Effect of winter feeding system on beef cow performance, reproductive efficiency, and system cost

Kelln, Breeanna; Lardner, H.A.; McKinnon, J. J.; Campbell, John R.; Larson, Kathy; Damiran, Daalkhaijav

doi:10.15232/s1080-7446(15)30513-1

Cited by 35 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it may be possible to reduce the daily feed cost of swath grazing below that of swathed barley forage by using crop species with potential for higher forage yield and quality, assuming similar costs of production (Baron et al, 2014). As stated in previous section (Section 3), on average, each corn field produced a relatively similar amount of CPY (0.89 vs. 0.86 t/ha), but were approximately 65% greater for TDNY (7.7 vs. 4.7 t/ha) than what the barley field produced, indicating greater carrying capacities for wintering beef cow grazing as this suggests a substantial savings in feed energy costs (Kelln et al, 2011). Thus, the new corn hybrids evaluated in the current study, would fit very well where higher yield from a limited land base is desirable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Traditionally, these costs are due to feeding cows in drylot pens over the winter period, which includes costs for harvesting, handling, and transporting feed and removal of manure (Kelln et al, 2011;Krause et al, 2013). Grazing beef cows on annual stockpiled forages or swath grazing during the winter months are options to potentially reduce the costs of wintering beef cows (Van De Kerckhove et al, 2011;Krause, et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grazing beef cows on annual stockpiled forages or swath grazing during the winter months are options to potentially reduce the costs of wintering beef cows (Van De Kerckhove et al, 2011;Krause, et al, 2013). Cool season annual forages such as barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) are well suited to western Canadian growing conditions and provide acceptable forage yield and quality (McCartney et al, 2008;Kelln et al, 2011;Kumar et al, 2012). Corn (Zea mays L.) as a winter grazing crop for beef cattle has been more limited to the southern areas of eastern Canada, or southern areas of the prairies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Low Heat Unit Corn Hybrids Compared to Barley for Forage Yield and Quality on the Canadian Prairies

Lardner

Pearce²,

Damiran

2017

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corn (Zea mays L.) production is expanding in the prairie region of western Canada. The objectives of this study were to compare three new low heat unit corn hybrids to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) for forage yield, nutrient profile, and total nutrient production. The study was conducted at 4 sites (Evansburg and Fairview, Alberta; Melfort and Scott, Saskatchewan) with different soil characteristics (Gray Luvisolic, Grey Wooded, Dark Brown, and Black soil zones) over three consecutive years (2012)(2013)(2014). At each site, annually, 16 plots (2.4×7.2 m) were randomly assigned to one of four forage crops (corn: Monsanto DKC26-25, Hyland 2D093, Pioneer P7443R; barley: cv. AC Ranger) in a replicated (n = 4) trial. Number of cobs per plant was not different (p = 0.23) between corn hybrids averaging 1.22 ± 0.32/plant (mean ± sd). Forage yield among the corn hybrids was negligible (p > 0.05), but the corn hybrids exhibited 40% higher yield (p < 0.05; avg. 11.3 ± 3.6 t/ha on DM basis) compared to barley (avg. 6.7 ± 1.7 t/ha). Corn hybrids were lower (p < 0.05) in CP content [7.6 ± 1.4% versus (vs.) 12.4 ± 0.1%] than barley. No difference was observed between the 4 forage crops in TDN content (68.2 ± 2.8% DM). Study results suggest that new cool-season corn hybrids can produce high quality forage to meet the nutrient requirements of grazing beef cows in mid-and late-stage pregnancy. New corn hybrids may be suitable alternatives for winter grazing strategies since forage harvest costs would be eliminated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Low Heat Unit Corn Hybrids Compared to Barley for Forage Yield and Quality on the Canadian Prairies

Lardner

Pearce²,

Damiran

2017

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clusters 5, 6, and 7 used more land for winter-grazing practices including swath, stockpiled, and standing corn grazing, and 62%-90% of these farms used it as a common winter-feeding practice. This practice has a lower cost for manure and feed handling (AAFC 2011;Kelln et al 2011) and environmental benefits in terms of nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and greenhouse gas emissions (Kennedy and Milligan 1978;Jungnitsch et al 2011). However, in clusters 1, 2, and 4, only 21%-50% of farms reported winter grazing as the main winter-feeding practice, so extension programs focusing on the economic benefit of winter grazing could be targeted to farms in these clusters, recognizing that this may not be successful in all regions.…”

Section: Applications Of the Farm Typologymentioning

confidence: 99%

A typological characterization of Canadian beef cattle farms based on a producer survey

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diverse nature of beef production was captured by establishing a farm typology based on an extensive survey of 1005 Canadian farms in 2011. The survey provided information on the type of operation, cattle numbers, feed storage and management, manure management, land use, producer demographics and attitudes to risk, and technology adoption. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to understand the relationships among variables and to statistically identify farm types. A total of 41 diagnostic variables from 133 survey questions were used to define 16 principal components explaining 68% of the variation. Cluster analysis yielded eight major clusters as distinct farm types. The largest number of farms (37%) was grouped as small-scale, part-time cow-calf operations. Mixed operations (crop-beef) were next most frequent (22%), followed by large cow-calf backgrounding (18%) and diversified cow-calf operations that included crop-beef mixed operations as well as off-farm activities (11%). Cow-calf operations that finished calves comprised 8% of the total farms surveyed. Extensive cowcalf backgrounding operations, large backgrounding/finishing operations, and large finishing operations represented the remaining 3% of the farms. The typology not only provides a strategy by which the Canadian beef cattle industry can be characterized, but also improves understanding of the diversity of farm management practices to help develop policies and beneficial management practices.Key words: backgrounding, cattle (beef), cluster analysis, cow-calf, typology, feedlot.Résumé : La nature variée de la production de boeuf a été captée en établissant une typologie de ferme basée sur un sondage à grande échelle de 1005 fermes canadiennes en 2011. Le sondage a fourni les informations sur le type d'opération, le nombre de bovins, l'entreposage et la gestion des aliments, la gestion du fumier, l'utilisation des terres, les données démographiques des producteurs ainsi que leurs attitudes envers le risque et l'adoption des technologies. L'analyse des composantes principales et l'analyse typologique ont été utilisées pour comprendre les relations entre les variables et pour identifier statistiquement les types de fermes. Quarante et une variables de diagnostic provenant de 133 questions de sondage ont été utilisées pour définir 16 composantes principales qui expliquent 68 % de la variation. L'analyse typologique donne huit groupements majeurs comme types distincts de fermes. Le plus grand nombre de fermes (37 %) sont groupés comme des opérations vache-veau à petite échelle, à temps partiel. Les opérations mixtes (récoltes-boeuf) étaient les deuxièmes plus fréquents (22 %), suivis des grandes opérations de semi-finition vache-veau (18 %) et des opérations diversifiées vache-veau qui comprenaient des opérations mixtes récoltes-boeuf ainsi que des activités hors ferme (11 %). Les opérations vache-veau qui finissaient les veaux formaient 8 % des fermes totales sondées. Les opérations à grand étendu de semi-finition v...

show abstract

“…This management practice reduces the contribution of emissions from manure management, by avoiding accumulation of manure in the confined lots. It also reduces enteric CH 4 emissions because animals managed outdoors under cold temperatures produce less enteric CH 4 (Kennedy and Milligan 1978;Takahashi et al 2002;Bernier et al 2012), there is increased nutrient recycling efficiency (Jungnitsch et al 2011;Kelln et al 2012) and a reduction in winter feeding costs (Kelln et al 2011). Therefore, integration of management practices such as in-field overwintering management of beef cattle with amount and timing of hog manure application on grassland needs to be evaluated, so as to assess their impact on the total farm GHG emissions.…”

Section: Implications and Future Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from hog manure application in a Canadian cow–calf production system using whole-farm models

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The development of beneficial management practices is a key strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from animal agriculture. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the impact of time and amount of hog manure application on farm productivity and GHG emissions from a cow-calf production system using two whole-farm models. Detailed model inputs (climate, soil and manure properties, farm operation data) were collected from a 3-year field study that evaluated the following three treatments: no application of hog manure on grassland (baseline); a single application of hog manure on grassland in spring (single); and two applications of hog manure as fall and spring (split). All three treatments were simulated in a representative cow-calf production system at the farm-gate using the following whole-farm models: a Coupled Components Model (CCM) that used existing farm component models and the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM). Annual GHG intensities for the baseline scenario were 17.7 kg CO 2 -eq/kg liveweight for CCM and 18.1 kg CO 2 -eq/kg liveweight for IFSM. Of the total farm GHG emissions, 73-77% were from enteric methane production. The application of hog manure on grassland showed a mean emission increase of 7.8 and 8.4 kg CO 2 -eq/kg liveweight above the baseline for the single and split scenarios, respectively. For the manured scenarios, farm GHG emissions were mainly from enteric methane (47-54%) and soil nitrous oxide (33-41%). Emission estimates from the different GHG sources in the farm varied between models for the single and split application scenarios. Although farm productivity was 3-4% higher in the split than in single application (0.14 t liveweight/ha), the environmental advantage of applying manure in a single or split application was not consistent between models for farm emission intensity. Further component and whole-farm assessments are required to fully understand the impact of timing and the amount of livestock manure application on GHG emissions from beef production systems.

show abstract

Effect of winter feeding system on beef cow performance, reproductive efficiency, and system cost

Cited by 35 publications

References 18 publications

Evaluation of Low Heat Unit Corn Hybrids Compared to Barley for Forage Yield and Quality on the Canadian Prairies

Evaluation of Low Heat Unit Corn Hybrids Compared to Barley for Forage Yield and Quality on the Canadian Prairies

A typological characterization of Canadian beef cattle farms based on a producer survey

Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from hog manure application in a Canadian cow–calf production system using whole-farm models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About