Feeding behavior, ruminal fermentation, and performance of pregnant beef cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake offered grass silage1

2014 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 2170-2181 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Fitzsimons ◽  
D. A. Kenny ◽  
A. G. Fahey ◽  
M. McGee
Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1822
Author(s):  
Cory T. Parsons ◽  
Julia M. Dafoe ◽  
Samuel A. Wyffels ◽  
Timothy DelCurto ◽  
Darrin L. Boss

We evaluated heifer post-weaning residual feed intake (RFI) classification and cow age on dry matter intake (DMI) at two stages of production. Fifty-nine non-lactating, pregnant, (Study 1) and fifty-four lactating, non-pregnant (Study 2) commercial black Angus beef cows were grouped by age and RFI. Free-choice, hay pellets were fed in a GrowSafe feeding system. In Study 1, cow DMI (kg/d) and intake rate (g/min) displayed a cow age effect (p < 0.01) with an increase in DMI and intake rate with increasing cow age. In Study 2, cow DMI (kg/d) and intake rate (g/min) displayed a cow age effect (p < 0.02) with an increase in DMI and intake rate with increasing cow age. Milk production displayed a cow age × RFI interaction (p < 0.01) where both 5–6-year-old and 8–9-year-old low RFI cows produced more milk than high RFI cows. For both studies, intake and intake behavior were not influenced by RFI (p ≥ 0.16) or cow age × RFI interaction (p ≥ 0.21). In summary, heifer’s post-weaning RFI had minimal effects on beef cattle DMI or intake behavior, however, some differences were observed in milk production.


2013 ◽  
Vol 113 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 313-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.R. Cockrum ◽  
R.H. Stobart ◽  
S.L. Lake ◽  
K.M. Cammack

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoana Dini ◽  
Cecilia Cajarville ◽  
José I Gere ◽  
Sofía Fernandez ◽  
Martín Fraga ◽  
...  

Abstract The objective of this study was to quantify the emissions of enteric CH4 from growing Hereford steers raised under feedlot conditions based on contrasting levels of residual feed intake (RFI). A repeated measurements experiment was conducted over 20 d to determine CH4 production from two groups of nine Hereford steers, with contrasting RFI values (mean ± SD): low RFI (LRFI group; −0.78 ± 0.22 kg DMI/d) vs. high RFI (HRFI group; 0.83 ± 0.34 kg DMI/d). Steers were selected from a larger contemporary population in which the RFI was evaluated. Steers were maintained under confined conditions with ad libitum access to water and feed, comprising a total mixed ration of 55% sorghum silage, 21% barley silage, 21% corn grain, and 3% protein–mineral–vitamin–premix, provided twice a day. Before the beginning of CH4 measurements, the live weight of both groups of animals was determined, which on average (±SEM) was 357.0 ± 5.11 and 334.0 ± 10.17 kg in the LRFI and HRFI groups, respectively. Methane emission (g/d) was measured on each animal with the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique, during two consecutive periods of 5 d. Individual daily intake and feeding behavior characteristics were measured using a GrowSafe automated feeding system (Model 6000, GrowSafe Systems Ltd, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada). Methanogens in the ruminal content were quantified using quantitative polymerase chain reaction with primers targeting the mcrA gene. Methane emission was near 27% lower in animals with LRFI when expressed in absolute terms (g/d; 26.8%; P = 0.009), by unit of dry matter intake (g CH4/kg; 27.9%, P = 0.021), or as % of gross energy intake (26.7%; P = 0.027). These differences could not be explained by differences in amount of total of methanogens (average = 9.82 log10 units; P = 0.857). However, there were some differences in animal feeding behavior that could explain these differences (e.g., LRFI animals tended to spend less time in feeders). Our results suggest that, in Hereford steers, the selection by RFI values is a promising mitigation strategy for the reduction of the emission of enteric CH4.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Young ◽  
Weiguo Cai ◽  
Daniel S. Nettleton ◽  
Jack C.M. Dekkers

2011 ◽  
Vol 166-167 ◽  
pp. 302-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.M. Jones ◽  
F.A. Phillips ◽  
T. Naylor ◽  
N.B. Mercer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document