Literature DB >> 18997083

Characterization of feed efficiency traits and relationships with feeding behavior and ultrasound carcass traits in growing bulls.

P A Lancaster1, G E Carstens, F R B Ribeiro, L O Tedeschi, D H Crews.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to characterize feed efficiency traits and to examine phenotypic correlations between performance and feeding behavior traits, and ultrasound measurements of carcass composition in growing bulls. Individual DMI and feeding behavior traits were measured in Angus bulls (n=341; initial BW=371.1+/-50.8 kg) fed a corn silage-based diet (ME=2.77 Mcal/kg of DM) for 84 d in trials 1 and 2 and for 70 d in trials 3 and 4 by using a GrowSafe feeding system. Meal duration (min/d) and meal frequency (events/d) were calculated for each bull from feeding behavior recorded by the GrowSafe system. Ultrasound measures of carcass 12th-rib fat thickness (BF) and LM area (LMA) were obtained at the start and end of each trial. Residual feed intake (RFIp) was computed from the linear regression of DMI on ADG and midtest BW(0.75) (metabolic BW, MBW), with trial, trial by ADG, and trial by midtest BW(0.75) as random effects (base model). Overall ADG, DMI, and RFIp were 1.44 (SD=0.29), 9.46 (SD=1.31), and 0.00 (SD=0.78) kg/d, respectively. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that inclusion of BW gain in BF and LMA in the base model increased R(2) (0.76 vs. 0.78) and accounted for 9% of the variation in DMI not explained by MBW and ADG (RFIp). Residual feed intake and carcass-adjusted residual feed intake (RFIc) were moderately correlated with DMI (0.60 and 0.55, respectively) and feed conversion ratio (FCR; 0.49 and 0.45, respectively), and strongly correlated with partial efficiency of growth (PEG; -0.84 and -0.78, respectively), but not with ADG or MBW. Gain in BF was weakly correlated with RFIp (0.30), FCR (-0.15), and PEG (-0.11), but not with RFIc. Gain in LMA was weakly correlated with RFIp (0.17) and FCR (-0.19), but not with PEG or RFIc. The Spearman rank correlation between RFIp and RFIc was high (0.91). Meal duration (0.41), head-down duration (0.38), and meal frequency (0.26) were correlated with RFIp and accounted for 35% of the variation in DMI not explained by MBW, ADG, and ultrasound traits (RFIc). These results suggest that adjusting residual feed intake for carcass composition will facilitate selection to reduce feed intake in cattle without affecting rate or composition of gain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18997083     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2008-1352

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


  14 in total

1.  Associations between residual feed intake and apparent nutrient digestibility, in vitro methane-producing activity, and volatile fatty acid concentrations in growing beef cattle1.

Authors:  Jocelyn R Johnson; Gordon E Carstens; Wimberly K Krueger; Phillip A Lancaster; Erin G Brown; Luis O Tedeschi; Robin C Anderson; Kristen A Johnson; Arieh Brosh
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Efficacy of statistical process control procedures to identify deviations in continuously measured physiologic and behavioral variables in beef steers experimentally challenged with Mannheimia haemolytica.

Authors:  William C Kayser; Gordon E Carstens; Ira L Parsons; Kevin E Washburn; Sara D Lawhon; William E Pinchak; Eric Chevaux; Andrew L Skidmore
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Efficacy of statistical process control procedures to identify deviations in continuously measured physiological and behavioral variables in beef heifers resulting from an experimentally combined viral-bacterial challenge.

Authors:  William Christian Kayser; Gordon E Carstens; Ira Loyd Parsons; Kevin E Washburn; Sara D Lawhon; William E Pinchak; Eric Chevaux; Andrew L Skidmore
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 3.338

4.  Impact of selection for residual feed intake on production traits and behavior of mule ducks.

Authors:  L Drouilhet; R Monteville; C Molette; M Lague; A Cornuez; L Canario; E Ricard; H Gilbert
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Effect of phenotypic residual feed intake and dietary forage content on the rumen microbial community of beef cattle.

Authors:  Ciara A Carberry; David A Kenny; Sukkyan Han; Matthew S McCabe; Sinead M Waters
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 4.792

8.  Evaluation of statistical process control procedures to monitor feeding behavior patterns and detect onset of bovine respiratory disease in growing bulls.

Authors:  William C Kayser; Gordon E Carstens; Kirby S Jackson; William E Pinchak; Amarnath Banerjee; Yu Fu
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  Phenotypic and Genetic Correlations of Feed Efficiency Traits with Growth and Carcass Traits in Nellore Cattle Selected for Postweaning Weight.

Authors:  Thais Matos Ceacero; Maria Eugênia Zerlotti Mercadante; Joslaine Noely Dos Santos Gonçalves Cyrillo; Roberta Carrilho Canesin; Sarah Figueiredo Martins Bonilha; Lucia Galvão de Albuquerque
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Animals selected for postweaning weight gain rate have similar maintenance energy requirements regardless of their residual feed intake classification.

Authors:  Camila Delveaux Araujo Batalha; Luís Orlindo Tedeschi; Fabiana Lana de Araújo; Renata Helena Branco; Joslaine Noely Dos Santos Gonçalves Cyrillo; Sarah Figueiredo Martins Bonilha
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.