AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2007The area of 0.3 mil ha of grasslands is utilised by suckler cows. From the ecological viewpoint asmaller herd is more favourable because less farmyard manure is produced and thus also lessnitrogen (Table 1).Table 2. The effect of utilisation intensity and fertilization level on the total number of plantspecies as well as the proportion of grasses, legumes and forbs, % (in the average of 2003 – 2006)Evaluated featureEvaluated featureUtilisation NumberFertilization Numberintensity of plantGrasses Forbs Legumes level of plantGrasses Forbs Legumesspecies % % %species % % %I1 82.1 54.8 36.0 9.2 F 0 81.6 53.8 36.3 9.8I2 81.1 59.7 33.6 6.6 F PK 80.8 56.4 33.0 10.6I3 75.8 65.4 28.5 6.1 F PKN90 75.6 66.6 28.9 4.5I4 74.0 68.1 26.7 5.2 F PKN180 75.1 71.2 26.6 2.3D T0,05 3.7 1.5 1.6 0.9 D T0,05 3.7 1.5 1.6 0.9D T0,01 4.5 1.9 1.9 1.1 D T0,01 4.5 1.9 1.9 1.1From the attained results in table 2 it is obvious that the intensity of statistically highly significantlyutilization decrease sthe number of species in the vegetation from 82.1 in a four-cut system to 74.0in an extensive two-cut system (Odstrcilova et al., 2007). This is related to a higher proportion ofgrasses in the vegetation, which is the lowest in a four-cut system (54.8 %) and increases up to 68.1% in a two-cut system and is the same at all levels of fertilization. The increased proportion ofgrasses reduces the proportion of legumes and native species. The level of fertilization towardshigher rates of nitrogen statistically significantly decreases the total number of species in thevegetation, similarly to extensive management, from 81.6 to 75.1 species. It statisticallysignificantly increases the proportion of grasses in the vegetation 53.8 to 71.2 % and decreases theproportion of forbs (from 36.3 to 26.6 %) and legumes (from 9.8 to 2.3 %).The system where grassland is cut four times per year is also the most favourable practice from anecological perspective. It decreases the annual amount of grain used on the 500 000 ha of grasslandby 762 000 t. This decreases the nutrient load of the agricultural system through the reduction ofimported nutrients in the purchased feedstuff. Under such a system a stocking rate of 0.5 cow ha -1of grassland was reached and about 1 LU ha -1 when young cattle were included, which is the herdsize quota in the present agricultural situation.AcknowledgementThe contribution was financially supported by project VZ0002700601 and QF3018.References1. Gruber, L., Steinwidder, A., Guggenberger, T., Schauer, A., Häusler, J., Steinweder, R., Steiner, B.(2000) Einfluss der Grünlandbewirtschaftlung auf Ertrag, Futterwert, Milchezeugung undNährstoffausscheidung. In: Bericht 27. Viehwirtschaftliche Fachtagung, BAL Gumpenstein 6.-8. 6.2000, 41-88. ISBN 3-901980-43-1.2. Gujer, H. U. (2005) A police to efficiently integrate biodiversity into grassland farming. Grasslandscience in Europe, vol. 10 - Integrating efficient Grassland Farming and Biodiversity, proceedings of the13th International Occasional Symposium of the EGF (Lillak, R. et al. eds). Tartu, Estonia, 29-31August 2005, 73-79. ISBN 9985-9611-3-7.3. Harvieu, B. (2002) Multi-functionality: a conceptual framework for a new organisation of research anddevelopment on grasslands and livestock systems. In: Multi-Function Grasslands (Quality Forages,Animal Products and Landscapes (Derand, J. L., Emile, J. C., Huyghe, Ch., Lemaire, G., eds.), LaRochelle, France, Imprimerie P. Oudin, Poitiers, 2002, 1 - 2.4. Kohoutek, A., Pozdíšek, J., Šrámek, P., Odstrčilová, V., Nerušil, P., Komárek, P., Gaisler, J., Fiala, J.,Mičová, P., Grézlová, M. (2005) Effects of intensity fertilisation and cutting frequency on yield andforage quality of grassland. In: Integrating Efficient Grassland Farming and Biodiversity, (Lillak, R.,Viiralt, R., Linke, A. Geherman, V. eds.), Tartu, 2005, Estonia,. 332-335. ISBN 9985-9611-3-7.136
<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 20085. Kvapilík, J., Pytloun, J., Bucek, P. a kol. (2003) Chov skotu v České republice, hlavní výsledky aukazatele za rok 2002. ČMSCH, SCHČSS, SCHSČR, Praha, 2003, 111.6. Odstrčilová, V., Kohoutek, A., Hrabě, F., Rosická, L., Šrámek, P., Kašparová, J., Komárek, P., Nerušil,P., Gaisler, J., Fiala, J. , Pozdíšek, J., Mičová, P., Svozilová, M. and Jakešová, H. (2007) Effects ofintensity of fertilisation and cutting frequency on botanical composition of permanent grassland. In:Permanent and temporary grassland: plant, environment and economy, The 14th Symposium of theEGF, Ghent 3 to 5 September 2007 (in press).7. Pflimlin, A., Todorov, N., A. (2003) Trends in European forage systems for meat and milk production:facts and new concerns. In Optimal Forage Systems for Animal Production and the Environment.Bulgaria, Pleven. 2003., 1 – 10. ISBN 954-8456-54-0.8. Pozdíšek, J., Kohoutek, A., Bjelka, M., Nerušil, P, (2004) Utilization of grassland by suckler cow rearing(in czech). Praha: ÚZPI, 2004, 103 . ISBN 80-7271-153-9.9. Sommer, A., et al. (1994) Potřeba živin a tabulky výživné hodnoty krmiv pro přežvýkavce. ČAZ, komisevýživy hospodářských zvířat, Pohořelice: 198 .137
Page 1 and 2:
LATVIJAS LAUKSAIMNIECĪBAS UNIVERSI
Page 4 and 5:
AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87: AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte