The effect of supplementation on reproduction and weight in extensively managed beef cattle in the Eastern Kalahari bushveld

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4510796/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The effect of supplementation on reproduction and weight in extensively managed beef cattle in the Eastern Kalahari bushveld

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4510796/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

A cow’s lifetime productivity is influenced not only by breed and age at first calving, but also by feeding conditions and appropriate supplementation. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of two different lick supplementation strategies between weaning and first conception on the calving percentage and weight over the first three calving seasons. In the study, 24 Bonsmara heifers were divided into two groups of 12 animals each after weaning. The two heifer groups received the same mineral lick during summer. During winter months (April – September), the one group received a protein rich winter lick (400g/kg protein) while the second group received a production lick (winter lick supplemented with yellow maize in a ratio of 2:1). The heifers were bred naturally at 24 months during a three-month summer breeding season (December – February). Calving percentage and reconception rate of the group which received production lick in the winter was 92%, 50% and 58% for the first, second and third calving seasons. This was significantly higher than the calving percentage of 67%, 42% and 33% for the group which received only winter lick. Cow weight at calving and calf 205 day corrected weaning weight were higher over the three consecutive calving seasons for the heifers receiving production lick during winter. These results indicate that it may be worthwhile to provide good supplementation before the first breeding season for the incentive of a better calving percentage and higher calf weaning weights up to the third calving season.

Calf growth

calving percentage

lick supplementation

Livestock farming under extensive conditions has certain limitations, namely veld production (quantity) and a variation in quality (nutritive value) (Van Niekerk & Jacobs, 1985; De Brouwer et al., 1993; Van Niekerk, 1996; Van Pletzen, 2009). This is often worsened by low seasonal rainfall, with long-term droughts being experienced on a regular basis. Under these circumstances, livestock farming often necessitates the use of supplementary feed, which must be reflected in improved animal production and efficiency. The identification of an efficient supplementation regimen to rear replacement heifers (wean to 22 months old) and supplement cows to achieve acceptable conception rates at the lowest possible cost is a major challenge for beef producers.

Beef cattle production in Southern Africa is predominantly an extensive system based mainly on the utilization of pastures. According to Snyman (1998) and Smit (1999), approximately 65% of South Africa’s grasslands are classified as arid to semi-arid because they receive less than 500 mm of rain per annum. In these drier areas, grassland is often subjected to seasonal droughts, high ambient temperatures, and low soil fertility, causing a greater proportion of the beef-producing areas in the country to have marginal agricultural potential (Van Niekerk, 1996). This has resulted in a beef industry that is heavily dependent on natural pastures; therefore, the most practical method of production in these areas is extensive grazing of beef cattle. Smit (1999) claimed that natural pasture remains the cheapest source of forage for cattle production and that the economic viability of cattle farming comes under pressure from increases in additional input costs, such as additional feeding. Therefore, the objective of the study was to determine the effect of two different lick supplementation strategies between weaning and first conception on the subsequent calving percentage and cow and calf weights, as well as calving percentage and weight over the second and third calving seasons.

Study area

The study was conducted at the Koopmansfontein research station in the Eastern Kalahari bushveld of South Africa. The research farm is 3222 ha in size and is situated 61 km northwest of the towns of Barkly West and 115 km east of Postmasburg, between Kimberley and Hotazel in the Northern Cape Province. The carrying capacity is 40 hectares / Large stock Unit. The GPS coordinates are: 28.241 ͦ S 24.037 ͦ E. The summers are hot, and winters are very cold and frosty with average temperatures ranging from 6 to 40ºC. The rainfall distribution in the area is very erratic, with an average precipitation of approximately 450 mm per annum, of which 88% occurs during the summer months from October to April in the form of thunderstorms. The most dominant grass in the area is Themeda triandra (red grass) (Raper, 1987).

Experimental design

For the three-year study, 24 Bonsmara heifers, managed extensively on natural rangeland, were divided into two groups of 12 animals each after weaning. Heifer weights were similar for both groups at the beginning of the study and the heifers stayed within the same groups for the duration of the project. The heifers were extensively managed on natural rangeland with only lick supplementation throughout the duration of the study. The heifers were bred naturally from the age of 24 months during a three-month summer breeding season (December – February). Heifer weight at breeding, calving and weaning as well as calf birth weight and 205 day weaning weight were recorded. Calf birth weight was corrected for gender as bull calves are generally heavier than heifer calves. Weaning weight was recorded as the 205-day corrected weaning weight.

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Animal Production Research Ethics Committee (NC/AEREC/19/11/008).

Lick supplementation

During the summer months (October – March), the two heifer groups received the same mineral lick (60g/kg Phosphorus; 120g/kg Calcium) as shown in Table 1. Summer lick intake differed between 100–200g/day for both groups.

Table 1

Winter lick composition
Nutrient composition	Nutrient levels
Moisture (max)	120 g/kg
Protein (min)	400 g/kg
Urea (total feed)	135 g/kg
Calcium (max)	21 g/kg
Urea protein of protein	80%
NPN of total protein (max)	96%

During the dry winter months (April – September), the one group received a protein rich winter lick (400g/kg protein) (WL) with individual intake differing between 400-600g/day as shown in Table 2. The second group received a production lick (PL) during winter which consisted of the same winter lick supplemented with yellow maize in a ratio of 2:1 to supply additional protein and energy. Production lick intake were approximately 1000-1300g/day.

Table 2

Summer lick composition
Nutrient composition	Nutrient levels
Moisture (max)	150 g/kg
Phosphorus (min)	60 g/kg
Calcium (max)	120 g/kg
Iron (min)	750 mg/kg
Copper (min)	150 mg/kg
Zinc	600 mg/kg

Statistical Analysis

The weight data were subjected to a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for significant main effects and interactions using SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS, 2016). The residuals were examined for deviations from normality, and outliers causing skewness were removed. Fisher’s protected t-LSD (Least Significant Difference) was calculated to compare treatment means of significant effects (Ott, 1998).

For calving percentage, the chi-squared test was applied to the proportion of calves born in different years in the PL and WL groups. The Chi-squared test for the R × C (6 × 2) contingency table (Fig. 1) was performed to test whether the proportion of calves born varied across the different classifications. A significant (P = 0.0627) chi-squared test indicated that the proportions varied at the 10% level of significance. In other words, the proportion of calves born depends on treatment and year (Rayner, 1969). These tests were performed using SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS, 2016).

Calving percentage

According to Endecott et al. (2013), raising heifers to be 50–57% of mature body weight may present an economic advantage over developing heifers to 60–65% of mature body weight at first mating. For this study, the heifers had to reach 55% of their mature body weight at 24 months. In 2019, 24-month-old heifers receiving production lick during winter weighed 289kg and heifers receiving winter lick weighed 286kg at the beginning of the breeding season. Calving percentage, which is influenced by pregnancy rate and pregnancy loss percentage, is a good indicator of breeding performance and herd fertility. In the current study, all calves were included in the number of calves born, even if they were dead at birth.

The calving percentages of the PL group were 92%, 50%, and 58% for the first, second, and third calving seasons, respectively. The PL group had a higher calving percentage (P < 0.05) than the WL group, where calving percentages of 67%, 42%, and 33% were recorded from 2019–2021 (Fig. 1). The Chi-square test indicated that the proportion that calved depended on the treatment and year. These results also indicate that it may be worthwhile for farmers to provide good nutrition and supplementation before the first breeding season and thereafter for the incentive of a better calving percentage and higher calf weaning weights up to the third calving season.

These results are in agreement with the study of Foster (2015), which showed that beef heifers commonly conceive at a higher rate during their first breeding season, provided they have grown sufficiently. The calving rate is one of the measures of cow efficiency, because it is linked to body condition of the cow, which is achieved mainly through good feeding (Foster et al., 2014). Furthermore, Endecott et al. (2013) state that the choice of supplements offered to first-calf heifers is very important, as nutritional stress could affect their fall-out rate, longevity, and mature cow size. Supplements thus play a vital role in heifers’ reproductive performance. When heifers are fed to achieve appropriate weights prior to first breeding, a positive effect on re-breeding after the first calf can be seen.

Heifer weight at breeding

The weight of a cow at weaning and weight of a cow before mating are related. Numerous research studies that investigated this relationship have found that the ratio of mature equivalent cow weight at weaning to calf weaning weight can be used as a measure of cow efficiency (Kasimanickam et al., 2021). Heifers from the two groups had similar weights at the beginning of the first breeding season in 2019 (Table 3).

There was no significant difference in body weight gain between the PL group and the WL group in 2019. However, in the following year (2020), the PL group weighed significantly heavier (P < 0.05) with a weight of 426.3 ± 39.5 kg, than the WL group with a weight of 361.8 ± 41.6 kg.

Although the PL group weighed less (414.5 ± 39.7 kg) in 2021 compared to 2020, while the WL group gained weight (404.8 ± 32.2 kg) in 2021, there was no significant difference between the two groups in 2021.

Table 3

Mean heifer weight (kg) ± standard deviation at the beginning of the mating season for heifers who received either production lick or winter lick before commencement of the first mating season
Year	Production Lick	Winter Lick	Groups combined
2019	288.7 ± 33.2^c	286.3 ± 39.1^c	287.5 ± 35.5^B
2020	426.3 ± 39.5^a	361.8 ± 41.6^b	394.1 ± 51.6^A
2021	414.5 ± 39.7^a	404.8 ± 32.2^a	409.7 ± 35.7^A
Mean	376.5 ± 73.0¹	351.0 ± 61.8²
^a,b,c Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05
^1,2 Means with different superscripts in the bottom row differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05

The PL group had more calves in their first calving season in 2020, as shown in Fig. 1. The fact that they were still nursing their first calves may have contributed to their slight loss of weight in 2021, while the WL group gained weight since less heifers were nursing their first calves due to a lower calving percentage in 2020. Lishman et al. (1984) state that the nutritional requirements for growth of the young cow in addition to those for lactation are not usually met by the natural grazing available, and the provision of supplements thus plays a vital role in their reproductive performance. These results are also in agreement with Kroker et al. (2000), who report that when heifers are fed to achieve appropriate weights prior to their first breeding, a positive effect on re-breeding after the first calf can be seen. When heifers are bred for the first time with inadequate live weights, conception rates and calving percentages are poor, calving problems increase, and their chances to reconceive while nursing their first calves are very low. The results show that production lick supplementation had a positive influence on the growth and development of heifers.

Heifer weight at calving

Weight at calving is an important factor that can affect heifer performance in general as well as milk production (Kathambi et al., 2018). Although body weight at calving can impact milk yield and herd life, it is not the sole determinant. The long-term productivity and survival of heifers are also influenced by other factors, such as maturity rate, genetics, nutrition, management practices, and growth rate during rearing period. (Han et al., 2021).

Table 4 indicates the heifer weight at calving over the three production cycles. In 2019/2020, there was no significant difference in body weight at first calving between the two experimental groups. However, there was a significant difference the following year in 2020/2021, when animals that were fed with production lick weighed more (372.5 ± 40.7 kg) than those that were fed with winter lick (329.4 ± 25.6 kg). The results further show that both groups gained weight in the last year.

Table 4

Heifer weight (kg) at calving ± standard deviation for heifers who received either production lick or winter lick before commencement of the first mating season
Year	Production Lick	Winter Lick	Groups combined
2019/2020	337.9 ± 33.7^b,c	311.1 ± 22.0^c	326.6 ± 31.7^B
2020/2021	372.5 ± 40.7^b	329.4 ± 25.6^c	352.9 ± 40.0^B
2021/2022	428.3 ± 30.1^a	420.5 ± 34.6^a	415.6 ± 29.1^A
Mean	370.0 ± 47.9¹	340.0 ± 47.6²
^a,b,c Means with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05
^1,2 Means with different superscripts in the bottom row differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05

Calf Birth Weight

The weight of a newly born calf is of great importance to the breeder, producer, and livestock owner in judging its health as well as those of its dam, and it also gives a good indication of the calf’s subsequent development (Wakchaure & Meena, 2010). For example, dystocia can be linked with high calf birth weight and could increase calf mortality at calving and up to 30 days following birth, and it can compromise long-term health. Therefore, calf-birth-weight predictions could be used to maximise cow and calf welfare at birth while avoiding losses associated with low and high calf birth weight. However, calf birth weight can be a complex trait influenced by environmental and genetic components. In this regard, fulfilling nutrition requirements is essential for the growth and development of calves.

The calf birth weights are presented in Table 5. There was no significant difference in the birth weights between the two groups over the project period. At birth, the calves were almost the same size for the PL group (36.7 ± 4.4 kg) and the WL (34.1 ± 5.5 kg) group, but in the year 2020/2021, there was a slight difference (P < 0.05) in the calf birth weight *BW) between the PL group (38.5 ± 5.3 kg) and the dams that received winter licks (34.2 ± 4.4 kg). The calves from the WL group, had slightly higher BW than the calves from the animals that received production licks the following year, in 2021/2022, although not significant.

Table 5

Corrected calf birth weights (kg) ± standard deviation for heifers who received either production lick or winter lick before commencement of the first mating season
Year	Production Lick	Winter Lick	Groups combined
2019/2020	36.7 ± 4.4	34.1 ± 5.5	35.6 ± 4.9
2020/2021	38.5 ± 5.3	34.2 ± 4.4	36.5 ± 5.2
2021/2022	34.0 ± 2.6	37.5 ± 2.1	35.3 ± 2.9
Mean	36.4 ± 4.4	34.9 ± 4.6

Cow weight at weaning

Cow weight at weaning is a crucial indicator of the cost of maintaining a cow. It provides valuable information regarding the cow’s ability to conceive and nurture a healthy calf. The productivity and efficiency of the cattle herd can be increased through selective breeding based on cow weight at weaning (Crook et al., 2010).

According to the results in Table 6, there was a significant difference in cow weaning weight (CWW) in 2020, between the PL group (324.1 kg) and the WL group (293.3 kg). In 2023, the PL group weighed significantly heavier than the WL group. However, there are no significant differences between the two groups in 2021 and 2022. The animals weighed almost the same at weaning. The results show that supplementing growing heifers with production licks had a positive effect on CWW.

Table 6

Cow weights at weaning (kg) ± standard deviation for heifers who received either production lick or winter lick
Year	Production Lick	Winter Lick	Groups combined
2021	324.1 ± 25.0^a,b	293.3 ± 25.5^b	312.1 ± 28.9
2022	335.7 ± 31.9^a,b	330.2 ± 19.5^a,b	333.5 ± 26.4
2023	358.6 ± 73.4^a	316.2 ± 45.9^a,b	343.2 ± 65.7
Mean	337.0 ± 46.1¹	309.3 ± 32.8²

The weight of a cow at weaning and weight of a cow before mating are related. Numerous research studies that investigated the relationship have found that the ratio of mature equivalent cow weight at weaning to calf weaning weight can be used as a measure of cow efficiency (William et al., 2018; Scholtz et al., 2016; MacNeil., 2005). From Table 3, it is evident that the animals weighted nearly the same at the beginning of the first mating season; however, at weaning, the PL group weighed significantly heavier than the WL group in 2021 (Table 4).

Calf Weaning Weight

Mulliniks et al. (2012) found that calves from cows with higher milk yield had greater body weights and average daily gain (ADG) during a backgrounding feeding trial. To attain a high weaning weight, calves have to get enough feed.

From Table 7, it can be seen that the weaning weights differed significantly (P < 0.05) between the PL an WL groups over the three-year project period. The calves born from the heifers who were fed production lick weighed heavier (186.4 kg) at weaning than the calves born from the heifers that were fed winter lick (139.6 kg) in 2021. The highest weaning weight for the production lick group was 186.4 kg (2021), while the highest weaning weight for the winter lick group was 144.7 kg (2022). The combined weaning weight of the two groups did not differ significantly per year. This implies that year did not have an effect on weaning weight.

Table 7

Calf weight (kg) at weaning ± standard deviation of calves in the treatment and control group
Year	Production Lick	Winter Lick	Groups combined
2021	186.4 ± 13.9^a	139.6 ± 44.5^b,c	166.7 ± 38.0
2022	153.2 ± 12.8^a,b,c	144.7 ± 38.8^b,c	149.8 ± 24.7
2023	172.6 ± 37.6^a,b	132.2 ± 36.1^b,c	157.9 ± 40.7
Mean	174. ± 26¹	139.1 ± 38.8²
^a,b,c Means with different superscripts in the table differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05
^1,2 Means with different superscripts in the bottom row differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05

From this study, it is clear that supplementing growing heifers with production lick during the winter months in the Khalahari bushveld has a positive effect on growth and calving percentage. This study also recommends that faster growth rates may result in higher cow weight at calving. Providing good nutrition and supplementation to heifers before their first breeding season and afterwards can significantly improve calving percentage and calf weaning weight up to the third calving season, as supported by previous studies. This highlights the importance of proper feeding and supplementation to enhance heifer reproductive performance and overall efficiency.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the Northern Cape Department of Agriculture, Environmental Affairs, Land Reform and Rural Development for providing the experimental animals and facilities, the Central University of Technology Free State for guidance and assistance as well as the Agricultural Research Council for statistical analysis and guidance.

Author contributions

SD: Data collection and writing the draft of the manuscript. SMG: Co-supervisor and provided editorial inputs to the manuscript. MMS: Supervised the process and provided editorial inputs to the manuscript. LM: Statistical analysis. PJF: Supervisor, supervised the study process and provided editorial inputs to the manuscript.

Funding

Partially funded by the National Research Foundation (Grant Number UID135438) and the Agricultural Research Council. The funder was not involved in any of the study’s design or conclusions.

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Animal Production Research Ethics Committee (NC/AEREC/19/11/008).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing Interests

All authors declare that there are no actual or potential conflicts of interest including financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, this work.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Chenoweth, P.J., 1994. Aspects of reproduction in female Bos Indicus cattle: a review. Australian Veterinary Journal, 71(12), 442 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1994.tb00961.x
De Brouwer, C.H.M., Visser, C.B., Schutte, A.R. & Postma, M., 1993. Biological and economical effects of different supplements given to beef cows on summer veld. South African Journal of Animal Science, 23(2), 31–37.
Endecott, R.L., Funston, R.N., Mulliniks, J.T. & Roberts, A.J., 2013. Implications of beef heifer development systems and lifetime productivity. Journal of Animal Science, 91,1329–1335. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5704
Foster, L. A., Fourie, P. J & Neser, F.W.C., 2014. The profitability and production of a beef herd on transitional Cymbopogon- Themeda veld, receiving three different levels of lick supplementation – Preliminary results. South African Journal of Animal Science, 44 (5) s31-s35. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v44i5.7
Foster, L.A., 2015. The profitability and production of a beef herd on transitional Cybopogon – Themeda veld receiving three different levels of supplementation. PhD Thesis.
Grobler, S.M.; Scholtz, M.M.; Schwalbach,L.M.J. & Greyling, J.P.C., 2013. Effect of synchronisation on calving date following natural mating in beef cattle. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development 6, 15–17.
Han, L., Heinrichs, A.J., De Vries,A., Dechow, C.D., 2021. Relationship of body weight at first calving milk yield and herd life. Journal of Dairy Science, 104, 397–404. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-19214
Kasimanickam, R.K., McCann, M.L. & Kasimanickam, V.R., 2021. Difference in Body Weight at Breeding Affects Reproductive Performance in Replacement Beef heifers and Carries Consequences to Next Generation Heifers. Animals, 11(10), 2800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102800
Kathambi, E.K., Van Leeuwen, J., Gitau, G.K., McKenna, S.L., 2018. A cross-sectional study of welfare of calves raised in smallholder dairy farms in Meru, Kenya. Veterinary World, 11(8), 1094–1101. https://doi.org/10.14202%2Fvetworld.2018.1094-1101
Kroker, G., Clarke, B. & Clarke, L., 2000. Age of beef heifers at first mating. Agriculture, Victoria (http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/beef/breeding/age-of-beef-heifers-at-firstmating) Retrieved on 17 July 2023.
Lishman, A.W., Paterson, A.G. & Beghin, S.M., 1984. Reproduction rate as a factor in meat production. South African Journal of Animal Science, 14, 164–168.
Lopes, G., Giordano, J., Valenza, A., Herlihy, M.M., Guenther, J.N., Wiltbank, M.C., & Fricke, P.M., 2013. Effect of timing of initiation of resynchronization and pre-synchronization with gonadotropin-releasing hormone on fertility of resynchronized inseminations in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(6), 3788–3798. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6429
MacNeil, M.D., 2005. Genetics evaluation of the ratio of calf weaning weight to cow weight. Journal of Animal Science, 83(4), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.834794x
Ott, R.L. 1998. An Introduction to Statistical methods and data analysis. Belmont, California: Duxbury Press: pp 807–837.
Paisley, S. & Chichester, K., 2005. Determining the best time to wean. In: Proceedings of the 19th Range Beef Cow Symposium, Rapid City, South Dakota.
Patterson, D.J., Wood. S.L. & Randle, R.F., 2002. Procedures that support reproductive management of replacement beef heifers. Proceedings, The Applied Reproductive Strategies in Beef Cattle Workshop. Manhattan, Kansas.
Ramsey, R., Doye, D., Ward, C., Mcgrann, J., Falconer, L. & Bevers, S., 2005. Factors affecting beef cow-herd costs, production, and profits. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 37(1), 91–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800007124
SAS Institute Inc. 2016. SAS® 9.4 Language Reference: Concepts, Sixth Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Scholtz, M.M., Mokolobate, M.C., Jordaan,F.J., Neser, F.W.C & Theunissen,A., 2016. A critical analyses of cow-calf efficiency in extensive beef production systems. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development, 9, 11–20
Smit, G.N., 1999. Pasture management for extensive beef cattle production. Beef cattle production information workshop. Hooglandpers, Bethlehem, RSA. ISBN 0-86886-547-8. UOVS
Snyman, H.A., 1998. Dynamics and sustainable utilization of the rangeland ecosystem in arid and semi-arid climates of Southern Africa. Journal of Arid Environments, 39(4), 645–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0387
Van Niekerk, B.D.H. & Jacobs, G.A., 1985. Protein, energy and phosphorus supplementation of cattle fed low-quality forage. South African Journal of Animal Science, 15(4), 133–136.
Van Niekerk, B.D.H., 1996. Limiting nutrients in supplementary feeding. Bulletin of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa, 7(1), 51–59.
Van Pletzen, H., 2009. http://www.voermol.co.za/en/news/technical/BEEF_PRODUCTION_FROM_THE_VELD_OFFERS_GREAT_OPPORTUNITIES/default.aspx.
William, A.R., Parsons, C.T., Dafoe, J.M., Boss, D.L., Bowman, J.G.P &Delcurto,T., 2018. The influence of beef cow weaning weight ratio and cow size on feed intake behavior, milk production and milk composition. Translation Animal Science, 2(1), S79-S83. https://doi.org/10.1093%2Ftas%2Ftxy044
Walker, J. & Perry, G., 2007. Cow condition and reproductive performance. In: Proceedings of the 20th Range Beef Cow Symposium, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
22 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
18 Jul, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
03 Jun, 2024
First submitted to journal
31 May, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

The effect of supplementation on reproduction and weight in extensively managed beef cattle in the Eastern Kalahari bushveld

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Study area

Experimental design

Lick supplementation

Statistical Analysis

Results and Discussions

Calving percentage

Heifer weight at breeding

Heifer weight at calving

Calf Birth Weight

Cow weight at weaning

Calf Weaning Weight

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1