Evaluation of the National Research Council (NRC) nutrient requirements for beef cattle: Predicting feedlot performance

2003 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 787-792
Author(s):  
E. K. Okine ◽  
D. H. McCartney ◽  
J. B. Basarab
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Feeder Cattle

The accuracy of predicted CowBytes® versus actual dry matter intake (DMI) and average daily gain (ADG) of 407 Hereford × Angus and Charolais × Maine Anjou (445.6 ± 36 kg) feeder cattle using digestable enery acid detergent fiber (DE) estimated from the (ADF) content [Laboratory analysis method (LAB)] and from values determined in vivo (INVIVO method) was examined. The diet consisted of a 73.3% concentrate diet, 22.0% barley silage, 1.6% molasses, and 3.1% feedlot supplement fed ad libitum (as-fed basis). The calculated DE values of the feed were used to predict the metabolizable energy (ME), net energy of maintenance (NEm), and net energy of gain (NEg) of the diet. These energy values were then used in CowBytes® to predict dry matter intake (DMI), ADG, and days on feed (DOF) necessary to meet targeted quality grade of AA and weights of 522 and 568 kg for the heifers and steers, respectively. There was no effect of gender and prediction method interaction (P > 0.10) on any of the variables measured. There were no (P > 0.05) differences in predicted DMI by either the INVIVO or LAB method but both methods underestimated DMI actually consumed by the cattle by 6.8 and 4.9% (P = 0.007), respectively. Indeed, regression values from these predictive methods and actual DMI were (P < 0.05) different from the one-to-one relationship expected by definition. In spite of the higher actual DMI, the actual ADG of the cattle was 14 and 11% (P = 0.0004) lower than was predicted by either the INVIVO or LAB methods. A possible reason for the lower ADG could be an overestimation of DE of the diet. Thus, if available, users of CowBytes® should use actual DMI from their experience in ration formulation. In addition, the effects of environmental temperature on digestibility of diets should be taken into consideration when using the DE of the diet as determined from in vivo digestibility trials or calculated from chemical analyses in determining the DMI of feedlot cattle. Key words: Beef cattle, performance, CowBytes®, National Research Council

AN EVALUATION OF TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS, METABOLIZABLE ENERGY, AND NET ENERGY FOR THE PREDICTION OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR BEEF CATTLE IN ONTARIO

1973 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-477
Author(s):  
D. I. DICKIE ◽  
J. W. WILTON ◽  
T. D. BURGESS
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Research Council ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Domestic Animals ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Energy Requirements ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Nutrient Requirements ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Four studies and populations of beef animals were used to evaluate different methods of expressing energy requirements by comparing actual to predicted gains of bulls and steers fed in Ontario. Large differences between predicted and actual gains occurred. Based on a total of 503 animals, gains predicted by the net energy method (National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council. 1970. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. 4. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. (4th rev.). Nat. Acad. Sci., Publ. ISBN 0-309-01754-8; Washington, D.C.) were approximately 20% below the actual gains but exceptions within treatment groups were evident. Three hundred and twenty-five individually fed bulls were used to compare the accuracy with which gains were predicted from equations using total digestible nutrients (National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council. 1963. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. 4. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. Nat. Acad. Sci., Publ. 1137, Washington, D.C.) net energy (National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council. 1970. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. 4. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. (4th rev.). Nat. Acad. Sci., Publ. ISBN 0-309-01754-8, Washington, D.C), and metabolizable energy (Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The nutrient requirements of farm animals. No. 2. Ruminants. London, England). The metabolizable energy method predicted gains most accurately.

An evaluation of models predicting beef cattle performance using data from bulls on performance testing

2001 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Duynisveld ◽  
E. Charmley
Keyword(s):  
Dry Matter ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Performance Testing ◽  
Performance Model ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Food Research ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Daily Gain

Data from 372 bulls on performance testing were used to compare predictions of intake and gain with observed performance when the forage-to-concentrate ratio (F:C) in the ration ranged from 57:43 to 45:55. Predictions were derived from the National Research Council (NRC 1996) and the Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC 1993) models. Increasing the F:C resulted in a decline in dry matter intake as a percent of body weight, but did not influence observed average daily gain (ADG). The NRC (1996) model increasingly under-predicted ADG as forage inclusion in the ration increased, whereas AFRC (1993) was a better predictor of daily gain as F:C increased. Contrary to predictions, inclusion levels of silage can be increased in totally mixed rations without compromising animal performance. Key words: Forage-to-concentrate ratio, bulls, performance, model

Energy and protein utilization for maintenance and growth in Omani ram lambs in hot climates. I. Estimates of energy requirements and efficiency

2001 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. EARLY ◽  
O. MAHGOUB ◽  
C. D. LU
Keyword(s):  
Research Council ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Live Weight ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Energy Requirements ◽  
Maximum Temperature ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Linear Quadratic ◽  
Temperate Climates

Energy requirements for maintenance and growth were estimated by comparative slaughter in Omani male lambs during the hot summer months (July–October: maximum temperature, 48 °C). Weaned lambs (n = 10 per diet) were fed one of three totally mixed, 160 g CP/kg DM diets that contained 600, 400 or 200 g rhodesgrass hay/kg for low (9·98 MJ/kg, medium (10·3 MJ/kg) and high (11·4 MJ/kg) energy contents, respectively. All diets were balanced to meet the minimum nutritional needs for maximum growth. The trial lasted for 113–114 days. The purpose of having three diets was to induce a broad spectrum of growth rates that could be used in regression analysis (tested for linear, quadratic and exponential effects). Metabolizable energy (ME) intake was regressed on live weight (LW), empty body weight, tissue energy and tissue protein gain and vice versa. Coefficients of determinations were not significantly improved by quadratic or logarithmic regressions over linear relationships. Geometric mean regressions were used to control further biases due to major axis dependence when Y is regressed on X or vice versa. Based on tissue energy gain, the best estimates of ME required for maintenance (MEm) and gain (MEg) were 526 kJ/kg LW0·75/d and 42·1 kJ/kg LW0·75/g LW gain, respectively. Net energy values for maintenance (NEm) and gain (NEg) were 278 kJ/kg LW0·75/d and 20·6 kJ/kg LW0·75/g LW gain, respectively. These equations predicted MEm and NEm requirements that were similar to or slightly greater than those established by the US National Research Council (1985) and the UK Agricultural and Food Research Council (1993) for growing male lambs. The MEg and NEg requirements were substantially greater (by 43–89%) in this respect. Efficiency values were calculated as net energy available for maintenance or gain divided by the metabolizable energy available for maintenance or gain. The efficiency of metabolizable energy used for maintenance and gain was 0·50 and 0·52, respectively, and did not appear to be much different from values for other breeds of sheep in temperate climates. Dietary energy concentrations did not affect the efficiency of energy deposition. The data suggest that Omani sheep in hot climates have greater NEg requirements, and consequently MEg requirements, than other breeds of sheep in temperate climates.

scholarly journals Growth performance and apparent total tract nutrient digestibility of limit-fed diets containing wet brewer’s grains to Holstein heifers

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Hatungimana ◽  
Tess C Stahl ◽  
Peter S Erickson
Keyword(s):  
Growth Performance ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Nutrient Digestibility ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Neutral Detergent Fiber ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Limit Feeding ◽  
Daily Gain ◽  
Body Condition Scores

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the growth performance and apparent total tract nutrient digestibility of Holstein heifers limit-fed diets containing different amounts of wet brewer’s grains (WBG). A 12-wk randomized complete block study was conducted using 30 yearling Holstein heifers [378 ± 27 d of age, and body weight (BW) of 357.8 ± 27.6 kg (mean ± SD)]. Treatments were 0%, 10% and 20% of WBG on a dry matter (DM) basis and diets were formulated to be limit-fed for dry matter intake (DMI) at 2.35% of BW and provided 15% crude protein (CP) and 2.27 Mcal metabolizable energy/kg of DM. Dry matter intake was recorded daily, while BW and skeletal measurements were measured every 2 wk. During week 12, fecal samples were collected directly from the rectum over four consecutive days and composited by heifer to determine apparent total tract nutrient digestibility using acid detergent insoluble ash as a marker. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS. Dry matter intakes, BW, and average daily gain were not different among treatments (P = 0.2, P = 0.4, and P = 0.6, respectively). Dry matter intakes ranged from 8.6 to 9.0 kg/d. Average BW were 404.4, 411.5, and 409.3 kg for heifers fed the 0%, 10%, and 20% WBG diets, respectively. Average daily gains were 1.03, 1.04, and 0.96 kg/d for heifers fed the 0%, 10%, and 20% WBG diets respectively. Skeletal measurements and body condition scores (BCS) were not different among treatments except for the change in heart girth (P &lt; 0.01) and initial BCS (P &lt; 0.01). Apparent total tract digestibilities of DM, organic matter, CP, fat, and hemicellulose were greater or tended to be greater in heifers fed 0% and 20% WBG treatments than heifers fed 10 % WBG (P = 0.04, P = 0.04, P = 0.06, P = 0.06, and P = 0.01, respectively). Neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, and fat digestibilities were similar among treatments (P = 0.2, P = 0.3, and P = 0.3, respectively). During the digestibility phase, DMI tended to be greater (P = 0.08) for the 10% WBG treatment. These results demonstrate that limit-feeding heifers with diets containing up to 20% WBG could replace soybean- and corn-based concentrates in diets without adverse consequences to the heifer growth performance.

Comparison of techniques for estimation offorage dry matter intake bygrazing beef cattle

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Undi ◽  
C. Wilson ◽  
K. H. Ominski ◽  
K. M. Wittenberg
Keyword(s):  
Dry Matter ◽  
Energy Equation ◽  
Extreme Values ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
The Other ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Energy Concentration ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Wide Range

Four techniques were compared for their ability to estimate forage dry matter intake (DMI) of grazing animals. In the Cage technique, 10 grazing cages were placed within each pasture, and forage inside and outside the cages was clipped from 0.25-m2 quadrats after 12 to 20 d of grazing. The difference between forage inside and outside the grazing cage represented forage consumed by grazing animals. The second technique used n-alkane controlled release capsules to measure DMI of individual grazing animals (N-alkane marker technique). The remaining two techniques were prediction equations; one utilized body weight (BW) and average daily gain (ADG) to estimate DMI (Minson equation) and the other related dietary net energy concentration and BW to DMI (Net Energy equation). The four methodologies were applied to a 3-yr study evaluating liquid hog manure on the productivity of grass pastures. The study utilized steers of a relatively uniform body size on six continuously grazed grass pastures. When individual animal intakes were compared, the Net Energy equation estimated lower (P < 0.05) DMI than the Minson equation, with the N-alkane marker technique being intermediate. Dry matter intake (mean ± SD, kg d-1) was 5.3 ± 0.76, 7.4 ± 1.86, and 6.5 ± 2.58 for the Net Energy equation, Minson equation, and N-alkane marker technique, respectively. The Cage technique estimated average DMI of animals in each pasture of 17.5 ± 11.61 kg d-1 and this was higher (P < 0.05) than estimates from the other techniques. Dry matter intake estimates from different techniques were ranked: Cage technique > Minson equation > N-alkane marker technique > Net Energy equation. The DMI estimates generated by the Cage technique were associated with the largest coefficient of variation, with extreme values representing a range from 0.3 to 15.2% BW. The N-alkane marker technique estimated DMI that ranged from 0.6 to 4.5% BW. The strongest correlation (r = 0.30; P = 0.001) in DMI estimates was between the Net Energy and Minson equations due to the inclusion of BW as a component in both equations. Results of this study suggest that prediction equations can be useful for rapid DMI estimation. The N-alkane marker technique may be the preferred technique when a wide range of pasture conditions is anticipated. Key words: Grazing cages, n-alkanes, prediction equations, dry matter intake, grazing animals

PSXIII-24 Is it possible to finish beef cattle in feedlot and be environmentally friendly?

2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 436-436
Author(s):  
Andre Pastori D Aurea ◽  
Lauriston Bertelli Fernandes ◽  
Luis Eduardo Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Essential Fatty Acids ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
Omega 3 ◽  
Growth Promoters ◽  
Finishing Beef Cattle ◽  
Natural Additive

Abstract To improve production without affecting the environment, the objective of this research was to evaluate a natural additive to replace the conventional growth promoters in finishing beef cattle diets. 160 Nellore bulls were assigned into two treatments, where the only difference was the additive used: natural additive (Fator P - 600 mg/kg DM) and conventional growth promoters (25 mg/kg DM of monensin + 20 mg/kg DM of virginiamycin). The Fator P® is an organic additive certificated by IBD, which is a blend of the compounds; amino acids (lysine, methionine, and tyrosine), choline, minerals, probiotics and essential fatty acids (omega 3 and omega 6). The diet contained 14% CP and 76% TDN. Nellore young bulls (n = 160), weighing 433 ± 7 kg, with an average age of 24 months, were used. The feedlot facilities contained 16 collective pens, in which 10 animals were allocated. The animal performance was evaluated for 84 days, with 21 days of adaptation. Means were compared with 5% of significance. The conventional growth promoters reduced the dry matter intake. Natural 11.33 kg/day and 10.9 kg/day for the conventional. The conventional growth promoters reduced in 0.43 kg of dry matter intake (P = 0.042) or 0.1% of body weight (P = 0.001; 2.26% to 2.16%). No difference in average daily gain (P = 0.58). 1.655 kg/day for natural and 1.625 for the conventional. The feed efficiency ratio wasn’t different (P = 0.71), natural 146 g / kgMSˉ¹ and 148 g / kgMSˉ¹ for conventional. There were no difference in carcass yield (P = 0.89), mean 56.3%. The natural additives can improve the dry matter intake and can be used as an alternative to antibiotics in high concentrate diets for beef cattle in feedlot system. Thus, finishing beef cattle in the feedlot can be environmentally friendly.

PARTITIONING METABOLIZABLE ENERGY UTILIZATION IN RUMINANTS TO INCLUDE A FACTOR FOR ASSIMILATION OF FOOD INTAKE AND ITS APPLICATION FOR EVALUATING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF GROWING-FATTENING CATTLE

1986 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 723-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. GIRARD
Keyword(s):  
Heat Production ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Energy Utilization ◽  
Dry Matter Intake ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Caloric Value ◽  
Energy Retention

A mathematical analysis of heat production by growing ruminants was used to assess the physiological importance of assimilation and digestion of dry matter intake. Energy retention (ER) was calculated according to National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC) (1984) for 300- and 600-kg cattle fed hay or corn silage with approximately 0, 25, 50 and 75% oat or corn grain. Protein synthesis was calculated for each ER using NAS-NRC (1984) standards for medium- and large-frame bulls, steers and heifers. Fat retention was then estimated by removing the caloric value of protein from ER and dividing the result by the caloric value of fat. Heat production (Y, MJ), obtained as the difference between metabolizable energy (ME) intake and energy retention, was related to the animal's metabolic weight (X1, kg), to the protein (X2, kg) and fat (X3, kg deposited and to the dry matter intake (X4, kg):[Formula: see text]This equation explained 99.9% of the variation of individual heat productions predicted by the California net energy system (NAS-NRC 1984). Heat production per kilogram dry matter intake (3.85 MJ) ranged from 38% at maintenance to 48% above maintenance of the total heat produced, which is similar to values reported in the literature from physiological studies. Metabolizable energy efficiency for fasting, gain of protein and gain of fat was respectively 102, 63 and 64%, whatever feed-stuffs were used. The proposed energy system can be summarized and used as follows: ME requirement = ME for fasting + ME for gain of fat + ME for gain of protein + ME for dry matter intake. In this form, ordinary ME values for feedstuffs are used. Key words: Ruminant, growth, protein fat efficiency, system, intake energy

scholarly journals  Nutritive value of red clover and lucerne forages for ruminants estimated by in vitro and in vivo digestibility methods

2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (No. 10) ◽  
pp. 454-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Homolka ◽  
V. Koukolová ◽  
M. Podsedníček ◽  
A. Hlaváčková
Keyword(s):  
Dry Matter ◽  
Nutritive Value ◽  
Energy Levels ◽  
Red Clover ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Net Energy ◽  
Gross Energy ◽  
Model Expression

The aim of this study was to determine the nutrient and energy levels of red clover and lucerne forage. Investigation of forage at different maturity stages of three growths was carried out by chemical analysis, in vitro and in vivo digestibility methods.&nbsp; Generally, maturation caused a significant increase in fibre fractions. With the increasing maturity of forage samples the in vivo, in vitro, and calculated in vivo (in vivo<sub>calcul</sub>) digestibilities of organic matter (OM) linearly decreased. The in vitro and in vivo<sub>calcul</sub> digestibilities of OM averaged 0.754 and 0.708 for red clover and 0.717 and 0.667 for lucerne, respectively. The in vivo OM digestibility averaged 0.710 for red clover and 0.666 for lucerne. Gross energy (GE), digestible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME), net energy for lactation (NEL), and net energy for growth (NEG) averaged 18.12, 12.41, 9.60, 5.67, 5.50 and 18.09, 11.56, 9.01, 5.26, 4.99 MJ/kg of dry matter for red clover and lucerne, respectively. The effect of a vegetative stage on energy values of both forages was diverged for various growth times. When data were pooled across the estimated season, seven cutting-specific equations for descriptions of GE, DE, ME, NEL, NEG, in vitro, and in vivo OM digestibilities were obtained for red clover and lucerne, separately. The red clover model expression gave similar prediction equations for lucerne. It was possible to predict cutting-specific equations with coefficients of determination R<sup>2</sup> &gt; 0.719 for red clover and R<sup>2</sup> &gt; 0.400 for lucerne of the variation in GE, DE, ME, NEL, and NEG. The in vitro and in vivo OM digestibility equations were predicted with R<sup>2 </sup>being 0.840 (in vitro) and 0.707 (in vivo) for red clover, and 0.979 (in vitro) and 0.937 (in vivo) for lucerne. The parameters of these specific equations were statistically preferable than the general model expression which included both forages together. &nbsp;

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document