Literature DB >> 23463567

Relationships among performance, residual feed intake, and temperament assessed in growing beef heifers and subsequently as 3-year-old, lactating beef cows.

T E Black1, K M Bischoff, V R G Mercadante, G H L Marquezini, N Dilorenzo, C C Chase, S W Coleman, T D Maddock, G C Lamb.   

Abstract

Seventy-four beef heifers were used to evaluate relationships among performance, residual feed intake (RFI), and temperament measured as growing heifers (Phase 1) and subsequently as 3-yr-old lactating beef cows (Phase 2) in the same cohort. In both phases, females were housed in a covered facility and fed similar forage-based diets, and individual feed intakes, BW, BCS, chute scores (CS), exit velocities (EV), and pen scores (PS) were collected throughout the 70-d feeding trials. In Phase 2, cows were milked on trial d 14 (lactation d 28 ± 3.5) and trial d 70 (lactation d 84 ± 3.5) to determine energy-corrected milk (ECM) production. Ultrasonic backfat thickness (BF), and ribeye area (REA) were evaluated on d 0 and 70 of the trial in Phase 2. Heifers were ranked by RFI and placed into Low (<0.5 SD mean RFI; n = 27), Medium (within ± 0.5 SD; n = 23), and High (>0.5 SD mean RFI; n = 24) RFI groups. Body weight, BCS, and ADG were similar among all RFI groups; however, daily DMI differed for all groups (P < 0.01) and was greater (10.76 ± 0.24 kg/d) for High, intermediate (9.88 ± 0.25 kg/d) for Medium, and less (8.52 ± 0.23 kg/d) for Low RFI heifers. When cow performance was analyzed based on RFI rank as heifers, BW, BCS, ADG, RFI, d 14 and d 70 ECM, BF, and REA were similar among RFI groups; however, cows that were most efficient as heifers (Low) had decreased (P < 0.05) daily DMI values (10.30 ± 0.41 kg/d) compared with cows that ranked Medium (11.60 ± 0.44 kg/d) or High (11.50 ± 0.43 kg/d) as heifers. The Pearson rank correlation between Phase 1 and 2 RFI was r = 0.13 (P = 0.30), and Pearson rank correlations showed no relationship (P > 0.1) between RFI and temperament. Phase 1 CS was negatively associated with ADG in Phase 1 (r = -0.28; P = 0.02) and 2 (r = -0.32; P = 0.01), and positively associated with d 14 (r = 0.24; P = 0.04) and 70 (r = 0.25; P = 0.03) ECM. Phase 2 CS was negatively associated with Phase 2 ADG (r = -0.29; P = 0.01) and positively associated with d 14 (r = 0.46; P = 0.001) and 70 (r = 0.33; P = 0.004) ECM. Phase 2 PS also tended to be negatively associated with DMI in Phase 1 (r = -0.20; P = 0.096) and 2 (r = -0.20; P = 0.08). In this study, heifers that were most feed efficient subsequently consumed less feed as lactating cows and maintained similar performance. Feed efficiency was not associated with differences in temperament; however, more excitable females had poorer BW gains and tended to have reduced feed intakes but produced more ECM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23463567     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2012-5242

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


  14 in total

1.  Genetic variation in residual feed intake is associated with body composition, behavior, rumen, heat production, hematology, and immune competence traits in Angus cattle1.

Authors:  Robert M Herd; Jose I Velazco; Helen Smith; Paul F Arthur; Brad Hine; Hutton Oddy; Robin C Dobos; Roger S Hegarty
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Relationships between feed efficiency and puberty in Bos taurus and Bos indicus-influenced replacement beef heifers.

Authors:  Luara B Canal; Pedro L P Fontes; Carla D Sanford; Vitor R G Mercadante; Nicolas DiLorenzo; G Cliff Lamb; Nicola Oosthuizen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Feed efficiency of tropically adapted cattle when fed in winter or spring in a temperate location.

Authors:  Sam W Coleman; Chad C Chase; William A Phillips; David Greg Riley
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Relationship between performance, metabolic profile, and feed efficiency of lactating beef cows.

Authors:  Luana Lelis Souza; Mariana Furtado Zorzetto; Túlio José Terra Ricci; Roberta Carrilho Canesin; Nhayandra Christina Dias E Silva; João Alberto Negrão; Joslaine Noely Dos Santos Gonçalves Cyrillo; Maria Eugênia Zerlotti Mercadante
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 1.559

5.  Effects of diet on feed intake, weight change, and gas emissions in beef cows.

Authors:  Amanda L Holder; Megan A Gross; Alexandra N Moehlenpah; Carla L Goad; Megan Rolf; Ryon S Walker; James K Rogers; David L Lalman
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 3.338

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.  Heritability and genetic correlations of feed intake, body weight gain, residual gain, and residual feed intake of beef cattle as heifers and cows.

Authors:  Harvey C Freetly; Larry A Kuehn; Richard M Thallman; Warren M Snelling
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  A mathematical nutrition model adequately predicts beef and dairy cow intake and biological efficiency.

Authors:  Phillip A Lancaster; Michael E Davis; Luis O Tedeschi; Jack J Rutledge; Larry V Cundiff
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2021-12-20

9.  Temperament type specific metabolite profiles of the prefrontal cortex and serum in cattle.

Authors:  Bodo Brand; Frieder Hadlich; Bettina Brandt; Nicolas Schauer; Katharina L Graunke; Jan Langbein; Dirk Repsilber; Siriluk Ponsuksili; Manfred Schwerin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A Novel Protocol to Assess Acclimation Rate in Bos taurus Heifers during Yard Weaning.

Authors:  Jessica E Monk; Brad C Hine; Ian G Colditz; Caroline Lee
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.