Forage yields were low in the previous experiment because of a low seeding rate and drought conditions. However, grain content in relationship to forage was good and the amount of grain in the forage dry matter was estimated to be about 40%. Oat forage may vary considerably between years in yield and in chemical composition. Therefore, it was considered advisable to repeat the experiment under similar conditions to obtain more information on the comparative value of an oat crop harvested as hay or haylage

Bush, L. F.

Embry, L. B.

English

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange

South Dakota State UniversityOpen PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information ExchangeSouth Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedingsand Research Reports, 1979 Animal Science Reports1979Oat Hay or Oat Haylage in High Roughage RationsL. B. EmbrySouth Dakota State UniversityL. F. BushFollow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_cattlefeed_1979This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Reports at Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access InstitutionalRepository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Dakota Cattle Feeders Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports,1979 by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For moreinformation, please contact michael.biondo@sdstate.edu.Recommended CitationEmbry, L. B. and Bush, L. F., "Oat Hay or Oat Haylage in High Roughage Rations" (1979). South Dakota Cattle Feeders Field DayProceedings and Research Reports, 1979. Paper 6.http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_cattlefeed_1979/6OAT HAY OR OAT HAYLAGE IN H IG H  ROUG HAGE RATIONS L. B. Em b ry and L. F.  B u s h  Depart m ent of Ani mal  Science Ag Experi m ent Stat i on South Dakota State Univers ity A.S. Ser ies 79-1 In a previous exp er iment (A . S .  Series 7 7 - 1 2 )  cattle fed oat haylage (48 . 4% dry matter) s tored in a concrete stave s ilo gained at a faster rate and more eff icient ly than tho se fed baled oat hay ( 88 . 2 % dry mat ter ) . Harvest ing losses in dry mat ter were higher for hay , but losses in storage were higher for the haylage . Ne t cattle gains were 2 4 %  more f rom haylage than from hay harvested from e s s entially e qual land areas . Forage yields were low in the previous experiment be cause of a low s eeding rate and drought condit ions . However , grain content in relation­ship to forage was good and the amount of grain in the f or age dry mat ter was estimated to be about 40% . Oat forage may vary cons iderably between year s in yield and in chemical composition . Therefore , it was cons idered advisable to  repeat the experi­ment under s imilar condit ions to  obtain more information on the comp arative value of an oat crop harvested a s  hay or haylage . Procedures Forty-eight s teers ( 37 Herefords and 1 1  Heref ord cros ses ) were used in the experiment .  They were allotted into eight p ens of s ix each t o  be s imilar on the basis of  weight and breeding . Oat hay was fed to four p ens of the catt le and oat haylage to the other four p ens . Two fields of oat s were harvested f or the experiment .  Forage yields were s imilar (about 2 t ons dry matter p er acre ) . Grain yield was low in relationship t o  the amount of forage because of rust inf estat ion and hail damage to the crop . The grain var ied considerably in stage of maturity at harvest-- f rom boot to hard dough s tages--because of  the hail damage . It was recognize d  that there would be a low yield of  light weight grain but there would be a good yield of f orag e .  An equal number o f  windrows , uniformly distributed over each field , were chopped f or haylage and for hay . That for haylage was chopped f rom one field on July 8 ,  1 9 7 8 ,  and from the o ther f ield on July 1 2 . The for age harvested as hay was dry chopped from the f ield on July 1 5 , 1 8  and 1 9 . Light showers resulted in the delay in chopping but was not considered to cause any appreciable weather damage . Chopped forage was hand s eparated into f orage and grain . Upon basis of this sep ar at ion , the dry mat ter yield as grain was 1 7% .  Te st  weight of the separ ated grain was 2 6  lb . per bushel . Thes e  values appear to  check closely with estimated yie ld and quality of grain in the standing crop . 2 3  - 2 -The haylage was stored in an 1 8  foot x 50 f oo t  upright concrete stave s ilo . The field chopped hay wa s stored under cover in a hay shed . Dry mat ter content as chopped was 4 0 . 05% for the haylage and 86 . 1 8% for the hay .  Total protein contents for haylage and hay , dry basis , were 1 1 . 7 7 and 1 1 .  9 7 %. The cattle were fed hay or haylage in amounts so f eed would be available at all time s .  Feeding was once daily . The only other feeds of fered were free-choice trace mineral salt and a calcium-phoshorus supplement .  The experiment was terminated f or each group of cattle when their supply of forage was exhausted . Results  Results of  the experiment are in table 1 .  The experiment was s t arted on July 20 and was terminated on Ap ril 14 (268 days)  for the hay group and on June 1 7  ( 33 2  days) for the haylage group . The winter was a s evere one for f eeding cat t le outs ide without shelter . Obviously , the rations were low in energy for weight gains typical of backgrounding operat ions under weather condit ions exp erienced . However , results rep re s ent comp arisons of the two forages under tho s e  condit ions . Feedlot Performance A maj or difference between the two f orages was in feed consumption . Steers fed the haylage consumed an average of approximately 5 lb . les s  dry matter daily than those fed the hay . In the p revious experiment from mid­July to late November with s imilar initial weight of cattle , there was about equal dry matter consumption between oat hay and oat haylage ( 5 3% dry mat ter as fed) . The haylage contained less dry matter in the current experimen t .  Greatest differences in dry mat te r  consump tion between hay and haylage occurred during the colder months when feed intake did not increase as much for haylage as for hay . Weight gain s  were low and feed requirements were high for this long experiment .  Average daily gain in mid-October ( 86 days ) under favorable weather condit ions was 1 . 75 lb . for the haylage group and 1 . 64 lb . for the hay_ group . Daily dry mat ter consumption during this t ime averaged about 1 5 . 7  and 16 . 5  lb . ,  respectively , for haylage and hay . Thi s  rate of gain was somewhat lower than in the previous experimen t . The for age in the current experiment was cons iderably lower in amount of grain dry mat ter ( 1 7 %) than in the previous one ( 40%) . A lower p rotein content ( slight ly less than 12%  in comparison to about 1 6 . 5 %  in the p revious experimen t )  may have also been a factor in the lower p erformance . Negative we ight gains were encountered on weigh day s  in mid-November and mid-December . The November weigh day was a f ew days after the early November blizzard . Weight gains remained at rather low levels through mid­March .  However ,  the average daily gain for the haylage group was slightly greater than for the hay group throughout the experiment even with the lower dry mat ter intake . The higher rate of  gain with the lower intake of  f ee d  dry matter re sulted in a substantial improvement in f eed efficiency f or haylage over hay ( 34 . 8% ,  dry basis ) . 2 4  - 3 -Haylage and Hay Comparisons Procedures used in harvesting f or haylage and hay were cons idered t o  have resulted i n  uniform areas in s iz e  and f orage yiel d .  Dry matter yield of haylage exceeded that for hay by 5 . 8% .  This dif ference between haylage and the field chopped hay was s imilar as obtained between haylage and baled hay the previous year . Dry mat ter content of samples taken at feeding throughout the experiment averaged 8 6 . 87% for hay and 4 3 . 6 2 %  for haylage . There was essentially no change f rom dry matter at harves t  for hay but an increase of 3 . 5 7 p ercentage units for haylage . Los s  in dry mat ter between storing and f eeding amounted t o  only 0 . 65%  for hay but 1 0 . 1 6% for  haylage . Dry mat ter los ses of this order are not uncommon during s everal months of storage for s ilage crops in upright concrete stave silo s .  Harvest ing losses were less for the haylage , result ing in a net dif ference of 4 . 3% les s  dry matter fed f rom haylage . Cattle gain s  per t on of dry mat ter stored were 83 lb . f or haylage and 5 4  lb . for hay . These are rather low gains and considerably les s than in the previous experiment ( 1 6 3  lb . for haylage and 1 4 1  lb . for hay) . Total cat t le gains from s imilar areas harves ted were 5 9 00 lb . for haylage and 3 9 7 4  lb . for hay . On the basis of t otal gain s ,  the haylage had a value of 1 4 8% that o f  hay . Summary Result s of our experiments show that under good harvesting weather slight ly more dry matter is recovered from oat forage harves ted as haylage than hay .  The dif ference was in the order of 6 to 7% whe ther the hay was baled or f ield chopped at about 86%.dry mat ter . Hay stored1 under cove r ,  baled or chopped , had only small losses in storage . Haylage dry matter losses  during s t orage in a concrete s tave s il o  were 1 0  t o  1 2 % .  Yearling steers ( about 675 lb . )  gained faster and more ef ficiently when fed oat haylage than when fed oat hay . Dif ferences encountered amounted to 24% in one experiment and 48% in another on the basis of forage dry matter harves ted from s imilar areas . Results of the re search show an advantage f or oat haylage over oat hay . Result s indicate cons iderable variation may b e  encountere d .  Likely factor s  involved are grain content of the f orage , quality of the grain , protein content of f or age and conditions of feeding as  t o  weather and cattle . The advantage for haylage may be increased as these factors b ecome les s  f avorable for op timum p roduct ion . However , more research i s  needed in or der to adequately evaluate effects of these factor s .  25  - 4 -Table 1 .  Oat Hay and Oat Haylage for Growing Cat tle (July 1 9 ,  1 9 7 7 ,  to Ap ril 14 or June 1 7 ,  1 9 7 8 )  Item No . animals Days fed Avg init . shrunk wt . ,  lb . Avg final shrunk wt . ,  lb . Avg daily gain , lb . Avg daily feed , lb . As fed Dry basis Feed/ 100 lb . gain , lb . As fed Dry basis Composition of forage , % dry basis At harvest As fed Total protein Dry matter stored Pounds Percent of haya Dry ma tter fed Pounds Storage loss , % Percent of hay Cattle gain from forage Per ton feed , lb . (DM) Percent of hay Per ton stor e d ,  lb . Percent of  hay Total cattle gain , lb . Percent of hay a Hay used as base and as sumed to be 100 . 2 6  Oat hay 2 4  268  6 7 7  842 . 62 2 6 . 3 22 . 9  4263  3703 8 6 . 1 8  8 6 . 87 1 1 .  97 148 , 066 1 4 7 , 1 1 0  . 65 54  5 4  3 9 7 4  Oat haylage 2 3  3 32 6 7 6  9 2 4  • 75 40 . 9  1 7 . 8  5 5 35 24 1 4  40 . 05 43 . 62 1 1 .  7 7  1 5 6 , 706 1 05 . 8  140 , 7 7 7  1 0 . 1 6  95 . 7  83 1 54 75 139  5 9 00 148  

Oat Hay or Oat Haylage in High Roughage Rations

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=sd_cattlefeed_1979

Oat Hay or Oat Haylage in High Roughage Rations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange