UTILIZING HARVESTED FORAGES in the aspen parklands of Western Canada I* Agriculture Canada PUBLICATION 1548 1974 cx (j c •H > o u a. <±4 O c o •H a} rH c . — i U a, c X t/5 UJ (1) •H c 'a o I- Q. 9) ■a E o - 3 - 2 o (D c o c o o ■D O - 1 September Figure 2 - Effect of date of cutting on yield and protein content of hay. Table 2 - Changes in Protein and TDN Contents as Hay Crops Mature Crested Alfalfa Bromeg CP rass TDN wheatgr CP ass TDN Oat CP hay CP TDN TDN Immature 19.2 50 15.0 12.3 Early bloom 16.6 51 10.9 50 12.7 50 Half bloom 15.2 51 9.4 Full bloom 13.9 48 9.2 49 8.2 7.9 38 Past bloom 13.8 44 5.7 47 6.9 43 8.3 43 Mature 12.4 5.4 3.7 6.2 55 Very mature 10.0 In practice, farmers must compromise between yield and quality of hay. For excellent, highly palatable hay to creep-feed to lambs or calves, immature alfalfa could be harvested and perhaps artificially dried; a second cutting would help to compensate for the lower yield. For self-feeding to wintering cows, the forage could be cut when very mature, to obtain a higher yield and a protein content more in line with the cows' requirements. Generally, however, the best time to harvest hay, particularly grasses, is as near the early bloom stage as the weather allows. Hay harvested later will not meet the protein requirements of growing-finishing cattle or lambs, and supplements (usually expensive) will have to be fed. Cutting, Curing and Handling Because leaves contain two to three times as much protein as stems, any operation resulting in loss of leaves lowers the feeding value of hay. This includes raking too vigorously, raking or baling when too dry, failure to use a hay conditioner (particularly with legumes), excessive handling and failure to prevent loss of leaf when blowing chopped forage into wagons from the forage harvester or during processing (chopping, grinding, blowing into mixers or feeders, etc.) Leaving bales of hay in the field reduces carotene content and palatabil- ity. If hay is baled in good condition and properly stored, it is an excellent feed for cattle and sheep. It also lends itself to chopping, grinding and in- corporation into rations, a decided advantage over silage in the production of finished animals. The form in which forages are preserved also affects feeding value. Haylage in airtight silos is probably the most nutritious forage, provided it was in good condition when put up. Losses due to spoilage are minimal; but the cost of such silos is exceedingly high and there is little information available on the economics of their use. Forage can also be put up as silage, which is fine for wintering cows and ewes or for getting feedlot steers safely onto feed. However, silage is not satisfactory for other operations, such as wintering calves or finishing lambs and steers, where its bulk limits the animals' ability to con- sume enough nutrients to gain satisfactorily, necessitating the feeding of grain. Processing The feeding value of hay can be increased rather remarkably by chopping or grinding. An animal will consume far more feed in this form than it could if unprocessed hay was fed, which means that a larger proportion of the feed is available for putting on gain. It is thus possible for animals to meet protein requirements by eating more forage of a lower protein content. If forage is plentiful and reasonably priced in relation to other feeds, it pays to increase forage intake by grinding and perhaps even pelleting. At other times it probably is more economical to balance the deficiencies by supplementing with grain, linseed or rapeseed meal, or phosphorus. Supplementing vs Processing - Usually, forages are deficient in one or more nutrients, such as energy, protein or phosphorus. Since animal performance is determined by the first limiting nutrient, when deficiencies in the hay are made up efficiency of utilization is improved. It may be possible to do this either by supplementing the ration with grain or by increasing the quantity of forage consumed so that it supplies the amount of TDN required. The TDN requirement of an 800- lb finishing steer is about 15 lb/day - 65% of the ration based on an intake of 23 lb feed/day. This could be supplied by 8 8 lb hay and 15 lb barley. Assuming that the hay has a TDN content of 50%, it may be possible, by processing the hay, for the steer to consumer 30 lb hay alone, thereby obtaining the amount of TDN required. If the supply of nutrients other than TDN is known to be adequate and the steer can consume 30 lb ground forage, it is possible to determine the price at which it becomes more economi- cal to supplement rather than grind the hay. For example, if barley is worth $2.40/bu, hay $30/ton and grinding the hay costs $6/ton, then the cost of feeding the hay (8 lb) and barley (15 lb) ration is about 90 cents/day, as against the cost of feeding ground hay alone (30 lb) - 45 cents for the hay and 9 cents for grinding, or 54 cents/day. Thus, in this case, it would be more economical to process the hay than to supplement the ration with grain. STEER CALF FEEDING EXPERIMENTS The forage processing program at Melfort developed from steer calf feeding experiments conducted during two successive winters (1960 and 1961). The calves were fed hay or silage to appetite. The daily dry matter intake and average daily gains are shown in Figure 3. It should be noted that, regardless of the hay fed, gains did not exceed 1 lb/head per day; rate of gain was closely re- lated to amount of feed consumed; forage put up as good-quality hay was con- sumed to a greater extent than the same forage put up as silage; and there was little or no relationship between protein content and gains, provided protein content exceeded 10%. It was concluded that, if forages were to be the main ingredient in rations for rapidly growing ruminants, some method had to be found to increase their intake. Effect of Processing on Intake An experiment was conducted using two hays, one a good-quality bromegrass (17% crude protein), the other a poorer-quality green stipa grass (7% CP) . Both hays were fed in the long (baled), chopped, ground, and ground and pelleted forms as the sole feed (apart from cobalt-iodized salt and water) to wintering steer calves. The relationship between intake and rate of grain is shown in Table 3. Table 3 - Effect of Processing on Forage Feeding Value Chopped Ground Pelleted Long (2 in.) (3/16 in.) (7/16 in.) 11.7 12.2 1.73 2.14 6.8 5.7 65 64 (7% CP 425 lb) Av daily DM eaten, lb 6.6 7.1 10.6 11.5 Av daily gain, lb -.12 .16 1.00 1.39 DM/lb gain, lb neg. 44.5 10.6 8.3 Digestible DM, % 53 55 51 50 Bromegrass hay (17% CP 480 lb) Av daily DM eaten, lb 10.2 11.3 Av daily gain, lb 1.22 1.67 DM/lb gain, lb 8.4 6.8 Digestible DM, % 68 68 Green stipa hay ' 0RWR. 10.9 OGF, 12.4 0OPF, 12.8 Alf OGF OPF Br RCI RWR YCI CWG IWG OPS GS T SG RCG Alfalfa Oat green feed Oat-pea forage Bromegrass Red clover Russian wild rye Yellow clover Crested wheatgrass Intermediate wheatgrass Oat-pea silage Green stipa Timothy (mature) Slough grass Reed canary grass Dry matter consumed daily, lb -r- 9 Figure 3 - Relationship between dry matter eaten and steer gains (480-lb calves). 10 Although this was only an 8-week test, it showed that intake and rate of gain could be considerably increased by reducing the forage bulk by processing. Perhaps because of the difference in quality (protein level) between the two hays, fewer pounds of brome were required per pound of liveweight gain. It is noteworthy that processing had a much greater effect on the feeding value of the poorer-quality forage, 'converting' it from a feed that could not be consumed in sufficient quantity to maintain body weight to one that would support a gain of about 1 1/3 lb per day. Long-term, more-recent tests on the effects of processing are summarized in the section beginning on page 18. NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE AND SHEEP Efficient livestock production is not always indicated by the pounds of feed required to produce a pound of gain. It is, for example, now possible to produce a pound of broiler chicken on a pound of feed; not only is the feed an expensive one, but the pound of broiler contains a lot of water. We tend to look down on the steer because it requires 10 lb or more of high-roughage feed to produce a pound of gain, but most of the time it is using a feed or feed by- product that cannot be utilized directly as food for humans and is thus serving a very useful purpose. As long as the cost of producing a pound of meat is less than what the producer receives for it, then it is economically sound to produce The more the value of the product exceeds the cost of production, the more efficient, economically speaking, is that production. Before considering the role forages can play in meeting the nutritional requirements of beef cattle and sheep, we should look at the requirements for some of the more common classes of ruminants. Table 4 - Estimated Nutritional Requirements of Cattle and Sheep Class of animal Weight, lb Expected daily gain, lb Expected feed intake (90% DM) lb Total protein, lb TDN, Ca, P, lb g g Vitamin A, IU Growing steer or heifer Growing steer or heifer Finishing steer Finishing steer Wintering pregnant cow Nursing cow Growing ewe lamb Finishing lamb Finishing lamb Pregnant dry ewe (1st 15 wk) Pregnant dry ewe (last 6 wk) Nursing ewe (1st 10 wk) 500 1.00 500 1.50 800 2.80* 1000 2.50* 1000 .4 1000 nil 80 .2 60 .35 90 .40 200 .10 200 .35 200 .1 13 14 22 26 18 28 3.1 2.6 3.7 4.2 5.5 6.2 1.3 7.0 13 10 10,000 .45 7.8 15 12 10 ,000 2.2 14.3 20 20 20 ,000 2.6 16.9 20 24 20 ,000 1.4 9.0 13 12 20 ,000 2.3 16.8 30 23 30 ,000 .36 1.6 3 2.5 1065 .32 1.5 3 2.5 500 .35 2.3 3 2.5 825 .35 2.3 3.5 3.0 1800 .40 2.8 5 4.0 4400 .50 3.3 7.5 5.5 4400 *These gains are minimal goals to be tolerated only where low-cost feed is used 11 In addition to the nutrients shown in Table 4, all livestock require salt, iodine and cobalt. Feeds produced in Western Canada are usually deficient in iodine and may be deficient in cobalt. Therefore, it is recommended that cobalt- iodized salt be included in complete rations or in the concentrate portion of the ration at a level of 0.5°o (10 lb/ton), as well as being available free- choice at all times. Be careful when first placing granulated salt out for cattle; if they are salt-starved, they may consume too much and sicken and die of salt poisoning. It is better to use block salt or start with a small quantity of granulated salt and gradually increase the amount daily until some is left in the box just before the next feeding. Then it can be supplied free-choice. WATER Water should be available to livestock at all times. This is particularly important in cold weather when cattle are not likely to drink enough in one or two waterings a day unless, of course, the water is warmed to 45-50°F. It has also been shown that, during hot weather, feeder cattle with access to water cooled to 65°F gained 0.3-0.4 lb/head per day more than similar steers receiving water heated to 89°F by the sun. The amount of water consumed by livestock depends on the ration, the tem- peratures of the air and the water, the quality of the water, the kind and size of animal, and the availability of water. Table 5 indicates amounts of water required for some livestock enterprises. Table 5 - Water Consumption of Beef Cattle and Sheep, Imp. gal (10 lb/gal) 40°F Temperature 60°F 80°F Class of beef cattle 500 lb steer (maintenance ration) 800 lb steer (finishing ration) 1100 lb steer (finishing ration) 1100 lb pregnant cow 3 9 Hi n 31 Hi 14 91 5 151 19 Sheep On range or dry pasture On range with salted feed On grain and hay rations* On lush pasture 0.5 to 1.3 1.7 0.6 very little *At Melfort, 65-lb lambs fed ground hay indoors consumed up to 0.9 gal/day. USING FORAGES TO MEET NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS In assessing the possibilities of a forage satisfying the nutritional re- quirements of beef cattle and sheep, we will consider the crude protein and digestible nutrient (energy or TDN) contents only, since nutrients such as vitamin A and minerals can be provided at relatively low cost. For purposes of this section, we will also assume that the forages in Table 6 (which are typical for 12 4H O to x> 0 0 z X bo H o rH a. 4-> 0 0 o +j co 0 DO rt 5h O u. 4H O to +-> C «J c x> c aj to 0 bO 03 rH O li, 4H o to 0 3 i— t aJ > aj C o •H +-» ■H H +-> 3 Z XI ^ 0 o o +-> co 0 > aj e +-> to UJ -J I vO 0 rH aS +-> 0) a) 6 o 4-> x 13 .— i 0) H •» •H co 3 X> cr 0 0 0 rH c X X 1— 1 bO l—l H aS 0 o C ■H CD 4-> ~^> 0 C rH •H o 0 CD +-> X o ■M H ex 0 bO as H O a. I DOlO to ■ H C •H 4h bO C •H o rH rH 0) 0 +-> to I o 00 bO c • H a> X ■h 4h I i-t o nJ o\° 2 Q E- o\° o\° a> 1-^ .H rr •"3- to <* to vD to r-~ to r-H vO o to vO CN CT» tO to to o l—l to •"d- '* to M" to O^ CM r— t CO o r^ 1-1 r- O \D O Oi • W Ol O N O h HNHONtO'tM^tO Ml/)ttOttOtTtNN lo n t to \o o> r- ivoooo CNCNCNr--CN(NtOCNtOCN cNiLor^G^Lni— (too-, toi— i rMrttoiooooocriLno^vo HHHttH(N(MH(NM oootooo^j-r- 1 to Tf a> n r— IrHiHTj-r-HrHrHlHrHr— I rl-OOrtOtOi— I 00 h- 0O CM NOOOOOOiHNtsOir^vD rsi r— i i— i i— i i— i i— i (NOO-^-OOOLOtOOtOvD LO^LDi— ILO^t^-LO"^-^t vOCT>r--'3-cr>cNcr>r-cr>vo OOOlOOOOCNCNOtOO 0>oooorNOio>0)(^ao,i E -— O E O O i-* o / — \ X — • E / — s X / — \ o E X s o r~, o i—l 4_) o l—l E O J-l to o X O —1 as aS / — \ 1— 1 O X5 0 Ph E /-> X i— i r-H \ ' v / O £ i—i J2l +J O O X 3 CO X X rH o l—l 4h X aS aS aS ^-^ X H u * — ' r-l d, X X 0 X aj fn ^-^ / — \ bO X 0 0 aS 0 «fl t/5 aS r— 1 i—l * — ' bO 0 X ^ l/) to +J U rH aS w aS 3 aS aS to ai 3 X i—i X +j ^ i-t 0 4H as •H X as bO bOX v_» v^> X tn aS 0 X 3 E +-> -M bO aS aS 3 X X U i-< o 0 0 O as aS 0 0 I/) t/) X^: X X > > w 0 ci 5 £ w o O aS <4-i X CO aj aS t— 1 r-H ^ x) -a x 0 4H 4h o o bO 5 X 0 0 ai bO r— 1 i— 1 +-> +-> 0 O bO ■P -P X aS aS aS 0 0 E X> 3 (/) (/) f-i 4H 4h 0 0 O a} o 0 0 +-> O i— 1 rH 5 £ $-. 0 l—l 5h f-i aS PU < < CO CO OQ S CO U U O +-> 0 0 E o X 0 U « •H t/5 3 X) cr 0 0 0 u c x x .—I bO aS 0 O C •H 0 *-> "^ 0 C ^i O 0 X ■M 0 bO a) O Pu 0 +-> O >-i P. bO C X • H i—l +-> I 0 aS O S +_) O 0 O CM aS bO C X •H i— I U I 0 0 O £ +-> O 0 C CM bO C X X E aS bO C X I o o 5 o o DO C X ■H i— I J-l I s 0 O O +-> o o o\° Q o\° a- o\° tOOOr— ItO^OtOOOvDvOi— l I— I OvDrj-'^tvOCriCNlCnCNJLO tOtOtOi— I t vO N tO N \D I— I •rtr--CNI N vD HTt \0 M O rj-'^-TtcNi'^-LOLn^tLnLO l—l HiflTt0>N00O00O*O CNCNlCNlt^tO'^-LOCNlLn"^- ^NCMNvOHrf^OMO ■^^tCM^-l/lLOrJ-iriLO l—l Hi/iTfoirMoooooo\0 rsicNicMt^tO'd-LncMLn^t rtLO'^-tO'^-tO'^-'Ct-r^vO CN CNl to CN) CNl i—l to CN o to 00 CM vO l—l OJ r^ CN1 i—l ^t- LO Tl- vO MlfltNOiaO^DON HHHrtHMtOHtOCM tot^r^cNjococNjot^'^- vDNLnNNOOONOlOO i— I i— li— l^-i— Ir-HCMr- 1 i— I >— I Oi— i oo r^ i— la^Loa^LOr— • ^ONvOCMQtO'JN^ttO CM i— I i— I t— I i — t CNJOO^tOOOlOtOOtOvO lO^-LnHiflTjrfi/irJ-rt voa>t-^n-a>cNjo>r^-cr>\o OOOtOOOOCNCNIOtOO a>oocorNa>0)aiOiOiai E / — \ o E o O rH O 1 — \ X H E , — * X , — » o E X E o rs O rH +-> o rH E O H CO o X O H aS aj / — \ rH O X 0 P. E ^ X r-H rH v — ' * — ' O E rH X 4-> o o X 3 t/> X X rH O H 4h X as aj CTJ rs X rH u * — ' ■H fX, X X 0 X aS H v— ' / — > bO X 0 0 aS 0 C/l co aS l—l l—l v ' DO 0 X H to CO +-) r-l rH aS ^ aS 3 CTJ aj co aS 3 X H X +-> H U 0 4-1 aS •H X aS bO bOX V ' v / X (/) aS 0 E -M +-> bo X 3 » — ' aS aJ 3 X X u H O 0 0 O aS ai 0 0 w CO XrC X X) X X > > CO 0 aj S 2 ■^ o o aS 4h X (A aS aS rH rH U X) xs X 0 4h 4h o O bO 2 X 0 0 aj DO r- 1 r-H 4-> -M 0 O bO ■M ■M X O i—i i— i 2 5 H 0 H rH rH CTJ PU < < CO CO CO S CO CJ U O 13 the parkland area) are available and that they contain the levels of crude protein (CP) and TDN indicated. Feeds should be analyzed at least for dry matter (DM) and CP, for efficient use in livestock feeding. The next consideration is whether or not the animal is capable of eating the amount of forage that theoretically meets its nutritional requirements. Table 7 shows the amount of feed needed to meet an animal's requirements on a conventional ration and estimated amounts of forages that could be consumed by various classes of stock, based on experimental findings to date. Table 7 - Estimated Consumption of Forages Fed in Various Forms Conven- Estimated "K—r ti i- ■ possi ble consumption of hay Silage tional ration i Good quality Poor quality quality Class of animal Long Chop. Gr. 1 3ell. Long Chop. Gr. P ell. (30% DM) Growing steer, 500 lb 13 14 15 16 16.5 10 10.5 14 15 30-40 Finishing yearling steer, 800 lb 22 20 22 26 26 15 17 21 23 40-60 1000 lb 26 25 27 34 35 18 20 28 30 50-70 Pregnant dry cow, 1000 lb 18 30 20 50-70 Nursing cow, 1000 lb 28 30 20 65 Finishing lamb, 90 lb 3.7 2.7 3 4 4.3 1.5 2 3.0 3.5 5 Pregnant dry ewe (1st 15 wk) 4.2 4.3 5.5 3.5 4 5 9 Nursing ewe (1st 10 wk) 6.2 5 5.5 3.5 4 5.5 6 11 GUIDE TO FEEDING FORAGE RATIONS Table 8 is based on information in the preceding tables. Producers wishing to maximize the use of forages can use the table as a guide in formulating livestock rations. The following estimates of maximum forage levels are conservative but, be- cause of the wide range in forage quality, feeders should watch their stock closely and be prepared to alter the feeding program as required. If, for example, wintering cows are gaining too fast, the proportion of roughage may be increased or the hay may be ground or chopped less finely. Conversely, if feedlot steers are not gaining fast enough, the proportion of roughage should be reduced or it may be more finely chopped or ground. Remember, also, that the estimates are made with the assumption that other required nutrients are provided - salt, minerals, vitamin A and, for finishing market animals, an antibiotic supplement. It is also assumed that finishing cattle will be implanted. 14 ft CD CD X co x> c 4-> u u O 4-1 I/) c o •H ■M cd a: CD bO OJ 5-1 o I 00 • *» •H •H 03 •H 13 nj O ••> i— • 4-( X CD o o x XI CD 3 X X CD i CD bO X X CD 4-1 X X X) cr u ni ifl X) 5-t 03 X) 13 • #v o o • CD 1 X (D 0) a> X c ■H X CD 0) T3 1 i ft 4-1 4-1 3 4-i o CD CD 4-1 i-h C c C 0) •M +-> c x o x i— 1 o3 <— i 13 4-J •M 03 3 3 03 O f-i a3 o3 03 nj oj O CD •H 5-i 0) CD 03 03 Jh O O f-. o£ U OS o£ Q£ X X ft4H I/) bO CO 4-1 CC OC U 5-i Cd bO X •M E •H 5-1 i-H o o3 LI- 3 a- u o ON0 o X a. 03 X o\° X +-> E •H Jh i— t o aj u. 3 cr XI o o\° o cj x) x CD 03 +-> XI o \ CD C ft-H X 03 w bO X bo •H 0) 4-1 O i-H n3 W E i/l •H oj c i—t o3 CJ X XJ XI X) XI 0) c c c c ft 3 3 3 3 ft O O o o o fH J-i Jh J-l X O o CJ CJ3 u o r^ LO O o 00 i r» m 00 f-H X) fH XI o r~- o o o O LO LO O O o o o o O o o o o cr> t— 1 o vO i i o i-H 1 1—1 O o o o o o r-- o ■* ^t Ch M u 4-> 0) 5 o m 0) CD C rt o CT3 c c fH H U u •H UU •H ft XI X x> CD x) X CD CD ft c c ft ft ft 3 3 ft ft O O O O O X In 5-i X X u CJ C_3 u u o O O o o r- t^- \D oo vO X XI X XI CD CD c c ft ft bO 3 3 ft ft c o o O o o 5-i 5-. X X J CD CJ3 u u o O O o o en oo r~- o 00 o o o o LO O o o o 00 i— 1 o o r-l 1 1— t LO 1 NO LO CM CM oo X E o3 CD /— - 2 ^H 5 ^ CD ^ o CD S 5 ^£ o bO CO bO c •H Jh 0) +J c 4-1 o c rH 3 •M 0 0 C 03 0) oj •M C 03 o3 Q C o 03 4-1 r-t 03 4-i o 03 3 cy 4-t O (/} +-> O 0) 4-1 4-( UJ 0 1—1 X o3 H a. en o3 4h .— < 03 4-1 i— i 03 X 03 o o a. u O o3 4-i i—i 03 4-i i—i o3 oS cr i O O CO 0 4-1 a> t>o oj X bO 3 O 13 0) rH e E 03 vD to CM r\i -3 a> Cu Cu o X u bO c o vO i—i to CM "3 0 0 03 CM -3 0 o X u bO c o -J r^ rf LO (N LO • o 4-1 o3 U 0 N •H c 0 m 0 X M X o 0 LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO to en to en r— I OO i — I • \D \D LO vO LO • 03 x bO •H 0 5 03 •H +-> •H c > LO o LO LO CM Cn to CT> LO vD • LO • *t O i— ( cm to r--. LO r-s • LO • o i — i CM LO r^ \D LO LO • LO • 00 oo vO LO OJ o 03 bfl X 03 > < LO CM to (M CM 00 LO CM LO CM 0 M 03 +-> C Q X o3 > f- CM LO oo CT> to LO r- LO CD • • • LO • r-> r-~ r-» CM LO * 00 Cn v£> N CTi OO 00 to LO o3 bO X +-> 4-1 3 O t/) X o3 X 4-1 O * * 0 3 rH 03 > 0 > •H +-> oS rH 0 v£3 sD rH 1-4 • • vO v£> tt . — i CM CM t"» h- • • o O LO CM CM CM o O • • LO LO <* r— * LO o to to vO *e- U o o - o3 C bOLM O C — I 4-> O n)\ 1— I bO o3 « C /-^ •H X C e +j o 3 -h +J I/) 1— I \ V) o3 O o3 3 to LO o to o o • o to LO i-H 1— 1 t>- • * o LO vO i— ( r*» to o ^o \£) CM 00 LO o • • o ■^D vD i — I O vO vO ■ — i • • r^ to LO i-H oo Tfr v£> CM • • r- to rt •V* c o o ■M ■»-> 0 te- 3 -3 * bO 0 C 3 -H rH (/) 03 t^ > 0 o o o3 +-> X LU CL, •H o3 bO 4-1 O rH 0 Dh -fez- CD ^3- CO) T) 0 a 3 -3 O u Ch c ■H 03 bO 03 5h +-> • X bo 0 d •H 0 T3 X 0 •M 0 4-1 m o 0 U 0 O 3 iw rH 0 03 X > *v 0 0 X 1— ( •M o3 X c o 0 X -3 ■(-> 0 V) c a >—{ 00. * ■X * 19 I/) 0 > o3 u 0 (1) a. u o\° nO to X a3 X a3 aJ r— ( a3 x +-> o s CX U LO Cn X a3 X >h a3 c_ *3 U C 3 o\° O to *h " o a3 (-1 0 > O i— H o 4-> 0 0 CO -a c 3 O u CM CM T3 0 ex ex o X u DO c O I T3 c 3 o rsi CM -3 (1) CX cx o x u DO c O I cm rj X! 0 ex cx o X u DO c O i 00 vO CO r— 1 ** r-» i— i ** tO ■«* • ■ r> nO CM • nO • *t o • • • t-» CM CM 1— 1 CM ■— 1 00 r^ 00 cn CM r-~ r-» (Nl to (N * • nO i—i o • nO « *fr o • • • nO (Nl CM i— i to ■— i 00 to vO nO Cn LO cn (Nl LO o to LO 00 00 o 00 o en to to CM (N| O LO nO I • I (Nl cn to *fr o LO (N| r~- Cn o • • 1— 1 h- NO LO I-H LO LO • • • O .-h • • CM r^ i— i ■— i 00 NO • • 00 o (N| Cn LO 00 LO LO to (Nl (N| to (Nl cn o cn LO ■ 03 o h m 0 •H T3 -T3 -H X *H ct3 X O > > > ^ CX CO < < < a3 do -3 (D 0) 03 «-> rt -3 C DO O c +-> •H \ l/> (/> H I cx c 03 t3 e a) 0 I PL X V) c o o DO (U 3 I Ol h- ^1- LO 00 NO f» o r- to NO ■** to to • • vD CT> LO • NO • to o • • • NO (Nl (N 1— 1 (Nl i— 1 NO to r-- o "«* r-> o •—< LO o (NI • • LO to (Nl • LO • NO to • • • o 00 NO r- to ,^- to CT> 00 CT> CT> • • f—t t^ i— ( • LO • *tf LO • • • NO NO o (N| i-H tO Tt NO o o to LO • • r-~ r~~ i-H • LO • r- i— t • • • LO (/) HaH O O * * DO X C aJ •H T3 (S) ~^. in u o a> o -M j-i in CL, NO NO NO «3- NO LO o • (N| H (Nl oo (N| LO (NI (N| (Nl (N| a> • • CM 00 \. X O O XJ u Qi 00 LO LO 00 to LO (Nl o LO NO CM LO to (NI LO • (N| to I— I NO to o to oo vO (N| (Nl 0 V) I +-> * O X o rt -3 •—I ^^ o to CM o CM to (Nl o • oo to CM o NO CM O o • CM i— l CM o NO CM O O • CM i-H CM V3- O X i—i (D \ 3 -**• —I O as n- > i— i •H o NO r- Tf nO • 00 LO o CM • NO NO 00 00 • LO CM LO LO to 00 to to o 00 to to CM o to o to CM LO to oo to to to o CM 00 a> CM * * 3 V3- i— • > X a3 -t<- C CM •H Tt o o oo o ^t oo • • • Tf LO NO 1— 1 o LO 1— 1 i-H o Tj- i-H NO 00 CM • • • 1—i i-H o 1— 1 a> LO i-H o o o NO ^ oo • • • t^- to r-- o o LO o • o o o oo CM LO o o LO o o • to o CM O CM • NO O NO o NO to LO o CM CM C aJ T3 DO 0) C tM m W o 0 O H ^1 o ex o i oo CM o en LO o LO to LO o NO CM to • to o • o en CM oo NO NO o o u 0 4-> CH aJ m C fH *& 3 +-» • 0 X> M 0 0 +-> ch 0 Z o o • o to • to to o LO CM O to nO CM o o • o CM o LO cn LO NO CM • O O • o to V5- «4H in 0 m > -3 0 0 V) > •H 0 *J u aJ O ^h »-, 0 CX Oi X U 0 a] X •3 C a3 »H o +J o 03 V) 4-* '-M o *-> o o DO c •H 4-> «J u 0 cx o "3 c o3 (h X to !h O X 03 in 0 "3 3 i-H o c -3 O •H 0 CX o DO CM C *<9- O "<* X <-> }h O to c •H 03 DO ■M X DO •H 0 0 > •3 C 03 C O X w < * * 4c 20 FINISHING STEERS ON HIGH-ROUGHAGE RATIONS Feeding Ground Hay In 1962, following good results from feeding ground hay to sheep, a test was undertaken to assess the performance of 730- lb Hereford steers hand-fed a finishing ration containing 80% ground medium-quality bromegrass hay and 19% ground barley. A control lot received an 80% ground barley ration containing 19% ground hay; and a third lot of steers received the high-hay ration in ground and pelleted form. The remainder of the ration consisted of 0.5% limestone in the high-grain ration or calcium phosphate in the high-hay ration, 0.5% cobalt- iodized salt, a vitamin A supplement and an antibiotic supplement. Table 12 summarizes the results of the 74-day experiment. Table 12 - Effects of Feeding Ground Hay in Finishing Rations 1 2 80% hay 3 80% hay 80% barley (ground) (pelleted) Av daily gain, lb 2.58 3.02 3.22 Av daily feed eaten, lb 19.9 25.6 25.3 Maximum daily feed ir itake, lb 23.2 32.3 32.5 Feed/lb gain, lb 8.07 8.84 8.19 Feed eaten/steer, lb - grain 1178 360 356 - hay 280 1515 1498 - supplement 15 19 18 Av final wt, lb 923 948 973 Av carcass wt, lb 501 510 529 Dressing % 54.2 53.8 54.3 Carcass grades - Al (Good and Standard) 3 3 3 - A2 (Choice) 3 3 3 Est. returns* to labor/steer, $ 19.74 45.07 49.80 ♦Assuming barley at 5^/lb, ground hay at $50/ton (pelleting, $8/ton); steers purchased at 40i/lb, average finished steer price of 46H o Cn LO Cn en oo i-H O tO rt • r-H Is- +J > Is- Is- O • • en CM LO r-H • t/) -H X i— 1 (M tO CM CM LO LO V) +-> tO LO r-H •* 3 •H i-H X-H i—l to r-H O rt i—i CM I—l O vO i— i o 00 rt \D r-H LO i cn CD X 3 LO o cn 00 vO LO i-H \D CM Is- • r-H I vO > u to en CM U (O o Is- CD O o oo rt rt 00 i-H CM to en rt Is- CM LO r-H 1 rt Ct, o CL o cn 00 Is- 00 i-H en Is- CM Is- • r-H 1 LO w (M Is- o I—l • • tO CM \D to en to CM CO r-H rt LO to LO • Is- r— 1 n, re neous LO to en i—i CM i— l tO r-H 00 CM rt 1 Is- O rt CD LO Cn rt o tO i-H to to to to • r-H 1 LO •M r-H bfl Cn Is- o i-H • • i-H i— l LO o • — ^ r-H rt I—l CM r-H VO to LO 00 O CD X to en i-H to O bO CM V5- l/> Is- 3 to •H \Q O LO o l—t Is- cm r-H CM en rt CM r-H LO 1 LO -3 e a\ u o cn 00 cn en cm LO LO CM \D • r-H 1 v£> c i— i Is- Is- o • • 00 o LO CM • rt U X 1— 1 CM CM CM CM LO O CD 13 +-> to to to O CD C •H en rt +J rt 1—1 CM «e- to rt LO to to Is- r-l cn LO LO LO O en Is- 1 LO s— ^ v© 3 LO Cn 00 00 "t i-H rt CM CM Is- • 1 LO ^ o vO cr rt Is- o • • to r-H LO to • O rt Cn i 1—1 to o en r-H i— 1 LO r-H LO ^5- t— l | to en rt to rt •V •H CM +-> (/) 13 i—i rt I—l LO en o O r-H l-H vO Is- cn 1 LO rt 13 C rt •H 1—1 rt 00 i— l r-H LO oo X •P CM LO to aj • •> rt o X X OS CM rH v0 1—1 Ol 00 Is- rt v© tO vO 00 CM rt i oo rH \ bo LO Cn cn cn cn \o to \£> to Is- • r-H i to O Har- C cn I—l Is- Is- LO 00 O 00 vO tO CM 1 CM rt •H O O cn LO en O Is- vO 00 to \D • r-H I \D o PL, fn Is- Is- o i—i • • tO CM tO 00 o CM LO to LO • r-H e 3 3 rH e X to OO CM •h rt •H •H en CM 13 > CD X i— 1 tO vO 00 00 00 LO en so en rt O LO rt 6 Oj rt LO o rt 00 oo Is- i— 1 Is- CM VO • r-H 1 LO V) X 3, rt oo O • » rt i-H L0 rt | • •» rt a" i— l cm en o i— l r-H LO CM T3 O T3 i CM CM r-H O rH C -3 \D O rt 3 O CM bO O o O vO LO CM O Is- Is- Is- i-H LO cn O v£> 00 rH O o o 00 r- cn \o oo CM CM 00 • r-H 1 CM 13 X) U CM 00 o • • \0 rt LO to • io 1—1 to en LO i-H LO cn m CM to CM o o o e i-H CM p\ U bO CD X o rH bO +-> •H /"~\ CD • •> rt •H •(-> 13 CD X rH i—l rt rH ■M r-H CD rt U rt V) "">- > 3 , X 13 x-^ -br- rt C •H I—l C rt •H O t-IN LO * T3 "X 4-> r-l X X C X C — i CO •h rt ■•-» r-H rt rt X CD X •M r-H rt \ X 1— 1 X -M •> i-H T3 3 -**■ i— i X <-H rt rH C /-> I O xo CD +-> •> rt CD r-H 4-) CD rt > C +-> •> CD c ^ V) o rt r-H CD X CD 13 -H •H * U +-> -J O bt ■M 13 •H CD V) 6 W 13 O O O c w f— ( o 1— 1 £ C ■—I i-H rt U rt 3 13 c (/) i— 1 CM O rt t/l t) X) 13 i I 1 «/) V) O 1 1 1 • V3- W rH X XI > •H c >> CD CD CD rH +-> w 3 rt rt a> c •H rt > > CD rH rH rt Ifl •< CUi-h H j 1— 1 LL, Q < < U, Q a CJ Ui * 24 Liveweight gains of steers fed good-quality forage were generally lower dur- ing the initial weeks of the feeding period than those of steers fed either medium- or low-quality forage. At the 20 and 45% levels, gains on good-quality roughage after the first 60 days on feed remained lower than those attained on medium- and poor-quality forage. However, at the 70 and 95% levels, gains on good- quality forage increased relative to those in the lower-quality roughages and, after 40-50 days on feed, were directly related to forage quality. At the 95% level, the difference in gain due to quality continued to increase rapidly with time. This suggests that a level of roughage of up to 70% can be incorporated into starter rations for beef cattle, without adversely affecting the performance of the animals over the feeding period as a whole. Also, for best results with good- quality forage, a relatively long feeding period may be preferable to a 60-70 day feeding period. The results also indicate that steers can be adequately finished on rations containing more forage than is usually recommended, provided it is fed in the ground form. This could be of considerable economic importance to the producer who has an abundant supply of low-cost forage for which he may not have an alternate market. In this test, all rations produced an acceptable rate of gain except the one containing 95% poor-quality roughage. It should also be noted that the final market weight of some of the steers fed high-roughage rations was 40-50 lb less than that of steers fed rations containing lower levels of ground roughage. Had they been fed a few days more, the grades likely would have been better. Under the economic conditions assumed in the calculation of returns to labor, one could conclude that if high-quality hay is available it should be fed only at a high level (80-95%), if returns are to exceed those attained on a high-grain ration. With medium- and low-quality roughage, some other feeding method must be found to improve efficiency of utilization - perhaps supplementation of some sort is required, perhaps pelleting would help, or perhaps the rations should be varied from a high level of ground forage initially to a lower level during the finishing stages. Steer Finishing Tests, 1971 and 1972 In 1971 and 1972, two further steer finishing experiments were carried out to evaluate the effect of incorporating 70% ground hay into finishing rations and reducing the level of hay at different rates until the 90% level of rolled grain was reached. During this period, a number of factors were changing which could affect the economics of feeding ground, high-roughage rations. Cattle prices had increased considerably, grain prices were increasing relative to hay prices and the grading system for beef carcasses changed to favor leaner carcasses. In addition, the technology of producing and harvesting forage was improving so that much of the physical work of harvesting and processing hay was being eliminated Each of the tests involved 48 Charolais x Angus steers averaging 621 lb in the 1971 test and 672 in the 1972 test. The steers were alloted into four groups on the basis of weight and type, and assigned at random to one of four ration treatments : 25 Lot 1 - fed a 50% ground hay starter ration for 2 days and increasing proportions of the finishing ration, so that by the 9th day they were receiving a 90% grain finishing ration. Lot 2 - fed 2000-lb increments of 70, 60, 50, 40, 30 and 20% (10% hay, 10% ground straw) ground hay rations in succession, before receiving the finishing ration (90% grain) at 39 days. Lot 3 - as for lot 2, except that they were fed 4000 lb of each ration be- fore receiving the finishing ration at the 79th day. Lot 4 - as for lot 2, except that they were fed 6000 lb of each ration be- fore receiving the finishing ration at the 95th day. All steers had free access to water and cobalt-iodized salt and were self- fed from the start of the test. All roughage was ground through a 1/2-in. screen. In 1971, the grain portion of the ration consisted of equal parts of oats and barley until the steers averaged 800 lb; all barley from 800 to 950 lb; and equal parts of barley and wheat when the steers averaged over 950 lb. In 1972, the grain portion of the ration was made up of equal parts of barley and wheat throughout the test. Within each of the four groups of 12, three steers were assigned at random to be controls; three were treated with 36 mg diethylstilbestrol (Stimplants, Pfizer § Co.); three with 36 mg Ralgor (Zeranol, Commercial Solvents Corporation); and three with progesterone-estradiol benzoate (Synovex S, E.R. Squibb £ Sons). The results of the two tests are summarized in Table 16. Table 16 - Steer Finishing Tests, 1971 and 1972 ■ iii i 1 ■—i t— ■ i ■ ■■ ; -i — s-3 2 3 4 On finisher by days 9 39 74 95 Av initial wt, lb 647 647 646 647 Av final wt, lb 1143 1140 1144 1161 Av daily gain, lb 3.20 3.19 3.23 3.35 Av daily feed, lb 24.2 25.6 26.4 27.3 Feed eaten/steer, lb 3742 3980 4081 4218 - hay 44 433 867 1314 - straw 367 321 249 175 - grain 3257 3174 2905 2663 - supplement 74 52 60 66 Dressing % 56.5 56.4 56.2 56.1 Cold carcass wt, lb 646 643 643 651 Carcass grades - Al and A2 19 20 19 22 - A3 (heavy, Choice) 5 4 5 2 Measurements/100-lb carcass - depth of fat cover over eye of lean, in. .12 .12 .11 .11 - area of eye of lean, sq in. 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 Est. returns* to labor/steer, $ 58.99 53.57 58.06 65.55 ♦Assuming grain at 5^/ lb, ground hay at $50/ton, ground straw at $20/ton and supplement at 10{/lb; steers purchased at 40 C3 OS 60 c •H X en CD to o o o o to o o o o LO o o \0 o o o o 00 o o o o LO o o LO LO .-H \D 00 to 00 O O LO CN1 O Tfr • • • • O i— t CM CM OO i—i CTi LO CM O Tfr 00 to CM r- t— I CM i— 1 nO i-H CM r» r-« t^- ■<* LO CM o o 00 to to NO 1— t to 1— 1 vO r-t CM vO *-> oo rt o o LO CM o n- t-. • 0 fi X LO LO iH CM CT> nO 5 i—( i-H LO X) c ctJ oo I— ( Oi LO CM o o LO • X to u V) 1—1 xi cj . o> • o o i-H Oh •H o +J +-> U C rC c <^ i-H o o 4-> & i-H O 3E 4h M'H J •H t-t (/) -d i—t u •1 c i-H rt fH Q *\ 1 1 3 o CU X 3 T3 CM T3 CM fX w •H rt o\° 4-> o §^§ ^>^ tfl w c oo UJ > <4H 4) O •H ">s« i— t 4-> rt o Vh •H 1—1 ' e 1 X »H sw c r-H U U (U o rt t-i rt •H O lH 3 a> CJ CJ co S a. CJ u J u a < U Q 30 Table 20 - Effect of Implant on Steer Performance, 1973 Control Ralgro (36 mg) Synovex S No of steers* Av initial wt, lb Av final wt, lb Av dai] Ly gain, lb Av carcass wt, lb Dressing % Carcass grade - Al and A2 - Al and A2 (he - A3 - A3 (heavy) Av carcass value**, $ 16 767 1206 3.02 679.8 55.5 11 4 1 565.41 15 767 1272 3.44 725.9 56.2 6 7 1 1 594.88 13 779 1278 3.39 724.5 56.7 5 7 607.05 *4 steers failed to complete the test; one injured a hip and three, for no apparent reason, began to lose weight and were removed when they failed to respond to treatment. One steer was removed from each of the ration treatments **Basis Al and A2< 700 lb @ 85*. Table 21 - Daily Gains of Implanted Steers at Various Hay Levels Hay leve 1 Low Medium Moderate High Av Control Ralgro Synovex 3.25 3.50 (.25) 3.39 (.14) 3.32 3.62 (.30) 3.35 (.03) 2.85 3.33 (.48) 3.46 (.61) 2.66 3.24 (.58) 3.35 (.69) 3.02 3.42 3.39 3.38 3.43 3.21 3.08 Assuming animal performance attained in the 1973 experiment, Tables 22 and 23 will help determine the returns to labor under various feeder and finished steer prices and various hay and grain prices, and allowing a $40/steer miscel- laneous cost exclusive of labor.* *Estimated miscellaneous costs: buying and trucking, $4.55; bedding $4.50; veterinary, $3; implanting, $1.45; interest on investment in steer, $12; depreciation on facilities, $4.50; death loss (1%), $5; selling and trucking, $5. 31 Table 22 - Returns to Labor ($/steer) when Hay $30/ton and Grain* 5j«/lb Carcass Liveweight Cost of feeder steer, «/lb -0(1**,,-' ,--690*** 1244 ,,-'' ,--''ll82 34 36 38 40 42 44 45 46 48 Selling price/lb, « -23.9 y y 10.9 -39.1 ,,' y''-4.3 ' j -54.3 y ,''-19.5 -69.5 ,'' -84.7 ,'' -99.9 ,'' ,' ''' ,''-34.7 ,''-49.5 ,''-65.1 -107.5,'' /'-72.7 -llS.l^,'' -130.3,-' ,,'' ,,'' ,'''-80.3 ,'''-95.5 65 38 68 40 .6 y y' 34.5 -14.6 ,,'' ,''' 19.3 -29.8 ,'' ,''''j.l -45.0 y ,''-11.1 -60.2 ,'' ,,''-26.3 -7S.4/'' ,''-41.3 -83.o y -90.6 y ,'' ,' ,,' -49.1 ,' -56.7 -103.8,,' ,'''-71.9 7] 42 25.1/' ,,'' 58.2 9.9 y ,''' 43.0 ' -5.3/' ,-''': 7. 8 -20.5 ,,'' ,''' 12.6 -35.7 y -50.9 y -58.5 ,'' -66.1 ,'' ''''' / ,''''' '-'' ,'' -2.6 ,' -17.8 ,' -2S.4 ,'' -33.0 -81.3 ,,' ,,''-4 8.2 75 44 49.5 ,'' y' 8i.8 34.3 y' y' (,<>.«> 19.1 ,,'' y' 51.4 3.9,,'' ,''' 36.2 -11.3 ,'' -26.5 ,'' -34.1 ,'' y 21.0 y s.s ,'' 1.8 -41.7 ,,'' -56.9 ,'' ,'' ,' 9.4 y -24.6 .' ,' 78 46 74.0 ,,' ,-''105.4 58.8 y .'' 90.2 43.6 / ,-'' 75.0 28.4 y y' 59.8 13.2 ,' -2.0 ,-' -9.6 ,'' -17.2 ,'' -32.4 ,'' ,' ,' ' ' ,' , ,' , , , , , ,'' 44.6 ,'' 29.4 ,'''21.8 .'' 14.2 ,''' -1.0 1' ■ • ' 82 48 98.5 / * 83.3,,'' .''' 113.8 68.1 y >'' 98.6 52.9,'' ,'' 83.4 37.7,,' ,,'' 68.2 22.5,,' ,''' 53.0 14.9,''' 7.3,''' ,' , ,,' ,' 4S.4 ,'' 37.8 ' -7.9,,'' ,-'' 22.6 85 50 129.0,'' .'' 152.7 - 113.8,'' ,'' 137.5 98.6,,' ,'''l22.3 83.4 ,'' ,'' 107.1 62.2 ,'' 47.0 ,'' ,' , , ,' ,'' 91.9 ,' 76.7 39.4,'' 31.8 y y 69.i y 61.5 16.6,,'' ,'' 46.3 88 52 147.4 / y' 176.3 132.2 ,'' .''' 161 ■ 1 117.0,,'' ,'' 145.9 101.8,,' ,'''l30.7 86.6 ,,' 71.4 ,' 63.8 ,' ,' , ,' ,' ,' ' ' ,' 115.5 ,' 100.3 .' 92.7 .£ c .«.. 56.3 y ,''' 85.1 41.0 ,-' ,-'' 69.9 Table 23 - Returns to Labor ($/steer) when Steer Purchased at 45« and Sold at 46«/lb Hay Cost, $/ton Grain* cost, X) 1 o LO x CT> to •M cm CJ i—l 1 LO O ■-! i— t 1 0> rH o\° xj o X •M CD £ o> 1 o l—t + 00 + in vO + to «* + i— i cm o c 10 X as Q o o CM o to o "3- o LO o o o o\° > LO 00 cm r- • i— < • • O M3 *t LO LO tO vO • CM • • o O O LO CM (N LO LO • tO >—l • • o • <— t en LO oo to r^ r\i • to .— i • • o • LO Tj- 00 <—< LO o • ^t LO LO • O •— i OlflNO • • O •— I LOLOLOLOOOOOvOLOOOtJ-.— I (N (NLOOOLOtOtOOLOtOtO • • . •r^tOl-HLO'^Or- 1 rt CM LO LO • ^- i— I CM 00 N H <— ILOLOLOtOLOCTJLOtOTt^t • r-- • • i— i • \o in ^t o h CM • f~^ CM -to CM oo to to ■— I O O LO LO LO • • • vO (N lo O r-~ • • CM LO <— I «3" CM X) CD o u X .— I CD i-H i— I O -H M o rt to CD <-> X rt 2 o T* LO LO • O i— t UJ X 0J ^ 3 x cr crj cr >-i o o ex X> x O rt o x W) 0) X > ctj O o to +-> co D nJ cu 3 ex i — i in *-> O 6 to 1) 10 T3 to CU 0J O CM U 00 (D 4-* X ex to o X ex •H t0 t3 C •M hh i— t nJ O to o o to i—i 03 ~^ M 0) c a X CD X) ^£ •»-> aJ X) T3 CD CD CU t+-l 1+-I X) CD 1 1 CD (JU oo to • • to r-~ to to ■*r o • • UD O CM tO to • • r-i Tt CM CM O LO • • cn a> I— I r-< • • i-H F— ( O ^-i • • f— t ,— I • • tO LO 1—t f— I oo to • • to r- to to LO tO • • O CM to to vD O CM 00 CM • CM 00 • LO •M M-i 3 O X ^^> CD ■M +J i— t 03 X M •H al CQ g CD 39 Table 29 - Steer Performance and Economics Melfort method Lethbridge method Av final weight, lb Av daily gain, lb Av daily feed eaten, lb Feed eaten/lb gain, lb Feed eaten/steer, lb - grain - hay - molasses and beet pulp - minerals, vitamins, antibiotics Feed cost/lb gain, { Dressing % warm * off-farm Carcass grade* - Choice - Good - Standard Measurements/100-lb carcass - depth of fat cover over eye of lean, in. - area of eye of lean, sq in. Barley Wheat Barley Wheat finisher finisher finisher finisher 1112 1140 1117 1113 3.34 3.61 3.39 3.34 26.3 26.7 24.1 23.9 7.87 7.39 7.11 7.16 2046 2083 2152 2135 641 645 294 290 — -- 24 22 45 45 42 41 10.9 11.0 10.6 11.4 58.5 3 0 1 .11 1.85 57.7 3 1 0 .12 1.87 58.2 2 2 0 .14 1.71 58.1 3 1 0 .12 1.96 Est. carcass gain**, lb Est. TDN consumed/ lb of carcass gain, lb Est. returns*** to labor/steer, $ 195 9.7 32.46 205 9.6 32.79 191 9.6 36.95 185 9.8 25.65 *Based on four steers marketed and assuming similar grades and dressing % on remainder. **Assuming initial dressing % of 60%. ***Assuming barley at 5s<(:/lb, wheat at 6H i—i o o ■M o *^. a. LO to o to CT> ^r T* o ■—• CN >o CN LO cn LO ^ 00 • O i—t CN to "«* vO CN CN U ^^ r-~ o • LO vO LO rt vD LO • V* 0 i— < i—4 CN (NJ ol to O *»>. 00 T3 O O i— < O 00 Tf vo r^ i-4 r-~ o • 1-4 tO *-* 00 o • to LO r- t^~ cr> (NJ (N| vO r— 4 to 00 ■*t 00 LO ^D cn cn • CN CN d straw d a $40 O CN i— 4 lo r^ ■— < lo 'tf- cn r- o • .— 1 (NJ to to LO . to to vO vO CTl (NJ (NJ LO i-H i-H i-H LO \D LO • roun ; an o to c •> IT) o3 •^t O) vD 00 •— 1 o cn i—4 i-4 O vD to C 03 e. LO to vD • LO o (NJ 00 Ti- r- to O U u i— 4 t-- O • Tl- \D (NJ LO 00 LO • +-> f-4 o <—i cn (N (NJ 1— 1 LO \ 03 4-1 U 1— 1 o a >-. o ■ o Fh *««^ r^ o • LO vO (Nl LO 00 LO • 03 O 0) i— i i-H tO (NJ (NJ i-H to ^s T3 CN "O c O •H O e o3 (H I C5 ■^ tO i-H \C N Ifl CN o r^ LO LO a CN lo -^ en r^ o • . o r- l^ vO N cn LO cn • 13 T3 4h i— 1 —1 CN (NJ (NJ f— i r- 3 O o i—4 O (/> JH to bOT3 co to \0 o -—4 (NJ •<* (Nl r~- cn cn vD CN C (D LO LO Cn . to (NJ 00 00 to 00 oo •> a3 c i— 1 r- o • TT LO "«* cn LO • C 0) i— 1 (NJ (NJ (NJ i—4 cn O X) c Sh CN 4-> <-" •H O — „ *v^ UU o O -«a»- D- CO LD vO "*t (NJ Tf rt LO cn o \0 r^ LO O -o CN LO LO 00 . "^l- (NJ 00 cn to Is- i—4 Vi- ^t c ~^^ r- o • "* LO ■** cn LO • o3 »— < i—4 cn (Nl (NJ r— I i—4 i—4 4-> 4-> 03 03 ■— t o ■* XT3 > i— I 00 \D ffi a> h cn cn to vO oo 03 (JJ <0 LO LO O • 00 o ■<* to cn CN X V) • J i— 1 r^ o • i— i to ■*T rt LO (NJ (NJ cn r— i LO • O 03 !H -o X O ^ T3 to O O X X O O In o3 4-> o W> 3 i-H •H O rt CT> -^ O vO 00 f-4 vO cn O, i— I CN LO \D O . vo O CNJ to 00 to T3 4h o3 "\ r-- o • ■^ rf LO cn LO • C lo O 3 i— 1 f— I to CN (NJ ^-t 00 3 U cy i— i O 0) 00 4J -H b£ to to a! 3 Sh X ••ir-4 O • ^H X U u- < CL, -**- ~- — 0> 4-1 XJ 3 4-> »-< W 4-> C ■-" x •* & o o *s 03 O u W) +-> a> •> 1—1 0 •»-> 4-J 4-> u 4-> 03 4-1 03 H u * V •H o s CO "■ — / a> 03 to 4-1 x i— 4 o 4-> - CT3 +-> 6 > •H (U * 4-» 0) . 3 UU 00 03 (/) t 5 -H (U in 3 X> L0 CO X Oh O 3 o\° 3 c +J o3 oi f-i O u U 3 C u - 1— 1 a3 ^ 0) o •H *» •H r* X X S 4-> OO 6 2 •M U 03 jh C cj 4-> X) C *-* to i— I 0) 00 6 0) (J (< HH a rt^ » — ' o3 o3 d) 03 CO 03 d) 03 • H • i-H a) > 03 M N •H C -H -H a> x JH CO c T3 U CO T3 f-4 i—t e o3 X -H C a3 ^ C 3 • O r— t •M — < oo s 10 •H 4-4 ~3 -d O T3 X V) s e o3 T3 O < 03 • (/) > to X •iH 3 fc CT> O r—4 (h +-» tO • -H «J e O CTJ > > > > v— ' a> i i 1 1 o a3 i 00 < 6 6 H 1— 1 CC X < < < < PU u U UJ 4« 42 in steers started at 80% roughage. Although a liver that is abscessed is con- demned and represents a loss to the meat packer, there does not appear to be any consistent relationship between the presence of an abscess and the perfor- mance of the affected steer in the feedlot. GUIDELINES FOR USING GROUND HAY IN STEER FINISHING RATIONS Obviously, more research is required before all the answers on utilizing forages in steer finishing rations are known. Until further work is done, the following comments are offered as tentative recommendations to feeders wishing to use forages more effectively in steer finishing operations. It is important to watch the performance of the cattle closely (check weights, watch for evidence of digestive disturbances or onset of bloat) and gradually change rations (hay:grain ratio, fineness of grind or level of supplementation) if such change is required to improve animal performance. 1. As a feedlot operator, you must be in a position to use all sources of feed available to you for lowest-cost rations. To use roughages efficiently, you need equipment that will grind whole bales and mix the ground roughage with grain and other supplements. A rugged grinder-mixer and a 100-HP tractor are minimum requirements. A mixer equipped with a hammermill to take full bales and a roller to process the grain are recommended. 2. Avoid using ground, good-quality alfalfa or alfalfa-brome hay at levels of 35-65% of rations containing high-energy grains. In moving from high to low levels of hay during the finishing period, either dilute the hay with ground straw or use a grass or poorer-quality hay. 3. When formulating rations using ground hay and grain, check on the protein levels of the ingredients. If the ration contains less than 10^-12% protein (depending on hayrgrain ratio and quality of hay and grain), it may be economi- cally sound to raise the CP level by adding protein supplement. Check our test rations for suggested levels of minerals, vitamin A and antibiotic for rations of different hay: grain ratios. If in doubt about formulating rations, consult your nearest ruminant nutritionist or feed lab. 4. If roughage is limited or if grain is cheap in relation to hay, use ground hay in the early stages of the feeding period at a level of at least 50% to assist animals to get safely onto feed and then gradually reduce it to 10% and replace it with ground (1-in.) straw. 5. If roughage is limited and grain cheap, and if steers are light or have a tendency to finish at too light a weight, use roughage (50-70%) in rations to promote growth rather than fattening during the first part of the feeding period. Then switch to a high-grain ration so that the animals will be finished within 100 days. There is some evidence that feeding high-grain rations for more than 100 days leads to increased liver and rumen damage and poor performance. 6. When hay of good quality is plentiful and cheap in relation to grain, feed at a high level (80-95%) for as long as good rates of gain are obtained (2^-3 lb/head per day). Increase the level of grain fed gradually, as required to maintain gains, watching for bloat once the level of hay drops below 65-70%. Unless grain is very expensive, it is probably advisable to feed at least a 50%- grain ration for the last 3 weeks of feeding. 43 7. When hay is plentiful and cheap in relation to grain, but quality is poor to medium: grind through a 1/2-in. screen; start out with levels of 60-80%; sup- plement with protein (rapeseed meal) if required; and gradually increase the level of grain, as required to maintain satisfactory rates of gain. 8. Grind hays through a 1/2-in. screen. Coarser grinding of high-quality hay may be adequate sometimes, but difficulties may be experienced in keeping hay and grain mixed during augering or self-feeding and this could lead to digestive disturbances. When roughage is to be fed at a low level or for a short period, coarser grinding helps prevent overeating of grain. 9. Always use a growth-promoting implant (as long as their use is legal). There may be more benefit when rations containing high levels of good-quality ground grass hays are fed than when high-energy rations are fed, but in both cases their use should be profitable. FORAGES IN GROWING-FINISHING RATIONS FOR LAMBS At the Melfort Station, lambs are fed chopped, artificially dried alfalfa hay and a special creep-fed ration from the time they are about a week old until turned out to pasture about the 3rd week in May. During the period on pasture (when the creep feed is also fed), lambs gain 2/3-9/10 lb a day. When they reach a weight of 60-65 lb, they are weaned off pasture and finished in confinement. LAMB PERFORMANCE ON VARIOUS FINISHING RATIONS Effects of Forage Species, Moistening and Supplemental Concentrate Lambs were individually stalled and fed one of four ground (3/16-in. screen) forages -alfalfa (16l CP) , bromegrass (13l% CP) , crested wheatgrass (15l% CP) and meadow fescue (9% CP) — as the only diet (other than salt and water) for 8 weeks. Half the lambs on each kind of hay were fed the forage moistened with water (50:50 by weight). Following the growing period, the forages (dry and moistened) were fed with 20% concentrate (barley + minerals, vitamin A and an antibiotic supplement). This experiment showed that it was possible to produce finished lambs (about 75% Choice) by feeding rations containing high levels of ground roughage. How- ever, most lambs gained very little during the final week or two of the test. Unless grain is expensive in relation to forage, it is recommended that the level of grain be increased gradually to around 50% of the ration during the last 2-3 weeks of the finishing period. Moistening some rations was beneficial, mainly because it increased feed intake by reducing the dustiness of the ground forage. In this test, crested wheatgrass was freshly harvested and less dusty than other forages. Alfalfa was particularly dusty because grinding had reduced the leaves to a fine powder. The practicality of moistening ground forage depends on how easily it can be mixed with water each day and kept from freezing during winter. 44 Table 32 - Lamb Performance on Moist and Dry Hays Alfalfa Brome Crested wheat Dry Moist Meadow Dry fescue Dry Moist Dry Moist Moist Growing (8 wk) Av daily gain, lb Mr> .28 .36 .27 .31 .44 . 36 .23 . 36 Av daily feed , lb 2.69 3.13 2.62 2.82 2.90 2.74 2.46 2.81 Feed/lb gain, lb 9.6 8.7 9.7 9.1 6.6 7.6 10.7 7.8 Finishing Av daily gain , lb in! fed .46 .37 .49 .31 D LUIILcI .34 ILLULV. .30 .34 .37 Av daily feed , lb 3.92 3.87 3.50 3.84 4.34 4.55 3.26 3.96 Feed/lb gain , lb 10.6 7.9 11.3 11.3 14.5 9.9 9.6 10.7 Final weight , lb 93 95 95 95 91 96 93 94 Carcass grades - Choice 5 5 4 4 3 6 5 3 - Good 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 3 Effects of Hay Level and Molasses and Linseed Meal Supplements Thirty-six crossbred lambs (av 65 lb) were weaned off pasture and divided into six groups of six lambs each (three ewes and three wethers) . They were hand- fed to appetite until marketed. Medium-quality mixed brome and meadow fescue hay, ground through a 3/16-in. 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 comprised of barley, cobalt- iodized salt (0.5%), a mineral supplement (if required), vitamin A and an anti- biotic supplement. Long hay was fed for 2 days before lambs were placed on test rations. 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 0.12 lb/head per day during latter part of test). An initial weight loss occurred in all lots and was probably partly 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 1st week. The results of the test appear in Table 33. 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. It is probable that returns over feed costs for lots 4, 5 and 6 could have been increased by marketing the lambs at heavier weights, since rates of gain were still very good at the end of the test. 45 Table 33 - Lamb Performance at Various Hay Levels 1 2 3 * ■ msm — ■■"* ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ — - 4 5 6 68% hay 70% hay 5% molasses 20% 50% 80% 75% hay 10% linseed 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, lb .31 .43 .42 .49 .55 .55 Av daily feed, lb 2.30 2.92 3.41 3.45 3.67 3.69 Feed/lb gain, lb 7.5 6.9 8.1 7.1 6.8 6.8 Final wt, lb 91 94 93 96 96 93 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 Using Slough Hay Thirty-two crossbred lambs were weaned off pasture at an average weight of 74 lb and hand-fed to appetite in individual stalls. Four rations, all contain- ing 0.5% cobalt-iodized salt, 0.2% calcium phoasphate (19% Ca, 19% P) , 0.22% vitamin A supplement (10,000 IU/g) and 0.80% antibiotic supplement were formulat- ed to contain the percentages of basal feeds shown in Table 34. All rations were fed both ground (12.3 lb/cu ft) and pelleted (3/16-in. diameter, av 40.5 lb/cu ft). The results appear in Table 35. Table 35 - Slough Hay in Lamb Finishing Rations, % Control 5% molasses 10% alfalfa meal 5% rapeseed meal Slough hay (11% CP) (ground 3/16-in. screen) 69.5 66.1 59.5 66.1 Wheat (15.5% CP) (coarsely ground) 29.8 28.1 29.8 28.1 Beet molasses 5 Alfalfa meal 9.9 Rapeseed meal 5 Crude protein, % 12.5 12.5 12.6 13.5 46 Table 35 - Lamb Performance on Slough Hay Rations Control 5% mol Ground asses Pelleted 10% alf; Ground ilfa meal Pelleted 5% rape Ground seed meal Ground Pelleted Pelleted Av daily gain, lb .46 .48 .30 .61 .40 .60 .40 .55 Av daily feed, lb 2.96 3.07 2.40 3.15 2.80 3.30 2.86 3.48 Feed/lb gain, lb 6.64 6.74 9.07 5.27 7.51 5.58 7.25 6.47 Final wt, lb 98.85 100.29 89.17 108.29 95.92 107.79 95.48 108.29 Dressing % 46.88 46.75 47.83 46.00 47.33 47.23 46.43 48.28 Carcass grade - Good 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 4 - Commercial 3 1 1 A surprising finding was that pelleting had no effect on 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 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. Using Crested Wheatgrass Crested wheatgrass is well adapted to the Melfort area and has yielded well, both as pasture and hay. Its use in lamb finishing rations was assessed in a 1969 test comparing rations containing 50, 70 and 90% ground (3/16-in. screen) crested wheatgrass and one in which the level of hay started at 90% and was reduced by 5% a week to 50%. Crossbred lambs were weaned off pasture at an average weight of 67 lb and hand-fed to appetite once daily in individual stalls. Cobalt-iodized salt and water were available at all times. The ration contained equal parts of Fairway and Parkway varieties of crested wheatgrass and analyzed 10.8% CP on a 90% DM basis. The remainder was mainly rolled wheat (16.8% CP) . Three of the rations are given in Table 36; the fourth, varying from 90 to 50% crested wheatgrass, was prepared by using these rations or various proportions of them as required. Each ration was fed both ground and pelleted. Ewe and wether lambs were equally represented in all ration treatments; and half of each were implanted with Synovex S, using a quarter of the recommended heifer and steer doses, respectively. All lambs were marketed and carcass grades and measurements obtained. 47 Table 36 - Crested Wheatgrass in Lamb Finishing Rations, lb Crested wheatgrass Rolled wheat Cobalt-iodized salt Limestone Calcium phosphate (19% Ca, Vitamin ADE supplement (10,000 IU A, 1000 IU D, Aurofac 10 90% 1000.0 70% 1000.0 50% 891.8 693.6 495.4 99.0 297.2 495.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 -- 1.6 3.2 19% P) 3.2 1.6 -- 10 IU E/g) .2 .2 .2 .8 .8 .8 1000.0 Table 37 - Lamb Performance on Crested Wheatgrass Finishing Rations 90% 70% 50% 90 -> 50% Ground Pe slleted Ground Pelleted Ground Pe dieted Ground Pelleted Av daily gain, lb .29 .48 .32 .45 .33 .49 .34 .45 Av dail feed consumed, lb 2.70 3.34 2.64 3.11 2.64 3.04 2.67 3.12 Feed/lb gain, lb 10.8 7.2 8.8 7.0 8.3 6.3 8.1 7.1 Final wt , lb 93.3 103.5 96.1 102.2 96.3 102.9 97.8 101.9 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 Est. returns* to labor/lamb, $ 3.88 7.29 4.38 5.72 2.88 4.73 3.82 6.87 *Assuming a standard total gain for all lambs at rates and feed efficiencies obtained in test; and assuming feeder lambs at 35<{:/lb, finished lambs at 85<(:/lb (cold carcass); hay at $30/ton, wheat at 6tf/lb, supplements at 10<£/lb; grinding at $3.00, $3.50 and $4.00/ton for the 50, 70 and 90% roughage rations, respec- tively; pelleting at $5.00, $6.70 and $8.00/ton for the 50, 70 and 90% roughage rations, respectively; and 3^/lamb per day for overhead expenses. As indicated in Table 37, pelleting was beneficial in all treatments. The 70% roughage ration was most economical if rations were not pelleted, and the 90% one most profitable if rations were pelleted. When ground rations were fed, there was a slight increase in rate of gain, feed efficiency and dressing per- centage as hay level decreased from 90 to 70% and from 70 to 50% of the ration. Pelleting increased 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. 48 Averaging all rations, pelleting improved dressing percentage (46.6 vs 45.8%), grades (97 vs 75% Choice) and returns ($6.15 vs $3.74). The advantage of pellet- ing depends on the cost and convenience of having the ration pelleted. In this test, pelleting and handling costs of $8.00, $6.70 and $5.00/ton were allowed for the 90, 70 and 50% hay rations, respectively. Performance was about the same for ewe and wether lambs. Hormone implant improved rate of gain and feed efficiency, but the cost of the implant was not covered by improved performance. It should be noted that hormone implants for feeder lambs have not been approved for use in Canada by the Food and Drug Directorate and, therefore, feeders are advised not to implant feeder lambs. Using Good-Quality Alfalfa This experiment was conducted to determine the effects of hay:grain ratio, pelleting and the addition of tallow or rapeseed oil on the utilization of excellent-quality, ground (3/16-in. screen) alfalfa hay 16*% CP) . The grain in the rations was barley (12% CP) ; and 20% ground wheat straw was included to lower the protein level of the rations and thus reduce feed costs. Four levels of ground alfalfa were used — 10, 30, 50 and 70% — and at each level the ration was supplemented with 5% tallow or 5% rapeseed oil or no fat. All 12 rations were ground and pelleted (1/4-in. diameter) and fed to crossbred lambs weaned off pasture at 65 lb and placed in individual stalls. Lambs were fed to appetite daily and given access to cobalt-iodized salt and water at all times. 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 re- sults are given in Tables 38 and 39, respectively. Table 38 - Alfalfa in Lamb F inishir ig Rations 30% roughage 50% roughage 70% roughage 90% roughage Check + Fat Check + Fat Check + Fat Check + Fat Alfalfa hay (ground 3/16 -in. screen) , lb 99 94 298 283 496 471 695 660 Wheat straw (ground 3/16 -in. screen) , lb 199 189 198.5 188.5 198.5 188.5 198 188 Barley (rolled), lb 693.5 658.5 496.5 471.5 298 283 99 94 Tallow rapeseed oil, lb -- 50 -- 50 -- 50 -- 50 Cobalt-iodized salt, lb 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Phosphorus supplement (25% P), lb .5 .5 1 1 1.5 1.5 2 2 Limestone, lb 2 2 Vitamin ADE supplement (10,000 A, 1000 D, 10 E/g) > lb .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Aurofac 10, lb .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 Total, lb 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Crude protein, % 10.6 10.1 11.5 10.9 12.3 11.7 13.1 12.5 Est. TDN, % 67 74 62 69 57 64 51 59 49 Table 39 - Lamb Performance on Alfalfa Rations .44 .55 .54 .56 .48 .56 .52 .53 .51 2.33 2.72 2.94 3.12 2.65 2.82 2.38 2.72 2.67 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.2 99 102 100 102 99 102 100 101 100 46.7 47.8 48.6 47.7 47.5 47.9 47.3 48.0 47.8 9 16 17 5 22 25 14 19 14 15 8 7 7 20 17 14 9 14 67 66 63 61 66 63 65 65 64 66 64 61 59 62 62 65 61 62 % roughage Form Supplemental fat Rapeseed 30 50 70 90 Ground Pelleted None Tallow Oil Av daily gain, lb Av daily feed, lb Feed/lb gain, lb Final weight, lb Dressing % Carcass grade - Choice - Good Organic matter digestibility, % - in vivo - in vitro Est. returns* to labor/lamb, $ 5.66 8.60 9.72 9.88 8.51 9.22 9.44 8.39 8.00 ♦Assuming feeder lambs at 35%. 2. Pelleting high-roughage rations containing poor- to medium-quality for- age tends to increase rate of animal gain and feed efficiency. In the slough-hay tests pelleting was beneficial only if the roughage was supplemented. Pelleting tends to equalize the feeding values of rations containing different hay: grain ratios. 3. Check rate of gain of lambs periodically. If there is poor performance, alter the ration either by increasing the grain content, by supplementing with molasses, protein, etc., or by pelleting, whichever is most economical. It is suggested that available feeds be analyzed to provide some guidance on how to best utilize the forage in formulating rations. Help is available at the Melfort Research Station if you require it, so long as you provide the informa- tion on your feeds (at least crude protein content) . EQUIPMENT FOR STORING AND FEEDING FORAGES Over the course of several years, various structures have been designed at the Melfort Station to improve the efficiency of storing and feeding forages or rations containing large amounts of ground hay. Plans of some of these struc- tures and of others that may be of interest to people getting into the production and utilization of forage crops are presented here. We would particularly like to emphasize the importance of a good hay shelter. Weathering not only reduces the feeding value of hay, but often good hay is spoiled and completely lost because it was not protected. Over the years, a well-constructed hay shelter will more than pay for itself in hay saved. All of the structures illustrated here are in use at the Melfort Research Station and are available for inspection anytime. 51 HAY STORAGE SHELTER The shelter shown in Figure 5 will hold 200 tons alfalfa, 180 tons grass hay or 116 tons straw. Its overall dimensions are about 78' x 39'. Materials Required 1. 3 yd concrete (footings) 2. 150 yd stone fill 3. 14 - 30 ft pressure-treated poles (6 - in. tops) 4. 14 - 25 ft pressure-treated poles (6 - in. tops) 5. 168 - 2" x 6" x 16' fir (rafters and rafter ties) 6. 2 - 214 lineal ft 2" x 4" nailing girts 7. 164 lineal ft 2" x 8" eave boards 8. 16 - 2M x 12" x 16' plus 32 - 2" x 12" x 15' purlins 9. 28 - 2" x 6" x 8' rafter support scabs 10. 56 - 2" x 6" x 12' braces 11. 4 - 2M x 8M x 14' end ties 12. 18 - 2" x 6" x 10' end plywood girts 13. 10 - 4' x 8' x |" plywood 14. 246 sheets galvanized roofing (24' x 10') 15. 82 ft of ridgecap 16. 164 ft of eave starter 17. 56 machine bolts, \" x 12" 18. 180 lb nails 19. 180 plank holders 20. 90 - 2" x 8" x 14' wall planks 52 2" x 4" nailing girts (24" o.c.) 2"xl2" purl ins 2" x 6" rafters-i (24"o.c.) Ridge Galvanized metal roof 2"x4 framing behind seams ■ -v^mm tm>)yjw& 'x6" rafter tie 0> \ ^2"x4" nailing n'rts Removable planks w%%> 2TOMM <-< 4 < 4 ■* > > iyv a> PLANK HOLDER (V strap iron) w tyJWs's'V9 1 ^Concrete footings END ELEVATION (Scale 1" = 10') err D POLE LAYOUT AND ROOF FRAMING (Scale 1" = 10') RAFTER DETAIL (PARTIAL) 2"x6" rafter supoort scabs 2" ridge on eave board to level with 2" x 4" nailing girts. Figure 5 - Hay storage shelter. 53 DRYING TOWER In 1971, a hay-drying tower was constructed at the Melfort Station to test a new system of haymaking. The tower holds about 90 tons of dry hay. The design was adapted from one used in Europe (Figure 6) . Figure 6 - Drying tower for chopped hay. 54 The tower consists of three 45-ft-high "I" beams bolted to concrete pilings spaced equidistant around a circle 25 ft in diameter. A cone-shaped roof (similar to that of a metal granary) supporting a double-auger, hay-spreading mechanism is suspended between the three legs and raised manually by means of three winches. The roof has a sheet metal skirt about 3 ft high attached to it and to this in turn is attached a woven-wire skirt also about 3 ft high. A ply- wood duct runs from the outside of the circle, at ground level, to a 4\ ft diameter 'bung' at the center of the stack. The bung consists of a metal cap section to which is attached a canvas duct about 6 ft long. The lower edge of the canvas is sewn to a metal hoop to keep the circular form. As the chopped hay is blown in through the peak of the roof, the auger moves it to the outside of the tower and spreads it by revolving around the circumference of the roof. As the roof is raised, it lifts the bung with it, leaving a vertical duct in the middle of the stack. An oil-fired dryer is attached to the plywood duct and the air is forced through to the central duct and out through the hay carrying moisture with it. As the stack dries, moisture drips from the outside of the tower. Once the dripping ceases, the stack is dry. Hay is taken from the tower by removing the bung from the top of the central duct and reversing the direction of the auger so that the forage is drawn to the center and dropped down the duct. A conveyor inserted through the horizontal plywood duct at the base of the tower moves the hay from the bottom of the vertical duct to the outside of the tower. This can lead directly into a self- feeder or to another conveyor for loading into a self-feeding wagon, truck, grinder-mixer, etc. The plan for the hay-drying tower is being revised to overcome some of the problems that have arisen. The main changes will be as follows: 1. Support roof on four rather than three legs, tie legs together at top for better bracing and to facilitate modification #2. 2. Redesign so that roof can be raised by one hydraulically powered winch rather than three hand-powered winches. 3. Place tower on a 4-ft-high platform so that it can be completely emptied by unloading machinery. 4. Attach 4-ft hinged sections of plywood to metal skirt under roof section to allow descending roof section to 'pull in' edges of the hay stack expanded on settling and which otherwise would either fall out during the unloading process or block the descent of the roof and unloading mechanisms. 5. Install a one-piece unloading mechanism to bring material out from under the tower and elevate it to allow loading into wagons, grinder mill, etc. PORTABLE BUNKER SILO The plan for this silo does not indicate any insulation on the walls but, in the Melfort area, bunk silos should be insulated to prevent losses due to freezing, which can run to 10% or more of a packed, high-moisture silage. PORTABLE BUNKER SILO Scale: 1" = 2 Cable clamp Centre Section of Twin Silo Cable clamp END ELEVATIONS Outside Section Figure 7 - Portable bunker silo for silage. Freezing can occur in the outside top 12 - 18 in. of an uninsulated silo. Al- though much of this material could be fed if broken into chunks, too often this is not possible and the feed is discarded and lost. Insulation can be accom- plished by using straw bales, a layer of earth over a sheet of plastic, or any other suitable material that can be held in place. Construction 1. Tie together two 24-ft 6" x 8" pressure-treated skids (A) using three sections of l\ - in. pipe (B) , to which two shoulders (C) have been welded 4 ft apart. Thread both ends of each pipe and screw large nuts onto each end to hold the skids firmly in place. 2. Space seven 6-ft-long, pressure-treated 3" x 6" boards (D) along the skids starting 6 in. in from each end (approx. 4 ft o.c). 3. Join the ends of the 3 x 6's using two 2 x 6's (E) running the full length of the section (24 ft). These can be bevelled to the angle of the upright members they support. 56 4. Place 4" x 4" brace units (F) and 7-ft wall studs (G) on 3" x 6" cross members (D) and use 2 x 4's (H) to hold the braces firmly in place. 5. Nail pressure-treated 2" x 6" tongue and groove (24 ft long) (I) onto the 7-ft 4" x 4" uprights (G) . The lower plank rests on the top of the treated 2 x 6's running along the inside ends of the 3" x 6" cross members. 6. Nail short pieces of 4M x 4" between the 3" x 6" cross members to close the gaps over the inside skid (A) . 7. The skids should not protrude beyond the ends of the walls, so that units may be placed end to end snugly if a long silo is required. When adding another unit, nail a piece of plywood over the join to support the plastic liner. 8. For a twin silo, build a center A-frame as shown above. The walkway on top provides a handy place to put the top part of the plastic liner during the filling operation. EAT-THROUGH FEEDER Most of the self-feeders available on the market today are designed for feeding high-concentrate rations. The 'eat-through' feeder shown in Figure 8 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 6" x 6M treated skids 22 ft long (could laminate treated 2 x 6's). 2. Place 4 ft apart (outside measurement*) and tie together with three l\ - in. spacer pipes. 3. Construct two wall frames using 2" x 6" material (16 ft high, 20 ft long, with studding 16 in. o.c). Attach plywood sheeting either before raising or as in 7_. If you do it here, leave openings for cross ties at top. Frame a 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 (ends and at 1/5 intervals) and at bottom with 2" x 4" fir sills cut long enough to extend 9 in. past the studs, one across each set of studs. Nail the sills in place, 3 in. from bottom of studs and brace as required. 5. Fit 1 - in. plywood floor over sills. 6. Set and attach rafters with collar braces; nail on 1" x 3" nailing girts. 7. Line inside of wall sections with 3/8 - in. plywood sheeting to within 24 in. of floor. *This probably could be 4 ft inside to increase capacity without impairing efficiency of feeder. 57 Figure 8 - Eat-through self-feeder for chopped roughage or conventional steer rations. 58 8. Attach end 2" x 4" studs, allowing for a hatch at the top of each end for filling blower or auger. This hatch should be fitted with a sliding door which can be opened (up and down) with a pulley and rope. 9. Line inside of end sections with plywood sheeting. 10. Fit side bottom openings with plywood doors at least 24 in. high. To keep them from moving inwards, nail \ ~ in. plywood strips, 4 in. wide, to in- side bottom of each stud, extending 1 in, 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 (see diagram for details on construction and mechanics to con- trol opening) . 11. Place 2 x 10' s along sides of feeder floor to form side of feeding trough, l\ in. from outer edges of studs. Nail l\ - in. pieces of 2M 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 2" x 10" forming the trough (see diagram) . 12. Frame and attach braced rafters (2 x 4's) to studding to support pro- tective roof sections. Attach nailing girts for metal roofing. 13. Attach metal roofing-siding to roof, to protective roof sections and walls above them, and to end sections. Treated wooden sheeting can be used in- stead, 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. 14. Frame end sections to fit under overhanging protective roof. Make frame of 2" x 6" material, 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 other side 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 ft 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). PORTABLE SELF-FEEDER FOR HIGH-ROUGHAGE RATIONS Figure 9 shows a portable self-feeder for rations high in roughage. PORTABLE BUNK FEEDER The high sides of this feeder (Figure 10) help to retain good capacity and prevent cattle from getting into the feeder. Because smaller cattle have diffi- culty in reaching the bottom of the feeder, semicircular notches have been cut in the sides. It may be necessary to reinforce the sides between notches, parti- cularly if the planks are cracked or split. Long screws or pieces of strap iron screwed to the inside of the top plank would serve this purpose. Note that each partition consists of only one plank at the top, to allow easier cleaning of the bunk. CM II CD O go C 0) -r- O U O E O O o> • 5^ o a>>> >i >>>> > #— o oj o o. D- TJ -O +-» O V) e o •H ■l-J c > (h LU o _J Cu LU 1 LU CT> O 3 •H 60 Figure 10 - Portable bunk feeder for silage, green chop and hay. Materials Required 1. 2 - 4" x 6" x 22' (or equivalent) pressure-treated skids 2. 150 lineal ft 2" x 6" tongue and groove planking (for floor) 3. 98 lineal ft 2" x 12" planking treated with preservative (for sides and partitions) 4. 12 lineal ft 4" x 4" cut diagonally to form triangular sections to fit inside corners, as illustrated 61 GRAIN AND MINERAL TABLE A feeder for grain and minerals is illustrated in Figure 11 Figure 11 - Grain and mineral table. Construction 1. Bevel and drill both ends of two 20-ft 4" x 4" or 4" x 6M pressure- treated skids and place 3 ft apart (outside measurement) . 2. Construct four support units using one 2" x 8" x 3' as the base, two 2" x 8" x 2' as the side members, one 2" x 6" (or 2" x 8M) x 3' as the cross support for the table (preferably notched into the uprights) , and one 2" x 6" brace about 38 ft long. 3. Attach support units to the skids by spikes or lag bolts, leaving about 6 in. at each end and spacing evenly along the skids. 4. Nail floor of table in place. Use 2 - in. tongue and groove for best results. Shiplap will do but may break if cattle try to jump or walk over the table. 5. Attach two, 2 x 8's to side supports, leaving room for two end plank sections . 6. Hang 2" x 6" floor supports between main support units using galvanized metal strips nailed around ends of supports and sides of table. 7. Nail in two end plank sections. 8. Insert three 2M x 8" partitions. 9. If table will be moved often, place diagonal bracing along top of skids between support units. 62 PORTABLE SELF-FEEDER FOR CHOPPED HAY The portable self-feeder shown in Figure 12 will hold 3 tons of chopped hay, Materials Required. 1. 2 - 4" x 6" fir stringers 18 ft long 2. 5 - 2" x 4" x 16' fir, angle-cut to give 10 cross members for A-frames 3. 20 - 2" x 4" x 8' fir for sides of A-frame 4. 34 - 2" x 4" x 8' studs for walls 5. 2 - 2" x 4M x 18' and 2 - 2M x 4" x 12' plates for walls 6. 4 - 2" x 4M x 8' for 8 braces (walls to A-frame) 7. 48 lineal ft 2" x 4" for brace supports for feed deflector 8. 12 sq ft 3/8 - in. plywood for gussets to attach brace supports to wall studding. 9. 6 sheets 4' x 8' x £" plywood for ends 10. 2 sheets 4' x 8' x 1" plywood and 2 sheets 41 x 10' x 1" plywood for lower wall sections and feed deflector 11. 2 sheets 4" x 8M x J" plywood and 2 sheets 4" x 10" x \" plywood for upper wall sections 12. 4 sheets 4" x 8" x \" plywood and 4 sheets 4" x 10" x I" plywood for floor (some material left over for completing 4 in. required on sides) 13. Carriage bolts, nails, and hinges and bolts for 6 access doors STACK FEEDING CORRAL Figure 13 shows a 27' x 11' corral for feeding hay from a stack. As the stack is consumed, larger animals will push the gate into the stack. For lighter animals, it may be necessary to hook a chain on one corner and pull with a tractor to keep feed within reach. Materials Required 1. 188 ft 2 - in. (inside diameter) pipe and 152 ft \\ - in. (outside diameter) pipe for horizontal side members and corner uprights 2. 14 pieces l\ - in. (outside diameter) pipe, 9 in. long, for vertical members in top sections 63 , Greand level CROSS^SECTION "^ Scale l" = 2feet ,r~. M\ J *1 Figure 12 - Portable self-feeder for chopped hay (3 tons). 64 ■ , -£ It Figure 13 - Stack feeding corral 65 3. 14 pieces 3/16 - in. flat iron, 15 in. long, drilled and welded between lower two horizontal members, for attaching planking 4. 58-60 pieces 1 - in. (outside diameter) pipe, 24 in. long, for sides 5. 8 pieces flat iron, 3l" x 2\" x \" with 1 - in. - diameter hole, for hinge members for long sides 6. 8 hooks, 7/8 in. diameter, 3^ - in. upright, 2\ - in. horizontal + \ in. into post, for hinge members for end sections 7. 152 lineal ft 2" x 8" fir planking for lower sides 8. 80 - 3/8 - in. carriage bolts, l\ in. long, for attaching planking FEEDERS FOR HAND-FEEDING Permanent Bunk Feeder Where a permanent bunk-type feeder is to be placed along one side of a feed- ing paddock and filled by means of a mechanical unloader, the plan shown in Figure 14 may be useful, particularly if the buildup of manure behind the feeder can be eliminated. Where this is not possible, bunk feeding units that can be supported between two posts and raised or lowered as required may be the answer. Raisable Bunk Feeder This kind of feeder (Figure 15) has been in use in a pole-type barn at Melfort for several years. The feeders are lined up along the middle of the barn and are usually used for hand-feeding baled hay stored within the barn. With some minor adaptation (redesign of end sections) they could be filled by self-unloading wagons if required. Two 2" x 2" x 4" angle-iron sections (about 6 ft long) are attached to the poles at each end of the feeder to form a groove, which accommodates one side of a 2" x 2" x 3M angle iron attached to each end of the feeder. One hole is drilled in each of the angle irons attached to the feeder (about 2 ft from the bottom) and holes are drilled through the angle irons attached to the poles at about 6 - in. centers. These 6-ft angle irons, running from 2 ft off the floor to 8 ft off the floor on the poles, allow the feed bunk to be raised by about 6 ft if the hole in the angle iron attached to the feeder is drilled at about 26 in. from the bottom. If shallower manure pack is anticipated, cut down on the length of the angle irons on the poles accordingly. Fenceline Feeding Rather inexpensive fenceline feeding can be accomplished by feeding right on the ground where there is good drainage so that feed is not wasted or spoiled. Allow cattle access to the feed through two cables (min. 3/8 in.) threaded through eye bolts in posts set at about 8-ft centers. The bottom cable should be about 18-22 in. off the ground and the top cable about 20 in. higher. Cables can be held taut by means of heavy springs attached to braced post at one end of the line. In poorly drained areas, some type of wooden or concrete bunk is recommend- ed to reduce feed wastage. 66 CO Figure 14 - Permanent bunk feeder, 67 11 2x 2x V4" ang|e iron Feeder >A 1AAV Supporting Post Cross-section of Height Adjustment Device Figure 15 - Raisable bunk feeder. 68 l/in^ARY/BIBl|OTHE QUE 3 ^073 0007751Q S INFORMATION Edifice Sir John Carling Building 930 Carling Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C7 I* Canada Postes Pott Canada Postage paid Port paye Third Troisieme class classe K1A0C5 Ottawa IF UNDELIVERED, RETURN TO SENDER EN CAS DE NON-LIVRAISON, RETOURNER A L'EXPEDITEUR