| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
South Dakota State University, Brookings 57007
1 Correspondence: Box 2170 SDSU (phone: 605-688-5165; fax: 605-688-6170; E-mail: robbi_pritchard{at}sdstate.edu).
The desire to control variation in daily feed intake by feedlot cattle stems from the obvious concern that a significant aberration in grain intake can lead to clinical acidosis or death. Although less dramatic, aberrations also occur when cattle have unrestricted access to feed. A cyclic pattern of higher and lower daily DMI can cause gain efficiency to be less than that predicted from the mean DMI because responses in ADG to changes in DMI are not linear. If bunk management is a means of ameliorating either of these events, it is presumed that management ascribed to the pen is affecting variability in daily DMI by individuals within the pen. Two likely mechanisms by which bunk management may affect intake patterns are limiting availability of feed to prevent overconsumption events or affecting animal behavior so that daily intake is more consistent. Bunk management approaches that have been evaluated for their effect on production rates, and in some instances on day-to-day variability in DMI, include: 1) limiting the quantity of feed available or the amount of time feed is available each day; 2) the timing and frequency of feed deliveries; 3) linear bunk space allocation; and 4) mixed diet or segregated ingredient feeding. When bunk management approaches alter responses, it may be that the approach has a direct biological and/or behavioral effect on the animal or that the approach itself involves less variation, which is consequently favorable to the animal (or the data). The causes of variable results in bunk management research can be ambiguous. Management and feeding systems are difficult to standardize, which can cause the definitions of controls, the characterizations of treatments, and the context of responses to be inconsistent. A rudimentary limitation is that in systems where individual daily DMI is known, competition for access to feed is usually not comparable to typical pen feeding. There is evidence of favorable responses to some bunk management approaches that could be used commercially. Effects on production efficiency in these studies are of significant biological and economic importance, and underlying mechanisms must be more fully characterized to allow broad application.
Key Words: Cattle • Feed Intake • Feedlots • Management
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. W. Golden, M. S. Kerley, and W. H. Kolath The relationship of feeding behavior to residual feed intake in crossbred Angus steers fed traditional and no-roughage diets J Anim Sci, January 1, 2008; 86(1): 180 - 186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Brown, C. H. Ponce, and R. Pulikanti Adaptation of beef cattle to high-concentrate diets: Performance and ruminal metabolism J Anim Sci, April 1, 2006; 84(13_suppl): E25 - E. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E. Erickson, C. T. Milton, K. C. Fanning, R. J. Cooper, R. S. Swingle, J. C. Parrott, G. Vogel, and T. J. Klopfenstein Interaction between bunk management and monensin concentration on finishing performance, feeding behavior, and ruminal metabolism during an acidosis challenge with feedlot cattle J Anim Sci, November 1, 2003; 81(11): 2869 - 2879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
