Progress Report: Effect of Stockpiling Initiation Method on Winter Forage Yield and Quality of Midwestern Cool-season Grass Pastures for Fall-calving Beef Cows

B. Stokes, J. Russell, P. Gunn, L. Schulz
{"title":"Progress Report: Effect of Stockpiling Initiation Method on Winter Forage Yield and Quality of Midwestern Cool-season Grass Pastures for Fall-calving Beef Cows","authors":"B. Stokes, J. Russell, P. Gunn, L. Schulz","doi":"10.31274/ANS_AIR-180814-537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An ongoing two-year trial is being conducted to evaluate the effects of three different methods of initiating forage stockpiling on the quality and mass of forage available over the winter months (October through January). Methods of initiating stockpiling were spring strip-grazing, summer strip-grazing, and summer hay harvest. Forage mass, nutritional, and weather data were input into a ration balancing program with supplemental feed provided to maintain a body condition score (BCS) of five throughout the winter for fall-calving beef cows. Partial budget models were used to evaluate costs associated with the different treatment methods and compared to a standard winter hay feeding regime in a drylot scenario. Spring strip-grazing generated the greatest stockpiled forage mass compared to all other treatments, but also had the lowest dry matter digestibility across sampling dates. There were no differences in crude protein (CP) content among different methods of initiation. The carrying capacity of drylot models was greatest but did not differ between stockpiling models. There was a tendency for drylot models to incur greater total costs ($/ac) than stockpile models. There were no statistical differences in total cost ($/ac) between models using stockpiled forage grazing by different methods of initiation and no statistical differences in gross ($/hd/d) or net ($/hd/d) costs across treatments. While spring strip-grazing resulted in greater forage mass, the quality of this forage was lower than summer treatments. With similar costs, the lower yields from summer stockpiling models (strip-grazing or hay harvest) could be compensated for by the higher nutritional quality of the forage.","PeriodicalId":7812,"journal":{"name":"Animal Industry Report","volume":"33 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Industry Report","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31274/ANS_AIR-180814-537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An ongoing two-year trial is being conducted to evaluate the effects of three different methods of initiating forage stockpiling on the quality and mass of forage available over the winter months (October through January). Methods of initiating stockpiling were spring strip-grazing, summer strip-grazing, and summer hay harvest. Forage mass, nutritional, and weather data were input into a ration balancing program with supplemental feed provided to maintain a body condition score (BCS) of five throughout the winter for fall-calving beef cows. Partial budget models were used to evaluate costs associated with the different treatment methods and compared to a standard winter hay feeding regime in a drylot scenario. Spring strip-grazing generated the greatest stockpiled forage mass compared to all other treatments, but also had the lowest dry matter digestibility across sampling dates. There were no differences in crude protein (CP) content among different methods of initiation. The carrying capacity of drylot models was greatest but did not differ between stockpiling models. There was a tendency for drylot models to incur greater total costs ($/ac) than stockpile models. There were no statistical differences in total cost ($/ac) between models using stockpiled forage grazing by different methods of initiation and no statistical differences in gross ($/hd/d) or net ($/hd/d) costs across treatments. While spring strip-grazing resulted in greater forage mass, the quality of this forage was lower than summer treatments. With similar costs, the lower yields from summer stockpiling models (strip-grazing or hay harvest) could be compensated for by the higher nutritional quality of the forage.
进度报告:开始备货方式对中西部冷季肉牛牧场冬季饲料产量和品质的影响
目前正在进行一项为期两年的试验,以评估三种不同的开始储存饲料的方法对冬季(10月至1月)可用饲料的质量和数量的影响。启动储备的方法为春季条带放牧、夏季条带放牧和夏季收获干草。将饲料质量、营养和天气数据输入到配给平衡程序中,并提供补充饲料,以在整个冬季将秋产肉牛的体况评分(BCS)维持在5分。使用部分预算模型来评估与不同处理方法相关的成本,并将其与旱地情景中的标准冬季干草喂养制度进行比较。与其他处理相比,春季带状放牧产生的牧草储备质量最大,但各采样日期的干物质消化率也最低。不同起始方法对粗蛋白质(CP)含量无显著影响。旱地模式的承载能力最大,而蓄积模式之间没有差异。旱地模式有比储存模式产生更多总成本($/ac)的趋势。不同初始方式的放牧模型的总成本($/ac)无统计学差异,不同处理的总成本($/hd/d)和净成本($/hd/d)无统计学差异。春季带状放牧的牧草质量高于夏季放牧,但牧草质量低于夏季放牧。在相同的成本下,夏季储存模式(带状放牧或干草收获)的较低产量可以通过饲料的较高营养质量来弥补。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信