Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:57:09.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The maintenance requirements of beef steers and the relationship of maintenance needs and total fattening requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. C. Luitingh
Affiliation:
Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board, Pretoria

Extract

Although considerable work has been done on basal metabolism and maintenance requirements of animals, maintenance needs in relation to total feed requirements for production have not received much attention in South Africa. Most workers have investigated production requirements, whilst the part of the total needs of the fattening of steers used for maintenance, has received very little attention.

This capital cost or ‘overhead’ expense is an item which constitutes a large proportion of the animals' fattening ration. In South Africa, only a small percentage of cattle is marketed under 4 or 5 years old. The maintenance cost of these animals must be considerable and the nett efficiency of beef production very low. As only the amount of a ration in excess of the maintenance requirements can be utilized for production, it follows that a level of nutrition well above the requirements for maintenance will facilitate a more efficient production system by narrowing the ratio between the part of the ration used for maintenance and that used for production. It is well known that differences in the efficiency of production between steers can only be due to the difference in the level of feed intake above maintenance needs—hence probably the strong correlation between rate of gain and efficiency of feed utilization. Apart from the actual determination of maintenance needs the object of this investigation was to determine the relationship between maintenance requirements and the total feed intake of beef steers when fed on fattening rations containing different ratios of concentrates to roughage.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Axelson, J. & Eriokson, S. (1953). Ann. Roy. Agric. Coll. Sweden, 20, 51.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Reinholdt.Google Scholar
Erickson, L., Symondson, E., Taylor, H. L., Alexander, H. L. & Keys, A. (1945). Amer. J. Physiol. 145, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, W. L. (1937). J. Dairy Sci. 20, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1947). Physiol. Rev. 27, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, J. C., Hodgson, R. E. & Ellington, E. V. (1934). Bull. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 295.Google Scholar
Maynard, L. A. & Loosli, J. K. (1956). Animal Nutrition, 4th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1954). Feeds and Feeding. 21st. ed.New York: Morrison.Google Scholar
Moseley, T. W., Stuart, D. & Graves, R. R. (1929). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric. no. 116.Google Scholar
Swift, R. W. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowbridge, P. F., Moulton, C. R. & Haigh, E. V. (1915). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 18.Google Scholar
Verbeek, W. A. (1958). D.Sc. (Agric.) Thesis, Univ. Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
Winchester, C. G. (1953). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agric. no. 1071.Google Scholar