Nutritional evaluation of winter foods of wild turkeys

1991 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 2128-2132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Decker ◽  
Peter J. Pekins ◽  
William W. Mautz
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
Meleagris Gallopavo ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Red Oak ◽  
Rosa Multiflora ◽  
Gross Energy ◽  
Multiflora Rose ◽  
Wild Turkeys ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake

Red oak acorns (Quercus rubra), fruits of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), common juniper (Juniper communis), winterberry holly (Ilex verticillata), and barberry (Berberis spp.), fertile fronds of sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), corn, and apples were fed as mixed rations to eight eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Crude protein content of the foods ranged from 2 (apples) to 19% (sensitive fern). Red oak acorns and juniper berries were 14% fat; other foods were 1–7% fat. Apples were lowest in gross energy content (3.9 kcal/g dry matter (1 cal = 4.1868 J)), and sensitive fern was highest (5.5 kcal/g). Little variation existed in nutrient composition and energy content of the mixed diets. Metabolizable energy values of the diets ranged from 65 to 84% of gross energy intake and from 3.1 to 4.0 kcal/g. Solution of simultaneous equations based on the mixed-diet data yielded metabolizable energy values of individual foods; juniper had the highest metabolizable energy (4.6 kcal/g) and sensitive fern the lowest (2.1 kcal/g); other foods ranged from 3.3 to 4.1 kcal/g. Acorns, corn, and shrubs with persistent fruits (juniper, winterberry, barberry, and multiflora rose) were the most nutritious foods. Metabolizable energy intake of the mixed diets, excluding the juniper-dominated diet, approximated or exceeded the predicted daily energy expenditure of wild turkeys.

Metabolizable energy of fish when fed to captive Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias)

1993 ◽  
Vol 71 (9) ◽  
pp. 1767-1771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darin C. Bennett ◽  
Leslie E. Hart
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
Nitrogen Retention ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Clupea Harengus ◽  
Energy Losses ◽  
Ardea Herodias ◽  
Apparent Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Gross Energy ◽  
Energy Coefficient

The efficiency with which the gross energy content of herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is metabolized was determined for 11 captive Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias). There was a linear relationship between apparent metabolized energy and gross energy intake for the mackerel and trout. This relationship was lower and more variable for herring. Estimates of the apparent metabolizable energy coefficient for mackerel and trout were affected by the level of energy intake. Correcting for endogenous energy losses in the excreta yielded estimates of true metabolizable energy coefficients that were independent of gross energy intake. The true metabolizable energy coefficient of mackerel and trout did not differ and averaged 0.866 (SD = 0.014, n = 3 diets). Correcting for nitrogen retention did not improve the estimate of the metabolizable energy coefficient. The metabolizable energy coefficient of herring was highly variable and showed no consistent pattern in relation to energy intake.

Foraging efficiency: energy expenditure versus energy gain in free-ranging black-tailed deer

1996 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 442-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine L. Parker ◽  
Michael P. Gillingham ◽  
Thomas A. Hanley ◽  
Charles T. Robbins
Keyword(s):  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Foraging Efficiency ◽  
Dry Matter Digestibility ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake ◽  
Free Ranging

Foraging efficiency (metabolizable energy intake/energy expenditure when foraging) was determined over a 2-year period in nine free-ranging Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) in Alaska, and related to foraging-bout duration, distances travelled, and average speeds of travel. We calculated the energy-intake component from seasonal dry matter and energy content, dry matter digestibility, and a metabolizable energy coefficient for each plant species ingested. We estimated energy expenditures when foraging as the sum of energy costs of standing, horizontal and vertical locomotion, sinking depths in snow, and supplementary expenditures associated with temperatures outside thermoneutrality. Energy intake per minute averaged 4.0 times more in summer than winter; energy expenditure was 1.2 times greater in summer. Animals obtained higher amounts of metabolizable energy with higher amounts of energy invested. Energy intake during foraging bouts in summer was 2.5 times the energy invested; in contrast, energy intake during winter was only 0.7 times the energy expended. Changes in body mass of deer throughout the year increased asymptotically with foraging efficiency, driven primarily by the rate of metabolizable energy intake. Within a season, summer intake rates and winter rates of energy expediture had the greatest effects on the relation between foraging efficiency and mass status. Seasonal changes in foraging efficiency result in seasonal cycles in body mass and condition in black-tailed deer. Body reserves accumulated during summer, however, are essential for over-winter survival of north-temperate ungulates because energy demands cannot be met by foraging alone.

Energetic efficiency of fattening sheep. I. Utilization of low-fibre and high-fibre food mixtures

1964 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 100 ◽  
Author(s):  
N McCGraham
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Peanut Meal ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Energetic Efficiency ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Additional Energy ◽  
Castrate Male ◽  
Gross Energy ◽  
Maize Meal ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake

The energy, carbon, and nitrogen exchanges of nine castrate male sheep in moderately fat condition were determined with the aid of closed-circuit indirect calorimetry. Five of the sheep were kept on a diet containing equal parts of chopped lucerne hay and chopped wheaten hay (mixture A). The other four were given a pelleted 5:4:1 mixture of lucerne hay, maize meal, and peanut meal (mixture B). Each mixture was given at five different rates and each sheep was fasted on two occasions. Digestible energy averaged 62% for mixture A and 76% for mixture B, irrespective of feeding level. Of this, 10% was lost as methane and 5 to 13%, depending on level of feeding, in the urine, leaving on the average 81% metabolizable. Thus metabolizable energy amounted to 51 and 62% of the gross energy intake with mixtures A and B respectively, while net energy was 89 and 97% of the metabolizable energy intake at the lowest level of feeding and 61 and 69% at the highest. At any given level of metabolizable energy, mixture B provided 30% more digestible nitrogen than mixture A, but, allowing for differences between sheep in nitrogen economy, any additional energy obtained from mixture B was stored in fat. Consideration of the present results, along with data from earlier experiments with fattening sheep and cattle, showed that the net availability of metabolizable energy, both for maintenance and fattening, decreases regularly as the quantity of digestible fibre increases. Net energy could be estimated more accurately from this relation than by use of the commonly used factors of Kellner.

scholarly journals Energy metabolism of pregnant zebu and crossbred zebu dairy cattle

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246208
Author(s):  
Helena Ferreira Lage ◽  
Ana Luiza da Costa Cruz Borges ◽  
Ricardo Reis e Silva ◽  
Alan Maia Borges ◽  
José Reinaldo Mendes Ruas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Energy Partition ◽  
Restricted Diet ◽  
Heat Increment ◽  
Gross Energy ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake

The purpose of this study was to determine the energy partition of pregnant F1 Holstein x Gyr with average initial body weight (BW) of 515.6 kg and Gyr cows with average initial BW of 435.1 kg at 180, 210 and 240 days of gestation, obtained using respirometry. Twelve animals in two groups (six per genetic group) received a restricted diet equivalent to 1.3 times the net energy for maintenance (NEm). The proportion of gross energy intake (GEI) lost as feces did not differ between the evaluated breeds and corresponded to 28.65% on average. The daily methane production (L/d) was greater for (P<0.05) F1 HxG compared to Gyr animals. However, when expressed as L/kg dry matter (DM) or as percentage of GEI there were no differences between the groups (P>0.05). The daily loss of energy as urine (mean of 1.42 Mcal/d) did not differ (P>0.05) between groups and ranged from 3.87 to 5.35% of the GEI. The metabolizable energy intake (MEI) of F1 HxG animals was greater (P < 0.05) at all gestational stages compared to Gyr cows when expressed in Mcal/d. However, when expressed in kcal/kg of metabolic BW (BW0,75), the F1 HxG cows had MEI 11% greater (P<0.05) at 240 days of gestation and averaged 194.39 kcal/kg of BW0,75. Gyr cows showed no change in MEI over time (P>0.05), with a mean of 146.66 kcal/kg BW0. 75. The ME used by the conceptus was calculated by deducting the metabolizable energy for maintenance (MEm) from the MEI, which was obtained in a previous study using the same cows prior to becoming pregnant. The values of NEm obtained in the previous study with similar non-pregnant cows were 92.02 kcal/kg BW0.75 for F1 HxG, and 76.83 kcal/kg BW0.75 for Gyr (P = 0.06). The average ME for pregnancy (MEp) was 5.33 Mcal/d for F1 HxG and 4.46 Mcal/d for Gyr. The metabolizability ratio, averaging 0.60, was similar among the evaluated groups (P>0.05). The ME / Digestible Energy (DE) ratio differed between groups and periods evaluated (P<0.05) with a mean of 0.84. The heat increment (HI) accounted for 22.74% and 24.38% of the GEI for F1 HxG and Gyr cows, respectively. The proportion of GEI used in the basal metabolism by pregnant cows in this study represented 29.69%. However, there were no differences between the breeds and the evaluation periods and corresponded to 29.69%. The mean NE for pregnancy (NEp) was 2.76 Mcal/d and did not differ between groups and gestational stages (P>0.05).

scholarly journals Growth Rate and Energetics of Arabian Babbler (Turdoides squamiceps) Nestlings

The Auk ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 519-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avner Anava ◽  
Michael Kam ◽  
Amiram Shkolnik ◽  
A. Allan Degen
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Logistic Growth ◽  
Growth Rate Constant ◽  
Adult Body Mass ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake

Abstract Arabian Babblers (Turdoides squamiceps) are territorial, cooperative breeding passerines that inhabit extreme deserts and live in groups all year round. All members of the group feed nestlings in a single nest, and all group members provision at similar rates. Nestlings are altricial and fledge at about 12 to 14 days, which is short for a passerine of its body mass. Because parents and helpers feed nestlings, we hypothesized that the growth rate of nestlings is fast and that they fledge at a body mass similar to other passerine fledglings. Using a logistic growth curve, the growth rate constant (k) of nestlings was 0.450, which was 18% higher than that predicted for a passerine of its body mass. Asymptotic body mass of fledglings was 46 g, which was only 63% of adult body mass, a low percentage compared to other passerines. Energy intake retained as energy accumulated in tissue decreased with age in babbler nestlings and amounted to 0.29 of the total metabolizable energy intake over the nestling period. However, energy content per gram of body mass increased with age and averaged 4.48 kJ/g body mass. We concluded that our hypothesis was partially confirmed. Growth rate of babbler nestlings was relatively fast compared to other passerine species, but fledgling mass was relatively low.

Metabolizable energy intake of client-owned adult cats

2015 ◽  
Vol 99 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Thes ◽  
N. Koeber ◽  
J. Fritz ◽  
F. Wendel ◽  
B. Dobenecker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake ◽  
Adult Cats

Effect of air temperature and energy intake on body mass, body composition and energy requirements in sheep

2002 ◽  
Vol 138 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. ALLAN DEGEN ◽  
B. A. YOUNG
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Air Temperature ◽  
Total Body Water ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Energy Requirements ◽  
Water Volume ◽  
Air Temperatures ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake ◽  
Total Body

Body mass was measured and body composition and energy requirements were estimated in sheep at four air temperatures (0 °C to 30 °C) and at four levels of energy offered (4715 to 11785 kJ/day) at a time when the sheep reached a constant body mass. Final body mass was affected mainly by metabolizable energy intake and, to a lesser extent, by air temperature, whereas maintenance requirements were affected mainly by air temperature. Mean energy requirements were similar and lowest at 20 °C and 30 °C (407·5 and 410·5 kJ/kg0·75, respectively) and increased with a decrease in air temperature (528·8 kJ/kg0·75 at 10 °C and 713·3 kJ/kg0·75 at 0 °C). Absolute total body water volume was related positively to metabolizable energy intake and to air temperature. Absolute fat, protein and ash contents were all affected positively by metabolizable energy intake and tended to be related positively to air temperature. In proportion to body mass, total body water volume decreased with an increase in metabolizable energy intake and with an increase in air temperature. Proportionate fat content increased with an increase in metabolizable energy intake and tended to increase with an increase in air temperature. In contrast, proportionate protein content decreased with an increase in metabolizable energy intake and tended to decrease with an increase in air temperature. In all cases, the multiple linear regression using both air temperature and metabolizable energy intake improved the fit over the simple linear regressions of either air temperature or metabolizable energy intake and lowered the standard error of the estimate. The fit was further improved and the standard error of the estimate was further lowered using a polynomial model with both independent variables to fit the data, since there was little change in the measurements between 20 °C and 30 °C, as both air temperatures were most likely within the thermal neutral zone of the sheep. It was concluded that total body energy content, total body water volume, fat and protein content of sheep of the same body mass differed or tended to differ when kept at different air temperatures.

scholarly journals Contrasting Brood Sizes in Common and Arctic Terns: The Roles of Food Provisioning Rates and Parental Brooding

The Condor ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-117
Author(s):  
James A. Robinson ◽  
Keith C. Hamer ◽  
Lorraine S. Chivers
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Food Delivery ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Common Tern ◽  
Energy Budgets ◽  
Breeding Ecology ◽  
Common Terns ◽  
Sterna Paradisaea ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake

Abstract Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea) and Common Terns (S. hirundo) are similar in many aspects of their breeding ecology, but Common Terns generally lay three eggs per clutch whereas Arctic Terns lay two. In our study, Common Terns had a higher rate of food delivery and energy supply to the nest and higher nest attendance, indicating that they made trips of shorter average duration. This suggests that the number of chicks raised by these two species was primarily limited by the rate at which parents could supply food. However, estimated daily metabolizable energy intake of chicks was about 30% higher in Common Terns than in Arctic Terns. Common Tern chicks apparently spent a higher proportion of daily energy intake on maintenance of body temperature. It remains unknown whether this difference was because Common Tern parents could not brood three chicks as effectively as Arctic Terns brooded two or because the energy requirements for heat production in the third-hatched Common Tern chick were particularly high. If brooding did play a less important role in the energy budgets of Common Terns, the number of chicks that Arctic Terns could raise may have been limited not only by the rate at which parents could supply food to the nest but also by the requirements of chicks for brooding. We suggest that more detailed studies on the role of brooding constraints in limiting brood size in these species are required to clarify this matter.

scholarly journals How did Lofgreen and Garrett do the math?

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 1011-1017
Author(s):  
James W Oltjen
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Energy Content ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Linear Fit ◽  
Metabolizable Energy Intake ◽  
Logarithmic Equation ◽  
Finishing Beef Cattle

Abstract Lofgreen and Garrett introduced a new system for predicting growing and finishing beef cattle energy requirements and feed values using net energy concepts. Based on data from comparative slaughter experiments they mathematically derived the California Net Energy System. Scaling values to body weight to the ¾ power, they summarized metabolizable energy intake (ME), energy retained (energy balance [EB]), and heat production (HP) data. They regressed the logarithm of HP on ME and extended the line to zero intake, and estimated fasting HP at 0.077 Mcal/kg0.75, similar to previous estimates. They found no significant difference in fasting HP between steers and heifers. Above maintenance, however, a logarithmic fit of EB on ME does not allow for increased EB once ME is greater than 340 kcal/kg0.75, or about three times maintenance intake. So based on their previous work, they used a linear fit so that partial efficiency of gain above maintenance was constant for a given feed. They show that with increasing roughage level efficiency of gain (slope) decreases, consistent with increasing efficiency of gain and maintenance with greater metabolizable energy of the feed. Making the system useful required that gain in body weight be related to EB. They settled on a parabolic equation, with significant differences between steers and heifers. Lofgreen and Garrett also used data from a number of experiments to relate ME and EB to estimate the ME required for maintenance (ME = HP) and then related the amount of feed that provided that amount of ME to the metabolizable energy content of the feed (MEc), resulting in a logarithmic equation. Then they related that amount of feed to the net energy for gain calculated as the slope of the EB line when regressed against feed intake. Combining the two equations, they estimate the net energy for maintenance and gain per unit feed (Mcal/kg dry matter) as a function of MEc: 0.4258 × 1.663MEc and 2.544–5.670 × 0.6012MEc, respectively. Finally, they show how to calculate net energy for maintenance and gain from experiments where two levels of a ration are fed and EB measured, where one level is fed and a metabolism trial is conducted, or when just a metabolism trial is conducted—but results are not consistent between designs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document