03938naa a2200397 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902200280006002400320008810000160012024501220013626000090025850003960026752023820066365300320304565300220307765300310309965300370313070000160316770000180318370000170320170000170321870000160323570000160325170000160326770000170328370000140330070000170331470000200333170000160335170000140336770000180338170000170339970000140341677301100343010642902023-08-17       2023    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d  a2813-3463 (electronic).7 a10.3390/grasses20300142DOI1 aCAZZULI, F.  aBeef cattle grazing native grasslands may follow three different supplement response patterns.h[electronic resource]  c2023  aArticle history: Received 3 May 2023; Revised 1 July 2023; Accepted 13 July 2023; Published 7 August 2023. -- Academic Editor: Fabio Gresta. -- FUNDING: This research was funded by INIA Uruguay. -- LICENSE: This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). --  aABSTRACT.- Previous studies on winter supplementation of growing cattle grazing stockpiled native Campos grasslands suggest that forage allowance (FA), herbage mass, and weather conditions before and during the supplementation period could all affect supplement feed efficiency (SFE)-that is, the difference or change in average daily gain (ADG) between supplemented (S) and control (C) animals (ADGchng, kg) per unit (kg) of supplement dry matter (DM) intake. In this study, we analyse data from fifteen collated winter supplementation trials carried out in Uruguay between 2004 and 2018. The working hypotheses of this research paper were: (i) that average substitution rates are positive, and (ii) that ADGchng is not constant throughout the supplementation period and that its variation may be attributed to sward, animal or weather variables. There were two main objectives: (i) to estimate the average supplement substitution rate (sSbR, kg forage, f, dry matter, DM intake reduction: kg supplement DM intake) and potential herbage intake substitution rate (hSbR, kg fDM intake reduction: kg fDM intake of control animals), and its association with SFE, and, (ii) to assess the existence of different phases and supplementation response patterns and its association with other relevant variables. Estimated substitution rates were always positive (sSbR = 0.3-1.1 kg/kg; hSbR = 0.1-0.3 kg/kg) and were negatively and moderately associated with SFE. Supplementation proved to be a dynamic process where three possible supplementation responses over the supplementation period were identified (linear, quadratic and Weibull). While linear patterns did not appear distinctly associated with any particular set of variables, quadratic models were mostly associated with herbage biomass and substitution rates, whereas Weibull models were the clearest in their association with frosts. Regardless of the response pattern, at the beginning of the trials it was the animals? body weight and supplement quality that most influenced supplement response, whereas towards the end, supplementation intake, supplemented animals' ADG and forage quality played a more relevant role. The estimated parameters and response patterns are expected to be used as inputs in decision support systems for livestock farmers in the future. © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.  aConcentrate supplementation  aSubstitution rate  aSupplement feed efficiency  aSupplementation response pattern1 aDURANTE, M.1 aHIRIGOYEN, A.1 aSÁNCHEZ, J.1 aROVIRA, P.J.1 aBERETTA, V.1 aSIMEONE, A.1 aJAURENA, M.1 aSAVIAN, J.V.1 aPOPPI, D.1 aMONTOSSI, F.1 aLAGOMARSINO, X.1 aLUZARDO, S.1 aBRITO, G.1 aVELAZCO, J.I.1 aLATTANZI, F.1 aBREMM, C.  tGrasses. 2023, Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 168-184. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses2030014  --- OPEN ACCESS.