Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T13:40:22.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperament and dominance relate to feeding behaviour and activity in beef cattle: implications for performance and methane emissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2018

P. Llonch ,
M. Somarriba ,
C. A. Duthie ,
S. Troy ,
R. Roehe ,
J. Rooke ,
M. J. Haskell  and
S. P. Turner
P. Llonch*
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
M. Somarriba
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
C. A. Duthie
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
S. Troy
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
R. Roehe
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
J. Rooke
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Group, Scotland’s Rural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
M. J. Haskell
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
S. P. Turner
Affiliation:
Animal and Veterinary Sciences Group, SRUC (Scotland’s Rural College), West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: pol.llonch@uab.cat
Get access

Abstract

In beef cattle, feeding behaviour and activity are associated with feed efficiency and methane (CH4) emissions. This study aimed to understand the underlying traits responsible for the contribution of cattle behaviour to individual differences in feed efficiency, performance and CH4 emissions. A total of 84 steers (530±114 kg BW) of two different breeds (crossbreed Charolais and Luing) were used. The experiment was a 2×2×3 factorial design with breed, basal diets (concentrate v. mixed) and dietary treatments (no additive, calcium nitrate or rapeseed cake) as the main factors. The individual dry matter intake (DMI; kg) was recorded daily and the BW was measured weekly over a 56-day period. Ultrasound fat depth was measured on day 56. Based on the previous data, the indexes average daily gain, food conversion and residual feed intake (RFI) were calculated. The frequency of meals, the duration per visit and the time spent feeding per day were taken as feeding behaviour measures. Daily activity was measured using the number of steps, the number of standing bouts and the time standing per day. Agonistic interactions (including the number of contacts, aggressive interactions, and displacements per day) between steers at the feeders were assessed as indicators of dominance. Temperament was assessed using the crush score test (which measures restlessness when restrained) and the flight speed on release from restraint. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression models. Steers that spent more time eating showed better feed efficiency (P=0.039), which can be due to greater secretion of saliva. Feeding time was longer with the mixed diet (P<0.001), Luings (P=0.009) and dominant steers (P=0.032). Higher activity (more steps) in the pen was associated with poorer RFI, possibly because of higher energy expenditure for muscle activity. Frequent meals contributed to a reduction in CH4 emissions per kg DMI. The meal frequency was higher with a mixed diet (P<0.001) and increased in more temperamental (P=0.003) and dominant (P=0.017) steers. In addition, feed intake was lower (P=0.032) in more temperamental steers. This study reveals that efficiency increases with a longer feeding time and CH4 emissions decrease with more frequent meals. As dominant steers eat more frequently and for longer, a reduction in competition at the feeder would improve both feed efficiency and CH4 emissions. Feed efficiency can also be improved through a reduction in activity. Selection for calmer cattle would reduce activity and increase feed intake, which may improve feed efficiency and promote growth, respectively.

Keywords

livestockgreenhouse gas emissionsgrowthmitigationsocial behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 12 , December 2018 , pp. 2639 - 2648
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193, Spain

References

Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Aalhus, JL, Okine, EK, Snelling, WM and Lyle, KL 2003. Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 189–204.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Eriksen, L, Nørgaard, P and Rode, LM 2008. Salivary secretion during meals in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2077–2081.Google Scholar
Cafe, LM, Robinson, DL, Ferguson, DM, Mcintyre, BL, Geesink, GH and Greenwood, PL 2011. Cattle temperament: persistence of assessments and associations with productivity, efficiency, carcass and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1452–1465.Google Scholar
Chagunda, MGG, Ross, D, Rooke, J, Yan, T, Douglas, JL, Poret, L, McEwan, NR, Teeranavattanakul, P and Roberts, DJ 2013. Measurement of enteric methane from ruminants using a hand-held laser methane detector. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 63, 68–75.Google Scholar
Colucci, PE, Chase, LE and Van Soest, PJ 1982. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1445–1456.Google Scholar
Crews, DH Jr 2005. Genetics of efficient feed utilization and national cattle evaluation: a review. Genetics and Molecular Research 4, 152–165.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009. Competition for feed affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3922–3929.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Weary, DM 2004. Effect of feeding space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1432–1438.Google Scholar
Duthie, CA, Rooke, JA, Troy, S, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, Waterhouse, A and Roehe, R 2015. Impact of adding nitrate or increasing the lipid content of two contrasting diets on blood methaemoglobin and performance of two breeds of finishing beef steers. Animal 10, 786–795.Google Scholar
Faleiro, AG, González, LA, Blanch, M, Cavini, S, Castells, L, Ruíz de la Torre, JL, Manteca, X, Calsamiglia, S and Ferret, A 2011. Performance, ruminal changes, behaviour and welfare of growing heifers fed a concentrate diet with or without barley straw. Animal 5, 294–303.Google Scholar
FAO 2014. FAOSTAT Online Database. Retrieved December 2017 from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.Google Scholar
Galindo, F and Broom, DM 2002. The effects of lameness on social and individual behavior of dairy cows. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5, 193–201.Google Scholar
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruíz-de-la-Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S, Devant, M and Bach, A 2008. Performance, behavior, and welfare of Friesian heifers housed in pens with two, four and eight individuals per concentrate feeding place. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1446–1458.Google Scholar
González, LA, Manteca, X, Calsamiglia, S, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS and Ferret, A 2012. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 66–79.Google Scholar
Harb, MY, Reynolds, VS and Campling, RC 1985. Eating behavior, social dominance and voluntary intake of silage in group-fed milking cattle. Grass Forage Science 40, 113–118.Google Scholar
Herd, RM and Arthur, PF 2009. Physiological basis for residual feed intake 1. Journal of Animal Science 87 (suppl. 14), E64–E71.Google Scholar
Herd, RM, Oddy, VH and Richardson, EC 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 423–430.Google Scholar
Hicks, RB, Owens, FN and Gill, DR 1989. Behavioral patterns of feedlot steers. Oklahoma Agriculture Experimental Station Research Report MP-127. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.Google Scholar
Kelly, AK, McGee, M, Crews, DH, Fahey, AG, Wylie, AR and Kenny, DA 2010. Effect of divergence in residual feed intake on feeding behavior, blood metabolic variables, and body composition traits in growing beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 88, 109–123.Google Scholar
Kokin, E, Praks, J, Veermäe, I, Poikalainen, V and Vallas, M 2014. IceTag3D™ accelerometric device in cattle lameness detection. Agricultural Research 12, 223–230.Google Scholar
Llonch, P, Somarriba, M, Duthie, CAC, Haskell, MJM, Rooke, JJ, Troy, SS, Rainer, R and Turner, SP 2016a. Association of temperament and acute stress responsiveness with productivity, feed efficiency and methane emissions in beef cattle: an observational study. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 3, 43.Google Scholar
Llonch, P, Troy, SM, Duthie, CA, Somarriba, M, Rooke, J, Haskell, MJ, Roehe, R and Turner, SP 2016b. Changes in feed intake during isolation stress in respiration chambers may impact methane emissions assessment. Animal Production Science, https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15563.Google Scholar
MacKay, JRD, Turner, SP, Hyslop, J, Deag, JM and Haskell, MJ 2013. Short-term temperament tests in beef cattle relate to long-term measures of behavior recorded in the home pen. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4917–4924.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER, Reid, GW and Kay, M 1988. Prediction of intake by cattle from degradation characteristics of roughages. Animal Science 46, 29–34.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ and Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.Google Scholar
Richardson, EC, Kilgour, RJ, Archer, JA and Herd, RM 1999. Pedometers measure differences in activity in bulls selected for high and low net feed efficiency. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of Australian Society for the Study of Animal Behavior, 22 to 25 April, Armidale, Australia, p. 16.Google Scholar
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS, Atwood, S and McAllister, TA 2002. Relationships between bunk attendance, intake and performance of steers and heifers on varying feeding regimes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 179–188.Google Scholar
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS, Hickman, DD, Shah, MA, Krehbiel, CR, Genswein, BMA., Silasi, R, Gibb, DG, Crews, DH and McAllister, TA 2011. Relationship between feeding behavior and performance of feedlot steers fed barley-based diets. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1180–1192.Google Scholar
Shaver, RD, Nytes, AJ, Satter, LD and Jorgensen, NA 1986. Influence of amount of feed intake and forage physical form on digestion and passage of prebloom alfalfa hay in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 1545–1559.Google Scholar
Susenbeth, A, Mayer, R, Kiehler, B and Neumann, O 1998. Energy requirements for eating in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2701–2705.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, BJ, Haskell, MJ, Langford, FM, Roberts, DJ and Morgan, CA 2010. Are cows more likely to lie down the longer they stand? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124, 1–10.Google Scholar
Troy, SM, Duthie, C, Hyslop, JJ, Roehe, R, Ross, DW, Wallace, RJ, Waterhouse, A and Rooke, JA 2015. Effectiveness of nitrate addition and increased oil content as methane mitigation strategies for beef cattle fed two contrasting basal diets. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1815–1823.Google Scholar
Troy, SM, Duthie, CA, Ross, DW, Hyslop, JJ, Roehe, R, Waterhouse, A and Rooke, JA 2016. A comparison of methane emissions from beef cattle measured using methane hoods with those measured using respiration chambers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 211, 227–240.Google Scholar
Turner, SP, Navajas, EA, Hyslop, JJ, Ross, DW, Richardson, RI, Prieto, N, Bell, M, Jack, MC and Roehe, R 2011. Associations between response to handling and growth and meat quality in frequently handled Bos taurus beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 89, 4239–4248.Google Scholar
Van Reenen, CG, O’Connell, NE, Van der Werf, JTN, Korte, SM, Hopster, H, Jones, RB and Blokhuis, HJ 2005. Responses of calves to acute stress: individual consistency and relations between behavioral and physiological measures. Physiology and Behavior 85, 557–570.Google Scholar
Voisinet, BD, Grandin, T, Tatum, JD, O’Connor, SF and Struthers, JJ 1997. Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable temperaments. Journal of Animal Science 75, 892–896.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Llonch et al. supplementary material

Figures S1-S2

Download Llonch et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 240.3 KB