Comparison of Alfalfa Hay and Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles, Alone or in Combination with Cull Beans, as Protein Sources for Beef Cows Grazing Native Winter Range

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.D. Smith ◽  
J.C. Whittier ◽  
D.N. Schutz ◽  
D. Couch
1986 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 361 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Cochran ◽  
D. C. Adams ◽  
P. O. Currie ◽  
B. W. Knapp

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 131-132
Author(s):  
Devin L Broadhead ◽  
Matt Stockton ◽  
McKay Erickson ◽  
Jackie A Musgrave ◽  
Rick N Funston

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 2408-2420 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. G. Wallace ◽  
G. Bobe ◽  
W. R. Vorachek ◽  
B. P. Dolan ◽  
C. T. Estill ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. A. Houseal ◽  
B. E. Olson

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


2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 2408
Author(s):  
L. G. Wallace ◽  
G. Bobe ◽  
W. R. Vorachek ◽  
B. P. Dolan ◽  
C. T. Estill ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Fallahi ◽  
Kasiviswanathan Muthukumarappan ◽  
Kurt A. Rosentrater ◽  
Michael L. Brown

<span style="color: #800000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 4pt; line-height: 12pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">Changing to alternative protein sources supports production of more economic aquafeeds. Two isocaloric (3.06 kcal/g) and isonitrogenous (40% db) experimental feeds for juvenile yellow perch were formulated with incorporation of fermented soybean meal (FSBM) and soy protein concentrate (SPC), each of which were at two levels (0 and 20% db), along with constant amounts of high protein distillers dried grains (DDG) (~30% db), and appropriate amounts of other ingredients. Using a pilot scale twin-screw extruder, feed production was performed in two replications for each diet at conditioner steam levels of 0.11 to 0.16 kg/min, extruder water of 0.11 to 0.19 kg/min, and screw speeds of 230 to 300 rpm. The effects of SPC and FSBM<ins datetime="2012-07-09T13:59" cite="mailto:k"> </ins>inclusion on extrudate physical properties were compared with those of a control diet (which contained 20% fishmeal and ~30% DDG). Inclusion of 20% FSBM and 20%SPC resulted in a substantial decrease in unit density by 9.2 and 24%, but an increase in lightness, greenness, yellowness, and expansion ratio of the extrudates by 7, 27, 14, 7, 17, 34, 15, and 16.5%, respectively. SPC inclusion led to a considerable increase in water absorption, thermal resistivity, and thermal diffusivity by 17.5, 6.3, and 17.6%, respectively, whereas no significant change was observed for these properties with incorporation of 20% FSBM. Additionally, all extruded products had high durability. Taken together, using ~30% DDG with20% FSBM or20% SPC as alternative protein sources resulted in viable extrudates with properties appropriate for yellow perch production. A future study investigating the effect of extrusion processing conditions on the production of complete vegetable-based protein feeds for yellow perch species would be appropriate.</p><span style="color: #800000; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document