1963
DOI: 10.2527/jas1963.222486x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficiency of Feed Use in Beef Cattle

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

17
690
2
64

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 945 publications
(781 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
17
690
2
64
Order By: Relevance
“…The trait is defined as feed intake adjusted for maintenance requirements and BW gain (Koch et al, 1963). Animals with lower adjusted feed consumption are more efficient because they consume less feed based on their gain and maintenance requirements (Young and Dekkers, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The trait is defined as feed intake adjusted for maintenance requirements and BW gain (Koch et al, 1963). Animals with lower adjusted feed consumption are more efficient because they consume less feed based on their gain and maintenance requirements (Young and Dekkers, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Residual feed intake (RFI) is an alternative measure for characterising feed efficiency (Koch et al, 1963) and is equivalent to a restricted selection index for decreased feed intake, holding other energy deposition constant (Kennedy et al,1993;Van der Werf et al, 2004). However, RFI prediction still requires the records of individual feed intake, thereby limiting its application in the breeding programme of the dairy industry (Connor, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Selection for residual feed intake (RFI), defined as the difference between observed feed intake and feed consumption predicted for maintenance and production requirements, was first proposed to improve feed efficiency in beef cattle (Koch et al, 1963). In pigs, some studies have focused on relationships between RFI and appetite and feeding activity (De Haer et al, 1993;Rauw et al, 2006;Gilbert et al, 2009;Young et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%