Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 531–536 | Cite as

Herbage intake of dairy cows in mixed sequential grazing with breeding ewes as followers

  • Juan Daniel Jiménez-Rosales
  • Ricardo Daniel Améndola-Massiotti
  • Juan Andrés Burgueño-Ferreira
  • Rodolfo Ramírez-Valverde
  • Pedro Topete-Pelayo
  • Maximino Huerta-Bravo
Regular Articles

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that mixed sequential grazing of dairy cows and breeding ewes is beneficial. During the seasons of spring–summer 2013 and autumn–winter 2013–2014, 12 (spring–summer) and 16 (autumn–winter) Holstein Friesian cows and 24 gestating (spring–summer) and lactating (autumn–winter) Pelibuey ewes grazed on six (spring–summer) and nine (autumn–winter) paddocks of alfalfa and orchard grass mixed pastures. The treatments “single species cow grazing” (CowG) and “mixed sequential grazing with ewes as followers of cows” (MixG) were evaluated, under a completely randomized design with two replicates per paddock. Herbage mass on offer (HO) and residual herbage mass (RH) were estimated by cutting samples. The estimate of herbage intake (HI) of cows was based on the use of internal and external markers; the apparent HI of ewes was calculated as the difference between HO (RH of cows) and RH. Even though HO was higher in CowG, the HI of cows was higher in MixG during spring–summer and similar in both treatments during autumn–winter, implying that in MixG the effects on the cows HI of higher alfalfa proportion and herbage accumulation rate evolving from lower residual herbage mass in the previous cycle counteracted that of a higher HO in CowG. The HI of ewes was sufficient to enable satisfactory performance as breeding ewes. Thus, the benefits of mixed sequential grazing arose from higher herbage accumulation, positive changes in botanical composition, and the achievement of sheep production without negative effects on the herbage intake of cows.

Keywords

Medicago sativa Dactylis glomerata Herbage mass Herbage accumulation Botanical composition 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Statement of animal rights

The study was carried out in accordance with guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee of the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Améndola, R., Castillo, E. and Martínez, P.A. 2006. Forage Resource Profiles. Mexico. FAO, Rome, Italy (http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/PDF%20files/Mexico-English.pdf Accessed 09 May 2017).
  2. Cosgrove, G.P. and Edwards, G.R. 2007. Control of grazing intake. In: Pasture and Supplements for Grazing Animals. Rattray, P.V., Brookes I.M., and Nicol, A.M. (Eds.). New Zealand Society of Animal Production, Occasional Publication No. 14. Hamilton, New Zealand, 61–80.Google Scholar
  3. d’Alexis, S., Sauvant, D. and Boral, M. 2014. Mixed grazing systems of sheep and cattle to improve live weight gain: a quantitative review. Journal of Agricultural Science, 152, 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dear, B.S., Virgona, J.M., Spandrel, G.A., Swan, A.D. and Orchard, B.A. 2007. Lucerne, phalaris and wallaby grass in short-term pasture phases in two Eastern Australian wheat belt environments. 1. Importance of initial perennial density on their persistence and recruitment, and on the presence of weeds. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 58, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fraser, M.D., Davies, D.A., Vale, J.E., Hirst, W.M. and Wright, I.A. 2007. Effects on animal performance and sward composition of mixed and sequential grazing of permanent pasture by cattle and sheep. Livestock Science, 110, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hernández Garay, A., Martínez Hernández, Pedro A., Zaragoza Esparza, J., Vaquera Huerta, H., Osnaya Gallardo, F., Joaquín Torres, B.M. and Velazco Zebadúa, M.E. 2012. Caracterización del rendimiento de forraje de una pradera de alfalfa-ovillo al variar la frecuencia e intensidad del pastoreo. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, 35, 259–266.Google Scholar
  7. Isselstein, J., Griffith, B.A., Pradel, P. and Venerus, S. 2007. Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems. 1. Nutritive value of herbage and livestock performance. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, G.B., Alpuerto, J.B., Tracy, B.F. and Fukao, T. 2017. Physiological effect of cutting height and high temperature on regrowth vigor in orchard grass. Frontiers in Plant Science www.frontiersin.org, Volume 8, Article 805.
  9. Nicol, A.M. and Brookes, I.M. 2007. The metabolisable energy requirements of grazing livestock. In: Pasture and Supplements for Grazing Animals. Rattray, P.V., Brookes I.M., and Nicol, A.M. (Eds.). New Zealand Society of Animal Production, Occasional Publication No. 14. Hamilton, New Zealand, 151–172.Google Scholar
  10. Pérez-Prieto, L.A., Peyraud, J.L. and Delagarde, R. 2011. Substitution rate and milk yield response to corn silage supplementation of late-lactation dairy cows grazing low-mass pastures at 2 daily allowances in autumn. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3592–3604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pérez-Prieto, L.A., Peyraud, J.L. and Delagarde, R. 2012. Does pre-grazing herbage mass really affect herbage intake and milk production of strip-grazing dairy cows? Grass and Forage Science, 68, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ramírez-Mella, M., Hernández-Mendo, O., Améndola-Massiotti, R.D., Ramírez-Bribiesca, E.J., Mendoza-Martínez, G.D. and Burgueño-Ferreira, J.A. 2010. Productive response of grazing dairy cows to fresh chopped maize supplementation under a small farming system in the Mexican Highlands. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42, 1377–1383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. SAS (Statistical Analysis System). 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 User’s Guide. SAS Publishing. Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Shen, Y., Jiang, H., Zhai, G. and Cai, Q. 2013. Effects of cutting height on shoot regrowth and forage yield of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in a short-term cultivation system. Grassland Science, 59, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sollenberger, L., Coleman, S.W. and Vendramini, J.M.B. 2013. As interações entre plantas e herbívoros em pastagens. In: Forragicultura: Ciência, Tecnologia y Gestão dos Recursos Forrageiros. Reis, R.A.,Bernardes, T.F. and Siqueira, G.R. (Eds). Gráfica Multipress Jaboticabal SP. Brasil. pp: 69–76.Google Scholar
  16. Villalba, J.J., Cabassu, R. and Gunter, S.A. 2015. Forage choice in pasturelands: Influence on cattle foraging behavior and performance. J. Anim. Sci., 93:1729–1740.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wright, I.A., Jones, J.R. and Parsons, A.J. 2001. Effects of grazing by sheep or cattle on sward structure and subsequent performance of weaned lambs. Grass and Forage Science, 56, 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Daniel Jiménez-Rosales
    • 1
  • Ricardo Daniel Améndola-Massiotti
    • 1
  • Juan Andrés Burgueño-Ferreira
    • 2
  • Rodolfo Ramírez-Valverde
    • 1
  • Pedro Topete-Pelayo
    • 3
  • Maximino Huerta-Bravo
    • 1
  1. 1.Programa de Posgrado en Producción AnimalUniversidad Autónoma ChapingoChapingoMexico
  2. 2.Unidad de Biometría y Estadísticas, Laboratorio de Informática Aplicada a los CultivosCentro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y TrigoMéxico, D.FMexico
  3. 3.Departamento de ZootecniaUniversidad Autónoma ChapingoChapingoMexico

Personalised recommendations