1*1 Agriculture Canada FORAGE CROPS in the Aspen Parklands of Western Canada FEEDING FORAGE CROPS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada - Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada http://www.archive.org/details/foragecropsinasOObeac FORAGE CROPS in the Aspen Parklands of Western Canada FEEDING FORAGE CROPS Research Station Melfort, Saskatchewan Research Branch Agriculture Canada Publication 1874/E 1991 © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1 99 1 Available in Canada through Associated Bookstores and other booksellers or by mail from Canada Communications Group — Publishing Ottawa, Canada K1A0S9 Cat. No. A53- 1874/ 199 IE ISBN 0-660-14060-8 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Beacom.S.E., 1926 — Forage crops in the aspen parklands of Western Canada. Feeding forage crops (Publication; 1874/E) Author: S.E. Beacom. Cf. P. v. Cat.no.A53-I874/1991E ISBN 0-660-14060-8 1 . Forage plants — Canada, Western. I. Canada. Agriculture Canada. Research Station (Melfort, Sask.) II. Title. III. Title: Feeding forage crops. IV. Series: Publication (Canada. Agriculture Canada). English ; 1874/E. SB193.3.C3B43 1991 633.2'009712 C91-099109-XE CONTENTS FOREWORD vj ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v INTRODUCTION 1 FORAGE QUALITY. 2 Factors affecting forage quality 5 Type of crop 5 The stage of maturity 6 The effect of stage of maturity on the nutritional value and yield of forage crops harvested under a two cut system 7 Comments and conclusion 10 Application of fertilizer 11 Harvesting and storing methods 13 MOISTURE CONTENT AT HARVESTING 13 FORAGE CROPS FOR LIVESTOCK FEED IN THE ASPEN PARKBELT 14 Legumes 16 Sweetclover 16 Sainfoin 16 Red clover 16 Grasses 17 Bromegrass 17 Crested wheatgrass 17 Intermediate wheatgrass 17 Tall wheatgrass 18 Reed canarygrass 18 Meadow bromegrass 18 Meadow foxtail 18 Annual crops 19 Summary 19 HOW MUCH FORAGE WILL VARIOUS CLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CONSUME? 20 THE ROLE OF HARVESTED FORAGES IN MEETING THE NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE AND SHEEP 22 Nutritional requirements 22 EFFECT OF FORAGE QUALITY ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH HAY AND SILAGE CAN MEET REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE 23 EFFECT OF LEVEL OF HAY CONSUMPTION ON GAINS OF BEEF CALVES 28 PROCESSING HAY FOR GROWING BEEF STEERS 30 ill EFFECT OF GRINDING HAY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF STEER CALVES FED FOR EQUAL RATE OF GAIN 34 FACTORS AFFECTING THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO GRIND HAY 35 FEEDING STEER CALVES FORAGE-BASED RATIONS 37 A comparison of three grass hays fed to growing steer calves 37 Adding acidulated fatty acids (AFA) to a crested wheatgrass hay and wheat rations for growing steer calves 38 Response of steer calves fed a ground crested wheatgrass ration, to implantation with Ralgro and supplementation with acidulated fatty acids 39 Effect of ammoniating hay on its feeding value for growing steers AO Effect of supplemental grain, and of implanting, on the performance of steer calves fed barley-silage 42 FEEDING HEIFER CALVES FORAGE-BASED RATIONS 43 Growing rations for beef heifers 43 A comparison of forage-based vs grain-based rations for wintering heifer calves 44 Crested wheatgrass vs brome-alfalfa fed unprocessed to growing heifers 47 Feeding tall wheatgrass to growing heifer calves 47 The feeding value of several silages when fed to growing heifers 48 FINISHING BEEF STEERS AND HEIFERS ON FORAGE-BASED RATIONS 50 Hay to grain ratio and the effect of hay quality in steer finishing rations 50 Adjusting from high-forage to high-grain rations for finishing steers 54 A comparison of several rates of reducing the level of ground hay in steer finishing rations 57 Adding acidulated fatty acids (AFA) to a ground, good quality hay ration for finishing steers 61 Effect of feed additives, high energy supplements and pelleting on the performance of finishing steers 62 Pelleting high forage rations 65 Finishing steers on a variety of forage based rations 66 Partially replacing ground alfalfa hay with straw or ammoniated straw in a finishing ration for steers and heifers 69 Implants and additives for beef cattle fed forage- and grain- based rations 70 The effects of supplementing a growing-finishing ration for steers and heifers, with several feed additives 76 TIPS ON UTILIZING GROUND HAY IN BEEF CATTLE RATIONS 78 Advantages of grinding hays 79 WINTERING BEEF COWS IN THE ASPEN PARKBELT 79 IV AMMONIATING BARLEY STRAW FOR WINTERING BEEF COW RATIONS 81 FINISHING LAMBS ON FORAGE-BASED RATIONS 84 Using good quality alfalfa in lamb finishing rations 84 Crested wheatgrass hay for finishing lambs 86 Slough hay for finishing lambs 87 Effect of moistening on the feeding value of ground hays fed to lambs 89 Effects of hay:grain ratio, molasses and linseed meal on performance of finishing lambs 90 Voluntary intake and apparent digestibility of diets containing varying levels of kochia hay, alfalfa hay and barley fed to sheep 91 Effect of feed additives, high energy supplements and pelleting on the performance of finishing lambs fed forage-based rations 92 GENERAL GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINISHING LAMBS ON GROUND, HAY-BASED RATIONS 94 EFFECT OF RATIONS ON EATING QUALITY OF THE MEAT 95 Effect of ration, breed cross and implanting on the performance of beef cattle and on the eating quality of the meal 95 Eating quality of forage and grain fed beef from steers and heifers 99 FEEDING PRACTICES AND FEEDER DESIGNS 101 Hand or limit feeding livestock 101 Minimizing wastage of feed 102 Handling and processing losses (estimate 0-22%) 102 Losses during feeding (estimate 2-4%) 102 Self-feeder for ground hay and/or grain-based rations for growing-finishing beef cattle 103 Construction 103 Tombstone feeder 105 Standard, round bale and stack feeder 107 "EFFICIENCY" OF BEEF PRODUCTION: FORAGE AND GRAIN REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A UNIT OF DRESSED BEEF UNDER THREE FEEDING SYSTEMS 107 Comments 108 FOREWORD As this publication is being prepared, the cattle industry is under attack, by vegetarians and environmentalists. Beef consumption is being blamed for health problems ranging from heart disease to cancer. Run-off from feedlots is cited as a major cause of soil and water pollution. One "authority" says "cattle are responsible for 85% of top soil erosion". The production of methane gas in ruminants is now being blamed for a significant deterioration of the ozone layer, thus contributing to the "greenhouse effect". Cattle are being criticized for consuming grain that could be consumed by a rapidly increasing human population. Others blame the livestock industry for inefficient use of land. In Western Canada it is hard to blame soil erosion on the cattle industry. Nearly every year, large areas of land used for the production of cereals and oilseeds (for human and livestock consumption) are damaged by wind or water erosion, while land devoted to the production of pasture and hay (solely for livestock feed) is only minimally affected (if at all!) by erosion. Soil salinity is far more prevalent on land used for the production of annual crops than on land permanently under perennial forage. While grain could be used for feeding humans, the fact is that much of it is surplus to what can be marketed for human consumption and is fed to cattle to produce high quality milk and meat which more closely matches the nutritional requirements for humans and provides a highly palatable and desirable component of human diets. One reason for developing efficient systems for the production and utilization of forage crops as pasture, hay and silage, over the years at the Melfort Station was in recognition of the fact that some day, grain and oilseed would have to be fed to humans, not livestock. Ruminant livestock would then play a vital and unique role in converting otherwise inedible forages (and other crop by-products) produced on land that was unfit for continual cultivation and on land where the use of soil-improving forage crops (particularly legumes such as alfalfa) was recognized as a key component of a cropping system in order to maintain or improve the crop production potential of the soil and thus contribute materially to a sustainable agriculture. The senior author wishes to acknowledge his appreciation of the support and encouragement provided by Dr. K. Rasmussen, former Animal Husbandman and later Director-General (Western Region), Research Branch, Agriculture Canada (now deceased); of Mr. Harold Wilson (now deceased), and Dr. W.N. MacNaughton, former Superintendent and Director, respectively, of the Melfort Station, in the development of the forage-beef research program. VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The information in this publication summarizes some of the research on the utilization of forage crops conducted by the director and staff of the Melfort Research Station during the period 1961 to 1989. During this period, the Melfort station devoted a major part of its resources to developing a multidisciplinary approach to research on the forage/beef system, from the production of forages to the eating quality of the finished beef. The following scientists conducted the research on forage processing and utilization, some of which is summarized in this publication. S.E. Beacom, Ph.D. - Ruminant Nutritionist 1952-1989 - Director 1966-1989 (Retired) E.Z. Jan, Ph.D., Engineer (Forage Systems) 1976-present Z. Mir, Ph.D., Ruminant Nutritionist 1983-1987 (Now at Kamloops Research Station) D.H. McCartney, Beef Cow-Calf Management 1974-Present Specialist J. A. Robertson, Ph.D., Ruminant Nutritionist 1965-1985 (Now at Kamloops Research Station) S.O. Thorlacius, Ph.D., Ruminant Nutritionist 1972-1980 (Decreased) Appreciation is extended to the beef cattle herdsmen who, over the years, cared for the livestock in a conscientious manner and conducted the feeding trials with care and accuracy (Ab Fennell, Charlie Betts, Vic Choque, Clarence Baptist, Tim Wozniak, Gary Baraniski and Ray Clapson). The dedicated efforts of the laboratory technicians who not only analysed feeds, feces, rumen contents, etc., but assisted in the allocation of experimental animals, weekly weighings and record keeping is gratefully acknowledged (Gordon McLachlan, Al Shaner, Carol Bonli and Brenda Sorensen). In addition, the contribution of many university students who supervised and worked on livestock feeding trials during the summers has been very much appreciated. The author also wishes to express his thanks to Dr. H.R. Davidson, current director of the Melfort Research Station for providing the secretarial help and other station resources involved in the preparation of this manuscript. The author gratefully acknowledges the expert and dedicated efforts of Mrs. Susan Wittig, Secretary to the Director, Melfort Research Station, in deciphering the handwritten material and transforming it into an attractive finished product, and to the staff of the Program Research Services, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, for the printing of the final publication. S.E. Beacom, Ph.D. VII INTRODUCTION Le role des cultures fourrageres vivaces, et notamment des legumineuses, dans le maintien ou l'accroissement de la capacite productrice des terres agricoles est bien reconnu. Toutefois, dans un trop grand nombre de cas, les agriculteurs cultivent ces plantes comme solution de dernier recours dans des sols endommages par 1' erosion ou la salinisation, et souvent uniquement parce qu'une aide financiere de l'Etat ou de la province les y incite. Voila une triste observation qui s' applique a un grand nombre de ceux qui "gerent" la plus importante ressource naturelle du Canada, que nous osons esperer renouvelable. Malheureusement, dans la conjoncture actuelle, certains agriculteurs ne peuvent voir quel avantage leur procurerait a long terme sur le plan financier le fait d'incorporer des cultures fourrageres dans leur systeme cultural pour empecher leurs terres de se deteriorer ou de devenir entierement sterile. II est done essentiel de perfectionner les techniques de culture, de recolte, de conservation et d 'utilisation des fourrages de maniere a ce que cette production devienne aussi rentable, sinon plus, que la production des cultures dites commerciales sur les terres marginales et a ce qu'elle constitue a court terme un element souhaitable de la rotation culturale meme sur les terres les plus productives. La presente publication recapitule les travaux realises de 1954 a 1989, a la Station de recherches de Melfort, sur 1 'utilisation des fourrages fauches pour 1 'engraissement et la finition des bovins de boucherie. L'auteur s'est limite aux recherches menees a cette seule station pour deux raisons, la premiere etant l'abondance du materiel disponible, et la seconde, le fait que presque tous les travaux effectues dans ce domaine dans l'ouest du Canada l'ont ete a cette station. Ces recherches s' inscrivaient dans le mandat confie a la station en 1954, soit d'entreprendre sur ses terres noires productives un programme exhaustif de recherches sur les paturages. Cependant, il est vite devenu evident qu'il serait plus logique d'utiliser pour la production de paturage les terres moins productives et plus difficiles a travailler, et de reserver les terres plus fertiles a la production des fourrages de conservation - le foin et 1' ensilage (et peut-etre au paturage de fin d'ete) - pour 1 'alimentation des vaches d'elevage de boucherie et de leur descendance au cours du long hiver typique de la prairie-parc. Dans bon nombre des essais dont nous faisons etat ici, nous avons essaye de determiner la rentabilite relative des traitements employes pour un rapport cout - prix donne et en prenant en compte uniquement les couts variables etablis. Dans la plupart des cas, la quantite d' information fournie est suffisante pour permettre un nouveau calcul de la remuneration du travail en attribuant aux variables leurs valeurs actuelles (ex. : couts des aliments du betail, valeur de la carcasse, etc.). II n'est pas tenu compte cependant de la valeur de la culture fourragere comme moyen d'ameliorer la productivity des terres en les protegeant contre 1' erosion, etc., ni de la restitution d' elements nutritifs au sol sous forme de dechets animaux et de litiere. VIII Le principal objectif du programme d'elevage de la Station de Melfort etait d'optimiser 1 'utilisation des plantes fourrageres dans la production des bovins a viande, de facon a produire des carcasses de categorie superieure et de la viande presentant de bonnes qualites gustatives. II importe egalement de favoriser l'accroissement de la production de fourrages afin de contribuer au maintien et a 1 'amelioration du potentiel de production de nos terres, en particulier de celles dont la fertilite est faible et de celles qui sont tres productives, mais que 1' erosion tant eolienne qu'hydrique deteriore petit a petit parce qu'on y cultive trop de plantes qui epuisent le sol, parce qu'on y applique de mauvaises pratiques agronomiques, ou encore, parce qu'elles sont trop souvent laissees en jachere. Pour inciter les producteurs de grains a faire pousser des cultures fourrageres surtout sur les terres hautement productives, il est essentiel de trouver des debouches pour ces fourrages a l'exterieur de la ferme. Puisque les secteurs du naissage et de la production des veaux d'engrais utilisent deja une forte proportion de fourrages, le secteur ou il semble logique d'etendre l'emploi des fourrages coupes est celui de l'engraissement des bovins. La presente publication a pour objet de fournir de 1' information aux eleveurs de bovins de boucherie, aux agronomes et aux etudiants qui s ' interessent a l'emploi, dans 1' alimentation des bovins de boucherie, des plantes fourrageres vivaces cultivees a la ferme. On y soulignera 1' importance de produire du foin et de 1' ensilage de bonne qualite, les facteurs determinant la qualite de ces fourrages ainsi que les techniques dont dispose le producteur pour ameliorer la valorisation des fourrages par les bovins de boucherie. IX INTRODUCTION The role of perennial forage crops, particularly legumes, in maintaining or improving the productive capacity of agricultural soils, is well recognized. However in too many cases, forage crops are seeded as a last resort on soils damaged by erosion or salinity, and often only because the farmers involved are given financial support from governments. This is a sad commentary on many of those who are "managing" Canada's most important natural and, hopefully, renewable resource. Unfortunately, under current conditions, some farmers cannot see the- long term financial advantage of incorporating forage crops into their cropping systems to protect their land from deteriorating or even from becoming totally unproductive. It is thus essential that the technology for growing, harvesting, storage and utilization of forage crops be developed to, and beyond, the point where forage crops offer the farmer a viable economic alternative to so-called cash crops on their marginal soils and constitute a desirable component of their crop rotation even on the most productive soils in the short run. This publication summarizes the work done on utilizing harvested forages primarily for growing-finishing beef cattle, at the Melfort Research Station during the period from 1954 to 1989. The material is limited to work done at the Melfort Station for two reasons. One, there is a lot of material. Secondly, most if not all of the research in this field in western Canada has been done by the staff at the Melfort Station. This work was a natural development of our mandate in 1954 to undertake an extensive pasture research program on the productive Black soil at the Melfort station. It soon became obvious that pasture production was more logically carried out on the more-dif f icult-to cultivate soils of lower inherent productivity and that more productive soils would be better utilized for the production of harvested forages - hay and silage (and possibly for late summer pasture) for the feeding of the beef cow herd and its progeny during the long winter feeding period, typical of the Aspen parkbelt. In a number of trials reported here, we have attempted to determine the relative economics of the treatments, under a given cost/price situation and assuming only the variable costs listed. Enough information is given, in most cases, to permit a recalculation of the returns to labor by substituting current feed costs, carcass values, etc.. No account is taken of the value of the forage crop in improving the productive capacity of the soil by preventing erosion, etc., or of the return of nutrients to the soil in the form of animal wastes and bedding. The main objective of the Melfort Research Station's livestock program was to maximize the use of forage crops in beef cattle production, consistent with the production of high grading carcasses and good eating quality of the meat. It is also important to encourage more forage crop production to assist in maintaining and improving the productive potential of our soils, particularly those that are of inherently low productivity and those highly productive soils that are being ruined through wind and water erosion as a result of growing too many soil depleting crops, poor agronomic practices and/or the use of too much summerfallow. If grain producers are to be encouraged to grow forage crops, particularly on highly productive land, it is imperative that off-the-farm markets be developed for these forages. Since the cow-calf and feeder calf sectors already use a high proportion of forage crops, the logical area for the expanded use of harvested forage crops is in the feedlot finishing area. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide information to beef cattle producers, agrologists and students interested in the use of farm-grown perennial forage crops for beef cattle production. The importance of producing good quality hay and silage, the factors affecting hay and silage quality and the techniques available to improve the efficiency of converting forages into beef will be presented. FORAGE QUALITY Harvested forages normally consist of the whole, above-ground, portion of the plant, unlike grain, that comprises only one portion of a mature crop. Because of this and the fact that forage crops are harvested over a wide range of maturity, the physical and chemical composition of forages varies much more than does that of grain. Table 1 shows the chemical analyses of some typical forage crops in the Aspen Parkbelt, and the ranges in composition that can occur within the crop species. The data emphasize two important points. There is an extremely wide range in protein and energy content of forage crops both between and within the same species. It is thus important that the livestock feeder have feeds analysed in order to make effective use of them in formulating rations. The range in feeding value also indicates that there must be important reasons for these marked differences and that the forage producer, once he is familiar with them, should be able to exercise some control over the quality of his forage. Table 1. Typical analyses of some common forages in the Aspen Parkbelt (%) (range) Crude Total Acid protein digestible detergent (N x 6.25) nutrients fibre Calcium Phosphorus Hays Alfalfa Clover Alfalfa-brome Bromegrass Crested wheatgrass Oat hay Silage Alfalfa Clover Barley 16 (7-22) 13 (7-19) 12 (7-19) 9 (4-14) 10 (6-12) 9 (5-15) 14 (8-22) 14 (12-18) 11 (6-18) 53 32 1.6 0.2 (46-60) (22-48) (0.6-2.6) (0.1-0.3) 49 37 1.2 0.2 (43-58) (23-51) (0.5-1.8) (0.1-0.4) 52 34 1.0 0.2 (43-58) (22-45) (0.4-1.9) (0.1-0.3) 50 36 0.6 0.2 (45-56) (31-38) (0.2-1.0) (0.1-0.2) 51 35 0.6 0.1 (44-59) (27-46) (0.2-0.7) (0.1-0.2) 50 35 0.4 0.2 (39-57) (23-47) (0.1-0.7) (0.1-0.4) 50 37 1.5 0.2 (45-59) (30-50) (0.7-2.3) (0.1-0.3) 51 37 1.2 0.2 (47-57) (29-52) (0.9-1.5) (0.1-0.3) 52 33 0.4 0.3 (45-58) (24-44) (0.2-0.7) (0.2-0.4) Forage quality is a measure of the forages' ability to effectively meet the nutritional requirements of a particular class of livestock, either as the major component of the ration or in combination with other ration ingredients. In evaluating forages, several criteria are assessed - chemical composition, physical attributes and palatability . Of these, chemical composition is the easiest to determine, while palatability requires that feeding trials be conducted with the class of animal for which the forage is intended. Chemical composition is determined in the laboratory. Crude protein (CP) and total digestible nutrients (TDN) are of prime importance. Because forages contain little fat or oil, digestible organic matter (DOM) is closely related to TDN. One or more measurements of fibre content (such as acid detergent fibre, ADF) are sometimes carried out and are much more important in assessing feeding value for non-ruminants than for ruminants, because of the microflora in the rumen, which can usually utilize fibre quite effectively, depending on the amount and distribution of lignin in the fibrous tissue. Analyses for minerals, particularly calcium and phosphorus, are normally carried out. However, in practice, average levels are assumed and livestock given free access to salt and appropriate mineral mixes. In the case of forage-fed livestock, provision of supplemental phosphorus is particularly important as forages, as a class, are low in phosphorus. Physical factors such as color, odor, leafiness and leafrstem ratio, while subjective, can provide the experienced feeder with a reasonably reliable indication of feeding value and to some extend acceptability by livestock. Moldiness, contamination with weeds, dust and other debris, also provide indications of forage quality. Some forages contain chemical compounds that can render their use harmful to livestock regardless of their nutrient content. Reed canarygrass (unless a low alkaloid variety), particularly lush, fertilized pasture, can contain alkaloids which adversely affect feed intake and animal performance (particularly with sheep), moldy sweetclover can contain dicoumerol which can lead to hemorrhaging, and drought or frost-stressed oats can contain toxic ? . als of nitrates. In addition, some legumes, particularly alfalfa, will cause bloat under some conditions, which can negate the advantages of this crop's high feeding value and its nitrogen fixing ability in specific situations. Acceptability or palatability , measured in terms of how much the animal will consume, is the most important factor in determining the feeding value of a forage. Coarse, moldy, dusty, or weedy feeds may contain enough protein or energy to theoretically meet the nutrient requirement of the animal, but unless the animal finds it palatable, it will not be consumed at levels required to ensure efficient utilization. Even some palatable feeds (eg. high moisture silage) may not be consumed in sufficient quantities for efficient production because of their bulkiness in relation to the physical capacity of the rumen and/or a slow rate of digestion, which limits intake. The effect of forage quality on feed intake is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Effect of forage quality on feed intake* Digestibility Hours in Relative Hay quality (%) rumen feed intake Poor 45 83 100 Medium 59 55 153 Good 74 41 186 *Source unknown. FACTORS AFFECTING FORAGE QUALITY Type of crop For most livestock producers, choice of crop will be based on the soil and climate conditions prevailing on their farm. Such factors as soil pH, salinity, susceptibility to flooding and the normal moisture supply during the growing season will determine the forage species which will produce the most nutrients per unit of land. However, within acceptable species there may be some choice of crop which will provide better quality than others. Generally speaking, legume crops such as alfalfa, clover, sainfoin, faba beans and peas contain considerably more crude protein, calcium and carotene than grasses such as bromegrass, crested wheatgrass and timothy when harvested at comparable stages of maturity. With silages, quality not only depends on the initial level of nutrients in the crop but on the dry matter content at harvesting and the fermentation process. Crops that are very high in protein and thus relatively lower in soluble carbohydrates may not ensile as well as those with a higher carbohydrate: protein level. However this is not always the case. An experiment carried out over three successive years at Melfort, compared silages made from faba beans, field peas, oats and corn. Corn was harvested in the milk stage, the other crops in the dough stage. The results are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Value of annual crop silages fed to lambs Faba beans Field peas Oats Corn Dry matter yield (kg/ha) X Dry matter at ensiling % Crude protein (of DM) Average daily dry matter eaten (g) Average daily gain (g) Digestibility of dry matter (%) Liveweight gain per ha (kg) 8670 8089 7809 9332 29.8 32.0 33.4 29.5 19.8 18.7 9.0 9.9 1084 1004 698 602 169 148 25 -9 67.8 69.7 60.7 65.0 1351 1194 280 -139 The results indicate not only the wide difference in protein content between these crops, but the importance of intake of nutrients on the efficiency of crop utilization by livestock. Another test carried out with growing beef heifer calves compared the feeding value of four different crops put up as silage. The results are shown in Table 27 in another section of this publication. They show that even crops with more than adequate levels of crude protein can differ markedly in their feeding value. The stage of maturity Perhaps more than any other factor, the stage of maturity at which the forage is grazed or harvested as hay or silage, influences its feeding value. Generally speaking, the crude protein content, leaf:stem ratio, digestible energy content (except for corn for silage), calcium and carotene levels will decrease with increasing plant maturity; dry matter yield will increase to the early bloom stage with legumes and grasses and to the early dough stage for cereals and then declines; while the crude fibre content increases with advancing maturity. The economic importance of good quality forage for high producing livestock is appreciated when it is realized that considerable, usually high-priced, grain is required to obtain good production when forage quality is inadequate. In general, TDN levels of forage drop about 1/2% for each day that cutting is delayed past the half-bloom stage. Similarly intake drops by 1/2% per day. Thus in total, there is a IX drop in feeding value daily, past the early bloom stage. While the most nutritious stage of growth of forage crops is in the early vegetative stage there must be, in practice, a compromise between yield and quality. The relative importance of quality and yield will depend on the kind of livestock operation involved and on the availability of other feeds. For example, a cow-calf operator depending entirely on harvested hay for his winter feed supply will probably harvest his forage at the full bloom stage in order to maximize yield. For most forages this will still provide the 7-9% crude protein level required by the wintering cow. If his cows calve in late winter-early spring, he would be wise to put up some higher quality hay to meet the increased nutrient requirements of his cows following calving and perhaps some even higher quality legume hay to creep feed to his calves until they are able to go to pasture. If on the other hand, the cow-calf operator has an abundant supply of cereal straw available and some grain, he may opt for harvesting his alfalfa at the early or even pre-bloom stage and aim for a second cut at the same stage of maturity. In this instance he will be using the high protein hay as a supplement to straw and some grain and avoid the need to purchase costly protein supplements. The effect of stage of maturity on the nutritional value and yield of forage crops harvested under a two cut system It is generally recognized that perennial forage crops have a high percentage of crude protein and digestible energy at the start of the growing season and that these percentages progressively decrease as the plant matures to the ripe seed stage and beyond. It is, of course, also recognized that the yield of plant dry matter per unit of land increase up to a point, as the plant matures, and then declines due to the physical loss of mature or dead leaves, flower parts, seed, etc.. There is a point (or stage of development) where the increasing plant yield does not compensate for the reduction in plant quality and at this point there is no logical reason to delay harvesting the crop for hay or silage. Where a second cut of hay is possible, there is also the need to know the optimum timing of the first cut to permit a second cut of optimum yield and quality. The longer the delay in taking off the first cut, the lower will be the yield of the second cut, but the higher will be its quality (or digestible nutrient content). To answer some of these questions, an experiment was carried out using existing hay stands of seven different forage species, all grown on the same soil type under the same climatic conditions. Areas within each forage stand were harvested at weekly intervals running from May 15 to August 21. On August 21 all previously harvested plots with a harvestable yield were reharvested to determine yield and quality of the "second cut". In the previous fall, soil moisture reserves were normal and this, along with good snowfall provided a good start to crop growth in the spring. Rainfall during the growing season was 182.3 mm. The results are shown in the accompanying graphs. Figure 1 shows two graphs for three of the most common forages, since trends were similar for all seven forages. On the left hand side is shown the yield curve for the first cut and the yield curve for the two cuts combined on the right side are the curves showing the trends for crude protein and digestible organic matter percentages for the first cut. Figure 2 displays the curves showing the total crude protein yield (kg/ha) for the seven species under the two cut harvesting system. Figure 3 shows the yield of digestible organic matter (kg/ha) for each of the harvesting dates. 10000 8000 - 6000 4000 2000 - ALFALFA ALFALFA - FIRST CUT Total yield a 0. 80 70 - 60- 50 40 30- 20- 10 Digestible organic matter Crude protein May May -■ 1 — June — I — July August BROMEGRASS BROMEGRASS • FIRST CUT 7000 6000- 5000 4000 3000 - 2000 1000 Total yield s a 70 60 50 40 H 30 20 10 Digestible organic matter Crude protein May May June — i — July August May CRESTED WHEATGRASS 4000 - • • Total yield 3000- 2000- /* < s 1000- / 1st Cut yield 0 - . . i ■ ■ i ■ ■ 1 ■ June July August - CRESTED WHEATGRASS - FIRST CUT 70- 60 - 50 40 30 20 - 10- May Digestible organic mailer Crude protein — i ■ • 1 — June July August Fig. 1. Dry matter production (first cut and total) left, and trend in crude protein and digestible organic matter contents of the first cut, for three forage species harvested at weekly intervals (second cut was harvested August 21). 8 18 17 16 15 - 14 13 «12 c 3 11 o o c •H o a o> ■a U «5 4J O Eh 10 - Alfalfa — — — Bromegrass - Intermediate Wheatgrass _. — . Russian Wild Rye _ .. Reed Canary Grass — .. — .._ crested Wheatgrass ••••••••••• Sainfoin •f ' "• IT' "NV '* \ \ \ 15 22 May 29 12 19 June 26 10 17 July 24 31 7 14 August 21 Date of First Cut (Second Cut, Aug. 22) Fig. 2. Total yield of crude protein under a two-cut system. (A 4-> c 3 O o u V 10 c « l< o v ja •H 4J 0) «l "0 4J O 60 __ — — Bromegrass 55 _._._._. Russian Wild Rye 50 45 40 £ J A V\ 35 / A / \ V \ / ' '' \ / * \ ' ^ -**».?- ./>'A W ' x- \ 30 25 * •' \N\ \ \ / ' V .' \ / \ * N \ 1 N. •' . •— — V v x \ \ \ 20 15 / *\ / / X\ // -x:.' v * -> \ •• •••• ' • \ + 35% DM) is useful in growing-finishing rations but because of its bulk may need to be limited (partially replaced with grain) to achieve good rates of gain. 3. While silage may be useful as part of ewe and lamb rations, it is normally not consumed in amounts required to meet requirements for lactating ewes or growing-finishing lambs. 4. Suggested maximum amounts of hay and silage are not necessarily recommended levels of feeding. Animal performance and relative costs of grain and hay will be deciding factors as to the levels of forages fed. 5. For ewes nursing lambs (especially two or more), silage is too bulky to provide adequate nutrients even if full fed. Limit the amount of silage and feed good quality legume hay and/or grain. 6. Processing hay for beef cows should be done only if available roughage cannot be eaten in large enough quantities to support performance requried. 20 t 3 I •h m co m b § co ■8 I O-i a I b A "8 ■M i Cm 1 CL bp 3 3 gg iSs i o CO I 00 1—1 4 csi co CO O CO o in co CO CO in CO in vo m co £ ££ A «-! -S a co o> r^ co PS CM CM 3 i £3 4-> U| co ■^-^ £P 2 r«- "w £ 1 En x>3 I CO st S. IP 3 8 O CO o CO • • • • o> o o> o V) i i • i-H i 05 CO • rt ^ CJ\ • O o> o> • o co CM o> CO VO \£> Q> 1 8 JP 8 CM CM CM in CM CO VO 1 en in CM CO • CM CM CO ctj CO • i-l CM • CM O CO rt a ^ - > 42 2 ft r* fl> rtj s CiQ & > $s bp -m S CO 4-1 -p c O 1 8~ V) 3 a y rt 'TB 21 THE ROLE OF HARVESTED FORAGES IN MEETING THE NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE AND SHEEP NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS The nutritional requirements of ruminant livestock are relatively simple, compared to those of monogastric livestock such as swine and poultry. Normally, the latter are considered to be much more efficient converters of feed to food but this "judgment" is made on the basis of quantitative rather than qualitative considerations. Efficient livestock production is not always indicated by the units of feed required to produce a unit of gain. For example, it is now possible to produce a kilogram of liveweight gain with broiler chicken, on a kilogram or less of feed. However, that feed is expensive and most of it could be consumed directly by humans. Beef cattle are derided because they need 10 to 12 units of hay, silage or pasture dry matter per unit of gain. What is overlooked is that they are converting a product of essentially no nutritional value to humans into a highly nutritious and palatable food, thereby serving to effectively utilize millions of hectares of non-arable land around the world. In addition, they provide a market for surplus or otherwise unsaleable grain and the forage crops produced on large areas of tillable soils to prevent or reverse deterioration due to poor farming practices. They are thus a very vital component of the agricultural system. The material that follows concentrates on the utilization of forage crops, primarily perennial forage crops, for the production of beef and is directed to the smaller, on-farm beef cattle feeding operations, where the role of the beef enterprise is to market farm-produced forages. Before considering the role of harvested forages in meeting the nutritional requirements for beef cattle and sheep, we should summarize, for some of the more common classes of livestock, what those requirements are. Because processing forages will markedly increase intake and thus make it possible to consume more nutrients, the requirements are expressed in weight units rather than percentages. Table 8 summarizes the estimated nutritional requirements of beef cattle and sheep. It must be remembered that figures in Table 8 are estimates and that actual requirements will be affected by the genetic potential of the individual animal, the relative maturity of the breed of animal involved (at the weight given) on weather conditions, the use of growth stimulating implants and additives, the health of the animal and on the degree of stress to which the animal is exposed (temperature extremes, insect pests, handling methods, use of bedding, muddy feedlots, etc.) 22 Table 8. Estimated nutritional requirements of cattle and sheep* Gain Minimal Class of Animal Weight (kg) per day (kg) dry matter (kg) Crude protein (kg) Digestible nutrients (kg) Calcium (g) Phosphorus (g) Vitamin A I.U. COOO's) Growing- finishing steers 250 350 450 550 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 6.0 8.0 8.3 10.0 0.75 0.9 1.0 1.0 4.8 7.0 8.5 9.5 26 26 25 25 21 22 23 23 14 18 18 20 Growing-finishing heifers 200 300 400 500 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 0.65 0.80 0.80 0.80 4.5 6.0 7.2 8.0 26 22 19 17 23 22 18 16 19 23 19 19 Wintering pregnant cow 450 550 650 "* 7.0 8.0 9.0 0.4 0.45 0.5 3.6 4.2 4.7 12 14 16 12 14 16 19 22 25 Nursing cow 450 550 650 - 10.0 10.5 11.5 0.9 1.0 1.1 5.0 5.6 6.2 26 28 29 26 28 29 23 26 29 Growing replacement lamb 60 80 100 0.44 0.33 0.22 2.3 2.8 2.8 0.48 0.55 0.55 1.4 1.6 1.6 7.2 7.9 8.3 4.0 4.4 4.6 2.5 3.4 4.3 Finishing lamb 30 40 50 0.44 0.55 0.48 1.3 1.6 1.8 0.31 0.39 0.44 0.83 1.12 1.26 4.8 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 0.76 1.02 1.27 Pregnant dry ewe (last 6 weeks gestation) 60 70 80 0.40 0.41 0.42 1.9 2.1 2.2 0.39 0.43 0.45 1.1 1.2 1.3 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.1 4.3 4.5 5.1 6.0 6.8 Nursing ewe (last 8 weeks suckling twins) 60 70 80 - 2.3 2.5 2.6 0.53 0.57 0.59 1.5 1.6 1.7 11.5 12.0 12.6 8.2 8.6 9.0 5.1 6.0 6.8 Beef bull - growing 300 500 1.0 0.7 9 13 0.9 1.1 5.6 7.5 27 22 23 22 34 48 Beef bull - mature 800 1000 0.0 0.0 11 13 0.9 1.1 5.8 6.9 19 22 19 22 40 48 ^Adapted from NRC Recommendations (some rounding and extrapolation) EFFECT OF FORAGE QUALITY ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH HAY AND SILAGE CAN MEET NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE The degree to which harvested forages (hay and silage) can meet the requirements of livestock will depend on the amount of forage which the animals will consume, and this will depend on the quality (nutrient content, palatability) and bulkiness of the forage. Bulkiness of hays can be reduced by physical processing. The following three Tables 9, 10, and 11, indicate the amount of various quality forages ("as-fed" basis) needed to meet the TDN 23 requirements of a beef cow, growing steer and finishing steer, respectively. Table 9. Meeting nutrient requirements of a 500 kg pregnant beef cow with forages Minimum requirements (kg): Intake to meet requirements Forage (Composition % of DM) ("as-fed" basis) Total digestible Dry Crude nutrients matter protein (TDN) 7.5 0.42 3.9 Excellent Good hay Medium hay Poor hay hay (15% CP, 60% TDN) (12% CP, 55% TDN) (9% CP, 50% TDN) (7% CP, 45% TDN) Good silage (40% DM, Medium silage (30% DM, Poor silage (25% DM, 15% CP, 60% TDN) 12% CP, 55% TDN) 9% CP, 50% TDN) Example Rations Hay based Good hay Cereal straw Barley Silage-based Medium silage Cereal straw Barley (12% CP, 55% TDN) (4% CP, 40% TDN) (10% CP, 78% TDN) Total 7.2 0.97 3.9 7.9 0.85 3.9 8.7 0.70 3.9 9.6 0.60 3.9 16.3 0.98 3.9 23.6 0.84 3.9 31.2 0.70 3.9 Total 3.0 0.32 1.49 5.0* 0.18 1.80 1.0 0.09 0.70 9.0 0.50 3.99 12.0 0.43 1.98 3.8 0.14 1.36 1.0 0.09 0.70 8.8 0.66 4.04 *Probably the maximum voluntary intake of straw of average quality. Comments (Table 9) 1. If fed any of the hays free choice, cows would consume more than they needed to meet nutritional requirements, would become too fat and would be too costly to feed. Limiting consumption to the amount required to meet nutrient needs would lead to under-satisfied appetites. Similarly, cows could consume enough of all but the poor quality silage to meet their nutritional requirements. Thus it will make good economic sense in the Aspen 24 Parkland, where straw is plentiful and cheap, to allow cattle to consume straw, free choice, and to limit-feed hay or silage (and perhaps a little grain - depending on the condition of the cows) as required to keep cows in good (not too fat, not too thin) condition during the winter. Use the best quality straw available and be sure to feed more hay, silage and/or grain in extremely cold weather, otherwise cows will tend to overeat straw and their rumens may become impacted. Providing de-chilled water, on a free-choice basis, is also essential for cows consuming straw free choice. 2. It is assumed that cobalt-iodized, trace mineralized salt, a calcium phosphate supplement and vitamin A will be provided to meet requirements. 3. Only in extreme cases (highly unpalatable, coarse hays) would chopping or grinding roughage for cows be justified. Table 10. Meeting nutrient requirements of a 250 kg growing beef steer gaining 1.1 kg/day Minimum requirements (kg): Dry matter 6.0 Forage (Composition % of DM) Intake to meet requirements (kg) ("as-fed" basis) Crude protein 0.75 Total digestible nutrient 4.8 Excellent Good hay Medium hay Poor hay hay (15% CP, 60% TDN) (12% CP, 55% TDN) (9% CP, 50% TDN) (7% CP, 45% TDN) Good silage (40% DM, Medium silage (30% DM, Poor silage (25% DM, 15% CP, 60% TDN) 12% CP, 55% TDN) 9% CP, 50% TDN) 8.9 1.20 4.8 9.7 1.04 4.8 10.7 0.87 4.8 11.9 0.75 4.8 20 1.20 4.8 29 1.04 4.8 38 0.86 4.8 Example of Balanced Rations Hay based (ground, complete) Good hay Straw Rolled barley Silage- based Good silage Dry rolled barley Total Total 5.0 0.54 2.48 1.0 0.036 0.36 3.0 0.27 2.11 9.0 0.84 4.95 (90% DM basis) 12.5 0.45 2.06 4.0 0.36 2.81 8.0 0.81 4.87 (90% DM basis) 25 Comments (Table 10) 1. Steer calves of this weight might consume 8.9 kg of 90% DM excellent quality hay in the long form, but could not consume the required amounts of the good hay unless it was ground through a 1.27 cm screen. They could not consume enough of the medium or poor quality hays, even if ground, to meet their requirement for a 1.1 kg daily gain and would thus need a high energy supplement such as grain or acidulated fatty acids. 2. It is, for practical purposes, sufficient to use average composition figures for determining the extent to which these rations meet the calcium and phosphorus needs of the animals involved. However, all animals must have access to cobalt-iodized salt and a mineral mixture made up of trace mineralized salt and a calcium phosphorus supplement. Where minimal grain is being fed daily, a high phosphorus supplement (eg. 18% Ca, 20.5% P) should be used, as forages are low in phosphorus. 3. If available feedstuffs contain inadequate protein to meet the requirements of the animals being fed (determined by a laboratory analyses of the feed) additional protein will be required. Canola meal, a commercial protein supplement, heavy (high quality) pulse crop (pea, bean, lentil) screenings, legume seed (sweetclover, alfalfa) screenings, or high protein (15-16% CP) wheat, if available at reasonable prices (compare the cost of a unit of protein), can be added to the ration to bring up the crude protein level. Screenings should be finely ground to improve digestibility and reduce the number of viable weed seeds in the manure. 4. While example rations are shown in terms of kilograms per head per day, it is essentially impossible to predict what the actual daily intake will be under self-feeding conditions. The livestock producer must monitor his cattle closely (and preferably have the facilities to weigh all or representative cattle at at least two week intervals) to determine whether they are growing or finishing at an optimal rate. If, for example, growing steers self-fed a complete ground ration, are gaining too slowly it will, in the example cited, be necessary to reduce the straw and increase the hay or grain. If they are growing too rapidly and tending to finish at too light a weight, then the straw or hay content of the ration will have to be increased at the expense of the grain. In the case of the silage ration, it is likely that both the silage and the grain would be "hand"-fed once or twice daily, either alone or mixed together (mixer wagon). In this situation it is easy to make adjustments in the proportions of the two major ingredients on a day to day basis. 5. Don't forget to provide vitamin A to all cattle at recommended levels, either by mixing it in the feed or by injection. Grain and cereal straw contain essentially no vitamin A and weathered hay will likely contain very little. 26 Total Crude digestible protein nutrient 1.0 8.5 6. Note that when forages of medium to excellent quality are fed as the major component of the ration, that, at levels to meet energy (TDN) requirements, the crude protein requirement is exceeded by a considerable amount. To some extent this may be regarded as a waste of protein, however, high protein levels of forages are directly related to digestible energy content. Normally this extra protein is relatively low cost, and is converted into energy in the rumen. Table 11. Meeting nutrient requirements of a 450 kg finishing steer with forages [daily gain 1.4 kg (3.1 lb.)] Dry matter Minimum requirements (kg): 8.3 Intake to meet requirements (kg) Forage (Composition % of DM) ("as-fed" basis) Excellent hay (15% CP, 60% TDN) Good hay (12% CP, 55% TDN) Medium hay (9% CP, 50% TDN) Poor hay (7% CP, 45% TDN) Good silage (40% DM, 15% CP, 60% TDN) Medium silage (30% DM, 12% CP, 55% TDN) Poor silage (25% DM, 9% CP, 50% TDN) Example Rations* Hay based (ground, complete) Ground good quality hay AFA or Tallow (180% TDN) Dry rolled barley (10% CP, 78% TDN) Total Ground, medium quality hay Dry rolled wheat (16% CP, 80% TDN) Total Silage-based Medium quality silage Dry rolled barley Total ^Balanced for CP and TDN only, minerals and vitamin A requirements would have to be considered. 15.7 2.1 8.5 17.2 1.9 8.5 18.9 1.5 8.5 21.0 1.3 8.5 35.4 2.1 8.5 51.5 1.85 8.5 68.0 1.5 8.5 9.5 1.0 4.7 0.5 - 0.9 4.0 0.4 2.8 14.0 1.4 8.4 6 0.5 2.7 8 1.1 5.8 14 1.6 8.5 18 0.7 3.0 8 0.7 5.6 26 1.4 8.6 27 Comments (Table 11) 1. In practice, steers of this weight could not consume enough of even the excellent quality hay to meet nutritional requirements, unless it were ground through a 1.27 cm screen. 2. Because actual intakes are impossible to predict, given the variations in cattle and forages, the livestock producer will need to monitor performance closely and adjust rations accordingly. 3. In practice, if the farmer wants to maximize marketing forages through his beef cattle enterprise, it is best to start cattle out on ground, high quality hay, full-fed from the beginning, and to gradually increase the grain component of the ration, as required, to achieve the rate of finishing desired. Relative price of grain and hay, the animal's ability to gain and finish on a high forage ration, and the trend in market prices will all influence the timing and extent of replacing hay with grain. In general, it will be advantageous to feed a relatively high grain ration during the final few weeks (3-7) in order to increase dressing percentages and, in the case of large-framed, lean cattle, to put on the required amount of fat cover to meet the requirement for top grade. However, it isn't essential if forage-fed cattle are gaining well and putting on the desired amount of finish. 4. The feeder is cautioned against increasing the grain level of cattle being fed ground, high quality hay, particularly alfalfa, as the risk of bloat is increased once the grain level exceeds 30% and is especially critical at the 50% level. Risk of bloat is reduced, and indeed better overall performance is achieved, when the quality of the hay is reduced as the level of hay in the ration is reduced (see report elsewhere in this publication) . 5. The reader is referred to details of feeding trials with finishing steers elsewhere in this publication for specific details on finishing ration formulae and the performance of cattle fed these rations. EFFECT OF LEVEL OF HAY CONSUMPTION ON GAINS OF BEEF CALVES One of the first experiments carried out at the Melfort station was to determine what kind of performance could be expected when calves were allowed free access to a wide variety of hays (and one silage). Calves were individually fed in separate stalls and had access between feedings to salt, a mineral mix and water. Fourteen different forages were fed (crude protein range 4.3 to 16.7%, digestibile dry matter range 45.1 to 70.1%). In subsequent experiments, six other long hays were fed free choice. The information on them (corrected for body weight differences) is included in Fig. 4, which shows the relationship between dry matter (DM) intake and average daily gains of 220 kg calves fed 20 different forages. 28 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 m 0.4 M 3 °-3 Q 0.2 4) a M S! o.i -o.i -0.2 -0.3 ■ 20 • • » "• • ij/ 19 • p l6f 13# /%14 1. 2. ■ • An / •l2 3. 4. 5. 6. * 8 / 7. 8. 9. » */v 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. p j% /? m 3 / • 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ■ / #2 ' ULkj L iJ L. ' Dry Matter Consumed/Head/Day (kg) 7.0 % Crude Type of ForaRes Protein Reed canary grass 9.5 Slough grass 9.7 Timothy 4.4 Green stipa 7.0 Intermediate wheatgrass 12.5 Oat pea silage 12.8 Green stipa 11.5 Yellow clover 15.9 Crested wheatgrass 12.3 Marsh hay 9.5 Red clover 16.7 Russian wild rye 10.9 Bromegrass 11.8 Sweet clover 11.3 Oat pea hay 12.8 Alfalfa 15.7 Oat green feed 12.4 Brome 17.0 Alfalfa 14.0 Timothy-alfalfa 13.6 Fig. 4. Relationship between dry matter consumption and rate of gain of 220 kg beef calves. These experiments showed a very good relationship between rate of gain and DM intake but also that other factors (crude protein and digestible organic matter) were involved. Maximum intake of about 7 kg of DM produced a gain of about 0.8 kg per day, with most of the hays fed consumed at 3 to 4.5 kg DM per day with gains in the 0.2 to 0.4 kg/head/day range. About 3.2 kg of DM, daily, was required to maintain body weight. There was not a good relationship between rate of gain and crude protein level. The same forages fed as hay or silage produced markedly different rates of gain. It was concluded that if good rates of gain were to be obtained from forage-fed cattle, that methods of increasing intake would have to be developed. 29 PROCESSING HAY FOR GROWING BEEF STEERS If increasing the density of hay by grinding resulted in the animal consuming more feed before rumen capacity limited intake, it would mean that a smaller proportion of the feed consumed would be required for maintenance, leaving a larger proportion available for production. To determine the effect on density, eleven hays were ground through two or more of six screens, varying from 51 to 3 mm diameter openings, using a hammermill in a farm type grinder-mixer. The effect on density is shown in Table 12. Table 12. Effect of grinding on the density of hays of various species and qualities (kg/m ) Crude Size of Screen (mm) protein DOM* 51 25 13 6 5 3 Hay type (%) (%) (2") (1") (1/2") (1/4") (3/16") (1/8") Alfalfa 16.8 60 153 155 185 210 - 228 Brome-alfalfa 14.0 - 156 178 215 - 274 Timothy-alfalfa 13.8 - 143 199 - - Brome-alfalfa 13.1 54 98 97 118 151 - 185 Crested wheatgrass 12.3 53 86 95 115 128 - 170 Crested wheatgrass 12.0 - 109 127 153 - 188 Sweetclover 11.3 - 122 168 - - Reed canarygrass 11.0 91 107 125 - 166 Reed canarygrass 9.9 46 53 77 104 131 - 174 Slough hay 9.5-90-115 Tall wheatgrass 6.8 41 60 67 84 96 - 103 *D0M - Digestible Organic Matter Whole Ground (13 mm) Wheat Barley Oats Unlike grain, which when ground, decreases in density, grinding hay through progressively smaller screen openings markedly increases density. In general, as fineness of grinding increases, the density of hay increases. On average, grinding through a 13 mm (1/2") screen increased density by 23% compared to processing through a 25 mm (1") screen; with the greatest increase (35%) occurring with the lower quality reed canarygrass. The relationship of density to crude protein content is not consistent. Density tends to decrease with decreasing protein content, but some species, crested wheatgrass and sweetclover, tended to be denser than would be 749 671 599 437 399 281 30 indicated by their protein level. There is a better correlation between density and digestible organic matter for the five forages for which DOM figures were obtained. Having shown that density of hays was increased by grinding, the next step was to determine how growing beef steers responded to being fed processe hays. The results are of three trials are summarized in Tables 13, 14 and 15. Table 13. Effect of physical processing of two hays at different quality on performance of growing steer calves (8 wk. feeding period) Physical form of hay Ground Pelleted Chopped Chopped (0.5 cm (1.1 cm alfalfa Long (2.5-5.0 cm) screen) diameter) check* Green stipa grass (193 kg herefords) (7% crude protein) Av. daily gain (kg) Av. daily dry matter eaten (kg) Feed DM: gain Dry matter digested (%) Av. daily DDM** eaten (kg) Bromegrass (218 kg Angus x Herefords) (17.6% crude protein) Av. daily gain (kg) Average daily dry matter eaten (kg) Feed DM: gain Dry matter digested (%) Av. daily DDM eaten (kg) -0.05 0.07 0.45 0.63 0.35 3.0 3.2 4.8 5.2 4.0 neg. 44.5 10.6 8.3 11.7 53 55 51 50 57 1.6 1.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 0.55 0.76 0.79 0.97 0.60 4.6 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.0 8.4 6.8 6.8 5.7 8.8 68 68 65 64 54 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.7 *Fed to calves of both types. **Digestible dry matter. Comments (Table 13) 1. Intake and rate of gain was considerably increased by reducing the ration bulk by processing. 2. Processing a poorer quality hay had a much more beneficial effect than processing a high quality hay, converting it from an unproductive feed 31 to one that would support a higher rate of gain than the unprocessed good quality hay. 3. Grinding finer than through a 50 mm screen reduced the digestibility of the forage (the more rapid passage of the feed through the digestive system, probably resulted in incomplete absorption of the digested feed before it was excreted). Table 14. Effect of reducing particle size on the feeding value of good and fair quality alfalfa hays Ground (screen size, mm) Long Chopped 51 25 13 Good Alfalfa Hay (14% CP) Average initial weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily DM eaten (kg) DM/unit liveweight gain Liveweight gain/tonne DM (kg) Relative value of hays* ($/tonne) Extra value/tonne due to quality (long hay) or processing ($) Fair Alfalfa Hay (11.9% CP) Average initial weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily DM eaten (kg) DM/unit liveweight gain Liveweight gain/ tonne DM (kg) Relative value of hays* ($/tonne) Extra value/tonne due to processing 255 253 253 252 251 251 0.50 0.52 0.68 0.71 0.71 0.79 7.9 7.9 8.5 8.5 8.4 9.4 16.2 15.1 12.5 11.9 11.8 12.0 61.7 66.2 80.0 84.0 84.7 83.3 86.90 96.80 127.16 135.96 137.50 134.42 42.90 52.80 CHECK 9.46 83.16 91.96 93.50 90.42 254 253 253 252 252 253 0.29 0.30 0.45 0.50 0.62 0.56 6.8 6.5 7.9 8.1 8.8 8.8 23.7 21.5 17.5 16.0 14.2 15.6 42.2 46.5 57.1 62.5 70.4 64.1 44.0 53.46 76.78 88.66 106.04 92.18 32.78 44.66 62.04 48.18 *Based on "fair" quality alfalfa @ $44/tonne and liveweight gains @ $2.20/kg. Comments (Table 14) 1. Processing through the 13 mm screen gave optional results for both qualities of alfalfa. 2. Valuing the fair quality hay at $44/tonne and crediting the 32 processed hays with the value of the extra liveweight produced per tonne of hay, indicated some startling increases, in all cases more than enough to cover the extra labor, equipment and fuel costs involved. 3. Grinding finer than through the 13 mm (1/2") screen was not economically sound. 4. It was doubtful that processing the good quality alfalfa finer than through the 25 mm (1") screen was justified, particularly when feeding ground hay alone. [If feeding the ground hay in a complete ration (i.e. with processed grain, supplements, and additives), the finer grinding may be justified due to the reduced tendency for ration ingredients to "settle out" from the smaller-particled forage component, in the self-feeder or in the handling of the ration following mixing. ] 5. There was no benefit to be gained by grinding more finely than through a 13 mm screen. Table 15. Effect of processing hay on performance of steer calves (hays as fed, approx. 90% CM) Average Average Average Relative Increase in initial daily daily value in value by weight gain feed Feed:Gain Gain/ tome hays* processing Forage Process (kg) (kg) (kg) ratio hay (kg) ($) ($/tome) Sreetclover Long 241 0.41 5.73 14.0 71.4 53.00 (11.3% CP) Chopped 240 0.59 6.77 11.5 87.0 74.28 21.28 Ground (51 mm) 241 0.69 7.77 11.3 88.5 78.54 25.54 Ground (13 mm) 240 0.81 8.55 10.6 94.3 89.22 36.22 Marsh Hay Long 271 0.32 5.45 17.1 58.4 43.00 _ (9.5% CP) Chopped 272 0.44 6.68 15.3 63.4 34.28 -8.72 Ground (51 mm) 272 0.47 7.00 15.0 66.7 42.27 -0.73 Ground (13 mm) 271 0.55 7.45 13.7 73.0 50.23 7.23 Timothy-Alfalfa Long 290 0.85 10.59 12.4 80.6 60.00 _ (13.6* CP) Chopped 290 1.07 10.77 10.0 100.0 90.53 30.53 Ground (51 mm) 290 1.03 11.27 10.9 91.7 73.89 13.89 Ground (13 mm) 290 1.12 11.27 10.1 99.0 86.21 26.21 Sveetclover Long 240 0.35 7.39 21.1 49.4 37.00 _ (14.2% CP) Chopped 240 0.45 6.44 14.3 69.9 68.00 31.00 Ground (51 ram) 240 0.65 8.16 12.6 79.4 89.82 52.82 Ground (13 mm) 240 0.71 8.16 11.5 87.0 103.88 66.88 *Assuming base values of long hay as shown, crediting processed hay with the value of additional liveweight gain/tome @ $2.20/kg and deducting estimated labor ($7/hr), fuel (406/L), and machinery upkeep cost of $10/hr. Comments (Table 15) 1. Average daily gain, feed intake and feed per unit of gain improved as the hays were more finely processed, except for the timothy-alfalfa hay 33 which, when fed in the long form, supported a higher rate of gain than any of the other ground hays. 2. Processing the sweetclover hays was economically sound, with the value of the hay increasing with increasingly finer processing. (Sweetclover hay tends to be stemmy, which probably reduces it acceptability relative to other finer stemmed or leafier hays.) 3. Processing the marsh hay was more expensive than for the other hays, with the result that only processing through the 13 mm (1/2" screen) was economical. EFFECT OF GRINDING HAY ON PERFORMANCE OF STEER CALVES FED FOR EQUAL RATE OF GAIN Self-feeding chopped or ground hay to growing steers calves improved feed intake, rate of gain and efficiency of feed utilization compared to calves fed unprocessed hay. Whether this was due to the grinding per se or the increased intake, or both was not known. Consequently, a feeding trial involving individually-fed, 285 kg Hereford steer calves was carried out in each of three successive years to determine the effect of processing either the forage portion of the ration or the entire ration, when feed intake was limited to that required to maintain a rate of gain of 0.45 kg per head per day. The ration comprised about 70% roughage (hay and straw), 20% grain and 10% of a protein, mineral, vitamin A and antibiotic supplement. The results are shown in Table 16. Table 16. Effect of processing hay on performance of steer calves fed for the same rate of gain (average 3 years - 178 day feeding period) Lot #3 Lot #4 Lot #1 Lot #2 Ration Ration Fed Fed ground pelleted long chopped (0.8 cm (0.5 cm forage forage screen) die) 24 24 24 24 284 285 285 287 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.45 5.32 5.45 5.59 5.23 11.6 12.0 12.2 11.6 0.92 0.95 0.91 0.90 Number of calves Average initial weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed eaten (kg) Feedrgain ratio Average daily gain on pasture (kg) 34 Comment (Table 16) 1. Processing the forage component of the ration is only beneficial when it results in a significant increase in intake and should not be done when the livestock involved can meet their nutritional requirements on unprocessed hay. FACTORS AFFECTNG THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO GRIND HAY Because of the beneficial effects of processing hay on the performance of growing beef calves, it was deemed necessary to determine the fuel consumption and processing rate involved in preparing ground hay-based rations. In earlier studies, it was determined that fuel consumed in grinding rectangular bales through a grinder-mixer fitted with a 13 mm (1/2") screen ranged from 5.66 litres (L) per tonne for alfalfa to 17.9 L/tonne for straw. When grinding loose hay (from the hay drying tower) more fuel was required because of the uneven unloading rate and the low loadrpower ratio. Shredding round crested wheatgrass bales with a McKee round bale shredder and feeding the material into a New Holland grinder-mixer resulted in an unacceptable fuel requirement (22.2 L/tonne) due to the requirement to use two tractors and the difficulty in maintaining a steady and optimum flow of hay through the system. A more efficient system will have to be devised if round bales are to be ground and mixed into complete rations. It is not normally thought that mixing and unloading require much power but this study showed that 40% of the fuel consumed in ration preparation was required for this operation due to the amount of time involved. Using tractor-generated power to operate a grain roller was very inefficient. Fuel consumption and work rate when grinding alfalfa and crested wheatgrass bales containing different moisture levels through screens of three different sizes, are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. A 75 Kw tractor and a Bearcat Model 1260 grinder-mixer were used for this study. At a very low moisture content, fuel consumption was low, regardless of screen size. Fuel consumption sharply increased at higher moisture levels, with the greatest increases occurring when the smaller screens were used. Associated with the increased fuel consumption is a reduction in work rate. With alfalfa bales containing 18% moisture, partial clogging of the screen restricted through put. Processing crested wheatgrass required more energy and time than processing alfalfa. 35 20 r 15 z o a 2 3 10 l/> z o u 13 mm (1/2") z < to z o o 43- 40- 35 30- 25 20- •<. 20/ 1.5 z mm 1.0 3/8") O Q5 ■ i 21 15 18 21 24 MOISTURE CONTENT. % 27 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 MOISTURE C0NTENT.% Fig. 6. Fuel consumption and work rate when gridning crested wheatgrass bales of different moisture contents through screens of different sizes. 36 It is concluded that where hays are to be ground, harvesting, storage and handling systems be designed to result in as dry a hay as possible, consistent with minimal leat loss (perhaps a hay drying system) and that the use of electrical power, which costs about one-third that of diesel generated power, be used, if feasible. Obviously hammers and screens should be maintained in good condition. FEEDING STEER CALVES FORAGE-BASED RATIONS A COMPARISON OF THREE GRASS HAYS FED TO GROWING STEER CALVES Because of its ability to establish and produce on saline land, tall wheatgrass may become more available as a feed for livestock. An experiment was carried out to compare the feeding value of tall wheatgrass, bromegrass and crested wheatgrass, self-fed in the ground form (1.27 cm screen) to 235 kg steer calves over a 146 day period. The ground hays constituted 96% of the ration, with the remainder of the ration was made up of 2 1/2% acidulated fatty acids (AFA), plus minerals, vitamin A and an antibiotic. The calves had free access to cobalt-iodized block salt, a salt-calcium phosphate mineral mix and water. The results are summarized in Table 17. Table 17. The effect of type of hay on the performance of 235 kg steer calves (146 days, 16 hd/ration) Crested Tall Hay (ground) Bromegrass wheatgrass wheatgrass Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed (kg) Average final weight (kg) Feedtgain ratio Total feed consumed/head (kg) Feed cost/kg gain (6) Value of gain less feed and processing (fuel) cost ($) 131.29 156.54 195.97 Feed Analysis: - Dry matter (%) - Crude protein (%) - Digestible organic matter (%) - Ash (%) Litres fuel/tonne to grind Tonnes processed/hour 0.82 0.91 1.14 9.54 8.78 9.84 355 369 402 11.6 9.6 8.6 1392 1282 1437 78 68 68 86.0 87.9 87.4 8.4 9.6 11.6 46.5 46.9 51.5 8.4 6.4 7.7 6.2 7.0 5.1 3.5 3.4 4.3 37 Comments (Table 17) 1. Considering the chemical analyses of the hays, rate of liveweight gain and feed conversion efficiencies were quite good. 2. Valuing the hays at $50, $55 and $66 per tonne (relative to their crude protein content), the value of the liveweight gains @ $1.87/kg exceeded the feed ingredient and "fuel to process" costs by $131, $157 and $196 per head, for the bromegrass, crested wheatgrass and tall wheatgrass fed steers, respectively, (diesel fuel @ 40£/L). ADDING ACIDULATED FATTY ACIDS (AFA) TO A CRESTED WHEATGRASS HAY AND WHEAT RATION FOR GROWING STEER CALVES A high energy by-product of the manufacture of canola oil (AFA) was evaluated as a supplement to a growing ration for steer calves fed a ration based on ground (1.27 cm screen), crested wheatgrass hay (93% DM, 11.4% CP and 49.6% DOM) and rolled wheat. The AFA was fed at 3% of the ration. The results are summarized in Table 18. Table 18. Adding acidulated fatty acids to a steer calf growing ration (18 head/treatment, 84 day test) Lot #1 Lot #2 Average initial weight (kg) Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Total feed/head (kg) - crested wheatgrass hay (kg) - rolled wheat (kg) - A.F.A. Mineral, vitamin A and antibiotic supp. Feed/unit gain Feed* cost/head (including processing) ($) Feed cost/kg gain (d) Value** of gain less feed costs/hd ($) Difference ($/hd) *Crested wheatgrass hay, $65/tonne; wheat, lleVkg; A.F.A. , 35£/kg; salt, 31«l/kg; calcium phosphate, 70e7kg; Vitamin supplement, $2.64/kg; Aurofac 10, $1.76/kg; grinding-mixing, $6.60/tonne. **Assuming gains worth $2.20/kg. Control 3% A.F.A. 193 192 292 305 1.18 1.35 679 682 532 518 135 132 - 20.5 12.0 11.5 6.81 6.02 61.83 67.58 62 60 155.97 181.02 25.05 38 Comment (Table 18) The addition of A.F.A. to a ration which was supporting an excellent rate of gain and exceptional feedtgain ratio, improved rate of gain by 14% and feed efficiency by over 11%, increasing the value of animal gain, less feed and processing costs by $25 per head. RESPONSE OF STEER CALVES FED A GROUND CRESTED WHEATGRASS RATION, TO IMPLANTATION WITH RALGRO AND SUPPLEMENTATION WITH ACIDULATED FATTY ACIDS Crested wheatgrass has not been used extensively in the Aspen parkbelt, presumably because it was considered a dryland grass. However, the performance of the grass has been remarkedly good, both in terms of yield, the ease with which it can be made into hay, and its excellent feeding value both as hay and pasture, providing in the latter case it is managed to prevent heading. To further evaluate the performance of growing calves fed on a ground, crested wheatgrass-based growing ration and to determine the effect of implanting with Ralgro and supplementing with A.F.A. , a feeding trial was carried out with 36, 214 kg, newly-weaned crossbred steer calves, over a 63 day feeding period. The calves were self-fed in four lots on either of two rations formulated as follows, with one lot on each ration receiving a 24 mg implant of Ralgro at the start of the test. Ration m Ration m Ground (1.27 cm screen) crested wheatgrass Dry rolled barley Acidulated fatty acids Canola meal Cobalt-iodized, trace mineralized salt Calcium phosphate Vitamin ADE supplement TM 10 Ration dry matter (%) Crude protein (% of DM) 75.0 72.7 20.0 19.3 — 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 84.5 84.8 12.8 12.9 The results are summarized in Table 19. 39 Table 19. Effect of implant and AFA on the utilization of a crested wheatgrass-based ration for growing steer calves (63 day test, 9 head/ration) Ration Treatment 4 2 3 Control 1 Control Control + Ralgro Control + Ralgro + AFA + AFA 295 297 297 303 1.29 1.32 1.33 1.43 6.66 6.43 6.33 6.17 1192 1178 1169 1221 178.20 184.80 184.80 198.00 45.36 51.01 53.46 57.59 132.84 133.79 131.34 140.41 Av. final weight (kg) Av. daily gain (kg) Feed:gain ratio (90% DM) Total feed/animal (kg 90% DM) Value of liveweight gain @ $2.20/kg ($) Value of feed + implement ($) Value of gain less feed & implant ($) Comments (Table 19) 1. Rate of gain and feed conversion efficiency of calves fed the control ration (75% ground grass hay) were excellent for calves of this size, 2. Use of the implant and of AFA improved both rate of gain and feed conversion efficiency and the combination of the two resulted in an additive effect. 3. When the implant was used in combination with the AFA, returns over feed and implant cost was about $8/head over that of the control animals. 4. The excellent performance of these calves may in part be due to the use of a protein supplement. (Other studies indicate that despite the theoretical adequacy of crude protein level in a hay or grain-based ration, there may be a benefit to adding additional protein.) EFFECT OF AMMONIATING HAY ON ITS FEEDING VALUE FOR GROWING STEERS Considerable losses in both quantity and quality of hay occur due to problems encountered during harvesting. Over-dry hay, particularly, legumes, can lose feeding value due to excessive loss of leaves during raking, baling or field chopping, while considerable molding can occur during storage when hay is harvested at too high a moisture content. Anhydrous ammonia (2% wt/wt) has been found to destroy molds, yeasts and bacteria when used to treat high moisture hay, and thus offers a useful technique when farmers are faced with having to put up hay at a higher-than-normal, moisture content. Anhydrous ammonia also increases the 40 non-protein nitrogen content of hay and has been found to increase the level of digestible energy, particularly of high fibre feedstuffs such as cereal straw, by hydrolyzing cellulose. To investigate the effect of ammoniating hays on their feeding value, an experiment was undertaken at Melfort, in each of three successive years, in which brome-alfalfa and alfalfa hays, harvested at two moisture levels (<20 and 30%) were ammoniated (2% wt/wt) and compared to field-cured (<20% moisture) non-ammoniated hay. The hays were harvested as large round bales and treatment with ammonia carried out in plastic-covered stacks. A feeding trial with steers and a digestibility trial with sheep were conducted. The key findings are summarized in Table 20. Table 20. Effects of aomcniating hay on chemical composition and feeding value Brome-Alfalfa Alfalfa Field-Cured 17* Aomcniated Field-Cured 17* Aomoniated 18* 31* 19* 29* moisture moisture moisture moisture moisture moisture X Dry matter recovery (14 vk.) 97 99 98 97 99 94 - Crude protein (*) 11.6 17.4 19.0 17.7 23.4 24.8 Steer Performance (3 yr. av.) Dry matter intake - kg/day 8.3 8.2 8.8 9.1 8.7 8.1 - X body wt. 2.39 2.45 2.55 2.61 2.50 2.34 Average daily gain (kg) 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.76 0.83 Feed:gain ratio 10.1 10.2 11.2 11.4 11.5 9.8 Sheep Performance (2 yr. av.) Dry matter intake {X body vt.) 2.89 3.07 3.14 3.13 3.22 3.05 Dry matter digestibility 61 63 58 55 56 58 Nitrogen digestibility 60 57 43 67 68 63 Rumen pH 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.3 Comments (Table 20) 1. 2% ammonnia in plastic-covered stacks (cost $13/tonne of DM) was adequate to preserve large round brome-alfalfa and alfalfa bales harvested at 30% moisture. 2. Cattle fed ammoniated low or high moisture hays performed about the same as those fed the field-cured non-ammoniated hay, although ammoniating the high moisture brome-alfalfa hay tended to reduce feed efficiency while the reverse was true with the alfalfa hay. 3. The high moisture hay was prevented from undergoing spoilage, through the use of ammonia, where it might otherwise have suffered a serious loss in feeding' value. 41 EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL GRAIN, AND OF IMPLANTING, ON THE PERFORMANCE OF STEER CALVES FED BARLEY-SILAGE Because silage tends to be bulky, due to its high moisture content, relative to hay, it is not normally fed to growing calves as the major portion of the ration. For producers who normally rely on silage for their feeding operations, it is important to know how to improve the performance of growing calves. One common method is to supplement the silage with grain, thereby increasing energy intake. Another possibility for improving rate of gain and feed utilization is to use growth promoting implants. Ninety-six crossbred steer calves (Charolais-sired out of Angus x Hereford and Simmental x Hereford cows) were assigned, on the basis of weight and breeding, to six, uniform lots, and the ration and implant treatments assigned at random to the lots. All lots of calves received barley silage (39% DM, 11.2% CP, 52.7% DOM)) on an ad libitum basis, three received dry rolled barley at the rate of 2 kg/head/day, and, within each ration type (silage or silage + grain) three implant treatments (control, Ralgro and Synovex S) were administered. All calves had free access to salt and a calcium-phosphorus (1:1) supplement. The results are shown in Table 21. Table 21. The effect of supplementing silage vith grain on the performance of implanted and non-implanted growing beef steers (139 days, 16 calves/ treatment) Silage Silage + Grain Implant treatment Control 264 0.70 Ralgro Synovex S Control Ralgro Synovex S Average initial weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) 265 0.76 267 0.80 265 0.88 268 0.95 269 1.05 Average daily dry matter eaten (kg) - silage - grain Total 6.4 6^4 6.0 6T0 6.0 (TO 5.0 1.7 6.7 5.1 1.7 6.8 5.9 1.7 7.6 Dry matter:gain ratio 9.1 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.1 7.2 *Silage @ $66/tonne DM; grain @ $110/tonne CM; liveweight gains @ $2/kg; Ralgro @ $1.35 and Synovex @ $1.75. Comments (Table 21) 1. Feeding barley increased rate of gain by an average of 27% and feed conversion efficiency by 11%, with the greatest improvement in feed efficiency occurring with the unimplanted animals. 2. Ralgro improved rate of gain by 8.0-8.5% for steers fed either ration, while Synovex increased rate of gain by 14% for steers fed the silage ration and 31% for steers fed the silage plus grain ration. 42 3. Ralgro produced a similar response in rate of gain for steers fed either ration, while Synovex produced a greater response in steers fed the silage + grain ration. However, the effect of the implants on feed conversion efficiency was more marked (12.5 vs 0.6%) with the silage ration. 4. Feeding barley increased returns over feed and implant costs by $42 per head, the use of Ralgro by $18 per head and the use of Synovex S by $37 per head. FEEDING HEIFER CALVES FORAGE-BASED RATIONS GROWING RATIONS FOR BEEF HEIFERS Beef heifer calves, weaned off pasture in the fall, can be grown out the first winter on a wide variety of rations, provided of course, that their energy, protein, mineral and vitamin requirements are met. Normally, lowest cost rations are advised for cattle being grown for the slaughter market, but in the case of heifers being raised for breeding stock, the kind of feed during the growing period has an influence on future reproductive performance. According to studies carried out at the Lethbridge Research Station, rations for such heifers should be based on good quality hay or silage. Care should be taken to feed rations that promote growth (i.e. muscular development) rather than fattening. The rate of gain must be adequate to assure that heifers are of sufficient size to allow them to be bred to calve at two years of age. Good forage-based wintering rations and access to good pastures should achieve this goal. It is particularly important that adequate minerals be available, either in the ration and/or in blocks or mineral boxes on a free choice basis. When heifers are being fed good quality hay or pasture they will be getting adequate amounts of calcium but will need additional phosphorus. Providing vitamin A by injection or in the feed will be required during the wintering period if the hay is not of a bright green color or if the ration is based on grain and straw. Performance of growing heifer calves, on several rations formulated to equalize rate of gain, is shown in Table 22. Since optimum rate of gain will differ with the breed of cattle, feeders should always watch cattle closely and adjust the ration accordingly, to either increase or reduce rate of gain. 43 Table 22. Performance of growing beef heifers fed different rations to produce the same rate of gain Sweet Brome- Barley clover alfalfa silage, silage Complete hay + straw + + straw ground grain grain + grain ration 242 237 240 240 363 360 359 359 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.70 8.48 7.47 7.87 9.00 7.22 5.51 5.15 0.34 - 0.59 0.96 5.49 1.22 1.32 1.70 2.18 _ _ _ 0.84 Average initial weight (kg) Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed* (kg) - forage - straw - grain - canola meal Feed:gain ratio 12.0 10.4 11.3 12.9 Sweet Brome- Barley clover Barley Complete alfalfa silage silage straw Wheat ration Chemical analyses (%) - dry matter - crude protein (DM) - digestible organic matter (DOM) 85.0 39.9 37.3 83.7 86.3 82.9 11.7 11.8 15.0 6.9 17.0 10.3 54 56 63 45 78 50 *90% dry matter basis, includes mineral, vitamin A and anitibiotic supplements. A COMPARISON OF FORAGE-BASED VS GRAIN-BASED RATIONS FOR WINTERING HEIFER CALVES Heifer calves destined for finishing in the feedlot can be grown out on a wide variety of rations. The choice of ration will depend on the available feeds either produced or purchased, the relative cost of the nutrients in these feeds and of the supplement, if any, required to balance the nutrients to most efficiently meet the needs of the livestock being fed. The desired rate of gain and the optimum market weight for the type of animal being fed should also be considered, since some rations will permit finishing at lighter weights than others and this may or may not be economically desirable. 44 An experiment, involving 84 Charolais-sired, crossbred heifer calves, averaging 248 kg was set up to evaluate four rations as follows: 1. Brome-alfalfa hay (large round bales) + 1.45 kg wheat/hd/day. 2. Brome-alfalfa silage + 1.45 kg wheat/hd/day. 3. Wheat + straw + canola meal. 4. Wheat + ammoniated straw. All feeds, except the concentrate allowance for the forage-fed cattle, were fed free choice or self-fed. Cattle had access to salt, a mineral mix and water free choice. The concentrate mix and the complete rations contained salt, minerals, vitamin ADE and an antibiotic. The results of the test are summarized in Table 23. Within each lot, one-third of the heifers received no implant, one-third were implanted with Ralgro and one-third with Synovex H. The effect of these treatments on rate of liveweight gain (kg/day) is summarized by ration as follows (7 animals/sub-treatment). Ration Grain + Grain- straw + ammoniated Hay Silage canola meal straw Average Check 0.80 0.75 0.76 0.40 0.68 Ralgro 0.87 0.80 0.78 0.45 0.73 Synovex H 1.02 0.80 0.80 0.53 0.79 0.90 0.78 0.78 0.46 Comments (Table 23) 1. Hay-fed heifers gained faster than those on the silage ration, but ate more feed and converted it less efficiently into liveweight gain, thus returning about $6 per head less when feed costs were subtracted from the value of the gains. 2. Heifers fed the grain and straw ration gained at the same rate as the silage-fed heifers but ate more feed and converted it less efficiently into gains, thus returning about $35 less when feed costs were deducted from the value of the gains. 3. Ammoniation of the straw brought the protein level of the ration up to that of the wheat-straw-canola meal ration. However, the digestible organic matter (roughly TDN) level of the ration was markedly less. While the feed cost per kg gain was the same for heifers fed Rations 3 and 4, the reduced gains made this ration less economical. 45 4. The feeding of good quality forages was superior to feeding the grain based rations. Table 23. A comparison of rations for growing beef heifer calves Rations (21 hd/ration day feed: Lng period) 1 2 3 Wheat + 4 Brome- Brome- straw + Wheat + alfalfa alfalfa canola ammoniated hay silage meal straw 0.90 0.78 0.78 0.50 348 342 342 309 1205 939 1114 787 1030 765 - - — - 581 517 165 165 388 245 — — 111 - 1.2 1.2 12.6 8.9 7.5 7.1 19.9 16.4 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.10 10.0 7.8 9.3 6.6 11.24 9.98 11.89 13.02 95.64 77.98 113.30 73.39 Av. daily gain (kg) Av. final weight (kg) Feed consumption/head (kg) - hay or silage - straw or ammoniated straw - wheat - canola meal - acidulated fatty acids (canola) - salt and mineral - vitamin ADE premix - TM 50 Av. daily feed/hd (kg) Feed/unit gain Feed cost/head ($) Gains @ $1.87/kg - less feed costs ($) 91.36 97.80 62.48 40.68 Feed composition Dry matter % Crude protein (% of DM) Dig. organic matter (% of DM) Wheat only 87.9 16.9 76.7 Hay only 85.5 15.2 56.8 Silage only 42.4 16.2 61.0 Ration 86.3 14.2 56.2 Ration 78.4 14.1 48.8 Brome-alfalfa hay, $66/tonne; Oat straw, $44/tonne; Br.-alf. silage, $66/tonne (85.5% DM); Ground, ammoniated straw, $52.80/tonne; Wheat, 13.2d/kg; Canola meal, $220/tonne; A.F.A., 35.2d/kg; Co. I. TM salt, 30.8d/kg; Calcium phosphate (18% Ca, 20.5% P.0,-), 65d/kg; Vitamin ADE (10,000 I.U. vit. A/gm), $1.25/kg; TM 50 (110 gm oxy telracycline/kg) , $12.87/kg. Feed related data under Ration 4 adjusted to 86.3% DM basis (to compare with Ration 3) and silage adjusted to 85.5% DM to compare with Ration 1. 46 CRESTED WHEATGRASS VS BROME-ALFALFA FED UNPROCESSED TO GROWING HEIFERS Long bromegrass-alfalfa and crested wheatgrass hays, harvested under several different systems, were fed free choice to yearling beef heifers, with a fixed amount of dry rolled barley hand-fed daily. The results of this trial, averaged across harvesting systems are shown in Table 24. Table 24. Crested wheatgrass vs bromegrass-alfalfa hays fed to growing heifers (27 head/treatment) Crested Wheatgrass Bromegrass-Alfalfa Number of heifers Moisture content at harvest (%) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed (kg/head) - hay - grain Dry matterrgain ratio Gain/tonne dry matter (kg) Crude protein (%) Digestible organic matter (%) Intake of DOM/head/day (kg) 27 24.3 0.72 8.00 0.77 12.2 162 11.0 57.8 5.25 27 25.9 0.39 6.88 0.77 19.9 100 11.5 53.4 4.27 Comment (Table 24) 1. Despite being harvested, on average, drier than brome-alfalfa and despite its somewhat lower crude protein content, crested wheatgrass had a higher digestible organic matter content and was more palatable than the brome-alfalfa, resulting in a higher rate of gain and a better feed:gain ratio than brome-alfalfa. FEEDING TALL WHEATGRASS TO GROWING HEIFER CALVES One of the few crops that will establish and produce on moderately saline soil is tall wheatgrass. Because of the Melfort Station's involvement in rejuvenating an area which had become unproductive, even for barley production, a quantity of hay (86.5% D.M., 12.6 % C.P. and 51% D.O.M.) became available for feeding to beef cattle. A feeding trial involving four lots of 290 kg growing crossbred beef heifers (Angus x Hereford and Simmental x Hereford) fed for a 60 day period, was conducted. The heifers were self-fed hay, either long, chopped or ground through 1.27 cm (1/2") and 0.63 cm (1/4") screens, and received 0.9 (2 lb.) of a concentrate mixture per head daily. The results are presented in Table 25. 47 Table 25. The effect of processing tall wheatgrass on the performance of growing beef heifers (60 day test) Long hay Chopped hay Ground hay (Standard 1.27 cm 0.63 cm bale) (5-8 cm) screen screen 355 365 373 374 1.12 1.25 1.40 1.42 548 563 602 659 488 505 544 601 53 53 53 53 3.6 2.4 2.8 2.4 3.1 2.5 2.1 2.2 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 9.13 9.41 10.05 11.00 8.15 7.53 7.18 7.75 63 56 53 57 — 3.34 6.11 7.19 _ 20.7 15.8 18.4 Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Feed consumed/hd (kg) - tall wheatgrass hay - dry rolled wheat - cobalt-iodized TM salt* - calcium phosphate* - Vitamin ADE premix - TM 50 Av. daily feed (kg) Feedrgain ratio Feed cost/kg gain (d)** Litres fuel/tonne of hay processed Processing time/tonne (min.) *Includes consumption of free choice salt and mineral mix. **Hay @ $66/tonne; wheat @ ll«l/kg; salt @ 31cVkg; calcium phosphate @ 65d/kg; vitamin mix (10,000 IU vit. A/gm), $1.28/kg; and TM 50 @ $5.39/kg. Comment (Table 25) 1. Tall wheatgrass produced excellent rates of gain and feedrgain ratios when harvested at an optimum stage of maturity (crude protein content) and properly stored. Processing improved rates of gain and feed efficiency, with optimal processing with the 1.27 cm screen. As a matter of interest the hay land was fertilized with 90 kg N and 45 kg P„0,-/ha, and yielded 5.6 tonnes/ha in two cuts. THE FEEDING VALUE OF SEVERAL SILAGES WHEN FED TO GROWING HEIFERS During a 197 Hay feeding period, 218 kg crossbred heifer calves were used to evaluate four silages, (brome-alfalfa, barley, weedy alfalfa and a salvaged canola crop). The composition of the rations and the chemical analyses data are in Table 26. 48 Table 26. Composition of silage rations fed to growing heifers Brome-alfalfa Weedy-alfalfa Barley Canola* Ration Composition (% DM) Silage Rolled wheat Acidulated fatty acids Cobalt-iodized salt Calcium phosphate Vitamin ADE premix TM 50 Ration Analyses Dry matter Crude protein Silage Analyses Dry matter Crude protein Digestible organic matter 78.0 20.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.06 0.04 51 15 47 15 50 81.1 78.6 62.7 17.1 19.5 33.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.7 1.3 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 46 40 52 18 16 16 43 36 44 18 16 16 61 58 49 *Canola was salvaged from windrows that had been exposed to the weather for several days. Water was added as it was ensiled. Difficulty was encountered in obtaining a uniform particle size. This, plus the initial high dry matter level, made packing difficult and led to some molding of the silage. Moldy material was removed in so far as possible at the time of feeding. The results are summarized in Table 27. Table 27. The feeding value of silages from several high protein crops (107 day trial) Type of Silage Brome-alfalfa Weedy-alfalfa Barley Canola Av. final weight (kg) Av. daily gain Av. daily feed (DM), (kg) Feedrgain ratio Feed cost/head ($) Value of liveweight gain ($) @ $1.87 less feed costs* ($) 287 0.64 6.38 9.97 60.16 127.16 67.00 301 0.77 7.45 9.68 71.38 153.34 81.96 288 245 0.66 0.25 6.53 3.95 9.89 15.80 61.79 39.38 130.90 50.49 69.11 11.11 ^Valuing silage @ $66, $70, @ $132/tonne. $66 and $50 per tonne DM, respectively, and wheat 49 Comments (Table 27) 1. Performance of the calves fed the weedy alfalfa silage, relative to those fed the barley silage, showed that good silage could be made from a high protein crop (some believe that a high proteinrTDN ratio makes a crop difficult to ensile). 2. Performance of calves on the canola silage was substandard, but expected, in view of the condition of the crop at the time it was put up. These results should not be interpreted as indicating that silage made from a canola crop put up under more normal conditions would not make good feed. In some years canola crops are frozen prior to harvesting and could well be salvaged for livestock feed in the form of silage. Nitrate levels should be checked prior to feeding the silage, and the silage suitably "diluted" with other feeds, if necessary. FINISHING BEEF STEERS AND HEIFERS ON FORAGE-BASED RATIONS HAY TO GRAIN RATIO AND THE EFFECT OF HAY QUALITY IN STEER FINISHING RATIONS To investigate the effect of level of ground hay on the performance of finishing steers, a test involving four lots of eight Hereford steers was carried out to evaluate rations containing 20, 50, 80 and 99% ground bromegrass hay (plus a mineral, vitamin and antibiotic supplement). The key results are summarized in Table 28. Table 28. Effects of feeding ground hay at various levels in steer finishing rations Ration 20% Hay 50% Hay 80% Hay 99% Hay 77 70 70 63 0.79 1.00 1.07 1.02 7.2 8.7 11.5 11.7 9.2 9.7 10.8 11.5 459 459 462 458 53.7 53.2 52.2 50.6 3 8 4 2 3 0 4 5 2 0 0 1 Days on test Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed eaten (kg) Feedtgain ratio Average final weight (kg) Dressing % Carcass grades: Choice Good Standard 50 Comments (Table 28) 1. It was demonstrated that steers could be finished on rations containing substantial amounts of ground hay. 2. Taking all cattle to a similar carcass weight was not a sound practice. Due to higher intakes of the bulky rations, steers fed the high forage rations appeared to be closer to finish than they actually were, and should have been taken to heavier liveweights to equalize carcass weights and grades across the rations containing different levels of hay. The next step was to look at the effect of hay quality and level in rations for finishing steers. Forty-eight, steers averaging 386 kg, were weighed directly off pasture and assigned to one of six ration treatments, comprising 20, 50 and 80% of either good or poor quality ground hay. Rations were self-fed from the start, except that steers assigned to the 20% and 50% rations received the 80% hay ration for one week, then the former a 50% hay ration for a week before receiving their final ration. The key results of the 61 day test are summarized in Table 29. Table 29. Effect of level and quality of ground hay in steer finishing rations Hay Level: 20% 50% 80% Hay Quality*: Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Average daily gain (kg) 0.99 1.22 1.46 1.09 1.14 1.44 Average daily feed (kg) 11.1 10.2 13.2 11.4 12.4 13.0 Feed:gain ratio 11.2 8.4 9.0 10.3 10.9 9.0 Average final weight (kg) 446 460 475 454 456 477 Dressing % 54.8 54.4 53.0 54.7 51.8 53.8 Cold carcass weight (kg) 244 250 252 248 237 257 Average depth of backfat (mm) 14 13 15 14 11 13 Carcass grades: Choice 2 2 3 2 1 2 Good 5 5 4 6 5 6 Standard 1 0 1 0 2 0 *Good - Alfalfa and bromegrass, 14% CP; Poor - Meadow fescue:wheat straw (9:1), 7.5% CP; Grain, 14% CP. Comments (Table 29) 1. Hay quality was important at the 20 and 80% levels, with the good quality hay producing better rates of gain and feed:gain ratios than did the poor quality hay. 51 2. Dressing percentages were reduced as the level of hay increased with a much greater reduction in the case of the steers fed the poorer quality forage. 3. There was a tendency for steers fed the 50% level of good quality hay (mainly alfalfa) to bloat, which reduced both rate of gain and feed efficiency. Perhaps because of this, poor quality hay gave the test performance when fed at the 50% level while the high quality hay gave best results when fed at the 80% level. To provide further information on the effect of hay quality and level in steer finishing rations a more extensive experiment was carried out in each of two years. In this test, good, medium and poor quality forages were ground (8 mm screen) and self-fed at levels of 20, 45, 70 and 95% of complete rations to a total of 192 crossbred steers (4 Charolais x Hereford and 4 Angus x Hereford assigned to each ration) in each of the two replicates (years). Steers averaged 363 kg at the start of the test. Long hay was available initially to the cattle fed the high grain rations and oats was used as the grain portion of the ration, then gradually replaced with barley. Various hays and straw (in some rations) were blended to provide a "good" hay (about 16% CP), a "medium" hay (11.5% CP) and a "poor" hay (9.8% CP). All steers were implanted and self-fed. Rations were supplemented with minerals, vitamin A and an antibiotic and carcasses individually assessed under the Blue Tag Program of the Production and Inspection Branch at Agriculture Canada. The results are summarized as follows (Table 30) to facilitate comparisons. Table 30. Level of Hay in the Ration (X) 20 45 70 95 Rate of Gain (kg) Hay quality: Good 1.77 1.31 1.39 1.35 Medium 1.88 1.58 1.35 1.09 Poor 1.76 1.63 1.33 0.75 Average Daily Feed (kg) Hay quality: Good 13.5 13.5 14.9 15.3 Medium 13.1 13.7 14.3 14.1 Poor 14.6 15.7 15.4 13.0 Feed:gain Ratio Hay quality: Good 7.6 10.4 10.7 11.3 Medium 7.0 8.7 10.6 12.9 Poor 8.3 9.6 11.6 17.3 Dressing X Hay quality: Good 53.9 54.4 53.6 52.8 Medium 53.6 53.0 52.2 50.8 Poor 53.2 52.6 51.3 47.5 Carcass Grades (Choice-Good-Standard) Hay quality: Good 6-9-1 5-6-4 2-8-5 4-10-2 Medium 9-7-0 6-8-1 5-7-4 4-3-9 Poor 11-2-3 5-10-1 3-9-2 1-2-8 52 Comments (Table 30) 1. Rate of gain was adversely affected by increasing the level of ground hay in the ration, with the greatest depression occurring when the poor quality forage was fed. At the 45% hay level, rate of gain was improved as the quality of hay decreased, probably due to the occurrence of bloat when the good quality (largely alfalfa) hay was fed at this level. (In the first year, 3 steers fed the 45% good hay ration bloated repeatedly, and in the second year, bloat occurred in steers fed the 45 and 70% levels of good hay, with one death occurring in each treatment. 2. Steers fed good quality hay increased their intake of feed as the level of hay in the ration increased, presumably in an effort to increase energy intake. Those fed medium quality hay increased intake to the 70% hay level, while those fed the poor quality hay, while eating more feed than those fed either the good or medium quality hay, maximized intake at the 45% hay level. 3. As the level of hay in the ration increased, feed efficiency, as expected, was reduced with those fed the good quality hay requiring 3.7 more units of feed per unit of gain as the level of hay increased from 20 to 95%, while those fed the poor quality hay required an additional 9 units of feed per unit of gain when the hay level increased from 20 to 95%. 4. As forage level increased, the dressing percentage of the steers fed the good quality hay fell from 53.9 on the 20% hay ration to 52.8 on the 95% hay ration, while the comparable drop for the steers fed the poor quality hay was from 53.2 to 47.5%. 5. Carcass grades (under the grading system existing at the time) indicated that even at the high level of poor quality hay, it was possible for some steers to reach an acceptable degree of finish, although the trend in grades certainly indicates a decided reduction in grades as the level of medium and poor quality hay increased. With a subsequent change in the grading system to favor leaner carcasses, the effect on grades would not be so drastic today, nevertheless, the feeding of at least 30% grain with the medium quality hay and 50% grain with the poorer quality hay would appear to be required. In practice, the feeder would have to adjust the hay:grain level according to the performance of the cattle and the relative cost of hay and grain. 6. The project indicated the importance of high quality hay when constituting over 70% of the finishing ration. It also showed that hay quality was of minor importance when fed with grain at 20% of the ration. At the 45% hay level, good quality alfalfa is to be avoided and poorer quality hay, although reducing dressing percentage, supported a higher rate of gain and good carcass grades. If the producer wishes to use ground, good quality alfalfa hay in cattle finishing rations, it is recommended that at the 30% grain level, the ration 53 include 5% straw, in order to dilute the alfalfa and reduce the tendency to bloat, and that the straw be increased to 20% at the 50% grain level. The plan for this feeding practice is illustrated in Figure 7. 100 c o •H ■P 2 0) en (0 •p c a, 90 • - 80 - - 70 60 - 50 • - 40 - 30 20 10 Good Quality Ground Alfalfa Hay ♦Variable niHiHniiiiiiiiiiimimiiii Ground Straw miliiiillllllHlillllliilllliii Dry-rolled or Coarsely Ground Grain -Max. 100-120 dys-l Time Fig. 7. Feeding plan when changing from ground, high quality alfalfa to high grain ration ADJUSTING FROM HIGH-FORAGE TO HIGH-GRAIN RATIONS FOR FINISHING STEERS While it has been demonstrated that very good rates of gain could be obtained by feeding good quality, ground hay at levels of up to 95 percent of the ration, it has also been found that, in general, feed costs were higher, dressing percentages and grades lower and that returns to labor tended to be lower as increasing levels of ground hay were included in steer finishing rations. Many factors will affect the economics of feeding high levels of ground hay, - the cost of grain vs hay, the availability of efficient feed processing equipment, the cost of fuel and the market value of the product. During the progress of our work on forage finishing of cattle, there was a marked shift in the carcass grading standards, favoring leaner beef. This, of course, favored the forage over the grain-fed animals, as the lower energy forage-based rations tended to allow the animal to grow to heavier weights 54 before reaching the required degree of finish. It was observed during our work, that forage-fed cattle got off to an excellent start when self-fed ground hay rations, with no setbacks due to overeating, as sometimes occur with grain-fed cattle. We also noted that both forage- and grain-fed cattle had a tendency to tire of their rations toward the end of the feeding period, and that grain-fed cattle, fed for long periods, tended to develop parakeratosis of the rumen lining, and absessed livers. Grain-fed cattle always had a higher dressing percentage than forage-fed cattle. Because of this it was felt that we should study the effect of starting cattle out on high, ground-hay rations and gradually change to a high-grain ration over different time periods. A feeding trial involving 48, 294 kg Charolais x Angus steers was carried out in each of two summers to evaluate four feeding systems as follows: 1. A 50% ground hay starter ration was fed for two days, with the amount of grain increased at two day intervals, so that by the 9th day the cattle were at the 90% grain level. 2. Each lot (12 head) fed 909 kg lots of 70, 60, 50, 40, 30 and 20% (half straw) ground hay rations in succession before receiving the 90% grain finishing ration. 3. As for Lot 2, except that 1818 kg of each ration was fed. 4. As for Lot 2, except that 2727 kg of each ration was fed. All steers had access to cobalt-iodized block salt and water at all times, except that for the 12 hours prior to weighing (at weekly intervals) water bowls were covered. Grain was dry-rolled and roughage processed through a 13 mm screen. Implant treatments were evaluated within ration treatments, with 9 of the 12 steers on each ration treatment receiving implants. All cattle were marketed directly to the plant after 155 days on feed, and carcasses evaluated under the Blue Tag Program of the Production and Inspection Branch of Agriculture Canada. The ration formula are shown in Table 31. 55 Table 31. Ration formulae (%) Ingredient Roughage Level Starter 70 60 50 40 30 20 Finisher 50 70 60 50 40 30 10 0 - - - - - - 10 10 - - - - - - 10 10 4.65 - - - - — - - 25 28.3 38.4 48.4 58.4 68.4 78.4 88.4 2.25 1.0 0.85 0.71 0.5 0.37 0.21 - _ _ 0.14 0.29 0.5 0.64 0.79 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Brome-alfalfa hay Wheat straw Beet pulp Molasses Grain (rolled) Calcium phosphate (18.5% Ca, 20.5% P) Limestone Cobalt-iodized salt ADE supplement (10,000 IU vit. A/gm) Aurofac 10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Crude protein % Calculated TDN Density (kg/m ) 13.2 14.9 14.7 14.4 14.1 13.9 12.2 12.0 57 56 59 61 64 67 68 71 312 276 284 300 334 365 401 457 The performance of the steers is summarized in Table 32. Table 32. Performance of steers fed increasing levels of ground hay (2 yr average, 24 steers/ration - 155 day trial) Lot #1 Lot #2 Lot #3 Lot #4 (Av. (Av. (Av. (Av. IX hay) 11% hay) 21% hay) 31% hay) Average final weight (kg) 519 518 520 528 Average daily gain (kg) 1.45 1.45 1.47 1.52 Average daily feed (kg) 11.0 11.6 12.0 12.4 Total feed/head (kg) 1701 1809 1855 1917 - hay 20 198 394 597 - straw 167 146 113 79 - grain 1480 1436 1320 1210 - other 34 29 28 31 Feed:gain ratio 7.55 8.05 8.19 8.22 Average carcass weight (kg) 293.6 292.2 292.3 295.9 Dressing % 56.5 56.4 56.2 56.1 Carcass grades**: Al, A2 19 20 19 22 A3 5 4 5 2 Backfat (mm) Area of lean eye (cm ) 19 19 18 18 77 77 76 77 **Estimated from 1971-72 grading system. 56 The effect of using implants for steers within ration treatment is summarized in Table 33. Table 33. A comparison of Ralgro and Synovex implants for steers Implant Treatment (av. 148 days) Control Ralgro Synovex S 300 302 304 504 530 535 1.38 1.54 1.56 282 299 303 55.9 56.5 56.6 21 20 19 73 74 80 Average initial weight (kg) Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Carcass weight (kg) Dressing % Depth of backfat (mm) _ Area of eye of lean (cm ) Comments (Table 33) 1. Cattle in the test were considerably overfinished by today's standards. 2. Including progressively more ground forage in the ration, marginally increased rate of gain, increased intake of feed and increased feedrgain ratio. The increased rate of gain was offset by the reduction in dressing percentage as the amount of forage in the ration increased, with the result that carcass weights were essentially comparable. 3. Unless hay was valued at less than half the cost of grain, it is unlikely that it would be worth the effort to incorporate the rather minimal amounts of hay into the high grain rations used in this test. 4. Implanting with Ralgro and Synovex S increased rate of gain by 11.5 and 13%, respectively, and resulted in increased carcass weights with marginally less backfat compared to the unimplanted steers. A COMPARISON OF SEVERAL RATES OF REDUCING THE LEVEL OF GROUND HAY IN STEER FINISHING RATIONS Because we had found no adverse effect due to including a fairly high (70%) level of ground hay during the early stages of a steer finishing trial (average 30% hay over the feeding period) it was deemed important to determine how much hay could be included into a ration in which the grain component would increase to a high level during the last few weeks of the feeding period. 57 Twelve crossbred steers were assigned to each of four ration treatments. Steers were self-fed rations containing 50, 70, 80 and 90 percent ground mixed grass hay initially, and over periods of time ranging from 9 days to 15, 16 and 18 weeks, gradually shifted onto a finishing ration containing 90, 90, 80 and 70% grain, respectively (Fig. 8). 100 4 90 c o TO Pi 3 u T3 C 3 O u o 80 « 70 60 50 ■ t 40 ' *s 30 20 10 l i i I I « I I I k. . . .. 'I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I , *. I I I L — 1 I I v,. +m 10 12 14 Weeks on Feed 16 18 20 T2 Fig. 8. Feeding plan. The ration composition is shown in Table 34, animal performance is summarized in Table 35, and the effect of implant treatment (administered within ration treatments) or rate of gain and carcass characteristics is summarized in Table 36. Four steers failed to complete the test, one in each lot. One injured a hip and three began to loss weight and did not respond to treatment. 58 Table 34. Composition of steer finishing rations (%) Ingredient Starter Ground Bay Rations Finisher Ground grass hay Ground wheat straw Beet pulp Molasses Tallow or canola oil Rolled grain Calcium phosphate Limestone Salt Vitamin ACE supplement Aurofac 10 Crude protein_% (90% CM basis) Density (kg/m ) 50 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 - - - - - - - - 10 10 17.5 - - - - - - - - - 4.65 - - - - - - - - - - 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 25.0 6.2 16.3 26.4 36.4 46.4 56.4 66.4 76.4 86.4 2.25 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 - - - - - 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.8 10.1 10.4 11.2 11.4 12.0 12.4 13.0 12.4 12.4 245 187 212 226 259 273 307 340 340 412 35. Performance of finishing steers started at different levels of ground hay (147 day test) Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 90% 80% 70% Lot 1 grain grain grain 902 grain at 105 at 119 at 126 at 9 days days days days 347 351 348 349 573 580 562 553 1.53 1.56 1.45 1.39 10.72 12.33 12.37 12.26 6.99 7.89 8.50 8.83 1579 1814 1820 1805 25 600 885 1175 153 67 35 0 1340 1090 843 573 61 57 57 57 198.75 205.87 193.63 178.31 88 90 90 87 323 324 316 313 56.3 55.8 56.1 56.5 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1024.79 1030.32 1004.88 995.34 184.09 175.10 167.45 171.38 72.90 73.20 72.98 73.05 (kg) Average initial weight (k Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed (kg) Feed:gain ratio Total feed/head (kg) - hay - straw - grain - other Feed cost /head ($) Feed cost/kg gain (6) Carcass weight (kg) Dressing X Carcass grades: A1,A2 A3 Average carcass value ($) Carcass value less feeder and feed cost ($) Less other costs (interest, yardage, veterinary, implant and shipping ($/head) Return to labor, feed processing and capital cost ($/head) 111.19 101.90 94.47 98.33 59 Table 36. Effect of implant treatment on performance of feedlot steers (averaged across rations) Control Ralgro Synovex S Number of steers Average initial weight (kg) Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average carcass weight (kg) Dressing % Carcass grades: A1,A2 A3 16 15 13 349 349 354 548 578 581 1.37 1.56 1.54 309 330 329 55.5 56.2 56.7 15 13 12 1 2 1 Table 37. Effect of ration x implant interaction on rate of gain Low (11%) Hay Level Medium (37%) Moderate (51%) High (65%) Average Control Ralgro Synovex Average 1.48 1.59 1.54 1.54 1.51 1.65 1.52 1.56 1.30 1.51 1.57 1.46 1.21 1.47 1.52 1.40 1.37 1.55 1.54 Comments (Tables 35, 36 and 37) 1. Returns to labor, processing and capital costs were about $13/head less for the steers fed the high forage ration. 2. Rates of gain were quite good on all rations with quite acceptable feed:gain ratios, considering the TDN content of the rations. Dressing percentages and carcass grades were not adversely affected by feeding the highest level of ground hay. 3. Both implant treatments increased rate of gain (average 13%), dressing percentage and carcass weights, with response to implantation being much higher for steers fed the rations with the higher levels of ground hay (average 0.27 kg for steers fed the moderate and high levels of hay vs 0.8 kg/day for steers fed the low and medium levels of hay). 60 ADDING ACIDULATED FATTY ACIDS (AFA) TO A GROUND, GOOD QUALITY HAY RATION FOR FINISHING STEERS Ground, good quality hay rations tend to be dusty and to contain a higher proportion of protein to energy than is optimal for growing-finishing steers. The availability of a low viscosity (compared to tallow) high energy by-product of the manufacture of canola oil, called acidulated fatty acids (AFA), at a reasonable price (range 22-44c7kg) appeared to offer promise as a supplement that would not only eliminate dust but would bring the energy level of a high forage ration into better balance with its protein content. AFA contains oleic (58%), linoleic (28%), linolenic (8%), and palmitic (5%) fatty acids plus small and variable amounts of salt, phosphoric and sulphuric acids, phosphatides (gums), water and canola oil. (Estimated TDN value, 180-200%.) It has a pH of 7 (non-corrosive) and does not build up inside mixing equipment as tallow does. The rations fed were formulated as follows. Ration No. 1 2 3 Check 4% AFA 5% AFA 982.4 942.4 932.4 — 40 50 5 5 5 12 12 12 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 88.5 87.2 88.4 14.5 15.1 15.6 56.0 54.2 55.6 56.0 61.7 63.1 Ground alfalfa hay (1.27 cm screen) AFA Cobalt-iodized, trace-mineralized salt Calcium phosphate (18% Ca, 20.5% P) Vitamin ADE (10,000 IU, vit. A/gm) Aurofac 10 (22 gm/kg) Total Dry matter % Crude protein (% of DM) Dig. organic matter (% of DM) Estimated TDN The results of the feeding trial are summarized in Table 38. 61 Table 38. The effect of supplementing ground brome-alfalfa hay rations with AFA on the performance of 380 kg finishing beef steers Control AX AFA* 5X AFA Av. final weight (kg) Days on feed Av. daily gain (kg) Feedrgain ratio Feed cost/head ($) Processing @ $7.15/tonne ($) Other (facilities, interest, implant, veterinary, & shipping) ($) Carcass wt. (kg) Dressing % Grades, A1,A2 Backfat cover (mm) Carcass value ($) Initial value of feeder ($) Total production costs ($) Av. return/hd ($) 536 549 530 109 102 99 1.42 1.65 1.50 9.31 8.41 9.43 109.16 122.61 126.42 10.37 10.06 10.05 52.34 49.50 48.97 284.5 293.6 290.9 53.1 53.6 54.9 10 10 10 11.4 9.4 10.6 913.25 942.46 933.79 703.00 704.85 704.85 171.87 182.17 185.44 38.38 55.44 43.50 *AFA valued at 36.3*/kg. Comments (Table 38) 1. The use of acidulated fatty acids at the 4% level improved rate of gain by 16%, feed efficiency by 9.7%, dressing X by 0.5 percentage units and increased returns to labor by $17.06/head. 2. AFA, where available within a reasonable distance at a reasonable price, is an excellent supplement for ground, high protein forage-based rations. In this test, the break-even price of the AFA would have been 42.3£/kg. Transportation and handling costs would also have to be considered when determining the economics of AFA use. EFFECT OF FEED ADDITIVES, HIGH ENERGY SUPPLEMENTS AND PELLETING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING STEERS A feeding trial was carried out with 128 yearling crossbred steers to investigate a number of factors which might affect the response of finishing steers fed rations based on ground, good quality hay. A high-grain control ration was included to permit a practical assessment of results. All rations were prepared with a Bearcat grinder-mixer and pelleting done with the station's pelleting equipment. Rations to be pelleted were ground through a 0.6 mm screen, while the roughage components of the rations fed in the ground 62 form were processed through a 1.27 cm screen. All rations were self-fed from the start, with a series of low to moderate energy starter rations used to get the steers fed the grain-based rations safely onto feed by the 9th day. Aureomycin was fed to supply 100 mg/head/day and Rumensin at the recommended level (11 g/tonne of D.M. for 28 days, then 33 g/tonne). All steers had free access to cobalt-iodized block salt and a mineral mix (1 part cobalt-iodized trace mineralized, hi-iodine salt and 2 parts of a calcium phosphorus mineral supplement containing 18% calcium and 20.5% phosphorus). Steers were marketed when they were deemed to carry enough finish to qualify for Al or A2 grades. The results are presented in Table 39. Comments (Table 39) 1. Adding 3% of acidulated fatty acids (AFA) to the high grain ration increased rate of gain by 5% and feed efficiency by 9.6%, with no effect on carcass yield or grade, increasing returns by $13.50/head. 2. Adding AFA to the ground hay + aureomycin ration had no effect on rate of gain, improved feed efficiency by 4%, increased dressing percentage by 1.2 units and increased returns by $12.50. 3. Replacing aureomycin with rumensin in the forage ration reduced rate of gain by 8%, improved feed efficiency by 2%, reduced dressing percentage by 0.8 units and reduced returns per steer by $20. Replacing aureomycin with rumensin in the ground forage + AFA ration reduced rate of gain by 2%, improved feed efficiency by 4%, reduced dressing percentage by 0.5 units and reduced returns by $3.57. 4. Adding tallow to the forage + aureomycin ration increased rate of gain by 6.4%, and feed efficiency by 11%, but the cost of the tallow (66d/kg) nearly offset this to return only $2 more per head. Returns on the steers receiving tallow were $10.60 per head less than those receiving the AFA. Had the tallow been priced the same as the AFA, it's use would have returned about $5 more per head than the AFA. 5. Pelleting the forage + aureomycin ration (approximately 6 mm die) led to the loss of two steers by bloat in the first replicate (fed good quality alfalfa) and likely caused digestive problems with some of the other animals, leading to poorer than expected rate of gain and feed efficiency, in view of the high level of intake. 6. Best forage ration was the one supplemented with aureomycin and 3% AFA, which returned about $l/head less than the grain ration without AFA. 7. In this test Simmental x Hereford steers gained faster than the Angus crossbreds and produced heavier carcasses with higher cutability, higher marbling score and greater dollar value. 63 a CM 3 W 6 » co cm \D K •«-"Q' • in cm co flirtH -cion in co CO** • • cm cm I Q r*» • • • ^3^ ft St cm1 d CM CM o o cm co m Ss a O H < Q 0> N r»» st i— i en • • min h • co on ^53 *0 p-» op r» vO CO H ON in ^ •* <* ^-J COQOMO on i st • co st no co oq «r-ii-i • • in cm n ON CM O O a 59 • • • 3 CO UO iH ♦ CO ON 95R91 CO P>«CMCOr-l COSti-HCOstOCMrOQinOO. iq isj- •co-it coocq »t-HQ • • in cm n in ON • • • • CM CO I CM N • • • i-l cm o o no in m cm hio <*in ' $ S ^ CM I CO I st cm on cginvocovo^sj-inQcyNst _• CO CO sf CO v£> • H Q _^ _ • Co M3 C" O CO on CM O O • CM rH m m in r» o m3 r-i m co vo co »h st • • co m i-H • st o on in. 5b st vO so so co o in • • co in rH • i-H r^ r«« on co cososOi-Hst^-Nstomoso r co st >J N ^ _! H CM _• j o> O CO SO CM • • • • CM CM I OCO • • • t-h co © o o on m Oi-hi7icosovo r-t vo w r^. r*. t-i rH vO CO f— I C"") _; _^ T_?CM"^ I f) |s _; j ; Soo rHcjN « m ss. no st o> i-< r^ no vo CO st P^- cm O st • • CO m i-H • CM 00 P^ CM St CM .in vocMNOcMino-f^coinvoin COst I 'COCO CO st CD .r-)Q • • CO H If) * 1 rH r-» • • • CM VD CM . st CO • -^ . ♦ • • cm st cm o O r-. r-» in m 38 ON if 3^s ■CO- -f s a I i-5 a) <2J -co- I vi_t o W ?| ^^^2 ^ ^ •H J)H 3 9 s u -H -8 Sb So rH r-H 8 3 3 3 si £1111111 J> > > t> > CD O < < < <: » CQ NO > if • ~ r^ Q \ S V> CO • ^ <7> CM CO rH CSJ CO m ON • cm vo ca» *■ *p~f s 8 --WW rH ^ g < 64 In the first year of this trial, alfalfa hay was used, while in the second year a brome-alfalfa hay was fed. The crude protein (C.P.) and digestible organic matter (D.O.M.) content of the eight rations are shown for each of the two years (Replicates). Year 1 Year 2 Alfalfa Brome-alfai lfa Est. Est. DOM TDN* DOM TDN CP % % % CP % % % Grain + aureomycin 12.6 63.7 63.7 12.7 62.7 62.7 Grain + AFA + aureomycin 12.5 63.5 67.7 12.4 63.2 67.3 Ground hay + aureomycin 18.0 58.0 58.0 14.3 57.8 57.8 Ground hay + rumensin 17. A 57.1 57.1 14.2 57.0 57.0 Ground hay + AFA + aureomycin 17.2 56.5 60.6 13.8 56.0 60.3 Ground hay + tallow + aureomycin 17.1 55.2 59.4 13.9 56.0 60.3 Ground hay + AFA + rumensin 16.9 58.4 62.5 14.1 56.3 60.6 Pelleted hay + aureomycin 15.8 57.9 57.9 15.2 57.4 57.4 *Assuming AFA and tallow at 200% TDN. PELLETING HIGH FORAGE RATIONS In previous feeding trials it was found that cattle fed pelleted, high-quality alfalfa rations had a tendency to bloat. A small trial was carried out to compare three rations, based on ground alfalfa hay (95%), pelleted hay and pelleted hay plus rumensin. The results are summarized in Table 40. 65 Table 40. The effect of pelleting and of rumensin on the utilization of alfalfa hay (10, 381 kg steers per ration*) Ground Pelleted Pelleted alfalfa alfalfa hay + hay hay rumensin 545 529 535 108 104 100 1.52 1.43 1.53 8.75 9.30 8.71 287 292 292 52.7 55.1 54.7 11 11 9 -1.47 17.81 30.34 4.3 3.8 3.4 Av. final weight (kg) Days on feed Av. daily gain (kg) Feed:gain ratio Hot carcass weight (kg) Dressing % Av. backfat thickness (mm) Av. return/head ($) Acetic:propionic ratio in rumen fluid *Dry matter 89.2%; crude protein 17.5%; digestible organic matter 57.5; and ash 8.4%. Comments (Table 40) 1. Rate of gain and feed efficiency of the steers fed the pelleted hay ration were lower than for steers fed the ground ration. However, despite some bloat problems, the steers fed the pelleted ration dressed out heavier, graded better and returned about $19/hd more than those fed the ground hay ration. 2. Adding rumensin to the pelleted alfalfa ration eliminated the bloat problem and produced a rate of gain and feed efficiency similar to that of the ground alfalfa-fed steers. A higher dressing percentage and better grades resulted in a return of about $32/head more than the ground alfalfa-fed steers. 3. A pelleted alfalfa ration can cause bloat. Adding rumensin will eliminate bloat, due presumably to a reduction in gas production. FINISHING STEERS ON A VARIETY OF FORAGE BASED RATIONS An experiment was conducted in 1^87 to obtain additional or new information on the performance of finishing beef steers and heifers fed rations based on crested wheatgrass hay or silage and on alfalfa. The effect of adding peas to a finishing ration based on crested wheatgrass silage followed by a barley ration was also determined. The test involved 239 Charolais-sired, three-way cross yearlings (118 66 steers and 121 heifers). All animals were implanted. In those treatments involving a growing ration followed by a finishing ration, the growing ration was fed for 60 days. Animals were either full-fed or self-fed, weighed at weekly intervals and, once approaching finished condition, were ultrasonically measured to determine backfat thickness. All carcasses were evaluated under the Blue Tag program of the Production and Inspection Branch of Agriculture Canada. The ration composition is shown in Table 41, and the animal performance summarized in Table 42. Crested CUG Grain Crested wheat Alfalfa CWG silage Grain + peas wheat + AFA + AFA silage* + peas* Rolled barley 85.37 78.37 _ __ Ground barley straw 10.0 9.0 - - - - - Peas - 8.0 - - - - 8.0 Hay or silage - - 98.3 94.3 94.3 100.0 92.0 Acidulated fatty acids 3.0 3.0 - 4.0 4.0 - - Limestone 0.6 0.6 - - - - - Calcium phosphate 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - Salt (cobalt-iodized trace mineraLzed) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - Dry vitamin (ADE) 0.025 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.02 - - Aurofac 50 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 - — Chemical Analysis (% of Dry Matter) Dry matter 88.6 91.2 89.5 89.9 88.6 37.8 42.0 Crude protein 11.0 11.6 11.0 10.4 18.2 14.2 15.0 Digestible organic matter 71.4 73.4 64.9 62.6 63.0 66.9 68.6 *Free choice minerals, vitamins and antibiotic sprinkled over silage daily. 67 Id •H u bO c •H -C co 0) id CO On i co 3 to lH >> u id B e 3 CO ■o CU CO c cu "O c o u CM -3 r-H X id H c 0) E *-* id u H C o Id fa. CU O bo > id CO bo (0 co CO CJ> + 0) — i u id co CO id CD CL (T3 a. >, rH u CO ca CU >. m co in < (•5 bo (V H H o* o > rt f— 1 \ «tf U -— i u o «-h •H id CM CO CO (V bo o id :* rH o •H co < fa, o < r» I c_> >s id tc (0 < mh + fa* •H < Id >> <*h id »s? + < CJ fa. > >>< O Id X *s ^3- >> CV ~t u id CO > • > (T3 Sh a X bo n m oo c* n h <* c^ a M ■^ >* • • o o «-h en so O -J- co • in so m o> CM os os rH en r-» CM m co cm cm «h m CO CM CM m >3- m rH so r^ r- os • m o CM o> CO CO sO m o so as cm rH r-» NStOH N •* H • O rH en r-« rH in m • m o rH CM en o I CO 0> I CO rH cm r-^ CM O m o> o CT\ CM rH m -tfsOCOOrHOsOOS Os • CM • • vO cm m so o • m so so m os cr* en en Os CO so on r-~ in rINN cm m en en m en r~ rH CO rH rH OS rH O -» • • en o rH CM m • m cm rH O P- O SO CM CO rH O SO CM m co cm -3- so m CM rH O r- • en t • • CM CM o m I I o CM m CO rH sj rH rH OS O ^ -3 o CM CO I I O CM I rH rH m co m I CM rH CM en en rH in r^ CM in as cm en rH . m so rH CM I I I in Os rH in m cm i m o CM CM CM • • m o -» so m r~ • en CM CM m os 3" co • en cm en m os O en • • rH so O • so en ^-* Os m CO rH • • r- so os • m os o Os rH >» r~ CM • • co r*. Os • m co co co rH SO OS rH so m CM -4- CM SO CM rH cm m <• CM CO so en o en CM sO O HO* r-» rH r^ so so CM >* CO CO rH en en CO co m OS rH Os en CM O Os so so cm m 00 >* CM 00 -tf r-- en CO Os CM in rH r^ m -3- <-h co • en cm en m r^ r^ co • rH r» os • in m O Os N*0 O CO SO m >» o stO* m ^3 sO >3" CO en os m cm os o o O O m r- rH -3- «st m en CO Os Os o o o m SO >3- CO u V V 4-* w u -c bO bo *-- •H W > >-> bO C bO-H C -C •H V) > -H o c U -H bO**-" u bo > o ► m o o >-> u a» -o E 3 Z V) H >s C (I) H TJ > > < < I C •rH rt bO > I -c bo •H sV > bo id JZ -o c 3 o u bo > < >s r-l sV 1H bo (0 0} x> —I w a; o » o i i >> >> id a. Q. 3 CO 01 c id cu XI CO id a> a. (d (d i i i i i o ■K ■K O m o (0 aj c o -H 3 CJ> -o I 01 1-1 a rH en < < E E co 3 co cv (T3 U O - >» (d lH 4-> > (U -H > rH CO CO O -H CO U U X) 03 o u cd fa- o u co u (V * X3 T> Q) (V CO CO 01 lH o co u o CO c u 3 en en bo •» >■» > nj id cm U rH t-l CO - ai >, c CJ o U CO » •> id cv c *-> id in — bO -J* >%\ id >j X rH en (0 w « id *-> U rH bo id •w CO id ai — x bO CU rH *-> rH CO cu - U CO U bO c «•. -H bo C u cu 4_> X bo 3 id r— I 10 u o u a. -c M . cu bo cu o cu -tf c • o m CO c o •• -rH o *-> m id u o id cu MH X o *-> u 3 E < O U • «. UJ bO J^ -3 V. CU CO > CM O • E rH CU cr> as •K 68 Comments 1. The use of ultrasonic measurements of backfat thickness markedly increased the number of carcasses grading Al or A2 compared to most previous trials. 2. All cattle fed the ground hay or silage + AFA-based rations graded Al or A2. 3. Returns to labor were almost as high, $44.12 vs $45.09, for the cattle fed the crested wheatgrass + AFA ration as for those fed the barley-based ration. 4. Despite lower crude protein content, crested wheat-AFA ration produced a better feedrgain ratio than did the alfalfa-AFA ration. 5. Rate of gain on crested wheatgrass silage was lower than on crested wheatgrass hay. 6. Supplementing the steer rations with pulse crop screenings improved the rate of gain when the CWG silage ration was fed but reduced it when the barley ration was fed. Combining the two feeding periods, favored the addition of the legume screenings and increased returns per steer by about $30, largely because of improved dressing percentage and feed conversion efficiency. PARTIALLY REPLACING GROUND ALFALFA HAY WITH STRAW OR AMMONIATED STRAW IN A FINISHING RATION FOR STEERS AND HEIFERS Ammoniating cereal straw (3% anhydrous ammonia by weight) increases the crude protein and total digestible nutrient content and increases intake. Because of the abundance of cereal straw in the prairie provinces, its use in beef cattle rations is very logical, particularly as the main roughage source in beef cow wintering rations and as a diluent in high energy finishing rations. To determine the effect of replacing some of the ground, high quality hay in a finishing ration for steers and heifers, a project was undertaken, involving seventy-two head of Charolais-sired crossbred cattle, self-fed the following rations, (1) ground alfalfa (93%) control, (2) control containing 25% ground barley straw, (3) control containing 25% ammoniated barley straw (3% anhydrous ammonia by weight), (4) control containing 35% ammoniated barley straw. The barley straw analysed 4% crude protein, 42% digestible organic matter and 20% moisture and was ground (1.27 cm screen) before being ammoniated in an insulated plywood bin. Shortage of space precludes presentation of detailed results. However none of the straw treatments had any merit, all resulting in poorer animal performance and a marked reduction in returns to labor ($35, -$14, -$25 and -$52 per head for the steers and heifers fed the control, 25% ground hay, 25% ammoniated straw and 35% ammoniated straw treatments, respectively. 69 Ammoniated cereal straw may have some merit when fed in other types of rations (cow wintering rations, perhaps at higher levels (to permit the development of a more suitable rumen microflora), or when the price or availability of good quality hay presents a problem. We might add that perhaps, if hay is available at a reasonable cost, cereal straw would be more useful if returned to build up the organic matter of the soil! IMPLANTS AND ADDITIVES FOR BEEF CATTLE FED FORAGE- AND GRAIN-BASED RATIONS Current feedlot technology includes the use of growth promoting implants and the use of additives to improve efficiency of digestion in the rumen or to counter low-level infections. Growth promoting implants such as Synovex S (progesterone + estradiol), Synovex H (testosterone + estradiol). Ralgro (resorcyclic acid lactone) and Compudose (estradiol-17 beta) are hormone, or hormone-like products, which increase growth rate and feed efficiency and allow finishing cattle to be carried to heavier weights than non-implanted cattle of similar type, before reaching a comparable backfat thickness. The implant is placed under the hide at the mid point of the back of the ear. There is no withdrawal period for the Synovex or Compudose products, but Ralgro-implanted cattle must not be marketed prior to 65 days following implanting. Feed additives include antibiotics such as aureomycin, terraymcin and penicillin and ionophores such as monensin and lasalocid. The antibiotics administered at sub-therapeutic levels via the feed have been used in rations for growing poultry, swine and beef cattle, since they were dicovered in the late 1940's. These products counter low-level infections and generally result in healthier and faster-gaining animals and more efficient feed utilization. While the beneficial effect is most dramatic with "poor-doing" livestock suffering from stress or exposure to disease, the use of antibiotics in feed for normal livestock is usually cost effective. In 1977 a new additive, Rumensin (monensin sodium) became available for use in beef cattle rations. The chemical (classed as an ionophore) has been used to control coccidiosis in poultry and was later found to have a beneficial effect on the fermentation process in the rumen. It increases the proportion of propionic acid relative to acetic and butyric acids, and because propionic acid is more efficiently utilized than acetic acid by the animal, the efficiency of feed utilization is improved. (There is less carbon dioxide and methane gas production which can, in some instances, reduce the incidence of bloat.) It is claimed that Rumensin has no effect on the intake of forage-fed animals, but greater efficiency of feed utilization results in increased rate of gain. With grain-fed cattle, the greater production of propionic acid triggers the energy intake control mechanisms in the brain sooner, resulting 70 in a decrease in feed intake, but because of the improved efficiency of feed utilization, the rate of gain is not altered. Because of our interest in improving forage utilization by ruminants, it was decided to conduct a large-scale project to investigate the interactions of rations (forage vs grain), gender (steers vs heifers), implant (control, Synovex and Ralgro) and additive (aureomycin vs rumensin) on feedlot performance, carcass characteristics and the economics of beef production using Charolais-sired crossbreds (out of Angus x Hereford and Simmental x Hereford cows). A replicated experiment involving 360 yearling steers and heifers was carried out. Two rations, one based on ground (1.27 cm screen) alfalfa hay, the other on dry rolled barley; two additives, aureomycin (fed to provide 110 mg/hd/day) and rumensin (11 gm/tonne of dry matter for 28 days, then 33 gm/tonne DM); three implant treatments, check, Synovex S (200 mg progesterone plus 20 mg estradiol benzoate) for steers, Synovex H (200 mg testosterone plus 20 mg estradiol benzoate) for heifers and ralgro (24 mg resorcyclic acid lactone) used on steers only, were evaluated. All rations were prepared with a farm-type grinder mixer, with hay and straw ground through a 1.27 cm screen. Rations were self-fed, with the grain-fed cattle receiving a series of starter rations to permit an adjustment of rumen microflora to the high-energy ration. Cattle had free access to salt, mineral mix and water. Carcass data were obtained under the Blue Tag Program of the Production and Inspection Branch of Agriculture Canada. A number of variable costs were deducted from the carcass value of the cattle to arrive at a relative return to labor and investment. The rations fed (except starter rations for grain-fed cattle) were formulated (%) as follows: Forage Ration Grain Ration Ground (1.27 cm) alfalfa hay Rolled barley Barley straw (ground) Acidulated fatty acids (from canola) (AFA) Cobalt-iodized, trace mineralized salt Calcium phosphate (18* Ca, 10.5% P2°5^ Limestone Dry vitamin ADE (10,000 IU Vit. A/gm) Aureomycin* (Rumensin)** premix Dry matter (X) Crude protein (DM basis) (X) Digestible organic matter (DM basis) (%) Ash (DM basis) (X) 94.2 - 88.3 - 10.0 4.0 - 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.5 - 0.6 0.02 0.025 .08 (.075) .08 (.075) 89.8 87.9 16.3 11.8 58 65 10.5 5.2 *Aurofac 10: canola meal, 1:1 (not added to the ration during seven days prior to slaughter). **Rumensin: canola meal, 1:2 (after 28 days) 71 Because there were 20 different experimental treatments, the results have been summarized in different ways to facilitate comparison of the treatments. Table 43 summarizes the data to permit a comparison of steers and heifers, grain and forage-based rations, and the effect of no implant vs the use of the Synovex product. The data are averaged across the two additive treatments. Table 44 summarizes the data to permit a valid comparison of the effects of additive and ration within sex. Because the Ralgro implant treatment was included in the steer data (there was no Ralgro treatment for the heifers due to restricted facilities), a comparison of steers and heifers is not valid. For a valid steer vs heifer comparison refer to Table 43. Table 45 summarizes the data by ration and implant for steers fed the grain and forage-based rations. Comments (Table 43) 1. Steers and heifers of "exotic" breeding can be properly finished on ground, good quality hay-based rations. However, it is also clear that there were too many under-finished carcasses, particularly from the forage-fed cattle. There is a tendency to over-estimate the degree of finish on ground-hay fed cattle because of their greater degree of rumen fill compared to grain-fed cattle. In other experiments the use of an ultrasonic measurement of backfat thickness greatly reduced the number of "over" and "under" finished cattle marketed. 2. Cattle fed the ground-hay based ration took about two weeks longer to finish than their grain-fed counterparts, however, an additional 1 to 2 weeks of feeding should have been carried out for about 28 of the 180 forage-fed cattle. 3. Use of the growth promoting implant increased rate of gain by 19% for steers fed either ration and by 8.5 and 10% for heifers fed the grain and forage rations, respectively. Implanted cattle gained 4.5% more efficiently on the grain-based ration, 7.1% more efficiently on the forage-based ration. On average, implanted cattle dressed out marginally higher (0.05) on the grain rations and 0.6 percentage units higher on the forage-based ration. Implanted cattle increased returns by an average of $21.48 per head (implant cost $1.75/hd), with returns on forage-fed cattle averaging $26.13 higher, and on grain-fed cattle averaging $16.83 higher than for their unimplanted controls. 4. Implanting forage-fed cattle with the Synovex products was at least as effective, if not more effective, in improving the performance of finishing cattle as was the use of this implant for grain-fed cattle. 72 I rt 6 S 1 ! V) I 1 en 1 "8 •8 I S •8 I I W 3 -8 -8 t co O 5s • • N rl I CO ••in»»« ••«*>* • On CO • • • •— •'-''H On i— I «— I r-1 CM nw U~) CO «-H HdSiQNinncoN^ .cMcO-oles^^eo ••fh>*«'S..5inoN co ^ ^ ^; _^ C" °o ,r^-^;_:50 n ^o . on oo • • • -OOO ^ ^OOCO^ro^incsjinft 6 O cm S cm £ in CO i— I ** ^ ^■r^ONCOioocpo com<*>gtcQvovpmoo incococoinQQOQgo-3'cooN<--vr>-in»--i>3-r-»r*; NriNHO^NN NO • CO • • On ^T H ^ CO • • m ITI fO • • H N CO cn 1-1 m • • • NO CM HCNIO HtN) I t-1 • »-H CO • • • • • N^p -sj t-i m o in cm 00 in m On NO CM On CO rN on m *o n co r-» m 1-1 1— 1 r^ a NO H CM H •* ID CO CM O • **^ CO • • • > cm in t- >* csl §|a 3 ONHNCoioiriiri^coiricM^cNiN • 0 • •i^-00cOf~^C0 • • < O fi • •00000 co • •— ' co • • • • • r^ m • • in co • • • CNJO OOCOCONOOCMONin rIONinMHH NO t-H CM r-4 CM £8 co O ro OCMOQCMOnQnOO incMOCOCOONCMvOOOONCOrH^vcMONONr^inCM cMcMcMinr-tvDNpcM • co • .r-iso«co' j^h^ ^ • m O m i-iin • • •moh ico •'—•co Qm • 10 r*; • • • i-iO00rHi-i no coONcooqcMcMONin >* o cm in co co in 5 ssa^i On 00 !i2 _~ -» <^> CflQ. >-/ *^ Si? I + -S -H ^ S MM S *j h ^j *j 0 cT CD frt 4-> CO -i-l Cfl «H -H •> -C cu ^^ w fll ~^3 • • • •cp.uJi i i i i isp-dpyti^ti^p ya?t5^^ £ 2, 2. ^ ^ r® 5 < < < < < fci H Q) -H O O 4-» *-» *J &33S2 in C2J a r-i b * 73 CO 3 c 14-1 a ON 4-> 4-> 4-< £ 3 c £ on VO CO a 8 383 co th st • co r-» • cm 35 r^ co • • en r> n • • in o r^ r*. d3 cs) ^ S ^ co st ;g vg g g m n$ co r^g>QvDin^? til H CO lA N • CM CO O CO on ON • on m O es lo in CO r-« r» m copih r»- in r^ no no m st m in co co co co _• __• r-»- t^ st cm r- 1 on co on co st no cm st m rH rH rH CM ON SR cNjocsiincooNOcQ r*- in r-«- n^HvociinH^HOfOMONOQ rvrts+Ni/iocp-vOHtno • »vo - v- 1 in • • ' vo o • • ■ Q tH co m o CO in o m o in on th co _• _• cm o «— i o 3 . in m ov in co O cm in no CM CM rH CM W CM ON & CO ON vO 55 cnr^QmoNONinoNco n m >t n h m «-n m t-t o r» r^ in • cm ro j m co CO cMcoino^o^-sONONt-ioNinooN HO •. .."Jon • • CO O CM vO CM 6 CN ?! m • cm to on m r^ CM rH CM co on P2 in ON NO 00 i^ h m oo •* r^ co o m ih st no nn-^ ^c^incNicocovDvfl^r'ro^rjinpp] ^1 co CO st in ^o cm st in H H HCM HO CM ™ O r^ r-» co rH ON NO no ob co r» in r>> 3 inin^CO^CMCX)COQONOCQOr^Q^-sO'-stinstQ CO ON in CM C^ st rH • st CM CM CO • • St CM st • • CO CM O CO CO -cMrHcoinstON rs co ro cn| n cn rs • no no on O • • no cm co • 'Str^stON H 1/1 • • _• vfl O .' .' • • H st I • ITI 00 • • • • in HONlOHnONH s^ CO ON CO st ON NO 00 co a m on st co on rH CM rH CM CO CO- ^f^r^QNNOstrHtnvgcooNONio ? H cO st bo m co ;3o3 st NO rH CO H CMH NO rH CO in CO O CM in on no cm st in no go vO co I s co si ♦» co 5! #8 rH 8£ Ss? d5 a a OJ rH -H > rH CO O MH -H CO O O J3 8.S cd a) co -q r)j_)4_ij_i(lJ(S 4-> QJ 4-> U CO If 74 Comments (Table 44) 1. Supplementing with aureomycin returned more to labor and investment ($20.70/hd on grain-based rations and $5.78/hd on forage-based rations) than those receiving rumensin in their ration. On average, cattle receiving rumensin took 3 to 4 days longer to reach finished condition (0.37 cm vs 0.38 cm backfat/100 kg carcass), weighed slightly less (1.5 kg) at finish, and dressed out 0.55 percentage units less than those receiving aureomycin. Note: The use of aureomycin in finishing rations for beef cattle is not approved by Federal authorities. In our tests, the withdrawal of aureomycin from the feed, seven days prior to slaugher, eliminated any measurable traces of the antibiotic from the meat (muscle, kidney, liver and perirenal fat). Table 45. A comparison of Synovex S and Ralgro for steers fed grain and forage-based rations (46 s teers/ treatment ) Grain-Based Ration Forage-Based Ration Check Synovex S Ralgro Check Synovex S Ralgro Av. initial weight (kg) 373 375 373 374 374 375 Days on feed 120 109 116 134 127 138 Av. final weight (kg) 522 536 540 528 549 543 Av. daily gain (kg) 1.28 1.52 1.43 1.16 1.38 1.22 Av. daily feed (kg) 10.52 11.69 11.34 12.06 13.35 12.48 Feed:gain ratio 8.19 7.73 7.91 10.45 9.70 10.25 Total feed/hd (kg) 1260 1258 1310 1620 1698 1721 Feed cost/kg gain (i) 88.4 83.4 83.8 83.5 77.1 81.2 Feed processing ($) 3.79 3.89 3.94 5.40 5.66 5.74 Facility charge @ 156/day 18.00 16.35 17.40 20.10 19.05 20.70 Interest (10K) 22.69 20.72 21.93 24.03 22.77 24.81 Vet. & shipping ($) 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Implant - 1.75 1.35 - 1.75 1.35 Hot carcass wt. (kg) 290.9 297.5 300.4 286.4 297.4 291.2 Dressing X 55.3 55.5 55.6 54.3 54.2 53.7 Grades: A1,A2 41 45 45 39 41 45 (A3,B1) (4-1) d-0) (0-0) (2-5) (2-3) (0-O) Fat cover (cm/lQO kg) Eye of lean (cm / 100 kg) 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.36 25.9 25.5 25.9 24.6 25.0 25.7 Cutability 57.9 58.2 58.5 58.1 58.2 58.3 Av. carcass value ($) 923.80 952.84 964.28 879.19 918.58 908.54 Initial value of feeder ($1.85/kg) 690.05 693.75 690.05 654.50 654.50 656.25 Production costs 878.25 882.73 886.62 844.62 850.66 857.27 Av. returns to labor & investment ($) 45.55 70.11 77.66 34.57 67.92 51.27 Comments (Table 45) 1. Use of either implant resulted in improved rate of gain, better feed efficiency and heavier carcasses with slightly less backfat cover. 2. Synovex S produced the highest returns to labor when administered to 75 forage-fed steers while Ralgro gave higher returns when used on the grain-fed steers. In all cases, returns were substantially increased (average about $29 for the Synovex S and $24 for the Ralgro). 3. For each dollar invested in implants, there was an average return of almost $20 in this test. THE EFFECTS OF SUPPLEMENTING A GROWING-FINISHING RATION FOR STEERS AND HEIFERS, WITH SEVERAL FEED ADDITIVES As a follow-up to the test in which aureomycin was compared to monensin another experiment involving 209 crossbred steers and heifers fed a high, ground forage ration for 56 days, followed by a grain-based finishing ration, was undertaken to compare three additives, aureomycin (CTC), monensin (MON) and lasalocid (LAS) (Bovatec) with a control ration (CON) containing no additives. Aureomycin was fed at the rate of 33 mg/kg, of dry matter (approx. 375 mg/hd/day), monensin at 11 mg/kg of ration dry matter for 28 days, then at 33 mg; and lasalocid at 35 mg/kg of ration dry matter. Cattle were implanted at the start of the test with Ralgro, and about 80 days later, were reimplanted with the appropriate Synovex implant. The formulas of the ground hay and rolled barley-based rations are shown in Table 46. Table 46. Formulation and composition of rations Ration Item Ground Forage Concentrate Ingredient* Crested wheatgrass hay, ground (1.27 cm screen) 95.99 Barley, rolled Barley straw, ground Canola acidulated fatty acids (AFA) Trace-mineralized, cobalt-iodized salt Calcium carbonate Dicalcium phosphate Vitamin A Analysis Dry matter Crude protein** Ash** Digestible organic matter (in vitro)** *Feed costs: Crested wheatgrass hay, $55/tonne; Barley, $66/tonne; Straw, $33/tonne; Acidulated fatty acids (from canola), $0.44/kg; Trace-mineralized, cobalt-iodized salt, $0.308/kg; Limestone, $0. 1188/k.g; Dicalcium phosphate, $0.704/kg; Vitamin A (10 000 IU/g) supplement, $1.28/kg; CTC (Aurofac 50, 110 g/kg $5.39/kg); MON (rumensin, 132 g/kg), $15.29/kg; and LAS (Bovatec, 150 g/kg), $15.91/kg. **Dry matter basis. 85.74 10.00 3.00 3.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.01 0.01 100.00 100.00 91.8 89.7 10.7 11.0 6.6 3.7 62.8 81.0 76 The performance of the cattle averaged across sex and weight groups is summarized in Table 47, including both feeding periods. The aureomycin supplement was not added to the ration during the seven day period prior to slaughter, so that all detectable traces of it would be removed from the tissue by the time the animals were slaughtered. Table 47. Effect of feed additives on performance of beef cattle averaging across sex and weight groups Animal Performance Number of head Average age on test (days) Average initial weight (kg) Days on test Average final weight (kg) Average daily gain (kg) Average daily feed eaten (kg)* Feed:Gain ratio* Carcass data Warm carcass weight (kg) Dressing X Average backfat thickness (mm) Area of loin eye (cm2) Cutability (%) Grades: Al, A2 A3 Bl Economics Carcass value ($) Adjusted carcass value ($)** Initial value of feeder ($) Production costs Feed ($) Other ($) Total ($) Average returns to labor ($) Adjusted returns to labor ($)** CON CTC MON LAS *Based on feed as eaten (approx. 90% dry matter) **Based on all carcasses grading Al. 51 53 53 52 419 423 419 423 387.6 388.2 388.1 387.5 104 108 103 99 519.3 538.2 530.8 523.5 1.27 1.39 1.36 1.36 12.05 12.63 11.96 12.11 9.92 9.28 8.96 9.09 270.0 286.0 277.4 275.0 52.02 53.07 52.18 52.44 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.8 78 82 80 80 59.6 59.9 59.6 59.6 49 52 53 48 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 809.38 859.11 834.20 823.09 813.92 860.12 834.20 827.87 636.66 637.59 637.46 636.39 93.33 104.59 95.12 94.08 53.56 54.16 53.00 51.46 146.89 158.75 148.12 145.54 25.83 61.46 48.52 41.10 30.37 62.47 48.52 45.88 77 Comments (Table 47) 1. All three additives produced beneficial effects on animal performance or/and carcass quality and yield, and on return to labor. 2. Analyses for aureomycin residues in liver, muscle and kidney samples, showed only 10% of the animals to have any traces of antibiotic and that the level measured was below the lowest limit for reliable measurement (100 parts per billion). Repeat analyses detected no residue. 3. While aureomycin is not yet approved in Canada for use in cattle finishing rations, the results of this experiment clearly indicated its marked beneficial effect on animal performance and financial returns and that no antibiotic residues remain in the meat provided that the feeding of the antibiotic is discontinued for at least seven days prior to slaughter. TEN TIPS FOR UTILIZING GROUND HAY IN BEEF CATTLE RATIONS 1. Manage hay harvesting and storage system to provide as dry a hay as possible at the time of processing. 2. Use a 13 mm screen if processing hays for inclusion in complete rations. This will minimize settling out of other f ine-particled ration components. If feeding hay separately, grinding through a 25 mm screen may be better if using a good-to-high quality hay. 3. Grinding will result in a greater increase in the efficiency of utilizing poorer quality hays than for good quality hays. 4. Self-feed the processed hay. Unless cattle are allowed to eat all they can, there will be little or no benefit from processing, except if it will result in reducing wastage (sorting) of stemmy feed. 5. Process forage as it is required, particularly if it is over 10% moisture and the weather is warm. Storing such feed may allow spoilage and/or spontaneous combustion to occur. 6. Check hay, for stones, metal or any other contaminant that could damage screens or lead to a fire. Install magnetic device or metal detector on bale feeder. 7. Keep hammers sharp and provide adequate power to operate the processing equipment at full capacity, otherwise energy will be inefficiently used. Consider use of electrically powered grinding equipment. 8. Do not grind roughage for animals capable of performing at the required level on unprocessed feed. Excess feed intake could mean overfat beef cows, while limiting intake to meet nutritional requirements, would 78 require extra labor and result in unsatisfied cows. 9. Supplement ground hay rations with acidulated acids, canola oil, tallow, etc., if available at reasonable cost. At 2%, these supplements will eliminate dustiness and at 2-4% will help to improve the energy : protein ratio of high-protein hay rations. 10. As with any other ration, be sure that salt, mineral supplements, vitamin A (if forages are not a bright green color) and an antibiotic supplement (for growing cattle) are part of the management package. Implanting non-breeding stock will improve performance. ADVANTAGES OF GRINDING HAYS 1. Reduces wastage normally encountered when feeding long hay. 2. Permits preparation of complete rations to assure consistent nutrient intake. 3. Increases density of feed allowing greater intake and more efficient use of feed. 4. Permits automated mechanical handling. 5. Reduces energy required to chew, swallow and regurgitate feed. 6. Increases surface area of the feed thus increasing access by rumen microflora to enhance digestion of nutrients. 7. Promotes an increase in the propionic:acetic acid ratio in the rumen, resulting in more efficient utilization of feed (might reduce butterfat levels in milk of dairy cattle). Note: Grinding hays may result in a reduction of apparent digestibility due to increasing the rate of passage through the digestive system, which limits the time for absorption of the digested nutrients. This is usually more than compensated for by the marked increase in nutrient intake. WINTERING BEEF COWS IN THE ASPEN PARKBELT The winter feeding period for the beef herd in the Aspen Parkbelt is long, averaging from mid- to late-October until the last week in May. Thus availability of adequate supplies of feed and bedding at a low cost is the key to the profitability of the cow-calf enterprise. While feeding some medium to good quality hay or silage is highly desirable from a nutritional standpoint, full feeding of such forages is 79 usually wasteful and costly. However, limiting the amount of forages to just meet requirements, creates problems, in that animals cannot satisfy their appetites and it is difficult to ensure that all animals in the herd get their fair share of the feed. The solution to the problem is to allow animals to have free access to cereal (or other crop) straw and to feed enough forage and, if required, grain to support the level of performance desired. Since 1974, research has been conducted to determine the feed intake and performance of wintering beef cows. Originally, Hereford cows were involved but over the years, the 300 cow herd has been replaced with two kinds of crossbreeds, Angus x Hereford and Simmental x Hereford. In the earlier years, half of each of these "breeds" of cows were bred to calve in January and February and half in April and May. The results insofar as intake and performance on various rations are presented in Tables 48 and 49. Table 48. Winter feed consumption of early vs late calving beef cows at Melfort (902 dry matter basis) Early Calving Late Calving (Jan. Hay*- -Feb.) Silage*- (Apr .-May) Hay*- Silage*- straw straw straw straw By Ration (6 year average) (205 day wintering period) Number of cows/year** 60 60 60 60 Feed Dry Matter (kg/cow/day) - hay 3.30 - 3.31 - - silage - 5.52 - 5.51 - straw 5.24 3.55 4.83 3.06 - grain (barley) 2.41 1.81 1.61 1.01 - mineral-vitamin supp. 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 Total 11.0 11.0 9.8 9.6 *Brome-alfalfa Table 49. Average feed intake by wintering cows (90% DM basis) (5 year average, 201 day feeding period) Simmental Angus x Early Hereford Late x Here ford Early Late calving calving calving calving Average initial weight (kg) 554 517 579 551 Average final weight (kg) 511 500 530 529 Average DM Intake (kg) - silage*/hay 5.46 4.77 5.81 5.13 - barley 2.02 1.41 2.02 1.52 - straw 4.14 4.16 4.44 4.93 Total 11.6 10.3 12.3 11.6 *Cereal silage (mainly barley). 80 Comments (Tables 48 and 49) 1. Average daily feed intakes can be used to provide an estimate of feed consumption for cows of different sizes, calving at different times. Note that, depending on the test period, intakes of dry matter differ. For predicting winter feed requirements one would be wise to assure at least a 20% "surplus" to allow for longer or more severe winters than is the case on average. 2. Length of feeding periods in Tables 48 and 49, are not indicative of the normal length of the wintering period (approximately 230 days). The straw used for wintering cows is normally that produced on the operator's land. However, if there is an option or if straw must be purchased, it is important to consider quality. Straw, by its very nature, is a variable product, with such factors as species and variety of crop, maturity at harvest, weathering, efficiency of the threshing process and contamination with weeds, all affecting feeding value. At Melfort, feeding trials with sheep showed that straw of 2-row barley varieties tended to be superior to those of 6-row varieties. Analyses of common cereal straws in the Aspen Parkbelt is summarized as follows. Cereal straw Crude Protein (%) (Range) TDN (%) (Range) Oats Barley Wheat 3.88 4.37 3.75 (1.4-8.0) (1.8-7.7) (1.8-6.8) 38.5 39.2 35.3 (31-46) (29-48) (29-44) Source: Sask. Feed Testing Lab Obviously there is a wide range in feeding value and the cow-calf operator would be prudent to have his straw supply analysed so that he can use it effectively in his feeding program. AMMONIATING BARLEY STRAW FOR WINTERING BEEF COW RATIONS In the Aspen Parkbelt, cereal straw is a major constituent of wintering rations for beef cows. However, straw is normally deficient in both protein and energy (as well as vitamin A and minerals) and is usually supplemented 81 with some good quality grass-legume hay or silage and grain as required to maintain desired body condition. In years when forages are in short supply and/or high priced, it would be useful to increase the amount of straw fed, without leading to impaction. This would mean that the feeding value (digestibility) of the straw would have to be increased. Treating cereal (and flax) straw with 3.5% anhydrous ammonia (DM basis) can increase TDN to around 50% (from 40% or less) and crude protein to 6-8% (from around 3-4%). It also increases palatability (intake) by from 30-40% on average. Cost will vary from $17-33/tonne, depending on a number of conditions including the amount of material in the stack. If, for example, ammoniation costs $22 to obtain an extra 100 kg of TDN or an extra 40 kg of protein, then, if supplemental feeds were worth less than as follows, they would be the most economical source of nutrients. Nutrient Source TDN Crude Protein Wheat @ 15% CP 25*/kg ($7 bu.) 8.25e7kg ($2.25/bu.) Hay @ 12% CP llrf/kg ($110/tonne) 6.6cVkg ($66/tonne) Canola meal (34% CP) $7.26/kg ($72.60/tonne) $18.16/kg ($181/tonne) While in an emergency, adequate rations for mature beef cows can be formulated from grain and straw (plus vitamins and minerals), it is important to recognize that for growing heifers destined for the breeding herd, good quality forages are very important. Research at the Lethbridge station has shown that the lifetime reproductive performance of heifers raised on forage-based rations was superior to that of heifers fed grain and straw-based rations. An experiment was undertaken at Melfort in two successive years, to evaluate ammoniated and untreated straw, using Bonanza straw one winter and Klages straw in the next winter. Mature beef cows were allotted to two comparable groups. The control group was fed brome-alfalfa hay and canola meal in amounts to match the gains of the "ammoniated straw"-fed cattle, while the barley (fed to both groups) was increased from 1.8 kg/head daily to 2.4 kg over a five week period preceding calving. (Wintering period was about 200 days.) The straw was treated with anhydrous ammonia at the rate of 3.5% on a dry matter basis. The condensed results are presented in Tables 50 and 51. 82 Table 50. Chemical composition of untreated and ammoniated straws {% DM) Cont rol Ammon iated Cultivar Year 1 (82-83) Bonanza Year 2 (83-84) Klages Year 1 (82-83) Bonanza Year 2 (83-84) Klages Dry matter Crude protein Organic matter diges tibili ty 87.1 5.2 36.5 84.0 3.9 29.3 80.6 7.4 41.9 82.3 6.1 35.1 Table 51. Ammoniated straw for wintering beef cows (average 2 years) (total 21 cow/ration) Control Ammoniated Average initial weight (kg) 528 537 Average final weight (kg) 518 524 Average daily loss (kg) 0.05 0.06 Depth of backfat (mm) - November 4.5 5.7 - May 2.2 3.3 Calf birth weight (kg) 39.5 39.8 Nov-Mar Apr-May Nov-Mar Apr-May Average daily feed eaten (kg) - straw 5.5 4.66 7.0 6.47 - hay 1.55 1.35 - - barley 1.72 3.7 1.85 3.7 - canola meal 0.34 9.11 0.33 10.04 - Total 8.85 10.17 Average* feed cost/day (6) 65 66 *Barley straw, $33/tonne; Ammoniated barley straw, $57/tonne; Hay, $78/tonne; Barley, $110/tonne; Canola meal, $325/tonne. Comments 1. Under the conditions of this test the ammoniated straw successfully replaced the hay and canola meal in the control ration. 83 2. When hay and grain prices are high, ammoniating cereal straw may be an economical alternative. The feeder is cautioned, however, that vitamin A and mineral requirements for cattle fed the grain and ammoniated straw diet will not be met as well (if at all) as when fed the ration containing some good quality hay or silage. Adequate amounts of both vitamin A and minerals must be supplied to wintering beef cows. FINISHING LAMBS ON FORAGE-BASED RATIONS USING GOOD QUALITY ALFALFA IN LAMB FINISHING RATIONS The effects of hay:grain ratio, pelleting and the addition of tallow or rapeseed oil on the utilization of excellent-quality, ground (5 mm screen) alfalfa hay (16 CP) by lambs was determined. Barley (12% CP); and 20% ground wheat straw were included to provide a better energy: protein ratio of the ration. Ground alfalfa was fed at 10, 30, 50 and 70% of the ration, and at each level was supplemented with either no fat, 5% tallow or 5% canola oil. Rations were ground and pelleted (0.64 cm diameter) and fed to crossbred lambs (29.5 kg), in individual stalls. Lambs were fed to appetite and given free access to cobalt-iodized salt and water. Digestibility of the rations was determined, both with the lambs (in vivo) and by means of an artificial rumen technique (in vitro). The rations and results are given in Tables 52 and 53, respectively. Table 52. Composition of lamb finishing rations using ground, high quality al fal fa hay (%) 30% Roughage 50% Roughage 70% Roughage 90% Roughage Check + Fat Check + Fat Check + Fat Check + Fat Alfalfa hay (ground 5 ran screen) 9.9 9.4 29.8 28.3 49.6 47.1 69.5 66.0 Wheat straw (ground 5 mn screen) 19.9 18.9 19.9 18.9 19.9 18.9 19.8 18.8 Barley (rolled) 69.4 65.9 49.7 47.2 29.8 28.3 9.9 9.4 Tallow/canola oil Cobalt-iodized salt Phosphorus supplement (25% P) Limestone Vitamin ACE supplement (10,000 A, 1,000 D, 10 E/g) Aurofac 10 Total Crude protein Est. TIN - 5.0 - 5.0 - 5.0 - 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.20 0.2 - - - - - - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10.6 10.1 11.5 10.9 12.3 11.7 13.1 12.5 67 74 62 69 57 64 51 59 84 Table 53. Lamb performance on alfalfa finishing rations X Roughage Form Supplement Fat None Tallow Canola 30 50 70 90 Ground Pelleted oil Average daily gain (g) 200 250 245 254 218 254 236 241 232 Average daily feed (kg) 1.06 1.23 1.33 1.42 1.20 1.28 1.08 1.23 1.21 Feedrgain ratio 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.2 Final weight (kg) 45.0 46.4 45.5 46.4 45.0 46.4 45.5 45.9 45.5 Carcass Grade - Choice 9 16 17 5 22 25 14 19 14 - Good 15 8 7 7 20 17 14 9 14 Organic Matter Digestibility (%) - in vivo (%) 67 66 63 61 66 63 65 65 64 - in vitro (%) 66 64 61 59 62 62 65 61 62 Comments (Table 53) 1. At the higher levels of roughage (50-90%), rate of gain was 25% higher than at the 30% roughage level. Feed required per unit of gain was lowest when roughage was fed at 50%, but dressing percentage and carcass grades were slightly better at the 70% roughage level. 2. Pelleting increased the rate of liveweight gain by an average of 17%, improved feedrgain ratios by about 9% and improved dressing percentages and grades. The most marked effect of pelleting on rate of gain and feed efficiency occurred with the low-roughage ration without supplemental fat. Thus, it appears that rations containing high levels (50-70%) of ground, good quality alfalfa with or without added fat may not be markedly improved by pelleting. 3. Adding tallow or oil to the low roughage ration reduced rates of gain on ground and pelleted rations by 15 and 20%, respectively. Adding tallow or oil to the 50 and 70% rations, whether ground or pelleted, had little effect on animal gain; but with the 90% rations, tallow or oil improved rate of gain by 46% on the ground ration and 17% on the pelleted ration. 4. Lambs fed the 30, 50, 70 and 90% roughage rations required 3.8, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.2 kg of digestible nutrients per kg gain. This indicates that under the conditions of this experiment, the level of roughage had no adverse effect on the efficiency of energy utilization. 85 CRESTED VHEATGRASS HAY FOR FINISHING LAMBS Crested wheatgrass is well adapted to the Aspen Parkbelt and has yielded well, both as pasture and hay. Its use in lamb finishing rations containing 50, 70 and 90% ground (5 mm screen) crested wheatgrass and one in which the level of hay started at 90% and was reduced by 5% a week to 50%, was evaluated. Crossbred lambs were weaned off pasture at an average weight of 30.4 kg and hand-fed to appetite once daily in individual stalls. Cobalt-iodized salt and water were available at all times. The hay was made up of equal parts of Fairway and Parkway varieties and analyzed 10.8% CP (90% DM basis). The remainder was mainly rolled wheat (16.8% CP). Three of the rations are given in Table 54; the fourth, varying from 90 to 50% crested wheatgrass, was prepared by using these rations in various proportions as required. Each ration was fed both ground and pelleted. Ewe and wether lambs were equally represented in all ration treatments. Carcass grades and measurements were obtained. Animal performance is summarized in Table 55. Table 54. Composition of crested wheatgrass-based lamb finishing rations (%) 90% 70% 50% Crested wheatgrass Rolled wheat Cobal-iodized salt Limestone Calcium phosphate (19% Ca, 19% P) Vitamin ADE supplement (10,000 IU A, 1,000 IU D, 10 IU E/g) Aurofac 10 89.2 69.4 49.54 9.9 29.7 49.54 0.5 0.5 0.5 — 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.16 - 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.08 100.0 100.0 100.0 Comments (Table 54) 1. Pelleting increased rate of gain, feed conversion efficiency and in all but one case, dressing percentage. The 90% roughage ration was the most profitable of the pelleted rations. Pelleting increased consumption by 24, 18, 15 and 17% on the 90%, 70%, 50% and 90-50% hay rations, respectively, to increase rate of gain by an average of 47%, the greatest increase (66%) occurring with the 90% hay ration and the least (33%) with the ration in which hay content was reduced from 90 to 50%. Pelleting improved feed efficiency (22%), with the greatest improvement (32%) occurring with the 90% hay ration. Averaging all rations, pelleting improved dressing percentage 86 (46.6 vs 45.8%), grades (97 vs 75% Choice) and returns to labor. 2. When ground rations were fed, there was a slight increase in rate of gain, feed efficiency and dressing percentage as the hay level decreased, with the 70% roughage level providing the best overall performance. 3. Performance was about the same for ewe and wether lambs. Table 55. Lamb performance on crested wheatgrass finishing rations Hay (%): Process: 90% 70% 50% 90-50% Ground Pelleted Ground Pelleted Ground Pelleted Ground Pelleted Average daily gain (g) 132 219 145 204 150 222 154 204 Average daily feed (kg) 1.23 1.52 1.20 1.41 1.20 1.38 1.21 1.42 Feed: gain ratio 10.8 7.2 8.8 7.0 8.3 6.3 8.1 7.1 Final weight (kg) 42.4 47.0 43.6 46.4 43.8 46.8 44.5 46.3 Dressing % 44.0 45.7 46.3 46.0 46.8 47.1 45.9 47.6 Carcass Grade - Choice 5 8 7 7 7 8 5 8 - Good 3 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 SLOUGH HAY FOR FINISHING LAMBS "Slough" hay is found around many non-saline pot holes and sloughs throughout the Aspen Parkbelt. If harvested prior to becoming too mature, it can be a very useful feed. Grinding will improve its feeding value. Crossbred lambs (33.6 kg) were weaned off pasture and hand-fed to appetite in individual stalls. Four rations, all containing 0.5% cobalt-iodized salt, 0.2% calcium phosphate (19% Ca, 19% P), 0.22% vitamin A supplement (10,000 IU/g) and 0.80% antibiotic supplement were formulated to contain the percentages of basal feeds shown in Table 56. All rations were fed both ground (192 kg/m ) and pelleted (5 mm diameter, average density 632 kg/m ). The results appear in Table 57. 87 Table 56. Slough hay in lamb finishing rations (%) 10% 5% 2% alfalfa rapeseed Control molasses meal meal 28.1 29.8 28.1 5.0 — — - 9.9 - - - 5.0 12.5 12.6 13.5 Slough hay (11% CP) 69.5 66.1 59.5 66.1 (ground 5 mm screen) Wheat (15.5% CP) (coarsely ground) 29.8 Beet molasses Alfalfa meal Rapeseed meal Crude protein (%) 12.5 Comment (Table 56) 1. Pelleting had no effect on the feeding value of the unsupplemented slough grass ration. Addition of any of the supplements to the ground form of the control ration reduced rate of gain and feed efficiency. In contrast, inclusion of a supplement in pelleted rations markedly increased rate of gain and feed efficiency. The ability of finishing lambs to perform so well on a ration comprising such a high percentage of slough hay, once again demonstrates the role roughages can play in ruminant rations, provided they are processed and used in conjunction with other feeds and supplements required to balance the deficiencies of the roughages. Table 57. Lamb performance on slough hay rations Supplement: Control 5% Molasses 10% Alfalfa Meal 5% Canola Meal Process: Ground Pelleted Ground Pelleted Ground Pelleted Ground Pelleted Average daily gain (g) 209 218 136 277 182 272 182 250 Average daily feed (kg) 1.34 1.39 1.09 1.43 1.27 1.50 1.30 1.58 Feed:gain ratio 6.64 6.74 9.07 5.27 7.51 5.58 7.25 6.47 Final weight (kg) 44.9 45.6 40.5 49.2 43.6 49.0 43.4 49.2 Dressing X 46.9 46.8 47.8 46.0 47.3 47.2 46.4 48.3 Carcass Grade - Good 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 4 - Commercial 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 88 EFFECT OF MOISTENING ON THE FEEDING VALUE OF GROUND HAYS FED TO LAMBS Ground hays tend to be very dusty, which may limit palatability. Dust can be eliminated by adding tallow, feeding oils, molasses or water to the ration. Forty-eight lambs averaging about 28 kg when weaned off pasture, were individually fed one of four ground (5 mm screen) forages - alfalfa (16.5% CP), bromegrass (13.5% CP), crested wheatgrass (15.5% CP) and meadow fescue (9% CP) - as the sole diet (other than salt and water) for 8 weeks. Half of the lambs fed each hay received the ground hay mixed with an equal weight of water. Following the growing period the rations were supplemented with 20% of a grain, mineral, vitamin A mix. The results are presented in Table 58. Table 58. Lamb performance on moist (M) and dry (D) ground hays* Alfalfa D M Brome- grass D M Crested wheat D M Meadow fescue D M Growing Period Average daily gain (g) Average daily feed (kg) Feed/unit gain 127 163 1.22 1.42 9.6 8.7 123 141 1.19 1.28 9.7 9.1 200 163 1.32 1.25 6.6 7.6 104 163 1.12 1.28 10.7 7.8 Finishing Period Average daily gain (g) Average daily feed (kg) Feed/unit gain Final weight (kg) 168 222 1.78 1.76 10.6 7.9 42.3 43.2 141 154 1.59 1.75 11.3 11.3 43.2 43.2 136 209 1.97 2.07 14.5 9.9 41.4 43.6 154 168 1.48 1.80 9.6 10.7 42.3 42.7 Total Period Days Average daily gain (g) Feed/unit gain 99 83 144 183 10.1 8.4 115 103 132 148 10.6 10.1 72 89 186 175 7.9 8.6 111 89 129 165 10.1 8.9 *A11 carcasses graded either Canada Choice or Canada Good. Comments (Table 58) 1. Lambs fed ground alfalfa, bromegrass and meadow fescue hays performed better (av. 33% faster gains, 14% better feed conversion) when fed the moistened hays. 2. Moistening the crested wheat hay reduced performance, but it is interesting to note that lambs fed the dry crested wheatgrass outgained those fed the other hays and that crested wheatgrass, when fed either dry or 89 moistened, produced more gain per unit of feed than did the other forages, during the growing period. 3. Despite the low crude protein content of the meadow fescue hay, lambs performed well, especially when the hay was moistened. 4. Adding grain (20%) to the ground hays, increased gains except for lambs fed the dry crested wheatgrass hay but did improve feed efficiency except for lambs fed the moist alfalfa or the dry meadow fescue. Moistening the forage-grain rations improved rate of gain in all cases but the effect on feed efficiency varied with the forage. 5. Moistening dusty, ground hay-based rations was beneficial (the ground crested wheatgrass ration was the least dusty of the three rations). Moist rations would have to be prepared and fed fresh, daily in order to reduce spoilage and/or freezing. EFFECTS OF HAY: GRAIN RATIO, MOLASSES AND LINSEED MEAL ON PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING LAMBS Thirty-six crossbred lambs (29.5 kg) were divided into six groups comprising three ewes and three wethers. Medium-quality mixed brome and meadow fescue hay, ground through a 5 mm screen, was fed at levels of 20, 50 and 80% of the ration. The 80% ration was also fed with 5% molasses, 10% linseed meal, or 5% molasses plus 7% linseed meal. Supplements replaced an equal weight of hay in the ration formula. The remainder of the ration was barley, cobalt-iodized salt (0.5%), a mineral supplement (if required), vitamin A, and an antibiotic supplement. Long hay was fed for 2 days prior to the test. Lambs started on the 20% hay ration required 3 weeks before gains occurred and appeared to tire of their ration after 12 weeks of feeding (gains for those remaining averaged only 0.05 kg/day during latter part of test). An initial weight loss occurred in all lots and was probably due to an adjustment in rumen fill following removal of lambs from pasture. However, lambs fed the 80% level of roughage, alone or with any of the supplements, made good gains after the first week and, for the test as a whole, gained faster than those fed the high grain ration. The results of the test appear in Table 59. At the prices of feed prevailing at the time of the experiment, returns were increased when either molasses or linseed meal was added to the 80%-roughage ration. Adding both supplements decreased returns. 90 Table 59. Lamb performance on rations containing mixed brome and meadow fescue hay 1 20% 2 50% 3 80% 4 5 6 68% hay 70% hay 10% linseed 5% molasses 75% hay 7% linseed hay hay hay 5% molasses meal meal Crude protein (%) 14.2 12.3 11.2 11.2 11.3 13.8 Av. daily gain (g) 141 195 191 222 250 250 Av. daily feed (kg) 1.04 1.33 1.55 1.57 1.67 1.68 Feed/kg gain (kg) 7.5 6.9 8.1 7.1 6.8 6.8 Final weight (kg) 41.4 42.7 42.3 43.6 43.6 42.3 Dressing % 47.3 46.6 45.9 46.5 46.9 46.7 Carcass grade - Choice 4 3 2 5 3 1 - Good 1 3 4 1 3 4 - Commercial 1 0 0 0 0 1 VOLUNTARY INTAKE AND APPARENT DIGESTIBILITY OF DIETS CONTAINING VARYING LEVELS OF KOCHIA HAY, ALFALFA HAY AND BARLEY FED TO SHEEP Kochia is a drought-resistant, rapidly growing annual plant, widely adapted to many geographical areas, and especially to saline soils. Some consider kochia to be a noxious weed, but it is used for pasture and hay, mainly in the southern prairies during dry periods. Kochia is relatively high in crude protein and its nutritive value for ruminants could be as high as that of alfalfa, however, high mineral levels can be a problem limiting intake. A Saskatchewan strain and a Texas strain of kochia were grown at Melfort, on moderately saline soil and harvested as hay at 18-20 percent moisture in early and late August. The Texas strain does not flower or set seed here, but the Saskatchewan strain flowers readily and produces abundant seed. Kochia dry matter yields averaged 2.6 and 7.2 tonne/ha for early and late cut, respectively, with little difference in yield between the strains. As the level of kochia in the diet increased, dry matter intake by animals decreased (Table 60). There were no differences in dry matter or fibre digestibilities among the 4 forage diets. Crude protein and energy digestibilities were decreased with increasing levels of dietary kochia, while crude protein digestibility of the kochia/barley diet was lower than that of the alfalfa/barley diet. The results suggest that kochia can be incorporated into high-forage or grain-based rations at levels up to 50% without adverse effect on intake or digestibility. 91 Some difficulties were encountered in establishing adequate intake and maintaining consumption with diets containing 75% kochia. Feed refusals with kochia diets were primarily coarse stemmy material. Table 60. Composition, intake and digestibility of diets containing kochia (rounded to nearest whole number) Alfalfa/ Kochia/ Barley (50:50) Barley (50:50) Alfalfa /Kochia 25:75 50:50 75:25 100:0 Chemical Analyses (%) Dry matter 86 88 88 86 85 84 Crude protein 15 13 14 16 16 17 Acid detergent fibre 21 26 37 36 36 33 Ash (mineral) 7 10 12 11 10 8 Digestibility (X) Dry matter 72 70 62 63 64 66 Nitrogen 74 69 69 74 74 76 Acid detergent fibre 41 49 51 49 54 53 Energy 70 68 59 61 62 64 Intake Grams/day 1001 899 652 858 931 1018 % body weight 2.4 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.3 EFFECT OF FEED ADDITIVES, HIGH ENERGY SUPPLEMENTS AND PELLETING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING LAMBS FED FORAGE-BASED RATIONS A feeding trial was carried out with 64, 23 kg, wether lambs, to evaluate the rations used in the steer finishing test described earlier in this publication. Apart from providing information of direct value to lamb producers, it was deemed of interest to determine whether lambs could be used in place of steers in evaluating steer finishing rations. The rations were formulated, processed and fed under conditions described in the steer feeding trial, except that lambs were individually-fed indoors. The results are summarized in Table 61. Feed and processing prices are as shown for the steer trial. 92 00 R I s S I w s o l*-l i NNtONH « • ON CO 00 •>* CM CO • • • cm in o r-» on • I I • O © -* o _ • • © cm «5 CO 3$ O r- 3 co in m • • ••oco on >* • • . r-. © © vo o cm »* h (oo^o f^ th th co r*** ^^cScQ« on i i i^^8o 350:p)(OC:i95^ co oo «— i • • • no m m • • ••oco on cm • • • cM 3F © (^ vg r-- OO >*on >* Jiqoon r^ocsiom o r-io^o • •t-Hcsir-. «— t i .i i .tho coco cm >* i-i • • cm - «t in h • • • CM >* O CO Q I'll in >* • • • • on cm r-» co o o co t-i »-i -* co oo^-cot-ir^inco st«tfinoNf-^- co • • O cm CO r* CO On i— l • • • CM >* © in no r» r-~ co •<»■ m © O r-. © cm "» ON CO • • CM CO C^ m-^CO tpHCO^OmcM^^HStON ©o coin • • • •on«m>* Jhc1SS O O rs o N >t J8P-Q bfc 4J -TJ %«• 3 5 -g 3 c i ^I'gs^ •H OH 3 3s « E E C c " rd-Soiibb^wro^ a) cd a) a) "8 *-• \ i i i i i i 2. 2. 2. 2. fl> & CM bo -.3 B^ll + 15 co i-i i—l <4-l rH o 3-6 « i ° 3 3 ~ C bO 5J P O- co c •• >**-•>—( w° , I » 8 °3 | a 2 I 03 X CO 0\ 00 ffv Q ^3 >sD i-H -tf -5 O in m t-» «-i i— i OB X <: CO cs sr ON «H 1— 1 03 X CO o\ en in co i—i i-H 03 X < * 1-1 en en -^ i-H r-t • i— i DQ X CO ON «H CM sQ CM vD N iTl H H en m t-I «-l • i—i DO X < ro in i— i i-H i—i m X CO CO so r^ en so Co en so cn en en m r-H rH • r-i 33 X < on en in o r-v rH § s sO i a CO M4 *o • • • stQH r^ >* r» • • • Q O *-< in co totoc>s|8S88 so r-s. en on • co • • m vo cs Csl • iji fl co o • • • H qrs m vpesOvj-rHvoinr^ Csl 5 CO o i-s. csi • m en r» so i-l en sp m Cs) in o vp co in csi q csl co on en co m o • ••••••• csicocosjo-srins* ststOHNNHH Hin* so • • • 3OH CSI stf -st • • * ON O i-H Cs) i-s» m s rH rH CO ON ♦ CsJ . . o jrincoo co on m Csl «tf rH CO O • CO HstvO i-t Csl ^.3^ Sm on co m r» o st so i-< in on co o sr • ••••••• vOCNCNINffistinO* cocdcsli-JrHcsii— Im ON sO rH m comi^-ininoNOst • so csi on o^ on o in 0>lOstHvOCMr|lf) 5rst'_|'-,i-<'-,'_'tN' OsOsOl^ MOMnQstQifi • «* • • lOvOlOcvlsTstON Csl • ^J ^J CO C^ • • • • • rH co co in cocsir^ino so i-l 3 ON 3 3k 38 voiriis.QincpQo3 ^soONcocor^oNor^ • CO -"^ CO ^^ • ••••••• Pfs. /) ciHinNcoHinis. ^ ONSt'-ll-''-'c'N)'-lsO i-t O vfi st n 58 ONsOOOONCOONCOCs) asanas6-5 rHCs, ONinoNONcoocoi-i •dcjcsjd^: s32 3 CO vo i-t co r-» co • cp in co o i-l On m i-l Csl stQONOinstQvO • ••••••• SSJJQsS [s-QCO m CD -sT ON SO 1— t r^csiNoco comcNONQsOQin • csl . • r-»sOcocoin--?ooN co • in. so co o 3 so m i— i ON in co 3 2 N M)ON as * ■a 15 a N P •S<3 4_| bj* "8 I tn m 1 «3 JS & 2 3 3 8-^ £s I v> O H I I I I I I I I 3 3 m oj co ^ d W)in *j > WCOW-5 + U Sii) ►0JQ0•5■'-,^ -9 ^ ^ 0>M« CL c3 Q. o *-> jr 4_> Bbivj aoooopj ^c -q L w w w -n q) • 3 co 1 a 4. 33 ,o o -^ p) s ra h H O w csi 9 h w . SG i-H CO co . v> rH V© CO I c 03 *-> x m co v> 2 d 11 a3 * £ ri M Xr U>i i SB •• x S ■CO >-i £ (U ££ 97 Table 64. Effect of implant (Synovex S) on rate of carcass gain of two types of crossbred steers fed four different ration Ration 20% 0-58% Ground Breed Implant Grain grain grain hay av. 0.67 0.67 Rate of Carcass Gain* (kg) Angus x Hereford Check 0.72 0.62 0.56 0.57 Implanted 0.71 0.87 0.66 0.61 Simmental x Hereford Check 0.67 0.57 0.67 0.53 Implanted 0.87 0.67 0.76 0.64 Average 0.74 0.68 0.66 0.59 Average No implant = 0.61 Implanted = 0.72 *Rate of liveweight gain x dressing percentage. Comments (Table 64) 1. Rate of carcass gain was highest for steers fed the high-grain ration (0.74 kg/hd/day) and lowest for those fed the ground hay ration (0.59 kg/hd/day). Steers fed 20% grain or those receiving an average of 22% grain with most of it fed during the last few weeks, averaged 0.67 kg/head/day. 2. To attain comparable liveweight at marketing required, on average, about three weeks longer for the forage-fed steers and about 10 days longer for those fed the low levels of barley. Because of the large effect of carcass weights (and value) on returns, it is evident that the steers fed the high forage rations should have been fed to the maximum weight possible without causing overfinish, assuming that rate of gain and feed conversion efficiency were maintained at satisfactory levels. 3. There appeared to be an interaction between breed cross and feeding method with the Angus x Herefords performing better on the 20% barley ration than on the ration which had the increasing level of barley, while the Simmental x Herefords performed better on the ration with the increasing level of grain. The major reason for the difference, in returns per head, appears to be due to the difference in market weights. 4. The effect of the growth promoting implant on rate of gain was quite marked, except for the Angus x Hereford crossbreds fed the high grain ration. 5. Valuing the barley at ll£/kg and the hay at 5.5d/kg, the economics 98 favored the cattle fed the high barley ration, with quite acceptable returns on the Angus x Hereford cattle fed the 20% grain ration, and the Simmental x Herefords fed increasing amounts of grain over the finishing period. Including at least some grain in forage-based rations would appear to be a sound practice under the normal prices for hay and grain experienced. Table 65. The effect of ration on the eating quality of beef and lamb (Score 0-15, with 15 best rating) High grain 20% grain 0-58% grain Ground forage Beef Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Sheer force to cut Weight loss on cooking (%) Dripping (%) Lamb Flavor Juiciness Tenderness Sheer force to cut 8.04 8.55 8.35 8.50 7.11 8.19 8.28 8.14 8.10 8.21 8.98 7.92 1126 1130 1049 1151 24.5 22.2 22.3 21.4 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.6 7.2 7.5 7.3 7.8 7.6 7.2 7.4 8.2 8.8 8.4 8.2 8.9 696 776 777 641 Comments (Table 65) 1. Meat from steers fed the all-forage or high-forage rations was on average, equal or superior in eating quality to that from grain-fed steers, although all-forage-fed steers produced slightly (a non-signif icantly) tougher meat. 2. Roasts from lambs fed the high forage rations were superior to those from lambs fed the high grain ration. EATING QUALITY OF FORAGE AND GRAIN FED BEEF FROM STEERS AND HEIFERS One of the myths about beef is that "grain-fed" beef is superior to "grass-fed" beef, perhaps because when steers were finished on range, over a two to three year period, they produced beef that was older, probably tougher and contained less fat, particularly marbling, than did beef from the younger, more rapidly finished cattle fed high grain rations in the feedlot. We have shown that beef cattle fed mainly ground hay-based rations, particularly if supplemented with from 3-4% of a high energy product such as 99 tallow or acidulated fatty acids, can reach acceptable standards for Canada Grade Al or A2 carcasses within a feeding period about three weeks longer than comparable grain-fed steers. It was thought important, to determine whether the beef from cattle fed ground hay-based rations was any different, in terms of eating quality, than that of grain-fed steers so that the consumer would be reliably informed. Several previous studies in which meat from forage and grain-fed steers was evaluated by professional taste panels at the Food Research Institute in Ottawa, showed that "forage-fed" beef was at least on a par with grain-fed beef with respect to tenderness, flavor and juiciness. As part of a feeding test carried out to compare the performance of steers and heifers fed various proportions of ground alfalfa and crested wheatgrass hays, with that of comparable cattle fed a rolled barley-based ration, roasts were obtained from cattle fed the crested wheatgrass (96%), alfalfa (97%) and barley (85%) rations and sent to the Food Research Institute in Ottawa for sensory evaluation. All rations contained about 2% AFA and were supplemented with minerals, vitamin A and an antibiotic. The results of the meat evaluation tests are shown in Table 66. Table 66. Eating quality and other criteria of beef roasts from steers and heifers fed various finishing rations Steers Heifers S.E.D.1 CWG Alfalfa Barley CWG Alfalfa Barley Sensory Parameters Flavor 8.0 7.7 8.0 8.9 8.2 7.7 0.63 Tenderness 8.8 7.3 8.6 10.6 9.1 8.3 1.38 Juiciness 9.0 7.1 6.9 9.2 8.3 6.7 1.34 Mechanical/Physical Paramel :ers Free moisture (%) 40.8 38.9 38.1 41.1 40.3 40.6 4.52 W-B Shear (g/cm) 1552 2004 2163 1562 1873 1773 310.41 Cooking Parameters Weight loss (%) 23.9 21.1 26.2 21.4 16.7 22.5 4.37 Drip loss (%) 4.1 3.8 6.2 2.8 4.0 4.9 1.01 Maximum standard error of the difference between two diets for heifers or steers. Comments (Table 66) 1. There was no significant difference in flavor, tenderness or juiciness between grain and forage-fed beef. 100 2. Grain-fed heifer beef scored between 0.2-0.3 points less than grain-fed steer beef, while forage-fed heifer beef scored consistently higher than forage-fed steer beef for flavor, tenderness and juiciness. It is interesting to note that both steer and heifer meat from crested wheatgrass-fed cattle scored much higher than meat from alfalfa-fed cattle and higher on average, than grain-fed cattle. 3. Heifer beef lost less weight during cooking than did steer beef but the somewhat lower weight loss of "forage" vs "grain" beef was not significant. A. Drip loss (primarily fat) was significantly greater for "grain" beef than for "forage" beef, probably due to the fact that grain-fed cattle carried more fat (9.7 vs 7.2 mm backfat thickness). 5. We conclude that "forage" beef is leaner, and of at least equal eating quality to that of "grain" beef, other factors (except market weight) being equal. FEEDING PRACTICES AND FEEDER DESIGNS HAND OR LIMIT FEEDING LIVESTOCK When limit feeding hay, silage or grain to livestock it is very important to manage the operation so that all animals receive their share of the feed. This is difficult to achieve when the group of animals being fed are of different ages/sizes or where some aggressive individuals can dominate the feeding area. The following suggestions should eliminate or minimize the problem: 1. Where numbers warrant, livestock should be separated into uniform lots with respect to sex, size and condition. This will allow each group to be fed according to their needs and avoid, or limit, over- and under-feeding of any one type of animal. 2. Provide adequate space at the feed bunk so that all animals can feed at the same time [cows and heavy feeders, 66 cm (26"); yearlings up to 3A0 kg (700 lb.), 56 cm (22"); calves up to 227 kg (500 lb.), 46 cm (18"); ewes and rams, A0 cm (16"); feeder lambs, 30 cm (12")]. Be sure that enough space is provided at self feeders, waterers and mineral boxes to assure each animal adequate access within each 2A hour period. 3. If aggressive animals are present in a group, provide several feeding areas to permit the more timid animals to avoid them, or provide a number of solid partitions at the feed bunk to protect timid animals from lateral attack. 101 MINIMIZING WASTAGE OF FEED From the time of cutting, until consumed by the animal, there can be considerable physical spoilage and quality losses of forage, which will adversely affect the efficiency and economics of forage harvesting, storage and utilization. Small losses of any one stage may seem insignificant, but because wastage or quality loss can occur at so many stages in the forage system, the cumulative losses can vary from less than 5% to, in extreme cases (i.e. bales rotting in the field), 100%. Average losses between harvesting systems varied from 9.5 to 22% in studies conducted at Melfort. (See "Forage Harvesting in the Aspen Parkland of Western Canada", Publication 1547, revised 1990.) In this publication we will confine the discussion of losses to processing and feeding practices. The following points summarize the causes of forage losses. Handling and processing losses (estimate 0-22%) 1. Wastage around silos, particularly pile, bag or bunker types, during removal of silage, due to careless operation of equipment resulting in physical losses or contamination of silage with soil. 2. Failure to remove enough silage from the face of a bunk, trench or pile silo, daily, to minimize spoilage (at least 10 cm in winter and 15 cm in the summer). 3. Incomplete pick-up of hay stacks being moved to feeding areas. 4. Loss of hay due to failure to salvage broken bales, recover spilled forage, etc. . 5. Loss of fine material during grinding, mixing, and conveying of ground hay to feeders, caused by wind, improper use of equipment or by leakage of feed from equipment (eg. fine material dropping out of a tub grinder to being blown from the conveyer). 6. Failure to recover spilled forage wherever practical (around feed bunks) . Losses during feeding (estimate 2-4%) 1. Loss of finely ground hay or silage when filling self-feeders or bunks - due to wind, careless handling of equipment, overfilling feed bunks, etc. . 2. Losses due to trampling, fouling, etc., when hay stacks, round bales, etc., are self-fed without the use of a feeding gate. 102 3. Feeding hay or silage on the ground, unless fed in amounts that can be "clean up" quickly on frozen or hard surfaces. 4. Using improperly designed feeders, which permit cattle to pull or push feed out of the feeder; which allow feed to become wet and spoiled, or which are designed to permit dead spots where feed becomes stale or spoils. Hay feeders, in particular, should be designed so that the animal has to put its head through a gate of some type before contacting the feed, thus encouraging it to eat in the feeder rather than to pull out a mouthful of feed held against upright bars, which usually results in part of the mouthful falling to the ground. Use of the tombstone type gate (Fig. 10) or of sloped uprights (Fig. 11) in the feeding gate will require the animal to lift or twist its head before reaching the feed, thus reducing the tendency to pull feed from through the gate. SELF-FEEDER FOR GROUND HAY AND/ OR GRAIN-BASED RATIONS FOR GROWING-FINISHING BEEF CATTLE Most of the self-feeders available on the market today are designed for feeding high-concentrate rations. The "eat-through" feeder shown in Fig. 9 was designed for self-feeding of feeds, varying from bale slices to all-grain rations. Regardless of the design, self-feeders require regular inspection and adjustment to be sure that feed is not being wasted. Construction 1. Prepare two 15 x 15 cm (6" x 6") treated skids (5.8 m (22') long (or use laminate treated "2 x 6"'s). 2. Place 122 cm (4') apart (inside measurement) and tie together with three spacer pipes (approximately 5 cm, or 2" diameter), with welded inside "stops" and threaded ends (Fig. 9). 3. Construct two wall frames using "2 x 6" material, 5 m (16') high, 6.2 m (20') long, with studding 41 cm (16") o.c. Attach plywood sheeting to the inside of the frames to within 61 cm (24") of the floor of the feeder. Frame a 76 x 76 cm (30 x 30") opening at middle of one side for an access door. 4. Attach walls to skids with spikes or lag bolts. Tie together at top with six "2 x 4" ties beveled at the ends to match roof slope (at the ends and at 1/5 intervals) and at bottom with "2 x 4" fir sills cut long enough to extend 25 cm (10") past the studs, one across each set of studs. Nail the sills in place lying on the wall plate (Fig. 9). 5. Fit 1" plywood floor over sills. 103 6. Install divider. Cover plywood on divider with smooth metal sheeting. 7. Set and attach rafters with collar braces; nail on 1" x 3" nailing girts for metal sheeting. 8. Line inside of wall sections with plywood sheeting to within 61 cm (24") of floor. 9. Attach end "2 x 4" studs, allowing for a hatch at the top of each end for filling by blower or auger. This hatch should be fitted with a sliding door which can be opened (up or down) with a rope and pulley. 10. Line inside of end sections with plywood sheeting. 11. Fit side bottom openings with plywood doors at least 61 cm (24") high. To keep them from moving inwards, nail plywood strips, 10 cm (4") wide, to inside bottom of each stud, extending 2.5 cm (1") past the stud on each side. Strips of "1 x 2" material can be nailed along inner sides of studs to hold doors from pushing outwards (Fig. 9). 12. Place 2 x 10's along sides of feeder floor to form side of feeding trough. Nail 20 cm (8") pieces of "2 x 10" material at every fourth or fifth stud to hold edge of trough in place. For best "fix", attach a piece of strap iron to stud and run it across tops of short "2 x 10" blocks and down outside edge of the trough and screw to ends of "2 x 4" floor sills. 13. Frame and attach braced rafters (2 x 4's) to studding to support protective roof sections. Attach nailing girts for metal roofing. 14. Attach metal roofing-siding to roof, to protective roof sections and walls above them, and to end sections. Treated wooden sheeting can be used instead, to reduce construction costs, but the metal reduces upkeep costs and improves appearance. Attach frame at upper ends to hold sliding doors to cover filling hatches. 15. Frame end sections (optional) to fit under overhanging protective roof. Make frame of "2 x 6" material (on the flat), line inside with plywood sheeting and outside with metal siding, preferably backed by plywood. Attach these end sections by heavy hinges to the feeder, and anchor on outside end, to protective roof and concrete pad by means of a heavy barrel bolt. To provide added protection against being pushed out by feeding cattle, a heavy angle iron bar can be placed right across end of structure about 4 feet off the ground and held in place with angle-iron brackets (this allows bar to be lifted out easily when structure is to be moved). 104 Filling door (at both ends) 40 cm (16") Metal bracket and belt Strap metal tie Fig. 9. "Eat-through" self-feeder for ground hay and/or grain rations for growing-finishing beef cattle. TOMBSTONE FEEDER The tombstone feeder is designed to reduce wastage when self-feeding long (baled) or loose forages to beef cattle. It forces the animals to raise 105 their heads when "entering" or "leaving" the feeder, thus reducing the likelihood of animals pulling feed out of the feeder and dropping it on the ground. The design shown in Fig. 10, takes into account the fact that mature beef cows need from 61 to 66 cm (24-26") of feeding space when eating side to side. Narrower spacings may suffice where animals can "radiate" from the feeder (round feeder, or short-sided square feeder - maximum 3.7 m side). Uprights can be nailed to the wall of the feeder and clinched on the inside, or they may be bolted (using large washers). Bolting may take longer, but makes it easier to replace broken uprights. It is suggested that rough "2 x 8" spruce lumber be used because of its strength and cost. The inside of the feeding openings should be smoothed out to prevent injury from splinters. Ends of wall sections are attached using heavy duty hinges or preferably, as shown in the figure, by means of short pipe sections welded to "U-shaped" metal brackets, bolted to the ends of the horizontal planks (top half of top plank and bottom half of middle plank at one end, and the bottom half of the top plank and top half of the bottom plank, at the other end). The ends can be lined up and a snug-fitting pipe or rod placed through the pipe end of the brackets to hold the corners firmly in place. If it is intended that cattle be able to push the unit together to reach feed in the middle, the pipe sections of the hinges must be set further out to allow folding to less than 90 degrees. This type of corner fastener facilitates moving of the feeder or access for refilling (if required) or cleaning. It is recommended that the whole unit be placed on a concrete slab, especially if soil is poorly drained. J < 1 l2.~l em ihw (ZH mt) -#j .c CM Fig. 10. Elevation - tombstone feeder for large framed beef cows 106 STANDARD, ROUND BALE AND STACK FEEDER Standard, round bale and stack feeders (Fig. 11) should be designed and managed to keep the hay far enough away from the feeding gate to permit cattle to eat with their heads within the feeder and provide some means (movable electric "fence", hinged gates, manual or mechanical moving of inaccessible feed) of keeping adequate feed within the animal's reach. ^ 5 cm pipe (i.d. ) 137 cm 36 cm Note: Triangular sections (V) should be blocked to prevent trapping heads should animals go down. Fig. 11. Stack feeding corrall "EFFICIENCY" OF BEEF PRODUCTION: FORAGE AND GRAIN REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A UNIT OF DRESSED BEEF UNDER THREE FEEDING SYSTEMS The beef industry is often criticized by vegetarians and environmentalists, for the inefficient conversion of cereal grains to edible beef, with the suggestion that it would be better to feed grain directly to humans. For many reasons this argument is impractical, ignoring the ability of many needy consumers to pay, and problems of distribution and preservation during handling and storing. Because of our considerable work on producing beef on all kinds of rations and our involvement with the whole beef cattle enterprise from the cow to the finished animal, we felt it would be interesting to determine just how much forage, straw and grain it would take to produce a unit of meat (dressed carcass plus edible organs and other 107 tissues not included in the carcass). The results are summarized in Table 67. It must of course be recognized that in practice, there is a wide variety in both the kind and quality of feeds fed to beef cattle and that cattle vary in their productive potential. Environments vary, and feeding management varies. Nevertheless, we feel that the data are reasonable and relative across the three systems considered. COMMENTS The amount of cereal grain required to produce a unit of beef varies from none to about 8 1/2 units depending on the production system used, - from all forage-based rations to the maximum use of grain in the growing-finishing stages. When grain is low cost and/or lacks a market, it is logical and economically essential that it be marketed through livestock. With barley currently worth 6.8C/kg (Wheat Board price), plus perhaps a 2.3C/kg final payment, it is obvious that production costs are not being met. If an A1 carcass is worth $3.20/kg, and other feed and production costs (including 40C/kg return to labor) are subtracted, there is left $2.01 to cover the cost of the 12.1 kg of barley or 16.6C/kg, a 1.82 fold increase over market value. (Note this does not take into account any change in the unit value of the live animal from feeder to finished condition.) Not only is the value of the grain increased by feeding to livestock, but the food produced is far superior in nutritional quality per unit consumed, then is the original grain. Comments (Table 67) Intake data are based on feeding trials at the Melfort Research Station and on recommended feeding standards. Intake of forage by calves prior to and while on pasture are estimated. It is assumed for simplicity, that the starting point is a two year old heifer just prior to calving and that the weight of her dressed carcass at the end of her productive life (8 years of age) is credited to the production of meat over six years. 108 Table 67. Estimated hay and grain required to produce a unit of dressed beef under three different feeding systems* (All weights kg/lb - feeds on 90Z DM basis) Feeding System Forage-based Grain-Based Forage & grain based Feeding the cov (590/1300) Pasture (150 days) Drylot (215 days) - hay/silage - straw - grain 2409/5300 1364/3000 1273/2800 0/0 Calf (birth to weaning) (41-225/90-500) Hay and pasture (185 days) 500/1100 Growing calf (227-385/500-850) Drylot (160 days) - hay/silage - straw -grain 1705/3750 Finishing steers (385-570/850-1250) Hay 1820/4000 Straw Grain 2409/5300 182/400 1364/3000 880/1935 500/1100 0/0 318/700 1127/2480 0/0 130/290 1205/2650 2409/5300 727/1600 1320/2900 500/1100 500/1100 970/2130 0/0 570/1250 773/1700 68/150 682/1500 Total - Forage - Straw - Grain 7795/17150 1273/2800 0/0 301/663 49/108 Estimated meat yield Steer carcass Cow carcass (1/6) Other edible tissue (organs, head meats, backskirt) 15/33 Total Units of feed/unit beef produced Hay/silage Straw Grain Total 24.8 3091/6800 1814/3990 3211/7065 318/700 49/108 16/35 365/804 383/843 21.3 8.1 3.5 4.7 0.0 8.4 5377/11830 1386/3050 1750/3850 313/688 49/108 16/34 377/830 21.2 14.3 3.7 4.6 22.6 *Main ration ingredients (hay, straw, grain) must be supplemented with the appropriate minerals and vitamin A. It is assumed that pasture, hay, straw and grain are of average to good quality, and that growing-finishing rations are ground (or grain rolled) and that ground hay rations contain 3% A.F.A. (high energy, dust-controlling by-product of the manufacturer of canola oil). 109 Recycled -^W^-Z^ Papier Paper ?A _A\) recycle Canada