Growing Cattle on Winter Wheat Pasture: Management and Herd Health Considerations

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald W. Horn
2003 ◽  
Vol 81 (12) ◽  
pp. 3191-3201 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. T. Choat ◽  
C. R. Krehbiel ◽  
G. C. Duff ◽  
R. E. Kirksey ◽  
L. M. Lauriault ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Gerry L. Kuhl ◽  
G.E. Jr. LeValley ◽  
G.D. McCormack ◽  
Dale A. Blasi ◽  
James S. Drouillard ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nouhoun Coulibaly ◽  
Daniel J. Bernardo ◽  
Gerald W. Horn

AbstractEnergy supplementation provides a means of reducing production risk of growing stocker cattle on winter wheat pasture. This study addresses the issue of risk aversion and energy supplement input use. Differences in supplementation practices induced by risk aversion and the effects of cattle and feed market conditions are examined. Results show that supplementation practices are likely to be similar across producers, irrespective of their risk attitudes. Cattle and feed market conditions, however, markedly affect supplementation practices. These findings provide information for assisting stockmen in identifying efficient supplementation strategies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 59-60
Author(s):  
Autumn Pickett ◽  
Stacey Gunter

Abstract Wheat pasture is unique to the Southern Plains where income can be reaped from the grazed forage followed by a grain harvest. The performance by cattle grazing is excellent, but nitrogen intake is excessive, resulting in inefficient use. Highly digestible supplements that are low in protein have been shown to augment ADG and improve nitrogen utilization. At the Southern Plain Experimental Range near Fort Supply, OK, an experiment was conducted to examine a supplement high in digestible fiber at multiple level of intake with or without 66 g of lasalocid/tonne. Sixty-five steers (324 ± 0.52 kg) grazed 41-ha of irrigated wheat pasture for 64 d. The supplement (4-Square Stocker/Grower 14; 14% CP; Purina Animal Nutrition, Shoreview, MN) was placed in 1 of 2 SmartFeed Plus feeders (C-Lock, Inc., Rapid City, SD); 1 feeder with the control feed and the other contained lasalocid. Each feeder was programmed to allow maximum intakes of 1.2, 2.0, and 3.2 kg/d for 8 or 9 steers at each level. So, there were 24 non-supplemented, 21 energy supplemented, and 21 energy supplemented steers with lasalocid. Because steers had liberty to consume supplement at will and only limited by a maximum, actual supplement intakes were calculated for the grazing period and steer performances were regressed on supplement intakes. Each kilogram of supplement increased (P = 0.04) ADG by 73 g/d; however, lasalocid did not increase (P = 0.73) ADG (avg ADG = 1.7 kg). Total BW gain by each steer (kg) was increased (P = 0.04) 4.7 kg for each kilogram of supplement fed daily and again, lasalocid did not increase (P = 0.73) performance (avg total BW gain = 109 kg). Supplementation with a moderate CP feed increased the ADG of steers grazing winter-wheat pasture, but the addition of lasalocid showed no benefit in this experiment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S112-S116
Author(s):  
Ulises A Sánchez-Sandoval ◽  
Jorge A Rodela ◽  
Jesus J Figueroa-Zamudio ◽  
Susana Urias ◽  
Sergio A Soto-Navarro

1990 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 1139-1150 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. E. Branine ◽  
M. L. Galyean

Abstract Three 10-d collection periods (April 4 to 14, early April, EApr; April 23 to May 3, late April, LApr; May 10 to 20, 1984, mid-May, MMay) were conducted to evaluate effects of no supplement (C), .5 kg·head−1·d−1 (as-fed basis) supplemental grain (steam-flaked milo, G) or G plus 170 mg monensin·headhead−1·d−1 (M) on forage intake and digestion by 12 ruminally cannulated beef steers (four/treatment; avg initially BW = 393 kg) grazing irrigated winter wheat pasture. Ruminal pH was greater (P < .01) for M than for C or G during EApr but was not altered by treatments in LApr or MMay. Compared with C, ruminal NH3 was decreased (P < .10) by G and M (5 h after supplementation) in EApr, decreased (P < .05) by G (2h) and increased (P < .05) by M (8 h) in LApr and decreased (P < .10) by G (−1h) in MMay. Treatments had little influence on total VFA concentrations or on molar proportions of acetate and propionate. Butyrate molar proportion was decreased (P < .10) by M during EApr and LApr, but not during MMay. Monensin increased (P < .05) fluid passage rate compared with C and G in EApr but not in other periods. Particulate passage measurements did not differ (P > .10) among treatments within periods. Forage DM intake was not influenced (P > .10) by supplementation during any period. Extent of in situ forage DM disappearance was greater (P < .10) for M than for C or G during EApr (12 and 30 h of incubation) but was not different (P > .10) in LApr or MMay. Incidence of frothy bloat was decreased (P < .05) by M during EApr; this reduction may have been related to effects of M on ruminal pH, forage digestion and fluid passage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document