DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effects of age and gender (bull vs steer) on the feeding behavior of young beef cattle fed grass silage

  • Puzio, Natalia (Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, University of Warmia and Mazury) ;
  • Purwin, Cezary (Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, University of Warmia and Mazury) ;
  • Nogalski, Zenon (Department of Cattle Breeding and Milk Evaluation, University of Warmia and Mazury) ;
  • Bialobrzewski, Ireneusz (Department of Systems Engineering, University of Warmia and Mazury) ;
  • Tomczyk, Lukasz (Department of Safety Engineering, University of Warmia and Mazury) ;
  • Michalski, Jacek P. (The Kielanowski Institute of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, Polish Academy of Sciences)
  • Received : 2018.09.12
  • Accepted : 2018.12.15
  • Published : 2019.08.01

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effects of age and gender (bull vs steer) on feeding behavior parameters in young beef cattle fed grass silage. Methods: The study was conducted on 180 young beef cattle at 7 to 18 mo of age. The experimental materials comprised 90 bulls produced by commercial crossing of Polish Holstein-Friesian cows with Charolais, Limousin and Hereford bulls (30 animals of each breed) and 90 steers of the same genotypes. The animals had ad libitum access to grass silage; the concentrate was fed separately, in feed stations. They received 28 g dry matter of concentrate per kg of metabolic body weight per day. Bunk visit data and silage intake for all experimental animals were recorded individually using the Roughage Intake Control system (5 feed bunks per 15 animals). Results: Age and gender (bull vs steer) exerted significant effects on the feeding behavior of young beef cattle. The frequency of bunk visits and meal frequency decreased, whereas the feeding rate of silage, and the average duration and size of a single meal increased with age (p<0.01). Bunk attendance and meal frequency were higher (p<0.01) in steers than in bulls (49.1 vs 37.4 visits/d, and 8.63 vs 7.99 meals/d, respectively). Daily feeding time was longer in steers than in bulls (102.3 vs 100.3 min/d, respectively), but the feeding rate of silage was lower in steers, and their meals were smaller in size and shorter in duration (p<0.01). Daily silage dry matter intake was higher (p<0.01) in bulls than in steers (4.62 vs 4.47 kg/d, respectively). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that age and gender (bull vs steer) exerted significant effects on the feeding behavior of young beef cattle.

Acknowledgement

Grant : From Fork to Farm

Supported by : European Regional Development Fund

References

  1. Sowell BF, Bowman JGP, Braninem ME, Hubbert ME. Radio frequency technology to measure feeding behavior and health of feedlot steers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;59:277-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00110-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00110-5
  2. Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Atwood S, McAllister TA. Relationships between bunk attendance, intake and performance of steers and heifers on varying feeding regimes. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;76:179-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00009-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00009-6
  3. Lancaster PA, Carstens GE, Crews Jr DH, et al. Phenotypic and genetic relationships of residual feed intake with performance and ultrasound carcass traits in Brangus heifers. J Anim Sci 2009;87:3887-96. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2041 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2041
  4. Nkrumah JD, Crews DH, Basarab JA, et al. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feeding behavior and temperament with performance, feed efficiency, ultrasound, and carcass merit of beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2007;85:2382-90. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-657 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-657
  5. Villalba JJ, Provenza FD, Manteca X. Links between ruminants food preference and their welfare. Animal 2010;4:1240-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110000467 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110000467
  6. DeHaan KA, Van Koevering MT, Gibson ML. The effect of age, background and gender on feed intake by feedlot cattle. Proceedings of the Symposium on Feed Intake by Feedlot Cattle; Stillwater, OK, USA: Oklahoma State University; 1995. p. 9-22.
  7. Devant M, Marti S, Bach A. Effects of castration on eating pattern and physical activity of Holstein bulls fed high-concentrate rations under commercial conditions. J Anim Sci 2012;90:4505-13. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4929 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4929
  8. Riaz MQ, Sudekum KH, Clauss M, Jayanegara A. Voluntary feed intake and digestibility of four domestic ruminant species as influenced by dietary constituents: a meta-analysis. Livest Sci 2014;162:76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.009
  9. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MAG. Competition for feed affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:3922-9. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1934 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1934
  10. Lancaster PA, Carstens GE, Riberio FRB, Tedeschi LO, Crews Jr DH. Characterization of feed efficiency traits and relationships with feeding behaviour and ultrasound carcass traits in growing bulls. J Anim Sci 2009;87:1528-39. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1352 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1352
  11. Keady TWJ, Mayne CS. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage feeding behaviour and energy utilization by lactating dairy cows offered grass silages with differing intake characteristics. Anim Sci 1998;67:225-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980000998X https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980000998X
  12. Fitzsimons C, Kenny DA, Fahey AG, McGee M. Feeding behavior, ruminal fermentation, and performance of pregnant beef cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake offered grass silage. J Anim Sci 2014;92:2170-81. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7438 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-7438
  13. Wilson RK, Flynn AV. Feeding behaviour of cattle when offered grass silage in troughs during winter and summer. Appl Anim Ethol 1979;5:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(79)90005-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(79)90005-1
  14. INRA. Feeding cattle, sheep and goats. Animal needs - food values. Tables INRA 2007. Versailles, France: Editions Quae; 2010.
  15. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 18th ed. Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC International; 2005.
  16. Thomas TA. An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. J Sci Food Agric 1977;28:639-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740280711 https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740280711
  17. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  18. Licitra G, Hernandez TM, Van Soest PJ. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1996;57:347-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3
  19. Hedqvist H, Uden P. Measurement of soluble protein degradation in the rumen. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2006;126:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.011
  20. Conway EJ. Micro diffusion analysis and volumetric error. London, UK: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Ltd.; 1954.
  21. Joosten HMLJ, Olieman C. Determination of biogenic amines in cheese and some other food products by high-performance liquid chromatography in combination with thermo-sensitized reaction. J Chromatogr 1986;356:311-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)91491-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)91491-2
  22. INRA. Software package [Internet]. Version 4.0. Versailles, France: INRA; 2007 [cited 2011 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.inra.fr/
  23. Purwin C, Wyzlic I, Wielgosz-Groth Z, Sobczuk-Szul M, Michalski JP, Nogalski Z. Fattening performance of crossbred (Polish Holstein-Friesian ${\times}$ Hereford, Limousin or Charolais) bulls and steers offered high-wilted grass silage-based rations. Chil J Agric Res 2016;76:337-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392016000300011 https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392016000300011
  24. Chapinal N, Veira DM, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring individual feeding and drinking behavior and intake in group-housed cattle. J Dairy Sci 2007;90:5732-6. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0331 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0331
  25. Tolkamp BJ, Allcroft DJ, Austin EJ, Nielsen BL, Kyriazakis I. Satiety splits feeding behavior into bouts. J Theor Biol 1998;194:235-50. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1998.0759 https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1998.0759
  26. Pesonen M, Honkavaara M, Huuskonen A. Production, carcass and meat quality traits of Hereford, Charolais and Hereford ${\times}$ Charolais bulls offered grass silage-grain-based rations and slaughtered at high carcass weights. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2013;63:28-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2013.777091
  27. Huuskonen A, Khalili H, Joki-Tokola E. Effects of three different concentrate proportions and rapeseed meal supplement to grass silage on animal performance of dairy-breed bulls with TMR feeding. Livest Sci 2007;110:154-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.10.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.10.015
  28. Grant RJ, Albright JL. Effect of animal grouping on feeding behavior and intake of dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2001;84(E.Suppl.):E156-63. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70210-X https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70210-X
  29. Proudfoot KA, Veira DM, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Competition at the feed bunk changes the feeding, standing, and social behavior of transition dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:3116-23. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1718 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1718
  30. Forbes JM. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK: CABI International; 2007.
  31. Zobel G, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Genswein BMA, von Keyserlingk MAG. Impact of agonistic interactions on feeding behaviours when beef heifers are fed in a competitive feeding environment. Livest Sci 2011;137:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.09.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.09.022
  32. Greter AM, Westerveld RS, Duffield TF, McBride BW, Widowski TM, DeVries TJ. Short communication: Effects of frequency of feed delivery and bunk space on the feeding behavior of limit-fed dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:1803-10. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6012 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6012
  33. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Effect of feeding space on the inter-cow distance, aggression, and feeding behavior of free-stall housed lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:1432-8. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73293-2 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73293-2
  34. DeVries TJ, von Keyserlingk MAG, Beauchemin KA. Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:3553-62. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73040-X https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73040-X
  35. Jennings JS, Wertz-Lutz AE, Pritchard RH, Weaver AD, Keisler DH, Bruns K. Circulating ghrelin and leptin concentrations and growth hormone secretagogue receptor abundance in liver, muscle, and adipose tissue of beef cattle exhibiting differences in composition of gain. J Anim Sci 2011;89:3954-72. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3597 https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3597
  36. Katz LS. Sexual behavior of domesticated ruminants. Horm Behav 2007;52:56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.03.012