J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Schutz, D. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, H. H.
Right arrow Articles by Schutz, D. N.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 77, Issue 3 750-755, Copyright © 1999 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Performance of beef cows receiving cull beans, sunflower meal, and canola meal as protein supplements while grazing native winter range in Eastern Colorado

H. H. Patterson, J. C. Whittier, L. R. Rittenhouse and D. N. Schutz
Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523, USA.

A 2-yr grazing performance study was conducted in Eastern Colorado to evaluate the effects of feeding raw cull beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) or canola meal, compared to sunflower meal, to beef cows grazing dormant, native winter range on body weight and body condition score (BCS) change, reproductive performance, and calf performance. Ninety-five pregnant, spring-calving crossbred cows (541 +/- 51 kg) in 1995 to 1996 and 65 cows (602 +/- 60 kg) in 1996 to 1997 were randomly assigned to one of five treatments (19 and 13 cows per treatment in 1995 to 1996 and 1996 to 1997, respectively): 1) unprocessed Great Northern beans to supply 182 g/d of CP (GNB); 2) canola meal to supply 182 g/d of CP (CM); 3) a mixture of Great Northern beans and sunflower meal, each to supply 91 g/d of CP, for a total of 182 g/d of CP (MIX); 4) sunflower meal to supply 182 g/d of CP (SFM+); and 5) sunflower meal to supply 91 g/d of CP (SFM-). Cow weight and body condition performance were broken into a gestation and a lactation phase in 1995 to 1996; calves were weighed at birth, at the end of the lactation phase in April, and at weaning the following September. Only gestation performance was monitored in 1996 to 1997, and subsequent calf birth and weaning weight were recorded. The SFM- group lost more weight during the gestation phase than other treatments (P < .05), yet no differences were detected for gestation phase daily BCS change, calf birth weight, lactation phase daily weight change, lactation phase daily BCS change, first-service conception rate to AI, or overall pregnancy rate. Off-test calf weight was higher in April for calves from dams of the SFM+ and CM treatments than for calves from dams on the GNB or SFM- treatments (P < .05), and calves from cows on the CM treatment were heavier in April than calves from cows on the MIX treatment (P < .05). No differences in calf weight were present at weaning. Consumption of beans by cows on the GNB treatment was low because of palatability problems. Mixing the beans with sunflower meal in the MIX treatment eliminated this problem. Canola meal, Great Northern beans, or a combination of sunflower meal and Great Northern beans were comparable to sunflower meal as protein supplements for beef cows grazing native winter range, despite obvious palatability problems with the beans.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Society of Animal Science.