Zachary K. Smith, Becca B.G. Francis, Justin J. Delver, Forest L. Francis, Erin R. DeHaan, Thiago L.M. Ribeiro, Warren C. Rusche
Objective
This study evaluated the use of extruded and expelled soybean meal (EESBM) as a partial replacement (30% or 60% replacement; DM basis) of dried distillers grains plus solubles (DDGS) in diets offered to finishing beef steers.
Materials and Methods
Steers (n = 144 steers; 399 ± 28.9 kg) were used in a 150-d finishing trial. Steers were group housed in 18 pens (n = 8 steers/pen) and allocated to one of 3 dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design (n = 6 pens/treatment). Treatments included (1) finishing diet that included 15% DDGS (DM basis; CON); (2) finishing diet that included 30% replacement (DM basis) of DDGS with EESBM (EESBM30), and (3) finishing diet that included 60% replacement (DM basis) of DDGS with EESBM (EESBM60). Steers were fed twice daily and managed for maximum intake using a slick bunk management approach.
Results and Discussion
Dry matter intake increased linearly when EESBM replaced DDGS. Average daily gain and gain efficiency (both live-basis shrunk 4% and from carcass-adjusted final BW), as well as hot carcass weight, increased linearly with greater inclusion of EESBM. No other carcass trait outcomes, nor the distribution of USDA YG and QG, lung scores, or liver health outcomes were influenced by dietary treatment.
Implications and Applications
Using EESBM in replacement of DDGS results in greater intake, efficiency, and final body and carcass weight with no detriment to carcass yield or quality.
{"title":"Evaluation of extruded and expelled soybean meal as a partial replacement for dried distillers grains plus solubles in diets for finishing beef steers","authors":"Zachary K. Smith, Becca B.G. Francis, Justin J. Delver, Forest L. Francis, Erin R. DeHaan, Thiago L.M. Ribeiro, Warren C. Rusche","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02581","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02581","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study evaluated the use of extruded and expelled soybean meal (EESBM) as a partial replacement (30% or 60% replacement; DM basis) of dried distillers grains plus solubles (DDGS) in diets offered to finishing beef steers.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Steers (n = 144 steers; 399 ± 28.9 kg) were used in a 150-d finishing trial. Steers were group housed in 18 pens (n = 8 steers/pen) and allocated to one of 3 dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design (n = 6 pens/treatment). Treatments included (1) finishing diet that included 15% DDGS (DM basis; CON); (2) finishing diet that included 30% replacement (DM basis) of DDGS with EESBM (EESBM30), and (3) finishing diet that included 60% replacement (DM basis) of DDGS with EESBM (EESBM60). Steers were fed twice daily and managed for maximum intake using a slick bunk management approach.</div></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><div>Dry matter intake increased linearly when EESBM replaced DDGS. Average daily gain and gain efficiency (both live-basis shrunk 4% and from carcass-adjusted final BW), as well as hot carcass weight, increased linearly with greater inclusion of EESBM. No other carcass trait outcomes, nor the distribution of USDA YG and QG, lung scores, or liver health outcomes were influenced by dietary treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><div>Using EESBM in replacement of DDGS results in greater intake, efficiency, and final body and carcass weight with no detriment to carcass yield or quality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 751-759"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.15232/aas.2024-40-6-0855
Gary J. Vogel, William C. Kayser, Michael C. Savides, Matt Edmonds, Nick Van Engen, Tracye M. Edwards, Janet B. Allen, Phillip J. Rincker, Ty E. Lawrence, Floyd K. McKeith, Scott E. Roland, G. Allen Bridges, K.D. Miller, Cory T. Herr
{"title":"Corrigendum to “Effects of lubabegron removal on tissue concentration, calculated ammonia gas emissions, live performance, and carcass characteristics of beef steers” (Appl. Anim. Sci. 39:484–493)","authors":"Gary J. Vogel, William C. Kayser, Michael C. Savides, Matt Edmonds, Nick Van Engen, Tracye M. Edwards, Janet B. Allen, Phillip J. Rincker, Ty E. Lawrence, Floyd K. McKeith, Scott E. Roland, G. Allen Bridges, K.D. Miller, Cory T. Herr","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-40-6-0855","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-40-6-0855","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Page 855"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This observational study aimed to explore metabolic markers, nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA), glucose, insulin, and insulin resistance, alongside heritable fertility marker anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and their influence on postpartum estrus expression in a voluntary milking system (VMS).
Materials and Methods
Holstein cows (n = 95) were enrolled at 14 ± 3 DIM with blood samples taken weekly. All samples were analyzed for metabolic profiles of NEFA, glucose, and insulin until 49 ± 3 DIM. Insulin resistance was estimated at each time point using the Revised Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (RQUICKI). Visits to the VMS and milk production data were collected on day of sampling and averaged with data from the preceding day and following day. Cows were fitted with DeLaval AM2 collars and monitored from calving until 100 DIM using DelPro Farm Manager. Both (++) (activity 5 SD above normal activity levels) and (+++) (activity 6 SD above normal activity levels) reproductive attentions in DelPro were used to identify an estrus event, with estrus intensity recorded. Cows were grouped by time to resumption of estrus expression, with the normal group (NG) having an estrus event on or before 45 DIM and the delayed group (DG) resuming beyond 45 DIM. Data were analyzed using the CORR and MIXED procedure of SAS.
Results and Discussion
Greater milk yield corresponded with increased VMS visits (r = 0.39). Blood glucose concentrations were greater for NG cows on d 35 and 42. Serum NEFA concentrations decreased in all animals over time. Insulin increased over time in all cows but did not differ between NG and DG cows. The RQUICKI did not change over time for either NG or DG cows. Estrus intensity was not different in NG (191% ± 6.6%) versus DG cows (179.1% ± 5.97%), and AMH was not different between NG (223.4 ± 28.62 pg/mL) and DG cows (217.6 ± 25.22 pg/mL).
Implications and Applications
Milk production and its association with glucose and VMS visits are key drivers for postpartum estrus expression of cows in a VMS.
{"title":"Evaluating the influence of heritable, metabolic, and production variables on the postpartum estrus expression of Holstein cows in a voluntary milking system","authors":"S.G. Johnson, T.M. Marins, S. Tao, J.F. Bohlen","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02603","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02603","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This observational study aimed to explore metabolic markers, nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA), glucose, insulin, and insulin resistance, alongside heritable fertility marker anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and their influence on postpartum estrus expression in a voluntary milking system (VMS).</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Holstein cows (n = 95) were enrolled at 14 ± 3 DIM with blood samples taken weekly. All samples were analyzed for metabolic profiles of NEFA, glucose, and insulin until 49 ± 3 DIM. Insulin resistance was estimated at each time point using the Revised Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (RQUICKI). Visits to the VMS and milk production data were collected on day of sampling and averaged with data from the preceding day and following day. Cows were fitted with DeLaval AM2 collars and monitored from calving until 100 DIM using DelPro Farm Manager. Both (++) (activity 5 SD above normal activity levels) and (+++) (activity 6 SD above normal activity levels) reproductive attentions in DelPro were used to identify an estrus event, with estrus intensity recorded. Cows were grouped by time to resumption of estrus expression, with the normal group (NG) having an estrus event on or before 45 DIM and the delayed group (DG) resuming beyond 45 DIM. Data were analyzed using the CORR and MIXED procedure of SAS.</div></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><div>Greater milk yield corresponded with increased VMS visits (r = 0.39). Blood glucose concentrations were greater for NG cows on d 35 and 42. Serum NEFA concentrations decreased in all animals over time. Insulin increased over time in all cows but did not differ between NG and DG cows. The RQUICKI did not change over time for either NG or DG cows. Estrus intensity was not different in NG (191% ± 6.6%) versus DG cows (179.1% ± 5.97%), and AMH was not different between NG (223.4 ± 28.62 pg/mL) and DG cows (217.6 ± 25.22 pg/mL).</div></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><div>Milk production and its association with glucose and VMS visits are key drivers for postpartum estrus expression of cows in a VMS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 783-790"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This review summarizes currently available information relevant to potential risk and possible justi- fied response to mycotoxin exposure in ruminant livestock. Two basic questions are addressed: primarily, have my- cotoxins been underestimated or overlooked in ruminant production, and, if so, what remediations are practically available?
Sources
The information in this review came from scientific journals and professional meeting proceedings. Summary data from a proprietary company database are used to support relevant research findings.
Synthesis
Published literature supports the hypoth- esis that ruminant susceptibility to mycotoxin exposure poses a more significant hazard than historically assumed. Estimates of exposure have been restricted by testing pro- tocols and by failure to account for all potential toxin sources, additive and synergistic effects, and the effects of chronic low-level exposure. Mycotoxins can cause diverse short- and long-term negative outcomes with potential to reduce performance, efficiency, and health. Various my- cotoxin remediation products have been evaluated and employed. Although additional research is needed, it ap- pears that those combining proven, targeted sequestration agents with ingredients known to deactivate specific toxins or support the animal’s natural defense systems represent the most efficacious approach.
Conclusions and Applications
Continued improve- ment in mycotoxin awareness and management may allevi- ate a potential limiting factor in dairy and beef produc- tion. Broader assessment of actual animal exposure across a range of feeding programs and environments is needed to better understand mycotoxin hazards. Additional research should further clarify modes of action and metabolic im- pacts specific to ruminants, better quantify related production losses, and provide comparative assessments of specific remediation programs.
{"title":"Review: Mycotoxins in ruminant livestock production: An underestimated and overlooked risk and opportunity?","authors":"Cathryn A. Bandyk","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02602","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02602","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This review summarizes currently available information relevant to potential risk and possible justi- fied response to mycotoxin exposure in ruminant livestock. Two basic questions are addressed: primarily, have my- cotoxins been underestimated or overlooked in ruminant production, and, if so, what remediations are practically available?</div></div><div><h3>Sources</h3><div>The information in this review came from scientific journals and professional meeting proceedings. Summary data from a proprietary company database are used to support relevant research findings.</div></div><div><h3>Synthesis</h3><div>Published literature supports the hypoth- esis that ruminant susceptibility to mycotoxin exposure poses a more significant hazard than historically assumed. Estimates of exposure have been restricted by testing pro- tocols and by failure to account for all potential toxin sources, additive and synergistic effects, and the effects of chronic low-level exposure. Mycotoxins can cause diverse short- and long-term negative outcomes with potential to reduce performance, efficiency, and health. Various my- cotoxin remediation products have been evaluated and employed. Although additional research is needed, it ap- pears that those combining proven, targeted sequestration agents with ingredients known to deactivate specific toxins or support the animal’s natural defense systems represent the most efficacious approach.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Applications</h3><div>Continued improve- ment in mycotoxin awareness and management may allevi- ate a potential limiting factor in dairy and beef produc- tion. Broader assessment of actual animal exposure across a range of feeding programs and environments is needed to better understand mycotoxin hazards. Additional research should further clarify modes of action and metabolic im- pacts specific to ruminants, better quantify related production losses, and provide comparative assessments of specific remediation programs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 802-817"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183457","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The objective of this study was to compare the effects of tall fescue grazing systems using either rotational grazing only or rotational grazing and spring and fall stockpiling on beef cow body condition and reproductive performance, calf preweaning performance, forage characteristics, and system economics.
Materials and Methods
Over 2 yr, multiparous, fallcalving cows (n = 360 cows per year; 6 groups per year; BW = 600 ± 64 kg; gestation = 113 ± 9 d) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: (1) rotational grazing only (CON) or (2) rotational grazing and spring and fall stockpile grazing (SP). Treatments were initiated in late April and terminated in late December each year. Pastures were 48.4 ha/replicate. Control pastures were divided into 8 (6.1 ha; rotated every 5 d) paddocks. Twenty-five percent of SP pastures (12.1 ha) were stockpiled for the initial 120 d, with the remaining 75% rotationally grazed (36.3 ha; rotated every 6–7 d). Starting in early August, 50% (24.2 ha) of the pasture was stockpiled. Strip-grazing (cows moved every 2–3 d) was used when grazing stockpiled forage in SP pastures. Cow BW and BCS were determined every 28 d, and forage characteristics were evaluated every 2 wk.
Results and Discussion
Cows grazed for 25 more days in SP compared with CON, resulting in a subsequent reduction of hay fed per cow in SP compared with CON (59 vs. 347 kg, respectively). Cow BW did not differ at trial end; however, BCS was greater in CON than in SP (5.3 vs. 5.1, respectively). No differences were observed in AI conception rate or overall pregnancy rate between treatments. There were no differences in calf birth BW or weaning BW between SP and CON. With an average hay price of $150/907 kg, breakeven urea price between treatments was $586.8/907 kg.
Implications and Applications
Grazing system type had minimal to no effects on cow and calf performance. Use of a spring and fall stockpiling system increased grazing days, reduced stored feed use, and could reduce winter feed costs.
{"title":"Effects of spring and fall stockpile grazing management system on performance of fall-calving beef cows, preweaning calf performance, forage characteristics, and economics","authors":"K.P. Ewing , W.T. Meteer , T.L. Steckler , D.W. Shike","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02601","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02601","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this study was to compare the effects of tall fescue grazing systems using either rotational grazing only or rotational grazing and spring and fall stockpiling on beef cow body condition and reproductive performance, calf preweaning performance, forage characteristics, and system economics.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Over 2 yr, multiparous, fallcalving cows (n = 360 cows per year; 6 groups per year; BW = 600 ± 64 kg; gestation = 113 ± 9 d) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatments: (1) rotational grazing only (CON) or (2) rotational grazing and spring and fall stockpile grazing (SP). Treatments were initiated in late April and terminated in late December each year. Pastures were 48.4 ha/replicate. Control pastures were divided into 8 (6.1 ha; rotated every 5 d) paddocks. Twenty-five percent of SP pastures (12.1 ha) were stockpiled for the initial 120 d, with the remaining 75% rotationally grazed (36.3 ha; rotated every 6–7 d). Starting in early August, 50% (24.2 ha) of the pasture was stockpiled. Strip-grazing (cows moved every 2–3 d) was used when grazing stockpiled forage in SP pastures. Cow BW and BCS were determined every 28 d, and forage characteristics were evaluated every 2 wk.</div></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><div>Cows grazed for 25 more days in SP compared with CON, resulting in a subsequent reduction of hay fed per cow in SP compared with CON (59 vs. 347 kg, respectively). Cow BW did not differ at trial end; however, BCS was greater in CON than in SP (5.3 vs. 5.1, respectively). No differences were observed in AI conception rate or overall pregnancy rate between treatments. There were no differences in calf birth BW or weaning BW between SP and CON. With an average hay price of $150/907 kg, breakeven urea price between treatments was $586.8/907 kg.</div></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><div>Grazing system type had minimal to no effects on cow and calf performance. Use of a spring and fall stockpiling system increased grazing days, reduced stored feed use, and could reduce winter feed costs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 835-846"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The objective was to evaluate bile salts (BS) at increasing inclusion rates to determine the opti- mal inclusion rate for increasing neonatal calf fat digestion and absorption for improved growth performance.
Materials and Methods
Eighty 2-to-5-d-old Holstein bull calves were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to one of 4 treatments using a randomized complete block design. Treatments of (1) BS0: control, no BS added to milk replacer (MR); (2) BS1/2: BS (poultry bile, Runeon, LaChance, China) fed at 0.175 g/d; (3) BS1: BS fed at 0.35 g/d; and (4) BS2: BS fed at 0.70 g/d. Calves were fed 2×/d a 22:20 (CP:fat) milk replacer at 0630 and 1800 h at 0.55 kg/d for d 1 to 14, then increased to 0.82 kg/d for d 15 to 35 reduced to 1×/d for d 36 to 42 with wean- ing after d 42 along with free choice water and a 22% CP mini-pellet calf starter for the 56-d study.
Results and Discussion
Linear, quadratic, and cu- bic exponential polynomial responses to BS inclusion rates were nonsignificant for BW, BW gains, and ADG. Feed conversion demonstrated a negative quadratic response with calves fed BS0 having greater feed conversions (0.52, 0.45, 0.49, and 0.50 kg BW gain/kg DMI; SEM = 0.02) compared with calves fed BS1/2, with calves fed BS1 and BS2 being intermediated and similar.
Implications and Applications
Supplementation of BS to a MR fed to neonatal calves did not enhance growth performance, rejecting the hypothesis.
{"title":"Bile salt inclusion rates in milk replacer fed to neonatal calves","authors":"David P. Casper","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02610","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02610","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective was to evaluate bile salts (BS) at increasing inclusion rates to determine the opti- mal inclusion rate for increasing neonatal calf fat digestion and absorption for improved growth performance.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Eighty 2-to-5-d-old Holstein bull calves were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to one of 4 treatments using a randomized complete block design. Treatments of (1) BS0: control, no BS added to milk replacer (MR); (2) BS1/2: BS (poultry bile, Runeon, LaChance, China) fed at 0.175 g/d; (3) BS1: BS fed at 0.35 g/d; and (4) BS2: BS fed at 0.70 g/d. Calves were fed 2×/d a 22:20 (CP:fat) milk replacer at 0630 and 1800 h at 0.55 kg/d for d 1 to 14, then increased to 0.82 kg/d for d 15 to 35 reduced to 1×/d for d 36 to 42 with wean- ing after d 42 along with free choice water and a 22% CP mini-pellet calf starter for the 56-d study.</div></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><div>Linear, quadratic, and cu- bic exponential polynomial responses to BS inclusion rates were nonsignificant for BW, BW gains, and ADG. Feed conversion demonstrated a negative quadratic response with calves fed BS0 having greater feed conversions (0.52, 0.45, 0.49, and 0.50 kg BW gain/kg DMI; SEM = 0.02) compared with calves fed BS1/2, with calves fed BS1 and BS2 being intermediated and similar.</div></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><div>Supplementation of BS to a MR fed to neonatal calves did not enhance growth performance, rejecting the hypothesis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 738-750"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ivan R. Thomas , Christine C. Nieman , Kenneth P. Coffey , Michael P. Popp
Objective
The objective of this study was to evaluate forage production and nutrient composition and stocker cattle performance on mixed bermudagrass, sorghum-sudangrass, and sorghum-sudangrass-cowpeas pastures.
Materials and Methods
In summers of 2021 and 2022, 144 steers (8 per experimental unit) were assigned to 1 of 3 grazing treatments (2.02 ha each): mixed bermudagrass (MB), mixed bermudagrass overseeded with sorghum-sudangrass (SS), or mixed bermudagrass overseeded with sorghum-sudangrass and cowpea (SSCW), in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications each.
Results and Discussion
Forage mass was greater in SS than MB in August 2021 and September of both years, whereas SSCW forage mass was only greater than MB in September 2022. Neutral detergent fiber was lower for SS in September 2021 and lower for SS and SSCW in July and August 2022 compared with MB. Across years and months, cowpea proportion averaged only 12.4%. Timing of N fertilization caused differences in CP among mixtures, although CP was greater in SSCW than SS in August and September 2021. Average daily gain was greater in SS and SSCW in both years (1 kg/d for SS and SSCW, and 0.8 kg/d for MB). Gain per hectare had a year × treatment interaction, with similar gain per hectare in 2021 and greater gain per hectare in SS compared with MB in 2022.
Implications and Applications
Greater available forage mass in SS in August and September may fill gaps in MB systems while also improving ADG, even under moisture-limited conditions. However, when planting was delayed, SS and SSCW provided fewer grazing days than MB and, despite the increased ADG, could not compensate, and gain per hectare was similar among pasture treatments.
{"title":"Sorghum-sudangrass intercropped with cowpea improved pasture for stocker cattle in the mid-south","authors":"Ivan R. Thomas , Christine C. Nieman , Kenneth P. Coffey , Michael P. Popp","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02568","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02568","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this study was to evaluate forage production and nutrient composition and stocker cattle performance on mixed bermudagrass, sorghum-sudangrass, and sorghum-sudangrass-cowpeas pastures.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>In summers of 2021 and 2022, 144 steers (8 per experimental unit) were assigned to 1 of 3 grazing treatments (2.02 ha each): mixed bermudagrass (MB), mixed bermudagrass overseeded with sorghum-sudangrass (SS), or mixed bermudagrass overseeded with sorghum-sudangrass and cowpea (SSCW), in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications each.</div></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><div>Forage mass was greater in SS than MB in August 2021 and September of both years, whereas SSCW forage mass was only greater than MB in September 2022. Neutral detergent fiber was lower for SS in September 2021 and lower for SS and SSCW in July and August 2022 compared with MB. Across years and months, cowpea proportion averaged only 12.4%. Timing of N fertilization caused differences in CP among mixtures, although CP was greater in SSCW than SS in August and September 2021. Average daily gain was greater in SS and SSCW in both years (1 kg/d for SS and SSCW, and 0.8 kg/d for MB). Gain per hectare had a year × treatment interaction, with similar gain per hectare in 2021 and greater gain per hectare in SS compared with MB in 2022.</div></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><div>Greater available forage mass in SS in August and September may fill gaps in MB systems while also improving ADG, even under moisture-limited conditions. However, when planting was delayed, SS and SSCW provided fewer grazing days than MB and, despite the increased ADG, could not compensate, and gain per hectare was similar among pasture treatments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 708-716"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
My objective was to determine whether there is a relationship between nitrate (NO3-N) toxicity risk and prussic-acid (HCN) toxicity risk in annual forages for grazing livestock.
Materials and Methods
Throughout the grazing seasons in 2021, 2022, and 2023, livestock producers submitted annual forages known for accumulating both NO3-N and HCN to Ward Laboratories Inc. (Kearney, NE). Properly submitted samples were tested for both NO3-N and HCN (n = 201). Regression analysis and ANOVA were performed. Additionally, samples were broken down by “risk of toxicity” to determine whether risk of ruminant animal health issues was related to NO3-N and HCN.
Results and Discussion
Average NO3-N concentration was not statistically significantly different by forage specie group; however millet was lower in HCN compared with other forage species. Samples submitted in November were lower in NO3-N than samples submitted in August, September, and October (Figure 2). However, there was no statistical difference in HCN concentration based on the month samples were submitted. The concentrations of NO3-N and HCN were not correlated (R2 <0.01). Additionally, samples categorized as safe for NO3-N were not consistently categorized as safe for HCN and vice versa.
Implications and Applications
A low concentration of HCN or NO3-N in a forage does not imply a low concentration of the other. Therefore, forages likely to accumulate these toxic substances should be analyzed for both NO3-N and HCN before grazing to help mitigate health risks for ruminant animals.
{"title":"Evaluation of nitrate and prussic-acid risk in annual forages submitted by producers to a commercial forage testing laboratory in Nebraska","authors":"Rebecca J. Kern-Lunbery","doi":"10.15232/aas.2024-02618","DOIUrl":"10.15232/aas.2024-02618","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>My objective was to determine whether there is a relationship between nitrate (NO<sub>3</sub>-N) toxicity risk and prussic-acid (HCN) toxicity risk in annual forages for grazing livestock.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>Throughout the grazing seasons in 2021, 2022, and 2023, livestock producers submitted annual forages known for accumulating both NO<sub>3</sub>-N and HCN to Ward Laboratories Inc. (Kearney, NE). Properly submitted samples were tested for both NO<sub>3</sub>-N and HCN (n = 201). Regression analysis and ANOVA were performed. Additionally, samples were broken down by “risk of toxicity” to determine whether risk of ruminant animal health issues was related to NO<sub>3</sub>-N and HCN.</div></div><div><h3>Results and Discussion</h3><div>Average NO<sub>3</sub>-N concentration was not statistically significantly different by forage specie group; however millet was lower in HCN compared with other forage species. Samples submitted in November were lower in NO<sub>3</sub>-N than samples submitted in August, September, and October (Figure 2). However, there was no statistical difference in HCN concentration based on the month samples were submitted. The concentrations of NO<sub>3</sub>-N and HCN were not correlated (R<sup>2</sup> <0.01). Additionally, samples categorized as safe for NO<sub>3</sub>-N were not consistently categorized as safe for HCN and vice versa.</div></div><div><h3>Implications and Applications</h3><div>A low concentration of HCN or NO<sub>3</sub>-N in a forage does not imply a low concentration of the other. Therefore, forages likely to accumulate these toxic substances should be analyzed for both NO<sub>3</sub>-N and HCN before grazing to help mitigate health risks for ruminant animals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8519,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Science","volume":"40 6","pages":"Pages 725-728"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143183465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号