Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:01:50.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy utilization by Hereford and Simmental males and females

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. L. Ferrell  and
T. G. Jenkins
C. L. Ferrell
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Clay Center, Nebraska 68933, USA
T. G. Jenkins
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Clay Center, Nebraska 68933, USA
Get access

Abstract

Post-weaning metabolizable energy intake, growth of empty-body chemical components and efficiencies of energy utilization were evaluated for Hereford intact males (17) and females (16) and Simmental intact males (15) and females (16) during a 212-day feeding period. Within each breed × sex subclass, animals were assigned to one of three levels of metabolizable energy (ME) intake: (1) 544 kJ/kg M0·75 per day, (2) 795 kJ/kg M0·75 per day, and (3) ad libitum. Body composition of each animal was estimated at the beginning and end of the feeding period by deuterium oxide dilution.

Protein and water gain of Hereford and Simmental cattle were similar at restricted levels of intake but were greater for Simmental than for Hereford cattle at ad libitum intakes. Similarly, rates of protein and water gain tended to increase more rapidly in response to increased energy intake by males than by females. Hereford males gained fat and energy slightly more rapidly than Hereford females, but Simmental males gained fat and energy at slower rates than Simmental females.

Males had higher maintenance requirements and tended to use ME with less efficiency for maintenance and gain than females. Hereford cattle had lower maintenance requirements and used ME with greater efficiency for both maintenance and gain than Simmental cattle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , August 1985 , pp. 53 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Andersen, B. B. 1980. Feeding trials describing net requirements forN maintenance as dependent on weight, feeding level, sex and genotype. Annls Zootech. 29: 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H., Sall., J. P. and Helwig, J. T. 1979. SAS User's Guide, pp. 245–255. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Byers, F. M. 1979. Measurement of protein and fat accretion in growing cattle through isotope dilution procedures. Ohio Beef Cattle Res. Prog. Rep., Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Ctr, Anim. Sci. Series 79-1, pp. 36–42.Google Scholar
Byers, F. M. 1980. Effects of limestone, monensin and feeding level on corn silage net energy value and composition of growth in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 50: 1127–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, F. M. 1982. Patterns and energetic efficiency of tissue growth in beef cattle of four breeds. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F.), pp. 92–95. Agricultural University of Norway, Aas-NLH.Google Scholar
Cundiff, L. V., Koch, R. M., Gregory, K. E. and Smith, G. M. 1981. Characterization of biological types of cattle — Cycle II. IV. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 53: 332–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, C. L., Crouse, J. D., Field, R. A. and Chant, J. L. 1979. Effects of sex, diet and stage of growth upon energy utilization by lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 790–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, C. L., Garrett, W. N., Hinman, N. and Grichting, Genevieve. 1976. Energy utilization by pregnant and non-pregnant heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 42: 937–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1984a. Relationships among various body components of mature cows. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 222–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1984b. Energy utilization by mature, non-pregnant, nonlactating cows of different types. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1980. Changes in fasting metabolism of cattle as a consequence of selection for growth rate. In Energy Metabolism (ed. Mount, L. E.), pp. 431–434. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1982. The effect of previous exposure to parasites on the fasting metabolism and food intake of three cattle breeds. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F.), pp. 101–103. Agricultural University of Norway, Aas-NLH.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1970. The influence of sex on the energy requirements of cattle for maintenance and growth. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Schurch, A. and Wenk, C.), pp. 101–104. Juris Druck and Verlag, Zurich.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1971. Energetic efficiency of beef and dairy steers. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1979. Protein production by cattle as influenced by energy and protein content of the diet. California Feeders Day, pp. 23–28.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N. 1980. Energy utilization by growing cattle as determined in 72 comparative slaughter experiments. In Energy Metabolism (ed. Mount, L. E.), pp. 3–8. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geay, Y., Robelin, J. and Jarrige, R. 1976. The influence of the metabolizable energy content of the diet on the efficiency of energy utilization for young fattening bulls. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Vermorel, M.). pp. 225–228. Bussac, Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar
Hankins, O. G. and Howe, P. E. 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric, No. 926.Google Scholar
Hedrick, H. B., Thompson, G. B. and Krause, G. F. 1969. Comparison of feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of half-sib bulls, steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 29: 687–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, T. G. and Ferrell, C. L. 1984. Characterization of post-weaning traits of Simmental and Hereford bulls and heifers. Anim. Prod. 39: 355–364.Google Scholar
Jesse, G. W., Thompson, G. B., Clark, J. L., Hedrick, H. B. and Weimer, K. G. 1976. Effects of ration energy and slaughter weight on composition of empty body and carcass gain of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1978. Effects of breed-type and slaughter weight on feedlot performance and carcass composition in bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E., Allen, D. M., May, M., Crouse, J. D. and Campion, D. R. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. III. Carcass composition, quality and palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koong, L. J., Ferrell, C. L. and Nienaber, J. A. 1982. Effects of plane of nutrition on organ size and fasting heat production in swine and sheep. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F.), pp. 245–248. Agricultural University of Norway, Aas-NLH.Google Scholar
Laster, D. B., Smith, G. M. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. IV. Postweaning growth and puberty of heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 63–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledger, H. P. and Sayers, A. R. 1977. The utilization of dietary energy by steers during periods of restricted food intake and subsequent realimentation. 1. The effect of time on the maintenance requirements of steers held at constant live weights. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 88: 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. and Garrett, W. N. 1968. A system for expressing net energy requirements and feed values for growing and finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 793–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlson, D. L., Davis, S. L., Ferrell, C. L. and Jenkins, T. G. 1981. Plasma growth hormone, prolactin and thyrotropin secretory patterns in Hereford and Simmental calves. J. Anim. Sci. 53: 371–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, R. L. 1975. Biological responses to estrogen additives in meat producing cattle and lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 1414–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Wellington, G. H. and Dunn, H. O. 1955. Some relationships among the major chemical components of the bovine body and their application to nutritional investigation. J. Dairy Sci. 38: 1344–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robelin, J. and Geay, Y. 1976. Changes with age (9, 13, 16, 19 months) of protein and energy retention and energy utilization by growing Limousin bulls. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Vermorel, M.), pp. 100–103. Bussac, Clermont-Ferrand.Google Scholar
Smith, G. M., Laster, D. B., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1976. Characterization of biological types of cattle. II. Postweaning growth and feed efficiency of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa State University Press. Ames, la.Google Scholar
Tanner, J. E., Frahm, R. R., Willham, R. L. and Whiteman, J. V. 1970. Sire × sex interactions and sex differences in growth and carcass traits of Angus bulls, steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 31: 1058–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Wood, J. D., Gregory, N. G. and Hart, I. C. 1983. Fat deposition in Hereford and Friesian steers. 3. Growth efficiency and fat mobilization. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 100: 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Smith, J. S. and Mollison, G. S. 1982. Energy requirements of growing cattle: effect of sire breed, plane of nutrition, sex and season on predicted basal metabolism. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F.), pp. 84–87. Agricultural University of Norway, Aas-NLH.Google Scholar