Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:18:31.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual energy intake and the performance of beef cows differing in body size and milk potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

K. D. Sinclair ,
S. Yildiz ,
G. Quintans  and
P. J. Broadbent
K. D. Sinclair
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
S. Yildiz
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
G. Quintans
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
P. J. Broadbent
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB21 9YA
Get access

Abstract

The accumulative effects of different levels of annual energy intake over the first two parities on four breeds of beef cow (small size and low milk potential, Aberdeen Angus; small size and high milk potential, Welsh Black; large size and low milk potential, Charolais; and large size and high milk potential, Simmental) were assessed for various production traits and calf performance. Heifers were allocated to each of two levels of annual energy intake relative to metabolic body weight (M0·75) (mean daily intakes equivalent to 705 and 820 kj M0·75) and for the next 2 years these animals (10 per breed) were continuously housed and given diets designed to represent energy intakes while grazing during the summer and conserved forage feeding during the winter. Changes in live weight and body composition were measured throughout both years and milk yield, milk composition and calf performance during both lactations.

Animals from each of the four breeds gained weight but lost body condition during their first two parities in a manner that was dependent on their annual level of dietary energy intake. Welsh Black cows grew more than Aberdeen Angus cows and Charolais cows more than Simmental cows so that, by weaning during the second parity, the rank order of live weights between breeds was Charolais > Simmental > Welsh Black > Aberdeen Angus. Welsh Black and Simmental cows produced higher yields of milk (7·9 and 8·7 kg respectively) than Aberdeen Angus and Charolais cows (6·5 and 5·7 kg respectively; P < 0·001). Calves from the two large breeds grew more quickly than those from the two small breeds (1·13 v. 0·99 kg/day; P < 0·01) and calf performance was influenced by milk consumption. Biological efficiency, defined as weight of calf at weaning per GJ metabolizable energy (ME) on an annual basis, increased as annual energy intake decreased and tended to be higher for large breeds on 33 GJ ME per year than for small breeds on the same level of annual energy intake (7·19 v. 6·75). The complex means by which the different breed types interacted with their nutritional environment is discussed.

Keywords

beef cowsefficiencyenergy intakegenotypes
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1998 , pp. 643 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Biggs, D. A. 1979. Performance specifications for infra-red milk analysis, journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 62: 1211–1214.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., Mclntosh, J. A. R. and Spence, A. 1970. The evaluation of a device for feeding group-housed animals individually. Animal Production 12: 245–252.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. M. 1984. The energy value of body-weight change in adult cattle. Animal Production 38: 537 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Bruce, J. M., Broadbent, P. J. and Topps, J. H. 1984. A model of the energy system of lactating and pregnant cows. Animal Production 38: 351–362.Google Scholar
Fitzhugh, H. A. 1978. Animal size and efficiency., with special reference to the breeding female. Animal Production 27: 393–401.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. C. 1997. Optimum body size of Holstein replacement heifers. Journal of Animal Science 75: 836–845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, P. C., Brehm, N. M., Price, S. G. and Prill-Adams, A. 1996. Effect of accelerated postpubertal growth and early calving on lactation performance of primiparous Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 2024–2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Illius, A. W. and Gordon, I. J. 1987. The allometry of food intake in ruminants. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 989–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, T. G. and Ferrell, C. L. 1992. Lactation characteristics of nine breeds of cattle fed various quantities of dietary energy. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1652–1660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, T. G., Kaps, M., Cundiff, L. V. and Ferrell, C. L. 1991. Evaluation of between- and within-breed variation in measures of weight-age relationships. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3118–3128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1990. GENSTAT 5, version 2.2 reference manual. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G. 1985. Feeding in relation to suckler cow management and fertility. Veterinary Record 117: 80–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowman, B. G., Scott, N. A. and Somerville, S. H. 1976. Condition scoring of cattle, revised edition. Bulletin no. 6, East of Scotland College of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1993. Beef yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1995. Beef yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Hickey, S. M., Johnson, D. L., Cullen, N. G. and Wilson, J. A. 1993. Evidence of genotype by environment interaction for reproductive and maternal traits in beef cattle. Animal Production 56: 69–83.Google Scholar
Morris, C. A. and Wilton, J. W. 1976. Influence of body size on the biological efficiency of cows: a review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 56: 613–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J., Jackson, M. V. and Sparrow, P. E. 1980. The response of perennial ryegrass to fertilizer nitrogen in relation to climate and soil. Grassland Research Institute, technical report no. 27.Google Scholar
Nugent, R. A., Jenkins, T. G., Roberts, A. J. and Klindt, J. 1993. Relationship of post-partum interval in mature beef cows with nutritional environment, biological type and serum IGF-1 concentrations. Animal Production 56: 193–200.Google Scholar
Revell, B. J. and Crabtree, J. R. 1996 Policy pressures and responses in European livestock systems. In Livestock farming systems: research, development, soci-economics and the land manager. Proceedings of the third international symposium on livestock farming systems. EAAP publication no. 79, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
Sejrsen, K. and Purup, S. 1997. Influence of prepubertal feeding level on milk yield potential of dairy heifers: a review. Journal of Animal Science 75: 828–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, K. D. 1997. Annual energy intake and the simulated performance of beef cows differing in body size and milk potential. Proceedings of a EU workshop on extensification of beef and sheep production, Ghent, Belgium In press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Broadbent, P. J. and Dolman, D. F. 1995. In vitro produced embryos as a means of achieving pregnancy and improving productivity in beef cows. Animal Science 60: 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Broadbent, P. J. and Hutchinson, J. S. M. 1994. The effect of pre- and post-partum energy and protein supply on the performance of single- and twin-suckling beef cows and their calves. Animal Production 59: 379–389.Google Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Yildiz, S., Quintans, G., Gebbie, F. E. and Broadbent, P. J. 1998. Annual energy intake and the metabolic and reproductive performance of beef cows differing in body size and milk potential. Animal Science 66: 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susmel, P., Spanghero, M., Stefanon, B. and Mills, C. R. 1991. Performance of lactating Simmental cows fed two diets differing in the content of digestible intestinal protein (PDI). Livestock Production Science 27: 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Turner, H. G. and Young, G. B. 1981. Genetic control of equilibrium maintenance efficiency in cattle. Animal Production 33: 179–194.Google Scholar
Thiessen, R. B., Hnizdo, E., Maxwell, D. A. G., Gibson, D. and Taylor, St C. S. 1984. Multibreed comparisons of British cattle. Variation in body weight, growth rate and food intake. Animal Production 38: 323–340.Google Scholar
Vera, R. R. 1991. Growth and conception in continuously underfed Brahman heifers. Animal Production 53: 45–50.Google Scholar
Vera, R. R., Ramirez, C. A. and Ayala, H. 1993. Reproduction in continuously underfed Brahman cows. Animal Production 57: 193–198.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. 1992. The response of spring-born suckled calves to the provision of supplementary feeding when grazing two sward heights in autumn. Animal Production 54: 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, I. A., Jones, J. R., Maxwell, T. J., Russel, A. J. F. and Hunter, E. A. 1994. The effect of genotype × environment interactions on biological efficiency in beef cows. Animal Production 58: 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, I. A. and Russel, A. J. F. 1987. The effect of sward height on beef cow performance and on the relationship between calf milk and herbage intakes. Animal Production 44: 363–370.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A., White, T. K. and Osoro, K. 1990. The herbage intake and performance of autumn-calving cows and their calves when grazing continuously at two sward heights. Animal Production 51: 85–92.Google Scholar