013 Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development Program II: Heifer Performance

Abstract The Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development program was established to demonstrate to northeast Alabama commercial cattle producers recommended methods for replacement heifer development. In Autumn 2015, 16.2 ha of novel endophyte tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) ,rye (Secale cereale L.) an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2016-12, Vol.95 (suppl_1), p.07-07
Hauptverfasser: Kriese-Anderson, L. A., Marks, M. L., Stanford, M. K., Mullenix, M. K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 07
container_issue suppl_1
container_start_page 07
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 95
creator Kriese-Anderson, L. A.
Marks, M. L.
Stanford, M. K.
Mullenix, M. K.
description Abstract The Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development program was established to demonstrate to northeast Alabama commercial cattle producers recommended methods for replacement heifer development. In Autumn 2015, 16.2 ha of novel endophyte tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) ,rye (Secale cereale L.) and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) were established or stockpiled. Heifers (n = 48) were delivered in early January. Heifers were weighed (initial weight = 280.3 ± 37.2 kg) and measured for height (118.1 ± 5.3 cm) at delivery and divided into 3 groups. Weights and heights were taken every 28 d from January through April and when heifers were checked for pregnancy in June. Heifers gained 0.85 kg/d from January to June. Weight per day of age was 0.83 kg/d with and average frame score of 5.6. A repeated mixed model analysis was used for ADG, gain, WDA, and frame score with independent variables of group, time (28, 58, 90 and 154 d on grazing), sire breed and interaction of group and time. Heifer was considered random. There was a significant group by time interaction for ADG, gain and WDA. Cumulative average daily gains of heifers in group 3 significantly (P < 0.05) outgained heifers in groups 1 and 2 throughout the development program. Average daily gains for heifers in groups 1 and 2 did improve after d 28, but were never able to recover from an initial poor start. Even with the poor ADG performance of groups 1 and 2 during the first 28 days, WDA of heifers in groups 1 and 2 were very close to their final ADG. This indicates they were on a fairly steady or even growth pattern from birth. Heifers in group 3 had a significantly lower (P < 0.05) WDA than the other 2 heifer groups until they had been in the development program for 90 days. Perhaps some of the continued differences in growth were due to compensatory gain. However, no significant differences existed between groups for final weight. Table 013. Cumulative ADG(kg/d) and WDA (kg/d) of Sand Mountain Elite Heifers Day 28 Day 58 Day 90 Day 154 Group ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA 1 0.28a 0.79a 0.77a 0.82a 0.87a 0.83a 0.83a 0.83 2 0.34a 0.79a 0.80a 0.82a 0.86a 0.82ab 0.79a 0.80 3 0.99b 0.73b 1.03b 0.74b 1.10b 0.77b 0.98b 0.77 Values within a column with different subscripts are significantly different from one another P
doi_str_mv 10.2527/ssasas2017.013
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_2527_ssasas2017_013</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.2527/ssasas2017.013</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.2527/ssasas2017.013</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c733-eeb13046d82b3ee8876cd59d3e600316423f13d1f4f7a2bc1839367311c4fe8b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1LxDAQxYMoWFevnnP10JrJ9CP1JuvqFlZccO8lTSdS2TYl6Qr-91ZW8ShzeId5v2HeY-waRCIzWdyGoOeRAopEAJ6wCDKZxQg5nrJICAmxUiDP2UUI70KAzMosYtVs5a96aPmzOwyT7ga-2ncT8TV1ljx_oA_au7GnYeJb79687nlV3f2ut-St870eDF2yM6v3ga5-dMF2j6vdch1vXp6q5f0mNgViTNQAijRvlWyQSKkiN21Wtki5EPOvqUQL2IJNbaFlY0BhiXmBACa1pBpcsOR41ngXgidbj77rtf-sQdTfPdR_PdRzuBm4OQLuMP7n_QKJcl2_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>013 Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development Program II: Heifer Performance</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Kriese-Anderson, L. A. ; Marks, M. L. ; Stanford, M. K. ; Mullenix, M. K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kriese-Anderson, L. A. ; Marks, M. L. ; Stanford, M. K. ; Mullenix, M. K.</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract The Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development program was established to demonstrate to northeast Alabama commercial cattle producers recommended methods for replacement heifer development. In Autumn 2015, 16.2 ha of novel endophyte tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) ,rye (Secale cereale L.) and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) were established or stockpiled. Heifers (n = 48) were delivered in early January. Heifers were weighed (initial weight = 280.3 ± 37.2 kg) and measured for height (118.1 ± 5.3 cm) at delivery and divided into 3 groups. Weights and heights were taken every 28 d from January through April and when heifers were checked for pregnancy in June. Heifers gained 0.85 kg/d from January to June. Weight per day of age was 0.83 kg/d with and average frame score of 5.6. A repeated mixed model analysis was used for ADG, gain, WDA, and frame score with independent variables of group, time (28, 58, 90 and 154 d on grazing), sire breed and interaction of group and time. Heifer was considered random. There was a significant group by time interaction for ADG, gain and WDA. Cumulative average daily gains of heifers in group 3 significantly (P &lt; 0.05) outgained heifers in groups 1 and 2 throughout the development program. Average daily gains for heifers in groups 1 and 2 did improve after d 28, but were never able to recover from an initial poor start. Even with the poor ADG performance of groups 1 and 2 during the first 28 days, WDA of heifers in groups 1 and 2 were very close to their final ADG. This indicates they were on a fairly steady or even growth pattern from birth. Heifers in group 3 had a significantly lower (P &lt; 0.05) WDA than the other 2 heifer groups until they had been in the development program for 90 days. Perhaps some of the continued differences in growth were due to compensatory gain. However, no significant differences existed between groups for final weight. Table 013. Cumulative ADG(kg/d) and WDA (kg/d) of Sand Mountain Elite Heifers Day 28 Day 58 Day 90 Day 154 Group ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA 1 0.28a 0.79a 0.77a 0.82a 0.87a 0.83a 0.83a 0.83 2 0.34a 0.79a 0.80a 0.82a 0.86a 0.82ab 0.79a 0.80 3 0.99b 0.73b 1.03b 0.74b 1.10b 0.77b 0.98b 0.77 Values within a column with different subscripts are significantly different from one another P&lt;0.05.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/ssasas2017.013</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2016-12, Vol.95 (suppl_1), p.07-07</ispartof><rights>American Society of Animal Science 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kriese-Anderson, L. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, M. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stanford, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullenix, M. K.</creatorcontrib><title>013 Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development Program II: Heifer Performance</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Abstract The Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development program was established to demonstrate to northeast Alabama commercial cattle producers recommended methods for replacement heifer development. In Autumn 2015, 16.2 ha of novel endophyte tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) ,rye (Secale cereale L.) and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) were established or stockpiled. Heifers (n = 48) were delivered in early January. Heifers were weighed (initial weight = 280.3 ± 37.2 kg) and measured for height (118.1 ± 5.3 cm) at delivery and divided into 3 groups. Weights and heights were taken every 28 d from January through April and when heifers were checked for pregnancy in June. Heifers gained 0.85 kg/d from January to June. Weight per day of age was 0.83 kg/d with and average frame score of 5.6. A repeated mixed model analysis was used for ADG, gain, WDA, and frame score with independent variables of group, time (28, 58, 90 and 154 d on grazing), sire breed and interaction of group and time. Heifer was considered random. There was a significant group by time interaction for ADG, gain and WDA. Cumulative average daily gains of heifers in group 3 significantly (P &lt; 0.05) outgained heifers in groups 1 and 2 throughout the development program. Average daily gains for heifers in groups 1 and 2 did improve after d 28, but were never able to recover from an initial poor start. Even with the poor ADG performance of groups 1 and 2 during the first 28 days, WDA of heifers in groups 1 and 2 were very close to their final ADG. This indicates they were on a fairly steady or even growth pattern from birth. Heifers in group 3 had a significantly lower (P &lt; 0.05) WDA than the other 2 heifer groups until they had been in the development program for 90 days. Perhaps some of the continued differences in growth were due to compensatory gain. However, no significant differences existed between groups for final weight. Table 013. Cumulative ADG(kg/d) and WDA (kg/d) of Sand Mountain Elite Heifers Day 28 Day 58 Day 90 Day 154 Group ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA 1 0.28a 0.79a 0.77a 0.82a 0.87a 0.83a 0.83a 0.83 2 0.34a 0.79a 0.80a 0.82a 0.86a 0.82ab 0.79a 0.80 3 0.99b 0.73b 1.03b 0.74b 1.10b 0.77b 0.98b 0.77 Values within a column with different subscripts are significantly different from one another P&lt;0.05.</description><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkM1LxDAQxYMoWFevnnP10JrJ9CP1JuvqFlZccO8lTSdS2TYl6Qr-91ZW8ShzeId5v2HeY-waRCIzWdyGoOeRAopEAJ6wCDKZxQg5nrJICAmxUiDP2UUI70KAzMosYtVs5a96aPmzOwyT7ga-2ncT8TV1ljx_oA_au7GnYeJb79687nlV3f2ut-St870eDF2yM6v3ga5-dMF2j6vdch1vXp6q5f0mNgViTNQAijRvlWyQSKkiN21Wtki5EPOvqUQL2IJNbaFlY0BhiXmBACa1pBpcsOR41ngXgidbj77rtf-sQdTfPdR_PdRzuBm4OQLuMP7n_QKJcl2_</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Kriese-Anderson, L. A.</creator><creator>Marks, M. L.</creator><creator>Stanford, M. K.</creator><creator>Mullenix, M. K.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>013 Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development Program II: Heifer Performance</title><author>Kriese-Anderson, L. A. ; Marks, M. L. ; Stanford, M. K. ; Mullenix, M. K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c733-eeb13046d82b3ee8876cd59d3e600316423f13d1f4f7a2bc1839367311c4fe8b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kriese-Anderson, L. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, M. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stanford, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullenix, M. K.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kriese-Anderson, L. A.</au><au>Marks, M. L.</au><au>Stanford, M. K.</au><au>Mullenix, M. K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>013 Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development Program II: Heifer Performance</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>suppl_1</issue><spage>07</spage><epage>07</epage><pages>07-07</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Abstract The Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development program was established to demonstrate to northeast Alabama commercial cattle producers recommended methods for replacement heifer development. In Autumn 2015, 16.2 ha of novel endophyte tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) ,rye (Secale cereale L.) and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) were established or stockpiled. Heifers (n = 48) were delivered in early January. Heifers were weighed (initial weight = 280.3 ± 37.2 kg) and measured for height (118.1 ± 5.3 cm) at delivery and divided into 3 groups. Weights and heights were taken every 28 d from January through April and when heifers were checked for pregnancy in June. Heifers gained 0.85 kg/d from January to June. Weight per day of age was 0.83 kg/d with and average frame score of 5.6. A repeated mixed model analysis was used for ADG, gain, WDA, and frame score with independent variables of group, time (28, 58, 90 and 154 d on grazing), sire breed and interaction of group and time. Heifer was considered random. There was a significant group by time interaction for ADG, gain and WDA. Cumulative average daily gains of heifers in group 3 significantly (P &lt; 0.05) outgained heifers in groups 1 and 2 throughout the development program. Average daily gains for heifers in groups 1 and 2 did improve after d 28, but were never able to recover from an initial poor start. Even with the poor ADG performance of groups 1 and 2 during the first 28 days, WDA of heifers in groups 1 and 2 were very close to their final ADG. This indicates they were on a fairly steady or even growth pattern from birth. Heifers in group 3 had a significantly lower (P &lt; 0.05) WDA than the other 2 heifer groups until they had been in the development program for 90 days. Perhaps some of the continued differences in growth were due to compensatory gain. However, no significant differences existed between groups for final weight. Table 013. Cumulative ADG(kg/d) and WDA (kg/d) of Sand Mountain Elite Heifers Day 28 Day 58 Day 90 Day 154 Group ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA ADG WDA 1 0.28a 0.79a 0.77a 0.82a 0.87a 0.83a 0.83a 0.83 2 0.34a 0.79a 0.80a 0.82a 0.86a 0.82ab 0.79a 0.80 3 0.99b 0.73b 1.03b 0.74b 1.10b 0.77b 0.98b 0.77 Values within a column with different subscripts are significantly different from one another P&lt;0.05.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/ssasas2017.013</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2016-12, Vol.95 (suppl_1), p.07-07
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_2527_ssasas2017_013
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
title 013 Sand Mountain Elite Heifer Development Program II: Heifer Performance
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T01%3A09%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=013%20Sand%20Mountain%20Elite%20Heifer%20Development%20Program%20II:%20Heifer%20Performance&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Kriese-Anderson,%20L.%20A.&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=suppl_1&rft.spage=07&rft.epage=07&rft.pages=07-07&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/ssasas2017.013&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.2527/ssasas2017.013%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.2527/ssasas2017.013&rfr_iscdi=true