Literature DB >> 33373428

Assessment of milk yield and nursing calf feed intake equations in predicting calf feed intake and weaning weight among breeds.

Phillip A Lancaster1, Luis O Tedeschi2, Zach Buessing1, Michael E Davis3.   

Abstract

Nutrition models are important tools in management decisions, but improvements are needed for cow-calf producers to accurately predict nursing calf performance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the ability of published milk yield (MY) and forage intake equations to predict calf feed intake and weaning weight (WW) using an independent, multi-breed dataset. A dataset with 406 nursing calves was used to evaluate two MY equations: 1) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) (NASEM) and 2) Wood (1967) (WOOD) and five feed intake equations: 1) equations from Table 9.1 in Tedeschi et al. (2006) (TED06), 2) equations 2 to 7 in Baker et al. (1976) (BAK76), 3) equation 25 in Tedeschi and Fox (2009) (TED09A), 4) equations 17, 19, and 24 in Tedeschi and Fox (2009) (TED09B), and 5) equation from Holloway et al. (1982) (HOL82). MY was measured at 14-d interval by hand milking, and individual feed intake of nursing calves was determined during a 240-d nursing period. Calf birth and WW were measured on days 0 and 240, respectively. Each combination of MY and feed intake equation was used to predict calf feed intake and WW from observed MY, calf birth weight, and calf slaughter weight. Predicted and observed values were compared using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and mean bias (MB). Factors affecting the deviation between observed and predicted values were analyzed using regression, and a revised equation was developed. Feed intake equations poorly predicted observed feed intake with CCC < 0.4 and MB ranged from -108% to 69%. However, statistics were slightly improved when using WOOD rather than the NASEM MY equation. BAK76 and TED09B feed intake equations were considerably more accurate (MB = -14.4% to 13.0%) in predicting feed intake but still not precise (CCC < 0.30). Predictions of WW had CCC ranging from 0.19 to 0.71 and MB ranging from -25.9% to 41.8% and were not significantly affected by the MY equation. TED06 and BAK76 feed intake equations were the most precise (CCC > 0.60) and accurate (MB = 1.7% to 8.5%) in predicting WW. Sire breed accounted for significant variation in the deviation between observed and predicted values of feed intake and in a revised equation to predict total feed energy intake from total milk energy intake. In conclusion, refinements of feed intake equations for nursing calves need to account for breed to improve current nutrition models.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cattle; forage intake; modeling; nursing calves; validation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33373428      PMCID: PMC7879499          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skaa406

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


  25 in total

1.  Effect of source and amount of energy and rate of growth in the growing phase on performance and carcass characteristics of early- and normal-weaned steers.

Authors:  J P Schoonmaker; M J Cecava; F L Fluharty; H N Zerby; S C Loerch
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Body composition and energy utilization by steers of diverse genotypes fed a high-concentrate diet during the finishing period: I. Angus, Belgian Blue, Hereford, and Piedmontese sires.

Authors:  C L Ferrell; T G Jenkins
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Growth rate, body composition, and meat tenderness in early vs. traditionally weaned beef calves.

Authors:  D L Meyer; M S Kerley; E L Walker; D H Keisler; V L Pierce; T B Schmidt; C A Stahl; M L Linville; E P Berg
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Thirty or sixty percent milk replacer reduction for calves: effects on alfalfa hay intake and digestibility, digestive kinetics and ruminal fermentation.

Authors:  J T Broesder; M B Judkins; L J Krysl; S A Gunter; R K Barton
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Lactation characteristics of nine breeds of cattle fed various quantities of dietary energy.

Authors:  T G Jenkins; C L Ferrell
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Effect of level of beef cow milk production on pre- and postweaning calf growth.

Authors:  A C Clutter; M K Nielsen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 7.  Board Invited Review: The hepatic oxidation theory of the control of feed intake and its application to ruminants.

Authors:  M S Allen; B J Bradford; M Oba
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 8.  Feed energy evaluation for growing pigs.

Authors:  D Y Kil; B G Kim; H H Stein
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.509

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Evaluation of Strategies to Improve the Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Cow-Calf Production Systems.

Authors:  Phillip A Lancaster; Robert L Larson
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 2.752

3.  Relationships among feed efficiency traits across production segments and production cycles in cattle.

Authors:  Phillip A Lancaster; Michael E Davis; Jack J Rutledge; Larry V Cundiff
Journal:  Transl Anim Sci       Date:  2021-06-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.