Insights in nutrition programs for the developing ruminant

  • Gustavo J. Lascano Clemson University
  • Rebecca N. Klopp Clemson University
  • Saad M. Hussein Clemson University
  • Dana McCurdy Cllemson University
Keywords: Dairy heifer, weaning, rumen development, pre-weaning growth


As the world population grows and resources for food animal production become more limited, animal efficiency must increase. The dairy industry has made progress in reducing age at first calving from 27 to 25 mo., but heifers remain unproductive for over half of their life while still consuming resources. As pre-ruminants, offering restricted amounts of milk to neonatal heifers (conventional system) increases concentrate consumption which drives rumen development. However, accelerated milk programs improve pre-weaning growth rate and the balance between these two systems is still under continuous investigation. Solid feed is important for papillary and musculature development in addition to establishment of a microbial population, which increase transition success when calves are weaned gradually. Furthermore, the optimal target weight for calving is 550 kg at 23 to 24.5 mo., which increases 305-d lactation yield. Increased milk production is desired, but a costly rearing period without producing milk only increases as age at first calving increases, which also increases total number of replacement heifers and total herd green-house emissions. Strategies to achieve desired body weight and age at first calving while reducing input include, using compensatory growth, restricting intake and precision feeding. Compensatory growth can increase average daily gain and feed efficiency; moreover, precision feeding increases feed efficiency even further by reducing nutrient metabolic costs in comparison to ad- libitum systems. Restricting intake provides increased rumen retention time for fiber, non-structural carbohydrates, protein, and other nutrients to be highly digested. Nutrient digestibility is important when comparing these feeding methods because dry matter intake has the greatest impact on efficiency, specifically when different amounts of forages are fed. Using different strategies during the weaning, pre-pubertal and post-pubertal period of dairy heifers can significantly improve performance, nutrient and resources utilization during this conditioning growing phase of dairy cattle.


Download data is not yet available.


Anderson, K. L., T. G. Nagaraja and J. L. Morrill. 1987. Ruminal metabolic development incalves weaned conventionally or Early1. Journal of Dairy Science. 70:1000-1005.

Anderson, J. L., K. F. Kalscheur, A. D. Garcia, D. J. Schingoethe, and A. R. Hippen. 2009.Ensiling characteristics of WDG mixed with soybean hulls and evaluation of the feedingvalue for growing heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2113–2123.

Baldwin VI, R. L., K. R. McLeod, J. L. Klotz and R. N. Heitmann. 2004. Rumen development,intestinal growth and hepatic metabolism in the pre- and postweaning ruminant. J. DairySci. 87, Supplement:E55-E65.

Battye, R., W. Battye, C. Overcash, and S. Fudge. 1994. Development and Selection ofAmmonia Emission Factors. Final report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection No.EPA/600/R-94/190.

Beauchemin, K. A., and S. M. McGinn. 2005. Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barleyor corn diets. J. Anim. Sci. 83:653–661.

Bell, M.J., E. Wall, G. Russell, G. Simm, and A.W. Stott. 2011. The effect of improving cowproductivity, fertility, and longevity on the global warming potential of dairy systems. J.Dairy Sci. 94:3662-3678.

Beharka, A. A., T. G. Nagaraja, J. L. Morrill, G. A. Kennedy and R. D. Klemm. 1998. Effects ofform of the diet on anatomical, microbial, and fermentative development of the rumen ofneonatal Calves1. Journal of Dairy Science. 81:1946-1955.

Capper, J. L., R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2009. The environmental impact of dairyproduction: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87: 2160-2167.

Carstens, G. E., D. E. Johnson, M. A. Ellenberger, and J. D. Tatum. 1991. Physical and chemicalcomponents of the empty body during compensatory growth in beef steers. J. Anim. Sci.69:3251–3264.

Chapman, C. E., T. M. Hill, D. R. Elder and P. S. Erickson. 2017. Nitrogen utilization,preweaning nutrient digestibility, and growth effects of holstein dairy calves fed 2 amounts of a moderately high protein or conventional milk replacer. J. Dairy Sci. 100:279-292.

Colucci, P. E., G. K. Macleod, W. L. Grovum, L. W. Cahill, and I. McMillan. 1989.Comparative digestion in sheep and cattle fed different forage to concentrate ratios athigh and low intakes. J. Dairy Sci. 72:1774-1786.

Colucci, P. E., G. K. MacLeod, W. L. Grovum, I. McMillan, and D. J. Barney. 1990. Digestakinetics in sheep and cattle fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios at highand low intakes. J. Dairy Sci. 73:2143–2156.

Coppock, C. E. 1970. Problems associated with all corn silage feeding. J. Dairy Sci. 52:848–858.

Coverdale, J. A., H. D. Tyler, J. D. Quigley III and J. A. Brumm. 2004. Effect of various levelsof forage and form of diet on rumen development and growth in calves. J. Dairy Sci.87:2554-2562.

Drouillard, J. S., C. L. Ferrell, T. J. Klopfenstein, and R. A. Britton. 1991. Compensatory growthfollowing metabolizable protein or energy restrictions in beef steers. J. Anim Sci.69:811–818.

El-Kadi S.W., K.R. McLeod, N.A. Elam, S.E. Kitts, C.C. Taylor, D.L. Harmon, B.J. Bequette,and E.S. Vanzant. 2008. Nutrient net absorption across the portal-drained viscera offorage-fed beef steers: Quantitative assessment and application to a nutritional predictionmodel. J. Anim. Sci. 86:2277-2287.

Eng, K.S., J.C. Smith, J.H. Craig, and M.E. Riewe. 1964. Rate of passage of concentrate androughage through digestive tract of sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 23:1129–1132.

Erb, H. N., R. D. Smith, P. A. Oltenacu, C. L. Guard, R. B. Hillman, P. A. Powers, M. C. Smith,and M. E. White. 1985. Path model of reproductive disorders and performance, milkfever, mastitis, milk yield, and culling in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 68:3337–3349.

Ettema, J. F. and J. E. P. Santos. 2004. Impact of age at calving on lactation, reproduction, healthand income in first-parity Holsteins on commercial farms. J. dairy Sci. 87:2730-2742.

Firkins, J. L., S. M. Lewis, L. Montgomery, L. L. Berger, N. R. Merchen, and G. C. Fahey Jr.1987. Effects of feed intake and dietary urea concentration on ruminal dilution rate andefficiency of bacterial growth in steers. J. Dairy Sci. 70:2312-2324.

French P., A.P. Moloney, P. O’Kiely, E. O’Riordan, and P.J. Caffrey. 2001. Growth and rumendigestion characteristics of steers grazing autumn grass supplemented with concentratesbased on different carbohydrate sources. Anim. Sci.72: 139–148.

Ford, J.A., Jr., and C.S. Park. 2001. Nutritionally directed compensatory growth enhancesheifer development and lactation potential. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1669–1678.

Fox, D. G., R. R. Johnson, R. L. Preston, T. R. Dockerty, and E. W. Klosterman. 1972. Proteinand energy utilization during compensatory growth in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci.34:310–318.

Garnsworthy, P.C., 2004. The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modellingapproach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech.112:211-223.

Gelsinger, S. L. and A. J. Heinrichs. 2017. Comparison of immune responses in calves fed heattreated or unheated colostrum. J. Dairy Sci. In press:.

Gill, G. S., and F. R. Allaire. 1976. Relationship of age at first calving, days open, days dry, andherdlife to a profit function for dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 59:1131–1139.

Greter, A. M., T. J. DeVries, and M. A. G. von Keyserlingk. 2011. Nutrient intake and feedingbehavior of growing dairy heifers: Effects of dietary dilution. J. Dairy Sci. 91:2786–2795.

Heinrichs, A.J. 1993. Raising dairy replacements to meet the needs of the 21st century. J.Dairy Sci. 76:3179-3187.

Hicks, R. B., F. N. Owens, D. R. Gill, J. J. Martin, and C. A. Strasia. 1990. Effects of controlledfeed intake on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers and heifers. J.Anim. Sci. 68:233–244.

Hill, T. M., H. G. Bateman II, J. M. Aldrich and R. L. Schlotterbeck. 2010. Effect of milkreplacer program on digestion of nutrients in dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci. 93:1105-1115.

Hill, T. M., J. D. Quigley, H. G. Bateman II, F. X. Suarez-Mena, T. S. Dennis and R. L.Schlotterbeck. 2016. Effect of milk replacer program on calf performance and digestion of nutrients in dairy calves to 4 months of age. J. Dairy Sci. 99:8103-8110.

Hoffman, P. C., and D. A. Funk. 1992. Applied dynamics of dairy replacement growth andmanagement. J. Dairy Sci. 75:2504–2516.

Hoffman, P. C. 1997. Optimum body size of Holstein replacement heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 75:836–845.

Hoffman, P. C., C. R. Simson, and M. Wattiaux. 2007. Limit feeding of gravid Holstein heifers:Effect on growth, manure nutrient excretion, and subsequent early lactation performance.J. Dairy Sci. 90:946–954.

Huntington, G. B., and P. J. Reynolds. 1983. Net volatile fatty acid absorption in nonlactatingHolstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 66:86–92.

Jasper, J. and D. M. Weary. 2002. Effects of ad libitum milk intake on dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci.85:3054-3058.

How to Cite
Lascano, Gustavo J., Rebecca N. Klopp, Saad M. Hussein, and Dana McCurdy. 2018. “Insights in Nutrition Programs for the Developing Ruminant”. Archivos Latinoamericanos De Producción Animal 26 (3-4).
Invited papers