Forage Availability and Quality of No-till Forage Crops for Grazing Cattle

No-till forage crops were planted to determine forage quantity and quality for grazing cattle. Seven combinations were evaluated using different mixtures containing forage peas, oats, winter triticale, turnips, radishes, clover, vetch, and sunflower. The cover crops were planted April 9 and sampled three times (day 54, 70, and 86 after planting) to determine forage mass and nutrient content. Mixtures containing forage peas and oats yielded the greatest quantity of DM/acre. The NDF and CP content of the mixtures are comparable to native range during the growing season. When used in place of fallow in crop rotations, grazing cover crops may provide an alternativeto native range

Forage Availability and Quality of No-till Forage Crops for Grazing Cattle

No-till forage crops were planted to determine forage quantity and quality for grazing cattle. Seven combinations were evaluated using different mixtures containing forage peas, oats, winter triticale, turnips, radishes, clover, vetch, and sunflower. The cover crops were planted April 9 and sampled three times (day 54, 70, and 86 after planting) to determine forage mass and nutrient content. Mixtures containing forage peas and oats yielded the greatest quantity of DM/acre. The NDF and CP content of the mixtures are comparable to native range during the growing season. When used in place of fallow in crop rotations, grazing cover crops may provide an alternativeto native range

Dryland Cover Crops as a Grazing Option for Beef Cattle

A two-year grazing study was conducted to evaluate forage quality and utilization of cover crops (CC) in dryland cropping systems compared to crested wheatgrass pastures (CWP). The CC mixture consisted of oats, peas and turnips planted in March with a no-till drill. Both CC and CWP were grazed during the month of June. Total tract dry matter digestibility and CP were greater for CC compared to CWP while NDF and ADF of CC were less. The CC was observed to have greater forage quality over both years and may produce similar amounts of forage as crested wheatgrass pastures allowing deferred grazing on native pasture

Effects of feeding field peas in combination with distillers grains plus solubles in finishing and growing diets on cattle performance and carcass characteristics

Two studies were conducted to evaluate field peas and wet or dry corn distillers grains with solubles (WDGS and DDGS, respectively) in finishing and growing diets. In Exp. 1, British crossbred steers (n = 352, initial BW 356 ± 27 kg) were used in a randomized block design with factors being 0 or 20% field peas and 0 or 30% WDGS in dry-rolled corn (DRC) based finishing diets (DM basis). There was an interaction (P \u3c 0.01) for DMI and G:F. Feeding WDGS increased ADG (P \u3c 0.01), whereas peas had no effect on ADG (P = 0.33). Including WDGS increased G:F in diets without peas (P \u3c 0.01), but had no impact (P = 0.12) in diets containing peas. Peas increased G:F (P = 0.04) in diets without WDGS, but decreased G:F (P = 0.03) with WDGS. Feeding WDGS increased HCW (P \u3c 0.01). In Exp. 2, Continental crossbred heifers (yr. 1; n = 108, initial BW 338 ± 14 kg) and British crossbred steers (yr. 2; n = 90, initial BW 321 ± 10 kg) were assigned randomly to 1 of 9 pastures. Treatments were supplementation with loose DDGS meal on the ground (GROUND), in a bunk (BUNK) or a 25% field peas, 75% DDGS cube on the ground (CUBE) at equal CP. Final BW and ADG were less (P \u3c 0.01) for GROUND than for CUBE and BUNK, which were similar. These data indicate up to 50% DRC could be replaced by peas and WDGS, and peas are an acceptable binder for DDGS range cubes

An Empty Toolbox? Changes in Health Plans’ Approaches for Managing Costs and Care

OBJECTIVE: To examine how health plans have changed their approaches for managing costs and utilization in the wake of the recent backlash against managed care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Semistructured interviews with health plan executives, employers, providers, and other health care decision makers in 12 metropolitan areas that were randomly selected to be nationally representative of communities with more than 200,000 residents. Longitudinal data were collected as part of the Community Tracking Study during three rounds of site visits in 1996–1997, 1998–1999, and 2000–2001. STUDY DESIGN: Interviews probed about changes in the design and operation of health insurance products—including provider contracting and network development, benefit packages, and utilization management processes—and about the rationale and perceived impact of these changes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data from more than 850 interviews were coded, extracted, and analyzed using computerized text analysis software. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health plans have begun to scale back or abandon their use of selected managed care tools in most communities, with selective contracting and risk contracting practices fading most rapidly and completely. In turn, plans increasingly have sought cost savings by shifting costs to consumers. Some plans have begun to experiment with new provider networks, payment systems, and referral practices designed to lower costs and improve service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: These changes promise to lighten administrative and financial burdens for physicians and hospitals, but they also threaten to increase consumers’ financial burdens