HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Freetly, H. C. Articles by Jenkins, T. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Freetly, H. C. Articles by Jenkins, T. G.

Nutritionally altering weight gain patterns of pregnant heifers and young cows changes the time that feed resources are offered without any differences in production¹

ARS, USDA, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933

² Correspondence: P.O. Box 166 (phone: 402-762-4202; fax: 402-762-4209; e-mail: freetly{at}email.marc.usda.gov).

We hypothesized that feed resources could be deferred to a later time in the production cycle without a decrease in fertility or weight of calf produced in heifers and young cows. One-hundred and thirty-one MARC III (four breed composite: Hereford, Angus, Red Poll, and Pinzgauer) heifers were divided into three treatments: M-M-M-M (n = 46), L-H-M-M (n = 41), and L-L-L-H (n = 44). The experiment consisted of four feeding periods. Period 1 was 94 to 186 d of gestation, and heifers were fed a moderate (M) or low (L) level of feed. Period 2 was 187 d of gestation to parturition, and heifers were fed moderate, high (H), or low levels of feed. Period 3 was from parturition through 27 d of lactation, and heifers were fed moderate or low levels of feed. Period 4 was from 28 d to approximately 63 d of lactation, and heifers were fed moderate or high levels of feed. Females remained within treatments through their first parity (heifers) and second parity (cows). Feed intake of L-H-M-M and M-M-M-M treatments did not differ from each other either as heifers (P = 0.23) or as second-parity cows (P > 0.59). The L-L-L-H heifers ate less feed than L-H-M-M and M-M-M-M heifers (P < 0.001), and second-parity L-L-L-H cows ate less feed than second-parity L-H-M-M and M-M-M-M cows (P < 0.002). In the first parity, treatments did not differ in the percentage of calves weaned (P = 0.11), weight of calf weaned (P = 0.50), or percentage of cows diagnosed pregnant (P = 0.29) with a second calf. In the second parity, treatments did not differ in the percentage of calves weaned (P = 0.77), weight of calf weaned (P = 0.63), or percentage of cows expressing a corpus luteum at the start of breeding for their third calf (P = 0.21). Our findings suggest that timing nutrient availability to heifers and primiparous cows can be used to change the time that feed resources are used.

Key Words: Cows • Lactation • Nutrition • Pregnancy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. C. Freetly, J. A. Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl Partitioning of energy in pregnant beef cows during nutritionally induced body weight fluctuation J Anim Sci, February 1, 2008; 86(2): 370 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Driskill, J. R. Russell, D. R. Strohbehn, D. G. Morrical, S. K. Barnhart, and J. D. Lawrence Effects of stocking rate and corn gluten feed supplementation on performance of young beef cows grazing winter-stockpiled tall fescue-red clover pasture J Anim Sci, June 1, 2007; 85(6): 1577 - 1586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. C. Freetly, J. A. Nienaber, and T. Brown-Brandl Changes in heat production by mature cows after changes in feeding level J Anim Sci, June 1, 2006; 84(6): 1429 - 1438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]