A Comparison of Pearl Millet and Sorghum–Sudangrass Pastures during the Frost-Prone Autumn for Growing Beef Cattle in Semiarid Region

Leonard M. Lauriault, Leah H. Schmitz, Shad H. Cox and Eric J. Scholljegerdes
Additional contact information
Leonard M. Lauriault: Rex E. Kirksey Agricultural Science Center, New Mexico State University, Tucumcari, NM 88401, USA
Leah H. Schmitz: Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
Shad H. Cox: Corona Range and Livestock Research Center, New Mexico State University, Corona, NM 88318, USA
Eric J. Scholljegerdes: Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA

Agriculture, 2021, vol. 11, issue 6, 1-8

Abstract: Sorghum–sudangrass ( Sorghum bicolor × S. sudanense (Piper) Stapf.) and pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) provide adequate nutritive value for growing beef cattle; however, unlike pearl millet, sorghum–sudangrass produces hydrocyanic acid (which is toxic to livestock) when frosted. Forage yield, nutritive value, and weight gain of growing cattle grazing sorghum–sudangrass and pearl millet were compared during the frost-prone autumns of 2013 and 2014, at New Mexico State University’s Rex E. Kirksey Agricultural Science Center in Tucumcari, NM USA, in randomized complete block designs each year with two replicates. No differences existed between pearl millet and sorghum–sudangrass forage yield, although there was a year–forage interaction for fiber-based nutritive value components because of maturity differences across years between the forages when freeze-killed. Pearl millet allowed for extending grazing of available forage for an additional 14 and 24 d in 2013 and 2014, respectively, compared to sorghum–sudangrass during the frost-prone autumn periods. During that period, when sorghum forages produce potentially toxic levels of hydrocyanic acid, animals grazing pearl millet accumulated an additional average of 94.9 kg live-weight gain ha −1 ( p < 0.001). These factors afford producers an opportunity to increase returns on the similar investments of establishing and managing warm-season annual forage crops each year, and allow more time to stockpile cool-season perennial and annual forages for winter and early spring grazing, or to reduce hay feeding.

Keywords: animal performance; forage nutritive value; forage yield; growing beef cattle; hydrocyanic acid; pastures; pearl millet; sorghum–sudangrass (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/6/541/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/6/541/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:6:p:541-:d:573780

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture is currently edited by Ms. Leda Xuan

More articles in Agriculture from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().