THE RATE OF WATER LOSS FROM GRASS SAMPLES DURING HAY-TYPE CONSERVATION

The loss of water from small bulk samples of five grass species was studied under constant conditions of humidity, temperature and lighting. A logarithmic curve was fitted to the data and the different species compared on the basis of a loss coefficient derived from the fitted curve. The species varied significantly in this aspect; those with high surface-area to dry-weight ratios generally lost water fastest The presence of stem material appeared to increase the rate of water loss considerably. High humidity during drying caused the grasses to lose water more slowly and to retain much more water at equilibrium with the surrounding air. Chemical treatments to speed water loss, using a solvent and a fungal toxin were tested. Both appear to have some promise. Selection for high water loss in grass breeding may also be possible.     

A NOTE ON THE ZERO-GRAZING OF BEEF CATTLE

Groups of 8 steers weighing 300–400 kg (660–880 Ib) were rotationally grazed on a ryegrass-dominant pasture for 115 days. The systems compared were zero grazing (Z), field grazing conducted at the same stocking rate (FC), and field grazing conducted at a stocking rate varied with the intention of giving the same liveweight gain per uiimal as zero grazing (FV). Mean daily liveweight gains were: Z, 0.98; FC, 0.78; FV, 0.90 kg/animal (2.2, 1.7 and 20 Ib/animal), and liveweight gains/unit area were in the ratio 100:78:85. Organic-matter intake, measured on four occasions, was, on average, Z, 6.54; FC, 6.18; FV, 687 kg/head daily (14.4, 13.6 and 15.1Ib). From these results it appears that a comparison of zero grazing and field grazing made at the same stocking rate is likely to underestimate the potential of field grazing for beef production from grass.