Literature DB >> 17178805

Growth, carcass quality, and protein and energy metabolism in beef cattle with different growth potentials and residual feed intakes.

F C P Castro Bulle1, P V Paulino, A C Sanches, R D Sainz.   

Abstract

Twenty-four beef steers (predominantly Angus x Hereford, 14 to 18 mo of age, 403 +/- 3 kg of BW), were housed and fed in individual pens for about 122 d. Twelve steers came from a herd that had been selected for growth (high growth; HG) and the other 12 from a herd with no selection program (low growth; LG). Another 6 steers (3 from each group) were slaughtered at the beginning to obtain the initial composition. All steers were fed the same corn-based diet (3.06 Mcal of ME/kg of DM, 13.6% CP) on an ad libitum basis. Two weeks before slaughter, total urine was collected for 5 d for estimation of 3-methylhistidine excretion and myofibrillar protein breakdown rates. Compared with LG steers, HG steers had less initial BW but greater final BW, DMI (7.52 vs. 6.37 kg/d), ADG (1.33 vs. 0.853 kg/d), G:F (0.176 vs. 0.133 kg/kg), ME intake (0.233 vs. 0.201 Mcal x kg of BW(0.75) x d(-1)), and retained energy (RE; 0.0711 vs. 0.0558 Mcal x kg of BW(0.75) x d(-1)); gained more fat (676 vs. 475 g/d); and tended to gain more whole body protein (100 vs. 72 g/d), with no difference in residual feed intake (RFI). Estimated net energetic efficiency of gain (k(g)) and ME for maintenance (ME(m)) did not differ between the 2 groups, averaging 0.62 and 0.114, respectively. The HG steers had greater HCW (350 vs. 329 kg), backfat (16.1 vs. 11.6 mm), and yield grades (3.53 vs. 2.80), with a similar dressing percent, KPH fat, LM area, and marbling score. Skeletal muscle protein gain (70.2 vs. 57.6 g/d) and fractional protein accretion rate (0.242 vs. 0.197%/d) tended to be greater in HG than in LG steers. Steers were classified into low (-0.367 kg/d) and high (0.380 kg/d) RFI classes. Compared with the high RFI steers, low RFI steers consumed less DM (6.61 vs. 7.52 kg/d) and ME (0.206 vs. 0.234 Mcal x kg of BW(0.75) x d(-1)) and tended to gain less fat (494 vs. 719 g/d), but were similar for initial and final BW, ADG, G:F, protein gain, HCW, dressing percent, backfat, KPH fat, LM area, marbling score, and yield grade, as well as for all observations related to myofibrillar protein metabolism. Residual feed intake may be positively [corrected] correlated with ME for maintenance. The maintenance energy requirement increased by 0.0166 Mcal x kg(-0.75) x d(-1) for each percentage increase in fractional protein degradation rate, confirming the importance of this process in the energy economy of the animal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17178805     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2006-373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  19 in total

1.  Intermuscular and intramuscular adipose tissues: Bad vs. good adipose tissues.

Authors:  Gary J Hausman; Urmila Basu; Min Du; Melinda Fernyhough-Culver; Michael V Dodson
Journal:  Adipocyte       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 4.534

2.  Infrared thermography as a tool to evaluate body surface temperature and its relationship with feed efficiency in Bos indicus cattle in tropical conditions.

Authors:  Luciane Silva Martello; Saulo da Luz E Silva; Rodrigo da Costa Gomes; Rosana Ruegger Pereira da Silva Corte; Paulo Roberto Leme
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2015-06-13       Impact factor: 3.787

3.  Relationship between feed efficiency and slaughter traits of French Charolais bulls.

Authors:  Sébastien Taussat; Romain Saintilan; Daniel Krauss; David Maupetit; Marie-Noëlle Fouilloux; Gilles Renand
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Evidence of negative relationship between female fertility and feed efficiency in Nellore cattle.

Authors:  Rubens J Ferreira Júnior; Sarah F M Bonilha; Fábio M Monteiro; Joslaine N S G Cyrillo; Renata H Branco; Josineudson A Ii V Silva; Maria Eugênia Z Mercadante
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Effects of feeding level on efficiency of high- and low-residual feed intake beef steers.

Authors:  Emily M Andreini; Sheyenne M Augenstein; Carrie S Fales; Roberto D Sainz; James W Oltjen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Digestion and metabolism of low and high residual feed intake Nellore bulls.

Authors:  Sarah Figueiredo Martins Bonilha; Renata Helena Branco; Maria Eugênia Zerlotti Mercadante; Joslaine Noely Dos Santos Gonçalves Cyrillo; Fábio Morato Monteiro; Enilson Geraldo Ribeiro
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 1.559

7.  Hepatic mitochondrial function in Hereford steers with divergent residual feed intake phenotypes.

Authors:  Alberto Casal; Mercedes Garcia-Roche; Elly Ana Navajas; Adriana Cassina; Mariana Carriquiry
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Consistency of feed efficiency ranking and mechanisms associated with inter-animal variation among growing calves.

Authors:  A Asher; A Shabtay; M Cohen-Zinder; Y Aharoni; J Miron; R Agmon; I Halachmi; A Orlov; A Haim; L O Tedeschi; G E Carstens; K A Johnson; A Brosh
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  Life cycle efficiency of beef production: IX. Relationship between residual feed intake of heifers and cow efficiency ratios based on harvest, carcass, and wholesale cut weight outputs.

Authors:  M E Davis; P A Lancaster; J J Rutledge; L V Cundiff
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  Copy number variations and genome-wide associations reveal putative genes and metabolic pathways involved with the feed conversion ratio in beef cattle.

Authors:  Miguel Henrique de Almeida Santana; Gerson Antônio Oliveira Junior; Aline Silva Mello Cesar; Mateus Castelani Freua; Rodrigo da Costa Gomes; Saulo da Luz E Silva; Paulo Roberto Leme; Heidge Fukumasu; Minos Esperândio Carvalho; Ricardo Vieira Ventura; Luiz Lehmann Coutinho; Haja N Kadarmideen; José Bento Sterman Ferraz
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.