Ryegrass discussion 2010

Ryegrass discussionAugust 2010

Perennial Ryegrass; Lolium perenne

1. Found in many different heading dates. New Zealand mids are early heading ryegrasses by international standards

2. Can be found with low endophyte or maintained in wild or novel entophytes

3. Can be diploids or tetraploids

Strengths• Vegetatively survive for many years • fliexible management, user friendly • strong summer recovery and autumn growth• high quality grass with great production potential

Seasonal Production

Type # of trials Cultivar Winter Spring Summer Autumn TotalPerennials 301 58 104 100 104 102 102

Nui 21 1 100 100 100 100 100ONE50 7 1 113 100 115 116 110

kg DM/ha = Nui 1779 5030 4237 2883 13919Nui 13% 36% 30% 21%

ONE50 13% 33% 32% 22% +1338

Influence of Heading Date:

Early Mid-Season Late Very Late–8 days & earlier –7 days to +7 days +8 days to +21 days +22 days & greater

Ryegrass heading date clarifications relative to NUI =0

Mar-May June-July Aug-Sep Oct-Nov Dec-Feb

What are the biggest influences in perennial ryegrass in the last 20 years

1. The introduction of NWS material• Winter active late heading material• Summer heat tolerance/summer greening• Increase in summer and autumn productivity

2. The development and introduction of modern tetraploid material base around NSW genetics• Quality double bang 4X + Late heading

3. Endophyte• Endosafe and Endo 5 and NEA2 – (++/- Plant +/- Animal)• Introduction of AR1 in 2000 – (+/- Plant +/- Animal)• Introduction of AR37 in 2007 – (+++ Plant +/- Animal)

Canterbury – Late November 06

Hawkes Bay – May 07

What is the extent of NWS influence

Diploids Tetraploids

Tolosa 100% Bealey 100%

ONE50 ~ 75% Halo ~62%

Expo ~37 Base ~62%

Impact ~50% Banquet ~50%

Alto ~ 25% Banquet II ~25%

Matrix ~ 40%

Revolution ~ 40%

Arrow ~ 50%

Monthly pasture growth rates at Poukawa 1998-2009

Entry Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total

One50 110 98 120 118 108Alto 109 100 108 109 105Bronsyn 99 105 106 102 104Arrow 108 103 100 100 103Bronsyn AR1 94 107 103 96 102Kamo AR37 102 103 90 104 100Cannon 102 98 98 100 99Revolution AR1 96 98 102 96 99

Commando AR37 100 99 91 102 98Nui 93 101 94 87 96Trial Mean 2629 5576 2846 1573 12624(kgDM/ha)

P205POU Ryegrass Seasonal and Total Yield relative to trial mean = 100.

Entry Year 1 Year 2 Year 3One50 103 112 114Alto 100 108 111Bronsyn 101 105 108Arrow 101 109 103Bronsyn AR1 103 102 100Kamo AR37 98 97 104Cannon 100 98 97Revolution AR1 102 96 93Commando AR37 98 93 101Nui 99 95 91Trial mean 19609 7674 10589(kgDM/ha)

P205POU Ryegrass Yield by Year relative to trial mean = 100

Entry Ryegrass GroundCover (%)

Kamo AR37 80 aCommando AR37 74 abArrow 70 bcBronsyn 69 bdAlto 66 cdCannon 66 cdOne50 65 cdBronsyn AR1 61 deNui 61 deRevolution AR1 55 eLSD 5% 7CV% 8Trial Mean 65

P205POU Point analysis of ryegrass ground cover at end of trial

* Point analysis assesses relative ryegrass persistence. Point analysis carried out 12 days after last grazing. Figures may vary depending on how soon after

grazing they are taken.

Long Rotation Ryegrass; Lolium x boicheanum syn. L.hybridum

1. Perennial like hybrids with small quantities of Short rotation or Italian genetics

2. Can be found with low endophyte or maintained in wild or novel entophytes


Strengths• Very similar to perennial ryegrass strengths• Can often have high palatability• Newer cultivars offer small advantages in winter and early spring growth

Seasonal Production

Type # of trials Cultivar Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total

ONE50 7 1 113 100 115 116 110Nui 21 1 100 100 100 100 100P 301 58 104 100 104 102 102LR 25 9 103 96 99 93 97

kg DM/ha = Nui 1779 5030 4237 2883 13919

Short Rotation /Hybrid Ryegrass; Lolium x boicheanum syn. L.hybridum

1. Italian like hybrids with small quantities of long rotation or Italain genetics

2. Can be bred to have perennial type endophytes although not common


Strengths• Stronger winters and weaker autumns than perennial ryegrass• Can often have high palatability compared to perennial & long rotation ryegrass• Often more leafy in summer than Italian ryegrass

Seasonal Production

Type # of trials Cultivar Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total

ONE50 7 1 113 100 115 116 110Nui 21 1 100 100 100 100 100P 301 58 104 100 104 102 102LR 25 9 103 96 99 93 97H 7 3 118 91 96 88 95

kg DM/ha = Nui 1779 5030 4237 2883 13919

Italian; Lolium multiflorum

1. Italians have the characteristics of an annual with persistence of a short rotation

2. Do not have perennial type endophyte, can have annual endophyte (establishment)


Strengths• Italians have the strongest winter and spring production• Outstanding quality in winter and spring can be seedy through summer• The biggest development in this group has been in improved persistence

Seasonal Production

Cultivar Trials Est Autumn Winter Spring Summer 2nd Autumn TotalAnnuals 7 42 1940 156 109 41 20 86Italians 14 220 1993 161 121 78 61 112Hybrids 9 72 1707 149 120 80 64 110ONE50 1 7 2010 5030 4873 3344 15257

Annual ryegrass production at Poukawa

EntryAutumn

Est. Winter Spring Summer2nd

Autumn TotalGalaxy AR1 86 101 106 108 1018 108Tabu 87 106 108 153 107Warrior 98 106 108 103 105Crusader 118 101 102 94 103Status 103 93 106 105 101Feast II 97 97 102 118 101Kano 101 94 102 87 98Archie 102 97 84 60 88Tama 100 103 82 29 85Trial Mean (kgDM/ha) 2465 3815 6361 1338 1018 14058

A204POU Seasonal and Total Yield Relative to Trial Mean = 100

Entry Point analysis 2-May-05 Percent of 100 hits Galaxy AR1 45 aTabu 4 bWarrior 3 bCrusader 1 bStatus 2 bFeast II 4 bKano 2 bArchie 2 bTama 1 bLSD 10 Trial Mean (kg DM/ha) 6

Table 4: A204POU Point analysis of sown ryegrass at end of trial May 2 2005100 points per plot

EntryAutumn

Est. Winter Spring Summer2nd

Autumn TotalTabu 110 107 104 108 104 106

1Delish AR 68 99 99 126 105 104 Feast II 114 99 98 106 112 103

Galaxy AR1 80 98 95 114 103 100Crusader 101 106 97 87 109 99Moata 120 103 97 66 112 87Trial Mean (kg DM/ha) 697 3645 6993 3606 2671 17611

A205POU Seasonal and Total Yield Relative to Trial Mean = 100

EntryRyegrass

Ground Cover (%)

Visual score of row strength

9 = denseGalaxy AR1 74 ab 9.0 aDelish AR1 73 ab 8.8 aFeast II 65 bd 6.8 bCrusader 64 bd 6.5 bTabu 60 ce 8.0 aMoata 54 de 3.3 dCV% 11.1 9.6LSD (5% Level) 10.4 1.0Trial Mean 65 7.1

A205POU Point Analysis and visual score of row strength (9 = dense) of ryegrass at end of trial: 28 June 2006

Annual Ryegrass Westerwolths; Lolium multiflorum

1. Annuals have the characteristics of an Italian but will not persist past early summer

2. Do not have perennial type endophyte, can have annual endophyte (establishment)


Strengths• Annuals have the strong winter production• Outstanding quality in winter and spring can be seedy through summer• The biggest issue in this group is price of seed

Seasonal Production

Cultivar Trials Est Autumn Winter Spring Summer 2nd Autumn TotalAnnuals 7 42 1940 156 109 41 20 86Italians 14 220 1993 161 121 78 61 112Hybrids 9 72 1707 149 120 80 64 110ONE50 1 7 2010 5030 4873 3344 15257

Effect of WSC Content on Animal Production

Summary of effects on dairy– from Edwards et al. 2007

WSC Intake Milk yield Urine N (g/kg DM) (kg DM/day) (kg/day) (% of N intake)

Author H L H L H L H L

Miller et al. (2001a) 165 126 11.6 10.7 15.3 12.6 0.25 0.35Miller et al. (2001b) 236 166 17.6 17.0 25.1 26.7Miller et al. (2000) 234 194 14.6 14.8 21.4 21.9 0.17 0.26Moorby et al (2006) 243 161 15.3 13.1 32.7 30.4 0.20 0.27

Tas et al. (2006a) 192 158 16.2 17.4 26.9 26.3 0.50 0.53Tas et al (2006a) 131 93 14.7 14.9 24.7 23.8 0.56 0.53Tas et al (2006a) 195 152 16.1 16.6 26.8 28.2 0.47 0.48Tas et al (2006a) 113 98 13.7 14.7 22.5 23.9 0.55 0.56Tas et al (2006b) 144 110 18.0 15.6 28.8 26.0Tas et al (2006b) 131 87 18.4 17.4 25.7 25.2

Cosgrove et al (2007) S 200 167 20.9 20.9Cosgrove et al (2007) S 215 195 25.5 25.1Cosgrove et al (2007) A 170 161 11.3 9.6Cosgrove et al (2007) A 159 150 11.7 11.0







4.1







4.1







4.1







4.1

Low vs High CP

WSC:CP vs N in urine graph

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

WSC:CP ratio

g u

rin

e N

/100

g N

inta

ke

Summary of effects on lamb– from Edwards et al. 2007

WSC Intake Liveweight gain (g/kg DM) (kg DM/day) (kg/day)

Author H L H L H L

Lee et al. (2001) 143 89 1.0 1.2 312 271Lee et al. (2001) 113 75 1.7 1.3 244 194Lee et al. (2001) 92 84 1.1 1.2 186 175

Marley et al (2007) 115 100 47.1 51.5Marley et al (2007) 113 100 98.4 71.7

suckling



Author H L H L H L



2.8

suckling



Author H L H L H L



2.8

suckling


WSC Intake Liveweight gain (g/kg DM) (kg DM/day) (g/day)

Author H L H L H L



2.8

suckling

Summary

• Increase in WSC over controls (28-41 g/kg DM)

• No consistent increase in intake (1/10)

• No consistent increase in milk yield (3/14)

• No increase in LWG of weaned lambs

• Reductions in urinary N only at low (9-15%) CP

Documents

Ryegrass discussion 2010