热应激期遮荫和限饲对生长中的肉牛的影响。

IF 1.3 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Translational Animal Science Pub Date : 2024-11-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/tas/txae161
Zachary L DeBord, Zachary M Duncan, Madison G Pflughoeft, Kyler J Suhr, William C Ellis, William R Hollenbeck, Sean P Montgomery, Tyler J Spore, Evan C Titgemeyer, Dale A Blasi, Anthony J Tarpoff
{"title":"热应激期遮荫和限饲对生长中的肉牛的影响。","authors":"Zachary L DeBord, Zachary M Duncan, Madison G Pflughoeft, Kyler J Suhr, William C Ellis, William R Hollenbeck, Sean P Montgomery, Tyler J Spore, Evan C Titgemeyer, Dale A Blasi, Anthony J Tarpoff","doi":"10.1093/tas/txae161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Experiments were conducted during the summers of 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the effects of feeding strategy and shade on growth performance, animal comfort, water usage, apparent diet digestibility, and ruminal fermentation characteristics of growing heifers during periods of heat stress. In Exp. 1, 852 heifers (initial body weight [BW] = 251 ± 13 kg) were assigned to one of 4 treatments: high-energy diet limit-fed at 2.2% of BW (dry matter [DM] basis; LIM) or high-roughage diet fed for ad libitum intake (ADLIB) with shade (SH) or without shade (NSH). Pen BWs were measured on day 0, weekly from days 14 to 84, day 90, and day 97. Pen weights were used to adjust weekly intakes of LIM. Refusals for ADLIB were targeted at 5% of feed consumed the previous day. Following the 90-d feeding period, a gut-fill equilibration diet was fed to all cattle at 2.5% of BW (DM basis) for 7 d to balance differences in gut-fill between dietary treatments. Dry matter intake was lesser (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Average daily gain (ADG) and gain:feed (G:F) were greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. In addition, ADG and G:F were greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH. Water usage was less (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH heifers compared with NSH and was also less (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Mean panting scores were lower (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH and LIM compared with ADLIB. In Exp. 2, 16 heifers (initial BW = 254 ± 22 kg) were arranged in 4 replicated 4 × 4 Latin squares to evaluate treatments from Exp. 1. Apparent total tract digestibility of DM and organic matter was greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Ruminal pH was more acidic (<i>P</i> = 0.02) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Shade did not affect (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.68) apparent diet digestibility; however, ruminal pH was greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH. In conclusion, LIM improved feed efficiency, reduced mean panting score, and reduced water usage compared with ADLIB. In addition, SH improved growth performance, reduced water usage, and improved animal comfort during periods of heat stress.</p>","PeriodicalId":23272,"journal":{"name":"Translational Animal Science","volume":"8 ","pages":"txae161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11630847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of shade and limit feeding in growing beef heifers during periods of heat stress.\",\"authors\":\"Zachary L DeBord, Zachary M Duncan, Madison G Pflughoeft, Kyler J Suhr, William C Ellis, William R Hollenbeck, Sean P Montgomery, Tyler J Spore, Evan C Titgemeyer, Dale A Blasi, Anthony J Tarpoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tas/txae161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Experiments were conducted during the summers of 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the effects of feeding strategy and shade on growth performance, animal comfort, water usage, apparent diet digestibility, and ruminal fermentation characteristics of growing heifers during periods of heat stress. In Exp. 1, 852 heifers (initial body weight [BW] = 251 ± 13 kg) were assigned to one of 4 treatments: high-energy diet limit-fed at 2.2% of BW (dry matter [DM] basis; LIM) or high-roughage diet fed for ad libitum intake (ADLIB) with shade (SH) or without shade (NSH). Pen BWs were measured on day 0, weekly from days 14 to 84, day 90, and day 97. Pen weights were used to adjust weekly intakes of LIM. Refusals for ADLIB were targeted at 5% of feed consumed the previous day. Following the 90-d feeding period, a gut-fill equilibration diet was fed to all cattle at 2.5% of BW (DM basis) for 7 d to balance differences in gut-fill between dietary treatments. Dry matter intake was lesser (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Average daily gain (ADG) and gain:feed (G:F) were greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. In addition, ADG and G:F were greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH. Water usage was less (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH heifers compared with NSH and was also less (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Mean panting scores were lower (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH and LIM compared with ADLIB. In Exp. 2, 16 heifers (initial BW = 254 ± 22 kg) were arranged in 4 replicated 4 × 4 Latin squares to evaluate treatments from Exp. 1. Apparent total tract digestibility of DM and organic matter was greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Ruminal pH was more acidic (<i>P</i> = 0.02) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Shade did not affect (<i>P</i> ≥ 0.68) apparent diet digestibility; however, ruminal pH was greater (<i>P</i> < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH. In conclusion, LIM improved feed efficiency, reduced mean panting score, and reduced water usage compared with ADLIB. In addition, SH improved growth performance, reduced water usage, and improved animal comfort during periods of heat stress.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"txae161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11630847/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae161\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txae161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本试验于2021年和2022年夏季进行,旨在研究不同饲养策略和遮荫对生长期母牛生长性能、动物舒适度、水分利用、日粮表观消化率和瘤胃发酵特性的影响。试验1,选取852头初始体重[BW] = 251±13 kg的小母牛,分别饲喂4种处理:以2.2%的体重(干物质[DM])为基础的高能饲粮限饲;或高粗饲粮,有遮荫(SH)或无遮荫(NSH),供自由采食(ADLIB)。分别于第0天、第14 ~ 84天、第90天和第97天每周测量笔头体重。笔重用于调整每周LIM的摄入量。拒绝ADLIB的目标是前一天消耗饲料的5%。90 d饲喂期结束后,以体重(DM)的2.5%饲喂肠道填充平衡饲粮7 d,以平衡不同饲粮处理的肠道填充差异。与ADLIB相比,LIM的干物质采食量更少(P P P P P P P P P = 0.02)。遮荫不影响饲粮表观消化率(P≥0.68);瘤胃pH值高于对照组(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of shade and limit feeding in growing beef heifers during periods of heat stress.

Experiments were conducted during the summers of 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the effects of feeding strategy and shade on growth performance, animal comfort, water usage, apparent diet digestibility, and ruminal fermentation characteristics of growing heifers during periods of heat stress. In Exp. 1, 852 heifers (initial body weight [BW] = 251 ± 13 kg) were assigned to one of 4 treatments: high-energy diet limit-fed at 2.2% of BW (dry matter [DM] basis; LIM) or high-roughage diet fed for ad libitum intake (ADLIB) with shade (SH) or without shade (NSH). Pen BWs were measured on day 0, weekly from days 14 to 84, day 90, and day 97. Pen weights were used to adjust weekly intakes of LIM. Refusals for ADLIB were targeted at 5% of feed consumed the previous day. Following the 90-d feeding period, a gut-fill equilibration diet was fed to all cattle at 2.5% of BW (DM basis) for 7 d to balance differences in gut-fill between dietary treatments. Dry matter intake was lesser (P < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Average daily gain (ADG) and gain:feed (G:F) were greater (P < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. In addition, ADG and G:F were greater (P < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH. Water usage was less (P < 0.01) for SH heifers compared with NSH and was also less (P < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Mean panting scores were lower (P < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH and LIM compared with ADLIB. In Exp. 2, 16 heifers (initial BW = 254 ± 22 kg) were arranged in 4 replicated 4 × 4 Latin squares to evaluate treatments from Exp. 1. Apparent total tract digestibility of DM and organic matter was greater (P < 0.01) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Ruminal pH was more acidic (P = 0.02) for LIM compared with ADLIB. Shade did not affect (P ≥ 0.68) apparent diet digestibility; however, ruminal pH was greater (P < 0.01) for SH compared with NSH. In conclusion, LIM improved feed efficiency, reduced mean panting score, and reduced water usage compared with ADLIB. In addition, SH improved growth performance, reduced water usage, and improved animal comfort during periods of heat stress.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Animal Science
Translational Animal Science Veterinary-Veterinary (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
149
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Translational Animal Science (TAS) is the first open access-open review animal science journal, encompassing a broad scope of research topics in animal science. TAS focuses on translating basic science to innovation, and validation of these innovations by various segments of the allied animal industry. Readers of TAS will typically represent education, industry, and government, including research, teaching, administration, extension, management, quality assurance, product development, and technical services. Those interested in TAS typically include animal breeders, economists, embryologists, engineers, food scientists, geneticists, microbiologists, nutritionists, veterinarians, physiologists, processors, public health professionals, and others with an interest in animal production and applied aspects of animal sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信