J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tylutki, T. P.
Right arrow Articles by Anrique, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tylutki, T. P.
Right arrow Articles by Anrique, R. G.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 72, Issue 7 1806-1813, Copyright © 1994 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Predicting net energy and protein requirements for growth of implanted and nonimplanted heifers and steers and nonimplanted bulls varying in body size

T. P. Tylutki, D. G. Fox and R. G. Anrique
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Energy and protein retained in 50, 38, and 54 nonimplanted Holstein and Angus heifers, steers, and bulls, respectively, 17 pens (237 cattle) of beef breed implanted heifers, and 65 pens (535 cattle) of beef breed implanted steers were compared to values predicted by the 1984 National Research Council (NRC), Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System (CNCPS), and the model of Oltjen et al. (OLTJEN). The NRC accounted for 83, 85, 86, 88, and 88% of the variation in retained energy (RE) with biases of -8, +13, -6, +6, and -12% for nonimplanted heifers, implanted heifers, nonimplanted steers, implanted steers, and bulls, respectively. The CNCPS accounted for 93, 98, 92, 95, and 91% of the variation in RE with biases of +2, +10, -6, +1, and -13% for nonimplanted heifers, implanted heifers, nonimplanted steers, implanted steers, and bulls, respectively. OLTJEN accounted for 78, 76, 48, 93, and 96% of the variation with biases of -3, -2, +9, -8, and -1% for nonimplanted heifers, implanted heifers, nonimplanted steers, implanted steers, and bulls, respectively. For retained protein (RP), the NRC accounted for 57, 68, 70, 86, and 84% of the variation with biases of -12, -7, +16, -8, and -10% for nonimplanted heifers, implanted heifers, nonimplanted steers, implanted steers, and bulls, respectively. The CNCPS accounted for 69, 77, 84, 94, and 84% of the variation in RP with biases of -7, -11, 0, -3, and -9% for nonimplanted heifers, implanted heifers, nonimplanted steers, implanted steers, and bulls, respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
K. W. Bruns, R. H. Pritchard, and D. L. Boggs
The effect of stage of growth and implant exposure on performance and carcass composition in steers
J Anim Sci, January 1, 2005; 83(1): 108 - 116.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Society of Animal Science.