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
_version_ 1784614059885199360
author Thompson, Logan R
Maciel, Isabella C F
Rodrigues, Patricia D R
Cassida, Kim A
Rowntree, Jason E
author_facet Thompson, Logan R
Maciel, Isabella C F
Rodrigues, Patricia D R
Cassida, Kim A
Rowntree, Jason E
author_sort Thompson, Logan R
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8665682
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86656822021-12-13 Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions Thompson, Logan R Maciel, Isabella C F Rodrigues, Patricia D R Cassida, Kim A Rowntree, Jason E J Anim Sci Forage Based Livestock Systems 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. Oxford University Press 2021-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8665682/ /pubmed/34791305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab326 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Forage Based Livestock Systems
Thompson, Logan R
Maciel, Isabella C F
Rodrigues, Patricia D R
Cassida, Kim A
Rowntree, Jason E
Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
title Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
title_full Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
title_fullStr Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
title_full_unstemmed Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
title_short Impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
title_sort impact of forage diversity on forage productivity, nutritive value, beef cattle performance, and enteric methane emissions
topic Forage Based Livestock Systems
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT thompsonloganr impactofforagediversityonforageproductivitynutritivevaluebeefcattleperformanceandentericmethaneemissions
AT macielisabellacf impactofforagediversityonforageproductivitynutritivevaluebeefcattleperformanceandentericmethaneemissions
AT rodriguespatriciadr impactofforagediversityonforageproductivitynutritivevaluebeefcattleperformanceandentericmethaneemissions
AT cassidakima impactofforagediversityonforageproductivitynutritivevaluebeefcattleperformanceandentericmethaneemissions
AT rowntreejasone impactofforagediversityonforageproductivitynutritivevaluebeefcattleperformanceandentericmethaneemissions