Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 2045–2055 | Cite as

Relationship between performance, metabolic profile, and feed efficiency of lactating beef cows

  • Luana Lelis Souza
  • Mariana Furtado Zorzetto
  • Túlio José Terra Ricci
  • Roberta Carrilho Canesin
  • Nhayandra Christina Dias e Silva
  • João Alberto Negrão
  • Joslaine Noely dos Santos Gonçalves Cyrillo
  • Maria Eugênia Zerlotti MercadanteEmail author
Regular Articles
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Twenty-seven Nellore cow-calf pairs were submitted for feed efficiency testing. The animals were weighed every 21 ± 5 days to obtain metabolic body weight (BW0.75) and average daily gain (ADG). Subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT; at 20, 83, 146, and 176 days post-calving); milk yield and components (63, 85, and 151 days); levels of glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, β-hydroxybutyrate, albumin, urea, creatinine, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, insulin, and cortisol (15, 41, 62, and 124 days); and ingestive behavior were evaluated. Residual feed intake was calculated for the first stage (RFI1; 21 to 100 days post-calving) and the second stage of lactation (RFI2; 100 to 188 days post-calving), and the cows were classified based on RFI1 as most efficient (RFI1 < 0) and least efficient (RFI1 > 0). Negative RFI1 cows consumed 1.3 kg/day of dry matter, or 9.77%, less than positive RFI1 cows. Most- and least-efficient cows did not differ in terms of subcutaneous fat thickness traits and milk yield or energy-corrected milk (ECM). Glucose (P = 0.0785), triglycerides (P = 0.0795), and phosphorus (P = 0.0597) concentrations were higher in the first stage of lactation in most-efficient cows. Maternal characteristics such as calf weight at birth and at 205 days and ADG were similar in most- and least-efficient cows. The most-efficient cows are more economic as they consume less feed for the same level of production.

Keywords

Beef cattle Blood metabolites Bos indicus Milk production Residual feed intake 

Notes

Funding information

This study was financially supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP, Proc. 2015/02066-4) and by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES, Finance Code 001).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of animal rights

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Albertini, T.Z., Medeiros, S.R., Torres Júnior, R.A.A., Zocchi, S.S., Oltjen, J.W., Strathe, A.B., and Lanna, D.D., 2012. A methodological approach to estimate the lactation curve and net energy and protein requirements of beef cows using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Journal of Animal Science, 90, 3867–3878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albuquerque, L.G., Mercadante, M.E.Z., Eler, J.P., 2006. Recent studies on the genetic basis for selection of Bos indicus for beef production. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 13–18, 2006, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil, 3–22.Google Scholar
  3. Alencar, M.M., Tullio, R., and Correa, L.D.A., 1995. Comparação de diferentes equações para caracterizar de curva de lactação em bovinos de corte. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia, 24, 530–541.Google Scholar
  4. Almeida, D.M., Marcondes, M.I., Rennó, L.N., de Barros, L.V., Cabral, C.H.A., Martins, L.S., Marquez, D.E.C., Saldarriaga, F.V., Villadiego, F.A.C., Cardozo, M.A., Ortega, R.M., Cardenas, J.E.G., Brandão, V.L.N., and Paulino, M.F. (2018). Estimation of daily milk yield of Nellore cows grazing tropical pastures. Tropical animal health and production, 50, 1771–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, J.A., Arthur, P.F., Herd, R.M., Parnell, P.F., and Pitchford, W.S., 1997. Optimum postweaning test for measurement of growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency in British breed cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 2024–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arthur, P.F. and Herd, R.M., 2008. Residual feed intake in beef cattle. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 37, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arthur, P.F., Herd, R.M., Wilkins, J.F., Archer, J.A., 2005. Maternal productivity of Angus cows divergently selected for post-weaning residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 45(8), 985.Google Scholar
  8. Basarab, J.A., Mccartney, D., Okine, E.K., and Baron, V.S., 2007. Relationships between progeny residual feed intake and dam productivity traits. Canadian Journal Animal Science, 87, 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, D.P. and Crowley, J.J., 2013. Cell biology symposium: genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 91, 1594–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BIF, 2010. Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs. (GA: BIF, Athens).Google Scholar
  11. Black, T.E., Bischoff, K.M., Mercadante, V.R.G., Marquezini, G.H.L., Dilorenzo, N., Chase, C.C., and Lamb, G.C., 2013. Relationships among performance, residual feed intake, and temperament assessed in growing beef heifers and subsequently as 3-year-old, lactating beef cows. Journal of Animal Science, 91, 2254–2263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cônsolo, N.; Munro, J.C.; Bourgon, S.L.; Karrow, N.A.; Fredeen, A.H.; Martell, J.E.; and Montanholi, Y.R., 2018. Associations of blood analysis with feed efficiency and developmental stage in grass-fed beef heifers. Animals (Basel), 8, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Detmann, E., Silva T.E., Valadares Filho, S.C., Sampaio, C.B., and Palma, M.N.N., 2016. Prediction of the energy value of cattle diets based on chemical composition of the feeds. Nutrient requirements of zebu beef cattle BR-Corte, 3, 85–118.Google Scholar
  14. Freetly, H.C., Ferrell, C.L., and Jenkins, T.G., 2005. Nutritionally altering weight gain patterns of pregnant heifers and young cows changes the time that feed resources are offered without any differences in production. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 916–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. González, F.H.D. and Scheffer, J.F.S., 2003. Perfil sanguíneo: ferramenta de análise clínica, metabólica e nutricional. In: Simpósio de Patologia Clínica da Região Sul do Brasil (Gráfica da Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 1), 73–89.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly, A.K., McGee, M., Crews Jr, D.H., Lynch, C.O., Wylie, A.R., Evans, R.D., and Kenny, D.A., 2011. Relationship between body measurements, metabolic hormones, metabolites and residual feed intake in performance tested pedigree beef bulls. Livestock Science, 135, 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenny, D.A., Fitzsimons, C., Waters, S.M., and McGee, M., 2018. Invited review: improving feed efficiency of beef cattle–the current state of the art and future challenges. Animal, 1–12.Google Scholar
  18. Lamb, G.C., Miller, B.L., Lynch, J.M., Grieger, D.M., and Stevenson, J.S., 1999. Suckling twice daily, but not milking twice daily in the presence of a cow’s own calf, prolongs postpartum an ovulation. Journal of Animal Science, 77, 2207–2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrence, P., Kenny, D.A., Earley, B., Crews, D.H., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawrence, P., Kenny, D.A., 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
  21. Montanholi, Y.R., Lam, S., Peripolli, V., Vander Voort, G., and Miller, S.P., 2013. Associations between chemical composition and physical properties of milk and colostrum with feed efficiency in beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 93, 487–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montanholi, Y.R., Haas, L.S., Swanson, K.C., Coomber, B.L., Yamashiro, S., and Miller, S.P., 2017. Liver morphometrics and metabolic blood profile across divergent phenotypes for feed efficiency in the bovine. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 59, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morris, S.T., Chan, F.Y., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Kenny, P.R., Garrick, D.J., and Blair, H.T., 2014. Growth, feed intake and maternal performance of Angus heifers from high and low feed efficiency selection lines. Animal Production Science, 54, 1428–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nascimento, C.F., Branco, R.H., Bonilha, S.F.M., Cyrillo, J.N.S.G., Negrão, J.A., and Mercadante, M.E.Z., 2015. Residual feed intake and blood variables in young Nellore cattle. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1318–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NRC, 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, (National Academy Press, Washington).Google Scholar
  26. Ramsey, R., Doye, D., Ward, C., McGrann, J., Falconer, L., and Bevers, S., 2005. Factors affecting beef cow-herd costs, production, and profits. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37, 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richardson, E.C., Herd, R.M., Archer, J.A., and Arthur, P.F., 2004. Metabolic differences in Angus steers divergently selected for residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sauberlich, H.E., Skala, J.H., and Dowdy, R.P., 1981. Laboratory tests for the assessment of nutritional status. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Schwager-Suter, R., Stricker, C., Erdin, D., and Kunzi, N., 2000. Relationship between body condition scores and ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat and m. longissimus dorsi in dairy cows differing in size and type. Animal Science, 71, 465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Soest, P.J., 1994. Intake. In: Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2 ed., Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Walker, R.S., Martin, R.M., Gentry, G.T., and Gentry, L.R., 2015. Impact of cow size on dry matter intake, residual feed intake, metabolic response, and cow performance. Journal of Animal Science, 93, 672–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luana Lelis Souza
    • 1
  • Mariana Furtado Zorzetto
    • 1
  • Túlio José Terra Ricci
    • 1
  • Roberta Carrilho Canesin
    • 1
  • Nhayandra Christina Dias e Silva
    • 2
  • João Alberto Negrão
    • 3
  • Joslaine Noely dos Santos Gonçalves Cyrillo
    • 1
  • Maria Eugênia Zerlotti Mercadante
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Instituto de Zootecnia (IZ)Centro Avançado de Pesquisa de Bovinos de CorteSertãozinhoBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade José do Rosário Vellano (UNIFENAS)AlfenasBrazil
  3. 3.Faculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de AlimentosUniversidade de São PauloPirassunungaBrazil

Personalised recommendations