Characterization of dietary protein in Brassica carinata meal when used as a protein supplement for beef cattle consuming a forage-based diet

Evaluation of carinata meal or cottonseed meal as protein sources in silage-based diets on behavior, nutrient digestibility, and performance in backgrounding beef heifers

Changing climatic conditions are imposing risks and diminishing yields in agriculture. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) silage is a feasible option for backgrounding beef cattle in terms of economic risk management and animal productivity when compared with corn (Zea mays) silage, due to its drought adaptability. Similarly, Brassica carinata meal has proven to be a viable alternative as a protein supplement in forage-based beef cattle systems, when included at 10% of the diet dry matter (DM). However, research is scarce regarding its inclusion in silage-based diets for backgrounding animals. The objective of this trial was to compare a processor-chopped sorghum silage (SS) against a typical corn silage (CS) in a digestibility and performance trial while supplementing two protein sources; one traditionally used like cottonseed meal (CSM) and one novel like B. carinata meal (BCM). A total of 84 Angus crossbred heifers (307 ± 33 kg BW) were evaluated in a randomized block design with a 2 × 2 factorial treatment arrangement with type of silage and protein source as factors. Diets were fed ad libitum, consisting of 89% silage source plus 10% protein source, and 1% mineral inclusion on DM basis. The experimental period consisted of 14 d of adaptation followed by 5 d of apparent total tract digestibility measurements and 56 d of animal performance and intake behavior measurements. Heifers fed SS showed greater number of daily meals but decreased meal sizes (P ≤ 0.05), not differing in meal length (P > 0.10) when compared with CS. Dry matter and organic matter (OM) digestibility showed a silage type × protein source interaction (P ≤ 0.01), where in CS diets, OM tended to be more digestible with CSM vs. BCM, and it did not differ between protein sources in SS based diets. There was an effect of protein (P ≤ 0.01) on ADF digestibility, where CSM was greater than BCM. No effect of treatment was observed (P ≥ 0.10) on DM intake. Average daily gain (ADG) and gain-to-feed ratio were greater for CS than SS (P ≤ 0.01) regardless of protein source. Although heifers fed CS had greater feed efficiency and digestibility, SS can still be considered a viable option for backgrounding beef heifers, obtaining adequate ADG rates of 0.945 kg/d. Lastly, BCM did not differ from CSM in terms of feed efficiency and animal performance, proving to be a viable alternative protein source in silage-based diets.