Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T20:50:14.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of finishing diet sorting and digestibility on performance and feed efficiency in beef steers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2019

K. C. Dykier ,
J. W. Oltjen ,
P. H. Robinson  and
R. D. Sainz Open the ORCID record for R. D. Sainz [Opens in a new window]
K. C. Dykier*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
J. W. Oltjen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
P. H. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
R. D. Sainz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
*
†E-mail: kcdykier@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that differences in residual feed intake (RFI) of beef steers are related to diet sorting, diet nutrient composition, energy intake and apparent digestibility. To phenotype steers for RFI, 69 weaned Angus × Hereford steers were fed individually for 56 days. A finishing diet was fed twice daily on an ad libitum basis to maintain approximately 0.5 to 1.0 kg refusals. Diet offered and refused was measured daily, and DM intakes (DMI) were calculated by difference. Body weights were recorded at 14-day intervals following an 18-h solid feed withdrawal. The residual feed intake was determined as the residual of the regression of DMI versus mid-test metabolic BW (BW0.75) and average daily gain (ADG). Particle size distributions of diet and refusals were determined using the Penn State Particle Separator to quantify diet sorting. Sampling of diet, refusals and feces were repeated in four sampling periods which occurred during weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the study. Particle size distributions of refusals and diet were analyzed in weeks 2, 4 and 6, and sampling for chemical analysis of refusals and feces occurred in all four periods. Indigestible neutral detergent fiber (288 h in situ) was used as an internal marker of apparent digestibility. We conclude that preference for the intakes of particles > 19 mm and 4 to 8 mm were negatively correlated to RFI and ADG, respectively. Although steers did sort to consume a different diet composition than offered, diet sorting did not impact intake energy, digestible energy or DM digestibility.

Keywords

residual feed intakeparticle sizesbeef cattle

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 59 - 65
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2012. Official methods of analysis, 19th edition. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Bingham, GM, Friend, TH, Lancaster, PA and Carstens, GE 2009. Relationship between feeding behavior and residual feed intake in growing Brangus heifers. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2685–2689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, SD, Kyriazakis, I and Oldham, JD 1996. The effects of physical form of feed, carbohydrate source, and inclusion of sodium bicarbonate on the diet selections of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 74, 1240–1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cundiff, LV, Van Vleck, DL and Hohenboken, WD 2010. Guidelines for uniform beef improvement programs, 9th edition. Beef Improvement Federation. Retrieved on 5 August 2015 from https://beefimprovement.org/content/uploads/2015/08/REVISED-MasterEd-BIF-GuidelinesFinal-08-2015.pdf. Google Scholar
Custudio, SAS, Claudio, FL, Alves, EM, Junior, GC, Paim, TDP and de Carvalho, ER 2016. Feed sorting of beef cattle in a feedlot fed different forages and housed in individual or collective pens. (Portuguese) Journal of Animal Behavior and Biometeorology 4, 55–64.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ, Dohme, F and Beauchemin, KA 2008. Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows at high and low risk for developing acidosis: feed sorting. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3958–3967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, Schwaigner, T, Beauchemin, KA and Penner, GB 2014. The duration of time that beef cattle are fed a high-grain diet affects feed sorting behavior both before and after acute ruminal acidosis. Journal Animal Science 92, 1728–1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimons, C, Kenny, DA, Fahey, AG and McGee, M 2014. Feeding behavior, ruminal fermentation, and performance of pregnant beef cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake offered grass silage. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2170–2181.Google ScholarPubMed
Greter, AM and DeVries, TJ 2010. Effect of feeding amount on the feeding and sorting behavior of lactating dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 47–54.Google Scholar
Hafla, AN, Carstens, GE, Forbes, TDA, Tedeschi, LO, Bailey, JC, Walter, JT and Johnson, JR 2013. Relationships between postweaning residual feed intake in heifers and forage use, body composition, feeding behavior, physical activity, and heart rate of pregnant beef females. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5353–5365.Google ScholarPubMed
Hales, KE, Foote, AP, Brown-Brandl, TM and Freetly, HC 2017. The effects of feeding increasing concentrations of corn oil on energy metabolism and nutrient balance in finishing beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 95, 939–948.Google ScholarPubMed
Herd, RM and Arthur, PF 2009. Physiological basis for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 87, E64–E71.Google ScholarPubMed
Kayser, W and Hill, RA 2013. Relationship between feed intake, feeding behaviors, performance, and ultrasound carcass measurements in growing purebred Angus and Hereford bulls. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5492–5499.Google ScholarPubMed
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chambers, D and Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed used in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kononoff, PJ, Heinrichs, AJ and Buckmaster, DR 2003. Modification of the Penn State forage and total mixed ration particle separator and the effects of moisture content on its measurements. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1858–1863.Google ScholarPubMed
Lancaster, PA, Carstens, GE, Ribeiro, FRB, Tedeschi, LO and , Crews Jr. , DH 2009. Characterization of feed efficiency traits and relationships with feed behavior and ultrasound carcass traits in growing bulls. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1528–1539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonardi, C and Armentatno, LE 2007. Feed selection by dairy cows fed individually in a tie-stall or as a group in free-stall barn. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2386–2389.Google ScholarPubMed
Methu, JN, Owen, E, Abate, AL and Tanner, JC 2001. Botanical and nutritional composition of maize stover, intakes and feed selection by dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 71, 87–96.Google Scholar
Miller-Cushon, EK and DeVries, TJ 2017. Feed sorting in dairy cattle: causes, consequences, and management. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4172–4183.Google ScholarPubMed
National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2016. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 8th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Crew, Jr. , 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, 2383–2390.Google ScholarPubMed
Phy, TS and Provenza, FD 1998. Sheep fed grain prefer food and solutions that attenuate acidosis. Journal of Animal Science 76, 954–960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 2006. Effects of physically effective fiber on chewing activity and ruminal pH of dairy cows fed diets based on barley silage. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 217–228.Google ScholarPubMed