The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of water quality on water intake (WI), forage intake, diet digestibility, and blood constituents in beef cows and growing beef heifers. This was a replicated 5 × 5 Latin square with five drinking water treatments within each square: 1) fresh water (Control); 2) brackish water (100 BRW treatment) with approximately 6,000 mg/kg TDS; 3) same TDS level as 100 BRW achieved by addition of NaCl to fresh water (100 SLW); 4) 50% brackish water and 50% fresh water to achieve approximately 3,000 mg/kg TDS (50 BRW); and 5) same TDS level as 50 BRW achieved by addition of NaCl to fresh water (50 SLW). Each of the five 21-d periods consisted of 14 d of adaptation and 5 d of data collection. Animals were housed individually and fed mixed alfalfa (Medicago sativa) grass hay cubes. Feed and water intake were recorded daily. Data were analyzed with animal as the experimental unit. Age, treatment, and age x treatment were fixed effects, and animal ID within age was the random variable for intake, digestibility, and blood parameter data. Water and feed intake were greater than expected, regardless of age or water treatment. No treatment x age interactions were identified for WI (P = 0.71), WI expressed as g/kg body weight (BW; P = 0.70), or dry matter intake (DMI; P = 0.21). However, there was an age x treatment tendency for DMI when scaled to BW (P = 0.09) in cows consuming 100 BRW compared to fresh water. No differences were found for the other three treatments. Heifers provided 50 SLW water consumed less (P < 0.05) feed (g/kg BW) compared to heifers provided fresh water and 100 BRW. No differences (P > 0.05) in water, DMI, feed intake or diet digestibility were found due to water quality treatment. In conclusion, under these conditions neither absolute WI, absolute DMI, nor diet digestibility were influenced by the natural brackish or saline water used in this experiment. These results suggest that further research is necessary to determine thresholds for TDS or salinity concentration resulting in reduced water and/or feed intake and diet digestibility.
The objective of this study was to examine the effects of diet energy density on ranking for dry matter intake (DMI), residual feed intake (RFI) and greenhouse gas emissions. Forty-two mature, gestating Angus cows (600 ± 69 kg BW; BCS 5.3 ± 1.1) with a wide range in DMI EPD (-1.38 to 2.91) were randomly assigned to 2 diet sequences; forage then concentrate (FC) or concentrate then forage (CF). The forage diet consisted of long-stem native grass hay plus protein supplement (HAY; 1.96 Mcal ME/kg DM). The concentrate diet consisted of 35% chopped grass hay and 65% concentrate feeds on a dry matter basis (MIX; 2.5 Mcal ME/kg DM). The GreenFeed Emission Monitoring system was used to determine CO2, O2, and CH4 flux. Cow performance traits, ultrasound back fat and rump fat, feed DMI, and gas flux data were analyzed in a crossover design using a mixed model including diet, period, and sequence as fixed effects and pen and cow within sequence as random effects. For all measured traits excluding DMI, there was a diet × sequence interaction (P < 0.05). The correlation between MIX and HAY DMI was 0.41 (P = 0.067) and 0.47 (P = 0.03) for FC and CF sequences, respectively. There was no relationship (P > 0.66) between HAY and MIX average daily gain, regardless of sequence. Fifty seven percent of the variation in DMI was explained by metabolic BW, average daily gain (ADG), and body condition score for both diets during the first period. During the second period, the same three explanatory variables accounted for 38 and 37 percent of the variation in DMI for MIX and HAY diets, respectively. The negative relationship between body condition score and DMI was more pronounced when cows consumed the MIX diet. The was no relationship between MIX and HAY RFI, regardless of sequence (P > 0.18). During the first period, correlations for CO2, CH4, and O2 with MIX DMI were 0.69, 0.81 and 0.56 (P ≤ 0.015), respectively and 0.76, 0.74 and 0.64 (P < 0.01) with HAY DMI. During the second period, correlations for CO2, CH4, and O2 with MIX DMI were 0.62, 0.47 and 0.56 (P ≤ 0.11), respectively. However, HAY DMI during the second period was not related to gas flux (P > 0.47). Results from this experiment indicate that feed intake of two energy-diverse diets is moderately correlated while ADG while consuming the two diets is not related. Further experimentation is necessary to determine if gas flux data can be used to predict feed intake in beef cows.
In 1996, the NASEM beef cattle committee developed and published an equation to estimate cow feed intake using results from studies conducted or published between 1979 and 1993 (Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle). The same equation was recommended for use in the most recent version of this publication (2016). The equation is sensitive to cow weight, diet digestibility and milk yield. Our objective was to validate the accuracy of this equation using more recent published and unpublished data. Criteria for inclusion in the validation data set included projects conducted or published within the last ten years, direct measurement of forage intake, adequate protein supply, and pen feeding (no tie stall or metabolism crate data). The validation data set included 29 treatment means for gestating cows and 26 treatment means for lactating cows. Means for the gestating cow data set was 11.4 ± 1.9 kg DMI, 599 ± 77 kg BW, 1.24 ± 0.14 Mcal/kg NEm per kg of feed and lactating cow data set was 14.5 ± 2.0 kg DMI, 532 ± 116.3 kg BW, and 1.26 ± 0.24 Mcal NEm per kg feed, respectively. Non intercept models were used to determine equation accuracy in predicting validation data set DMI. The slope for linear bias in the NASEM gestation equation did not differ from 1 (P = 0.07) with a 3.5% positive bias. However, when the NASEM equation was used to predict DMI in lactating cows, the slope for linear bias significantly differed from 1 (P < 0.001) with a downward bias of 13.7%. Therefore, a new multiple regression equation was developed from the validation data set: DMI= (-4.336 + (0.086427 (BW^.75) + 0.3 (Milk yield)+6.005785(NEm)), (R-squared=0.84). The NASEM equation for gestating beef cows was reasonably accurate while the lactation equation underestimated feed intake.
The objectives of these experiments were to determine the relationship between maintenance requirements and energy partitioned to maternal tissue or milk production in limit-fed Angus cows and to determine the relationship between retained energy during the lactation period to dry-period voluntary forage intake (VDMI). Twenty-four mature fall-calving Angus cows were used in a 79-d study during late lactation to establish daily metabolizable energy required for maintenance (MEm). Cows were individually fed daily a mixed diet (2.62 Mcal MEl/kg, 18.2% crude protein) to meet energy and protein requirements of 505 kg beef cows producing 8.2 kg milk daily. If cow BW changed by ±9 kg from initial BW, daily feed intake was adjusted to slow BW loss or reduce BW gain. Milk yield and composition were determined on 3 occasions throughout the study. Maintenance was computed as metabolizable energy intake minus retained energy assigned to average daily maternal tissue energy change, average daily milk energy yield, and average daily energy required for pregnancy. After calves were weaned, cows were fed a low-quality grass hay diet (8.2% crude protein, 65% NDF) and VDMI was measured for 21 d. Lactation maintenance energy was 83% the default value recommended by NASEM (2016) for lactating Angus cows. Increasing lactation-period retained energy (decreasing BW loss and increasing milk energy yield) was associated with lower maintenance energy requirements (P < 0.01; R 2 = 0.92). Increased residual daily gain during lactation was associated with lower lactation maintenance energy requirements (P = 0.05; R 2 = 0.17). Post-weaning VDMI was not related to late-lactation milk energy production, although sensitive to lactation period BCS and BW loss. These results contradict previous reports suggesting that maintenance requirements increase with increasing milk yield.
This study’s objective was to determine the relationship between retained energy, lactation maintenance energy requirement (MER), and dry period voluntary feed intake (VOL) in beef cows. Twenty-four mature fall-calving Angus cows were used in an 82-d study during lactation to establish maintenance energy requirements followed by a voluntary feed intake study after weaning. During the lactation MER experiment, cows were housed in 2 drylot pens and limit-fed a mixed hay/concentrate diet (17.8% CP, 2.6 Mcal/kg ME, DM basis) individually once per d in a stall barn. Cows were adapted to the diet and feeding management for the first 16 d. Subsequently, cows were weighed and feed allowance adjusted at 14-d intervals to achieve BW and BCS stasis. Milk yield and composition were determined on d – 10, 49, and 77 using a milking machine. Retained energy was calculated as average daily maternal tissue energy change plus average daily milk energy yield. During the post-weaning VOL experiment, cows were provided ad libitum access to a grass hay diet for 41 d (8.15% CP, 1.8 Mcal/kg ME, DM basis) using five individual feed intake monitoring units (SmartFeed, C-Lock, Inc). Each one unit increase in metabolizable energy intake, kcal/kg BW0.75 was associated with a 0.86 ± 0.28 kcal/kg BW0.75 increase in total retained energy (P = 0.005). Using this partial efficiency coefficient, ME required for maintenance declined by 0.80 ± 0.11 kcal ME/kg BW0.75 for each additional kcal net energy retained/kg BW0.75 (P < 0.0001). There was no relationship between lactation-period retained energy and post-weaning VOL forage dry matter intake. The present study results contradict previous reports suggesting that maintenance requirements increase with increasing productivity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.