Characterization of First Cut Alfalfa and Grass Silage Management Practices on Canadian Dairy Farms

IF 1.2 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Canadian Journal of Animal Science Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1139/cjas-2024-0010
C. Plett, Nancy L. McLean, Carole Lafreniere, Shabtai Bittman, Kim Ominski, J.C. Plaizier
{"title":"Characterization of First Cut Alfalfa and Grass Silage Management Practices on Canadian Dairy Farms","authors":"C. Plett, Nancy L. McLean, Carole Lafreniere, Shabtai Bittman, Kim Ominski, J.C. Plaizier","doi":"10.1139/cjas-2024-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Production practices for first cut alfalfa (ALF), alfalfa-grass (AFG) and grass silages (GRS) were surveyed on dairy farms in four Canadian regions, i.e. British Columbia (BC, n=21), Prairies (PRA, n=32), Central Canada (CEN, n=218), and Atlantic Canada (ATL, n=17). Results are presented as percentages of responses by region; forage type, silo type, wilting method and inoculant use varied among regions. In CEN (93.0%), ATL (88.2%), and PRA (68.8%) AFG was most common. In BC, GRS was most common (66.7%). ALF was only reported in the PRA (28.1%) and CEN (5.6%). Respondents from BC only reported bunkers (52.4%) and baleage (28.6%). Bunkers were most common in PRA (31.3%), followed by baleage (28.1%), piles (18.8%) and tower silos (6.3%). In CEN tower silos were most common (37.2%), followed by bunkers (33.9%), baleage (22.0%), and piles (1.8%). In ATL bunkers (29.4%) and baleage (29.4%) were most common, followed by tower silos (17.7%), and piles (11.8%). Wilting was mostly done in windrows: BC (55.0%), PRA (45.0%), CEN (77.1%), and ATL (71.0%). In BC and ATL, 45% and 17.7%, respectively, of respondents used tedders to enhance wilting. In BC, CEN, ATL, and PRA, 55%, 58.3%, 64.7% and 44.8% respectively of respondents used inoculants.","PeriodicalId":9512,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Animal Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2024-0010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Production practices for first cut alfalfa (ALF), alfalfa-grass (AFG) and grass silages (GRS) were surveyed on dairy farms in four Canadian regions, i.e. British Columbia (BC, n=21), Prairies (PRA, n=32), Central Canada (CEN, n=218), and Atlantic Canada (ATL, n=17). Results are presented as percentages of responses by region; forage type, silo type, wilting method and inoculant use varied among regions. In CEN (93.0%), ATL (88.2%), and PRA (68.8%) AFG was most common. In BC, GRS was most common (66.7%). ALF was only reported in the PRA (28.1%) and CEN (5.6%). Respondents from BC only reported bunkers (52.4%) and baleage (28.6%). Bunkers were most common in PRA (31.3%), followed by baleage (28.1%), piles (18.8%) and tower silos (6.3%). In CEN tower silos were most common (37.2%), followed by bunkers (33.9%), baleage (22.0%), and piles (1.8%). In ATL bunkers (29.4%) and baleage (29.4%) were most common, followed by tower silos (17.7%), and piles (11.8%). Wilting was mostly done in windrows: BC (55.0%), PRA (45.0%), CEN (77.1%), and ATL (71.0%). In BC and ATL, 45% and 17.7%, respectively, of respondents used tedders to enhance wilting. In BC, CEN, ATL, and PRA, 55%, 58.3%, 64.7% and 44.8% respectively of respondents used inoculants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大奶牛场初割苜蓿和青草青贮管理方法的特点
对加拿大四个地区(不列颠哥伦比亚省(BC,n=21)、大草原省(PRA,n=32)、加拿大中部省(CEN,n=218)和加拿大大西洋省(ATL,n=17)的奶牛场初割紫花苜蓿(ALF)、苜蓿草(AFG)和青贮草(GRS)的生产实践进行了调查。结果以各地区回答的百分比表示;各地区的牧草类型、青贮窖类型、枯萎方法和接种剂使用情况各不相同。在 CEN(93.0%)、ATL(88.2%)和 PRA(68.8%),AFG 最常见。在 BC,GRS 最常见(66.7%)。只有 PRA(28.1%)和 CEN(5.6%)报告了 ALF。不列颠哥伦比亚省的受访者只报告了油舱(52.4%)和捆包(28.6%)。料仓在 PRA 最常见(31.3%),其次是捆包(28.1%)、堆垛(18.8%)和塔式筒仓(6.3%)。在 CEN,塔筒仓最常见(37.2%),其次是料仓(33.9%)、捆包(22.0%)和堆垛(1.8%)。在 ATL,最常见的是料仓(29.4%)和捆包(29.4%),其次是塔式筒仓(17.7%)和堆垛(11.8%)。晾晒大多在风车中进行:BC (55.0%)、PRA (45.0%)、CEN (77.1%) 和 ATL (71.0%)。在不列颠哥伦比亚和亚特兰大,分别有 45% 和 17.7% 的受访者使用驯化机加强枯萎。在 BC、CEN、ATL 和 PRA,分别有 55%、58.3%、64.7% 和 44.8%的受访者使用接种剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Animal Science
Canadian Journal of Animal Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Published since 1957, this quarterly journal contains new research on all aspects of animal agriculture and animal products, including breeding and genetics; cellular and molecular biology; growth and development; meat science; modelling animal systems; physiology and endocrinology; ruminant nutrition; non-ruminant nutrition; and welfare, behaviour, and management. It also publishes reviews, letters to the editor, abstracts of technical papers presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, and occasionally conference proceedings.
期刊最新文献
Simulation of loading and unloading through ramps of different configuration: effects on the ease of handling and physiological response of pigs of two slaughter weights Comparative impact of conventional and alternative gut health management programs on plasma and tibia attributes in broiler chickens raised in commercial and research settings Characterization of First Cut Alfalfa and Grass Silage Management Practices on Canadian Dairy Farms A Review of Foot-Related Lameness in Feedlot Cattle Complete replacement of soybean meal with black soldier fly larvae meal in feeding program for broiler chickens from placement through to 49 days of age: impact on gastrointestinal, breast, skeletal, plasma, and litter attributes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1