PSVII-13 Performance and environmental benefits from biochar supplementation in beef cattle grazing systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 448-449
Author(s):  
Emily Conlin ◽  
Herbert Lardner ◽  
Jennifer L Ellis ◽  
Ira B Mandell ◽  
Katharine M Wood
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Stable Form ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Ch4 Emissions ◽  
Body Weights ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Rapid City

Abstract Worldwide, beef production systems represent a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG), and enteric methane (CH4) emissions are the primary concern. The objective of this experiment was to determine whether biochar (Oregon Biochar Solution, White City, OR) supplementation can reduce CH4 emissions from grazing beef cows. Biochar is a stable form of carbon produced through the pyrolysis of organic matter (typically forestry waste). Sixty-four cows and their calves were blocked by cow body weight and calf age, and randomly allocated to 8 paddocks, each with 8 cow-calf pairs. Using a crossover design, each paddock was assigned to one of two treatments: (1) biochar supplemented at approximately 3% of estimated dry matter intake (DMI) or (2) control (no biochar). Biochar was incorporated into a pellet containing 45% biochar, 42.5% wheat midds, 10% canola oil, and 2.5% dry molasses and fed in a portable trough once daily. Each period consisted of 28 days: 21 days for biochar adaptation and 7 days for data collection. Enteric gas emissions from each paddock were measured using C-Lock GreenFeed trailers (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) with pasture DMI estimated using paddock entry/exit quadrats during each sampling week. Enteric CH4 emissions expressed as g CH4/d were 249 and 260 ± 50.3 g (P ≥ 0.37) for control and biochar, respectively. Similarly, g CH4/kg DM and g CH4/kg BW were not affected (P ≥ 0.44) by biochar supplementation on pasture. Biochar supplementation did not affect estimated DMI or cow/calf body weights (P ≥ 0.15). Results suggest that biochar was ineffective for reducing methane emissions from grazing beef cows; however, measures of animal performance were not affected by biochar consumption. Further work is required to determine if type or higher inclusions of biochar can reduce CH4 emissions from beef cattle.

PSXIV-7 Performance and environmental benefits from biochar supplementation in beef cattle grazing systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 475-476
Author(s):  
Emily Conlin ◽  
Herbert Lardner ◽  
Jennifer L Ellis ◽  
Ira B Mandell ◽  
Katharine M Wood
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Latin Square ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Environmental Benefits ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Stable Form ◽  
Low Oxygen ◽  
Ch4 Emissions

Abstract Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from beef cattle production systems has continuously been recognized as an important strategy to help mitigate climate change. This experiment was conducted to determine the optimum inclusion level of biochar (Oregon Biochar Solution, White City, OR) in the diet to reduce enteric methane (CH4) emissions from beef cows. Biochar is a stable form of carbon produced through low-oxygen and high-temperature pyrolysis of organic matter (typically forestry waste). Using a 4 x 4 Latin square design, pregnant beef cows (n = 8) of similar weight and stage of pregnancy were supplemented with biochar daily at 0, 1, 2, or 3% of total dry matter intake (DMI). Biochar was added to a pellet containing 45% biochar, 42.5% wheat midds, 10% canola oil, and 2.5% dry molasses to facilitate ease of feeding and encourage biochar consumption. Each 21-day period consisted of 14 days for diet adaptation and 7 days for data collection. Enteric gas emissions were measured using C-Lock GreenFeed trailers (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA) and DMI was collected using Insentec feeders (Insentec, Voorsterweg, The Netherlands). Enteric CH4 emissions expressed in g CH4/day, g CH4/kg DM, and g CH4/kg BW were not affected by biochar supplementation (P ≥ 0.41), although the 3% inclusion was numerically lowest. For all parameters expressing CH4 emissions, linear and quadratic effects for inclusion rate were not significant (P ≥ 0.19). Dry matter intake and cow body weights were not affected by biochar supplementation (P ≥ 0.34). These results suggest that biochar was ineffective for reducing CH4 emissions from beef cows fed a high forage diet (50% haylage, 30% straw, 17% corn silage) with no effects on animal performance. Further research should investigate whether type of biochar or higher inclusion levels of biochar can reduce CH4 emissions from beef cattle.

scholarly journals Antagonism in the carbon footprint between beef and dairy production systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 17-20
Author(s):  
MM Scholtz ◽  
J Du Toit ◽  
FWC Neser
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Dairy Farming ◽  
Feed Water ◽  
Dairy Production ◽  
Pasture Production ◽  
Total Mixed Ration ◽  
Cow Calf

Primary beef cattle farming in South Africa is largely extensive, whereas dairy farming is based on both total mixed ration and pasture production systems. Under natural rangeland conditions, decomposition of manure is aerobic, which produces carbon dioxide (CO2), part of which is absorbed by the regrowth of vegetation rather than released into the atmosphere, and water (H2O) as end products. Thus the cow releases methane (CH4) and the manure CO2. This is in contrast to intensive cow-calf systems in large parts of Europe and North America, where large quantities of manure are stockpiled and undergo anaerobic decomposition and produce CH4. Thus both the cow and the manure release CH4, which result in a higher carbon footprint than the extensive cow-calf systems. In dairy farming, increasing cow efficiency through intensive feeding (same kg milk output by fewer animals) can reduce farm CH4 production by up to 15%. In addition, when differences in productivity are accounted for, pasture systems require more resources (land, feed, water, etc.) per unit of milk produced and the carbon footprint is greater than that of intensive systems. This raises the question as to why the carbon footprint of intensive dairy cow production systems is less, but the carbon footprint of intensive beef cow-calf production systems is higher. The explanation lies in the differences in production levels. In the case of beef cows the weight of the intensive cows will be ± 30% higher than that of the extensive cows, and the weaning weight of their calves will also differ by ± 30%. In the case of dairy cows the weight of the intensive cows will be ± 20% higher, but their milk production will be ± 60% higher. The higher increase in production (milk) of intensive dairy cows, compared to the increase in production (calf weight) of intensive beef cows, explains the antagonism in the carbon footprint between different beef and dairy production systems. Unfortunately, carbon sequestration estimates have been neglected and thus the quantitative effects of these differences are not known.Keywords: Cow-calf production, methane, pasture production, production levels, total mixed ration

scholarly journals Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison between farm production system’s effect on the welfare of beef cows

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Export Market ◽  
Grazing Land ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Commercial Farms ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
Arid Rangeland

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow-calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow-calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems was mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialisation over communalisation.

341 Meta-analysis of the Performance Responses of Replacement Heifers and Beef Cows to Monensin

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 191-192
Author(s):  
Mikayla F Moore ◽  
Shane Gadberry ◽  
David Lalman ◽  
Frank White ◽  
Sara Linneen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Physiological State ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Feed Additives ◽  
Production Cycle ◽  
P Value ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Cow Calf

Abstract Performance benefits of monensin have been extensively studied in finishing and stocker cattle, but considerably less published work is available evaluating response to monensin supplementation in cow-calf production systems. Feed additives are more difficult to study in cow-calf production systems due to unstable diet characteristics and cow physiological state throughout the production cycle. This meta-analysis investigated the impacts of monensin on performance of extensively raised beef cow-calf and developing replacement heifers. The replacement heifer analysis was conducted with a maximum of 48 treatment means in 18 experiments. The mature cow analysis included 21 publications and 26 mean comparisons. The metaphor package (version 2.4-0; Viechtbauer, 2010) for R (version 4.0.3; www.r-project.org) was used to determine the overall effect size of monensin compared to a negative control. Each study’s n, means, and SEM or P-value was used to calculate the mean difference and estimate of within study variance for responses of interest. For replacement heifers, average daily gain (+0.03 ± 0.008 kg/d), feed efficiency (+0.013 ± 0.008 gain:feed), and percentage cycling before the breeding season (+15.9 ± 5.13%) were increased (P < 0.01), while dry matter intake (-4.3%) and age at puberty (-8.9 ± 1.48 d) were decreased (P < 0.01). Six studies reporting ad libitum forage intake for mature cows showed that monensin decreased (P = 0.008) DMI by 0.85 ± 0.322 kg/day. Six studies showed monesin increased (P = 0.01) milk yield 0.39 ± 0.15 kg/day by mature cows in early lactation. There were no differences in artificial insemination pregnancy nor total pregnancy for either the heifer or mature cow data sets. This analysis also indicates potential for use of monensin in beef cow production systems, but further research is needed to elucidate the effects on DMI and milk production in beef cows.

scholarly journals Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow–Calf Welfare in Namibia: Part 1: Comparison between Farm Production System’s Effect on the Welfare of Beef Cows

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yolande Baby Kaurivi ◽  
Richard Laven ◽  
Tim Parkinson ◽  
Rebecca Hickson ◽  
Kevin Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Export Market ◽  
Grazing Land ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Commercial Farms ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
Arid Rangeland

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow–calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow–calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial, and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems were mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality, and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialization over communalization.

scholarly journals 375 Economic Consequences of Pregnancy Loss in Beef Cattle

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Vitor R G Mercadante ◽  
Nicholas W Dias ◽  
Claire L Timlin ◽  
Stefania Pancini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Breeding Season ◽  
Artificial Insemination ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pregnancy Diagnosis ◽  
Cow Calf

Abstract Over the last four decades, several advances in reproductive biotechnologies have helped beef producers improve genetic traits of their cattle, tighten the breeding season and shorten the calving season, leading to an increase in overall profitability of cow-calf production systems. However, even with these advancements, reproductive failure and embryo mortality are still a major cause for economic loss in beef production. Recently, we projected a loss of $6.25 per exposed cow for every 1% decrease in pregnancy rate, with an estimated gross loss of $2.8 billion annually in the United States due to pregnancy failure in beef females. It is estimated that 75 to 80% of embryonic loss occurs by d 20 of gestation; a large portion of these losses occur during the first week of gestation and likely are caused by issues relating to fertilization failure, incompetence of embryos originated from poor quality oocytes and suboptimal uterine conditions. Furthermore, within the first month of gestation, nearly half of all cows submitted to breeding will not be pregnant 30 d later, and another 5% will lose their pregnancy by d 100 of gestation. In addition, breeding related costs, including bull purchase, breeding soundness exam, estrous synchronization, semen purchase, labor associated with artificial insemination and pregnancy diagnosis, are estimate at $65 per cow exposed. Assuming a 90% pregnancy rate at the end of the breeding season, and a scenario where all 30 million beef females in the U.S. are exposed to fixed-time artificial insemination and undergo one pregnancy diagnosis, the added lost revenue of not producing a live calf to sell at weaning and the cost of breeding, would represent a loss of over $21 billion annually in the United States. Strategies that reduce pregnancy loss in beef cattle are essential to improve productivity and profitability of cow-calf production systems.

scholarly journals Consideraciones metodológicas para la tipificación de sistemas de producción bovina a partir de fuentes secundarias

1998 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Carlos Humberto García ◽  
Luz María Calle
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Cattle Production ◽  
Feeder Cattle ◽  
Beef Cattle Production ◽  
Cow Calf

<p>Se presentan los resultados de aplicar una metodología rápida y económica para tipificar sistemas de producción bovinos a partir de datos obtenidos de fuentes secundarias. La metodología describe modelos estructurales de producción ganadera y los ubica espacialmente determinando sistemas modales. Para ello se utilizan estadísticas básicas del departamento de Santander (Colombia), que asumen el municipio como unidad de análisis. Se proponen y usan algunas variables para el desarrollo y cálculo de indicadores relacionados con aspectos estructurales de los sistemas de producción, tales como la ocupación y uso de la superficie agropecuaria, la estructura demográfica bovina, el tamaño predial de las fincas, la distribución rural y urbana de la población humana, la vacunación contra la fiebre aftosa y la utilización de pastos mejorados. Mediante técnicas estadísticas de Análisis Multivariado, Correlación Múltiple, Análisis de Componentes Principales y Análisis Jerárquico de Conglomerados fue posible identificar tipologías, calculando matemáticamente sus descriptores. Así, se identifican y describen cuatro tipologías estructurales: bovinos de cría en el modelo de economía campesina, bovinos para producción de carne, bovinos como actividad complementaria de la economía campesina agrícola y bovinos de cría y levante en un modelo pre-empresarial. La ubicación espacial de las tipologías se realizó dentro de subregiones naturales (Zona Fría, Montaña Santandereana, Hoyas de los Ríos Ponce Chica mocha y Suárez y Valle del Magdalena Medio), lo cual condujo a la identificación de doce subgrupos que se priorizaron de acuerdo con su inventario ganadero para una mejor descripción de las tipologías.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Methodological approach for classification of cattle production systems from secondary information sources</strong></p><p>A rapid and low cost methodology was applied to classify cattle production systems using data from secondary sources. This methodology identifies, describes and specially locates modal cattle production systems. Basic information on biophysical and socioeconomical aspects of the department of Santander (Colombia) was used for this purpose, considering the municipality as the unit of analysis. A set of variables was used to calculate structural indicators of the production systems such as: land use in agriculture, structure of the bovine population, farm size, use of improved pastures, foot and mouth disease vaccination records, as well as rural and urban human populations. In order to define and calculate the descriptors for classification of these systems multivariate analysis, multiple correlation, principal components and cluster analysis were applied. Four system s were identified and described: (1) cow-calf owned by small farmers, (2) beef cattle production enterprises, (3) small operations of cow-calf and feeder cattle, and (4) bovines as complement to crop production in small farms. A methodology was developed to locate the above systems under the natural subregions: Cold zones, Santander highlands, Fonce Chicamocha and Suárez basin rivers and Medium Magdalena Valley; thus leading to the identification of 12 subgroups, which were prioritized according to their cattle populations, and as a result provide adequate means to describe beef cattle production systems.</p>

scholarly journals 394 Exploring the relationships between cow-calf management systems as affected by protein/methionine nutrition during gestation on the performance of cow-calf pairs prior to weaning

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 158-159
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn V J Lawson ◽  
Madeline M Collins ◽  
Michaela K S Lievre ◽  
Cheryl P Campbell ◽  
Anne M Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Post Partum ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Late Gestation ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Protein Requirements ◽  
Body Weights ◽  
Calf Performance ◽  
Methionine Supplementation ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Cow Performance

Abstract A three-way factorial arrangement was used to assess impacts of protein/methionine nutrition during gestation and two lactational management systems on performance of cow-calf pairs pre-weaning. 140 crossbred beef cows were managed in drylot and randomly assigned to one of six nutritional treatments during the third trimester of gestation. Cows were fed to meet 110% (HP), 100% (MP), or 90% (LP) of metabolizable protein requirements for late-gestation (NRC, 2016), with(without) rumen-protected methionine (RPM) for 8 weeks prior to parturition. Post-partum, cow-calf pairs were managed in drylot (DL) and fed ad libitum, a ration formulated to meet lactational nutrient requirements, or rotationally grazed on pasture (PAS). Cow body weights (BW) and body condition scores (BCS) and calf BW were recorded at regular intervals. All data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX (SAS v9.4). HP cows were heaviest at calving (P = 0.02), but calf birthweight was unaffected by gestational nutrition (P &gt; 0.19). Gestational nutrition did not impact cow conception rate (CR), or calf BW and ADG (P &gt; 0.17). Lactational management system (PAS, DL) did not affect cow BCS or CR (P &gt; 0.13), but impacted cow and calf BW and ADG. PAS calves were heavier, had greater ADG, and heavier weaning BW than DL calves (P &lt; 0.02). This came at the expense of BW loss throughout lactation and lower ADG for PAS cows, versus BW gains and greater ADG for DL cows (P &lt; 0.0001). An interaction between protein level and RPM supplementation was present for cow BW at calving and weaning, and BW change throughout lactation (P &lt; 0.04), with tendencies for interactions for cow ADG and BCS (P &lt; 0.09). Overall, prepartum protein/methionine supplementation did not affect calf performance prior to weaning, but may have affected cow performance during lactation. Rotationally grazing cow-calf pairs on pasture improved pre-weaning calf gains, but reduced cow gains throughout lactation.

scholarly journals What Is the Economic Impact of Infertility in Beef Cattle?

EDIS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Prevatt ◽  
Graham Cliff Lamb ◽  
Carl Dahlen ◽  
Vitor R.G. Mercadante ◽  
Kalyn Waters
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Economic Impacts ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Fact Sheet ◽  
Beef Cow ◽  
Cow Calf ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Animal Sciences

Producers cannot completely control infertility in their cow herds. However, understanding and addressing the factors that affect infertility will help producers implement management practices that can improve fertility and reduce the negative impacts of infertility on the profitability of beef cow-calf operations. This 4-page fact sheet discusses reasons why beef cows fail to become pregnant or wean a calf, identification of infertile beef cows, and economic impacts of reduced fertility and infertility in beef cattle. Written by Chris Prevatt, G. Cliff Lamb, Carl Dahlen, Vitor R. G. Mercadante, and Kayln Waters, and published by the UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences, revised September 2018. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/an208

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document