Nutritive value of live and dead components of two bunchgrasses

1996 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. A. Houseal ◽  
B. E. Olson
Keyword(s):  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Protein Requirements ◽  
Southwestern Montana ◽  
Winter Range ◽  
Bluebunch Wheatgrass ◽  
Standing Dead ◽  
Addition Rate ◽  
Dead Material ◽  
Fall Growth

On northern latitude winter rangelands, the effects of low forage nutritive value on animal performance are usually mitigated by supplementing livestock, although the amount of supplement is often not adjusted for available forage quantity and nutritive value. The objective of this study was to assess the potential of live (fall, spring) and dead component of two cool-sea-son bunchgrasses to meet nutritional requirements of cattle from fall through spring on a foothills range site in southwestern Montana. Several nutritive characteristics of live and dead components of bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata [Pursh] A. Love) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis Elmer) were assessed during the winters of 1991–1992 and 1992–1993. In addition, rate and extent of dry matter disappearance, and extent of crude protein disappearance were determined in-situ using ruminally cannulated beef cows. Nutritive value of forage components of bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue were similar fall through spring. Fall growth was similar in CP and digestibility to April growth, and maintained these levels through winter. With normal forage intake rates on winter range, CP levels of standing dead material would not meet animal protein requirements fall through spring. When fall growth is not abundant, more protein supplement would be needed than when it is abundant. Matching animal requirements to forage availability and nutritive value, supplementing only when necessary and in appropriate amounts, could help reduce costs of winter feeding. Key words: Winter grazing, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, forage quality, cattle

Improving the intake and nutritive value of wheat straw for beef cows

1985 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.B. Faulkner ◽  
G.L. Llamas ◽  
J.K. Ward ◽  
T.J. Klopfenstein
Keyword(s):  
Wheat Straw ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Beef Cows

scholarly journals Cubed Alfalfa Hay or Cottonseed Meal-Barley as Supplements for Beef Cows Grazing Fall-Winter Range

1986 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 361 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Cochran ◽  
D. C. Adams ◽  
P. O. Currie ◽  
B. W. Knapp
Keyword(s):  
Cottonseed Meal ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Winter Range ◽  
Alfalfa Hay

scholarly journals 351 Awardee Talk: How retained energy and protein affects the determination of energy and protein requirements for growth

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 84-85
Author(s):  
Luis O Tedeschi
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
The Body ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Protein Requirements ◽  
Body Tissues ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
Areas Of Concern ◽  
Maintenance Requirements

Abstract The understanding of how nutrition influences the body composition of growing animals has fascinated researchers for centuries. It involves the expertise of scientists with different areas of knowledge, encompassing the composition of the diet and its nutritive value to the fermentation and digestion of substrates to the absorption and metabolism of nutrients, and finally, to the deposition of fat, protein, and minerals in body tissues. The comparative slaughter technique is the preferred method to assess the body composition of growing and finishing animals. However, the methodological procedures are labor-intensive, expensive, and time-consuming, facilitating the incidence of errors and inconsistencies of the measurements that are collected, including the initial animal’s body composition. First, retained fat and protein (RP) are used to compute retained energy (RE). Then, RP and RE are used to compute protein and energy requirements for growth. Heat production, calculated from the metabolizable energy (ME) intake for animals at maintenance, is used to compute maintenance requirements. Three areas of concern exist for this approach: 1) the efficiencies of possible mobilization of fat and protein tissues during the feeding period are unaccounted for, especially for the animals fed near the maintenance level of intake; 2) the correlation between observed and predicted RP when using predicted RE is higher than when using observed RE (0.939 vs. 0.679); and 3) the disconnection when predicting partial efficiency of use of ME for growth using the proportion of RE deposited as protein — carcass approach — versus using the concentration of ME of the diet — diet approach. These concerns raised questions about the interdependency between predicted RP and RE and the existence of internal offsetting errors that may prevent overall adequacy in predicting energy and protein requirements of beef cattle.

scholarly journals Estimation of pasture herbage intake by beef cattle based on n-alkanes as markers

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Nowakowski ◽  
Katarzyna Czyz ◽  
Marta Iwaszkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
National Park ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Creeping Bentgrass ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Agrostis Stolonifera ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Herbage Intake ◽  
Invasive Method

The aim of the study was to evaluate herbage dry matter intake in 16 beef cows which grazed continuously on permanent pastures within the “The Warta Estuary” National Park (Poland), using the minimally invasive method based on <em>n</em>-alkanes as markers (C<sub>29</sub>, C<sub>31</sub>, C<sub>33</sub>). Significant differences were observed in the nutritive value of herbage collected for analyses by cutting or nipping. The calculated content of energy and protein in the nipped herbage was higher: UFL by 58.1% and PDI by 50%, with a higher digestibility of nutrients. The values obtained for DM intake in pasture herbage by cows were closest to the standards when calculations were based on the C<sub>29</sub>/C<sub>32</sub> pair of <em>n</em>-alkanes. However, the best prediction of DM intake estimation from creeping bentgrass (<em>Agrostis stolonifera</em>) pasture, in agreement with the accepted energy and protein standards, was based on the proportions between alkanes C<sub>31</sub>/C<sub>32</sub>.

scholarly journals 331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 131-132
Author(s):  
Devin L Broadhead ◽  
Matt Stockton ◽  
McKay Erickson ◽  
Jackie A Musgrave ◽  
Rick N Funston
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Period ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
Production System ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Pregnancy Rates ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Winter Range ◽  
Feed Costs ◽  
Economic Comparison

Abstract A 3-yr study evaluated the economic differences between a March and May calving production system of crossbred beef cows and their offspring from the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman, NE. Both herds were treated as a common when not in treatment period. Adjusted calf weaning BW was higher (P) for March Calves (226.4 ± 1.1 kg vs 193.4 ± 2 kg). Pregnancy rates (89% vs 91%) were similar through both systems. The stochastic economic model used for the analysis was based on 9 yr of USDA AMS data. The model accounts for most assumptions within each system, including all labor, cull and replacement cow costs and feed costs. This analysis was on the total calf costs, total pair feed costs and average market net return at weaning. March systems wintered on hay had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 yr (Average of -$88.76/calf) and on cornstalks 8 out of 9 years in Dawson County, NE (Average of $62.75/calf). March systems on winter range feed 0.41 kg DM/(cow • d) of supplement had a positive net return 4 out of the 9 yrs (Average of $25.23/calf). The May system, no matter the treatments of range or meadow and with or without supplement, had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 years (Average of $-65.77 and $-83.90/calf). Within this analysis, even with the input costs being higher for March, the net return was still greater in a March vs May system. Further analysis will be done on different trts within each system.

scholarly journals Nutrient Quality of Bluebunch Wheatgrass Regrowth on Elk Winter Range in Relation to Defoliation

1994 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 240 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. J. Westenskow-Wall ◽  
W. C. Krueger ◽  
L. D. Bryant ◽  
D. R. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Nutrient Quality ◽  
Winter Range ◽  
Bluebunch Wheatgrass

Review: The composition and availability of straw and chaff from small grain cereals for beef cattle in western Canada

2006 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. McCartney ◽  
H. C. Block ◽  
P. L. Dubeski ◽  
A. J. Ohama
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Crop Residues ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Leaf Sheath ◽  
Western Canada ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Cereal Grain

Small cereal grain residues are heterogeneous feeds consisting of several botanical fractions: chaff, grain, leaf blade, leaf sheath, internode and node. These parts vary in composition, digestibility, resistance to comminution, intake potential and energy availability. Large differences in the nutritional quality of straw and chaff may occur from year to year and between locations due to effects of environmental conditions on botanical composition and cell anatomy. Stage of maturity, harvest method and weathering will influence composition and quality of the most nutritious parts of cereal residues, the leaf and chaff. In addition, cultivars and species differ in the proportion, anatomy and digestibility of botanical fractions. As a result, the quality of crop residues is highly variable with an economic value that is difficult to accurately assess. Cereal straw and chaff are of low economic value as they are low in nutritive value, where nutritive value is the product of nutrient intake, digestibility, and efficiency of use. However, due to availability, cereal crop residues have the potential to be a substantial feed resource for beef cows. Previous reviews have not focused on straw and chaff nutrition research relevant to use by beef cattle in western Canada. This review includes discussions on yield and nutritive value with a focus on identifying information deficiencies, including the lack of detailed production statistics for determining residue yields on a regional bases and the need for more detailed nutrient composition to update regional feed data bases for western Canada. Key words: Straw, chaff, nutrient quality, beef cattle

scholarly journals Hill country pastures, botanical composition and productive capacity

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 281-288
Author(s):  
G.P. Cosgrove ◽  
T.R.O. Field
Keyword(s):  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Productive Capacity ◽  
Botanical Composition ◽  
Regional Survey ◽  
Hill Country ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Compliance Requirements ◽  
Resource Status ◽  
Demand Profile

Botanical composition of pastures is indicative of their dry matter production and nutritive value and so capacity for animal production. Two previous national pasture surveys were conducted in 1935/1940 and in 1987/1988, and one regional survey in 1967/1968, to assess the state of this resource across all land classes. Among many purposes, results from these surveys were used to assess the outcomes of technological advances such as aerial topdressing and oversowing in hill country from the 1950s onwards, and to record changes in the abundance of particular species such as C4 grasses that could indicate effects of climate change, and identify research needs and opportunities. In the 28 years since the most recent survey, there have been many changes in the farm operating environment. This is particularly so in hill country, where other sectors such as forestry and dairy have encroached on traditional sheep and beef land, and poor profitability has forced variable and often sub-maintenance applications of phosphate (P) and sulphur (S) fertilisers. However, the low use of P and S has been partly offset by increased use of nitrogen (N) fertiliser. The declining number of beef cows, substituted by growing dairy and dairy-beef cattle, and the remarkable increase in the per head productivity of sheep are probably the biggest changes shifting the feed demand profile and the ratio of mature: young livestock. These changes affect pasture utilisation. This paper will consider the possible effects of those changes over the 28 years since the most recent national survey of pasture botanical composition, and the future capacity and resilience of this important resource to cope with continuing farm system change, emerging pressures for productivity growth, and regulatory and compliance requirements. Keywords: hill country pasture, botanical composition, resource status, survey

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document