Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
2453855 The Professional Animal Scientist 2013 11 Pages PDF
Abstract
Spring-calving nonlactating pregnant Angus (Bos taurus) cows (yr 1, n = 90, BW = 637.6 ± 5.8 kg; yr 2, n = 78, BW = 671.2 ± 8.1 kg; yr 3, n = 68, BW = 669.4 ± 6.6 kg) were managed in 1 of 3 replicated (n = 3) wintering systems: (i) grazing oat residue [OATG; TDN = 58.6, CP = 6.7 (% DM)] piles in field paddocks; (ii) grazing pea residue [PEAG; TDN = 50.9, CP = 11.1 (% DM)] piles in field paddocks; and (iii) drylot (DLPF) pen feeding grass-legume round bales [TDN = 54.5, CP = 10.4 (% DM)] in bale feeders. The study was conducted over 3 production cycles, and cows were allocated crop residue and bales on a 3-d basis to manage utilization and feed waste. Forage utilization was less (P < 0.05) in PEAG (33.4 ± 4.3%) and OATG (44.9 ± 5.9%) systems than in the DLPF (90.0 ± 1.63%) wintering system. Dry matter intake of cows varied (P < 0.05) among systems; cows consuming PEAG or OATG had less (P < 0.01) DMI compared with DLPF cows. Nutrient (CP, TDN) intake was greatest (P < 0.05) for DLPF cows and least for cows in the PEAG system. Cows grazing PEAG residue lost BW (11 kg) from d 1 to 20; however, BW change during the entire trial period (63 d) was positive (4 kg) for PEAG cows but less (P = 0.01) than OATG (27 kg) or DLPF (66 kg) cows. Calf birth weight was least (P = 0.03) for OATG cows than DLPF cows, 39 vs. 42 kg, respectively. On average, total costs for the OATG and PEAG winter feeding strategies were $0.77 and $0.59 cow/d less than the DLPF ($2.13 cow/d) system, respectively. Grazing crop residue for part of the winter feeding program of a cow has cost advantages over pen-feeding hay; however, environmental conditions (snowfall, temperature) dictate forage accessibility. Therefore, producers with access to crop residues should consider using this feed in a chaff-straw based ration along with adequate supplementation to ensure the nutritional needs of the cow are being met.
Related Topics
Life Sciences Agricultural and Biological Sciences Animal Science and Zoology
Authors
, , , , , ,