Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:54:02.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary energy losses of cattle influenced by body type, size, sex and intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. G. Anrique ,
M. L. Thonney  and
H. J. Ayala
R. G. Anrique
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 4853-4801, USA
M. L. Thonney
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 4853-4801, USA
H. J. Ayala
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 4853-4801, USA
Get access

Abstract

Digestibility (DE) and metabolizability (ME) of a single pelleted diet was examined with growing Angus and Holstein cattle. One hundred and ninety-one individual digestion trials were conducted with bulls, steers and heifers. Food was offered ad libitum or restricted with a daily meal frequency of four. Data were analysed by two covariate models. The first included relative dry matter intake (RDMI) defined as the ratio of DMI to body weight (M0·73). In the second model, covariates were defined by genetic-size scaling; the first covariate scaled DMI by mature weight (A) raised to the power 0·73 (DMI/A0·73) and the second covariate was degree of maturity (μ) defined as body weight divided by A. Model 2 also allowed separation of size and DMI effects. No breed differences were detected. There was a consistent trend for increasing ME and ME/DE from heifers to steers to bulls which was significant between heifers and the average of bulls and steers (575·3 v. 589·3 and 832·8 v. 844·3 J/kJ for ME and ME/DE, respectively). Independent of animal effects, DE, ME and urinary energy (UE) decreased and ME/DE and faecal energy (FE) losses increased as RDMI or DMI/A0·73 increased. Per unit rise in RDMI equivalent to maintenance, the corresponding changes for DE, ME, ME/DE, FE and UE were –33·9, –13·6, 21·3, 34·1 and 9·6 J/kJ, respectively. DE increased 1·5 and ME increased 0·8 J/kJ GE for each 01 unit increase in degree of maturity.

Keywords

body weightcattledigestibilityfood intakematurity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 467 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirement of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Alvarez, P. J., Guada, J. A. and Zorita, E. 1984. [Effect of feeding level and forage/concentrate ratio of the diet on its digestibility by sheep.]. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Agrarias, Ganadera 21: 35–45 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Anrique, R. G. 1976. Body composition and efficiency of cattle as related to body type, size and sex. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official Methods of Analysis. 12th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Ayala, H. C. 1974. Relationship of body type and size, sex and energy intake to the body composition of cattle. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Bauman, D. E., McCutcheon, S. N., Steinhour, W. D., Eppard, P. J. and Sechen, S. J. 1985. Sources of variation and prospects for improvement of productive efficiency in the dairy cow: a review. Journal of Animal Science 60: 583–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bines, J. A., Broster, W. H., Sutton, J. D., Broster, V. J., Napper, D. J., Smith, T. and Siviter, J. W. 1988. Effect of amount consumed and diet composition on the apparent digestibility of feed in cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110: 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. 1974. Metabolizable energy and feeding systems for ruminants. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers No. 7, pp. 3. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovard, K. P. 1969. Estimates of beef cows' mature size from annual fall weights. Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Animal Production, pp. 301. American Dairy Science Association, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Bratzler, J. W. and Forbes, E. B. 1940. The estimation of methane production of cattle. Journal of Nutrition 19: 611–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. E., Brown, C. J. and Butts, W. T. 1972. A discussion of the genetic aspects of weight, mature weight and rate of maturing in Hereford and Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 34: 525–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calo, L. L., McDowell, R. E., Van Vleck, L. D., Miller, P. D. 1973. Parameters of growth of HolsteinFriesian bulls. Journal of Animal Science 37: 417–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colucci, P. E., Chase, L. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 1445–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demment, M. W. and Van Soest, P. J. 1983. Body Size, Digestive Capacity and Feeding Strategies of Herbivores. Winrock, Morrilton, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1966. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Eisemann, J. H., Hammond, A. C., Rumsey, T. S. and Bauman, D. E. 1989. Nitrogen and protein metabolism and metabolite in plasma and urine of beef steers treated with somatotropin. Journal of Animal Science 67: 105–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Agriculture Handbook 379. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lindgren, L. 1981. Prediction of energy value of mixed diets for lactating cows from digestibility experiments with sheep. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 11: 117–184.Google Scholar
Llano, C. A. and Depeters, E. J. 1985. Apparent digestibilities of diets varying in ratios of forage to concentrate and quality of forage at two intakes by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 1189–1197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, J. 1986. Influence of feeding level on digestion and protein passage to the duodenum in cows fed high concentrate diets. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 36: 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, C. A., Swett, W. W. and McDowell, R. E. 1975. External form and internal anatomy of Holsteins and Jerseys. Journal of Dairy Science 58: 1453–1475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogawa, M. T., Masabuchi, T., Watanabe, K. and Oshibe, A. 1986. [Effects of several factors on digestibility in the ruminant. 3. Influence of level of intake on digestibility in dairy cows.] Bulletin of the National Grassland Research Institute, Japan 35: 82–90.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., White, O. D., Anrioue, R. and Fortin, A. 1980. Nutritional energetics of livestock: some present boundaries of knowledge and future research needs. Journal of Animal Science 51: 1393–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robelin, J. and Geay, Y. 1984. Body composition of cattle as affected by physiological status, breed, sex and diet. In Herbivore Nutrition (ed. Gilchrist, F. M. C. and Mackie, R. I.), pp. 525–548. The Science Press, Craighall, South Africa.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1975. A note on digestibility in sheep as influenced by level of intake. Animal Production 21: 89–92.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Sniffen, C. J. and Van Soest, P. J. 1985. Influence of level of feed intake on digestion and bacterial yield in the forestomachs of dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65: 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Greife, H. A. and Armstrong, D. G. 1985. The digestion by cattle of silage-containing diets fed at two dry matter intakes. 1. Digestion of organic matter and nitrogen. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 691–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, B. H. and Flatt, W. P. 1975. The Evaluation of Feed through Digestibility Experiments. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980. Genetic size-scaling rules in animal growth. Animal Production 30: 161–165.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. and Murray, J. I. 1987. Genetic Aspects of Mammalian Growth and Survival in Relation to Body Size. University of Queensland Academic Press, Saint Lucia, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Thonney, M. L., Taylor, St C. S., Murray, J. I. and McClelland, T. H. 1987. Breed and sex differences in equally mature sheep and goats. 2. Body components at slaughter. Animal Production 45: 261–276.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Moe, P. W. 1974. Net energy value of a corn and a barley ration for lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 57: 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P. 1984. The effect of intake and hay: concentrate ratio upon digestibility and digesta passage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 11: 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H. 1980. Feed evaluation, a survey. In Energy Metabolism (ed. Mount, L. E.). European Association for Animal Production Publication No. 26, pp. 85–92. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Foose, T., Jeraci, J., Wrick, K. and Ehle, H. 1982. Comparative Formulation of Fibre in Man and Other Animals. International Symposium on Dietary Fibre, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Wagner, D. A. and Loosli, J. K. 1967. Studies on the energy requirements of high producing dairy cows. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station, Memo. 400.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1979. Energy metabolism and requirements. In Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants (ed. Church, D. C.). Vol. 2, 2nd edition, pp. 210–229. O and B Books, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar