Territory Stories

Technical annual report 2000-01

Details:

Title

Technical annual report 2000-01

Collection

Dept. of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources technical annual report; Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources technical and annual report; Reports; PublicationNT; Technical bulletin (Northern Territory. Dept. of Primary Industry and Fisheries) ; no. 295

Date

2001-10

Description

Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).

Notes

Date:2001-10

Language

English

Subject

Agriculture -- Northern Territory -- Periodicals; Fisheries -- Northern Territory -- Periodicals

Publisher name

Dept. of Primary Industry and Fisheries

Place of publication

Darwin

Series

Technical bulletin (Northern Territory. Dept. of Primary Industry and Fisheries) ; no. 295

ISSN

0158-2763

Copyright owner

Check within Publication or with content Publisher.

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/223369

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/687151

Page content

Technical Annual Report 2000/01 41 The leucaena paddocks did not perform as well as in previous years in comparison with the mean performance of all groups i.e. 8.3% higher in 99/00 whilst only 4.1% higher this season. This may reflect on management where half the rows were bulldozed to reduce canopy height and ground cover. Poor performance by some groups was due to individual steers with disease problems, notably ephemeral fever and pestivirus, post weaning. The Buffel/legume group (Paddock 50) performed very well this year but it must be noted that this followed Wet season destocking of the paddock to establish the legumes. This will need yearly monitoring to follow changes under grazing over three to four years. With the attempted elimination of weeds from the Arnhem paddock (Paddock 52) and the consequent elimination of Ooloo entirely, there has been a significant decline in the productivity of the stock on that paddock. An attempt will be made to reintroduce Ooloo back into the system early in the next Wet season, if it does not establish from residual seed supplies. Block Consumption In the Dry season, Uramol was fed from 4 July to 25 October 2000 and in the Wet season, Phosrite was fed from 25 October 2000 to 6 June 2001. Table 2. Dry and Wet season daily consumption rates of supplement Paddock Dry season consumption (Uramol) g/day/head Wet season consumption (Phosrite) g/day/head Period 113 DAYS 224 DAYS 43 66 87 44 86 30 45 84 56 46 88 105 47 86 99 48 46 46 49 68 74 50 71 98 51 92 82 52 91 78 531 97 105 532 116 160 533 46 96 534 46 74 mean 00/01 78.0 g/day 85 g/day mean 99/00 81.8 g/day 75.5 g/day mean 98/99 102.0 g/day 89.3 g/day mean for 1997/98 134.3 g/day 119.3 g Consumption rates per head for Uramol were consistently lower than for the previous three years, whilst for Phosrite there was a minor increase from last year's intake. Block Comparisons This year an attempt was made to compare blocks from different manufacturers. The Four Seasons Company supplied Wet and Dry season formulations to compare with Uramol and Phosrite previously used over a long term in this trial. Pro90 was used in the Dry season for the group having 532 eartags, whilst the Wet season block was HighP. The HighP blocks did not have sufficient Wet season weather resistance and were not replaced after 23 January 2001. The Pro90 Dry season block group produced only half the weight gain of the Uramol group (10.3 kg liveweight gain vs 20.5 kg liveweight gain for the total period) despite a higher level of block consumption. Wet season consumption of Phosrite was slightly higher than last year but with one month less at the start of the Dry when consumption rates tend to drop off in June. Uramol consumption rates were marginally lower than the previous year but with a lot less paddock variation in consumption between groups.