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

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.

Cow efficiency: modeling the biological and economic output of a Michigan beef herd.

In recent decades, beef cattle producers have selected cattle for biological traits (i.e., improved growth) to maximize revenue, leading to an increase in average cow body size. However, matching cow size to the production environment would allow producers to maximize productivity and economic returns per unit of land. This may help meet the goals of sustainable intensification, but environmental complexity and varying cow-calf production systems dictates a regional approach. The objective of this experiment was to examine the biological efficiency and economic returns of a Northern Michigan cow-calf system. We hypothesized that biological efficiency and economic returns would decrease with increasing cow body size. Data were collected from a Red Angus cow herd located at the Lake City AgBio Research Center in Lake City, MI from 2011 to 2018 on cow age, weight, and body condition score at weaning, and subsequent 205 d adjusted calf weaning weight (WW), sex, and yearling weight. Biological efficiency was defined as WW as a percentage of cow body weight (DBW). Enterprise budgeting techniques were used to calculate expected net returns from 2011 to 2018 after classifying cows into 11 BW tiers at 22.67 kg intervals beginning at 430.83 kg. Forward-looking net present value (NPV) was calculated using the same tier system, for a 10-yr production cycle with the baseline being a 200 d grazing season. Weaning weight increased with increasing DBW (P < 0.01), but the percentage of cow body weight weaned was reduced by -38.58 × Ln(DBW) (P < 0.01). This led to cows weaning 26.38 kg/ha more with every 100 kg drop in DBW. Expected net returns from 2011 to 2018 did not differ by DBW tier on a per cow basis but did on a per ha basis with a decrease in $10.27/ha with each increase in DBW tier (P < 0.01). Net present value was maximized in the baseline scenario at 453.51 kg DBW and decreased in value as DBW increased. These results suggest that for a Northern Midwestern cow-calf herd, comparatively lighter cows provide a higher economic value on a land basis.

Could the breed composition improve performance and change the enteric methane emissions from beef cattle in a tropical intensive production system?

Crossbreeding has been used to improve performance in beef cattle, however the effects of breed composition on methane (CH4) production, yield and intensity from cattle raised in tropical intensive and integrated systems remain unknown. To assess the impact of breed composition on performance and methane emissions, Nellore (NEL; yr 1: BW = 171.5 ± 19.4 kg; n = 10; yr 2: BW = 215.8 ± 32.3 kg, n = 25) and Angus x Nellore crossbred (AN; yr 1: BW = 214.2 ± 26.4 kg, n = 10; yr 2: BW = 242.5 ± 32.2 kg, n = 25) were compared. The animals grazed on integrated crop-livestock system in the growing phase (stocking rate 2452 kg BW/ha, herbage mass 4,884 kg dry matter (DM)/ha, forage allowance 5.9 kg DM/100kg BW) and then were finished in a feedlot. Steers (n = 8) from each breed composition were randomly selected in each phase to measure CH4 production using a sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique and DM intake (DMI) using titanium dioxide. Compared with NEL, AN had both superior total gain and average daily gain (ADG) in the grazing period. The AN presented greater ADG in the feedlot with a shorter finishing period and resulted in greater carcass yield and carcass ADG. Methane production (kg/period) was lower in NEL (19% less) than AN in grazing (P<0.01), and no difference was observed in feedlot. The NEL had less CH4 intensity (CH4/BW) in grazing but greater CH4 per unit of ADG in the feedlot compared to AN. Breed composition did not influence the CH4 yield (CH4/DMI) in either phase, despite the difference in feedlot DMI (kg/day). In conclusion, crossbreeding may be an option to improve performance and reduce the CH4 per ADG in tropical climate conditions, resulting in lower methane emission per kg of meat produced.