Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T16:38:58.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of post-partum levels of nutrition on productivity of 2-year-old heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Whittier ,
D. C. Clanton  and
G. H. Deutscher
J. C. Whittier
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, NE 69101, USA
D. C. Clanton
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, NE 69101, USA
G. H. Deutscher
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, NE 69101, USA
Get access

Abstract

Forty crossbred heifers, mated to one sire, that calved in a 20-day period were used to study the effect of varying time and level of post-partum nutrition on productivity. Heifers were individually fed for 90 days post partum beginning at parturition: (1) proportionately 1·3 National Research Council (NRC) 1984 recommendations for 45 days followed by 0·7 NRC for 45 days (130·70); (2) 1·0 NRC for 90 days (100·100); and (3) 0·7 NRC for 45 days followed by 1·3 NRC for 45 days (70·130). Milk production, growth and body condition were estimated periodically during the lactation. The 130·70 heifers maintained their weight during the first 45 days of lactation, while the 100·100 and the 70·130 heifers lost weight (−0·33 and 0·60 kg/day, respectively). During the second 45-day period, the 100·100 and 70·130 heifers gained weight (0·24 and 0·72 kg/day, respectively) while the 130·70 heifers lost weight (−0·39 kg/day). Visual condition scores paralleled weight changes during both phases of the feeding period. Milk production varied according to nutrient intake and treatment differences were greatest at 45 days post partum (8·1, 7·3 and 6·1 kg/day for 130·70, 100·100 and 70·130, respectively). Calf weight gains were unaffected by dam nutrition. Days to first oestrus, days to conception or services per conception were not significantly different (P > 0·05) among treatment groups. Based on this experiment, neither of the alternate feeding systems resulted in decreased performance when compared with feeding at a constant level. Therefore, it appears that latitude exists in the way heifers can be fed early in their first lactation, without adversely affecting production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 59 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anthony, R. V., Kittok, R. J., Ellington, E. F. and Nielsen, M. K. 1981. Effects of zeranol on growth and ease of calf delivery in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 53: 1325–1332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R. D., Le Du, Y. L. P. and Barker, J. M. 1982. The influence of winter nutrition, grazing system and stockin grate on the performance of spring-calving Hereford × Friesian cows and their calves. 1. Winter nutrition. Animal Production 34: 213–224.Google Scholar
Bartle, S. J., Males, J. R. and Preston, R. L. 1984. Effect of energy intake on the postpartum interval in beef cows and the adequacy of the cow's milk production for calf growth. Journal of Animal Science 58: 1068–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boggs, D. L., Smith, E. F., Schalles, R. R., Brent, B. E., Corah, L. R. and Pruitt, R. J. 1980. Effects of milk and forage intake on calf performance. Journal of Animal Science 51: 550–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clanton, D. C., Jones, L. E. and England, M. E. 1983. Effect of rate and time of gain after weaning on the development of replacement beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 56: 280–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corah, L. R., Dunn, T. G. and Kaltenbach, C. C. 1975. Influence of prepartum nutrition on the reproductive performance of beef females and the performance of their progeny. Journal of Animal Science 41: 819–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, D., Schalles, R. R., Kiracoie, G. H. and Good, D. L. 1977. Influence of winter nutrition on beef cow reproduction. Journal of Animal Science 45: 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, T. G. and Kaltenbach, C. C. 1980. Nutrition and the postpartum interval of the ewe, sow and cow. Journal of Animal Science 51: Suppl. 2, pp. 29–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Hodgson, J., Peart, J. N., Russel, A. J. F., Whitelaw, A. and MacDonald, A. J. 1980. The influence of nutrition in early lactation on the performance of spring-calving suckler cows and their calves. Animal Production 30: 315–325.Google Scholar
Holness, D. H., Hoplky, J. D. H. and Hale, D. H. 1978. The effects of plane of nutrition, live weight, temporary weaning and breed on the occurrence of oestrus in beef cows during the post-partum period. Animal Production 26: 47–54.Google Scholar
Klosterman, E. W., Sanford, L. G. and Parker, C. F. 1968. Effect of cow size and condition and ration protein content upon maintenance requirements of mature beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 27: 242–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauderdale, J. W. 1986. A review of patterns of change in luteal function. Journal of Animal Science 62: Suppl. 2, pp. 79–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. G., Edwards, R. A. F., Somerville, S. H. and Jolly, G. M. 1979. The effect of plane of nutrition in early lactation on the performance of beef cows. Animal Production 29: 293–303.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 4, Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 6th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Neville, W. E. 1962. Influence of dam's milk production and other factors on 120- and 240-day weight of Hereford calves. Journal of Animal Science 21: 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, A. M. 1977. The influence of plane of immediately post-calving on the performance of cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand of Animal Production 37: 103–108.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1982. Users' Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC.Google Scholar
Tervit, H. R., Smith, J. F. and Kaltenbach, C. C. 1977. Post-partum anoestrus in beef cattle: a review. Proceeding of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 37: 109–119.Google Scholar
Whitman, R. W. 1975. Weight change, body condition and beef-cow reproduction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado Stale University, Fort Collins.Google Scholar
Whittier, J. C., Clanton, D. C. and Deutscher, G. H. 1988. Effect of varying weight gain during the last trimester of gestation on productivity of beef heifers. Animal Production 47: 53–57.Google Scholar
Wlltbank, J. N., Rowden, W. W., Ingalls, J. E., Gregory, K. E. and Koch, R. M. 1962. Effect of energy level on reproductive phenomen a of mature Hereford cows. Journal of Animal Science 21: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltbank, J. N., Rowdkn, W. W., Ingalls, J. E. and Zimmerman, D. R. 1964. Influence of post-partum energy levels on reproductive performance of Hereford cows restricted in energy intake prior to calving. Journal of Animal Science 23: 1049–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar