![]()
| 2006 Annual Report Beef Section | Dickinson
Research Extension Center 1089 State Avenue Dickinson, ND 58601 |
![]()
Click Here
for Printer Friendly version
Does Prebreeding Fat or Protein
Supplementation Improve Rebreeding Performance?
D.G. Landblom1,
G.P. Lardy2, C.J. Wachenheim3, and T. Petry3
1NDSU -
The objective of this investigation was to determine
the value of prebreeding protein or protein-sunflower oil supplementation on
reproductive performance in post-partum beef cows. Thirty-six day supplementation prior to the
onset of artificial insemination effectively reduced the amount of hay fed, but
did not improve timed first-service conception rate, 21 day pregnancy rate, or
overall pregnancy rate.
Summary
Two
hundred forty-eight mixed age postpartum beef cows (3 - 10 yr. of age) were
used to evaluate the effect of added protein or protein plus 10% fat from
sunflower oil (Protein + SFO), when fed 36 days prebreeding, on cow condition
change, reproductive performance, and calf growth.
Sunflower
oil supplementation did not improve first-service timed AI pregnancy rate;
however, based on ultrasound cranial width, protein + SFO tended to improve 21
d natural service pregnancy rate compared to control and protein supplemented
groups (P = 0.08). When timed AI and 21 d natural service
pregnancy rates were combined, the effect due to treatment did not differ (P = 0.36). Overall pregnancy rate for the 42 d breeding
season was numerically greater for the protein + SFO treatment, however, the
observed increase did not differ from the other treatments (P =
0.19), and the number of open cows 48 d after the end
of the breeding season was similar (P = 0.33).
During
the prebreeding supplementation period, cow weight and BCS tended to decline
across all treatments, but did not differ (P
= 0.19).
Economic
impact of the protein and protein + SFO treatments were calculated as the value
of calves and cull cows assumed sold under each treatment less associated feed
costs during the 36 d pre-breeding period.
Individual year pregnancy rate and timing data were used to calculate
revenues using a 100-cow reference herd.
Since revenues did not differ substantially between treatments, and
supplement cost increased expenses in within treatment groups, supplementation
decreased economic return.
Introduction
Feeding
fat to beef cows after calving as a source of supplemental energy is not a new
practice. Fat is a concentrated energy
source, containing 2.25 times more energy per unit weight than either
carbohydrates or protein. Research
indicates added dietary fat of plant origin can positively influence
reproductive response independent of ca
The
present investigation was designed to evaluate the value of sunflower oil as a
partial replacement for hay that may improve reproductive performance in
postpartum beef cows independent of ca
Procedure
Two
hundred forty-eight beef cows (3 to 10 yr. of age) were used in a complete
randomized design in which pen served as the experimental unit with four pen
replicates per treatment. The
experimental treatments were fed an average of 36 d prebreeding. After calving and prior to the initiation of
the prebreeding supplementation, all cows were fed medium-quality alfalfa-grass
mixed hay (Dry Matter Basis: 96.26% DM; 10.81% Ash; 10.75% CP; 39.7% ADF;
58.61% NDF; 61.44% IVDMD and 56.42% IVOMD).
Cows were assigned to either control (n = 83), protein (n = 81), or
protein + sunflower oil (n = 84) treatments (Table 1). In year 1, supplements and hay provided 676
and 594 grams of metabolizable protein per day in excess of NRC (1996)
requirements and 0.31 and 0.29 Mcal/lb. of net energy for gain for the protein
and protein + fat treatment groups, respectively. However, in year 2, the amount of supplement offered
to the cows was adjusted between the two supplement treatments to more closely
balance metabolizable protein per day and net energy for gain. The adjustments were made such that
supplement and hay provided 654 and 617grams of metabolizable protein per day
in excess of NRC (1996) requirements and 0.30 and 0.30 Mcal/lb. of net energy
for gain was provided for the protein and
protein + fat treatment groups, respectively (Table 2).
The first
year of the investigation, control cows received 46.77 lbs. of medium-quality
alfalfa hay/head/day and supplemented cows received an average 41.62 lbs. of
the same medium-quality alfalfa hay/head/day plus either 6.84 pounds of the 18%
crude protein supplement or 5.02 pounds of the 18% crude protein supplement
with 10% added fat. In year 2, control
cows received 46.1 lbs. medium-quality alfalfa hay/head/day and supplemented
cows received an average 42.0 lbs. of a medium-quality alfalfa hay/head/day
plus either 6.45 lbs of the 18% crude protein supplement or 5.45 lbs of the 18%
crude protein supplement with 10% added fat (Table 2). The supplements were fed such that the
respective diets were isoca
Supplement
feeding began an average 36 d prior to the start of a GnRH/PG synchronized timed
artificial insemination (AI) breeding season and ended when breeding
began. Ninety d after the start of the
AI breeding season all cows were scanned using rectal ultrasound to determine
pregnancy and fetal age based on cranial width.
Effect of supplementation on reproductive performance was measured for
first service timed AI pregnancy rate, 21 d natural service, 42 d pregnancy
rate, overall pregnancy rate, and the percent of open cows. Calf performance was monitored during the
prebreeding supplementation period.
Economic
impact of the protein and protein + SFO supplements were calculated based on
local and regional market value of calves and cull cows sold under each
treatment less associated feed costs during the 36 d pre-breeding period. Individual year pregnancy rate and timing
data were used to calculate revenues. A
100-cow herd was used for reference.
Cow
weight change, body condition score, ultrasound fat depth, and growth data were
analyzed as a complete randomized design with the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS
Inst. Inc.,
Results
The
effect of supplemental protein or protein + SFO on cow and calf performance
prebreeding and reproductive performance was evaluated based on changes in body
weight and condition score, rib fat depth change, first service and subsequent
heat cycle pregnancy rates, and calf growth.
During
the average 36 d period preceding the
start of the breeding season, cow body weight declined in all treatment groups,
but did not differ (P = 0.26) (Table
3).
The
primary aspect of this investigation was to not only determine whether fat
supplementation from sunflower oil could replace a portion of the hay fed, but
also to determine the value of prebreeding fat supplementation on first service
timed AI, 21 d natural service, and overall pregnancy rates. While we did not document luteal tissue
change, Talavera
et al. (1991), Thomas et al. (1997), and Williams and Stanko (1999) and others have
investigated the effect of dietary lipids on follicular growth and concluded
that supplemental lipids could positively influence follicular development and
potentially first service pregnancy rate.
The impact of lipids on follicular development was reported to occur
independently of ca
Breeding
cycle pregnancy rates are shown in Table 4.
Compared to the unsupplemented control cows, first service timed AI
pregnancy rate among supplemented cows did not differ (P = 0.32). One of the many
economically significant advantages for synchronization is that two estrous
cycles can be attained within the initial 21-25 d period. In the study, a tendency was observed for a supplementation
treatment effect for 21 d pregnancy rate (P
= 0.08). Protein supplementation
improved pregnancy rate year 1 and protein + SFO improved pregnancy rate year
2. Overall, when first service timed AI
and 21 d natural service pregnancy were combined, the effect due to treatment
did not differ (P = 0.36). For the 42 d pregnancy rate, a significant
year effect (P = 0.001) was observed,
but effects due to treatment did not differ (P = 0.57). Overall
pregnancy rates between treatments (P =
0.19) and between years (P = 0.68)
did not differ. While the percentage of
open cows was consistently lower for cows receiving the protein + SFO
treatment, the results did not differ (P
= 0.33).
Body
condition is recognized as being highly correlated with successful reproductive
function in beef cattle. Change in body
condition was scored using a visual body condition score (1-emaciated to 9 -
obese) and ultrasound rib fat depth.
Body condition score among all cows declined during the prebreeding
period, but did not differ between treatments (P = 0.19). For rib fat
change during the prebreeding supplementation period, no year (P = 0.50) or treatment (P = 0.20) effects were measured; however
there was trend toward a year x treatment (P
= 0.08) interactions.
Calf
growth during the supplementation period was monitored, but no treatment effect
for calf growth was identified; gain (P
= 0.32) and ADG (P = 0.34) did not
differ.
There was little difference in revenue by
treatment in either year, or when the two years were combined (Table 5). There was less income generated from cull
cows for the protein + SFO treatment in both years which reflects greater
overall pregnancy rates among the herd.
The protein + SFO treatment resulted in greater income from the sale of
calves overall for the same reason.
However, income from the sale of calves was slightly greater for the
control diet in 2003 because calves were, on average, sold at a heavier
weight. The effect of pregnancy rates
and associated culling activity on revenues will vary with relative prices for
cull cows and calves. Because revenues
did not differ greatly; and there was additional expense associated with
supplementation, feeding protein or protein + SFO supplements decreased
economic return.
Implication
Providing
prebreeding protein or protein plus 10% sunflower oil in daily fed supplements
adequately replaced a portion of the hay that was fed, which would be desirable
for drought management, but did not improve timed first service pregnancy rate,
combined first service and 21 d pregnancy rate or overall pregnancy rate when
offered to cows consuming diets based on medium-quality alfalfa grass hay. Additionally, when cows are on an adequate
plane of nutrition after calving, and are in pre-breeding body condition score of ‘5’, or greater, supplementation cost may negatively impact economic
return.
Literature Cited
Hess, B.W. 2003. Supplementing fat to the cow herd. Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium
XVIII, pp 156-165.
Landblom, D.G., K.
Ringwall, K. Helmuth, W.W. Poland and G.P. Lardy. 2002. Effect of fat source and supplement delivery
method on beef cow-calf performance and reproductive responses.
NRC. 1996.
Nutrient Requirements of Beef Catte (7th Ed.).
SAS. 2003.
SAS V. 9.1, SAS Inst. Inc.,
Talavera, F.,
Thomas, M.G., B. Bao, and
G.L. Williams.
1997. Dietary fats varying in
their fatty acid composition differentially influence follicular growth in cows
fed isoenergetic diets. J. Anim. Sci.
75:2512-2519.
Williams, G.L., and R.L. Stanko. 1999. Dietary fats as reproductive
nutraceuticals in beef cattle. Proc Am Soc Anim Sci.,
Acknowledgment
Funding
for this project was supported in part by the North Dakota State Board of
Agricultural Research and Education Projects # 03-16 and # 04-11.
Reviewers:
Mindy Hubert, Robin Salverson, and Teresa Dvorak





![]()
[ Back to 2006 Annual Report Index ] [ Back to Beef Reports ]
[ DREC Home ] [ Contact DREC ] [ Top of Page ]
![]()