Supplement intake variation, weight, and body condition change in yearling heifers grazing late-summer dryland pastures with Rumax BoviBox vs. Rumax BoviBox HM protein supplements1

McClain, Tyrell P; Wyffels, Samuel A; Larsen, Shay; Muller, A.; Davis, Noah; Carter, Boone H.; Bowman, J. G. P.; Boss, Darrin L; DelCurto, Timothy

doi:10.1093/tas/txaa130

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supplement intake was greatest for SF animals, as HF animals were given an allotted amount of supplement; therefore, tending to increase their total dry matter intake. Similar to previous research, SF cattle had variation in supplement intake [ 25 , 26 , 27 ], which led to increased total feed intake in the current study. The tendency for RDP-SF to increase DM digestibility may be attributed to RDP being a protein source for microbes, promoting their growth and efficiency [ 4 ] and, therefore, increasing digestibility.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Impacts of Rumen Degradable or Undegradable Protein Supplementation with or without Salt on Nutrient Digestion, and VFA Concentrations

Manoukian

DelCurto

Kluth

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of differences in protein type and delivery method on rumen dynamics and nutrient digestion. Cows were allotted to rumen degradable protein (RDP) or rumen undegradable protein (RUP) and self-fed (SF) salt-limited pressed blocks or hand-fed (HF) loose supplement, resulting in four dietary treatments. There was a delivery effect (p = 0.04) on neutral detergent fiber (NDF) intake, as the SF animals consumed more NDF than HF animals. The RDP-SF animals had greater NDF digestibility (p = 0.04) and water intake (p = 0.03) than the three other treatments. Supplement intake displayed a protein type effect (p = 0.03), as RDP-supplemented animals consumed more supplement on a g·kg body weight (BW)−1 d−1 basis than RUP animals. There was an effect of protein type (p = 0.02) and delivery method (p = 0.03) on fluid flow rate, with RUP and HF cows having greater liquid flow rates. Ruminal pH was lower (p < 0.01) in RDP-HF cows than RDP-SF cows at all hours, except 4-h post-feeding. RDP-SF animals had the greatest (p < 0.01) concentrations of ruminal ammonia. Valerate ruminal concentrations were greater (p = 0.04) in RDP supplemented animals compared to RUP supplemented animals. In conclusion, self-fed supplements containing RDP may enhance the use of low-quality forages and increase ruminal ammonia concentrations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Impacts of Rumen Degradable or Undegradable Protein Supplementation with or without Salt on Nutrient Digestion, and VFA Concentrations

Manoukian

DelCurto

Kluth

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both McClain et al [ 15 ] and White et al [ 16 ] reported supplement intake behavior with yearling heifers on the same paddocks as our study in years previous. This has provided additional information on supplement intake variation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…In terms of intake rate in a previous study, yearling heifers that were provided protein blocks all had decreased intake rates in Period 2 compared to Period 1 [ 15 ]. In the current study, RUP supplemented cows had decreased intake rates in Period 2, while RDP supplemented cows had increased rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yearling heifers provided salt-limited protein supplements had decreased variation in supplement intake in Period 2 compared to Period 1 [ 16 ], as did yearling heifers provided protein blocks [ 15 ]. Cows on the current study had mixed supplement intake behavior results, as RUP supplemented cows had increased variation in Period 2 compared to Period 1, while RDP supplemented cows had decreased variation in Period 2 compared to Period 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additional research using the SmartFeed Pro trailers conducted by Williams et al [ 24 ] suggested that the trailers do not reduce individual intake variability. Loose supplements may be easier for animals to consume, as yearling heifers grazing the same pastures as the current study had greater intakes when supplement was in a loose or pelleted form compared to blocks [ 15 , 16 ]. Additionally, block hardness is used in self-fed supplements to control intake [ 2 ], which may also explain the increased variation in intake, which has been previously reported by [ 25 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impacts of Rumen Degradable or Undegradable Protein Supplementation on Supplement Intake and Performance of Yearling Heifers and Cows Grazing Dryland Pastures

Manoukian

DelCurto

Kluth

et al. 2022

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Angus and Red Angus-based yearling heifers (n = 40) and lactating cows (n = 51) were each used in a complete randomized design and stratified by weight and body condition score to one of two treatments: (1) pressed supplement block containing rumen undegradable protein (RUP) and (2) pressed supplement block containing rumen degradable protein (RDP). Heifer and cow supplement intake displayed (p < 0.01) a treatment × period interaction. The RUP heifers and RDP cows consumed more in Period 2 than Period 1, whereas RDP heifers and RUP cows consumed more in Period 1 than Period 2, respectively. Intake rate demonstrated (p < 0.01) a treatment effect for heifers, with RUP consuming supplement faster than the RDP treatment. Intake rate for cows demonstrated (p < 0.01) a treatment × period interaction with RUP cows in Period 1 having faster intakes than Period 2, and RDP cows having the inverse. Cow intake variation displayed (p < 0.01) a treatment × period interaction with RUP cows having more variation in Period 2, while RDP cows had less variation in intake in Period 2. In conclusion, RDP and RUP impacted intake behavior of cows and heifers but had minimal impacts on performance.

show abstract

Effects of pelleted versus loose salt-limited protein supplement on supplement intake behavior of yearling heifers grazing dryland pastures

White

Emon

DelCurto-Wyffels

et al. 2022

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impacts of supplement form on supplement intake behavior, body weight (BW), and body condition score (BCS) change of yearling heifers grazing dryland pastures during the summer. In each of the two years, Angus crossbred heifers (14 months of age; Year 1, n = 57, BW = 449 ± 3.60 kg; Year 2, n = 58, BW = 328 ± 3.57 kg) were used in an 84-day completely randomized design evaluating the following treatments: 1) control, no supplement; 2) salt-limited supplement in pelleted form; and 3) a salt-limited supplement in loose form. Individual supplement intake, and time spent at the feeder were measured throughout the course of the study using a SmartFeed Pro self-feeder system (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA). On days 0, 42, and 84, the heifers were weighed, and body condition scored following a 16-h shrink. Supplementation and form of supplement did not influence (P ≥ 0.62) BW change for yearling heifers within or across study grazing periods. Body condition score was not influenced (P ≥ 0.26) by supplementation and form within the 0 – 42 (period 1) or 42 – 84 (period 2)-day periods but displayed a treatment by year interaction (P < 0.01) for the 84-day summer grazing period. Supplement intake (kg/d and g/kg BW) displayed a treatment × period interaction (P < 0.01). Supplement intake (kg/d) of heifers consuming pelleted supplement was 28 and 31% greater (P ≤ 0.02) than heifers consuming loose supplement in period 1 and 2, respectively. Supplement intake (g/kg BW) of heifers consuming pelleted supplement was 24% and 32% greater (P ≤ 0.05) than heifers consuming loose supplement in period 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, across both years, supplement intake in period 1 was less than half (P < 0.01) that of period 2, averaging 0.50 and 1.14 kg/day, respectively. Variation in supplement intake (% CV) was greater (P = 0.03) in period 1 compared to period 2, averaging 119 and 91 %, respectively. In addition, variation in supplement intake was greater (P = 0.03) in year 2 than year 1, averaging 122 and 88 %. Our results suggest that salt-limited supplements have a high degree of intake variation and pelleting could have a masking effect as indicated by the greater intake and intake rate of supplement with heifers consuming the pelleted supplement.

show abstract

Supplement intake variation, weight, and body condition change in yearling heifers grazing late-summer dryland pastures with Rumax BoviBox vs. Rumax BoviBox HM protein supplements1

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Impacts of Rumen Degradable or Undegradable Protein Supplementation with or without Salt on Nutrient Digestion, and VFA Concentrations

Impacts of Rumen Degradable or Undegradable Protein Supplementation with or without Salt on Nutrient Digestion, and VFA Concentrations

Impacts of Rumen Degradable or Undegradable Protein Supplementation on Supplement Intake and Performance of Yearling Heifers and Cows Grazing Dryland Pastures

Effects of pelleted versus loose salt-limited protein supplement on supplement intake behavior of yearling heifers grazing dryland pastures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About