Effects of stage of maturity at harvest of cereal crops on biomass and quality, estimated forage dry matter intake, beef cow performance, and system economics

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.



      The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of maturity at harvest of cereal crops on biomass, quality, cow performance, and economics.

      Materials and Methods

      In each of 3 yr, a 48-ha field was divided into 3 paddocks (16 ha per treatment) and seeded to either barley (Hordeum vulgare CDC Maverick, 135 kg/ha), oat (Avena sativa CDC 29 SO1, 135 kg/ha), or triticale (Triticosecale Taza, 135 kg/ha). Half of each field (8 ha) was swathed at either soft dough (SDo) or hard dough (HDo) stage for grazing. Each year, 120 dry pregnant beef cows (631 kg) were randomly allocated to 1 of 6 replicated (n = 2) paddocks for 90, 106, and 88 d in yr 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

      Results and Discussion

      Triticale had 19 and 23% greater total yield than oat and barley, respectively. Barley CP was greater (P < 0.05; 10.9%) than oat (9.3%) or triticale (9.8%) at HDo stage. The animal unit months (AUM) per hectare were greater for HDo (11.5 ± 0.8 AUM/ha) than SDo (9.15 ± 0.8 AUM/ha) stage. Cow ADG was greater (P = 0.01) for barley (0.61 kg/d) compared with triticale (0.39 kg/d). Total crop cost averaged Can$426, Can$437, and Can$458/ha for oat, barley, and triticale, respectively. The HDo stage had Can$0.40 lower dollars per cow per day in-field costs (P = 0.02) than the SDo stage and 10% (Can$26.25 per cow/d) lower feeding costs (P = 0.02) over 3 yr.

      Implications and Applications

      Delaying harvest to hard dough can increase yield and reduce feeding costs without affecting cow performance.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • AAFRD
        CowBytes Beef Ration Balancer.
        (v. 5.32.) Alberta Agric., Food Rural Develop, 2011
        • Aasen A.
        • Baron V.S.
        • Clayton G.W.
        • Dick A.C.
        • McCartney D.
        Swath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species.
        Can. J. Plant Sci. 2004; 84: 1051-1058
        • Acosta Y.M.
        • Stallings C.C.
        • Polan C.E.
        • Miller C.N.
        Evaluation of barley silage harvested at boot and soft dough stages.
        J. Dairy Sci. 1991; 74: 167-176
        • AFRED (Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Economic Development)
        2016-2020 economic, productive and financial performance of Alberta cow/calf operations.
        (Accessed Apr. 30, 2022.)
        • AOAC International
        Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International.
        17th ed. AOAC Int, 2000
        • Baron V.S.
        • Dick A.C.
        • Wolynetz M.S.
        Characterization of barley silage—Maturity relationships for Central Alberta.
        Can. J. Plant Sci. 1992; 72: 1009-1020
        • Baron V.S.
        • Aasen A.
        • Oba M.
        • Campbell Dick A.
        • Salmon D.F.
        • Basarab J.A.
        • Stevenson C.F.
        Swath-grazing potential for small-grain species with a delayed planting date.
        Agron. J. 2012; 104: 393-404
        • Baron V.S.
        • Doce R.R.
        • Basarab J.
        • Dick C.
        Swath grazing triticale and corn compared to barley and a traditional winter feeding method in central Alberta.
        Can. J. Plant Sci. 2014; 94: 1125-1137
        • Beck P.A.
        • Stewart C.B.
        • Gray H.C.
        • Smith J.L.
        • Gunter S.A.
        Effect of wheat forage maturity and preservation method on forage chemical composition and performance of growing calves fed mixed diets.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2009; 87: 4133-4142
        • Brignall D.M.
        • Ward M.R.
        • Whittington W.J.
        Relationship between growth stage and digestible organic matter in triticale.
        J. Agric. Sci. 1989; 113: 1-11
        • Brink G.E.
        • Marten G.C.
        Barley vs. oat companion crops. I. forage yield and quality response during alfalfa establishment.
        Crop Sci. 1986; 26: 1060-1067
        • Canadian Council of Animal Care
        CCAC Guidelines on the Care and Use of Farm Animals in Research, Teaching, and Testing.
        • Canadian Food Inspection Agency
        CDC Maverick Barley.
        Date: 2021
        Date accessed: April 12, 2022
        • Cherney J.H.
        • Marten G.C.
        Small grain crop forage potential: II Interrelationships among biological, chemical, morphological and anatomical determinants of quality.
        Crop Sci. 1982; 22: 240-245
        • Coblentz W.K.
        • Akins M.S.
        • Cavadini J.S.
        Fall dry matter yield and nutritive value of winter rye, wheat, and triticale cultivars in Wisconsin.
        Crop Forage Turfgrass Manage. 2020; 6: 230-236
        • Cordova F.J.
        • Wallace J.D.
        • Pieper R.D.
        Forage intake by grazing livestock: A review.
        J. Range Manage. 1978; 31: 430-438
        • Damiran D.
        • Yu P.
        Structural make-up, biopolymer conformation, and biodegradation characteristics of newly developed super genotype of oats (CDC SO-I vs. Conventional varieties): Novel approach.
        J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010; 58: 2377-2387
        • Damiran D.
        • Lardner H.A.
        • Jefferson P.G.
        • Larson K.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        Effects of supplementing spring-calving beef cows grazing barley crop residue with canola meal and wheat-based dry distillers’ grains with solubles on performance, reproductive efficiency, and system cost.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2016; 32: 400-410
        • DeRouen S.M.
        • Franke D.E.
        • Morrison D.G.
        • Wyatt W.E.
        • Coombs D.F.
        • White T.W.
        • Humes P.E.
        • Greene B.B.
        Prepartum body condition and weight influences on reproductive performance of first-calf beef cows.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1994; 72: 1119-1125
        • Durunna O.N.
        • Baron V.
        • Scott S.L.
        • Robins C.
        • Khakbazan M.
        • Block H.C.
        Effects of resting perennial pastures during the sensitive pre-dormancy period in western Manitoba: Pasture productivity and beef cattle performance.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2015; 95: 129-141
        • Entz M.
        • Baron V.
        • Carr P.
        • Meyer D.
        • Smith Jr., S.
        • McCaughey W.
        Potential of forages to diversify cropping systems in the northern Great Plains.
        Agron. J. 2002; 94: 240-250
        • Hutton G.
        • Perillat B.
        • McCartney D.
        • Ohama A.
        Swath grazing in western Canada: An introduction.
        in: AgriFacts, Agdex 420/56-2. Agric. Food Rural Develop, Alberta2004
        • Jasmer G.
        • Holechek J.
        Determining grazing intensity on rangeland.
        J. Soil Water Conserv. 1984; 39: 32-35
        • Johnston J.
        Budget for intercrop systems at New Liskeard Agricultural Research Station.
        in: Cereal Intercrop Systems for Silage and Pasture: Farm Scale Trials. 2000 (Accessed Mar. 1, 2022)
        • Jose D.
        • Larson K.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        • Penner G.B.
        • Damiran D.
        • Lardner H.A.
        Effects of winter-feeding system on beef cows performance, ruminal fermentation and system costs.
        Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020; 36: 731-744
        • Jung H.G.
        • Allen M.S.
        Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants.
        J. Anim. Sci. 1995; 73: 2774-2790
        • Kaliel D.
        • Kotowich J.
        Economic Evaluation of Cow Wintering Systems.
        Provincial Swath Grazing Surveying Analysis. Alberta Prod. Econ. Branch, Alberta Agric., Food Rural Develop, 2002
        • Karn J.F.
        • Tanaka D.L.
        • Liebig M.A.
        • Ries R.E.
        • Kronberg S.L.
        • Hanson J.D.
        An integrated approach to crop/livestock systems: Wintering beef cows on swathed crops.
        Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2005; 20: 232-242
        • Kelln B.M.
        • Lardner H.A.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        • Campbell J.R.
        • Larson K.
        • Damiran D.
        Effect of winter feeding system on beef cow performance, reproductive efficiency, and system cost.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2011; 27: 410-421
        • Khorasani G.R.
        • Jedel P.E.
        • Helm J.H.
        • Kennelly J.J.
        Influence of stage of maturity on yield components and chemical composition of cereal grain silages.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1997; 77 ( 259-267
        • Kilcher M.R.
        Plant development, stage of maturity and nutrient composition.
        J. Range Manage. 1981; 34: 363-364
      1. Klein, L. 2008. Suitability of cool and warm season cereal crops for swath grazing. Government of Saskatchewan. Accessed Oct. 2016.–4886–4c13–8d3b-692c9d0a632a.

        • Krause A.D.
        • Lardner H.A.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        • Hendrick S.
        • Larson K.
        • Damiran D.
        Comparison of grazing oat and pea crop residue versus feeding grass–legume hay on beef cow performance, reproductive efficiency, and system cost.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2013; 29: 535-545
        • Kulathunga D.G.R.S.
        • Penner G.B.
        • Schoenau J.J.
        • Damiran D.
        • Larson K.
        • Lardner H.A.
        Effect of perennial forage system on forage characteristics, soil nutrients, cow performance, and system economics.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2016; 32: 784-797
        • Lardner H.A.
        • Ward C.I.
        • Darambazar E.
        • Damiran D.
        Comparison of cool season perennial grasses for forage production and nutritive value, steer performance and economic analysis.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2013; 29: 403-412
        • Lardner H.A.
        • Pearce L.
        • Damiran D.
        Evaluation of low heat unit corn hybrids compared to barley for forage yield and quality on the Canadian prairies.
        Sustain. Agric. Res. 2017; 6: 90-102
        • Linn J.G.
        • Martin N.P.
        Forage quality tests and interpretation.
        AG-FO-2637. Univ. Minnesota Agric. Ext. Serv. Publ, 1989
        • Lowman B.G.
        • Scott N.A.
        • Somerville S.H.
        Condition scoring of cattle. Bulletin. East Scotland Coll.
        Agric., Edinburgh School Agric, 1976
        • May W.E.
        • Klein L.H.
        • Lafond G.P.
        • McConnell J.T.
        • Phelps S.M.
        The suitability of cool- and warm- season annual cereal species for winter grazing in Saskatchewan.
        Can. J. Plant Sci. 2007; 87: 739-752
        • McCartney D.
        • Vaage A.S.
        Comparative yield and feeding value of barley, oat and triticale silages.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1994; 74: 91-96
        • McCartney D.
        • Basarab J.A.
        • Okine E.K.
        • Baron V.S.
        • Depalme A.J.
        Alternative fall and winter feeding systems for spring calving beef cows.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2004; 84: 511-522
        • McCartney D.
        • Block H.C.
        • Dubeski P.L.
        • Ohama A.J.
        Review: The composition and availability of straw and chaff from small grain cereals for beef cattle in western Canada.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2006; 86: 443-455
        • McCartney D.
        • Fraser J.
        • Ohama A.J.
        Annual cool season crops for grazing by beef cattle. A Canadian review.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2008; 88: 517-533
        • McElroy A.R.
        • Gervais P.
        Yield-quality relationships in barley and oats grown for forage.
        Naturaliste Can. (Rev. Ecol. Syst.). 1983; 110: 327-333
        • NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)
        Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle.
        7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, 2000
        • NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)
        Nutrient Requirement of Beef Cattle.
        8th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, 2016
        • Peprah S.
        • Damiran D.
        • Biligetu B.
        • Iwaasa A.D.
        • Larson K.
        • Lardner H.A.
        Evaluation of cool-season binary mixtures as pasture: Herbage yield, nutritive value, and beef cattle performance.
        Livest. Sci. 2021; 248104501
        • Rosser C.L.
        • Gorka P.
        • Beattie A.D.
        • Block C.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        • Lardner H.A.
        • Penner G.B.
        Effect of maturity at harvest on yield, chemical composition, and in situ degradability for annual cereals used for swath grazing.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2013; 91: 3815-3826
        • Rosser C.L.
        • Beattie A.D.
        • Block H.C.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        • Lardner H.A.
        • Górka P.
        • Penner G.B.
        Effect of maturity at harvest for whole-crop barley and oat on dry matter intake, sorting, and digestibility when fed to beef cattle.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2016; 94: 697-708
        • Rosser C.L.
        • Beattie A.D.
        • Block H.C.
        • McKinnon J.J.
        • Lardner H.A.
        • Górka P.
        • Penner G.B.
        Effect of the frequency of forage allocation and harvest maturity of whole-crop oat forage on dry matter intake and ruminal fermentation for beef heifers.
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2017; 33 (10.15232/pas.2016-01556): 85-91
        • Royo C.
        • Insa J.A.
        • Boujenna A.
        • Ramos J.M.
        • Montesinos E.
        Yield and quality of spring triticale used for forage and grain as influenced by sowing date and cutting stage.
        Field Crops Res. 1994; 37: 161-168
        • Saskatchewan Soil Survey
        The Soils of Prairie Rose Rural Municipality No. 309, Saskatchewan.
        Saskatchewan Inst. Pedol., Univ. Saskatchewan, 1992
        • Sheppard S.C.
        • Bittman S.
        • Macdonald D.
        • Amiro B.D.
        • Ominski K.H.
        Changes in land, feed, and manure management practices on beef operations in Canada between 2005 and 2011.
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2016; 96: 252-265
        • SMA (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture)
        Crop Planning Guide 2016.
        (Accessed Feb. 15, 2022.)
        • SMA (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture)
        Farm machinery custom rental rate guide—2016–2017.
        (Accessed Feb. 15, 2022.)
        • SMA (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture)
        Crop Planning Guide 2017.
        (Accessed Feb. 15, 2022.)
        • SMA (Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture)
        Crop Planning Guide 2018.
        (Accessed Feb. 15, 2022.)
        • Statistics Canada
        Table 14-10-0306-01: Employee Wages by Occupation, Monthly.
        Unadjusted for Seasonality. Stat, Canada2022 (
        • Volesky J.D.
        • Adams D.C.
        • Clark R.T.
        Windrow grazing and baled-hay feeding strategies for wintering calves.
        J. Range Manage. 2002; 55: 23-32
        • Weiss W.P.
        • Conrad H.R.
        • St N.R.
        • Pierre.
        A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates.
        Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1992; 39: 95-110