Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:10:54.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of energy allowance and cimaterol feeding during the heifer rearing period on growth, puberty and milk production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. Barash ,
I. Peri ,
A. Gertler  and
I. Bruckental
H. Barash
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
I. Peri
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Human Nutrition, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76100, Israel
A. Gertler
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry and Human Nutrition, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76100, Israel
I. Bruckental
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
Get access

Abstract

Twenty-one 6-month-old Israeli Holstein heifers were used to determine the effect of three 6-month feeding regimes on growth, blood concentration of insulin, prolactin and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), attainment of puberty and milk production during first lactation. Feeding regimes were as follows. (1) Restricted: the heifers were given food during months 1, 2 and 4, 5 of an experimental period, to support live-weight (LW) gain of 0·35 and 0·50 kg/day, respectively and during months 3 and 6 the heifers were given food to support compensatory growth. (2) Control: the heifers were given food to support LW gain of 1·0 kg/day. (3) Control + C: the heifers were given the same as the control, with a daily supplement of 0·05 mg/kg LW cimaterol (C) for 4 months. The total LW gain of the restricted heifers during the 6 months of the trial was significantly lower than that of the control heifers. Cimaterol improved growth rate only during the first 2 months of its application and its withdrawal was associated with severe LW gain retardation. The feeding regime employed in the restricted treatment was associated with a significant reduction in serum concentrations of insulin, prolactin and IGF-1 during the first restricted phase, followed by an elevation in the first compensatory phase. During the second restriction-compensation cycle, only the serum concentration of prolactin was significantly reduced. Cimaterol addition was also associated with a reduced blood concentration of the hormones. The animals in the restricted, control and control + C groups attained puberty at LW of 249·2, 277·6 and 304·9 kg (P <0·05), respectively. No effect of the treatments on milk yield was observed. The effect of the feeding regimes on skeletal growth and on metubolizable energy efficiency for growth is discussed.

Keywords

cimaterolenergy intakegrowthheiferspuberty
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , December 1994 , pp. 359 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Allen, P., Quirke, J. F. and Tarrant, P. V. 1987. Effects of cimaterol on growth, food efficiency and carcass quality of Friesian cattle. In Beta-agonists and their effects on animal growth and carcass quality (ed. Hanrahan, J. P.), pp. 83–92. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Baishya, N., Morant, S. V., Pope, G. S. and Leaver, J. D. 1982. Rearing of dairy cattle. 8. Relationships of dietary energy intake, changes in live weight, body condition and fertility. Animal Production 34: 63–70.Google Scholar
Barash, H. and Akov, S. 1987. Improved [63Ni] radiochemical assay of free fatty acids in plasma. Clinical Chemistry 33: 176–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barash, H., Bar-Meir, Y. and Bruckental, I. 1994. Effects of low-energy diet followed by a compensatory diet on growth, puberty and milk production in dairy heifers. Livestock Production Science. In press.Google Scholar
Beermann, D. H., Butler, W. R., Hogue, D. E., Fishell, V. K., Dalrymple, R. H., Ricks, C. A. and Scanes, C. G. 1987. Cimaterol-induced muscle hypertrophy and altered endocrine status in lambs. journal of Animal Science 65: 1514–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boucque, Ch. V., Fiems, L. O., Sommer, M., Cottyen, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 1987. Effects of the beta-agonist cimaterol on growth, food efficiency and carcass quality of finishing Belgian White-Blue beef bulls. In Beta-agonists and their effects on animal growth and carcass quality (ed. Hanrahan, J. P.), pp. 93–105. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Daughaday, W. H., Maritz, I. K. and Blethen, S. L. 1980. Inhibition of access of bound somatomedin to membrane receptor and immunobinding sites: a comparison of radioreceptor and radioimmunoassay of somatomedin in native acid-ethanol-extracted serum. Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 51: 781–790.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. M., Craigon, J., Buttery, P. J. and Beever, D. E. 1993. Influence of diet and ß-agonist administration on plasma concentrations of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-1 in young steers. British journal of Nutrition 70: 93–102.Google Scholar
Elsasser, T. H., Rumsey, T. S. and Hammond, A. C. 1989. Influence of diet on basal and growth hormone-stimulated plasma concentrations of IGF-1 in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 67: 128–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emery, P. W., Rothwell, N. J., Stock, M. J. and Winter, P. D. 1984. Chronic effect of ß adrenergic agonists on body composition and protein synthesis in the rat. Bioscientific Reports 4: 83–91.Google Scholar
Foldager, J. and Sejrsen, K. 1987. Mammary gland development and milk production in dairy cows in relation to feeding and hormone manipulation during rearing. In Research in cattle production: Danish status and perspectives (ed. Andersen, B. B., Andersen, E., Jensen, B., Petersen, P. H. and Ostergard, V.), pp. 102–115. Danske Landhusholdingsselskab, Odensk, Denmark.Google Scholar
Foldager, J. and Sejrsen, K. 1991. Rearing intensity in dairy heifers and the effect on subsequent milk production. National Institute of Animal Science, report no. 693. Research Center, Foulm, Denmark.Google Scholar
Frisch, R. E. and McArthur, J. 1974. Menstrual cycles: fatness as a determinant of minimum weight for height necessary for their maintenance or onset. Science, Washington 185: 949–951.Google Scholar
Gill, G. S. and Allaire, F. R. 1976. Relationship of age at first calving, days dry, and herd life to profit function for dairy cattle. journal of Dairy Science 39: 1131–1137.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. 1987. Summary and conclusions. In Betaagonists and their effects on animal growth and carcass quality (ed. Hanrahan, J. P.), pp. 193–196. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P., Allen, P. and Sommer, M. 1988. Food intake, growth and carcass composition of lambs treated with cimaterol; effect of length of withdrawal period. In Control and regulation of animal growth, European Association for Animal Production publication no. 36, pp. 149–161.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P., Quirke, J. F., Boman, W., Allen, P., McEwan, J., Fitzsimons, J., Kotzian, J. and Roch, J. F. 1986. ß-agonists and their effects on growth and carcass quality. In Advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J.), pp. 125–138. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, A. J. and Hargrove, G. L. 1987. Standards of weight and height for Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 653–660.Google Scholar
Johnsson, I. D. 1988. The effect of prepubertal nutrition on lactation performance by dairy cows. In Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 171–192. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Kertz, A. F., Prewitt, L. R. and Ballam, J. M. 1987. Increased weight gain and effects on growth parameters of Holstein heifer calves from 3 to 12 months of age. journal of Dairy Science 70: 1612–1622.Google Scholar
Maltin, C. A., Delday, M. I., Hay, S. M., Innes, G. M. and Williams, P. E. V. 1990. Effects of bovine pituitary growth hormone alone or in combination with the ß-agonist clenbuterol and muscle growth and composition in veal calves. British journal of Nutrition 63: 535–545.Google Scholar
National Research Council 1989. Nutritional requirements of dairy cattle, 6th revised edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Peri, I., Gertler, A., Bruckental, I. and Barash, H. 1993. The effect of manipulation in energy allowance during the rearing period of heifers on hormone concentrations and milk production in first lactation cows. journal of Dairy Science 76: 742–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petitclerc, D., Chapin, L. T. and Tucker, H. A. 1984. Carcass composition and mammary development responses to photoperiod and plane of nutrition in Holstein heifers. journal of Animal Science 58: 913–919.Google Scholar
Prewitt, T. E., D‘Ercole, A. J., Switzer, B. R. and Van Wyk, J. J. 1982. Relationship of serum immunoreactive somatomedine-C dietary protein and energy in growing rats. journal of Nutrition 112: 144–150.Google Scholar
Ricks, C. A., Dalrymple, R. H., Baker, P. K. and Ingle, D. L. 1984. Use of β-agonists to alter the fat and muscle deposition in steers. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 1247–1255.Google Scholar
Sejrsen, K., Huber, J. T., Tucker, H. A. and Akers, R. M. 1982. Influence of nutrition on mammary development in pre- and postpubertal heifers. journal of Dairy Science 65: 845–855.Google Scholar
Smith, M. F., Burrell, W. C., Broadway, J. and Wiltbank, I. N. 1979. Estrus and pregnancy in beef heifers following use of the synchromate B treatment (SMB). Theriogenology 12: 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1985. SAS user's guide: statistics, version 5. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stock, M. I. and Rothwell, N. J. 1986. Effects of ß-adrenergic agonists on metabolism and body composition. In Control and manipulation of animal growth (ed. Buttery, P. J., Lindsay, D. B. and Haynes, N. B.), pp. 249–257. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Tucker, H. A. 1987. Quantitative estimates of mammary growth during various physiological states: a review. journal of Dairy Science 70: 1958–1966.Google Scholar
Underwood, L. E. and Van Wyk, J. J. 1993. Normal and aberant growth. In Williams textbook of endocrinology (ed. Wilson, J. D. and Foster, D. W.), pp. 1070-H39. W. B. Saunders Company, London.Google Scholar
Van Amburgh, M., Galton, D., Fox, D. and Bauman, D. 1991. Optimizing heifer growth. Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, pp. 85–93. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V. 1988. A short review and recent new data on the effects of treating domestic livestock with beta-agonists. In Control and regulation of animal growth, European Association for Animal Production, publication no. 36, pp. 126–140.Google Scholar