of plants at final harvest and this was most evident

in Ladino clover and bromegrass in the Ladino clover mixture.

 

 

46

Table 15. Influence of Cutting Treatments on Number of
Plants at Final Harvest

Single Species

 

Number of Plants (average of 3 cultures

on June 1)

 

 

 

Species 5X Diff. 2K Diff. 2X—5X
from 3—1 from 3-1
Alfalfa 19.3 +0.3 21.0 +1.0 +1.7
Bromegrass 5.3 +0.3 6.0 —— +0.7
Ladino Clover 8.0 —- 8.3 +0.3 +0.3
Red Clover 17.3 +3.0 17.3 +2.3 ——
No sig. diff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. m a m s4. ©.m aim m.m .3
w.m .Hwfld m.m .4ma0 w.m w.m .Mwflu m.m .wmflu w.m smummq
mam 0.m .mHm ¢.m .hflm s.m .wflm 0.0 RH 0
cs 0.m on m.m .wyflw .wflm c: on ®.N on 0.0 gm” mm
m 4.m| 0.0+ m.0¢ ¢.m+ v.Hm v.01 Ir 0.m a.0+ v.m s.HI m.0+ m.¢¢ o.m+ 0.0a 0m
0.m| s.H+ 0.mw 0.H+ 0.mw v.01 m.0| 0.m In v.m m.m| 0.m+ 0.8m 0.H+ m.mm 0H
0.0+ m.0+ m.mm s.fi+ 4.0m s.HI m.0+ m.¢ m.0u 0.0 m.m+ II 0.Hm s.fi+ >.mm ma
s.w+ 0.H| v.0m m.m1 0.5m II In 0.m 0.H| 0.m h.w+ 0.HI s.mm m.fln 0.0a 0H
0.m| v.m+ 0.mm 0.a+ 0.mm 0.0+ m.0+ m.¢ m.H| v.m 0.m: w.m+ s.sfi m.m+ m.am m
M s.0+ II >.Hm w.H+ 0.fim 0.0: In v.4 s.0+ 0.m 0.H+ II 0.>H 8.0+ 0.0a 0
0.m+ H.H+ ¢.mfi 0.H| «.mfi 0.H+ s.0+ v.5 m.fi| v.0 0.H+ 4.0+ b.0H m.01 v.0 w
0.H+ ¢.H+ 0.mH >.0+ 0.HHN¢.0+ 4.0+ s.m m.0+ m.n 0.0+ 0.H+ 0.0 4.0+ s.n m
m.0| 4.0+ 0.» I: m.v 0.Hl II m.a II m.m v.0+ 0.0+ s.m 1| 0.m a
film Hum Hum Hum «10 film
Sosa Sosa . Sony song Sony Sony
NmINm .MMHQ Mm .MHHQ Mm xmlwm.wmflo Mm .Mmflm mm leflm .wmflm Mm .HHHQ Mm
H0908 -,xl!+ mmmhmoEosm dwasmas when new
Na 5030 so monfipafio m we omsno><v mQH QH
- mofiommm. >0 messam we scaadz cwanwfi<

 

.mpH m 00 pnnpmseo amenmoaosn I definsb nwfian<

pmo>hwm Assam pd wpssam no Lonssz no wpmoapdohe mmflppso Ho monoSHHsH .0H wanna

 

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m m.+ m.m as
m.m m.m .mmfle 8.2 sauna;
o.+ a.m .aum ©.m as a
.mmfle .wflm on m.m mononmawfle pqsofluflqmflm on o.m 0: w.« as” am
0.0+ P.0+ 0.0m 4.0+ b.0N v.01 8.0+ m.vfi $.H+ 0.0a 0.H+ II P.NH 0.m+ v.HH 0H
m.ml 0.0l w.wm II m.Hm ©.m| m.0| b.0fi b.0+ 0.0H m.01 m.0| r.HH v.01 0.NH 0
«.ml 0.m+ m.hm 0.0+ b.0m 0.HI ¢.H+ 0.0a II 0.0a ¢.HI 0.0+ m.0 0.0+ P.0H w
m.0| m.ml 0.>m 0.0+ m.>m 0.HI 0.fi| 0.0a 0.H+ 0.0a v.0+ m.Hl 0.0 8.01 m.m v
v.ml 0.N+ 0.vm 0.01.h.0m >.HI 0.m+ m.0fi 0.01 0.Hm 0.HI II >.b II v.0 0
0.HI v.01 0.mm b.fi+ 0.0m 0.H+ ¢.H| 0.8a $.H+ 0.0a It 8.0+ 0.0 m.0+ 0.0 m
4.4+ m.o+ 8.8m 0.2+ m.+m 0.4+ a.m+ m.aa m.fi+ m.ma 4.0+ +.o+ s.a 5.8+ m.a a
©.H+ m.0+ m.mm v.H+ N.Hm m.H+ 0.41 m.0H m.H+ 0.0a m.0+ m.H+ 0.0 0.0+ v.0 N
P.H+ II 0.HN 0.0+ m.0H ¢.H+ m.0| b.0H II m.bfi m.0+ 0.0+ m.m b.0+ 0.m H
film H|m Hum film Hum Hum
EOLH fionw anw EQLH Scam Scam
Nmuxm .wmfim MN .HHHQ Km lexm .Hwfln MN .WMHQ Mm NmINN .4HHQ Km .MMHQ Mm Dsow ham
Hmpoe smast< mmdsmoaosm <.
!ié+esttéz!!! mQH 0H
AH @050 so mohdaaflo m 40 omnho>aM!II mmmhw
t wofioomm he massam yo noafizz leachm

 

umo>hsm admflh as

.mnH w an pqumnoo swanwaw I 00Hs0>,mmdhonOMm

mundam Ho 200552 :c mammapsohe wmflpuso Ho coflofiawflH

.sa mamas

 

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0 m.m 0.0 0.0 0H
.4000 N.m 0.m .MHHO m.m .4HHO 0.0 Rmuamq
.030 .000 0.0 .040 0.» 00
o: .0000 .040 oeussasw4400 00000020040 00 o: 0.0 00 0.0 Rmummm
0.01 0.0+ 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 0.m1 0.0+ 0.0H 0.H+ 0.0H 0.010301 0.00 01.01 0.0.0 0
0.01 0.0+ 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.0+ 0.00 0.0+ v.00 0.0+ 0...m+ 02mm 0.01 0.00 0
0.01 11 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 0.01 0.0+ v.00 s.H+ 0.0m 0.01 0.01 0.0m 0.01 0.0m m
0.01 11 0.0 m.0+ 0.0 s.m1 11 0.00 0.0+ 0.0m 0.01 0.0+ v.mfi m.H+ 0.00 m
s.m+ 0.0+ 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 0.0+ 0.0+ 0.00 0.0+ 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 H
0.01 0.0.. 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 0.0+ 11 0.00 0.0.1 0.00 0.01 0.0+ 0.0 11 01.0 0\m
0.0- 0.0- 4.0 0.0+ s.m 0.0- 0.0+ 0.0a - p.00 - 1- 0.0 1- 0.0 m\a
0.01 0.0+ 0.0 0.0+ 0.0 0.01 0.0+ 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 11 0.m 0.0+ 0.0 0\H
v.01 0.0+ 0.0 0.H+ 0.0 11 11 0.0a 0.0+ 0.04 0.01 0.0+ s.H 0.0+ 0.m 0\H
-11-1-11110um-1-1110u0111--. 0n01--- 01m -1111- H10 1. H-m .1
00:0 500% 5000 0000 song 30:4
NmJMM1MMMMb Mm mmmmm Mm NMHNN .0000 Nm .HHHQ Mm N01Mm .Mmmn leumwflm N0 0005 000
0000005000 00H0000 00>0H0 000004 .mma 0H
A0 0050 :0 00LSQH5w m 00 00MM0><V 1111 .11 1 nm>0H0
11 mofloomm 20 mps0fim yo smMbewil 11111 1 00H000
.mga m 00 0000008040 ..00H 0 00 00000000 wwfiwwaw 1 0oflsw> n0>0H0 004000

0.00?»de Hamflh pd mafia-tam .Ho 4020.32 Q0 mpflmmfidoha 0:03.50 mo oonodamnH .0H 000,08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 18.
Total
5X Diff. 2X Diff. 2X—5X
from from
3-1 3—1
24:00 +2.0 23.0 +1.7 _1-0
28.0 -— 22.0 +0.6 —6.0
28.7 +0.7 26.3 +1.7 —2045
29.3 +009 290133 "'" _'—
34.3 +3.3 38.7 +4s3 —0.6
4:203 +2.3 35.0 +0.4 _703
50.0 +1.6 44.0 —2.0 —6.0
46.7 "éog 54:03 +4.9 +7.6
62.0 +1.0 52.3 +0.3 -9.7
6.8 no 6.9 no Sig. diff.
9.5 Sig. 9.6
6.0 diff. 6.0
8.2 8.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.w . m.¢
m.m .mmfiw m.m fimnmmq
m.m Aim *4 3 o
wonwthMHU pg$0HqumHm o: .Hmflu .wfim om II om In on «.9 on m.m $mu.mm
o.H1 m.H+ o.© o.H| o.v o.m| o.m+ h.ma $.m+ v.5H o.w+ o.m+ m.om m.m+ m.wfi Ofi
m.o+ o.m+ o.> o.m+ v.0 «.0: m.¢+ m.ma >.H+ v.wfi o.N1 O.N+ r.¢fi ¢.N+ >.©a m
o.fi+ o.m+ m.m w.fi+ m.» o.m| m.fi+ o.wa o.m+ o.wa m.o| o.H+ o.mfi m.m+ m.mfi w
1
5 v.o+ o.m+ o.> m.fi+ m.© >.H+ >.m+ o.mfi ©.m+ m.wa n.m| m.o+ o.v o.a+ h.@ d
d.o+ o.w+ v.w o.o+ m.w o.m1 ©.m+ m.mH o.m+ m.wfl p.m+ P.o+ v.m m.a| o.m m
m.ou m.on v.r h.o+ o.w >.m| m.m+ m.mfi o.w+ o.bfi o.a+ m.o+ o.m m.ou o.m a
Hum film film Hum Hum Hum
EOMM Sony Eogy Echw Sogw Sexy egos
NmIMm .HMHQ Mm .%MHQ Mm lexm .mmflm Mm .wgfla Mm Nmnmm .wwflm Mm .mwflm Mm gem
hw>oao osflcwq GHH®MH< hw>oao me .mpa mfi
Afilo go mwmho>w pom mv ho>oao
mmfiommm hp mpsmam go ponasz 6mm
.mQH m um

mmdkmoaoan “.QH fl pd oqfiUQA ..mQH w 95 wsdpquo dyasmad .woflkd> hm>oao com

wmw>hdw Hmnflm as mafidam mo hmnssz :o mpsoawdmhe wQHQQSD mo momodahnH .mH mande

 

 

 

 

 

 

52
Table 19.
Bromegrass Total
5X Diff. 2X Diff. 2X—5X 5X Diff. 2X Diff. 2X-5X
from from from from
3—1 3—1 3—1 3—1
5.0 +1.3 7.3 +206 +203 32.0 +5.7 31.3 +5.3 “0.7
5.7 +0.7 6.0 +2.0 —0.3 35.8 +2.6 35.7 +9.3 +0.4
4.7 —O.3 4.7 —O.3 —— 35.0 +5.3 34.7 +5.7 ~0.3
4.3 —O.7 4.3 +0.6 —— 42.0 +8.3 40.7 +5.0 —1.3
4.3 +0.3 6'7.+2'7 +2.4 44.3 +6.3 44.7+ll.0 +0.4
5.3 '1'106 6.0 +1.3 +0.7 44.3 +8.6 48.0 +6.6 +3.7
no significant diff. no —— no Sig. diff.
Sig. ~—
diff. 6.5
8.9

 

 

 

 

 

53

5. The Influence of Seeding Rate and Two Dif—
ferent Cutting Treatments on the Yield of
Roots

Single Species

The yield of roots from the individual species
are given in Table 20. Under five cuttings the yield of
bromegrass roots was significantly greater than the yield
from other species. Alfalfa root yields were greater than
red and Ladino clover and Ladino clover was slightly higher
than red clover.

Two cuttings produced significantly higher root
yields between species than five cuttings. Ladino clover
produced a higher yield under five cuttings while the other
species had higher yields from two cuttings. Frequent cut—
ting was more severe on the development of alfalfa and red
clover roots as shown in Figure 11.

Table 20. The Influence of Seeding Rate and Two Different
Cutting Treatments on the Yield of Roots

Single Species

 

 

 

Dry weight yield in grams — average of 3 cultures

Species 5X 2X Difference
Alfalfa 27.10 56.00 +28.90
Bromegrass 34.40 43.65 +9.25
Ladino clover 18.50 14.55 —3.95
Red clover 17.50 30.42 +12.92
RE4=5% 2.94 9.43

1% 4.56 14.63

1% 4.23 13.57 8.31

 

 

 

 

     

Figure 11.

 
       
  
   

Influence of cutting treatments on the root
development of legume species

Left: Alfalfa 8 lbs. Cut 5 times (3 roots),
cut twice (3 roots)
Center: Ladino Clover 1 1b. Cut 5 times (2
roots), out twice (2 roots)
Right: Red Clover 8 lbs. Cut 5 times (3 roots),
out twice (3 roots)

 

 

55

Alfalfa—Bromegrass Mixtures

 

The alfalfa seeding rate was varied in this
series. The yield of roots from the two species are given
in Table 21. The ten pound (10 lbs. of alfalfa, 3 lbs. of
bromegrass (10—3)) rate of alfalfa gave the highest total
yield of roots under five cuttings. The highest yield of
alfalfa roots in the two cutting group was at the twenty
pound (20—3) rate of alfalfa. Total root yields were sig—
nificantly greater from two cuttings at all rates of alfalfa.

The left side of Figure 12 illustrates that five
cuttings retarded alfalfa root development at all rates of
seeding. The difference in yield of alfalfa roots between
cutting treatments was highly significant at all but the
one pound rate.

Bromegrass root yields were highest in the two
cutting group at the two pound rate, but were not signifi—
cantly different when out five times. With an increase in
the seeding rate of alfalfa, the total yield of roots tended
to increase under five cuttings and increased generally
under two cuttings. Alfalfa yields increased markedly up
to the six pound rate (6—3) of alfalfa, and then leveled
off, but showed a general increase under two cuttings. Due
to the competitive effects of alfalfa under two cuttings
bromegrass yields decreased as the rate of alfalfa increased.

These relationships are shown in Figure 13.

   

 

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mQH m an wfispmmoo mmwhwoaosa .wofihn> oHHoMH¢*
mm.© mm.w Hm.m sm.m om.m ©O.s ©®.m «m.m $a
we-+ sm.© 4w.m oa.m ms.m .uuus mo.m HH.+ as.fl amummq

mm.m Hm.+ oo.e .mum mm.e mo.m sfi
ma.e mm.m om.+ on so.+ mm.u smusmm
mfi.fim O#.©© mm.mm. m>.m Ofi.wm mm.mfi ow.mm om.mfi 00.0H ON
m©.fim ma.mm om.mmm mfi.m mfi.©m oo.sa om.mfi oo.mm Om.ofi @H
ms.sm m¢.mm os.fim ow.m os.mm Oo.mfl mm.sfi mo.fim OH.©H NH
mw.o mm.md mo.om, ow.m| om.om oo.wm m@.mfi mw.mm mm.©fi 0a
sm.m mfi.m¢ ms.wm mo.fi| mm.am mm.mm os.m oa.fim om.oH m
ON.mm mo.do mw.omi Om.mH om.mm ON.ON 09.9H mm.mm m®.0fi @
ow.mm om.mm oo.mm_ ms.w om.am mo.mm mw.sfi ow.fim mm.® w
mm.om ofi.ms Nb.wm, mm.mfi Os.mm ms.mm os.s os.m oo.m N
No.0fi ow.mm mw.mm mm.s om.wm mfi.mfi mm.m Om.s ms.m a
.HHHQ NN Mm .H%fln Mm Mm .muflm Mm Mm *oson Lon
Hausa mmnhmoaonm omadwas .mQH SH
dwanmfi<

 

monopHSO m we ownuo>n I

macaw sfi waofla pawflos ago

mohfipNHE mndnwofio&MIannHHd

mpoom no samus one

no mpzosgnohe wqflppSG psosonflQ age and comm msflwoom mo osmoSHnnH may .fim manna

 

 

 

Figure 12.

 

 

Influence of varied rates of alfalfa and brome—
grass and two cutting treatments on alfalfa
root development

Left: Alfalfa rate varied, bromegrass at 3 lbs.
A-C out five times, D—F out twice
A & D 1 1b., B & E 8 lbs., C & F 20 lbs.
Right: Bromegrass rate varied, alfalfa at 8 lbs.
G-I out five times, J—L out twice
G & J 1 1b., H & K 6 lbs., I & L 10 lbs.

 

 

 

 

 

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

7O
6.
55
4O
3O

20

4O
30

20

58

 

 

 

TGTAL
Two CUTTINGS
ALF.
BR.
I I l I l I I I I
FIVE CUTTINGS T®TAL
w /ALF.

 

l L I I I I I l I
I 2 4 6 8 IO ' I2 I6 20
POUNDS OF ALFALFA
Figure 13. Root yield as influenced by variation in the

seeding rate and two different cutting treat—
ments. Alfalfa—bromegrass mixtures.

 

 

 

 

 

59

BromegraSS<Alfalfa Mixtures

 

The yield of roots from these two species are in
Table 22. The nine pound (9 lbs. of bromegrass and 8 lbs.
of alfalfa (9—8)) rate of bromegrass gave the highest total
yield of roots under five cuttings, with the highest yield
under two cuttings at the six pound (6—8) rate. Total root
yields from two cuttings in comparison to five were greater
at all rates of seeding.

The difference in root yield between cutting
treatments was significantly greater from two when compared
with five cuttings at rates above four pounds of bromegrass.
Alfalfa root yields were not significant between rates but
root yields from two cuttings were significantly greater
than from five cuttings at all rates of seeding. The right
half of Figure 12 shows that the more vigorous alfalfa roots
developed at the loner rates of bromegrass. Bromegrass was
very competitive to alfalfa under five cuttings.

As the rate of seeding bromegrass increased the
total yield of roots increased generally under both cutting
systems. Bromegrass root production followed a similar
trend and alfalfa root yield decreased generally as the

rate of bromegrass increased. (Figure 14)

Ladino Clover, Alfalfa and Bromggrass Mixtures

 

The yield of roots from mixtures with varied rates
of Ladino clover are shown in Table 23. Total yields from

both cutting systems were highly significant between rates

 

 

 

 

.mQH w on psopmnoo omaowao .ooflno> mmdsonOhm*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sans m+.oa +O.m so.+ oa.+ ow.e mm.m as
mm m me.s Hm.m mo.m os.m so.m oo.m smummq
oa.mu m+.m as.» em.m as a
w©.w am.m .Maflc .wflm o: os.m wm.m awn a:
mu.em mm.em 0+.mm ofi.w oo.om om.ua mo.ma mm.mm om.om oH
L oe.a oe.m+ oo.s+ oa.m om.mfi oe.m oa.m- om.mm os.+m m
.
oo.sfi oa.mm cm.wm om.aa om.fim 02.0a os.m oa.+m 0+.wm w
oH.mm oe.em ow.am om.oa om.mm os.au om.ufi oa.+m oo.mm s
mm.wm os.am mm.om mm.ma ca.mm mm.ofi 33.32 oe.om oo.om a
0
6 oe.mfi om.m+ oa.am cs.m om.am oH.mu oa.w+ o>.om ow.sa m
ma.+a om.m me.fim mm.mu 0+.om mo.ua om.a- 0+.aa os.om a
ofl.ma mw.sa ms.am oe.ofl mm.mm mm.ma om.a- oo.ou om.sfi m
oo.mfi oa.em oe.nm mo.oH m+.mm 0+.mu ma.m mu.fifi om.m a
I. .ueam am am .uuum Mm am .uoflm am Mm *otoe tom
Hopes shanwad mmskwosoem .mpa :H
mmmsonOhm
mondgHSQ m we mwonm>o I madam :fl Ufioflz anmfloa ham

moLSpNHE omaogasnmmonwososm

mpoom yo oHoHN esp no
munoaadohe muflppso puoao%wflm 0&9 and whom mascoom we oomQSHMEH one .mm canoe

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

6C)

50

440

.30

20

.50

‘40

.30

20

IO

 

F

if.

 

 

In.
In-
I...

FIVE CUTTINGS

 

 

p

l I 1 L L L I I
2 4. £5 £3 7 8 9 K)
POUNDS 0F BROMEGRASS

Figure 14. Root yield as influenced by variation in the
seeding rate and two different cutting treat—
ments. Alfalfa—bromegrass mixtures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

of Ladino clover. The highest total yield of roots under
five cuttings was at the lowest rate of Ladino clover, while
the maximum rate of Ladino had the next highest yield. La—
dino roots were a minor portion of the highest total yield,
but a major portion of the next highest total yield. The
highest total yield from two cuttings was at the lowest rate
of Ladino clover.

Differences in yields of Ladino roots from both
cuttings were highly significant between rates of Ladino,
and significantly higher yields came from the group out
five times rather than from the group out twice. Ladino
clover root development was not encouraged under two out—
tings. (Figure 15) The root systems from the plants out
five times were more vigorous at all rates.

Alfalfa root yields were not significantly dif—
ferent in either of the cutting groups between rates of
seeding, but greater yields were obtained from the two cut—
ting system. Figure 15 shows that the roots from plants
cut frequently were less vigorous. As the rate of Ladino
clover increased the vigor of individual alfalfa roots was
reduced under both cutting treatments.

Bromegrass roots from mixtures out five times

were significantly different between rates of seeding, With

the highest yield at the lowest rate of Ladino. The yield

from two cuttings was greater at all rates of Ladino clover.

The variation in total root yields between seeding

—r‘-,__

 

‘ [.hcc: \Fru .vpnx
4N9 npiuhv...\.raunu.ln5 vmuudJJiJnJ J:nv.n3u.u.fl.flfln «4x53. eviav 3J4~P~ Mir-+1937; 5H: UQ!~1~I..~,

 

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

 

.mQH m as mahhflofioga ..mQH w as afidsmSQO smadmad .coflns> noPoao onausq*
em.s mv.oH Hm.m ofi.v om.m ms.m vfi.fi mm. mm.fi fia
be.m mw.s mm.H mm.m .wwflu vw.a rm.m .wmflc .yyfle vw.o 0©.o mH.H fimnmmq
ma.ma mm.m .mflm mw.m .wam .mflm mm.o me.H as a
om.w so.m on om.fl 0: 0: ww.o wm.a Rm” mm
em.hfi ms.am em.mm oe.wfi ofi.mm o>.OH mm.> mm.ma mm.» em.w| ma.o am.mfi m
mo.mfi mm.>m mm.wm om.m mm.wfi mo.afi em.ma O@.®H mm.o mm.m| o¢.m mm.o w
om.fim wa.mw ©>.Hm mm.aH om.om mm.m ew.mfi on.aH oo.n mm.m| om.m mfi.r m
aw.mfi v¢.mm mm.mfi v0.0H Nw.om mr.m mm.@ ow.mfi ew.© Hm.ox mm.N ms.m m
ww.mm ma.m© mm.pm om.Hm ow.mm ov.¢fl ©O.wa os.sm dw.w om.ml mH.m mo.¢ H
mm.wfi wm.ww mm.mm dN.HH smqom mo.mfi no.9 0e.om m.afi md.al HP.H om.m e\m
mm.ofi oa.wm mm.>m Hm.H oo.wfi mm.©fi «m.m mm.sfi aw.w os.al mm.fi mm.m N\H
mm.flm m¢.we am.bm om.mfi om.mm om.vfi mm.a Nm.vfi os.w «H.01 >0.H HN.H ¢\a
vw.fiw mm.sb ©¢.wm b©.mm oo.mm mm.©m om.mfl Om.¢m om.a oo.o+ mw.a mm.o m\a
. . . . . *ohom hem
mafia Mm Nm Mafia Mm Mm .wwflm Mm Mm wwflm Mm Mm .maa ma
anwoe mmdhmoSOMQ wwawwai hm>oso oqawdq hw>0Ho
_ . . . . ozflusa
mohflpafio m we omdhobw I mfiwhw EH caoflh psmflofi khQ

do mPfioEwdo&B

mosdeHE mmdhwofiosn find ammdmaw fl.anSHo ofiflwdq

mpoom mo eaten one

wfiflpaso unohowwfln DEB Una 096m wflflnoom Ho oofiodHHflH 0S5

. mm mHQQE

 

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15. Influence of varying the rate of Ladino clover
and cutting treatments on the development of

legume roots

Ladino clover varied, alfalfa at 8 lbs., brome—
grass at 3 lbs.

A—C out five times, D-F cut twice

Ladino clover rates AéD 1/8 lb., B & E 1 1b.,
C & F 5 lbs.

‘\

 

 

 

 

DRY WEIGHT YIELD IN GRAMS

 

80F

60L-

50-

30-

 

 

TWO CUTTINGS

TOTA L

BR.

 

 

 

 

 

_I l 4.1
40,
FIVE CUTTINGS TOTAL
30-
20-
L.CL.
IO— __ BR.
'» ALF.
J _L I I I 1 I
V5 V4 V2 3/4 I 2 3 4 5
POUNDS OF LADINO CLOVER
Figure 16. Root yield as influenced by variation in the

seeding rate and two different cutting treat-
ments. Ladino clover, alfalfa and bromegrass
mixtures.

 

 

{Ii-1'1 1‘

 

 

 

 

66

rates and cutting treatment were greater from these mix—
tures than in the alfalfa and bromegrass series. At rates
above one pound, Ladino clover had a marked effect on total
yield and yield from the other two species. (Figure 16)

Red Clover, Alfalfa, Ladino Clover and Bromegrass

Mixtures

Boot yields from this series are shown in Table
24. Total yield from the five cutting system were not sig-
nificant between rates of seeding, and the highest yield
from two cuttings was at the lowest rate of seeding. .As
the rate of red clover increased total yield of the mixture
tended to decrease, with higher yields obtained from the
mixtures out twice.

Root development of the three legume species are
shown in Figures 17 and 18. Increased red clover rates and
frequent cutting reduced the vigor of alfalfa roots but nei-
ther variable affected the Ladino clover. Red clover roots
gained in vigor as the rate of seeding increased. (Figure
17)

In Figure 18 the competitive effects of other
species on Ladino clover root development are shown when
the mixtures were out twice. The development of red clover
and alfalfa roots were about equal at all rates of seeding.

Red clover was never a major portion of the mix-
tures. Total yield of roots was more affected by the de—

crease in root yield of the 0 her mixture components than

 

 

67

mQH m pd mmdeoSOMQ ..QH H pd ho>0Ho onHUoA ..mnH w pd pmtpmfioo owadwao .doflnd> ho>oao oom*

 

 

 

 

 

mm.ma ma.ma oo.aa om.a os.m oe.a em.a ea

ma.m os.ma .emae oo.m mw.a oH.e ow.m mm.o.eaae senoma
Ho.mm .wam .mmfle mm.a .mflm as o

mo.ma on .wwfle.aam on .bflm on .eese.wflm on eo.a om amn.am

mm.am om.em sa.mm ma.ea mm.sm OH.HH mm.a- ma.m wa.m wo.a om.ma ma.m mm.m oe.aa sm.o ca
mm.em ms.ee mm.mm mw.mfi mo.sm om.ma oo.m+ we.e me.m mm.ma me.om me.s mw.m ow.aa ma.m w
me.om mw.om oe.om mm.ma me.em sfi.ea ma.o- mm.m we.m mm.» me.aa oa.s ms.o om.s we.e e
me.ma mm.me om.mm we.w, ms.mm mm.ea ma.m- oa.m mo.m mm.e mm.ma ow.» om.o om.e om.e a
mw.am ms.ms ma.mm om.om me.ma ma.ma mm.a+ mm.m oo.a mm.m mm.ma om.w os.m om.m om.m m
ss.mm mm.sm ma.mm cm.ee os.oe oa.ea ms.eu sa.m os.a om.fia mw.om mm.a ce.a oa.m os.a a

. . *ohod

yeah Mm Mm heap Mm Mm .mean Mm Mm .wefln Mm Mm .emam aw mm tom

.moa ea

Hosea mmshonohm ho>oao ozflewq cyanWHw ho>0Ho com ho>mwm

 

mohdpado m we omsso>e I macaw as pswfios ham
mosSQHHE mmmsmmEOMm was ao>oao omflcng .6%HGHH¢ .hm>oao Uom

moose as eaoas
one :o mpsospmoha mnflppdo paonomwflm 035 can opnm wnflwoom Ho oesosfiwnH one .wm manta

 

 

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

Figure 17. Influence of varying the rate of red clover
and five cuttings on the development of legume

 

roots
Alfalfa A—C 8 lbs., Red Clover A 1 lb.
Ladino Clover A-C 1 1b., B 6 lbs.

C 10 lbs.

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

 

Figure 18. Influence of varying the rate of red clover
and two cuttings on the development of legume

roots
Alfalfa A—C 8 lbs., Red Clover A 1 lb.
Ladino Clover A—C 1 1b., B 6 lbs.

C 10 lbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90 -
TWO CUTTINGS
80 —
7O -
6O -
TTTDAL
50 -
4O _
u, 30 -
22 -—-I3R.
é .
0 20 - \ /\
z R.CI... '
‘ “\
’** IALFZ
E} IC)‘- 4_J///////r
w /<
—n ‘4//\
>' ‘ I 1 I , ALCL.
b-
I
9
$40—
>_ \FIVE CUTTINGS
a: * vv #TOTAL
0 30 —
20 F A
3 \BR.
l O :-_ R.CL.
/LoCL.
l I l I _TJ
I 2' 4 6 8 IO
POUNDS OF RED CLOVER
Figure 19. Boot yield as influenced by variation in.the seeding

rate and two different cutting treatments. Red clover
alfalfa, Ladino clover and bromegrass mixtures. ’

 

J

 

 

 

71

by the increase of red clover root yields as rates of red
clover increased. (Figure 19)

Plate I shows representative root cross—sections
taken from the selected legume roots at the end of the grow—

ing period. A Wide variation in diameter size can be seen

 

between roots from the different rates of seeding and be—
tween cutting treatments. ‘

Table 35 presents the range of diameters of the
various cross sections, some of which are not shown on Plate
I. At all rates of alfalfa, alone and in mixture, the fre—
quent cutting reduced the diameter of the cross sections of
roots when compared to two cuttings. As the rate of alfalfa

or bromegrass increased the diameter of the roots tended to

 

decrease under both cutting treatments. Where alfalfa was
seeded alone it reached a larger diameter than when in mix—
ture at the same rate.

Ladino clover had a slightly larger root cross
section at the one pound rate seeded alone and in mixture
when out twice. At the minimum and maximum rates, the
larger cross sections were from the five cutting treatment.
The diameters tended to decrease under both cutting treat-
ments until the maximum rate of seeding and were then only
slightly larger than the lower rates.

Red clover roots were largest in both cutting
treatments when seeded alone. Frequency of cutting did not

have as marked effect on these roots as on alfalfa. The

 

 

 

 

  

. I I.......u I1....:.I Illa-e! .51.]... 41. II“... INN-1...). .unI..I..I.... Ann”: ...n

  

.11: I....-lI4! ..

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

wm.mlm©.o mm.HI¢b.o OH . D
om.HIms.o Hm.HIm®.o @ A he>0Ho omHesA .nH H manna
om.auwe.o as.auao.a a Imsote .mpa m .meaehae .maH m so“:
ma.mlma.a om.mIHo.H w A oeoas tm>oHo eon
NH.HIN>.O H$.HIwO.H m
mo.HIHe.o sa.0-me.o a A manta
mm.OIwm.o wo.HIsm.o m\H AIoEOQQ .mQH m .oMHsyHt .maH m soHB
om.HIwo.H mm.aIms.o a macaw so>oao squash
so.¢lm0.o rm.Hva.O w .mnH OH :
mo.¢lbm.H ms.HI¢m.o w .mnH o :
NH.mIom.H ms.mIHo.H m .@H H mmdhwoaosn
mo.¢Im©.H ao.mImH.H ON : : : :
NO.¢I$N.H m¢.NIfiO.H w : : : :
wH.¢Ios.o am.mIHo.H H medamoacnp .mQH m Sth
mm.mem.H MH.mIHo.H m QQOHn syHmHHd
mosHo m moaHp m .mQH
.S.n ovum wsHeoom ohfipNHE moHoomm

owsnm hoposoHQ

 

monsom o>Hpcpaomoaaom scam m20Hpoom mmopo poem ofismoq mo sopossHm

.mm oHQdB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Plate I. Influence of Two Different Cutting Treatments
on the Diameter of Legume Roots
The roots shown in this plate are representative
of the diameter range as presented in Table 25. Enlarge-
ment 35X. Boots on the left side were from cultures out
five times; right side from cultures out twice.

1 & 2 Alfalfa seeded at 1 lb, bromegrass at 3
lbs.

3 & 4 Alfalfa seeded alone at 8 lbs.

5 d 6 Alfalfa seeded at 20 lbs, bromegrass at
3 lbs.

& 8 Ladino clover seeded alone at 1 lb.
9 & 10 Bed Clover seeded at 1 lb, alfalfa at 8

lbs, Ladino clover at 1 lb, and bromegrass
at 3 lbs.

 

11 d 12 Red clover seeded at 6 lbs, other species
as in#9 & 10 above.

13 d 14 Red clover seeded alone at 8 lbs.

 

 

 

 

 

'7

 

10

. ~. V
>Q. Ev.
2.. ....:..\

 

 

 

 

 

 

: 'g‘
\‘T, i;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

highest rate of red clover produced larger cross sections

in the two cutting treatments.

Discussion

This experiment was conducted under controlled
conditions in the greenhouse where the supply of moisture
and nutrients were plentiful, and temperatures were favor-
able for rapid development of forage species. The major
limitation was the relatively short duration of the growth
period. However, results of this experiment illustrate the
principles of competition between species in mixtures and
how they perform under two systems of cutting.

The beginning premise of the experiment was that
seeding rates used on farms were too high within the limits
of recognized cultural practices, but that higher rates of

seeding may be necessary for those seedings to be pastured.

 

It was also Considered that more species are used in forage
mixtures than may be ideal in terms of providing management :
practices that will meet optimum conditions for the indivi—
dual mixture components.

The work of Blaser, et al (2) has indicated the 1
competitive effects of species seedlings on one another
when in mixtures. Their results give valid reason to limit
mixtures to only two or three species, and these should
have similar management requirements.

In this experiment the total yield of forage under

 

 

74

either cutting treatment was affected very little by having
more than two species in the mixture, but root yields did
increase under two cuttings as the number of species in

the mixture increased. The increased rate of individual
mixture components had less influence on total yields than
the two different cutting treatments, with higher total
yield of forage and roots produced by the mixtures that
were out twice.

The dependence of new growth on stored carbohy—
drates was seen in the results of this experiment. Other
workers have resorted decreasing yields of tops and roots
and reduced carbohydrate levels from those plants cut fre—
quently, often before storage reserves can be replenished.
In this experiment the yield from alfalfa diminished follow-
ing recovery periods of short duration, but gained when
this period was lengthened to 22 days. However, Ladino
clover, bromegrass and red clover continued to produce high—
er yields of forage with each successive cutting, until the
final cutting which had only a ten day recovery yeriod.

These results are contrary to the findings of
Moran (11) in which the top yield of Ladino clover decreased
sharply when out to one and three inch levels at 14 day in—
tervals for 42 days, with the sharpest decrease at the 1—
inch height. He also found that carbohydrate levels were

affected by height and frequency of cutting which act as

 

a major factor in the regrowth of Ladino following cutting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

At the levels of cutting used in this experiment
it is likely that Ladino clover was defoliated less than
alfalfa or red clover. New leaves had already developed
at nodes along the stolons, but leaflets had not expanded
and the petioles had not elongated so that they were not
removed at harvest. When alfalfa and red clover were cut,
complete defoliation occurred. New growth had to come from
crown buds, requiring a longer period for recovery, and was
made at the expense of carbohydrate reserves. This was
also true of Ladino clover and bromegrass, but because de-
foliation was not complete at harvest, photosynthesis was
probably not interrupted, at least to the degree as in al—
falfa and red clover.

Ladino clover was the only species in this exper-
iment to have more total root yield under frequent cutting.
This may be explained by the work of Stewart and Bear (15)
who found that starch replenishment commenced 11 days after
cutting and the original level was reached in about 17 days.
This may also be related to the shading and other competi—
tive effects of the component species which reduced top
and root yields of Ladino in the two cutting treatment.

Under field conditions, when mixtures including
alfalfa are used for pasture it would be best to use a man—
agement system which provides for rapid grazing of the forage,
followed by a recovery period sufficiently long to replenish

carbohydrates as well as top growth. The inclusion of

 

 

 

 

 

Ladino clover will not contribute greatly to total yield.

It would appear that the use of Ladino clover in those seed—
ings primarily for hay production may be of limited value
because of the competitive effects of the more aggressive
alfalfa and bromegrass under these conditions. Red clover
contributes very little to increasing total yield, and if
used at equal rates with alfalfa, may retard the develop—

ment of alfalfa plants in the mixture.

Alfalfa, red clover, Ladino clover and bromegrass

were seeded alone and at varying seeding rates in mixtures

76

Summary and Conclusions

 

 

in the greenhouse, and subjected to two and five cutting

treatments.

1.

The number of plants of the varied species
and total plant numbers increased in all mix—
tures with increasing rates of the individual
species.

Total yield from all mixtures were greater
from two cuttings than from five. Under five

cuttings, mixtures produced higher total yields

 

than species seeded alone. Only four mixtures
when out twice produced more than alfalfa
seeded alone, and one—third of the mixtures
produced less than red clover seeded alone.

Highest total yields under five cuttings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

generally came from the higher rates of seed—
ing. The medium rates of seeding produced
the higher yield under two cuttings. Cutting
treatment had more effect on the yield of

forage than did the rate of seeding.

 

Ladino clover was least affected by frequent
cutting, followed by bronegrass, red clover
and alfalfa. Alfalfa forage yield and its
proportion of the yield were markedly reduced
when the recovery period was short. This pat—
tern was also shown in the oroduction of roots.
The number of plants at final harvest had not
been affected by cutting treatments.

Cutting treatments had a greater effect on

the vigor and yield of root systems than the
varying seeding rate of individual species.

The results of this study indicate perform—

 

ance trends when the rate of individual spe—
cies are varied in mixtures and two levels of
cutting are used under the controlled condi—
tions of the greenhouse. The performance
pattern mould be varied by field environment,

but the sam general trends should be expected.

 

 

 

 

10.

11.

Literature Cited

Blaser, R. E., W. Skrdla, and T. Taylor. Factors in
compounding forage seed mixtures. Advances in Agronomy
IV: 179—216. Academic Press, New York. 1952.

, T. Taylor, W. L. Griffith, and W. Skrdla.
Seedling competition in establishing forage plants.
Agronomy Journal. 48:1—6. 1956.

 

Dennis, R. E. The growth responses of alfalfa and Sudan
grass in relation to cutting practices and soil moisture.
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, 1958.

Duncan, David B. Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests.
Biometrics 11:1—42. 1955. ,-

Graber, L. F., N. T. Nelsen, W. A. Leukel, and W. B.
Albert. Organic food reserves in relation to the
growth of alfalfa and some other perennial herbaceous
crops. Wisconsin Res. Bulletin. No. 80., 1927.
Guyer, G. E., H. M. Brown, and A.‘Wells. An evaluation
of systemic insecticides for control of Hessian Fly in
Michigan. Hich. Agric. Expt. Sta. Quarterly Bul. 40:
595—602. 1958.

lesponse of certain

Harrison, C. M. and C. W. Hodgson.
Agronomy

perennial grasses to cutting treatments.
Journal. 31:418—430. 1939.

Hildebrand, S. C. The effect of height and frequency
of cutting alfalfa upon its growth and root develop—
ment. Unpublished M. S. Thesis, Michigan State College,
East Lansing, Michigan. 1938.

Hodgson, C. W. Influence of height and frequency of
cutting upon the growth of smooth bromegrass, orchard
grass, and Kentucky bluegrass. Unpublished Ph. D.
Thesis, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan.
1941.

Hughes, H. D., M. E. Heath, and D. S. Metcalf, Forages.
Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. 724. 1951.

Moran, C. E., V. G. Sprague, and J. T. Sullivan, Changes
in carbohydrate reserves of Ladino clover following
defoliation. Plant Physiol., 28:467—474. 1953.

 

 

 

79

12. Milton, W. E., J. Welsh Plant Breeding Sta. Bulletin,
Series H, No. 15:25—39. 1937.

13. Sprague, V. G. and J. T. Sullivan. Reserve carbohy—
drates in orchard grass clipyed periodically. Plant
Physiology. 25:92-102. 1950.

14. Sprague, V. G., R. R. Robinson, and R. J. Garber.
Management of grasslands in the Northeastern United
States. Pa. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bulletin No. 554. July,
1952.

15. Stewart, I. and F. E. Bear. Ladino clover, its mineral
requirements and chemical composition. New Jersey
Agri. Exp. Sta. Bulletin No. 759. October, 1951.

 

16. 'Wagner, H. E. Effects of differential clipping on
growth and developnent of seedling grasses and legumes.
Agronomy Journal. 44:578—584. 1952.

 

 

 

 

.II..||| \ l|u||n| I l 11"

 

 

80

 

APPENDIX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81
Table I. The Influence of Seeding Rates on Yield of Forage
Under TWo Different Cutting Treatments

Single Species
Dry weight yield in grams, average of 3 cultures

Pasture Treatment — 5 cuttings

 

March April May May June Total

 

Species 28 11 2 22 1
Alfalfa 1.57 1.18 4.99 10.17 1.90 19.81
Bromegrass 0.90 1.50 3.28 7.50 4.70 17.88

Ladino Clover 0.03 0.43 3.18 8.47' 4.17 16.28

Red Clover 0.52 1.50 4.55 10.23 3.78 20.58

 

no sig. dif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hay Treatment — 2 cuttings

Ma‘ June Total

Species 8y 1
Alfalfa 30.97 24.47 55.44
Bromegrass 19.50 10.33 29.83
Ladino Clover 6.57 9.30 15.87
Red Clover 22.50 19.30 41.80
) o” 5 . 50
1E42i£ 24.10
- _ 9 14.70
LbD—ifl 22.30

70

If

 

 

 

 

 

.mna m pd unapmdoo mmohmoEOMQ .Uoflas> dwawya<*

 

 

 

 

as swim was as
0.9 ms.w oo.m smnnmq
m.m was mo.m a: a
m.© ms.m ms.m an“ mm
mm m®.sm ©©.oa ow.m mm.¢ ma.m mm.o ow.o om.ma Om.a mfi.s o«.m sm.o mm.m om
ma sm.sm ss.m mm.N om.m mw.a mm.o om.o sm.sfi mH.H sm.© ofi.m ow.a mm.m ma
ma mm.mm wfi.m om.m mm.m ms.fi mm.o mm.o ma.mfi ma.a om.9 HH.¢ cm.o mm.m ma
ma «v.0m mfi.aa om.m mm.m m©.H s©.o sm.o am.a ms.o ma.s os.m m.o oa.o 0a
HH sm.mm mm.mfi os.m os.w sfi.m mm.o sm.o «N.HH ma.0 os.w oo.m w©.o mm.fi m
m mm.mfi mm.aa oo.m mm.w mm.m mw.o mm.o w©.m No.0 os.m nm.m no.0 om.a o
2 s as.mm sw.ma mm.s ow.» mo.m mm.fl mw.o am.m om.o 03.x mm.fi ms.o mm.fi s
8
m wa.fim mo.sa ow.¢ mm.s mH.m Ho.a.mm.o oa.s om.o om.fi mfi.fi sm.o mw.o m
w s©.©fi mo.sfi mm.¢ OH.© mw.m mo.fi sm.0 oo.m mfi.o mw.o mm.o wa.o mm.o H
.mQH amaoya< mo .mQH
filo mmlm mum Hans mmlm H19 mmlm mlm Halw wmlm amo>ham
muss Hopes annoy me moon
mqflcoom 02:9 moflo Howey
Hapoe IMflE Imam mmoawoaonm mofloomm. omadwaa *mofloomm
mwQHQQSO m 1 psoawnosa ondwmom
mohdpado m we omaso>s x madam Sn @Hoflm pamfloa aha

ondsMflE mmdawoaoam | wwadwad

madcapoopa msflppdu
pnoaommfim 039 noun: owohom mo uaoflw so mopsm wnfluoom mo ooaodHHQH was .oHH manna

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mQH m 95 asapquo mmshonOhQ .UmHhs> oMHoMH<*

 

 

 

 

3.5m 34m «3
0H.mH .ch mm.mH fimnnmq
3.5m .im 34% .5 a

822.. o: 3.: am“ mm

mm 9H.Nm as.sH 00.m 9H.m 09.sm 0s.sH 0s.0H 0m

mH 0m.sm s©.0m 00.0 s0.¢H mm.mm 00.MH mm.mH 0H

mH mm.oo ms.mH 0H.m mm.mH m¢.Hs 0m.¢H mm.sm NH

MH Hm.s9 HP.9H 0m.w Hm.0H 00.mm 09.9H 0m.wH 0H

HH Hm.am Hs.sH 0H.m Ho.m 0m.mm 00.mH 0m.mH w

a 0s.H0 mm.mm 0m.w 0H.sH ms.mm 0H.mH No.0m 0

s mm.Hs ss.mH 0H.s s0.mH ww.Hm sw.w H0.NH a

3 m m0.Hs 00.0w 0H.0H 0w.wH m0.mH 0m.n mm.» m

8

s sm.mm sm.mH 0m.0 s®.w ow.s oo.m 00.9 H
deode
.mnH we .mQH
when hog H10 01m H10 mum pmo>nsm
spam no @559

wanoom Hopes H0005 Hague
Hopes onSQNHE moHoomm mmssmosoam moHoomm owHost *moHoomm
meprso m 1 pdofiphoha ham

mohdedo.m mo ownso>o 1

madam SH 0H5H% wflmHoa ham

mohdeHm mmoawosonm 1 desaHa

mnqoapsoaa msHpgdo
psosoHMHm 958 pound owmsoh we wHoHW no movsm wQHwoom mo ooqousqH was

.QHH mHQGB

 

 

 

 

.09H 0 pm pawwmnoo 0MwaHs .00Ha0> mmdswoao&m*

 

 

 

35 00.0 a:
00.0 .0H0 Hm.0 $0
ems on 00.» am” am
0H 00.sm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 s0.H 00.0H,00.0 00.» s0.s sm.H 0s.H 0H
sH 00.00 00.0 00.0 H0.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 Hm.0 00.H 0s.m 0
0H ss.mm 00.s 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 sH.H 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 s0.H 00.H 0
0H 00.00 Hm.0 00.0 0H.m 00.0 Hs.0 0H.H 03.0H sm.0 00.0 00.0 00.H sm.0 s
«H 00.sm 00.0H 0s.0 00.0 90.0 H0.0 00.H 00.sH 00.0 00.0 00.0 s0.H sN.H 0
0H ms.mm s0.0H 00.0 sm.0 00.0 s0.H ss.H 00.HH 00.0 0s.0 0s.m s0.H s0.H 0
4 NH 00.90 00.0 00.0 s0.0 0H.0 00.0 00.H 0s.¢H 00.0 sH.0 00.0 00.H 0H.H a
8
0H NH.Hm 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 0H.H 0m.HH 00.0 00.0 Hs.H 00.0 Hs.0 m
0 00.0m 00.0H 00.H 00.0 00.0 0H.H 00.H 00.0 pH.H 00.H 00.0 00.0 Hm.0 H
.09H 1. mmdkwoaoum we .mQH
when 200 H10 0010 010 HHIw 0N1; H10 0010 010 HHIw 0010 pmo>sam
92580 032. .8 8.2
go 0000 00:0 H0059 H0008
H0903 1MHE moHoomm dMHsmHs moHoonm mmdamoEOhm *moHoomm
wdeppdo 0 1 pnoapsoae 0050000
moaSQHdo 0 go omsao>s 1 03000 0H 0Hon psmHoB mam

manpNHZ wwHawHfl 1 mmdammaoam

manoflpaosy wanpSU

pnohomem 039 so0m: owahoh Mo 0H0HM do 00000 mchoom mo ooaodHHqH one .dHHH meda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

.mQH 0 90 00000000 QMHmed .00H00> mmmhwoaopm*

 

 

 

00.: «0
H0.0H 00mg:
00.00 0H m

3.330 .03 on 00.3 0.0””?

0H 0H.90 00.0H 09.0 00.0H 00.90 00.HH 00.0H 0H

9H 00.00 00.0H 00.0 09.9 00.00 00.0H 00.0H 0

0H 0H.00 00.00 00.0H 0H.0H 00.90 00.0 00.0H 0

0H 00.00 00.00 00.0 09.HH 00.00 00.0 00.0H 9

0H 00.00 00.00 00.0H 00.0H 00.00 00.9 00.9H 0

0H 00.H0 00.00 00.HH 03.0H 00.H0 00.0 00.0H 0

0H 00.00 00.00 00.0H 00.00 00.0H 00.9 00.HH 0

0H 00.90 00.00 00.0H 00.0H 00.0H 00.0 09.9 0

0 00.00 09.00 00.0H 00.0H 0H.0 00.0 0H.0 H
mmdhwoaonm
.00H 90 .mQH
0000 000 H10 010 H10 010 pmo>hdm
0005 go 0009

waHommm H0009 H0009 H0009
H0909 QQSQNHE moHoomm memmHfi mmHommm mmwhmoEOLQ *moHommm
mwanQSO 0 1 000300009 hmm
mohdeso 0 we mmwho>d 1 03000 0H 0H0H% pmeoB khm

whSpMHE mdewH< 1 mmduwoaohm

0000890009 WSHQQSO

psohmmMHm 039 00005 000000 we 0H0HN do 00000 waHuwmm 90 mammsHmsH 009 .QHHH 0H009

 

 

 

 

 

 

.00H 0 00 0000000000 000 .00H 0 00 00000000 00H00H0 .0000d> 00>0H0 00H000*

 

 

 

00.0 00.0 00
00.0 00.0 fimnmmq
00.0 00.0 00 a
00.0 00.0 $0” am
Ho.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 H0.o m
00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 H0.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.H 00.0 0
00.0 00.0 00.H 0H.0 00.0 00.H 0H.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
H0.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 0
00.0H 00.0 00.0 H0.0 00.H 0H.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 H0.0 Hm.o 0H.0 H
00.HH 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.H 00.0 H0.0 m0.H 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 0\0
00.0H 00.0 00.0 0H.m 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.H 0H.0 00.0 0\H
6
8 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 0\H
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.H 00.H HH.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 HH.0 00.0 0\H
00>0H0 00H000
00 .000
H10 0010 01m HH10 0010 H10 0010 010 HH10 0010 000>0dm
00 0000
H0009 H0009
00H0000 00HO0H0 0000000 00>0Ho 00H0wq *00Hoomm
00000000 0 1 000300009 0000000
00000H00 0 00 00000>0 1 00000 00 0H000 000003 000

00000NHE 000000000m 000 00H00H0 .00>0Ho 00H000

0000000009 00H0000
000000000 039 00000 000000 00 0H0H9 00 00000 0000000 00 00000H00H 009

.0>H 0H009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.00 00.0

 

 

00.0 00.0
00.00 00.0
00.0 00.0
00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
00 00.00 00.0 03.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
7 00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
8
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
0\0 00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
0\0 00 00. 0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
0\0 00 00.00 00.00 0.0 00.0 00.0 03.0 00.0
0\0 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
.000
0005 010 0010 010 0010 0010
0000000 139.0 00000
00009 0050NHE 000000 mmwpwmaOMm

 

.0>H 0Hnwa

 

 

 

 

 

88

 

 

 

 

.000 0 00 mmfihwwaoha 0:0 .090 0 pm pnapmnoo 0000000 .00000> 00>o0o 0n0000*
00.0 .0.
.0000 00.0 000”me
.08 00.0 0.0 0
.0000 .b0m on 09 00.0 00” mm
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 0 .00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
0\0 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0\0
0\0 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0\0
0\0 00 00.00 00.00 00.2 00.00 00.00 00.0 0n.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0\0
0\0 00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0\0
00>000 090000
.mp0 00 .mp0
010 0:0 010 010 019 0:0 0m0>000
0000 00000 00 0009
0200000 00:0 00000 00000 00000 00>000
00000 IN0E 0000000 mm0000300mmmm00000 0000004 0000000 000000 *mo0oomm
00:00050 0 I pqmapwmge 000
00050050 0 00 00000>0 I 05000 Q0 00000 0:0003 000

090000009 039 000:: 000000 00 00000 no 00000 0:00000 00 00Q0500n0 0&0

00050N0E mmd000300m 0m0 000000< .0o>000 0:0000

mpsoapaoha 0:00050

.Q>H 00909

 

 

 

 

 

.090 0 00 0000003009
0nd ..Q0 0 0d 00>00o on0000 ..mQ0 0 00 pqmmeoo 0000000 .00000> 00>00o 0mfi*

 

 

 

00.0 0
.0000 00.0 0.0300
3.2 00.0 00 a
on 00.0 00n.wm
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0,00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
9
8 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00>o0o 000
00 .090
0:0 00:0 0:0 00:0 00:0 0:0 00:0 0:0 00:0 00:0 umo>hdm
00 0000
00003 00009
0000000 0000000 0000000 00>000 000 *mo0oomm
00000050 0 : 000300009 0050000
00050050 0 mo 00000>0 : 08000 :0 0000» 000003 009

00050002 mmaamoaogm 000 00>o00 000000 .0000000 .0m>000 000

0000600009 0000050
00000000Q 039 00005 000000 00 00000 do 00000 0500000 00 000050000 009 .0> 00008

 

 

 

 

 

as. . .0000
.0000 . . ..00
.n00 00 ..Q0

00 w0.30 00.0 wa.o 00.0 00.0 00.0 rm.o 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0

90

00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0m.o 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
m0 00.00 00.0 00.0 m0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.m w®.O 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 k©.O 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0
00 00.00 ©0.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 m¢.Q 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 00.0

00 mmamm 0m.© 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 00.0 00.0 00.m 00.0 m0.o 00.0

 

 

.000
0000 000 0:0 00:0 0:0 00:0 00:0 0:0 00:0 0:0 00:0 00:0
0000 00000
0000000 00:0 00000 05000
11.00000 :Mwfizmwwmmewr: 0000002000 0000000 00>00o 900000

 

.m> 00000

 

 

 

 

:maohn 09$ ..00 0 05 0m>o00 on0000 ..mn0 0 90 wswamsoo 0000006

00.0
00.0
00.0

m0$000 @030M0a go m00oomm 000 .0000 00.0

.00m on

.mn0 0 as mmdhw
.0m0hm> gm>o0o 000*

.00
0m.” 9m:
.3
wmuomm

:::::::::I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

00 00.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 09.0 00.0 O0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 L0.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00,oo.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.9 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 .m.m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0
00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 .00.0 00.0 m
1
9 00 00.00 00.00 0m.m 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 09.0 0
.mp0 n0
po>o0o 000
.mp0 :1: 00 @000
0000 0:9 0:0 0:9 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 o 00:
0mm 0500 0wpoy , WM w sh
0S0domm @050 @000 mmdhw 0d 09 ho>o00 00009 00009 9 0.0
00000 :N02 :mmm :maogm mo0oomm od00$0 m®0ow20 6000004 mo0ommm ho>o0o cam .
:l:::ll:::l:lllll:::::-- :|:i. - *mm0oopm
m0Q0prO 0 : wmoapwwpa 000
mm050050 0 00 omaym>m : mawhw m0 U0o00 0:000? 000

mthpN0E mmwawoSogm 0:6 ao>o0o 0:0000 .0006000 .0o>o00 000

QQQoapwohB 0Q00050

pnmhm000n 030 ymdns $00000 mo 00000 no mwpdm 0q0cmom 00 moqm500QH 000

.Q> 00900

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300M USE OMI’

 

 

 

         

      

AN STATE

3717:: Hum]:

31293 0

TYLBR

mm:

   

  

    

”TI“

:
262