Sheppard, S. C., Bittman, S., Donohoe, G., Flaten, D., Wittenberg, K. M., Small, J. A., Berthiaume, R., McAllister, T. A., Beauchemin, K. A., McKinnon, J., Amiro, B. D., MacDonald, D., Mattos, F. and Ominski, K. H. 2015. Beef cattle husbandry practices across Ecoregions of Canada in 2011. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 305–321. Beef production in Canada is diverse in many dimensions with numbers of cattle per operation ranging over 10 000-fold, pasture usage from nil to 100%, and types of operations from solely cow–calf to exclusively feedlot finishing. This study summarizes management information obtained from a survey conducted in 2012 (about 2011) on 1009 beef operations in Canada. Many of the results clearly differentiate the practices in the Prairies from those in Ontario and Quebec. Compared to eastern Canada, the Prairies had earlier and shorter calving seasons, higher weaning weights, utilized more winter grazing with a variety of strategies, grew and fed more barley than corn, used more seasonal feeding areas and feedlots (and hence fewer barns), and more commonly spread manure in the fall. Many of the management practices used by cow–calf operations would have low environmental impact, including extensive use of grazing even in winter, low fertilizer inputs and feeding perennial forages with a high content of legumes. Some practices such as not covering forages or manure storage structures were common and could be changed to improve forage quality and reduce manure emissions. Most forage was harvested 3–7 d after full bloom. Earlier harvest has the potential to improve forage quality, which could reduce dependence on arable crops. Finishing operations used more housing, fed more arable-land crops and less perennial forages, and practiced little grazing. Rationale regarding the adoption of many of the management strategies was reported by the producers. For example, winter grazing was adopted primarily to reduce costs and labour, but for some it was also linked to a late calving season. Preferred sources of technical information included their own experience, farm print media, producer organisations and demonstrations at field days. The survey also identified several areas in which the industry may realize improved sustainability.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continuous application of manure P above crop removal results in a buildup of soil phosphorus (P), which increases the risk of P runoff loss from agricultural landOrganic forms of phosphorus, P associated with organic matter P t Total phosphorus, equal to inorganic plus inorganic P Water-P i Inorganic P in water extractable fraction in manure Water-P o Organic P in water extractable fraction in manure Water-P t Total P in water extractable fraction in manure NaHCO 3 -P iInorganic P in sodium bicarbonate extractable fraction in manure NaHCO 3 -P o Organic P in sodium bicarbonate extractable fraction in manure NaHCO 3 -P t Total P in sodium bicarbonate extractable fraction in manure NaOH-P i Inorganic P in sodium hydroxide extractable fraction in manure NaOH-P o Organic P in sodium hydroxide extractable fraction in manure NaOH-P t Total P in sodium hydroxide extractable fraction in manure HCl-P i Inorganic P in hydrochloric acid extractable fraction in manure HCl-P o Organic P in hydrochloric acid extractable fraction in manure HCl-P t Total P in hydrochloric acid extractable fraction in manure Labile-P i Inorganic P extracted by water + inorganic P extracted by NaHCO 3 Labile-P t Total P extracted by water + total P extracted by NaHCO 3 MAP Monoammonium phosphate synthetic fertilizer (11-52- Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development for the loaned rainfall simulator equipment.
Plaizier, J. C., Legesse, G., Ominski, K. H. and Flaten, D. 2014. Whole-farm budgets of phosphorus and potassium on dairy farms in Manitoba. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 119–128. Whole-farm budgets of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) were determined on 10 dairy farms in Manitoba between October 2010 and October 2011. These budgets were determined as the difference between total exports, including milk, animals, feed, and manure, and total imports, including feed, manure, animals, and inorganic fertilizer, for each farm. Farms differed in their feeding and manure management strategies. Two farms imported all their feed and exported all their manure. Other farms produced some of their feed and spread most of their manure on their farm. Whole-farm P and K budgets varied from −0.42 to 3.35 and from −1.31 to 11.27 g kg−1 milk sold among farms, respectively. Efficiencies of P and K utilization were calculated as the exports as a percentage of imports. The P efficiency averaged 48%, and ranged from 22.1 to 109% among farms. The K efficiency averaged 37%, and ranged from 10 to 98% among farms. In the fall of 2010 and 2011, 94 and 98%, of fields sampled had soil test P concentrations lower than the concentration above which further accumulation of P would be regulated (60 ppm). Of the farms that spread their own manure, the highest P and K efficiency were on a farm that exported a proportion of the produced forages and did not import any inorganic fertilizer. The lowest P and K efficiencies were on a farm that imported concentrate feeds, bedding straw and most forages, and had the smallest land base per milking cow to spread manure. Variations in P and K efficiencies demonstrate opportunities to enhance these efficiencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.