Effect of calving period on herbage intake and nutrient turnover of Simmental and Angus suckler cows with Angus sired calves grazing subalpine and alpine pastures

Estermann, Beda L.; Wettstein, H.-R.; Sutter, F.; Erdin, D.; Kreuzer, Michael

doi:10.1016/s0301-6226(02)00152-5

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The herbage intakes for cows on treatments L and LS were similar to those already measured for non‐supplemented beef cows at the same lactation stage on semi‐natural mountain pastures: 15·7 kg OM d −1 for Charolais (Baumont et al. , 2006) and 16·0 kg OM d −1 for Simmentals (Estermann et al. , 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Grazed forage provided a daily intake of 2 kg CP per cow, which could explain the absence of any effect of protein supplementation. In spite of a quite low DM digestibility, the CP concentration of the diet remained relatively high in late autumn as the structural heterogeneity of the pasture led to the creation of patches of very different qualities (Table 2) and thus offered the cows opportunities to graze selectively (see also Estermann et al. , 2003; Mayer et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How does protein supplementation affect the selectivity and performance of Charolais cows on extensively grazed pastures in late autumn?

Farruggia

Dumont

d'Hour³

et al. 2008

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of beef cows grazing extensively grazed semi-natural pastures in temperate regions in late autumn can require supplements to be offered. The effects of supplementation with soya bean meal on the diet selected by Charolais cows and on their subsequent performance were examined for an 8-week period in late autumn in 2 years. Three groups of eight cows were compared: non-supplemented dry cows (D), nonsupplemented (L) and supplemented (LS) lactating cows. The amount of soya bean meal supplement offered per cow was 250 g d )1 in year 1 and 800 g d )1 in year 2. Dietary choices were measured by direct observations and herbage intake was estimated in year 2. Supplementation affected neither diet selection (L: 0AE42 vs. LS: 0AE43 for the proportion of bites on green patches in year 1; 0AE24 vs. 0AE22 in year 2) nor daily organic matter intake of herbage (L: 15AE6 vs. LS: 15AE9 kg d )1 ), which may have resulted from an adequate crude protein concentration of herbage. The higher total dry matter intake by cows offered the supplement reduced losses in live weight (L: )1212 vs. LS: )828 g d )1 ; P < 0AE01) rather than increased milk production (L: 5AE1 vs. LS: 5AE0 kg d )1 ). This may be linked to the low milk yield potential of the Charolais cows. The use of lactating cows rather than dry cows for pasture management in late autumn would increase the utilization of herbage but a reduction in liveweight losses of cows by supplementation is unlikely to be economic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does protein supplementation affect the selectivity and performance of Charolais cows on extensively grazed pastures in late autumn?

Farruggia

Dumont

d'Hour³

et al. 2008

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These four sub-groups (breed × calving period) of six suckler units each were balanced in calf gender. Suckler beef breed group differences were the focus of another research question, the results of which have been described in ESTERMANN et al (2003). Different from that study, in the present investigation also a differentiation by season was made and suckler unit data were combined and opposed to heifer data by a contrast approach.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The animals had permanent access to fresh water and to a 1:1 mixture of NaCl and a mineral premix provided as a powder in a bowl (for composition see ESTERMANN et al 2003). The experiment was approved by the Cantonal Veterinary Office of Zug as the responsible authority.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed, N and P utilisation of Brown Swiss heifers in comparison with Angus and Simmental suckler cows with their progeny grazing mountain pastures

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of the present study was to compare intake and nutrient turnover in two major production systems on mountainous pastures, suckler beef production and rearing of heifers. Data from 4 × 6 Angus or Simmental suckler beef cows with Angus sired calves were opposed to those measured in six growing Brown Swiss heifers applying a contrast model. In each of two vegetative seasons (years A and B) animals were kept together on three mountainous pastures, P1 (1 000 m a.s.l.), P2 and P3 (both 2 000 m a.s.l.), providing either first growth (P1, P2) or re-growth herbage (P3). Intake and herbage digestibility were estimated by the double alkane indicator technique. On average of the two years, the cows together with their progeny weighed 741 kg and the heifers 374 kg. The average daily body weight gain in beef calves (1 044 g) was twice of that measured in the heifers (546 g). Body weight of the cows remained quite constant on average. Dry matter intakes were 17.0 and 8.2 kg/d, and 118 and 96 g/kg0.75 body weight in suckler cows with progeny and heifers, respectively. On all pastures, cattle of both categories selected herbage of similar energy and protein content. Digestibilities of organic matter (73–74 %) and fibre (NDF, 69 %) were similar between categories, though differing among pastures. Nitrogen utilisation was equal in both categories (8 % of intake), but varied among pastures (11 %, 8 % and 5 % on P1, P2 and P3, respectively) and years (11 % and 6 % in years A and B) due to different herbage N contents and intakes. When related to intake, also excretion of faecal and urinary N was equal in both categories. Faecal P losses relative to weight gain were similar in both categories but differed between pastures and years. The results demonstrated unexpectedly similar nutrient use efficiencies and relative N and P losses of the two livestock system options currently common in utilising of mountainous pasture.

show abstract

“…Risk-efficient frontier (\ general, \ \ for autumn calving) with respect to gross margin (GM: $/ha/year) for spring calving (open symbols) and autumn calving (closed symbols), weaning age (○ • 170, ∇▼200, □■230 and ◊O260 days, respectively) and target cow numbers (not indicated). autumn born calves gained more weight than spring born calves, but the opposite was noted by Estermann et al (2003). Furthermore, two long-term studies by Bagley et al (1987) and Gaertner et al (1992) found that autumn born calves were heavier at weaning than spring born calves (6-17%, depending on the stocking rate and feed management), and they attributed this to the fact that autumn born calves had higher quality forage available in greater quantities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling spring and autumn calving systems in beef herds of the Salado region of Argentina

Romera¹,

Burges²,

Morris

et al. 2008

Livestock Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of calving period on herbage intake and nutrient turnover of Simmental and Angus suckler cows with Angus sired calves grazing subalpine and alpine pastures

Cited by 11 publications

References 30 publications

How does protein supplementation affect the selectivity and performance of Charolais cows on extensively grazed pastures in late autumn?

How does protein supplementation affect the selectivity and performance of Charolais cows on extensively grazed pastures in late autumn?

Feed, N and P utilisation of Brown Swiss heifers in comparison with Angus and Simmental suckler cows with their progeny grazing mountain pastures

Modelling spring and autumn calving systems in beef herds of the Salado region of Argentina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About