Effects of lick block siting on supplement intake and behaviour of cattle

Abstract

Animal Production in Australia 1998 Vol. 22 EFFECTS OF LICK-BLOCK SITING ON SUPPLEMENT INTAKE AND BEHAVIOUR OF CATTLE J.C. PETHERICKA, P.D. FRYA, R.J. MAYERB and R.M. DIXON A B A Queensland Beef Industry Institute, Dept of Primary Industries, Swans Lagoon, Millaroo, Qld 4807 Dept of Primary Industries, PO Box 1085, Townsville, Qld 4810 Anecdotes from producers suggest that good control of intake of lick-blocks can be achieved by varying the distance between the supplement site and watering points. It has also been suggested that siting of supplement points can change grazing patterns in large paddocks (Chapline and Talbot 1926; Ares 1953). However, there is little objective information available to evaluate these suggestions. Sixty steers of about 21 months of age and averaging 335 kg liveweight were allocated by stratified randomisation based on liveweight to six paddock groups. The paddocks measured approximately 1800 m x 200 m, with water available only from a single trough at one end (the front) of each paddock. A commercial dry season lick-block (Olssons Dry-Season 20% Urea; 20% urea, 33% molasses, 3% cotton seed meal and 6% salt) was placed either adjacent to the water trough (N) or approximately 1.8 km from it (F). A switch-back design, with three 30 day periods, was used with each treatment being imposed on the three paddock groups during each period. Group intakes of block were recorded daily, except weekends. Cattle were weighed and condition scored monthly. For 12 days during each period the position in the paddock of the cattle and their behaviour were recorded at 0830, 1200 and 1530 hours daily. Position of the cattle in the paddocks was analysed by 2 tests. Supplement siting had little effect on the way in which cattle used the paddocks. Cattle were usually grazing in the front half of the paddocks at 0830 hours, resting at the water trough at 1200 hours and either resting near the water trough or grazing in the middle of the paddock at 1530 hours. Supplement intakes were higher for treatment N than F (Table 1). Steers gained weight in Periods 1 and 3, and lost weight in Period 2. Steers given treatment N tended (P=0.07) to gain more weight or lose less than those given treatment F (Table 1). Table 1. Average group intakes (g/head/day) and average liveweight changes (kg) (s.e. � in parentheses) during 30 day periods of steers provided with lick-blocks near to (N) or far from (F) their water trough Period 1 Supplement intakes Liveweight changes N F N F 138 115 16.5 9.5 (23) (23) (2.5) (2.5) Period 2 163 b 95 -15.9 -20.5 a Period 3 212 150 23.2 23.0 c d (16) (16) (3.0) (3.0) (3) (3) (0.8) (0.8) Values within columns followed by different letters differ significantly; a,b at P<0.05, c,d at P<0.01 The siting of supplement points appears to have little effect on the way in which small groups of cattle use small paddocks. Supplement intakes were reduced on average by 29% by siting supplements distant from water, but large variation between paddock groups suggest that this method is not sufficiently consistent to accurately control intake. Further work with large groups of cattle in large paddocks is needed. ARES, F.N. (1953). J. Range Mgmt. 6, 341-346. CHAPLINE, W.R. and TALBOT, M.W. (1926). Dept. Circular No. 379 (US Dept. Agriculture). 291