Effect of supplementation during the breeding season on a May-calving beef herd in the Nebraska Sandhills

Lansford, Alicia C.; Musgrave, Jacqueline A.; Funston, R. N.

doi:10.15232/pas.2017-01693

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The compensatory growth period experienced by heifers grazing warm-season forages occurred during the breeding season, and nutrient restriction was likely not an influence during gestation. Thus, calf performance was not impacted by BW change prior to the breeding season, which is consistent with a report that previous breeding season supplementation and management had no influence on calf birth BW (Lansford et al, 2018).…”

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…Pregnancy diagnosis for TAI or natural service was verified by back-calculating from calving date. Calving distribution in 21-d intervals was calculated with the start of the calving season coinciding with the first day that 2 or more heifers calved (Lansford et al, 2018). Calf BW was measured at birth from the first calf of heifers in the study.…”

Section: Animal Measurements and Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Winter grazing of stockpiled native forages during heifer development delays body weight gain without influencing final pregnancy rates1

McFarlane

Cope

Hobbs

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Animal Measurements and Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%