HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jas.2008-0977v1 87/3/1034    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Drewnoski, M. E. Articles by Hockett, M. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Drewnoski, M. E. Articles by Hockett, M. E.

Performance of growing cattle grazing stockpiled Jesup tall fescue with varying endophyte status¹

M. E. Drewnoski^*,2, E. J. Oliphant^*, B. T. Marshall^*, M. H. Poore^*, J. T. Green and M. E. Hockett^*

^* Department of Animal Science, and Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695

² Corresponding author: medrewno{at}ncsu.edu

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of growing cattle when intensively grazing stockpiled endophyte-infected (E+), endophyte-free (E–), and nontoxic endophyte-infected (EN) tall fescue during the winter. The experiment was conducted over 5 consecutive winters. In each year, plots (1 ha each, 4 per treatment) were harvested for hay in August, fertilized in September, and forage was allowed to accumulate until grazing was initiated in early December. Each year, 48 Angus-cross tester cattle (4 per plot) were given a daily allotment of forage, under strip-grazing (frontal grazing) management, with a target residual height of 5 cm. Steers were used the first year, and heifers were used in subsequent years. The grazing periods for determination of pasture ADG were 86 d (yr 1), 70 d (yr 2), 86 d (yr 3), 72 d (yr 4), and 56 d (yr 5). Pasture ADG of cattle did not differ among treatments (P = 0.13) and were 0.51, 0.59, and 0.56 kg/d (SEM 0.03) for E+, E–, and EN, respectively. Serum prolactin concentrations of heifers grazing E+ were less (P < 0.05) than those grazing E– and EN during all years except yr 2. In yr 2, E+ and E– did not differ (P = 0.11). Serum prolactin of heifers grazing E– and EN did not differ (P > 0.20) except in yr 4. During yr 4, serum prolactin of heifers grazing E– was greater (P = 0.05) than that of heifers grazing EN. Serum urea-N concentrations (SUN) tended to differ among treatments (P = 0.10) and there was a treatment x year interaction (P = 0.05). During yr 1 through 3, SUN did not differ (P > 0.15) among treatments. However, as the stands aged, E– had a greater invasion of other plant species, which increased the CP content of the sward, thus causing heifers grazing E– during yr 5 to have greater (P < 0.01) SUN than heifers grazing E+ and EN, which did not differ (P = 0.89). Forage disappearance (DM basis) did not differ (P = 0.75) among treatments and was 4.7, 4.7, and 5.0 kg/animal daily (SEM 0.27) for E+, E–, and EN, respectively. Body weight gain per hectare was greater (P = 0.04) for E+ (257 kg) than for E– (220 kg) or EN (228 kg). In most years, animal grazing days on E+ were greater than those on E– or EN. However, in yr 5, animal grazing days did not differ (P > 0.20) among treatments. The use of stockpiled E+ as a source of low-cost winter feed is a viable option for producers, whereas grazing of EN may be more beneficial during the spring and fall, when more severe negative effects of ergot alkaloids have been observed.

Key Words: endophyte status • growing cattle • stockpiling • tall fescue

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. A. Beck, C. B. Stewart, S. A. Gunter, and D. Singh Evaluation of Tall Fescues for Stocker Cattle in the Gulf Coastal Plain Professional Animal Scientist, October 1, 2009; 25(5): 569 - 579. [Abstract] [PDF]