Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T10:29:22.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between live weight, age and dry-matter intake for beef cattle after different levels of food restriction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. Lopez Saubidet  and
L. S. Verde
C. Lopez Saubidet
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental Regional Agropecuaria Balcarce INTA, Balcarce, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
L. S. Verde
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental Regional Agropecuaria Balcarce INTA, Balcarce, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access

Summary

Five groups of 24 Aberdeen Angus steers, initially 8 months old and 185 kg in weight were subjected to varying degrees of restriction of energy intake, by feeding them on diets containing 1·45 to 2·85 Meal metabolizable energy (ME)/kg dry matter (DM) for 16 weeks. During the realimentation period that followed, all animals were fed ad libitum on the diet containing 2·85 Meal ME/kg DM. When realimentation began the feed consumption of all animals, which had been markedly different, rapidly became similar. When compared at equal live weight the restricted animals had higher intakes than the controls; at an equal age, however, feed intakes were practically the same. This led us to discard compensatory feed intake as a possible explanation for compensatory growth. Age explained 65% of the variability in feed intake, live weight explained 43% and both parameters jointly explained 73%. It is concluded that in restricted and realimented animals, age is a better predictor of feed intake than live weight. Compensatory growth is attributed to a lower maintenance requirement in restricted animals because of their lower live weight at the beginning of the realimentation period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 61 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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

Allden, W. G. and Scott Young, R. 1964. The summer nutrition of weaner sheep: herbage intake following periods of differential nutrition. Aust. J. agric. Res. 15: 989–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassett, J. M. 1960. The influence of maintenance feeding and subsequent compensatory effects on the pattern of growth and development in lambs. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Wood, W. A. 1951. The nutrition of the young Ayrshire calf. I. The endogenous nitrogen and basal energy metabolism of the calf. Br. J. Nutr. 5:11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnegie, A. B., Tulloh, N. M. and Seebeck, R. M. 1969. Developmental growth and body weight loss of cattle. V. Changes in the alimentary tract. Aust. J. agric. Res. 20: 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, J., Verde, L. S., Joandet, G. E., Gil, E. A. and Torres, F. 1974. [Effect of level and length of restriction on compensatory growth in Aberdeen Angus steers.] Production Animal (Argentina) 3: 443–461.Google Scholar
Fowler, V. R. 1968. Body development and its evaluation. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 195–201. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1964. Computing procedures for a generalized least-squares analysis program. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado, USA (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Jones, J. G. W. and Drake-brockman, R. M. 1961. The feed intake of grazing cattle. II. The influence of size of animal on feed intake. Anim. Prod. 3: 251–260.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Keenan, D. M., McManus, W. R., Scoogins, B. A., Myers, K. and Freer, M. 1968. The effect of under-nutrition on the activity of the adrenal cortex of Merino wethers. Res. vet. Sci. 9:573–577.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. 1968. The feed intake of grazing sheep differing in age, breed, previous nutrition and live weight. J. agric. Set., Camb. 71: 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, W. R., Reid, J. T. and Donaldson, L. E. 1972. Studies of compensatory growth in sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79: 1–12.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Hull, J. L., Weitkamp, W. H. and Bonilla, S. 1965. Compensatory growth responses of fattening steers following various low energy intake regimes on hay or irrigated pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, M. J. and Baumgardt, B. R. 1965. Regulation of food intake in ruminants. 1. Pelleted rations varying in energy concentration. J. Dairy Sci. 48: 569–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J. G. 1968. The survival feeding of beef cattle during drought. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 7: 20–39.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, P. B., Conway, A. and O'Shea, J. 1972. A study of the herbage intake and efficiency of feed utilization of grazing cattle previously fed two winter planes of nutrition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78: 87–95.Google Scholar
Verde, L. S., Joandet, G. E., Gil, E. A. and Torres, F. 1971. [Effect of different levels of restriction on compensatory growth in beef cattle.] Est. Exp. Reg. Agrop. Balcarce, INTA. Informe de Actividades del Depto. Prod. Animal 1970–1971.Google Scholar
Verde, L. S., Joandet, G. E., Gil, E. A. and Torres, F. 1974. [Level of restriction and sire effect on compensatory growth in Aberdeen Angus steers.] Production Animal (Argentina) 3: 463–471.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. 1948. The growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the level of nutrition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 93–153; 243-302; 367-401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulberti, C. A. and Reid, J. T. 1972. An equation, suitable for computer use, based on the ARC feeding system to determine the energy requirements of growing and fattening cattle. Anim. Prod. 14: 17–23.Google Scholar