Nutrient Requirements of Domesticated Ruminants

Abstract

Nutrient Requirements of Domesticated Ruminants draws on the most up-to-date research on the energy, protein, mineral, vitamin and water requirements of beef and dairy cattle, sheep and goats. It defines the responses of animals, in weight change, milk production and wool growth, to quantitative and qualitative changes in their feed supply. It has particular application to grazing animals.
 Factors affecting the intake of feed are taken into account and recommendations are given according to the production systems being used; for instance, the feed intake of a grazing animal is affected by a larger number of variables than a housed animal. Examples of the estimation of the energy and nutrients required for the different production systems are given, as well as the production expected from predicted feed intakes. The interactions between the grazing animal, the pasture and any supplementary feeds are complex, involving herbage availability, diet selection and substitution. To facilitate the application of these recommendations to particular grazing situations, readers are directed to decision support tools and spreadsheet programs. 
 Nutrient Requirements of Domesticated Ruminants is based on the benchmark publication, Feeding Standards for Australian Livestock: Ruminants, published in 1990 by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
 It provides comprehensive and useful information for graziers, livestock advisors, veterinarians, feed manufacturers and animal nutrition researchers. The recommendations described are equally applicable to animals in feedlots or drought yards.

Nitrogen Balance of Dairy Cows Divergent for Milk Urea Nitrogen Breeding Values Consuming Either Plantain or Perennial Ryegrass

“…Near-infrared spectrophotometry (NIRS, Model: FOSS NIRSystems 5000, Laurel, MD, USA) was used to analyse organic matter (OM), water-soluble carbohydrates (WSCs), neutral and acid detergent fibre (NDF, ADF), crude protein (CP), and DM, OM, and dry OM digestibility (DMD, OMD, DOMD, respectively). The metabolizable energy (ME) content of forage was calculated as per the calculation of the primary Industries Standing Committee (2007) [33] of 0.16 × DOMD. NIRS calibration equations were determined prior to sample analysis for OM by digestibility (R 2 = 0.89) [34], WSC (R 2 = 0.97) [35], ADF (R 2 = 0.97) (AOAC, 1990 [36]; method 973.18), NDF (R 2 = 0.98) [37], CP by combustion (R 2 = 0.99) (Vario Max CN Analyser Elementar, Langenselbold, Germany), DMD (R 2 = 0.97), OMD (R 2 = 0.97), and DOMD (R 2 = 0.92) [34].…”

Exploring drivers and levels of technology adoption for ecological intensification of pastoral systems in north Patagonia drylands

“…Strategic supplementation to females during specific high-feed requirements (i.e. pre-and post-birth) contributes to animal well-fare as nutritional requirements are usually not met by grazed forage (Banchero, 2007;(Freer et al, 2007); Villagra and Giraudo, 2010), improves reproduction efficiencies, reduces rangeland grazing pressure, and facilitates animal management through their daily gathering (El-Hag et al, 2007). Animal healthcare though vaccination and medical treatments only when needed contributes to livestock welfare, productivity, and overall systems efficiency.…”

“…Enteric emissions per unit live weight estimated in this study varied between 3 and 98 kg CO 2 eq ^ Kg LW − 1 , largely below and above the global enteric emission average of 24 kg CO 2 eq ^ Kg LW − 1 (Opio et al, 2013). In Argentina, enteric emissions per unit LW in beef production range between 37 and 40 CO 2 eq ^ kg carcass weight − 1 (Rearte and Pordomingo, 2014), and cow-calf systems range between 18 and 33 Kg CO 2 eq ^ Kg LW − 1 , across different agro-ecological zones (FAO and New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, 2017;Freer et al, 2007). High emission intensity variation in this study was associated with large variations in overall marking rates which varied from 20% to 120% (Fig.…”

“…Furthermore, net emissions, apart from emission intensities, could also be reduced through process-based ecological intensification technology adoption. For instance, the previously discussed supplementary feeding with small amounts of highly digestible extra feed to pregnant females around birth also reduces enteric fermentation and increases forage use efficiency (FAO and New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, 2017;Freer et al, 2007). Moreover, emissions per LW and ha can be simultaneously reduced by optimizing grazing management (Becoña et al, 2014;Faverin et al, 2019).…”

Allonursing in Wild and Farm Animals: Biological and Physiological Foundations and Explanatory Hypotheses

“…Females in lactation produce a nutritious liquid that is well adapted to promote the growth and development of their young. The components of the energy expenditure of lactating females include the resting metabolic rate and milk energy output, both of which increase markedly during lactation [ 85 ]. This means that energy ingestion must also increase to compensate for the energy spent [ 86 ].…”