S. J. Falck

Influence of protein supplementation frequency on cows consuming low-quality forage: Performance, grazing behavior, and variation in supplement intake

The objectives of this research were to determine the influence of protein supplementation frequency on cow performance, grazing time, distance traveled, maximum distance from water, cow distribution, DMI, DM digestibility, harvest efficiency, percentage of supplementation events frequented, and CV for supplement intake for cows grazing low-quality forage. One hundred twenty pregnant (60 +/- 45 d) Angus x Hereford cows (467 +/- 4 kg BW) were used in a 3 x 3 Latin square design for one 84-d period in each of three consecutive years. Cows were stratified by age, BCS, and BW and assigned randomly to one of three 810-ha pastures. Treatments included an unsupplemented control (CON) and supplementation every day (D; 0.91 kg, DM basis) or once every 6 d (6D; 5.46 kg, DM basis) with cottonseed meal (CSM; 43% CP, DM basis). Four cows from each treatment (each year) were fitted with global positioning system collars to estimate grazing time, distance traveled, maximum distance from water, cow distribution, and percentage of supplementation events frequented. Collared cows were dosed with intraruminal n-alkane controlled-release devices on d 28 for estimation of DMI, DM digestibility, and harvest efficiency. Additionally, Cr2O3 was incorporated into CSM on d 36 at 3% of DM for use as a digesta flow marker to estimate the CV for supplement intake. Cow BW and BCS change were greater (P < or = 0.03) for supplemented treatments compared with CON. No BW or BCS differences (P > or = 0.14) were noted between D and 6D. Grazing time was greater (P = 0.04) for CON compared with supplemented treatments, with no difference (P = 0.26) due to supplementation frequency. Distance traveled, maximum distance from water, cow distribution, DMI, DM digestibility, and harvest efficiency were not affected (P > or = 0.16) by protein supplementation or supplementation frequency. The percentage of supplementation events frequented and the CV for supplement intake were not affected (P > or = 0.58) by supplementation frequency. Results suggest that providing protein daily or once every 6 d to cows grazing low-quality forage increases BW and BCS gain, while decreasing grazing time. Additionally, protein supplementation and supplementation frequency may have little to no effect on cow distribution, DMI, and harvest efficiency in the northern Great Basin.

PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION OF RUMINANTS CONSUMING LOW-QUALITY COOL- OR WARM-SEASON FORAGE: DIFFERENCES IN INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY

An in situ study (Exp. 1) using 4 ruminally cannulated steers (343 ± 11 kg of BW) in a completely randomized design was used to compare ruminal degradation characteristics of low-quality cool-season (C3; Kentucky bluegrass straw; Poa pratensis; 6.3% CP; DM basis) and warm-season (C4; tallgrass prairie; 5.7% CP; DM basis) forage. Four ruminally cannulated steers (252 ± 8 kg of BW; Exp. 2) and 4 wethers (38 ± 1 kg of BW; Exp. 3) were used in two 2 × 2 factorial arrangements of treatments to determine the influence of supplemental CP (CPSupp; soybean meal; 0.09 and 0.19% of BW, CP basis, for steers and lambs, respectively) on nutrient intake and digestion of C3 and C4 forages. Steers and wethers were allotted to separate 4 × 4 Latin squares that ran simultaneously with 20-d periods. In Exp. 1, C3 had a greater A fraction (fraction of total pool disappearing at a rate too rapid to measure) and effective degradability of DM and NDF compared with C4 (P < 0.01). In addition, C3 had a greater (P < 0.01) A fraction and effective degradability of N, whereas the C fraction (fraction of total pool unavailable in the rumen) was less (P < 0.01) than those for C4. Consequently, RDP accounted for 84.7% of total CP in C3 as compared with 66% for C4 (P < 0.01). In Exp. 2, a CPSupp × forage interaction (P < 0.01) was noted for forage and total DMI, with CPSupp increasing intake of C4 by 47% and intake of C3 forage by only 7%. Dry matter digestibility responded similarly, with a CPSupp × forage interaction (P = 0.05; CPSupp increased digestibility by 21% with C4 and by 9% with C3 forage). In addition, CPSupp × forage interactions were noted for ruminal liquid retention time (P = 0.02; CPSupp decreased retention by 3.6 h with C4 and by only 0.6 h with C3 forage) and particulate passage rate (P = 0.02; CPSupp increased passage by 46% with C4 and by 10% with C3 forage). As in Exp. 2, a CPSupp × forage interaction (P = 0.01; CPSupp increased digestibility by 18% with C4 and by 7% with C3 forage) was observed with DM digestibility in Exp. 3. In contrast, only N balance (P < 0.01) and N digestibility (P < 0.01) were affected by CPSupp. These data suggest that intake and digestion of low-quality C3 and C4 forages by ruminants are not similar and, more important, that the physiological response of ruminants to protein supplementation of low-quality forage is dependent on forage type.

Late gestation supplementation of beef cows differing in body condition score: Effects on cow and calf performance

A 2-yr study utilizing 120 mature, crossbred (Angus × Herford) cows/year, evaluated the influence of cow BCS and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) supplementation during late gestation on cow performance and productivity of subsequent offspring. Treatments were arranged as a 2×2 factorial in a randomized complete block design with 2 BCS and with or without DDGS supplementation. Cows were nutritionally managed to enter the last trimester of gestation with a BCS of approximately 4 (LBCS) or 6 (HBCS) and were thereafter managed in a single herd (initial BCS were 4.4 and 5.7 for LBCS and HBCS treatments, respectively). During the last trimester, 12.7 kg/cow of low quality meadow hay (6.4% CP; DM basis) was provided each day. Supplemented cows were gathered and sorted into pens (12 pens; 5 cows/pen; 6 pens/BCS) every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and received the equivalent of 0.9 kg/cow daily of DDGS (31% CP; DM basis; supplement was consumed within 30 min on each supplementation day). Calf birth weight was greater for HBCS compared to LBCS (P=0.001) and for supplemented compared to nonsupplemented cows (P=0.04). Cow weight at weaning was greater for HBCS compared with LBCS (P<0.001); however, no differences were noted because of supplementation (P=0.16). Weaning weight was greater for the offspring of supplemented compared to nonsupplemented cows (P=0.02). There were no differences in postweaning calf performance (growing lot and feedlot) or carcass characteristics (P>0.05) due to treatments. Nevertheless, HBCS cows had approximately 10% more live calves at birth and at weaning (P≤0.01) compared to LBCS cows. Consequently, the total weaned calf weight per cow was 26 kg greater for HBCS compared with LBCS (P=0.004). Pregnancy rate was greater (P=0.05) for HBCS than LBCS cows (92% vs. 79%, respectively) but not affected by supplementation (P=0.94). This research demonstrates the potential consequences of not maintaining cows in adequate BCS at calving. Also, though it appears that supplementation of beef cows with DDGS during late gestation has a positive effect on weaning weight, there was no apparent developmental programming effect on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of calves.

Effect of Ruminal Incubation on Perennial Pepperweed Germination

Abstract Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium L.) is an aggressive perennial forb that is infesting much of western North America. Grazing may provide an alternative to chemical and mechanical control of perennial pepperweed. However, if livestock are used in control efforts, they may spread weeds by depositing viable seeds in fecal pats in uninfested areas. This study consisted of 2 experiments using fistulated steers to estimate the effect of ruminant digestion on germination of perennial pepperweed seeds. In Experiment 1, we tested the hypothesis that ruminal incubation (for 0, 48, and 96 hours) affects perennial pepperweed germination. In Experiment 2, we tested the hypothesis that type of incubation (no incubation, water only, or total digestive tract) affects perennial pepperweed germination. In Experiment 1, germination was 17 and 15 times greater for the 48- and 96-hour incubation treatments compared to the control, respectively. In Experiment 2, germination was 23 and 19 times greater for the water and total tract incubation treatments compared to the control, respectively. Effects were attributed to a combination of seed hydration and seed coat scarification. Results from this study suggest that grazing should occur prior to seed set or that livestock which have grazed perennial pepperweed bearing viable seed should be quarantined before being moved to uninfested areas. These results also suggest that control of perennial pepperweed is especially important where moving water may transport seeds off site.

Nutritional and Seed Responses of Forage Kochia to Ruminal Incubation

Forage kochia may be a complimentary forage to most dormant cool-season grasses in the Intermountain West. DOI:10.2458/azu_rangelands_v26i1_Schauer

Knapweed Hay as a Nutritional Supplement for Beef Cows Fed Low-Quality Forage

Abstract Advancing our ability to use invasive plants for producing commodities is central to the agricultural industry. Our objective was to evaluate Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens [L.] DC.) as a winter feed supplement for ruminant livestock. In Experiment 1, we utilized three ruminally cannulated steers in a completely randomized design to compare the ruminal degradation characteristics of alfalfa and Russian knapweed. In the second experiment, Russian knapweed and alfalfa were compared as protein supplements using 48 midgestation, beef cows (530 ± 5 kg) offered ad libitum hard fescue (Festuca brevipila Tracey) straw in an 84-d study. Treatments included an unsupplemented control and alfalfa or Russian knapweed provided on an iso-nitrogenous basis. In Experiment 1, the rate and effective degradability of neutral detergent fiber was greater for alfalfa compared with Russian knapweed (P ≤ 0.02). Ruminal lag time for NDF (period before measurable disappearance began) was greater for knapweed (P = 0.03). Soluble nitrogen, rate of N degradation, rumen degradable N, and effective degradability of N were all greater for alfalfa compared with Russian knapweed (P < 0.01). In Experiment 2, supplementation increased (P < 0.01) cow weight gain and BCS compared to the unsupplemented control with no difference between alfalfa and Russian knapweed (P = 0.47). There was no difference (P = 0.60) in the quantity of straw offered between the unsupplemented cows and supplemented groups, but alfalfa fed cows were offered approximately 11% more (P = 0.03) than Russian knapweed-fed cows. Total DM offered to cows was greater (P < 0.01) for supplemented compared with unsupplemented cows with no difference noted between alfalfa and Russian knapweed (P = 0.79). Russian knapweed is comparable to alfalfa as a protein supplement for beef cows consuming low-quality forage. Using Russian knapweed as a nutritional supplement can help solve two major production problems; managing an invasive weed, and providing a feedstuff that reduces an impediment in livestock production systems.