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