Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:25:44.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of recovery period of mixture pasture on cattle behaviour, pasture biomass production and pasture nutritional value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

F. C. Pereira Open the ORCID record for F. C. Pereira [Opens in a new window] ,
L. C. P. Machado Filho Open the ORCID record for L. C. P. Machado Filho [Opens in a new window] ,
D. C. S. Kazama Open the ORCID record for D. C. S. Kazama [Opens in a new window] ,
R. Guimarães Júnior Open the ORCID record for R. Guimarães Júnior [Opens in a new window] ,
L. G. R. Pereira Open the ORCID record for L. G. R. Pereira [Opens in a new window]  and
D. Enríquez-Hidalgo Open the ORCID record for D. Enríquez-Hidalgo [Opens in a new window]
F. C. Pereira
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Ethology (LETA), Department of Zootechny and Rural Development, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
L. C. P. Machado Filho*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Ethology (LETA), Department of Zootechny and Rural Development, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
D. C. S. Kazama
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Ethology (LETA), Department of Zootechny and Rural Development, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
R. Guimarães Júnior
Affiliation:
Embrapa Cerrados, Rodovia BR-020, Km 18, PO Box 08223, Planaltina, DF, Brazil
L. G. R. Pereira
Affiliation:
Embrapa Dairy Cattle, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610 – Dom Bosco, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil
D. Enríquez-Hidalgo
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry Engineering, Department of Animal Science, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
*
†E-mail: pinheiro.machado@ufsc.br
Get access

Abstract

Pasture management that considers pasture growth dynamics remains an open question. Conceptually, such management must allow for grazing only after the recuperation of the pasture between two separate timely grazing periods when pasture reaches optimum recovery, as per the first law of Voisin’s rational grazing system. The optimum recovery period not only implies a pasture with better nutritional value and higher biomass yield but one that also reduces the production of enteric methane (CH4) to improve the grazing efficiency of cattle. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate three different recovery periods (RP) of mixed grasses on the grazing behaviour of heifers, as well as herbage selectivity, herbage yield and nutritional value, in vitro degradability and CH4 production. Based on these criteria, three pasture RPs of 24 (RP24), 35 (RP3) and 46 (RP46) days were evaluated in six blocks using a randomized block design. At each predetermined RP, samples of the pasture were taken before the animals were allowed to graze. Right after collecting the pasture samples, heifers accessed the pasture during 4 h consecutively for grazing simulation and behavioural observations. We also measured the bite rate of each animal. The pasture growing for 24 days had the highest biomass production, best nutritional value, best efficiency of in vitro CH4 relative emission (ml) per DM degraded (g) and bite rate of the three RPs. Heifers all selected their herbage, irrespective of RP, but with different nutritional value and higher in vitro degradability. However, this did not change the production of in vitro CH4. Considering the growth conditions of the area where the study was performed, we recommend the shorter RP24 as the most suitable during the summer season. The study’s findings support the idea of management intervention to increase the quality of grazing systems.

Keywords

cattle behaviourenvironmental impactgrazingmanagementsustainability
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 9 , September 2020 , pp. 1961 - 1968
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: University of Bristol, Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU, UK

References

Altmann, J 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49, 227–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Álvares, CA, Stape, JL, Sentelhas, PC, De Moraes, G, Leonardo, J and Sparovek, G 2013. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 22, 711–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archimède, H, Rira, M, Eugene, M, Fleury, J, Lastel, ML, Periacarpin, F, Silou-Etienne, T, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2018. Intake, total-tract digestibility and methane emissions of Texel and Blackbelly sheep fed C4 and C3 grasses tested simultaneously in a temperate and a tropical area. Journal of Cleaner Production 185, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Badgery, WB, Millar, GD, Broadfoot, K, Michalk, DL, Cranney, P and Mitchell, D 2017. Increased production and cover in a variable native pasture following intensive grazing management. Animal Production Science 57, 1812–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, A and Tomkins, NW 2013. Measurement and mitigation of methane emissions from beef cattle in tropical grazing systems: a perspective from Australia and Brazil. Animal 7, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhatta, R, Saravanan, M, Baruah, L, Malik, PK and Sampath, KT 2016. Nutrient composition, rate of fermentation and in vitro rumen methane output from tropical feedstuffs. Journal of Agricultural Science 155, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorsvik, HR and Martens, H 2001. Calibration of NIR instruments by PLS regression. In Handbook of near-infrared analysis (ed. Burns, D and Ciurczak, EW), pp. 185–207. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, United States.Google Scholar
Chapman, DFA, Lee, JMB and Waghorn, GCB 2014. Interaction between plant physiology and pasture feeding value: a review. Crop and Pasture Science 65, 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira Silva, R, Barioni, LG, Hall, JAJ, Folegatti Matsuura, M, Zanett Albertini, T, Fernandes, FA and Moran, D 2016. Increasing beef production could lower greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil if decoupled from deforestation. Nature Climate Change 6, 493–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faostat 2016. FAOSTAT homepage. Retrieved on 22 February 2019 from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA/visualizeGoogle Scholar
Fedorah, PM and Hrudey, SE 1983. A simple apparatus for measuring gas production by methanogenic cultures in serum bottles. Environmental Technology Letters 4, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J, McSweeney, C, Wright, ADG, Bishop-Hurley, G and Kalantar-zadeh, K 2016. Measuring methane production from ruminants. Trends in Biotechnology 34, 26–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonker, A, Muetzel, S, Molano, G and Pacheco, D 2016. Effect of fresh pasture forage quality, feeding level and supplementation on methane emissions from growing beef cattle. Animal Production Science 56, 1714–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korner-Nievergelt, F, Roth, T, Von Felten, S, Guélat, J, Almasi, B and Korner-Nievergelt, P 2015. Bayesian data analysis in ecology using linear models with R, BUGS, and Stan: including comparisons to frequentist statistics. Academic Press, Elsevier Science, New York, NY, United States.Google Scholar
Machado Filho, LCP, D’Ávila, LM, Da Silva Kazama, DC, Bento, LL and Kuhnen, S 2014. Productive and economic responses in grazing dairy cows to grain supplementation on family farms in the south of Brazil. Animals 4, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauricio, RM, Mould, FL, Dhanoa, MS, Owen, E, Channa, KS and Theodorou, MK 1999. A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79, , 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGeough, EJ, Passetti, LCG, Chung, YW, Beauchemin, KA, McGinn, SM, Harstad, OM, Crow, G and McAllister, TA 2019. Methane emissions, feed intake and total tract digestibility in lambs fed diets differing in fat content and fibre digestibility. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 99, 858–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, BYKH, Raab, L, Salewski, A and Steingass, H 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezzalira, JC, Carvalho, PCF, Fonseca, L, Bremm, C, Cangiano, CH, Gonda, HL and Laca, EA 2014. Behavioural mechanisms of intake rate by heifers grazing swards of contrasting structures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 153, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motupalli, PR, Sinclair, GL, Charlton, EC and Rutter, SM 2014. Preference and behavior of lactating dairy cows given free access to pasture at two herbage masses and two distances. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5175–5184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moura, AM, Tomich, TR, Pereira, LGR, Teixeira, AM, Paciullo, DSC, Jayme, DG and Gonçalves, LC 2017. Pasture productivity and quality of Urochloa brizantha cultivar Marandu evaluated at two grazing intervals and their impact on milk production. Animal Production Science 57, 1384–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, FC 2019. Manejo de pastagens e uso da técnica para determinar emissões de metano: efeito no comportamento de pastoreio e na qualidade da dieta. MSc thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.Google Scholar
Pulido, M, Schnabel, S, Contador, JFL, Lozano-Parra, J and González, F 2018. The impact of heavy grazing on soil quality and pasture production in rangelands of SW Spain. Land Degradation & Development 29, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Seó, HLS, Machado Filho, LCP and Brugnara, D 2017. Rationally managed pastures stock more carbon than no-tillage fields. Frontiers in Environmental Science 5, 87. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2017.00087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, SC, Sbrissi, AF and Pereira, LET 2015. Ecophysiology of C4 forage grasses—understanding plant growth for optimising their use and management. Agriculture 5, 598–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silveira, MCT, Da Silva, SC, Souza, SJ JR, Barbero, LM, Rodrigues, CS, Limão, VA, Pena, KS and Nascimento, DJR 2013. Herbage accumulation and grazing losses on Mulato grass subjected to strategies of rotational stocking management. Scientia Agricola 70, 242–249.92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza Filho, W, Nunes, PAA, Barro, RS, Kunrath, TR, Almeida, GM, Genro, TCM, Bayer, C and Carvalho, PCF 2019. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through pasture management in integrated crop-livestock systems: trade-offs between animal performance and environmental impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production 213, 968–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, PL, Rowntree, JE, Beede, DK, DeLonge, MS and Hamm, MW 2018. Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems 162, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voisin, A 1974. Produtividade do Pasto. Mestre Jou, São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
Wallis de Vries, MF 1995. Estimating forage intake and quality in grazing cattle: a reconsideration of the hand-plucking method. Journal of Range Management 48, 370–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, D, Hatew, B, Podesta, SC, Klop, G, Gastelen, SV, Laar, H, Dijkstra, J and Bannink, A 2016. Effects of nitrogen fertilisation rate and maturity of grass silage on methane emission by lactating dairy cows. Animal 10, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed