J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reed, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Kastelic, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reed, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Kastelic, J. P.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 75, Issue 7 1708-1714, Copyright © 1997 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Effect of forage:concentrate ratio on digestion and reproduction in primiparous beef heifers

B. K. Reed, C. W. Hunt, R. G. Sasser, P. A. Momont, L. M. Rode and J. P. Kastelic
Department of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Idaho, Moscow 83844, USA.

We evaluated the effects of high- (HF) and moderate- (MF) forage diets on digestive and reproductive characteristics in beef heifers. Thirty primiparous beef heifers were allotted by weight and backfat thickness to receive either 80:20 (HF) or 50: 50 (MF) forage:concentrate ratio diets from parturition to at least 90 d postpartum. Alfalfa hay and wheat straw were the forage sources and barley was the concentrate source. Equal daily amounts of ME were provided to all heifers by restricting intake of the MF diet. Digestibility of DM was greater (P < .001) for MF compared with HF diets, whereas NDF digestibility was not different. Dry matter and NDF digested daily was lower (P < .001) for MF than for HF diets. Ruminal fluid pH was lower (P < .05) for MF diets; however, the acetate:propionate ratio was not different. Serum insulin concentrations were greater for MF diets for all hours (P < .001) and weeks (P < .05) of sampling. Changes in weight, backfat thickness, and body condition score at 90 d postpartum were not different between treatments. Calf gain to 30 d, however, was greater (P < .10) for the MF than for the HF treatment (25.5 vs 20.7 kg). Maximum size of the ovulatory follicle was greater (P < .10) for cows receiving the HF diet than for cows receiving the MF diet. However, other aspects of ovarian follicular growth and wave dynamics and the intervals from parturition to first and second ovulation, first estrus, first service, and conception were not different between treatments. Shifts in energy supply from forage to concentrate had minimal effect on digestion and reproduction in first-calf beef heifers in this study.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
B. W. Hess, S. L. Lake, E. J. Scholljegerdes, T. R. Weston, V. Nayigihugu, J. D. C. Molle, and G. E. Moss
Nutritional controls of beef cow reproduction
J Anim Sci, June 1, 2005; 83(13_suppl): E90 - 106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society of Animal Science.