Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2000 Jul;78(7):1973-82.
doi: 10.2527/2000.7871973x.

Forage systems for production of stocker steers in the upper south

Affiliations

Forage systems for production of stocker steers in the upper south

V G Allen et al. J Anim Sci. 2000 Jul.

Abstract

The southern states produce large numbers of beef calves that are generally weaned and sold in autumn. Keeping calves in this region beyond weaning to graze high-quality forages through a stocker cattle phase could improve profitability. Autumn-weaned Angus crossbred steers were allocated by breeding and weight to four forage systems that began in mid-November and continued through mid-October as follows: System 1, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.)-white clover (Trifolium repens L.); System 2, tall fescue, caucasian bluestem (Bothriochloa caucasica [Trin.] C. E. Hubbard) and tall fescue-red clover (Trifolium pratense L.); System 3, orchardgrass-alfalfa and bluegrass-white clover; and System 4, rye (Secale cereale L.), soybeans (Glycine max)-foxtail millet (Setaria italica), and bluegrass-white clover. All steers were supplemented with hay or silage previously cut from their respective systems when forage for grazing was limited. System 2 which used stockpiled tall fescue for winter grazing and caucasian bluestem for summer forage plus fescuered clover for hay and grazing in a three-paddock system, resulted in greater (P < .01) gain per hectare and per steer, more grazing days, and reduced stored forage requirements and produced more surplus feed than the other systems tested. Gains per hectare for Systems 1 through 4 were 454, 554, 472, and 487 kg (SE = 18), respectively. Harvested forage from Systems 1, 2, and 3 met needs for stored forages but System 4 required additional "purchased" hay. Stored forage was fed for 61, 38, 112, or 104 d for Systems 1 through 4, respectively. Within the physio-climatic region of this experiment, a simple three-paddock system based on cool- and warm-season perennial forages could improve beef production per unit of land area while reducing inputs of labor and equipment.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources