Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effects of supplement or fertiliser on forage quality, and performance of stocker cattle grazing warm-season pastures

J. D. Rivera A C , M. L. Gipson A , R. G. Gipson A and R. W. Lemus B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station – White Sand Unit, PO Box 193, Poplarville, MS 39470, USA.

B Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, MS 39762, USA.

C Corresponding author. Email: jdr398@msstate.edu

Animal Production Science 57(1) 116-121 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15197
Submitted: 20 April 2015  Accepted: 20 August 2015   Published: 22 January 2016

Abstract

Crossbred (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) beef steers (BW = 232.8 ± 14.6 kg; n = 90) were used over 3 years to examine the efficacy of N fertiliser compared with feed supplementation on forage quality, and animal production. Each year a new group of steers were weighed (unshrunk), and assigned to graze mixed warm-season perennial pastures (Cynodon dactylon and Paspalum notatum Flugge). Paddocks were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: no fertiliser and no supplement (NONE); supplement of 1.1 kg of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) per steer (DM basis) and no fertiliser (DDGS); or fertiliser (134 kg/ha of N applied in split applications) and no supplement (FERT). Cattle were individually weighed at Days 0, 56, 84, and at Day 126, Day 140, Day 93 for Years 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Data were analysed as a mixed model, treatment being used as a fixed effect, year and block as random effects and pasture as the experimental unit. No differences were noted in BW at any point of the study. Greater total average daily gain (ADG) for the grazing period was noted with FERT and DDGS having greatest ADG compared with NONE. Input costs differed (P = 0.001) among all treatments with FERT having the highest input costs, followed by DDGS and NONE. A tendency (P = 0.11) for lowest return was noted with steers in the FERT group returning the least amount of money. No differences (P > 0.10) were noted in forage biomass (kg/ha) at any point of the study. At Day 56, FERT had least ADF (P = 0.03), greatest (P = 0.01) crude protein, and the greatest (P = 0.01) total digestible nutrients (TDN) compared with DDGS and NONE. At Day 84, similar effects existed with FERT having greater crude protein and TDN compared with DDGS and NONE (P ≤ 0.04). No effects (P > 0.10) existed for the last day of sampling for ADF and TDN, however there was a tendency increase in final crude protein (P = 0.07) associated with FERT and DDGS compared with NONE. Results indicate that similar beef cattle performance might be expected if either DDGS or FERT were used, with FERT increasing forage quality at variable points within the study.

Additional keywords: beef cattle, fertilisation, grazing, supplementation.


References

Ankom (2015) Acid detergent fiber in feeds – filter bag technique (for A2000 and A20001). Available at https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/Method_12_ADF_%20Method_A2000_RevE_4_10_15.pdf [Verified 11 April 2015]

AOAC (2012) Official methods of analysis, AOAC International, 19th edition. AOAC International.

Ball DM, Hoveland CS, Lacefield GD (2002) ‘Southern forages.’ 3rd edn. (Potash and Phosphate Institute: Norcross, GA)

Beck P, Anders M, Watkins B, Gunter S, Hubbell D, Gadbery S (2013) Improving the production, environmental and economic efficiency of the stocker cattle industry in southeastern United States. Journal of Animal Science 91, 2456–2466.
Improving the production, environmental and economic efficiency of the stocker cattle industry in southeastern United States.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXpvFCrsrg%3D&md5=df9d137788b8da254385be272ad38829CAS | 23243161PubMed |

Beck P, Stewart B, Gadberry S, Tucker J, Hubbell D, Butterbaugh J, Hess T, Coffey K, Rudolph B (2014) Effect of daily or alternate-day distillers grains supplementation with or without monensin on performance of grazing calves. The Professional Animal Scientist 30, 515–526.
Effect of daily or alternate-day distillers grains supplementation with or without monensin on performance of grazing calves.CrossRef |

da C. Lima GF, Sollenberger LE, Kunkle WE, Moore JE, Hammond AC (1999) Nitrogen fertilization and supplementation effects on performance of beef heifers grazing limpograss. Crop Science 39, 1853–1858.
Nitrogen fertilization and supplementation effects on performance of beef heifers grazing limpograss.CrossRef |

Drewnoski ME, Poore ME, Benson GA (2011) Effect of frequency of supplementation and corn gluten feed blend on hay intake and performance of growing steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164, 38–44.
Effect of frequency of supplementation and corn gluten feed blend on hay intake and performance of growing steers.CrossRef |

Greenquist MA, Klopfenstein TJ, Schacht WH, Erickson GE, Vanderpol KJ, Luebbe MK, Brink KR, Schwarz AK, Baleseng LB (2009) Effects of nitrogen fertilization and dried distiller’s grains supplementation: forage use and performance of yearling steers. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3639–3646.
Effects of nitrogen fertilization and dried distiller’s grains supplementation: forage use and performance of yearling steers.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhtlentLjJ&md5=5d00fc5d064e220691555e660eb96f80CAS | 19648489PubMed |

Johnson CR, Reilling BA, Mislevy P, Hall MB (2001) Effects of nitrogen fertilization and harvest date on yield, digestibility, fiber and protein fractions of tropical grasses. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2439–2448.

Klopfenstein TJ, Ericson GE, Bremer VR (2008) Board invited review: use of distillers by products in the beef cattle feeding industry. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1223–1231.
Board invited review: use of distillers by products in the beef cattle feeding industry.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXltlWruro%3D&md5=ee71feb69c275a867500f6768acf3ea4CAS | 18156361PubMed |

Lemus RW (2015) Renting Pasture Land in Mississippi. Mississippi State University Forage Newsletter 8, 1–3.

Lemus RW, Parish JA, Parish JR (2008) Assessing needs and feed sources, how much forage do I have? Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi, Publication 2458.

Loy TW, Klopfenstein TJ, Erickson GE, Macken CN, MacDonald JC (2008) Effect of supplemental energy source and frequency on growing calf performance. Journal of Animal Science 86, 3504–3510.
Effect of supplemental energy source and frequency on growing calf performance.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhsV2jsbrN&md5=af01217e9f84cc3d8395b87efd30357cCAS | 18708605PubMed |

Moore JE, Kunkle WS (1995) Improving forage supplementation programs for beef cattle. In ‘6th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, Gainsville, FL’. pp. 65–74.

Moore JE, Brant MH, Kunkle WE, Hopkins DI (1999) Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility and animal performance. Journal of Animal Science 77, 122–135.

Mosier AR, Bleken MA, Chaiwanakupt P, Ellis EC, Freney JR, Howarth RB, Matson PA, Minami K, Naylor R, Weeks KN, Shu ZL (2001) Policy implications of human accelerated nitrogen cycling. Biogeochemistry 52, 281–320.
Policy implications of human accelerated nitrogen cycling.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXkt1Krsbc%3D&md5=5f6d14df3ac0a91da5e03afbcbfe0471CAS |

National Research Council (2000) ‘Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, Update 2000.’ (National Academy Press: Washington, DC)



Rent Article (via Deepdyve) Export Citation

View Altmetrics