Cargando…

Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions from the beef industry are largely attributed to the grazing sector, specifically from beef cattle enteric methane emissions. Therefore, the study objective was to examine how forage diversity impacts forage productivity, nutritive value, animal performance, and enteric meth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thompson, Logan R, Maciel, Isabella C F, Rodrigues, Patricia D R, Cassida, Kim A, Rowntree, Jason E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8665682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34791305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab326
Descripción
Sumario:Greenhouse gas emissions from the beef industry are largely attributed to the grazing sector, specifically from beef cattle enteric methane emissions. Therefore, the study objective was to examine how forage diversity impacts forage productivity, nutritive value, animal performance, and enteric methane emissions. This study occurred over three consecutive grazing seasons (2018 to 2020) and compared two common Midwest grazing mixtures: 1) a simple, 50:50 alfalfa:orchardgrass mixture (SIMP) and 2) a botanically diverse, cool-season species mixture (COMP). Fifty-six steers and heifers were adapted to an Automated Head Chamber System (AHCS) each year (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD) and stratified into treatment groups based on acclimation visitation. Each treatment consisted of four pastures, three 3.2-ha and one 1.6-ha, with eight and four animals each, respectively. Forage production was measured biweekly in pre- and postgrazed paddocks, and forage nutritive value was analyzed using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Shrunk body weights were taken monthly to determine animal performance. Forage availability did not differ between treatments (P = 0.69) but tended lower in 2018 (P = 0.06; 2.40 t dry matter ha(−1)) than 2019 (2.92 t dry matter ha(−1)) and 2020 (P = 0.10; 2.81 t dry matter ha(−1)). Crude protein was significantly lower for COMP in 2018 compared with SIMP. Forage acid detergent fiber content was significantly lower for the COMP mixture (P = 0.02). The COMP treatment resulted higher dry matter digestibility (IVDMD48) in 2018 and 2019 compared with the SIMP treatment (P < 0.01). Animal performance did not differ between treatments (P > 0.50). There was a tendency for the COMP treatment to have lower enteric CH(4) production on a g d(−1) basis (P = 0.06), but no difference was observed on an emission intensity basis (g CH(4) kg(−1) gain; P = 0.56). These results would indicate that adoption of the complex forage mixture would not result in improved forage productivity, animal performance, or reduced emission intensity compared with the simple forage mixture.