C O N T E N T S
Cowherds and Reproduction
Survey of
Kansas Cow-Calf Producers
....................................
Incidence o f Short Estrous Cycles After Weaning in Beef
Cows.
.......................
1
6
E f f e c t s from Using Ralgro S e q u e n t i a l l y on Sexual Development o f B u l l s and on Growth and Carcass
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Steers and B u l l s .
E f f e c t o f Growth Rate from B i r t h Through
.................................
T h i r t y Months on Performance of H e i f e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
11
P e l v i c Area, C a l v i n g Ease and Rebreeding i n F i r s t C a l f H e i f e r s
Delayed Winter Supplemental Feeding and Year-round Mineral Supplementation
o f Beef Cows on Native Range
. . 17
Effects o f Ralgro and DES Implants During the S u c k l i n g P e r i o d on Later
Reproductive P e r f o r m a n c e o f Beef H e i f e r s
E v a l u a t i n g t h e Breeding P o t e n t i a l o f
...............................
Y e a r l i n g Bulls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
22
Forages and Pastures
Minerals
in Esophageal Samples f r o m
Steers on N a t i v e Bluestem Pastures.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
M i l o Stover, Forage Sorghum, P r a i r i e Hay, Soybean Meal and Urea Compared f o r Growing H e i f e r s .
...................................
Annual Forages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Using Wheat S t r a w i n Beef Cow Rations
Y i e l d and Quality o f S i x
Summer
28
32
35
Feedlot Studies
P r o t e i n L e v e l s With and Without Monensin f o r F i n i s h i n g Steers
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
P r e d i c t i n g Feedlot Performance Using Mathematical Models
44
...............................
..................................
P r o t e i n Adjustments During Temperature S t r e s s
48
High Moisture Corn f o r F i n i s h i n g Steers
51
Conventional versus Accelerated Beef Production f o r T r a d i t i o n a l and La t e r - m a t u r i n g C a t t l e Types
Performance, Carcass, and M e a t T r a i t s of D i f f e r e n t C a t t l e Types
.
55
58
Meats
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Processing R e t a i l Beef Cuts f r o m Boxed Beef
N u t r i t i o n a l Effects on Beef P a l a t a b i l i t y .
Mechanical Blade Tenderization o f Meat.
Rumen Physiology
Rumen B a c t e r i a l Endotoxins and T h e i r Possible Role i n t h e Sudden-death Syndrome
E f f e c t s o f Rumensin or L a s a l o c i d on Rumen Fermentation i n V i t r o
......................
B i o l o g i c a l Variability and Chances o f
Error
The variability among individual
animals in an experiment leads t o problems i n i n t e r p r e t i n g
Although t h e c a t t l e on treatment X may have had a larger average d a i l y g a i n than
those on treatment Y , v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h i n t r e a t m e n t s may mean t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e w a s n o t t h e
r e s u l t o f the t r e a t m e n t alone.
S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s l e t s researchers c a l c u l a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y
t h a t such d i f f e r e n c e s were f r o m chance r a t h e r than treatment.
the r e s u l t s .
In some of the articles t h a t f o l l o w , you will see t h e notation "P<.05."
That means t h e
p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e r e s u l t i n g from chance i s l e s s than 5%. I f t w o averages a r e said
t o be " s i g n i f i c a n t l y different," the
p r o b a b i l i t y i s l e s s than a 5% t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i s f r o m
chance- -the p r o b a b i l i t y exceeds 95% t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e r e s u l t s f r o m t h e treatment.
I n other cases you may see a mean g i v e n as 2.50 + 0.10. The 2.50 i s t h e m e a n ; 0.10 is
the "standard e r r o r . "
Two- thirds of the I n d i v i d u a l v a l u e s w i l l f a l l w i t h i n one standard error
from the mean. I n this case between 2.40 and 2.60 (2.50 - 0.10 and 2.50 + 0.10).
Many animals p e r treatment,
r e p l i c a t i n g t r e a t m e n t s several times, and using u n i f o r m animals
increases the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t observed d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t f r o m t r e a t m e n t s , n o t chance.
I n n e a r l y a l l t h e research reported here, statistical analyses are included t o I n c r e a s e
t h e confidence you can p l a c e i n t h e r e s u l t s .
71
73
28
1
Milo Stover, Forage Sorghum, Prairie Hay,
Soybean Meal and Urea Compared for Growing Heifers
Keith Bolsen, Jim Oltjen and Harvey Ilg
Summary
Milo stover silage, prairie hay or forage sorghum silage was fed in
rations containing 10, 12 or 14% protein from soybean meal (SBM) or 12%
protein from urea; 100 heifers were fed in the 78-day growing trial (November
11, 1977 to February 2, 1978).
Heifers fed forage sorghum silage, prairie hay or forage sorghum silage
+ prairie hay had similar rate and efficiency of gains; those fed milo stover
silage made slowest and least efficient gains. Rations containing prairie
hay were consumed in the greatest amounts. Feeding rations with 12 or 14%
protein from SBM gave better performance than rations with 10% protein from
SBM. Heifers fed urea gained slower and less efficiently than those fed SBM.
Gain from a ration containing equal parts of milo stover silage and forage
sorghum silage exceeded predicted gain by 7.8%, and efficiency was 13.9%
better than predicted.
Introduction
Milo stover and forage sorghum silages were compared in five previous
heifer growing trials at this station (Prog. Rpt. 210, 230, 262, 291 and 320,
Kansas Agr. Expt. Sta.). Results show: (1) growing calves fed milo stover
silage should gain about 1.0 lb. per day and require 10 to 14 lbs. of dry
m a t t e r p e r l b . o f g a i n , (2) milo stover silage has a feeding value of 65% of
that of forage sorghum silage, (3) milo stover silage fed in combination with
forage sorghum silage is better feed than milo stover alone for growing calves,
(4) supplying supplemental protein in milo stover silage rations is a large cost
because stover usually contains so little protein, and (5) at least 12% protein
rations are needed for maximum rate and efficiency of gain.
This trial was to verify previous results from feeding milo stover and
forage sorghum silages, to evaluate prairie hay and to compare three levels
of supplemental protein from soybean meal and one from urea.
29
Experimental Procedure
Shown below are the forage and protein rations compared in a 78-day
growing trial (November 11, 1977 to February 2, 1978).
Forages
Protein, %
of the ration
from (SBM)
Milo stover silage (MSS)
Prairie hay (PH)
Forage sorghum silage (FSS)
½ MSS + ½ FSS
½ PH + ½ FSS
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
12
12
12
12
12
and
and
and
and
and
14
14
14
14
14
Protein, %
of the ration
from urea
12
12
12
12
12
The 100 heifer calves averaged 430 lbs. when allotted by breed and weight
into 20 pens of five each. Breeds included Angus, Hereford, Angus x Hereford
and Hereford x Simmental. Four pens were assigned to each of the 5 forage
treatments. All rations were 73% of the appropriate forage and 27% rolled
milo plus protein supplement on a dry matter basis and formulated to be equal
in minerals, vitamins and additives. All were mixed and fed to appetite twice
daily.
All calves were fed 2 lbs. of rolled milo and alfalfa hay free-choice for
5 days before initial weighing and all were fed the same amount of experimental
ration for 2 days before final weighing. All feed and water were withheld 16
hours before weights were taken.
Forage sorghum was a high-grain variety harvested in the dough-stage at
70 to 72% moisture. Milo stover was from dryland milo that had been harvested
about 30 days before stover was harvested. The stover was about 70% moisture
when the grain was harvested. The forage sorghum and milo stover silages were
s t o r e d i n c o n c r e t e s i l o s ( 1 0 f t . x 5 0 f t . ) . The native prairie hay was swathed
and field-dried before being baled into rectangular bales about 75 to 80 lbs.
each, and later processed in a tub grinder before being fed.
Results
Dry matter (%), crude protein (%, DM basis) and crude fiber (%, DM basis),
r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r t h e t h r e e f o r a g e s w e r e : 28.0, 8.0, 31.0 for milo stover
silage; 88.0, 5.5, 32.6 for prairie hay; and 28.5, 8.9, 26.3 for forage sorghum
silage.
There were no interactions between forage and protein. Performances of
heifers fed each of the five forages (averaged across protein treatments) are
shown in Table 10.1; performances of heifers fed each of the four protein
treatments (averaged across forages), in Table 10.2.
Heifers fed forage sorghum silage, prairie hay or FSS + PH had similar
rates of gain. Feed intake was higher (P‹.05) for prairie hay and PH + FSS
than for forage sorghum silage. Milo stover silage supported the slowest
(P‹.05) and least efficient (P‹.05) gains.
30
The 12 and 14% protein rations from SBM supported the fastest and most
efficient gains (P<.05)(Table 10.2). Calves fed the 10% protein ration from
SBM gained faster and more efficiency (P‹.05) than calves fed the 12% protein
ration from urea. In general, performance of faster gaining calves (those fed
forage sorghum silage, prairie hay or FSS + PH) tended to be improved more
with additional SBM protein than that of calves gaining slower (those fed
milo stover silage).
From these results feed costs and feed cost per lb. of gain can be
calculated for each combination of forage and protein. When the price of
SBM is high compared with that of urea and grain, the economic advantage of
feeding 12 or 14% protein rations from SBM, of course, would be less than when
SBM prices are low.
We used gains and feed efficiencies from the milo stover silage and
forage sorghum silage rations to calculate predicted gain and efficiency
for the 50% MSS + 50% FSS ration (Table 10.3). Observed gain exceeded predicted
gain 0.08 lb. per day or 7.8%, and observed feed efficiency exceeded predicted
efficiency 1.86 lbs. of feed per lb. of gain or 13.9%. The value of milo stover
silage in growing rations for calves, therefore, is improved by feeding it with
forage sorghum silage.
Table 10.1.
Performances of heifers fed the five forages.
Item
FSS 1
MSS 1
Forage
PH 1
20
429
20
427
20
429
1.25 a
.79c
1.22 a
13.03 b
11.84 c
10.59 a
16.18 c
No. of calves
Initial wt., lbs.
Avg. daily gain, lbs.
Avg. daily feed, lbs.
2
Feed/lb. of gain, lbs.
2
MSS + FSS
PH + FSS
20
429
20
429
l . l 0b
1.32 a
15.03 a
12.43 b
14.26 a
12.40 b
11.52 b
11.58 b
1 FSS = forage sorghum silage; MSS = milo stover silage; PH = prairie hay.
2
100% dry matter basis.
a,b,c
Means in
(P‹.05).
the
same
row
with
different
superscripts
differ
significantly
31
Table 10.2.
Performances of heifers fed the four protein treatments.
Item
Protein treatment: source and level
SBM
Urea
10%
12%
14%
12%
No. of calves
Initial wt., lbs.
25
429
Avg. daily gain, lbs.
l.l0
Avg. daily feed, lbs. 1
13.39
13.55
13.45
12.90
12.83 b
11.33 a
10.67 a
15.00c
Feed/lb. of gain, 1bs.
1
a,b,c
l
100% dry matter basis.
Means in the same row
(P‹.05).
Table 10.3.
b
with
25
428
25
427
1.22 a
1.28
different
superscripts
25
429
a
.94
differ
significantly
Observed and predicted rates and efficiencies of gain by
heifers fed milo stover silage, milo stover silage + forage
sorghum silage, or forage sorghum silage.
Item
No. of calves
Avg. daily gain, lbs.
Observed
Predicted
1
Improvement, lb.
Improvement, %
Feed/lb. of gain, lbs.
Observed
Predicted
Improvement, 1bs.l
Improvement, %
1 Observed minus predicted.
MSS
20
Forage
FSS + MSS
20
FSS
20
.79
---
1.10
1.02
+.08
+7.8
1.25
---
16.18
---
11.52
13.38
-1.86
+13.9
10.59
---
c
35
Yield and Quality of Six Summer Annual Forages
Mopoi Nuwanyakpa, Gerry L. Posler,
Keith K. Bolsen, and Harvey Ilg
Summary
In 1977, all summer annual forages studied produced excellent yields.
Based on leafiness and regrowth ability, sudangrasses and pearl millet appeared
to be best for early vegetative and boot cutting management. The sorghumsudan hybrids had suitable yields and quality at all harvest stages. The
hybrid forage sorghum appeared best suited for soft-dough-stage harvest
although yields of pearl millet and sorghum-Sudan hybrids were also excellent.
Introduction
Many summer annual crops can provide excellent forage during the hot,
dry summers in Kansas when other pasture grasses have declined in production
and quality. Summer annuals, including sudangrasses, hybrid sudangrasses,
sorghum-sudangrass hybrids, sorgos, hybrid forage sorghums, and pearl millets,
may be used for pasture, hay, silage, and greenchopping. Differences in
their anatomy and growth characteristics reward producers who carefully
select the proper crop to match their livestock needs.
Materials and Methods
In 1977 at Manhattan and Hutchinson, we evaluated forage yield and
quality of six forages, harvested at early vegetative, boot, and soft-dough
stages of growth. Forages tested were 'Piper' sudangrass, Northrup King
'Trudan 6' hybrid sudangrass, Dekalb 'Sudax SX-11', and Ring Around 'Super
Chow Maker 235' sorghum-sudangrass hybrids, Dekalb 'FS 25a' hybrid forage
sorghum, and Northrup King 'Millex 23' hybrid pearl millet.
The hybrid forage sorghum was planted in 30-inch rows; all others,
in 6-inch rows. Plots were 5 x 20 feet for the narrow spacing and 10 x 20
feet for the wide spacing. The center 3 feet or 2 rows were harvested for
yield, leaving a 6-inch stubble. Harvests were by stage of growth, not
calendar date. At Hutchinson, forages were cut 3 times at the early vegetative
stage, 2 times at the boot stage, and 1 time at the dough stage. One additional
early vegetative cutting was obtained at Manhattan. Samples were taken
from the flail-chopped material for dry matter and quality analyses.
36
Experimental Results
As shown in Tables 12.1 and 12.2, mean forage yields were similar at
Hutchinson and Manhattan for the early vegetative stage, greater at Hutchinson
for the boot stage, and greater at Manhattan for the soft-dough stage.
The forages sometimes responded differently at the two locations. The most
difference was noted for Millex at the soft dough stage; it yielded much
better at Manhattan. C u t t i n g s w e r e a t d i f f e r e n t c a l e n d a r d a t e s , a n d r a i n f a l l
p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e d b e t w e e n l o c a t i o n s , but such differences are expected and
would be expected in other years.
Crude protein content and in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) declined
with advancing maturity. Crude protein was always lower at Hutchinson,
particularly at the soft dough stage, probably partly because of near-record
August rainfall, unusually high yields, and moderate nitrogen fertilization.
Piper sudangrass and Trudan hybrid sudangrass performed best for early
vegetative and boot harvests. The FS 25A hybrid forage sorghum, as expected,
performed poorly under early vegetative management, and its yield was quite
low at the boot stage at Manhattan. At Hutchinson, it yielded well despite
being cut only once, while the others were cut twice. Yields of the two
sorghum-sudan hybrids and pearl millet varied most at the various stages
and locations. Additional years of data are needed to better estimate the
forages' true yielding abilities.
Summer annual forages vary in growth characteristics.
37
Table 12.1.
Forage yields and quality of six summer annual forages cut at
three stages of growth, Manhattan.
Forage
Forage yield (ton/acre)
Dry matter
60% H2 0
Crude
protein
%
IVDDM
%
Early vegetative stage
Piper
Trudan-6
S.C. Maker 235
Sudax SX-11
Millex 23
FS 25A
Mean
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.4
6.1
2.9
4.9
14.3
14.0
14.7
15.5
17.5
8.4
14.1
19.2
17.8
19.2
20.1
21.5
19.7
19.6
67.3
67.6
66.1
65.1
67.4
65.6
66.5
14.3
15.6
14.5
12.6
16.6
12.5
14.4
63.1
61.8
62.6
61.0
63.9
58.6
62.6
Boot stage
Piper
Trudan 6
S.C. Maker 235
Sudax SX-11
Millex 23
FS 25A
Mean
6.5
6.3
8.2
6.9
7.4
5.0
6.7
18.7
18.0
23.4
19.6
21.2
10.3
19.2
Soft dough stage
Piper
Trudan 6
S.C. Maker 235
Sudax SX-11
Millex 23
FS 25A
Mean
LSD.05
7.6
8.4
16.6
9.1
13.4
12.2
11.2
21.7
24.0
47.3
26.0
38.2
34.8
32.0
10.2
8.9
8.3
9.9
10.2
8.7
9.4
49.8
51.5
50.9
50.3
52.8
53.1
51.4
2.3
4.8
1.2
2.5
a IVDDM = In vitro digestible dry matter.
a
38
Table 12.2.
Forage yields and qualities of six summer annual forages cut at
three stages of growth, Hutchinson.
Forage
Forage yield (ton/acre)
60% H2 0
Dry matter
Crude
protein
%
IVDDM
%
Early vegetative stage
Piper
Trudan 6
S.C. Maker 235
Sudax SX-11
Millex 23
FS 25A
Mean
5.1
5.7
5.8
5.8
4.4
3.9
5.1
14.5
16.4
16.7
16.7
12.6
11.4
14.7
13.8
14.3
13.8
14.9
14.8
17.3
14.8
66.2
67.2
67.4
66.6
70.8
64.6
67.1
9.1
8.5
8.3
10.3
11.1
7.8
9.2
59.8
62.9
62.3
61.0
65.8
58.3
61.7
Boot stage
Piper
Trudan 6
S.C. Maker 235
Sudax SX-11
Millex 23
FS 25A
Mean
22.2
23.6
28.7
35.3
20.0
28.4
26.4
7.8
8.3
10.0
12.4
7.0
9.9
9.2
Soft dough stage
Piper
Trudan 6
S. C. Maker 235
Sudax SX-11
Millex 23
FS 25A
Mean
LSD .05
5.4
8.1
15.7
11.0
8.4
12.0
10.1
15.5
23.1
44.7
31.0
23.9
34.2
28.3
6.6
6.0
3.3
5.7
3.9
4.0
4.9
50.9
51.3
53.9
56.3
55.3
58.6
54.4
1.6
3.7
1.7
2.4
a IVDDM= I n v i t r o d i g e s t i b l e d r y m a t t e r .
a
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T h e D e p a r t m e n t of A n i m a l S c i e n c e s a n d I n d u s t r y s i n c e r e l y t h a n k s t h e
f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a n d companies for s u p p o r t t h r o u g h r e s e a r c h g r a n t s ,
p r o d u c t s , or s e r v i c e s .
T h e i r h e l p h a s a d d e d much t o o u r r e s e a r c h e f f o r t .
Abbott Laboratories
Chicago,
C.
Savannah, Missouri
K.
Al l e n , W o o d l a n d F a r m s
Illinois
A m e r i c a n C y a n a m i d Company
P r i n c e t o n , New Jersey
C a d c o Company
D e s Moines.
C e l a n e s e C h e m i c a l Company
Corpus C h r i s t i .
Bi ll y C l a r k .
B a r n a r d , Kansas
Clark Herefords
Texas
El k h a r t , K a n s a s
F l o y d Coen
Cry-O-Vac
Iowa
Division,
W.
R . Grace
Duncan, S o u t h C a r o l ina
D u g d a l e P a c k i n g Company
St.
Joseph, Missouri
Dow C h e m i c a l Company
Midl a n d , M i c h i g a n
E l a n c o P r o d u c t s Company
D i v i s i o n of E l i L i l l y
Indianapolis, I n d i a n a
F o u r t h N a t i o n a l Bank
Wichita,
Hess a n d C l a r k Company
Ashland, Ohio
Kansas
New Jersey
Nutley,
Roman L. H r u s k a U.S.
Research C e n t e r
Meat Animal
IMC C h e m i c a l G r o u p I n c .
I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t o c k Food.
I n c.
Clay Center,
Nebraska
Terre Haute,
Indiana
.
Waverly
New York
D e s Moines,
Iowa
Lilll y R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r i e s
D i v i s i o n of E l i L i l l y
Greenfield,
Indiana
Livestock & M e a t Industry
C o u n c i l , I n c . (LMIC)
Manhattan,
Kansas
Manhattan L i v e s t o c k Exchange
Manhattan,
Kansas
M e r c k & Company.
Rahway,
Kemin I n d u s t r i e s ,
Inc.
Inc.
New J e r s e y
Ross I n d u s t r i e s Inc.
Midland,
G. D. S e a r l e Company
E l b u r n , Illinois
T h e i s P a c k i n g Company
Great B e n d , K a n s a s
Thompson- Hayward C h e m i c a l
Co.
Virginia
Kansas C i t y ,
Kansas
Ill1 i n o i s
Union C a r b i d e
Chicago.
T h e UpJohn Company
Kal a m a z o o , M i c h i g a n
U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska
Lincoln,
Nebraska
USS A g r i - C h e m i c a l s
Atlanta,
Georgia
Company a n d b r a n d n a m e s a r e u s e d o n l y f o r e a s i e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
imply no p r e f e r e n c e or endorsement.
They