Literature DB >> 30137338

Winter grazing of stockpiled native forages during heifer development delays body weight gain without influencing final pregnancy rates.

Zachary D McFarlane1, Emily R Cope1, Jeremy D Hobbs1, Renata N Oakes2, Ky G Pohler1, J Travis Mulliniks1.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to test the effects of protein supplementation strategy and different stockpiled forage species on growth, nutritional status, and reproductive performance of yearling beef heifers. In a 5-yr study, yearling beef heifers (n = 266) were stratified by body weight (BW) at weaning to 1 of 3 stockpiled forages: 1) endophyte-infected tall fescue (TF, Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort; 7.21% crude protein [CP] and 67.13% neutral detergent fiber [NDF], dry matter [DM] basis), 2) big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L.) combination (BI; 4.32% CP and 71.06% NDF, DM basis), or 3) switchgrass (SG,Panicum virgatum L.; 3.87% CP and 76.79% NDF, DM basis). Forage treatments were then randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 supplement types: 1) 0.68 kg heifer-1 d-1 of dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS: 28% CP and 108% total digestible nutrients [TDN]) or 2) 0.22 kg heifer-1 d-1 of blood meal and fish meal (BF: 72.5% CP and 77.5% TDN), resulting in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Each year, twenty-one 1.2-ha pastures (7 pastures per forage type) were utilized with 2 to 3 heifers per pastures. Treatments were initiated in January and terminated in April at the initiation of breeding. Initial BW was not different (P ≥ 0.22) by forage or supplement type. During the rest of the grazing period, BW was greater (P < 0.01) for TF heifers. However, average daily gain (ADG) was greater (P < 0.01) for BI and SG heifers from breeding to final pregnancy diagnosis. Heifers grazing TF pastures had greater (P < 0.01) overall ADG than their counterparts. The percentage of mature BW (MBW) at breeding was greater (P < 0.01) for TF heifers. Heifer BW and ADG was not influenced (P ≥ 0.06) by supplementation strategy. Serum glucose concentrations were not different (P ≥ 0.44) among forage type or supplement strategy. Pregnancy rates at fixed timed-artificial insemination and overall pregnancy rates did not differ (P ≥ 0.38) by forage or supplement treatment. Owing to forage nutritive value differences, heifers grazing low-quality, warm season grasses lost BW prior to the initiation of the breeding season. However, a negative BW gain prior to breeding did not negatively impact overall pregnancy rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30137338      PMCID: PMC6247865          DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky340

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  26 in total

Review 1.  Management considerations in heifer development and puberty.

Authors:  D J Patterson; R C Perry; G H Kiracofe; R A Bellows; R B Staigmiller; L R Corah
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Incidence of puberty in beef heifers fed high- or low-starch diets for different periods before breeding.

Authors:  N H Ciccioli; S L Charles-Edwards; C Floyd; R P Wettemann; H T Purvis; K S Lusby; G W Horn; D L Lalman
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Heifer development systems: dry-lot feeding compared with grazing dormant winter forage.

Authors:  R N Funston; D M Larson
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 4.  Joint Alpharma-Beef Species Symposium: implications of beef heifer development systems and lifetime productivity.

Authors:  R L Endecott; R N Funston; J T Mulliniks; A J Roberts
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Effect of increasing ruminal butyrate on portal and hepatic nutrient flux in steers.

Authors:  C R Krehbiel; D L Harmon; J E Schneider
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Metabolism of early-lactation dairy cows as affected by dietary starch and monensin supplementation.

Authors:  M M McCarthy; T Yasui; C M Ryan; S H Pelton; G D Mechor; T R Overton
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 4.034

7.  Partitioning of energy in pregnant beef cows during nutritionally induced body weight fluctuation.

Authors:  H C Freetly; J A Nienaber; T Brown-Brandl
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2007-11-12       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Carcass composition in mature Hereford cows: estimation and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirement during winter.

Authors:  J J Wagner; K S Lusby; J W Oltjen; J Rakestraw; R P Wettemann; L E Walters
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  The effects of ruminally undegradable protein, propionic acid, and monensin on puberty and pregnancy in beef heifers.

Authors:  D L Lalman; M K Petersen; R P Ansotegui; M W Tess; C K Clark; J S Wiley
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  Effect of beef heifer development system on average daily gain, reproduction, and adaptation to corn residue during first pregnancy.

Authors:  A F Summers; S P Weber; H A Lardner; R N Funston
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.159

View more
  1 in total

1.  Vitamin and Mineral Supplementation and Rate of Weight Gain during the First Trimester of Gestation in Beef Heifers Alters the Fetal Liver Amino Acid, Carbohydrate, and Energy Profile at Day 83 of Gestation.

Authors:  Matthew S Crouse; Kacie L McCarthy; Ana Clara B Menezes; Cierrah J Kassetas; Friederike Baumgaertner; James D Kirsch; Sheri Dorsam; Tammi L Neville; Alison K Ward; Pawel P Borowicz; Lawrence P Reynolds; Kevin K Sedivec; J Chris Forcherio; Ronald Scott; Joel S Caton; Carl R Dahlen
Journal:  Metabolites       Date:  2022-07-27
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.