Animal Science Research Centre - Beef Unit Trial Results 2005 (a) Evaluation of head-cut whole crop wheat and barley for beef cattle



Similar documents
ANIMAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTRE

CROPS COSTS AND RETURNS 2014

How To Run A Blade Farming Scheme

Practical Beef Cattle Nutrition

BURNETT CENTER INTERNET PROGRESS REPORT. No. 12 April, Summary of the 2000 Texas Tech University Consulting Nutritionist Survey

Distillers Grains for Beef Cattle

Business Planning for the Allocation of Milk Quota to New Entrants

FARMERS INFORMATION SERIES DAIRY BEEF. Scheme. blade-farming.com

Forage Crises? Extending Forages and Use of Non-forage Fiber Sources. Introduction

EBLEX BEEF BRP MANUAL 7. Feeding growing and finishing cattle for Better Returns

Beef - Key performance indicators. Mary Vickers

Farming at dairy farms (produktion på mælkelandbrug)

AN ACCELERATED FEEDING STUDY

Created by the industry, for the industry. Feed planning for cattle and sheep

FEEDING THE DAIRY COW DURING LACTATION

Full hand feeding of beef cattle management

BEC Feed Solutions. Steve Blake BEC Feed Solutions

Understanding Feed Analysis Terminology

The FeedSmart Cost of Supplements and Cost of Pasture models

How To Feed Cows In The Winter

EBLEX SHEEP BRP MANUAL 5. Growing and finishing lambs for Better Returns

Grouping to Increase Milk Yield and Decrease Feed Costs

PRODUCING WHEY SILAGE FOR GROWING

Effective Fiber for Dairy Cows

Increasing Profitability Through an Accelerated Heifer Replacement Program

MOT your sheep or beef enterprise and discover the route to better returns

Organic SOP-Grazing describes the procedures that ensure the organic requirements are met with regard to cattle grazing.

Level II Agricultural Business Operations - Assessment Booklet

Guide to Cereals in the UK

FARMING FOR THE FUTURE How mineral fertilizers can feed the world and maintain its resources in an Integrated Farming System

Guide to Cereals. in the UK

Guidelines for Estimating. Beef Cow-Calf Production Costs in Manitoba

Member States Factsheets I R E L A N D CONTENTS. Main figures - Year inhabitants Area km 2

Member States Factsheets I T A L Y CONTENTS. Main figures - Year inhabitants Area km 2

Response of Dairy Cows to Supplements of Energy and Protein in Early and Mid Lactation

Corn Stalks and Drought-Damaged Corn Hay as Emergency Feeds for Beef Cattle

Selwyn Te Waihora Nutrient Performance and Financial Analysis Prepared for: Irrigation NZ and ECan Prepared by: The AgriBusiness Group December 2012

Feeding Corn to Beef Cows

Land O Lakes Feed DDGS. Nutrients Concentrate: United States Ethanol Outlook. A Growing Opportunity

Livestock Budget Estimates for Kentucky

An Arvum Group Company SEED TECHNOLOGY MAIZE GUIDE 2013 SUPPORTING FARM INCOME WITH BETTER VARIETIES

CORN BY-PRODUCTS IN DAIRY COW RATIONS

Review of the situation on the EU Beef and Veal Market. "Single CMO" Management Committee 19th January 2012

Economic and environmental analysis of the introduction of legumes in livestock farming systems

Effect of Flaxseed Inclusion on Ruminal Fermentation, Digestion and Microbial Protein Synthesis in Growing and Finishing Diets for Beef Cattle

Summary. Keywords: methanol, glycerin, intake, beef cattle. Introduction

Heat of combustion (gross energy)

BOP Focus Farm Richard & Creina James Farm Walk Notes

THE EVALUATION OF DISTILLERS CO-PRODUCTS IN DAIRY BEEF PRODUCTION

Characterization of Pasture- Based Dairy Farms in Florida and Georgia

Harvesting energy with fertilizers

SCHEDULE C FORAGE PRODUCTION PLAN

Report on the AgriProFocus Zambia Dairy Learning Lab conducted by PUM Netherlands Senior Experts.

MEASURING PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE FIBER ON-FARM TO PREDICT COW RESPONSE

Forage Sorghum Production Guide

Opportunities Inputting Lab Values in Ration Software

- focus on green house gas emission

CREEP FEEDING BEEF CALVES

Water Footprint Calculations for Pasture Based Beef Production

THE PREPARATION. SUPPLY/UTILIZATION ACCOUNTS (SUAs)

Alternative Feeds for Beef Cattle

Energybeet for Biogas. Simon Witheford & Steffi Eggers

What is the Cattle Data Base

Forage Economics, page2. Production Costs

Digestion of feeds in the milk-fed calf

Modern Crimping Technology - Successful Farming

TOC INDEX. Breakeven Analysis for Feeder Cattle. Alberta Agriculture Market Specialists. Introduction. Why Breakevens?

2016 FIELD CROP BUDGETS Publication 60

What is Nitrite Toxicity? Georgia Cattleman, June 2002 John Andrae, Forage Extension Specialist

primefacts Yield and digestibility of legume and oat forages Dr Brian Dear Principal Research Scientist

EU Milk Margin Estimate up to 2014

Full hand feeding of beef cattle quantities

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation on Diversified Farms. Elwin G. Smith and B. Mani Upadhyay

NUTRIENT SPECIFICATIONS OF TURKEY WASTE MATERIAL

In many areas of the country, the Holstein

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Commodity Exchange Endorsement for Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy Cattle

Effects of Supplemental Vitamin E with Different Oil Sources on Growth, Health, and Carcass Parameters of Preconditioned Beef Calves 1

Protein and Energy Supplementation to Beef Cows Grazing New Mexico Rangelands

- 1 - The Canadian flax industry has a strong visual grading system designed to ensure uniform quality.

ROLLED VERSUS WHOLE CORN: EFFECTS ON RUMINAL FERMENTATION OF FEEDLOT STEERS

Tax Considerations of Farm Transfers (Revised 9 January 2013)

My Farm, My Plan - Planning for my Future

Effect of corn silage kernel processing score on dairy cow starch digestibility

You d be mad not to bet on this horse.

GROSS MARGINS : HILL SHEEP 2004/2005

Feeding Value of Sprouted Grains

Consequences of 100% organic diets for pigs and poultry

suscon Green One application. 3 years control against grass grub. Grass grub damaged pasture

Feedlot Lamb Nutrition

Serum metabolite and enzyme activities as biomarkers of highgrain diet consumption in finishing bull calves

The Potash Development Association Potash for Cereals

Creep Feeding Beef Calves Dan E. Eversole, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech

Supplementation guide for sheep: Central and southern NSW

Introduction. Introduction Nutritional Requirements. Six Major Classes of Nutrients. Water 12/1/2011. Regional Hay School -- Bolivar, MO 1

Feed Management Plan Template ( ) Address: Address: Town, State, Zip: Homer City. Farm Name: Phone: Fax:

MANAGEMENT OF MEADOW FESCUE PASTURE FOR HIGH-PRODUCING DAIRY COWS IN NORTHERN JAPAN

DETAILS OF E LEARNING PROGRAM

A comparison of beef breed bulls for beef production & carcass traits. Future cattle production -seminar Viikki Campus

Total Income from Farming in the United Kingdom. First estimate for 2015

Transcription:

Animal Science Research Centre - Beef Unit Trial Results 2005 (a) Evaluation of head-cut whole crop wheat and barley for beef cattle Introduction: A preliminary investigation at Harper Adams University (Marsh and Gibson, 2004) indicated that head-cut whole crop wheat could offer beef finishers the opportunity to achieve high levels of animal performance and reduce feed costs per kg gain when compared to diets based on rolled barley. Object: The objective of this experiment was to evaluate crop yield and animal performance with dairy-bred bulls and heifers, from winter wheat and winter barley crops harvested both conventionally and at the end of physiological grain fill (approx 70% dry matter). The latter being made into cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop. Timing: The trial started in September 2004 with 72 Jan Feb 2004 born British Blue x Holstein bulls and heifers. Slaughtered Feb-April 2005. Forage: The conventionally combined cereals and whole crops were harvested from the same fields of winter barley (v: Pearl) and winter wheat (v: Solstice). The whole crop was harvested 10-14 days prior to conventional combining. The wheat had a standing height of 76cm at harvest and the top 25cm of the wheat was head-cut with a forager fitted with a Primary processing mill therefore cracking the grains and treated with 35kg/t Home n Dry (FiveF Agri LLP) at ensiling. The barley had a standing height of 87cm when whole cropped and the top 35cm of the barley was head-cut and treated with 35kg/t Home n Dry at ensiling. The target was to head-cut the top 25cm of the barley but this was not possible due to brackling (bending over) of the heads. The whole crop stubbles were mown and baled. Table 1: Crop fresh weight yields (t/ha). DM yields in brackets. Whole crop Whole crop Whole crop - 13.0 (10.1) - 16.1 (11.5) 7.3 (6.3) 9.8 (8.3) Straw 5.3 (4.9) 3.3 (2.9) 5.0 (4.3) 3.8 (3.3) Additive - 0.45 (0.41) - 0.57 (0.51) TOTAL (t DM/ha) 12.6 (10.9) 16.8 (13.3) 14.8 (12.6) 20.5 (15.3) 1

Table 2: and whole crop production costs ( /ha July 2004) Machinery (a) 106.21 106.21 113.62 113.62 Seed 33.25 33.25 42.25 42.25 Sprays 70.56 70.56 89.12 89.12 Fertiliser 63.08 63.08 71.62 71.62 Harvesting 64.22 106.21 64.22 106.21 Additive (b) 172.77 214.32 Rent 122 122 122 122 Total (c) 459.32 674.08 502.83 759.14 Straw (d) 53.71 51.11 49.88 55.55 cost ( /t) 62.83 60.29 cost ( /t DM) 72.46 70.51 Whole crop cost (e) ( /t DM) 64.25 63.42 Straw cost ( /t) 10.07 15.25 10.08 14.65 (a) Ploughing, power harrowing and sowing @ 61.75/ha, spraying and fertiliser applications @ 7.41/ha per application. (HAU costs) (b) Home n Dry @ 380/t applied at 35kg/t (c) Excludes straw harvesting charges (d) Mowing charge of 17.36/ha for the whole crop stubble. Baling charge of 2.10 per 250kg Mini Heston bale, Haulage @ 2/t (e) Includes dry matter provided by Home n Dry i.e. 409kg and 508kg DM/ha for whole crop barley and wheat respectively Treatments: 1. Beef: Ad lib 13% CP barley home mix plus ad lib barley straw. 2. Whole crop barley: Ad lib cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop barley (77.6% DM, 13.8% CP, 470 g NDF/kg DM, 39% starch) plus 150g mins per head per day. 3. Beef: Ad lib 13% CP wheat home mix plus ad lib wheat straw 4. Whole crop wheat: Ad lib cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop wheat (71.0% DM, 14.6% CP, 355 g NDF/kg DM, 43% starch) plus 150g mins per head per day. The barley and wheat home mixes were formulated as follows: 84% rolled cereal, 8% soya-bean meal, 5% molasses, 2% minerals 1% sodium bicarbonate. 2

Results: Table 3: Cattle performance (bull and heifer average) Start wt (kg) 266 265 266 266 NS Days 181.2a 242.4b 203.9a 229.9b *** Slaughter wt (kg) 498 516 502 525 NS DLWG (kg) 1.29a 1.01c 1.26a 1.12b *** Carcase wt (kg) 274.5 275.6 276.0 285.0 NS KO% 55.0a 53.3b 54.9a 54.2a *** Conformation1 (1-7) 4.28 3.94 4.17 4.22 NS Fatness1 (1-7) 3.44a 2.83b 3.38a 2.83b * Carcase DG (kg) 0.84a 0.62b 0.81a 0.70b *** FCR (kg feed: kg carcase gain) 9.76 14.25 9.64 12.18 Sig DM Intake 2 (kg) 1,490 2,140 1,490 1,920 FCR (kg feed DM: kg LWG) 6.41 8.52 6.31 7.41 Carcase price ( /kg) - April 2005 1.92 1.89 1.91 1.92 Carcase value ( ) 527 521 527 547 Feed cost (p/kg LWG) 61.2 58.5 57.8 50.4 Feed cost (p/kg carcase gain) 94.0 95.5 89.6 80.7 GM/head ( ) 30 26 38 58 GM/head/year ( ) 61 38 73 92 Stocking rate (cattle/ha) 5.57 4.79 7.53 5.94 GM/ha ( ) 168 122 287 343 Notes: Within row, means with the same superscripts are not significantly different (p>0.05) 1 EUROP carcase classification: Conformation: P+=1 and E=7, Fat class: 1=1 and 5H=7. 2 DM intakes exclude the straw eaten from racks by the barley and wheat grain fed catle Conclusions: Harvesting cereals at the end of physiological grain fill (approx 70% dry matter) compared to conventionally harvesting with a combine can increase dry matter yields by 16.7-18.7% (approx 2.1 tonnes per hectare) The target should be to head-cut the top 20-25 cm of the cereal crop. A higher cutting height could leave some grain un-harvested. A lower cutting height will reduce the energy density of the forage. There were no significant differences in animal performance between the barley and wheat grain fed beef cattle. The wheat however must be lightly rolled and it is recommended that straw must be available ad libitum from racks and the use of a rumen buffer, such as sodium bicarbonate, is considered necessary to minimize problems with bloat and acidosis. 3

Compared to the barley and wheat grain treatments the cattle fed the cracked headcut urea treated whole crop wheat recorded lower daily and carcase weight gains, took longer to reach slaughter and recorded lower fat scores. The head-cut whole crop wheat fed bulls recorded significantly heavier slaughter and carcase weights. The heifers fed cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop recorded lower fat classifications. It should therefore enable them to be slaughtered at heavier carcase weights which would be more suited to market requirements. An intensive beef production system based on finishing young bulls housed yearround from 3 months old to slaughter at 14-15 months old on cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop barley cannot be recommended due to the relatively low headcutting height and energy content of the crop resulting in reduced daily live weight gains and margins per head and per hectare. Cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop barley could however be suitable for Semi-intensive beef production. The lowest feed costs per kg gain and highest margins per head and per hectare were recorded by the cattle fed cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop wheat. Growing a potentially lower yielding crop of barley compared to wheat for intensive finishing of beef cattle is unnecessary. The trial was carried out just after the decoupling of support payments and gross margins were relatively low and do not include any contribution from the Single Farm Payment. Some advantages and disadvantages of cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop beef production are summarized below: Advantages A high energy and protein content forage concentrate Minimal bloat or acidosis disorders Can produce increased dry matter yields compared to fermented whole crop, grass and maize silage Enables intensively fed beef cattle to be fed higher yielding crops of wheat compared to barley One harvest and minimal (virtually zero) storage losses during winter and summer Elimination of the need to roll, mill, and mix cereals, purchase additional protein supplements and dry, or preserve cereals when harvested above 15% moisture content. Flexible harvest options - Cereals can be conventionally harvested if they are not to be made into whole crop and fed to livestock Harvesting 10-14 days prior to conventional combining allows earlier entry for the following crop A 'practical and simple beef production system It is critical that the effectiveness of the Primary Processing Mill is checked at harvest with at least 90-95% of the grains being cracked, and that the urea-based additive is applied evenly throughout the clamp. In the previous study at Harper Adams (Marsh and Gibson 2004) cattle fed cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop wheat supplemented with Dried Lactose recorded 4

significantly higher daily live weight gains compared to non Lactose supplemented cattle (1.37 v 1.23kg) which were comparable to DLWG s recorded by cereal fed cattle (1.42kg). However feeding Dried Lactose with cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop wheat was not financially viable when costed at 280/t. Relatively lowcost liquid Lactose blends are commercially available and should be considered if suitable storage facilities are available. Disadvantages Lodged crops cannot be Problems may occur with mowing straw from the head-cut stubbles in rutted fields. Cannot be used as a break crop in an arable rotation, unlike grass or maize silage To convert from an intensive barley beef system to cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop beef production based production system may require investment in feed storage and feeding equipment i.e. conversion of feed hoppers to trough feeding, clamps etc. Acknowledgement: Financial support from EBLEX is gratefully acknowledged. References: Marsh, S.P. and Gibson, I. 2004. Whole crop wheat for intensively finished beef cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science. Paper 190. Marsh S.P. and Keogh B. 2006. Evaluation of cracked head-cut urea treated whole crop wheat and barley and conventionally combined wheat and barley for finishing beef cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science. Paper 132 Simon P. Marsh, Senior Lecturer, Harper Adams University April 2006 5