Wheat Pasture Intake by Early-Weaned Calves

Similar documents
LIGHT VS HEAVY WEIGHT STEERS GRAZING OLD WORLD BLUESTEM AT THREE STOCKING RATES. II. NUTRITIVE VALUE, FORAGE INTAKE, AND GRAZING TIME.

Growth Performance of Stocker Calves Backgrounded on Sod-seeded Winter Annuals or Hay and Grain

NUTRITION-COW-CALF AND STOCKER

EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER DATE ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS. Story in Brief

Effect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics

Value of Modified Wet Distillers Grains in Cattle Diets without Corn

What Is the Cost of Gain for Stocker Cattle on Ryegrass Pasture?

Backgrounding Calves Part 2: Herd Health and Feeding

Effect of Backgrounding System on Performance and Profitability of Yearling Beef Steers

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues 1

Beef Cattle Handbook

Use of Soft-Red Winter Wheat Forage for Stocker Cattle Production During the Fall and Winter 1

Utilizing Coproducts in the Grazing Program

Nutrition and Management Considerations for Preconditioning Home Raised Beef Calves

Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle

Beef Cattle Library. Weaning Management of Beef Calves 1. Oregon State University. Beef Cattle Sciences

IVOMEC AND A TOTALON/WARBEX COMBINATION COMPARED FOR PARASITE CONTROL IN FEEDLOT HEIFERS By D.G. Landblom, J.L. Nelson, and W.D.

Associate Professor. 2~cting Head and Director, Animal Disease and Diagnostic Laboratory, Associate Professor.

Integration of Pasturing Systems for Cattle Finishing Programs

A Comparison of Milk Production In

DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD METHODS TO ESTIMATE MANURE PRODUCTION AND NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS FROM DAIRY CATTLE

Targeting the North Dakota natural beef market: impacts on early calf growth and performance

Your cattle need Rumensin

Winter Cow Feeding Strategies. Why is this Important?

Effect of rotation crop, cover crop, and bale grazing on steer performance, carcass measurements, and carcass value

Comparison of Feedlot Performance and Carcass Traits Among Various Three-Breed Cross Calves

FEEDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. For WINTERING REPLACEMENT HEIFERS. D.G. Landblom and J.L. Nelson

The Modern Range Cow has Greater Nutrient Demand than the Old Style Range Cow

OSU CowCulator. A Tool for Evaluating Beef Cow Diets. Instructions for Use 1. Oregon State University. Beef Cattle Sciences. Introduction BEEF108

A COMPARISON OF BEEF CATTLE BREEDING METHODS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. D.G. Landblom and J.L. Nelson

Effect of Selected Characteristics on the Sale Price of Feeder Cattle in Eastern Oklahoma: 1997 & 1999 Summary

Forage and Livestock Management Considerations

Influence of Cow BCS and Late Gestation Supplementation: Effects on Cow and Calf Performance 1

Forage and Livestock Management Considerations

Effects of Sulfates in Water on Performance of Cow-Calf Pairs

Fall Calving in North Dakota By Brian Kreft

Forage Systems for Pasture Finishing Beef

CHARACTERIZATION OF HEREFORD AND TWO-BREED ROTATIONAL CROSSES OF HEREFORD W ANGUS AND SIMMENTAL CAllLE: CALF PRODUCTION THROUGH WEANING

Update on Preconditioning Beef Calves Prior to Sale by Cow Calf Producers. Objectives of a Preconditioning Program. Vac-45 Calves

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Phosphorus Removal by Different Wheat-Stocker Cattle Production Systems

Nutritive Value of the Crop Residues from bt-corn Hybrids and Their Effects on Performance of Grazing Beef Cows

Post-Weaning Nutritional Management Affects Feedlot Performance, 12 th Rib Fat, and Marbling Deposition of Angus and Wagyu Heifers

Use of Linear and Non-linear Growth Curves to Describe Body Weight Changes of Young Angus Bulls and Heifers

Got Milk? An Economic Look at Cow Size and Milk. July 13 th, 2015

ALFALFA FOR BEEF CATTLE

Selection and Development of Heifers

Grazing Economics 101 Keys to Being a Profitable Forage Producer MODNR-SWCP Mark Kennedy and John Turner

EFFECT OF GRAZING TALL FESCUE ENDOPHYTE TYPES ON SUBSEQUENT FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY

A Comparison of Techniques for Estimating Forage Digestion

INFLUENCE OF PASTURE PLANTING METHOD ON ANNUAL COOL SEASON PASTURE FORAGE AVAILABILITY FOR GRAZING BY GROWING BEEF CATTLE A FOUR YEAR SUMMARY

No-till Dryland Cover Crops as a Forage Option for Beef Cattle

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Feeding Bison Dr. Vern Anderson Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Box 219 Carrington ND USA 58421

Enhancing Stocker Gains from Bermudagrass Pastures Stocking Rate. Stocking Method.

Beef Cattle Nutrition Fast Start Training Dec. 11, Overview U.S. Beef Cattle Numbers. Industry Segments U.S.

Opportunities and Challenges for Cow/Calf Producers 1. Rick Rasby Extension Beef Specialist University of Nebraska

Livestock Enterprise. Budgets for Iowa 2017 File B1-21. Ag Decision Maker

Rough-N-Ready. Maximize Your Calves Growth Potential

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

ADJUSTMENT OF POSTWEANING FEED:GAIN RATIOS OF ANGUS BULLS FOR DIFFERENCES IN MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 1'2'3

Forage Utilization Guidelines for Beef Cattle

The Value of Corn as a Hay Replacement for Cows

Developing Beef Bulls

Beef Herd Management in Georgia

Net Returns to Alternative Weaning Dates in Beef Cow-Calf Operations

U.S. Beef Production Practices ---

BEEF COW/CALF ENTERPRISE BUDGET 2016 Estimated Costs and Returns - San Luis Valley

Efficacy of Grazing Stockpiled Perennial Forages for Winter Maintenance of Beef Cows

Characteristics of beef cattle operations in the West. C. Alan Rotz,* Senorpe Asem-Hiablie,* Robert Stout,* and Kathleen Fisher

Nutrient Profiling - Metabolic Imprinting of Beef Calves

Jesse D. Savell University of Florida

CASE STUDY: Different Methods of

NAME: STATE: Senior Quiz Version B

CATTLE FEEDING INVESTIGATIONS, 1926-'27¹

Stocker Options Under Adverse Conditions

Canfax Research Services A Division of the Canadian Cattlemen s Association

Published by University Extension, University of Missouri-Columbia. Produced by the Office of Extension and Agricultural Information

Reproductive Management of Commercial Beef Cows. Ted G. Dyer, Extension Animal Scientist

Effects of Creep Supplementation While Grazing Improved Irrigated Pastures

Impact of 50 Years of Beef Technologies. Dr. Matt Hersom Department of Animal Sciences University of Florida

Matching Cow Type to the Nutritional Environment

USE OF PEGASUS TO ESTIMATE THE ECONOMIC V ALUE OF ALF ALF A HA y FOR HORSES. John R. Dunbarl

Strategies to Improve Feed Efficiency in Dairy Replacement Heifer Feeding Programs

Defining Value and Requirements in Cow Rations: What is a Calorie Worth?

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

ROUNDUP Agricultural Research Center Hays. Report of Progress 808

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine. August 2016

Economics Associated with Beef Cattle Ranching. Larry Forero UC Cooperative Extension April 21, 2016

Lamb Feedlot Management Guide

Understanding SHRINK in Beef Cattle

Proceedings, The State of Beef Conference November 4 and 5, 2014, North Platte, Nebraska LIMIT FEEDING PRODUCTION COWS IN CONFINEMENT

Effects of Mycotoxin Binders and a Liquid Immunity Enhancer on the Growth Performance of Wean-to-Finish Pigs 1

Thanks To: Considerations for Developing non GMO Dairy Rations. Special Thanks To: Background. Kiira Heyman. Heather Walker

Management Basics for Beef Markets. Bethany Funnell, DVM Purdue College of Veterinary Medicine

Objectives. Economic Comparison of Conventional vs. Intensive Heifer Rearing Systems. Problems with the Historical Approach to Rearing Calves

November Feed Price Evaluations

APPLICATION OF SYSTEM CONCEPTS IN COW-CALF MANAGEMENT

Revised Estimated Returns Series Beginning in 2007

FEED EFFICIENCY IN THE RANGE BEEF COW: WHAT SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT?

Transcription:

Wheat Pasture Intake by Early-Weaned Calves 1998 Animal Science Research Report Pages 202-209 Authors: Story In Brief S.I. Paisley, C.J. Ackerman, H.T. Purvis II and G.W. Horn Forty fall born Angus x Hereford steers and heifers weaned at approximately 73 d of age were used to determine if calf performance during the initial period of wheat pasture grazing is limited by calf size or by a forage intake adaptation regardless of size. Calves were assigned randomly to one of two receiving period lengths, 15 d (LIGHT) or 35 d (HEAVY), in order to create two weight groups prior to grazing wheat. Calves were weighed approximately every 2 wk to characterize performance changes throughout the grazing period. Forage intake after 20 d and 70 d of grazing wheat pasture was measured using a subset of 10 calves from each weight group. Because receiving period length differed, starting weights on wheat pasture were different for LIGHT and HEAVY groups. During the first 20 d of grazing wheat, LIGHT calves had higher daily gains than HEAVY calves. Daily gains from 20 to 70 d on wheat were similar for LIGHT and HEAVY groups. Forage organic matter (OM) intake, expressed as lb/d, was similar for LIGHT and HEAVY groups. However, when intake was expressed on a %BW basis, LIGHT calves consumed 11% more forage. Forage OM intake (lb/d) was 27% lower during the first 20 d of wheat pasture grazing compared with 70-d intakes. The results of this trial suggest that initial performance of early-weaned, lightweight calves grazing winter wheat is limited by low forage intake independent of calf weight. (Key Words: Early Weaning, Wheat Pasture, Intake.) Introduction Early-weaned, lightweight calves grazing winter wheat pasture often have low rates of gain when introduced to wheat pasture. This reduced performance was originally thought to be related to age and(or) weight of the calf (Purvis et al., 1996). However, in a later trial conducted with calves from the same herd, performance of calves introduced to wheat pasture at heavier weights was similar to that of the lighter calves previously reported (Purvis et al., 1997). This suggests that calves may require a period of time to adapt to winter wheat pasture. Forage intake may be part of this adaptive response. The objective of this trial was to determine if wheat pasture forage intake increases with the number of days spent grazing wheat (adaptation to forage) or if intake is simply related to age and(or) weight of the calf. Materials and Methods Animal Performance. Forty Angus x Hereford fall-born crossbred steers and heifers averaging 73 d of age were weaned on December 3, 1996 and randomly assigned to either a 15- or 35-d drylot period. The purpose of the drylot period was to create different initial age and weight groups prior to grazing wheat. Calves assigned to 15- or 35-d drylot periods are referred to as LIGHT and HEAVY groups, respectively, reflecting their relative weights when introduced to wheat pasture. Calves were vaccinated with a killed 7-way clostridial vaccine and intra-nasal IBR/PI 3 vaccine at weaning, followed by a modified live respiratory vaccine (Vira-Shield 4) at approximately 120 d of age. Calves received aureomycin crumbles for the initial 5 d of the receiving period. During the drylot receiving period, calves received a high energy complete mixed diet used in previous trials (Table 1; Paisley et al., 1996) containing monensin at 30 g/ton (as-fed). Following the initial receiving period, calves were weighed and transported 20 miles to winter wheat pasture (Dec. 20 and Jan. 7, respectively for LIGHT and HEAVY groups). Ten of the 20 calves from each group were periodically used to determine forage intake using chromium dilution. Full weights were taken every 2 wk to closely track calf performance while grazing winter wheat. Final weights were taken April 23, 1997. Forage Intake. Ten calves were selected from each group of 20 to measure forage intake at two predetermined times relative to when calves were placed on wheat pasture. Intakes were

determined after 20 d of grazing winter wheat (January 7 and 27, respectively, for LIGHT and HEAVY calves), which was considered to be during the intake adjustment phase. Forage intakes were measured again after 70 d of grazing wheat (February 25 and March 17), to represent forage intakes following adaptation. Forage intake was determined by bolusing calves with chromium oxide. Calves were bolused twice daily with gelatin capsules containing 2 g of chromic oxide. Bolusing began 4 d prior to fecal collection, and continued through each 3-d fecal collection period. Fecal samples were collected twice each day on three consecutive days. Samples were composited across days within steer for each sampling period. Chromium concentration of feces was determined by atomic absorption. Fecal output was calculated as follows: Fecal Output (FO), g/d = chromium administered, ug/d marker concentration in feces, ug/g. Ten hand-clipped forage samples were taken during each collection. Individual samples for each collection period were analyzed for organic matter digestibility (OMD) using a 48-h in vitro procedure. In vitro digestibility values were then converted to in vivo values using known standards. Forage intake was determined using the equation: Forage Intake (FI) g/d = FO, g/d (1 OMD/100). Statistical Analysis. Intake data were analyzed as a repeated measures design with group (HEAVY or LIGHT), calf(group), collection period, and group x collection period included in the model. Calf(group) was used as the error term to test group effects on forage intake. Calf weights and daily gain data associated with feed intake measurement were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS (1990) as a completely randomized design with length of receiving period as the independent variable. Regression analysis (SAS 1990) was used to evaluate the effects of calf weight and days grazing wheat on daily gains of calves grazing winter wheat. Individual linear response curves were generated for each group (LIGHT vs HEAVY) to characterize the effects of calf weight and days spent grazing wheat on daily gains. Results Forage Intake. There were no calf size by collection period interaction (P>.69) for any performance or intake variables, so only main effects of calf size and collection period are presented. Forage OM intake was similar (9.86 vs 9.91 lb/d; P=.90) for LIGHT and HEAVY groups (Table 2). However, when intake was expressed as a percentage of body weight, LIGHT calves consumed 11% more forage (2.84 vs 2.56%; P<.01) in relation to calf size. Forage OM intake was lower (P<.01) during the first 20 days of wheat pasture grazing compared intakes after 70 d (8.34 vs 11.42 lb/d; Table 3). These data suggest that initial gains of early-weaned, lightweight calves grazing winter wheat are influenced by low forage intakes independent of calf weight. Calf Performance. Because the receiving period length differed, starting weights on wheat pasture were different (252 vs 300 lb; P<.01) for LIGHT and HEAVY groups (Table 4). During the first 20 d of grazing wheat, LIGHT calves had higher (1.85 vs.50 lb/d; P<.01) daily gains than HEAVY calves. Daily gains from 20 to 70 d on wheat were similar (1.80 vs 1.89 lb/d; P=.50) for LIGHT and HEAVY groups. Regression Analysis. Response curves characterizing the relationship between calf weight and daily gains indicated that LIGHT calves, or calves introduced to wheat at earlier ages, initially had higher daily gains than HEAVY calves (Figure 1); however, intake by HEAVY calves increased faster with weight, resulting in both groups having similar predicted ADG s at about 590 lb. Another way of describing initial group differences is to estimate the average weight at which both groups would gain 2.0 lb/d. Based on response curves, LIGHT calves achieved 2.0 lb/d at weights 66 lb lighter than HEAVY calves (347 vs 420 lb). This initial difference may have been created by experiment design, as LIGHT calves were introduced to wheat pasture 48 lb lighter than HEAVY calves (252 vs 300 lb). Response curves describing the relationship between days spent grazing wheat and daily gains for LIGHT and HEAVY calves (Figure 2) were closer together, indicating that performance of the two groups was similar while grazing wheat. Although R 2 values for these relationships

were slightly lower in this comparison, this may reflect the wide range in calf age inherent in both groups. Because calves originated from the same herd and grazed a common wheat pasture, we would expect daily gain response to be similar for both groups of calves. Based on this assumption and intake results using days spent grazing wheat to predict animal performance may be acceptable, because ADG response curves were closely related for LIGHT and HEAVY groups. Literature Cited Paisley, S.I. et al. 1996. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. P-951:98. Purvis II, H.T. et al. 1996. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. P-951:109. Purvis II, H.T. et al. 1997. J. Anim. Sci. 75 (Suppl. 1):37 (Abstr.). SAS. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide, (Version 6, 3 rd Ed.). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. Table 1. Feedstuff and nutrient content of receiving diet (as-fed basis). Ingredients Corn (dry-rolled), % 49.2 Alfalfa Pellets, % 15.0 Cottonseed Hulls, % 14.8 Soybean Meal (47.5% CP), % 14.7 Cane Molasses, % 4.7 Limestone (38%), % 0.9 Dicalcium Phosphate, % 0.4 Salt, % 0.2 Vitamin A-30 (30,000 IU/g), g 204 a Vitamin E (50%), g 136 b Rumensin 80 Premix, g 170 c Nutrient Dry matter, % 88.4 NEm, Mcal/cwt 84.14 NEg, Mcal/cwt 50.59 Crude Protein, % 16.21 Fat, % 2.93 Crude Fiber, % 12.89 Potassium, % 1.23 Calcium, % 0.84 Phosphorus, % 0.40 a To result in 2000 IU Vitamin A/lb as-fed. b To result in 22.5 IU Vitamin E/lb as-fed. c Added to provide 30g/ton of monensin.

Table 2. Effect of length of receiving period on wheat pasture forage intake of earlyweaned calves averaged across both collection periods. Item LIGHT HEAVY SE P= Average age, d 139 160 2.3 <.01 Average wt, lb 347 386 10.1.01 OM intake, lb/d 9.86 9.91.313.90 OM intake, %BW 2.84 2.56.071.01 Table 3. Effect of time spent grazing wheat pasture on wheat pasture forage intake of early-weaned calves averaged across LIGHT and HEAVY calves. Item After 20 d After 70 d SE P= Average age, d 124 174 -- -- Average wt, lb 324 409 3.7 <.01 OM intake, lb/d 8.34 11.42.259 <.01 OM intake, %BW 2.59 2.80.075.06 Table 4. Weight, age, and daily gain of early weaned calves grazing winter wheat pasture. Item LIGHT HEAVY SE P= Weaning weight, lb 224 223 10.1.91 Age at weaning, d 73 73 2.7.93 Receiving period ADG, lb/d 1.55 2.16.142 <.01 Wt when introduced to wheat, lb 252 300 10.2 <.01 Age when placed on wheat, d 90 108 2.7 <.01 First 20 d gains, lb/d 1.85.50.117 <.01 Wt after grazing wheat 20 d, lb 276 307 10.4.04 D 20-70 gains, lb/d 1.80 1.89.097.50 Wt after grazing wheat 70 d, lb 361 404 11.0.01 Subsequent gains, lb/da 2.63 2.39.118.16 Final wt, April 23, lb 519 504 12.9.41 Overall ADG on wheat, lb/db 2.15 1.92.055 <.01 a Final 28 d of grazing wheat, March 27 to April 23 b 124 and 106 d, respectively, for LIGHT and HEAVY calves

Figure 1. Effect of calf weight (lb) on daily gains of early weaned calves grazing winter wheat Figure 2. Effect of number of days grazing winter wheat on daily gains of fall-born early weaned calves grazing winter wheat. 1998 Research Report - Table of Contents