Integrated%20Resource%20Management

1
Nutrition and Reproduction in Beef Cows
Cattlemens College January 29, 2003 David Lalman
Oklahoma State University
2
The Big Picture
Genetics and yesterdays nutritional environment
determines todays body condition.
Adaptation and body condition at calving
influence tomorrows reproductive success.
3
Body Condition Score atCalving and Pregnancy Rate
Body Condition of Cows and Heifers at Calving
4
Predicted number of days from calving to first
heat

• Condition
• score
• at calving Condition score change
  after calving to day 90
• -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
• 3 189 173 160 150 143 139 139
• 4 161 145 131 121 115 111 111
• 5 133 116 103 93 86 83 82
• 5.5 118 102 89 79 72 69 66

Difference 28 days
Lalman et al., 1997
5
Predicted number of days from calving to first
heat
Condition score at calving
Condition score change after calving to day 90
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3
189 173 160 150 143 139 139
4 161 145 131 121 115 111 111
5 133 116 103 93 86 83 82
5.5 118 102 89 79 72 69 66

Difference 16 days
Lalman et al., 1997
6
Heifer Weights at and After Calving and
Pregnancy Rate
94
66
91
36
Weeks after Calving
7
Moral of the BCS Story

• Achieving moderate body condition at calving is
  more effective than making up body condition
  after calving.
• Playing catch up is almost always expensive and
  usually not practical.

8
Achieving Moderate BC

• Genetics
• Grazing conditions
• Early (or earlier) weaning
• Limit feeding concentrates
• Protein and (or) energy supplementation during
  fall and winterprior to calving

9
Fat Supplementationand Beef Cow Reproduction

• Limited research including performance data.
• Considerable work currently being conducted on
  this topic.
• There are MANY factors to consider.

10
Fat SupplementationFactors to Consider

• Timing of supplementation
• Fat source
• Amount to supplement
• Cow age
• Cow condition
• Historical reproductive rates
• Cost effectiveness

11
Effects of Fat Supplementationon Pregnancy in
Beef Females
Cow Sup Amount Fat
Trt VS Con Author Age (No.) Timing Fed
(lb) Source Pregnancy
Lammoglia Hfr (52) -53 to Clv .7
Safflower 75 vs 57
Bellows Hfr (52) -65 to Clv .55
Saf, Soy, Sun 94 vs 79
Bellows Hfr (41) -68 to Clv 1.1
Sunflower 80 vs 90
Johnson Cow (67) -64 to Clv .78
Sunflower 95 vs 95
Alexander Cow (48) -59 to Clv .25 Sun
Soy 91 vs 88
Espinoza Cow (67) -61 to 44 .28
Megalac 91 vs 84
Graham Cow (??) -45 to Clv .56
Soybeans 93 vs 86
Indicates a significant difference at P lt 0.1
12
Effects of Fat Supplementationon Pregnancy in
Beef Females
Cow Sup Amount Fat
Trt VS Con Author Age (No.) Timing Fed
(lb) Source Pregnancy
De Fries Cow (20) Clv to Est .33
Rice Bran 94 vs 71
Filley Hfr (19) Clv to 30 .5
Megalac 72 vs 68
Burns Hfr (41) 61 to 176 .1
Fishmeal 85 vs 90
Johnson Cow (67) Clv to 76 .78
Sunflower 95 vs 95
Graham Cow (??) Clv to AI .56
Soybeans 87 vs 86
Beckmeir Cow (96) Clv to 125 ??
Soy oil 83 vs 83
Burns Hfr (25) 50 to 120 .18
Fishmeal No diff
Indicates a significant difference at P lt 0.1
13
Fat SupplementationSummary

• Fat supplementation has improved pregnancy rates
  in 3 out of 14 studies reviewed.
• Marginal responses may be due to adequate body
  energy stores or adequate basal diet nutrient
  availability
• Expect greater response with thin cows or when
  nutrient availability is low (drought,
  late-winter calving)?
• Response seems to be greater when overall
  pregnancy rates are low.
• Potential for improvement in 1st service
  conception

14
(No Transcript)
15
Program Feeding Concentratesto Replace Hay

• Corn may be the lowest cost energy source for
  cattle in some drought areas.

16
Program Feeding for Calves

• 80 whole shelled corn
• 20 commercial supplement (38 to 44 protein)
  including high calcium and ionophore
• Feed 80/20 mix at approximately 2-2.25 of body
  weight
• No hay or pasture
• ADG 2.0-2.5
• Requires intensive management, equipment and
  facilities

17
Program Feeding

• McCullum and Gill, 1991
• Steers, initial weight 463 lbs
• 84 d wintering study
• Treatments
• Dry wintered with 2 lb supplement
• Target gain of 1.0
• Target gain of 1.5
• Target gain of 2.0

18
Program FeedingResults
Wintering Regimen Dry W 1.0 1.5 2.0 ADG
.96 1.53 2.01 2.54 Avg DM intake -
7.41 9.0 10.7 Feed/Gain - 4.9 4.5
4.3 Feed /Gaina- .27 .25 .24
aFeed cost 110 per ton Gill et al., 1991, OSU
An. Sci. Res. Report
19
Program Feeding, Contd

• In adequate volume most Oklahoma Feed
  Manufacturers can make these supplements for you
• Supplements should be pelleted
• Not an easy fix
• Takes much more labor
• Requires more intensive management

20
It can work for cows too!

• Goal is usually maintenance
• Include small amount of hay for safety
• Example diet
• Corn 9 lbs.
• Grass hay 3 - 7 lbs.
• Supplement 2 lbs

21
Cow Example

• Cost of free choice avg quality hay (65 per ton)
  2 lb. protein 1.04
• Cost of limit fed corn program at current costs
  .80
• Does require more labor and management skill

22
Whole VS Cracked Cornfor Limit Fed Cows
Item Cracked Whole Corn Corn ADG
-.50 -.38 BCS change -.55 -.51 Calf ADG
2.4 2.5
From Tjardes, 1998, J. Anim. Sci., 768
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Program Feeding Bred Heifers
Hay Corn WMSH BMS Hay 19 3.5 3.5
3.5 Sup 2 2 - 1 Feed -
7 10.5 10.6 Total 21 12.5 14 15.1 TDN 9.7
9.2 8.9 9.0 CP 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.9
27
Program Feeding Bred Heifers
Hay Corn WMSH BMS ADG 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 /Da
y .76 .75 .83 .70 /lb gain .67 .54 .60 .51
Hay 60/ton, Sup 190/ton, Corn 2.40/bu,
WMSH 137/ton, BMS 90/ton
28
(No Transcript)