Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T22:51:38.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of a model to predict BW gain of growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2015

A. Huuskonen  and
P. Huhtanen
A. Huuskonen*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
P. Huhtanen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), S-90183 Umeå, Sweden
*
†E-mail: Arto.Huuskonen@luke.fi
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this meta-analysis was to develop and validate empirical equations predicting BW gain (BWG) and carcass traits of growing cattle from intake and diet composition variables. The modelling was based on treatment mean data from feeding trials in growing cattle, in which the nutrient supply was manipulated by wide ranges of forage and concentrate factors. The final dataset comprised 527 diets in 116 studies. The diets were mainly based on grass silage or grass silage partly or completely replaced by whole-crop silages, hay or straw. The concentrate feeds consisted of cereal grains, fibrous by-products and protein supplements. Mixed model regression analysis with a random study effect was used to develop prediction equations for BWG and carcass traits. The best-fit models included linear and quadratic effects of metabolisable energy (ME) intake per metabolic BW (BW0.75), linear effects of BW0.75, and dietary concentrations of NDF, fat and feed metabolisable protein (MP) as significant variables. Although diet variables had significant effects on BWG, their contribution to improve the model predictions compared with ME intake models was small. Feed MP rather than total MP was included in the final model, since it is less correlated to dietary ME concentration than total MP. None of the quadratic terms of feed variables was significant (P>0.10) when included in the final models. Further, additional feed variables (e.g. silage fermentation products, forage digestibility) did not have significant effects on BWG. For carcass traits, increased ME intake (ME/BW0.75) improved both dressing proportion (P<0.01) and carcass conformation (P<0.001) and increased (P<0.001) carcass fat score. Increased dietary CP concentration had no significant (P>0.10) effect on dressing proportion or carcass conformation score, but it increased (P<0.01) carcass fat score. The current study demonstrated that ME intake per BW0.75 was clearly the most important variable explaining the BWG response in growing cattle. The effect of increased ME supply displayed diminishing responses that could be associated with increased energy concentration of BWG, reduced diet metabolisability (proportion of ME of gross energy) and/or decreased efficiency of ME utilisation for growth with increased intake. Negative effects of increased dietary NDF concentration on BWG were smaller compared to responses that energy evaluation systems predict for energy retention. The present results showed only marginal effects of protein supply on BWG in growing cattle.

Keywords

growing cattlemeta-analysisgrowthcarcass characteristicsproductions response
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 8 , August 2015 , pp. 1329 - 1340
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

ARC 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Aronen, I, Lampila, M and Hepola, H 1994. Comparisons of diets based on grass silage, hay or oat straw supplemented with four levels of concentrates in the feeding of growing Ayrshire bulls. Agricultural Science in Finland 3, 15–26.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL 1974. Adjustments of the metabolism of the sheep to confinement. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. KH Menke, HJ Lantzsch and JR Reichl), pp. 115–118. Universitäts Dokumentationsstelle, Hohenheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Blaxter, KL and Boyne, AW 1970. A new method of expressing the nutritive value of feeds as sources of energy. In Energy metabolism of farm animals (ed. A Schürch and C Wenk), pp. 9–13. Juris Druck, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Belsley, DA, Kuh, E and Welsch, RE 1980. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley and Sons Inc., NewYork, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplis, J, Keane, MG, Moloney, AP and O’Mara, FP 2005. Effects of supplementary concentrate level with grass silage, and separate or total mixed ration feeding, on performance and carcass traits of finishing steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 27–43.Google Scholar
EC 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. The Official Journal of the European Union L 214, 1–6.Google Scholar
French, P, O’Riordan, EG, Moloney, AP, O’Kiely, P and Caffrey, PJ 2001a. Effects of concentrate level and grazing system on the performance of beef cattle grazing autumn herbage. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 40, 33–44.Google Scholar
French, P, O’Riordan, EG, O’Kiely, P, Caffrey, PJ and Moloney, AP 2001b. Intake and growth of steers offered different allowances of autumn grass and concentrates. Animal Science 72, 129–138.Google Scholar
Herva, T, Huuskonen, A, Virtala, A-M and Peltoniemi, O 2011. On-farm welfare and carcass fat score of bulls at slaughter. Livestock Science 138, 159–166.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P and Nousiainen, J 2012. Production responses of lactating dairy cows fed silage-based diets to changes in nutrient supply. Livestock Science 148, 146–158.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Nousiainen, J and Rinne, M 2006. Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 293–323.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and Nousiainen, J 2009. A meta-analysis of feed digestion in dairy cows. 2. The effects of feeding level and diet composition on digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5031–5042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulme, DJ, Kellaway, RC and Booth, PJ 1986. The CAMDAIRY model for formulating and analyzing dairy cow rations. Agricultural Systems 22, 81–108.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2011. Effects of barley grain compared to commercial concentrate or rapeseed meal supplementation on performance of growing dairy bulls offered grass silage-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 20, 191–205.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2013. Performance of growing dairy bulls offered diets based on whole-crop barley with or without protein supplementation relative to grass silage-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 424–434.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Huhtanen, P and Joki-Tokola, E 2013. The development of a model to predict feed intake by growing cattle. Livestock Science 158, 74–83.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Huhtanen, P and Joki-Tokola, E 2014. Evaluation of protein supplementation for growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets: a meta-analysis. Animal 8, 1653–1662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keane, MG and Allen, P 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Drennan, MJ and Moloney, AP 2006. Comparison of supplementary concentrate levels with grass silage, separate or total mixed ration feeding, and duration of finishing in beef steers. Livestock Production Science 103, 169–180.Google Scholar
Liinamo, A-E 2000. Breeding for carcass traits in dairy cattle. PhD, University of Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW and Wolfinger, RD 1996. SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR, Bertilsson, J, Olsson, I, Spörndly, R, Harstad, OM, Volden, H, Tuori, M, Varvikko, T, Huhtanen, P and Olafsson, BL 1995. The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants. A revision. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Science, Supplement 19, 3–37.Google Scholar
MAFF 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference book 433. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Martinsson, K and Olsson, I 1993. The influence of level of feeding and live weight on feed conversion and carcass composition in Friesian bulls. Livestock Production Science 37, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MTT 2014. Feed tables and nutrient requirements. MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://www.mtt.fi/feedtables Google Scholar
National Research Council 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Gill, DR, Secrist, DS and Coleman, SW 1995. Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3152–3172.Google Scholar
Patterson, DC, Steen, RWJ, Moore, CA and Moss, BW 2000. Effects of the ratio of silage to concentrates in the diet on the performance and carcass composition of continental bulls. Animal Science 70, 171–179.Google Scholar
Pesonen, M, Honkavaara, M and Huuskonen, A 2012. Effect of breed on production, carcass traits and meat quality of Aberdeen Angus, Limousin and Aberdeen Angus×Limousin bulls offered a grass silage-grain-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 21, 361–369.Google Scholar
Pesonen, M, Honkavaara, M and Huuskonen, A 2013a. Production, carcass and meat quality traits of Hereford, Charolais and Hereford×Charolais bulls offered grass silage-grain-based rations and slaughtered at high carcass weights. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 63, 28–38.Google Scholar
Pesonen, M, Honkavaara, M, Kämäräinen, H, Tolonen, T, Jaakkola, M, Virtanen, V and Huuskonen, A 2013b. Effects of concentrate level and rapeseed meal supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and valuable cuts of Hereford and Charolais bulls offered grass silage-barley-based rations. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesonen, M, Joki-Tokola, E and Huuskonen, A 2014. Effects of concentrate proportion and protein supplementation on performance of growing and finishing crossbred bulls fed a whole-crop barley silage-based diet. Animal Production Science 54, 1399–1404.Google Scholar
Pond, KR, Ellis, WC, Lascano, CE and Akin, DE 1987. Fragmentation and flow of grazed coastal bermudagrass through the digestive tract of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 65, 609–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, CK, Tyrrell, HF and Reynolds, PJ 1991. Effects of diet forage-to-concentrate ratio and intake on energy metabolism in growing beef heifers: whole body energy and nitrogen balance and visceral heat production. The Journal of Nutrition 121, 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P and Jaakkola, S 1997. Grass maturity effects on cattle fed silage-based diets. 2. Cell wall digestibility, digestion and passage kinetics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salah, N, Sauvant, D and Archimède, H 2014. Nutritional requirements of sheep, goats and cattle in warm climates: a meta-analysis. Animal 8, 1439–1447.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1988a. Factors affecting the utilisation of grass silage for beef production. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed. J Frame), pp. 129–139. British Grassland Society, Maidenhead, UK.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1988b. The effect of implantation with hormonal growth promoters on the response in the performance of beef cattle to protein supplementation of silage-based diets. Animal Production 47, 21–28.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ and Moore, CA 1988. A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 47, 29–37.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ and Moore, CA 1989. A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets, and the effects of protein supplementation of a silage-based diet for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 49, 233–240.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Invited review. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2003. Reassessment of biases in predicted nitrogen flows to the duodenum by NRC 2001. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 344–350.Google Scholar
Tesfa, AT, Tuori, M and Syrjälä-Qvist, L 1992. The influence of partial replacement of barley with dietary fat sources on growth and feed conversation efficiency of growing bulls. Agricultural Science in Finland 1, 267–278.Google Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, KV and Huhtanen, P 1998. Comparison of the protein evaluation systems of feeds for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 33–46.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edition. Cornell University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Varga, GA, Tyrrell, HF, Huntington, GB, Waldo, DR and Glenn, BP 1990. Utilization of nitrogen and energy by Holstein steers fed formaldehyde- and formic acid-treated alfalfa or orchardgrass silage at two intakes. Journal of Animal Science 68, 3780–3791.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Flux, DS and Ulyatt, MJ 1987. Effects of dietary protein and energy intakes on growth hormone, insulin, glucose tolerance and fatty acid synthesis in young wether sheep. Animal Production 44, 143–152.Google Scholar
Yan, T, Agnew, RE and Gordon, FG 2002. The combined effects of animal species (sheep versus cattle) and level of feeding on digestible and metabolisable energy concentrations in grass diets of cattle. Animal Science 75, 141–151.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Huuskonen and Huhtanen supplementary material

Huuskonen and Huhtanen supplementary material 1

Download Huuskonen and Huhtanen supplementary material(File)
File 71.7 KB