Conserved forage-based systems for backgrounding weaned beef calves

Abstract

A 45-d backgrounding study was conducted to compare animal performance, forage nutritive value, digestion dynamics, and diet costs of conserved forage systems for weaned beef calves. One hundred and eight weaned Angus × Simmental beef calves (initial BW 279 ± 34 kg) were randomly assigned to one of three diets (n = 3 pens/ treatment): 1) free-choice annual ryegrass (RB; cv. 'Marshall') baleage and 4 kg of a 50/50 mixture of pelleted soybean hulls and corn gluten feed, 2) freechoice Tifton 85 bermudagrass (BH) and 3 kg of a 50/50 mixture of pelleted soybean hulls and corn gluten feed, or 3) free-choice corn silage (CS; cv. Pioneer P1662YHR) and 2 kg of a 85% cracked corn and 15% cottonseed meal mixture. Diets were formulated to achieve a target gain of 0.9 kg/d based on the NRC (2000) requirement for a 270 kg growing calf. Animal performance (initial BW, final BW, and ADG) was measured on days 0 and 45 of the study. Forage nutritive value and an in vitro digestion trial were conducted to evaluate supplementation effects on forage diet digestion dynamics. Data were analyzed using PROC Mixed in SAS 9.4 as a completely randomized design. Pen was the experimental unit. Mean initial and final BW of the animals did not differ (P = 0.50 and P = 0.99, respectively) across treatments. Calf ADG for RB, BH, and CS diets were 0.61, 0.72, and 0.72 kg/d, respectively, and did not differ across treatments (P = 0.57). Based on these results, these forage options supported a similar level of gain when used for backgrounding beef calves. Forage in vitro DM digestibility differed 48 h after digestion, and BH + 50:50 had greater 48-h digestibility than when unsupplemented, which may be related to complementary forage-supplement interactions. In diets containing RB and CS, digestibility was greater with no supplementation at the 48-h time point. These data support the observation that supplementation type and level influence conserved forage diet digestibility compared with forage alone. The cost of feeding a baleage-based diet in this system was higher ($1.37/d) than CS or BH diets ($1.02 and $0.95/d, respectively). Results suggest that RB baleage-based diets may support a similar level of gain to BH or CS diets in growing beef calves, but supplement type, level, and ration costs should be evaluated when determining cost-effective backgrounding options in the Southeastern United States.