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

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 ( = 42; 305 ± 2.9 kg initial BW) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 forage pasture types: 1) endophyte-infected tall fescue [TF; (Schreb.) Dumort], 2) a big bluestem ( Vitman) and indiangrass ( L.) combination (BI), or 3) switchgrass (SG; L.). Each pasture was then randomly assigned to receive either 1 of 2 isonitrogenous CP treatments: 1) 0.68 kg·heifer·d of dried distiller's grains with solubles (DDGS; 28% CP and 88% TDN) or 2) 0.22 kg·heifer·d 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 ( < 0.01) for TF heifers. However, BW change from March to April was not different ( = 0.84) among forage types. Supplement type did not influence ( ≥ 0.13) BW or BW change from January to February and from January to April; however, heifers fed DDGS had greater ( = 0.03) BW gain from March to April. Heifer BW change from February to March exhibited ( < 0.05) a forage type × supplement interaction, with BF-fed heifers gaining more BW on BI pastures than DDGS-fed heifers. Serum glucose concentrations, ruminal acetate, and the acetate:propionate ratio were greater ( ≤ 0.04) for SG heifers. However, circulating serum NEFA and urea N (SUN) concentrations were not different ( ≥ 0.85) among forage types. Serum glucose and NEFA concentrations were not influenced ( ≥ 0.61) by supplement type. Circulating SUN concentrations were greater ( < 0.01) in BF-supplemented heifers. Ruminal acetate tended to be greater ( = 0.09) and butyrate concentrations were greater ( < 0.01) for BF-supplemented heifers. The acetate:propionate ratio was not influenced ( = 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.

FORAGES AND PASTURES SYMPOSIUM: Improving efficiency of production in pasture- and range-based beef and dairy systems.

Despite overall increased production in the last century, it is critical that grazing production systems focus on improving beef and dairy efficiency to meet current and future global food demands. For livestock producers, production efficiency is essential to maintain long-term profitability and sustainability. This continued viability of production systems using pasture- and range-based grazing systems requires more rapid adoption of innovative management practices and selection tools that increase profitability by optimizing grazing management and increasing reproductive performance. Understanding the genetic variation in cow herds will provide the ability to select cows that require less energy for maintenance, which can potentially reduce total energy utilization or energy required for production, consequently improving production efficiency and profitability. In the United States, pasture- and range-based grazing systems vary tremendously across various unique environments that differ in climate, topography, and forage production. This variation in environmental conditions contributes to the challenges of developing or targeting specific genetic components and grazing systems that lead to increased production efficiency. However, across these various environments and grazing management systems, grazable forage remains the least expensive nutrient source to maintain productivity of the cow herd. Beef and dairy cattle can capitalize on their ability to utilize these feed resources that are not usable for other production industries. Therefore, lower-cost alternatives to feeding harvested and stored feedstuffs have the opportunity to provide to livestock producers a sustainable and efficient forage production system. However, increasing production efficiency within a given production environment would vary according to genetic potential (i.e., growth and milk potential), how that genetic potential fits the respective production environment, and how the grazing management fits within those genetic parameters. Therefore, matching cow type or genetic potential to the production environment is and will be more important as cost of production increases.