Effect of Heifer Frame Score on Growth, Fertility, and Economics

  • Senturklu, S. (Dickinson Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University) ;
  • Landblom, D.G. (Dickinson Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University) ;
  • Perry, G.A. (Department of Animal Sciences, South Dakota State University) ;
  • Petry, T. (Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University)
  • Received : 2013.12.19
  • Accepted : 2014.07.10
  • Published : 2015.01.01


A non-traditional forage-based protocol was employed to evaluate replacement heifer growth, fertility, and economics between small frame (SF, 3.50; n = 50) and large frame (LF, 5.56; n = 50) heifers using three increasing gain growth phases. Preceding an 85 d growing-breeding period (Phase 3; P3) the heifers were managed as a common group for Phases 1 and 2 (P1 and P2). During P1, heifers grazed common fields of unharvested corn and corn residue (total digestible nutrients [TDN] 56%) with supplemental hay. For P2, heifers grazed early spring crested wheatgrass pasture (CWG; TDN 62%) that was followed by the final P3 drylot growing and breeding period (TDN 68%). Small frame heifers were lighter at the end of P1 in May and at the start of P3 breeding in August (p = 0.0002). Percent of mature body weight (BW) at the end of P1 (209 d) was 48.7% and 46.8%, respectively, for the SF and LF heifers and the percent pubertal was lower for SF than for LF heifers (18.0% vs 40.0%; p = 0.02). At breeding initiation (P3), the percentage of mature BW was 57.8 and 57.2 and the percentage pubertal was 90.0 and 96.0 (p = 0.07) for the SF and LF heifers, respectively; a 5-fold increase for SF heifers. Breeding cycle pregnancy on days 21, 42, and 63, and total percent pregnant did not differ (p>0.10). In drylot, SF heifer dry matter intake (DMI) was 20.1% less (p = 0.001) and feed cost/d was 20.3% lower (p = 0.001), but feed cost/kg of gain did not differ between SF and LF heifers (p = 0.41). Economically important live animal measurements for muscling were measured in May and at the end of the study in October. SF heifers had greater L. dorsi muscle area per unit of BW than LF heifers (p = 0.03). Small frame heifer value was lower at weaning (p = 0.005) and the non-pregnant ending heifer value was lower for SF heifers than for the LF heifers (p = 0.005). However, the total development cost was lower for SF heifers (p = 0.001) and the net cost per pregnant heifer, after accounting for the sale of non-pregnant heifers, was lower for SF heifers (p = 0.004). These data suggest that high breeding efficiency can be attained among March-April born SF and LF virgin heifers when transitioned to a more favorable May-June calving period through the strategic use of grazed and harvested forages resulting in a lower net cost per pregnant SF heifer.


Beef Heifer;Heifer Production Economics;Fertility;Frame Score;Increasing Energy Management;Percent Mature Body Weight


Supported by : North Dakota State Univ.


  1. Endecott, R. L., R. N. Funston, J. T. Mulliniks, and A. J. Roberts. 2013. Joint Alpharma-Beef Species Symposium: Implications of beef heifer development systems and lifetime productivity. J. Anim. Sci. 91:1329-1335.
  2. Arias, R. P., P. J. Gunn, R. P. Lemanager, and S. L. Lake. 2012. Effects of post-AI nutrition on growth performance and fertility of yearling beef heifers. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science. 63:117-121.
  3. AOAC. 2010. Official Methods of Analysis of Official Analytical Chemists, 18th ed. Arlington, VA, USA.
  4. Beef Improvement Federation (BIF). 2010. Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs, 9th ed., pp 30. Online Available from: Accessed November 14, 2012.
  5. Byerley, D. J., R. B. Staigmiller, J. G. Berardinelli, and R. E. Short. 1987. Pregnancy rates of beef heifers bred either on pubertal or third estrus. J. Anim. Sci. 65:645-650.
  6. CHAPS. 2000. Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software. Accessed December 15, 2012.
  7. Dhuyvetter, K. C., G. T. Tonsor, and S. Johnson. 2012. Raising beef replacement heifers. In: Kansas State University Farm Management Guide Bulletin MF2566. Accessed June 10, 2013.
  8. Engel, C. L., H. H. Patterson, and G. A. Perry. 2008. Effect of dried corn distillers grains plus solubles compared with soybean hulls, in late gestation heifer diets, on animal and reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 86:1697-1708.
  9. Feuz, D. M. 1992. Replacement beef heifer economics: When prices and reproductive performance are uncertain. American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 56:61-66.
  10. Fox, D. G., C. J. Sniffen, and J. D. O. Connor. 1988. Adjusting nutrient requirements of beef cattle for animal and environmental variations. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1475-1495.
  11. Freetly, H. C., L. A. Kuehn, and L. V. Cundiff. 2011. Growth curves of crossbred cows sired by Hereford, Angus, Belgian Blue, Brahman, Boran, and Tuli bulls, and the fraction of mature body weight and height at puberty. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2373-2379.
  12. Goering, H. K. and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fiber analyses. Agriculture Handbook No: 379, ARS-USDA, Washington, DC, USA.
  13. Funston, R. N. and G. H. Deutscher. 2004. Comparison of target breeding weight and breeding date for replacement beef heifers and effects on subsequent reproduction and calf performance. J. Anim. Sci. 82:3094-3099.
  14. Funston, R. N. and D. M. Larson. 2011. Heifer development systems: Dry-lot feeding compared with grazing dormant winter forage. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1595-1602.
  15. Grings, E. E., R. B. Staigmiller, R. E. Short, R. A. Bellows, and M. D. MacNeil. 1999. Effects of stair-step nutrition and trace mineral supplementation on attainment of puberty in beef heifers of three sire breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 77:810-815.
  16. Kruse, S. G., B. J. Funnell, S. L. Bird, H. P. Dias, S. L. Lake, R. P. Arias, G. A. Perry, O. L. Swanson, E. L. Larimore, and G. A. Bridges. 2013. Influence of post-insemination nutrition on embryonic development in beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 91 (E-Suppl. 2):Abst.589:635. Accessed September 5, 2014.
  17. Larson, D. M., A. S. Cupp, and R. N. Funston. 2011. Heifer development systems: A comparison of grazing winter range or corn residue. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2365-2372.
  18. Lesmeister, J. L., P. J. Burfening, and R. L. Blackwell. 1973. Date of first calving in beef cows and subsequent calf production. J. Anim. Sci. 36:1-6.
  19. Lynch, J. M., G. C. Lamb, B. L. Miller, J. E. Minton, R. C. Cochran, and R. T. Brandt. 1996. Timing of gain does not alter puberty and reproductive performance of beef heifers fed a high roughage diet. Proceedings of Cattlemen's Day, 1996. March 1, 1996; Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. Accessed September 5, 2014.
  20. North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management Education Annual Report, 2012. Beef Replacement Heifers-Average Per Head All Farms. 2012:78.
  21. Martin, J. L., K. W. Creighton, J. A. Musgrave, T. J. Klopfenstein, R. T. Clark, D. C. Adams, and R. N Funston. 2008. Effect of prebreeding body weight or progestin exposure before breeding on beef heifer performance through the second breeding season. J. Anim. Sci. 86:451-459.
  22. North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management Education Annual Report. 2010. Beef Replacement Heifers-Average Per Head All Farms. 2010:81.
  23. North Dakota Farm and Ranch Business Management Education Annual Report, 2011. Beef Replacement Heifers-Average Per Head All Farms. 2011:78.
  24. Patterson, D. J., R. C. Perry, G. H. Kiracofe, R. A. Bellows, R. B. Staigmiller, and L. R. Corah. 1992. Management considerations in heifer development and puberty. J. Anim. Sci. 70:4018-4035.
  25. Patterson, H. H., D. C. Adams, T. J. Klopfenstein, R. T. Clark, and B. Teichert. 2003. Supplementation to meet metabolizable protein requirements of primiparous beef heifers: II. Pregnancy and economics. J. Anim. Sci. 81:563-570.
  26. Patterson, H. H., T. R. Clark, R. Salverson, W. Fahsholtz, and T. Line. 2005. Heifer development: Revisiting target weights and management approaches. Proceedings, the Range Beef Cow Symposium XIX. December 6 to 8, 2005; University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.
  27. Perry, G. A, J. Walker, C. Wright, and K. Olson. 2009. Impact of method of heifer development and post-AI management on reproductive efficiency. Proceedings, Range Beef Cow Symposium XXI. December 1-3, 2009; Casper, WY, USA.
  28. Perry, G. A., B. L. Perry, J. A. Walker, C. L. Wright, R. R. Salverson, and H. H. Patterson. 2013. Evaluation of prior grazing experience on reproductive performance in beef heifers. Prof. Anim. Sci. 29:595-600.
  29. SAS. 2002. Institute SAS Language and Procedure. Inc. Cary, NC, USA.
  30. Perry, R. C., L. R. Corah, R. C. Cochran, J. R. Brethour, K. C. Olson, and J. J. Higgins. 1991. Effects of hay quality, breed, and ovarian development on onset of puberty and reproductive performance of beef heifers. J. Prod. Agric. 4:13-18.
  31. Poland, W. W. and K. A. Ringwall. 2001. Effect of nutritional management for either constant or stair-stepped rates of gain on subsequent breeding performance of beef heifer calves. Proc. West. Sec. Am. Soc. An. Sci. 52:582-586.
  32. Roberts, A. J., T. W. Geary, E. E. Grings, R. C. Waterman, and M. D. MacNeil. 2009. Reproductive performance of heifers offered ad libitum or restricted access to feed for a one hundred forty-day period after weaning. J. Anim. Sci. 87:3043-3052.
  33. Short, R. E. and R. A. Bellows. 1971. Relationships among weight gains, age at puberty and reproductive performance in heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 32:127-131.
  34. Tilley, J. M. A. and R. A. Terry. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci. 18:104-111.
  35. USDA (Agricultural Marketing Service). 2010. North Dakota Weekly Auction Summary. Accessed October 15, 2011.
  36. USDA (Agricultural Marketing Service). 2011. North Dakota Weekly Auction Summary. Accessed September 30, 2011.
  37. USDA (National Agricultural Statistics Service North Dakota Field Office). 2011. Non-irrigated pasture and hay land, average rental rates and values, North Dakota. 2011. Ag Statistics No. 80: 92.