379 Effects of diet type and feeding phase on intake and feed efficiency of beef cattle
Abstract
Objectives were to evaluate test period length and repeatability of intake and efficiency measures during the growing and finishing phases, and determine the relationship between intake and efficiency evaluated in cattle fed different diet types. Over a 2-yr period, DMI, ADG, and 12th rib fat thickness were evaluated in crossbred cattle (n = 628) fed for two 70 d periods. During the growing period (first 70 d), a forage-based diet (equal parts corn silage and alfalfa haylage) was fed to heifers and a grain-based diet (50% corn, 15% DGS) was fed to steers. All cattle were fed the grain-based diet for the finishing period (last 70d). Individual DMI was recorded using the GrowSafe (Airdrie, AB, CAN) system. Residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated for each period and was assumed to represent a multiple regression equation, regressing DMI on mid-test metabolic BW, ADG and 12th rib fat thickness. Overall wean to slaughter ADG was calculated for steers by regressing all weights from the start of the growing phase to final BW, calculated as HCW divided by standard dressing percentage (63%). Dry matter intake and RFI were correlated (r = 0.56; P < 0.01, and r = 0.63; P < 0.01, respectively) for growing and finishing periods of steers fed grain. Although, steer ADG was not repeatable (r = 0.11; P = 0.06) across test periods. Growing and finishing ADG were both correlated (r = 0.58; P < 0.01, and r = 0.69; P < 0.01, respectively) to overall ADG. To test the potential of shortening the…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Calculated dry matter intake, average daily gain, and feed conversion ratio were within 0.1 kg of values observed by Cassady et al. (2016), indicating the simulation method was sound.
“Calculated DMI, ADG, and feed conversion ratio were within 0.1 kg of the values observed by Cassady et al. (2016), indicating that the simulation method was sound.”
From Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems (2018) · cites this paper as Cassady et al., 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cassady, C., Felix, T. L., & Shike, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-04-01
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- suppl_2
- Pages
- 177-177
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3163
- OpenAlex
- W2337545344
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
- Keywords
- beef cattle, residual feed intake, dry matter intake, average daily gain, repeatability, diet type, forage-based diets, grain-based diets, corn silage, alfalfa haylage, steers, heifers, feed efficiency, crossbred cattle
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review