Effect of stocking rate on pasture and sheep production in winter and spring lambing systems

Ateş, Serkan; Özcan, Gazi; Çiçek, Harun; Kırbaş, Mesut; Keleş, Gürhan; Işik, Şaban

doi:10.3906/vet-1511-79

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of the current study, this may be associated with the relatively high stocking rate imposed, compared with the medium stocking rate of 20–24 ewes + lambs/ha suggested by Ates et al. () for optimized animal and pasture production for irrigated pastures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Similar results were also reported by Foster et al (2013) in a study that the creep concentrate feeding or creep grazing on warm season legumes by beef calves did not affect the performance of cows and the herbage mass of the base pastures did not differ. In the case of the current study, this may be associated with the relatively high stocking rate imposed, compared with the medium stocking rate of 20-24 ewes + lambs/ha suggested by Ates et al (2016) for optimized animal and pasture production for irrigated pastures.…”

Section: Lamb Growth and Performance Of The Ewesmentioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bio‐economic efficiency of creep supplementation of forage legumes or concentrate in pasture‐based lamb production system

Ateş

Keleş

Yigezu³

et al. 2017

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2‐year study in the Central Anatolian Region of Turkey compared the performance of pasture‐fed suckling lambs and their dams, set‐stocked on grass‐legume pastures supplemented either with forage legumes or concentrate through a creep grazing/feeding system in a randomized block design. The treatments included continuous pasture grazing + creep grazing alfalfa; continuous pasture grazing + creep grazing birdsfoot trefoil; continuous pasture grazing + creep feeding concentrate (170 g kg−1 CP; 11.3 ME MJ kg−1 DM); and continuous grazing without creep feeding (control). In both years, creep feeding/grazing commenced in early June following a 42‐day pasture grazing period (period 1) and continued until mid‐summer for two separate periods of 21 days each (periods 2 and 3). Creep‐supplemented lambs grew faster (p < .001) than those that grazed pasture alone, with no significant difference across all creep supplementation treatments. Across the years, the lambs grew at 223 and 161 g per head day−1 for creep‐supplemented and control groups respectively. None of the lamb feeding strategies affected the ewe liveweight gains (p > .05). Results from a bio‐economic optimization model, however, showed that supplementing the pasture with birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa in periods 2 and 3, respectively, maximized economic returns with an extra profit of US$88.83 per lamb above those that grazed the pasture alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Lamb Growth and Performance Of The Ewesmentioning

confidence: 77%