Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:01:31.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of British Friesian steers with or without implants of oestradiol-17β to undegradable dietary protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. R. Newbold ,
P. C. Garnsworthy ,
P. J. Buttery ,
D. J. A. Cole  and
W. Haresign
J. R. Newbold
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
P. C. Garnsworthy
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
P. J. Buttery
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
D. J. A. Cole
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
W. Haresign
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
Get access

Abstract

The ability of the protein nutrition scheme proposed by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC, 1980, 1984) to predict responses to protein supply was examined in two experiments. In experiment 1, groups of nine British Friesian steers implanted with oestradiol-17β and nine non-implanted steers were fed from 133 to 300 kg live weight on each of four all-concentrate diets (metabolizable energy (ME) = 12 MJ/kg dry matter (DM)) containing ratios of soya-bean meal and formaldehyde-treated soya-bean meal such that undegradable protein (UDP) concentration was 19, 25, 32 or 42 g/kg DM. Rumen degradable protein (RDP) concentration was relatively constant (111 to 116 g/kg DM). Implantation did not affect DM intake (DMI, g/kg M0·75). Both live-weight gain (LWG) and food conversion efficiency (FCE) (LWG/DMI) were greater (P < 0·05) for the implanted cattle (LWG = 1·41 (s.e. 0·04) kg/day; FCE = 0·24 (s.e. 0·02)) than for the non-implanted cattle (LWG = 1·23 (s.e. 0·05) kg/day; FCE = 0·22 (s.e. 0·02)). There were no dietary effects on either DMI or FCE. In the non-implanted steers, UDP did not affect LWG but, for the implanted steers, there were positive, linear responses in LWG to both UDP concentration (P = 0·048) and UDP intake (P = 0·026). In experiment 2, groups of eight implanted steers were fed from 132 to 300 kg live weight on each of six diets (ME = 12 MJ/kg DM, soya-bean meal and formaldehyde-treated soya-bean meal as chief protein sources) supplying 17, 26, 34, 39, 54 and 82 g UDP per kg DM and concentrations of RDP up to 1·5 times ARC recommendations. There was no effect of UDP on either DMI or FCE but positive, linear responses in LWG to both UDP concentration (P = 0·019) and UDP intake (P = 0·010). In both experiments, mean DMI exceeded that predicted by ARC (1980) (P < 0·05). LWG predicted by the ME system and the ARC protein scheme was not significantly different from observed LWG for non-implanted steers, but was an underestimate of observed LWG for implanted steers (P = 0·002 in experiment 1, P < 0·001 in experiment 2). Observed responses in LWG to UDP concentration were also poorly predicted (regressions of observed on predicted LWG: experiment 1, r2 = 0·12, residual s.d. = 0·126; experiment 2, r2 = 0·004, residual s.d. = 0·119). It was concluded that oestradiol-17p has significant effects on responses in LWG to UDP, which are not predicted by the current ARC (1980, 1984) protein nutrition scheme.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 181 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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 Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Supplement No. I. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Alderman, G. 1985. Prediction of the energy value of compound feeds. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1985 (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 3–52. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Van't Klooster, A. Th. and Frens, A. M. 1968. Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82: 470.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., McIntosh, 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
Cooper, A. 1983. The value of growth promoters to the U.K. beef producer. In The Value of Growth Promoters to U.K. Beef Producers and Processors, Crown Chemical Company Lamberhurst.Google Scholar
Elimam, M. E. and Ørskov, E. R. 1984a. Factors affecting the outflow of protein supplements from the rumen. 1. Feeding level. Animal Production 38: 45–51.Google Scholar
Elimam, M. E. and Ørskov, E. R. 1984b. Factors affecting the outflow of protein supplements from the rumen. 2. The composition and particle size of the basal diet. Animal Production 39: 201–206.Google Scholar
Galbraith, H. and Topps, J. H. 1981. Effect of hormones on the growth and body composition of animals. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews B 51: 521–540.Google Scholar
Gill, M., Beever, D. E., Buttery, P. J., England, P., Gibb, M. J. and Baker, R. D. 1987. The effect of oestradiol-17β implantation on the response in voluntary intake, live-weight gain and body composition, to fishmeal supplementation of silage offered to growing calves. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 108: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle 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. Journal of Animal Science 29: 687–694.Google Scholar
Heitzman, R. J., Gibbons, D. N., Little, W. and Harrison, L. P. 1981. A note on the comparative performance of beef steers implanted with the anabolic steroids trenbolone acetate and oestradiol-17β alone or in combination. Animal Production 32: 219–222.Google Scholar
Kay, M. and Houseman, R. 1975. The influence of sex on meat production. In Meat (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Lawrie, R. A.), pp. 85–108, Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathison, G. W. and Stobbs, L. A. 1983. Efficacy of Compudose as a growth promotant implant for growing-finishing steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1973. The analysis of agricultural materials. Technical Bulletin 27. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1981. Growth promoting implants for beef steers. In Research and Development reports, Agricultural Service (Beef) Reference Book 228, pp. 10–11. MAFF, Alnwick.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference Book 433. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Newbold, J. R., Garnsworthy, P. C., Buttery, P. J., Cole, D. J. A. and Haresign, W. 1987. Protein nutrition of growing cattle: food intake and growth responses to rumen degradable protein and undegradable protein. Animal Production 45: 383–394.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrott, J. C., Carroll, L. H., Murphy, C. N., Tonkinson, L. V., Wagner, J. F. and Young, D. C. 1979. Evaluation of the anabolic response in suckling-growing-finishing steers to various doses of estradiol-17β delivered by removable implants. Journal of Animal Science 49: Suppl. I, p. 396 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Preston, R. L., Davis, G. W., Hawkins, R. R. and Ramsey, C. B. 1979. Influence of Compudose on feedlot performance and deposition of fat and protein in steers. Journal of Animal Science 49: Suppl. I, pp. 203–204 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Paradine, J., Beever, D. E. and Cornell, P. R. 1985. Ytterbium acetate as a particulate-phase digesta-flow marker. British Journal of Nutrition 54: 509–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, H. A., Phillips, R. L.Vavra, M. and Young, D. C. 1981. The efficacv of an estradiol-silicone rubber removable implant in suckling, growing and finishing steers. Journal of Animal Science 52: 939–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utley, P. R., Murphy, C. N., Merchant, C. E. and McCormick, W. C. 1980. Evaluation of estradiol removable implants for growing and finishing steer calves. Journal of Animal Science 50: 221–225.Google Scholar
Wishart, J. 1938. Growth rate determinations in nutrition studies with the bacon pig, and their analysis. Biometrika 30: 16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar