|
BEEF SUMMARIES
HILL FARM RESEARCH
STATION
FIELD DAY
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
COMMODITY:
BEEF
TITLE: Comparison
of Broiler Litter vs. Commercial Fertilizer for Stocker Grazing
CONTACT: Sid DeRouen, Hill Farm Research Station, (318)927-2578 or Eddie White,
Jackson Parish, LCES, (318)259-5690.
TAKE HOME MESSAGE:
Similar weight gains for
stockers grazing bermudagrass were observed over two years among pastures
fertilized with either broiler litter or commercial fertilizer. Fertilizer
costs were reduced by 37% to 41% with the use of broiler litter compared
to costs of commercial fertilizer. In 1999 a net loss resulted, whereas
in 2000, a net return resulted except for one commercial fertilizer source.
PROBLEM / TOPIC:
A high percentage of calves
produced in Louisiana is sold at weaning and stockered in other sections
of the country. The potential exists for livestock producers to carry calves
through the stocker phase in a profitable manner in Louisiana. Major limitations
that have hindered stocker grazing are relatively low rates of gain on
warm-season forages and relatively high fertilizer costs. Investigation
of alternative fertilizer sources will provide valuable information to
address these limitations.
ACTION:
A two year study was conducted
in 1999 and 2000 to determine the effects of broiler litter and commercial
fertilizer applied to bermudagrass pastures on growing stocker calves.
Fertilizer source treatments were: 1) 2 tons broiler litter applied in
early April and late June (BL-2+2); 2) 4 tons broiler litter applied
in early April and 50 lb/acre nitrogen (N) applied in early July (BL-4);
3) 250 lb/acre of 17-17-17 (N-P-K) applied in mid-April, mid-May, and mid-June,
and 50 lb/acre N applied in early July (CF-30); 4) 250 lb/acre of
17-17-17 (N-P-K) applied in mid-April, late-May, and early July (CF-45).
A total of 156 spring-weaned, Angus-sired crossbred calves were used. At
the beginning of each trial, calves were given a growth implant, except
for replacement heifers. Eight pastures (two pastures/treatment) were used.
Trial lengths were 121- and 112-days in 1999 and 2000, respectively. A
stocking rate of 3.5 and 3.0 head/acre were maintained in 1999 and 2000,
respectively.
IMPACT:
Rainfall during the two-year
study was higher than the average, but the amount in 2000 execeded that
in 1999 by more than 7 inches (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
MONTHLY RAINFALL
AT HILL FARM RESEARCH STATION DURING THE 1999 AND 2000 GRAZING SEASONS
AND THE AVERAGE DURING 51-YEAR PERIOD (1950-2000). |
| Month |
1999 |
2000 |
51-year
average |
|
| March |
5.10 |
6.48 |
4.67 |
| April |
6.65 |
9.91 |
5.16 |
| May |
5.64 |
10.94 |
5.22 |
| June |
8.47 |
6.54 |
4.29 |
| July |
2.27 |
1.79 |
4.21 |
| August |
0.65 |
0.17 |
2.98 |
|
|
|
|
| Total |
28.78 |
35.83 |
26.53 |
Results from this two-year
study revealed similar (P > .05) weight gains of stockers among
the fertilizer source treatments (Tables 2 and 3).
TABLE 2.
WEIGHT GAIN
PERFORMANCE BY FERTILIZER SOURCE - YEAR 1999.
|
| Fertilizer sourcea |
No. of stockers |
Initial weightb, lb. |
121-day average daily gainc,
lb. |
Total gain, lb. |
Ending weightb, lb. |
| BL-2+2 |
21 |
524 |
1.09 |
132 |
657 |
| BL-4 |
21 |
524 |
1.13 |
137 |
661 |
| CF-30 |
21 |
525 |
1.22 |
148 |
673 |
| CF-45 |
21 |
525 |
1.18 |
143 |
668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| P level |
-- |
.98 |
.95 |
.95 |
.94 |
| aFertilizer sources: BL-2+2 -
2 tons/acre of broiler litter applied on April 8 and June 23; BL-4 - 4
tons/acre of broiler litter applied on April 8 and 150 lb/acre of ammonium
nitrate applied on July 12; CF-30 - 250 lb/acre of 17-17-17 (N-P-K) applied
on April 13, May 13, and June 11, and 150 lb/acre of ammonium nitrate applied
on July 12; CF-45 - 250 lb/acre of 17-17-17 (N-P-K) applied on April 13,
May 28, and July 12. |
| b18-hour shrunk weight; average
7% shrink. |
| cStarting trial date - April 13,
1999; ending trial date - August 12, 1999. |
|
TABLE 3.
WEIGHT GAIN PERFORMANCE
BY FERTILIZER SOURCE - YEAR 2000.
|
| Fertilizer sourcea |
No. of stockers |
Initial weightb, lb. |
112-day average daily gainc,
lb. |
Total gain, lb. |
Ending weightb,
lb. |
| BL-2+2 |
18 |
532 |
1.43 |
161 |
692 |
| BL-4 |
18 |
530 |
1.47 |
164 |
693 |
| CF-30 |
18 |
530 |
1.46 |
164 |
693 |
| CF-45 |
18 |
533 |
1.28 |
143 |
676 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| P level |
-- |
.85 |
.88 |
.87 |
.94 |
| aFertilizer sources: BL-2+2 -
2 tons/acre of broiler litter applied on April 10 and June 28; BL-4 - 4
tons/acre of broiler litter applied on April 10 and 150 lb/acre of ammonium
nitrate applied on July 6; CF-30 - 250 lb/acre of 17-17-17 (N-P-K) applied
on April 17, May 17, and June 14, and 150 lb/acre of ammonium nitrate applied
on July 11; CF-45 - 250 lb/acre of 17-17-17 (N-P-K) applied on April 17,
May 31, and July 11. |
| b18-hour shrunk weight; average
7% shrink. |
| cStarting trial date - April 18,
2000; ending trial date - August 8, 2000. |
Overall, daily gains for 1999 and 2000 were 1.16 and 1.41
lb, respectively. Comparisons of growth implants for daily gain indicated
a slight advantage, though not significant, for heifers and steers implanted
with Revalor® than with Synovex® (Table 4).
TABLE 4.
WEIGHT GAIN
PERFORMANCE BY IMPLANT TYPE - YEARS 1999 AND 2000 |
| Sex & Implant type |
No.
of stockers |
Initial
weight, lb. |
Average
daily gaina, lb. |
Total
gain, lb. |
Ending
weight, lb. |
| Heifer-no implant |
16 |
513 |
1.18 |
141 |
654 |
| Heifer-Revalor® |
28 |
517 |
1.29 |
153 |
670 |
| Heifer-Synovex-H® |
28 |
514 |
1.17 |
140 |
655 |
| Steer-Revalor® |
46 |
539 |
1.38 |
160 |
699 |
| Steer-Synovex-S® |
46 |
538 |
1.33 |
154 |
692 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| P level-heifers |
-- |
.98 |
.19 |
.21 |
.58 |
| P level-steers |
-- |
.97 |
.29 |
.29 |
.65 |
| a 121-day
trial in 1999; 112-day trial in 2000. |
Fertilizer costs were reduced
$11.09/stocker in 1999 (Table 5) and $11.70/stocker in 2000 (Table 6) with
the use of broiler litter compared to commercial fertilizer.
TABLE 5.
ECONOMIC COMPARISONS BY FERTILIZER SOURCE
- YEAR 1999. |
| |
Fertilizer
Sourcea |
| |
BL-2+2 |
BL-4 |
CF-30 |
CF-45 |
| Item |
-----Costs
and returns per stocker----- |
| A. Purchase priceb(@
$.8600/lb.), $ |
466.36 |
466.36 |
467.25 |
467.25 |
| B. Interest on purchase
(@ 10% for 5 months), $ |
19.43 |
19.43 |
19.47 |
19.47 |
| C. Hay costs, $ |
6.50 |
6.50 |
6.50 |
6.50 |
| D. Fixed costs (corral,
fencing, clipping, etc.), $ |
6.50 |
6.50 |
6.50 |
6.50 |
| E. Labor, vet., minerals,
health, etc., $ |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
| F. Fertilizer costsc
(@ 3.5 head/acre), $ |
13.69 |
17.97 |
29.06 |
24.78 |
| Total costs (items A-F),
$ |
524.48 |
528.76 |
540.78 |
536.50 |
| Net sales valueb,
(@ $.7560/lb.), $ |
504.73 |
507.81 |
517.06 |
513.20 |
| Net returns, $ |
-19.75 |
-20.95 |
-23.72 |
-23.30 |
| aSee
Table 2 for description of fertilizer sources. |
| bValues
based on 3% shrunk weight less commission and beef check off where appropriate. |
| cFertilizer
costs based on the following actual costs: broiler litter - $11.98/ton;
ammonium nitrate - $199.75/ton; 17-17-17 (N-P-K) - $231.24/ton. |
TABLE 6.
ECONOMIC COMPARISONS BY FERTILIZER SOURCE
- YEAR 2000. |
| |
Fertilizer
Sourcea |
| |
BL-2+2 |
BL-4 |
CF-30 |
CF-45 |
| Item |
-----Costs
and returns per stocker----- |
| A. Purchase price (@ $.9600/lb.),
$ |
526.70 |
524.70 |
525.70 |
527.70 |
| B. Interest on purchase
(@ 10% for 5 months), $ |
21.95 |
21.86 |
21.90 |
21.99 |
| C. Hay costs, $ |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| D. Fixed costs (corral,
fencing, clipping, etc.), $ |
8.70 |
8.70 |
8.70 |
8.70 |
| E. Labor, vet., minerals,
health, etc., $ |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
| F. Fertilizer costsc
(@ 3.0 head/acre), $ |
17.33 |
22.39 |
34.09 |
29.03 |
| Total costs (items A-F),
$ |
586.68 |
589.65 |
602.39 |
599.42 |
| Net sales value, (@ $.8650/lb.),
$ |
608.57 |
609.45 |
609.45 |
594.47 |
| Net returns, $ |
21.89 |
19.80 |
7.06 |
-4.95 |
| aSee Table 3 for description of
fertilizer sources. |
| bValues based on 3% shrunk weight
less commission and beef check off where appropriate. |
| cFertilizer costs based on the
following actual costs: broiler litter - $13.00/ton; ammonium nitrate -
$202.25/ton; 17-17-17 (N-P-K) - $232.25/ton. |
Due to relatively low rates
of gain and hay costs in 1999, a net loss resulted (Table 5) by retaining
calves and stockering over the summer, whereas in 2000, a net return resulted
except for the CF-45 fertilizer source (Table 6). Due to lower fertilizer
costs, returns in 2000 were greater for the broiler litter fertilizer sources.
COMMODITY:
BEEF AND FORESTRY
TITLE: Cow-Calf
Production in Silvopasture vs. Open Pasture
CONTACT: Sid DeRouen, Hill Farm Research Station, (318)927-2578 or Terry
Clason,
Hill Farm Research Station, (318)927-2578.
TAKE HOME MESSAGE:
Similar cow-calf productivity
was observed over two years among silvopastures in a 32 year old pine plantation
versus open pastures. Cow reproductive performance and preweaning calf
growth were similar among two levels of nitrogen fertilization applied
to either silvopastures or open pastures. This study will continue for
three more years to further determine the impact of silvopastoral practices
on forage crop persistence and yield, cow-calf production, and pine timber
production.
PROBLEM / TOPIC:
The coexistence of trees,
forages, and beef cattle form a system of mutually beneficial interactions.
These interactions are managed to simultaneously produce forage, beef cattle,
and timber. A small private landowner with forest-forage resources can
apply silvopastoral practices to create a diversified production-marketing
system of both timber and beef cattle. One objective of this study is to
evaluate the impact of silvopastoral practices on forage crop persistence
and yield and beef cattle production with and without a pine plantation.
ACTION:
A study was initiated in
1998 to evaluate and compare cow-calf production in silvopastures with
a pine plantation (25 trees/acre) and in open pastures. Land areas were
composed of: two 12-acre silvopastures with 32-year old pine timber (SP);
and two12-acre open pastures (OP). Bahiagrass, common and Coastal
bermudagrasses, and sod-seeded ryegrass forages were established in both
land areas and rotationally grazed. Within land areas, low rate of nitrogen
(N) fertilization (LN; 100 lb/acre split over 2 applications)
and high rate of nitrogen fertilization (HN; 200 lb/acre split over
4 applications) were compared. Ten F1 Brahman x Hereford cows
with spring-born, Angus-sired calves were assigned to each land type x
N fertilization regime (.83 cow-calf units/acre) shortly after calving
in late February and remained until weaning in early October. In 1998 due
to drought conditions, a herd from each land area was moved to an adjacent
silvopasture or open pasture. Hay was also provided from mid-May to mid-August.
IMPACT:
Two production years (1998
and 1999) have been evaluated for this study. Cow body weight and body
condition score changes were generally similar (P >.05) among SP
and OP land areas as well as between LN and HN fertilization treatments
(Tables 1 and 2).
TABLE 1.
COW WEIGHT
AND WEIGHT CHANGES YEARS 1998 AND 1999.
|
| Treatmenta |
Winter wt.
change, lb.b |
Spring wt.
change, lb.c |
Summer wt.
change, lb.d |
Total wt.
change, lb.e |
Fall wt.,
lb.f |
| SP-LN |
-1 |
39 |
-78 |
-40 |
1211 |
| SP-HN |
-23 |
42 |
-43 |
-24 |
1211 |
| OP-LN |
-47 |
68 |
-43 |
-23 |
1215 |
| OP-HN |
-13 |
63 |
-45 |
5 |
1270 |
| Contrast |
|
|
|
|
|
| SP vs. OP |
18 |
-25** |
-17 |
-23 |
-32 |
| LN vs. HN |
-6 |
1 |
-17 |
-22 |
-27 |
aSP
= silvo pasture; OP = open pasture; LN = low rate of nitrogen;
HN = high rate of nitrogen. |
| bWeight
change from January to May. |
| cWeight
change from May to July. |
| dWeight
change from July to October. |
| eWeight
change from January to October. |
| fWeight
measured in October. |
| *P
< .01. |
TABLE 2.
COW BODY CONDITION SCORE (BCS) AND BCS
CHANGES YEARS 1998 AND 1999.
|
| Treatmenta |
Winter BCS
changeb |
Spring BCS
changec |
Summer BCS
changed |
Total BCS
changee |
Fall
BCSf |
| SP-LN |
.52 |
.00 |
-.28 |
.25 |
5.52 |
| SP-HN |
.19 |
.12 |
.01 |
.32 |
5.74 |
| OP-LN |
.38 |
.25 |
-.31 |
.31 |
5.53 |
| OP-HN |
.21 |
.35 |
-.27 |
.29 |
5.60 |
| Contrast |
|
|
|
|
|
| SP vs. OP |
.06 |
-.24 |
.16 |
-.02 |
.06 |
| LN vs. HN |
.25 |
-.11 |
-.16 |
-.02 |
-.15 |
aSP
= silvo pasture; OP = open pasture; LN = low rate of nitrogen;
HN = high rate of nitrogen. |
| bBCS
change from January to May. |
| cBCS
change from May to July. |
| dBCS
change from July to October. |
| eBCS
change from January to October. |
| fBCS
measured in October. |
| *P
< .01. |
Likewise, pregnancy rates
(88% to 98%) and calving dates were similar (P>.05) among the land
area and N fertilization treatments (Table 3).
TABLE 3.
COW PREGNANCY
RATE AND SUBSEQUENT CALVING DATE - YEARS 1998-1999 AND 1999-2000.
|
| Treatmenta |
Pregnancy rate,
% |
Mean calving
date |
| SP-LN |
98 |
February 18 |
| SP-HN |
95 |
February 26 |
| OP-LN |
94 |
February 25 |
| OP-HN |
88 |
February 18 |
| Contrast |
|
|
| SP vs. OP |
5.6 |
0 day |
| LN vs. HN |
4.4 |
-1 day |
aSP
= silvopasture; OP = open pasture; LN = low rate of nitrogen;
HN = high rate of nitrogen. |
Calf preweaning gains were
similar (P>.05) and ranged from 2.16 to 2.23 lb among land area
x N fertilization regimes (Table 4).
|
TABLE
4.
CALF PREWEANING DAILY WEIGHT GAINS YEARS 1998 AND 1999.
|
| Treatmenta |
Winter gain,
lb.b |
Spring gain,
lb.c |
Summer gain,
lb.d |
Total gain,
lb.e |
| SP-LN |
2.48 |
2.28 |
2.01 |
2.19 |
| SP-HN |
2.38 |
2.32 |
2.14 |
2.23 |
| OP-LN |
2.51 |
2.16 |
1.98 |
2.16 |
| OP-HN |
2.43 |
2.36 |
1.97 |
2.20 |
| Contrast |
|
|
|
|
| SP vs. OP |
-.04 |
.04 |
.10 |
.02 |
| LN vs. HN |
.09 |
-.12 |
-.06 |
-.04 |
| aSP
= silvo pasture; OP = open pasture; LN = low rate of nitrogen; HN = high
rate of nitrogen. |
| bGain
from birth to May. |
| cGain
from May to July. |
| dGain
from July to weaning (October). |
| eGain
from birth to weaning. |
Calf actual weaning weight
and adjusted 205-day weight were also similar (P >.05) among the
land area and N fertilization treatments (Table 5).
|
TABLE 5.
CALF
ACTUAL WEANING AND 205-DAY WEIGHTS YEARS 1998 AND 1999.
|
| Treatmenta |
Actual weaning wt., lb.b |
205-day wt., lb. |
| SP-LN |
564 |
532 |
| SP-HN |
576 |
536 |
| OP-LN |
552 |
529 |
| OP-HN |
561 |
534 |
| Contrastc |
|
|
| SP vs. OP |
14 |
3 |
| LN vs. HN |
-10 |
-5 |
aSP = silvo pasture; OP = open
pasture; LN = low rate of nitrogen;
HN = high rate of nitrogen. |
| bWeaned
in early October. |
| cMean
contrasts not significant (P > .05). |
Revised: September
22, 2000 |
