Performance and feeding behavior of Holstein and Holstein × Gyr crossbred heifers grazing temperate forages

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the difference between Holstein and Holstein x Gyr breeds on feeding behavior and performance of heifers grazing temperate pasture. The experiment was carried out in 89 days, split into 14 days of adaptation and 3 periods of 25 days. Two treatments were used: Holstein (HOL; n = 7) and Holstein × Gyr (HG; n = 7). Heifers grazed a consortium of ryegrass and Bristle Oats and were supplemented individually daily with corn meal at 0.33% of body weight plus 5 kg/d of corn silage. For 3 consecutive days, feeding behavior was observed for individual animals from direct visual observation recording at 10 min intervals. The digestibility trial was performed on d16 to d24 of each period. Body measurements and weight were taken at d0 and at d23, 24, and 25 of each period. Grazing duration, grazing frequency, and bite rate were greater for HOL than HG. Rumination characteristics, intake, digestibility, body measurements were not affected by breed. Breeds had differences in grazing characteristics, but it did not in uence performance or intake parameters. Therefore, HOL and HG heifers managed under temperate pasture in tropical countries have similar performance.

Comparison of ruminal microbiota, IL-1β gene variation, and tick incidence between Holstein × Gyr and Holstein heifers in grazing system

“…However, Holstein and crossbred genetics have been modified over the years ( Washburn and Mullen, 2014 ), and the mechanisms behind different performance responses of purebred or crossbred young animals in tropical pasture-based systems are not fully understood. Abreu et al (2022) suggested that Holstein heifers have less heat tolerance, demonstrated by the greater bite rate (20 vs. 17.3), and shorter grazing time spent in each meal compared to crossbred heifers. Therefore, the variation in performance of Holstein × Gyr and Holstein heifers might be explained by the ability to graze in high temperatures, which consequently impacts time spent in grazing and resting ( Quirino et al, 2022 ), resistance to ectoparasites, and susceptibility to infectious diseases ( Otto et al, 2018 ).…”

Cactus Cladodes Opuntia or Nopalea and By-Product of Low Nutritional Value as Solutions to Forage Shortages in Semiarid Areas

“…The cactus forage has been intensively studied since 1972 by research institutes in Brazil and countries such as South Africa, Mexico, Morocco, and Tunisia [ 5 , 6 , 7 ], and today it is recognized as an energy (metabolizable energy = 2.38 Mcal/kg DM) [ 8 ] and water source for livestock in semiarid regions. Among several species studied, the most used and resistant to eventual pests in Brazilian semiarid areas are the forage cactus Miúda (NUB) ( Nopalea cochenillifera Salm–Dyck) and Mexican Elephant Ear (OUB) ( Opuntia stricta [ Haw ] Haw).…”