Forage utilization to improve productivity of dual-purpose cattle systems in central Veracruz,...
description
Transcript of Forage utilization to improve productivity of dual-purpose cattle systems in central Veracruz,...
Forage utilization to improve productivity of
dual-purpose cattle systems in central Veracruz, Mexico
Victor Absalón-MedinaAnimal Science Department
Morrison Hall 112
Veracruz StateVariety of natural
resources and agro-ecosystems
o Lumber, coffee and dairy cattle (high-lands)
o Dual-purpose cattle and other crops (lowlands) such as staples (maize), fruits
More pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/81651699@N00/sets/
Cattle: Key farming systemMexico’s premier producer of beef
– >4.1 million head (2002) produce…– >214,000 metric tons of carcass
weight (2003)50,000 are dairy cows2,000,000 are DP cows whose
– Calves supply the beef marketBeef cattle
Dual-purpose production system Most common system in Veracruz.Beef and milk are important
products. Utilizing Bos taurus and Bos
indicus crosses – Brown Swiss x Brahman and Holstein
x Brahman cows
Dual-purpose system defined
“Family-owned and –operated enterprise with small capital
investment located on marginal land with few alternative
uses under current infrastructure and market conditions.
Management practices on dual-purpose farms often lack
the sophistication of specialized operations; few farmers
keep formal records, uncontrolled natural mating is
predominant.”
Nicholson et al., 1994
Dual-purpose system defined [2]
Dual-purpose (DP) cattle operations in Veracruz: low outputs and productive efficiency– In which productive parameters?– Comparison of DP systems in Latin
America…• Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Bolivia,
Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela.
Productive ParametersCharacteristics and production parameters of dual-purpose cattle farms in the Gulf coast region of Mexico
and in other Latin American countries
Variable Mexico Other Latin America
Value Minimum Maximum
Age at first calving, mo 42 31 36
Body weight (calving), kg 470 420 550
Calving rate, % of total cows in herd 71 45 85
Days open 150 120 222
Calving interval 420 374 568
Mortality, %
<1 year 7.5 5 8
>1 year 1 1 1.5
Culled cows, % year 20 15 20
Marketable milk yield, kg per cow day 6.6 4 10
Lactation, days 270 212 330
Dry period, days 150 104 238
Milk per lactation, kg 2500 1000 3000
Stocking rate, AU ha 1.4 0.8 4.1
Source Reynoso-Campos et al. 2003
Previous researchJuárez et al. (1999) categorized and
assessed different grass species– Determined the productive potential of each
forage alternative• Based on chemical composition, digestion kinetics
and simulations of their productivity potentials. Predicted milk yields
– Metabolizable energy allowable milk– Metabolizable protein allowable milk
• Grasses with low protein content• Protein was first limiting… also energy
Previous research [2]Opportunities from combinations
of forages– Rueda et al. (2003), Brazil– Shelton (2004), Australia
Juárez data base: A critical information resource– Contains grasses and legumes.
Research need: Ex ante evaluation of most promising options
ChallengesResearch information is frequently
specific to narrow disciplinary objectives, such as improving genetic potential, improved forage yield or reproductive performance, rather than holistic, systems objectives. – Producers might invest to improve milking
performance by artificial insemination but the nutritional requirements will be higher and costly. (Holmann et al., 1990)
INIFAP-funded project Three research sites (target ecozones)
– Campo experimental “La Posta”• Paso del Toro, Veracruz (coastal plain)
– Campo experimental “Las Margaritas”• Hueytamalco, Puebla (highlands)
– Campo experimental “El Verdineño”• Nayarit (Pacific coastal plain)
Research approach (Rueda et al., 2005) – Integrated, multidisciplinary approach
• Mathematical models, system dynamics and geographic information system
– To enhance the productivity of dual-purpose cattle systems while protecting and conserving watersheds.
My project will focus on CNCPS evaluations of energy and protein allowable milk yield and body tissue reserve status throughout a calving interval.– A contributing study that is part of this INIFAP project
Management information needsAssumptions
– Nutritive quality of grasses varies throughout the year (poorest in the dry season)
– A mode of calvings coincides with the dry season – Low dietary nutrient availability results in low
lactational and reproductive performancesObjectives
– Evaluate a representative herd scenario to understand current performance and limitations
• How do current systems work?– Evaluate alternative nutrition management scenarios
• To improve milk income • To shorten calving intervals (relieve energy deficits)• To evaluate preferred calving seasons
ExpectationsEarlier puberty (1st heat) in heifersMore rapid repletion of body tissue
reserves – Earlier return to the ovarian cyclicity – Shorter calving intervals
More milk for calves and sales.– Earlier weaning and/or weaning weight
improved or both.More profit
Input information Distribution of supply and nutritive quality of forages
throughout the year– Annual rainfall– Calving distribution throughout the year– Chemical composition and digestion rates of forages
(Juárez et al., 2002…. key data base) Production parameters (for the CNCPS)
– Age at first calving– Body condition scores, score changes– Milk production– Milk composition– Body weights, weight changes– Breed– Physiological status
• Early lactation (negative EB), mid/late lactation, dry period
Targeted agro-ecozone
Targeted agro-ecozone [2]Climate (Köppen classification)
– Aw1 based on annual and monthly average temperatures and rainfall
• A = tropical moist climates: all months with average temperatures ≥18 C.
• w = tropical wet and dry or savanna with extended dry season during winter
Representative soil types– Arenosol
• Predominantly sandy, has a superficial layer of organic matter (1.15 %), pH of 5.4-5.6, more than 15% of clay; it is susceptible to be eroded.
– Luvisol• Gathers clay in the subsoil, also susceptible to erosion.
Rainfall
Historical average rainfall per month 1941-2004
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Month
Aver
age
prec
ipita
tion
Mili
met
ers
Total: 1500
Veracruz average rainfall 2003
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Month
mm Milimiters
Veracruz average rainfall 2005
050
100150200250300350400
Month
mm Series1
T. 1800
T. 1700
TemperatureMonthly Average Temperature 2000-2004
05
101520253035
Month
Tem
pera
ture
C
Forages used by FarmersAverage Forage composition Juarez & Rueda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month
CP &
NDF
% CP
NDF
Seasons&
4 1 2 3
Chemical composition and digestion rate of forages
Chemical composition and kinetics of the grasses used in both base and alternative CNCPS simulations
Forage DM % CP %DM NDF %DM Lig %DM Ash %DM EE %DM NDF rate%hrStar grass (1) 18.92 9.00 67.00 5.50 12.70 3.00 5.20Star grass (2) 20.26 8.00 70.00 6.00 12.00 2.60 5.30Star grass (3) 27.02 8.00 71.00 6.50 11.50 2.20 5.30Star grass (4) 36.00 7.00 73.00 7.00 11.00 1.60 5.30Llanero (1) 19.28 10.00 67.00 5.50 12.70 3.00 6.70Llanero (2) 19.53 9.16 70.00 6.00 12.00 2.60 6.70Llanero (3) 22.23 9.00 71.00 6.50 11.30 2.20 6.70Llanero (4) 21.15 8.00 73.00 7.00 11.00 1.60 6.70Commercial Sup 89.80 16.30 20.50 18.00 13.50 1.20 0.00Mulato (3) 21.69 9.97 66.48 5.90 13.38 3.36 4.90Pangola (4) 26.80 11.95 69.50 7.00 10.10 4.93 5.30Pangola (1) 26.80 7.49 70.00 5.50 17.15 3.38 3.90G. sepium 35.00 24.40 40.40 24.40 9.50 5.20 1.25L. leucocephala 29.00 21.20 40.30 21.40 7.50 3.70 0.09
The numbers in the parenthesis represent the seasonality of grasses throughout the year
Growth: management groups Age/growth requirements
– Heifers, first-lactation and second-lactation cows– Mature cows
Physiological status– Early lactation
• From calving until 90 days– Mid-late lactation
• From 90 days post-partum to ~250 days– Early dry and late dry
• Late = 90-day period prior to calving
Meet nutritional requirements– Growth and lactation– Replete catabolized tissue– Help assure longer productive life
• Age at first calving sooner• Overcome anestrous postpartum sooner
Current managementDry season
– Forage scarcity– Cows freely roam– Supplementation with commercial feed in May
Wet season– Few paddocks in the meadow– Faster grass performance
Inadequate management of nutrient stocks and flows in pasture lands– Empirical fertilization of pastures and crops– Little soil analysis information– Inefficient economic investment in fertilization
Base scenario ofanimal management groups
(S) Star grass: Cynodon plectostachyus
(Ll) Llanero grass: Andropogon gayanus
(C) Commercial feed
Early Lac Mid-Late Lac Early Dry Late DryAge January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December1st Lac S S S S SC S/Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll2nd Lac S S S S SC S/Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll LlMature S S S S SC S/Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll LlHeifer S S S S SC S/Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll
First Lactation
0
5
10
15
20
25
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month & Season
Milk
allow
able
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
Balan
ces ME AM
MP AM
MEBAL
MPBAL
-12.37 -9.31 1.6 2.45
Inputted Milk8 kg
Inputted Milk6 kg
Inputted Milk1.5 kg
Inputted Milk4 kg
S4 S1 S2 S3
Mature Cows
-5
0
5
10
15
20
January February March April May June July August September October November Dicember
Month & Season
Milk
Allo
wabl
e
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
Balan
ces ME AM
MP AMMEBAL
MPBAL
S4 S1 S2 S3
-14.52 -2.33-1.77-11.99
Inputted Milk2.5 kg
Inputted Milk5 kg
Inputted Milk7 kg
Inputted Milk9 kg
Alternative Scenario
(G) Gliricidia sepium, (L) Leucaena leucocephala,
(P) Pangola grass: Digitaria decumbens
(M) Mulato grass: Brachiaria spp
Early Lac Mid-Late Lac Early Dry Late DryAge January February March April May June July August September October November December
1st Lac SL SL SL PG PG GPLl Ll Ll Ll M M M2nd Lac SL SL SL PG PG GPLl Ll Ll Ll M M MMature SL SL SL PG PG GPLl Ll Ll Ll M M MHeifer SL SL SL PG PG GPLl Ll Ll Ll M M M
First Lactation
0
5
10
15
20
25
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month & Season
Milk
Allo
wabl
e
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
Balan
ces
ME AM
MP AM
MEBAL
MPBAL
-9.14 -4.310.03 0.6
Inputted Milk8 kg
Inputted Milk6 kg
Inputted Milk1.5 kg
Inputted Milk4 kg
S4 S1 S2 S3
Mature Cows
0
5
10
15
20
25
January February March April May June July August September October November Dicember
Month & Season
Milk
allow
able
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Balan
ces
ME AM
MP AM
MEBAL
MPBAL
-10.58 -5.39 0.82 1.62
Inputted Milk9 kg Inputted Milk
7 kg
Inputted Milk2.5 kg
Inputted Milk5 kg
S4 S1 S2 S3
Preliminary resultsDry season: Increases in MP and
ME allowable milk but still low…Rainy season: Negative energy
balances were overcome.More analyses needed for the dry
season, other scenarios.
SuggestionsSupplement with commercial feed or
available agricultural by-products to compensate protein deficits at the beginning of the dry season.– Evaluate the cost and benefits from this
practice.
Substitute better quality forages for star grass.
Cultivate another forage for the dry season. Guazuma ulmifolia is a good prospect for this purpose.
Courtesy of professor R.W. Blake