Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T13:51:17.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of supplementation and stocking rate on body condition and production parameters of multiparous beef cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

B. J. Renquist ,
J. W. Oltjen ,
R. D. Sainz ,
J. M. Connor  and
C. C. Calvert
B. J. Renquist
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616, USA
J. W. Oltjen*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616, USA
R. D. Sainz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616, USA
J. M. Connor
Affiliation:
Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, University of California, Browns Valley, CA 95918, USA
C. C. Calvert
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616, USA
*
†E-mail: jwoltjen@ucdavis.edu
Get access

Abstract

Fall-calving multiparous Angus × Hereford cows 3 to 10 years of age were stratified by age in a three by two factorial treatment arrangement to evaluate the efficacy of modifying stocking rate and supplementation strategy to manage cow body condition and production parameters over a 5-year study. Efficacy was evaluated quarterly in association with calving, breeding, weaning, and mid way between weaning and calving (i.e. in August). Three protein supplementation strategies (none, standard, strategic) were imposed across both a moderate (0·3 cows per ha) and a high (0·4 cows per ha) stocking rate. In the strategically supplemented group, protein supplement was provided to cows with a body condition score <5·5 at the quarterly evaluations. There was an effect of supplementation on pregnancy rate, which in combination with previously established culling practices resulted in different age profiles amongst supplementation strategies in years 2 to 5 (P < 0·01). Two statistical analyses were therefore conducted to dissociate the confounding effects of supplementation strategy and age. One model included the effect of stocking rate, supplementation strategy, production year, and all interactions; the second included the addition of age and its interactive effects. Stocking rate and supplementation strategy affected pregnancy rate in each of the models (P = 0·003 and P = 0·10, respectively). Standard, non-supplemented and strategically supplemented animals had estimated pregnancy rates of 0·83, 0·76, and 0·79, respectively (P = 0·10). The effects of nutrition on both calving interval and birth weight were independent of the model employed. Animals that were not supplemented had extended calving intervals (P = 0·06), but there was no effect of stocking rate (P > 0·10). Birth weight was not affected by supplementation strategy or stocking rate (P > 0·10). The lower 205-day weights of calves on a heavy compared with moderate stocking rate was independent of age (P = 0·02). However, the increased 205-day weight of calves born to strategically supplemented cows compared with those born to unsupplemented cows was only evident when data were not corrected for differences in age among groups (P = 0·03). Likewise, analyses of cow condition parameters using models without and with age resulted in different interpretations. These results suggest that strategic and standard supplementation result in similar animal performance and that the improvement in herd productivity associated with altering stocking rate and supplementation may partially be due to altered herd age dynamics.

Keywords

beef cattlebody conditionpregnancy ratereproductionstocking ratesupplements
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , December 2005 , pp. 403 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderton, B. W., Hixon, D. L., Hess, B. W., Woodard, L. F., Hallford, D. M. and Moss, G. E. 2000. Effects of supplemental protein type on productivity of primiparous beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 78: 3027–3035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaty, J. L., Cochran, R. C., Lintzenich, B. A., Vanzant, E. S., Morrill, J. L., Brandt, R. T. Jr. and Johnson, D. E. 1994. Effect of frequency of supplementation and protein concentration in supplements on performance and digestion characteristics of beef cattle consuming low-quality forages. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2475–2486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, T. J., Simms, D. D., Cochran, R. C., Brandt, R. T. Jr, Vanzant, E. S. and Kuhl, G. L. 1992. Supplementation of ammoniated wheat straw: performance and forage utilization characteristics in beef cattle receiving energy and protein supplements. Journal of Animal Science 70: 349–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellows, R. A. and Short, R. E. 1978. Effects of precalving feed level on birth weight, calving difficulty and subsequent fertility. Journal of Animal Science 46: 1522–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, J. R. and Talbot, M. W. 1951. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in the California foothills. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, circular no. 870, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
Browning, R. Jr, Robert, B. S., Lewis, A. W., Neuendorff, D. A. and Randel, R. D. 1994. Effects of post-partum nutrition and once-daily suckling on reproductive efficiency and preweaning calf performance in fall-calving Brahman (Bos indicus) cows. Journal of Animal Science 72: 984–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corah, L. R., Quealy, A. P., Dunn, T. G. and Kaltenbach, C. C. 1974. Prepartum and post-partum levels of progesterone and estradiol in beef heifers fed two levels of energy. Journal of Animal Science 39: 380–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delcurto, T., Cochran, R. C., Nagaraja, T. G., Corah, L. R., Beharka, A. A. and Vanzant, E. S. 1990. Comparison of soybean meal/sorghum grain, alfalfa hay and dehydrated alfalfa pellets as supplemental protein sources for beef cattle consuming dormant tallgrass-prairie forage. Journal of Animal Science 68: 2901–2915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeRouen, S. M., Franke, D. E., Morrison, D. G., Wyatt, W. E., Coombs, D. F., White, T. W., Humes, P. E. and Greene, B. B. 1994. Prepartum body condition and weight influences on reproductive performance of first-calf beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1119–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Espinoza, J. L., Ramirez-Godinez, J. A., Jimenez, J. A. and Flores, A. 1995. Effects of calcium soaps of fatty acids on post-partum reproductive activity in beef cows and growth of calves. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2888–2892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, C. G., Cochran, R. C., Simms, D. D., Klevesahl, E. A., Wickersham, T. A. and Johnson, D. E. 2001. The effects of several supplementation frequencies on forage use and the performance of beef cattle consuming dormant tallgrass prairie forage. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2276–2285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fike, G. D., Simms, D. D., Cochran, R. C., Vanzant, E. S., Kuhl, G. L. and Brandt, R. T. Jr 1995. Protein supplementation of ammoniated wheat straw: effect on performance and forage utilization of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 1595–1601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freetly, H. C. and Cundiff, L. V. 1998. Reproductive performance, calf growth, and milk production of first-calf heifers sired by seven breeds and raised on different levels of nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 76: 1513–1522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimard, B., Humblot, P., Ponter, A. A., Mialot, J. P., Sauvant, D. and Thibier, M. 1995. Influence of post-partum energy restriction on energy status, plasma LH and oestradiol secretion and follicular development in suckled beef cows. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 104: 173–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hough, R. L., McCarthy, F. D., Kent, H. D., Eversole, D. E. and Wahlberg, M. L. 1990. Influence of nutritional restriction during late gestation on production measures and passive immunity in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 68: 2622–2627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huston, J. E., Thompson, P. V. and Taylor, C. A. Jr 1993. Combined effects of stocking rate and supplemental feeding level on adult beef cows grazing native rangeland in Texas. Journal of Animal Science 71: 3458–3465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lalman, D. L., Keisler, D. H., Williams, J. E., Scholljegerdes, E. J. and Mallett, D. M. 1997. Influence of post-partum weight and body condition change on duration of anestrus by undernourished suckled beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 75: 2003–2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lammoglia, M. A., Willard, S. T., Oldham, J. R. and Randel, R. D. 1996. Effects of dietary fat and season on steroid hormonal profiles before parturition and on hormonal, cholesterol, triglycerides, follicular patterns, and post-partum reproduction in Brahman cows. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2253–2262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lodman, D. W., Petersen, M. K., Clark, C. K., Wiley, J. S., Havstad, K. M. and McInerney, M. J. 1990. Substitution of DL-methionine for soybean meal as a winter supplement for gestating cows grazing native range. Journal of Animal Science 68: 4361–4375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, T. T., Lusby, K. S., Wettemann, R. P. and Purvis, H. T. 1995. Effects of feeding energy or protein supplements before or after calving on performance of spring-calving cows grazing native range. Journal of Animal Science 73: 657–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miner, J. L., Petersen, M. K., Havstad, K. M., McInerney, M. J. and Bellows, R. A. 1990. The effects of ruminal escape protein or fat on nutritional status of pregnant winter-grazing beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 68: 1743–1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J. G. 1985. Evaluation of feeding value and costs of cattle supplements. University of California, Department of Animal Science and Cooperative Extension beef day bulletin.Google Scholar
Raguse, C. A., Morris, J. G. and Landry, V. N. 1989. Correlation of steer average daily gain with diet quality and forage phenology in an improved annual grassland. Journal of Range Management 42: 415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. W., Spitzer, J. C. and Warner, M. B. 1986. Effect of varying levels of post-partum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive performance in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 62: 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. J., Nugent, R. A., Klindt, J. and Jenkins, T. G. 1997. Circulating insulin-like growth factor I, insulin-like growth factor binding proteins, growth hormone, and resumption of estrus in post-partum cows subjected to dietary energy restriction. Journal of Animal Science 75: 1909–1917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusche, W. C., Cochran, R. C., Corah, L. R., Stevenson, J. S., Harmon, D. L., Brandt, R. T. Jr and Minton, J. E. 1993. Influence of source and amount of dietary protein on performance, blood metabolites, and reproductive function of primiparous beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 71: 557–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sasser, R. G., Williams, R. J., Bull, R. C., Ruder, C. A. and Falk, D. G. 1988. Post-partum reproductive performance in crude protein-restricted beef cows: return to estrus and conception. Journal of Animal Science 66: 3033–3039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selk, G. E., Wettemann, R. P., Lusby, K. S., Oltjen, J. W., Mobley, S. L., Rasby, R. J. and Garmendia, J. C. 1988. Relationship among weight change, body condition and reproductive performance of range beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 66: 3153–3159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1999. SAS procedures guide version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Strauch, T. A., Scholljegerdes, E. J., Patterson, D. J., Smith, M. F., Lucy, M. C., Lamberson, W. R. and Williams, J. E. 2001. Influence of undegraded intake protein on reproductive performance of primiparous beef heifers maintained on stockpiled fescue pasture. Journal of Animal Science 79: 574–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanzant, E. S. and Cochran, R. C. 1994. Performance and forage utilization by beef cattle receiving increasing amounts of alfalfa hay as a supplement to low-quality, tallgrass-prairie forage. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1059–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vizcarra, J. A., Wettemann, R. P., Spitzer, J. C. and Morrison, D. G. 1998. Body condition at parturition and post-partum weight gain influence luteal activity and concentrations of glucose, insulin, and nonesterified fatty acids in plasma of primiparous beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 76: 927–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weder, C. E., DelCurto, T., Svejcar, T., Jaeger, J. R. and Bailey, R. K. 1999. Influence of supplemental alfalfa quality on the intake, use, and subsequent performance of beef cattle consuming low-quality roughages. Journal of Animal Science 77: 1266–1276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed