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

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

Abstract 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 ent...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science Vol. 99; no. 12
Main Authors: Thompson, Logan R, Maciel, Isabella C F, Rodrigues, Patricia D R, Cassida, Kim A, Rowntree, Jason E
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: US Oxford University Press 01-12-2021
Subjects:
Acclimation
Acclimatization
Alfalfa
Animal Feed - analysis
Animals
Beef
Beef cattle
Cattle
Diet - veterinary
Dietary Fiber
Digestibility
Dry matter
Emissions
Emissions control
Female
Forage Based Livestock Systems
Grazing
Greenhouse gases
Infrared analysis
Infrared reflection
Methane
Near infrared radiation
Nutritive Value
Pasture
Plant growth
Productivity
cattle
biodiversity
enteric methane
grazing
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract 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 CH4 production on a g d−1 basis (P = 0.06), but no difference was observed on an emission intensity basis (g CH4 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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0021-8812
1525-3163
DOI:10.1093/jas/skab326