HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Free Via Open Access Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jas.2007-0642v1 86/10/2670    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Meyer, A. M. Articles by Kallenbach, R. L. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Meyer, A. M. Articles by Kallenbach, R. L.

The effect of residual feed intake classification on forage intake by grazing beef cows

A. M. Meyer^*, M. S. Kerley^*,1 and R. L. Kallenbach

^* Division of Animal Sciences, and and Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211

¹ Corresponding author: kerleym{at}missouri.edu

Although feed intake and efficiency differences in growing cattle of low and high residual feed intake (RFI) classification have been established, little is known about the difference in grazed forage intake between beef cows of known RFI classification. Two experiments were conducted using Hereford cows for which RFI had been determined as heifers using the GrowSafe 4000E feed intake system, after which heifers had been divided into thirds as low RFI, mid RFI, and high RFI. During Exp. 1, 2 replicates of low and high RFI cows (n = 7/replicate) in mid- to late-gestation were blocked to 1 of 4 non-endophyte-infected tall fescue paddocks (1.8 to 2.4 ha), which they grazed continuously for 84 d during summer. Using grazing exclosures, weekly rising plate meter readings, and forage harvests every 21 d, average forage DMI was calculated. Low and high RFI groups did not differ (P > 0.05) in BW change or BCS change over the trial (19.5 vs. 22.1 kg of BW gain and 0.11 vs. 0.10 BCS gain), but low RFI cows had a 21% numerically lower DMI than high RFI cows (12.4 vs. 15.6 kg/d; P = 0.23). The average area needed per paddock over the trial was similar for low and high RFI cows (1.71 vs. 1.82 ha; P = 0.35), and the average DM on offer over the trial was less for low RFI than for high RFI cows (4,215 vs. 4,376 kg; P = 0.06). During Exp. 2, 3 replicates of low and high RFI cows with their calves (n = 4 pair/replicate) strip-grazed stockpiled and early spring growth tall fescue paddocks (0.7 to 0.9 ha) for 60 d in late winter and early spring. Because of limiting forage availability and quality at trial initiation, cow-calf pairs were also fed 3.31 kg/pair of pelleted soyhulls daily. Pre- and post-grazed forage samples were harvested for 4 grazing periods, and forage growth was estimated using a growing degree days calculation and on-site weather station data. Performance did not differ (P > 0.05) between low and high RFI cows throughout the experiment (18.4 vs. 26.6 kg of BW gain and –0.04 vs. 0.15 BCS gain). Despite the utilization of forage offered being similar for low and high RFI cow-calf pairs (P > 0.05), low RFI cows and their calves had an 11% numerically lower DMI than high RFI pairs (12.5 vs. 14.1 kg/d; P = 0.12). We concluded that either no intake differences existed between low and high RFI cows or that current methodology and small animal numbers limited our ability to detect differences.

Key Words: beef cow • feed efficiency • forage intake • residual feed intake