Evaluation of forage soybean, with and without pearl millet, as an alternative for beef replacement heifers. Issue 2 (1st April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taylor, E. G.; Gunn, P. J.; Horstman, L. A.; Atkinson, R. L.; Herron, K.; Johnson, K. D.; Lemenager, R. P.
• Is Part Of: Translational animal science. Volume 1:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 179
• Page End: 185
• Publication Date: 2017-04-01
• Subjects: alternative forage -- beef heifer -- reproduction -- soybean; Livestock -- Periodicals; Livestock; Periodicals; 636.005
• DOI: 10.2527/tas2017.0022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2573-2102

Abstract

Abstract: Apparent ruminal digestibility of forage soybean-based silages, with and without pearl millet, was determined along with evaluation of silages on heifer performance and reproductive function. Fermenters were utilized in a Latin square design and randomly assigned to 1 of the following treatments: 1) control diet of alfalfa haylage (CON), 2) soybean silage (SB) or 3) soybean and pearl millet silage (SB×PM). All diets were formulated to meet or exceed nutrient requirements of replacement beef heifers targeted to gain 0.79 kg/d. These same diets were fed to 90 Angus-Simmental beef replacement heifers [body weight (BW) = 366 kg; body condition score (BCS) = 5.53; age = 377 ± 11 d] 65 d prior to timed artificial insemination (TAI). Heifers were randomly allotted by breed, BCS and BW to 1 of the 3 treatments, with 3 reps/treatment. Diets were terminated 21 d post-TAI and heifers were commingled and placed on a common diet. Pubertal status was determined by progesterone concentrations of 2 blood samples taken 10 d apart prior to both trial initiation as well as initiation of estrous synchronization. Ovulatory follicle diameter was determined at time of breeding by ultrasonography. Pregnancy diagnosis was accomplished 35 and 66 d post-TAI, respectively, to calculate TAI and end of season pregnancy rates. Neither SB nor SB×PM had an effect ( P > 0.37) on apparent ruminal digestion of nutrients compared to the CON. Final BW (414 kg; P ≥ 0.10) and BCS (5.28; P ≥ 0.26) for the heifers were similar among treatments. Likewise, there were no differences in TAI (48%; P > 0.43) or overall breeding season (93%; P > 0.99) pregnancy rates. Ovulatory follicle diameters (11.7 mm) was not different ( P > 0.19) among treatments. In summary, forage soybean-based silages, with and without pearl millet, was an acceptable alternative forage for developing replacement beef heifers.