Animals with excitable temperaments often have decreased gains that have been associated with decreased intake and efficiency. Different temperament measures probably measure different specific underlying traits. Commonly used temperament measures include both objective and subjective measures. Subjective measures present potential difficulties for making across-study comparisons and thus for generalizing quantitative relationships. One objective of this experiment was to evaluate 2 related, but different, measures associated with temperament, where 1 measure is a new, objective measurement based on the common subjective chute score measures. Also, there is reason to believe that RDP requirements of animals may vary with temperament. To examine the relationships between temperament measures and nutrient use, 192 crossbred steers were used in a 58-d randomized complete block design experiment. Temperament treatments (assigned prior to d 1) were chute exit velocity (EV; slow vs. fast) and objective chute score (WSD; low vs. high), a novel temperament measure that was the SD of weights collected at 5 Hz for 10 s while an animal was restrained in a chute with its head caught. Both were measured on d -8, 1, 2, 16, 30, 56, and 58, where d 1 was the day that animals were allotted to treatment groups and began receiving experimental diets. Steers were fed a diet with 1 of 3 RDP levels (75%, 105%, and 120% of RDP requirements). There were no main effects or interactions with RDP ( ≥ 0.12); thus, it was removed from the statistical model for subsequent analyses. There were no interactions between EV and WSD ( ≥ 0.11). Slow EV animals had greater ADG ( = 0.02) and DMI ( ≤ 0.09) than fast EV animals, but there was no effect of EV on G:F ( > 0.14). For d 0 to 58, high WSD animals had greater DMI ( ≤ 0.09) than low WSD animals but no difference in ADG ( = 0.23), whereas low WSD animals tended to have increased G:F ( = 0.11). Results of this study give additional confirmation that EV is associated with DMI and growth and provide evidence that a novel measure of behavior, WSD, is also related to growth, independently of EV. Because WSD and EV appear to measure different underlying behavioral traits, use of both measures may improve our ability to discriminate among temperament categories for growing cattle.

Water is an essential nutrient, but there are few recent studies that evaluate how much water individual beef cattle consume and how environmental factors affect an individual's water intake (WI). Most studies have focused on WI of whole pens rather than WI of individual animals. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of environmental parameters on individual-animal WI across different seasons and develop prediction equations to estimate WI, including within different environments and management protocols. Individual daily feed intake and WI records were collected on 579 crossbred steers for a 70-d period following a 21-d acclimation period for feed and water bunk training. Steers were fed in 5 separate groups over a 3-yr period from May 2014 to March 2017. Individual weights were collected every 14 d and weather data were retrieved from the Oklahoma Mesonet's Stillwater station. Differences in WI as a percent of body weight (WI%) were analyzed accounting for average temperature (TAVG), relative humidity (HAVG), solar radiation (SRAD), and wind speed (WSPD). Seasonal (summer vs. winter) and management differences (ad libitum vs. slick bunk) were examined. Regression analysis was utilized to generate 5 WI prediction equations (overall, summer, winter, slick, and ad libitum). There were significant (P < 0.05) differences in WI between all groups when no environmental parameters were included in the model. Although performance was more similar after accounting for all differences in weather variables, significant (P < 0.05) seasonal and feed management differences were still observed for WI%, but were less than 0.75% of steer body weight. The best linear predictors of daily WI (DWI) were dry mater intake (DMI), metabolic body weights (MWTS), TAVG, SRAD, HAVG, and WSPD. Slight differences in the coefficient of determinations for the various models were observed for the summer (0.34), winter (0.39), ad libitum (0.385), slick bunk (0.41), and overall models (0.40). Based on the moderate R 2 values for the WI prediction equations, individual DWI can be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on the environmental conditions that are present, MWTS, and DMI consumed, but substantial variation exists in individual animal WI that is not accounted for by these models.

No abstract

Water is an essential nutrient, but the effect it has on performance generally receives little attention. There are few systems and guidelines for collection of water intake (WI) phenotypes in beef cattle, which makes large-scale research on WI a challenge. The Beef Improvement Federation has established guidelines for feed intake (FI) and ADG tests, but no guidelines exist for WI. The goal of this study was to determine the test duration necessary for collection of accurate WI phenotypes. To facilitate this goal, individual daily WI and FI records were collected on 578 crossbred steers for a total of 70 d using an Insentec system at the Oklahoma State University Willard Sparks Beef Research Unit. Steers were fed in five groups and were individually weighed every 14 d. Within each group, steers were blocked by BW (low and high) and randomly assigned to one of four pens containing approximately 30 steers per pen. Each pen provided 103.0 m2 of shade and included an Insentec system containing six feed bunks and one water bunk. Steers were fed a constant diet across groups and DMI was calculated using the average of weekly percent DM within group. Average FI and WI for each animal were computed for increasingly large test durations (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, and 70 d), and ADG was calculated using a regression formed from BW taken every 14 d (0, 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70 d). Intervals for all traits were computed starting from both the beginning (day 0) and the end of the testing period (day 70). Pearson and Spearman correlations were computed for phenotypes from each shortened test period and for the full 70-d test. Minimum test duration was determined when the Pearson correlations were greater than 0.95 for each trait. Our results indicated that minimum test duration for WI, DMI, and ADG were 35, 42, and 70 d, respectively. No comparable studies exist for WI; however, our results for FI and ADG are consistent with those in the literature. Although further testing in other populations of cattle and areas of the country should take place, our results suggest that WI phenotypes can be collected concurrently with DMI, without extending test duration, even if following procedures for decoupled intake and gain tests.

In the future, water may not be as readily available due to increases in competition from a growing human population, wildlife, and other agricultural sectors, making selection for water efficiency of beef cattle increasingly important. Substantial selection emphasis has recently been placed on feed efficiency in an effort to reduce production costs, but no emphasis has been placed on making cattle more water efficient due to lack of data. Thus, the objective of this study was to calculate water efficiency metrics for cattle and evaluate their relationship to growth, feed intake (FI), and feed efficiency. Individual daily FI and water intake (WI) records were collected on 578 crossbred steers over a 70-d test period. Animals with low water intake ate less feed, had lower gains, and were more water efficient (as defined by water to gain ratio, W/G, and residual water intake, RWI). However, the amount of water consumed by animals had minimal phenotypic relationship with feed efficiency (residual feed intake [RFI], R2 = 0.1050 and feed to gain ratio (F/G) ratio R2 = 0.0726). Cattle that had low DMI consumed less water, had lower gains, had lower RFI, and had higher F/G. The level of feed consumed had minimal relationship with water efficiency. WI, W/G, RWI, and ADG had moderate heritability estimates of 0.39, 0.39, 0.37, and 0.37, respectively. High heritability estimates were observed for DMI and RFI (0.67 and 0.65, respectively). Feed to gain had a low heritability estimate of 0.16. WI had a strong positive genetic correlation with W/G (0.99) and RWI (0.88), thus selecting for decreased WI should also make cattle more water efficient. The genetic correlation between WI and ADG was 0.05; thus, selecting for low WI cattle should have little effect on growth. There is a low to moderate genetic correlation between WI and DMI (0.34). RWI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.89) and F/G ratio (0.42) and is negatively genetically correlated with RFI (−0.57). Water to gain and F/G had a strong positive genetic correlation (0.68). RFI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.37) and F/G (0.88). Minimal antagonisms seem to be present between WI and ADG, although it should be noted that standard errors were large and often not significantly different from zero due to the small sample size. However, care should be taken to ensure that unintended changes do not occur in DMI or other production traits and incorporation of WI into a selection index would likely prove to be the most effective method for selection.