soc TA245_7 981 5-1357 Nutritianal Value ~ 0f Range Plants in the “wards Piateau Regima 1" ‘w; P> \ / f\ Th8 TGXGS A81M UHiVGFSitV SVStEITI OTHG TGXGS AQFiCUKUFBI EXDGFiMGHt Station ' NEViHE P. CMFKG: DiFGCCOF‘ COHGQE SCGCiOFLTGXBS Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 p Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix: Nutrient composition of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 KEYWORDS: Nutrition/range plants/Edwards Plateau/forage/animal production/Texas. Jo Nutritional Value of Range Plants in the Edwards Plateau Region of Texas ].E. Huston, B.S. Rector, L.B. Merrill, and B.S. Engdahl* The Edwards Plateau region of Texas comprises ..about 24 million acres of mostly rough terrain, well suited for production of cattle, sheep, and goats. The region also supports large populations of deer, tur- i’ key, javelina, and quail. The region lies north and northeast of the Rio Grande River at Del Rio and is bordered on the south and east by the Balcones Escarpment. The northern and western edges grade into the Rolling Plains and Trans-Pecos regions, re- spectively, with no distinct boundary. Soils are most- ly calcareous clays and clay loams derived from lime- stone, with the exception of one fairly large area, the Central Basin, which is typified by sandy, granitic sofls. Average annual precipitation varies from about 33 inches on the eastern edge of the region to less than 15 inches on the western edge. The region receives below average rainfall during more than half the year. The most common wet months are May and September, although peak rainfall may occur during any month of the year. Typically, the winters and mid-summers are dry. Temperature extremes during most years range from about 10°F to 110°F, with about equal numbers of days below 20°F and above 100°F. The frost-free period is usually from mid-March to mid-November, although early and late frosts are common. Vegetation in the region is a complex mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, highly variable in growth ‘pattern and form. Historical information indicates that the woody or brush species were once minor components confined primarily to the dry stream beds, heads of draws, and to scattered tree motts. The upland flats and valleys were predominantly mixtures of grasses and forbs species. Extended periods of heavy use by livestock and deer have changed the forage species composition, but good .- diversity of vegetation still exists in much of the region. Because cattle, sheep, goats, and deer have unique diet preferences, greater efficiency of produc- tion is possible by grazing combinations of animals. Previous short-term studies of plant composition and animal diets inf-the Edwards Plateau have been re- ported (Cory, 1927; Fraps andCory, 1940). However, greater refinement in accessing relative grazing (values of these plants is needed to manage more heffectively for a desirable combination of plants and to predict nutrient deficiencies of grazing animals. The nutritive value of Edwards Plateau plants and plant parts and the effects of season and climatic conditions on nutritive values were determined over a 3-year period (1973-75) as an initial phase of long- term research directed toward improving knowledge of range animal nutrition. Procedure Location p Plant samples were collected on the Texas A&M University Research Station at Sonora, located in Edwards and Sutton counties. The long-term studies of various grazing systems at the Research Station have resulted in a large variation in vegetative com- position among the pastures, thus affording opportu- nity to select many plant species from a common environment. Therefore, differences in nutrient con- centrations are considered inherent to the plants and not the result of grossly different soils or climatic parameters. Soil on the Research Station is mostly Tarrant stony clay. Sampling Procedure Samples were taken at monthly intervals. Some i. y. collection dates were during favorable growth D A periods and others were during extremely unfavor- able periods. Samples were either total plant, selected plant parts, or ”plucked" (simulated grazed sample). Samples were sealed in airtight plastic containers and taken to the laboratory at San Angelo, Texas, for weighing, drying, and analytical testing. Analytical Procedures Samples were analyzed for water, ash, cell wall (first year only), phosphorus (P), crude protein (CP), and digestible organic matter (DOM) contents. Fresh samples were weighed, dried at 60°C for 24 to 48 hours, reweighed to determine water content, ground through a 1-mm screen, and stored in glass containers. Ash and CP were determined by standard procedures (AOAC, 1970). Cell wall was determined by neutral detergent extraction (Van Soest and Wine, 1967) and phosphorus by a colorimetric method (Murphy and Riley, 1962). DOM was estimated in vitro by a two-stage procedure of incubating the sam- ple in strained rumen fluid for 48 hours, followed by neutral detergent extraction (Van Soest, Wine and ‘Associate professor, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, San Angelo; Tom Slick research fellow, Texas A&M University; professor in charge, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Sonora; and technician II, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, San Angelo; respectively. 1 * w: Moore, 1966). In vitro estimates were corrected to live animal values using standard forages of known in vitro and live animal digestibilities. DOM is a measure of the digestible energy value of feeds and closely approximates total digestible nutrients (TDN). Except for water, all values are expressed as percentages of dry matter. Statistical tests for differences between plants and seasons included analysis of variance and studentized range tests (Snedecor, 1956). Common and scientific plant names are listed according to Gould (1975). Results and Discussion Results from analyses of 573 samples that included one or more samples of 34 grasses, 42 forbs, and 19 browse species are reported in Appendix Table 1. Water, crude protein, digestible organic matter, and phosphorus contents in many of these plants were summarized and will be discussed in detail. Ash and cell wall contents were included for reference pur- poses and were not summarized. TABLE 1. RAINFALL DURING 1973, 1974, AND 1975 AT THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY RESEARCH STATION, SONORA, TEXAS Rainfall (ln.) Month 1973 1974 1975 Ave rage January 0.45 0.23 2.28 0.99 February 1.87 0.00 3.18 1.68 March 0.31 1.23 0.10 - 0.55 April 0.68 3.15 3.50 2.44 May 0.87 5.18 5.10 3.72 June 1.16 1.23 1.47 1.29 July 4.68 1.25 5.45 3.79 August 0.00 11.77 0.53 4.10 September 5.01 7.26 2.09 r 4.79 October 6.22 4.44 1.76 4.14 November 0.18 1.29 2.72 1.40 December L00 __2_.§ ill 0.77 TOTAL 21.43 39.16 28.37 29.66 Variations in the concentration of nutrients in the flora are indicative of the diversity of growth form and phenology of Edwards Plateau range plants. In general, concentration of nutrients of a particular species was highest early in its growth period and lowest after growth had ceased, during dormancy. Because various species initiate growth at different times of the year, these nutrient peaks and lows occurred during various months. Usually, a mid- season peak occurred for warm-season, perennial grasses in response to favorable growth conditions. September was the most common month for this peak; however, mid-season peaks occurred from Iuly through October. Precipitation during the 3-year period was above average, especially during July and@ August. Otherwise, the overall pattern was con- sidered typical (Table 1). Data collected on several representative plants were summarized in Tables 2 through 5 to illustrate the effects of plant type and season on concentrations of nutrients. Within the perennial, warm-season TABLE 2. OVERALL AVERAGE NUTRIENT CONTENT IN THREE PLANT TYPES DURING THE GROWING SEASON IN THE ED- WARDS PLATEAU REGION OF TEXASl ' Nutrient Concentrationfiyo)“ Plant Number of Type Observations Water C.P. D.O.M. P ~ Grass I 55 ' 42b 7b A 39b .11 b Forb 22 52b 14b 54b .1sb Browse 44 58b 12b 54b .15b'b llndividual plants include: a Grasses Forbs Browse Common curlymesquite Common horehound Elbow bush Sideoats grama Mexican sagewort Pricklyash Texas cupgrass Orange zexmenia White shin oak “Crude protein (C.P.), digestible organic matter (D.O.M.), and phosphorus (P) are expressed as percent of dry matter. The values are averages for samples collected during the growing season only, i.e., no winter samples are included. “'b'°Values in a column that do not share a common superscript differ significantly (P<.05). TABLE 3. AVERAGE NUTRIENT CONTENT IN PERENNIAL, WARM-SEASON RANGE PLANTS DURING DIFFERENT SEASONS IN THE EDWARDS PLATEAU REGION OF TEXASl Plant Season of Number of g Type Observation Observations Water C.P. D.O.M. P Grass Spring 21 48“ 8“ 44“ .13“ Summer 22 43“ 6“'b 43“ .11“'b Fall b 23 38b 5b 34b .0sb'b Winter 15 14b 5b 31b .05b Forb Spring 6 68“ 19“ 59“ .21“, Summer a 55b 11b 53b .17b Fall a 54b 14brb p 53b b .20b Winter - - - - - Browse v Spring 17 64“ 16“ 70“ .22“ a Summer 13 sabrb 11b 54b'b p .10b Fall 14 51b 9b 58b .09b s Winter - - - - - Nutrient Concentration(%)2 ‘Values are from individual plants identified in Table 1. “Crude protein (C.P.), digestible organic matter (D.O.M.), and phosphorus (P) are expressed as percent of dry weight. “'b'°VaIues in a column within a plant type that do not share a common superscript differ significantly (P<.05). 2 3" ' w; succulent and contained higher levels of nutrients filant group, forbs and browse plants were more ‘*4 during the growing season than grasses (Table 2). Browse plants contained higher DOM than either grasses or forbs. The effect of season on nutrient content was similar for the three plant types in that nutrients were highest during the spring and de- clined with advancing maturity (Table 3). An excep- tion was the increase in protein and phosphorus noted in the fall sampling of forbs over the summer levels. Forbs and browse were of greater nutritional value than perennial grasses during the warm grow- ing season. However, grasses remained accessible in a dormant state and declined only slightly in nutrient ‘content during the winter, whereas warm-season forbs and deciduous browse dropped their leaves at or soon after the first fall frost. Certain perennial plants remained green yearlong and produced new growth whenever soil moisture and growing condi- tions were favorable (Table 4). Forage quality of these plants (Table 4) was less variable with season, com- pared with the warm-season perennials (Table 3) and was substantially higher in nutrient concentrations during winter, compared with dormant grasses. An- nual grasses and forbs were usually higher in nutri- ents than perennials (Table 5 compared with Tables 3 and 4). Differences in the nutritional value of annual plants between seasons were small and not statisti- cally significant. Discussion Animal productivity is a result of productive poten- tial and level of nutrition. Productive potential is genetically controlled and is usually higher than actu- al production because the nutrition level is seldom high enough or consistent enough to support max- imum production. Therefore, high productive poten- tial does not assure high productivity. Animals hav- ing high productive potential and under conditions of limited nutrition are usually less productive than those having less potential. Conversely, animals hav- ing low potential are less productive than those hav- ing high potential under conditions of high nutrition. TABLE 4. NUTRIENT CONTENT IN PLANTS THAT GROW YEAR- LONG IN THE EDWARDS PLATEAU REGION OF TEXASl Nutrient Concentration(%)3 Number of Season Observations Water C.P. D.O.M. P Spring 23 613 133 503 .173 Summer 21 483 83 393 .093 Fall U 523 103 413 .133 Winter 17‘ 46a 10a 44a .12“ ‘Includes approximately equal observations from: - Texas Wintergrass Upright prairie-coneflower w Plateau Oak “ Sedge zCrude protein (C.P.), digestible organic matter (D.O.M.), and phosphorus (P) are expressed as percent of dry weight. 3'3'°Values in a column that do not share a common superscript differ significantly (P<.05). TABLE 5. NUTRIENT CONTENT OF SELECTED ANNUAL GRASSES AND FORBS IN THE EDWARDS PLATEAU REGION OF TEXASl Nutrient Concentration(%)3 Number of Season Observations Water C.P. D.O.M. P Spring 42 713 123 613 .173 Summer 7 633 103 553 .173 Fall 7 763 133 623 .143 Winter 7 683 153 663 .173 ‘Includes rescuegrass, little barley and 18 species of annual forbs. ZCrude protein (C.P.), digestible organic matter (D.O.M.), and phosphorus (P) are expressed‘ as percent of dry weight. 3Values in the same column that do not share a common superscript differ significantly (P<.05). Rangeland offers a mixture of potential dietary constituents which grazing animals select from in ”cafeteria style". When given a choice of forage types, animals of different species and in different production states display unique diet preferences and levels of intake (Arnold, 1975; Dudzinski and Arnold, 1973; McMahan, 1974; Bryant, 1979). Cattle tend to be grass eaters, although at times they consume large amounts of non-grass materials such as pricklypear (Taylor, 1973). Sheep select less grass and more forbs and goats and deer prefer browse material (Bryant, 1979). However, all species and classes of animals select from all components of the vegetative profile and appear in search of high quality materials. Application It is impractical and unnecessary to base the nutri- tional profile of range vegetation on individual plant species because of the large numbers of plants having predictable similarities and of possible combinations. Therefore, five functional components of Edwards Plateau range vegetation are proposed. (1) Perennial, warm-season grasses com- prise the production component. As im- y plied, this component supplies the major mass of potential dietary material and is the primary determinant of how many animals can be maintained (proper stocking rate). Although its nutritional value is relatively low, it is predictable and dependable and provides good overall nutrition for cattle. (2) Perennial, warm-season forbs, legumes and browse plants are the quality compo- nent. Total production relative to grasses is usually low, but quality is high. This component enhances productivity of cat- tle and allows increased total production from the range when sheep and goats are added to the grazing population. Proper combination of animal species can be used as a tool t0 hold the quality component relatively stable 0r t0 in- crease or decrease it. The deer popula- tion is usually benefited by 10w numbers of sheep and goats. However, maximum production results when this quality component is utilized by sheep and goats in conjunction with deer. (3) The level component is the combined contribution of evergreen plants (Table 4). These plants reduce the production component but in return substitute for the quality component at a critical time, during winter dormancy of the produc- tion and quality components. These plants reduce the need for supplemental feed during winter. (4) All desirable annual plants make up the bonus component. This group of plants is unpredictable and undependable but ex- tremely valuable when present. It should be exploited immediately by ani- mals having high productive potential (growing calves or lambs or ewes and lambs). (5) The toxic component includes all plants which are poisonous or injurious to live- stock. Although several plants should be assigned to this component regardless of nutrient concentration or short-term value (e.g., bitterweed), others overlap other components and are toxic or seri- ously injurious only when taken in ex- tremes or by certain animal species (oak, mesquite beans, pricklypear, croton, N uttall milkvetch, etc.). Literature A.O.A.C. 1970. Official Methods of Analysis (11th Ed.). Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Washington, D.C. Arnold, G.W. 1975. Herbage intake and grazing be- havior in ewes of four breeds at different physio- logical states. Aust. I. Agr. Res. 26:1017-1024. Bryant, F.C., M.M. Kothmann, and L.B. Merrill. 1979. Diets of sheep, Angora goats, Spanish goats, and white-tailed deer under excellent grazing con- ditions. I. Range Manage. 32:412-417. Cory, V.L. 1927. Activities of livestock on the range. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 367. Dudzinskig; M.L. and G.W. Arnold. 1973. Compari- sons of diets of sheep and cattle grazing together on sown pastures on the southern tablelands of New South Wales by principal components analy- sis. Aust. I. Agr. Res. 24:899-912. Fraps, G.S. and V.L. Cory. 1940. Composition and utilization of range vegetation in Sutton and Ed- wards counties. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 586. Gould, F.W. 1975. Texas plants —- a checklist and 4 Range management practices affect these compo- nents of the vegetation in various ways. Range reno- vation, including brush control and/or seeding, usu-fi ally increases the production component dramatica ly, allowing an increased stocking rate. Often, accom- panying reductions in the quality and level compo- nents result in reduced productivity per animal unit and/or increased supplemental feed requirements. Also the resulting vegetative profile tends to favor a disproportionate increase of cattle over sheep and goats. The non-intensive deferred-rotation grazing systems increase both the production and quality components and decrease the bonus and toxic com- ponents. The intensive, or short duration, grazing systems strongly increase the production component. Heavy, continuous grazing decreases the production and quality components and increases the bonus andQ toxic components. Conclusion Much is still to be learned about nutritional value in range plants. Oak brush, for example, contains high levels of tannins that bind up the protein, reducing digestibility and lowering the total value of the for- age. Some plants are toxic in small amounts, while many more are good forage at moderate levels of consumption but can be toxic if consumed in large amounts. The data presented are of value in showing relative nutritional value of plants and plant types for animal production in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas. Two clear implications from these data are 1.) diversity of range plants provides a greater overall opportunity for high quality diet selection, and 2.) many forage species are excellent food sources and will be inefficiently utilized unless animals (e.g., sheep, goats and deer) that have special preferences for them are included in the grazing complex. Cited ecological summary. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. MP- 585/Revised. 121 pp. McMahan, Craig A. 1964. Comparative food habits of deer and three classes of livestock. I. Wildl. Man- age. 28:798-808. . Murphy, I. and I.P. Riley. 1962. A modified single solution method of the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta. 27:31-36. Snedecor, George W. 1956. Statistical Methods, 5th Ed. Iowa State University Press. Ames. Taylor, C.A. 1973. The botanical composition of cattle diets on a 7-pasture high-intensity low-frequency grazing system. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M Universi- ty. 60 pp. Van Soest, P.I. and R.H. Wine. 1967. Use of deter? gents in the analysis of feeds. IV. Determination o plant cell-wall constituents. I. Ass. Offic. Ag ‘ Chem. 50:50-55. Van Soest, P.I., R.H. Wine, and L.A. Moore. 1966. Estimation of the true digestibility of forage by the in vitro digestion of cell walls. Proc. 10th Int. Grassl. Cong. 10:438-441. APPENDIX TABLE 1. Nutrient composition of range plants in the Edwards Plateau region. Grasses “on Name (Scientific Name) . Water Ash Cell Wall Collection Date Composition (%) Phosphorus Protein DOW Buffalograss (Bpchloe dactyloides) _green f6rage"7'"‘—"_” 5/3/73 51 10 70 0.13 ’ 13 60 leaves 5/24/73 54 8 67 0.16 11 58 leaves 6/28/73 50 ll 69 0.23 l1 44 leaves and stems 7/27/73 46 14 66 0.22 9 38 leaves and stems 10/25/73 42 13 68 0.21 8 33 leaves and stems 4/24/74 60 8 0.21 12 59 total 10/10/74 44 12 0.21 8 31 Canada wildrye (Elvmus canadensis) leaves 4/13/73 62 10 56 0.11 14 69 leaves and stems 5/24/73 41 12 64 0.13 9 56 leaves and stems 6/28/73 57 10 65 0.22 8 48 leaves and stems 7/27/73 50 13 60 0.20 7 45 leaves and stems 10/25/73 60 13 66 0.22 9 49 .6 bluestem (Bothriochloa barbinodis old and new growth var. barbinodis) 4/13/73 49 11 68 0.12 8 33 leaves 5/24/73 39 10 65 0.14 9 55 leaves and stems 6/28/73 58 9 66 0.15 9 57 leaves and stems 8/30/73 36 8 68 0.08 6 47 leaves and stems 10/3/73 47 5 7 0.07 6 40 leaves and stems 10/25/73 58 7 70 0.08 5 52 leaves and stems 12/27/73 ll 9 71 0.03 3 48 leaves and stems 4/24/74 52 7 0.09 8 50 leaves and stems 6/25/74 24 9 0.06 4 38 leaves and stems 12/17/74 12 8 0.04 3 ~ 35 COmmOn bermuda-grass (Cynodon dactylon) leaves and stems 5/24/73 63 ll 62 0.22 12 58 leaves and stems 6/28/73 61 10 65 0.21 12 56 Common curlymesquite (Hilaria belangeri) old leaves 4/13/73 22 16 65 0.09 6 31 new 16aV65 4/13/73 48 12 65 0.12 10 47 forage 5/24/73 46 12 66 0.12 9 44 leaves and stems 6/28/73 56 10 66 0.19 11 52 CQmmOn Name (Scientific Name) Collection Date Composition ($1 "T611763? "W" '7'7'1\§1Y_‘_“7"7Y7€171 lYal 1 PhospF5f1Ts“__Protein DOM Common eurlymesquite lcont.) leaves and stems 7/27/73 42 12 61 0.21 8 49 total 7 27 73 50 10 64 0.13 7 52 leaves and stems 8/30/73 26 12 65 0.06 5 43 leaves and stems 10/3/73 49 14 65 0.13 7 40 leaves and stems 10/25/73 48 14 67 0.09 6 32 leaves and stems 11/29/73 40 22 55 0.09 7 33 leaves and stems 12/27/73 12 14 68 0. 7 5 33 leaves and stems 2/1/74 18 14 64 0.07 5 31 leaves and stems 2/28/74 12 17 60 0.09 6 34 leaves and stems 3/28/74 24 14 0.12 7 33 leaves and stems 4/24/74 52 13 0.14 10 52 total 5/24/74 52 12 0.12 8 41 total 6/25/74 21 12 0.08 6 40 total 11/15/74 11 0.11 7 46 leaves and stems 10/10/74 61 15 0.12 6 36 leaves and stems ll/15/74 35 17 0. 7 5 30 .jota1 12/17/74 16 7 0.07 5 2 Qdeaves and stems 2/11/75 13 16 0,06 6 28 leaves and stems 4/15/75 42 18 0.16 8 38 total 6/4/75 50 18 0.11 7 38 total 7/11/75 32 12 0.06 5 38 leaves and stems 9/11/75 25 15 0,06 4 30 leaves and stems 10/31/75 32 13 0.08 6 38 leaves and stems 12/11/75 17 16 0.06 5 29 total 1/8/76 10 15 0.06 5 32 F. witchgrass (Lento1oma_copnatum) \_eaves and stems 10/3/73 55 10 66 0.09 6 54 eaves and stems 10/25/73 46 10 71 0.05 5 42 aves and stems 8/15/74 61 8 0.13 8 58 Green sprangletop (Lentochloa dubia) leaves and stems 7“———_'**m— 8/30/73 38 5 76 0.05 5 51 total 10/3/73 54 7 74 0.15 7 53 leaves 10/25/73 53 8 74 ‘0.08 6 26 Common Name (Scientific Name) Hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta) leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves “leaves leaves leaves leaves £11111 and and and and and and and and Hairy tridens total leaves total leaves Halls leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves and and and and and and and and and Johnson grass leaves leaves leaves and stems stems stems stems stems stems stems stems stems (Erioneuron piloswnl StClllS stems stems stems stems stems stems stems stems panicum (Panicum hallii) (Sorghum halepense) stems King Ranch hluestem leaves and stems leaves and stems leaves and stems Collection 4/13/73 7/27/73 8/30/73 10/3/73 10/25/73 12/27/73 2/1/74 2/28/74 3/28/74 10/10/74 4/13/73 6/28/73 7/27/73 10/3/73 6/28/73 7 27/73 8/30/73 10/3/73 10/25/73 12/27/73 2/28/74 (Bothriochloa ischaemum vflr- seuganiaal Common Name (Scientific Name) King Ranch hluestem leaves and stems leaves and stems leaves and stems Kleingrass (Panicum green leaves and (cont.) coloratum) stems Little barley (Hordeum pusillum) leaves and stems 6/28/73 7/27/73 10/3/73 Collection 12/27/73 2/28/74 2/ll/75 5/3/73 5/24/73 Little hluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves total total total and and and and zuid and and and and stems stems stems stems stems stems stems stems stems an ,0 V81‘. _fresiti 16 80 leaves and stems 2/11/75 78 10 0.10 18 70 Bladderpod (Lesquerella gordoni) total 3/27/73 65 25 31 0.17 10 45 total 4/13/73 e4 17 37 0.16 9 s5 fruit 4/13/73 66 5 35 17 73 1 total 3/28/74 58 27 0.15 11 56 Blue-eyegrass (§i§Xrinchium sp.) total 4/13/73 68 7 52 0.12 10 60 12 Common Name (Scientific Name) Buffalo gourd (Cucurbita foetidissima) leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves Cedar plantain (Plantago helleri) total total Common broomweed (Xanthoceghalum s93) leaves and stems Common dyssodia (Dyssodia pentachaeta) o leaves and stems Common horehound (Marrubium vulgare) total leaves leaves and stems leaves and stems total total leaves and stems Cornsalad (Valerianella §g,) total total Common Name (Scientific Name) Croton (Croton sQ;) total total leaves and stems leaves and stems leaves and stems total total total total total Dayflower (Commelina sg.) total Dozedaisy (Erigeron sg.) total total total Dfitchmans hritches (Thamnosma texana) total Engelmanndaisy (fingelmannia pinnatifida) total leaves total total F ax (Evax proliferal total total total 6 otal Eveningprimrose (0enothera sp.) total __~7‘__ total Collection Date 1 adleaf milkweed (AscleQias_1atifo1ia) v~ leaves 8/30/73 7/27/73 8/30/73 10/3/73 10/25/73 5/24/73 10/10/74 4/13/73 3/28/74 5/24/73 6/25/74 3/27/73 4/13/73 10/25/73 11/29/73 3/28/74 8/15/74 11/15/74 3/27/73 4/24/74 Collection Date 6/28/73 7/27/73 10/25/73 5/24/74 6/25/74 8/15/74 8/15/74 10/10/74 ll/15/74 2/ll/75 10/3/73 3/27/73 4/13/73 7/27/73 3/27/73 4/13/73 5/24/73 5/24/73 11/15/74 3/27/73 4/13/73 3/28/74 4/24/74 3/27/73 4/13/73 Comgosition (%) 13 Water Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM 74 12 18 0.13 11 78 79 20 19 0.23 27 67 76 18 22 0.19 20 69 80 23 17 0.21 17 65 5 37 19 0.19 16 54 85 10 0.36 30 80 82 18 0.33 27 65 64 8 40 0.14 9 67 66 9 0.14 12 66 58 7 39 0.18‘ 12 59 43 9 0.06 6 49 73 29 19 0.22 17 53 66 12 28 0.03 30 65 73 13 32 0.34 21 56 75 16 32 0.32 22 56 68 13 0.22 22 67 70 16 0. 5 22 65 74 12 0.37 22 69 80 15 18 68 0.11 9 Composition Q%1 Water Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM 65 7 4r» 0.23 14 s3 56 6 46 0.15 11 46 61 7 42 0. 7 13 54 60 7 0- 2 12 48 s4 e 0118 9 s1 61 7 0-19 1s s1 67 9 0.14 17 62 61 6 0.15 12 50 59 6 0.17 13 52 58 7 0.21 16 52 83 19 41 0.13 12 60 77 Z2 33 0.22 12 59 65 14 25 *0.14 1 68 62 11 41 0.25 53 68 7 35 0.16 13 62 76 38 22 0.18 4 39 33 18 26 0.13 12 59 70 11 49 0.17 9 44 76 12 0.2 14 65 69 18 45 0.20 14 52 54 15 39 0.19 10 54 56 33 0.16 12 43 57 34 0.15 10 41 78 16 16 0.17 11 7- 78 13 17 0.23 12 77 Common Name (Scientific Name) Feather dalea (Daleaiformosa) leaves and twigs lndianmallow (nhutilon incanum) total 77777117777777 total total Lemon heebalm (Monarda citrioqora) leaves and flowers Mexican sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana) leaves and stems total total total total leaves and stems Mountain pink (Centaurium beyrichii) total total Noseburn (Tragia sp.) total Nuttall milkvetch (Astragalus nuttallianus) total total Orange zexmenia (Zexmenia hispida) total leaves and stems leaves leaves and stems leaves and stems leaves and stems total total leaves and stems Common Name (Scientific Name) Oxalis (0xa1is sp;) total leaves and stems leaves and stems leaves and stems total Pepperweed (Lepidium_sp;) total total Portulaca (Portulaca §Q,) total Purple groundcherry (Physa1is_Q@§§§Q total Redseed plantain (Plantago rhodosperma) ‘f total “ total inflorescence leaves total total total total total total total total Sage (Salvia spi) total 14 4/13/73 8/15/74 10/10/74 11/15/74 5/24/73 5/24/73 6/28/73 7/27/73 8/30/73 10/3/73 10/25/73 6/4/75 7/11/75 8/is/74 3/27/73 4/24/74 3/27/73 7/27/73 10/25/73 5/24/74 6/25/74 10/10/74 7/11/75 9/11/75 10/31/75 Collection 3/27/73 11/29/73 8/15/74 10/10/74 11/15/74 4/13/73 5/24/73 8/15/74 5/24/74 3/27/73 4/13/73 5/24/73 5/24/73 12/27/73 2/28/74 3/28/74 4/24/74 11/15/74 12/17/74 2/11/75 4/15/75 4/24/74 Collection Date Composition (%) Water 60 60 53 73 Date Water 60 67 88 83 63 Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM 6 46 17 fi1‘i; 9 0.17 13 49 9 0.27 12 42 8 0.22 11 44 11 41 0.18 10 56 8 so 0.22 12 64 8 51 0.15 10 58 7 51 0.15 8 57 5 53 0.11 6 48 6 51 0.16 8 49 7 56 0.15‘ 10 51 5 0.14 9 mi’! 3 0.10 7 63 ' 10 0.20 15 50 12 1 33 0.15 18 66 6 0.14 17 62 17 L39 0.31 20 57 17 30 0.12 11 62 23 27 0.10 12 54 16 0.19 14 47 16 0.16 9 2 20 0.12 11 38 18 0.07 9 47 23 0.18 8 41 14 0.08 8 50 ___ Composition (%) Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM 10 19 0.22 21 77 15 20 0.19 18 69 0.39 22 9 0.47 21 71 9 0.40 17 66 10 421 0.21 9 58 7 46 0.14 15 51 17 0.22 11 69 19 ‘0.3l 24 59 26 28 0.14 11 45 21 32 0.16 10 50 9 0.22 12 55 25 20 0.10 8 55 24 21 0.17 11 54 20 17 0.14 20 64 21 0.16 ll 51 0.14 10 6 0.13 10 50 24 0.17 12 52 23 0.16 13 4!‘ 17 0.13 8 5 ‘ 13 0.14 11 5:‘ Common Name (Scientific Name) S (E§§E§.5p') ~5,a1 —_ .aves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves leaves eaves ¢8V€S total leaves leaves leaves leaves Collection 3/27/73 4/13/73 5/24/73 6/28/73 7/27/73 8/30/73 10/3/73 10/25/73 11/29/73 12/27/73 2/1/74 2/28/74 3/28/74 6/25/74 10/10/74 11/15/74 12/17/74 2/11/75 4/15/75 6/4/75 7/11/75 9/11/75 10/31/75 12/11/75 1/8/76 Silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) leaves and stems Spreading sida (SiQa_fi1icaulis) total Sweet gaillardia 194.111.554.124. $41,131 total leaves and stems Common Name (Scientific Name) Texas bluebonnet (Lqpinus texensis) total total leaves total total Texas Filaree total Twoleaf senna tops leaves leaves total total total leaves leaves leaves total and and and and and 15119911111. 325431111121 (Cassia roemeriana) twigs stems stems stems stems 5/24/73 8/15/74 3/27/73 3/28/74 Collection 3/27/73 4/13/73 10/25/73 3/28/74 2/11/75 4/13/73 6/28/73 7/27/73 5/28/74 4/24/74 5/24/74 6/25/74 10/10/74 4/15/75 6/4/75 9/11/75 v Upright prairie-coneflower (Ratibida columnaris) total total leaves, stems and new growth leaves and stems total total leaves and stems 1 4/15/73 7/27/73 10/25/73 3/28/74 5/24/74 6/25/74 10/10/74 11/15/74 12/17/74 2/11/75 4/15/75 6/4/75 7/11/75 9/11/75 10/31/75 12/11/75 1/x/76 Date Composition (%) Water Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM 62 9 65 0.15 12 48 61 9 63 0.13 12 53 73 11 666 0.11 8 ~'38 51 10 64 0.08 7 44 54 9 66 0.10 9 44 37 10 64 0.08 7 42 50 9 66 0.09 13 33 56 10 68 0.09 11 42 53 10 62 ' 12 44 37 11 64 0.07 7 32 40 10 64 0.08 7 34 39 11 63 0.07 7 38 30 9 0.06 6 32 41 10 0.08 7 41 55 11 0.11 43 57 11 0.17 12 37 45 10 0.16 9 30 48 11 0.11 10 37 54 9 0.09 9 42 54 12 0.10 8 34 43 10 0.07 7 42 44 12 0.07 6 35 44 10 0.08 7 30 42 11 0.09 6 26 38 11 0.07 6 28 64 8 41 0.21 20 54 63 11 0.20 14 68 81 16 26 0.28 19 68 76 18 0.22 19 63 Date Composition (%) Water Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM 83 11 23 0.16 17 72 84 9 25 0.17 18 73 82 15 24 0.11 15 65 80 11 0.12 15 71 82 15 0.16 17 75 70 13 32 0.26 14 65 66 17 18 0.11 12 68 65 11 25 0.23 17 70 70 8 0.28 20 73 72 10 0.19 17 68 65 8 0.15 13 66 54 13 0.09 9 62 69 10 0.14 12 66 75 10 0.27 21 76 67 11 0.10 10 67 60 9 0.14 11 57 79 16 32 0.24 18 62 60 12 46 0.17 10 43 85 19 25 0.41 21 62 76 16 0.27 20 58 71 10 0.18 13 54 41 7 0.10 6 33 69 12 0.14 10 45 75 18 0.20 12 54 74 15 0.28 14 63 81 21 0.26 22 66 82 18 0.29 19 68 72 11 0.15_ 11 49 55 12 0.08 6 41 56 10 0.07 6 32 39 7 0.06 4 24 67 0.26 19 67 14 0.19 16 15 XAS All" UN|VERS|TY Common Name (Scientific Name) Collection Date ____ Composition (%) Water Ash Cell Wall Phosphorus Protein DOM Wedgeleaf draba (Q§§P§_§BQeifoliQ) total 2/ll/75 73 0.29 16 Yellow stonecrop (Sedum nuttallianum) total 4/13/73 90 27 ll 0.20 6 S8 total 5/24/73 87 22 26 0.14 7 53 16 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] 3.5M -—- 6-81 Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable. All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station are available to everyone without regard to race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, or age.