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 Block, H. C.
Right arrow Articles by Christensen, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Block, H. C.
Right arrow Articles by Christensen, D. A.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 79, Issue 1 267-275, Copyright © 2001 by American Society of Animal Science

EVALUATION STUDIES

Evaluation of the 1996 NRC beef model under western Canadian environmental conditions

H. C. Block, J. J. McKinnon, A. F. Mustafa and D. A. Christensen
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

Two feedlot trials were conducted to evaluate the 1996 NRC beef model under western Canadian conditions. In the first trial, 144 Charolais- (304.6 +/- 16.3 kg) and 144 Hereford- (295.1 +/- 20.8 kg) cross steers were used, whereas the second trial used 88 Angus- (289.7 +/- 15.0 kg), 88 Charolais- (299.8 +/- 17.9 kg), and 88 Hereford- (291.1 +/- 20.9 kg) cross steers. Diets were based on barley silage, rolled barley grain, canola meal, and cereal straw and were analyzed according to the 1996 NRC methodologies. Animal performance and environmental data were collected for 24 pens of steers per trial for the backgrounding and finishing periods. Levels 1 and 2 of the 1996 NRC model were used to generate predictions of DMI and ADG for each pen. Results showed that actual finishing DMI was accurately predicted for Trial 1 and for the combined trials but not for Trial 2. Predicted ADG was lower (P < 0.05) than actual ADG for all feeding periods except Level 1 of the Trial 1 finishing period. All ADG residuals were significant (P < 0.05), indicating inaccurate prediction of ADG in all feeding periods. The 1996 NRC model consistently predicted that protein was not limiting gain. Further investigations and model refinement regarding animal energy requirements under cold weather conditions and effects of limit feeding are required to increase the accuracy of the 1996 NRC model in predicting animal performance.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
J. P. McMeniman, P. J. Defoor, and M. L. Galyean
Evaluation of the National Research Council (1996) dry matter intake prediction equations and relationships between intake and performance by feedlot cattle
J Anim Sci, March 1, 2009; 87(3): 1138 - 1146.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
E. N. Keren and B. E. Olson
Thermal balance of cattle grazing winter range: Model application
J Anim Sci, May 1, 2006; 84(5): 1238 - 1247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
M. S. Whetsell, E. B. Rayburn, and P. I. Osborne
Evaluation in Appalachian pasture systems of the 1996 (update 2000) National Research Council model for weaning cattle
J Anim Sci, May 1, 2006; 84(5): 1265 - 1270.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
H. C. Block, T. J. Klopfenstein, and G. E. Erickson
Evaluation of average daily gain prediction by level one of the 1996 National Research Council beef model and development of net energy adjusters
J Anim Sci, April 1, 2006; 84(4): 866 - 876.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
K. A. Beauchemin and S. M. McGinn
Methane emissions from feedlot cattle fed barley or corn diets
J Anim Sci, March 1, 2005; 83(3): 653 - 661.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Animal Science.