Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: McFarlane, Z. D.
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Barbero, R. P., Nave, R. L.G., Maheiros, E. B. [UNESP], Reis, R. A. [UNESP], Mulliniks, J. T.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas2017.1780
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/175635
Resumo: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of stockpiled forage type and protein supplementation on VFA production, serum metabolites, and BW in yearling beef heifers. Over 2 yr, spring-born, Angus crossbred yearling beef heifers (n = 42; 305 ± 2.9 kg initial BW) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 forage pasture types: 1) endophyteinfected tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort], 2) a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L.) combination (BI), or 3) switchgrass (SG; Panicum virgatum L.). Each pasture was then randomly assigned to receive either 1 of 2 isonitrogenous CP treatments: 1) 0.68 kg·heifer−1·d−1 of dried distiller’s grains with solubles (DDGS; 28% CP and 88% TDN) or 2) 0.22 kg·heifer−1·d−1 of blood meal and fish meal (BF; 72.5% CP and 69.5% TDN), resulting in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Treatments were initiated in January and terminated in April in both years of the study. Body weights and blood samples were collected approximately every 28 d from initiation of grazing until the end of the trial. Heifer BW change from January to February and overall BW change were greater (P < 0.01) for TF heifers. However, BW change from March to April was not different (P = 0.84) among forage types. Supplement type did not influence (P ≥ 0.13) BW or BW change from January to February and from January to April; however, heifers fed DDGS had greater (P = 0.03) BW gain from March to April. Heifer BW change from February to March exhibited (P < 0.05) a forage type × supplement interaction, with BF-fed heifers gaining more BW on BI pastures than DDGSfed heifers. Serum glucose concentrations, ruminal acetate, and the acetate:propionate ratio were greater (P ≤ 0.04) for SG heifers. However, circulating serum NEFA and urea N (SUN) concentrations were not different (P ≥ 0.85) among forage types. Serum glucose and NEFA concentrations were not influenced (P ≥ 0.61) by supplement type. Circulating SUN concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) in BF-supplemented heifers. Ruminal acetate tended to be greater (P = 0.09) and butyrate concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) for BF-supplemented heifers. The acetate:propionate ratio was not influenced (P = 0.15) by supplement type. These results suggest that a compensatory gain period prior to breeding would be needed for these native warm-season species to be a viable opportunity for growing and developing replacement heifers in the southeastern United States.
id UNSP_b94029b9bd92edea0a2994fbf7030463
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/175635
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forageBeef heiferProtein supplementationWinter grazingThe objective of this study was to determine the effect of stockpiled forage type and protein supplementation on VFA production, serum metabolites, and BW in yearling beef heifers. Over 2 yr, spring-born, Angus crossbred yearling beef heifers (n = 42; 305 ± 2.9 kg initial BW) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 forage pasture types: 1) endophyteinfected tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort], 2) a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L.) combination (BI), or 3) switchgrass (SG; Panicum virgatum L.). Each pasture was then randomly assigned to receive either 1 of 2 isonitrogenous CP treatments: 1) 0.68 kg·heifer−1·d−1 of dried distiller’s grains with solubles (DDGS; 28% CP and 88% TDN) or 2) 0.22 kg·heifer−1·d−1 of blood meal and fish meal (BF; 72.5% CP and 69.5% TDN), resulting in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Treatments were initiated in January and terminated in April in both years of the study. Body weights and blood samples were collected approximately every 28 d from initiation of grazing until the end of the trial. Heifer BW change from January to February and overall BW change were greater (P < 0.01) for TF heifers. However, BW change from March to April was not different (P = 0.84) among forage types. Supplement type did not influence (P ≥ 0.13) BW or BW change from January to February and from January to April; however, heifers fed DDGS had greater (P = 0.03) BW gain from March to April. Heifer BW change from February to March exhibited (P < 0.05) a forage type × supplement interaction, with BF-fed heifers gaining more BW on BI pastures than DDGSfed heifers. Serum glucose concentrations, ruminal acetate, and the acetate:propionate ratio were greater (P ≤ 0.04) for SG heifers. However, circulating serum NEFA and urea N (SUN) concentrations were not different (P ≥ 0.85) among forage types. Serum glucose and NEFA concentrations were not influenced (P ≥ 0.61) by supplement type. Circulating SUN concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) in BF-supplemented heifers. Ruminal acetate tended to be greater (P = 0.09) and butyrate concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) for BF-supplemented heifers. The acetate:propionate ratio was not influenced (P = 0.15) by supplement type. These results suggest that a compensatory gain period prior to breeding would be needed for these native warm-season species to be a viable opportunity for growing and developing replacement heifers in the southeastern United States.Natural Resources Conservation ServiceDepartment of Animal Science University of TennesseeDepartamento de Produção Animal Instituto de Zootecnia UFRRJ – Univ Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroDepartment of Plant Sciences University of TennesseeDepartamento de Ciências Exatas Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias UNESP – Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartamento de Zootecnia Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias UNESP – Universidade Estadual PaulistaWest Central Research and Extension Center University of NebraskaDepartamento de Ciências Exatas Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias UNESP – Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartamento de Zootecnia Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias UNESP – Universidade Estadual PaulistaNatural Resources Conservation Service: 69-3A75-14-257University of TennesseeUFRRJ – Univ Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)University of NebraskaMcFarlane, Z. D.Barbero, R. P.Nave, R. L.G.Maheiros, E. B. [UNESP]Reis, R. A. [UNESP]Mulliniks, J. T.2018-12-11T17:16:50Z2018-12-11T17:16:50Z2017-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article5301-5308application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas2017.1780Journal of Animal Science, v. 95, n. 12, p. 5301-5308, 2017.1525-31630021-8812http://hdl.handle.net/11449/17563510.2527/jas2017.17802-s2.0-850380363752-s2.0-85038036375.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Animal Science0,848info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-06-07T18:44:43Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/175635Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T23:08:36.141929Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
title Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
spellingShingle Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
McFarlane, Z. D.
Beef heifer
Protein supplementation
Winter grazing
title_short Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
title_full Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
title_fullStr Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
title_full_unstemmed Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
title_sort Effect of forage species and supplement type on rumen kinetics and serum metabolites in growing beef heifers grazing winter forage
author McFarlane, Z. D.
author_facet McFarlane, Z. D.
Barbero, R. P.
Nave, R. L.G.
Maheiros, E. B. [UNESP]
Reis, R. A. [UNESP]
Mulliniks, J. T.
author_role author
author2 Barbero, R. P.
Nave, R. L.G.
Maheiros, E. B. [UNESP]
Reis, R. A. [UNESP]
Mulliniks, J. T.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv University of Tennessee
UFRRJ – Univ Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
University of Nebraska
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv McFarlane, Z. D.
Barbero, R. P.
Nave, R. L.G.
Maheiros, E. B. [UNESP]
Reis, R. A. [UNESP]
Mulliniks, J. T.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Beef heifer
Protein supplementation
Winter grazing
topic Beef heifer
Protein supplementation
Winter grazing
description The objective of this study was to determine the effect of stockpiled forage type and protein supplementation on VFA production, serum metabolites, and BW in yearling beef heifers. Over 2 yr, spring-born, Angus crossbred yearling beef heifers (n = 42; 305 ± 2.9 kg initial BW) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 forage pasture types: 1) endophyteinfected tall fescue [TF; Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort], 2) a big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman) and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans L.) combination (BI), or 3) switchgrass (SG; Panicum virgatum L.). Each pasture was then randomly assigned to receive either 1 of 2 isonitrogenous CP treatments: 1) 0.68 kg·heifer−1·d−1 of dried distiller’s grains with solubles (DDGS; 28% CP and 88% TDN) or 2) 0.22 kg·heifer−1·d−1 of blood meal and fish meal (BF; 72.5% CP and 69.5% TDN), resulting in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Treatments were initiated in January and terminated in April in both years of the study. Body weights and blood samples were collected approximately every 28 d from initiation of grazing until the end of the trial. Heifer BW change from January to February and overall BW change were greater (P < 0.01) for TF heifers. However, BW change from March to April was not different (P = 0.84) among forage types. Supplement type did not influence (P ≥ 0.13) BW or BW change from January to February and from January to April; however, heifers fed DDGS had greater (P = 0.03) BW gain from March to April. Heifer BW change from February to March exhibited (P < 0.05) a forage type × supplement interaction, with BF-fed heifers gaining more BW on BI pastures than DDGSfed heifers. Serum glucose concentrations, ruminal acetate, and the acetate:propionate ratio were greater (P ≤ 0.04) for SG heifers. However, circulating serum NEFA and urea N (SUN) concentrations were not different (P ≥ 0.85) among forage types. Serum glucose and NEFA concentrations were not influenced (P ≥ 0.61) by supplement type. Circulating SUN concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) in BF-supplemented heifers. Ruminal acetate tended to be greater (P = 0.09) and butyrate concentrations were greater (P < 0.01) for BF-supplemented heifers. The acetate:propionate ratio was not influenced (P = 0.15) by supplement type. These results suggest that a compensatory gain period prior to breeding would be needed for these native warm-season species to be a viable opportunity for growing and developing replacement heifers in the southeastern United States.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-12-01
2018-12-11T17:16:50Z
2018-12-11T17:16:50Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas2017.1780
Journal of Animal Science, v. 95, n. 12, p. 5301-5308, 2017.
1525-3163
0021-8812
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/175635
10.2527/jas2017.1780
2-s2.0-85038036375
2-s2.0-85038036375.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas2017.1780
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/175635
identifier_str_mv Journal of Animal Science, v. 95, n. 12, p. 5301-5308, 2017.
1525-3163
0021-8812
10.2527/jas2017.1780
2-s2.0-85038036375
2-s2.0-85038036375.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Animal Science
0,848
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 5301-5308
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808129494294200320