Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:08:32.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digestibility contributes to between-animal variation in feed efficiency in beef cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2019

A. De La Torre Open the ORCID record for A. De La Torre [Opens in a new window] ,
D. Andueza ,
G. Renand ,
R. Baumont ,
G. Cantalapiedra-Hijar  and
P. Nozière
A. De La Torre*
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
D. Andueza
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
G. Renand
Affiliation:
National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) ‐ AgroParisTech, UMR 1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, F-78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
R. Baumont
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
G. Cantalapiedra-Hijar
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
P. Nozière
Affiliation:
Université Clermont Auvergne, National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
†E-mail: anne.de-la-torre-capitan@inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Residual feed intake (RFI) is an alternative measure of feed efficiency (FE) and is calculated as the difference between actual and expected feed intake. The biological mechanisms underlying animal-to-animal variation in FE are not well understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the digestive ability of beef cows selected for RFI divergence as heifers, using two contrasted diets. Fifteen 4-year-old beef cows were selected from a total of 69 heifers based on their RFI following the feedlot test. The selected heifers were ranked into high-RFI (+ 1.02 ± 0.28, n = 8) and low-RFI (−0.73 ± 0.28, n = 7), and a digestibility trial was performed after their first lactation. Both RFI groups were offered two different diets: 100% hay or a fattening diet which consisted of a DM basis of 67% whole-plant maize silage and 33% high starch concentrates over four experimental periods (two per diet). A diet effect was observed on feed intake and apparent digestibility, whereas no diet × RFI interaction was detected (P > 0.05). Intake and apparent digestibility were higher in cows fed the fattening diet than in those fed the hay diet (P < 0.0001). DM intake (DMI) and organic matter apparent digestibility (OMd) were repeatable and positively correlated between the two subsequent periods of measurements. For the hay and fattening diets, the repeatability between periods was r = 0.71 and r = 0.73 for DMI and r = 0.87 and r = 0.48 for OMd, respectively. Moreover, both intake (r = 0.55) and OMd (r = 0.54) were positively correlated (P < 0.05) between the hay and fattening diets. Significant differences between beef cows selected for divergence in RFI as heifers were observed for digestive traits (P < 0.05), DM and organic matter (OM) apparent digestibility being higher for low-RFI cows. Overall, this study showed that apparent digestibility contributes to between-animal variation in FE in beef cows.

Keywords

digestibilityresidual feed intakebeef cowsanimal variabilityefficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 2821 - 2829
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Agabriel, J, Giraud, JM and Petit, M 1986. Détermination et utilisation de la note d’état d’engraissement en élevage allaitant. Bulletin Technique CRZV Theix, INRA, 66, 43–50.Google Scholar
Cantalapiedra-Hijar, G, Abo-Ismail, M, Carstens, GE, Guan, LL, Hegarty, R, Kenny, DA, McGee, M, Plastow, G, Relling, A and Ortigues-Marty, I 2018. Review: Biological determinants of between-animal variation in feed efficiency of growing beef cattle. Animal 12 (suppl.2), 321–335.10.1017/S1751731118001489CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carberry, CA, Kenny, DA, Han, S, Mc Cabe, S and Waters, M 2012. Effect of phenotypic RFI and dietary forage content on the rumen microbial community of beef cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78, 4949–4958.10.1128/AEM.07759-11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulphy, JP, Demarquilly, C, Henry, M, Jamot, J and L’hotelier, L 1975. Pertes de composés volatils lors de la détermination à l’étuve de la teneur en matière sèche des ensilages. Annales de Zootechnie 24, 743–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A, Delagarde, R and Faverdin, P 2016. Ability to digest explains part of the between cow feed efficiency variability. In Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, 29 August–2 September 2016, Belfast, UK, p 549.Google Scholar
Forbes, JM. 2005. Voluntary feed intake and diet selection. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism (ed. Dijkstra, J, Forbes, JM and France, J), pp. 607–625. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, H, Billon, Y, Brossard, L, Faure, J, Gatellier, P, Gondret, F, Labussière, E, Lebret, B, Lefaucheur, L, Le Floch, N, Louveau, I, Merlot, E, Meunier-Salaün, MC, Montagne, L, Mormede, P, Renaudeau, D, Riquet, J, Rogel-Gaillard, C, Van Milgen, A and Noblet, J 2017. Review: Divergent selection for residual feed intake in the growing pig. Animal 11, 1427–1439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herd, RM and Arthur, PF 2009. Physiological basis for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 87, E64–E71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernandez-Sanabria, E, Goonewardene, LA, Wang, Z, Durunna, ON, Moore, SS and Guan, LL 2012. Impact of feed efficiency and diet on adaptive variations in the bacterial community in the rumen fluid of cattle. Applied Environmental Microbiology 78, 1203–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INRA 2007. Nutrition of cattle, sheep and goats: animal needs and feed values. Quae Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Kenny, DA, Fitzsimons, C, Waters, S and Mc Gee, M 2018. Invited review: Improving feed efficiency of beef cattle – the current state of the art and future challenges. Animal 21, 1–12.Google Scholar
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chambers, D and Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, WK, Carstens, GE, Gomez, RR, Bourg, BM, Lancaster, PA, Slay, LJ, Miller, JC, Anderson, RC, Horrocks, SM, Krueger, NA and Forbes, TDA 2009a. Relationships between residual feed intake and apparent nutrient digestibility, in vitro methane production activity and VFA concentrations in growing Brangus heifers. Journal of Animal Science 87 (Suppl. 2), 153.Google Scholar
Krueger, WK, Carstens, GE, Paddock, ZD, Calloway, TR, Anderson, RC, Krueger, NA, Gontcharova, V, Dowd, SE, Gomez, RR and Pinchak, WE 2009b. Associations between feed efficiency and gut microbial ecology and fermentations parameters in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87 (E-Suppl. 2), 295.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B, Crews, DH and Mc Gee, M 2011. Grass silage intake, rumen, blood variables, ultrasonic and body measurements, feeding behavior, and activity in pregnant beef heifers differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3248–3261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, KA, Pryce, JE, Spelman, RJ, Davis, SR, Wales, WJ, Waghorn, GC, Williams, YJ, Marett, LC and Hayes, BJ 2014. Holstein–Friesian calves selected for divergence in residual feed intake during growth exhibited significant but reduces residual feed intake divergence in their first lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 1427–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, RP, Hart, KJ, Boland, TM, Kelly, AK, Mc Gee, M and Kenny, DA 2016. Effect of divergence in phenotypic residual feed intake on methane emissions, ruminal fermentation, and apparent whole-tract digestibility of beef heifers across three contrasting diets. Journal of Animal Science 94, 1179–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGee, M, Welch, CM, Ramirez, JA, Carstens, GE, Price, WJ, Hall, JB and Hill, RA 2014. Relationship of feeding behaviors with average daily gain, dry matter intake, and residual feed intake in Red angus-sired cattle. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5214–5221.10.2527/jas.2014-8036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mialon, MM, Martin, C, Garcia, F, Menassol, JB, Dubroeucq, H, Veissier, I and Micol, D 2008. Effects of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the diet on feeding behaviour in young Blond d’Aquitaine bulls. Animal 2, 1682–1691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, MK, MacNeil, MD, Dekkers, JCM, Crews, DH, Rathje, TA, Enns, RM and Weaber, RL 2013. Review: Life-cycle, total-industry genetic improvement of feed efficiency in beef cattle: Blueprint for the Beef Improvement Federation. Professional Animal Scientist 29, 559–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Crews, DH, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Wang, Z, Li, C and Moore, SS 2007. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feeding behavior and temperament with performance, feed efficiency, ultrasound, and carcass merit of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2382–2390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z and Moore, SS 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145–153.10.2527/2006.841145xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, SB, Boerman, JP, Lock, AL, Allen, MS and VandeHaar, MJ 2017. Relationship between residual feed intake and digestibility for lactating Holstein cows fed high or low starch diets. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renand, G, Vinet, A andMaupetit, D 2016. Relations entre émissions de méthane entérique et efficacité alimentaire chez des génisses charolaises en croissance. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 23, 19–22.Google Scholar
Rius, AG, Kittelmann, S, Macdonald, KA, Waghorn, GC, Jansen, PH and Sikkema, E 2012. Nitrogen metabolism and rumen microbial enumeration in lactating cows with divergent feed intake fed high-digestibility pasture. Journal of Dairy 95, 5024–5034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruuska, S, Kajava, S, Mughal, M, Zehner, N and Mononen, J 2016. Validation of a pressure sensor-based system for measuring eating, rumination and drinking behavior of dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174, 19–23.10.1016/j.applanim.2015.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkel, F. S., Miller, P., and Wilton, J. W.. 2004. Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed, growth, and body composition traits in young beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal production. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xi, YM, Wu, F, Zhao, DQ, Yang, Z, Li, L, Han, ZY and Wang, GL 2016. Biological mechanism related to differences in residual feed intake in dairy cows. Animal 10, 1311–1318.10.1017/S1751731116000343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehner, N, Niederhauser, JJ, Nydegger, F, Grothmann, A, Keller, M, Hoch, M, Haeussermann, A and Schick, M 2012. Validation of a new health monitoring system (Rumiwatch) for combined automatic measurement of rumination, feed intake, water intake, and locomotion in dairy cows. In Proceedings of International Conference of Agricultural Engineering CIGR, 8–12 July 2012, Valencia, Spain, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Zehner, N, Umstätter, C, Niederhauser, JJ and Schick, M 2017. System specification and validation of a noseband pressure sensor for measurement of ruminating and eating behavior in stable-fed cows. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 136, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

De La Torre et al. supplementary material

De La Torre et al. supplementary material 1

Download De La Torre et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22.6 KB