Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:37:23.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visceral organ weights, digestion and carcass characteristics of beef bulls differing in residual feed intake offered a high concentrate diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

C. Fitzsimons ,
D. A. Kenny  and
M. McGee
C. Fitzsimons
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
D. A. Kenny
Affiliation:
Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. McGee*
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
*
†Email; [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study examined the relationship of residual feed intake (RFI) with digestion, body composition, carcass traits and visceral organ weights in beef bulls offered a high concentrate diet. Individual dry matter (DM) intake (DMI) and growth were measured in a total of 67 Simmental bulls (mean initial BW 431 kg (s.d.=63.7)) over 3 years. Bulls were offered concentrates (860 g/kg rolled barley, 60 g/kg soya bean meal, 60 g/kg molasses and 20 g/kg minerals per vitamins) ad libitum plus 0.8 kg grass silage DM daily for 105 days pre-slaughter. Ultrasonic muscle and fat depth, body condition score (BCS), muscularity score, skeletal measurements, blood metabolites, rumen fermentation and total tract digestibility (indigestible marker) were determined. After slaughter, carcasses and perinephric and retroperitoneal fat were weighed, carcasses were graded for conformation and fat score and weight of non-carcass organs, liver, heart, kidneys, lungs, gall bladder, spleen, reticulo-rumen full and empty and intestines full, were determined. The residuals of the regression of DMI on average daily gain (ADG), mid-test metabolic BW (BW0.75) and the fixed effect of year, using all animals, were used to compute individual RFI coefficients. Animals were ranked on RFI and assigned to high (inefficient), medium or low groupings. Overall mean ADG and daily DMI were 1.6 kg (s.d.=0.36) and 9.4 kg (s.d.=1.16), respectively. High RFI bulls consumed 7 and 14% more DM than medium and low RFI bulls, respectively (P<0.001). No differences between high and low RFI bulls were detected (P>0.05) for ADG, BW, BCS, skeletal measurements, muscularity scores, ultrasonic measurements, carcass weight, perinephric and retroperitoneal fat weight, kill-out proportion and carcass conformation and fat score. However, regression analysis indicated that a 1 kg DM/day increase in RFI was associated with a decrease in kill-out proportion of 20 g/kg (P<0.05) and a decrease in carcass conformation of 0.74 units (P<0.05). Weight of non-carcass organs did not differ (P>0.05) between RFI groups except for the empty weight of reticulo-rumen, which was 8% lighter (P=0.05) in low RFI compared with high RFI bulls. Regression analysis indicated that a 1 kg DM/day increase in RFI was associated with a 1 kg increase in reticulo-rumen empty weight (P<0.05). Of the visceral organs measured, the reticulo-rumen may be a biologically significant contributory factor to variation in RFI in beef bulls finished on a high concentrate diet.

Keywords

beef cattlebody compositioncarcass traitsresidual feed intakevisceral organs
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 6 , June 2014 , pp. 949 - 959
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Ahola, JK and Hill, RA 2012. Input factors affecting profitability: a changing paradigm and a challenging time. In Feed efficiency in the beef industry (ed. RA Hill), pp. 7–19. John Wiley and Sons Inc., Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Arthur, PF, Herd, RM and Basarab, JA 2010. The role of cattle genetically efficient in feed utilisation in an Australian carbon trading environment. Australian Farm Business Management Journal 7, 5–14.Google Scholar
Basarab, JA, McCartney, D, Okine, EK and Baron, VS 2007. Relationships between progeny residual feed intake and dam productivity traits. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 489–502.Google Scholar
Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Aalhus, JL, Okine, EK, Snelling, WM and Lyle, KL 2003. Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 189–204.Google Scholar
Basarab, JA, Beauchemin, KA, Baron, VS, Ominski, KH, Guan, LL, Miller, SP and Crowley, JJ 2013. Reducing GHG emissions through genetic improvement for feed efficiency: effects on economically important traits and enteric methane production. Animal 7, 303–315.Google Scholar
Berry, DP and Crowley, JJ 2013. Cell biology symposium: genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1594–1613.Google Scholar
Bonilha, EFM, Branco, RH, Bonilha, SFM, Araujo, FL, Magnani, E and Mercadante, MEZ 2013. Body chemical composition of Nellore bulls with different residual feed intakes. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3457–3464.Google Scholar
Bonilha, SFM, Branco, RH, Corvino, TLS, Alleoni, GF, Figueiredo, LA and Razook, AG 2009. Relationships between residual feed intake and internal organs of Nellore bulls. Proceedings of American Dairy Science Association, Canadian Society of Animal Science, American Society of Animal Science Joint Annual Meeting, 12 to 16 July 2009, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. T310 (Abstract page no. 295).Google Scholar
Bouquet, A, Fouilloux, MN, Renand, G and Phocas, F 2010. Genetic parameters for growth, muscularity, feed efficiency and carcass traits of young beef bulls. Livestock Science 129, 38–48.Google Scholar
Campion, B, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA and Berry, DP 2009. Evaluation of estimated genetic merit for carcass weight in beef cattle: live weights, feed intake, body measurements, skeletal and muscular scores, and carcass characteristics. Livestock Science 126, 87–99.Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Gondro, C, Quinn, K, Herd, RM, Parnell, PF and Vanselow, B 2011. Global gene expression profiling reveals genes expressed differentially in cattle with high and low residual feed intake. Animal Genetics 42, 475–490.Google Scholar
Connor, E, Kahl, S, Elsasser, T, Parker, J, Li, R, Tassell, C, Baldwin, RV and Barao, S 2010. Enhanced mitochondrial complex gene function and reduced liver size may mediate improved feed efficiency of beef cattle during compensatory growth. Functional Integrative Genomics 10, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA and McGee, M 2010a. The relationship of various muscular and skeletal scores and ultrasound measurements in the live animal, and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value of bulls. Livestock Science 127, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA and Berry, DP 2010b. Predicting beef carcass meat, fat and bone proportions from carcass conformation and fat scores or hindquarter dissection. Animal 4, 234–241.Google Scholar
Crews, DH 2005. Genetics of efficient feed utilization and national cattle evaluation: a review. Genetics and Molecular Research 4, 152–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Crowley, JJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Crews, DH, Evans, RD and Berry, DP 2010. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for different measures of feed efficiency in different breeds of Irish performance-tested beef bulls. Journal of Animal Science 88, 885–894.Google Scholar
Crowley, JJ, Evans, RD, McHugh, N, Pabiou, T, Kenny, DA, McGee, M, Crews, DH and Berry, DP 2011. Genetic associations between feed efficiency measured in a performance test station and performance of growing cattle in commercial beef herds. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3382–3393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz, GD, Rodriguez-Sanchez, JA, Oltjen, JW and Sainz, RD 2010. Performance, residual feed intake, digestibility, carcass traits, and profitability of Angus-Hereford steers housed in individual or group pens. Journal of Animal Science 88, 324–329.Google Scholar
CSO 2012. Agricultural input and output absolute prices: feedstuff price by type of feedstuff and year. Retrieved 10 May 2013, from http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Database/eirestat/Agricultural%20Input%20and%20Output%20Absolute%20Prices/Agricultural%20Input%20and%20Output%20Absolute%20Prices_statbank.asp?sp=Agricultural%20Input%20and%20Output%20Absolute%20Prices&Planguage=0.Google Scholar
EC 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. The Official Journal of the European Union L 214, 1–6.Google Scholar
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O’Kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D and Wallace, M 2010. Simulation modelling of the cost of producing and utilising feeds for ruminants on Irish farms. Journal of Farm Management 14, 95–116.Google Scholar
Gomes, RC, Sainz, RD and Leme, PR 2013. Protein metabolism, feed energy partitioning, behavior patterns and plasma cortisol in Nellore steers with high and low residual feed intake. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 42, 44–50.Google Scholar
Gomes, RC, Sainz, RD, Silva, SL, César, MC, Bonin, MN and Leme, PR 2012. Feedlot performance, feed efficiency reranking, carcass traits, body composition, energy requirements, meat quality and calpain system activity in Nellore steers with low and high residual feed intake. Livestock Science 150, 265–273.Google Scholar
Herd, RM and Arthur, PF 2009. Physiological basis for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 87, E64–E71.Google Scholar
Hennessy, T, Moran, B, Kinsella, A and Quinlan, G 2013. National Farm Survey 2012. Teagasc, Athenry, Republic of Ireland.Google Scholar
Hickey, JM, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Cromie, AR and Veerkamp, RF 2007. Genetic parameters for EUROP carcass traits within different groups of cattle in Ireland. Journal of Animal Science 85, 314–321.Google Scholar
Johnson, DE, Johnson, KA and Baldwin, RL 1990. Changes in liver and gastrointestinal tract energy demands in response to physiological workload in ruminants. Journal of Nutrition 120, 649–655.Google Scholar
Kelly, AK, McGee, M, Crews, DH, Lynch, CO, Wylie, AR, Evans, RD and Kenny, DA 2011. Relationship between body measurements, metabolic hormones, metabolites and residual feed intake in performance tested pedigree beef bulls. Livestock Science 135, 8–16.Google Scholar
Krueger, WK, Carstens, GE, Paddock, ZD, Calloway, TR, Anderson, RC, Kreuger, NA, Gontcharova, V, Dowd, SE, Gomez, RR and Pinchak, WE 2009a. Associations between feed efficiency and gut microbial ecology and fermentation parameters in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87 (E-suppl. 2), T312 (Abstract page no. 295).Google Scholar
Krueger, WK, Carstens, GE, Gomez, RR, Bourg, BM, Lancaster, PA, Slay, LJ, Miller, JC, Anderson, RC, Horrocks, SM, Krueger, NA and Forbes, TDA 2009b. Relationships between residual feed intake and apparent nutrient digestibility, in vitro methane producing activity and VFA concentrations in growing Brangus heifers. Journal of Animal Science 87 (E-suppl. 2), 129 (Abstract page no. 153).Google Scholar
Lancaster, PA, Carstens, GE, Ribeiro, FR, Tedeschi, LO and Crews, DH 2009. Characterization of feed efficiency traits and relationships with feeding behavior and ultrasound carcass traits in growing bulls. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1528–1539.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B and McGee, M 2013. Intake of conserved and grazed grass and performance traits in beef suckler cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Livestock Science 152, 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B, Crews, DH and McGee, M 2011. Grass silage intake, rumen and blood variables, ultrasonic and body measurements, feeding behavior and activity in pregnant beef heifers differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3248–3261.Google Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, NA and Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring for cattle. Tech. Bull. No. 6, East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Edinbrugh, UK.Google Scholar
Mader, CJ, Montanholi, YR, Wang, YJ, Miller, SP, Mandell, IB, McBride, BW and Swanson, KC 2009. Relationships among measures of growth performance and efficiency with carcass traits, visceral organ mass, and pancreatic digestive enzymes in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1548–1557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mao, F, Chen, L, Vinsky, M, Okine, E, Wang, Z, Basarab, J, Crews, DH and Li, C 2013. Phenotypic and genetic relationships of feed efficiency with growth performance, ultrasound, and carcass merit traits in Angus and Charolais steers. Journal of Animal Science 91, 2067–2076.Google Scholar
McBride, BW and Kelly, JM 1990. Energy cost of absorption and metabolism in the ruminant gastrointestinal tract and liver: a review. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2997–3010.Google Scholar
McDonagh, MB, Herd, RM, Richardson, EC, Oddy, VH, Archer, JA and Arthur, PF 2001. Meat quality and the calpain system of feedlot steers following a single generation of divergent selection for residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 1013–1021.Google Scholar
McCleary, BV, Gibson, TS and Mugford, DC 1997. Measurement of total starch in cereal products by amyloglucosidase-α-amylase method: Collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 80, 571–579.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Keane, MG, Neilan, R, Moloney, AP and Caffrey, PJ 2005. Production and carcass traits of high dairy genetic merit Holstein, standard dairy genetic merit Friesian and Charolais×Holstein-Friesian male cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44, 215–231.Google Scholar
McGee, M, Keane, MG, Neilan, R, Moloney, AP and Caffrey, PJ 2008. Non-carcass parts and carcass composition of high dairy genetic merit Holstein, standard dairy genetic merit Friesian and Charolais×Holstein-Friesian steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 47, 41–51.Google Scholar
Montanholi, YR, Swanson, KC, Schenkel, FS, McBride, BW, Caldwell, TR and Miller, SP 2009. On the determination of residual feed intake and associations of infrared thermography with efficiency and ultrasound traits in beef bulls. Livestock Science 125, 22–30.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z and Moore, SS 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145–153.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Ammoura, A, Guercio, S, Hansen, C, Li, C, Benkel, B, Murdoch, B and Moore, SS 2004. Different measures of energetic efficiency and their phenotypic relationships with growth, feed intake, and ultrasound and carcass merit in hybrid cattle. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2451–2459.Google Scholar
O’Riordan, EG, Crossan, P and McGee, M 2011. Finishing male cattle from the beef suckler herd. Irish Grassland Association Journal 45, 131–146.Google Scholar
Ortigues, I and Doreau, M 1995. Responses of the splanchnic tissues of ruminants to changes in intake: absorption of digestion end products, tissue mass, metabolic activity and implications to whole animal energy metabolism. Annales de Zootechnie 44, 321–346.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M and Boland, T 2008. Effect of grass regrowth interval on intake, rumen digestion and nutrient flow to the omasum in beef cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 146, 21–41.Google Scholar
Richardson, EC, Herd, RM, Oddy, VH, Thompson, JM, Archer, JA and Arthur, PF 2001. Body composition and implications for heat production of Angus steer progeny of parents selected for and against residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 1065–1072.Google Scholar
Schenkel, FS, Miller, SP and Wilton, JW 2004. Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed efficiency, growth, and body composition traits of young beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 177–185.Google Scholar
Seal, CJ and Reynolds, CK 1993. Nutritional implications of gastrointestinal and liver metabolism in ruminants. Nutrition Research Reviews 6, 185–208.Google Scholar
Smith, SN, Davis, ME and Loerch, SC 2010. Residual feed intake of Angus beef cattle divergently selected for feed conversion ratio. Livestock Science 132, 41–47.Google Scholar
Tilley, JM and Terry, RA 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, HF and Moe, PW 1975. Effect of intake on digestive efficiency. Journal of Dairy Science 58, 1151–1163.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J and Young, BA 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar